The Sony A7 thread [Merged]

[Rick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Here are some preliminary thoughts on the camera from Roger at lensrentals.

 

Jeff

 

Intersting indeed. I guess there are a few take aways from that article:

 

1. Adaptors seem to have a lot of variation. As was repotted early on, adaptors can degrade image quality. Maybe the Leica R-M adaptor will be worth the money as Leica seems to do precision mechanics quite well.

 

2. Roger's results give measurements to quantify my frustration with most of the lenses I mounted on the A7R, including focal lengths as long as my 50mm Summilux. As compared to my corner shots on the Leica M, the A7R was a disappointment. The A7R definitely had great center sharpness, but there is more to be figured out on why the edges seem so poor.

 

3. The center of A7R images are amazing and now we have an idea of just how amazing it is. For most photographs the edge resolution will make no difference if, lenses that work well on the A7R are used.

 

4. Leica appears to have some technical understanding of what is needed to get across the frame sharpness out of its sensor. The M240 is still holding its own.

 

4. I'd like to see Lens Rentals do the same sort of testing with a long Tele APO lens to help understand what is going on at the edge of the A7R sensor.

 

5. Glad I returned my A7R. I'm getting tired of being a beta tester. M8 beta. M9 beta. M240 pretty close to perfect... almost no beta type problems. RX1 about as perfect as it gets for a new camera release...it is not a beta.

[3D-Kraft.com]

5. Glad I returned my A7R. I'm getting tired of being a beta tester. M8 beta. M9 beta. M240 pretty close to perfect... almost no beta type problems.

 

Rick, I understand your point of view but it is purely legacy Leica M lens oriented. The fact, that an A7R does not perform well with every (especially the most extremely compact designs) M-mount lens is no indication that an A7R is "beta". It simply has a different philosophy and design goals. And I disagree that the M240 is not beta and pretty close to perfect, but that's a different story discussed excessively in the M240 threads.

 

The Author claims the Hyperprime is much sharper than the Noctilux and provides a single comparison picture.

 

Photozone recently measured the Leica Noctilux 50mm f/0.95 ASPH and the SLR Magic HyperPrime 50mm T0.95 performance:

Noctilux: Leica Noctilux-M 50mm f/0.95 ASPH - Review / Test Report

HyperPrime: SLR Magic Hyperprime LM 50mm T/0.95 - Review / Test Report

 

For those who do not want to read the test: The Noctilux is better when stopped down to f/4.0 and further, the HyperPrime is better in the range from open aperture to f/4.

Edited December 17, 2013 by 3D-Kraft.com

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jankap]

Rick, I understand your point of view but it is purely legacy Leica M lens oriented. The fact, that an A7R does not perform well with every (especially the most extremely compact designs) M-mount lens is no indication that an A7R is "beta".

 

A beta tester is somebody, who tries a new product immediately before the introduction to the market. He should find, where the product has to be optimized a little bit.

Beta does not indicate a qualification of the product.

 

There also is the term alpha test. This test is performed to check, if the design of a product fulfills the main requirements. If no, the product must be redesigned.

Jan

[Doc Henry]

Next to the Summilux I certainly take the 55 Zeiss comparing curves at f:1.4 and 4

http://lenses.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/downloadcenter/datasheets_otus/otus_1455.pdf

http://www.summilux.net/m_system/images/Summilux50Asph.pdf

Henry

[rosuna]

This app can be installed in the camera, and it corrects (on the RAW) the vignetting, distortion, chromatic aberrations and magenta cast...

 

https://www.playmemoriescameraapps.com/portal/usbdetail.php?eid=IS9104-NPIA09014_00-000008

 

It costs 10 euros and you can create and save profiles for different lenses...

 

It doesn't work on the A7 and A7r cameras yet.

 

It is a good idea for Leica... if this is possible. Well, it would be great for Zeiss or Voigtlander lenses... or even for Leica lenses if you don't like the automatic corrections...

[Jaybob]

This app can be installed in the camera, and it corrects (on the RAW) the vignetting, distortion, chromatic aberrations and magenta cast...

 

https://www.playmemoriescameraapps.com/portal/usbdetail.php?eid=IS9104-NPIA09014_00-000008

 

It costs 10 euros and you can create and save profiles for different lenses...

 

It doesn't work on the A7 and A7r cameras yet.

 

It is a good idea for Leica... if this is possible. Well, it would be great for Zeiss or Voigtlander lenses... or even for Leica lenses if you don't like the automatic corrections...

 

Back from 10 pages ago....

 

 

I have it for the NEX-6, it's an add on that is not very well documented, and I bought it not so much to let the camera correct the image, (I use basic LR lens correction), but with the hopes of being able to select the lens I was shooting with, and then to incorporate that information into the RAW metadata of the file.

 

However, the app only works if you're shooting in JPG, something I would tell any new Sony NEX or A7/r shooter to avoid doing. RAW files are the only way to go.

 

 

This application only works with JPG files! You cannot even select RAW files when the app is running.

 

Even working with JPG, the lens information isn't saved into the metadata of the file for normal post processing. It still reads a blank lens in LR.

The app is a step below useless, just my opinion, as someone who wasted $10 on it.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Jaybob

[Guest polygamer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This app can be installed in the camera, and it corrects (on the RAW) the vignetting, distortion, chromatic aberrations and magenta cast...

 

https://www.playmemoriescameraapps.com/portal/usbdetail.php?eid=IS9104-NPIA09014_00-000008

 

It costs 10 euros and you can create and save profiles for different lenses...

 

It doesn't work on the A7 and A7r cameras yet.

Hi, do you have any experience of using this app yourself?

[k-hawinkler]

Tim Ashley Photography | Camera, Lens, Accessory and Image Awards 2013

[Jaybob]

Using Lens Compensation, the "saved" lens information doesn't even show up in the native Sony software that shipped with my NEXes Sony PlayMemories Home, or the downloaded Sony Image Data converter.

 

I'm sure this app can be used to adjust your NEX 5 or 6's adapted lens distortion, or chromatic aberrations, but if those things show up, I'd rather look at those on an image by image basis on an actual computer screen, where I have complete control of it. I personally don't like to let the camera do anything except what I tell it to. I attach the lens, set the ISO, WB, aperture, shutter speed and frame advance, and it records a RAW image file. If corrections are needed, that should be done later on a much more powerful computer using proper image editing software.

 

This app shouldn't be downloaded for use with the A7/R not only because it more than likely does not work, but because the idea of an app like this is totally flawed.

 

See how many things in this document don't make sense to you...

 

https://www.playmemoriescameraapps.com/portal/manual/IS9104-NPIA09014_00-000008/en/index.html

Edited December 17, 2013 by Jaybob

[Guest polygamer]

Using Lens Compensation, the "saved" lens information doesn't even show up in the native Sony software that shipped with my NEXes Sony PlayMemories Home, or the downloaded Sony Image Data converter.

 

I'm sure this app can be used to adjust your NEX 5 or 6's adapted lens distortion, or chromatic aberrations, but if those things show up, I'd rather look at those on an image by image basis on an actual computer screen, where I have complete control of it. I personally don't like to let the camera do anything except what I tell it to. I attach the lens, set the ISO, WB, aperture, shutter speed and frame advance, and it records a RAW image file. If corrections are needed, I that should be done later on a much more powerful computer using proper image editing software.

 

This app shouldn't be downloaded for use with the A7/R not only because it more than likely does not work, but because the idea of an app like this is totally flawed.

 

See how many things in this document don't make sense to you...

Hi, to make it short, I have the app installed on my NEX-6.

 

To me, it appears to dull the picture (but it removes colour shift),

so I do not use it anymore.

 

Instead, I avoid using the lenses that need the app.

 

I would do the same with my SONY a7 ...

[Rick]

Rick, I understand your point of view but it is purely legacy Leica M lens oriented. The fact, that an A7R does not perform well with every (especially the most extremely compact designs) M-mount lens is no indication that an A7R is "beta". It simply has a different philosophy and design goals. And I disagree that the M240 is not beta and pretty close to perfect, but that's a different story discussed excessively in the M240 threads.

 

My point is not about only purely legacy Leica M lens. As a matter of fact, it isn't even about Leica lenses. It is about the poor corner performance of the A7R. The first tests done by Roger were done with a Sony EF mount lens and several non-Leica lenses on the A7R. Again, the issue arising now is why the corner performance with standard lenses on the A7R seems to fall off?

 

In the Lens Rentals tests LensRentals.com - Sony A7R: A Rising Tide Lifts All the Boats? the A7R did not perform well in the corners with even its own E-mount lens. In the corners the A7R resolved only 750 Lp/IH with the new Sony 35mm/f1.8 EF lens. The Lens Rental testing showed with the the Canon 35mm f2 IS the A7R resolved at the corner 560 Lp/iH With the Zeiss ZE 50mm f2 Makro Planar the A7R only resolved 440 Lp?IH. These are not legacy Leica M mount lenses. And, one of them is a Sony lens designed for the E mount.

 

The only Leica M mount lens used in the Lens Rental testing was the Leica 50mm/2.0 Summicron APO, which is not a retrofocus lens design at all. When the A7R was compared to the M240 the A7R resolved only 710 Lp/IH while, the Leica M240 resolved 840 Lp/IH in the corners with this lens (Leica APO 50). By the way, the Leica M240 was shown to have corner resolution of 860Lp?IH on previous Lens Rental testing done with the 50mm/f1.4 Summilux.

 

So, I'm not sure what is going on with the poor performance in the corners with the Sony A7R. This was a camera that was touted by Sony to have off-set micro lenses and was supposed to have been designed to have good corner performance because of this. This is the issue I had right from the start and why I returned the camera. The tests just support this observation with quantifiable numbers.

[Guest polygamer]

Hi, Rick, I went through my 21 Leica M mount lenses with my SONY a7.

 

My impressions are: the SONY a7 delivers spotty performance with Leica M mount lenses.

 

Very good in the centre, but not as impressive in the corners.

 

But for me, it is early days.

 

I must take my time in real life trials ...

[aeturnum]

It is about the poor corner performance of the A7R.

..

one of them is a Sony lens designed for the E mount.

 

I agree that the A7r is an inferior platform for M lenses when compared to the M240 (or the M9). However, I think it's an entirely different thing to say the camera has problems in general.

 

I think all we can conclude from the test is that the A7r has middling adapted lens performance. The only native lens used is the FE 35mm 2.8, which gets 750 LP/IH at f/4. That's a higher number than the 'competing' lenses on the D800e, and is only eclipsed by the APO-Summicron on an M240. A very good number by any measure. It's clear Sony can get very good resolution numbers out of the corners of their sensor.

 

To look at this test and make general conclusions about the A7R would be like judging the M240 entirely based on photos using adapted Canon lenses. If you want to judge the strength of a system, at least do it the courtesy of using equipment designed for it.

[Guest polygamer]

I agree that the A7r is an inferior platform for M lenses when compared to the M240 (or the M9). However, I think it's an entirely different thing to say the camera has problems in general.

 

I think all we can conclude from the test is that the A7r has middling adapted lens performance. The only native lens used is the FE 35mm 2.8, which gets 750 LP/IH at f/4. That's a higher number than the 'competing' lenses on the D800e, and is only eclipsed by the APO-Summicron on an M240. A very good number by any measure. It's clear Sony can get very good resolution numbers out of the corners of their sensor.

 

To look at this test and make general conclusions about the A7R would be like judging the M240 entirely based on photos using adapted Canon lenses. If you want to judge the strength of a system, at least do it the courtesy of using equipment designed for it.

Trying to stay polite, I own and use 21 Leica M mount lenses.

 

That is my background.

 

For me, it is easy.

 

If I am not satisfied with my so-called FF SONY a7, I shall find an area where I can use it.

 

We are talking petty cash ...

Edited December 17, 2013 by polygamer
syntax

[Rick]

I agree that the A7r is an inferior platform for M lenses when compared to the M240 (or the M9). However, I think it's an entirely different thing to say the camera has problems in general.

 

I agree. I don't think the camera has problems in general. It is a nice camera. It just isn't living up to "my" expectations of what a 36MP sensor can achieve in the corners with the lenses available right now that have been tested on it. Certainly, retrofocus designs and lenses with exit pupils close to the sensor are more problematic. The corner performance on all lenses is starting to look handicapped.

 

I think all we can conclude from the test is that the A7r has middling adapted lens performance. The only native lens used is the FE 35mm 2.8, which gets 750 LP/IH at f/4. That's a higher number than the 'competing' lenses on the D800e, and is only eclipsed by the APO-Summicron on an M240. A very good number by any measure. It's clear Sony can get very good resolution numbers out of the corners of their sensor.

 

Partially true. Corner performance on the A7R is also eclipsed by the Leica M240 + 50mm Summilux. The A7R does turn in a "good" number, but I would have expected more from a 36MP sensor. I am not sure if it is adaptor problems. I suspect it is just not that "good" in the corners.

 

To look at this test and make general conclusions about the A7R would be like judging the M240 entirely based on photos using adapted Canon lenses. If you want to judge the strength of a system, at least do it the courtesy of using equipment designed for it.

 

I'd love to do it that courtesy except there is only one lens available at this time that is designed for it. And, Sony sold this thing on the belief that 2nd party lenses would work on it... or at least we could "try" them. They are just now getting caught in that lie (not quite the truth or exaggeration or not specifically stated... but implied).

 

By the way, your "very good" 710Lp/IH for the A7R (while the 24MP M240 is capable of 860Lp/IH with the old Summilux) would mean that, when the 36MP M360 comes out, if it had "very good" corner performance, it would be going backwards in corners performance.

Edited December 17, 2013 by RickLeica

[magosak]

For me the the superiority of the center performance of A7R over M is more significant than its slightly poor corner performance. I would say, A7R walked all over Leica M with it's own 50mm f/2 APO-Summicron ASPH lens as far as the center performance is concerned - 1550 Lp/IH vs 1135 Lp/IH. Not bad for a camera that costs 1/3 of the price of M.

[Ozkar]

For me the the superiority of the center performance of A7R over M is more significant than its slightly poor corner performance. I would say, A7R walked all over Leica M with it's own 50mm f/2 APO-Summicron ASPH lens as far as the center performance is concerned - 1550 Lp/IH vs 1135 Lp/IH.

 

Not bad for a camera that costs 1/3 of the price of M.

 

The price difference Down Under is much greater. After selling my freeby Metabones adapter, my A7R cost $1600. An M240 with EVF would have cost $9000. The difference was enough to fund a used WATE and 50 LUX ASPH.

 

I was more than willing to stump up for a new M240, but for the lenses I use and for my needs (which includes video) the A7R is a superior solution.

[Rick]

For me the the superiority of the center performance of A7R over M is more significant than its slightly poor corner performance. I would say, A7R walked all over Leica M with it's own 50mm f/2 APO-Summicron ASPH lens as far as the center performance is concerned - 1550 Lp/IH vs 1135 Lp/IH. Not bad for a camera that costs 1/3 of the price of M.

 

The A7R should have better center performance for a 36MP camera. We are comparing a it to a 24MP camera. But, it should also have better corner performance. What good is it to be able to state that it walks all over a 24MP camera if, it performs worse than a 24MP camera as it moves off center and into the corners.

 

The point isn't that the Sony is good in the center, it is more at; why isn't it performing as well in the corners. It has nothing to do with wide Leica RF lenses. The camera has recorded less than expected corner performance. Why? That's all.

 

I guess owners can ask these questions... or, use a wider focal length lens and just crop.

[Ozkar]

The A7R should have better center performance for a 36MP camera. We are comparing a it to a 24MP camera. But, it should also have better corner performance. What good is it to be able to state that it walks all over a 24MP camera if, it performs worse than a 24MP camera as it moves off center and into the corners.

 

The point isn't that the Sony is good in the center, it is more at; why isn't it performing as well in the corners. It has nothing to do with wide Leica RF lenses. The camera has recorded less than expected corner performance. Why? That's all.

 

I guess owners can ask these questions... or, use a wider focal length lens and just crop.

 

I can't help but fell that many are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Let me quote Roger Cicala:

 

"Just in case you missed that, the Sony A7R with 35mm f/2.8 lens shot at f/2.8 outresolved the Nikon D800e with either the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G shot at f/4 or the Zeiss 50mm f/2 shot at f/5.6. Stopped down to f/4 to even the playing field, the Sony was clearly higher. In fact, the only lens-camera combinations we’ve seen with that kind of MTF50 is the Zeiss Otus 55mm mounted to a D800e."

 

The A7R/M240 corner tests you base your hard and fast assessment on were only stopped down to f2.8. At this aperture, the M240 is a little better in the corners. So what? How often do you need extreme corners super sharp at f2.8? If you're shooting anything that requires critical sharpness across the frame, you're going to stop down to at least f5.6 with almost all lenses, in which case the A7R will out-resolve just about anything.

 

Here's the latest from LLoyd Chambers:

 

"Now published in my review of the Sony FE 35mm f/2.8 Sonnar is a new Sony A7R ƒ/2.8 - ƒ/4 - ƒ/5.6 aperture series (Santa Claus Lights), which is mighty impressive. As in state of the art best available with any camera or lens at 35mm.

 

Which makes the Sony 35mm f/2.8 Sonnar ZA lens a steal at about $798.

 

Mated to the about $2298 Sony A7R, you get world-class rig for $2000 less than the cost of a Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux lens alone, and with superior results in several ways."

 

What more do you want from a body that costs (at least in Australia) 1/5 of the cost of an M240?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[aeturnum]

Sony sold this thing on the belief that 2nd party lenses would work on it... or at least we could "try" them. They are just now getting caught in that lie (not quite the truth or exaggeration or not specifically stated... but implied).

 

By the way, your "very good" 710Lp/IH for the A7R (while the 24MP M240 is capable of 860Lp/IH with the old Summilux) would mean that, when the 36MP M360 comes out, if it had "very good" corner performance, it would be going backwards in corners performance.

 

I think it's fair to say that Sony has produced a camera that is 'good enough' for a lot of users of M lenses. That's not to say it's good enough for everyone. Both Leica and Sony suggest adapting non-native lenses to the M240 and A7® respectively. It seems harsh and divisive to treat results inferior to the native camera system as a lie. I can't afford an M240, and the A7 has been a great stand-in so far. It's no M240, but it's not priced like an M240 either.

 

Your point about corner performance is well-taken. One of the major 'take-away's I have from the A7® v.s. Leica testing is how far ahead of Sony Leica is in uniform sensor performance. The sharpness graphs for the A7r speak volumes about Sony's focus compared to Leicas, and I much prefer Leica's.

 

I think it's important to compare apples to apples. If we're going to talk about the A7® camera system, we should talk about the native lenses (few as they are). People have managed to talk about the X Vario as a camera, even with its fixed lens.