Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: dreed on October 16, 2013, 06:13:53 pm
-
I'm not sure that I understand why anyone would buy an Alpha 7, Alpha 7R if it is size & weight that you're concerned about because once you get past prime lenses under ~135mm, the lens size starts to dominate the equation. Same again for any of the quality zoom lenses. The Alpha 7 & 7R will require lenses of similar size to the "L" lenses from Canon in order to deliver similar IQ.
In this, I think that it is m4/3 that is leading the way because the smaller sensor and camera allows for smaller and lighter lenses that deliver equivalent IQ to the larger ones.
So if I'm looking for a smaller and lighter camera system, I don't think that Alpha 7 is it. Then again nor is Canon's EOS-M, Nikon's 1 or Sony NEX.
Similarly if I'm prepared to have a 70-200 lens that's built for full-frame sensors, wouldn't I want to have a full size camera plugged onto the back of it to balance out the weight better?
-
I'm not sure that I understand why anyone would buy an Alpha 7, Alpha 7R if it is size & weight that you're concerned about because once you get past prime lenses under ~135mm, the lens size starts to dominate the equation. Same again for any of the quality zoom lenses. The Alpha 7 & 7R will require lenses of similar size to the "L" lenses from Canon in order to deliver similar IQ.
In this, I think that it is m4/3 that is leading the way because the smaller sensor and camera allows for smaller and lighter lenses that deliver equivalent IQ to the larger ones.
So if I'm looking for a smaller and lighter camera system, I don't think that Alpha 7 is it. Then again nor is Canon's EOS-M, Nikon's 1 or Sony NEX.
Similarly if I'm prepared to have a 70-200 lens that's built for full-frame sensors, wouldn't I want to have a full size camera plugged onto the back of it to balance out the weight better?
Your question is very weighted ;D
Lets look at some other factors...
EOS users that want D800E type resolution in full frame can use an adapter...
Users that do not need a Single Lens Reflex viewfinder (non action types) can do with the Mirrorless system...
Mirrorless means what is focused on the sensor IS focused better than a wonky DLSR mirror (D800 outer focus points anyone) to the limit of the lens shut down aperture focus shift.
No mirror slap!!! Some DSLR bodies may feature soft systems and the lager machine gun pro models may have better damping and mass, but vibration is vibration and the only thing to shake in the SONY's are the shutters...
Full Frame...! Some still like it ;-) ultimately you are finding m4/3 is working for you, so go shoot and enjoy it...
Choice... If someone values a body that can one day be a light travel cam and the next on the end of a bigger longer lens, why ever not. In any case, I think the average user going for the longer glass may be more action oriented and so prefer a DSLR...
I know you not arguing for a DSLR but your having a dig at the inevitable, full frame glass will be big although SONY will obviously try to keep it smaller for this range...
Not forgetting you can bulk these out a bit if needed:
(http://3zgehi1uaxi23dphbrgqa50r6z.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Chris-Gampat-The-Phoblographer-Sony-A7-A7r-RX10-Zeiss-Lenses-3-of-31-595x595.jpg)
Live and let live... Happy shooting 8)
-
I tend to agree with dreed on this. In his review of the GX7 (I think) Michael mentioned how much he enjoyed having a 600mm-equiv lens which he could hold in his hand, and also that he'd gotten many of his favorite street shots with it. I agree with that. In fact, that seems to me to be the whole point of small-body cameras -- small *systems.* I have a GX7 (I used to have two, but one broke) and both the 12-35 (24-70 equiv) and 35-100 (70-200 equiv) constant f2.8 lenses, and the longer of the two (the 35-100) is only about four inches long. The lens and camera together weigh less than my Nikon 70-200 lens alone, and makes a very small, fast system. The r version of the new Sonys is small, but if you want to hang a fast 70-200 on it...well, you might as well be shooting a Nikon or a Canon. I think it will make an excellent camera for those folks who like to go out with a fast 35 prime or a fast 50 prime and nothing else, but with the quality you can get from zoom lenses now, those people are pretty far between. And my GX7 with a fast prime will still be smaller...
-
I tend to agree with dreed on this. In his review of the GX7 (I think) Michael mentioned how much he enjoyed having a 600mm-equiv lens which he could hold in his hand, and also that he'd gotten many of his favorite street shots with it. I agree with that. In fact, that seems to me to be the whole point of small-body cameras -- small *systems.* I have a GX7 (I used to have two, but one broke) and both the 12-35 (24-70 equiv) and 35-100 (70-200 equiv) constant f2.8 lenses, and the longer of the two (the 35-100) is only about four inches long. The lens and camera together weigh less than my Nikon 70-200 lens alone, and makes a very small, fast system. The r version of the new Sonys is small, but if you want to hang a fast 70-200 on it...well, you might as well be shooting a Nikon or a Canon. I think it will make an excellent camera for those folks who like to go out with a fast 35 prime or a fast 50 prime and nothing else, but with the quality you can get from zoom lenses now, those people are pretty far between. And my GX7 with a fast prime will still be smaller...
