I've noticed nobody posting about any dust issues with their M-mount modules, despite changing lenses (evidently quite a bit). Interesting.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Sensor-Lens modules: the "smart" solution?
- Thread starter Tom Caldwell
- Start date
Couldn't make it for Photokina?
FF sensor for less than $2,000? - I want one too..
Sounds like Ricoh might have a less than $2,000 FF M mount module on the way themself.
--
Tom Caldwell
Gary, how about a hot shoe mounted "half size" fixed horizontal lcd accessory with flip up light shield?
I think that any tightly intregrated plug in evf in conventional mount would have to be in addition to the present evf as it is certainly too useful to be discontinued. But there is a need also for an "as small as possible" stright-through plug-in evf that is as cleanly fitted and as snag-free as posssible - one that could "live" on the camera safely should it's owner so desire.
--
Tom Caldwell
If I am understanding this, I think you're saying that a lens might need a chip of some sort to provide correction. If so I think the only thing the chip would do is notify the camera on which the lens is mounted, which lens it is - and the camera would then know in software or firmware how to correct for the lens. I'm not certain how my camera knows which lens I've put on it, but it does, and perhaps already does this exact thing. When I buy a newer body and use the same lenses on it as I have now, any corrections might need to be done differently, or in a different way to suit the new camera's systems. Therefore any image correction should come from within the camera's software or firmware where it is compatible with that camera, that model, that firmware version, etc.
If that is in fact what you said, then excuse me for not understanding.
Once you start matching sensors to lenses I think the the economic factors will go the wrong way. It would be a limited concept anyhow since by far it is lenses that are interchanged on camera bodies with 'fixed' sensors and nobody is clamoring for that to change.
I see this as a non-starter though it can be fun to speculate.
Godfrey
Forum Pro
The Micro-FourThirds system protocol includes software lens corrections built into each lens individually. All the body has to do is accept them from the lens and inject them into raw files, or use them to process JPEGs.
So there's an example of an interchangeable lens system with embedded lens correction software that works very well, across a dozen bodies, two dozen lenses, and two manufacturers. The first mFT camera and lenses were released in Nov 2008.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
So there's an example of an interchangeable lens system with embedded lens correction software that works very well, across a dozen bodies, two dozen lenses, and two manufacturers. The first mFT camera and lenses were released in Nov 2008.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
R
rattymouse
Guest
Why do you think that a lens MUST be associated with a particular camera? In today's world, lenses have their own firmware and their own firmware updates. Fujifilm's new interchangeable lens camera uses lens correction and these new lenses will soon be used on other cameras, not the original X Pro 1. If the camera is designed to receive information from the lens, then all is well. There is no need for the lens to be bolted onto the sensor. You get all the advantages of the GXR without all the overpriced, redundant sensors.
--
Help Fight Disease! http://folding.stanford.edu/English/HomePage
Please join and be part of the solution! Lives can be saved.
I fold under the name RattyM. > 90 Work units completed, BILLIONS of calculations done, all from a Dell laptop. Everyone can be part of the solution. You just have to get started.
Documensony
Senior Member
Now, now ... Tom isn't excactly 'nobody' ...
--
-----------------------
Documensony
'Spontaneity is enabled by rigorous practice'
Common practice for lens and camera manufacturers to correct and enhance existing lenses and provide databases so that the camera is smart enough to know all about it. No contradiction there.
Some years ago some folks dreamed of faster lenses and bigger sensors in smaller bodies.
Those who understood the laws of light rays through optical glass and majored in physics then leapt on to the forums and stated quite loudly that once sensors got to a certain size you needed rather large lens sizes to keep up the "required" specifications.
Basically bigger sensor, faster aperture, longer zoom - they all require progressively larger lenses. Obviously this contradicts the requirement (for instance) that the GRD keeps the same size body but perhaps an aps-c sensor (or maybe even a 1" sensor will do). Now lets have a zoom lens and make the whole thing high-performingly fast. Of course this is no real problem in Canon dslr format, you just swap out the pancake wide and slot in the 70-200mm f2.8 IS when you need it. (No sweat). But those that like portable little cameras that can take a variety of lenses - such as the GXR for instance - are hugely risk-adversive to great big lenses out front, they are even know to titter a bit when one is actually waved about.
So amidst this great need for smaller more powerful cameras and wishing away the need for physics the smart guys back at camera-design HQ first invent sensor cropping zoom, then polish up their wide angle lens correction algorythms. Couple this with a larger sensor with a high megapixel population and you get every chance that even a cropped image off the sensor will give a very "clear zoom" and if they have the lens correction right then the wide shots will look good as well.
