The Sony A7 thread [Merged]

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

………..

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

 

 

That's an extremely powerful argument.

 

The trouble is, particularly on a Leica forum, many people really want the very best performance available, and not just for the $ (though for many this is a critical consideration). For some, depending on their preferences, the A7R will offer that. For others, it evidently won't and the M will come closer. Others still will find neither works as well as something else.

 

Every single camera ever made is a compromise. As ever, we have to choose which of the available compromises best suits our individual needs. Arguing for an absolute winner is meaningless and sterile. But for me, the limitation of having to place the main subject centrally, or having always to stop down unless I do so makes the A7r worth a fraction of the value of the M to me. In fact it seems very unattractive the more I think about this awkward and restrictive problem.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Peter H

[k-hawinkler]

Forget about money for a moment.

Apparently for certain lenses and apertures the M240 is better and for others the A7R.

At least that's my impression.

[Advertisement]

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

[Rick]

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 still falls behind the 24MP Leica in corner performance. My point isn't that there exists a mountain here. It is not even that the Leica is better. Or, that we need to compare lenses designed for the camera. (I agree, there are few... one).

 

My only point is that for a camera that was designed to have good corners and usable with other lenses... it should be pointed out that the edge performance isn't as strong as could have been expected. When averaged with the center performance the overall sensor isn't much better than the M240... which it should beat handily across the image. It doesn't.

 

When I got the camera and tested it I had some problems with corners. So did several others who returned it. Mostly, it was most noticeable with the known RF lenses. I was interested to read a quantitative test that explains some of what I saw. I am not trying to make mountain out if it. Sorry, if I am coming across as anything but just being realistic. Also, I don't think that ignoring it or making a mole hill out of it serves anyone's best interest, either.

[thighslapper]

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?

 

...... mmmm .... they seem to have a different camera to me ..... I haven't noticed these stunning results in real world photography in gloomy midwinter UK. So much so that this pesky little camera has been stuck in the safe and the M is out again for routine use.

 

In bright conditions stuck on a tripod it may be fine, but I can get consistently better images with an M and an equivalent 38mm lens in everyday use

[JimKasson]

The A7R still falls behind the 24MP Leica in corner performance. My point isn't that there exists a mountain here. It is not even that the Leica is better. Or, that we need to compare lenses designed for the camera. (I agree, there are few... one).

 

My only point is that for a camera that was designed to have good corners and usable with other lenses... it should be pointed out that the edge performance isn't as strong as could have been expected. When averaged with the center performance the overall sensor isn't much better than the M240... which it should beat handily across the image. It doesn't.

 

Rick, I agree that there are many M-mount lenses that cause the a7R to show corner smearing and casts. But not all of them; here are some images where the 90mm f/2 APO Summicron did very well in the corners when stopped down a little.

 

I've also had good results in the corners with F-mount lenses, particularly the Coastal Optics 60mm f/4, and have found no case where an F-mount lens performs worse in the corners on the a7R than on the D800E.

 

Jim

[Ozkar]

That's an extremely powerful argument.

 

The trouble is, particularly on a Leica forum, many people really want the very best performance available, and not just for the $ (though for many this is a critical consideration). For some, depending on their preferences, the A7R will offer that. For others, it evidently won't and the M will come closer. Others still will find neither works as well as something else.

 

Every single camera ever made is a compromise. As ever, we have to choose which of the available compromises best suits our individual needs. Arguing for an absolute winner is meaningless and sterile. But for me, the limitation of having to place the main subject centrally, or having always to stop down unless I do so makes the A7r worth a fraction of the value of the M to me. In fact it seems very unattractive the more I think about this awkward and restrictive problem.

 

There's an awful lot of measurbating going on with all these tests but real world performance is all that counts.

 

I've been shooting portraits with my 50 LUX ASPH, often vertically, where the focus point is well off centre and I'm getting better results with my A7R than I ever achieved with my M9P. I shot with an M240 for a couple of weeks and it was no better than my M9P, in this regard.

[Ozkar]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...... mmmm .... they seem to have a different camera to me ..... I haven't noticed these stunning results in real world photography in gloomy midwinter UK. So much so that this pesky little camera has been stuck in the safe and the M is out again for routine use.

 

In bright conditions stuck on a tripod it may be fine, but I can get consistently better images with an M and an equivalent 38mm lens in everyday use

 

Yes, it sound like you have a nuff camera. I have yet to come across a blogger/reviewer of note that has not been tremendously impressed with the A7R. I've been mostly shooting with my 50 LUX ASPH on the A7R (with no tripod) and the results down to 1/60s are the best I have achieved with any M mount camera. Since I mostly shoot people, I don't drop below 1/60s.

[Rick]

Yes, it sound like you have a nuff camera. I have yet to come across a blogger/reviewer of note that has not been tremendously impressed with the A7R. I've been mostly shooting with my 50 LUX ASPH on the A7R (with no tripod) and the results down to 1/60s are the best I have achieved with any M mount camera. Since I mostly shoot people, I don't drop below 1/60s.

 

Yes, centrally I'm sure this is true. But, your edges on the A7R with the 50mm Summilux will be noticeably softer than the M240. But, your center resolution should be excellent. This is what I observed and it seems to bear out on testing.

[algrove]

Since Lloyd Chambers was brought up, has anyone a comment on his discovery that the a7r with an APO 180 R lens shows considerable definition loss when used in the vertical position. Camera shake?

[Rick]

Since Lloyd Chambers was brought up, has anyone a comment on his discovery that the a7r with an APO 180 R lens shows considerable definition loss when used in the vertical position. Camera shake?

 

This seems to be due to the shutter on the A7R. I still do not know if it is true from my testing. I just was under the impression that I had a lot of trouble getting sharp shots with my 280/4 APO. When they were good, they seemed to be amazing. But, for the life of me I couldn't figure out why so many seemed like I had camera shake. Maybe, it is the shutter. Maybe, I just need a heavier Manfroto. The 280/4 APO has a lens base tripod mount of exceptional build. That part is solid. So, maybe, it was the adaptor (Metabones) that the A7R hung on to the lens with. As you can tell, a lot of things frustrated me with this camera.

[gpwhite]

Since Lloyd Chambers was brought up, has anyone a comment on his discovery that the a7r with an APO 180 R lens shows considerable definition loss when used in the vertical position. Camera shake?

 

Lou, I started testing my 135 APO ZF.2 on my A7R (and discussing it with Lloyd) a couple of weeks ago. With that particular, very heavy lens, I cannot get consistently sharp results, using a tripod, at shutter speeds below 1/180s. Lloyd subsequently tested several longer lenses with even better stability control than I have, and he replicated the result that shutter shake can be a real problem with the A7R.

 

This point is discussed extensively in other posts in this thread, and Tim Ashley has also posted that 1/2x focal length is his approach to the A7R.

 

On the good news front, I have been able to get consistent results with the more compact 90 APO Summicron on my A7R, in terms of shutter speeds down to 1/100s. Not sure yet about corner sharpness, however. It might be that with Leica M lenses, the center 65% sphere of an A7R image is exceptional vs. M240, but the corners just don't use the lenses' capabilities. With lenses rendering planar perfection, such as 50 APO or 90 APO, therefore, the M240 might be superior.

[Rick]

Lou, I started testing my 135 APO ZF.2 on my A7R (and discussing it with Lloyd) a couple of weeks ago. With that particular, very heavy lens, I cannot get consistently sharp results, using a tripod, at shutter speeds below 1/180s. Lloyd subsequently tested several longer lenses with even better stability control than I have, and he replicated the result that shutter shake can be a real problem with the A7R.

 

This point is discussed extensively in other posts in this thread, and Tim Ashley has also posted that 1/2x focal length is his approach to the A7R.

 

On the good news front, I have been able to get consistent results with the more compact 90 APO Summicron on my A7R, in terms of shutter speeds down to 1/100s. Not sure yet about corner sharpness, however. It might be that with Leica M lenses, the center 65% sphere of an A7R image is exceptional vs. M240, but the corners just don't use the lenses' capabilities. With lenses rendering planar perfection, such as 50 APO or 90 APO, therefore, the M240 might be superior.