Very good points.. I think each system has it pros and cons. For high pixel/large sensor style these camera's will also make sense for some...
More choices can't be bad...
Some of the demo samples from the new K3 looked really nice.. That is another strong new camera by the looks. Again it will suit different people...
-
Not entirely true... Probably in long zooms like the 70-200 there is no going to be too much difference (in lens weight terms) with respect other full- frame solutions. But the biggest advantage in weight reduction is the lack of mirror, zooms in the range os 70 mm or lower will weight less since they need been less lens elements.
In the case of prime lens... Sony a7r + 35mm/2.8 weights less than Olympus e-m1 + 17mm/1.8... ( don't let the numbers missled you, a7r will still have shallow depth of field with that lens than the e-m1)
-
In the case of prime lens... Sony a7r + 35mm/2.8 weights less than Olympus e-m1 + 17mm/1.8... ( don't let the numbers missled you, a7r will still have shallow depth of field with that lens than the e-m1)
Which comes back to what John Camp said earlier:
I think it will make an excellent camera for those folks who like to go out with a fast 35 prime or a fast 50 prime and nothing else, but with the quality you can get from zoom lenses now, those people are pretty far between.
And it would seem that from my initial estimate of it being 135mm or less, it has halved to 70mm or less.
-
I'm not sure that I understand why anyone would buy an Alpha 7, Alpha 7R if it is size & weight that you're concerned about because once you get past prime lenses under ~135mm, the lens size starts to dominate the equation. Same again for any of the quality zoom lenses. The Alpha 7 & 7R will require lenses of similar size to the "L" lenses from Canon in order to deliver similar IQ.
What is the size of HQ Leica UWA vs "equivalent" Nikon/Canon UWA? I would think that there is a significant gain from not having a mirror at wide-angle (possibly offset by complexity in micro lenses).
So if I'm looking for a smaller and lighter camera system, I don't think that Alpha 7 is it. Then again nor is Canon's EOS-M, Nikon's 1 or Sony NEX.
May I recommend the Sony RX100M2? Then again, people have different requirements, and there is room for many different camera models.
I believe that the A7R may be a great house (we will see if actual performance matches expectations) for landscape wide-angle, macro, tilt&shift, street photography if you can find the right lenses. I am not so sure that it will be a great all-round/travel/pocketable/children snapping camera for that many people.
-h
-
I think you guys are focusing on too much detail, and forgetting the big picture: that these new Sony's are both compact and full frame... even if you want to use it with a 70-200 f2.8 lens, you can use the grip to get better balance. If you already have a Canon or Nikon FF and said zoom lens, would you change? Probably not?
What Sony is stating is that what was unthinkable a few years ago, is now possible: FF compact with fixed lens, FF compact interchangeable lens system, and let's not forget the RX100 and RX10. Sony is now the only camera maker that has a full suite of products to cater for everybody, and they are all very high quality, especially with the allure of Zeiss glass. And of course the big plus is to be able to use one's M mount lenses on a modern and high quality platform.
-
I think you guys are focusing on too much detail, and forgetting the big picture: that these new Sony's are both compact and full frame... even if you want to use it with a 70-200 f2.8 lens, you can use the grip to get better balance. If you already have a Canon or Nikon FF and said zoom lens, would you change? Probably not?
But would you go into the FE mount fresh if you had nothing, knowing that it will not make your 300/2.8 lens significantly smaller as would moving to m4/3?
Sometimes detail is important and I think this detail will come into play ... but perhaps we should just wait and see what the reviewers say rather than speculate.
What Sony is stating is that what was unthinkable a few years ago, is now possible: FF compact with fixed lens, FF compact interchangeable lens system, and let's not forget the RX100 and RX10. Sony is now the only camera maker that has a full suite of products to cater for everybody, and they are all very high quality, especially with the allure of Zeiss glass. And of course the big plus is to be able to use one's M mount lenses on a modern and high quality platform.
So if you don't own any M-mount lenses, then the FE camera system has considerably less appeal?
-
But would you go into the FE mount fresh if you had nothing, knowing that it will not make your 300/2.8 lens significantly smaller as would moving to m4/3?
Sometimes detail is important and I think this detail will come into play ... but perhaps we should just wait and see what the reviewers say rather than speculate.
So if you don't own any M-mount lenses, then the FE camera system has considerably less appeal?
Well no there are a lot of manual focus lenses out there and some really good ones too across many lens mounts.
A lot of these lenses (bar longer focal lengths) are much smaller size wise.
Forget the Alpha 7 lenses the appeal is not here (not for most) they are too big, too slow and if they ever release f2.8 zooms they'll be even more massive and expensive
To be blunt I think Sony are wasting their time trying to build up yet another lens system on E mount, very little appeal here unless they started doing pancake primes or something much more compact.
-
In the case of prime lens... Sony a7r + 35mm/2.8 weighs less than Olympus e-m1 + 17mm/1.8... (don't let the numbers missled you, a7r will still have shallow[er] depth of field with that lens than the e-m1)
IMO the DOF argument is a fallback position resorted to when other arguments fail to persuade. ::) I can pop an 85mm f/1.4 + Metabones SpeedBooster (a reverse TC, turns the lens into a 60mm f/1.0) on an m43 camera and shallow-DOF just about anyone into the ground. But in the real world it's largely a non-issue.
