Sony Ericsson / Sony : General : Why dont CyberShot phones have Carl Ziess lenses?
>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
Sony Ericsson / Sony >
General
> Why dont CyberShot phones have Carl Ziess lenses?
Bookmark topic
A small aperture is used for landscape photography for maximum depth of field by focussing at the hyperfocal distance for the given aperture and focal length to ensure as much as possible of the foreground to infinity is acceptably sharp. It has nothing to do with the edge to edge sharpness of an image taken of a plane surface.
Ironically this actually creates a new problem and that is that diffraction through the tiny aperture limits the ability of a lens to resolve the image at the sensor, but being the resident photography expert you knew all that....
[ This Message was edited by: frankthetank on 2009-03-22 00:25 ]
--
Posted: 2009-03-22 01:18:00
Edit :
Quote
On 2009-03-22 01:18:00, frankthetank wrote:
A small aperture is used for landscape photography for maximum depth of field, it has nothing to do with the edge to edge sharpness of an image taken of a plane surface.
AND for sharpness throughout the picture - from edge to edge. Since you're being so stubborn about this, I'm interested to know what camera and lens you're using.
On 2009-03-22 01:18:00, frankthetank wrote:
Ironically this actually creates a new problem and that is that diffraction through the tiny aperture limits the ability of a lens to resolve the image at the sensor, but being the resident photgraphy expert you knew all that....
Diffraction only occurs when you go below f/11, and there's absolutely no reason to do so unless you really want to block out any available light. For landscape photography you should use an aperture between f/11 and f/8.
[ This Message was edited by: Mizzle on 2009-03-22 00:39 ]
--
Posted: 2009-03-22 01:24:59
Edit :
Quote
Carl Zeiss lenses are sharp one of the best cameras i ever owned years ago was a Sony W5 think was the model. So so sharp the pics were. But for some reason lately Sony's own dedicated cameras seem to be getting worse in terms of picture. Yes they still have the CZ lenses but i think its Sony's image processing lately thats poor and far too many gimmicks in their slim cameras. Their high end ones are great though with the super zooms but their slim compacts are getting worse.
--
Posted: 2009-03-22 02:14:00
Edit :
Quote
@Mizzle: I don't understand why you say that diffraction only plays a role below f/11.
f/11 is an f-number, a ratio of the focal length divided by the physical dimension of the aperture. Which means that for a given f-number, the dimension of the aperture will depend on the focal length of the optics.
On the other hand, diffraction only depends on the dimension of the aperture.
I therefore would have thought that diffraction occurs at higher f/x for the very short focal length phone cams than for proper cams.
Or is it that your numbers (f/11 to f/8) are valid for camphones but not for cameras?
--
Posted: 2009-03-22 03:29:44
Edit :
Quote
It's a generalised sweet spot of most lenses, in landscape photography one would have to stop down a telephoto to much smaller apertures to achieve similar depth of field to an ultra wide at larger apertures. UWAs inherently have greater depth of field at larger apertures, conversely teles have much smaller depth of field at similar apertures.
Mizzle: It is obvious to me that your experiences of edge softness are related to your use of ultra wide angle lenses on a full frame camera - inevitably angle of incidence plays a major part here and UWA lenses are extremely complicated beasts to cater for these angles of view (up to 180 degrees in a fisheye). Macro lenses on the other hand are engineered specifically for edge to edge sharpness because they are often used for reproducing or enlarging flat plane surfaces and as such have to be corrected for this. Enlarger lenses are another prime example of this principle.
The argument here is not what is in my kit bag, but more that you have stated a flawed opinion regarding the laws of physics in the field of optics.
--
Posted: 2009-03-22 04:16:34
Edit :
Quote
On 2009-03-22 04:16:34, frankthetank wrote:
Mizzle: It is obvious to me that your experiences of edge softness are related to your use of ultra wide angle lenses on a full frame camera - inevitably angle of incidence plays a major part here and UWA lenses are extremely complicated beasts to cater for these angles of view (up to 180 degrees in a fisheye). Macro lenses on the other hand are engineered specifically for edge to edge sharpness because they are often used for reproducing or enlarging flat plane surfaces and as such have to be corrected for this. Enlarger lenses are another prime example of this principle.
The argument here is not what is in my kit bag, but more that you have stated a flawed opinion regarding the laws of physics in the field of optics.
Dude, you're not getting this at all. ALL quality lenses with an adjustable aperture are capable of delivering pictures that are sharp from edge to edge. However, it depends solely on the aperture, to which I said that it's impossible at f/2.8 or larger - which it indeed is.
Number1 said that "It's not overall sharpness , whatever the sharpness level it should be consistant from corner to corner with a good lens. " Seeing most cameras in mobile phones have an aperture set to f/2.8, I said that it's impossible to do in a mobile phone.
Although I would love to continue chatting, I've got a busy schedule for today, so I'll leave you with photographic proof - the following shots are 100% crops of RAW shots - the left picture is a centre crop, and the right picture is an edge crop from the same picture.
Nikon D700 - 1/2500 sec, 50mm, f/2.8, ISO 100
Nikon D700 - 1/320 sec, 50mm, f/9, ISO 100
Get my point about edge sharpness now? It's totally dependant on the aperture, same goes for the overall sharpness. There's hardly any different in the centre crops, but it's VERY visible in the edges of the pictures. You can't have the same corner sharpness at f/2.8 as at f/11 or so. It's just not possible.
Having said so, I do understand your point about it not being economically possible. It will probably be possible to get sharpness levels similar to f/11 at f/2.8 or larger in a number of years, but it is currently impossible.
[ This Message was edited by: Mizzle on 2009-03-22 17:14 ]
--
Posted: 2009-03-22 11:03:30
Edit :
Quote
On 2009-03-20 16:33:50, Mizzle wrote:
I'm going to say this one more time: Nokia's agreement with Carl Zeiss about the so-called Carl Zeiss lenses is nothing but a trademark agreement to say that Nokia's standard lenses have been approved by Carl Zeiss. It has no effect on the outcome whatsoever, and is nothing more than a stupid branding agreement to make customers think that they've got the better optics - and it's obviously working.
pretty much exactly what SE does with their Walkman and Cybershot marketing BS which people fall for.
--
Posted: 2009-03-22 11:14:34
Edit :
Quote
On 2009-03-22 11:14:34, QVGA wrote:
On 2009-03-20 16:33:50, Mizzle wrote:
I'm going to say this one more time: Nokia's agreement with Carl Zeiss about the so-called Carl Zeiss lenses is nothing but a trademark agreement to say that Nokia's standard lenses have been approved by Carl Zeiss. It has no effect on the outcome whatsoever, and is nothing more than a stupid branding agreement to make customers think that they've got the better optics - and it's obviously working.
pretty much exactly what SE does with their Walkman and Cybershot marketing BS which people fall for.
Yes - and LG, Motorola and Nokia, to mention a few.
[ This Message was edited by: Mizzle on 2009-03-22 10:16 ]
--
Posted: 2009-03-22 11:16:18
Edit :
Quote
Guess the word Cyber Shot means nothing really its just a word. Cyber Shit sometimes lol
--
Posted: 2009-03-22 12:26:00
Edit :
Quote
On 2009-03-22 12:26:00, Bonovox wrote:
Guess the word Cyber Shot means nothing really its just a word. Cyber Shit sometimes lol
Perhaps you're refering to C702? As great as it is as a phone, I find the camera quality quite disappointing
--
Posted: 2009-03-23 03:41:45
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
