My take on the Sony Alpha 7/7r

[robdickinson]

Was somewhere on Steve Huffs site

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/all-reviews/sony-a7-corner/

[Isaac]

This comment?

[robdickinson]

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.

[ErikKaffehr]

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/

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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

[allegretto]

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...?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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

[Isaac]

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.

[allegretto]

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

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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

[ErikKaffehr]

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...?

[allegretto]

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

[ErikKaffehr]

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...