The A7(r) just needs more lenses! A 25/35/55/85/100mm set would pique my interest. Until then...nope.
-Dave-
-
But would you go into the FE mount fresh if you had nothing, knowing that it will not make your 300/2.8 lens significantly smaller as would moving to m4/3?
When we talk about such lenses, you are going to use a tripod anyway. So the limitation here will be Ai servo speed, frame rate, and focus tracking reliability.
Sometimes detail is important and I think this detail will come into play ... but perhaps we should just wait and see what the reviewers say rather than speculate.
So if you don't own any M-mount lenses, then the FE camera system has considerably less appeal?
That is not what I said... it's an extra appeal. I also don't buy into denigrating these new cameras, just because the initial lens collection may not be complete, or to everyone's desire. After all, did Canon or Nikon introduce overnight the 60+ lenses in the EF or Nikon mount, for example? As a start, one can get the D800 quality in a much smaller package, and shoot with the FE Zeiss 35 and 55 mm lenses; or adapt existing M mount lenses. For shooting action or sports, it's not there yet, but for travel, landscape, documentary, street, etc, it's very attractive.
-
Well maybe I'll just have to wait for Michael or someone to write a review where they compare using big lenses on the Alpha 7 range with using them on "traditionally" sized DSLRs.
Just now I'm trying to imagine how the Alpha 7 body is going to do when I've got it connected to a large prime or zoom on a tripod. Is the little camera going to break? Will it be too front heavy? Or will it just require using lenses that have lens to tripod mounts on lenses that traditionally didn't require them?
-
I'm not sure that I understand why anyone would buy an Alpha 7, Alpha 7R if it is size & weight that you're concerned about ...
I don't see the main, and only, attraction of these CSC cameras as just size and weight. Sony have just produced a FF version, which up to now was only available in APS-C format. They fill a void for a versatile alternative / back-up camera, as well as potential for a full and complete system in and of itself in the future.
Main advantages being : smaller size AND focus peaking (not available on OVF's)* combined with the versatility to mount a wide variety of lenses via an adapter (Canon, Nikon, Schneider PS-TC, Leica R, Leica M, Zeiss etc etc ..)
* ps And now, thanks to Fujifilm, something called Digital Split Image technology - available on the XE-2
So if you don't own any M-mount lenses, then the FE camera system has considerably less appeal?
Yes. But not just M-mount lenses, any high quality lenses.
Another perspective is that the A7 offers me little more than I'm already getting with my Fuji XE-1, other than FF.
-
Just now I'm trying to imagine how the Alpha 7 body is going to do when I've got it connected to a large prime or zoom on a tripod.
Below is an 80-400 mounted on an x-pro 1 ..
Or will it just require using lenses that have lens to tripod mounts on lenses that traditionally didn't require them?
I would have thought 'de rigeur' for any large lens, heavy weight combination, if you want to protect the camera from 'mount strain'. The majority of Metabones Speed Boosters include a tripod mounting foot. I suspect that the new versions of both adapters and Speed Boosters, to accommodate the FF, Sony (FE) mount will too.
What I'm unsure about is whether or not a new version will be required to accommodate the FE mount. I suspect it will.
http://www.metabones.com/buy-speed-booster/nikon-g-to-emount-speed-booster-detail
-
Such bodies are less well suited to bigger longer lenses. Yes you support big lenses and tripod them, but it's not ideal for such a small body handling and ergo wise.
Having listened to the shutter sound of the A7, it's not going to be the stealth camera some might want it to be (surprisingly loud really)
No idea why they have evidently no electronic front curtain either.
The other problem is at the wide end, it's going to be a lens designers nightmare to get good performance esp at ultra wide angles.
-
...did Canon or Nikon introduce overnight the 60+ lenses in the EF or Nikon mount...
Here are the first few years of EOS:
YEAR M Lens
1987 3 EF50mm f/1.8
1987 3 EF35-70mm f/3.5-4.5
1987 3 EF35-105mm f/3.5-4.5
1987 3 EF100-300mm f/5.6
1987 4 EF15mm f/2.8 Fisheye
1987 4 EF28mm f/2.8
1987 5 EF70-210mm f/4
1987 6 EF100-300mm f/5.6L
1987 10 EF135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus
1987 11 EF300mm f/2.8L USM
1987 11 EF28-70mm f/3.5-4.5
1987 12 EF50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro
1987 12 EF50-200mm f/3.5-4.5
1988 6 EF28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 II
1988 6 EF35-135mm f/3.5-4.5
1988 6 EF50-200mm f/3.5-4.5L
1988 10 EF35-70mm f/3.5-4.5A
1988 11 EF24mm f/2.8
1988 11 EF200mm f/1.8L USM
1988 11 EF600mm f/4L USM
1988 12 EF100-200mm f/4.5A
1989 4 EF28-80mm f/2.8-4L USM
1989 9 EF50mm f/1.0L USM
1989 9 EF85mm f/1.2L USM
1989 9 EF80-200mm f/2.8L
1989 10 EF20-35mm f/2.8L
More here:
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/Canon_new_lenses.html
For Canon the EOS mount was difficult for pre EOS users as they could not so easily use old glass on the new Canon standard without many issues.
Nikon fudged their way into AF so the recent fully electronic mount has had a mix and match history, which has it's pro's and con's but still uses the same basic mount
Not disagreeing with your comments just a reminder of what happened...
-
I think you guys are focusing on too much detail, and forgetting the big picture.....
Quite a broadside, I think you knocked out some friendly shipping ;D
-
I don't see the main, and only, attraction of these CSC cameras as just size and weight. Sony have just produced a FF version, which up to now was only available in APS-C format. They fill a void for a versatile alternative / back-up camera, as well as potential for a full and complete system in and of itself in the future.
But as a backup camera, you have to have a whole extra set of lenses unless you're using a converter and if you're using an adapter, you're faced with this problem:
There is no free lunch, episode 763: Lens Adapters (http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters)
I keep reading size as being the reason but size only matters up to a certain point, after which the lens dominates due to the size of the sensor.
-
But as a backup camera, you have to have a whole extra set of lenses unless you're using a converter and if you're using an adapter, you're faced with this problem:
There is no free lunch, episode 763: Lens Adapters (http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters)
I keep reading size as being the reason but size only matters up to a certain point, after which the lens dominates due to the size of the sensor.
I can't agree with this
Putting a great lens on your camera via an adapter might still be better than an average native-mount lens. On the other hand, that great lens certainly wouldn’t be as good as it would be on its native-mount camera.
Makes no sense. A native mount lens will make the rear elements sit very close to the sensor. An adaptor increases the sensor to element distance. Vignetting, corner softness are far bigger issues with rangefinder type cameras than they were with reflex cameras. MUCH more an issue with compact cameras too even with good quality lenses (35mm era again lens very close to film plane)
One reason we probably have not seen an UWA lens from Sony...it's going to be difficult to get good peripheral performance even with the new micro lenses.
-
The lens adapter issue is ridiculously overblown. In the real world, you are using liveview with adapted lenses and manual focus. Unless the adapter has hideous slop in its proportions, you'll be able to get very high quality results.
-
In my humble opinion I think Sony are heading in the right direction here. The EVF aspect is what appeals to me as much as anything else. Much as I love a really good optical VF, the EVF has many advantages, not least when shooting any video, which more people are using these cameras for now. The Panasonic GH2 is a joy to use hand-held for shooting video on the run, where the OVF on a 5D for example forces one to shoot at arms length or on a tripod. I would love to use a full frame Canon at eye-level with an EVF. I am sure that in the very near future almost all DSLR's will be EVF.
Jim
-
But as a backup camera, you have to have a whole extra set of lenses unless you're using a converter ...
There's no doubt in my mind that the big test for this new Sony series is going to be whether or not they, or others, can produce stellar native wide-angles. 35mm and down (wider). It's no coincidence that Fujifilm introduced 3 primes and only one standard zoom when they introduced the x-trans series, followed swiftly by two ultra wides (14 & 27) plus two Zeiss (12 & 32) Touits.
The difficulty with these cameras is the large incident angle of incoming rays hitting the sensor - thus the inadequate performance of 'wides' with an adapter. From 'normal' and up, the exit pupil is further from the sensor surface and the incident angle is not as large. On APS-C bodies adapters work, how successful they'll be on FF - I don't know. But if they don't, the appeal to many will be diluted.
One reason we probably have not seen an UWA lens from Sony...it's going to be difficult to get good peripheral performance even with the new micro lenses.
+1
I am sure that in the very near future almost all DSLR's will be EVF.
+1
-
Hi,
I don't see a problem with UWA lenses. You can put a Samyang 14/2.8, Zeiss 15/2.8, or Nikon 14-24/2.8 on almost any camera. Those are telecentric designs, of course, but there is nothing to hinder the use of telecentric lenses on Alpha 7. Problem is that telecentric designs tend to be large and heavy.
Best regards
Erik
I can't agree with this
Putting a great lens on your camera via an adapter might still be better than an average native-mount lens. On the other hand, that great lens certainly wouldn’t be as good as it would be on its native-mount camera.
Makes no sense. A native mount lens will make the rear elements sit very close to the sensor. An adaptor increases the sensor to element distance. Vignetting, corner softness are far bigger issues with rangefinder type cameras than they were with reflex cameras. MUCH more an issue with compact cameras too even with good quality lenses (35mm era again lens very close to film plane)
One reason we probably have not seen an UWA lens from Sony...it's going to be difficult to get good peripheral performance even with the new micro lenses.
-
The lens adapter issue is ridiculously overblown. In the real world, you are using liveview with adapted lenses and manual focus. Unless the adapter has hideous slop in its proportions, you'll be able to get very high quality results.
