Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: One Frame at a Time on October 16, 2013, 01:02:04 pm
-
The new Sony NEX 7a and 7r FF cams look fantastic! I admit to having a love-hate for Sony. Having owned an NEX 5, 5r, and 6, while patiently waiting for some decent lenses - till I finally gave up. Several months ago I sold my NEX gear to buy into the Fujifilm system. The lenses for the Fuji cameras are 100% fantastic from my experience with the 18-55 kit lens, the 14mm and the 55-200.
I was thrilled about the NEX bodies, (especially the NEX 6) sensor, design, and light weight. The lenses however were another story. I don't expect much from lenses costing 300 to 500 dollars. However. variations from lens to lens (the same len model) was ridiculous. And even a "good" copy was rather poor. Reading the test results at DXO and others, that seems to extend to nearly all the Alpha mount lenses too (no matter what label they slap on). The test results on all but one lens (the 70-200 G) look really bad for either sharpness or CA......or both. Its a puzzle as to why their lenses seemed to test so much worse than the competition. Especially puzzled now having owned a Fuji camera and experiencing the lenses - sharp right out of the box with no cherry picking!
So now Sony has another body that is full frame and exactly what I have always hoped for. A lightweight, capable FF body, It even has a dedicated compensation dial like my XE-1, that makes the camera a real joy to use. But the 24 MP camera is being released with a 200 dollar kit lens?? Seems like they are headed down the same bumpy road as far as lens quality? Having never owned any Sony FF lenses (relying on the test scores) was wondering if anyone has a good (or bad) opinion or experience with the Sony FF glass?
Thanks,
Paul
-
I care far more about being able to put my Leica-R lenses on it than about native AF lenses, and for this purpose it looks like a real contender.
-
When I saw this camera, I thought finally.
I believe FF 35mm has become too large a form factor. Not that I'm against large cameras, heck I use RED R1's handheld, but 35mm cameras have become huge.
The thing that bothers me with this camera is it's somewhat hobbled.
FF, great form factor, good analog controls, video, autofocus with multiple points, for video in and out sound. All sounds good.
But continuous focus at 1.5 to 2.5 fps is really slow in today's world. 28mb per second video is on the bare minimum of current quality and some of the lenses are slow. F4 negates a lot of reason to use full frame.
What i had hoped for was a Panasonic GH3 on steroids. The GH3 does great continuous focus, 72mbs video in .mov, has a very simple menu system, beautiful out of can colour, in and out of sound and a good fast lens set when combined with Olympus primes.
Granted the Sony's high mp count and high iso will surpass the gh3's in still quality, but I just have a feeling that Sony said why make a $2,000 camera that does it all, when we're still selling more expensive cameras?
Maybe I'm wrong, but to me this is the form factor and some usability that 35mm needs to go to stay viable, just add another processor, allow for high bit rate video, faster lenses, the ability to tether and a PC sync. (yes a PC sync is needed in some situations.)
If it had these functions and faster lenses, I'd buy in today, heck I'd probably even preorder and I never pre order.
IMO
BC
-
Hi,
I guess that is an interesting application. Actually I assume that Sony expects to sell quite a few A7r to folks having a bunch of excellent lenses with no up to date digital body. I would call that accumulated market.
How good the implementation is? I guess we need to wait and see.
Best regards
Erik
I care far more about being able to put my Leica-R lenses on it than about native AF lenses, and for this purpose it looks like a real contender.
-
Leica M lenses can be used. Does this mean Zeiss ZM lenses could, too?
Would anybody have an idea if Contax G lenses might be adapted? Flange-to-focal distance 29 mm.
-
Hi,
Absolutely, lens flange distance is not a problem. Minor in accuracies would be handled by live view, if you can focus for infinity, that is.
What may be a problem is lens cast.
Best regards
Erik
Leica M lenses can be used. Does this mean Zeiss ZM lenses could, too?
Would anybody have an idea if Contax G lenses might be adapted? Flange-to-focal distance 29 mm.
-
Thank you, Erik! That's great.
-
Hi,
Absolutely, lens flange distance is not a problem. Minor in accuracies would be handled by live view, if you can focus for infinity, that is.
What may be a problem is lens cast.
Don't forget adapter quality. Tolerances here will have to be very tight.
-Dave-
-
Yes, but I'm confident that Leitax can do it.
