Bruce Oudekerk wrote:As a rule I dislike 'anything' by wire
I find it strange that a lens that is obviously optimized for video is not elegant at it.
pakodominguez wrote:Apparently, pincushion is quite pronounced -corrected on most still cameras, but not on the first old big video cameras, and that is quite silly, since this is a lens optimized for video.
agorabasta wrote:pakodominguez wrote:Apparently, pincushion is quite pronounced -corrected on most still cameras, but not on the first old big video cameras, and that is quite silly, since this is a lens optimized for video.
The matter is - pincussion distortion at the wide end is good for sharper corners after correction. The corners are then compressed and get sharper at the expense of some centre resolution, so overall frame sharpness is more even.
So I think it's a good intentional design decision.
Quite frankly, I see no point in getting any of those. They are quite limited in many aspects - no good AF, too low pixel density (lenses outresolve the sensor by far - means very 'digital' look), no adequate flash system, etc.
But then again, the 7r may interest me if I really need an effective midframe substitute.
Still thus far I find the Nex7 a better option if an analogue-alike look is the issue of utmost importance. And to me it really is a real issue - I need fine textures to appear realistic wrt each other. Say I see two adjacent texture/mesh areas with close and high enough spatial frequencies - if the spatial transfer function is not monotonous (having some troughs and spikes) then the mesh at a spike freq is emphasized and the one that got in trough is subdued - means that the appearance even after the distance smoothing of those brings out the former and masks the latter; and that means a global change to the image perceived, regardless of sampling (if not too far subsampled).
So: need cleanest flat areas and fine lines - get A7r; must have realistic textures rendering - get Nex7 (or some 24Mp APS Nikon, if suitable).
pakodominguez wrote:I find this lens also interesting, You can probably get more information from users reviews (like this at B&H:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1 ... _lens.html)
bfitzgerald wrote:It's not unusual to get some pincushion moving up the tele range on a zoom lens like this (18-135mm has some too but it's not near this level)
Actually an 18-105mm f4 would have been ideal for A Mount
Anyway the level of distortion is quite huge, and I have to say just about all the mirrorless lenses I've looked at show distortion to a far greater extent than normal DSLR lenses (across just about everything I've looked at) massively so.
If anyone thought pulling that mirror out was a win win scenario they forgot about optics, the closeness to the sensor is a killer for lens designers it makes life much harder than DSLR land. Just about every ILC lens I've seen images wise is tortured with distortion, in some cases it's monstrous levels.
Software can help but it's not ideal in some cases (stretching and pulling parts of the image can have consequences)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests