Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: ErikKaffehr on October 30, 2013, 02:47:12 am
-
Hi,
I felt I could start a new topic…
The way I see it, the Alpha 7/7r is great news for those having old great lenses that now can be used with a modern camera. It is also a way for Sony shooters to get access to some desirable lenses. For instance, the Canon 24/2.8 TS may work on the Alpha 7/7r.
One concern I might have is if the bayonet on the camera is strong enough to hold heavy lenses?
If Sony develops a lens program with high enough quality the system may be attractive. So far I would say that Sony's offerings lack consistency both on Alpha and E-mount. Sony says Alpha (A-mount) will continue, with new cameras coming.
I gather that image quality is excellent. I am less sure about the 7r not having OLP filtering. Would Sony have a 7r with OLP filter I would opt for that. I have had a Sony Alpha 55 which had a weak OLP filters and had more issues than I liked. Shooting medium format I also feel the aliasing (color aliasing mostly) causes a lot of issues at the apertures I shoot. Imaging Resource has a preview of the A7r and they also feel that OLP filtering is needed on the 7r.
As a long time Minolta/Sony owner, I would also say that I am not that impressed by the lens line. Obviously, I cannot compare with Canon, Nikon and others. What I can see is that many of the lenses could be better and that they are quite often more expensive than the competition.
So, will I buy an Alpha 7? Not right now. I will wait for test reports on the lenses and sample images. I would not mind a small camera with a good walk around zoom, for instance. The A7 designation indicates that it is an enthusiast camera. Top of the line is normally called something with a '9' in Sony nomenclature. So I guess that Alpha 9 may be in the pipeline.
Best regards
Erik
-
I am waiting for that camera for years now. I had the A850 and I if I look at the images toady, still color rendition is very pleasant. But the 850 lacked live view, and as I switched to TS lenses, I use 17, 24, 40 and 80 mm, it became impossible to use it without that. I then had a look at the NEX7. It was a nice cam, but the crop just made it unpractical with the given lenses. And the NEX7 is a haptic nightmare.
So I switched to a Canon 5DIII. Though haptic is excellent, for landscape photography I didn't like it at all. The dynamic range is quite small and many times I find myself exposure blending which may take much to long time. I have to use a magnifier lens for the LCD to get things sharp, and the images sometimes just don't look right. Colors shown aren't what there really was. The Nikon D800, was no option as the TS lineup is not what I wanted (TS 17) and live view seams to be from hell. Thats at least what I read e.g. from diglloyd.
Now her comes the Sony rA7. 36MP. Superclear EVF, so I can focus more precise than ever before, I can see WB changes, the Histogram, in short all the infos I need.It will have the best 36 mm sensor so far, with incredible DR. I can push the blacks without all the color noise I am getting now. I can use all my lenses on it, and I am sure even vignetting with the 17TS is no real world issue. And there is Focus Peeking, incredible helpful with tilting which is now only trial and error.
I ordered it right away. Delivery is said to be Nov 21st. For me this is what I would want from a landscape camera. I don't think I will ever touch the 5DIII after that again. So I guess it goes to eBay. The 5DIII has some advantages, of course, just the remote control cable is way better than Sony's. The wireless flash. And of course the 85/1.2 and 50/1.2. But how often can you use them? For portraits hard to use, as only the center double crosspointers get things sharp. Not very helpful if the eye is in the left top of the frame. But even then, I hear the Sony has eye detection. Maybe these lenses work fine manual focused with the a7r, too.
So for me thongs can't be better.
-
My guess (and it is only a guess - I have no privileged information) is that it will not be long before both Nikon and Canon bring out full-frame mirrorless cameras. (In Nikon's case, probably using a Sony sensor).
Obviously such developments by either Nikon or Canon would offer huge advantages over the option of switching to Sony - so probably worth waiting for a wee while to see what develops.
-
Seem to be very interesting cameras, but not on my priority list right now.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
My guess (and it is only a guess - I have no privileged information) is that it will not be long before both Nikon and Canon bring out full-frame mirrorless cameras. (In Nikon's case, probably using a Sony sensor).
Obviously such developments by either Nikon or Canon would offer huge advantages over the option of switching to Sony - so probably worth waiting for a wee while to see what develops.
Only a rumor but just this morning I read that Nikon won't be getting the new sony sensor specially designed for mirror less setups.
Unless Canon has some secret sensor in the bag they don't have the megapixels or dynamic range of the Sony.
