joe_hunt1

<p>Yes I see that Colin, with the longer end of the zooms. Could it be something like a rectangular anti-flare baffle built into the APS-C lenses? The good news appears to be that more of the frame format is useable at the longer end of the zooms, also something which should apply, I think, at closer focussing distances. <br>

Looks like a very thorough review - pity my Chinese isn't up to scratch.</p>

<p>Also, when using APS-C lenses and cropping later to a maximum square format (possibly an appealing thought for some), would make more efficient use of the image circle, increasing the pixel count to about 18 megapixel for the A7R and 12 megapixel for the A7, with a "crop" factor of 1.4x.</p>

<p>That's what I thought - simply proportional to the sensor areas. It might be possible in some instances to get a somewhat larger than APS-C size frame for some subjects (though not full frame) if the drop-off isn't too sudden.<br>

As I'm shortlisting a NEX 6 at the moment, it could be useful to have some continuity if I later went to a FF Sony A7, or its successor, (especially if the A7's lens range stays restricted and expensive).</p>

<p>I understand that the Alpha 7 will crop the edges of the frame when APS-C E-mount lenses are used, to compensate for the smaller coverage, and will thus output images of lower resolution.<br>

I'm interested to know whether that's quantifiable: whether it's a fixed crop to an APS-C sized sensor size, or if it varies between different APS-C lenses, and what size the output resolution would be for the 24 and 36 mp sensors in each case.<br>

Is it simply proportional to the ratio of the areas of the FF and APS-C size sensors or is it more complicated than that?</p>

<p>To Norman<br>

Well...if you still have the G1X why not take a moment to check the viewfinder with your glasses on? :-)</p>

<p>Thanks Rob. By "frame" I take it you're referring to image recorded - not the viewfinder frame?<br>

80% is, I suppose, a linear (not area) measurement. 80% area wouldn't be <em>too</em> bad.<br>

I knew already that the VF coverage of the recorded photo wouldn't be complete, so what additionally concerns me is any loss of the viewfinder image due to eye-relief not being sufficient for eyeglass wearers. Pictures of the rear of the camera show a rather small and shallow eyepiece compared to most optical/EVF finders.</p>

<p>I have looked in vain to find info or opinions (by wearers of glasses) on the eye relief of the optical finder of the Canon G1X. I've seen it described as too small to be really useful, "tunnel-like", partly obscured by the lens at longer lens settings, all of which I reluctantly accept, but a deal-breaker for me would be not getting the full field of view when wearing glasses.<br>

Can anyone enlighten this potential owner, who can't easily get to try one out before buying?</p>

<p>I lot of interesting and erudite stuff. I must live in a sheltered world. I did apply a small amount of sharpening (basic unsharp mask) to my test shots Ed, but I'm not yet familiar with E-W Deconvolution (first time hearing of it in this thread).<br>

Would I be right in thinking that if my lens "test" shows good sharpness wide open, peaks early with very fine detail at f/4-5.6, begins to decline from f/8 onward, that this is indicating a good performance, rather than peaking later? I'm basing this on the idea that the better the resolution of the lens then the earlier will a decline set in due to diffraction. Of course the lens would still do well enough for most real-world use at the smaller apertures.<br>

Or is it more complicated. Do most lenses behave non-linearly.......?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Some very interesting responses to my original question and the comments arising from it. I think I can take reassurance from Dan's experience of Canon's AA filters with top end cameras and hope that it filters (!) down to a recent lower level product like my 100D.<br>

I did some comparison shots from f.2.8 to f.22 (EOS 24mm f.2.8 S USM), of a newspaper sheet with type and images, with the camera mounted, using live view and 2 sec. delay. Image was sharp towards centre at f.2.8, peaking at f.4-5.6, dropping by f.11, with further softening to f.22.<br>

From that I'm thinking that, as diffraction effects are very apparent, the lens is performing well and AA filtering is not obscuring it?</p>

<p>Given the recent tendency for some cameras to leave out the AA filter (e.g. OMD E M1), related I believe to increased sensor megapixels, and for some to have a very reduced AA filter effect (e.g OMD E M5), I wonder if Canon EOS DSLRs in general have a pronounced or a subtle AA characteristic compared with other makes.<br>

Do different EOS models have different levels of anti-aliasing applied, depending on sensor size, resolution, and up-to-dateness? I'm particularly thinking of my new18mp APS-C 100D.<br>

Also, does the AA filter have a protective role over the sensor, making it easier for to remove dust without interfering with the sensor? </p>

