FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Sony's EVIL GUI revealed (a bit) in CP+

Page  <1 7891011 20>
Author
RubberDials View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 03 January 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 1339
Post Options Post Options   Quote RubberDials Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 March 2010 at 15:08
Originally posted by PhotoTraveler PhotoTraveler wrote:


You don't want to be stuck with too big of a mount.   Original 4/3rds messed that bit up.


That was done to maximise the posibilities of telecentricism in lens design.

Originally posted by PhotoTraveler PhotoTraveler wrote:


Offset micro lenses can almost cure any issue from the lens being close to sensor, this has been seen in the Leica M9.


The m9 sensor was built to match existing M lenses (designed for film) - a unique situation for Leica where users don't tend to buy new lenses often and wouldn't tolerate a camera that made all lenses to date seriously underperform. Also the Leica M system doesn't really do tele, where the offset microlenses would start to be a drawback. No doubt the offset sensor is more expensive to produce as well.

Starting a system from scratch with a range of lenses from wide to tele the Olympus method makes perfect sense and Sony will go the same way.



Edited by RubberDials - 29 March 2010 at 15:11
 



Back to Top
frodeni View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 09 April 2008
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Posts: 570
Post Options Post Options   Quote frodeni Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 March 2010 at 15:32
Originally posted by badlydrawnroy badlydrawnroy wrote:

Oh dear, I wish you had not asked.
I got that drift a while back in this thread. No need to worry.

This thread is exhausted, as we do not really discuss any GUI anymore, nor anything about GUIs.

I guess most people here are more interested in a small and great camera, but most of all are frustrated about what is at hand. It will pretty much be impossible to write anything about m43 like cameras without the "2mm R1" or the "Leica M8" tipping up. I will probably waste my time trying to point out the design issues with these every time, or what is needed to be great an pocket able.

Also, there is an issue with the very way dyxum threads develops, as only the very last few post are effectively read by the readers. I sometimes do make a valid point that is opposite to common believes, which can be a bit frustrating at times. Such points needs quite a bit of explanations for other people to understand them, only to find that a lot of users do not read the posts on the previous page.

I guess I just have to live with the "perceived" (what an annoying thing to throw in there) advantages of leaf shutters, the 2mm R1, the Leica, and protruding elements. It is a battle lost, as it is not a design discussion, but a discussion of what we all want: A small pocket able great camera.

Frode
Back to Top
Sondermann View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie

Joined: 23 August 2007
Status: Offline
Posts: 137
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sondermann Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 March 2010 at 16:50
Originally posted by frodeni frodeni wrote:


I guess I just have to live with the "perceived" (what an annoying thing to throw in there) advantages of leaf shutters, the 2mm R1, the Leica, and protruding elements.
Frode


I just don't find the reasons you give for your "drawbacks" very convincing, hence "perceived", I don't see what's annoying about that.
But why not simply start a new thread (since you seem loath of discussing it in this thread) and systematically state the "drawbacks" of a camera with a shorter registration distance as compared to a camera with a longer registration distance.
Back to Top
sdm9465 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 29 February 2008
Country: Canada
Location: Nova Scotia
Status: Offline
Posts: 1180
Post Options Post Options   Quote sdm9465 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 March 2010 at 18:05
Originally posted by roweraay roweraay wrote:

Even the R1 used a leaf-shutter in its lens with no focal-plane shutter. I would expect this new mount to follow that direction. Sophisticated leaf-shutters can operate faster than the fastest focal plane shutters available currently.....while providing full flash x-sync at all shutter speeds.

That's easy for a camera without interchangeable lenses. I doubt that Sony will do this with their new system as that would mean higher lens costs due to having the shutter in each one. Also what about using existing A-mount lenses on it? I suppose it might be possible to put the shutter in the adapter but I can't image they would go that route.
Back to Top
frodeni View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 09 April 2008
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Posts: 570
Post Options Post Options   Quote frodeni Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 March 2010 at 19:27
Originally posted by Sondermann Sondermann wrote:

I just don't find the reasons you give for your "drawbacks" very convincing, hence "perceived", I don't see what's annoying about that.
As I have said, explaining things that are a bit hard to comprehend and diverge from common believes takes a lot of effort. Trying to do so in this thread, and a lot of others, is starting to annoy and bore people.

Forums are not very adapt to write articles, but if there is any interest in making a sticky thread with the first few posts reserved to be updated on each system drawbacks and strengths, preferably with external links, and user feedback, I might contribute on that.

If there is any interest for that. The long term value of such a thread will be to clarify the a-mount strengths and weaknesses compared to other systems, and to be able to start a thread about Sony's EVIL GUI without being drowned in "2mm R1", "Leica M8", and me going "not pocket able".

This forum will stay a-mount only. Is there a need for such a thread?

Frode
Back to Top
Swede101 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 03 October 2007
Country: Sweden
Location: Gothenburg
Status: Offline
Posts: 1355
Post Options Post Options   Quote Swede101 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 March 2010 at 19:44
I think it sounds interesting.