So I really don't see any reason to wait for Nikon or Canon since you don't have switch systems, just buy an adapter and use your current excellent Canon or Nikon glass.
-
Only a rumor but just this morning I read that Nikon won't be getting the new sony sensor specially designed for mirror less setups.
Unless Canon has some secret sensor in the bag they don't have the megapixels or dynamic range of the Sony.
So I really don't see any reason to wait for Nikon or Canon since you don't have switch systems, just buy an adapter and use your current excellent Canon or Nikon glass.
DxO has a review for the 7R that says it is a match for the Nikon d800, d800e. They are convinced it is the same sensor with no OLP filter.
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sony-Alpha-7R-review-Highest-ever-full-frame-image-quality (http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sony-Alpha-7R-review-Highest-ever-full-frame-image-quality)
Ive been pretty happy with Alpha lenses on APSC. Given the low DxO scores relative to Canikon lenses I think the problems must only be on FF. Using the Canikon glass on the 7R would be the way to go.
-
Something folks tend to forget somewhat.
Autofocus...
Sony have an adaptor for A mount (but when you add the cost to the body it's not that attractive for A mount users)
For everything else manual focus, and of course once we mix flash in we can see limitations for users tempted by this.
As an A mount user I'm a lot more interested in a native mount body than this.
No shock that the sensor has identical performance to the Nikon DSLR's so can't see why anyone is overly excited about that.
I think for most folks, FF is too expensive to be worthwhile right now.
-
CptZar, I have the 6D, and use the Live View with magnification option to get critical focus. You can magnify 10x or so, which is fine for me on the LCD. If you feel comfortable, you could get focus peaking with loading the Magic Lantern software. Lens Rentals is renting out 5D3s pre-loaded with ML, so the 5D3 ML must be well past the alpha testing stage and is likely near the "anybody can load and run with reliable results" stage. I haven't bothered with loading ML on one of my cameras yet, but you format your card, use the computer to load ML onto it, and use it in your camera. This isn't different from the firmware upgrades I have done on other cameras. In other news, yes, Canon has less dynamic range, and tests out with 1 to 1.5 stops less DR than the Sony/Nikon sensors.
Sony shooters have already been hoovering up legacy lenses for the past several years. You are only going to find bargains on a local craigslist or garage sale, I am afraid. eBay may occasionally produce bargains. If your existing legacy lenses are up to the D800-style sensor of the alpha-7R, you will be in luck. Don't carry legacy lenses near your 'nads if they have a slight yellow cast - those lenses have a radioactive element.
FF too expensive for most folks - that's probably right - for up-graders there's also the cost of replacing the EF-S/DX glass.
-
Something folks tend to forget somewhat.
Autofocus...
Sony have an adaptor for A mount (but when you add the cost to the body it's not that attractive for A mount users)
For everything else manual focus, and of course once we mix flash in we can see limitations for users tempted by this.
Barry:
Maybe for you the cost of a $200 or $350 AF adapter is the difference between buying or not buying a $1700 ff camera but I'd say for most people with a big collection of a-mount glass it would not be the deciding factor. A more relevant question is whether having to use an adapter is acceptable. For me I'd prefer to use the adapter that doesn't use the SLT mirror. I'd rather manual focus some of the nicer screw driven lenses (like the 135mm f108) and use the native FE lenses for autofocus.
Regards,
John
-
Hi,
I actually see benefits of full frame. On the other hand I have made many of my best images on APS-C. It may be better to have APS-C and travel than having full frame and have less shooting opportunities. Also, excellent results are only possible with careful work. So, I see an advantage with larger formats, but those advantages need some work to achieve.
Best regards
Erik
FF too expensive for most folks - that's probably right - for up-graders there's also the cost of replacing the EF-S/DX glass.
-
Rumors are that Fuji is coming out with a FF version of the X-Pro1 next year. No word on MP yet that I'm aware of.
-
Rumors are that Fuji is coming out with a FF version of the X-Pro1 next year. No word on MP yet that I'm aware of.
Would be a new system with new and bigger lenses then.
-
Barry:
Maybe for you the cost of a $200 or $350 AF adapter is the difference between buying or not buying a $1700 ff camera but I'd say for most people with a big collection of a-mount glass it would not be the deciding factor. A more relevant question is whether having to use an adapter is acceptable. For me I'd prefer to use the adapter that doesn't use the SLT mirror. I'd rather manual focus some of the nicer screw driven lenses (like the 135mm f108) and use the native FE lenses for autofocus.
