DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Contax N Lenses vs Canon L Lenses

Gilbert, could it be that Olympus has to do something in the digital arena or be in trouble in the market place?

IMO, a lot of this is marketing hype because the digital onslaught has put pressure on the manufacturers. Can't come up with a full frame sensor? Downsize everything around the sensor and say it is a special solution.

So, then the consumer has to buy a whole new system with lenses you can't use on a film camera. Baloney to that.

Quite frankly, Canon has everyone by the short hairs. A 6 meg digital @ $1,500 that uses all my EOS lenses without any optical handicap that I can detect. I predict Canon will have a full frame 8 meg or so DSLR for under $2,000. within 2 years. So why on earth would I sell all my expensive full frame glass to buy a pipsqueak camera and it's "special lenses"? A good lens collection costs a small fortune.

Digital is like the weather...if you don't like it, just wait a bit and it'll change.
 
Hi Marc,

> Quite frankly, Canon has everyone by the short hairs. A 6 meg digital > @ $1,500 that uses all my EOS lenses without any optical handicap that > I can detect.

Not full frame...my only complaint.

Regards,

Austin
 
Gilbert,

> Obviously Olympus disagrees.

Disagrees with what?

There is absolutely NO need to design a special lense for use with a digital still frame sensor except to dumb it down to reduce aliasing (decrease MTF), which is done for P&S cameras, but NOT for 35mm-esque DSLRs. Any difference in a lense is simply to change the image circle/focal length/DOF scales to accommodate the reduced size sensors. This change has not a thing to do with the media being a digital sensor, but the physical size of the media. If they were using film the same size as the digital sensor, they would do the same thing.

Regards,

Austin
 
forgive my ignorance, but if the size of the sensor is smaller then the normal frame size yet can be produce as much details as the film, why is there a problems? one good thing about it is that they can now produce much smaller lenses and we can carry lighter thing around.
IMO, since the two thing (film/sensor) are different, the design of SLR is for film, and if the sensor have a different size compare to film, may be it a good time for the manufacturer to come out with a design that is very different to the SLR. I think recently, sony did it, they use a CZ T* zoom lens and if that zoom lens is design for the N1, it will be a massive lens! and will definatly cost more then the 400mm F4 lens for N1!
 
>=20 >=20 >=20 > Perhaps the next move from Canon will be using the 1D platform and size o= f CCD > to up it to 8MB resolution, physically or thru software interpolation. > Regards, Kaisern >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20
 
Hi Austin,

there is a paper from a european university (austria ?) on the net saying that normal slr-lenses often are constructed thet the light is not going stright thru the rear lens element. That doesn't matter with film 'cause for film there is noc difference from which angle the ray of light is hitting it's surface.

With CCD/CMOS it is different. The element itself is lying like in a "case" surrounding it. If light is not coming straight to the CCD some parts of the light will only hit the "case" but not touch the CCD/CMOS itself. So every lens for film slr that doesn't fit these points is not so good for dslr - and that are esp. wide angle lenses (as far as I know). This doesn't effect very much with dslr which have this "crop factor" because the edges of the film are wider than those of the CCD/CMOS with the exception of the D1S (and maybe the Kodak) and of course the CONTAX (which is constructed as a full frame dslr).

Maybe this helps .... (pardon my problems with my english...)

Paul
 
Hi Paul,

> there is a paper from a european university (austria ?) on the net > saying that normal slr-lenses often are constructed thet the light is > not going stright thru the rear lens element. That doesn't matter with > film 'cause for film there is noc difference from which angle the ray > of light is hitting it's surface. > > With CCD/CMOS it is different. The element itself is lying like in a > "case" surrounding it. If light is not coming straight to the CCD some > parts of the light will only hit the "case" but not touch the CCD/CMOS > itself. So every lens for film slr that doesn't fit these points is > not so good for dslr - and that are esp. wide angle lenses (as far as > I know). This doesn't effect very much with dslr which have this "crop > factor" because the edges of the film are wider than those of the > CCD/CMOS with the exception of the D1S (and maybe the Kodak) and of > course the CONTAX (which is constructed as a full frame dslr).

That is correct, but ONLY for wide angle lenses below around 28mm or so, depending on the original lense design in the first place, and the sensor used.

The original comment by Gilbert was "If you have to go digital with new lenses why not buy those specifically designed for digital?", which as a generic statement is simply wrong, and what I was commenting on.

Canon (nor Contax) does not have any new lenses "specifically for digital" for use with any of their digital SLRs that I am aware of. Nikon is the only one to do this, and it wasn't for the issue with wide angle lenses, it was simply to offer a line of lenses that takes into account the frame size factor...and for marketing reasons I'd believe as well.

Regards,

Austin
 
Austin:
The angle of incident for light ray in wide angle lenses for DSLR is a technical problems that is not solved. I think contax did try to solve this issue by introduce the bigger diameter lenses, hence the N. However, there were coment in this discussion group the even for the ND, for the N 17-35 lens, the edges were darker compare to the rest of the photo. there si no such problem in manufacturer using small sensor. If you think about it, those manufacturer simplly disregard the light ray on the edges from the lenses. I think people can conclude that building a digital camera with comparible features with respect to film camera is a waste of time and with respect to the "details" of digital photography, I agree with Gilbert:"If you have to go digital with new lenses why not buy those specifically designed for digital?",

Ben
 
Ben, most super wide angles have light fall off on the edges even when shooting film. That's why there are center filters for many of them. Not necessary as much when shooting neg film, but it shows up in transparency work.

BTW, I've shot 14mm and 16mm with a Canon 1Ds, and the light fall off isn't any more apparent than with transparency shots on an EOS 1V.
 
Back
Top