The Sony A7 thread [Merged]

[Mike Lavigne]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Mike, how about the RX-1, with either the AA filter or not? Buy the lens at Leica prices, get the camera free. Unbelievably quiet, non-vibratory shutter. Downside: the external EVF, but you can flip it up and look down (like the M240 finder) which you can't do with the a7 or a7R. Another downside compared to the a7R is "only" 24 megapixels. I find the menus on the RX-1 less terrible than those on the a7R.

 

Jim

 

thanks Jim,

 

when i handled the A7r i also 'handled' the RX1r. even smaller than the A7r/FE35 but you are right that it could be a better 'companion' to the M than the A7r long term for the stealthy RF mind-set which i'm seeking. and i like the integral flash for those occasions needing one.

[k-hawinkler]

Prost! Have a nice weekend!

 

(SONY a7, Leica Summicron 2/50, open, JPEG ooc)

 

Thanks, that looks great, including the beer! Prost!

[k-hawinkler]

Well, even without using one there is plenty of evidence that the 35/2 asph seems very good at near and medium distances, but like some other lenses gets soft at the edges when at or near infinity. If your work requires that then the performance is certainly not 'excellent'. And the 21/1.8 showed what I would class as extreme curvature of field in some of the shots shown. Fred Miranda forum has some examples if they are not here.

 

Gerry

 

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

Maybe useful info for a 35 mm lens to consider? Tim Ashley Photography | Sony FE 35mm F2.8 ZA on the A7R: The 'Bisto' lens.

Since he posted this initially Tim added some things.

[Doc Henry]

Prost! Have a nice weekend!

 

(SONY a7, Leica Summicron 2/50, open, JPEG ooc)

Polygamer, the color of the beer seems very real and natural

Very nice picture with Summicron 50 ...and with Summilux it should be better

at how much Isos ?

Thanks

Nice week end to you too

Best

Henry

[AlanG]

it seemed almost too small and light to hold firmly. maybe something I could get use to but it did give me pause. the M could be lighter but I like it's solid purposeful feel.

 

 

I don't know if anyone has tried the optional grip on it... I haven't seen one in person.

[Guest polygamer]

Polygamer, the color of the beer seems very real and natural

Very nice picture with Summicron 50 ...and with Summilux it should be better

at how much Isos ?

Thanks

Nice week end to you too

Best

Henry

Hi, it was at 50 ISO.

 

I was rather thirsty, as you can see ...

 

Presently, I am going through my 21 Leica M mount lenses to

find optimal combinations with the a7.

 

I see the a7 as complementary to my Leica M9 and the NEX-cameras.

 

The 35s I have almost covered. When I am through, I shall post my

findings here.

 

Until then, I shall just post a picture every now and then ...

 

as is ...

[Rick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, seeing as you asked Rick, you can be the honourable recipient of my "Dear John" letter.

 

All of this is IM(not so humble)O;

 

What am I going to do? Give the 55 FE a week and if it proves equal or better than my 35 FE the M240, 35cron, 50lux and 75cron are goin on the classifieds. My M9-P is already on there.

 

It's kind of bizarre to me to read this circuitous tortuous route that "Leica users" are going through here in these forums. Desperately trying to find a replacement for their R lenses, as Leica didn't deliver, and also looking for a "better" body for their M lenses - whilst at the same time defending the M in all it's beauty? I just don't get it. I don't have R lenses mind you. I have three M lenses but have found a cheaper, lighter, higher IQ system which is one lens away from being perfect (75, or 85 whatever it will be). So I dump the M stuff. Simples. They're tools, even if they're hand crafted, brass chiseled, crocodile skin wrapped tools they're still tools. As with all tools technology plays a part in their development. My father was a carpenter and has some beautiful hand drills. He loved them dearly, I can appreciate the quality of the craftsmanship that goes into them. But he moved to electric power tools decades ago, got better results with them and never looked back.

 

My love is for photography for the images I can't yet make to my satisfaction, not for Leica, of Manual Focus, or rangefinder focus, or Sony, or canon.

 

If I'm carrying a small system around, because the canon gear is starting to get a bit to heavy for me, then it needs to be light, for obvious reasons, have "excellent" IQ, again obvious and have versatility. Cheap is in fact a factor and money doesn't even play a role in my purchase decisions. If I'm going to drop it in the river, get it stolen, bang it against a wall, have the bag hit by a passing bus in a busy street - all things which have happened - then I prefer it to be reasonably cheap and, get this, easily replaceable. Most electrical superstores will be stocking the Sony's, if not it's an internet session and overnight delivery away.

 

Also, in full honesty, I can't get with the whole "Leica User" thing. It starts with Leica's behaviour, both in the market place, to it's customers and in one instance their attitude towards a dear friend at their facility (I know what happened, but don't want to make accusations here). It continues with the boutiques but also with types of people on the main M240 forum. I just don't fit in. It's all about "US" (Leica). Which jibes with me. I think it should all be about the image firstly, then the viewers reaction to it and then at a distant third the photographer. The head in the sand, arrogant, conservative, old fashioned, technophobic, exclusive, pseudo-luxury thing just doesn't sit well with me and I'll be better off for leaving it behind.

 

I had a question on my 5DII last weekend at a shoot. Live View engaged wasn't triggering the hot shoe radio strobe trigger (I normally shoot OVF with that system). I googled it, got a link to one thread in one forum on dpreview and found the setting that needed changing. THAT is the total extent to which I have participated in canon forums over the last, dunno - 4 years? Same with Fuji, same with Sony to date. I spend a ridiculous amount of time in these forums just trying to get the camera fixed (firmware) and work with people together to find work arounds to colour, noise, lock-ups, improvement requests etc. It's simply a waste of my time which I should be using to photograph or play with my daughter.

 

So I've enjoyed learning and understanding rangefinder photography. I can't help feeling that for the vast majority of users it isn't the best solution, even if it's the preferred solution. Which is personal preference and none of my business. If I was Leica, I'd be perfectly happy with the loyal following and defence of my brand. Look at Ferrari - being thrashed every year by a a soft drinks company in the F1 championship and still making more money through selling caps than selling cars. There are many ways to make money, Leica have chosen theirs.

 

So, I'll gladly post the comparisons that you gracefully term dry f***ing Rick for those of a technical mind who do want to d/l and evaluate the results in their own ways. And will report back the good and the bad of the lens that way. But I'm actually hoping it's on a par with the 35 so I can get out of here finally.

 

dwbellphotographer

 

Duncan,

 

Ok, well thanks for all of that, I guess... but, all I actually asked was what you were going to do in regards to your 35 FLE not working on your A7R. I just wondered if, you would be satisfied with the Sony 35/2.8 and the 55/1.8, assuming when you get it, it is good for you?

 

I understand from your long post that you are not happy with the Leica ethos and forum and Leica and the technology and the perceived QA, QC, and Q-whatever. You have made this very clear and I knew before you even got your A7R that you would, one way or another, be happy with it. After all, you had your M9-P on eBay before you even got the A7R. And I thought you just stated that it is all about the image firsts, so much for testing that out, huh? Anyway, I'm actually very happy you found something you like, I really am.

 

Myself, I am one of those Leica guys, I guess. Sorry you feel I embody all of those nasty qualities you stated above. But, the Leica works for me because, it is a camera I just pick up and shoot. I enjoy it... not because, it is a Leica. I have little idea why people, like you, get hung up with that. I am blind, in my choice, to how people perceive companies. And, I mostly don't let "the business of Leica" become personal. They are going to do what they want and I either accept that or I don't. I don't let it get under my skin.

 

I had hoped that the A7R was going to be good for me. Not because, I am taking, as you say, "circuitous tortuous route that "Leica users" are going through here in these forums." I was open-mindedly looking for a better sensor and technology to use with lenses I have including the R-lenses.

 

I see no difference in what you have discussed here along the lines of this "circuitous tortuous route" and what other Leica owners like myself have posted here. Other than, I am obviously more open-minded and less pre-set in my predigest. I seem to be more able to clearly evaluate this new technology than you, without bringing a lot of emotional baggage to the table.

 

(Someone above mentioned I'd need the camera to determine this. I've had the A7R, not the A7, since the very first of the month. I have no interest in the A7 as it is a 24MP sensor and I have the M240 for that and it seems that I enjoy the RF more than the EVF sparkles focus system).

 

They are both incredible cameras. Like viramati, I may decide to use it for longer R-lenses and keep it "in the bag"... metaphorically speaking as I don't own a bag.

 

Next, time when I ask you a simple question I would appreciate you trying not posting stuff like, "The head in the sand, arrogant, conservative, old fashioned, technophobic, exclusive, pseudo-luxury thing just doesn't sit well with me." I am really not that guy, ok?

 

Rick

[JimKasson]

when i handled the A7r i also 'handled' the RX1r. even smaller than the A7r/FE35 but you are right that it could be a better 'companion' to the M than the A7r long term for the stealthy RF mind-set which i'm seeking.

 

If your conception of the "RF mind-set" includes zone-focusing and manual focusing, either Zeiss/Sony 35mm lens will probably leave you unsatisfied because they are "focus by wire" lenses. I don't know about the 35 FE lens, but the one on the RX-1 won't maintain a focus point over a power cycle, which is a problem for some.