(BS removed)
-
Don't think of this as a separate camera system, which requires its own proprietary lenses to work. This is practically a full-frame digital back, which can be put behind any lens.
I'm looking forward to having an up-to-date 36MP sensor to put behind my Canon TS-E lenses, and will also be using it with the Nikon 14-24 and other lenses, too. Slow AF (compared to an SLR), but, if I were shooting action, I'd be using an action body anyway.
-
Quality has hit the point that I honestly believe the D800 is the last big boy camera I will own. Rumor is that the new Sony uses the same sensors as the D800/E. And the feature set looks to be excellent. When the lens quality catches up, probably next year, that will be the end of the 30 pound pack back for me!
-
Quality has hit the point that I honestly believe the D800 is the last big boy camera I will own. Rumor is that the new Sony uses the same sensors as the D800/E. And the feature set looks to be excellent. When the lens quality catches up, probably next year, that will be the end of the 30 pound pack back for me!
The 7r likely uses the same chip, but the implementation will be much more Sony than Nikon, particularly since they have to deal with a smaller, much shallower mount. If history is any indication between how the two companies implement, the 7r will be noisier than the 800e at like ISOs with more accurate OOC color.
-
Don't forget adapter quality. Tolerances here will have to be very tight.
-Dave-
True, but I wouldn't let that stop me from trying. The OP's right, Sony has had a problem bringing lenses people really want to use to market for both the Alpha and E mount cameras. And with such beautiful tools for manual focus available on the cameras, it would be a shame to let them go to waste. The adapters we've been happily using on the APS-C cameras may not cut it, but that won't remain true for long. If the manufacturers realize their product isn't working out on the FF cameras, I'm sure they'll be happy to sell us upgrades with the necessary tighter tolerances.
-
Hi,
Yes and no. You will need low tolerances for things like photographing flat subjects (like murals) at large apertures but if you have a subject in focus and the rest outside precision does not play into it at all. You focus on your subject, using live view. That's all.
Best regards
Erik
Don't forget adapter quality. Tolerances here will have to be very tight.
-Dave-
-
I've never been drawn to the legacy lens type of photography. I like having quick and accurate AF when shooting. Much of what I shoot is sports, wildlife, (and landscapes). Manual focus was the only option my first couple of decades in photography. Guess the shine of AF has never warn off. I would be fairly happy to use an adapter for my Canon glass to start but so far, all the adapters work at much reduced speed. Thats a non-starter for me. Also, any of the adapters including Sony's add weight and bulk that counteract the benefits of the small and light cameras. Add Sony's A mount adapter, and the weight nearly equals a Canon D6.
It seems amazing (in a bad way) that with computer design and all the improvements in lens design and manufacture techinques, the lenses Sony has offered the last 5 to 10 years are so far behind the pack. I am REALLY hoping they get their act together for the e FF mount system.
-
Dunno about the new lenses, as they have not been delivered for the A7r. The two Zeiss lenses I have for my NEX 7 are quite good, and autofocus. I am fairly sure the Zeiss FE
lens, a 35mm f2.8, is autofocus (?), and they do offer a 55mm as well. As to the quality or lack of it from Sony lenses, I don't have any experience.
Sony seems to be conflicted as to whether they are seeking pros or serious amateurs,
or the point and shoot market, thus their zooms do not excite the serious folks.
-
Maybe thats the problem. I'm an avid fan of Zoom lenses. I like to compose my shots using position and Zoom. I bought a 14 mm for my Fuji but have not used it much at all. Figuring it will be useful indoors and in tight quarters. Fixed lenses always seem too limiting (to me). Why would Sony have such a hard time making decent zooms? It can me done.
-
The 7r with 24-70mm Zeiss f4 weighs a full two pounds less than a D800 with the Nikon 24-70 f2.8. That difference is the equivalent of two cans of soda hanging off your shoulder. If the Zeiss is up to snuff, I will seriously think about switching. I don't need the extra stop of speed for what I shoot.
-
Yes and no. You will need low tolerances for things like photographing flat subjects (like murals) at large apertures but if you have a subject in focus and the rest outside precision does not play into it at all. You focus on your subject, using live view. That's all.
