Optical reducer - death of full frame?

Luckily, sharpness and aberrations have nothing to do with good photography.

The physics involved is what it is, I guess not everyone has to believe it however. :)
 
digitalintrigue said:
Luckily, sharpness and aberrations have nothing to do with good photography.
Click to expand...
That is simply untrue. Of course it is possible to take good pictures with any old rubbish, working within its limitations. But there are pictures where sharpness, contrast, etc., are an essential part of the artistic vision. Otherwise why would there ever have been any progress in lens design? Wicked, evil lens designers forcing unnecessary improvements on unwilling photographers?

Cheers,

R.
 
Yes, I lied. :) One cannot possibly take a quality, moving, emotional photograph with anything less than a full frame sensor and top quality optics unadulterated by gizmos like speed boosters.
 
digitalintrigue said:
Yes, I lied. :) One cannot possibly take a quality, moving, emotional photograph with anything less than a full frame sensor and top quality optics unadulterated by gizmos like speed boosters.
Click to expand...
Not so much a liar as a woolly thinker who is not above distorting someone else's post.

Which bit of the following are you failing to understand, or choosing to deny?

(1) Of course it is possible to take good pictures with any old rubbish, working within its limitations.

(2) there are pictures where sharpness, contrast, etc., are an essential part of the artistic vision.

Both are absolutely straight quotes from my previous post.

Cheers,

R.
 
Just having a bit of fun, Roger.

There are those who fail to understand, or choose to deny the physics, also. :)
 
Dylan Hope said:
The way I understand it is that optical converters aren't usually fantastic unless they have some pretty well thought out optical engineering behind them, which I imagine would mean that the best results would have to be adapters tailored for specific optical formulas. I've heard these types of converters have existed for a long time, too. Could be wrong on both counts.
Click to expand...

I think that in principle it is easier to make a modular system (which you can regard as a lens with some converters) than a Zoom Lens. Probably the weakness of the converters, as you mention, is that unlike modular systems they are not designed to work with a specific design or lens and are not nearly as good in quality as the lens they are mounted on, possibly because of the type of market they are aimed to. The obvious counterexample is the Leica Telyt Modular System which is just great in any configuration. The question (to which I think I know the answer) is whether it is actually possible to design a converter for a specific lens once the lens has been produced or is it necessary to design the whole system at the same time to achieve top quality. For me after all the whole idea of "using an old lens on a different format while retaining the original characteristics" is a bit nonsensical. If the old lens works as it is in a way I like then I am fine but if one has to chase a way to make it work in a different way to emulate what we believe was the original feel of the lens on a different format and a different media, then I am better off with a new lens altogether (probably it is also cheaper).

GLF
 
What am I missing. Using one if these devices on a 24x36mm sensor will provide superior performance compared to a similar device on a camera with a smaller sensor area.

Sensor area is an important factor for performance. So is lens speed. DOF control flexibility is good too. But turning my Nikkor primes into faster lenses with more DOF would enable a 24x36mm body to still outperform an APS-C body.

How will this technology kill larger sensors?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom