Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Thanks.

Here's a paragraph from the article that I think needs more explanation and is worth considering: "Part of the removal of negative attributes has to do with in-camera lens corrections (and out-of-camera lens correction profiles). If you don't have to correct optically for linear distortion and vignetting, for instance, suddenly you can optimize for the other components of the optical formula."

He's right about that and the bottom line there is that the performance of these new mirrorless mount lenses must be understood as not simply optical lens performance but lens optics and software. Phrasing that a different way if you yank the software you can lose the lens performance. What the new mirrorless lens mounts have given Nikon, Canon, etc. is the freedom to say goodbye once and for all to film.

I have M mount Leica lenses. That mount allows me to use the lenses on both digital M Leica cameras as well as film M mount Leica cameras. The lenses have to be designed to work for both.

I have Nikon F mount lenses from Zeiss. My 21mm Distagon still has that little Nikon f/stop pin clip on the aperture ring. I can mount that lens on a Nikon F4 body and load up a roll of Fujichrome and go. The lens design had to consider that.

What that paragraph in Thom's article is saying is that if the lens has some pretty bad barrel distortion who cares we'll fix it in software. If the lens vignettes the corners badly who cares we'll fix it in software -- what's the worry, you can't put a Z mount lens on a film camera.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

CadCam technology has been in use in camera and lens design and manufacturing since the 1970's. Digital image sensors are absolutely not flat. You are correct in saying tech keeps rolling, but a better word is, evolving.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Probably one of the best replies I've read on this subject, especially the first sentence. It probably could not be more accurate.
It really boils down to wants and needs for most folks, and the wants outweigh the needs in many, many people, including myself.
Sure, I'd love to have all the latest and greatest, but I've already spent tens of thousands of dollars on gear, that still works just fine, and in many aspects, just as good as it's MILC counterparts.

Canisdirus

Digital sensors are technically flat..not perfect...nothing manmade is.

But the difference between a digital sensor and a film is vast...old lens had more variance because the receiving medium did.

Todays lenses can't use those loose tolerances...well most don't...there are always dog lenses out there.

Todays modern lenses are superior...why wouldn't they be?

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Yes, the majority of image sensors appear to be flat. Their shape is definitely flat and I'm not disputing that, but they are covered with little bumps, little round bumps, and are not as smooth, or flat if you will, as film. Every SLR I have in my collection of pre-digital cameras did a really good job of keeping the film flat behind the shutters. The tolerances you are talking about are so small, they are for the most part, irrelevant. I'm not saying the differences between digital sensors and film aren't vast, they are two different technologies. You are correct in saying today's modern lenses are superior to most lenses made in the previous century, but for the most part, to the average human, they are not really all that different. When it comes to photograph, my philosophy is, use what you like and like what you use. If people can afford to buy the latest and greatest then by all means do so, it's better for the whole world of photography. But let's not confuse needs and wants, as I often confuse what conversation I'm in. Enjoy life as best you can...

rlscholl Loc: California

A reminder: from a theoretical point of view, “progress” in technology related fields (including lens design) typically is relatively rapid following some discovery or invention of a change in technology or technique, followed by a slower evolution of what might be called fine tuning of the development. The development of the mirrorless camera body technology to the point that mirrorless cameras were competitive with DSLRs in the areas where the DSLRs had advantages, but retained the existing mirrorless advantages (e.g., size and weight), provided lens manufacturers with a market for developing new lenses that took advantage of one characteristic advantage of mirrorless cameras, specifically the shorter flange to sensor distance. The resulting new lenses developed, (particularly those wider-angle lenses that had required complex lens designs to accommodate the DSLR’s flange to sensor distance), would be expected to reflect the advantage of requiring less complex designs for a given optical quality. No one should be surprised at the rapid development of such lenses. Perhaps the next “breakthrough” might be the development of sensors that allow even shallower angles of light hitting the sensor, replicating the characteristic of film that allowed the relatively small superb Leica film camera lenses. Who knows, but it is something to contemplate.

