Why I Bought the a7R

[Telecaster]

Really?  I have no images from a 5d1 I would ever print that large ... they might look OK to some, but definitely fall apart to much for me.  There might be a few from the 5d2, but  they are unique with no real detail.  the d800e files even at 24x36 are visually superior, especially those taken with the Zeiss 50 and 100mm.

This is an area IMO where one's prefered subject matter and approach have a lot to do with perceived image quality at larger print sizes. Personally I go for the urban landscape more than the nature/scenic variety. What matters to me is the observed moment. Technical quality isn't unimportant but it's less important than being there and clicking the shutter button then. I'll happily zone focus when circumstances call for it. I tend to care more about the tonal qualities of my photos than about how sharp they are. I'll keep the slightly blurry shot that captures a dynamic moment and throw away the sharper one that doesn't. It's just a different approach to the one more in evidence amongst forum participants here. So I can often print photos very large, though I rarely do, without them falling apart...because the photos don't depend on (much) spatial detail to make their point.

One of my all-time favorite pics of my own is of my friend Amy and her then infant daughter. I took it about 14 years ago with a Zeiss Contaflex SLR, 50mm lens and Ilford Delta 3200 (at EI 1600) b&w film. Nothing in the photo is really sharp but that doesn't matter...it was a quick grab of a very touching moment, taken very close with the lens wide open. I was composing a more formal portrait pic when a bit of magic happened. I took other, technically better photos that day but I've never printed any of them. This one, though...many years ago I had it scanned high res and custom printed at 2x3' and it looks lovely.

-Dave-

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Attached are MTF-plots from My P45+ with a Planar 80/2.8 at f/8 and my Sony Alpha 77 SLT with a SAL 16-80/3.5-4.5 ZA at 80 mm and f/8. Please note that these curves are with no sharpening!

The P45+ has a Nyquist limit of 73 lp/mm and the Alpha 77 has Nyquist limit at 128 lp/mm.

The Planar yields around 10% MTF at Nyquist while the SAL 16-80/3.5-4.5 ZA achieves around 2-3% MTF at Nyquist.

It seems that 10% MTF is sufficient to generate Moiré while 2-3% is safe.

It seems that the Zoom on the SLT77 outresolves the Planar on the P45 but this comes both from the zoom being designed for APS-C and the higher resolution of the SLT77.

If we look at the figures giving 50% MTF the figure would give about 40 lp/mm on both lenses, but those 40 lp/mm would correspond 2880 vertical pixels on the P45+ but only 1280 vertical pixels on the SLT 77. Both figures would be much higher with adequate sharpening, but the unsharpened MTF is more relevant for aliasing.

I also attach screen dumps for both images sharpened with my standard settings. The Sony Alpha image is downscaled to 66% to match image size of the P45+ image and some sharpening was applied after downscaling. In my view the Sony image has more real detail and less fake detail, essentially proving that 3.9 micron pixels are better than 6.8 micron pixels using good lenses at medium apertures.

Note: I need to recheck sharpening on the P45+ image, it is a bit to intensive, but this affects neither artefacts or moiré.
Best regards
Erik

Awesome site, tons of great information.

Taking all this into consideration how would you measure the resolving power of the lens against a respective sensor?

[Graham Clark]

Really?  I have no images from a 5d1 I would ever print that large ... they might look OK to some, but definitely fall apart to much for me.  There might be a few from the 5d2, but  they are unique with no real detail.  the d800e files even at 24x36 are visually superior, especially those taken with the Zeiss 50 and 100mm.

I haven’t tested that large with my a7r yet, but feel with good technique it will be equal to my d800e.

Hey Wayne,

It's a bit off topic from the a7R, but yes, I print from the 5D1 on 40x60 all the time still, as I've converted my 5D1 to IR.

I even recently printed a 350D 8.2MP print (lots of foreground ice and foliage detail) to 40x60 at Blow Up Labs and it looks amazing: http://www.blowuplab.com

If you're in Boulder check out Photo Craft, they have numerous beautiful national geographic prints from the 5D1: http://www.pcraft.com

Give them a call with questions as well, they're pretty darn knowledgeable and they're also excellent LightJet technicians.

Graham

[Graham Clark]

Graham, just to be clear , the Remote Control App is PC/MAC based. The confusion I think comes from other posts that are referring to a smartphone app (which I know zero about) and which may carry a similar name.

FYI, Sony have recently released an updated version of their 'Lens Correction App', which supports the A7. This app costs extra and needs to be downloaded onto the camera. Useful for all adapted lenses.
www.playmemoriescameraapps.com/portal/

Ahh got it, you're right that's a bit confusing. Bummer there's no intervalometer on the app... perhaps one day!

Bought the Sony RM-VPR1 remote. Sony probably makes this thing for 2.3 cents each, and selling for $70 it feels like a bit of a ripoff.

Graham

[Graham Clark]

Hi,

Attached are MTF-plots from My P45+ with a Planar 80/2.8 at f/8 and my Sony Alpha 77 SLT with a SAL 16-80/3.5-4.5 ZA at 80 mm and f/8. Please note that these curves are with no sharpening!

The P45+ has a Nyquist limit of 73 lp/mm and the Alpha 77 has Nyquist limit at 128 lp/mm.

The Planar yields around 10% MTF at Nyquist while the SAL 16-80/3.5-4.5 ZA achieves around 2-3% MTF at Nyquist.

It seems that 10% MTF is sufficient to generate Moiré while 2-3% is safe.

It seems that the Zoom on the SLT77 outresolves the Planar on the P45 but this comes both from the zoom being designed for APS-C and the higher resolution of the SLT77.

If we look at the figures giving 50% MTF the figure would give about 40 lp/mm on both lenses, but those 40 lp/mm would correspond 2880 vertical pixels on the P45+ but only 1280 vertical pixels on the SLT 77. Both figures would be much higher with adequate sharpening, but the unsharpened MTF is more relevant for aliasing.

Best regards
Erik

Very interesting, thanks for taking the time.

Just so I'm understanding this graph properly, higher is better? In other words, the blue line representing the A77 is outresolving the P45+ ?

Graham

[David Campbell]

Sorry I was not clear about the High ISO comment.
When using High ISO, the rendered preview on the camera has detail smearing and makes it difficult to confirm accurate focus in low light such as night photography.
RAW high ISO is not bad considering the resolution.

Even with the finder/monitor settings (auto, viewfinder, monitor), I have to go into that menu if I want to change back to the other view option. I would like to be able to toggle with just pressing one button, not going into the menu system.
For example, if it is on the LCD monitor and I take the camera off the tripod and put it to my face, instead of the camera detecting my face, I would prefer to be able to press a custom button to turn the view finder on and vice versa. This way I can use the camera on a tripod without accidentally triggering the view finder from coming on, blanking the LCD monitor, but not have to dive into the menu to use the viewfinder.

[Graham Clark]

Sorry I was not clear about the High ISO comment.
When using High ISO, the rendered preview on the camera has detail smearing and makes it difficult to confirm accurate focus in low light such as night photography.
RAW high ISO is not bad considering the resolution.

Even with the finder/monitor settings (auto, viewfinder, monitor), I have to go into that menu if I want to change back to the other view option. I would like to be able to toggle with just pressing one button, not going into the menu system.
For example, if it is on the LCD monitor and I take the camera off the tripod and put it to my face, instead of the camera detecting my face, I would prefer to be able to press a custom button to turn the view finder on and vice versa. This way I can use the camera on a tripod without accidentally triggering the view finder from coming on, blanking the LCD monitor, but not have to dive into the menu to use the viewfinder.

Hey David,

As you probably are aware the Exposure Simulation feature simulates the effects that changes to exposure settings will have on the image. For example, if you reduce the exposure the Live View image will get darker and if you increase the exposure the image will get brighter.

But with this default option turned off, Live View will auto-adjust ISO, Aperture and Shutter allowing the photographer to compose an image, even in very low light.

With a higher ISO it allows Live View to perform in lower light. For example, with a 6-stop ND filter at 3:00PM the camera may default to ISO 6400, at 4:00PM ISO 25,600, at sunset around 5:30PM it may go as high as ISO 102,000 and although the quality is very low, for the purposes of composing only, I'm finding it sufficient (as through the viewfinder is black).

In this situation where ISO 102,000 is nearly reaching its potential, if you manually select ISO 25,600 (the a7R's maximum) the Live View is rendered dark.

So for the purposes of Live View I'm finding the higher ISOs of the DIGIC 5+ useful insofar as composing is concerned. Through the viewfinder it has no impact, but seeing how the a7R's Live View is required (and the EVF is using the same settings as Live View) having a maximum of 25,600 does seem to shorten the window for composing under lowlight or through ND-filters, or both.

