The Sony A7 thread [Merged]

[jankap]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

@Jaap--Are images taken with Leica R lenses on a7r OK?

 

I suppose, only if your picture shows M equipment.

Jan

[k-hawinkler]

I suppose, only if your picture shows M equipment.

Jan

 

And was bought from a Leica Boutique!

[AlanG]

It just occurred to me that there is software for Android and IOS phones for measuring vibration. I know people use these to balance motors on their RC aerial photography platforms. Maybe one could figure out how to use these to compare cameras objectively.

 

[jaapv]

I tried each of the 4 lenses on the 2 cameras identified. I have not yet had time to analyze the 80/1.4 images. Perhaps tomorrow.

 

@Jaap--Are images taken with Leica R lenses on a7r OK?

 

As long as your R lenses are made by Leica

[AlanG]

The results are difficult to duplicate, there are a few variables as well, hand hold technique, focal length, shutter speed. On my NEX 6 I have stuck with the EFCS, but I use it strictly handheld.

 

What are the benefits of using the double action, non EFCS on the A7R? Does the sensor necessitate it?

 

On my test, the only variable was the EFCS. I shot at 50mm equivalent and kept the shutter speed at 1/2. I shot about ten frames of the same subject each with EFCS off and on. I think I held the camera as steady as I am capable of through both series of shots. (My assistant was the coach for the Marine Corps' competitive pistol team and says I am very steady and smooth when holding and firing a camera.) I saw no difference between having it on and having it off regarding vibration. Yes some frames were better than others but this was similar on each series and is attributed to my lack of steadiness, not shutter vibration. I don't know if there is some reason to shoot with the dual action vs. the single action.

 

As for the A7R's sensor, presumably data can't be read off of it in the same way as the other sensors thus it can't support the EFCS mode. This is outside of my field of knowledge for sure.

[gyoung]

Gerry,

 

I changed the scene as that may better fit your purpose. Please see a set of images of various adjustment and no adjustment, at the link:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/x46j450atocels4/qdaKVcjWOn

 

The focus zone is at the highest builde, almost close to focusing at the infinity. f5.6 on a Gitzo tripod as recommended by Erwin Puts in his book "The soul of Lecia M lenses".

 

By my observation the 35Corn ASPH can well meet your demand, however, the final judgement is up to you.

 

Regards,

 

Thomas Chen

 

Hi Thomas, at last managed to have a look at these, they certainly look ok at first glance, and would be good for most things, but if you magnify and look at the right hand edge, let alone the corners you can see the sharpness go off in a way I don't expect from my Summicrons, which I have used for this sort of thing for 45 years (8 element V1 for M3 and asph).

The pic below was taken in Venice a little while ago, M6ttl handheld, Provia, most likley at 5.6 or 6.3 although I dont keep records! Just some adjustment to brightness/contrast and saturation in photoshop. I know a posted image at 800 wide doesn't do justice, but hopefully it will be good enough to show that there is little visible fall off across the frame.

Too many uncertainties for me I think, even at 35mm, let alone 21 which I also use, apart from the Summilux which is beyond my pocket and unnecessary for this sort of thing the only other 21 I have seen working reasonably is the 21/1.8 Voigtlander, which is big and heavy, and the examples show quite drastic curvature of the plane of focus which would be hard to cope with.

 

Thanks for all you work, Gerry

 

below is my 'homage' to Canaletto

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!

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As long as your R lenses are made by Leica

 

A slippery slope.... weren't some of these actually made by Minolta and Schneider? And was the 28-70 made by Sigma? So they count as long as they have "Leica" or "Leitz" on them?

[Paul J]

Horses for courses. I am serious. but do not make a living at photography. However, I cannot hand hold My 503CW with a 100 Planar and a P45+. In fact even on tripod I must lock up the mirror before shooting in order to be certain of no mirror slap. I feel the same the with a7r-tripod is better than a fast shutter speed. But then again I use it mostly with R long and wide lenses. The FE35 I got just to see how it performs and for sure the images are fine with that lens for my purposes.

 

Horses for courses, indeed.

 

The V Blad build was one of the reasons high res backs started to show the limits of that system. I used 500, 555ELX and 503CW's for a long time and the upgrading to the P65 is what lead me to the H System. The H System, while I really don't particularly like it, is an well engineered camera and it is very well dampened I use it hand held without problem which is amazing given it's size and weight and un-ergonimcs with some lenses. You really can use it like a point and shoot. Also the build tolerances on the the older Blads meant that focussing was not as accurate. In so many ways the H Blads are better and in other ways worse. As a system it leaves me cold. If you think the occasional lock up on an M is annoying you should try the H/Phase where it locks up several times in a shoot! Sometimes once every 10 minutes and you have to take the prism off, the back off and the battery out. Stangely other days it works faultlessly.

 

So in terms of camera vibration it often comes down to camera design and using a tripod is completely useless to me since the point of a camera that size is suppose to free you from that kind of rigmarole. If a tripod is needed I'm going to take the option of Medium Format every time.

[Paul J]

Hi Paul, it's good to hear from you. If I were a working photographer making a living with my photographs I probably would concentrate on the same things as you do. However, it takes all sorts of folks to move a field forward. Unless there are camera and lens designers and manufacturers and photographers who shake out the bugs you would never have the option of a more advanced future camera that satisfies all your needs with respect to performance, reliability, and haptics.

 

If you could I really would appreciate seeing more of your images.

Thanks.

 

Indeed, and I sense you get a lot of enjoyment from the experimentation so it's all good. That's a really good point about moving things forward too.

[ModernMan]

As long as your R lenses are made by Leica

 

How about the Leica branded but Kyocera made Leica R zooms?

[naturephoto1]

So far I have used 3 of my lenses with my A7r: my R 50mm f2 Summicron, my R 100mm f2.8 Apo Macro Elmarit, and my Minolta CLE MC 40mm f2 M-Rokkor. I have had the camera tripod mounted with the Novoflex ASTAT-NEX rotating collar with the Novoflex Leica R to NEX adapter for the R lenses and the Phigment Leica M to NEX adapter for the Minolta CLE 40mm lens either resting on the tripod head, elbows resting on the tripod head, or hand held. I believe, unless I am incorrect I have 100% sharp images with the R lenses focused using the camera magnifier and only 1 or 2? with the Minolta which were not sharp (1/60 sec) at about 100% crop. In my case though unlike many of you I use a tripod for probably more than 90% of my work.

 

I forgot to mention with the tripod mounted images I have been using the Sony electronic release.

 

I have to use the camera much more with my many lenses. The Phigment Leica M to NEX adapter was just sent back to Paul this morning for an update so my Minolta lens is now on my Hawk's Factory Helicoid Adapter.

 

Rich

[ModernMan]

Further on the subject of the A7r's imperfect shutter release...

 

On the A7r with the shooting mode to "speed priority continuous" the shutter release typically takes 2-3 frames when pressed. In order to get just a single frame the release has to be pressed with a very short duration, so much so that it becomes a quick poke which exacerbates camera shake.

 

Setting the mode to continuous but without "speed priority" cures the problem, but of course slows the frame rate. One could just ignore the extra shots I suppose, but other cameras with much faster frame rates manage to avoid the problem (1Dx).

[AlanG]

Sony is just using this mechanical shutter to burn through inventory. They'll have a vibration free global electronic shutter on a smaller FF body once they have maximized profits. At that point all cameras that have shutters will be retired.

[jaapv]

How about the Leica branded but Kyocera made Leica R zooms?

Good point Leica counts as Leica. Leica 4/3rds lenses by Panasonic, etc... Leica R lenses made by Sigma and Agenieux, Leica M lenses made by Schmidt , all is fine as long as it is/was sold under the Leica brand. And no, it is not OK to use another brand lens with a Leica filter mounted.

[jankap]

How about the Leica branded but Kyocera made Leica R zooms?

Here too: Leica had turnover. So ok.

 

Shall we stop this discussion?

The A7s seem to have quirks enough to discuss in this thread.

My wish would be, that people publishing pictures would give the data (f-stop, etc) of the picture.

Jan

[3D-Kraft.com]

Does the sensor necessitate it?

 

Unfortunately: yes.

 

BUT: Experience with my D800E was, that I had to choose 1 / (focal length x 3) as shutter time when hand held to get a sufficient percentage of pixelsharp photos - even with locked up mirror. So the expectation to get pixel sharp images on A7R at the classic rule of thumb (1/focal length) is not realistic anymore with such a sensor - independent of EFCS.

 

If there is a negative influence by the FCS, I think, it also depends on many other factors like the shutter time itself (resonance frequency of the overall system of lens and body etc.). As far as I remember, there was a particular issue e.g. with one of the early Oly PENs with particular lenses and particular shutter times (e.g. around 1/125s or so) that was solved later by a firmware update avoiding these problematic times.

 

To be clear: I do not want to whitewash, if there is an issue but from my experience this has to be investigated in more detail and can not be generalized. We saw that already in the discussion about WA RF lenses, where this article proved wrong the generalizations like "skip the A7/A7R if you want to shoot M-lenses below 35mm".

[AlanG]

The EFCS also has less lag time than the dual action shutter. Since the feature can be turned off and on, I am trying to understand if there is some reason to use the dual action mode. I never have used it on the Nex prior to my test. You would think Sony could explain this.

[3D-Kraft.com]

Since the feature can be turned off and on, I am trying to understand if there is some reason to use the dual action mode.

 

I saw somewhere in another forum a quote from a Sony manual that explained, in which situations it might be better to enable FCS. Perhaps someone can help to find it again...

[Rick]

Rick. Be assured that your focus problems are a matter of practice. Having used a NEX-7 extensively, the transition to A7r was smooth - but I had the same problems when I first used NEX. You learn it.

 

Also be assured that large MP cameras, when you pixel peep, amplify camera shake. The same amount of blur with an M9 and an A7r will look almost twice as bad with an A7r.

 

Also, at very high MP, viewed at 100%, DoF is very very shallow. The area that appears sharp at 100% on a 36MP file is significantly more shallow than the same for an 18MP camera. View your photos at 50%, and it'll be far more reasonable to assess focus.

 

As for color shifts with Leica lenses, you will need to download and use the Adobe Flat Field plugin. What you do is import your files as DNG, make neutral calibration images with your lenses at various apertures, and the plugin foxes the color problems. The M240 and M9 has similar problems (very bad on the M240) - but uses in-camera software to fix the problem. My Summilux is fantastic on this camera - so are you peeping the corners at wide apertures? What makes you feel sad about its performance? Is it perhaps the processing?

 

As for color - this is what many experts (even Lloyd Chambers) is saying is so amazing about this camera.

 

"Double pump Mag" - This is a matter of practice. It feels uncomfortable and cumbersome until your fingers know exactly where everything is by intuition. Kind of like finding the aperture ring on a new lens. It's easy to have the camera button layout set up to make manual focusing and confirmation a simple affair.

 

"The shutter release is crappy." Cannot address your personal feelings and complaints, which are valid - but try this trick. Assign the AF/MF button to focus magnify. This allows your to half-press the shutter, magnify and release the shutter without cancelling the enlarged view. It really gets fast, and for shallow Dof applications - you really can achieve a better hit rate than focus/recompose/compensate with a rangefinder.

 

Time will cure most ills with this camera - but it will take more work in LightROOM to fully realize the camera's potential. This can be seen as a drawback. Try to keep an open mind and clear away that initial "this is new and I don't like it" frustration.

 

If you want more info on Adobe Flat field, please feel free to contact me.

 

Thank you for this well toned and helpful post. Much appreciated as compared to dwbells' Sony fanboy and anti-Leica "steel barreled shotgun" reply post. I am really not interested in comparing the two cameras as they are so different. I am interested in how my Leica M-lenses work on the A7R and if it can replace my M. Short answer: No.

 

Also, I do understand down sampling to compare files. I have used the flat field plug-in, but have not had much use for it with M-lenses on the M240. I also have extensive experience with dual illum. profiles and LR PP.

 

I'll try the suggestions for the shutter and the double push to get mag focus. Thanks for that another poster.

 

By the way, I was impressed with some city shots taken with my 280/4 APO. detail from corner to corner is just the best I've ever seen. Really, exactly what you'd expect from the difference between 24 and 36 MP. OOF areas in the background with this lens have always been one of my all time favorites and it seems really smooth on the A7R. Why? Tonal range? Viewer prejudice?

 

The sparkles peeking when used, for example, with the 280/4 APO has to me set to minimum, but it still shows much to broad an area of contrast detection. I am assuming the lens just has so much contrast that it is outside the expected amount even at low setting. In good light the image is very clear in the EVF and I think I am having better luck just using the sharpness of the image to get focus. Anyone else doing this ?

 

I've pretty much given up on the M-lenses except for the WATE and the 90 Macro Elmar. The 90mm Macro Elmar is beyound fantastic for image quality, focus ability and handling. This little Sony seems to work well with this lens. Hand holding this small lens is produces little camera shake. I seem to have a higher hit rate of clear pictures with it... and when they are good they are divine. The lens collapses and this has to be the ultimate 90mm for the Sony A7R for all of these reasons. If, you can live with f4 and the funky but great functioning hood, I can recommend it.

 

The WATE is great too. Color shading is minimal and comparable to the M240. It seems to be sharp in the corners, but the nature of the lens often makes it difficult for me to critically judge corners in a lens this wide. Recommended.

 

28mm Cron not so good. 35mm FLE and 35 Cron are ok if shot stopped down. 50mm Summilux is fine stopped down and ok wide open if you don't look for trouble.

 

All of these lenses seem to have an odd purple modeling across the frame in the shadows and in blue skies that I sometime see. This could be the LR developer from the beta 5.3 and to be honest I haven't spent the time to fine tune the color from these files like I have with the M240 which I can get very eye pleasing results with LR and PP.

 

My overall feeling is that Sony filters red and the images have a waxy look (yellow) and lack red saturation. The M240 has trouble filtering red and the primary often needs to be increased and also desaturated. I believe that people like skin tones skewed to yellow and away from red blemish looks and this is Sony, IMHO. Leica seems to look better for landscape color if the red channel is tamed a bit. All just my opinion.

 

I still like the M-lenses on the M240 for speed of focus and over all file fidelity with the exception of the above 2 lenses I mentioned which are probably better in some ways on the Sony.

 

The mag focus implementation and the focus peeking with contrasty M-lenses works better for me on the M body. I don't mount on a tripod often enough to need to move the focus patch around, but I can understand that when your scene is locked in on the tripod it could be frustrating and inaccurate to move the Leica M patch around at the loss of your composition.

 

The shutter sound is not a big deal, to me. I'm just really not a fan of the shutter release button point-of -release and the easy touch that wipes out the focus mag. I could get used to it, I suppose.

 

Certainly, if you don't have a lot of M-lenses this camera is going to be a lot more satisfying with other lenses in the normal focal length range. There are some killer shots over on GetDPI site with a host of lenses. Lots of folks are having a ball with this camera. For me, I really only have Tele R-lenses that shine on this body. I'm going to keep the A7R for a while at least and get out and shoot these lenses. If, I feel there is enough difference compared to the M240, I may keep it. I suspect I can shoot this camera into the summer and not lose much if, I decide to sell it then. At this point, I just don't see a lot of difference from 24 to 36 to justify the small amount of usage for me.

 

Lastly, although the much maligned M240 seems to be getting the reputation of being behind the technological curve, it still produces the best shooting experience for me and as a system it is going to be hard to beat for a while... at least until Sony produces some faster lenses matched to their own body. But, they may end up being good (Zeiss!) but, they aren't going to be small.

 

Oh, one last thing... I promise. The Sony is larger than the M from front of the lens to the back of the camera by quite a bit. The hand grip side is larger than the M and the EVF is taller than the M (I shoot no EVF on the M). I realize some of this is a bit of rationalization (except the front to back absolutely is longer) but, the A7R really doesn't seem smaller to me. Also, the handgrip is too small for my average size hands to grasp comfortably. And, the haptic of the M body is just nice. Of course...IMHO.

 

Rick

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[aeturnum]

Hello everyone, I've been following this thread with great interest for the last 50 pages or so.

 

I rented an A7 and a NEX-to-M adapter for the weekend and took it to several social events. I shoot film for most low-ISO opportunities, so digital is used when frame rate or high-ISO is called for. I used a 50mm Nocti Ver 2 and a Voigtlander 35mm f/1.4, the two focal lengths I like best.

 

I don't want to violate the rules, so I'll keep the photos to myself (I don't have the metadata - hard to eyeball the focal length), but I can share my experience using the camera. Generally I use a Zeiss Ikon ZM and I've owned an M9 (a wonderful camera, but too costly for its comparably poor high-iso performance), so I will compare the A7 to them.

 

The camera shell fit in my hands very well and it felt very comfortable carrying it around. The grip on the right side feels just right for the size of the camera, though my somewhat small hands probably play into this. The camera is quite small, smaller than my ZI and much smaller than an M9.

 

I found the button placement to be pretty crappy and the customization to be pretty lacking. If you want to magnify focus, you must select the region every time. I also found it very slow to move the focus region and found it frustrating that the camera forgot where I had moved it when I turned it off. I ended up generally using focus-and-recompose when magnifying (hey, it works for my RFs ). I think Sony could update the firmware and really improve these issues, but time will tell.

 

The focus magnification issues aside, focus peaking is this camera's best feature, and is the primary distinguishing feature in my mind. It does not approach the precision of a rangefinder patch, but I found it to be 'good enough' even at large (f/1.4) apertures. It has the huge advantage of being active over the entire viewfinder and of giving you a rough 'felt' understanding of he location and size of the DOF. This was my favorite part of using the camera. It's different from using a RF patch, but it has the same freedom from AF and makes composition quicker. It's quite finicky - edges that are highlighted by the peaking on the viewfinder may not be highlighted on the rear screen (and visa-versa). Edges that are peaked at 1x may not be peaked at 7 or 14x. The whole system feels very unrefined, and I would love to have Ricoh's mode 2 peaking.

 

I found the handling to be pretty good. The shutter button is a little more sensitive than I would like, but I can get used to it. The balance is a bit off with bigger lenses, but that can also be adjusted to. I used the EFCS and did not find camera shake to be more of a problem than on any other camera (M9 specifically). It's worth pointing out that this camera is lighter, and thus should be shaken more than the M9 by the same shutter movement. However, for my money the 'run and gun' experience was fine with the A7. Any slight increase in shake was offset by the increase in frame rate from the M9.

 

On the whole, I found the platform to be a really enjoyable way to use my M lenses. It does not have a rangefinder, which is a huge drawback (the great majority of my cameras use rangefinders and I miss it terribly when not using it). However, I found the focus peaking to be extremely exciting (especially in 1x view) and think it's the best focusing tech since the introduction of rangefinders. It has a lot of problems still, but I urge everyone to consider the advantages it offers.

 

Given that I don't have the same financial resources as others here (some people have an M240 and an MM! Wonderful!), I think I'm going to get the A7. I loved my M9, but it was not 'good enough' at high-iso to justify keeping for ~$4k. The A7 is. If I could afford an M240, I do not think I would buy the A7. However, with focus peaking, the A7 can offer an experience very similar to a rangefinder using new technology. I would urge everyone on this forum to keep an eye on developments because I think the tech is the best hope to be the digital 'equivalent' of the RF patch.