+1, in his blog, Cicala points out that the graphs are measured on an optical bench, not acutal camera/lens combos and the graphs look much more alarming that real life results.
-
A native mount lens will make the rear elements sit very close to the sensor. ... Vignetting, corner softness are far bigger issues with rangefinder type cameras than they were with reflex cameras.
The problem with some rangefinder style lenses on digital sensors is that their exit pupil is close to the sensor, due to using near-symmetrical designs for wide angle lenses, leading to the chief ray striking the edges of the sensor at a highly off-perpendicular angle. But lens designs can have rear elements very close to the sensor while using retro-focal designs that give a high exit pupil and have good near-perpindicular incidence of light across the whole frame. And lens designs for mirrorless cameras can have the rear elements as far from the focal plane as they want, if that helps IQ.
To put it another way, the shorter registration distance of mirror-less cameras only increases options for lens designs; it does not force the use of designs with low back-focus and low-exit pupil.
-
The lens adapter issue is ridiculously overblown. In the real world, you are using liveview with adapted lenses and manual focus. Unless the adapter has hideous slop in its proportions, you'll be able to get very high quality results.
+1
I've been shooting adapted M mount lenses on my Nex 7 (which has much higher pixel density than the A7r) with no problems.
-
I've been shooting adapted M mount lenses on my Nex 7 (which has much higher pixel density than the A7r) with no problems.
But aren't you only using the center part of the image circle that the M mount lenses generate and not the edges?
-
Hi,
That is indeed true. On the other hand the A7 uses offset pixels, like Leica M. Michael Reichmann indicated that the A7 works well with longer M-lenses but less well with wide angles. The same problem also applies to the M series but those take care some of the problems in software.
I would suggest that there are many older lenses that can be used, Leica R and Minolta MD comes to mind.
Mechanical adapters don't influence optics, but they can affect alignment. That is not really a big problem in many cases as you often only have a central point of focus, but an excessive tilt of the lens would cause problems.
My guess is that using good adapters at moderate apertures is not a problem.
Best regards
Erik
But aren't you only using the center part of the image circle that the M mount lenses generate and not the edges?
-
The same problem also applies to the M series but those take care some of the problems in software.
.. and microlens design.
Mechanical adapters don't influence optics, but they can affect alignment. That is not really a big problem in many cases as you often only have a central point of focus, but an excessive tilt of the lens would cause problems.
.. COULD cause problems - with an excessive weight hanging off the end of the adapter. Unless you support the camera/lens under the lens for hand held shooting or, preferably, a tripod mounting foot on the lens or adapter.
Bottom line: legacy lenses >= 50mm are, on the whole, more than usable with an adapter. Sony have, approximately, 15 lenses planned for the Alpha over the next 18 months - those wide angles need to be stellar.
If, on the other hand, you're thinking of buying an A7 to hang a 1kg Zeiss Otus, via an adapter, off the diminutive Alpha - then I would suggest that misalignment problems aren't the core issue you're facing ... ! [Light hearted quip - not directed at you, Erik]
On a more serious note, one thing I have yet to see any reports or comments on, is the 'adaptability' of the Alpha with tilt-shift lenses.
-
I'm not sure that I understand why anyone would buy an Alpha 7, Alpha 7R if it is size & weight that you're concerned about ...
On a more pragmatic note, and to return to the OP's original, very valid comments, an A7 compared to a Nikon 610 is less than 3/4 inch (1.7cm) smaller in width and height and weighs 474g v 760g. These differences could be as much of a hindrance as a benefit if the lenses don't offer substantial advantages. Wouldn't ditch my Nikon or Canon system just yet ..
-
Hi,
I don't think Nikon 610 is full frame? There are advantages to larger sensor. Also, the A7 is a mirrorless design.
Best regards
Erik
On a more pragmatic note, and to return to the OP's original, very valid comments, an A7 compared to a Nikon 610 is less than 3/4 inch (1.7cm) smaller in width and height and weighs 474g v 760g. These differences could be as much of a hindrance as a benefit if the lenses don't offer substantial advantages. Wouldn't ditch my Nikon or Canon system just yet ..
-
I don't think Nikon 610 is full frame? There are advantages to larger sensor. Also, the A7 is a mirrorless design.
Erik,
FYI Nikon 610 is 24MP, 24x36 full frame, the evolved version of D3x, D600. Canon parallel offerings are the 5DIII, 6D - there may be others ...
-
@BJL, post #25
> The problem with some rangefinder style lenses on digital sensors is that their exit pupil is close to the sensor, due to using near-symmetrical designs for wide angle lenses, leading to the chief ray striking the edges of the sensor at a highly off-perpendicular angle. But lens designs can have rear elements very close to the sensor while using retro-focal designs that give a high exit pupil and have good near-perpindicular incidence of light across the whole frame. And lens designs for mirrorless cameras can have the rear elements as far from the focal plane as they want, if that helps IQ.
To put it another way, the shorter registration distance of mirror-less cameras only increases options for lens designs; it does not force the use of designs with low back-focus and low-exit pupil.
