Do all cameras vignette to some degree ?

Does all this lens correction in camera mean that the lenses are able to be poorly/cheaply made ?
Cheap and poor construction are not the same. The standards of mass production are now far beyond what most craftsmen could achieve fifty years ago. During WW2, the western allies routinely used mass production techniques to produce aircraft, vehicles and even ships that outperformed the craftsman made German and Japanese equivalents in significant ways.
In comparison does this also mean that a good Film lens is far superior in mechanical quality ?
Again, you'd have to define "superior" precisely to get a sensible answer.
 
Last edited:
Looks like a picture from my old Cosmic Symbol.
I'd say it was a Holga My Cosmics/ Smenas don't have the Lens distortion that one does !
Both wrong! It's not a 'new' Lomo type camera, it was a 1950s Coronet Twelve-20, which was a little tinplate mock TLR that I bought for about 50p from a house clearance shop in the late 70s. The above was taken by a young teenaged me around 1979 on Kodak Ektachrome E6 slide film. It was good fun to use, and I could get some great light-leak effects by letting the sun shine through the film number window on the film door.

A far cry from these days, where virtually every modern camera (other than ultra cheap or novelty types) should be capable of producing good, clear images without obvious and intrusive vignetting. Even my 1924 Box Brownie gives better results than this Twelve-20, but that doesn't take away the fun you can have or the 'look' you can get from it, however, I wouldn't want to use it all the time as my main camera!
 
What I meant by superior is if a theoretical basic camera was used with both lenses ( I know the more modern lens would not work this way) would the more modern lens show all it's faults ( Which are normally corrected in camera) and the manual film lens work well ?
 
Both wrong! It's not a 'new' Lomo type camera, it was a 1950s Coronet Twelve-20, which was a little tinplate mock TLR that I bought for about 50p from a house clearance shop in the late 70s. The above was taken by a young teenaged me around 1979 on Kodak Ektachrome E6 slide film. It was good fun to use, and I could get some great light-leak effects by letting the sun shine through the film number window on the film door.

A far cry from these days, where virtually every modern camera (other than ultra cheap or novelty types) should be capable of producing good, clear images without obvious and intrusive vignetting. Even my 1924 Box Brownie gives better results than this Twelve-20, but that doesn't take away the fun you can have or the 'look' you can get from it, however, I wouldn't want to use it all the time as my main camera!
I wasn't suggesting it was from a cosmic symbol - only that the image quality was low.
 
would the more modern lens show all it's faults ( Which are normally corrected in camera) and the manual film lens work well ?
The assumption you appear to make is that a modern lens would have poorer design or construction. It's more likely that the modern lens, despite being cheaper in real terms, would perform better in absolute terms than the older lens, even without the digital image being "corrected" by the camera.
 
Last edited:
What I meant by superior is if a theoretical basic camera was used with both lenses ( I know the more modern lens would not work this way) would the more modern lens show all it's faults ( Which are normally corrected in camera) and the manual film lens work well ?
If I were to use Minolta 28-80 and Sony FE 28-75 kit lenses on my A7III with all corrections turned off I don't think you would struggle to see that the more recent lens was enormously better.
 
I would guess that older lenses might perform worse on a digital body than those specifically designed for digital, especially in terms of corner vignettes. My reasoning being that a modern lens will be designed to hit the sensor at a steeper angle.
 
Back
Top