Obviously take this lens out of its comfortable element in a RX100 and plug it into a (say) NEX7 with a suitable mount then there would be something missing.
As they say - "it takes a team of parts to tango".
Therefore I am looking into what may come of this lens-development. The lens in the RX100 might only be useful as a device intimately coupled to sensor and controller chip.
"Ok"we say -there will always be "regular" lenses that can be swapped. Granted. But if the high performance - small size becomes the new-u of cameras then wherefore now? Do they just turn out a swag of different cameras each with a sensor buried in it teamed up to a different type lens or alternatively go the Ricoh-style way? Maybe "one size fits all?"
Of course I am not busting myself for a GRD size camera with aps-c sensor and zoom. But the RX100 seems to be saying that there is a way for those that need such a thing.
I am not plugging it, wanting it, just noting that it might happen. Also it is obvious that there are plenty of arguments saying that it cannot, or need not happen. So there is plenty of room for contrary opinions.
Now I must go off and read about this RX100 thingie ...
--
Tom Caldwell
Some years ago some folks dreamed of faster lenses and bigger sensors in smaller bodies.
Those who understood the laws of light rays through optical glass and majored in physics then leapt on to the forums and stated quite loudly that once sensors got to a certain size you needed rather large lens sizes to keep up the "required" specifications.
Basically bigger sensor, faster aperture, longer zoom - they all require progressively larger lenses. Obviously this contradicts the requirement (for instance) that the GRD keeps the same size body but perhaps an aps-c sensor (or maybe even a 1" sensor will do). Now lets have a zoom lens and make the whole thing high-performingly fast. Of course this is no real problem in Canon dslr format, you just swap out the pancake wide and slot in the 70-200mm f2.8 IS when you need it. (No sweat). But those that like portable little cameras that can take a variety of lenses - such as the GXR for instance - are hugely risk-adversive to great big lenses out front, they are even know to titter a bit when one is actually waved about.
So amidst this great need for smaller more powerful cameras and wishing away the need for physics the smart guys back at camera-design HQ first invent sensor cropping zoom, then polish up their wide angle lens correction algorythms. Couple this with a larger sensor with a high megapixel population and you get every chance that even a cropped image off the sensor will give a very "clear zoom" and if they have the lens correction right then the wide shots will look good as well.
Obviously take this lens out of its comfortable element in a RX100 and plug it into a (say) NEX7 with a suitable mount then there would be something missing.
As they say - "it takes a team of parts to tango".
Therefore I am looking into what may come of this lens-development. The lens in the RX100 might only be useful as a device intimately coupled to sensor and controller chip.
"Ok"we say -there will always be "regular" lenses that can be swapped. Granted. But if the high performance - small size becomes the new-u of cameras then wherefore now? Do they just turn out a swag of different cameras each with a sensor buried in it teamed up to a different type lens or alternatively go the Ricoh-style way? Maybe "one size fits all?"
Of course I am not busting myself for a GRD size camera with aps-c sensor and zoom. But the RX100 seems to be saying that there is a way for those that need such a thing.
I am not plugging it, wanting it, just noting that it might happen. Also it is obvious that there are plenty of arguments saying that it cannot, or need not happen. So there is plenty of room for contrary opinions.
Now I must go off and read about this RX100 thingie ...
--
Tom Caldwell
ThanksNow, now ... Tom isn't excactly 'nobody' ...
... and I am not clamoring either, just wondering if Sony has achieved it's object by a means that we might see more and more of in the future.
The interesting point to me is merely that the seemingly dead-end of a sensor/lens module might actually be a glimpse of the future. (Whilst we all moan that we have to change sensor when we change lenses). Not sure of exactly how it might work and I bow gracefully to those that are better informed and more knowledgeable.
To me the biggest "if" is if ever this type of lens becomes seriously usable then can it be used to improve good lenses to make them perform at the highest standard level? Hardly I think as correcting abberations is one thing, getting the lens surfaces and coatings precisely right is another.
--
Tom Caldwell
Documensony
Senior Member
And future here means ... in our lifetime?
--
-----------------------
Documensony
'Spontaneity is enabled by rigorous practice'
R
rattymouse
Guest
I still dont get it. Sony has done nothing new here that hasnt been done many times before. Why you think this is new is still unexplained.
--
Help Fight Disease! http://folding.stanford.edu/English/HomePage
Please join and be part of the solution! Lives can be saved.