 

Jim

[jaapv]

Ummm.What has zone focusing to do with a rangefinder? And I focus my SLRs manually as well.

[Rick]

Has anybody tried their M 90mm Macro Elmar on the A7R? This is one lens that I am amazed with on the A7R. It is small and seems to be very easy to hand hold and focus.

[JimKasson]

Ummm.What has zone focusing to do with a rangefinder?

 

Technically, nothing. However, I've noticed that a lot of people operating Leicas use zone focusing, perhaps because the nice DOF markings on the lenses support that well. One of the characteristics of RF lenses is usually that they don't focus very close. One of the side effects of that is that the distance marking tend to be widely spaced. One of the side effects of that is that the DOF marks are easy to read, and often encompass the complete set of useful whole stops.

 

Jim

[thompsonkirk]

I need some helpful advice, please. With all A7 posts consolidated into one thread, it's so hard to search/find specific topics.

 

I'm interested in using just 28-50mm M lenses on A7 or A7r, and I'd like to know what ones have worked best, especially the 40mm Summicron. I've seen images with 40mm Nokton and Rokkor that seemed to have no corner discoloration or smearing, but I can't find anything about the 40 Cron.

 

I've already learned that some of my lenses would produce discolored or smeary results, esp. the 28 Cron and 35 Cron v4.

 

The other lenses I might be able to use are 28 Nokton (1.8 and 3.5). In 50mm, pre-Asph Lux, late 2.8 Elmar, 1.5 Sonnar-C, or an old 5cm Nikkor in an Amadeo adapter.

 

Can anyone advise me about usefulness of these M lenses?

 

And on whether A7 or A7r works best with the medium-range lenses? A Sony rep who visited CameraWest said A7r, but he didn't have one and didn't know much about them (he'd apparently just memorized a Powerpoint presentation). In contrast, a post on RFF said A7 might be best in this range of focal lengths.

 

Thank you for any advice you can give!

 

Kirk

[naturephoto1]

I need some helpful advice, please. With all A7 posts consolidated into one thread, it's so hard to search/find specific topics.

 

I'm interested in using just 28-50mm M lenses on A7 or A7r, and I'd like to know what ones have worked best, especially the 40mm Summicron. I've seen images with 40mm Nokton and Rokkor that seemed to have no corner discoloration or smearing, but I can't find anything about the 40 Cron.

 

I've already learned that some of my lenses would produce discolored or smeary results, esp. the 28 Cron and 35 Cron v4.

 

The other lenses I might be able to use are 28 Nokton (1.8 and 3.5). In 50mm, pre-Asph Lux, late 2.8 Elmar, 1.5 Sonnar-C, or an old 5cm Nikkor in an Amadeo adapter.

 

Can anyone advise me about usefulness of these M lenses?

 

And on whether A7 or A7r works best with the medium-range lenses? A Sony rep who visited CameraWest said A7r, but he didn't have one and didn't know much about them (he'd apparently just memorized a Powerpoint presentation). In contrast, a post on RFF said A7 might be best in this range of focal lengths.

 

Thank you for any advice you can give!

 

Kirk

 

Martin (Makten) over at FM has been using and testing his 40mm Summicron.

 

A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses - FM Forums

 

If you look at Martin's Flickr account I think that you may well find other images taken with the 40mm Summicron. The Minolta 40mm f2 M-Rokkor should produce very similar images.

 

Rich

[Mr_Jones]

Has anybody tried their M 90mm Macro Elmar on the A7R? This is one lens that I am amazed with on the A7R. It is small and seems to be very easy to hand hold and focus.

 

Yes I have and I was very impressed too. It does look a bit odd in macro mode with the useless goggles but the results are stellar and Mr. Puts already makes that very clear in his compendium! The other lens that really impressed me is the Zeiss 50 1.5. Both of them benefit from the evf.

 

I completely agree with your comments to Duncan, there is an air in this thread of an attempt to simplify both the Leica and Sony cameras so that there might be a win or lose conclusion to be drawn. Like you I don't think this is necessary or possible and although I won't keep the Sony I was impressed by it and I decided to stick with Leica for a few reasons that suit me.

 

I have plenty of time for people giving their opinions but a few contributors have crossed the line to try and support their favourite in this comparison.

[gyoung]

Technically, nothing. However, I've noticed that a lot of people operating Leicas use zone focusing, perhaps because the nice DOF markings on the lenses support that well. One of the characteristics of RF lenses is usually that they don't focus very close. One of the side effects of that is that the distance marking tend to be widely spaced. One of the side effects of that is that the DOF marks are easy to read, and often encompass the complete set of useful whole stops.

