Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: I don't know what to put for topic

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Octarine
    I don't think it's any effort for the lens .. haven't seen any lens sweating in the efforts of projecting an image circle that was actually not necessary in that size
    Now that's puzzling, wouldn't it requires extra effort to fine tune and calibrate the lens or take extra effort for better design to cover those edges of the lens if these lens are meant for FF bodies? Certainly it would be no sweat to project light rays, but it will need more effort to get the rays right with least colour aberration and so forth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Octarine
    Have a look at the topic 'sweet spot of FX lenses', it's highlighted in many reviews. Due to the fact that the DX sensors cuts off the far corners of the image circle it also cuts off the most problematic areas for corner sharpness and vignetting. Something that becomes visible (again) when using DX lenses.
    The promotion happens everywhere when Canon & Co showcase lenses to consumers who mostly use DX cameras. All the promotion material and Lens Books never state 'Lens designed for Full Frame Body' or 'Only to be used with FX body' but rather address certain shooting requirements and other things which make it obvious to the 'ambitious amateur' and 'photographic enthusiast' that the lens with the red / golden / green / whatever ring is the best choice. In contrast, the DX lenses are used as kit lenses (ok, not all) which serve to complete the starter package of DX cameras at a lower price level.
    yes, I am aware of the sweet spot theory. Though it will be a sacrificial of FOV when using FX lens on DX bodies. Okay lower pricing for DX lens make sense
    D3S|N70-200|N24-70|N24-85|N50f1.4|N35f2|SB800|SB900|Yashica GS|S95
    www.flickr.com/photos/davidktw

  2. #22

    Default Re: I don't know what to put for topic

    Actually volume of the glass does not contribute much to the overall product cost. It is due to the difficulty to achieve good surface/texture of the glass during production.

    Larger surface = higher chance to have defects on the lens during production/polishing (scratch, uneven surface on the near lens edge, QC reject etc.) Also polishing a larger lens is time & cost consuming which results in more expensive pricing.

    Making an even nano coating on a large lens is even more difficult. You surely dont want thick coating on the lens center and thinner coating in the corner edge, dont you?

    You can have a look in the youtube on how camera lens are made, and it will sure enlighten you more.

  3. #23
    Moderator Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pasir Ris
    Posts
    12,422

    Default Re: I don't know what to put for topic

    Quote Originally Posted by David Kwok View Post
    Now that's puzzling, wouldn't it requires extra effort to fine tune and calibrate the lens or take extra effort for better design to cover those edges of the lens if these lens are meant for FF bodies? Certainly it would be no sweat to project light rays, but it will need more effort to get the rays right with least colour aberration and so forth.
    You are right.. but that was not my point .. Read 'the lens' as personification. Lenses don't sweat during work, otherwise a lot of pictures would turn out foggy
    EOS

  4. #24
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: I don't know what to put for topic

    I think many people in this thread are missing the point.

    DX form factor is not created after FX. Digital seonsor started out small and slowly grew in size. The first Nikon DSLR is the D1 and it is a DX sensor. The DX sensor sort of is the only thing available in DSLR till FF (35mm) sensors came into being in 2002 with the Contax N and the Canon 1Ds. Nikon only joined the Full frame family with the D3 in 2007.

    So no one had to create a new DX line. DX or APS-C based DLSR lines are the original lines.

    So if before FF came into being, the only DSLRs on the market were all APS-C sensor based cameras. So the companies must be thinking, why keep the lenses so big and heavy when we are only using that small part of the lens. So EF-S and DX lenses are born and offered to the world at a lesser size, weight and price...

    So some of you got it reversed. Prices has actually come down alot since the old days. If you have some idea what film cameras and lenses used to cost in the past, you will be amazed.
    Last edited by daredevil123; 8th October 2011 at 12:31 AM.

  5. #25
    Moderator catchlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Punggol, Singapore
    Posts
    21,901

    Default Re: I don't know what to put for topic

    Quote Originally Posted by nikonriana View Post
    Hello people...
    Just casually asking.. don't you guys find it redundant for them to introduce FX and DX lens when ultimately the DX and FX "phenomenon" is the sensors itself...Like EF-S and EF lens... FF body can only mount EF lens and ASP-C body can mount both.. why not just stick to all FX lenses? Does it really create a greater market or they are just trying to create a bigger hole in out pocket? haha... share your thoughts bro, It's like when they say.. More variety by introducign NC16, M18 and R21 Movies.. it's not more variety.. it's just more restriction...
    why would there be so many type of cars on the road? can't they only have one type of cars? it is so much easier to maintenance, finding parts isn't it?

    why can HDB only built on type of flat, all the design is the same, so we don't need to headache about what type of flats to chose.

    why can.....

    why can....

    why can...
    Shoot to Live, Live to Shoot
    www.benjaminloo.com | iStock portfolio

  6. #26

    Default Re: I don't know what to put for topic

    Quote Originally Posted by daredevil123 View Post
    I think many people in this thread are missing the point.

