[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1283965001' post='2588']
Again, one does not have to care about the ghosting... but it is very evident in more situations that I thought it would before. That is because now we have access to RAW conversion results, the soft JPEGs were hiding it more.
[/quote]
I can see what you mean. However, I'm not 100% convinced that the cause is really the mirror - the effect should be more gradual I think. I just had a look at their sample gallery and I didn't really find something obvious.
Here's a typical candidate according to your logic:
http://masters.galleries.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/489311.jpg
Lots of hard contrasts in there yet there's nothing suspicious as far as I can tell.
However, I've seen images with the same kind of "ghostings" in another scope - produced by the Pentax FA* 80-200/2.8. And according to Pentax this was a normal behavior of that lens (caused by internal reflections).
Anyway, my A33 will arrive during the next few days and I will have a look.
[quote name='admin' timestamp='1283980924' post='2596']
I can see what you mean. However, I'm not 100% convinced that the cause is really the mirror - the effect should be more gradual I think. I just had a look at their sample gallery and I didn't really find something obvious.
Here's a typical candidate according to your logic:
http://masters.galleries.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/489311.jpg
Lots of hard contrasts in there yet there's nothing suspicious as far as I can tell.
However, I've seen images with the same kind of "ghostings" in another scope - produced by the Pentax FA* 80-200/2.8. And according to Pentax this was a normal behavior of that lens (caused by internal reflections).
Anyway, my A33 will arrive during the next few days and I will have a look.
[/quote]
I am sure there have been lenses in the past which have produced ghost images of some sort. They never produce an image with an off-set copy of the original image like we see here, though.
And it is not just my logic, others have come to the same conclusion. People have even warned about this possibility when the use of beam splitting mirrors was only still a patent application last year or so (yes, you can patent the silliest "don't we know that already?" ideas).
And it surely is not "the lens". Because: A. Lenses just can not cause a double image, and B. Imaging resource showed a comparison from an A55v with the same 18-55 kit lens as on the A560. Ghost flash light images for the A55v, not the A560.
And other lenses from users also show it.
09-09-2010, 04:28 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-09-2010, 07:36 PM by Klaus.)
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1284023236' post='2601']
And it surely is not "the lens". Because: A. Lenses just can not cause a double image, and B. Imaging resource showed a comparison from an A55v with the same 18-55 kit lens as on the A560. Ghost flash light images for the A55v, not the A560.
And other lenses from users also show it.
[/quote]
Here's a 100% sample crop taken with the Pentax K10D and the FA* 80-200mm f/2.8.
Please feel free to comment on the cause. According to Pentax it's the lens ...
I do believe you that the A33/A55 can produce "double images" in certain situations.
So now what do we wait for? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' /> <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1284023236' post='2601']
I am sure there have been lenses in the past which have produced ghost images of some sort. They never produce an image with an off-set copy of the original image like we see here, though.
And it is not just my logic, others have come to the same conclusion. People have even warned about this possibility when the use of beam splitting mirrors was only still a patent application last year or so (yes, you can patent the silliest "don't we know that already?" ideas).
And it surely is not "the lens". Because: A. Lenses just can not cause a double image, and B. Imaging resource showed a comparison from an A55v with the same 18-55 kit lens as on the A560. Ghost flash light images for the A55v, not the A560.
And other lenses from users also show it.
[/quote]
Lenses actually can create double images. It is not common, but it is possible, both in theory and in practice.
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 ....
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1284123881' post='2635']
The A33 arrived today.[/quote]
But B&H still do not have them. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' /> By any chance did you get the 35/1.8 as well?
[quote name='Yakim' timestamp='1283867859' post='2575']
We shot hundreds of frames with two samples of the A55 and the A33 in 'real world' environments, and after examining them all pragmatically as well as critically, we're confident that Sony has controlled this issue very well.
Good to hear.
[/quote]
luminous-landscape.com seals it with the following comments:
"There has been chatter on the forums about ghosting being seen on some images taken with the A55. This apparently caused by the use of a pellicle mirror.
I've seen the online examples, but have not seen any evidence of ghosting in any of the hundreds of frames that I have shot myself, including ones where I deliberately tried to make it happen. To the extent that there is such an issue, I regard it as quite minor and of the pixel peeping variety, and unlikely to be of issue to most photographers who aren't micro-examining their images at 200% on-screen."
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a55-further.shtml
He (Michael Reichmann) also discusses all of the other (non)issues, with very different opinion than Brightcolours. Could it be the hands-on experience with the camera that made the difference?
[quote name='boren' timestamp='1284489757' post='2754']
luminous-landscape.com seals it with the following comments:
"There has been chatter on the forums about ghosting being seen on some images taken with the A55. This apparently caused by the use of a pellicle mirror.
I've seen the online examples, but have not seen any evidence of ghosting in any of the hundreds of frames that I have shot myself, including ones where I deliberately tried to make it happen. To the extent that there is such an issue, I regard it as quite minor and of the pixel peeping variety, and unlikely to be of issue to most photographers who aren't micro-examining their images at 200% on-screen."
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a55-further.shtml
He (Michael Reichmann) also discusses all of the other (non)issues, with very different opinion than Brightcolours. Could it be the hands-on experience with the camera that made the difference?
[/quote]
Could you just use your eyes yourself, instead of talking after that website? It is not like I have not given links to examples, now is it?
Whether you fine it objectionable or not, is for YOU to decide. But stop putting to question the existence of the issue.
Yes, I've seen plenty of images from the A55 and I agree with both luminous-landscape.com and dpreview.com. Their judgment of this non-issue is spot on.
|
