Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Andrew Reid

Hasselblad mirrorless camera

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
6 hours ago, John Matthews said:

Is it possible that Sony's e-mount was originally made for APS-C,

Yes. It was designed when Sony thought mirrorless should be small and compact and thus APS-C is enough. Fitting a full frame sensor behind that mount was both stupid and a engineering masterpiece. 

Quote

Why isn't Sony producing wide, fast lenses for the mount, ones that don't have a massive flange? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they can.

I think they could, but lenses would get even bigger. The small flange distance and the tiny mount diameter are giving the lens designers a really hard time. 

Quote

Also, don't they need a bigger mount for the IBIS? That sensor needs to move around in there.

Yes. And IBIS does of course affect image quality. Very likely it's electronically corrected and people just don't care. Image quality from µFT, APS-C and full frame is more than good enough, so why even bother searching for the problems?

3 hours ago, sanveer said:

There may be many reasons why the Sont Lenses are Huge.

To begin with they resolve more pixels per sq cm of lens surface area.

Lol. No. Those G Masters are just in the same league as others (Nikkor, Canon, Zuiko, Fujinon have been for quite some time. And when it comes to aspherical lenses, Panasonic is extremely good too) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, richg101 said:

I have a feeling the reason the sony is so large is that it might be a re-purposed lens.  probably originally designed for a-mount, or at the very least designed to be onfigured to be used with a a-mount camera, and then the optical design has been translated into e-mount.  the additional 30mm length to make up for the lack of mirror.  

I disagree, check the cutaway below. That's an e-mount lens through and through.

 

Screen Shot 2016-06-22 at 10.36.23 AM.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew,

 

You make ridiculous conclusions .

 Saying that the 1DXII is not an advancement over the1Dx is ludicrous!

 Higher resolution, 14 FPS 16 with live view . Touch screen focus, Dual Axel autofocus . Better battery, significantly faster auto focus . 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I watched part of their livestream and they're definitely promoting these cameras for their small size. The 2 lenses they're putting out there are a 45mm F3.5 (notice they don't show the hood on the marketing material) and a 90mm F4.5. I wouldn't regard these lenses as "fast." I wouldn't consider them really pancake either. I'm beginning to wonder if, indeed, they will have the same issue as the G-masters. That said, I'm sure they'll be amazing still cameras... I doubt it for video... not unless Sony gave them a whole bunch of tech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great article, Andrew!

Yes no one should be able to patent a compressed raw codec.  I think that's why Red sued Sony over the f65 compressed raw format.  But I think BMCC has compressed raw now - so maybe just the way they compress raw.

Anyway, I wish more companies tackle this issue.

Can't help but remind me of Silicon Valley and their compression scheme - middle-out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, John Matthews said:

So, I watched part of their livestream and they're definitely promoting these cameras for their small size. The 2 lenses they're putting out there are a 45mm F3.5 (notice they don't show the hood on the marketing material) and a 90mm F4.5. I wouldn't regard these lenses as "fast." I wouldn't consider them really pancake either. I'm beginning to wonder if, indeed, they will have the same issue as the G-masters. That said, I'm sure they'll be amazing still cameras... I doubt it for video... not unless Sony gave them a whole bunch of tech.

You don't concider f3.5 as fast enough for Medium Format?

36 minutes ago, Ed_David said:

 But I think BMCC has compressed raw now - so maybe just the way they compress raw.

Yup, if using the latest firmware, there are no Blackmagic that shoots uncompressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

You don't concider f3.5 as fast enough for Medium Format?

Not my point... read my comments before. I was simply stating that the flange on the G-master lenses was large compared to some of the DSLR offerings. I'm hoping that this Hasselblad would not fall subject to the same problem...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/6/2016 at 5:02 PM, Eric Calabros said:

shocking statements. especially from experienced videographer.

what actually changes the human face shape is Perspective Distortion. and perspective is only, and only, and only depended on your distance to object. period. NOT ANGLE OF VIEW! that's why a fixed position zoom lens doesn't change the perspective (a 200mm image has same perspective of 100mm image, its only 2x crop of same image). so photographer A with 35mm lens on his A7S with 5 meters distance to model girl, has same perspective of her that photographer B with 50mm lens on his MF camera in same distance, already has. and No, BIG NO! 50mm lens of a bigger format does not necessarily has lower optical distortion than its equivalent brother 35mm on smaller format. clear example: Fuji 16mm f/1.4 distortion: %1.39  Nikon FX 24mm f/1.8 distortion: %1.9 negative. Canon 24mm f/2.8: %1.8 (heck Fuji is sharper than both of them wide open).

what you guys talking about here is mostly about optical design approaches, not format advantage. sometimes designers' goal is to achieve maximum resolving, sometimes they go for character. sometimes they care too much about astigmatism, sometimes they don't. sometimes they accept some trade-offs to make it smaller, sometimes they don't. look at these two monsters, both made for FF format, both have near identical FOV (43.7° vs. 40° 50'), both f/1.4. but one is 385 g and the other is 1030 g! Nikkor is much softer wide open, but people love its 3D look and focus transition. the thing is many of those designed-with-character-aim lenses are made for MF format in the past. it doesn't mean they cant do the same for FF. it doesn't mean they cant do the same for smaller than FF. Fuji did the same for DX format with its 56mm f/1.2 APD. 