Regards,
John
I can only speak for myself but I'm just not that interested in these new A7 products.
I have quite a decent number of good quality FF lenses, and like many some gems of the Minolta era with the excellent metal build and also some decent Tamron FF glass mixed in. So most of my lenses are actually full frame.
Problem for me is, I have to use an adaptor for the lenses, then I have to use another adaptor for my flashes.
MF is ok for scenic work or portraits, but it's not great for action/moving subjects.
I think what Sony needed to do was bring a genuinely affordable FF body for A mount, and the A99 just isn't a big enough step up IMO for the asking price.
So I think for now I'll just use 35mm FF when I actually do need full frame, and use APS-C digital for most of the other stuff I do.
Full frame is mostly interesting to get those 35mm format lenses back to what they are most useful for, some are odd on APS-C (28/35mm zooms for example) on the other hand I can't say a 70-200mm is an issue for a crop body, nor some other primes like my 90mm macro (effectively a 135mm f2.8 now)
Other than that, and some more DOF control (but DOF control is ok on APS-C) I'm really not seeing it's anywhere near worth the asking price. FF isn't a golden road to heaven in every respect.
The other "big problem" is all those lenses are stabilised right now on A mount, they're not on E mount. That alone kills a lot of interest from me. I could probably wipe out the FF low light advantage in some cases with in body stabilisation. So we're back to square one..suddenly an E mount FF body isn't half as appealing as an A mount one.
-
I'm using a 5DIII and my favourite lenses are Zeiss ZEs, 21, 35f1.4, 50MP and 100MP.
My interest is in the A7r because of the great sensor and also being able to focus theses lenses more accurately with the EVF via a metabones adapter.
I will still keep the 5D3 as my main workhorse.
I will be interested in some reviews of this combination on a production A7r.
I have never used an EVF and high quality lenses via an adapter so this will be an interesting experience for me.
-
Hi,
That would work fine!
Best regards
Erik
I'm using a 5DIII and my favourite lenses are Zeiss ZEs, 21, 35f1.4, 50MP and 100MP.
My interest is in the A7r because of the great sensor and also being able to focus theses lenses more accurately with the EVF via a metabones adapter.
I will still keep the 5D3 as my main workhorse.
I will be interested in some reviews of this combination on a production A7r.
I have never used an EVF and high quality lenses via an adapter so this will be an interesting experience for me.
-
If my Canon shift lenses work perfectly on this camera, then it's a fantastic solution for architectural and landscape work. It's very exciting, but until the hands on reviews are in, who really knows.... I wonder how they overcame the live view issue that Nikon has with the D800?
-
If my Canon shift lenses work perfectly on this camera, then it's a fantastic solution for architectural and landscape work. It's very exciting, but until the hands on reviews are in, who really knows.... I wonder how they overcame the live view issue that Nikon has with the D800?
Hi Steve,
What live view issue are you referring to?
Live view (and preferably tethering support) is essential for accurate tilt focusing.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
I have not seen the D800 but I have both Sony Alpha 77 and Alpha 99 and I feel live view is OK on both, but I cannot compare with cameras I don't have.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Steve,
What live view issue are you referring to?
Live view (and preferably tethering support) is essential for accurate tilt focusing.
Cheers,
Bart
-
A more relevant question is whether having to use an adapter is acceptable. For me I'd prefer to use the adapter that doesn't use the SLT mirror. I'd rather manual focus some of the nicer screw driven lenses (like the 135mm f108) and use the native FE lenses for autofocus.
Regards,
John
Agreed about the adapter. I am not a big fan of an adapter with the SLT mirror (the LA-EA4 - $350), even though it does AF (Phase detect AF) with all of the A-mount lenses (screw-driven and also with built-in motors).
There is the LA-EA3 (available for $250), which does not have the SLT mirror in the light-path, but will only AF with the lenses that have the built-in motors, and you will need to manually focus the screw-drive lenses. The AF used is of course the Contrast Detect AF, which, even though more accurate than Phase-detect, is slower.
-
My feeling is that the Alpha 7r in particular may present a similar problem to the D800, namely most folks' lenses and technique are not up to the megapixel count. They are really turning it into a 20 to 25mp camera.
It will be interesting to get some facts on whether adapters are engineered accurately enough to really be worthwhile in this regard.
