Great new body from Sony! But will they deliver good lenses?

[barryfitzgerald]

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

[bcooter]

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

[stever]

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.

[TMARK]

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.

[Telecaster]

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-

[Manoli]

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)?

[Telecaster]

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-

[ErikKaffehr]

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

[Manoli]

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.

[telyt]

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... ?

[ErikKaffehr]

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... ?

[telyt]

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.

[ErikKaffehr]

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

[telyt]

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?

[ErikKaffehr]

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?

[telyt]

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.

[Isaac]

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? :-)

[Isaac]

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?

[telyt]

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.

[ErikKaffehr]

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.