PMA round up

[alphaomega]

As far as the E mount cameras, that looks to be a plug in mount with no locking bayonet. Now put your 70-400G on an adapter, hold it out at arm's length (the early ones only have the back LV) and take your photo. While the 70-400G pops out of the mount and travels to the ground....
Walt

There is an interesting feature in Amateur Photographer 30 March edition about just this issue. Basically they are suggesting either that the prototypes shown are unfinished or Sony do not want to reveal how their new mount functions. Personally I think that it is not possible to have a mount without some mechanical locking such as a twist to fasten the lens. Also, without the lens being fixed in a particular position in the mount, how is the camera to correspond with the lens without contacts that are perfectly aligned?

[bfitzgerald]

No by FF I mean digital. Folks hard stuck in shooting just like they did with film. Unable to adapt.



Eh? Not sure I get this point. I admit I am in a minority, aka shooting film still. But hey..bit of variety?
Must be said some of those lenses are more useful on FF even with film, 28-85mm is a very good example, and that's a good lens too, very nice contrast and colour.
Some are less ideal on APS-C, 50mm is one..but still a very hand lens even with the crop factor, esp low light obviously.
I have adapted, that's why I shoot FF 35mm and APS-C, but I'll admit APS-C is a compromise for me, on cost as FF digital is simply too expensive right now.

If I was not shooting FF 35mm, I would still hesitate to get to many APS-C lenses, looking ahead it's obvious to me FF is going to move down the price chain, as it has already. I've also saved a small fortune on buying oldie but mostly nice lenses that are FF ones..if I replaced all my lenses with APS-C ones, or where needed, it would cost me an awful lot more.

And you can't shoot digital like film anyway, it's entirely different esp negative film.

[Vidgamer]

From what I've read, FF is not as demanding on lenses. In other words, the smaller the sensor, the better the lens needs to be in order to support the higher pixel density.

FF is actually more demanding. The image has to be perfect over a much wider circle.

There is only a small difference in pixel density between the a700 and the a900. The a700 does have the edge on resolution.

Walt

But you end up with 25mp on the A900 compared to, what, 14mp on the A700? With the same lens and same "resolution" of the lens, you end up with a lot more information on FF. Same lens, more data. FF is no more demanding of the same lens, and yet it provides much more detail.

It's easier to picture it if you compared 12mp with both formats. If the lens had a moderate to low resolution, you'd see the limits first on the higher-density APS-C format than you would on FF.

I agree that FF is more demanding on the edges, but I would assume that this varies by lens and by an individual's needs. An APS-C-only lens might also be poor on the edges as an artifact of trying to optimize for an APS-C size. It's just that it's using more of a FF-lens' sweet-spot. I'd have to try it both ways to convince myself that the edges are really that much poorer in FF.

I think overall, it makes sense that you can get more out of a lens on FF. You would think that would translate to not needing as high-end of a lens, when using FF.

I realize that my standards are not as exacting as others, though. And I have to admit that my FF lenses work fine on APS-C, except for the oddball focal ranges.

[Birma]

Just idle thoughts about camera design; the slr was designed around the mechanics of a roll of 35mm film and the mirror box. The dslr has continued the basic design, for the mirror box. Once you don't need the mirror box then what is required? You need a shutter to expose the sensor. You need a screen to view (and perhaps for touch controls), you need some digitial hardware, and power/battery. At the basic level we are just trying to attach a sensor to the back of the lens. So the lens becomes the primary design concern and the sensor+screen little more than a 'filter' like attachment at the back of the lens. So lenses continue to get bigger and have more controls, even the shutter control, and the "camera-body" shrinks.

[Winkler Prins]

With the same lens and same "resolution" of the lens, you end up with a lot more information on FF.

I would say the resolution of the lens is not the same as you move from APS to FF. Partly because the lens performs better in the center of the frame, as it did on film (this corresponds to the bigger image size). Partly because on the edges of FF, the differences between sensor and film begin to show. I think these two combined may have an adverse effect on overall image quality. That's my opinion, only tests could prove it right or wrong, because there are so many lenses and they are all slightly different. Ofcourse, the advantage of FF is that you can crop the image afterwards, to a format that your lens does handle well, say 1.3 crop factor.

[peterottaway]

I am one of those who has never been to worried about edge softness on lenses. It seems to me to be more of a technical review commentary rather than a real world issue.

I am more interested in getting the content rather than technical excellence. Also except for photographs where you deliberately place an object or person of interest in the extreme left of right, how many photos are subjected to much edge examination ?

Also it became clear to me when I started doing street photography and shooting sport that you can't compose too tightly in the time available, so these days most of my shots I give at least an extra 20 % bracket.