Erik, I'm referring to stuff like maintaining proper centering of lens mount flanges relative to the sensor. Roger Cicala's recent article on the subject is worth a read.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters
I own a bunch of Novoflex adapters for my m43 cameras. The article goes some way toward explaining why performance with adapted wider lenses, whether symmetrical or retrofocal, has tended to be so mediocre. The adapter makers, especially those charging $150+ a pop, need to step up their game. One exception: the Yashica/Contax mount Metabones SpeedBooster I recently bought for use with the Blackmagic Pocket Cinecam. It not only maintains dead-on infinity focusing, it also improves corner performance (while widening field-of-view) relative to the same lenses mounted via the Novoflex unit.
-Dave-
-
Hi,
My point is that if you focus manually or using contrast based AF the subject will be in critical focus, as long as infinity focus ca be reached. Now, the focal plane may be tilted, but you would not notice on normal subjects that have depth. So the problem would be obvious on a test target but far less in real life. Nothing wrong with test targets but real life targets are much less demanding.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, I'm referring to stuff like maintaining proper centering of lens mount flanges relative to the sensor. Roger Cicala's recent article on the subject is worth a read.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters
I own a bunch of Novoflex adapters for my m43 cameras. The article goes some way toward explaining why performance with adapted wider lenses, whether symmetrical or retrofocal, has tended to be so mediocre. The adapter makers, especially those charging $150+ a pop, need to step up their game. One exception: the Yashica/Contax mount Metabones SpeedBooster I recently bought for use with the Blackmagic Pocket Cinecam. It not only maintains dead-on infinity focusing, it also improves corner performance (while widening field-of-view) relative to the same lenses mounted via the Novoflex unit.
-Dave-
-
Would you trust a Sonnar 35 mm compared to a ZM C-Biogon 2.8/35?
Impossible to say of course, but...
-
Hi,
I don't know. Lens cast can be corrected.
If you look into Zeiss naming system, Sonnar means a large aperture system, while Biogon is a symmetrical design. Biogons and digital are not a good combination, at least as of now. The reason Biogons don't work with digital sensors is large chief ray angle.
Best regards
Erik
Would you trust a Sonnar 35 mm compared to a ZM C-Biogon 2.8/35?
Impossible to say of course, but...
-
Thank you, Erik. Good to know - I had otherwise planned for a Contax G Biogon 2.8/28 and the named ZM-C 2.8/35.
Going a bit shorter, what would you exspect from a Voigtländer Color Skopar 4.0/25?
-
Have a look here folks !
http://briansmith.com/sony-a7r-field-test/ (http://briansmith.com/sony-a7r-field-test/)
-
Sony are able to do good lenses (as they have shown with A Mount)
NEX I'm not sure what went wrong there few lenses stand out and I think it lost some impact due to that.
FF A7 it's going to be quite hard to produce good lenses with a FF sensor even with offset micro lenses.
-
Have a look here folks !
http://briansmith.com/sony-a7r-field-test/ (http://briansmith.com/sony-a7r-field-test/)
I took your advice and looked. Here's the first sentence:
"Sony’s newly announced A7R and A7 are the lightest interchangeable lens cameras ever made."
Er, I think maybe not...
Roy
-
I took your advice and looked. Here's the first sentence:
"Sony’s newly announced A7R and A7 are the lightest interchangeable lens cameras ever made."
Er, I think maybe not...
Roy
It's worth pointing out that Brian is sponsored by Sony, paid to turn up at events and on the freebie list too. Great photographer no question..but I prefer to listen to those who make their own purchases.
-
Just my little opinion on lens adapters and the need for accuracy... I don't think it's an issue.
I've used old Rokkor lenses on my Panasonic G1 for a while now via a very cheap adapter bought off ebay and at 100% they look very sharp on my screen. There may be issues towards the edges of the frame and performance on the test bench may be poor but for real world images I just don't think it's an issue or at least it hasn't been an issue for me to date and I'd be surprised if the actual accuracy of the adapter proves to be a real world issue when using these new Sony's.
-
I think at the start these cameras will sell on megapixels alone, though when you add up the limited lens line, slow continuous autofocus and slow lenses, once you get past the occasional landscape photographer, anyone that needs faster lenses (which mean large a mounts with an adapter), they might as well stick with standard dslrs, because the price is not that different.
It seems to me that Sony throws a lot of stuff at the wall to see what sticks. Obviously they can make anything, but just as obvious they tend to switch gears in the middle of production.
If you bought an RX1 last week, it's still viable, but today it became more limited next to the A7 and the NEX has now become stop gap.
