Jump to content

The Sony A7 thread [Merged]

dmclalla

By dmclalla
in Digital Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
3D-Kraft.com

3D-Kraft.com

Posted
Posted
In any case, I am not selling my old glass. I believe that new improved sensors more tolerant to ray angle will come in the future.

 

This is, what I also expect from future sensor generations (e.g. from organic sensors). The problem is, that we are still about 2 years away from market readiness and the good news may be, that the more telecentric designs will produce good results until then and thereafter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr_Jones

Mr_Jones

Posted
Posted
I think you mean the order is M9 - A7 - A7 - M9 - A7 - M9.

 

Very little in it on the centre crop, I think I might just trade in my M8 for an M9 and forget about these new cameras. The corner could be improved running through cornerfix et al but you can see its a bit smeared under that.

 

That order is correct. I would trade the M8 for something full frame, the M9 is a good option but the A7/r still offers video and high iso performance the M9 can only dream about.

 

I am considering trading the M9 up to an M and dropping the A7 but it's not that straightforward a decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr_Jones

Mr_Jones

Posted
Posted
Mr.Jones (Andy),

 

Thanks for running the tests. As to the Leica C 40mm f2 Summicron, over at Fredmiranda.com we already knew that the lens performed well on the A7r until we reached the extreme corners. But that is also the way that this lens performs on film as well.

 

For many of us this is and will be an acceptable performance using the A7r and if we find it objectionable in some instances we will just crop the extreme corners. For myself I intend to use my Minolta CLE MC 40mm f2 M-Rokkor (latest incarnation of the C 40mm Summicron) as a main lens for my A7r.

 

For your comparison between the M9 and the A7r with the M 28mm f2.8 Elmarit ASPH which is which in the order of the images? If I am understanding this correctly then you have an error in order for those in the center of the image based upon the color. The second image in the last comparison based upon color appears to come from the first FF image and the first image in the last comparison based upon color appears to come from the second FF image.

 

Also, your upper left crop (they are not I believe from the upper right as you indicate) for the first of the pair of images appears to come from the second FF image and the second of the pair of images appears to come from the first FF image.

 

Rich

 

I've confirmed the order, it is mixed up but you can see which is which. The corners on the 28/2.8 are unusable in comparison with the M9, they are just a mess. The 35/2 asph is looking pretty good though. In fact I'm happy with everything I have from 35 and above on the A7 and I like 50 mm a lot. If it's better than the M240 in low light then it makes sense to keep it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
CheshireCat

CheshireCat

Posted
Posted
This is, what I also expect from future sensor generations (e.g. from organic sensors). The problem is, that we are still about 2 years away from market readiness and the good news may be, that the more telecentric designs will produce good results until then and thereafter.

 

Totally agree. The good thing is I am not too old to wait ;)

Though I wonder if old glass will be able to deliver with future 100+ MP sensors.

And, then again, I foresee a move to medium format mirrorless in the high end.

Link to post
Share on other sites
NJH

NJH

Posted
Posted
That order is correct. I would trade the M8 for something full frame, the M9 is a good option but the A7/r still offers video and high iso performance the M9 can only dream about.

 

I am considering trading the M9 up to an M and dropping the A7 but it's not that straightforward a decision.

 

Reading your later post and others I have read its unfortunately a complicated decision that has to be based on a bit of crystal ball gazing. I have the 28 f2.8 ASPH, a ZM 50 Planar and a CV 90 f3.5 APO Lanthar. We already know enough and have seen enough to believe the 50 Planar is good on the A7/r, I would hope the APO Lanthar is also good although given its rarity I am not holding my breath for test shots. One could then decide to either buy an M9 or take a punt on the A7 and sell the 28 f2.8 ASPH in the hope of either a high quality native WA zoom (on the road map apparently but no details yet) or try some other WA solution. Shame though as the 28 f2.8 ASPH is a gorgeous tiny little lens, surely its the sort of thing a non-DSLR FF solution should be all about?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr_Jones

Mr_Jones

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Reading your later post and others I have read its unfortunately a complicated decision that has to be based on a bit of crystal ball gazing. I have the 28 f2.8 ASPH, a ZM 50 Planar and a CV 90 f3.5 APO Lanthar. We already know enough and have seen enough to believe the 50 Planar is good on the A7/r, I would hope the APO Lanthar is also good although given its rarity I am not holding my breath for test shots. One could then decide to either buy an M9 or take a punt on the A7 and sell the 28 f2.8 ASPH in the hope of either a high quality native WA zoom (on the road map apparently but no details yet) or try some other WA solution. Shame though as the 28 f2.8 ASPH is a gorgeous tiny little lens, surely its the sort of thing a non-DSLR FF solution should be all about?

 

I've no intention of selling the 28 2.8. I would use it on the M9. I couldn't see the A7r as a replacement for the M9 or M, I wouldn't consider it alongside the M but the M9 + A7 has some charm. 2 bodies, one good for low light and video the other superb in good light. If I thought the VF/Live view and movie side of the M240 were as good as the A7 it would be an easy decision. I'd buy an M240 and sell the M9.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter H

Peter H

Posted
Posted

How odd this all is.

 

I imagine two of the main reasons most frequently given for the appeal of M cameras are the rangefinder experience and the quality of the lenses.

 

But we might be prepared to sacrifice the irreplaceable immediacy of the rangefinder that we've come to love because an EVF is OK after all. And then we might be prepared to use different lenses because they might work better on a non-rangefinder body than the beautiful Leica lenses that we love on our rangefinders.

 

If I'm not careful I'm going to get confused.

Link to post
Share on other sites
k-hawinkler

k-hawinkler

Posted
Posted

Some with Leica WA as well.

 

Sony A7r + Rangefinder Lenses: Images - FM Forums

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!

21/1.4 @ f/2.8

 

I like in particular this one:

Link to post
Share on other sites
IkarusJohn

IkarusJohn

Posted
Posted
How odd this all is.

 

I imagine two of the main reasons most frequently given for the appeal of M cameras are the rangefinder experience and the quality of the lenses.

 

But we might be prepared to sacrifice the irreplaceable immediacy of the rangefinder that we've come to love because an EVF is OK after all. And then we might be prepared to use different lenses because they might work better on a non-rangefinder body than the beautiful Leica lenses that we love on our rangefinders.

 

If I'm not careful I'm going to get confused.

 

You're putting the cart before the horse, I think, Peter.

 

With the film Leicas, the rangefinder makes perfect sense, and the price is almost justifiable. I love my M9 & Monochrom, but deep down it is a perplexing camera. We pay a fortune for a beautifully made camera with and optical viewfinder, but high electronic obsolescence (and confirmation from Leica that it won't support its electronics in the same way it has traditionally supported its cameras), no firmware support and a clear struggle to maintain quality control. To my mind, Leica applying its traditional "camera for life" values to the digital age just isn't working. It needs a product (and support) which justifies it being more than a fashion accessory. As a camera, the lack of a movable focal point is bizarre, and the optical viewfinder quaint. Don't get me wrong, I do like it on my cameras, but it is an anachronism.

 

Paying a quarter of the price (?) for a well made camera with electronics that work, without the optical viewfinder, is about right. If it produces files with my Leica lenses that I can work with, it is a no brainer.

 

I will never understand why it is that when a very good electronic camera with the ability to take Leica glass comes out, it is dismissed because it isn't a rangefinder. The Sonys aren't rangefinder cameras. They're electronic, and I suspect they do the electronic bit WAY better than Leica. Leica does glass (and nice camera cases with crappy electronics) better than anyone else - getting the two together is appealing. What seems to be interesting about the Sonys is that they produce a clean raw file with no correction - you do that in post, rather than in camera. This increases the ability to use the cameras with any lens you like, provided it will perform to the level required by the sensor.

 

I like Leica, and have had good experiences with them, but they do need a bit of a kick in the teeth for their digital products - they'd be great at half the price. To justify their price, they need to lift their game. I won't be buying another Leica disposable for $10,000.

 

The M mount is their flagship (the S is of very limited market appeal), and as someone has observed, there is a huge number of legacy lenses out there. Zeiss also make M mount lenses. But, even better, the camera also takes Leica R mount, Contax, Nikkor and Canon lenses, with adapters.

 

Why is that even remotely odd?

 

It could be a race, which camera do you throw away first (for unsupported breakdown)? Your M(240) or a Sony A7R? At this stage, I think you'd be pushed to make an argument that the Sony won't last - it is priced for its obsolescence. I guess the Leica will look good on a shelf; as you can tell, the ease with which they withdrew support for the CCD sensor still rankles with me; and the way they just pretended it wasn't a problem until their hand was forced was disgraceful.

 

As I've said before, if Leica made a digital camera which was truly electronic, and used their full frame CMOSIS sensor to its full potential, but was priced about where the Sonys are, I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

 

Cheers

John

Link to post
Share on other sites
IkarusJohn

IkarusJohn

Posted
Posted

 

The 21 Summilux shots look pretty good to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
naturephoto1

naturephoto1

Posted
Posted
The 21 Summilux shots look pretty good to me.

 

If the 21mm f3.4 SEM would perform as well on the A7r I would be ecstatic, and it would be the 21mm lens that I would use on my A7r. I am hopeful but doubtful at the same time. I will keep my fingers crossed for the results of this combination.

 

Rich

Link to post
Share on other sites
IkarusJohn

IkarusJohn

Posted
Posted
I agree, I say! ;):);)

I am afraid I have to get that lens if and only if my WATE shouldn't work out. :eek:

 

I have a suspicion that the current, ASPH lenses designed by Peter Karbe may work out okay on this camera (wishful thinking?). I understand the camera will become available here this Friday - though which cameras and in what quantities is a bit of a guess.

 

When I get one, I will line up every lens I have and give them all a shot - any advice? I don't have a brick wall ... I was thinking of a garden scene or landscape, tripod, shutter speed 3x 1/focal length, and as wide as the light allows. Happy to take suggestions and to post links to the raw files here.

 

Lenses of particular interest will be:

 

  • Zeiss Distagon 15/2.8 T*
  • 21 Summilux ASPH
  • 35 Summilux (FLE)
  • Noctilux 0.95
  • Summilux 50 ASPH
  • 75 Summilux
  • AA 90 Summicron
  • a couple of Nikkor lenses

 

I'll be using the Novoflex adapters.

 

Cheers

John

Link to post
Share on other sites
biglou

biglou

Posted
Posted
You're putting the cart before the horse, I think, Peter.

 

With the film Leicas, the rangefinder makes perfect sense, and the price is almost justifiable. I love my M9 & Monochrom, but deep down it is a perplexing camera. We pay a fortune for a beautifully made camera with and optical viewfinder, but high electronic obsolescence (and confirmation from Leica that it won't support its electronics in the same way it has traditionally supported its cameras), no firmware support and a clear struggle to maintain quality control. To my mind, Leica applying its traditional "camera for life" values to the digital age just isn't working. It needs a product (and support) which justifies it being more than a fashion accessory. As a camera, the lack of a movable focal point is bizarre, and the optical viewfinder quaint. Don't get me wrong, I do like it on my cameras, but it is an anachronism.

 

 

Exactly what i thought

Leica could surmount this by building the M with a kind of module.

Thinking of a removable (in factory) module comprising the back monitor and buttons, sensor and electronics in order to be able to update what is for sure condemned to rather quick obsolescence without changing the camera completely.

It would probably also render repairs easier ans less costly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...