Jump to content

Nikon bought Samsung NX mirrorless tech. End of Samsung NX (?)


Pavel Mašek
 Share

Recommended Posts

Brian, I was wondering if the reason why my nikkor 28 1.4 looks so bad on digital is because of the glass on top of the sensor of my nikon d800 and if using the lens with a speedbooster on a smaller sensor would give it the punch it lacks (it also lacks in the center, but specially in the corners). Or if it's just a bad lens or copy and just not evident on 35mm film.

I would expect to see some degradation due to the filter stack.  However, the 28/1.4 Nikkor is reasonably telecentric AFAIK, so it should have less of the filter-induced astigmatism that plagues other designs.  Probably most of what you are seeing is due to the d800 having vastly cleaner and more detailed images than 35mm film, so its just showing faults in the lens that were always there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the problem with the editing function on this board? It keeps on inserting spurious elements from other posts in my replies.

This is a false generalization most likely based on weaknesses inherent to teleconverters, which magnify aberrations.  A well-designed focal reducer, on the other hand, will *shrink* the aberrations as mentioned above by Araucaria.  And with a little know-how you can even do better than that to actually design a focal reducer that compensates some of the aberrations in the master lens.  Here's a recent whitepaper that I wrote proving that a Metabones Speed Booster significantly increases the MTF of various lenses, including the extremely challenging case of a Zeiss Otus:  http://www.metabones.com/assets/a/stories/The Perfect Focal Reducer (Metabones Speed Booster ULTRA for M43) - Whitepaper.pdf

Disclaimer:  I develop the optics used in Metabones Speed Boosters

If that were true than lens manufacturers would include those elements in the lens column to improve IQ, and they don't. Which implies that things like speedboosters degrade IQ, not improve it. To suggest otherwise means that you believe in magic.

While it may well improve apparent IQ if you are using a lens designed for a different, larger, sensor size on a smaller one with a higher pixel density, it will never match a native lens designed specifically for that sensor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adding optical elements that were not designed for a specific optical path degrades resolution and will increase CA. Can't fight physics.

A speedbooster is a poor mans solution to buy greater apparent aperture or focal length. It is a hack. Any professional who uses one is not a real professional since he/she can't afford the proper tools of the trade.

I've been shooting for a living for over 2 decades, and one of the definitive signs that someone is an amateur is any statement like the above.

That's some massive insecurity you've got going on, man. Professionalism isn't about the gear.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the problem with the editing function on this board? It keeps on inserting spurious elements from other posts in my replies.

If that were true than lens manufacturers would include those elements in the lens column to improve IQ, and they don't. Which implies that things like speedboosters degrade IQ, not improve it. To suggest otherwise means that you believe in magic.

While it may well improve apparent IQ if you are using a lens designed for a different, larger, sensor size on a smaller one with a higher pixel density, it will never match a native lens designed specifically for that sensor.

Everything I said is true and is backed up with hard evidence.  There's no magic here - just good optics.  Perhaps you might actually read the white paper I gave you a link to?

Eventually, conservative established lens makers in Japan and Germany will wake up and realize the true benefit of the Speed Booster approach for designing high-speed short BFL optics.  With any luck I'll be retiring on royalties when they do :)

There are numerous examples of Speed Booster/lens combinations that beat native lenses.  For instance, a Voigtlander 90mm/3.5 plus S.B. gives a 60mm f/2.5 that is better than the latest Olympus 60mm f/2.8 macro lens:  http://***URL removed***/forums/post/51895542 .  A Sigma 35/1.4 plus S.B. gives a 25/1.0 that is much better than a Voigtlander 25/0.95:  http://***URL removed***/forums/post/55298481 .  And these examples use the old version of the Speed Booster.  The new ones referred to in my white paper are even better.  Finally, I defy you to find any f/1.0 lens with better image quality than a Zeiss Otus combined with a Speed Booster Ultra.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Brian (designer of the Metabones Speed Booster optics for those who don't realise) is 100% right

And I see it with my own eyes when I use the latest Speed Boosters, especially the XL-T on Micro Four Thirds.