Where this leaves the A99 style cameras I don't know, because I'm not sure what they offer that is a step above this camera, other than faster lenses.
I've watched Sony for years in video and stills and though I find a lot of their cameras compelling, there always seems a what if attached.
I still believe there is a market for smaller mirrorless cameras that work in a professional mode, but to get there they need full lens sets, full features that rival the best of the standard dslrs.
Personally I think they'd have been better off if they made this camera an A mount rather than a E mount system, because there is enough legacy A mounts to cover the professional range and newer smaller lenses could be added as time went by, but just like in Video, Sony seems to hold back just a few features to keep the upline products viable.
Maybe in a few years the dust will settle and there will be just one high end line of cameras, but before then will Canon and Nikon respond and surpass whatever Sony eventually gets to?
Since we shoot a lot of motion imagery, my first thoughts go there, or better put go to the fact that nobody produces a combination camera system that does great stills AND great video.
The GH3 really is a video monster, but doesn't have the still quality of the A7 or even the new Olympus omd em-1. The upside is one set of m43 glass and a Oly and Pana will pretty much cover most all territory of stills and motion, though I'd love to see one camera do both equally well.
I just get the feeling looking at this camera that Sony thought they could out do the Olympus by using the magic FF word and more megapixels and stopped on that point.
IMO
BC
-
I don't think that the lens line up or the AF speed (in the real world) will be massive problems for many people, lens line up wise as long as they and others (Sigma?) can add to it in a reasonable time frame all could be well.
Look at Canon... if picking 35, 50 and/or 85mm primes I personally think Sigma would be the way to go as they're arguably the best at each focal length and indeed that's what I did with the 50 and 85mm f1.4's.
I'd buy this camera to use my legacy lenses on and those lenses plus a standard "kit" zoom and maybe a fast AF prime or two could be all I'd need.
I see that they have a 55mm f1.8 but that the 35mm is f2.8, I'd rather it was f1.8 but maybe one will come along. A set of fairly compact primes - 35, 50(ish) and 85mm f1.8's would be nice.
-
It's worth pointing out that Brian is sponsored by Sony, paid to turn up at events and on the freebie list too. Great photographer no question..but I prefer to listen to those who make their own purchases.
Ho !! I didn't knew that. My bad. It was just to show what he does with the ZM 18 f4.
But !!!... for the ones who worry about WA lenses on this body (and I'm not sponsored by them ;) ) I found that on the sony site :
http://youtu.be/CWe_ePAHSfk
If it apply on Raws ... what a winner !
-
I currently shoot a Canon 5d Mkiii and mostly use my 16-35mm II L, 28mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4, and 85mm 1.8. I use it for street and landscape purposes, for the most part. One of my gripes with the camera is I've never been able to make the AF point selection process feel quick and natural. So I like AF in principle, but in practice I do a lot of recomposing (I know, bad habit). The camera is also quite large, which I don't mind when I'm walking around solely for the purpose of shooting, but if I'm being social along the way I often leave it behind.
I've preordered the A7R with the thought that I could use Leica M mount lenses on it and use focus peaking to "autofocus" in a way that makes more sense to me. I haven't shot rangefinder before but the idea of the Sony 14-EV dynamic range FF sensor in a small package is pretty exciting. I have two immediate questions around this --
1) any thoughts on quality between the Voigtlander and Metabones M to E adapters, or others that may be superior?
2) I'm interested in the Voigtlander lenses, in particular the 21mm 1.8 Ultron, the Nokton 35mm 1.2 II, and the Nokton 50mm 1.5. On paper these look like they offer excellent IQ without Leica prices. Any thoughts on whether these are likely to work well (e.g. how problematic corner/edge issues might be) on the A7R?
-
It's worth pointing out that Brian is sponsored by Sony, paid to turn up at events and on the freebie list too. Great photographer no question..but I prefer to listen to those who make their own purchases.
Thanks for the observation. I didn't read on past the first sentence which, whoever he works for (and most of the "big names" are beholden to manufacturers to some limited extent I imagine), is obviously incorrect. If the guy pays so little attention to the introduction what else is he going to misrepresent, intentionally or otherwise? Anyone who is setting himself up as a pundit at least needs to get the factual elements correct.
Roy
-
The only lenses I still have covering full frame are Zeiss ZE 21/2.8 and 28/2 and Canon 100L IS - could I use all these with the same (Metabones?) adaptor on the A7R? I wonder whether the 21's amazing IQ would survive that.