@Erik Kaffehr, post #28
> I would suggest that there are many older lenses that can be used, Leica R and Minolta MD comes to mind.
Uff, this would mean if one wants to use existing WA lenses (not future ones, specifically designed taking advantage of the design freedom of the mirrorless house) one would be well advised to use retrofocus designs?? This will give away a large part of the weight advantage I have been looking forward to for years... :-(
Good to know though - I will then keep my 24 mm Nikkor and 28-70 mm C/Y Vario Sonnar rather than buy WA M-mount lenses...
-
In my humble opinion I think Sony are heading in the right direction here. The EVF aspect is what appeals to me as much as anything else. Much as I love a really good optical VF, the EVF has many advantages, not least when shooting any video, which more people are using these cameras for now. The Panasonic GH2 is a joy to use hand-held for shooting video on the run, where the OVF on a 5D for example forces one to shoot at arms length or on a tripod. I would love to use a full frame Canon at eye-level with an EVF. I am sure that in the very near future almost all DSLR's will be EVF.
Jim
+1 Totally agree with you on these points Jim
-
Really excited to see how my Canon shift lenses perform on this body and if the sensor output is on par with the Nikon D800E. That would be a great solution for my architectural and landscape work.
-
Reading between the lines it appears the A7 does not have offset micro lenses, but the A7r does.
That being the case the A7 is going to have much worse performance at the edges and corners.
Looks like a bit of a mess up here because the A7 might turn out to be a very bad choice for people using wider angle lenses.
-
To the admins: This thread seems to be malplaced under 'About this site'.
-
a7 - 24MP and additional PDAF
http://www.sony.net/Products/di/en-us/products/uxc2/index.html#features
a7R - 36MP, 16Bit processing, no AA filter, offset gapless microlens and additional metal body parts to support larger lenses
http://www.sony.net/Products/di/en-us/products/o4j5/index.html#features
a7 Test confirming some lenses have issues on the non r model:
http://www.ronscheffler.com/techtalk/?p=224
Feedback on that article (see Henry's comment) suggesting the r model may actually fair worse for some lenses
Best wait for more testing if you own any lenses that could be affected....
Also, the a7 has a faster Flash sync speed of 1/250 sec and selectable Electronic front curtain shutter. The a7R does not and only goes to 1/160.
a7R specs:
http://www.sony.net/Products/di/en-us/products/o4j5/index.html#specifications
a7 specs:
http://www.sony.net/Products/di/en-us/products/uxc2/index.html#specifications
-
To the admins: This thread seems to be malplaced under 'About this site'.
For better or worse it seems that threads of discussion about topics presented (such as the Alpha A7R hands on preview) generally end up in this forum ... sometimes (like this), they're gear focused.
-
a7 Test confirming some lenses have issues on the non r model:
http://www.ronscheffler.com/techtalk/?p=224
Feedback on that article (see Henry's comment) suggesting the r model may actually fair worse for some lenses
Best wait for more testing if you own any lenses that could be affected....
I seem to recall that Michael has observed similar results when comparing mounting M lenses on digital cameras not designed for them vs those that are (Leica and the Ricoh's GXR with the GR Mount A12.) This is thus not surprising. I'm sure that once Adobe and others have done the requisite testing that lens - body combinations will eventually be "corrected" for in software as far as is possible.
-
I seem to recall that Michael has observed similar results when comparing mounting M lenses on digital cameras not designed for them vs those that are (Leica and the Ricoh's GXR with the GR Mount A12.) This is thus not surprising. I'm sure that once Adobe and others have done the requisite testing that lens - body combinations will eventually be "corrected" for in software as far as is possible.
Your correct, Michael did. If Michael has the opportunity to test more it will be helpful to affected lens owners.
Because SONY have elected a multi format ''alpha system'' approach, it does mean they may be designing FE lens with ray paths more akin to the A mount lens and adaptor for compatability reasons across their range.
This is great news to EOS owners, but not so good for M owners etc if affected on wide glass...
Their approach is quite clever really. NEX lens users can still shoot these bodies cropped. FE as standard and A by adaptor. The FE lens and A by adaptor back compatible with NEX bodies too...
For A mount sports shooters their existing lens and SONY adaptor will allow semi mirror reflex PDAF and one a7R reviewer has already suggested this combo is faster than a current alpha DSLR style body possibly due to the higher speed processing in these new bodies!
-
I seem to recall that Michael has observed similar results when comparing mounting M lenses on digital cameras not designed for them ...
Well, I'm not sure. It seems this 'ronscheffler.com' report is creating some confusion - he's reporting on the A7, not the A7R whereas MR in his A7r hands-on report was clear
quote
Using Leica M and Nikon Lenses
For some photographers (myself included) putting Leica M mount lenses on the Sony A7R may be reason enough to break out a bottle of Veuve Cliquot champagne and celebrate. Using an M to E adapter (I have a Metabones), virtually every Leica M lenses that I own works well on the A7R. Some of the ultra-wide and very wides do vignette, so be aware of this. There is no software correction for this, because we're mixing and matching. With other systems where the lens and camera are from the same company there's a lot of magic that can be done in firmware.