Graham

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Yes, but keep in mind that is line pair per mm. So A77 outresolves the P45+ per mm, but the the P45+ sensor is much larger so the resolution over the sensor is much better.

On the other hand, the A77 doesn't show fake detail. So, a large sensor with small pixels is optimal in my view.

Best regards
Erik

Very interesting, thanks for taking the time.

Just so I'm understanding this graph properly, higher is better? In other words, the blue line representing the A77 is outresolving the P45+ ?

Graham

[Lee Roberts]

It appears to be an excellent piece of equipment. I love my D800 and although the sensor is probably a close design, I feel like Nikon's engineers *might* have the secret sauce to the processing engine/cpu that produce best IQ. But for those needing large resolution and comprehensive flexibility, the Sony looks amazing.

Canon will be next to step in with a large MP camera. As a side note, my uncle has a LOT of old Pentax medium format glass. He no longer shoots film, as he uses a Canon 5d2 in his wedding business, but he tells me MF glass trumps 35mm glass all day long, all things considered. I believe his context was aimed at landscape applications in general.

I've been a hobbyist for 7+ years so I don't know if what he says is true or not. I would think the sensor size would play the biggest role, correct? Perhaps, 35mm lenses are limited to the diameter of the rear mount, which becomes increasingly complex to design the inner elements in order to limit all light aberrations. Now I really sound like a noob...haha. I don't think Peter Lik uses 35mm/FF bodies does he? What would be his reasoning?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Quite a few images here, comparing my Sony Alpha 99 (24 MP) to my P45+ on a Hasselblad 555 ELD with Zeiss lenses.

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/80-my-mfd-journey-summing-up?start=6

Hint, you can download the images in full size and raw files are available.

I feel that there is a resolution advantage of the 39MP P45+ over the 24 MP Sony Alpha 99, but I see no MF magic. Shooting with the 555 ELD is nice. I guess I am an MF skeptic.

Best regards
Erik

It appears to be an excellent piece of equipment. I love my D800 and although the sensor is probably a close design, I feel like Nikon's engineers *might* have the secret sauce to the processing engine/cpu that produce best IQ. But for those needing large resolution and comprehensive flexibility, the Sony looks amazing.

Canon will be next to step in with a large MP camera. As a side note, my uncle has a LOT of old Pentax medium format glass. He no longer shoots film, as he uses a Canon 5d2 in his wedding business, but he tells me MF glass trumps 35mm glass all day long, all things considered. I believe his context was aimed at landscape applications in general.

I've been a hobbyist for 7+ years so I don't know if what he says is true or not. I would think the sensor size would play the biggest role, correct? Perhaps, 35mm lenses are limited to the diameter of the rear mount, which becomes increasingly complex to design the inner elements in order to limit all light aberrations. Now I really sound like a noob...haha. I don't think Peter Lik uses 35mm/FF bodies does he? What would be his reasoning?

[Telecaster]

As a side note, my uncle has a LOT of old Pentax medium format glass. He no longer shoots film, as he uses a Canon 5d2 in his wedding business, but he tells me MF glass trumps 35mm glass all day long, all things considered. I believe his context was aimed at landscape applications in general.

IMO you can't judge the lenses in isolation...you have to consider the camera (format) too. For instance, Pentax's 35/3.5 is an excellent wide angle lens on my 645D. But it makes a decidedly average "short normal" on the A7r, or on a 35mm film Pentax camera for that matter. The native Zeiss/Sony 35/2.8 FE is in another league.

One of the things I like about MF, even the 645D's "smaller" MF, is the extra impression of depth you get from using a longer focal length—relative to 35mm format—to achieve the same field-of-view. You can stop well down, into the lens' sweet spot, and still be able to isolate your subject from the fore/back-ground. All while using FOVs that don't force you to move too far away from your subject matter (which results in flatter perspective). I chose the Pentax as my "serious" portrait camera for this reason. For landscapes, though, which typically employ deep DOF, I'm not sure MF offers much if any advantage beyond higher pixel counts. (If you're making big prints this is reason enough, I guess.) Mounting an MF back on a tech camera, though...that's a different thing.

-Dave-

[stevesanacore]

Hey Bernard,

I'm seeing very little difference when printing up to 40x60 between the 5D1, 5D2, 5D3, 6D and D800e. Therefore I perceive the performance more theoretical and the 6D more practical from a size / weight perspective.

Recently traveled to 30+ national parks in North America, before that from Alaska to Argentina by land. Usually with a 30L backpack with the lightest and smallest L lenses. My ideal setup would be a point and shoot without sacrificing image quality. So any advancements in this direction are more ideal for me and I'm willing to buy and test them to that end.

If that is the case, you have an issue with the lenses you are using, or your technique may be impaired. Now I'm not saying that from a normal viewing distance the 5D or 6D images aren't acceptable, but there should be at least twice the detail in the prints from the D800E at that size. I have been shooting and printing with every Canon body for years and added the D800E last year, and can say that there is no comparison in detail. Although if your lenses aren't up to the task with the D800E sensor, then you may not see a difference.

Just saying…

[Graham Clark]

If that is the case, you have an issue with the lenses you are using, or your technique may be impaired. Now I'm not saying that from a normal viewing distance the 5D or 6D images aren't acceptable, but there should be at least twice the detail in the prints from the D800E at that size. I have been shooting and printing with every Canon body for years and added the D800E last year, and can say that there is no comparison in detail. Although if your lenses aren't up to the task with the D800E sensor, then you may not see a difference.

Just saying…

Nikon 14-24, 16-35 F4, 16-35 77mm, 17-40mm.

Equal results. Stuff is being printed in major books and magazines as well as large format.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

The linear resolution is something like 30% higher on the D800/D800E so I would expect no more than a 30% difference. If it would be visible or not depends on the viewing distance and print size.

For instance I would not expect a visible difference in A2-size prints viewed at say 50 cm distance. (Based on my experience with Sony Alpha 99 (24 MP) and P45+ (39 MP).

Best regards
Erik

I have been shooting and printing with every Canon body for years and added the D800E last year, and can say that there is no comparison in detail. Although if your lenses aren't up to the task with the D800E sensor, then you may not see a difference.

Just saying…

[hjulenissen]

One of the things I like about MF, even the 645D's "smaller" MF, is the extra impression of depth you get from using a longer focal length—relative to 35mm format—to achieve the same field-of-view. You can stop well down, into the lens' sweet spot, and still be able to isolate your subject from the fore/back-ground. All while using FOVs that don't force you to move too far away from your subject matter (which results in flatter perspective). I chose the Pentax as my "serious" portrait camera for this reason.

If you stand at the same spot, point the camera in the same direction, choose focal length for a given field of view and aperture for a given DOF, then cameras of different sensor sizes should provide "equivalent" images.

Often, the bigger sensor camera will have a lens that offers an aperture that cannot be matched by the smaller sensor camera, or the lens will be sharper at a given equivalent aperture. Further, larger sensors may have more sensels.

-h

[Telecaster]

Often, the bigger sensor camera will have a lens that offers an aperture that cannot be matched by the smaller sensor camera, or the lens will be sharper at a given equivalent aperture.

That's mainly what I was getting at. High res at the point of focus combined with shallow enough DOF for front/back spatial separation. Of course you can achieve this with smaller formats too, given the right lens(es), but with my Pentax and 150mm lens at least it just falls to hand. No exotic glass needed. And the 150 rolls off more gradually resolution-wise away from the point-of-focus, unlike the more abrupt rolloff of many current high-performance designs. I prefer the more gradual look.

-Dave-

[Graham Clark]

Long exposure night shot taken tonight on the california coastline: 115s, F7.1, ISO 400 .ARW + .TIFF with Canon 17-40mm



.ARW: https://app.box.com/s/fek9q2n0bhsjpkz3ne0j
.TIFF: https://app.box.com/s/96mw7vn3l0mc76xbwq21
Both: https://app.box.com/s/q009jzeuqud1pikac9mk

[Graham Clark]

Rodeo Beach Sunset  |  276s  F22  ISO 50  17mm
Download RAW .ARW: https://app.box.com/s/cncipoemhi6o2ar7da3q
Download .TIFF: https://app.box.com/s/tllwrnvwpbudr4qrxotb

[Telecaster]

Now that's a sunset I'd love to be standing in front of! (He types, as another 3–5" of unwanted snow falls outside.)

-Dave-

[hjulenissen]

Graham:
striking images. What are the green "orbs"?

-h