For me, the attraction of the D800, and by inference the A7R, is the ability to really lift shadow detail without introducing a hideous amount of noise.
On the other hand, a lot of my photography is hand held. And here is the attraction for me of a system like Fuji makes: after four or five hours work holding and lifting a camera with a 70- 300 lens, which will be sharper and have more detail, those files or those using a big lens on a FF sensor?
-
I'm afraid people using the high resolution A7R will be disappointed when using their beloved old Leica and Contax wideangles with an adapter. Tolerances are extremely tight here. I'm curious on people actually testing this and reporting.
-
Hi,
Tolerances my be less of a problem than suggested by many. Adding an extra mount introduces extra opportunity for error, but those errors are always alignment errors. In real world subjects are not aligned very well with the sensor. Where you focus you get excellent sharpness even with a system out of alignment.
So I would suggest that lens alignment problems are in part a test chart only problem. Or if you are shooting a brick wall, how do you know the camera is aligned with the wall?
The real issue may rather be that all lenses are not created equal. Some of the Leica lenses are excellent, but I am pretty sure that many are not so perfect and some may be tricky. With Biogon type lenses there is an additional issue that the optical package on the sensors introduces astigmatism, this was one of the reasons Leica used such a weak IR filter on the M8. On the M9 they went for a thicker filter.
The Hartblei HCam is often used with a Mirex TS adapter and I understand that combo produces excellent images.
Best regards
Erik
I'm afraid people using the high resolution A7R will be disappointed when using their beloved old Leica and Contax wideangles with an adapter. Tolerances are extremely tight here. I'm curious on people actually testing this and reporting.
-
The alignment problem is overblown. I have several Photodiox adapters, F to EOS, V to EOS, V to F, Mam. 645 F, None show any noticeable alignment issues. I say noticeable because I haven't (and won't) shoot a test chart unless I was copying art.
Hi,
Tolerances my be less of a problem than suggested by many. Adding an extra mount introduces extra opportunity for error, but those errors are always alignment errors. In real world subjects are not aligned very well with the sensor. Where you focus you get excellent sharpness even with a system out of alignment.
So I would suggest that lens alignment problems are in part a test chart only problem. Or if you are shooting a brick wall, how do you know the camera is aligned with the wall?
The real issue may rather be that all lenses are not created equal. Some of the Leica lenses are excellent, but I am pretty sure that many are not so perfect and some may be tricky. With Biogon type lenses there is an additional issue that the optical package on the sensors introduces astigmatism, this was one of the reasons Leica used such a weak IR filter on the M8. On the M9 they went for a thicker filter.
The Hartblei HCam is often used with a Mirex TS adapter and I understand that combo produces excellent images.
Best regards
Erik
-
Sony have an adaptor for A mount (but when you add the cost to the body it's not that attractive for A mount users) ... As an A mount user I'm a lot more interested in a native mount body than this.
Asked what message Sony has for A-mount users with large lenses that do not suit the shorter back focus of E-mount cameras, Sony UK's Alpha product manager Takahiro Hirata, said: ‘We will not quit A-mount product lines. (http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/540126/sony-on-alpha-7r-we-are-not-quitting-a-mount) We will have both product lines.'
At the press screening (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fotosidan.se%2Fcldoc%2Fsony-a7-och-a7r-tva-fullformatare.htm) told Yoshiyuki Nogama to a video-oriented SLR with A-mount is going on. It will compete with the Canon EOS 5D Mark III will have Ultra HD (4K). We guess that it is a further development of the Sony A99. Sony boss also told that Sony later comes with a really fast camera for action photography.
-
I'm afraid people using the high resolution A7R will be disappointed when using their beloved old Leica and Contax wideangles with an adapter. Tolerances are extremely tight here. I'm curious on people actually testing this and reporting.
I shot the A7r this week with a 10$ C/Y - E mount adapter and my faithful Contax Zeiss Distagon 28/2.8. No problems... lovely in fact.
SLR lenses are not going to be problematic in the way that many rangefinder lenses will. Bonus: While I felt some of my Contax optics felt huge and clunky on the NEX-5N, the combo of very slightly larger body, built in viewfinder, good grip, and overall design, I find that compact SLR lenses do not feel out of place at all on the A7 cameras.
-
My feeling is that the Alpha 7r in particular may present a similar problem to the D800, namely most folks' lenses and technique are not up to the megapixel count. They are really turning it into a 20 to 25mp camera.
