Sony A7R, intersting comaprision ...

[favalim]

I know this is a MF forum but this camera is in the MF field from this test; I'll buy one soon as support to my Sinar 75LV!!

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-alpha-7-7r/6

[Ken R]

I know this is a MF forum but this camera is in the MF field from this test; I'll buy one soon as support to my Sinar 75LV!!

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-alpha-7-7r/6

I think the 60 and 80mp backs are safe, for now  

The A7R is a great little camera and unlike the D800E it accepts a lot of lenses and has a great EFV and Rear LCD and an awesome live view. Like the D800E it seems a bit picky on lens choice to get the best out of it. I saw a few very large prints in NY made from A7R files and they looked great but still have a somewhat "digital" look. Similar to what you get with the D800E. Both definitely come very close to what you get with the 30-40mp backs (with average lenses) when you use the best lenses available from Nikon and Zeiss. (On one of the photos I saw printed they used the Zeiss 85mm f1.4 lens, w/ adapter, on the A7R) The A7R is tiny compared to all DSLRs so it packs quite a punch in a very small and light package. Yes, it has some limitations but at the price it is a great tool to have for landscape, architecture and macro / studio. For people I still prefer an optical viewfinder but the EVF on the Sony is quite good.

[Doug Peterson]

It's just so painful to see the IQ180 JPG which was clearly processed in Adobe Camera Raw or Capture One v6.

Once you get used to Capture One v7 quality it's really hard to see something previous.

[henrikfoto]

This idea of comparing jpgs in this way is nothing but useless..
Do people buy this??

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

This idea of comparing jpgs in this way is nothing but useless..
Do people buy this??

They do not have to... one can switch to RAW comparison with a single mouse-click.

[Ken R]

Th DPReview Studio comparison tool gives a general idea of the resolution and color performance of the particular camera/lens (and software processing) combination they test. They should specify the lens they are using, aperture/exposure settings, focal distance and light temperature and EV levels and of course processing software and settings.

[Phil Indeblanc]

You can select RAW from the options. Jpeg is just the default

[Phil Indeblanc]

I agree Ken, Although the RAW data is available, with meta I think (I haven't downloaded it). Still light temp etc, would be more open and productive.

[favalim]

I agree Ken, Although the RAW data is available, with meta I think (I haven't downloaded it). Still light temp etc, would be more open and productive.

If you click on the "i" you can read all the data you need: lens, aperturte, ISO, etc.

[MrSmith]

I think the 60 and 80mp backs are safe, for now  

But what about the 40-50's? I'm having a rethink on spending £10-15k on a phamiyablad as a sony/metabones and my existing 24tse/90tse plus a 50mm (poss Zeiss) will actually be a more versatile tool for the kind of work I do. My clients don't require more than a 100mb tiff and usable movements are important to me without going to the expense and lack of portability of a tech cam or the HTS and it's limitations.

[Ken R]

But what about the 40-50's? I'm having a rethink on spending £10-15k on a phamiyablad as a sony/metabones and my existing 24tse/90tse plus a 50mm (poss Zeiss) will actually be a more versatile tool for the kind of work I do. My clients don't require more than a 100mb tiff and usable movements are important to me without going to the expense and lack of portability of a tech cam or the HTS and it's limitations.

It depends. But in pure image quality terms, at optimum settings, conditions and technique, the 40-50mp backs are still better im sure. Specially with tech cameras and lenses. I have yet to use an SLR lens that is as good edge to edge as the Rodenstock HR lenses I have. Straight on, with the IQ160 back 60mp files I have a really hard time distinguishing from center of image to corner in regards to image quality. It is that good.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Doug,

I hope that the images below relieves your pain a bit. Left C1 right LR5 both from the IQ180 image.

Best regards
Erik

It's just so painful to see the IQ180 JPG which was clearly processed in Adobe Camera Raw or Capture One v6.

Once you get used to Capture One v7 quality it's really hard to see something previous.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Comparing JPEGs at 1:1 is a pretty accurate representation of what you would see in Photoshop at actual pixels and far more demanding than print. So I actually don't see your point. A JPEG with decent level of compression is not distinguishable from a TIFF, if they are in the same colour space.

Comparing images at 1:1 is not very meaningful if the number of megapixels is different. The IQ 180 has far more pixels.

