Live data from Hacker News

Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

dpreview.com

61–70 of 291 posts

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#61
post #13

I had an old metal very well regarded 50 mm prime, 1.4 f. I also had a modern plastic 18-55 mm kit lens, high f (starting at 3.5). But the colors on the modern zoom lens were so much better. Hard to explain, but they just looked better, kind of like a DSLR photo has "better" colors than a phone photo. It was very confusing, I was expecting differences in sharpness maybe, but not in colors.

A lot of that has to do with coatings modern lenses use to correct for chromatic aberration, but also how they minimize loss of contrast from light bouncing around inside the lens. It really is incredible how much a lens affects the final image.

It's all about the glass. There's an old saying with cameras and lenses: buy the glass, rent the camera. Cameras change quickly, but lenses remain for a lot longer. Lots of comments in this thread talking about how they prefer the older lenses. Each series of lenses have a "look" to them that people become attached. Modern lenses are approaching 0 distortion in color/sharpness/etc. For some users, that's what they want. For others, they prefer the softer looks. So find the lenses you like, buy them, and use them on what ever camera you can.

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#62
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is more fun is the latency those effects add to images. Found that out the hard way playing some twitchy 'have to be just right' on the controls games. In my case it was almost 1/4-1/2 of a second. Even with all of the settings 'off' there is still a decent latency on the screen (down to about 70ms) which is just enough to mess me up on some games but not all.

Most newer TVs have a game mode that significantly reduces latency by getting rid of almost all processing, including stuff that you otherwise can't disable in the menu.

And some TVs only offer low latency on certain inputs, so it pays to do some research.

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#63

I had an old metal very well regarded 50 mm prime, 1.4 f. I also had a modern plastic 18-55 mm kit lens, high f (starting at 3.5). But the colors on the modern zoom lens were so much better. Hard to explain, but they just looked better, kind of like a DSLR photo has "better" colors than a phone photo. It was very confusing, I was expecting differences in sharpness maybe, but not in colors.

You can fix the colors in post production.

sometimes. shooting in RAW helps. shooting in JPEG limits your post abilities.

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#64
post #24

What I don't understand isn't the design of the lenses, which are chasing ever-tightening windows of precision in a competetive market with high margins and discriminating consumers. Of course they're going to be overdesigned. What gets me is that lens distortion is a fully reversible convolution. It's not lossy, at all. Or rather, it's only lossy in the sense that the existing quantization in the sensor is already l…

Isn't that exactly what modern smartphones are doing? I think it's quite impressive what Apple and Google are able to do with clever image processing.

What GCam does is simple stacking to improve snr plus some clever alignment/de-ghosting to avoid motion artifacts. It mostly compensates for the sensor size, not the lens simplicity. They still have many artifacts which big lenses don't, even after software compensation calibrated to match the specific camera.

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That market — the one that would be happy with a mediocre lens and great image processing - likely overlaps with people using top tier mobile devices for their work. After all, acceptable lenses with amazing image processing is basically what the flagship iPhones and android devices bring to the table, and their use case tends to overlap with that of a 50mm prime.

This strikes me as true. I wouldnt say the camera companies did not see this coming. They did and chose to not do anything about it. I shoot videos with some pretty low end DSLR cameras and they are often lacking the feautures of any modern flagship phone. It's a joke. We once used a whole Iphone shooting at 120fps and made some plain scenes look amazing in post. A revelation since most pro videographers pooh pooh ph…

The pros are well aware of the gains made by phone cameras. Sensors and pixels aren't the primary factor for choosing say, a $10,000 camera, over an iPhone. Reliability, battery life, form factor, control ergonomics, lens compatibility, codecs, ease of integration with third-party equipment, standards compliance, and on it goes. I don't think the opinion is that an iPhone can't make a nice image, just that they are woefully insufficient for many needs for reasons other than the sensor and processing algorithms.

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#66
post #24

What I don't understand isn't the design of the lenses, which are chasing ever-tightening windows of precision in a competetive market with high margins and discriminating consumers. Of course they're going to be overdesigned. What gets me is that lens distortion is a fully reversible convolution. It's not lossy, at all. Or rather, it's only lossy in the sense that the existing quantization in the sensor is already l…

You are not quite correct. The deconvolution only works well if you know exactly the convolution kernel and you have infinite signal to noise. In practice neither is true and you'll have artefacts if you try to do deconvolve. And the reason why it's hard to know exactly the convolution kernel is that it will depend on the wavelength of the photons, position in the focal plane and potentially orientation of the camera, if optical elements are moving around.

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#67
post #24

What I don't understand isn't the design of the lenses, which are chasing ever-tightening windows of precision in a competetive market with high margins and discriminating consumers. Of course they're going to be overdesigned. What gets me is that lens distortion is a fully reversible convolution. It's not lossy, at all. Or rather, it's only lossy in the sense that the existing quantization in the sensor is already l…

I believe this was essentially the hope of "Lytro", or light-field cameras more generally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-field_camera

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#68
post #24

What I don't understand isn't the design of the lenses, which are chasing ever-tightening windows of precision in a competetive market with high margins and discriminating consumers. Of course they're going to be overdesigned. What gets me is that lens distortion is a fully reversible convolution. It's not lossy, at all. Or rather, it's only lossy in the sense that the existing quantization in the sensor is already l…

why hasn't someone come out with a camera with a junky single-piece lens and a fancy image processing backend and won the market?

I believe it’s called the iPhone.

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#69
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had this experience watching the Hobbit in high frame rate - it felt like I was watching a play, a bunch of actors on a stage.

Second that; Hobbit in particular seemed like a mid-budget British made-for-TV show. I get that it's all psychological, that I'm used to deliberate Hollywood motion-blur look... but I still couldn't bear it. But clearly we learned something or there was something special about Hobbit, because that hasn't necessarily been my experience with all 4k / high-frame shows or movies...

I think to a large extent people overestimated how much this feeling, specifically in the Hobbit films, came from the high frame rate vs. how much came from other artistic, creative, and budget choices they made.

I saw them in both normal frame rate and HFR as they were coming out and it looked kinda low-budget, weirdly lit/color corrected, and generally just clunkier than the LotR films did in the moment.

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#70
post #24

What I don't understand isn't the design of the lenses, which are chasing ever-tightening windows of precision in a competetive market with high margins and discriminating consumers. Of course they're going to be overdesigned. What gets me is that lens distortion is a fully reversible convolution. It's not lossy, at all. Or rather, it's only lossy in the sense that the existing quantization in the sensor is already l…

You're not capturing the rays, you only get where they strike. You can't fix it all computationally. Secondly, we already do correct distortion and chromatic aberration in software, but this doesn't really make up for loss of resolution that you can't fix. Information is being lost.

Isn't the location that a ray strikes entirely a function of angle of incidence, its frequency, and the particular lens? Why couldn't that function be determined and inverted?
Post reply on HN