1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Sensor Stacks and Adapted Lenses

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by OzRay, Jun 6, 2014.

  1. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Cruzan80

    Cruzan80 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 23, 2012
    Denver, Co
    Sean Rastsmith
    I wonder what difference the sensors have from body to body. Does m4/3 all have a thick sensor, or just the one they happened to pull from the GX1?
     
  3. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    My reading leads me to believe that all m4/3 cameras have the thicker optical stack over the sensor.
     
  4. barry13

    barry13 Super Moderator; Photon Wrangler

    Mar 7, 2014
    Southern California
    Barry
    Hi, I read recently that many new sensors, including the 16mp Sonys, are cutting back on filters to gain effective sensitivity.
    Afaict, that explains the purple fringing problems with some Pana lenses on Oly bodies.
    Oly lenses reportedly make up for it in their coatings.

    Barry


    Sent from my iPad using Mu-43
     
  5. MajorMagee

    MajorMagee Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 24, 2011
    Dayton, OH
    Wow, that was interesting. It makes me wonder about future camera bodies, and if they'll need to keep the same overall glass thickness, even if they drop things like the AA filter, just to avoid distorting the optics of their entire lens lineup.

    Is it part of the m43 design standard?

    I appreciate that Metabones is sophisticated enough to have designed this effect into their speed boosters. I would be surprised if the cheaper alternatives even have a clue about the need to correct for this.
     
  6. HarryS

    HarryS Mu-43 Top Veteran

    919
    Jun 23, 2012
    Midwest, USA
    I would be certain that Samyang uses CAD tools to design lenses and even a Zhongyi (lens turbo) probably has the software. Lens design is high level work no matter where you do it. From the article: Brian’s design like that of most lenses) has an optical formula that plans on light rays leaving the lens passing through such a stack before reaching the sensor... I wonder if Metabones uses the same converter lens for its Sony and M43 products, or is the difference big enough to need two different lenses..

    It does suggest that lenses put into multiple mounts (like Tamron, Sigma, Rokinon, et al) might NOT work the same on different cameras.


    Thanks to OP for the link. An interesting article.
     
  7. fortwodriver

    fortwodriver Mu-43 Top Veteran

    959
    Nov 15, 2013
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Frank
    The m43 camera I've seen has a filter stack that's about that thickness.
    That would be the E-M1, G1, G2. I haven't had a chance to look at any others.
    If one didn't, you'd have serious problems with lenses on that camera. It would essentially remove compatibility by eliminating something from the optical path. Incidentally, this relatively thick stack allows for much better accommodation of sensor dust. A dust particle three times farther from the sensor plate is going to blur much more than one that's closer. So, even if the piezo shaker doesn't shed all of the dust particles, you'd have to work with very tiny apertures to see some of the smaller particles stuck to that filter stack.

    I think even the early Olympus E-10 and E-20 had a thick cover glass over their 2/3 sensors.
     
  8. MajorMagee

    MajorMagee Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 24, 2011
    Dayton, OH
    I was thinking about the problems that Fotodiox had with their first focal length reducing adapters.
     
  9. fortwodriver

    fortwodriver Mu-43 Top Veteran

    959
    Nov 15, 2013
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Frank
    I would guess that in Fotodiox's case, it was whoever they were contracting out to do the optical work for early versions. They were not paying for the tightest standards. In my opinion, Fotodiox products aren't particularly precise although they have become better over the years.
     
  10. speedandstyle

    speedandstyle Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Interesting indeed and it would be nice to see what cameras have what thickness of glass in front of their sensors!
     
  11. fortwodriver

    fortwodriver Mu-43 Top Veteran

    959
    Nov 15, 2013
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Frank
    I remember the Nikon D100 and D1 had one of the thinnest stacks I'd seen... They used to advertise that they were made with Lithium Niobate. I remember taking apart a D1 sensor that was dead and finding that the cover glass wasn't much thicker than your typical microscope cover glass - Maybe a mm or two thick. It was so easy to damage those.
     
  12. RnR

    RnR Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 25, 2011
    Brisbane, Australia
    Hasse
    Today I'm loving my Speedboosters even more... :biggrin:
     
  13. tjdean01

    tjdean01 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    842
    Feb 20, 2013
    1) If there's all this glass in front of our sensors, why are we worried about cleaning them ourselves? NEX and Pentax Q clearly has glass. I thought my PM2 had nothing but the sensor. So, I CAN touch it!

    2) I'm not understanding how this will affect anything. We here have tried hundreds of adapted lenses with very good, predictable results. What the article and you guys are saying makes sense, however, I'm not seeing any lack of quality.

    3) Speed booster: the glass simply makes the image circle of the 35mm lens smaller and thus faster and wider. Since you're using a higher percentage of the intended image circle, sure, I can see how this might be better. But I don't see how the sensor stack could be making anything better or worse. I'm confused.

    Again, confused. Regardless of the aperture the image circle would be the same size, right?



    So, in short, why is finding out the thickness of the sensor stack making those who use speed boosters happier? And, if a flange distance of a certain mount is X, it will be X regardless. You don't even need to know the thickness of the sensor stack, right?
     
  14. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    All lenses are designed to focus on a specific image plane (distance from the exit pupil to film/sensor plane); with film it used to be pretty much a constant across the board. With digital, the plane of focus depends on what is in front of the sensor, which becomes part of the optical path, post-lens, and every digital camera's OEM lens design takes this into account. While lenses designed for say a Nikon can work on a m4/3 body very well, there may be things happening that are not ideal, but may not matter greatly in the long run regarding image quality. With the lens speed boosters, it's a different matter altogether, as you are now introducing another optical layer into the equation, which complicates things significantly. I think the article was specifically discussing the speed booster concept, but it can apply to other types of adapters as well.
     
  15. biomed

    biomed Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 22, 2013
    Seattle area
    Mike
    From the article:

    Testing Implications

    We may need to make corrections on our optical bench when testing lenses designed to have a certain thickness of glass between their rear element and the sensor. Obviously, we’ll be going back to doing more testing there, too. I suspect, for example, that the numbers I posted in last week’s 50mm article might actually be a tiny bit lower than reality for the Sigma Art and Zeiss Otus lenses.

    Or perhaps not. This is a new area and we’ll have to run lots of copies on the bench, and correlate them with Imatest or other complete-systems measurements before we know for sure.

    Of course, it’s possible that sensor stack thickness might end up being no big deal. But hey, if it’s important enough for Panavision, it’s important enough for me.


    What is the "real world" implication? I have been using both M and F mount lenses on my u4/3 bodies and have been getting excellent results. In my opinion some of the adapted lenses I use are better on a u4/3 body than on the original film body for which they were designed.
     
  16. MajorMagee

    MajorMagee Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 24, 2011
    Dayton, OH
    Every transition from one material to another (air to glass, glass to plastic, etc.) causes a change in direction of the light rays. The thickness and incidence angle will determine what comes out on the other side. Now add in the complication that the response is frequency dependent (red versus green versus blue light) and you can start to see how it takes a PhD and some pretty complicated optics software to design these to work as intended without degrading the image.
     
  17. fortwodriver

    fortwodriver Mu-43 Top Veteran

    959
    Nov 15, 2013
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Frank
    It's got nothing to do with that. It's got to do with how the rays of light strike any dirt on the cover glass. That's why you can see dust particles in your photos when they are taken at small apertures. Large apertures let more oblique rays through the lens system effectively bending around the dust particle. When you close the aperture down (with the exception of the rays that bend around the blades (i.e.: diffraction) the light is centralized causing a deeper shadow behind the dust particle.

    Also, these stacks are not simple glass. They are filter stacks. They often contain colour filter surfaces, polarization surfaces and can't simply be considered "flat, plane-perfect" glass. They are essentially specialized filters.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. RnR

    RnR Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 25, 2011
    Brisbane, Australia
    Hasse
    I think the danger is possible damage to the image stablisation system.

    Focal reducers really give a 'whoa' result. Its kinda amazing the first time you are in your image editor looking over results. Actually I could see something wonderful was up through the evf.

    Have a look at the Metabones Speedbooster white paper on page 5 - http://www.metabones.com/assets/a/stories/Speed Booster White Paper.pdf. The first picture quite clearly shows the effect a piece of flat glass has on the light rays. It also suggests to me that the Metabones Speedbooster for the m43 mount takes the ~4mm filter into account. Also remember that some of the long tele lenses with drop in filters recommends to have simple uv/skylight filter in place while not using any other filter, because a filter in that location is part of the optical design.

    Ignore fortwodriver, it has nothing to do with dirt.

    I'm happy because there is choice in the market place for focal reducers. Roxsen is selling a decent one. Metabones is selling their Speedbooster which was designed by Brian Caldwell, the gent in the article. From the pdf linked above and Brian's comments in the article, it seems very likely that the Speedbooster design is taking the sensor stack into account giving very good results. Its not clear if the Roxsen does. When I bought mine I took a chance on Brian's reputation on his previous designs, and feel my purchase decision have been right for me.

    Edit: confirmed that the Speedbooster corrects for the sensor/filter stack/pack... from the pdf linked above (bottom of page 12);

    As he says, its troublesome for fast lenses. Perhaps the effect only becomes visible for f2.8 and faster. But it does explain why a great many threads on this subforum is about getting film era fast 50's working well on m43 sensors. Given the comment above, it could be a bit of a fools errant unless you adapt with a focal reducer. I have a Konica 57mm f1.2... I'm kinda looking forward to a hypothetical Metabones Konica adapter... *crosses fingers*.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Reflector

    Reflector Mu-43 Veteran

    406
    Aug 31, 2013
    Here's an implication: You might actually lose out by straight adapting over a lens with an adapter to correct for flange as the lens optics are not designed for a different filter stack. (Ex: Canon might have a different thickness than Nikon, they both have a different thickness than m43s.) While the properly designed telecompressors will compensate for this so that you get the MTF gain when you adapt a lens from one system to another wherein the filter stacks are significantly different.
     
  20. RnR

    RnR Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 25, 2011
    Brisbane, Australia
    Hasse