Fotokina 2014

[BJL]

If Olympus (Pen F) and Canon (Dial 35) didn't go and make "half frame"

Didn't Olympus call them "single frame" (harking back to the original 24x18mm frame of 35mm film when it was used mostly for movies) as opposed to "double frame", the early name for the doubled 36x24mm still format pioneered by Leica?

Anyway, people stopped using "full frame" for still film cameras back in the 1980's; that is not why it is used for 36x24mm format now. Instead, it was revived to distinguish from digital cameras that used lenses designed for 36x24mm but which forced a substantial crop of the images that those lenses were designed to deliver.  That need is ancient history now, so the phrase is an anachronism like "horseless carriage", and I seriously wonder why the utterly familiar "35mm" is not now the obvious description.  It is a lot more accurate than the universal use of the obscure and obsolete film format "APS-C" as a size description for digital cameras, since that film format was larger than any so-called APS-C digital sensor.

Full-frame lives on as relevant in DMF, where most lenses are still design for the 56x42mm of "645" format and so sensor sizes like 44x33mm are "wide-angle challenged".

[Telecaster]

FF is not status symbol arrogance, some people prefer it because of the different look it gives and because all the 35mm format lenses work as expected.

Substitute "35mm" for "full frame" or "FF" and I'll be in agreement with you. It's not the format I have an issue with.

I know there are claims that "full frame" goes back to APS film, but the first time I ever heard or saw the term used to describe 35mm was around when the Canon 1Ds and Contax N Digital came on the market. In the film era referring to a frame size no larger than a US overseas airmail stamp as "full" would've been laughable.   

-Dave-

[Ernst Dinkla]

The LX100 looked interesting as more compact makers move to bigger sensors higher up the range
I don't think it was a bad show from what I can see maybe no killer "wow" stuff but not bad.

The LX100 answered some of my ideas about which way the camera industry could go. Panasonic did use larger sensors than the lenses could cover in their cameras before the LX100 but this time it is more pronounced. It allows different aspect ratio choices that offer similar total image resolutions as they do not crop on the lens covered sensor area itself. I'm curious how good that lens is. Limiting the focal range to keep a lens small and fast is a  wise decision too. They could still offer a LX101 with longer zoom next to this one or go for interchangeable lenses with that concept.

Throwing digital bits away of unused sensor area in image taking is something else than not using film area though digital camera designers seem to be stuck with the idea they are still wasting film. Ample sensor area and lenses that cover that area more or less in relation to their size/task/etc should be an idea more embraced. Sony's A7R already allows that if their E mount lenses were interesting, they are not. A square mask is not selectable on the EVF and sensor, should be available on the next firmware update. Sensor image stabilisation is not available either in that camera, they dropped that when going from SLR to mirrorless. APS-C lenses on FF sensors do not occupy sensor space as nicely as M4/3 lenses on APS-C sensors.

Stretching this idea more and with interchangeable lenses I wonder whether Ricoh or Pentax ever signed the M4/3 club agreements. A real mirrorless "Pentax" body with the 5 axis image stabilised APS-C sensor + M4/3 mount at M4/3 focal distance would allow any aspect ratio between square and panorama with M4/3 lenses without resolution loss that is usually the result of a crop on the lens covered sensor area.

>>There still is some loss as a 1:3 panorama aspect ratio within a given circle contains less area than a 1:1 square area in that circle but way less waste than cropping on an already small sensor. The normal M4/3 lenses cover a 15,7 mm square in the center of a normal 23,5x15,7 APS-C sensor.<<

There is also ample sensor area left for shift or panorama with new M4/3 lenses that have more sensor cover, no need for shift lenses then. The  digital shift on the new Olympus update sounds too much like a Photoshop solution. What I mention is a true physical shift without any shift mechanisms, only the relation sensor area to EVF area needs to shift or zoom. The Fuji Hasselblad Xpan comes to mind for the panorama feature.

True the M4/3 mount size and focal distance should have had Sony E mount properties to make this idea even more attractive but at least the M4/3 mount has a wide lens range to fill it. When Samsung introduced their mirrorless mount they did not even consider the possibility of M mount lens adaption so it can be done worse.

We have seen enough interchangeable lens, mirrorless cameras with sensors too small for comfort from Nikon, Canon, Pentax, etc. They will never get the lens range M4/3 already has. Pentax's mirrorless designs go straight to collector's shelves due to their bad concept + low production numbers and I think the Ricoh's are destinated to go the same route. However enough skill at Ricoh/Pentax to design new and special M4/3 lenses and a body like mentioned. That small Ricoh Photokina booth with the interesting images shower could be twice the size next time if it had the camera and lenses ready in two years.


--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
April 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots.

[NancyP]

Holy moley! Saw off the lens hood and Nikkor 14-24 has a usable image circle of ~75mm? 10 degrees tilt? 5 mm shift? Who knew? Well, Stefan Scheib, and boy does that 14-24 T/S look awesome, stimulated GAS attack. Good thing the video stopped just before Scheib mentioned the price 

[NancyP]

 Sony A77II or Samsung NX1 or Pentax or other In-Body Image Stabilization cameras might be fine paired with a supertelephoto, but I understand that when keeping IBIS on, the "keeper rate" of the Pentax 560mm is only 15% or so. Frame rate advantage (translucent mirror Sony A77, or Samsung) or ultimate weatherproofness (Pentax) may not outweigh the supertelephoto In-Lens image stabilization advantage. Granted, I, peon that I am, still shoot handheld with an outmoded but sharp and cheap no-IS Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L  lens, but I do aspire to one of the newer Canon f/4 superteles with good IS, to be used hand held as well as on tripod. I know that inadequate IS is not an issue with the new Canon superteles.

1,000+ exhibitors there - someone is showing film cameras, even if it is just Shen Hao with their field view cameras.

[Telecaster]

Good article IMO on Photokina by Thom Hogan. Read down past the camera maker summaries for his observations re. the utter lack of a seamless maker-provided camera-to-screen workflow/datapath. Given that most folks don't print you'd think some there'd be more some consideration of what they we actually (want to) do with photos.

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-lost-photokina.html

-Dave-

[LKaven]

Holy moley! Saw off the lens hood and Nikkor 14-24 has a usable image circle of ~75mm? 10 degrees tilt? 5 mm shift? Who knew? Well, Stefan Scheib, and boy does that 14-24 T/S look awesome, stimulated GAS attack. Good thing the video stopped just before Scheib mentioned the price 

Nancy!  A little cryptic there.  Do you have a source for information on the 14-24 mod?  Is that for real?  I always suspected that this lens had an outsized image circle.  If you've got a source on that, I want it!

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Yes it is real: https://www.facebook.com/122001131245665/photos/pb.122001131245665.-2207520000.1411506215./580077868771320/?type=1&theater

Best regards
Erik

Nancy!  A little cryptic there.  Do you have a source for information on the 14-24 mod?  Is that for real?  I always suspected that this lens had an outsized image circle.  If you've got a source on that, I want it!

[NancyP]

re: Nikkor 14-24 as T/S, by HCam/Hartblei engineer Scheib, see this site's report of Photokina day 4, scroll down to see HCam/Hartblei video:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/photokina____day_4_.shtml
Also see: http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/08/14/hartblei-introduces-hcam-master-ts-14-24mm-tilt-shift-optic-for-sony-e-moun
~$5,000.00 USD plus your favorite Sony A7r = T/S heaven?

[LKaven]

Yes!  Vindicated!  I've wondered for a long time whether the corner sharpness of the 14-24 came from the use of a  much outsized image circle.  I'd seen it mentioned, but could not find the mention again.  [Thanks for the references, Nancy and Bernard.]

I suspect that a number of high-end lenses use an outsized image circle to achieve their edge/corner performance.  The Otus apparently does, according to H-Cam.  I'll bet you that the Sigma Art lenses do too.

[This from photo.net]

Luke Kaven , Feb 28, 2010; 12:17 p.m.

Bjorn, is it true that the 14-24 has an enlarged image circle over other 35mm format lenses? I've seen people describe using the lens on a view camera, but for some reason, I can't find any of those references again.

Bjorn Rorslett , Feb 28, 2010; 12:24 p.m.

That must have been an extremely limited-view camera

As far as I'm aware of there is nothing special about the 14-24 (apart from its image quality).

[Ernst Dinkla]

Sony A77II or Samsung NX1 or Pentax or other In-Body Image Stabilization cameras might be fine paired with a supertelephoto, but I understand that when keeping IBIS on, the "keeper rate" of the Pentax 560mm is only 15% or so. Frame rate advantage (translucent mirror Sony A77, or Samsung) or ultimate weatherproofness (Pentax) may not outweigh the supertelephoto In-Lens image stabilization advantage. Granted, I, peon that I am, still shoot handheld with an outmoded but sharp and cheap no-IS Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L  lens, but I do aspire to one of the newer Canon f/4 superteles with good IS, to be used hand held as well as on tripod. I know that inadequate IS is not an issue with the new Canon superteles.

1,000+ exhibitors there - someone is showing film cameras, even if it is just Shen Hao with their field view cameras.

The NX1 (or any recent Samsung camera) does not have sensor image stabilisation. The possible exception; the early Samsung rebranded Pentax DSLRs of some years back. I have no experience with lenses that long. Sensor image stabilisation can be put Off and a lens with image stabilisation can be used on bodies like that.

Harman of Ilford films had a prototype of a 6x9 pinhole camera on the counter, extending the Walker camera designs. http://www.walkercameras.com/harman_titan_4x5_pinhole_camera.html
Lomo territory.
 
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
April 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots.

[jjj]

Substitute "35mm" for "full frame" or "FF" and I'll be in agreement with you. It's not the format I have an issue with.

I know there are claims that "full frame" goes back to APS film, but the first time I ever heard or saw the term used to describe 35mm was around when the Canon 1Ds and Contax N Digital came on the market. In the film era referring to a frame size no larger than a US overseas airmail stamp as "full" would've been laughable.  

No, it is not laughable, it is simply describing the size relative to the lenses being used on it. Nothing to do with absolute size of image capture area.
'Crop' sensors cameras only used a smaller part of the image circle when 35mm format lenses are used on them. I had a D20 years back and with my 35mm format lenses I got an annoyingly cropped images as APS-C and similar variants like are not full frame.
If these crop framed cameras had been launched with a different mount and selection of lenses, then the term FF would never have come up in conversation as it wouldn't have been relevant.


As for using the term 35mm to describe the format, imaging how ridiculous and confusing that could be. "Hey look at my 85mm 35mm lens" or "Hey look at my new 35mm 35mm lens" 

[telyt]

"Full frame" isn't an accurate description of the format but most of us understand what it means.  Likewise saying a 50mm lens "is like a 75mm lens" is inaccurate and can be confusing to those who don't know what it means but its use has become so embedded in 21st century photographic culture that rooting it out and substituting something more accurate is like pushing a rope uphill.  Like the "full frame" terminology.

[NancyP]

Is in-lens image stabilization purely autonomous operation of gyros and motors? Could I take a Canon IS lens and slap it on any mirrorless body and have the lens still maintain IS, or is some degree of body-lens communication needed?.

[jjj]

"Full frame" isn't an accurate description of the format but most of us understand what it means.

It is an accurate description, see my previous post. People's objections to the term are what is inaccurate.  

Likewise saying a 50mm lens "is like a 75mm lens" is inaccurate and can be confusing to those who don't know what it means but its use has become so embedded in 21st century photographic culture that rooting it out and substituting something more accurate is like pushing a rope uphill.  Like the "full frame" terminology.

Saying a 50mm lens on a 1.5x crop frame camera is like a 75mm on crop camera is not inaccurate either if they both give equivalent fields of view. Which is what people are really concerned with when asking about focal length.
Because of it's use and huge popularity for so long, lens fields of view tend to be referred to as compared to a 35mm equivalent. Even with large formats at times because they vary so much, 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7 plus the various digital variations of MFDSLRS where a 40mm may be the same as a 24mm on 35mm/FF with one size film/sensor and 28mm on 35mm/FF on a different film/sensor.

I have a Ricoh pocket camera with a 24-70mm equivalent lens, it is shortly going to be replaced by another compact camera also with a 24mm-70mm equivalent lens, I'm also eyeing up an EM1 with a 24-80mm equivalent lens. This makes comparing cameras with in this case, 3 different sensor sizes really easy. I don't really care or even know what the actual focal lengths are but I know how much coverage I can get with them - which is what actually matters.

[ErikKaffehr]

Yes,

I would agree. But I would also say that what is most important for me is having a system that does the job.

For telephoto work I often prefer an APS-C body with smaller pixels instead of using a full frame and an 1.4X converter. But everything also depends on the quality of the involved optics. We need to test to find out the optimal combo.

Best regards
Erik

"Full frame" isn't an accurate description of the format but most of us understand what it means.  Likewise saying a 50mm lens "is like a 75mm lens" is inaccurate and can be confusing to those who don't know what it means but its use has become so embedded in 21st century photographic culture that rooting it out and substituting something more accurate is like pushing a rope uphill.  Like the "full frame" terminology.

[telyt]

I have a Ricoh pocket camera with a 24-70mm equivalent lens, it is shortly going to be replaced by another compact camera also with a 24mm-70mm equivalent lens, I'm also eyeing up an EM1 with a 24-80mm equivalent lens.

Except these lenses aren't equivalent; only the angle of view is equivalent.  Some people get confused because when they read '75mm equivalent' they try to calculate an extension factor when using their 25mm extension tubes, for example, as though the lens is a 75mm focal length.

IMHO it would be much less confusing to express the equivalence as an angle of view, i.e., my 280mm lens on a camera with a 24mm x 36mm sensor yields an 8.8 degree angle of view.  Divide this angle of view by the crop factor to get the angle of view on a camera with a different size sensor.  i.e., my camera's crop factor is 1.37 so the 280's angle of view on this camera is about 8.5 degrees, roughly the same angle of view of a 400mm lens on a 24mm x 36mm sensor.

Accuracy is too wordy so we invent these shortcuts like 'full-frame' and 'equivalent focal length' that are not accurate but are widely understood.

[telyt]

Is in-lens image stabilization purely autonomous operation of gyros and motors? Could I take a Canon IS lens and slap it on any mirrorless body and have the lens still maintain IS, or is some degree of body-lens communication needed?.

I'm pretty sure (but not certain) that some communication is involved.

[BJL]

As for using the term 35mm to describe the format, imaging how ridiculous and confusing that could be. "Hey look at my 85mm 35mm lens" or "Hey look at my new 35mm 35mm lens"

Yet "35mm" is how the 36x24mm still camera format was commonly described for decades (at least in English speaking countries), without ever being confusing, and as far as I know it was not considered ridiculous.

But I am a fan of the usage in at least some European countries: 36x24mm, or "36x24" for short (since there is little likelihood of being misinterpreted as 36x24cm or such.)  Shorter to type and more precise than "full frame".

[BJL]

Except these lenses aren't equivalent; only the angle of view is equivalent.

As I think is almost universally known by people who know or care much about focal lengths.

Some people get confused because when they read '75mm equivalent' they try to calculate an extension factor when using their 25mm extension tubes, for example, as though the lens is a 75mm focal length.

Really?  I have never encounter or ever heard of someone who knows enough to use use extension tubes and yet is ignorant of this standard modern shorthand description. Surely any such person will look at the actual focal length, which is what is marked on any lens usable with extension tubes.

IMHO it would be much less confusing to express the equivalence as an angle of view

It would be nice, but we know it is never going to happen.  I like a variant based on "magnification", a bit like the way binoculars are described: "3x" means a focal length of three times the image diagonal, and so on, so "1x" is a "standard" lens. But that's not going to happen either.