Best regards
Erik

This idea of comparing jpgs in this way is nothing but useless..
Do people buy this??

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Ken,

Probably so. If you put a very good lens on a high resolution back with larger sensor size it will always be "better" than a smaller sensor with an equally good lens. So if you shoot flat targets, like a distant landscape, the larger format having more pixels will always win.

The question is more like:

- Can you actually see the difference in print?
- Can you compensate for the difference in resolution by better sharpening?
- What is your definition of good enough?

It takes a lot of engineering effort to compensate for 2-3 times the image area, and MFD makers are good on both sensors and lenses.

Best regards
Erik

I think the 60 and 80mp backs are safe, for now  

The A7R is a great little camera and unlike the D800E it accepts a lot of lenses and has a great EFV and Rear LCD and an awesome live view. Like the D800E it seems a bit picky on lens choice to get the best out of it. I saw a few very large prints in NY made from A7R files and they looked great but still have a somewhat "digital" look. Similar to what you get with the D800E. Both definitely come very close to what you get with the 30-40mp backs (with average lenses) when you use the best lenses available from Nikon and Zeiss. (On one of the photos I saw printed they used the Zeiss 85mm f1.4 lens, w/ adapter, on the A7R) The A7R is tiny compared to all DSLRs so it packs quite a punch in a very small and light package. Yes, it has some limitations but at the price it is a great tool to have for landscape, architecture and macro / studio. For people I still prefer an optical viewfinder but the EVF on the Sony is quite good.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Link below shows actual pixels view of the 7R image uprezzed to IQ180 resolution. I guess the resolution advantage of the IQ180 is obvious. There may be other aspects.

Is the difference worth 20 times the price? It is really up to buyer to decide.

Personally, I have no answer. I own neither camera and I will also not buy any of those. The IQ180 I simply cannot afford, the Alpha 7r seems to be a nice camera, but I am not so enthusiastic for non OLP-filtered cameras, and it does not really fit into my system and needs. I like the resolution, but I suspect the P45+ I have would still offer better resolution/acutance than the 7r. The area where I guess the 7r wins over my P45+ is shadow detail, and of course usability.

Best regards
Erik

[Phil Indeblanc]

 I think Its also the crop factor these lenses are for true 4x5 size at the least. So your mainly using the sweet spot.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

No, Rodenstock HR and similar lenses are strictly medium format, most of them have a 70 mm image circle. These are all new designs, very well corrected for digital sensors.

http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/mediabase/original/e_Rodenstock_Digital_Lenses_3-26__8236.pdf

Best regards
Erik

I think Its also the crop factor these lenses are for true 4x5 size at the least. So your mainly using the sweet spot.

[EinstStein]

Here're more comparisons.
Yak! Even worst than Fujifilm X. 

//
The links below are from flickr courtesy of user ZhanQL
A7r
http://www.flickr.com/photos/inikon/sets/72157637668801615/
A7
http://www.flickr.com/photos/inikon/sets/72157637688730425/
//

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Don't see your point.

1) Fujifilm X is APS-C and it crops the images by 33.3% so the corners would not be visible on the Fujifilm X

2) If the A7 had a long flange distance you couldn't use Leica M mount lenses on it anyway.

So what do you want? A camera with long flange distance that is compatible with most SLR lenses? Try Canon EOS!

Or do you want a full format camera that takes Leica M mount lenses? Choices are M9, ME, M(240), A7 and A7r.

Best regards
Erik

Here're more comparisons.
Yak! Even worst than Fujifilm X. 

//
The links below are from flickr courtesy of user ZhanQL
A7r
http://www.flickr.com/photos/inikon/sets/72157637668801615/
A7
http://www.flickr.com/photos/inikon/sets/72157637688730425/
//

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Here're more comparisons.
Yak! Even worst than Fujifilm X. 

//
The links below are from flickr courtesy of user ZhanQL
A7r
http://www.flickr.com/photos/inikon/sets/72157637668801615/
A7
http://www.flickr.com/photos/inikon/sets/72157637688730425/
//

Hi,

That's what you get when using lenses specifically designed for film on any digital sensor, Sony sensors are not different than other sensors in that regard (as explained here). The results on e.g. a Leica M9 are equally horrific, and pose the same post-processing challenge.

Cheers,
Bart