<p>Good point JDM - I would check the screen (hopefully 100%) at near and far focus to be sure.</p>

<p>The responses have been very helpful - thanks. I'm surprised at getting so much info on the identifying letters and numbers so quickly, on what I'd thought was an obscure topic. The link supplied to lensplay.com was also helpful in pairing the hoods with the lenses.<br>

I checked out all the Canon "65's" I could find, some of which were clip-on not bayonet, and now intend to get locally an independent Fusen brand (at 2/3rds the price) for Canon ET 65 B and cut it down to size!</p>

<p>I've just bought an EF 24mm f.2.8 IS USM and will use it on APS-C. I want to keep the hood as narrow and compact as possible, and don't need the wider recommended hood for 24mm as the lens is 38mm equiv. on the smaller sensor.<br /> I want a narrow 58mm hood such as ET67, and shorten it (I've done this kind of thing before!) so it's compact and gives some impact protection even if it's not the best for shielding from light. There are other hoods also with the more common EW designation, as well as ES as in ES 71 II for 50mm f.1.4.</p>

<p>I'd like to know if the different coding refers to changes in the bayonet attachment or in the diameter of the bayonet on the different hoods I'm considering - even though they are all 58mm filter threads. While I intend to radically alter the length of the hood I buy, obviously the bayonet attachment needs to be the same as on the recommended EW-65B hood for the 24mm f.2.8 IS.</p>

<p>With reference to the last comment above (which I,m sorry to say I don't know how to import in the accepted format):<br>

"Well, maybe pianissimo. Canon updates their budget EF-S zooms, e.g., 18-55, 18-135 and 55-250, every year or two. I used the EF 24 2.8 on APS-C as a walk around for years and it's sharp and really small. A half inch shorter pancake design would be inconsequential for most shooters."<br>

The current EF 24mm f.2.8 at 55.7mm is over twice as long and over twice the weight of the 40mm pancake. If that's insignificant I might as well go back to the versatiile 18-55mm kit lens, which is a good bit lighter than the 24mm and just over 1/2" longer! </p>

<p>I totally prefer an eye-level VF, either EVF or optical, so the EOS-M wouldn't suit. For compactness I've now ordered an EOS 100D and 40mm even though it's a long focal length (at equiv. 64mm) for the APS-C and has no IS. As I've another EOS body and a couple of lenses already it seemed a fairly economic option.<br /> I would really prefer the Fuji X-E2 (at greater cost) with an 18mm or 27mm, but they're not IS either - although less in need of IS than the EOS 40mm.</p>

<p>Thanks for comments, and I think Charles must have made a very valid point regarding the optics of a pancake lens :-(</p>

<p>I want a compact lens for my EF-S APS-C format but the 40mm is too long, tranlating as 60mm. Does anyone know if Canon is planning something around 24mm (pancake style) for this format?</p>

I was about to suggest overexposing until I saw Leonard & Michael had already referred to it. I would also have suggested reduced development to avoid too much density build-up in the centre and to help even things out - "pulling" in other words (or word). Would that be right?

I don't know if this sounds easier, avoiding log elements in the calculation:

 

Exposure factor = (lens focal length + extension) squared / (focal length) squared

 

e.g. (with lens of 10cm focal length and extension of 10cm) x4 = 400/100

The options are Manual, AE (Auto Exposure aperture priority), and AEL (Auto Exposure Lock) which holds or memorises metered main subject exposure setting for adjusting composition.

Another one to consider is 20" Dell Ultrasharp 2001FP which is a good bit cheaper than the Cinema Display and gets a best buy recommendation in Digit (graphic design mag) survey - see Feb 05. Described as "great image quality - esp for the price, two USB ports, slim stylish design". It has 1600x1200, can be rotated, has DVI, adjustable height and tilt.

You could pare away the plastic carrier edges sufficient to show beyond the image - leaving as much as possible to support the film (assuming the carriers are like the Canoscan ones).

Having just tried my own remedy I'm not sure I can recommend it after all.

From Distort - Spherize, you then have Mode - Normal (default) which is the centre only one, and two other options - Horizontal only, Vertical only.

 

If you select Horizontal and do the degree of correction appropriate for that axis, then Vertical and do likewise for that axis, the adjustment diagram shows adjustable correction graduated across the full image area.

The new Epson FS 3200 film scanner is very reasonably priced for a

scannner that does formats up to 4x5 (?599 in UK) but I haven't seen

any user comments. Has anyone used it or heard how it performs?