The Sony A7 thread [Merged]

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Peter H asked a page or so back for impressions of the camera.

 

……...

 

 

John, I truly appreciate the lengths you have gone to to give your impressions and some early results, as has DW too, and others.

 

Regardless of whether our conclusions are the same (and why should they be since our circumstances and purposes, expectations and wishes are all so different) and I'm sure that I and many others are learning a great deal from your reflections, and are grateful for them.

 

There can be little doubt that the A7/R pair is a hugely accomplished and important development in the never-ending progress of digital photography. It feels to me that it will be very valuable and enjoyable for very many people, and may well have quite an influence on the way camera users and even designers think about future directions.

 

I've been reluctant to sound negative because my personal opinion is irrelevant: as long as the camera is attractive to enough people, which it is sure to be, the fact that there are some reasons why it may not actually replace the relatively few Ms that there are out there is beside the point. But speaking personally, I'm waiting to see something that will make me feel that my M is in some way actually inadequate for my own needs and so far there has been nothing. I really don't like the idea that some lenses won't work very well, that I'd have to be more selective than I've become accustomed to being when I pick up my camera to go out taking an unpredictable set of photos, and that to get the best from the sensor I'd probably have to buy extra lenses. That, for me, is enough to make it quite unattractive, but there's plenty of time for me to change my mind and to discover that there are photographic ideas that only an A7/R will enable me to fulfil. That has frequently been the case with M6/M9/M cameras, so that's the very personal position that I'm trying hard to evaluate.

 

Thank you so much for your tremendous input.

[IkarusJohn]

Thank you so much for your tremendous input.

 

It's a pleasure.

 

If I was holding to my one camera commitment then it would be my M9 as it works best with my Leica lenses. There are Leica lenses which are better than others with this camera, but it would still be my first choice.

 

Then, I would be limited to the 21mm to 90mm range, I would need an additional viewfinder for wider than 28mm and I would have only the central focusing point - no zoom, no telephotos and no macro. While I do most of my photography within these constraints, they are too limiting.

 

My purpose in posting so extensively on this topic (in this thread and elsewhere) is the vain hope that Leica will actually take notice (not so much of me, but the noise I'm making).

 

Cheers

John

[naturephoto1]

I really feel for so many M-users that were hoping that the A7 and A7r cameras would work with all or most of their M-lenses.

 

At the same time, I feel fortunate to have been an R user with an extensive collection of R lenses and no M cameras in my collection. I approached the purchase of M-mount lenses very cautiously at the recommendation of others and only purchased the Minolta CLE MC 40mm f2.8 M-Rokkor lens prior to the release of the cameras. Then I have watched and have been waiting for the outcome of testing of appropriate M-mount lenses (and possibly SLR) to fill in the WA focal lengths that would perform better on these cameras than my R 24mm f2.8 Elmarit, R 21mm f4 Super Angulon, and my R 35mm F2 Summicron lenses.

 

At this point based upon what we have been seeing on FM it appears that the Voigtlander 21mm f/1.8 Ultron may fit my needs for a 21mm focal length even with the fixed petal hood which would interfere with the usage of rectangular Grad filters and square and rectangular ND filters. For the 28mm focal length, I am still debating and waiting for more results, but may find that the R 28mm f2,8 Elmarit V2 may have less issue than any of the 28mm M-mount lenses.

 

Rich

[edwardkaraa]

I am now more convinced than ever that the 7/r are not a viable option for M mount lenses. Not only because of the sensor cover being too thick and the resulting IQ losses in the image periphery, but also focusing difficulties necessitating a slower more patient approach as in magnified LV, or the quite inaccurate peaking as indicated by many misfocused images on the net. I believe however that the strength of the 7/r is in their high IQ AF lenses and as such they can be a worthy replacement to Leica M system. But on manual focus lenses, nothing beats a well calibrated RF for speed, accuracy and ease of operation. However, the 7/r would be a better option for SLR lenses, macro and telephotos because of the ability to scroll the magnified view, and the generally more technologically advanced electronics.

 

So afaic, I will get a 7 or 7/r to use their excellent native Zeiss glass on. Adapting M lenses is just an exercice in frustration and futility, bordering on masochism

[k-hawinkler]

This is not the place, (maybe it is?) but I find the Sony noise pattern interesting, and different to canon, fuji and Leica. LR and Nik both handle it, it seems, in different ways. What's your preferred method and impressions - as you have more miles with this chip?

 

 

Indeed the noise pattern of high resolution sensors that I have experience with, namely D800E and NEX-7, is different and much more forgiving. I came to these cameras from D200 (BTW CCD sensor), D300, D3, M9, and NEX-5N.