I fold under the name RattyM. > 90 Work units completed, BILLIONS of calculations done, all from a Dell laptop. Everyone can be part of the solution. You just have to get started.
aman74
Senior Member
Yes. I don't say this to be mean, but it seems to be to an unhealthy level. There's also a lot of rationalizing going on to defend a system that most people feel is broken, at least as far as making economical sense to purchase. I sincerely suggest using all the energy spent on evangelizing an inanimate consumer product on something joyful and/or productive, like taking photos.
The GXR with M module=fantastic. Lensors, no thanks. You have to bend over backwards to fit the square peg in a round hole.
aman74
Senior Member
I'm baffled as well. All this energy spent on something that's been around for years. There's been software correction for lenses in P&S and interchangeable cameras alike for years now. Whether it's in the .jpeg engine or Raw software, etc...what's the big deal? This new Sony offers NOTHING unusual in that regard. The big deal about it is the much larger than typical sensor for a P&S that still manages to be pocketable and smaller than it's competition with smaller sensors. That's something to write about.
I'm no Leica expert, but I have often read that the CL doesn't have all of the normal framelines. I'd require a camera with all of them: 28, 35, 50, 75 and 90mm. I've already got a 35, 50 and 75mm lens, and at some point, they'll be joined by (probably) the Zeiss 28mm f/2.8 and Leica 90mm f/2.5.
Quite right. It's not that I'm dying to have a Leica (I'd rather have a Zeiss-branded camera, if I had the choice... yes, I'm a contrarian
), but I'd love a camera with which I wouldn't have to use a grey-mode focus peaking and/or zoom to focus correctly. I'd like a camera that shows me something like Ricoh's MODE1 or the NEX's focus peaking, but more accurate. Or another way of focussing when seeing the full image.I'll just wait and see what the different companies will do. Fuji has an EX-1 in the works, it seems. If they put a normal sensor in, instead one of their own weird designs that need a year or more to be properly supported by the big programs such as Lightroom, then it might be worth to take a look at. The X-1 Pro with M-lenses falls (far) short of my expectations to be honest.
A full-frame camera does not need to be that expensive anymore; a module doesn't need to cost $2000 on it's own. The body and viewfinder each cost around $300 or so. If they only have a module, then I'd not pay more than $1200 or so for one.
Yes, of course. I've ceased to bother about brands quite a long time ago. The only reason for me to prefer Zeiss over Leica are (imho) the price/performance ratio, and I actually like the slightly warmer yellowish out-of-camera look of the Zeiss lenses over the cooler and blueish look of Leica lenses.
Electronically corrected lenses will remain a feature for budget camera's and lenes for the forseeable future. In the end, nothing beats a good lens. Correcting an image after taking it will, in the end, always be less good than taking it perfectly to begin with. It's just like exposure. You can do a lot in RAW, but you can do more if you start out with a correctly exposed image.
This is most likely. Many lenses in the m43-system are electronically corrected, and t works just like you describe.
For example:
http://www.photozone.de/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/468-oly_17_28?start=1
(Move your mouse over the distortion grid to see the uncorrected version.)
Godfrey
Forum Pro
Leica only started including all those "normal" framelines with the M4-P and M6 models in the late 1970s/early 1980s. The CL body was released in 1973 and was designed as a compact system with dedicated 40 and 90 mm lenses, it presents 40, 50 and 90 mm framelines. A 28mm lens was later added, most use it with an clip-on viewfinder for framing (coupled focusing through the built in viewfinder).
I have owned many Leica RF cameras since 1969. Never found the 28mm framelines in the M4-P, M6TTL and M9 to be much use, and the 135mm framelines are somewhat small and hard to frame accurately with as well without an eyepiece magnifier.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
Documensony
Senior Member
Many people like that ... I think what Tom is wishing for is a GXR module to do the same or even better?
--
-----------------------
Documensony
'Spontaneity is enabled by rigorous practice'
it is new, because it just occurred to him. So when it is new to the headmaster of Ricoh forum(s) people feel obliged to engage...
And also it is his speciality to conceptualize and editorialize simple ideas in complicated manner which generates even more garbage and takes away what is left of this brain dead / gear craving forum.....
He just admitted a while ago...fanboys are lost and confused when there is no new gear...so let's write 5000 word empty essays for passtime....
And also it is his speciality to conceptualize and editorialize simple ideas in complicated manner which generates even more garbage and takes away what is left of this brain dead / gear craving forum.....
He just admitted a while ago...fanboys are lost and confused when there is no new gear...so let's write 5000 word empty essays for passtime....
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum