Cameras to Pass Through the Eye of a Needle?

[boojum]

Minox, move over, we are talking about really tiny: https://phys.org/news/2021-11-camera-size-salt-grain.html

 

[p.giannakis]

Conspiracy theorists will love this. After Bill Gates microchip, this camera will be the next big hit on the internet.
​​​​
Seriously now, I have read before about research being done to develop sensors that do not require lenses to capture image. I am wondering if the end of the lens industry is drawing nearer.

 

[boojum]

Conspiracy theorists will love this. After Bill Gates microchip, this camera will be the next big hit on the internet.
​​​​
Seriously now, I have read before about research being done to develop sensors that do not require lenses to capture image. I am wondering if the end of the lens industry is drawing nearer.

The question will always be can the new technology mimic or improve the imaging we now have. It may have more detail or whatever but will it have the glow and romance of some lenses? I would guess that the propeller heads are working on software to do just that. After all, look what Kodak did with their CCD sensors. I have some old Jupiters which I like and an old Canon 28mm LTM that is really nice. And I like the newer CV lenses very much. I cannot see paying for Leica lenses as for what they cost the ROI is not there. But back to the question, the new lenses will cause new technology to go with them. And the dunces will be so happy that the Covid vaccines have cameras in them now. ROTFLMAO

 

[Rob-F]

I don't need one that small, but I'd like a digital with the form factor of a Minox B. There would be no place on it for an LCD screen, but I think that would be okay. Some people pay extra for a Leica M without a screen! I like that slender design and the pull-open, compose the shot in the viewfinder, and snap it closed ritual. But the film Minox B's IQ was marginal; I think a digital B would be a lot better, even at that tiny sensor size.

 

[ptpdprinter]

The question will always be can the new technology mimic or improve the imaging we now have. It may have more detail or whatever but will it have the glow and romance of some lenses?

Glow and romance? I take it you are referring to character, which is a euphemism for lens defects.

 

[Pál_K]

Where are you going to get film for that?

 

[newst]

Where are you going to get film for that?

Isn't it obvious? Microfilm.

 

[boojum]

Glow and romance? I take it you are referring to character, which is a euphemism for lens defects.

There are current lenses which have built into them what you refer to as "defects" for the purpose of glow and romance. Just as there are folks who prefer film and LP's. I'll mount whatever lens I can afford which gives me a look I like. I've got some old Russian lenses, and more in the mail, and old Japanese lenses. I also have a couple of new CV lenses. I have had some good luck with them all. The defects can be pleasing so why not embrace them?

 

[ptpdprinter]

There are current lenses which have built into them what you refer to as "defects" for the purpose of glow and romance. Just as there are folks who prefer film and LP's. I'll mount whatever lens I can afford which gives me a look I like. I've got some old Russian lenses, and more in the mail, and old Japanese lenses. I also have a couple of new CV lenses. I have had some good luck with them all. The defects can be pleasing so why not embrace them?

Why not post a photograph you have taken which you think exhibits glow and romance, and describe to us what characteristics visible in the image constitute glow and what characteristics constitute romance so we will have some idea what you mean? Do you think digital scans enhance or detract from glow and romance, or mask them altogether?

 

[boojum]

Why not post a photograph you have taken which you think exhibits glow and romance, and describe to us what characteristics visible in the image constitute glow and what characteristics constitute romance so we will have some idea what you mean? Do you think digital scans enhance or detract from glow and romance, or mask them altogether?

Here is first a photo with a Jupiter 8, 1955, at f/2.0, ISO 160. The tree and the moss on it are in focus but have a dreamy, ghostly look. The second photo is with a 28mm Canon f/2.8 LTM at f/5.6. The colors and detail are crisp and distinct. It has no soft-focus dreamy look to it, but the blues are great. Both are with the same Leica M9. Having no experience with digital scans I can offer no opinion. But I bet you can. ;o)

If you want some really good examples watch The Third Man shot with really old, probably pre-war in Austria, lenses as compared to what is being shot today. I would hazard to suggest you might see a difference. Might. The cinematography in The Third Man is classic film noir and excellent work. As I am sure you would agree.

Added later: From what I have read the early Jupiters 8's were straight copies of the pre-war Zeiss Sonnar 50mm f/2.0. The drawings of the internals seem to indicate that. And from what I read the very early Jupiter 8's pretty much were the pre-war Zeiss Sonnars as they were made with the Zeiss glass that went to the USSR along with the factory and technicians as part of WW II war reparations. Correct me if I am wrong. I do enjoy the effect it has on an image, clearly a different effect that what the Canon has. I can post a CV 35mm f/1.4 if you would like for vibrant color and sharpness.

Oh, what the hell, CV 35mm f/1.4 at f/1.4. Actually the full name is "Voigtländer Nokton Classic 35mm f/1.4 II MC." Nice sharp definition and solid color. I understand that the CV is softer at full aperture but have not yet tested that.

Now you have a progression of lenses, a '55 built to late 30's specs, a 60's and a current lens. All on the same M9.

Cheers

​

​

 

[ptpdprinter]

Here is first a photo with a Jupiter 8, 1955, at f/2.0, ISO 160. The tree and the moss on it are in focus but have a dreamy, ghostly look. The second photo is with a 28mm Canon f/2.8 LTM at f/5.6. The colors and detail are crisp and distinct. It has no soft-focus dreamy look to it, but the blues are great. Both are with the same Leica M9. Having no experience with digital scans I can offer no opinion. But I bet you can. ;o)

If you want some really good examples watch The Third Man shot with really old, probably pre-war in Austria, lenses as compared to what is being shot today. I would hazard to suggest you might see a difference. Might. The cinematography in The Third Man is classic film noir and excellent work. As I am sure you would agree.

Added later: From what I have read the early Jupiters 8's were straight copies of the pre-war Zeiss Sonnar 50mm f/2.0. The drawings of the internals seem to indicate that. And from what I read the very early Jupiter 8's pretty much were the pre-war Zeiss Sonnars as they were made with the Zeiss glass that went to the USSR along with the factory and technicians as part of WW II war reparations. Correct me if I am wrong. I do enjoy the effect it has on an image, clearly a different effect that what the Canon has. I can post a CV 35mm f/1.4 if you would like for vibrant color and sharpness.

Oh, what the hell, CV 35mm f/1.4 at f/1.4. Actually the full name is "Voigtländer Nokton Classic 35mm f/1.4 II MC." Nice sharp definition and solid color. I understand that the CV is softer at full aperture but have not yet tested that.

Now you have a progression of lenses, a '55 built to late 30's specs, a 60's and a current lens. All on the same M9.

So no "glow and romance" in the first image. In its place is what you describe as a "dreamy, ghostly look". The image made with the Jupiter 8 at f/2 does look slightly out of focus or soft. I compared it to other Jupiter 8 images on Flickr. Some are quite sharp; others are soft. The soft images are probably wide open and the sharp images are stopped down. So if I were looking for a soft focus lens, your Jupiter 8 wide open would be a candidate. I guess one man's glow and romance or dreamy, ghostly look is another man's soft focus. The bokeh shown in the Flickr images does not recommend itself. Did you determine whether your Jupiter 8 needed to be shimmed to focus properly on your Leica?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/J...8%2050mm%20F2/

As a counterpoint to the Jupiter 8, the second image made with the Canon 28mm f/2.8 LTM does look sharp at f/5.6. I understand Gary Winogrand used that lens. The third image made with the Voigtländer Nokton Classic 35mm f/1.4 II MC at f/1.4 is also sharp in the plane of focus. Its bokeh doesn't recommend itself either.

I am very familiar with The Third Man. I have seen it numerous times. Some projection prints are better than others. You certainly lose something with the digital transfer.

 

[boojum]

So no "glow and romance" in the first image. In its place is what you describe as a "dreamy, ghostly look". The image made with the Jupiter 8 at f/2 does look slightly out of focus or soft. I compared it to other Jupiter 8 images on Flickr. Some are quite sharp; others are soft. The soft images are probably wide open and the sharp images are stopped down. So if I were looking for a soft focus lens, your Jupiter 8 wide open would be a candidate. I guess one man's glow and romance or dreamy, ghostly look is another man's soft focus. The bokeh shown in the Flickr images does not recommend itself. Did you determine whether your Jupiter 8 needed to be shimmed to focus properly on your Leica?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/J...8%2050mm%20F2/

As a counterpoint to the Jupiter 8, the second image made with the Canon 28mm f/2.8 LTM does look sharp at f/5.6. I understand Gary Winogrand used that lens. The third image made with the Voigtländer Nokton Classic 35mm f/1.4 II MC at f/1.4 is also sharp in the plane of focus. Its bokeh doesn't recommend itself either.

I am very familiar with The Third Man. I have seen it numerous times. Some projection prints are better than others. You certainly lose something with the digital transfer.

Yes, the Jupiter 8 has been shimmed at a camera repair.

Aping professional photographers is not my goal.

I have neither the time nor the interest to argue the finer points of the English language's adjectives. Such as that subtle shading of difference between "boyish" and "puerile."

Question, do you believe that a critic is a legless man who teaches running?

Cheers