Re: description of camera design I would like to have

phil-news-nospam@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 01:43:11 -0400 J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@xxxxxxx>
wrote:


When did they release a digital SWC to market?

When did they release a digital back.

Non-sequitur. Hasselblad making a digital back that just happens
to
fit the SWC because the SWC takes the same backs as their other
cameras doesn't mean that it was designed to work with the SWC or
that
it does work well with the SWC.

You asked if it was released.

I asked you when Hasselblad produced a digital SWC.

You didn't ask about how well it works.

You're playing word games. You aren't autistic are you?

Send me an SWC and a digital back and I'll see how well they work.
I
may even be able to get enough parameters out of tests to determine
exactly
how to compensate for anything they didn't compensate for.

No, I am not going to go buy an SWC and digital Hassy back for
myself.
I don't want to spend big money on a camera more appropriate for a
studio pro.


So why don't you offer them your services if you are so sure that
you
can do better?

They can come to me.

Why would they want to do that? What have you done that suggests
that
you might actually have something to offer them?

I guess we have established that there is no interest on the part of
Leica. So there is no point in having me contact them.

Which means that you don't really have a clue how to solve the
problems they encountered.

Leica engineers are not here, so I cannot discuss things with
them,
or
probe for factors they didn't publish or didn't study.

What "factors" do you believe these might be?

I'm not going to play guessing games. I wasn't there so I don't
know.

In other words you can't be assed to read their own description or
any
of the many other discussions of the M8 sensor.

I'm focused on the SLD design, not Leica's attempt at going digital.
Until you can suggest why Leica's problems relate, I doubt I will
establish any such interest. A simplistic statement that they tried
and had problems doesn't convince me that they had problems in ways
that specifically relate to the SLD design.

You have to be a troll. Nobody could be this stupid. You have
asserted that the major advantage of the SLD is no mirror hence the
lens can be placed closer to the sensor. The Leica M has no mirror,
hence the lens can be placed closer to the sensor. Ergo from that
viewpoint it presents the same problems as the "SLD" and if the
problems on the digital M cannot be resolved then there is no reason
to believe that sticking an EVF on the thing is going to help.

So who has produced a successful design?

Who _will_ produce a successful design if they decide there is a
market for it?

With people like you advocating it, nobody.

I doubt anyone at Canon or Nikon read here, either. I didn't post
it
to
get Canon or Nikon to make it (though I would be happy if they do).
What
I posted for was to get discussions on how others (hobby to pro) use
their cameras in ways that this design might be good for.

If that was your intent, then you should have said so, but at no point
did you ask that question.

It seems I have found one person who really hates it and/or is
convinced
it will never work (but doesn't grasp the science behind it,
depending only on one otherwise reputable manufacturer's failure).

You are the one who asserted that it could be done "easily". If it
wasn't easy for Leica then it's not going to be easy for _anybody_.

One of the oldest and most respected manufacturers of optical
instruments in the world _succeeded_ with the film-and-viewfinder
version of this.

So did Leica, with FILM. Success with film does not mean success
with digital sensors.

Success with film means that a wide angle lens design that is
protruding
into the camera body from the mount plane, or is otherwise closer to
the imaging plane, is in fact a lens design that is better, with a
reduction
in optical (chromatic and geometric) aberrations.

The reference to the SWD was NOT a reference to success with a
digital
sensor. It is strictly a reference to success in a correct lens
design, which you challenged it at least one statement.

Had you said "Being closer to the sensor will make for a more
optically correct design, but it can fail due to the digital sensor
having more
issues the high angle of incidence involved" right at the beginning,
then this whole thread would have been more focused. But you
claimed
more than just that. You claimed that wide angle lens design does
not improve with
a closer distance. So therefore you got my response referring to
the
SWD (and I think I also mentioned how this is done for large format
view cameras). But you mistook the reference to the SWD as a
reference of something that was done with sensors, and that created
yet another subthread of confusion.

Bull***.

If you don't understand something then you should ask for
clarification rather than blathering at length.

So it would seem that it is NOT an optics issue at
all. Instead, it seems to be a digital sensor issue. How many
decades of experience does Leica have with digital sensors?

Finally you grasp that it is a sensor issue. And their partner on
the project was one of the first to market a digital camera.

I have always known the sensor issues. I believe they can all be
compensated for, at least if good engineers are involved.

Well, I guess that all the engineers involved in the M8 are not "good"
by your standard.

There was
no point in bringing them up as part of the initial post. What did
you want, a complete CAD file of the entire system design? It took
a
few posts from you for me to even figure out that you were really
addressing one of a few sensor issues (but which, I'm still not sure
about) and were just jumping to (wrong) conclusions about basic lens
designs for wide angle lenses.

Nope. I was at all points focussed on the sensor issue. My mistake
was in assuming that you have made the most cursory study of the
experience in the industry with using short lens-to-sensor distances
with digital cameras.

That and trying to ascertain what you want your wunderlens to do that
current lenses do not do, and you have not yet quantified that. What
performance level do you want to achieve at what price?


--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)


.

Loading