[Greg Beetham]

It's a bit more complex than just comparing the result using the same lens on both, (to arrive at the same image scale you would have to enlarge the FF photo and put it at a disadvantage). If you want to compare formats you would have to have the image scale in both photos remain the same and use a lens on both cameras to give that end result, then you could compare the image from each camera on a roughly equal basis. It would be difficult to find a couple of primes that have the same optical quality and also provide the requred image scale for both. I guess you could use a constant aperture zoom that has the same optical characteristics at 35mm as it has at 50mm...David or Olaf could maybe shed a bit more light on how you could conduct such a test, and why FF would win easily, (with visual on screen texture, density, sharpness etc. printers would not show any difference, both cameras far exceed any printers ability at normal A4 size), from wide angle on up to medium telephoto. (my guess)
Greg

[bfitzgerald]

This is an extract from Amateur Photographer 6th March 2010

They compared the Canon 7d V 5d Mk II, and Sony models and a Nikon one too.
This is what they said..

I trust this does not violate any copyrights etc..

Image1.jpg

(177.21 KiB) Downloaded 2714 times

[WaltKnapp]

Just idle thoughts about camera design; the slr was designed around the mechanics of a roll of 35mm film and the mirror box. The dslr has continued the basic design, for the mirror box. Once you don't need the mirror box then what is required? You need a shutter to expose the sensor. You need a screen to view (and perhaps for touch controls), you need some digitial hardware, and power/battery. At the basic level we are just trying to attach a sensor to the back of the lens. So the lens becomes the primary design concern and the sensor+screen little more than a 'filter' like attachment at the back of the lens. So lenses continue to get bigger and have more controls, even the shutter control, and the "camera-body" shrinks.

The trouble with this direction is that you start to buy a entire camera with each lens you buy. That adds considerable to system cost. Lenses, because you buy many of them should have only the elements that differ from lens to lens and all those things that are in common should be in the body for most economic systems.

Folks claim SSS in body is more cost effective than in lens stabilization, for instance.

Meanwhile they lobby for a focus drive motor in each lens instead of a single effective drive motor for focus in the body.....

Walt

[Vidgamer]

...
I am more interested in getting the content rather than technical excellence. Also except for photographs where you deliberately place an object or person of interest in the extreme left of right, how many photos are subjected to much edge examination ?

Normally, I'd agree with you, although there was one photo where the subjects really WERE near the edge, and my kit lens is exceptionally poor on the edge, particularly at wide angles. This also harms the ability to stitch panoramic photos.

But most of the time, I agree -- a bit of softness on the edges doesn't seem to make a big difference in actual use, and often either makes no difference, and possibly sometimes might even help with the bokeh.

As it is sometimes said regarding software, "It's not a bug, it's a feature!"

Also it became clear to me when I started doing street photography and shooting sport that you can't compose too tightly in the time available, so these days most of my shots I give at least an extra 20 % bracket.

Well, you can be obsessive about getting the best possible photos. I do see a value in keeping the quality up, but at a certain point, I tell my self that I just need to let it be good enough. Certainly, if I don't have to crop and don't have to adjust the WB and the edges aren't too soft, then I'm getting the most out of what I have, and I like that. But if I have to go to ISO 800 and it looks noisy as heck, I have to work a bit harder to realize that I can use RAW and maybe it's not so bad.

[Vidgamer]

...
The trouble with this direction is that you start to buy a entire camera with each lens you buy. That adds considerable to system cost. Lenses, because you buy many of them should have only the elements that differ from lens to lens and all those things that are in common should be in the body for most economic systems.

The Ricoh seems to be an extreme example of this trend. Kind of weird. What are they saving, the shell, memory card reader, and an LCD screen? Maybe the CPU as well. Seems to me like you might as well have an all-in-one camera at some point.

Folks claim SSS in body is more cost effective than in lens stabilization, for instance.

Meanwhile they lobby for a focus drive motor in each lens instead of a single effective drive motor for focus in the body.....

Walt

Not I. I'm happy enough with in-body focus motor. But maybe this is the video crowd? (What's the matter with the option of just not zooming or using digital zoom if I'm using an in-body motor if it's so loud? Or, here's a crazy idea -- add a jack for an external mic!)

BTW, I really like the way this thread drifts around various topics. Interesting.

[WaltKnapp]

Not I. I'm happy enough with in-body focus motor. But maybe this is the video crowd? (What's the matter with the option of just not zooming or using digital zoom if I'm using an in-body motor if it's so loud? Or, here's a crazy idea -- add a jack for an external mic!)

One of my other hobbies is nature recording. There I use carefully selected low noise stereo mic setups that while 20' away from me can pick up my quiet breathing if I'm not careful. Those, of course require equally low noise mic preamps. There is just no way any motor running focus will not ruin those recordings.

And a jack for a external mic. Most high end mics are condensor mics. That requires balanced inputs (three wire) and 48 volt phantom power to run them. Stereo setups are usually coupled with 5 pin XLR connections or two 3 pin XLRs. The chances of that all turning up on DSLRs in a non-compromising way is probably nil. Even a quality line input from a external mic pre is probably asking too much.

I photograph the frogs as well as recording their calls. Several of us have from time to time discussed trying to get video with the audio. It is a massive problem to even try. And would definitely require audio of the above quality. To say nothing of the problem of getting within video range in the middle of the night when this is done without spooking the frogs so they shut up.