Gunnar

A77 II; A550; D7D w VC-7D; D7; 500si Super w DB (Unused); NEX-3
20/2,8; 50/1,7 Old; 50/1,8; 28-80 (Unused); 28-80 D; 28-105 RS; 135/2,8; 500/8 Reflex; Tamron 90/2,8 Macro 1:1 (V2); 5600HS(D)
 



Back to Top
Sondermann View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie

Joined: 23 August 2007
Status: Offline
Posts: 137
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sondermann Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 March 2010 at 20:04
Originally posted by frodeni frodeni wrote:

This forum will stay a-mount only. Is there a need for such a thread? Frode


I don't know if there is a need for a sticky thread. I just thought that since you seem to be so anxious not to go OT in this GUI thread, you might as well start a new one, and be it in the "In general" subforum.
Nevertheless I still think that it remains to be seen whether people disagree with your points simply because they are "a bit hard to comprehend and diverge from common believes" or because they are, well, questionable.
Back to Top
frodeni View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 09 April 2008
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Posts: 570
Post Options Post Options   Quote frodeni Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 March 2010 at 20:53
Originally posted by Sondermann Sondermann wrote:

Nevertheless I still think that it remains to be seen whether people disagree with your points simply because ... they are, well, questionable.
This is exactly, again, what I speak off. I do not care who says what, I care about the good argument and the why and the how.

A lot of people just throw out that they disagree or as in this case, that my points are questionable. I rather want to know what is questionable and why, so I can get the most accurate understanding of the issues. I do not feel the need to start a new thread, I am simply giving up discussing design in this forum, until there is a real interest to do so.

Those who care to engage in a real discussion beyond "look at the R1 and Leica and ignore their design limits", then I will be interested. Being labeled "questionable" do not really add any to a constructive debate, nor does it give me any desire to participate any further.

Continuing the registration distance discussion in this thread is a dead end. I might give a real design thread discussion a go one of these days, hoping to keep it on topic and about the topic.

Frode
Back to Top
Sick View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 15 July 2009
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Posts: 1200
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sick Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 March 2010 at 21:46
Pls people keep it nice.
(a wonder that came from me)

Arguing about what should be argued and why one should or should not proofe his knowledge is leading nowhere else than insulting each other.
If you are unhappy whit the direction of the thread just wait another day and look gain.
Maybe other people cleared the "problem" or you have rethought your answer and can give a nice and fact based input to the discussion...
Back to Top
PhotoTraveler View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 30 September 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 6356
Post Options Post Options   Quote PhotoTraveler Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 March 2010 at 03:28
Again, registration distance has nothing to do with the telecentrism of the lens. Registration distance it's completely independent of the optics.   Oly made the registration distance so deep because they wanted to be able to do a sideways swinging mirror, which the only ended up using in 2 bodies (E330 and E300).

They designed their mount around a bad idea, which they only tried twice, which were failed bodies, and lead them to making a whole new mount years later instead of being able to call their current mount good enough.

On the Leica, off set micro lenses work fine as you go more tele. They aren't going to hurt things. Yes, M bodies only go out to 135mm. But it's not that the design from an optic stand point couldn't go further. M bodies are just limited by the Range Finder.   But there are practical reasons too. Only big tele stuff happens beyond 135. A great deal of folks could go throughout there lives and never have a lens longer than 135. People did exactly that for decades. If you had a 180 or a 200 mm lens in the manual focus era you were about as far as non-pro's went.    With a small camera, not much interest is there in going super tele. That's why such needs will be covered with adapters for years to come. But also the days of the big tele are ticking down. As things move forwards, tele end of things will be handled more and more with cropping. 35mm FF cameras in the 30MP range may be just a heart beat away, and expecting a 60MP camera isn't to much of a stretch. Eventually cameras will just be single (or an assortment of 3-4) fixed lenses and do all the zoom with cropping.

I bet a lot of folks are looking at the future evil mounts and just wanting 3-4 (maybe 5 if they go for a macro) lenses. All small primes. Ranging from 14 to 135mm equivalent. And that becomes their entire kit in a nice small, high quality kit. Just like Leica M users have done for a half century.

Originally posted by RubberDials RubberDials wrote:

Originally posted by PhotoTraveler PhotoTraveler wrote:


You don't want to be stuck with too big of a mount.   Original 4/3rds messed that bit up.


That was done to maximise the posibilities of telecentricism in lens design.

Originally posted by PhotoTraveler PhotoTraveler wrote:


Offset micro lenses can almost cure any issue from the lens being close to sensor, this has been seen in the Leica M9.


The m9 sensor was built to match existing M lenses (designed for film) - a unique situation for Leica where users don't tend to buy new lenses often and wouldn't tolerate a camera that made all lenses to date seriously underperform. Also the Leica M system doesn't really do tele, where the offset microlenses would start to be a drawback. No doubt the offset sensor is more expensive to produce as well.

Starting a system from scratch with a range of lenses from wide to tele the Olympus method makes perfect sense and Sony will go the same way.

