| Author |
Why dont CyberShot phones have Carl Ziess lenses? |
plankgatan
Joined: May 20, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Sweden fur alle
PM |
On 2009-03-20 22:00:15, Raiderski wrote:
Tessar is still great but only when glass is much bigger than this what you have in cameraphone
[ This Message was edited by: Raiderski on 2009-03-20 21:12 ]
i couldn't say it any better myself.
(all this talk about how good Carl ziess Tessar on Nokias phones is, is exaggerated).
the main sharpness (and overall quality) you see on ex, N82 its not about its Tessar lens, its mainly about Nokias camera software...(and thats fact, nothing else)
[ This Message was edited by: plankgatan on 2009-03-21 07:38 ] |
|
|
frankthetank
Joined: Jan 28, 2008
Posts: 159
From: Christchurch, New Zealand
PM, WWW
|
On 2009-03-21 08:20:48, Mizzle wrote:
frankthetank,
There is no way your 50mm lens can be sharp throughout the picture at f/2.8. Try to take a picture of a building at f/2.8 and compare the center sharpness with the side sharpness.
Also - don't change the content of my quotes!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ This Message was edited by: Mizzle on 2009-03-21 07:21 ]
Oh I'm sorry I guess you're referring to the 1% in the bottom left corner of a shot FROM MY LENS COPY that is slightly soft due to a manufacturing flaw, there is in no way a discernable difference of sharpness throughout the shot at 100 or 200% view on my 3 megapixel display.
The fact is that it's not optically impossible. I suggest you provide greater substantiated proof before you make absolute claims about the laws of physics, or ridiculous quotes will continue to be changed even if just to tame your ego.
[ This Message was edited by: frankthetank on 2009-03-21 10:01 ] http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/profile.php?id=793404578
http://www.flickr.com/photos/franhams/ |
K.
Joined: Mar 05, 2009
Posts: 14
PM |
Well, methinks CZ lens are overrated, at least the ones Nokia uses ATM. Even tho I use a N series phone right now, I would rate SE phones higher in camera department.
[ This Message was edited by: K. on 2009-03-21 21:43 ] |
Mizzle
Joined: Oct 06, 2006
Posts: > 500
PM, WWW
|
On 2009-03-21 10:57:20, frankthetank wrote:
Oh I'm sorry I guess you're referring to the 1% in the bottom left corner of a shot FROM MY LENS COPY that is slightly soft due to a manufacturing flaw, there is in no way a discernable difference of sharpness throughout the shot at 100 or 200% view on my 3 megapixel display.
The fact is that it's not optically impossible. I suggest you provide greater substantiated proof before you make absolute claims about the laws of physics, or ridiculous quotes will continue to be changed even if just to tame your ego.
[ This Message was edited by: frankthetank on 2009-03-21 10:01 ]
Yes, you'd better be sorry.
It IS optically impossible. Not even the best and most expensive lenses today can deliver sharpness throughout a picture at such large apertures. The edges of an image shot at f/2.8 or larger will always be more blurry than the center or wherever the focus was. Why do you think it is you use small apertures for landscape photography?
[ This Message was edited by: Mizzle on 2009-03-21 22:00 ] |
CodeMonkey
Joined: Mar 11, 2009
Posts: 14
PM |
Carl Zeiss lens branding doesn't mean much, third party people pay them loads of money to just use their name but they manufacturer it themselves. |
Bonovox
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Posts: > 500
PM |
Give me a Leica lens anyday. Panasonic cameras are best going to get rid of my Sony N1. Leica lens in a phone anyone? Yeah right. |
NightBlade
Joined: Jul 29, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Nessebar, Bulgaria
PM |
Dudes, I'll just say this, don't argue with Mizzle about photography. You'll end up on the misinformed side.
|
SloopJohnB
Joined: Oct 28, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: the blue planet
PM |
Honestly, carl zeiss lenses on a phone is the same as īcheap plastic lenses with a cute nameī on a phone. Nokia uses it for marketing reasons alone.  probably doesnīt think itsīs worth to pay that much just for a name or maybe nokia got an exclusive on that. I couldnīt care less about having īcarl zeissī optics on my phone. |
Bonovox
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Posts: > 500
PM |
Photography in my spare time is one of my interests with a proper digital camera. Love doing landscapes myself. With a mobile phone whatever lens is in it still dont compete with proper digital cameras for landscapes. I do find Leica lenses personally the best myself. |
carkitter
Joined: Apr 29, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: Auckland, NZ
PM |
Those people doubting how good Carl Zeiss lenses are should read the history of Carl Zeiss. They invented just about every lens technology going and are the most respected name in lenses, hence Sony and Nokia's involvement with them.
There was a News thread here about 3-4 years ago announcing the signing of an agreement between Nokia and CZ and I said at the time that it was a major missed opportunity for SE and would bite them in the butt. I'd go so for as to say it's an embarressing oversight on SE's part.
It's good to see that SE Cybershot phones still perform up to a high level despite the inability to add value via the CZ reputation for excellence.
By the way, 100 yrs before there were Digicams there were microscopes, an important medical breakthrough pioneered by CZ. Some people seem to forget the world existed before the internet... 
|
frankthetank
Joined: Jan 28, 2008
Posts: 159
From: Christchurch, New Zealand
PM, WWW
|
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 ] http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/profile.php?id=793404578
http://www.flickr.com/photos/franhams/ |
Mizzle
Joined: Oct 06, 2006
Posts: > 500
PM, WWW
|
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 ] |
Bonovox
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Posts: > 500
PM |
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. |
michka
Joined: May 17, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Brussels-Belgium
PM |
@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?
Pedestrian: don't run, my car is faster anyway. |
frankthetank
Joined: Jan 28, 2008
Posts: 159
From: Christchurch, New Zealand
PM, WWW
|
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.
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/profile.php?id=793404578
http://www.flickr.com/photos/franhams/ |
|
|
Posted: 2009-03-21 08:33