I had neither the time nor the full selection of lenses to test in detail what works and what doesn't, but I think it fair to say that most retrofocus design Leica M lenses will work on the A7R. When you consider that this camera has a high resolution EVF, focus peaking, intelligent Auto-ISO – so manual aperture lenses can be used in a semi-automated manner, and of course a 36 Megapixel sensor, this is hot stuff indeed.
In my opinion, anyone who owns a set of (or even a few) high quality M series Leica optics should seriously look at the Sony A7R. They make for a killer combination, and the Sony costs less then a third of an M240 camera. Just test that the lenses that you plan on using work as you expect before taking the plunge.
I also tried several of my Nikon lenses using a Novoflex adaptor (with aperture control ring) and they too worked just fine, including the superb 14-24mm Nikkor. There is some chromatic aberration visible on some lenses at some apertures, but a trip to the Lens Correction tab in Lightroom or Camera Raw / Photoshop makes short work of this.
Overall, I can not recommend the A7R highly enough for anyone looking to find a new body for their Leica lenses, and who find the price of an M240 a bridge too far, as I did last year. And for those of you with M8, M9 or M240 bodies, the A7R makes a relatively inexpensive second body as well.
unquote
Also, Metabones have posted the following warning:
Speed Booster® is NOT compatible with full-frame camera bodies such as Sony A7, A7R and NEX-VG900
http://www.metabones.com/buy-speed-booster
-
Also, Metabones have posted the following warning:
Speed Booster® is NOT compatible with full-frame camera bodies such as Sony A7, A7R and NEX-VG900
http://www.metabones.com/buy-speed-booster
Typically, that particular product with ''Speed Booster'' in the product name is for larger frame to smaller frame conversion as you may know.
They may bring out a version for MF Glass if possible. The current MF glass version for example ALPA (swiss maker not Alpha SONY) is NEX frame only, hence such warnings...
It seems they do a version for Full Frame EOS to this mount:
http://www.metabones.com/info/105-info/180-metabones-introduces-third-generation-smart-adapter
Although one person says they are using theirs as a paper weight due to issues in another thread. Time will tell who makes the best adapter ;-)
-
Typically, that particular product with ''Speed Booster'' in the product name ..
Speed Booster is a totally different product to adapters and the 'smart adapter' you refer to.
-
Your correct, Michael did. If Michael has the opportunity to test more it will be helpful to affected lens owners.
Because SONY have elected a multi format ''alpha system'' approach, it does mean they may be designing FE lens with ray paths more akin to the A mount lens and adaptor for compatability reasons across their range.
This is great news to EOS owners, but not so good for M owners etc if affected on wide glass...
Their approach is quite clever really. NEX lens users can still shoot these bodies cropped. FE as standard and A by adaptor. The FE lens and A by adaptor back compatible with NEX bodies too...
For A mount sports shooters their existing lens and SONY adaptor will allow semi mirror reflex PDAF and one a7R reviewer has already suggested this combo is faster than a current alpha DSLR style body possibly due to the higher speed processing in these new bodies!
Well as an A Mount user myself that adaptor with PDAF is bulky and quite expensive too, so add that to the cost of the A7 body and it's not that attractive price wise. Granted more attractive than the A99, but that model is seriously overpriced anyway and was from day one.
I agree the problems likely will not be issues with adaptors and increased lens to sensor distance (ie SLR lenses), but for native lenses that A7 presents a problem. It's quite likely going to have worse performance v the A7r esp when wider angle lenses turn up. Obviously native lenses again will cause problems with acute angles hitting the sensor.
Unless Sony have decided to make lenses "more telecentric" I say more because you can't do much for ultra wide angles here. Maybe that's why the lenses are "bigger than expected" but that would not make sense for a long term strategy either..why compromise lens designs on the basis of one sensor?
I can't help but think Sony have made quite a serious mistake here. IMO the A7 should have offset micro lenses too, it has to as this type of design simply isn't going to work very well for shorter focal length lenses. I can see this taking the shine off of the 24mp model, I'd imagine a few have already cancelled their pre-orders..esp M mount users.
-
Well as an A Mount user myself that adaptor with PDAF is bulky and quite expensive too, so add that to the cost of the A7 body and it's not that attractive price wise. Granted more attractive than the A99, but that model is seriously overpriced anyway and was from day one.
I agree the problems likely will not be issues with adaptors and increased lens to sensor distance (ie SLR lenses), but for native lenses that A7 presents a problem. It's quite likely going to have worse performance v the A7r esp when wider angle lenses turn up. Obviously native lenses again will cause problems with acute angles hitting the sensor.
Unless Sony have decided to make lenses "more telecentric" I say more because you can't do much for ultra wide angles here. Maybe that's why the lenses are "bigger than expected" but that would not make sense for a long term strategy either..why compromise lens designs on the basis of one sensor?
I can't help but think Sony have made quite a serious mistake here. IMO the A7 should have offset micro lenses too, it has to as this type of design simply isn't going to work very well for shorter focal length lenses. I can see this taking the shine off of the 24mp model, I'd imagine a few have already cancelled their pre-orders..esp M mount users.
