Simple sharpness or resolving power of A7RII

[Phil Indeblanc]

I know the Canon has 20% more pixels, but given the optimal of glass on each, and if the 8 extra mpixels were not a differnece, ...
Does the Sony out resolve the Canon?

I ask this in a couple capacities...
1. the AA or lack of vs the cancelation of in the Canon
2. the pixel pitch of 42 vs 50 to a given lens

I know these don't make absolutes, but I have held off getting one of these to replace my older P25 MFDB, and was hoping someone was as much a pixel peeper as I am. Going from 22 to 42 or more is plenty enough for me, and one of a few reasons I'm turned off by the Canon is the fact that it doesn't speed up when using a lower RAW setting. It writes at the same speed, as if it downsamples after writing or something.
Also wondering how the AA filter cancelation differs from the Sony "no AA filter" differences.

I know that the DR issue has been beaten to a pulp, but I really find limited info on a direct same lens or even optimally matched lens comparison to see ultimate sharpness.

[Herbc]

The only question I would have is why compare two hugely different systems?  I gave up on Nikon after using an A7R, vs D800E.  I think your answer is on DxoMark or LensRentals reviews of these cameras.  I suspect the dude at LensRentals might be willing to respond to your question.

[Jim Kasson]

I know the Canon has 20% more pixels, but given the optimal of glass on each, and if the 8 extra mpixels were not a differnece, ...
Does the Sony out resolve the Canon?

I ask this in a couple capacities...
1. the AA or lack of vs the cancelation of in the Canon
2. the pixel pitch of 42 vs 50 to a given lens

I know these don't make absolutes, but I have held off getting one of these to replace my older P25 MFDB, and was hoping someone was as much a pixel peeper as I am. Going from 22 to 42 or more is plenty enough for me, and one of a few reasons I'm turned off by the Canon is the fact that it doesn't speed up when using a lower RAW setting. It writes at the same speed, as if it downsamples after writing or something.
Also wondering how the AA filter cancellation differs from the Sony "no AA filter" differences.

I don't have any experience with the Canon, but I have compared the D800E cancellation scheme to the Sony a7R no AA scheme and found no material differences in sharpness.

With a lens like the Otus 85/1.4, on axis at f/2.8, the Canon should have an MTF50 in cycles/picture height of not quite sqrt(50/42) - 1, or 9.1% higher. The reason it will be not quite that number is that the MTF curve of a len/sensor combination is the MTF curve of the lens times that of the sensor.

Jim

[Phil Indeblanc]

I will no longer buy ANY camera with an AA filter. That is IT!

Well, I got the A7r2, and its pretty nice. There is no comparison of this Sony system to the Canon (5Dmark2 or 3).
The Canon mechanically blows it away in too many areas I see a deal breaker if someone had to use just one system.

For starters and what looks to be impossible is being able to focus through the view finder and then previewing on the Monitor. This cannot happen unless you are in the ALL on Auto mode, which kills the battery much faster.  If you put it in VF mode, you cannot preview in the Monitor without digging in menus to change it. What a shame.

***Update...this was premature, as there are custom settings that DID eventually get this to work. My first try at the settings wasn't as fruitful.  Things are looking better.

Its dam small, so unless you are carefull, you will hit some buttons holding it. Must use caution! But, I also like the size.

The construction is not as robust as the Canon. The card door, the feel of the areas my fingers rest, particularly my middle finger and such can feel flex just inside towards the lens off the shutter button area.
The top plate on the Canon is aerodynamic, which makes it less prone to catching on something. Sony has a few protruding dails, but not a big deal.

Number of lag areas in working with the camera, to shoot and preview. Lag in writing the files. Wish it had a Low resolution RAW mode.

So far my observations.

But, the reason I got it is for the sharpness, and this DOES blow the Canon away in Image quality. I was shocked at the level of shadow detail is retained when boosting it up. The overall sharpness of the images to a 5Dm3 is just brutal. I'm sure its a combo of the resolution with the lack of AA.


I did notice some "ghosting on edges or contrast points using the Metabones adapter with a Canon 24-7o L I USM lens. Not sure what that was.

No more cameras with AA for me. Took me a while to come around and get this camera, I know...since the A99II and others will release soon. But I just found it the right time for me.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Default setup switches to EVF when held at eye. If you don't get LV on the monitor, just press the display button, the top one the four way controller.

You can go with the Canon 5DsR if you want AA-less sensor. The OLP filtering effect is fully eliminated with that design.

