0.6x Camera App

[Theodor Urena]

Hiall, I noticed yesterday it was blurry after taking a picture but put it down to being shaky. I have tried it today and noticed it's actually blurry when switching to the ultra wide 0.6x lense but at 1.0x it's absolutely fine.

I just started facing this issue as well, not sure when Samsung will send an update to fix this. I cleared the cache and reset the settings but no luck. Disappointed by Samsung's flagship, a top-end phone shouldn't be having such issues after paying more than $1200.

My one only recently started as well. Only noticed it today but as I flick back through previous photos, the ones shot on the wide angle are blurry. Seemed to have started since the latest update. The wide angle seems to focus on close up items though.

Hello,

I have the same problem with S21 Ultra purchased from Amazon Italy on April 25th (I am an Italian user).

On my device the problem was revealed immediately and I confirm everything that has been noted in this forum.

The problem seems to be more widespread than it appears (telephony websites have never mentioned it). At the same time I pointed out the problem on the Italian community at the following link:

today I ran a test that seems to have worked but I need to investigate if it always works.

I would like to see if it works for others as well.

I think the problem could be the laser AF sensor, so I tried to keep a finger on this sensor while I frame a scene alternating it with a macro scene, when I go back to the pan the focus works.

Can you give it a try too?

If it works we understand where the problem lies and the Samsung developers know where to put their hand!

Let me know.

I had the same issue after an update today. Nothing seemed to fix it until I decided to shake the phone. I read that the lens is a fixed lens but can get out of whack. After a few seconds I checked the camera again and it seemed to fix it. Not sure what was going on but that definitely did the trick.

UPDATE:

after reading many forums on the web I have read about similar situations on old Samsung flagships in which to fix the problem it was enough to tap the smartphone.

Well, I tried and it actually worked. This brings the hardware issue back into play.

I have been to a Samsung service center, they recognized the problem and they will contact me to make a repair appointment.

We hope to solve it definitively!

At 4.30 pm on time I left my device. Samsung advertises interventions in an hour but in my case it took two, according to the technician most of the time goes away to carry out all the testing procedures on the hardware after the intervention, an absolutely necessary operation to avoid returning the device with other "problems" related to the disassembly-reassembly operation. I had already taken the afternoon off from work so it wasn't a problem an hour of waiting.

The parts changed were the entire logic board (motherboard) and the camera block, as well as the usual update to the latest firmware available to date (the same one I had before the intervention).

Future users who find themselves in the same condition as me now know what to do!

In summary: the problem is hardware and has to do with the mechanical movement of the lens or the stabilization for the focus that occasionally freezes. The proof is that by tapping the smartphone it unlocks instantly and correctly focuses the scene. The intervention is covered by the warranty and it is important to show the photos, before and after our manual intervention, to the samsung service center.

I think it should be quite possible. However, the minimum focusing distance might change and there might be problems with infinity focussing. Just guess, I am not an optics expert. There could also be some light loss.

It may be theoretically possible, but practically speaking, not all teleconverters mate well with all lenses. It could be difficult to design a generic .6x teleconverter that won't bring down resolution quality of high-end, pricy primes.

First, the magnification effect of a positive-power teleconverter increases the required distance between the lens and the film, which is neatly corrected by matching it to the physical length of the converter. A negative power converter would require a decrease in the distance between the lens and the film, and there's no way to correct for that.

Secondly, the teleconverter does not affect the angular coverage of the lens: it just spreads it out over a larger area, and your film views the central part of the image. A reducing converter (if one could be fitted) would not increase the angular coverage of your lens, it would just compress it into a smaller spot which would not be big enough to cover your negative and would not give you a wider angle of view than you already have.

The only way to make a wide-angle converter is to put it in front of the lens where its optics can gather light from a broader area and compress it into the smaller angle which your regular lens is capable of viewing.

Andrew, The reason why I looked for one between lens and body is that as far as I know all screw on wide angle converters give very bad quality results. Secondly, I have never seen one that would fit on my 72mm 28-135 lens (or to fit in the 77mm 17-40).

Rick, It is clear to me that such a TC would not increase the angular coverage of the lens, but would compress the image onto a smaller spot. although pointless for full-frame cameras, it would be very useful on digital cameras with small sensors (or even APS cameras).

Stephen, I assume that even a high quality converter would have some effect on image quality, and so would not be added "per default". I also could believe that the converter only worked well with selected lenses (similarly 2x TC's do not work well on wide angle lenses).

Kelly and Rick both stated that a 0.6x TC would need to move the lens closer to the film in order to maintain infinity focus. (Did I understand that correctly? it was not very clear). Here my optics knowledge fails me. Can anyone explain why this is, or suggest a site that explains the theory behind this.

Of course as the focal length decreases, the DOF increases and so I can imagine that such a lens could still be very useful - stopped down, infinity focus still possible, in any case still useful for indoor photography.

A reducing converter (if one could be fitted) would not increase the angular coverage of your lens, it would just compress it into a smaller spot which would not be big enough to cover your negative and would not give you a wider angle of view than you already have.

A positive power teleconverter consists of a concave, diverging lens placed behind the prime lens. The effect of this is to take the converging beam of light that's coming out of the prime lens and diverge it slightly, which moves the plane of focus farther back giving the effect of a longer focal-length lens. This creates a larger image circle than the prime lens would have produced, with every part of the image magnified accordingly.

To reduce the image size coming out of the prime lens, you would place a convex lens behind it. This would make the converging beam from the prime lens converge more rapidly, focusing the image circle into a smaller area than it would have done. However, because you are making the beam converge more rapidly, it will now come to focus closer to the lens than it originally did. To correct this you would need to move the lens back closer to the film. But there's a camera body and a moving mirror in the way.

Lensmakers figured out back in the 1950s a way to make a lens of very short focal length and wide angle coverage that still left room behind it for an SLR mirror. The way they did it, though, was to design a negative element into the FRONT end of the lens. This optical construction is, roughly speaking, the same thing you get when you attach a wide-angle converter to the front of your prime lens. Whether it's added on or built into the lens, optical manipulation for a shorter focal length has to be put out front unless you're able to move the lens back closer to the film.

Adding any optical attachment, be it teleconverter, wide-angle attachment or close-up lenses, to a zoom lens, will guarantee poor results, because zoom lenses (especially those with a wide range) are already "stretching things a lot" (no pun) in their complicated design and they bear enough optical compromises as it is.

However, if you try something like the fisheye converter I mentioned on a single-focal length lens mounted on a digital SLR, you will probably obtain acceptable performance. It will be much less susceptible to flare and ghosting (as opposed to using a "converted" zoom). In addition, only the centre part of the image circle (where all optical systems are at their best) is utilized for the digital format, so you will be only using the sharpest, contrastiest part of the combo with the least vignetting and other optical aberrations. The rectilinear distortion of the fisheye converter will also be minimized.

(I missed this 2003 thread totally. Your more recent thread was started in the Canon forum, so it spiraled out of control quickly ;) Had it been started in the Nikon forum, people familiar with my writings on this subject, including some who have actually tried one of my wide converters, would have set it to rights much earlier)

I've added some factual information to your other thread concerning Kodak's version, Kodak's patent, my versions, the strenghts and weaknesses of wide converters in general, and the theory behind how the devices actually work.

The DiveVolk Underwater Wide Angle 0.6x Conversion Lens is a wet lens which allows you to have a wide field of view, get 4x closer to your subject and at the same time corrects the distortion underwater.

3a8082e126