The Sony A7 thread [Merged]

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I can think of worse than being "stuck" with a camera bag like Mark's .

Or yours, or mine, or most anybody's on this forum.

 

Problem could be, to always buy something new.

Though it's not a problem, it's only GAS !

 

Good thing I moved to film (except for the... and the... *).

Luckily no new film cameras - while new lenses come out all the time.

________

* M9 to test old glass fast. But then I couldn't resist the beauty of a M9P, so I traded it in.

+ Sony 100 for video. It'll be replaced by a Pani GM1 soon: bigger chip in a smaller camera.

[algrove]

Just picked up my A7r with the 35 2.8 today from Sony HK.

 

Happy to answer any questions ppl have

 

Do you own any WA Leica M glass you can try on your a7r and then perhaps post some for us to have a look at?

[algrove]

I've received word from Sony that my A7r will arrive on Monday

 

I would be more excited but the latest set of flikr lens tests has worried me. Although I shoot 50mm a lot the vignetting and colour shift on the 35/2 is a worry. Downloaded the raw files from the french site as well (50 1.4 at high ISO) and they are not impressing me much.

 

Still I should find out next week whether it will work for me.

 

What is your country?

[algrove]

Well, if Leica lenses do not work (and frankly I will decide on my own) then my Contax G lenses might be the answer especially since they are small, crisp and AF while using a Techart adapter on the a7r.

[Guest]

1. Please wait for another 272 posts .

 

2. Maybe look up his profile, he's English.

 

3. Without comparison shots also RAW on a M9/M240 WITH THE LENS CORRECTION TURNED OFF with the same lens, both on a tripod, these images will make for nice conversation.

[3D-Kraft.com]

If I can't use my existing Leica WA lenses to get the best from the camera, and have to get a £4,000 lens to do so, you can probably understand why it's appeal is rapidly diminishing for me.

 

I am not sure about the WATE prices in UK (did you include the "Frankenfinder"?) but I saw used samples in very good condition for £2,500 and you can compare only a used lens price to the value of your existing (also used) lenses. If you already own an 18mm and 21mm lens they might propably sell for more and the WATE gives you 16mm on top.

 

Not to talk about the price difference between an A7 and an M 240 that will already give you a new WATE for free...

 

And I was also talking about other lenses as well. It is not only the WATE that will work good on the A7®, I expect several more SWA and UWA lenses with newer designs. But those who prefer to justify their invest in legacy glass and M bodies are propably more delighted by photos from lenses that Sony never had in mind in their sensor design.

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am not sure about the WATE prices in UK (did you include the "Frankenfinder"?) but I saw used samples in very good condition for £2,500 and you can compare only a used lens price to the value of your existing (also used) lenses. If you already own an 18mm and 21mm lens they might propably sell for more and the WATE gives you 16mm on top.

 

Not to talk about the price difference between an A7 and an M 240 that will already give you a new WATE for free...

 

And I was also talking about other lenses as well. It is not only the WATE that will work good on the A7®, I expect several more SWA and UWA lenses with newer designs. But those who prefer to justify their invest in legacy glass and M bodies are propably more delighted by photos from lenses that Sony never had in mind in their sensor design.

 

 

 

I will happily sell my M lenses and my M if Sony or anyone else offer an overall package that suits me better, but there are a lot of factors involved here, so for the time being at least, if I buy a A7R it will need to work alongside my M, so I shan't be selling it to fund a WATE, or not for the time being at least!

 

The question really is whether the lenses which work so beautifully with my M will work as well with the A7R, or whether I'd need to buy new lenses to get the best from it. This is not an attempt to justify any past decisions. It is a straightforward question, and I'm far from clear about the answer. I don't expect you or anyone to be able to provide a definitive answer, but I do hope that those with some experience of the camera may be able to give some impartial guidance to those of us who don't, yet.

 

By the way, what do you mean by "legacy lenses"?

[Mr_Jones]

What is your country?

 

I'm in London and it arrived early, today that is.

[3D-Kraft.com]

By the way, what do you mean by "legacy lenses"?

 

In general I mean lenses that have been designed before the additional requirements of higher resolving digital image sensors were considered.

[Mr_Jones]

I'm looking at a lot of raw files here and it's all first impressions but there are a few things standing out. Even at 5.6 the 50/2 vignettes and the problem goes on getting worse with the wider lenses. 28/2.8 has pink edges even at f8. Almost nothing looks M9 sharp at 1:1 view on lightroom. Could be camera shake, I'm shooting say minimum 1/100 for 50mm.

 

The results look more like medium format scans than M9. Not a bad thing, but different

 

The higher ISO is incredible, on a dark London afternoon this can make all the difference. However this is not a camera to sell the M over. It might work for me as a second low light body but from what I've seen so far it can't replace even the M9 at base ISO.

 

If someone can hook me up with a good place to drop raw files I will upload them later. I should be able to do some M9/A7r side by sides tomorrow.

 

I have to say that the files don't pixel peep that well but they do look fantastic overall, just not quite seeing what I recognise as the character of the lenses yet.

[dwbell]

I'm looking at a lot of raw files here and it's all first impressions but there are a few things standing out. Even at 5.6 the 50/2 vignettes and the problem goes on getting worse with the wider lenses. 28/2.8 has pink edges even at f8. Almost nothing looks M9 sharp at 1:1 view on lightroom. Could be camera shake, I'm shooting say minimum 1/100 for 50mm.

 

The results look more like medium format scans than M9. Not a bad thing, but different

 

The higher ISO is incredible, on a dark London afternoon this can make all the difference. However this is not a camera to sell the M over. It might work for me as a second low light body but from what I've seen so far it can't replace even the M9 at base ISO.

 

If someone can hook me up with a good place to drop raw files I will upload them later. I should be able to do some M9/A7r side by sides tomorrow.

 

I have to say that the files don't pixel peep that well but they do look fantastic overall, just not quite seeing what I recognise as the character of the lenses yet.

 

It's double the resolution of the M9 and had no in camera colour correction that the M9 does.

So, reduce by half, the run a corner fix profile. Then compare? Just a thought.

[Steve P]

I wonder if the lower pixel count and AA filter might mean that the A7 plays nicer with some M lenses than the A7r?

[naturephoto1]

I'm looking at a lot of raw files here and it's all first impressions but there are a few things standing out. Even at 5.6 the 50/2 vignettes and the problem goes on getting worse with the wider lenses. 28/2.8 has pink edges even at f8. Almost nothing looks M9 sharp at 1:1 view on lightroom. Could be camera shake, I'm shooting say minimum 1/100 for 50mm.

 

The results look more like medium format scans than M9. Not a bad thing, but different

 

The higher ISO is incredible, on a dark London afternoon this can make all the difference. However this is not a camera to sell the M over. It might work for me as a second low light body but from what I've seen so far it can't replace even the M9 at base ISO.

 

If someone can hook me up with a good place to drop raw files I will upload them later. I should be able to do some M9/A7r side by sides tomorrow.

 

I have to say that the files don't pixel peep that well but they do look fantastic overall, just not quite seeing what I recognise as the character of the lenses yet.

 

Here is a suggestion from over at Fredmiranda.com suggesting using 1/250 of a second:

 

Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless - FM Forums

 

"Folks really need to be shooting at 1/250 sec or so handheld for a 35-50mm lens and FF 36MP's in my experience if they want very sharp images at 100% view. Also, as previously mentioned by sebboh I believe, even if the pixel density is the same as APS 16MP roughly, the longer focal length required for FF to get a similar AOV as when using APS and shorter focal lengths must be considered. So, it's not just pixel density but pixel density and the focal lengths used for that pixel density (longer focal lengths of course requiring higher shutter speeds). The lighter weight and smaller size of the A7r could also come into play against it for steady hand hold-ability and sharp images at 100%.

 

edit - Rich, I think the above is particularly relevant to someone coming from say an M9, as you posted above. It's really no surprise that 1/100 sec hand held is not going to result in files that are up to scrutiny at 100% from the A7r. Heck, I would not expect that even from my older a900 at 24MP's and a 50mm lens."

 

Also it has been suggested that you may not have been totally focused accurately. It takes time to get accustomed to focusing with these cameras.

 

Rich

[Mr_Jones]

Just managed a side by side comparison in lightroom of a 90/4 macro elmar shot. 30 second exposures, forgot to match the iso exactly but it's base on each camera. (100/160)

 

It's dark outside and these shots are really only for my own decision making process, so please try to keep the criticism to a minimum. It is what it is. I'm coming to my own conclusions having seen the comparison.

 

I've uploaded them as jpegs and a few other A7r pics to my Flikr account. I don't use it much so I've no idea whether it's private etc. but my user name on flikr is Mr Andy Jones.

 

The link is Flickr: Mr Andy Jones' Photostream

 

Still no idea where to upload raw files but maybe someone would like to let me know the best option.

[Mr_Jones]

Here is a suggestion from over at Fredmiranda.com suggesting using 1/250 of a second:

 

Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless - FM Forums

 

"Folks really need to be shooting at 1/250 sec or so handheld for a 35-50mm lens and FF 36MP's in my experience if they want very sharp images at 100% view. Also, as previously mentioned by sebboh I believe, even if the pixel density is the same as APS 16MP roughly, the longer focal length required for FF to get a similar AOV as when using APS and shorter focal lengths must be considered. So, it's not just pixel density but pixel density and the focal lengths used for that pixel density (longer focal lengths of course requiring higher shutter speeds). The lighter weight and smaller size of the A7r could also come into play against it for steady hand hold-ability and sharp images at 100%."

 

Also it has been suggested that you may not have been totally focused accurately. It takes time to get accustomed to focusing with these cameras.

 

Rich

 

It's more like camera shake than focus issues. I think the shutter weight has something to do with it. There is nothing focussed sharply in the whole scene which is what tells me it's shake.

 

1/250 is giving away a lot of the advantage of the higher iso's. I would say that the tripod 30 second exposures seen up close tell me that the sharpness issue is not all camera shake either. I don't want to describe what I'm seeing because I'm likely to get shot down in flames. Let's just say that I moved from Nikon to Leica to get the look that I'm not seeing with the Sony.

[Peter H]

Thanks Mr Jones, it's very kind of you to post the link. It opens perfectly, and is easy to view.

 

I'm not sure what I can learn from it, but as you say, that wasn't the point of the exercise for you, and I'm grateful that you've shown us what you've done so straightforwardly.

[Mr_Jones]

I resampled the sony image and created 2 tiny crops from the body of the picture. I'm interested in the reflections along the metal edge.

 

Having looked at the resampled file the Sony has the edge on sharpness so part of the problem with pictures appearing sharp has to do with the screen resolution I'm viewing it at etc.

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!

[MarkP]

I'm not being argumentative, but "we" here is a small niche of people, within a small niche group. Sony may care about providing a solution for some other brands, but I'd be very surprised if they care about certain legacy lenses of a very small brand. So it never really was going to be the solution, was it? You're stuck with Leica because, well, because you've stuck with Leica. Not a criticism, each artist has their own vision and needs to choose the tools to acheive it.

 

 

Oh I absolutely agree and my comment was quite tongue in cheek. 'We' referred to those of 'us' posting here thinking it may work. Reading back through the thread many of 'us' were hesitant regarding the WAs.

 

,,and 'I' forgot to put a 'roll eyes' at the end of 'my' post.

 

Sony has bigger markets to target than a few of 'us' Luddite Leica users who want to use M-mount WAs.

[250swb]

Dismissing Leica as a small company is fiscal illiteracy given the length of time they have been making lenses, the numbers of lenses people own, and the numbers of lenses available to buy, notwithstanding the numbers of directly compatible lenses from other manufacturers. Leica may be a small company, but they are responsible one way or another for a gigantic number of lenses that could get good homes on a third party body. To suggest we are 'stuck' with Leica is like saying we are stuck with the winning lottery numbers. One day somebody like Sony will address it head on and solve the conundrum.

 

Steve

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[algrove]

I'm looking at a lot of raw files here and it's all first impressions but there are a few things standing out. Even at 5.6 the 50/2 vignettes and the problem goes on getting worse with the wider lenses. 28/2.8 has pink edges even at f8. Almost nothing looks M9 sharp at 1:1 view on lightroom. Could be camera shake, I'm shooting say minimum 1/100 for 50mm.

 

The results look more like medium format scans than M9. Not a bad thing, but different

 

The higher ISO is incredible, on a dark London afternoon this can make all the difference. However this is not a camera to sell the M over. It might work for me as a second low light body but from what I've seen so far it can't replace even the M9 at base ISO.

 

If someone can hook me up with a good place to drop raw files I will upload them later. I should be able to do some M9/A7r side by sides tomorrow.

 

I have to say that the files don't pixel peep that well but they do look fantastic overall, just not quite seeing what I recognise as the character of the lenses yet.

 

I have read many places that the small a7r form factor lulls one into thinking you can hand hold and shoot away. Not true. That camera is much more of a tripod camera than we realize I am afraid. Your shutter speeds hand held should be 10x the FL minimum in my mind and that might not be enough. Just my first thoughts upon reading your shooting methods with your new a7r. Do you know anyone with a Techart adapter for Contax G AF lenses? If so, try their 45/2.0 if available.