-
I've preordered the A7R with the thought that I could use Leica M mount lenses on it and use focus peaking to "autofocus" in a way that makes more sense to me. I haven't shot rangefinder before but the idea of the Sony 14-EV dynamic range FF sensor in a small package is pretty exciting. I have two immediate questions around this --
1) any thoughts on quality between the Voigtlander and Metabones M to E adapters, or others that may be superior?
2) I'm interested in the Voigtlander lenses, in particular the 21mm 1.8 Ultron, the Nokton 35mm 1.2 II, and the Nokton 50mm 1.5. On paper these look like they offer excellent IQ without Leica prices. Any thoughts on whether these are likely to work well (e.g. how problematic corner/edge issues might be) on the A7R?
I can't comment on E-mount adapters as I've never had my hands on an E camera. On my Micro-4/3 cameras I've used Panasonic & Novoflex M adapters...both work equally well, with the caveat that corner performance with lenses wider than 40mm ranges from meh to yuck. This is the case both with older (though retrofocal) designs like the first Leitz 21/2.8 Elmarit and newer ones like the current Leica ASPH version and Zeiss 21mm ZM. The performance of these lenses on 35mm film is noticeably better.
I also use a Fuji X-E1 with Fuji & Novoflex M adapters. Much the same comments as above apply, though performance is more even center-to-corner than with the m43 cameras. Go figure...I expected the opposite! Curiously the older 21 Elmarit is an exception here to the rule as it performs very nicely. Some sort of synergistic thing, I guess.
The Voigt lenses provide great value and often great performance to match. I don't consider them lesser Leicas or Zeisses at all. The lenses you mention are likely to have the same corner issues (or lack thereof) on the Sony as on digital Leica Ms, with the proviso that Leica uses sensors designed with M lenses in mind and likely also employs deconvolution processing to further mitigate those issues. Note that I've used the 50mm Nokton on an M9...fine & dandy. Don't own & haven't used the other two.
-Dave-
-
Interesting.
I use a cheap adapter and Rokkor lenses on my Panasonic G1 and edge performance with my 24, 28 and 35mm lenses is better than with my Panasonic 20mm f1.7.
-
Hi,
MD wide angles are all retrofocus designs, as are all SLR wide angles. The Leica lenses are more symmetric types and don't mix well with digital sensors.
Best regards
Erik
Interesting.
I use a cheap adapter and Rokkor lenses on my Panasonic G1 and edge performance with my 24, 28 and 35mm lenses is better than with my Panasonic 20mm f1.7.
-
Hi,
MD wide angles are all retrofocus designs, as are all SLR wide angles. The Leica lenses are more symmetric types and don't mix well with digital sensors.
Best regards
Erik
And luckily Rokkor lenses although being quite good are also quite cheap :D
-
I shoot a lot of film ant have some very nice Leica glass. I've pre-ordered the A7r. I'm just wondering about the C Biogon, and whether I should trade it for a Voigtlander 35 1.2. Any one have any insights?
-
Biogons really bygone?
I understand the reasoning that says biogons will have problems with digital sensors. But there seem to be some people who have used them on a Leica M 240 and have not complained. Maybe there is hope anyway??
added: Can one exspect to correct these particular lens weaknesses for digital sensors buy optimized deconvolution?
http://shottobits.com.au/?p=9800
http://www.whereaboutsphoto.com/?tag=leica-m240
https://www.google.com/search?q=biogon+on+Leica+M+240&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=lodjUprpF6nM0AWT_4GoDQ&ved=0CHsQsAQ
added:
And what do you think of these 2 Voigtländer lenses:
Pancake II Color Skopar 4.0/25 (144 grams, M-mount), and
SL II Color Skopar 2.8/28 (180 grams in Nikon F mount) ?
These do not seem to be symmetrical lens designs.
-
Looks like Sony crippled the 24mp A7 sensor...
http://www.ronscheffler.com/techtalk/?p=224
No offset microlenses
This is pretty big, and a huge mistake from Sony
-
Looks like Sony crippled the 24mp A7 sensor...
http://www.ronscheffler.com/techtalk/?p=224
No offset microlenses
This is pretty big, and a huge mistake from Sony
I think Sony will market these cameras in the traditional way . . . more megapixels. That and full frame are the magic words.
