[Scintilla]

How could anyone possibly complain about being able to choose your crop mode to taste?

Well, if they screwed up the implementation such that there was no option to let the camera choose automatically based on lens info, or the default (when active at all) was something other than 1.5, or you weren't able to just set a default crop factor once and forget it...

[stevebrot]

so, kenspro, I have a question... is the image circle on the new lenses bigger than the image circle on the old FAs, to make up for Shake Reduction? and if so will, the older FAs going to need to be used without SR to aviod vignetting?

I wonder how Sony handles this with adapted lenses. Any Sony users out there? Anyone?


Steve

[rawr]

All this worrying about a so-far imagined problem.

Most FF lenses on FF vignette more than crop anyhow. In future, I can now see folks finding shake reduction at fault for vignetting that was there in the first place.

[Mikesul]

I wonder how Sony handles this with adapted lenses. Any Sony users out there? Anyone?


Steve

The three FA Ltds work just fine on the Sony A7II and A7Rii with shake reduction active. So do several of the DAs such as the DA 70. No vignetting. Using the HD 1.4 TC with the DA*300 does cause vignetting on the A7Rii. Here is a quick demo of the FA77 ltd on the A7RII.

Attached Images

 

---

Last edited by Mikesul; 08-29-2015 at 03:55 PM.

[bxf]

... Any Sony users out there? Anyone?


Steve

I have their headphones...

[Zygonyx]

Does any of the Minolta AF lenses need any kind of IBIS crop on Sony Alpha 850, 900 or 99?

None that has been reported.

Why would it be different with Pentax legacy lenses?

This "fear" for too narrow image circle in K mount legacy glass really seems to be an urban legend, indeed...

[thibs]

How could anyone possibly complain about being able to choose your crop mode to taste?

Either because it is automatic and they don't want. Or because it auto crops to 1.2x and they want 1.1. Or because they have to manually turn the auto crop. Or because the camera wouldn't not memorize 3 users settings for each lens. Or because there's not enough choice of crop modes. Or...

It easy to find a reason to complain.

I agree with you. But I'm certain some will complain anyway.

What about 1:1 crop btw?

[limpet]

The three FA Ltds work just fine on the Sony A7II and A7Rii with shake reduction active. So do several of the DAs such as the DA 70. No vignetting. Using the HD 1.4 TC with the DA*300 does cause vignetting on the A7Rii. Here is a quick demo of the FA77 ltd on the A7RII.

Nice shelfie.
I`m intrigued by the book Pompeii and Herculaneum, any info on the author?

[Mikesul]

Nice shelfie.
I`m intrigued by the book Pompeii and Herculaneum, any info on the author?

Author Theodore Kraus, Photographer Leonard von Matt, Publisher Abrams, 1975

[limpet]

Author Theodore Kraus, Photographer Leonard von Matt, Publisher Abrams, 1975

Thanks mate

[redcat]

I'm guessing that most serious (i.e., those who would be willing to plunk down cash for an FF camera) do at least some PP already, so one solution would be to do your own minor cropping as part of the PP workflow.

it's not an option, no company makes a camera that needs PP in order to get a correct output !

[MrNPhoto]

it's not an option, no company makes a camera that needs PP in order to get a correct output !

Well, there are cameras that automatically apply lens corrections to fix distortion, vignetting and chromatic aberration. If it does it for me in camera, than that's one less step to do in post-processing. If in-camera lens corrections can make older full-frame lenses perform better, then why not provide the feature?

[FantasticMrFox]

If in-camera lens corrections can make older full-frame lenses perform better, then why not provide the feature?

Because it slows down processing and thus overall operational speed. The K3 already offers automatic correction for vignetting, aberrations and distortion, but if you switch all these corrections on the camera takes significantly longer to save the images you take.

Plus it's essentially cheating. mFT images have all these corrections automatically baked in, theoretically allowing manufacturers to sell sub-par lenses that look better than they are because corrections are automatically applied, which of course decreases the quality. Another example is the Sony APS-C 16-50 kit lens. About this lens Photozone notes:

"The native distortion reach epic dimensions at the wide-end of the zoon range. At 16mm it almost behaves like a fisheye lens with a barrel distortion of more than 7.5%. As such it is obvious that the lens was never meant to be used without distortion auto-correction which is available for JPGs by the camera or via Sony's RAW converter.

[...]

The above behavior also applies to the vignetting characteristic. With DEACTIVATED distortion (& vignetting) compensation, the figures are among the very worst we have ever tested (5EV at 16mm f/3.5). The corners are essentially black here. The vignetting remains unacceptable even at f/11 at the wide end of the zoom range."

So Sony tricks its customers into believing they are getting a 16-50 mm lens, when in fact the distortion and vignetting are so horrendous that corrections have to be applied that push the corners out of the image, turning it into something like an 18-50 mm lens. This is pure deceit.

[Glorfindelrb]

You could have a choice between a crop or a correction. Example DA560 --> 1.2x crop or no crop and 1.3 EV of vignetting correction in the corners at f5.6

[thibs]

If in-camera lens corrections can make older full-frame lenses perform better, then why not provide the feature?

Because they need to sell new lenses.