FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

STF mode in Maxxum 7 recreated for DSLR's

Page  <1 23456>
Author
AlexKarasev View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 27 March 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 874
Post Options Post Options   Quote AlexKarasev Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 November 2009 at 08:38
Originally posted by wolfdagon wolfdagon wrote:

Originally posted by N_Raged N_Raged wrote:

And it wouldn't make sense for Sony to include an STF mode in camera. Doing so would kill sales of the 135/2.8 STF lens itself.


I also agree with you on this. I was always surprised that Minolta included it in the Maxxum 7 for this reason.


Actually I think it goes well with Minolta's (and now SONY's) philosophy of adding value to all lenses with camera body function. Think of in-body SSS vs. one that has to be built dedicated in each lens that is to have this function. It is pretty clear the advantage is to have a common function in a common place, strengthening the system overall. That's what drives the market share and profits and economies of scale for further R&D investment - not any individual instrument.

If SONY had added STF in-body plus sensor tilt (at least along the long axis) in-body (thus making every lens a tilt lens e.g. for DOF control in macro and product photography), they could further strengthen the system's appeal and reinforce the value they are already delivering with SSS being applicable to all lenses due to being implemented in the body.

-- Alex Karasev
 



Back to Top
albnok View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 01 October 2007
Location: Malaysia
Status: Offline
Posts: 1018
Post Options Post Options   Quote albnok Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 November 2009 at 08:56
Did somebody say Zeiss 135mm F1.8 through the Dynax 7's STF?



Dare I say that from memory (since I did not shoot a reference F1.8 shot) that the DOF seems deeper due to the apodization on the OOF areas. This might also explain why the STF lens itself doesn't seem to have an easily shallow DOF at times. (While the Minolta 135mm F2.8 would scream bokeh in your face.)

Probably will revisit this subject with my A900 and 135mm F1.8 as I'm sure it would yield a shallower DOF.
Back to Top
tuanle View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 18 January 2009
Country: United Kingdom
Location: NY, US
Status: Offline
Posts: 419
Post Options Post Options   Quote tuanle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 November 2009 at 08:56
I did use this idea on my A350 with the CZ 16-80

f 4.5-10



My conclusion: I should not use f > 7 :D

Edited by tuanle - 04 November 2009 at 08:58
Back to Top
Alanbrowne View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 17 May 2009
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Posts: 1056
Post Options Post Options   Quote Alanbrowne Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 November 2009 at 23:23
Originally posted by N_Raged N_Raged wrote:

And it wouldn't make sense for Sony to include an STF mode in camera. Doing so would kill sales of the 135/2.8 STF lens itself.


Hardly. The STF is really in its element doing portraiture and there is no way to use the simulated STF mode for that unless the subject is embalmed waiting for the wake to end...
Back to Top
Alanbrowne View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 17 May 2009
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Posts: 1056
Post Options Post Options   Quote Alanbrowne Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 November 2009 at 23:26
Originally posted by photoman photoman wrote:

at the request of Alanbrowne, i have redone this technique with a scene that has more specular highlights.


I notice a couple places where the highlights exhibit a harsh ring in them (upper left in phots as well as upper right).

Not "STF" class, alas.
Back to Top
matthiaspaul View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 08 September 2006
Country: Germany
Status: Offline
Posts: 940
Post Options Post Options   Quote matthiaspaul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 November 2009 at 11:27
Originally posted by beline beline wrote:

Originally posted by Pekka L Pekka L wrote:

Is there really something mechanical preventing this from happening in one go, if the masters presiding over incamera software so desire?

I mean, can the aperture lever not be moved during the exposure? I would imagine that must be possible. They could take out any further problems by rolling the shutter seven times during the exposure, to make sure every aperture position let's light through only for the exact time required.

Exactly, I really see no reason the aperture lever can not be moved during exposure, it would be interesting to see if the aperture could be "slide" from one f-stop to the next, with the camera doing the correct calculation to determine the shutter speed.

