Mirror issue A33 and A55, only one question..

If you print it up to A2, will you see that ghosting, or not? Thats important.. 100% pixel peep isnt relevant, unless you can see that on print. Cause otherwise, I can coment A55 only as pretty awesome camera.

Don't know about the ghosting, but A2 [594*420 mm] is a bit bigger than looking at 100% on a monitor that has 100ppi

Mescalamba wrote: If you print it up to A2, will you see that ghosting, or not? Thats important.. 100% pixel peep isnt relevant, unless you can see that on print.
  • The pixel peepers established that the ghosting is 14 pixels.
  • A2 is 420x594mm
  • the A55 is 4912x3264 pixels
  • A2 is a 1.414 aspect, while the A55 is a 3:2, so you toss some pixels on the long edge, which means A55 is 4616x3264 on full bleed A2.
  • 3264 pixels / 420mm = 7.77 pixels/mm.
  • 14 pixels / 7.77 pixels/mm = 1.8mm
1.8mm Oh, you're going to see that, alright... The big questions are:
  • Will seeing it actually ruin the shot?
  • How long will it take to post process?
The second question is especially interesting, as an inkjet at its higher resolution settings takes 8-40 minutes to crank out an A2. I look at the A55 examples with ghosting, and I see nothing that I can't kill in 2 minutes flat. A workflow that includes 15 minutes of post processing per print keeps up with the printer quite nicely. And it's a drop in the bucket in some workflows. I typically allocate about an hour of post for what I refer to as an "exhibition quality" print.
Cause otherwise, I can coment A55 only as pretty awesome camera.
If you don't mind an observation: you seem to be looking for some "magic" to help your photography. Whether you're commenting about an "awesome" Sony A55 or a "crazy good" Phase One P65, or a Leica S2 to leave you "speechless" because it's "more than just MF", those things don't matter anywhere near as much as the photographer. Someone good can do more with your G1 than you can do with those other cameras. Upgrade your "process", not your equipment. Take some classes, take a lot more pictures, read some books.

Doesnt change fact that A55 is pretty interesting piece of equipment. I dont intend to buy it, I was just tired of all pixel peepers and wondered if someone has decent answer to this. Its good that it can be processed out. I spend quite a lot of time on my "photos", so few minutes wouldnt kill me. Leica has its magic, doesnt matter if ppl believe it or not.. Part is lens, part is usage of CCD sensor and what does seem to me as great color rendition (and yes I know, MF uses CCD too). Im interested in cameras, same way as Im interested in computer HW. I dont believe in magical camera, that make you take good pictures. I took few decent (at least decent for me) pictures even with cheap Fuji compact. Ofc resolution sucked as well as lens, but I must admit I kinda liked Fuji colors. Not exactly as old Fuji films, but still nice. G1 is quite ok camera, decent picture from that require bit more post-processing than one would like, but its not like its not possible to get a nice photo from that. Just a bit harder than with decent dSLR. I think that quality of camera actually maters, maybe not that much as one who uses it, but still it does. Otherwise all pros would still use old film cameras, wouldnt they? But quite a lot of ppl moved to either dSLR or digital MF. Cause they are better. As in my eyes is for example P65+ or S2. Which probably means, that quality of gear counts too. I guess there wouldnt be any dpzen, if it didnt matter. I know how to get better, I just currently cant do much about it. And for begginer, I dont think I was that bad with G1, considering I had only those kit-lens and very limited choice of subjects. http://www.flickr.com/mescaphoto/ Oh and thx for explanation (about A55 and printing).

Mescalamba wrote: I think that quality of camera actually maters, maybe not that much as one who uses it, but still it does. Otherwise all pros would still use old film cameras, wouldnt they?
Nothing wrong with the quality of some "old film cameras"
But quite a lot of ppl moved to either dSLR or digital MF. Cause they are better.
A lot of "pros" moved to digiital even before the image quality was very good - one reason, with digital they could send their pictures to their publisher straight away without waiting for processing.
As in my eyes is for example P65+ or S2. Which probably means, that quality of gear counts too.
Well if it makes you happy and you can afford one go an buy an S2. A Pentax 64D won't cost that much more than a Nikon D3x
  • C

Hi Joseph, You've summed things very rational. One must be aware (OP), that such summary is only possible, if some pixel knowledge exist -or should I say "pixel peeping"? Well done, Joseph. Bogdan

hbx2004 wrote: Hi Joseph, You've summed things very rational. One must be aware (OP), that such summary is only possible, if some pixel knowledge exist -or should I say "pixel peeping"? Well done, Joseph.
Hi Bogdan. Glad you enjoyed it.

Why should the backside of the translucent mirror cause more reflection than a lens surface. Or is anyone here using a lensless camera ?

goetz48 wrote: Why should the backside of the translucent mirror cause more reflection than a lens surface. Or is anyone here using a lensless camera ?
Not sure, but maybe it needs different coating. Lens are definetly coated to prevent this. And ghosting is caused by nature of light going through angled glass, which acts as prism and split light and ergo, even if its very thin, cause bit of dual-image. Though, apparently for most ppl it wont be a real life problem.

goetz48 wrote: Why should the backside of the translucent mirror cause more reflection than a lens surface. Or is anyone here using a lensless camera ?
Lens surfaces are generally
  • curved - which means that any rays that are converging on the sensor (and therefore, capable of generating a sharply defined image) will have their point of convergence changed by reflecting from a curved surface. The curved surface will either increase convergence and make the ghost image focus in front of the sensor and then diverge again before it hits the sensor, or decrease convergence and make the ghost image not converge before it hits the sensor.
  • reasonably perpendicular to the optic path - so anything that does converge will do so pretty well aligned with the original image.
The pellicle mirror reflections are from a
  • flat surface - that doesn't really affect converging rays: so the ghosts converge as sharply focused images.
  • at 45 degrees to the optic path - to displace the ghost by the thickness fo the mirror (less some effects due to refraction).
This is why Canon used a much thinner mirror in their Pellix and EOS RT cameras, and why Oly used solid cube beam splitters in the E-10 and E-20.

Add new comment

Attachment
More information
  • Files must be less than 2 MB.
  • Allowed file types: txt.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.