I will likely be selling most of my native Micro Four Thirds lenses soon, unless the manufacturers wake up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything I said is true and is backed up with hard evidence.  There's no magic here - just good optics.  Perhaps you might actually read the white paper I gave you a link to?

Eventually, conservative established lens makers in Japan and Germany will wake up and realize the true benefit of the Speed Booster approach for designing high-speed short BFL optics.  With any luck I'll be retiring on royalties when they do :)

There are numerous examples of Speed Booster/lens combinations that beat native lenses.  For instance, a Voigtlander 90mm/3.5 plus S.B. gives a 60mm f/2.5 that is better than the latest Olympus 60mm f/2.8 macro lens:  http://***URL removed***/forums/post/51895542 .  A Sigma 35/1.4 plus S.B. gives a 25/1.0 that is much better than a Voigtlander 25/0.95:  http://***URL removed***/forums/post/55298481 .  And these examples use the old version of the Speed Booster.  The new ones referred to in my white paper are even better.  Finally, I defy you to find any f/1.0 lens with better image quality than a Zeiss Otus combined with a Speed Booster Ultra.

Sure, I read your "white paper". You compare before and after with the same lens. Of course you are going to see an "improvement" on the same camera because you are essentially putting a glorified magnifying glass between the lens and sensor. You are taking a larger image and shrinking it down to a smaller size to fit the sensor. So, for example an image that read "..I..I..I.." would become ".I.I.I.I.",  and that would appear to be more sharp, but it isn't really, it is just shrunk. Nothing comes for free, and in the course of that shrinking each additional lens element is going to compromise some IQ, which will be lost for good. A native lens will not do this, assuming both lenses are of equal quality (something that is impossible to control for if you are comparing different lenses from different manufacturers).

The acid test would be comparing the performance of a full frame lens on a full frame sensor that has the same pixel count as your crop sensor with the same lens +SB added.

If what you say is correct then the optical performance should be identical. But I suspect it is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Sure, I read your "white paper". You compare before and after with the same lens. Of course you are going to see an "improvement" on the same camera because you are essentially putting a glorified magnifying glass between the lens and sensor. You are taking a larger image and shrinking it down to a smaller size to fit the sensor. So, for example an image that read "..I..I..I.." would become ".I.I.I.I.",  and that would appear to be more sharp, but it isn't really, it is just shrunk. Nothing comes for free, and in the course of that shrinking each additional lens element is going to compromise some IQ, which will be lost for good. A native lens will not do this, assuming both lenses are of equal quality (something that is impossible to control for if you are comparing different lenses from different manufacturers).

The acid test would be comparing the performance of a full frame lens on a full frame sensor that has the same pixel count as your crop sensor with the same lens +SB added.

If what you say is correct then the optical performance should be identical. But I suspect it is not.

The "acid test" has already been done tugela and the effects proven.

I really suggest you get a bit more of a clue about what you are talking about, before embarrassing yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First speed boosters didn't do a thing, then it was that they did something but that native glass was better, and now that all what he has said was wrong, he exits saying that fullframe will be better than speedbooster plus lens. Sorry, that's obvious, but we all know that it's a falacy in this context, I even mentioned a couple of posts before, this "conversation" was about the usefulness of speedboosters (originally it was about Nikon mirrorless,the NX and it's weird mount nobody wants but the ones who bought lenses), you made a fool out of yourself by saiying they were a hack, useless and only for amateurs. Once without arguments your stick to a triviality to save your ego, it might work for your ego.

If the focal reducer is designed for a specific lens, there is no problem, it might even work better. I guess the next thing your ego spits out is that there is a tiny loose in transmission, and that's why it's a hack , useless and only for amateurs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3rd hand info put through a translator and yet again no indication of who this official source is, or how they came about giving this answer.

"Journalism" at its worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that local PR will always say this because they are out of the loop when it comes to high level business maneuvers. They are saying what they believe to be correct, but who knows what is really going on at corporate. One thing you can be absolutely certain about is that regional divisions in Samsung and Nikon will not know if there is in fact (or not) a deal in the works. That kind of information is not widely circulated within a company outside of a very limited circle at corporate. When corporate PR says something in an official press release (in other words, available on the company's website in the IR section), then you take note.