This is exactly how it should work, slowly close the aperture in a defined way during the exposure. It may not work for the shorter shutter speeds (the shortest emulated shutter speed the Dynax 7 STF mode can work with is 1/500s), but for the longer speeds (say 1/20s and longer) it should be possible to implement it this way. Actually, this is on our list of improvements for (Konica Minolta and) Sony for quite a while, but so far they didn't even bother to reintroduce the Dynax 7 STF mode at all. :-(

http://www.mi-fo.de/forum/index.php?showtopic=9250&view=findpost&p=130071 [de]

Or, like you suggest, rolling the shutter without dropping the mirror (which I actually don't think is possible, IIRC the mirror return is mechanicaly significant to the shutter resetting, I may be wrong though)...

It may depend on the camera. In the Dynax 9, closing and reopening the aperture (DOF preview) requires to flip the mirror as well (but not to open the shutter). In cameras implementing "silent" DOF preview (since Dynax 7), the aperture is driven independent of the mirror and shutter mechanism, thereby also providing means to change the aperture in DOF preview.
Moving the mirror without opening the shutter is possible with other cameras as well, for example the MLU mode of the DSLR-A900 and DSLR-A850 works this way, when it resets back to normal after some idle time (unfortunately). You may be right about recocking the shutter without moving down the mirror being mechanically impossible, though. However, if so, it shouldn't be to hard to implement it in slightly different way so that both actions can be decoupled.

Regarding multi-exposures on DSLRs further up in this thread, of course, I meant Sony Alpha DSLRs, which don't provide this feature. Providing a buffer large enough for x frames for a generic multi-exposure might be a problem, but this would not be a problem for an STF mode unless combined with very long shutter speeds, because Sony won't need 7 buffers to combine the shots in camera. Instead, in perfect analogy to a film multi-exposure they could just fire the shutter 7 times in short succession (and as per STF program) without reading out the image, so the sensor will work as a charge buffer (that's what an imaging sensor is designed for, after all ;-). Since STF mode normally finishes within less than 2 seconds - at least in the range of short shutter speeds where the above approach to slowly close the aperture during a single exposure might not work - the dark current may not become much of an issue in STF mode, but if it does, the camera could utilize the dark frame subtraction method just as it does for normal long exposures.

Sure WE would love it, but how many consumers are going to know what STF means, or even want it? How many people do you think it would sway? not many...

But the combination of many such features makes up what can convince users to buy into the Sony system, whereas now, many such features are driving users into the Nikon system... Sony will just have to get their act together and significantly fine-tune their products to make them more attractive to users. In the past year, however, they have worked in the opposite direction, removing one useful feature after the other.

This is how I see Sony's offerings such as the DSLR-A900 right now: Raw cameras, capable, but still very basic in the feature department. A good hardware base to improve on, but still missing alot of detail-refinement and customization.

Greetings,

Matthias

Edited by matthiaspaul - 06 November 2009 at 00:26
--

Minolta-Forum (MiFo) - German forum for the Minolta, Konica, Konica Minolta and Sony world of photography: http://www.mi-fo.de
 



Back to Top
kiklop View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Dyxum owner

Joined: 14 July 2005
Country: Croatia
Location: Rovinj
Status: Offline
Posts: 10564
Post Options Post Options   Quote kiklop Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 November 2009 at 13:36
Originally posted by matthiaspaul matthiaspaul wrote:


But the combination of many such features makes up what can convince users to buy into the Sony system, whereas now, many such features are driving users into the Nikon system... Sony just will have to get their act together and significantly fine-tune their products to make them more attractive to users. In the past year, however, they have worked in the opposite direction, removing one useful feature are the other.

This is how I see Sony's offerings such as the DSLR-A900 right now: Raw cameras, capable, but still very basic in the feature department. A good hardware base to improve on, but still missing alot of detail-refinement and customization.


And i second all of the above. Sony DSLR's Achilles heel isn't high image quality as many do imply but rather lack of features and options that modern DSLR cameras should provide.
Back to Top
kefkafloyd View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 July 2006
Country: United States
Location: Massachusetts
Status: Offline
Posts: 2455
Post Options Post Options   Quote kefkafloyd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 November 2009 at 14:27
Regarding multi-exposures on DSLRs further up in this thread, of course, I meant Sony Alpha DSLRs, which don't provide this feature. Providing a buffer large enough for x frames for a generic multi-exposure might be a problem, but this would not be a problem for an STF mode unless combined with very long shutter speeds, because Sony won't need 7 buffers to combine the shots in camera. Instead, in perfect analogy to a film multi-exposure they could just fire the shutter 7 times in short succession (and as per STF program) without reading out the image, so the sensor will work as a charge buffer (that's what an imaging sensor is designed for, after all ;-). Since STF mode normally finishes within less than 2 seconds - at least in the range of short shutter speeds where the above approach to slowly close the aperture during a single exposure might not work - the dark current may not become much of an issue in STF mode, but if it does, the camera could utilize the dark frame subtraction method just as it does for normal long exposures.