Reading between the pixels ;D
I think all will be well, except for the most extreme wide non retro M type lenses..
The a7R with smaller more angle sensitive pixels may be seen as more sensitive although they have also stated it is being marketed as a higher end camera of the pair.. The main compromise they mention on the a7 was more plastic in the build as they did not think users would have heavy lenses on that model.
Not clear if they are expecting 3rd partner adapters and lenses. I think designed more for the performance of their own glass and adapted glass....
I am guessing this way they have a wider optimum focal range where very specialist offsets for the widest non retro M types would impact other lenses in the SONY range adversely.
Your correct to say this may mean it limits how small they can make some wider Lenses for this Camera. For this reason it would not surprise me if SONY bring out RX1 types with very specialist focal length and sensor to match... They cited keeping maximum apertures small as another method to keep the ILC Body FE lenses petite.
-
Speed Booster is a totally different product to adapters and the 'smart adapter' you refer to.
I was sure you knew, so a just in case to assist anyone who did not ;)
-
Hi,
There is a considerable interest to put rangefinder lenses on the A7/A7r. Regarding wide angles this can be problematic.
Keep in mind, Sony builds these cameras for Sony lenses...
Leica went to great length to adopt the M series for symmetric,non telecentric, lenses:
- To begin with they developed their own sensor together with CMOSIS. It is said to be a shallower design than the Exmoors.
- Offset microlenses
- Color coding lenses so lens info is recorded in EXIF, making color cast correction easier
- Very thin IR-filter
- No OLP filter
The last to items represent a significant bit of refractive material in the optical path and would have severe effect on lenses having large beam tilt. Sony lenses have in all probability less beam tilt, and also take the "glass" in the optical path into account.
Best regards
Erik
-
We are not alone in this part of the forum ;D
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=83191.0
My testing showed good results with M lenses starting at 35mm. Wider lenses are iffy. It very much depends on the lens' design.
Michael
-
http://photorumors.com/2013/10/20/dont-buy-that-sony-a7-camera-yet-nikon-is-rumored-to-release-a-new-full-frame-hybrid-camera-soon/
And the show goes on.
Roy
-
http://photorumors.com/2013/10/20/dont-buy-that-sony-a7-camera-yet-nikon-is-rumored-to-release-a-new-full-frame-hybrid-camera-soon/
And the show goes on.
Roy
Ah - now I just need to clean the dirt off of those old AI lenses! I still have my FM2's - beautiful cameras.
-
Camera size comparison website
http://camerasize.com/compare/
-
afaict The a7 & a7r Sony E-mount uses lens-based image stabilization not in-body stabilization.
Does that make a7 & a7r less attractive for older lenses?
-
Hi,
Yes and no. Sensor based image stabilisation is dependent on info from lens which older lenses may not deliver. I guess it is about focal length, center of mass and so on. I would also say that sensor based stabilisation makes the sensor more vulnerable. I wouldn't like to do wet cleaning on an IS sensor.
Best regards
Erik
afaict The a7 & a7r Sony E-mount uses lens-based image stabilization not in-body stabilization.
Does that make a7 & a7r less attractive for older lenses?
-
Huge fan of sensor based stabilisation, Minolta did something really good for the industry with anti shake.
Sensor cleaning? Cleaned my Km DSLR's maybe a few times, never an issue
All my primes stabilised for no extra cost, legacy gems like the Minolta 70-210mm f4..try getting an IS version for the meagre £130 odd for a good copy
In body IS is huge, for me it's proved a substantial longer term cost saving
-
Hi,
Did you do wet cleaning? I use Arctic Butterfly and it works for me. My concern is wet cleaning where you apply some pressure to the sensor.
I am on my seventh KM/Sony DSLR now ;-)
Best regards
Erik
Huge fan of sensor based stabilisation, Minolta did something really good for the industry with anti shake.
Sensor cleaning? Cleaned my Km DSLR's maybe a few times, never an issue
All my primes stabilised for no extra cost, legacy gems like the Minolta 70-210mm f4..try getting an IS version for the meagre £130 odd for a good copy
In body IS is huge, for me it's proved a substantial longer term cost saving
-
Wet cleaned a few times, eclipse fluid no problems to report.
I don't think you need apply much pressure it's very light and I assume the mechanism is fairly strong.
The sensor shake might actually help dislodge dust. But I am quite careful with lens changes anyway.
-
http://photorumors.com/2013/10/20/dont-buy-that-sony-a7-camera-yet-nikon-is-rumored-to-release-a-new-full-frame-hybrid-camera-soon/
And the show goes on.
Roy
You know, I get the feeling that the whole of the serious photographic community have been following our intrepid photographer on his 10 day money back guaranteed Nikon Df trial in Scotland...
Looks like he went for the SONY in the end ;D
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yrojboKks9o/UmCgMUuYZnI/AAAAAAAAFCs/PYjNmyEx910/s525/Sony_A7R_Lifestyle+2.jpg)