The Sony A7 thread [Merged]

[ModernMan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sorry, but Leica have firmware correction of all the lens issues and produce perfect files in LR that need no altering.

 

Sony will NEVER do this so it will have to be a PP fix .... and a different correction for every lens below 50mm.

 

Apart from the WATE I would not bother even attempting to use this camera sub 50 with Leica M lenses.

 

Much as I would like it to be an M substitute/back-up the palaver of adjusting any WA photos make it a non-starter.

 

I am not blind..... and a child of 3 could spot the problems with these lenses. Anyone that can't is futilely deluding themselves that they haven't wasted their cash.

 

Using native lenses or 50+ I am sure it is capable of giving the M a run for it's money.

 

 

...... and I would also point out that the magenta shift seems to be worse in the bottom corners of the images ..... so it is masked to some extent in most outdoor shots with sky in the top part of the frame....

 

Not sure what I said that apparently got y'all riled up. No offense was intended. Wasn't suggesting you're blind, or advocating "futile delusion".

 

Of course A7r uncorrected files will exhibit vignetting and magenta shift (as would uncorrected M240 files).

 

It would be instructive to get some insight into whether the A7r files with corrective post processing can yield a quality level at or greater than the quality of m240.

[viramati]

Have been following the thread with some interest and am wondering if any of you guys has got or tried the sony 55 f1.8 lens for the camera yet. I say this as I am not really interested in it for my leica lenses as I will use the M for them, but I have had so many problems with my 50 lux asph (and with getting older and eyesight not being what it used to be) that I am interested in the A7 with this lens as an AF alternative to the M and lux 50 asph. Thanks

[jaapv]

I find this thread quite illuminating. It shows us how much the world has changed. In the film days we had a level playing field regarding the "sensor"and camera discussions tended to centre around camera type, ergonomics, build quality etc. Nowadays people tend to forget all these aspects and tend to post in the order of : "Yes, the Leica is superbly built, perfect rangefinder and shutter - but with the Sony I can get equal image quality at one third of the price" Yes. With a Bessa you could get equal image quality at the third of the price of an M6 - It was always regarded as a non-argument.

[IkarusJohn]

I find this thread quite illuminating. It shows us how much the world has changed. In the film days we had a level playing field regarding the "sensor"and camera discussions tended to centre around camera type, ergonomics, build quality etc. Nowadays people tend to forget all these aspects and tend to post in the order of : "Yes, the Leica is superbly built, perfect rangefinder and shutter - but with the Sony I can get equal image quality at one third of the price" Yes. With a Bessa you could get equal image quality at the third of the price of an M6 - It was always regarded as a non-argument.

 

All very true, but my M3 continues to work as well as the day someone else bought it, because Leica did not dictate the film that worked with it, and they did not get the chance to discontinue it.

 

Unfair, I know considering how Leica continues to support its film cameras, but your analogy is daft. If Leica supported its electronics in the same way, then you might have a point. They still build a camera for life. Unfortunately, the important bits - the electronics aren't.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[jaapv]

You misinterpret my argument. Nowadays the differences in quality between the sensors of all high-end cameras and most midrange ones are so small to make any discussion academic and any difference in the final print irrelevant, so we are in the same situation that we were when we all used film.

That means we should indeed consider other aspects of the cameras, and if you will, including the relative lifespans. What percentage of Sonys from 2006 are still in operation and what percentage of M8s?

[Peter H]

I find this thread quite illuminating. It shows us how much the world has changed. In the film days we had a level playing field regarding the "sensor"and camera discussions tended to centre around camera type, ergonomics, build quality etc. Nowadays people tend to forget all these aspects and tend to post in the order of : "Yes, the Leica is superbly built, perfect rangefinder and shutter - but with the Sony I can get equal image quality at one third of the price" Yes. With a Bessa you could get equal image quality at the third of the price of an M6 - It was always regarded as a non-argument.

 

Jaap, I'm inclined to agree with you here.

 

Also, there has for many people and for many years been a very important and functional distinction between SLR and Rangefinder photography, even to the extent that comparisons between the qualities of SLRs and RFs had become pretty much irrelevant and pointless for them. Yet there have always been many people who have found themselves somewhere in the middle; either they don't have a strong preference either way, or if they do, it only applies in certain circumstances and they'll choose whichever camera is most appropriate for the type of photography in question. A totally reasonable approach too, if costly.

 

I believe the advent of the M9 opened up RF photography to a lot of people in this "in between " category and I think many of them (or us) are the natural audience for a new small, highly capable SLR-type camera like the new Sonys, and that makes a lot of sense to me. But if you want a RF camera, you need a RF, and no matter how close in performance terms any other camera gets, or even surpasses it in some respects, you still need a RF.

 

So this may mean that Leica's main market is going to revert to those people specifically who want RF cameras rather than, as has perhaps been the case for just a few recent years, people who enjoy Leica's other qualities but are not too worried about the window they look through to form their photos because, for them, other features are more important. In other words, getting back to the sort of relationship Leica have had with their slightly old-fashioned yet very specifically demanding customers. And maybe that will be healthy for everyone, providing the economics still work!

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well-taken argument, Peter. So Sony has made a middle of the road camera for middle of the road customers I think you have a point there.

Personally I always was firmly in the RF camp using an SLR only when needed. With the extension of usabilty of the M by the EVF Leica has catered for that need. Probably the reason why I regard all this excitement in a somewhat bemused manner.

Come to think of it, the Leica M eats into the market for the A7R that way, not the other way around, as do the small and handy DSLRs that are appearing on the market. Interesting times.

[dwbell]

I agree with Jaap, for once. Except that the A7R delivers better image quality than the M240 for less than half the price. That the build quality is excellent, certainly more than adequate. And the practical usability of the camera covers a greater spectrum of potential uses than a RF camera.

 

So if RF is important to your work. Or if you value beautifully hand made objects at the expense of high price, relativley poor electronics and increasingly inferior image quality. Then Leica is for you and no-one should be able to say otherwise.

[mben]

I just got off the phone with Leica New Jersey Technical Support and they specifically stated that they have all parts for the M8 except the LCD. When specifically asked if, they were running out of or had run out of motherboards and shutters... the guy said they have them in stock and they are not running out.

 

I asked about the LCD and was transferred to the Repair Department. They stated that I would be eligible for a trade in toward an ME or an M240!

 

I have here an M8, belonging to an agency member, with faulty shutter and motherboard which returned from Solms not serviced - parts not available anymore.

 

In December I will check with Leica US to see if this M8 can be repaired. Bringing or sending the M8 to the US from Italy is an inconvenience, due to potential customs interference.

 

Right now a working M8 has a resale value in the € 1000 range, so I do not expect that trade-up you mentio to be offered on favourable terms. The faulty M8 owner has no intention to get either the M240 or the ME, though - reportage work has its metrics.

 

Thanks for the info on Leica US.

 

Best regards,

 

M

[jaapv]

I agree with Jaap, for once. Except that the A7R delivers better image quality than the M240 for less than half the price. That the build quality is excellent, certainly more than adequate. And the practical usability of the camera covers a greater spectrum of potential uses than a RF camera.

 

So if RF is important to your work. Or if you value beautifully hand made objects at the expense of high price, relativley poor electronics and increasingly inferior image quality. Then Leica is for you and no-one should be able to say otherwise.

You agree that the image quality argument is not relevant any more and then you use it ?

[jedi996sps]

I agree with Jaap, for once. Except that the A7R delivers better image quality than the M240 for less than half the price. .

 

I do not have an M240 so cannot comment personally on my experience with image quality from that. But, the following 2 images are 100% crops from the A7r, handheld, 50mm lux at 1.4 at iso 125..... both images converted to jpeg with Sony Converter Software rather than in camera. The 1st image is straight out of camera so to speak with all setting in camera set to off, 2nd image has had some sharpening applied to it in photoshop.