 

At or near base ISO there really is no problem. For medium, high and very high ISO values the noise becomes quite noticeable when looking at an image at pixel peeping level and I certainly feel compelled to deal with that. So, what to do? Well, I touched on that already before.

 

Please, see here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/2555197-post2140.html

and here: The GetDPI Photography Forums - View Single Post - A Call for RAWS. A7r.

 

This image was shot by Bart de Vries with A7R @ ISO 1600 and an Leica R lens. I developed two versions from the RAW file. One without any noise reduction and one with noise reduction in Nik. Here are the two versions reduced in size

 

:

 

 

Not much difference in appearance with regards to noise (The second image is just a tad brighter as I applied also one of the default Curves in CS6).

However, if you look at the full resolution versions in pixel peeping fashion there are huge differences.

 

http://winklers.smugmug.com/KHW/Other-Images/Barts-Images/i-S6Tcjs2/0/O/DSC01646_7360x4912_no_Nik_KHW.jpg

http://winklers.smugmug.com/KHW/Other-Images/Barts-Images/i-JBCKM83/0/O/DSC01646_7360x4912_w_Nik_KHW.jpg

 

So, by displaying very high resolution images at considerably reduced sizes that's sometimes all it takes to make the noise invisible.

 

I also agree with your point, made in another post, when comparing two images shot with different size sensors it's best to compare at the lower resolution of the two.

 

 

edit: Also, I'm with John about the corners thing. I hear an awful lot on forums about corner sharpness at max aperture, yet, tellingly I have not in recent memory seen ONE image where the corner sharpness was important that wasn't a test shot of a brick wall. So that said, if I need sharper corners on my A7R + 35FE on any occasion - well - I'll take shots of each corner individually and blend the sharp shots in to the centre shot in PS!

 

"Yeah but what if The Moment won't allow me to take 5 shots - THAT's why I shoot Leica!"

"If it's THAT much of a moment, then why do the corners matter so much? And secondly - show me such a shot - just one type of shot that has The Moment and needs corner sharpness at 1.4"

 

 

Well, I think two different types of issues are being discussed here that I try to keep separate.

 

• First, in the spirit of knowing the tools of the trade, what is the image quality across the entire image, including corners.

• Second, does it matter to someones photography.

 

Answering the second question for myself, sometimes it does matter (e.g. landscape, architecture shots) and sometimes it might not (e.g. portraits, nature, wildlife, birds shots).

[Thomas Chen]

Inspired by Thinghslapper's link #2647 I did a rough correction to a few image files that i posted yesterday and the results are here:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/cqnw5r4jxg1939r/Xi7-Uhb5pV

 

1. I found that the precsion of the adaper play a role in the vigenneting pattern because pattern symmetry is not there in the vertical direction mainly.

 

2. Sony has done a certain degree of correction as default in the ARW file. That's evidenced by the setting of adjustment shown for a imported ARW file on Sony Image Data Converter, implying something may be done already for SONY/ZEISS lenses.

 

3.Image Data Converter can convert a ARW file after adjustment into another ARW file and save the adjustment as preset for batch processing.

 

4. If convert ARW into JPEG and browse the JPEG withing the view mode of Image Data Converter one cannot get the best outcomes. Browsing the JPEG by other viewer program such as those on APPLE McBook Pro may be better.

 

5.because of no coupling about the aperture information between Leica lenses and A7R, post processing for the corrections becomes tedious as one cannot remember so wellwhich image is done by which aperture setting. On-camera correction preset triggerring on the spot make more senses.

 

5. I agree that Leica M is best for M lenses as Leica enginners have made lot of effort to deal with corrections. Anyone who intend to use Leica lense on the A7R is entitled to play the role of Leica engineer and do the correction by himself. A fair play.

[k-hawinkler]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

BTW, if you would like to see a nice color cast with an Leica WA lens on the M, it's all on LUF: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/2564444-post82.html

[edwardkaraa]

BTW, if you would like to see a nice color cast with an Leica WA lens on the M, it's all on LUF: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/2564444-post82.html

 

Indeed I have the feeling the M is a step back from the excellent M9 in this respect. I use my ZM 35 and 25 with lens correction off on the M9 and they in fact do not need any correction (well the 25 sometimes produces a faint color cast at infinity but most of the time negligible and barely noticeable). From online samples I have seen, the ZM 25 seems to produce a noticeable color cast on the M even when coded as a Leica 24/2.8.

 

That is actually one of the reasons of my reluctance to commit to buying the M so far.

 

It is interesting to note that the ZM 25 seems to work well on the A7 in terms of color cast, but not on the A7r.