Time for me to again beat one of my favorite drums: Adobe et al. should add a true-RGB mode to their RAW converters. Each RGBG array converted into a single output pixel with non-interpolated RGB values.
-Dave-
-
Time for me to again beat one of my favorite drums: Adobe et al. should add a true-RGB mode to their RAW converters. Each RGBG array converted into a single output pixel with non-interpolated RGB values.
-Dave-
If you are to convert the 4 r-g-g-b sub pixels into one r-g-b fullcolor pixel, you still want to do interpolation in order to correct the offset (otherwise, the three r-g-b outputs won't be cosited).
-h
-
The best thing about this Camera is, that as a Canon, Sony alpha, Pentax or Leica user I can now get access to a 36MP sensor without having to buy new lenses, like I would with a Nikon d800. I can use nearly any lens I own (apart for MFT). I can even mount it more easily onto a view camera with schneider glass than any canon due to the shorter flange distance. The price is fantastic.
I really hope tethered live view is possible, though I read somewhere on sony's site it is not. I could still hook up an HDMI screen for that or a tablet by NFC.
-
If you are to convert the 4 r-g-g-b sub pixels into one r-g-b fullcolor pixel, you still want to do interpolation in order to correct the offset (otherwise, the three r-g-b outputs won't be cosited).
Yeah, you're likely right about that. At least the sub-samples for each output pixel are all directly adjacent to each other...should reduce artifacts as well as provide tonal benefits.
-Dave-
-
Time for me to again beat one of my favorite drums: Adobe et al. should add a true-RGB mode to their RAW converters. Each RGBG array converted into a single output pixel with non-interpolated RGB values.
-Dave-
dcraw
rpp
Edmund
-
dcraw
rpp
Edmund
Yeah, I have that. Works fine, and has been useful from the beginning of the digital era. But I mean one or more of the big commercial apps. Getting Adobe, for example, to really pay attention to tonality in RAW conversion over the past decade has been like pulling teeth.
-Dave-
-
Yeah, you're likely right about that. At least the sub-samples for each output pixel are all directly adjacent to each other...should reduce artifacts as well as provide tonal benefits.
-Dave-
I think that the optimum image quality can be (most easily) had by:
1. Doing demosaic, deconvolution/sharpening, color correction etc on the raw image as good as you can. I.e. correct camera flaws as well as possible and generate a generic image representation that is a superset of the camera capabilities.
2. Doing the best downscale that you can to whatever output grid is desired, pre-compensate (if needed) for known output medium deficiencies.
I don't think that doing fancy stuff within the Bayer domain is going to easily beat the procedure above for pure image quality. But it might spend significantly less cpu/memory resources. There are papers describing direct mappings from Bayer data into lowres LCD representations, suitable for low-power cameras with LCD preview.
-h
-
I think for most folks, FF is too expensive to be worthwhile right now.
Q: Do you think that full-frame sensors will ever be meaningfully cheaper?
A: Sony is the number one manufacturer of imaging sensors, and if we can sell a lot of them, the price will come down! (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9689111831/every-six-months-i-want-to-do-something-new-kimio-maki-of-sony?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&utm_medium=text&ref=title_0_27)
;-)
-
Q: Do you think that full-frame sensors will ever be meaningfully cheaper?
A: Sony is the number one manufacturer of imaging sensors, and if we can sell a lot of them, the price will come down! (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9689111831/every-six-months-i-want-to-do-something-new-kimio-maki-of-sony?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&utm_medium=text&ref=title_0_27)
I'm no semiconductor engineer, but it seems to me the economics of large sensors are different than most other kinds of chips. In the old days, when you doubled the area of a chip and left the feature size the same, you got a double whammy on cost: you had to pay for twice as much silicon, and the odds that the chip would have a defect doubled, so the chip, before packaging, became four times as expensive. However, with the ability to map sensor defects and smooth them over in firmware, maybe doubling the area doesn't quadruple the cost.
Maybe someone who knows current fab and design technology could comment.
Jim
-
Canon had a white paper on sensor size and cost of manufacturing but its quite old (1DsmkII era). I think they said you can fit 20 ff sensors on an 8" wafer and 200 aps-c sized ones. Add in defects hitting those numbers harder and its not surprising ff sensors are more expensive, even given modern methods.
