The Sony A7 thread [Merged]

[MarkP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You got a great deal on your 75 Summilux if it was the price of an A7r ...

 

No such luck!

 

I've probably missed your post in this very long thread but why have you shelved the A7R?

[Paul J]

What an odd lot we are.

 

Indeed. I keep having to remind myself - it's just a camera.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[BJDrew]

I didn't call him a little bit stupid and I'm disappointed that you read it that way. ..

 

I caught what you were saying and generally agree with the points.

 

There are bad cameras out there, but neither the M9/M240 nor the A7r are bad cameras. I will challenge some people as to their reasoning behind opinions on them - but cannot say what one should feel about a camera. I just know that "X is certainly better than Y" makes me nervous!

 

I always say something when it comes to posting on camera forums:

Everyone who communicates in absolutes is always wrong. Every time.

[Thomas Chen]

Let's merrily argue with anything about M240 vs. A7r.

 

As there will be little room to discuss something about M360 vs. A8r.

 

Except for comparison between Leica lenses vs. Zeiss ones.

[krooj]

So I just got a great deal on an A7 body, which I've been eying since seeing what it's capable of with native primes. I've also got an M240 with two lenses (plus one away on repair). My gut reaction to seeing the Sony output was that I was gypped on the Leica, but after some reflection and playing around with RAW files, I'm not so sure. The Leica is certainly overpriced, even when you factor in the build quality; I suspect Leica could sell this for around $5000 and do just fine, but I digress. The thing I am realizing with these two bodies in front of me is that they represent totally different systems: the Leica is an anachronism pulled very gracefully into the present, whereas the Sony represents the prototypical evolution of the DSLR and compact mirrorless autofocus systems. While there is some lens adaptability between Leica and Sony, the implicit expectation of close registration lens performance that was foisted on the Sony system was and is unfair; these are two very different systems and should be treated as such. Moreover, we are now truly seeing how well the CMOSIS sensor stacks up when compared to other cameras at a system level. What Leica and CMOSIS did impresses me when you think on their relative size to a company like Sony.

 

The other thing that's striking when you compare both bodies on the basis of manual focus is just how accurate the rangefinder is when calibrated properly: it's very, very good.

 

Once I get a few native FE lenses, I am really curious to see when and how I end up using each camera system. Will one be relegated to the drawer?

Edited January 14, 2014 by krooj

[thompsonkirk]

Thank you, krooj, for taking the long view – and doing it so wisely!

 

Kirk

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No such luck!

 

I've probably missed your post in this very long thread but why have you shelved the A7R?

 

 

Too much gear, and not enough time to take photos. A lot going on at the moment, and my picture taking is not progressing the way I want it to. My son wants me to take some video with my D800E (kitesurfing stuff), and I want to put some more time into my M9 and Monochrom.

 

The A7 requires some effort I don't have the time for. I was planning on using it primarily with the 35 Summilux FLE, and I haven't been able to explore that yet. I'm also curious to see what Zeiss will release for the ZE mount. I'd like at least one lens native for the A7. The ZF mount Otus with the Novoflex adapter is very tempting, though, it must say!

[algrove]

So I just got a great deal on an A7 body, which I've been eying since seeing what it's capable of with native primes. I've also got an M240 with two lenses (plus one away on repair). My gut reaction to seeing the Sony output was that I was gypped on the Leica, but after some reflection and playing around with RAW files, I'm not so sure. The Leica is certainly overpriced, even when you factor in the build quality; I suspect Leica could sell this for around $5000 and do just fine, but I digress. The thing I am realizing with these two bodies in front of me is that they represent totally different systems: the Leica is an anachronism pulled very gracefully into the present, whereas the Sony represents the prototypical evolution of the DSLR and compact mirrorless autofocus systems. While there is some lens adaptability between Leica and Sony, the implicit expectation of close registration lens performance that was foisted on the Sony system was and is unfair; these are two very different systems and should be treated as such. Moreover, we are now truly seeing how well the CMOSIS sensor stacks up when compared to other cameras at a system level. What Leica and CMOSIS did impresses me when you think on their relative size to a company like Sony.

 

The other thing that's striking when you compare both bodies on the basis of manual focus is just how accurate the rangefinder is when calibrated properly: it's very, very good.

 

Once I get a few native FE lenses, I am really curious to see when and how I end up using each camera system. Will one be relegated to the drawer?

 

Thanks. So how do you find the two different files as far as manipulation goes? Do you use LR, PS or what software? Also do you compress your M240 files since the Sony files come compressed by them with no choice like on the M240.

[krooj]

Thanks. So how do you find the two different files as far as manipulation goes? Do you use LR, PS or what software? Also do you compress your M240 files since the Sony files come compressed by them with no choice like on the M240.

 

I use Lightroom 5.3, and while I haven't performed a formal test, my immediate reaction to working with the A7 ARW files is that they are similar to those of a D600, which is to say, very malleable. Just like the the M, ISO 3200 is probably as high as you would want to go; noise at 6400 requires application of luminance noise reduction. Where the A7 files surpass those of the M is in dynamic range and no banding: I find that pulling detail out of shadows with the A7 files is far easier than it is with the M. I suppose that means I need to pay more attention to getting correct exposure with the M.

 

I shoot my M with uncompressed DNG, though as I understand it, there's no practical difference between compressed and uncompressed.

[k-hawinkler]

diglloyd blog - Update on Sony A7R Shutter Vibration

 

diglloyd blog - Leica M240: Shutter Vibration Appears to Damage Image Sharpness

 

My post #7777. I think this is pretty funny!

Edited January 17, 2014 by k-hawinkler

[thighslapper]

diglloyd blog - Leica M240: Shutter Vibration Appears to Damage Image Sharpness

 

Interesting ....... presumably confined to tripod use .... I have reviewed a days photos from a portraiture outing using the R Apo 100 macro and EVF ..... handheld with shutter speeds down to 1/45 ..... and not a sign of this...... although it's difficulty to tell if the few shots which are off at low speeds are human or shutter induced wobble......

 

Although I can't say it will ever affect me in what I tend to photo it would be handy if they modified the shutter action in firmware to minimise the potential issues .....

Edited January 17, 2014 by thighslapper

[viramati]

I have to say that I am finding that I am getting files from the A7 and the FE 55/f1.8 that I wish I could get from my M(240) and summilux 50 asph. the sharpness and detail are literally blowing me away!!! Admittedly I have had problems with my lux 50 asph, it has been back to leica 5 times since I bought it 4 years ago, but hey:)

[dwbell]

I have to say that I am finding that I am getting files from the A7 and the FE 55/f1.8 that I wish I could get from my M(240) and summilux 50 asph. the sharpness and detail are literally blowing me away!!! Admittedly I have had problems with my lux 50 asph, it has been back to leica 5 times since I bought it 4 years ago, but hey:)

 

My findings and experiences tie in with yours.

[woorob]

I thought I'd follow up on my earlier posts comparing longer lenses on the M240 versus the a7R. My earlier comparisons were made during episodes of periodic wind and with a decent but not great tripod setup.

 

This afternoon I repeated the tests, using my 280 mm APO f/2.8 in three configurations on both the M and the a7R -- no extender (280 mm), 1.4x APO extender (400 mm) and 2x APO extender (560 mm). I also tried my 500mm Telyt-M, with and without the 2x.

 

I used a Manfrotto geared head (wonderful!) and an Induro CT-214 tripod with a 20-lb bag of bird food hung from the center column. As before, I took shots of a dead tree about 250 yards/meters in back of my house.

 

Weather conditions -- cold (-1F) and clear with little wind.

 

My conclusions:

 

My improved testing method is now not sufficiently accurate to make reliable distinctions. At 1000 mm, the zone of accurate focus seems to be extremely tiny, just a few millimeters in front and in back of the desired focus target (if that). I cannot consistently obtain perfect focus at 250 yards/meters with a 1000 mm lens. It's a bit hit or miss, meaning I cannot accurately say that one lens/camera combo is better than the other.

 

What I can say, though, is that with EITHER of these cameras, when you nail the focus with the 280 APO, the results are extraordinary. Tack sharp, unbelievable. If anything the 280 f/2.8 seems to resolve better with the 1.4x APO extender. The 500 mirror lens is great to carry around but cannot resolve to the same level as the 280.

 

I can find no indication whatever of corner smearing or vignetting when using longer R lenses on the a7R.

 

So there you have it -- the definitive ambivalent report.

 

PS. I can post downloadable links if anyone is interested, just let me know.

[jaapv]

I am still slightly nonplussed at your endorsement of the 500 mm mirror lens. In my experience it can be best characterized as barely adequate. Erwin Puts (I looked it up;)) is also less than enthusiastic.

[woorob]

Didn't mean to suggest its great, and certainly not close to any of the APO lenses. But it weighs a fraction of the 280/2.8 and can almost fit into a [large] jacket pocket. I've got some nice images from it -- sample variation perhaps? I'm the original and only owner. I seem to recall that mirror lenses in general are prone to jarring so maybe that's a factor as well. What I do know is that it fits easily into my camera bag and gives me a portable 1000 mm reach.

[jaapv]

That is true, and it is the only 500 or 1000 mm lens that can be shot down to a reasonable shutter time handheld. But it does smear details, particularly at long distances and one must remember DOF is virtually non-existent.

[piero]

hi guys, excuse me if I bump in...

did someone have tested the A7r and had some trouble with micro blurred images due to the "strong" shutter movement?

I was planning on using the camera body for interior work using the TS-E lenses I own... on a tripod.

 

Thanks for the answers!

 

Piero

[gpwhite]

""hi guys, excuse me if I bump in...

did someone have tested the A7r and had some trouble with micro blurred images due to the "strong" shutter movement?

I was planning on using the camera body for interior work using the TS-E lenses I own... on a tripod.""

 

This issue is well documented by many reviewers and posts here. The shutter shock problem depends on many factors and can be mitigated, sometimes, by dampening the body mount... also, portrait position accentuates the blur.

 

Diglloyd.com blog, if you don't want to buy access to the detailed story, has blanketed the issue quite well.

 

Whether the A7R will yield nice edges and corners with your tilt-shift lenses is a whole different question (at any shutter speed), I would expect.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[JimKasson]

did someone [test] the A7r and [have] some trouble with micro blurred images due to the "strong" shutter movement?

I was planning on using the camera body for interior work using the TS-E lenses I own... on a tripod.

 

The short answer is, "Yes."

 

With a Nikon 58mm lens, compared to the same lens on a D800E.

 

With the Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro Planar ZF.

 

Using a "flying spot scanner" to ascertain the nature of the sensor motion on the Zeiss 100mm.

 

A simulation study that shows how vibration blur affects resolution.

 

With the Leica 135mm f/3.4 APO-Telyt.

 

How the a7R shutter works.

 

With the Leica 135mm APO-Telyt, showing how shutter speeds as high as 1/1000 second can be affected.

 

It affects electronic flash pictures, too.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Jim