V
Vivek
Guest
Here is the AA plus UV/IR cut filter of an E-410, the sensor dust shaker plate is visible on the photo as well and the fixed cover glass on the senor is inside.
Panasonic G1, Senko 25/0.95.
The material used for the AA filter is most likely LiNbO3 (lithium niobiate), plus there are layers of other materials. It is a complex piece of engineering. The sensor cover glass and the dust shaker glass could be "some" glass (unlikely BK-7). So, the total refractive index of these layers may or may not match the BK-7 of a Bolex RX prism.
This is the general scenario with all digital cameras and lenses (even the current ones as each model of the camera tends to have slightly different filter combinations).
The question you need to ask yourself is, is photography an exact science?
To me, the answer is no.
Mind you, I have and use(for special purposes) some the best lenses (perfect lenses to be precise) ever made. I can use a color corrected Printing Nikkor 95/2.8 for distortionless (0.0000% distortion) copy purposes, for example.
That lens was incidentally made for copying movie films.
To me, this "analysis" that movie camera lenses are ill suited for digital still photography by stringing partial information from various sources and coming here and dissing equipment, usage and the users gives clear indications of boredom.
This kind of "web analysis" isn't a bad pastime but I would think picking up a camera (Gemini or otherwise) and making use of it is a better way to kill the time.
Panasonic G1, Senko 25/0.95.
The material used for the AA filter is most likely LiNbO3 (lithium niobiate), plus there are layers of other materials. It is a complex piece of engineering. The sensor cover glass and the dust shaker glass could be "some" glass (unlikely BK-7). So, the total refractive index of these layers may or may not match the BK-7 of a Bolex RX prism.
This is the general scenario with all digital cameras and lenses (even the current ones as each model of the camera tends to have slightly different filter combinations).
The question you need to ask yourself is, is photography an exact science?
To me, the answer is no.
Mind you, I have and use(for special purposes) some the best lenses (perfect lenses to be precise) ever made. I can use a color corrected Printing Nikkor 95/2.8 for distortionless (0.0000% distortion) copy purposes, for example.
That lens was incidentally made for copying movie films.
To me, this "analysis" that movie camera lenses are ill suited for digital still photography by stringing partial information from various sources and coming here and dissing equipment, usage and the users gives clear indications of boredom.
This kind of "web analysis" isn't a bad pastime but I would think picking up a camera (Gemini or otherwise) and making use of it is a better way to kill the time.