    DX form factor is not created after FX. Digital seonsor started out small and slowly grew in size. The first Nikon DSLR is the D1 and it is a DX sensor. The DX sensor sort of is the only thing available in DSLR till FF (35mm) sensors came into being in 2002 with the Contax N and the Canon 1Ds. Nikon only joined the Full frame family with the D3 in 2007.

    So no one had to create a new DX line. DX or APS-C based DLSR lines are the original lines.

    So if before FF came into being, the only DSLRs on the market were all APS-C sensor based cameras. So the companies must be thinking, why keep the lenses so big and heavy when we are only using that small part of the lens. So EF-S and DX lenses are born and offered to the world at a lesser size, weight and price...

    So some of you got it reversed. Prices has actually come down alot since the old days. If you have some idea what film cameras and lenses used to cost in the past, you will be amazed.
    Thank you for the information.. It's kind of what i'm asking for...
    Sorry for the misunderstanding... I'm not saying the companies are stupid...
    In the point of business catering more variety means more money, yes no doubt but i was thinking why not just FX lenses, more variety of FX lenses, If fisheye, soft focus, and full 360degree fisheye can find their place in market, why not spend their money on say " star bokeh " type of lens.. those that we cut a star shape paper place infront of lens to produce star alike shaped bokeh, i'm pretty sure they can cater such lenses out.. but like i said.. Bro daredevil123 just answered my question... it was ASP-C cameras that were the originals...

  7. #27
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: I don't know what to put for topic

    Quote Originally Posted by nikonriana View Post
    Thank you for the information.. It's kind of what i'm asking for...
    Sorry for the misunderstanding... I'm not saying the companies are stupid...
    In the point of business catering more variety means more money, yes no doubt but i was thinking why not just FX lenses, more variety of FX lenses, If fisheye, soft focus, and full 360degree fisheye can find their place in market, why not spend their money on say " star bokeh " type of lens.. those that we cut a star shape paper place infront of lens to produce star alike shaped bokeh, i'm pretty sure they can cater such lenses out.. but like i said.. Bro daredevil123 just answered my question... it was ASP-C cameras that were the originals...
    Very simple... a FX UWA, will become a standard zoom on a DX cam. a FX Fisheye when mounted on a DX cam, will not be very fish-eyey. So DX dedicated lenses will always be necessary if the DX format lives on. And it will live on, due to price, size and weight.

    And the other fun lenses you talk about... how many times do you shoot with a love shaped bokeh? will you spend $300-400 to buy a love-shaped bokeh lens? especially when you can just get the same result by cuting that piece of paper you mentioned... In the end, have to think sensibly and practically.

  8. #28

    Default Re: I don't know what to put for topic

    Quote Originally Posted by daredevil123 View Post
    And the other fun lenses you talk about... how many times do you shoot with a love shaped bokeh? will you spend $300-400 to buy a love-shaped bokeh lens? especially when you can just get the same result by cuting that piece of paper you mentioned... In the end, have to think sensibly and practically.
    I agree to that... haha.. but anyway styled bokeh typed of lenses i believe it really subject to individual users.. it's like there's soft focus lens..or even the sigma 8mm fisheye..."Qing ren yan li chu xi shi"...Talking about that.. since bokeh are produce by the blades shaped ( Correct me if i'm, wrong ) Technically, it's definitely possible to produce such lens whereby at let's say f2.8 the bokeh will be a star shaped and when step down to f4 and above, it'll become a normal lens,

  9. #29

    Default Re: I don't know what to put for topic

    Quote Originally Posted by nikonriana View Post
    I agree to that... haha.. but anyway styled bokeh typed of lenses i believe it really subject to individual users.. it's like there's soft focus lens..or even the sigma 8mm fisheye..."Qing ren yan li chu xi shi"...Talking about that.. since bokeh are produce by the blades shaped ( Correct me if i'm, wrong ) Technically, it's definitely possible to produce such lens whereby at let's say f2.8 the bokeh will be a star shaped and when step down to f4 and above, it'll become a normal lens,
    Bokeh is affected by the number and shape of blades, as well as the lens design, aspherical lens elements, etc. Bokeh is NOT "produced". Bokeh is the quality of the blur, not the "special effects" of the blur.
    Alpha

  10. #30
    Moderator ziploc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Snoopyland
    Posts
    4,577

    Default Re: I don't know what to put for topic

    Actually "boke" in Japanese literally means "blur", and "blur quality" is "boke aji", although after the English adoptation the term "bokeh" is used more often than not to refer to the "blur quality".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •