Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
Hi Mikael, In my opinion, a good optics design is when sharpness is well balanced from the center to corners and not too sharp in the middle and much less in the corners. Why aspherical lenses and ED lenses? Chromatic and spherical aberrations are higher in the corners and this tech, increases sharpness in the corners. Dave Mikael Risedal wrote: A lens are sharper in the middle, I suggest that you go tohttp://www Photodo.com MTF tests of lenses by Lars Kjellberg or read Norman Koren page http://www.normankoren.com/ Mikael Risedal From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 20:30:30 +0200 Steve writes: But you do have the advantage that the centre is invariably sharper, often much sharper, than the edge. If that is such an advantage, why hasn't anyone designed lenses for 24x36 that cover a much larger area than the film frame? The same logic would apply. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp -- Unofficial Olympus web page http://victorian.fortunecity.com/byzantium/656/index.html Unofficial Olympus Gallery http://www.taiga.ca/~gallery/subpages/irissari/irissari.html
Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
Hey Tom!!! Are you from the Olympus Mailing List? ;-) I think the same as you, and I´ve decided to increase my OM gear and buy the LS-4000. I think tomorrow or in a few days I´ll have it. I think that is a real pity to jump to digital market and waste money with new lenses. Next year (new 5.5 mpixel Olympus camera) and sure it won´t have OTF light metring, multispot metering, etc... Nice to see you. Dave Tom Scales wrote: And a fine lens it is, as are my Olympus 16/3.5 and 18/3.5 and the other couple dozen Zuikos I own Now if I could just find that digital OM back. Tom From: bob geoghegan Olympus has made a 21/2 since the '80s. Just don't ask me what digital body will take it. Agreed on the general problem of digital short lenses. Now where's that 10-20 megapixel 36x24 CCD that has 90+ deg. angle of acceptance, is housed in a 35mm spool, can be loaded into most-any 35mm camera, has great storage battery life and costs less than $1,000??? Oops, dreaming again BobG -- Unofficial Olympus web page http://victorian.fortunecity.com/byzantium/656/index.html Unofficial Olympus Gallery http://www.taiga.ca/~gallery/subpages/irissari/irissari.html
Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
John writes: The REAL point of getting a 24x36 chip is to make your 35mm lenses be what they're supposed to be. Not some inbetween angle of view as the digital cameras of today are. Yes, and until I see that chip, I don't have much motivation to move to digital. Not when it makes all my existing lenses obsolete. Besides, a surface that large would allow for extraordinarily high resolution with very low noise.
Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
Keep in mind that just because a sensor is smaller than 24x36mm doesn't make your lenses obsolete. It makes them telephoto, and comparatively high speed at that. The 200 f2.8 might end up a 300 2.8, which can costs thousands of dollars. It is all in how one lloks at it. If I were a sports or nature photographer, I think I'd be in hog heaven with the magnification factor. Pat --- Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John writes: The REAL point of getting a 24x36 chip is to make your 35mm lenses be what they're supposed to be. Not some inbetween angle of view as the digital cameras of today are. Yes, and until I see that chip, I don't have much motivation to move to digital. Not when it makes all my existing lenses obsolete. Besides, a surface that large would allow for extraordinarily high resolution with very low noise. __ Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/
RE: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
Pat writes ... Keep in mind that just because a sensor is smaller than 24x36mm doesn't make your lenses obsolete. It makes them telephoto, ... I think a better description of how a small CCD uses a 35mm lens, is as if you used a 'doubler' or 'tripler' with the lens. What you get is the lens resolution associated with only using part of its field-of-view. Most would claim this is not a significant issue with Nikkor lenses and only 6M pixels. I also cannot imagine a smaller CCD benefitting from all the light gathering ... I rather imagine the D1 firmware compensating. It would be intersting to compare the EXIF acquisition data with the appropriate exposure settings for the same lens and 35mm film. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
Pat writes: Keep in mind that just because a sensor is smaller than 24x36mm doesn't make your lenses obsolete. It makes them telephoto ... Same thing. I don't need a closet full of telephoto lenses. If I were a sports or nature photographer, I think I'd be in hog heaven with the magnification factor. I'm not, so it's lots of lenses out the window unless I can find a camera that is 24x36. I'll wait. Decent digital cameras still cost way too much, anyway.
RE: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
As a people and street photographer, I'm somewhat less than enthusiastic. I live in the 24 to 50mm range. To get the equivalent of my 28/2.0 lens I'd need a 20/2.0 - anyone know where I can find one? I'll look at digital cameras when they have full-size sensors, and not a moment before. Until then, Provia 400F and an LS-4000 rule. Paul -Original Message- From: Pat Perez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 8:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X Keep in mind that just because a sensor is smaller than 24x36mm doesn't make your lenses obsolete. It makes them telephoto, and comparatively high speed at that. The 200 f2.8 might end up a 300 2.8, which can costs thousands of dollars. It is all in how one lloks at it. If I were a sports or nature photographer, I think I'd be in hog heaven with the magnification factor. Pat --- Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John writes: The REAL point of getting a 24x36 chip is to make your 35mm lenses be what they're supposed to be. Not some inbetween angle of view as the digital cameras of today are. Yes, and until I see that chip, I don't have much motivation to move to digital. Not when it makes all my existing lenses obsolete. Besides, a surface that large would allow for extraordinarily high resolution with very low noise. __ Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/
Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
--- Pat Perez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Keep in mind that just because a sensor is smaller than 24x36mm doesn't make your lenses obsolete. It makes them telephoto, and comparatively high speed at that. The 200 f2.8 might end up a 300 2.8, which can costs thousands of dollars. It is all in how one lloks at it. If I were a sports or nature photographer, I think I'd be in hog heaven with the magnification factor. Or another way to look at it is that you just crop the inner part of a 35mm frame. In other words, you are using just parts of what your 35mm lens covers. That means you have lots of glass (the area increases with the square of the radius) that you waste. There is one good thing about that tough. The CCD require that the rays come in at 90 degrees. Especially with a wide angle lens the exposure rate would depend on the distance from the middle point. I have to admit that I don't know how bad that effect is, though. Also I believe that lens design can compensate for it somehow. And if not you can still do it electronically. Assuming that the most important object is somewhere around the middle that shouldn't be too bad. Robert __ Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/
RE: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
Olympus has made a 21/2 since the '80s. Just don't ask me what digital body will take it. Agreed on the general problem of digital short lenses. Now where's that 10-20 megapixel 36x24 CCD that has 90+ deg. angle of acceptance, is housed in a 35mm spool, can be loaded into most-any 35mm camera, has great storage battery life and costs less than $1,000??? Oops, dreaming again BobG At 10:27 AM 9/17/2001, you wrote: As a people and street photographer, I'm somewhat less than enthusiastic. I live in the 24 to 50mm range. To get the equivalent of my 28/2.0 lens I'd need a 20/2.0 - anyone know where I can find one? I'll look at digital cameras when they have full-size sensors, and not a moment before. Until then, Provia 400F and an LS-4000 rule. Paul -Original Message- From: Pat Perez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 8:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X Keep in mind that just because a sensor is smaller than 24x36mm doesn't make your lenses obsolete. It makes them telephoto, and comparatively high speed at that. The 200 f2.8 might end up a 300 2.8, which can costs thousands of dollars. It is all in how one lloks at it. If I were a sports or nature photographer, I think I'd be in hog heaven with the magnification factor. Pat --- Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John writes: The REAL point of getting a 24x36 chip is to make your 35mm lenses be what they're supposed to be. Not some inbetween angle of view as the digital cameras of today are. Yes, and until I see that chip, I don't have much motivation to move to digital. Not when it makes all my existing lenses obsolete. Besides, a surface that large would allow for extraordinarily high resolution with very low noise. __ Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/
Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
And a fine lens it is, as are my Olympus 16/3.5 and 18/3.5 and the other couple dozen Zuikos I own Now if I could just find that digital OM back. Tom From: bob geoghegan Olympus has made a 21/2 since the '80s. Just don't ask me what digital body will take it. Agreed on the general problem of digital short lenses. Now where's that 10-20 megapixel 36x24 CCD that has 90+ deg. angle of acceptance, is housed in a 35mm spool, can be loaded into most-any 35mm camera, has great storage battery life and costs less than $1,000??? Oops, dreaming again BobG
Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
- Original Message - From: Robert Meier [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 5:47 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X Or another way to look at it is that you just crop the inner part of a 35mm frame. In other words, you are using just parts of what your 35mm lens covers. That means you have lots of glass (the area increases with the square of the radius) that you waste. But you do have the advantage that the centre is invariably sharper, often much sharper, than the edge. Steve
Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
