IkarusJohn Posted January 7, 2014 Share #4101 Posted January 7, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Very interesting review, thanks 3D-Kraft. The Otus is astonishingly good. I wonder if they'll produce an FE mount version. Actually, the results with the Novoflex adapter would suggest that the ZF.2 mount might be a better option - then I can use it with my D800E ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Hi IkarusJohn, Take a look here The Sony A7 thread [Merged]. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
k-hawinkler Posted January 7, 2014 Share #4102 Posted January 7, 2014 Very interesting review, thanks 3D-Kraft. The Otus is astonishingly good. I wonder if they'll produce an FE mount version. Actually, the results with the Novoflex adapter would suggest that the ZF.2 mount might be a better option - then I can use it with my D800E ... Thanks John, I agree. However, I likely could focus the Otus lens better on the A7R than on the D800E. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted January 7, 2014 Share #4103 Posted January 7, 2014 Thanks John, I agree. However, I likely could focus the Otus lens better on the A7R than on the D800E. It's an expensive lens. Any real idea what is coming for the A7 cameras. Has Zeiss said anything? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted January 7, 2014 Share #4104 Posted January 7, 2014 I haven't done critical tripod mounted back to back shoots enough to post sensibly without being slammed for inconstancies, but if you believed and saw my 35FE tests, where I established for my own uses that the A7R + 35FE delivered superior IQ than the M240 + 35cron or the A7R + 35cron, then I can say that equally for my uses the A7R + 55FE delivers better IQ than both the M240 + 50lux and A7R + 50lux. I had both round my neck for a day of shooting locally and had the "same" shot with both, although not tripod mounted, and the A7R is the clear winner for me. Just need a 75-85mm prime, can be 2.8 if to be honest and I'm good to go. One route my images are taking is a definite move away from "as narrow DoF as possible". With portraits I'm anyway looking to get the face in focus, not one eyeball. And I find that as long as I have a clear differentiation of in focus between subject and background, then software can subtly increase that relative effect easily. That is to say, get the edge of the face sharp and the background 'somewhat' OOF, then in post you can very easily increase the blurriness of th background naturally. What doesn't work so well (or takes a lot more post time) is everything sharp then cutting out the subject to blur the background. This "in between" area is the most versatile both in terms of shooting, and print preparation I find. YMMV Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimKasson Posted January 7, 2014 Share #4105 Posted January 7, 2014 I haven't done critical tripod mounted back to back shoots enough to post sensibly without being slammed for inconstancies, but if you believed and saw my 35FE tests, where I established for my own uses that the A7R + 35FE delivered superior IQ than the M240 + 35cron or the A7R + 35cron, then I can say that equally for my uses the A7R + 55FE delivers better IQ than both the M240 + 50lux and A7R + 50lux. Duncan, I tested the M240/50 Lux against the a7R/55 FE and came to the same conclusions you did. The differences are mostly in the corners. In the center, it looks like the Lux can out-resolve the M240's sensor, since, in another study, I got better on-axis performance with the Lux on the a7R than the M240. The Lux corners were smeary on the M240, though, making that not a happy combination. Sony a7R testing, part 33 | The Last Word Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimKasson Posted January 7, 2014 Share #4106 Posted January 7, 2014 The Lux corners were smeary on the M240, though, making that not a happy combination. Major error in the above that I caught too late to edit. It's the Sony a7R that shows the smeared corners with the 50 Lux, not the M240. Mea Culpa. Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted January 7, 2014 Share #4107 Posted January 7, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Major error in the above that I caught too late to edit. It's the Sony a7R that shows the smeared corners with the 50 Lux, not the M240. Mea Culpa. Jim We knew what you meant Jim. But good catch and fix. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
intermediatic Posted January 8, 2014 Share #4108 Posted January 8, 2014 I think you paint with an overly-broad brush. In my posted testing, the a7R performs well with the WATE, and the 90mm APO 'cron ASPH. Others have found the 70mm 'cron APSH a good match. My preliminary testing, thus far unpublished, indicates that the 135mm f/3.4 APO Telyt works well, too. In the case of the center parts of the frame with the WATE, and most of it with the 90mm, the a7R is able to resolve information the M240 can't, which is not surprising given the pixel count. Many shorter M-mount lenses do exhibit corner color casts (which are easily fixed) and/or corner smearing (which is hard to deal with), but not all. Careful testing and lens selection can reward the patient. Jim That's fair. But the A7R stands not as an M series replacement but as a different animal altogether. A fraction of RF lenses work on the M series and, if I'm correct, a rule of thumb is that smaller RF lenses are less likely to perform well on the A7R, thus eliminating a major advantage of the platform. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted January 8, 2014 Share #4109 Posted January 8, 2014 I am not sure that your rule of thumb as stated is correct. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimKasson Posted January 8, 2014 Share #4110 Posted January 8, 2014 ... a rule of thumb is that smaller RF lenses are less likely to perform well on the A7R... Small lenses are usually shorter in focal length, which is not helpful for the a7R. Small lenses tend to be more nearly symmetric, which is also not the direction that the a7R likes to go with short lenses. However, small lenses tend to be slow, and that's good for compatibility with the a7R. Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohannB Posted January 11, 2014 Share #4111 Posted January 11, 2014 I searched and couldn't see if this was posted already. M240vsM9vsA7R. Leica M240 vs M9 vs Sony A7R Lens Combination Review » D!RK I'll stick to my Leica. Johann Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJDrew Posted January 13, 2014 Share #4112 Posted January 13, 2014 I searched and couldn't see if this was posted already. M240vsM9vsA7R. Leica M240 vs M9 vs Sony A7R Lens Combination Review » D!RK I'll stick to my Leica. Johann The images are pretty fair in the article (although downsampling them all to 18MP might be wise), but the text reflects a bit of a Leica-centric view. Take for example, the conclusions and commentary on the LUX 50. Owning both M and A7r cameras - and the 50 'Lux ASPH, I'd come to the exact opposite conclusion about a few things. The M240 will provide better performance in the periphery. The A7r will provide better performance in the "important" part of the frame... along with greater dynamic range, improved low light performance (including DR, detail and color), and better color fidelity (particularly when using calibrated color profiles). Why is the M240 sensor better - as the writer asserts? Well - the "corners are better" - so we make the corners to be the critical comparator. There are certainly some photographers for whom the corners are very important (perhaps more important than the central and mid-frame zones?). I don't know why they are purchasing '50 LUXes, but they exist and their needs are valid. I'd bet that for many of us - a portfolio review will reveal a very very small % of photos taken with a LUX 50 that even remotely call for detail in the corners at wider apertures. For me, this number is 0.6%. That's 6 in 1,000 photos that the advantages of an M240 might be meaningful. I'm certain that if the tables were turned - and the M240 was superior in the central and mid-frame areas and provided the other imaging benefits, the Leica-centric commenters would similarly conclude that the M240 was the superior camera. I am completely comfortable with the idea that many people will draw different conclusions from the same images / comparisons. It's totally fair. But one must admit that there is no clear "winner" in this horse race, across the board and without exception. Image-related. Really wish those corners were a bit sharper! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted January 13, 2014 Share #4113 Posted January 13, 2014 Crikey, a thinker! He won't last long. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted January 13, 2014 Share #4114 Posted January 13, 2014 Never count out the thinkers! Is 7 a lucky number? I could stop posting at 7777. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted January 13, 2014 Share #4115 Posted January 13, 2014 …………………… I'm certain that if the tables were turned - and the M240 was superior in the central and mid-frame areas and provided the other imaging benefits, the Leica-centric commenters would similarly conclude that the M240 was the superior camera. ……………………. Wouldn't you have to be both Leica- or Sony-centric and also a little bit stupid to assert that either camera were superior to the other? We may, however, find that we prefer one camera to the other, and to pass judgement on each other's reasons for our personal preferences seems to me pretty much a waste of time. I prefer a camera that allows me the freedom to place the main point of interest wherever in the frame I choose, without reference to how sharp or otherwise it will be as a result. Others want the maximum possible sharpness and are perfectly happy to place their subjects more centrally to achieve this. There are splendid cameras that allow us to express our preferences and concentrate on our photography and yet here we are, still arguing about which camera is better. What an odd lot we are. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted January 13, 2014 Share #4116 Posted January 13, 2014 Why the ad hominem attack? 3 more to go to 7777. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted January 13, 2014 Share #4117 Posted January 13, 2014 No, but calling a member "also a little bit stupid". 2 more to go to 7777. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted January 13, 2014 Share #4118 Posted January 13, 2014 No, but calling a member "also a little bit stupid". 2 more to go to 7777. I didn't call him a little bit stupid and I'm disappointed that you read it that way. In fact I was agreeing with him. He was referring to those people who argue that one camera is better than the other, as was I. I do think that it is a bit stupid to argue that one camera is in any objective sense "better" than the other, although there are plenty of subjective and valid reasons why one may be preferable to each and any of us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted January 13, 2014 Share #4119 Posted January 13, 2014 I prefer a camera that allows me the freedom to place the main point of interest wherever in the frame I choose, without reference to how sharp or otherwise it will be as a result. The curious thing, and fundamental flaw, is that the M camera has a fixed focus point in the centre. My A7r sits on the shelf at the moment as I'm not sure what to do with it. I've just been tramping in the mountains for a couple of days - an outing which would have suited the A7's weather sealing and size, but I took the M9. Still love that camera, but I wish Leica had used the new technology to improve the basic functionality of the camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted January 13, 2014 Share #4120 Posted January 13, 2014 I suppose years of practise have enabled me to overcome this weakness in the whole RF concept, but I agree it is a weakness. In my experience there's no such thing as a perfect focussing arrangement or technology. Even the most sophisticated AF systems are currently very far from perfect. It's yet another of the many examples of why choosing the camera that best suits your individual priorities and preferences is such a comprehensively subjective matter. These direct comparisons are very useful to help us distinguish the differences between the cameras, perhaps to enable us each to make a more appropriate personal choice. The devil, as so often, is not in the detail but in the specious conclusion that one camera is "better" than another. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.