[quote name='joachim' timestamp='1285024077' post='3020']
Surprise surprise. I used to see lots of them in tourist spots.[/quote]
That's maybe why then. I never visit tourist spots <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.
Is that really true? That is not what I see happening, although I guess that could be true for a larger company with their own production facilities if it is a tight lipped organisation.
Well, Canon did provide an adapter... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. Of course it didn't help that the FD register distance was even shorter than that of the EF-mount <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.
Well, from what I see, retrofocus lenses, especially UWA, seem to suffer less from vignetting than non-retrofocus lenses, but that may have to do with the barrel sizes as well. And some of the retrofocus UWs are so incredibly good, I wonder how they will be able to improve them without making them even bigger, and that is also true for a short register distance, when the sensor still is quite large. Don't forget that at extreme WAs, the light rays tend to create shadows over the wells, and create all kinds of other (refraction) effects, like is happening with the Leica sensor, even with its special pixel arrangement. Retrofocus helps here, because essentially a second imaging system can be created that keeps the final light rays relatively parallel, thus getting around some of the innate problems of sensors and light incidence at steep angles.
Unfortunately, these designs do make for big and expensive lenses <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. The Nikkor 14-24 F/2.8 and the Canon TS-E 17L come to mind...
Kind regards, Wim
Surprise surprise. I used to see lots of them in tourist spots.[/quote]
That's maybe why then. I never visit tourist spots <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.Quote:The problem with patents is, your competition also reads them and knows what you are up to. Patents typically get filed when the project is abandoned. In case someone else does it you can make them pay.
Is that really true? That is not what I see happening, although I guess that could be true for a larger company with their own production facilities if it is a tight lipped organisation.
Quote:Minolta MD and Canon FD
Well, Canon did provide an adapter... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. Of course it didn't help that the FD register distance was even shorter than that of the EF-mount <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.Quote:Have a look at the nice Leica, Marcus showed pictures from. I am sceptically about the present EF lenses on a mirror less at the default option. I would want a short register to be able to put glass closer to the sensor. Free up the lens designers. Just remember what Zeiss did for the Sony R1.
Well, from what I see, retrofocus lenses, especially UWA, seem to suffer less from vignetting than non-retrofocus lenses, but that may have to do with the barrel sizes as well. And some of the retrofocus UWs are so incredibly good, I wonder how they will be able to improve them without making them even bigger, and that is also true for a short register distance, when the sensor still is quite large. Don't forget that at extreme WAs, the light rays tend to create shadows over the wells, and create all kinds of other (refraction) effects, like is happening with the Leica sensor, even with its special pixel arrangement. Retrofocus helps here, because essentially a second imaging system can be created that keeps the final light rays relatively parallel, thus getting around some of the innate problems of sensors and light incidence at steep angles.
Unfortunately, these designs do make for big and expensive lenses <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. The Nikkor 14-24 F/2.8 and the Canon TS-E 17L come to mind...Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
