The Sony A7 thread [Merged]

[edwardkaraa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That's an interesting point. Perhaps there is also enough interest for Sony to work on the sensor a bit more for the M wides in the next version.

 

I wonder if there is any negative from doing this to the microlenses and perhaps the sensor wells or whatever makes it work. It crossed my mind that if Cmosis can do it, Sony certainly can. Afterall Cmosis doesn't actually manufacture the chips or the microlenses. So if they can pay a company to make them a specific way, so could Sony if for some reason they can't do it themselves. Why not add an A7m to the other two versions?

 

Otherwise, maybe the simplest thing would be for Leica to just buy A7 bodies and put the Cmosis sensor in it. Kodak used to do that with Nikon and Canon bodies. I guess Zeiss would nix that.

 

The microlenses have very little to do with the problems with M glass, well ok, some vignetting and Italian flag that are software correctable.

 

The real culprit is the sensor glass cover that is too thick, causing smearing and field curvature in the borders and corners.

 

The good news is that a small surgery to remove the glass cover and replace it with a thin one will do wonders, but may make the camera incompatible with native glass. I'm sure we will see in the near future a couple of companies offering this service.

[Advertisement]

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

[IkarusJohn]

I am not going to cancel my order for the A7R, but I am pretty sure I'll sell it after I put some lenses on it. It will be worth it to pay a little to try my 280/4 APO on it on a crisp winter Seattle cityscape. Endless detail.

 

+1

[almoore]

Much as I like the idea of this Sony (and it's capabilities would sit well with my other cameras) I'm not going to buy some average Sony/Zeiss glass to go with it

 

Why do you think that the native lenses for this camera will be "average"? Early feedback on the 35 and 55 seems to suggest they'll be in the same league as Leica.

[IkarusJohn]

Why do you think that the native lenses for this camera will be "average"? Early feedback on the 35 and 55 seems to suggest they'll be in the same league as Leica.

 

Prior experience with Sony & kit lenses. Saying they match Leica is a stretch, even on a really good day.

[Rick]

The microlenses have very little to do with the problems with M glass, well ok, some vignetting and Italian flag that are software correctable.

 

The real culprit is the sensor glass cover that is too thick, causing smearing and field curvature in the borders and corners.

 

The good news is that a small surgery to remove the glass cover and replace it with a thin one will do wonders, but may make the camera incompatible with native glass. I'm sure we will see in the near future a couple of companies offering this service.

 

I agree post #2387:

 

 

The Leica sensor is designed to respond very well to very oblique incident rays of light. From the examples we have seen so far on the web, the Sony does not seem to be designed well for this.

 

Maybe, Sony chose a thicker low pass IR-blocking filter. Leica certainly went a little thinner on the M240 and some have commented on the higher IR sensitivity and thought it was a design flaw that Leica should have noticed. I'm sure it was a design choice by Leica to stay compatible to M lenses.

 

The effect of a thicker IR filter would produce an image that looks more astigmatic as tangential rays would travel further through the thicker filter glass, which would shift their focus point. No amount of applied lens algorithm would correct the Sony sensor if this is indeed the problem.

[almoore]

Prior experience with Sony & kit lenses. Saying they match Leica is a stretch, even on a really good day.

 

In what possible way can the Zeiss 35f2.8 and 55f1.8 be considered as equivalent to cheap Sony "kit lenses"?

 

Regardless of whether the day is good or bad, there's every reason to believe that Japanese made Zeiss lenses will be in the same optical league as Leica regardless of lower price. The Zeiss Contax G lenses are some of the best lenses you could hope to use and the Zeiss M lenses seem to be universally excellent, so it would be bizarre if they didn't maintain that kind of standard for the launch of a system that is of vital importance to Sony.

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That's an interesting point. Perhaps there is also enough interest for Sony to work on the sensor a bit more for the M wides in the next version.

 

I think what Sony should have done is make an average sensor (maybe they have?). Average so that it meets in the middle ground the wide range of lenses they could anticipate photographers using on the body, then for each lens type, RF, SLR, native, etc. they address necessary corrections with custom firmware packages that can be switched over as needed, maybe have them loaded on the SD card ready to go. It depends really whether the profit comes from selling lenses or selling bodies, and whether a truly universal camera body could outweigh lost sales of own brand lenses.

 

Steve

[jankap]

In what possible way can the Zeiss 35f2.8 and 55f1.8 be considered as equivalent to cheap Sony "kit lenses"?

 

Regardless of whether the day is good or bad, there's every reason to believe that Japanese made Zeiss lenses will be in the same optical league as Leica regardless of lower price. The Zeiss Contax G lenses are some of the best lenses you could hope to use and the Zeiss M lenses seem to be universally excellent, so it would be bizarre if they didn't maintain that kind of standard for the launch of a system that is of vital importance to Sony.

 

One should look at the technical data for comparisons. They can be compared without sentiments.

The price difference depends on the number of produced items, tolerances in the production process, grade of the automation of the production process, etc.

What does a company do with a problem like that with the APO Summicron (or the Toyota cars)?

Of course Leica could have reacted faster or different in the Summicron case.

Jan

 

PS

It seems, that they do not read this forum.

[dwbell]

One should look at the technical data for comparisons. They can be compared without sentiments.

The price difference depends on the number of produced items, tolerances in the production process, grade of the automation of the production process, etc.

What does a company do with a problem like that with the APO Summicron (or the Toyota cars)?

Of course Leica could have reacted faster or different in the Summicron case.

Jan

 

PS

It seems, that they do not read this forum.

 

Yes, John makes a lot of sense in his posts and with his reasoning. But "prior experience with kit lenses" is a very weak case to build against new lenses. A stronger case, the one I will do for myself, relies on simply testing back to back the the two systems at different focal lengths and light conditions and coming to a personal conclusion based on your requirements. If you want to go further, do double blind tests on the prints in front of your audience. How many of you have ever done this or care by the way? Actual question. I did it with X100S and the M9 and 35 Cron and no-one, not one of my questioned viewers could tell me which was which. More importantly, none of them cared! Which is why the focus for me is purely on tool - and not on object of desire or other such fluff.

[jankap]

The Sony lens correction app is a very good idea. Sony is an electronics company, developing different ways to optimize products.

Jan

[dwbell]

As an aside, blind or double blind testing on your audience also can frustrate, but it shows you what YOU want and differentiates that from what THEY want.

 

I did testing on print methods and papers for colour, and for black and white. It seems people are a bit tired of good D-Max glossy prints and are tending towards more textured paper, lower contrast with a warm (natural, no OBAs) tone. They saw these as more "artistic" and "something different" - "pleasing, like a painting". Which is problem for me, because I can't stand them! So in this instance I stuck to my artistic intent and remain semi gloss with deep blacks and a very very pressed non textured matt when required. Both with OBA's to make the whites white.

 

If you have no audience, or like me do the art for yourself as a large proportion of your work - then I would still recommend defining your goals. If your pleasure is "shooting with a Leica" then so be it. But then we don't need to argue about things around our goals. There are clearly users here who's preferred location is "behind a red dot". That's fine, but at least just say that's the case when it is, rather than obfuscating the issue unnecessarily.

 

I hate warm toned textured matte paper with low contrast print methods. I don't think I should go on a forum and argue against it base on UV fading, archival quality, shadow gradation. I just hate it, period.

 

I just sometime wish people were clearer with their biases - and accept them and present them as such. It isn't wrong, it's just subjective.

[3D-Kraft.com]

Photos of WATE on A7r:

 

Leica WATE on Sony A7R - a set on Flickr

 

Rich

 

Thank you Rich.

 

Let me explain some details to that set:

 

1. The images were shot from tripod with self timer
   
2. They were developed from RAW using Adobe Camera RAW (ACR) 8.3 RC1.
   
3. The lens correction profile that comes with ACR for the WATE was applied. It only correts some minor distortion but it does not correct vigentting or color shift (as this is usually done alread by the Leica M9 / M240 firmware)
   
4. There was some de-vignetting applied as usual for all UWA (and as it also is done by the Leica M firmware)
   

As you can see, there were two series shot with inconsistent results for the left and right sides, propably caused by a problem witht the adapter. But more or less the results are as expected:

- No colorshift on the A7R, no edgesmearing

- The lens is a little bit soft in the edges at f/4 and f/5.6 but this already known from the WATE on Leica bodies. At f/8 it is perfectly sharp and on par with other Leica wide angle primes.

 

21mm will follor later and I will also repeat the series later.

[jankap]

If you want to go further, do double blind tests on the prints in front of your audience. How many of you have ever done this or care by the way? Actual question. I did it with X100S and the M9 and 35 Cron and no-one, not one of my questioned viewers could tell me which was which. More importantly, none of them cared! Which is why the focus for me is purely on tool - and not on object of desire or other such fluff.

 

OK. But do you remember the LULA article about pictures of the iPhone compared with those of a large format camera? In this case a difference could be shown (side by side).

 

Does the audience look at a laptop display or a screen with a projector (and does it listen to a moderator)? There simply are too many parameters.

Technical data are very compact, but the published technical data (I know Leica´s only) do not show everything too.

Jan

[IkarusJohn]

Regardless of whether the day is good or bad, there's every reason to believe that Japanese made Zeiss lenses will be in the same optical league as Leica regardless of lower price. .

 

That's a very bold and definitive statement, and quite contrary to my experience with the actual quality difference between Cosina made Biogons and Zeiss made Distagons - the difference is night and day. The Sony /Zeiss quality is a step yet lower.

 

Comparing even the much vaunted Zeiss 24/1.8 for NEX to a Leica equivalent is facile. Now, your experience clearly differs, but having used a number of Zeiss lenses over the years, some of the German made ZM lenses do compare favourably, but on a Leica M the Leica lenses have the edge. The Zeiss for Hasselblad were very fine, but the Zeiss for Sony were a step below.

 

Haven't tried the Zeiss designed, Sony made lenses for the A7R, obviously, but I have really no intention of trying. If the A7R does play with my Leica lenses, it gets the flick.

 

PS - sorry, in my haste, I missed Al's critical point. I'm very sure the Zeiss lenses are light years ahead of the Sony kit lenses. What I meant to say is that it makes no odds to me, as I don't want either. Tim Ashley has some interesting comments about the recent Zeiss zoom, which rather suggests that I'm not alone.

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[dwbell]

OK. But do you remember the LULA article about pictures of the iPhone compared with those of a large format camera? In this case a difference could be shown (side by side).

 

Does the audience look at a laptop display or a screen with a projector (and does it listen to a moderator)? There simply are too many parameters.

Technical data are very compact, but the published technical data (I know Leica´s only) do not show everything too.

Jan

 

Everything you say I agree with. The Fstoppers iPhone fashion shoot is another example. But that was actually a back to back test, which is what I'm advocating. It was fine for certain output media - i.e. laptop screens.

 

I agree with technical data being the initial base line - although we must accept and acknowledge that MTF charts are still not standardised.

[almoore]

the actual quality difference between Cosina made Biogons and Zeiss made Distagons - the difference is night and day. The Sony /Zeiss quality is a step yet lower...some of the German made ZM lenses do compare favourably, but on a Leica M the Leica lenses have the edge. The Zeiss for Hasselblad were very fine, but the Zeiss for Sony were a step below.

 

Yes, it's all down to the place of manufacture.

 

For the discerning photographer Japanese construction will never match up to the Teutonic excellence of Leica. Myself, I've taken it a step further and I now only settle for the otherworldly perfection coming out of the new Zeiss facility on the planet Pluto.

[marcg]

and now this:-

 

Full Frame Contax G to E-mount electronic adapter to be launched the first week of December! | sonyalpharumors

 

How can Leica compete with this kind of thing

[CaptZoom]

Bingo:

I agree with technical data being the initial base line - although we must accept and acknowledge that MTF charts are still not standardised.

 

Which makes comparing MTF charts between different companies just about useless; they remain useful for comparing lenses from a product line within a company.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[CaptZoom]

and now this:-

 

Full Frame Contax G to E-mount electronic adapter to be launched the first week of December! | sonyalpharumors

 

How can Leica compete with this kind of thing

 

That's the point: Leica isn't competing with that sort of thing (wether we like it or not).

 

Unlike many (most) here, I have difficulty using AF in dynamic situations. The Leica M series (at least for digital cameras) has the best implementation of a dedicated manual focus system. I think it may be the only sub-MF dedicated manual focus system being made today. And for this alone, they get my business. That being said, in the highly unlikely event another manufacturer decides to offer such a system, I would take serious look at their offering. I just think that's likely to happen, thus making the M system my system of choice by default.

[mben]

Exactly. I'm the same way. I have the M-lenses. Just upgrade the body when wanted and the old body goes to someone else. Old resource repurposed to a new user... unlike the other PAS and camera of the day stuff sitting in people's drawers. What a waste. The M8 is from 2006 and I bet a higher percentage of them are still working and being used compared to Nikon, Canon and Sony combined. And, the image quality is still right up there with the M.

 

As of last week, Leica is not repairing M8's with faulty electronics anymore (shutter assembly & motherboard). I believe sensor replacement is out of question, only re-mapping is offered if applicable.

 

According to some unconfirmed insider info, faulty M9 sensors have a close to zero chance to be replaced (I personally know people still waiting for sensor damage service).

 

Aside personal affections and inclinations, the above strongly undermines "real" M8 and M9 resale value except when the buyer is utterly uninformed on digital M's servicing constraints (as it seems it is still always the case as of today).

 

Best,

 

M