There may be people lower down in the company who have a pretty good idea about what is going on, or can guess, due to things they observe happening, and rumors can spring from that. It is always their interpretation of course, and they can be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "acid test" has already been done tugela and the effects proven.

I really suggest you get a bit more of a clue about what you are talking about, before embarrassing yourself.

Everything Tugela posts on this thread seems to say "kid with a 5 year old T2i who wishes someone would fund his zombie movie but his mom won't let him shoot in the back yard". Just ignore the guy. Anyone with this many pronouncements about what is and isn't a "professional" says "frustrated 14 year old kid" to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that local PR will always say this because they are out of the loop when it comes to high level business maneuvers. They are saying what they believe to be correct, but who knows what is really going on at corporate. One thing you can be absolutely certain about is that regional divisions in Samsung and Nikon will not know if there is in fact (or not) a deal in the works. That kind of information is not widely circulated within a company outside of a very limited circle at corporate. When corporate PR says something in an official press release (in other words, available on the company's website in the IR section), then you take note.

There may be people lower down in the company who have a pretty good idea about what is going on, or can guess, due to things they observe happening, and rumors can spring from that. It is always their interpretation of course, and they can be wrong.

Well said. But then may be there IS nothing to the rumor. Anyway, I'm kind of surprised at the level of participation here around rumors the last few weeks (every little rumor seems to get picked up and discussed to death), I guess folks are having a lot of free time around the holidays. I suppose it is fun, but I don't think execs at a $200 billion corp like Samsung are going to need (or care about) our opinions on what they should do about lens mounts or corporate strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything Tugela posts on this thread seems to say "kid with a 5 year old T2i who wishes someone would fund his zombie movie but his mom won't let him shoot in the back yard". Just ignore the guy. Anyone with this many pronouncements about what is and isn't a "professional" says "frustrated 14 year old kid" to me.

Well, I'm not a professional photographer, but I am a professional, and as a professional I can say one thing: you do NOT skimp on the tools of the trade. That is how you make your living, using jerry rigged bits and pieces doesn't cut it. I mean, would you go to a dentist who uses a repurposed home power drill to do fillings??? Lol.

Maybe you "professional" photographers are different from the rest of the world :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, I shoot comercials, tv series, I`ve done two film sets. everything is jerry rigged to some extent. Crane rigs, dolly tracks, light stands, difusor stands, camera power supply..."duct tape and sand bags are what makes the production" is a saying around here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'm not a professional photographer, but I am a professional, and as a professional I can say one thing: you do NOT skimp on the tools of the trade. That is how you make your living, using jerry rigged bits and pieces doesn't cut it. I mean, would you go to a dentist who uses a repurposed home power drill to do fillings??? Lol.

Maybe you "professional" photographers are different from the rest of the world :)

We all obviously live in different worlds. 

Having the best gear does NOT make you a professional. The thing that makes you a professional is getting the required job done to an excellent standard, always. 

I built my business is on DIY lighting, a few Canon FD lenses and a cheap DSLR.

I recently used a £5 "shitty" zoom lens on a decent budget music video shoot, because that lens was the best choice for the shot. The job was still professional, no matter what tools I used. I made the right decision, and that's what professionals do. 

I find on most sets that a lot of stuff is knocked together with duct tape, garbage bags and pieces of string. It doesn't matter what you use - the thing that matters is the final result. That's all people care about. 

An example... this particular shoot was shot with a GH3 and a few cheap vintage primes. The shot looking down over the cross shape was pulled off by sticking the GH3 on some rods, pulled against a pipe on the ceiling with a piece of string. The string was then tied to a suitcase on the ground with bricks in it, to keep the camera fixed and steady. No optical or electronic stabilisation used whatsoever. 

We had an idea and pulled it off by using whatever we could find. In the end, the solution was effective and the audience would never know. It doesn't make us any less of a professional when the end result doesn't say otherwise. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...