 

Jim

 

Thats precisely how I use the 21 and often the 35 for landscape stuff. I was very happy with the original 25/4 voigtlander which wasn't r/f coupled, neither is the 15.

 

 

Gerry

 

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[aeturnum]

I'm interested in using just 28-50mm M lenses on A7 or A7r, and I'd like to know what ones have worked best, especially the 40mm Summicron.

 

The impression I have is that the A7 does better, in general, on M lenses. The larger pixels, even without the offset micro-lenses, seem to have less color shift and vignette. It's unclear to me if the A7 has less smudging in the edges, as most of the detailed tests I've seen have been on the A7r.

 

If all you care about is comparability, the A7 will probably do better. However, there are a lot of lenses in that focal range that do very well on both bodies. I would suggest looking for your specific lenses, or simply renting an A7r and seeing how it performs with your glass.

[jaapv]

Technically, nothing. However, I've noticed that a lot of people operating Leicas use zone focusing, perhaps because the nice DOF markings on the lenses support that well. One of the characteristics of RF lenses is usually that they don't focus very close. One of the side effects of that is that the distance marking tend to be widely spaced. One of the side effects of that is that the DOF marks are easy to read, and often encompass the complete set of useful whole stops.

 

Jim

Well, the DOF markings are wildly off on the M lenses in this digital large-print age, so I doubt that is the reason. My rather unkind guess is that they are a bit uncomfortable using a rangefinder confidently.

[Rick]

You need to actually use an a7 before making those assumptions. The 50 lux and 35 chron are EXCELLENT on the a7... Some say they are better on the Sony than they are on the digital m.

 

Thus far, I've only found issues with m-mount glass under 35mm - everything above seems fine. That said, the VC 21mm f1.8 is excellent on the a7.

 

I actually have the A7R... that is the camera I am posting about. I am not making assumptions at all. I have had the camera since Dec 2nd.

 

I am not interested in the Sony A7 for my Leica M lenses. I have the M240 and it is designed for all of the wide M lenses and does exceptionally well. I am not interested in cherry picking just good M performers for either camera and going through all sorts of post processing gyrations with flat field plug-ins and shooting through plastic to make a catalog of correction files at all f-stops and for all different color temperatures.

 

When Sony introduced this camera I was lead to believe by them that the off-set micro-lenses in the corner of the sensor allowed RF lenses to work on this camera. They even market an M-E adaptor and offered it in the Australian box with the A7.

 

I have been exchanging emails with Lou (algrove) and have been talking about which lenses seem to work on the A7R... he seems to have them all. I've come to the conclusion that I don't want to do all the work around with my M lenses and there just isn't enough reason for me to keep it for my R-lenses... I can get 24MP out of my M and just carry the one body.

 

I have sent my A7R back today. I could write a long post, but there isn't a reason for that. It is going to be a fantastic camera for some for sure, and I get that.

 

Rick

[aeturnum]

When Sony introduced this camera I was lead to believe by them that the off-set micro-lenses in the corner of the sensor allowed RF lenses to work on this camera. They even market an M-E adaptor and offered it in the Australian box with the A7.

 

As far as I know, the adapter is a package deal from a specific Australian retailer. Sony's page for Australia makes no mention of it. I recall Sony reps speculating the 7r would work better, but speculation is just that.

 

That said, it's too bad the camera didn't work out for your needs. Obviously adapting non-native lenses to cameras is risky, and it's not surprising that people used to Leica results aren't happy with Sony results.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[thompsonkirk]

Quote: "When Sony introduced this camera I was lead to believe by them that the off-set micro-lenses in the corner of the sensor allowed RF lenses to work on this camera."

 

Our West Coast Sony rep still thinks this is so, though he certainly wasn't knowledgeable about the camera. But here and on RFF, folks seem to be recommending A7 more highly for M lenses.

 

For the time being, all I want is a sensor with higher ISOs for mid-range M-mount lenses, when my M9 would have trouble coping with available light. I'm going to try A7r because I don't use very wide lenses. Folks here and elsewhere have shown me that 40 Cron and 50 Sonnar-C are rather nice on it. Maybe even 50 pre-asph Lux. And I assume Sony/Zeiss will soon offer a 28 that works optimally with A7r's microlenses.

 

I passed over the M240 because I didn't like its color very much, and now that there's a firmware upgrade and waiting lists are shorter, I've unfortunately come to the conclusion that it's obsolescent. I plan to use the A7r in limited situations for a couple of years (or whatever time it takes), and the go back to Leica full time with M360 or whatever happens later.

 

Kirk