It seems that you must wait to have a 24 x 36 chip in your camera. This is the latest specs on the new Canon pro digital camera Mikael Risedal 2001-09-13 In its latest edition, the french photographic magazine Chasseurd'Images gives first details about Canons long-awaited D30-successor. corresponding news can also be read online as a PDF-file (follow link mentioned below). For all of those who don't master the French language,here a summary of the main specifications: the new camera should be named EOS-1D and integrate a 28.7 x 19 mm-sized 4.5 megapixel image sensor. Thereout results a maximum image resolution of 2.460 x 1.680 pixels and a focal multiplication factor of 1.3 times. Moreover, Canons new digital SLR-flagship has an autofocus with 45 focussing points, a 21-segment matrix metering and a fast burst-mode with max. 20 frames in a series at 8 fps. A shortest shutter speed of 1/16,000 seconds, a Firewire datalink, severalsensitivity levels (ISO 100 up to 3,200) and a RAW-mode underline the highestpretention of this camera. The official presentation of the Canon EOS-1D will only take place on October, 5th; according to Chasseur d'Images, it will hit the shelves in December at a price of 50,000 Francs (approx. 7,600 EUR) Read more at http://www.steves-digicams.com/diginews.html#eosd1 Mikael Risedal From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 07:52:17 +0200 John writes: The REAL point of getting a 24x36 chip is to make your 35mm lenses be what they're supposed to be. Not some inbetween angle of view as the digital cameras of today are. Yes, and until I see that chip, I don't have much motivation to move to digital. Not when it makes all my existing lenses obsolete. Besides, a surface that large would allow for extraordinarily high resolution with very low noise. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
- Original Message - From: Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 6:26 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X - Original Message - From: Robert Meier [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 5:47 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X Or another way to look at it is that you just crop the inner part of a 35mm frame. In other words, you are using just parts of what your 35mm lens covers. That means you have lots of glass (the area increases with the square of the radius) that you waste. But you do have the advantage that the centre is invariably sharper, often much sharper, than the edge. Steve I forgot any nasty lens distortion is usually concentrated at the edges. Steve
Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
Steve writes: But you do have the advantage that the centre is invariably sharper, often much sharper, than the edge. If that is such an advantage, why hasn't anyone designed lenses for 24x36 that cover a much larger area than the film frame? The same logic would apply.
Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
A lens are sharper in the middle, I suggest that you go tohttp://www Photodo.com MTF tests of lenses by Lars Kjellberg or read Norman Koren page http://www.normankoren.com/ Mikael Risedal From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 20:30:30 +0200 Steve writes: But you do have the advantage that the centre is invariably sharper, often much sharper, than the edge. If that is such an advantage, why hasn't anyone designed lenses for 24x36 that cover a much larger area than the film frame? The same logic would apply. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
From: Mikael Risedal [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:10:55 (Answer 2 same question as before, but the right adress to Photodo. A lens are sharper in the middle, I suggest that you go to http://www.photodo.com and look under products MTF tests of lenses by Lars Kjellberg the best lens test site in the world or read Norman Koren page http://www.normankoren.com/ Mikael Risedal From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 20:30:30 +0200 Steve writes: But you do have the advantage that the centre is invariably sharper, often much sharper, than the edge. If that is such an advantage, why hasn't anyone designed lenses for 24x36 that cover a much larger area than the film frame? The same logic would apply. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
RE: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
There is one good thing about that tough. The CCD require that the rays come in at 90 degrees. Especially with a wide angle lens the exposure rate would depend on the distance from the middle point. I have to admit that I don't know how bad that effect is, though. Also I believe that lens design can compensate for it somehow. And if not you can still do it electronically. Assuming that the most important object is somewhere around the middle that shouldn't be too bad. I believe you are referring to the cosine to the fourth power falloff of light with angle of incidence. The classic method of compensating for this effect is to place a gradated neutral density filter near the leaf shutter on a view camera. Modern 35 mm lenses compensate for the fall off by using pupil distortion. Look through the back of a wide angle 35 mm lens. Rotate the lens and look at what happens to the apparent size of the aperture. Near the edge of the field of view the aperture appears to increase in size, letting more light through the lens. With older lenses the aperture gets smaller as you increase the angle of incidence - contributing to the cosine^4 falloff.
Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
Paul writes: Let me guess. They'd be bigger, heavier and more expensive? Good lenses are already bigger, heavier, and more expensive.
Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
Yes, I know. So if it is that important, why aren't 24x36 lenses designed to cover a much larger area than the film frame? That would ensure that the entire frame falls in the central portion of the lens field. - Original Message - From: Mikael Risedal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 19:10 Subject: Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X A lens are sharper in the middle, I suggest that you go tohttp://www Photodo.com MTF tests of lenses by Lars Kjellberg or read Norman Koren page http://www.normankoren.com/ Mikael Risedal From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 20:30:30 +0200 Steve writes: But you do have the advantage that the centre is invariably sharper, often much sharper, than the edge. If that is such an advantage, why hasn't anyone designed lenses for 24x36 that cover a much larger area than the film frame? The same logic would apply. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
RE: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
There is one good thing about that tough. The CCD require that the rays come in at 90 degrees. No they don't. Different CCDs and different CCD designs have different acceptable angles. It is true that with wide angle lenses, you do get falloff at the edges, and it is probably worse than film in certain CCD designs.
RE: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
--- Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is one good thing about that tough. The CCD require that the rays come in at 90 degrees. No they don't. Different CCDs and different CCD designs have different acceptable angles. It is true that with wide angle lenses, you do get falloff at the edges, and it is probably worse than film in certain CCD designs. Well, sure they don't require it if you don't care about the fall off. And yes, it is true that some CCDs are more suspectable to it then others which depends on the design and angle. But then on an SLRs (as the 1Dx we are talking about) you can have so many different lenses from 1800mm to one with a 220 degree coverage that you can't really cover all angles. Robert __ Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/
RE: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
There is one good thing about that tough. The CCD require that the rays come in at 90 degrees. No they don't. Different CCDs and different CCD designs have different acceptable angles. It is true that with wide angle lenses, you do get falloff at the edges, and it is probably worse than film in certain CCD designs. Well, sure they don't require it if you don't care about the fall off. NONE of them require 90 degrees! If they did, you would only get a single ray in the center! All CCDs used in cameras have SOME angle of view before they falloff. And yes, it is true that some CCDs are more suspectable to it then others which depends on the design and angle. But then on an SLRs (as the 1Dx we are talking about) you can have so many different lenses from 1800mm to one with a 220 degree coverage that you can't really cover all angles. Why not? If a CCD is designed such that it accommodates these lenses, as well as any film can, then what's the problem? This is a relatively new issue to CCD designers and processes. I have no doubt that this issue will be less and less with new CCDs. Do you even have ANY idea what lense starts to show falloff on the 1Dx?
Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
Johnny writes: you mean like those massive, unwieldy, boat-anchor-like Leica-M lenses? They are smaller because they are closer to the film.
Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
Mikael writes: The scanner Ls4000 and negative or positive film are inferior to the D1x file regarding colors, smoothness .cleanness and information (above 100ISO film) The above 100 ISO is quite a significant qualifier. What about photos at 100 ISO and below? I hardly ever shoot _above_ 100; I shoot mostly Provia 100F, or Velvia. Sometimes I even shoot Technical Pan. The Nikon D1 x produce remarkable clean pictures comparing to film. If only it accepted standard lenses with standard focal lengths. What's around the corner? A 24x36 CCD, I hope.
Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
The cost of a 24 x 36 6 miljon ccd chips is today around 2000USD. Its takes months to make a chip. Next generation of CMOS will probably cut down the price. The resolution from 24 x 36 chip is better than Nikon D1X but not significant much better. My friend Lars Kjellberg at Photodo have done some tests regarding the new Kodak 760 , Nikon D1X and Phase One backpack to Hasselblad. It was after this test I decide to buy the Nikon D1X If I use 100 ISO film and below there are more resolution, details in the film , but the cleanness and colors are unbeatable in D1X. Mikael Risedal From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 13:59:31 +0200 Mikael writes: The scanner Ls4000 and negative or positive film are inferior to the D1x file regarding colors, smoothness .cleanness and information (above 100ISO film) The above 100 ISO is quite a significant qualifier. What about photos at 100 ISO and below? I hardly ever shoot _above_ 100; I shoot mostly Provia 100F, or Velvia. Sometimes I even shoot Technical Pan. The Nikon D1 x produce remarkable clean pictures comparing to film. If only it accepted standard lenses with standard focal lengths. What's around the corner? A 24x36 CCD, I hope. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
The REAL point of getting a 24x36 chip is to make your 35mm lenses be what they're supposed to be. Not some inbetween angle of view as the digital cameras of today are. -- John Chicago, IL === on 9/16/01 9:09 AM, Mikael Risedal at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The resolution from 24 x 36 chip is better than Nikon D1X but not significant much better.
Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
At 11:31 PM 15/09/01 +, Mikael wrote: MY CONCLUSION IS The history ends here for me regarding using 24 x 36 mm film and Nikon Ls4000 scanner. ...The Nikon D1 x produce remarkable clean pictures comparing to film. What's around the corner? Umm, one that I can afford? :) I'll give it a year or two, and then like you I will be jumping ship. That still leaves all those boxes of negatives and slides that I already have, sadly.. mark t
Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
I'd have to agree even from the samples on the net. The new crop of Pro Digital bodies are giving great resuts @ their 400 iso setting. I thought film, at least for me, would hang on a little longer but I don't know about that now. Maybe another year or two till the used market gets some good digital bodies... on 9/15/01 6:31 PM, Mikael Risedal at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The history ends here for me regarding using 24 x 36 mm film and Nikon Ls4000 scanner. I can easily extrapolate the D1X file from the orginal size to the twice of size without any losses of sharpness and information,. The scanner Ls4000 and negative or positive film are inferior to the D1x file regarding colors , smoothness .cleanness and information (above 100ISO film) For the first time Im available to use a digital camera with out any worries regarding file size and resolution compare to Nikon LS 4000 scanner