Canisdirus

Film isn't flat as it sits in the camera frame...it's wildly off compared to a digital sensor.
There's a big difference.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Are you referring to the microlenses on the filter placed in front of the sensor? They aren't part of the sensor and they are part of the optical system designed to improve light collection.

ronpier Loc: Poland Ohio

Half of my lenses are 20-40 yrs old but produce surprisingly sharp and beautiful images. Not ready to replace what doesn’t need replaced. Many were purchased used at very low prices and are built like tanks.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Depends on how old your DSLR lenses are.
Most of the latest versions might be slightly bested in the mirrorless equivalents if you are a 1000% pixel peeper.
If the latest DSLR lens is $2k and the mirrorless equivalent is 3k and you take the usual beating selling the older lens is the difference worth it?
For pixel peepers it is but for those who have a budget to keep can you just keep using the superb DSLR lens?

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Folks tend to forget that the SLR hasn't been around forever. Early models date from the years of WWII but it's really after the war that they start to gain any traction and enter the marketplace. They're about as old as we retired boomers. Before SLRs all cameras were mirrorless. My first serious camera (1973) was an SLR but I quickly moved over to mirrorless cameras and the majority of my photo career (70s, 80s, 90s, etc) was spent shooting with mirrorless cameras. Today all of my cameras are mirrorless -- it's deja vu all over again.

Like my Zeiss Biogon originally designed for mirrorless cameras in 1934. My newer version in Leica M mount takes full advantage of that shorter mirrorless flange distance and it is superb.

Just having some fun here -- I'm just amused at how mirrorless is often treated as new tech. Decent EVFs are new tech but mirrorless is old and it's advantages for designing great lenses has been known and previously exploited and not just by Leica. One of my favorite mirrorless cameras that I kind of miss was a Graflex XL with a 58mm Grandagon -- that was a kick ass mirrorless camera. https://www.ebay.com/itm/255553265700?chn=ps&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-117182-37290-0&mkcid=2&itemid=255553265700&targetid=1528987497336&device=c&mktype=&googleloc=9022871&poi=&campaignid=15431330539&mkgroupid=129869901589&rlsatarget=pla-1528987497336&abcId=9300764&merchantid=6296724&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIgofSr_Wt-AIV5sLCBB2W3wxvEAQYASABEgKJEPD_BwE

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

My first 35mm camera was a Kodak. Mirrorless. Around 1955 I went to an Exact VX SLR. In the '70s my wife bought a Nikkormat SLR. We used those two cameras until the '90s. Went digital in 1999 (mirrorless P&S). DSLR 2005. Cost me one month's Social Security income. Costs escalated from that point onward. About half the cost from that point was glass.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Lens making and technology have changed a lot in the past 10 years. Nobody will deny that modern lens manufactures are producing lenses of superb quality, even kit lenses. Lenses today are better than ever.
When it comes to mirrorless and, this is my personal opinion, I like to use the lenses made for the camera not using lenses that need an adaptor, no matter how good those lenses are.

Now, modern technologies do not mean that lenses made years ago are not as good today. I still use a 1971 Nikon 50mm f1.4, single coated lens with excellent results. My Nikon 80-200 f4.5 lens from the early 70's also produces excellent images with my dSLR cameras. I have several D lenses that I use often and my 1967 Nikon 105mm f2.5 single coated lens I use occasionally for portraits and as a short tele. As I said, with mirrorless cameras I prefer to use lenses manufactured specifically for use with such cameras.

Modern coatings, including Nano crystal, the use of LD glass in prosumer lenses only used in the past for expensive teles and the use of aspherical lenses have all made a significant contribution to better image quality. Control of flare and ghost images with new lenses is far better than with lenses of the past. All of these technologies are also available to independent lens manufacturers in most cases at a fraction of the price of OEM. I prefer to use the lenses made for the camera but when money is a primary consideration a lens from an independent manufacturer can do a very good job rendering quality images.

Ask any photographer using large format cameras, they are still using lenses manufactured many years ago to their entire satisfaction.

tcthome Loc: NJ

tcthome Loc: NJ

The way I see it, if you are satisfied with what you have now. There will be a day when you can't get an older piece of gear serviced anymore if need be (most likely the camera over the lens) & then...