[Rick]

BTW, if you would like to see a nice color cast with an Leica WA lens on the M, it's all on LUF: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/2564444-post82.html

 

That was undoubtably with the pre-updated firmware. Those lenses were fixed in the first update of the M240 firmware. Beta testers of the new firmware reported improvements in the 21mm Elmar you are linking to with the bad color in the corners. I think your link is not up to date with the new firmware.

[k-hawinkler]

 

That was undoubtably with the pre-updated firmware. Those lenses were fixed in the first update of the M240 firmware. Beta testers of the new firmware reported improvements in the 21mm Elmar you are linking to with the bad color in the corners. I think your link is not up to date with the new firmware.

 

 

I suggest folks, seeing my post here, also read posts #82 and following in the other thread to inform themselves more fully. If that could fool an experienced Leica photographer like adan it might fool a lot of folks. Could you please point to an image that demonstrates the effectiveness of the updated Leica firmware for the specific lens in question? Thanks.

 

I am interested in seeing all the evidence, the good, the bad, and the ugly and hope that Leica and Sony cameras will be improved over time.

[Rick]

I suggest folks, seeing my post here, also read posts #82 and following in the other thread to inform themselves more fully. If that could fool an experienced Leica photographer like adan it might fool a lot of folks. Could you please point to an image that demonstrates the effectiveness of the updated Leica firmware for the specific lens in question? Thanks.

 

I am interested in seeing all the evidence, the good, the bad, and the ugly and hope that Leica and Sony cameras will be improved over time.

 

Sure. Let me email Stephen and have him post a M240 + 21 SE + current firmware picture to show the improvement in the edges. He was one of the beta testers that reported better results on that lens.

[k-hawinkler]

Thanks Rick, that would be very helpful.

[Rick]

Thanks Rick, that would be very helpful.

 

Done.

 

By the way, I'd love to have that 21 SE or the 21 Elmarit. There are just sooooo many nice Leica lenses out there.

[dwbell]

 

That was undoubtably with the pre-updated firmware. Those lenses were fixed in the first update of the M240 firmware. Beta testers of the new firmware reported improvements in the 21mm Elmar you are linking to with the bad color in the corners. I think your link is not up to date with the new firmware.

 

I see your point Rick. And good back to backs would hopefully add clarity to the 21mm Elmar question.

Yet in this thread, we shouldn't forget that every image on the A7R with an M lens is not even pre-firmware, it's no anything ware. I feel sometimes as if people are feeding a new semigloss high dmax paper into their typewriter, hitting a few keys and complaining that it smears.

[MarkP]

I assume this is what you wanted to see.

I don't have a 2.8/21

 

unfortunately a somewhat unevenly lit white wall

 

3.4/21 SEM ASPH

M (typ 240) upgraded firmware

 

No colour tweaking

 

f3.4

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!

 

 

f5.6

 

 

f11

[Rick]

I see your point Rick. And good back to backs would hopefully add clarity to the 21mm Elmar question.

Yet in this thread, we shouldn't forget that every image on the A7R with an M lens is not even pre-firmware, it's no anything ware. I feel sometimes as if people are feeding a new semigloss high dmax paper into their typewriter, hitting a few keys and complaining that it smears.

 

Right. Just not sure why you hit me over the head with this? Oh yeah, RickLeica. FM

[MarkP]

unfortunately a somewhat unevenly lit white wall

 

1.4/21 Summilux ASPH

M (typ 240) upgraded firmware

 

No colour tweaking

 

f1.4

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!

 

 

f2.8

 

 

f5.6

 

 

f11 (something funny happened with this one but I couldn't be bothered redoing it)

[MarkP]

Done.

 

By the way, I'd love to have that 21 SE or the 21 Elmarit.

 

But not for your A7R

[dwbell]

Right. Just not sure why you hit me over the head with this? Oh yeah, RickLeica. FM

 

Your just an easy, soft, malleable target RickL E I C A. I like to beat up on the little kid in the room, it's my way of getting self worth and pseudo-masculinity.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[dwbell]

At or near base ISO there really is no problem. For medium, high and very high ISO values the noise becomes quite noticeable when looking at an image at pixel peeping level and I certainly feel compelled to deal with that.

 

Thanks KH, all taken on board. The difference is that the Sony noise is more, er, salt like, while the canon noise is kinda dirty, greasy, if you see what I mean. So in Sony, where I get blue green brown grungey smears in canon, I get white speckles and very little colour noise. These white speckles seem to brighten the darker area a little. I find LR does a better job of removing them - in the direction of canon, and Nik does a better job of retaining detail - yet I have a feeling it see's the speckles as detail.

 

It is astonishing the amount of detail at ridiculously high ISO. I need to print these bad boys out to see if I even need to concern myself with the white speckles. I'm kinda terrified they print as white speckles! But that's unfounded as yet