 

Your post rings very true to what I experienced.

 

Also, on the last day before I sent the A7R back I shot my 90 Macro Elmar and was impressed with the combination. I am looking back through a small handful of my handheld shots with the 90 ME and they look nice. I can't tell from these shots what the corners look like.

 

I do want to point out what, for me, is the perspective of this discussion; For most pictures, taken with lenses that don't have color or smearing edge problems, the less than expected corner resolution is totally meaningless. This is still a camera to enjoy.

[k-hawinkler]

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!

OOC JPG, Sony A7R + Leica Vario-Elmar-R 1:4.2/105-280, wide open

 

The above image was taken in the same light with the Universal Lens Calibrator from Capture One Complete.

 

The intensity and fidelity of the colors are truly amazing IMHO.

I also get excellent skin tones with the A7R + FE 35/2.8.

 

More here: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/555705-post90.html, http://www.getdpi.com/forum/555707-post91.html

Edited December 18, 2013 by k-hawinkler

[Guest polygamer]

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.

 

Hi, I compared the a7 to my M9 for JPEG ooc.

 

Up to and including 50mm, the a7 was always inferior in the corners.

 

At 50mm it appears to come close to M9 performance at f8.

 

At 90mm it is a touch better in the centre.

 

By then, I lost interest in a7 corner performance.

 

My second round of trying out the a7 will have to establish

with which of my M mount lenses it will be viable,

and when I shall have to use my M9.

 

For me, the a7 is a solution looking for the problems it can handle.

 

Low light, and tele usage are most suitable candidates.

 

UWW/WW usage I shall have to find out more about in real life.

[Ecaton]

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?

 

Sony with its own FF Rx1® demonstrates that performance fall off from center to edges and corners does not have to be as steep. And if even performance across the frame is the benchmark, have a look at the Sigma DP2 Merrill.

[Doc Henry]

Sony with its own FF Rx1® demonstrates that performance fall off from center to edges and corners does not have to be as steep. And if even performance across the frame is the benchmark, have a look at the Sigma DP2 Merrill.

Look at post n°710 in comparison with film too

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/other/286747-i-like-film-open-thread-36.html

Foveon sensor has 3 layers RGB like film

otherwise I agree with Karl, Sony color is beautiful (see the photo of Karl sunset)

Henry

[Nick De Marco]

I did a quick comparison between a number of wide angle and telephoto lenses on the A7R to see what works and what doesn't.

 

Photos and results are here: Rangefinder Chronicles: Best Telephoto and Wide lenses for the Sony A7R test

 

My previous blog post using the A7R at the weekend with a variety of lenses is here:

Rangefinder Chronicles: Sony A7R at the weekend

 

And here is a brief summary of my overall conclusion:

 

"Some of what I had heard and read is true. The A7R certainly has problems with some wide lenses, wider than 35mm at least. But not all. I'm more than happy to use the Voigtlander 21mm f1.8 and the Leica 28mm Summicron ASPH a... Nearly all the 35s work OK, and the Nokton works wonderfully, as do all the telephotos.

 

I had already decided 50mm was no problem over the weekend ... either the Leica 50mm Summicron M (last version) or the Voigtlander 50mm Nokton f1.5 II will be most used by me on the A7R.

 

The pleasant surprise for me is that the lenses I am most likely to want to use on the A7R are the same lenses I like to use on my Leica M (Ulton 21/1.8, Summicron 28/2 ASPH and 35/2 ASPH and/or v1, Nokton 35/1.2, Summicron 50mm f2, Nokton 50mm f1.5 and Summicron 90mm f2). Given I intend to use the A7R as a second camera with the Leica M Typ 240 (and not instead of it) it is good to realise I can share the same lenses between them, although I expect I will be more likely to use my Zeiss and other SLR lenses with the A7R for certain things, than I will on the M."