 

I am more than happy with this quality, especially so as this was a hand held shot and these are 100% crops

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!

[dwbell]

You agree that the image quality argument is not relevant any more and then you use it ?

 

How about that, huh?

[Thomas Chen]

Thomas,

 

I am not sure if there is a problem with the diameter of the Hawk's opening for the Leica M to NEX helicoid for the FF A7 and A7r cameras. It is definitely has a smaller diameter than my Novoflex Leica R to NEX adapter. The diameter opening for the Hawk's helicoid is about the same as my Phigment Leica M to NEX adapter. I am still waiting for my A7r to arrive for confirmation of this. But, I think that the diameter opening for the Leica R lenses is probably related to the diameter of the Leica R glass itself and quite possibly the distance from the sensor plane. Both K-H and I can confirm if there is a problem for the diameter of both the Hawk's helicoid and the Phigment adapter once we receive our A7r cameras.

 

I will say though that when I mounted my Minolta CLE MC 40mm f2.8 M-Rokkor lens with the Phigment adapter onto the Pre-production A-7r at PhotoPlus on October 24 I did not notice any vignetting on the camera screen at the rather close focusing distances but it was not something for which I was looking.

Rich

 

Rich,

 

I found the clue that the contour or shape of inner portion of an M lense-E mount adapter(Hawk Factory's in my case) may have something to do with the vignetting of images created by A7R + M lense.

 

Seeing the images that MarkP posted in the link #2757 and #2759, vignetting takes place only at the left edge and right edge, nothing happen in the upper and lower edge (M240 + 21 Lux). However, my post on the link #2721 reveals that vignetting appears at all edges especially the left and the right, implying the light ray be obstructed somehow.

 

Another example is the post by Dwell in the link #2712. I dispaly both the images of A7R+Zeiss 35/2.8FE and A7R+35Cron at f2.8 on a 27" monitor. The former is entirely free of vignetting however the 35Cron shows vignetting and magenta cast at the upper right corner. The side by side comparison of the 35Cron images before and after shading compensation with Sony Image Data Converter is hown here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kqcx4w9jgh91w9l/Correction%20for%20Vigenetting.docx

 

I guess the rays leaving the exit element of 35FE hit all the way to the sensor, however, rays leaving 35Cron may be restricted somewhat by smaller inner diameter owing to helicoid or the reflection of inner surfaces that are not well blackened with matt surface to ensure absolutely non-reflective.

 

Most current M-E adapterwere designed for NEX with APS-C sensor whatever Novoflex, metabones or Hawk Factory's. What is alright for NEX may not be readily applied to the A7R if to be confirmed. Perhaps you and K.H. can delve into the truth and then urge the adapter manufactures to develop the dedicated M lense to A7 E mount adapter, eliminating the vigneting issue.

 

Thanks and Regards,

 

Thomas Chen

[Jaybob]

No A7 as of yet but longtime NEX user....135 2.8 on a louped NEX-5.

 

The images on the sensor (the end results) were stunning, but my experimentation didn't last but a few weeks. Your mileage may vary...

 

I think if you are not using an EVF and are composing on the LCD any camera is hard to hold for very long. An extended loup doesn't allow you to press the camera against your face either. The heavier it is the harder to hold. The Nex has a much smaller grip than the A7 thus it doesn't allow you to use all of your fingers to grasp the camera. So heavier lenses are hard to hold regardless of how large they are. The A7 works much better. Additionally there is an add on grip available for the A7 for those who want a larger grip or a vertical hand position.

 

Sorry, I wasn't paying attention. This is the uncropped photo...The eye cup on the loupe made it very easy to hold against my face, but the lens (and adapter !!!), still made it unforgiving in practice. I never even tried using the screen alone. The NEX 6 alleviates all of these problems, but a 90 Elmarit (135 in real world terms) is as far out as I reach.

 

My point was that most R lenses (or adapted Canon EF or Nikon lenses...) are probably too large for comfortable use on the form factor of the Sony body. I cannot imagine using my 17-35 or 105 Nikkors adapted on a Sony. Just my opinion, the native Sony E mount lenses are too big for the camera.

 

I think the size difference is negligible. http://camerasize.com/compare/#487,375

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!

[IkarusJohn]

I do take your point Jaap (though I do find the way you make it more than a little smug).

 

Perhaps I should be clear - the camera in my bag is my Monochrom, with the Noct on it. 18MP is plenty for me (I have a 1 metre Whitewall print above my dining table, taken with the Monochrom and 75 Summilux). I like the RF, I don't mind the firmware, the LCD, the shutter sound or anything else about this camera. The M9 technology is perfect for me.

 

I don't need the M(240).

 

But I'm pissed that Leica will abandon me and my M9 and Monochrom before I've got my money's worth (Oh, in about 40 years). We don't know when Sony will abandon A7 owners, but at a third of the price, I'm less worried.

 

With the fantastic image quality available now, why upgrade to the M(240)? Because those of us who haven't know that we're on a short leash before Leica abandons us. Continually upgrading digital Leicas I find wasteful, though Rick makes a good point that trading reduces the cost of ownership. I just like to use things I like till they die and can't be fixed. I thought that was part of Leica ownership - it's certainly in their marketing.

 

Bemused indeed! How patronising.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[algrove]

IMHO, if many R lenses are not too big to use on the M240 then they are also not too big to use on the Sony a7r. Someone on here weeks ago suggested that the Sony is actually larger overall than the M240. I could care as it just might become my landscape camera for R lenses and the M240 my landscape camera for M lenses. AFA street is concerned my M240, MM and RX-1 are all useful at different times.

 

Until we have this camera in hand there is no way to tell to outcome.

[dwbell]

I do take your point Jaap (though I do find the way you make it more than a little smug).

 

Perhaps I should be clear - the camera in my bag is my Monochrom, with the Noct on it. 18MP is plenty for me (I have a 1 metre Whitewall print above my dining table, taken with the Monochrom and 75 Summilux). I like the RF, I don't mind the firmware, the LCD, the shutter sound or anything else about this camera. The M9 technology is perfect for me.

 

I don't need the M(240).

 

But I'm pissed that Leica will abandon me and my M9 and Monochrom before I've got my money's worth (Oh, in about 40 years). We don't know when Sony will abandon A7 owners, but at a third of the price, I'm less worried.

 

With the fantastic image quality available now, why upgrade to the M(240)? Because those of us who haven't know that we're on a short leash before Leica abandons us. Continually upgrading digital Leicas I find wasteful, though Rick makes a good point that trading reduces the cost of ownership. I just like to use things I like till they die and can't be fixed. I thought that was part of Leica ownership - it's certainly in their marketing.

 

Bemused indeed! How patronising.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

Come on, you can't still be surprised at Jaap's tone?

[naturephoto1]

IMHO, if many R lenses are not too big to use on the M240 then they are also not too big to use on the Sony a7r. Someone on here weeks ago suggested that the Sony is actually larger overall than the M240. I could care as it just might become my landscape camera for R lenses and the M240 my landscape camera for M lenses. AFA street is concerned my M240, MM and RX-1 are all useful at different times.

 

Until we have this camera in hand there is no way to tell to outcome.

 

Lou,

 

Here is a size comparison between the 2 camera bodies:

 

Compare camera dimensions side by side

 

By the way with the exception of the EVF hump, the Sony A7r is smaller and certainly lighter than the M240.

 

Rich

[IkarusJohn]

Come on, you can't still be surprised at Jaap's tone?

 

Of course not. But I'm not going to let it pass either.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[dwbell]

Lou,

 

Here is a size comparison between the 2 camera bodies:

 

Compare camera dimensions side by side

 

Rich

 

Some argue that you would need the EVF and the grip on the M240 for it to be a fair comparison.

 

I have both. The Sony feels lighter, and it's narrower width (left to right dimension when viewed from the top) together with it's grip make it feel considerably smaller than the M240 in the hand.