of course not
-
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
well, tom, you are in the spamming mode...same posts here, also in ricohforum dot com...hard to escape.
besides, i never really quit reading your posts. they really drive me crazy.
then i burst.
then you further embarrass me with calmed down and polite replies.
can you please be nasty as well?
thanks
besides, i never really quit reading your posts. they really drive me crazy.
then i burst.
then you further embarrass me with calmed down and polite replies.
can you please be nasty as well?
thanks
R
rattymouse
Guest
Wow....I dont know where Tom gets the time. His 15,000 word posts must take a long time to pound out. And he does this at another forum??
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.
--
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.
J
Joe Pineapples
Guest
One thing that has been a significant change from film to digital is that, in a film camera, the functions of forming and recording the image were delegated to lens and film respectively, whereas in a digital camera there are significant optical components within the sensor (AA filter, micro-lenses), hence the lens and sensor together form the optical system of the camera...
Joe
Joe
Tom's a basically nice guy who is into buying obscure glass for his M-mount. I find it, well, ironic when he alternates between posts about the GXR - how it could seriously dent Leica's business, how it is leading the way somewhere, etc. and posts about the shortly upcoming death of the dslr and why he's afraid to buy any more lenses for his Canon.
He has a unique perspective, that's for sure. Bless his heart.
He has a unique perspective, that's for sure. Bless his heart.
exdeejjjaaaa
Veteran Member
indeed, hence I am not using neither 14/2.5 nor 20/1.7 albeit I own both...
pthortron
Active member
This humble lurker needs something to lurk on after all. Interesting reads always.
That is exactly right! A digital camera is a SYSTEM for making images. It has a lens, sensor, firmware, etc. where a film camera has two basic components - a lens, and film. Hence the film camera needs its lens to be as perfect as possible because once that image hits the film, it's all done as far as any lens defects or distortion.
With a digital camera, the image hits the sensor and there's still a whole lot left to do.
Godfrey
Forum Pro
The shorter focal lengths always require more correction, particularly if they are both a) fast and b) very compact. The Leica-designed Macro-Elmarit 45mm f/2.8 ASPH is a higher grade lens, as is the Olympus M.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8, both as you notice with longer focal lengths.
The Panasonic Lumix G 20mm f/1.7 is a remarkably good performer for its speed, size and focal length. The automatically applied lens corrections make it nearly perfect with little else to do.
This sample of the G1 with 20mm f/1.7, processed in VueScan ( dcraw ), and Lightroom 4/Aperture 3.3.2 shows the extent of the automated lens correction processing. I think it does a very good job:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/25268645/Lightroom-raw_lens_correction/index.html
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
R
rattymouse
Guest
....I dont know if we helped out Tom understand that lens correction is nothing new..but if nothing else, this thread has helped me learn about the Sony RX100 and I'm now shopping for one. Nicely done!
--
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.
--
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.
Well, you could also digitize film. The captures from your pre-digital camera/ lens with lots of barrel distortion can be manipulated in photoshop as well...
Not necessarily your post, but I still don't understand why this thread has generated so much discussion...
What is the new idea or revelation here?
If it is about purity of long gone era, I remind you traditional printing techniques included most of the same "tricks"
Post processing is as much about photography as capturing a frame.
In the end it is the final image that counts. How you get there is hardly relevant. If you use tacky and lousy techniques and cheap tricks they will be reflected in the work.
In the end the image will speak, and the language it uses will be a reflection of your ability: from first step to the last...and this has always been the case. So really nothing new here.
Not necessarily your post, but I still don't understand why this thread has generated so much discussion...
What is the new idea or revelation here?
If it is about purity of long gone era, I remind you traditional printing techniques included most of the same "tricks"
Post processing is as much about photography as capturing a frame.
In the end it is the final image that counts. How you get there is hardly relevant. If you use tacky and lousy techniques and cheap tricks they will be reflected in the work.
In the end the image will speak, and the language it uses will be a reflection of your ability: from first step to the last...and this has always been the case. So really nothing new here.
Documensony
Senior Member
hmm ... are we talking images or posts in this thread?
--
-----------------------
Documensony
'Spontaneity is enabled by rigorous practice'
Documensony
Senior Member
Remember to check out DPR's review - just out:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100/
--
-----------------------
Documensony
'Spontaneity is enabled by rigorous practice'
Logic suggests to me that the chosen balance of lens quality vs applied correction is based on how much money, size or weight is saved on the lens itself by using software correction.