The whitepaper talks of 3 pass etching or ff sensors, they can now do that in one I think.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/images/canon_full-frame_cmos_white_paper.pdf
-
While large sensors will probably always be significantly more expensive than smaller ones (through mechanisms that are well-known in the cpu manufacture process, as well as other mechanisms), this may not matter if the price for sensor is low enough.
$100 vs $1000 would be a big issue for mid-range DSLR cameras.
$1 vs 10$ would probably not be a big issue.
-h
-
At the time of that white paper $100 vs $1000 was probably close , possibly more like $100 vs $1500.
Today it may be closer but not that much cheaper. CPU's get cheaper because they take up less and less silicon as you shrink production.
70D is what $1100 vs $1900 for the 6d. Some of that extra cost with be more profit, some down to more expensive non sensor components ( viewfinder, mirror etc, though no flash etc too). But a big chunk will be the increased sensor cost - say $400+?
-
I'm afraid people using the high resolution A7R will be disappointed when using their beloved old Leica and Contax wideangles with an adapter. Tolerances are extremely tight here. I'm curious on people actually testing this and reporting.
but as there is now groundglass/pentaprism to align and WYSIWYG is possible with an electronic viewfinder, what's the problem if an adapter is short or long by a bit?
-
Its already been tested with Leica wide angle lenses. Anything wider than 35mm has colour shift issues on the A7r.
-
Its already been tested with Leica wide angle lenses. Anything wider than 35mm has colour shift issues on the A7r.
Hi,
Can you share any link to support that, and show what was exactly tested, and whether that produced more Color Cast than other solutions would have done?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Was somewhere on Steve Huffs site
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/all-reviews/sony-a7-corner/
-
This comment? (http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/all-reviews/sony-a7-corner/#comment-261680)
-
From here : http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/10/31/my-1st-look-wrap-up-of-the-sony-a7-and-a7r-cameras/
But back to the wide-angle thing…some of these ultra wides lenses are just not meant to work well with full frame digital bodies. The good news is that if you like B&W you can use the 12, 15 or any ultra wide you like. Just convert to B&W and you will not have problems. :) Lol. But seriously, if you are primarily an ultra wide Leica M lens shooter, you may want to skip these bodies. If you shoot 35mm and up, to me, these two cameras put out better IQ than the Leica M. Quite the fear for Sony so I applaud them for that.
-
Hi,
It depends much on lens construction. The Leica M9/Me/M(240) has pretty much the same issues as the 7/7r, but the M-cameras handle color coding on lenses and also estimate aperture (by comparing sensor signal to surround light) and can this way apply automatic compensation which is not available for other vendors.
Best regards
Erik
From here : http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/10/31/my-1st-look-wrap-up-of-the-sony-a7-and-a7r-cameras/
-
From here : http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/10/31/my-1st-look-wrap-up-of-the-sony-a7-and-a7r-cameras/
Hi Rob,
Just to emphasize, the comment is about specific Leica M lenses. That does not necessarily translate one to one for other lens designs. Steve also speaks about vignetting or color issues in the corners, yet does not quantify the level.
All lenses exhibit vignetting and light fall-off, especially at wider apertures. Some designs more so than others, even when they have the same focal length. As for sensors, many sensor arrays even exhibit less vignetting for a given lens than with film (although more color cast), and that does improve even further with offset micro-lenses.
So, without something more quantitative to discuss, I'd say let's wait and see ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Just in from dpreview on 7r. http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-alpha-7-7r/6
Understand that I don't believe in static lens or camera testing. DXO and dpr tests are amusing, but it's much more than a number or one of many ways to "quantitatively" evaluate a device. I'm just the messenger
Don't compare the 7r to the D800 if you're hankering for a 7r. And you are free to see the test shots any way you want. If Sony made the D800 sensor, why did they (Nikon) get the better one...?
-
If Sony made the D800 sensor, why did they (Nikon) get the better one...?
Hi,
Nikon got them exclusively for a while, but why do you think they were any different? I've looked at the masked sensels of both Rawfile outputs with RawDigger, and the layout looks identical. The Sony JPEGs have more postprocessing (e.g. sharpening) applied to them, and there may be a different filter-package to replace the OLPF, but sensor-wise, they look like the same deal.
Cheers,
Bart
-
If Sony made the D800 sensor, why did they (Nikon) get the better one...?
As Sony make the D800 sensor, is their incentive to reduce D800 sales? :-)
Sony benefits from more sales of all-kinds-of cameras from all-kinds-of manufacturers, as-long-as those cameras use Sony sensors.