The a500/550's auto HDR is a multiexposure mode. I do not see it as unlikely that more multiexposure modes may come in the future.

Of course, people forget that it wasn't Sony that took the STF feature away from us - it was Minolta, because it was missing in our old KM 5D/7D too.

Edited by kefkafloyd - 05 November 2009 at 14:28
Back to Top
TallPaul View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 17 March 2006
Country: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 2824
Post Options Post Options   Quote TallPaul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 November 2009 at 21:48
now kefkafloyd, we all know that Minolta are saints and Sony are evil, stop confusing the matter
A900, 16-35/2.8Z, 70-200/2.8G, 85/1.4Z, 28-75/2.8, 50/1.7. Nex 6, 16-50mm & Rokkor MC/MD lenses.
Back to Top
6tyNine View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 April 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Posts: 1580
Post Options Post Options   Quote 6tyNine Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 November 2009 at 22:47
this is brilliant. i'm gonna try this tonight.

edit: just remember reading about this a looong time ago. 2 years actually... seems like PP has come a long way since then.

STF mode on Dynax 7

another related thread... http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/maxxum-7-stf-mode-experiments_topic26328_page1.html?KW=stf+mode

Edited by 6tyNine - 05 November 2009 at 23:08
Sony α100, Sony 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6, Sony 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6
Back to Top
AlexKarasev View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 27 March 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 874
Post Options Post Options   Quote AlexKarasev Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 November 2009 at 23:32
... I distinctly remember getting into the firmware debate some time ago that was decisively ended after one commenter pointed out the REALITY: No mater how simple the update may seem to us, they must go through the same process; concept, approval, development, debugging, submittal, approval, finalizing, distribution. And many little steps in between.


:-) With the benefit of only having waited a few days I can smugly reply that apparently SONY is not above releasing a firmware update, even for a single and somewhat obscure (to average user of the cameras in question) feature, that nobody has even particularly complained about.

Originally posted by beline beline wrote:

It sucks, but the costs are there, and it is pointless for Sony to implement niche updates that won't actually PAY for themselves.


I think you are absolutely right on this one. It is clear SONY is willing to update firmware, but if it is for something WE want the burden is on us to unite and collectively tell SONY in an organized way that this is in fact what we want and we are prepared to be the ambassadors / marketers of the feature's benefit to make it worth their while. And if this past firmware update is any indication, SONY's threshold to justify a FW isn't even very high - they probably just want to hear it from a few warm bodies around the world with non-zero online reputations and experience/portfolios.

-- Alex
Back to Top
beline View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 October 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 614
Post Options Post Options   Quote beline Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 November 2009 at 00:33
Alex. What are you talking about?
Back to Top
kefkafloyd View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 July 2006
Country: United States
Location: Massachusetts
Status: Offline
Posts: 2455
Post Options Post Options   Quote kefkafloyd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 November 2009 at 16:32
Originally posted by TallPaul TallPaul wrote:

now kefkafloyd, we all know that Minolta are saints and Sony are evil, stop confusing the matter


The KM 7D/5D also missed out on a lot of neat stuff that the Film 7 had, like the metering readout display, or the focus distance with DOF calculations on D lenses, etc.

These are things that IMO are less useful in the digital age because instant feedback destroys a lot of their need. They're toys, doodads.
Back to Top
sybersitizen View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 August 2006
Country: United States
Location: California
Status: Offline
Posts: 14457
Post Options Post Options   Quote sybersitizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 November 2009 at 17:04
Originally posted by beline beline wrote:

Alex. What are you talking about?

He's talking about the recent firmware update being discussed in this other thread. I agree that it was an unnecessary update and I can't help wondering if Sony also implemented some other change(s) that they aren't mentioning.
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Dyxum Community > Knowledge Base Page  <1 23456>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.078 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.