Think about the buyer that walks in to buy a OM1 and the sales person says sure you can get this, but for a few dollars more get a FULL FRAME camera with twice the megapixels.
Sold.
IMO
BC
-
from the pre-order numbers, it looks like Sony has a good start with photographers who don't need a variety of lenses, are buying the future and think they can wait for lenses, and perhaps a large number who want the latest and greatest. But what Sony needs from the A7&A7r are serious/professional photographers to switch from Canon or Nikon.
as a Canon user who would love to lose some weight, there has to be a wide angle lens (I think the most serious omission for a camera of this type) before I could even consider the A7/r as a second system. Looks like the 24-70 is about as small and light as possible for FF, but the future 70-200 f4 is longer and heavier than my Canon. A complete system is a couple years away unless you buy in to the concepts of the Alpha adapter which I think is suspect for a 36mp camera.
-
I shoot a lot of film ant have some very nice Leica glass. I've pre-ordered the A7r. I'm just wondering about the C Biogon, and whether I should trade it for a Voigtlander 35 1.2. Any one have any insights?
I used to shoot the Zeiss ZM 28 2.8 Biogon on the M8 and M9. I never had any problems with corner sharpness (I rarely looked, but when I did it was never an issue) or color issues at the edges of teh frame. The only reason I sold that lens is that its rendering is too sharp, too contrasty, too modern, for my taste.
-
I used to shoot the Zeiss ZM 28 2.8 Biogon on the M8 and M9. I never had any problems with corner sharpness (I rarely looked, but when I did it was never an issue) or color issues at the edges of teh frame. The only reason I sold that lens is that its rendering is too sharp, too contrasty, too modern, for my taste.
It is a great modern-look lens on Leica Ms, film or digi. Not as great on Micro Four-Thirds or Fuji X, though. It's not that the corners are mush at wider apertures...but they do fall off noticeably from the center, and in order to get 'em crisp you have to sacrifice crispness in the center. I couldn't find a good compromise aperture on the Fuji X-E1 so I stopped using it with that camera. I get much better corner results with the older Leitz 21mm Elmarit, and overall a gentler, less hyped rendering with that lens.
-Dave-
-
I get much better corner results with the older Leitz 21mm Elmarit, and overall a gentler, less hyped rendering with that lens.
As a matter of interest Dave, did you try the Leitz 28mm Elmarit ASPH in comparison to the Biogon (on the XE-1)?
-
As a matter of interest Dave, did you try the Leitz 28mm Elmarit ASPH in comparison to the Biogon (on the XE-1)?
That one I don't have. I got the Zeiss 28mm ZM 'cuz I was so fond of the Contax G version from the late 1990s. They're not the same, though...the ZM is, as TMARK puts it, more modern. I use it some with film. I'd expect the Leica ASPH to be in the same vein but likely with more even performance on the X-E1. As it is I don't own a 28mm M or LTM lens that performs really well on APS-C cameras--the LTM Voigtländer 28/1.9 is just okay--so I tend to go wider with the 21mm. I'm still surprised the Elmarit, not the most-loved lens Leitz ever made, likes the Fuji so much.
-Dave-
-
Hi,
One of the cameras has offset microlenses.
But, I am pretty sure the problem wide angles goes deeper. Biogon type lenses are not very tolerant of optical glass behind the lens and a Sony has a lot of that. It is OK if it is included in the optical calculation.
If the OLP filter is removed, it would be replaced by equivalent amount of glass. Leica uses very thin IR filter, no OLP filter and software correction to handle wideangles. Leica even developed their own sensor, and that sensor is a design that works better with Biogon type lenses, lenses that have large beam tilt.
In reality the Alpha 7 is built by Sony for Sony lenses. So I think it is no mistake by Sony, just reality. Building a camera for Leica lenses is best made by Leica.
Owners of Leica R lenses may enjoy the Alpha 7, but R lenses also fit on Nikon or Canon with bayonet replacement from Leitax.
Best regards
Erik
I think Sony will market these cameras in the traditional way . . . more megapixels. That and full frame are the magic words.
Think about the buyer that walks in to buy a OM1 and the sales person says sure you can get this, but for a few dollars more get a FULL FRAME camera with twice the megapixels.
Sold.
IMO
BC
-
I'm still surprised the Elmarit, not the most-loved lens Leitz ever made, likes the Fuji so much.
Thanks for the feedback, Dave. Yes - it's a welcome bonus.
-
Owners of Leica R lenses may enjoy the Alpha 7, but R lenses also fit on Nikon or Canon with bayonet replacement from Leitax.
There are no replacement bayonets for the lens side of the Leica-R extenders. Canon's 36MP, no AA-filter model is... ?
-
Hi,
I see your point on extenders. The reason I mentioned the Leitax is because adapters add a level of extra tolerance and the Leitax does not.
There is an adapter for R-lenses on the Leica-M.
Two other issues I would like to point out. First I don't think that EVF really works well for unmagnified manual focus. I have never been good at manual focus and I always focus at 11X when I focus manually. I don't think peaking works at all on Sony, it shows some kind of sharpness indication but if I focus by peaking I never get anything decently sharp. I guess magnified live view is not so good for subjects in motion. Obviously, there are shooters who focus exactly with optical viewfinders, but if that works with an EVF may be a consideration.
The other point is that I feel that removal of OLP filter is not a very good advice, especially not with very good lenses. The OLP filter looses some edge contrast, but that can be restored with a bit more sharpening. The reason the OLP filter being there is to avoid aliasing, mostly colour aliasing but also monochrome. The best way to avoid aliasing is OLP filtering with more pixels.
The enclosed shot was made with a Hasselblad Sonnar 150/4 on a P45+ at about three meters. There are a lot of aliasing artifacts in that image. I also got aliasing with a Planar 80/2.8 at the same distance. The red boxes show what I feel is obvious and bad aliasing. The second image is shot from the same position with an Sony 70-400/4-5.6G at 150mm on my Sony Alpha 77 SLT. The lenses are pretty well matched, with the Sonnar probably having some edge, but the P45+ has 6.9 my pixels and no OLP filter while the Sony Alpha has 3.9 my pixels and OLP filter. The Sony Alpha image was downscaled to the same size as the P45+ image using Lanzos which adds relatively few aliasing artifacts.
The original series also include an image taken on the Alpha 99, 6 micron pitch with OLP filter. I think what is obvious is that small pixels are what really help.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/FakeDetail/comparison1.html
Best regards
Erik
There are no replacement bayonets for the lens side of the Leica-R extenders. Canon's 36MP, no AA-filter model is... ?
-
Hi,
I see your point on extenders. The reason I mentioned the Leitax is because adapters add a level of extra tolerance and the Leitax does not.
There is an adapter for R-lenses on the Leica-M.
User reports suggest that the EVF is not up to the task of moving subjects.
Two other issues I would like to point out. First I don't think that EVF really works well for unmagnified manual focus. I have never been good at manual focus and I always focus at 11X when I focus manually. I don't think peaking works at all on Sony, it shows some kind of sharpness indication but if I focus by peaking I never get anything decently sharp. I guess magnified live view is not so good for subjects in motion. Obviously, there are shooters who focus exactly with optical viewfinders, but if that works with an EVF may be a consideration.
Have you used the A7 or A7r EVF? IMHO using the actual product trumps a blanket assumption about the brand. I'm fine with focussing manually w/o magnification but then the camera I'm using doesn't have a crippled AF camera's viewfinder.
The other point is that I feel that removal of OLP filter is not a very good advice, especially not with very good lenses.
I've been using a camera without the AA filter and with very good lenses since 2006. I get artifacts occasionally and I prefer the occasional problem to the AA filter's mush.
-
User reports suggest that the EVF is not up to the task of moving subjects.
That was precisely what I suggested.
Have you used the A7 or A7r EVF? IMHO using the actual product trumps a blanket assumption about the brand. I'm fine with focussing manually w/o magnification but then the camera I'm using doesn't have a crippled AF camera's viewfinder.
No, I have not used the A7/A7v. I have used Sony Alpha 99, 77 and 55 which all use same technology from the same vendor, so they would probably be pretty similar.
I've been using a camera without the AA filter and with very good lenses since 2006. I get artifacts occasionally and I prefer the occasional problem to the AA filter's mush.
I guess I am aware of that, guessing who is behind the pseudonym. Still I feel it adequate to show the effects of aliasing and also how more correct representation can be achieved by smaller pixels and it may be interesting to some buyers deciding between OLP-filtered and non OLP-filtered products.
Best regards
Erik
-
Still I feel it adequate to show the effects of aliasing and also how more correct representation can be achieved by smaller pixels and it may be interesting to some buyers deciding between OLP-filtered and non OLP-filtered products.