Obviously lens correction is alive and accepted. Small wide lenses need it more and small sensors crop lens images (that give longer effective focal lengths). What is needed is bigger sensors for quality but these need even more correction if they are to be both wide and small. Bigger sensors can use image cropping for zoom more effectively. Bigger sensors also (in general) handle low light situations at high ISO more effectively.
We all want bigger sensors, smaller cameras and effectively-wide lenses. Some telephoto capablity is a nice bonus. But telephoto is generally at the expense of maximum aperture. High ISO capability comes, like the mounties, to the rescue with our larger senors. Oh, wait a tick .... how do we get that image on to our larger sensor in this tiny new package everybody wants.
Digital trickery, me lad ... call it "just an extension of the lens correction" that "everybody does" (yawn), I don't care, but we have to acknowledge that "everybody" does not make a camera as small and as "powerful" as the Sony RX100. Sony has cut out some new territory there. Perhaps a little more than the general "lens correction" that "everybody does", or does "everybody" not be bothered to do this even though they could easily have done it?
It will surely never catch on.
Work that one out - read it slowly three times first. (grin)
--
Tom Caldwell
R
rattymouse
Guest
Sony marketing decided that the zoom race was over and now the sensor size race began. That's it. If you want to believe that there is some new technology in the RX100, you are free to believe so, even though there isnt a shred of evidence to hint at such.
--
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.
Ratty,
Fine by me, more my observation than a claim. I look forward to many "RX100 lookalikes" seeing that the technology is already well known. Perhaps it has been a shortage of suitable sized sensors? Manufacturers have struggled to get large sensors into small bodies every since the very long gestation process of the Sigma DP1 which ended up with a prime wide of f4.0. More than a few companies have been busting their brains to get the smallest camera with the biggest possible sensor and retain a high-performing lens. Nikon seem to have pioneered this "1-inch class".
Recapitulating a long tiresome argument I seem to recollect not so much saying that the technology was previously unknown or some great Sony secret but more saying that it "might" be necessary to package lens/sensor/controlling-chip to get the best (and cheapest) working relationship. Maybe not, certainly I don't care much how they do it, and anything I say might also be quite wrong. I will certainly accept being over-ruled by those better educated on the subject than I am.
However we all have to agree that Sony has managed to pack an unusually large chip and a highly performing zoom lens (if we accept clear zoom as part of this) in a smaller than could be expected body.
If they have managed to do this by using evidently evidenced existing processes then stand back for the rush.
Most comments of refutation has centered around by unremarkable assertion that existing software correction must simply have been taken to new heights in the RX100 which have driven the response of "don't be silly Tom, everybody is doing it". So if everybody is doing it then why did Sony manage to suddenly "drop" the camera-size bar amongst an industry-wide race of miniaturisation of body combined with enlargement of sensor? I guess Sony are just doing it better, much better, with well known existing technical tricks ... can I get agreement on that?
Maybe something smilar can be done with replaceable lensed cameras - look forward to an even smaller body version in the NEX mount.
--
Tom Caldwell
Documensony
Senior Member
A picture speaks louder than words
From DPRs RX100review:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100/
--
-----------------------
Documensony
'Spontaneity is enabled by rigorous practice'
Thanks, I did (eventually) read enough of the review to figurre out the gist of it. I am not even thinking of changing camp over this product, extraordinary as it may be. I am quite happy where I am. More curious.
So, in essense, has Sony just made something that everyone else could make from existing technology that "everyone" else knows and already uses in their existing products but simply cannot be bothered to market? The standard response to my unfortunately worded "explanation".
Or has Sony advanced technology here to the point of previously "impossible" is now made and sold to the point that even the dpreviewer makes ineveitable great comment on the technnical power that is somehow shoehorned into this package?
If my suggestions on how it is done are not correct (they are short on detail) then someone else better informed might oblige. Otherwise we can fall back on the standard: "dunno, it's magic ... but I want one anyway".
--
Tom Caldwell
The Sony is too small for other than novelty 'I've got a camera in my pocket' use. Yes, it might well take very good photos, but I could never live with something that's designed for seven year old sized hands.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum