AlanG Posted December 2, 2013 Share #3161 Posted December 2, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) I know that lens very well and I have never known it to be as sharp as this. So is that a focusing issue since 36MP is only adding 25% potential resolution over 24MP? At this aperture and lighting high shutter speeds should counter any camera shake or subject movement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 2, 2013 Posted December 2, 2013 Hi AlanG, Take a look here The Sony A7 thread [Merged]. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
MarkP Posted December 2, 2013 Share #3162 Posted December 2, 2013 So is that a focusing issue since 36MP is only adding 25% potential resolution over 24MP? At this aperture and lighting high shutter speeds should counter any camera shake or subject movement. +1 I've also noticed this on the M240 with the EVF shooting wide open with lenses such as the 1.0/50 Noctilux, 2.0/75 Summicron ASPH, and 3.4/135 APO-telyt and again assume it is just giving that edge in focus accuracy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted December 2, 2013 Share #3163 Posted December 2, 2013 Well, 40 year Leica-and others-shooter. I have a number of LTM lenses that I use, including a Canon 50/14.It seems that you can't used adapted lenses on the 240. Someone please tell me I'm wrong because there's a 240 waiting for me at the camera store. On the other hand, I use my lenses on an NEX-5N so maybe an A7 wouldn't be so bad. Only R lenses from what I know. Maybe others have had success with "other" lenses, but the a7r sure has many adapters available for most lenses I know and many more I have never had the pleasure to use. Stick with the a7r. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted December 2, 2013 Share #3164 Posted December 2, 2013 The Noctilux does not reveal that detail wide open on an M9. In terms of resolution. 10% is noticeable. 25% is a lot. Up from 18MP on the M9, even more so. It's like an extra two levels of zoom in photoshop. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted December 2, 2013 Share #3165 Posted December 2, 2013 So, for the Noctilux one consideration of purchasing the A7R is to enjoy improved detail from the lens which, at "two extra zooms in PS" leads to a heightened appreciation of the lateral chromatic aberration inherent to this lens. We are in rarefied air gentlemen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted December 2, 2013 Share #3166 Posted December 2, 2013 This might be interesting to some of you guys. I have been talking to Dan at maxmax.com and they will be able to remove the thick cover glass of the 7/7R and replace it with a non AA thinner one, which practically will make the camera work perfectly with RF lenses. The drawback is that it may not work well with native AF lenses as the glass thickness is included in the AF algorithms, but probably this is no issue with CDAF of the 7R. The conversion cost is 550$ plus shipping. Turn around time is 2-3 days. Please note that I am in no way affiliated to maxmax but I will be sending my camera to them shortly after receiving it this week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted December 2, 2013 Share #3167 Posted December 2, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) I appreciate the detail but I am not sure if the serial number on a trombone or the detail on a bike saddle are very objective subjects to use for any comparisons. It does look sharp in those places. However if true it seems to me that we are not really sure what the limits of sharpness could be with some lenses until they are tried out on still higher res cameras. Haven't people been using the Noctilux on the 24MP Nex 7 APS camera for the past couple of years? That is around a 56 MP FF equivalent. But the Nex has an AA filter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted December 2, 2013 Share #3168 Posted December 2, 2013 This might be interesting to some of you guys. I have been talking to Dan at maxmax.com and they will be able to remove the thick cover glass of the 7/7R and replace it with a non AA thinner one, which practically will make the camera work perfectly with RF lenses. The drawback is that it may not work well with native AF lenses as the glass thickness is included in the AF algorithms, but probably this is no issue with CDAF of the 7R. The conversion cost is 550$ plus shipping. Turn around time is 2-3 days. Please note that I am in no way affiliated to maxmax but I will be sending my camera to them shortly after receiving it this week. Wouldn't the IR filter be in that layer? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted December 2, 2013 Share #3169 Posted December 2, 2013 This might be interesting to some of you guys. I have been talking to Dan at maxmax.com and they will be able to remove the thick cover glass of the 7/7R and replace it with a non AA thinner one, which practically will make the camera work perfectly with RF lenses. The drawback is that it may not work well with native AF lenses as the glass thickness is included in the AF algorithms, but probably this is no issue with CDAF of the 7R. The conversion cost is 550$ plus shipping. Turn around time is 2-3 days. Please note that I am in no way affiliated to maxmax but I will be sending my camera to them shortly after receiving it this week. Many thanks. I am looking forward to see how different the behavior of the modified relative to the unmodified A7R is. Will you have an opportunity to compare the two, side by side? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted December 2, 2013 Share #3170 Posted December 2, 2013 So, for the Noctilux one consideration of purchasing the A7R is to enjoy improved detail from the lens which, at "two extra zooms in PS" leads to a heightened appreciation of the lateral chromatic aberration inherent to this lens. We are in rarefied air gentlemen. There is truck loads more detail and it makes for 24x16 native prints, up from 11x17 from the M9. That's a LOT. What's not to love? Give me the resolution baby! As for the Lateral CA, just get rid of it. It's digital! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted December 2, 2013 Share #3171 Posted December 2, 2013 Rick, yes, they will remove the AA filter and replace the UV/IR with a thinner one. KH, I will take a few shots with my ZM lenses before sending the camera away, in order to see what is the difference exactly. I am getting the 7 btw, not the 7R. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted December 2, 2013 Share #3172 Posted December 2, 2013 Rick, yes, they will remove the AA filter and replace the UV/IR with a thinner one. KH, I will take a few shots with my ZM lenses before sending the camera away, in order to see what is the difference exactly. I am getting the 7 btw, not the 7R. Ok, but doesn't the 7R claim to have no AA filter? What would be the point? To just get a thinner IR filter? And on your 7 you would just get a thinner IR filter? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted December 2, 2013 Share #3173 Posted December 2, 2013 I appreciate the detail but I am not sure if the serial number on a trombone or the detail on a bike saddle are very objective subjects to use for any comparisons. It does look sharp in those places. However if true it seems to me that we are not really sure what the limits of sharpness could be with some lenses until they are tried out on still higher res cameras. Haven't people been using the Noctilux on the 24MP Nex 7 APS camera for the past couple of years? That is around a 56 MP FF equivalent. But the Nex has an AA filter. I could care less about the serial number or the bike saddle. I see the detail and I think what I can do with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted December 2, 2013 Share #3174 Posted December 2, 2013 The thicker filter is contributing to things such as smearing seen in a lot of these non native lensed images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted December 2, 2013 Share #3175 Posted December 2, 2013 Wouldn't the IR filter be in that layer? My first thought - you beat me to it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted December 2, 2013 Share #3176 Posted December 2, 2013 Rick, yes, they will remove the AA filter and replace the UV/IR with a thinner one. KH, I will take a few shots with my ZM lenses before sending the camera away, in order to see what is the difference exactly. I am getting the 7 btw, not the 7R. Edward (I presume that's your first name, but please correct me if you would like to be addressed differently. Thanks) Good luck with your adventure. Certainly a very interesting experiment. If forbid the experiment should fail, could they put the old piece of glass back in? Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted December 2, 2013 Share #3177 Posted December 2, 2013 As for the Lateral CA, just get rid of it. It's digital! LCA can not be completely "get rid of" in digital. From what I know, the color can be made to be less purple, but unless you want to spent a lot of time in PS, it is still going to be there, just desaturated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted December 2, 2013 Share #3178 Posted December 2, 2013 My first thought - you beat me to it! We are thinking about the same problem with removing the IR filter and replacing it with a thinner one, Mark. The resolution might be up, but guys like Marc would find the color unmanageable. This gets back to the whole problem with the color on the M. Marc has concluded that it is the thinner IR cover over the M sensor that contributes to the unmanageable color for him. So, I would tend to believe that those that have agreed with him are going to be disappointed in the color while gaining the possible advantage of less smearing in the corners like the M has. I can't wait to get the A7R tomorrow. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted December 2, 2013 Share #3179 Posted December 2, 2013 We are thinking about the same problem with removing the IR filter and replacing it with a thinner one, Mark. The resolution might be up, but guys like Marc would find the color unmanageable. This gets back to the whole problem with the color on the M. Marc has concluded that it is the thinner IR cover over the M sensor that contributes to the unmanageable color for him. So, I would tend to believe that those that have agreed with him are going to be disappointed in the color while gaining the possible advantage of less smearing in the corners like the M has. I can't wait to get the A7R tomorrow. Hi Rick, Good luck with your new tool. I am looking forward to your images and experiences. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted December 2, 2013 Share #3180 Posted December 2, 2013 I guess I'm wondering now that if high levels of c/a and/or other lens "defects" (correctable or not in post) are ok, then is it possible to make a similarly sharp very fast lens for a selling price that is a lot less than $11,000? E.g, maybe I'd rather have distortion and vignetting. I'll start work on my own lens designs tomorrow. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.