Don't you think you've hammered your POV on AA filters enough?
-
Hi,
To me it seems that you are a bit intolerant to views different from yours.
The way I see I have pretty good images illustrating why OLP filters are used and also the effect of smaller pixels on aliasing. Those examples are not in anyway contrieved. I feel there are frequent blanket statements about OLP filtering being something bad, but it is needed according to signal processing science and it is nice to illustrate it.
I actually have quite a few issues with similar problems since shooting MF, very often seen in test pictures, much less in landscape shots. Less visible in Capture One and more visible in LR5, so for me the problem is real.
So for me it is both an issue and a fact. No question that the artefacts are there. If they matter or not may be an issue of POV.
Best regards
Erik
Don't you think you've hammered your POV on AA filters enough?
-
To me it seems that you are a bit intolerant to views different from yours.
Actually Erik I wrote: "I prefer". I didn't write anything about which approach to making an image with a Bayer-pattern sensor is better. As an engineer I am well aware that there often are many ways to solve a problem each with its own set of advantages and drawbacks. I prefer using a sensor without the AA filter.
You are welcome to your preference, but you seem to take every opportunity to evangelize about the evils of the lack of an AA filter. There's no need to be defensive about your preference.
-
Don't you think you've hammered your POV on AA filters enough?
Lord, have mercy!
Did someone tell you -- Don't you think you've hammered your POV on EVF enough? :-)
-
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?
-
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?
For myself in-body stabilization would be a small benefit because subject motion often is a problem before camera motion is.
Lord, have mercy!
Did someone tell you -- Don't you think you've hammered your POV on EVF enough? :-)
I'm curious, what is my POV on EVFs? I had no idea I had one.
;)
-
Hi,
I guess I agree on both points. I happen to feel that EVFs are great but I am not sure they are great for focusing, but manual focusing is not the forte of modern cameras anyway. OVFs are not optimised for manual focus and EVFs are not there. I also feel that peaking is overrated, at least what I have seen. I think that on chip phase detection and contrast sensing AF is a very promising combination but may be less helpful for someone using older lenses on new cameras.
I got the impression that latest generation Canons with latest generation lenses do really well at AF.
Personally, I am bad at manual focus. I focus manually with 9X magnification on my "blad" (555ELD) with little confidence. Some photographers get in focus images of birds in flight using manual focus, I actually know one of those guys in person.
Best regards
Erik
For myself in-body stabilization would be a small benefit because subject motion often is a problem before camera motion is.
I'm curious, what is my POV on EVFs? I had no idea I had one.
;)
-
Some photographers get in focus images of birds in flight using manual focus, I actually know one of those guys in person.
Here are a few of mine:
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/falconidae/webster02.jpg)
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/threskiornithidae/wfibis03.jpg)
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/ardeidae/caegre05.jpg)
-
How many did you miss? ;-)
For the falcon photo, I missed 1 out of 4. The ibis and heron photos were single shots, i.e., for these birds I missed 0 out of 1.
-
I haven't tested it on fast moving sports, but my gh3's have always had good follow focus.
Excellent in video.
Not perfect, but neither is any camera, including the my 1dx, though the 1dx is almost perfect.
IMO
BC
-
Hi,
I am aware of your focusing skills. I know I guy who has similar skills.
The question really is if you can do the same focusing on an EVF? You say todays optical viewfinders are not good for manual focus and I guess you are right.
Personally I am not very good at manual focus, use a focus magnifier on my Hasselblad or LV at max magnification on the Sony. Neither would work on birds in flight.
Best regards
Erik
Here are a few of mine:
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/falconidae/webster02.jpg)
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/threskiornithidae/wfibis03.jpg)
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/ardeidae/caegre05.jpg)
-
The question really is if you can do the same focusing on an EVF?
For me that's the $2298 (plus adapter) question. I'll have to try it for myself to see if it meets my needs.
-
I happen to feel that EVFs are great but I am not sure they are great for focusing, but manual focusing is not the forte of modern cameras anyway. OVFs are not optimised for manual focus and EVFs are not there. I also feel that peaking is overrated, at least what I have seen.
The EVFs I've used aren't quite there yet for accurate full-screen manual focusing, but when using magnification they're great. Panasonic's GX7 offers peaking in magnified mode, where it too is more useful than in the full-screen view. Let's see where EVF tech is in another generation or two...
-Dave-