Walt

[Rosearodoe]

Well guys, here is my two cents... You do remember that American car makers keep their secrets behind tall enclosed walls and test tracks? or How on National Hot Rod Asc. racing cars use to cover their new technology with towels when they were working on the engines and the tv camera's were on? Maybe Sony is doing the same thing. Protecting their R&D until they are ready to unveil it. Makes sense to me anyway.

[David Kilpatrick]

Hi Rosearodoe, welcome aboard. The mockups of the Sony evilcams are apparently nothing like the product, I've spoken to Paul Genge who has actually seen the real item and confirms what you say - they are there to fool the enemy. But they give a general idea of what we can expect. See the mockup early Olympus Micro 4/3rds - it looked miles from the final offering.

Walt, I work with microphones a lot. What used to require a $1500 Neumann can now be done with a $150 SE Electronics, and where once the Russian Oktava was the only 'cheap' condensor there are now quite amazingly good Chinese made small and large diaphragm models. Getting a matched stereo pair can double the cost - they need to be selected to line up. The problem tends to be quality loss under high sound pressure, not sensitivity to low sound pressure. And the SNR of some under $200 beats the best professional gear of 10 years ago.

These companies have not really concentrated on the DSLR plug-in mic market yet. AKG has some acceptable stuff. The encoding of sound is limited in headroom, but acceptable. The mics have their own power supplies. Nature sound recording will continue to be a specialist field, and will normally be recorded off-camera and dubbed in. For most uses, V-DSLRs will hack it well enough.

I hestitate to link to this one here! -

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=y-YTGzVtf1M

This is me under my Kelso Folk and Live Music Club hat, doing a little parody song when we had all got fed up with the snow. You can hear the sound-pressure triggered compression/clipping with no problem, and the sound quality has the exact opposite of large diaphragm tube preamp warmth - but this was outside, live, using nothing but the camera's mono built-in mic, from a good few feet away! Canon 5D MkII. This camera does not even allow manual adjustment of mic gain; it is forced into an adaptive auto gain mode.

But - to get anything close to this only five years ago would have required a studio quality rig and controlled conditions.

David

[WaltKnapp]

Walt, I work with microphones a lot. What used to require a $1500 Neumann can now be done with a $150 SE Electronics, and where once the Russian Oktava was the only 'cheap' condensor there are now quite amazingly good Chinese made small and large diaphragm models. Getting a matched stereo pair can double the cost - they need to be selected to line up. The problem tends to be quality loss under high sound pressure, not sensitivity to low sound pressure. And the SNR of some under $200 beats the best professional gear of 10 years ago.

These companies have not really concentrated on the DSLR plug-in mic market yet. AKG has some acceptable stuff. The encoding of sound is limited in headroom, but acceptable. The mics have their own power supplies. Nature sound recording will continue to be a specialist field, and will normally be recorded off-camera and dubbed in. For most uses, V-DSLRs will hack it well enough.

David

Most of my mics are based on Sennheiser MKH, partially because they are rugged and can handle outdoor humidity, but also because their self noise is very low. (many high end mics much loved by studio recordists just won't work well outdoors, some fail from the humidity in seconds) When the base ambiance of your recording environment is right down there with the self noise of the mic, and that background is as important as the calls, it really limits your choices. That the background ambiance is so important is part of why dubbing in sound is hardly done in nature recording. You end up with confused ambiant fields in the recording doing that.

My pair of MKH-20's in my mod SASS I beat out a concert recordist on ebay to get. We spent nearly a month corresponding comparing how his recording was done vs how my nature recording is done. My close recording is his long recording. And, well, my long recording was beyond his experience. He works a lot with closed spaces of known acoustics. I work with extremely large spaces with mostly unknown acoustics. Very complex acoustics. I record far more with handholding mics than on stands.

And talking about a few feet for your mic. It's rarely less than 20' and can be a mile or more sometimes. The frogs I record can have a call sound level that would put a rock band to shame at the frog. But that drops very rapidly with distance and few frogs will let you walk up to them and record. So the ability of a mic to record accurately at low sound levels is very important and the high end not so much. And with frogs you are usually recording in quantity, multiple species and many many individuals of each species. Bird recording you are generally recording one at a time, however.

Here's some pages showing some of the mic setups I was using a few years ago. Still using pretty much the same mics:
http://frogrecordist.home.mindspring.co ... _sass.html
http://frogrecordist.home.mindspring.co ... etups.html
Here's a posed photo done for a news story about me and I'm holding the stereo Telinga parabolic mic. Posed as I'd be in the middle of the night. That's a specialist nature recording mic and contains a total of 8 mic elements.
http://wwknapp.home.mindspring.com/images/wwk.day.jpg

I build the mod SASS housing for other nature recordists. I'm not the inventor, just the one who built one using good machining that everybody likes. It's my primary wide ambiance mic, kind of the equivalent of a wide angle lens, very wide at about 270 degrees of pickup. And of course the parabolic is my "long tele", though I think of it's pattern as being more pear shaped as most of the stereo field is formed from the local ambiance and callers while the main performers could be a very long ways away.

There is a lot of similarity between nature recording and wildlife photography.

Walt