sisoje Posted October 19, 2013 Share #1141 Posted October 19, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Wake up call: http://www.ronscheffler.com/techtalk/?p=224 Muahahahahahahahaha.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 19, 2013 Posted October 19, 2013 Hi sisoje, Take a look here The Sony A7 thread [Merged]. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jdlaing Posted October 20, 2013 Share #1142 Posted October 20, 2013 I've an awful suspicion that the sony is not going to be compatible with Leica wide angle lenses simply because, if they were, it would be all over the net. That not one person who has put their hands on the Sony has tried what every M user in the world is wondering i.e. 24 or wider, speaks volumes. Come on! Nobody had a 24mm handy? "I'm going to try the Sony FF. I'll take a couple of lenses along. Hey, how about my 50mm and a 135" Well, we'll all need to wait a little longer to know for sure. Pete I did. 16, 18, 21, 28, 35. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 20, 2013 Share #1143 Posted October 20, 2013 Interesting indeed. Could you show us some corners from 16 to 35mm? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted October 20, 2013 Share #1144 Posted October 20, 2013 Interesting indeed. Could you show us some corners from 16 to 35mm? I'd love to but I am not allowed. I can say this: Color shifts and color cast. Soft corners. Outer shading so bad it looks like sever vignetting. Having said that some of those things may be fixable in post processing but why would I want to do that? Extra time and work is not what it's all about for me. With all the hoopla I'd have expected better. A lot of statements were made "Sony full frame for Leica lenses" but it looks like that is not the case. Too many trade offs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted October 20, 2013 Share #1145 Posted October 20, 2013 Wake up call: http://www.ronscheffler.com/techtalk/?p=224 Muahahahahahahahaha.... OUCH! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 20, 2013 Share #1146 Posted October 20, 2013 Thank you jdlaing. May i ask if you've tried your lenses on the A7R as well? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 20, 2013 Share #1147 Posted October 20, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) A7 or A7R? The reason I ask is that the article linked above said the 28 Summicron ASPH was truly horrible on the A7, which does not have micro lenses. Conversely, the 28 Summicron was the lens I used most on my NEX-5n, which did have micro lenses. I would hope (misplaced hope) the A7R performs at least as well as the NEX-5n, bearing in mind it is the camera Sony seems to have targeted at third party lenses. Cheers John Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
naturephoto1 Posted October 20, 2013 Share #1148 Posted October 20, 2013 Wake up call: http://www.ronscheffler.com/techtalk/?p=224 Muahahahahahahahaha.... Let's wait on this. Ron only has an A7 to check and not the A7r is the camera with the correction for the WA lenses. It is not looking too good now, but I would expect the results to be better with the A7r than with the A7. Rich Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 20, 2013 Share #1149 Posted October 20, 2013 despite all this technical hoola dancing the images will remain same old same old:p True. But that really has little to do with the topic, does it? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglou Posted October 20, 2013 Share #1150 Posted October 20, 2013 Yes, too early to spend time for speculations. I will be perfectly happy if the A7r gives good results with my R lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted October 20, 2013 Share #1151 Posted October 20, 2013 Thank you jdlaing. May i ask if you've tried your lenses on the A7R as well? A7 and A7r. I got to look at the images on screen from the A7 but only on the LCD on the A7r. On the A7r the images had the vignetting, slightly less, but I could not see the color shifts on that small screen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 20, 2013 Share #1152 Posted October 20, 2013 Tim seems to imply that RF is THE focussing method when you are shooting planar (and I assume parallel to the sensor plane) objects at small apertures. If I understand him right? This seems contrary to 'street', 'decisive moment' (bleh), documentary, precious Noctilux lenses etc. The implication (mine) is that EVF and peaking would be more suitable for everything except planar high DoF shots? That's not really how I read him. My interpretation of what he's saying is that the RF on the M(240) is better than anything to date. Quiet a few people have made this observation (I asked Leica directly, and they confirmed that the RF is new, and could not be retrofitted to my M9P and Monochrom). So, something is new. The RF is still only good for hitting the best focal point in the middle of the frame. Nothing more. For off centre subjects, you focus and recompose, and take your chances one the subject being in focus - if the plane of best focus is a straight line perpendicular to the direction of the camera, and if hitting the exact spot is critical (a shallow depth of field lens like the AA 90 or 75), then you have a problem. You will either need to lean back slightly, or bring (guess) the focus in slightly as the subject will be slightly closer. Either way, it's a guess, and if the plane of best focus wanders, as Tim suggests is more common than we might think (the 35 Summilux ASPH (FLE) being a case in point), then you have a real problem. Theoretically, live view should solve this, as the peaking should show you the best focus for points off centre. Theoretically. But, what Tim has observed is that the focus peaking in Leica's implementation on the M(240) is not as fine or accurate as the RF. That's all good, but the RF is not going to help you with off centre subjects. So, Tim suggests that if focus is critical (it always is, which I agree with) and you need to use the EVF (which implies an off centre subject), focus first wide open then stop down. This is good practice, provided your lens doesn't suffer from focus shift. In practice, I found that my NEX-5n had best focus at the front of the peaking line, so that's how I focused. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! So, the RF is best for central subjects (regardless whether the lens has a barrel, wavy or horizontal plane of best focus, and regardless what aperture, as the RF is not affected by aperture) or if like Jaapv you are comfortable with focus and recompose, according to Tim. Conversely, if you're worried about focus shift or your subject Is off centre, use focus peaking - it shouldn't matter whether the plane of best focus is horizontal barrel shaped or wanders all over the place. As the focus peaking is read off the sensor, your subject should be in focus. But, he recommends focusing wide then stopping down as this gives you the finest reading. I would add that you should check after stopping down, by moving the focus back and forth to check for focus shift. My experience of Sony's focus peaking is that it works well, and the yellow haze of items in focus does thicken as you stop down. Hope this helps. My real concern is how the A7R deals with my ZM 15/2.8, 21 Summilux & 28 Summicron. I do anticipate that the 35 Summilux (FLE) is the lens most likely to live on the A7R, but I will want to use the others - particularly the ZM 15. Cheers John PS - sorry about the crap image. Will try to repost from my computer later. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! So, the RF is best for central subjects (regardless whether the lens has a barrel, wavy or horizontal plane of best focus, and regardless what aperture, as the RF is not affected by aperture) or if like Jaapv you are comfortable with focus and recompose, according to Tim. Conversely, if you're worried about focus shift or your subject Is off centre, use focus peaking - it shouldn't matter whether the plane of best focus is horizontal barrel shaped or wanders all over the place. As the focus peaking is read off the sensor, your subject should be in focus. But, he recommends focusing wide then stopping down as this gives you the finest reading. I would add that you should check after stopping down, by moving the focus back and forth to check for focus shift. My experience of Sony's focus peaking is that it works well, and the yellow haze of items in focus does thicken as you stop down. Hope this helps. My real concern is how the A7R deals with my ZM 15/2.8, 21 Summilux & 28 Summicron. I do anticipate that the 35 Summilux (FLE) is the lens most likely to live on the A7R, but I will want to use the others - particularly the ZM 15. Cheers John PS - sorry about the crap image. Will try to repost from my computer later. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/214267-the-sony-a7-thread-merged/?do=findComment&comment=2446087'>More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 20, 2013 Share #1153 Posted October 20, 2013 Thanks JD. I look forward to seeing the A7r images when they become available. Less interested in the A7 as it doesn't have the gapless cell sites or the micro lens offset. Cheers John Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted October 20, 2013 Share #1154 Posted October 20, 2013 Thanks JD. I look forward to seeing the A7r images when they become available. Less interested in the A7 as it doesn't have the gapless cell sites or the micro lens offset. Cheers John Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD You're welcome. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted October 20, 2013 Share #1155 Posted October 20, 2013 No, not so good. What I have had my doubts about is that the M lenses may just look better on the M240. I hope the A7R has a better chance with the offset micro mirrors. Reports like this will be here before we have to buy our copies. If, the A7R looks like this then it would be a no-go for me. Having the A7R just for Tele R lenses wouldn't be enough of an incentive for me as the M240 isn't half bad already. And, when Leica decides we've waited long enough for our R-M adapter... oh, sorry, wrong thread. By they way, the A7 lens roadmap doesn't include much that I'm interested in. Nothing to fast in the primes to come and the zooms in the 28-70'ish range are about f4. Nothing that will take your breath away. Here is the roadmap of the lenses. Anybody see anything in there to get excited about? The Full Frame E-mount Lens roadmap: 15 lenses will be launched until late 2015. | sonyalpharumors Again, it really comes down to the lens and the camera second. Shiny black boxes come and go, amazing optics is forever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted October 20, 2013 Share #1156 Posted October 20, 2013 Thanks JD.I look forward to seeing the A7r images when they become available. Less interested in the A7 as it doesn't have the gapless cell sites or the micro lens offset. Indeed, micro lenses can make the difference. Also, a fair comparison needs to be with Leica M uncorrected, as raw correction can be done in post (and I actually prefer to preserve the original raw data, as improved algorithms will be available in the future). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted October 20, 2013 Share #1157 Posted October 20, 2013 Thanks jd. Well that's that then? As I mainly use 21 to 50mm M lenses, especially the 28 Summicron (and now a 28-90 Vario-Elmar), it looks like the A7R will be a no go (but I won't cancel my order just yet). So the search continues for holy grail of non-Leica digital cameras for Leica M wides. Most importantly, looking at the extraordinary amount of traffic the Sony A7/A7R has generated on this forum in the past few days, Leica needs to pay attention to what many of their customers want, and then supply the demand which the M240 has clearly not filled for many. An M (type360) with better EVF capability, electronic & firmware stability, and a better pricepoint (acepting the latter is unlikely unless they produce a variant model without an OVF, perhaps an E (type 360). Surely Leica could work with a substantial electronics company (such a Panasonic) to get the EVF electronics right. Not that I'm anything but ecstatic with my lowly M (type 240) and Monochrom . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted October 20, 2013 Share #1158 Posted October 20, 2013 John, information coming out on parallel threads suggests that the Leica wides will be a problem on the A7R. Like me you use tour 21mm and 28mm a lot so I think this will be a problem. I'm not going to buy an A7R only for 50mm to 135mm. However I will keep my order until this is clarified. Regarding your comment about central focusing with the rangefinder you would recall that in the days of our film SLRs, more critical focusing was done with the centre split prism or the surrounding micro-prism collar and then recomposed. So nothing has really changed although obviously with the Leica its only the rangefinder prism or hyperfocal technique. ps. you really should go and have a play with the M240 if you haven't had a chance to do so yet. I think you would be very surprised. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted October 20, 2013 Share #1159 Posted October 20, 2013 Of course if the A7R has angled microlenses and the A7 does not, these shots that show a fair amount of vignetting are kind of meaningless. Sony's lists "Gapless, optimally positioned on-chip lenses" only on the A7R's specs. But even then I don't think the samples are so bad. Consider that even the Canon and Leica 50 have some vignetting and that there is no direct comparison to uncorrected shots made using an M. I closely examined some of the cityscape photos from the 21 and 50 Summilux and the Canon 50 1.4. I brought 2 of the images from the 21 into DXO to remove vignetting and c/a and to examine them. With the 21 at f1.4 after removing the substantial vignetting, there was a fair amount of noise in the dark areas near the corners. But if the vignetting correction had been applied during the raw conversion, noise might be ok especially if the image was made at 100 ISO instead of at 400. C/a could be corrected fairly well but there was some significant blurring towards the corners and edges. Without a direct comparison to the M, I have nothing to base it on. And since the M doesn't have an AA filter, I don't know why to bother comparing unless the results from the M look similar. However once stopped down to f4 it needed less vignetting and c/a correction. It looked very good and sharp to me. I am not sure why stopping down should matter if the problem is caused by light from the lens hitting at too sharp an angle. So maybe this is just as good as the lens performs in the corners at f1.4. (Comparison shots with an M or A7R may prove that wrong.) With the 50 Summilux at 1.4, after just a little vignetting correction, it looked good. The image looked much sharper towards the edges once stopped down to F5.6. It was only sharp in the center at f1.4. Since this is a 50, I can't see how the angle to the sensor has anything to do with it. And since the sensor can record a lot more detail in the edges at f5.6 than at f1.4 I would have to think it is the lens that is the limitation. The Canon 50 at f1.4 was a bit softer everywhere than the Summilux. Vignetting was similar on the Canon 50 1.4 as with the Summilux. At 5.6 I couldn't pick up any significant difference between the two lenses. Again, a comparison with the M would be needed. I think a bugaboo in this test is that the images were shot at 400 ISO rather than at 100. So they probably do not get the most out of the sensor or the lenses. I can't see why he was worried about using longer shutter speeds. Besides it is probably only the images from wide open to f5.6 that anyone needs to compare. (E.g. if the lenses are no good on the A7 in this range, why would you use them?) Because it is such an overcast day, the detail diminishes over distance due to the less than clear air. And shooting camera jpegs rather than converting from raw may be less than optimal for reasons we all know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted October 20, 2013 Share #1160 Posted October 20, 2013 Wake up call: http://www.ronscheffler.com/techtalk/?p=224 Muahahahahahahahaha.... Not surprising. I would not expect the A7R to be significantly better. As I said earlier, the value of the Sony is not as a platform to use our M mount lenses, but as a compact light weight new system with AF and superb native Zeiss lenses and the best sensor output in town. Basically a replacement or direct competitor to the M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.