Brian Smith has a lot of good stuff on Sony gear: http://briansmith.com/gear/

With regards to adapters, Metabones IV-T is flocked and should reduce ghosting. I had two Metabones adapters, the first one failed. I sometimes need to remount lenses to get connection with the new one. I always have another adapter from 'Vello' as a  back up.

The ability to recover deep shadows comes from the low readout noise on the Sony. Canon will catch up on that with the 5DIV and D1XII that have a new sensor design. The 5DsR does not have that new sensor.

http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20III,Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20IV,Canon%20EOS%205DS%20R,Sony%20ILCE-7RII

I have some reservation about Sony's lenses and I mostly use Canon 16-35/4L, 24-105/4L and 24/3.5TSE LII. To that come Contax 35-135/3.3-4.5 and Contax 28-85/2.3-4 for tilted work, Sony 90/2.8G macro and Sony 70-400/5.6G.

Best regards
Erik

I will no longer buy ANY camera with an AA filter. That is IT!

Well, I got the A7r2, and its pretty nice. There is no comparison of this Sony system to the Canon (5Dmark2 or 3).
The Canon mechanically blows it away in too many areas I see a deal breaker if someone had to use just one system.

For starters and what looks to be impossible is being able to focus through the view finder and then previewing on the Monitor. This cannot happen unless you are in the ALL on Auto mode, which kills the battery much faster.  If you put it in VF mode, you cannot preview in the Monitor without digging in menus to change it. What a shame.

Its dam small, so unless you are carefull, you will hit some buttons holding it. Must use caution! But, I also like the size.

The construction is not as robust as the Canon. The card door, the feel of the areas my fingers rest, particularly my middle finger and such can feel flex just inside towards the lens off the shutter button area.
The top plate on the Canon is aerodynamic, which makes it less prone to catching on something. Sony has a few protruding dails, but not a big deal.

Number of lag areas in working with the camera, to shoot and preview. Lag in writing the files. Wish it had a Low resolution RAW mode.

So far my observations.

But, the reason I got it is for the sharpness, and this DOES blow the Canon away in Image quality. I was shocked at the level of shadow detail is retained when boosting it up. The overall sharpness of the images to a 5Dm3 is just brutal. I'm sure its a combo of the resolution with the lack of AA.


I did notice some "ghosting on edges or contrast points using the Metabones adapter with a Canon 24-7o L I USM lens. Not sure what that was.

No more cameras with AA for me. Took me a while to come around and get this camera, I know...since the A99II and others will release soon. But I just found it the right time for me.

[Phil Indeblanc]

Thanks Erik,

Since you hold the cards on lenses...
Maybe you can tell which is sharper with good contrast...
Sony FE 90 Macro,
Canon macros (90 TS, 100usm, 180 L II)
Leica Elmar 100 /F4
Schneider 180 Digital (not sure how to adapt to the RII body yet, but)

or something I should consider..

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Phil,

Not so easy to answer that question:

The 90/2.8G Macro is very sharp, but it seems my sample has some tilt in the focal plane.

• The Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro very good, the one I would buy today
• The Zeiss 100/2.0 Macro is very sharp but has heavy bookeh fringing
• The Voigtländer APO Lanthar 125/2.5 SL is legendary
• The Sigma Macro lenses are very good

You can check this info, too: https://www.astrologysoftware.com/download/cmp_lenses.pdf

What I would say that the Sony 90/2.8G can be very good, but it may be that tilted focal plane is a bit common. According to Jim Kasson it has very good correction of focus shift and axial chroma.

Would I buy a macro lens today I would buy Canon. The Zeiss 100/2 macro is very sharp, but has quite a lot of axial chroma that give purple/green fringing in out of focus areas. Or I may look for those APO-Lanthars.

AF lenses may not be that optimal for manual focus.

A lot of good reading here: http://blog.kasson.com/?m=201604

Best regards
Erik

Thanks Erik,

Since you hold the cards on lenses...
Maybe you can tell which is sharper with good contrast...
Sony FE 90 Macro,
Canon macros (90 TS, 100usm, 180 L II)
Leica Elmar 100 /F4
Schneider 180 Digital (not sure how to adapt to the RII body yet, but)

or something I should consider..

[Phil Indeblanc]

interesting.
Well I tried it out very briefly, and between the Leica 100 Elmerit and the Canon 180 L (I), It looks like the Canon is sharper. But different characteristics.
This is sharp enough for the project at hand :-)
But I would be interested to adapt it to my LF/MF Schneider apo hm 180 macro. Any leads on such an adapter? Although it may not be designed for such small pixels, it would be interesting to see.