 

I'm very happy with the A7R - I think the key is to stop thinking of it as an alternative to the Leica M - once you see it as complimentary to it, doing some things better and some things worse, it makes a lot of sense. I'm so glad the M is a better camera in so many respects as otherwise I would be beating myself up for spending so much on it!

[thighslapper]

Yes, it sound like you have a nuff camera. I have yet to come across a blogger/reviewer of note that has not been tremendously impressed with the A7R. I've been mostly shooting with my 50 LUX ASPH on the A7R (with no tripod) and the results down to 1/60s are the best I have achieved with any M mount camera. Since I mostly shoot people, I don't drop below 1/60s.

 

Clearly I am not a 'blogger/reviewer' of note .......

 

Leica users seem to have lost some grip on reality over this camera......

 

Like most I have a bunch of a expensive Leica lenses ......

 

It would be nice to have alternative body that adds something extra to the use of these lenses or a more compact back-up body.....

 

BUT:

 

I can't use all the lenses I have without problems

Adapters appear to be fickle and can cause issues

Edge performance is crap with many lenses compared to the M

ISO performance is no better than the M

Handholding at 'normal' shutter speeds is unreliable and results in higher ISO use

Button placement is awful and it is not a pleasure to use

Most of the advanced features are unavailable using manual lenses or shooting Raw

To get the best out of it I need Sony lenses .... Which means system duplication .... Which I moved to Leica to avoid ....

Except under the most exceptional circumstances I have no use for the absolute increase in pixel count and alleged better central resolution

 

If Leica had produced this camera there would have been a torrent of hysterical squawking criticism. It's a quality product at a good price ...... If you can live with the compromises.

 

This camera is not designed to work well with third party lenses. It is not a good Leica substitute .... It is a compact D800 alternative.

 

The ultimate test is which camera I pick up to take out with me ....... And after 3 weeks of using both A7r and M it is the Sony that gets left behind .....

[3D-Kraft.com]

The A7R still falls behind the 24MP Leica in corner performance. My point isn't that there exists a mountain here. It is not even that the Leica is better. Or, that we need to compare lenses designed for the camera. (I agree, there are few... one).

 

My only point is that for a camera that was designed to have good corners and usable with other lenses... it should be pointed out that the edge performance isn't as strong as could have been expected. When averaged with the center performance the overall sensor isn't much better than the M240... which it should beat handily across the image. It doesn't.

 

Rick, your generalizations still focus on lens performance with lenses designed for M240. The A7R can deliver good (and of course better) performance in the edges, when you use lenses that do not have to make too many compromises for compactness. The FE 35/2.8 is still also a compromise - but on a very high level already. Corner performance is not only a matter of the camera, it is also a matter of lens selection. From the edge performance of a 50 APO Summicron I also expected more - but also when used on the M 240. The slightly better results when used on the M240 can also be caused by the internal correction of the M 240 firmware. I can not see an indication, that Lensrentals switched off internal correction. A more realistic comparison would be, when the internal compensation of the M 240 were disabled or when you compare e.g. the new Zeiss FE 1.8/55 on A7R with an APO Summicron on M 240 (which also would mean comparing a 3100 EUR combo with a 12200 EUR combo...). I am sure we will see that soon...

 

Those complaing about poor results with most WA RF lenses should compare the cost of an A7® + WATE to a Leica M 240 body given you an excellent WA RF lens already for free...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[mben]

Since Lloyd Chambers was brought up, has anyone a comment on his discovery that the a7r with an APO 180 R lens shows considerable definition loss when used in the vertical position. Camera shake?

 

I tend to think that the "vibration" Mr. Chambers is talking about could be a less than ideally tight connection between body, adapter and lens.

 

So far, none of the adapters I use - even the expensive branded - mount 100% tight on the camera side and / or the lens side.

 

A few days ago I was using a very old Leica 90mm F4 Elmar-c with a Voitglander M adapter, which have a "combined" 2mm play when focusing, and got pinpoint sharp images even at 1/60" handheld (with the D800e and 85mm, I can't usually get max sharpness below 1/125").

 

M

Edited December 18, 2013 by mben
typo