Back to Top
RubberDials View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 03 January 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 1339
Post Options Post Options   Quote RubberDials Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 March 2010 at 03:52
Originally posted by PhotoTraveler PhotoTraveler wrote:


You don't want to be stuck with too big of a mount.   Original 4/3rds messed that bit up.

Originally posted by RubberDials RubberDials wrote:


That was done to maximise the posibilities of telecentricism in lens design.

Originally posted by PhotoTraveler PhotoTraveler wrote:


Offset micro lenses can almost cure any issue from the lens being close to sensor, this has been seen in the Leica M9.

Originally posted by RubberDials RubberDials wrote:


The m9 sensor was built to match existing M lenses (designed for film) - a unique situation for Leica where users don't tend to buy new lenses often and wouldn't tolerate a camera that made all lenses to date seriously underperform. Also the Leica M system doesn't really do tele, where the offset microlenses would start to be a drawback. No doubt the offset sensor is more expensive to produce as well.

Starting a system from scratch with a range of lenses from wide to tele the Olympus method makes perfect sense and Sony will go the same way.


Originally posted by PhotoTraveler PhotoTraveler wrote:

Again, registration distance has nothing to do with the telecentrism of the lens. Registration distance it's completely independent of the optics.   Oly made the registration distance so deep because they wanted to be able to do a sideways swinging mirror, which the only ended up using in 2 bodies (E330 and E300).

They designed their mount around a bad idea, which they only tried twice, which were failed bodies, and lead them to making a whole new mount years later instead of being able to call their current mount good enough.

On the Leica, off set micro lenses work fine as you go more tele. They aren't going to hurt things. Yes, M bodies only go out to 135mm. But it's not that the design from an optic stand point couldn't go further. M bodies are just limited by the Range Finder.   But there are practical reasons too. Only big tele stuff happens beyond 135. A great deal of folks could go throughout there lives and never have a lens longer than 135. People did exactly that for decades. If you had a 180 or a 200 mm lens in the manual focus era you were about as far as non-pro's went.    With a small camera, not much interest is there in going super tele. That's why such needs will be covered with adapters for years to come. But also the days of the big tele are ticking down. As things move forwards, tele end of things will be handled more and more with cropping. 35mm FF cameras in the 30MP range may be just a heart beat away, and expecting a 60MP camera isn't to much of a stretch. Eventually cameras will just be single (or an assortment of 3-4) fixed lenses and do all the zoom with cropping.

I bet a lot of folks are looking at the future evil mounts and just wanting 3-4 (maybe 5 if they go for a macro) lenses. All small primes. Ranging from 14 to 135mm equivalent. And that becomes their entire kit in a nice small, high quality kit. Just like Leica M users have done for a half century.



I wasn't talking about registration distance PT. You said Oly made the mount 'too big' (not deep) - I assumed you meant the diameter of the mount. Once again that was done to allow for telecentrism. There's no other reason to do it that way.

Regarding the M9 sensor with it's offset micro-lenses: nobody knows whether they 'work fine' with 'big tele' lenses because there are none. The fully predictable result is that they will be inferior to a non offset sensor because they are designed to catch heavily divergent exit rays from non-retrofocus film-era wide-angles, which will be perpendicular on a tele. BTW In arguing this I am not putting forward any personal preference for long lenses. I'd be quite happy with an M9 and 24/35/90

As I said before Leica is a special case that doesn't apply to either Sony or Oly.
Back to Top
douglasf13 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 25 September 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 1730
Post Options Post Options   Quote douglasf13 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 March 2010 at 04:30
Originally posted by PhotoTraveler PhotoTraveler wrote:


I bet a lot of folks are looking at the future evil mounts and just wanting 3-4 (maybe 5 if they go for a macro) lenses. All small primes. Ranging from 14 to 135mm equivalent. And that becomes their entire kit in a nice small, high quality kit. Just like Leica M users have done for a half century.


This is exactly what I want. I love my A900, but I've considered selling all of my a mount gear for an M9 and a lens or two. I haven't quite been able to stomach the cost, so a more affordable solution is welcome.


p.s. interestingly enough.....link to rangefinder news

Edited by douglasf13 - 30 March 2010 at 04:33
----
douglasferling.com
NEX-5, Hasselblad V, Leicaflex SL, Hipstamatic (former A900, A700, A100 owner.)
Back to Top
RubberDials View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 03 January 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 1339
Post Options Post Options   Quote RubberDials Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 March 2010 at 16:23
Originally posted by douglasf13 douglasf13 wrote:



p.s. interestingly enough.....link to rangefinder news


That must be some kind of joke. Autofocus rangefinder? The long damped travel of rangefinder focussing is incompatible with AF. AF needs a short throw and no resistance.

Also a 35mm f1.2 is impossible.
Back to Top
edgaillard View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 20 February 2009
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 33
Post Options Post Options   Quote edgaillard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 April 2010 at 03:57
Originally posted by RubberDials RubberDials wrote:



Also a 35mm f1.2 is impossible.


Voigtlander makes a 35mm f/1.2. I've heard that Samyang does as well.
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Camera Talk Page  <1 7891011 20>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Feel free to contact us if needed.