-
Hi,
Nikon got them exclusively for a while, but why do you think they were any different? I've looked at the masked sensels of both Rawfile outputs with RawDigger, and the layout looks identical. The Sony JPEGs have more postprocessing (e.g. sharpening) applied to them, and there may be a different filter-package to replace the OLPF, but sensor-wise, they look like the same deal.
Cheers,
Bart
just looked a RAW, both low and high ISO.
seems pretty clear to my eye that the Nikon is a bit sharper at lower ISO's and quieter and sharper at higher ISO's YMMV though
-
just looked a RAW, both low and high ISO.
seems pretty clear to my eye that the Nikon is a bit sharper at lower ISO's and quieter and sharper at higher ISO's YMMV though
Hi,
Was the same lens used, same aperture, and identically well focused? Same Noise reduction before saving the Raw data?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
You may like it or not but DPReview and DxO makes serious test. They have experience, knowledge and experience. You may not agree with their findings, but probability is that they are right and you are wrong. DPReview publishes images you can evaluate on your own. DxO-s figures of merit may make little sense, but the underlying data is available to some extent, so you can make your own evaluations. Those guys are doing serious work and deserve some respect.
Best regards
Erik
Just in from dpreview on 7r. http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-alpha-7-7r/6
Understand that I don't believe in static lens or camera testing. DXO and dpr tests are amusing, but it's much more than a number or one of many ways to "quantitatively" evaluate a device. I'm just the messenger
Don't compare the 7r to the D800 if you're hankering for a 7r. And you are free to see the test shots any way you want. If Sony made the D800 sensor, why did they (Nikon) get the better one...?
-
Hello,
Think you didn't take my verbiage for what I meant. My bad. I completely agree that quantitative data is very relevant in some cases. Heck, I've made a life's career of quantitative analysis, as have you. And, I respect the data, though may question the utility of it from time to time. So I didn't mean to impugn their efforts. And their test shots seem just that; reliable, reproducible but likely a very small "n".
But I also didn't mean to address that topic at all. I just looked at the images myself and drew my own conclusion. Yours may agree, or not. In many cases, the selection process for what constitutes a "good picture" is qualitative in nature. Numbers do not sufficiently convey what I "see" sometimes. But that's a failure of the metric, not that, "it isn't there". I have come to accept my lying eyes... ;)
Hi,
You may like it or not but DPReview and DxO makes serious test. They have experience, knowledge and experience. You may not agree with their findings, but probability is that they are right and you are wrong. DPReview publishes images you can evaluate on your own. DxO-s figures of merit may make little sense, but the underlying data is available to some extent, so you can make your own evaluations. Those guys are doing serious work and deserve some respect.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
Sorry for the tone of my reply! Anyway, I feel that these tests tell a lot about the some aspects of image quality. Personally, I am a bit interested in the Alpha 7r even if I probably will not buy one. Checking out tests is a great way of finding out about stuff. I like measured data, or raw files that I can evaluate my self. I have had a Hasselblad with a P45+ and five lenses for something like 5 months. I still don't know what I think. Buying stuff is an expensive way to find out.
Comparing the IQ180 image to the Alpha 7r is absurd. It is pretty obvious that the IQ180 produces much better detail. Comparing with 40MP back would be more interesting,but DPReview has no such images in the comparison tool.
Getting back to the Hasselblad/P45+, what I find is that the resolution advantage over my 24 MP DSLR is obvious, but I see little other benefit of the Hasselblad. Three of the lenses are really good and two are not so good. Sometimes the lenses that are not so good work amazingly well. My findings agree with Zeiss MTF curves even if I will not rule out that the MTF curves affect my judgement.
Best regards
Erik
Hello,
Think you didn't take my verbiage for what I meant. I agree that quantitative data is very relevant in some cases. Heck, I've made a life's career of quantitative analysis, as have you. And, I respect the data, though may question the utility of it from time to time. So I didn't mean to impugn their efforts. And their test shots seem just that; reliable, reproducible but likely a very small "n".
But I also didn't mean to address that topic at all. I just looked at the images myself and drew my own conclusion. Yours may agree, or not. In many cases, the selection process for what constitutes a "good picture" is qualitative in nature. Numbers do not sufficiently convey what I "see" sometimes. But that's a failure of the metric, not that, "it isn't there". I have come to accept my lying eyes... ;)