 

Untitled-1.jpg

Thank you! We see all these mathematical equivalent photos from different size sensors and some don't believe in it because they say they can see a difference.. OF CAUSE there is a diffence. The lens designs are proprobly not the same.

When comparing stuff like this, you need exact copies of all the involved things.. sensor, lens, subject.. Only the size can change. But this is not possible in real world, as there are many small differences.

It's like most MF sensores are CCD. It's a completely different design, so you can't compare the image 1:1.

But yes. I think lens design is what causes most of these highly controversial statements..

On 21/6/2016 at 8:51 PM, John Matthews said:

I just hope it doesn't run into this type of situation. Three FF cameras to scale: notice the mirrorless one has an enormous flange. I think it's just physics.

a7RIIvs5DsRvsa99_24-70mmf2.8-800x353.jpg

Petapixel had a whole article on this here:

http://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sonys-full-frame-pro-mirrorless-fatal-mistake/

 

8 hours ago, richg101 said:

I have a feeling the reason the sony is so large is that it might be a re-purposed lens.  probably originally designed for a-mount, or at the very least designed to be onfigured to be used with a a-mount camera, and then the optical design has been translated into e-mount.  the additional 30mm length to make up for the lack of mirror.

Sorry but have you even taken the time to look at the lens designs (they are easily googlable)? They could EASILY have made the Sony GM 24-70 f/2.8 smaller with an older design. They chose to do a completely new design that can take a much higher megapixel count then the Canon can - (that was not a "With Canon you can" joke).. The Sony GM is superior - well atleast in sharpness that is! :)

I love shooting mirrorless. I can have a small camera to go on family trips, or I can have much DSLR-like lenses for work :-) With a DSLR it will always be bigger, even with pancake lenses :)

 

Mirrorless design vs mirror design.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dennis L Sorensen said:

Thank you! We see all these mathematical equivalent photos from different size sensors and some don't believe in it because they say they can see a difference.. OF CAUSE there is a diffence. The lens designs are proprobly not the same.

When comparing stuff like this, you need exact copies of all the involved things.. sensor, lens, subject.. Only the size can change. But this is not possible in real world, as there are many small differences.

It's like most MF sensores are CCD. It's a completely different design, so you can't compare the image 1:1.

But yes. I think lens design is what causes most of these highly controversial statements..

 

Sorry but have you even taken the time to look at the lens designs (they are easily googlable)? They could EASILY have made the Sony GM 24-70 f/2.8 smaller with an older design. They chose to do a completely new design that can take a much higher megapixel count then the Canon can - (that was not a "With Canon you can" joke).. The Sony GM is superior - well atleast in sharpness that is! :-)

I love shooting mirrorless. I can have a small camera to go on family trips, or I can have much DSLR-like lenses for work :-) With a DSLR it will always be bigger, even with pancake lenses :-)

Mirrorless design vs mirror design.png

If you read my post I said 'I have a feeling'.  my feeling was wrong. Fair enough.  well there you have it.  sony could have made a smaller lens with performance to match the shite canon offering, but instead used that extra space for further elements.  the result? a lens that delivers resolution good enough for the 42mpx a7rii.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Leica50mm said:

Andrew,

 

You make ridiculous conclusions .

 Saying that the 1DXII is not an advancement over the1Dx is ludicrous!

 Higher resolution, 14 FPS 16 with live view . Touch screen focus, Dual Axel autofocus . Better battery, significantly faster auto focus . 

 

 

I think he is talking about the Image Quality (IQ).. What you discripe is:

1) A bigger image - not better IQ ("higher resolution")

2) More pictures - not better IQ ("14 fps vs 16 fps")

3 Focus improvements - not better IQ ("touch screen AF", "dual pixel AF", "significantly faster auto focus")

so more.. but not better :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

I thought the 1dx ii has significant DR improvements in raw?

Any tests yet?

Yes but significant improvement of a mediocrity does not necessary give something great. Actually the DR is still less good than on a 600$ D5500. Is this acceptable for 10 times the price? You judge.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...