The Sony A7 thread [Merged]

[CaptZoom]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Or there may be more whiners among Leica owners. Still no statistical basis for drawing a conclusion.

 

Tell that to everyone with a M240 in one hand, a broken lug and a damaged lens in the other. See how much they care about statistically correct claims. By the way, didn't Leica issue a recall for M240s specifically addressing the QC issue that resulted in the lug fiasco?

-- -- -- --

 

Back to thread topic.

Firstly, thanks to everyone for sharing their experiences (good and bad) with the Sony A7r and Leica/Ziess/Sony lenses, and for your thoughts regarding the total user experience of the A7r.

Secondly, I've decided to wait until some niggles have been worked out. For my purposes, the IQ is there (corner sharpness is not a concern for how I shoot). The camera coupled with the right set of lenses and fed proper light would make for a killer product photography kit. But I want to see Sony offer an upgrade or a fix of some sort for the shutter. I don't necessarily care for a quieter shutter (though I would welcome it), I do care for a better dampened shutter. Maybe implement an electronic first curtain in the next iteration. The other niggle I have is regarding adapters. I would like to see adapters catch up to the required precision manufacturing that the A7r's sensor requires. I'm reasonably certain that both of these concerns will be addressed much sooner than the release of the M11. If that isn't the case, than I'll be on track for purchasing the M11 rather than Axr.

[Advertisement]

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

[intermediatic]

I auditioned an A7R here last week.

 

First the positives. The camera is not bad. It has a bit of a busy interface, but the ease of selecting ISO and the addition of an exposure compensation dial are two items that Leica should make standard on the M. So those are great and, once I figured out the interface, I found that adjusting exposure and shutter speed are much easier on the A7R. I love how I can just put my eye up to the EVF and it automatically takes over. Cool.

 

The camera doesn't feel as solid as the M 240, but it's small and light, fitting my RF glass nicely. It's a different form factor and if it worked for me, I think I could live with it.

 

The shutter is loud—certainly too loud for street photography—and I get significantly more shake on the A7R than I do on the M 240 at low shutter speeds.

 

But as far as the photos:

 

 

I had high hopes for this camera, thinking that I might even sell my M 240. But no, no way. I mean yes, it takes photos with my RF glass, but simply being able to do it is not the same as being able to turn out useable images.

 

My lenses are

28mm Elmarit f/2.8

35mm Nokton f/1.4

35mm Summarit f/2.5

50mm Summarit f/2.5

50mm Nokton Classic f/1.5

135mm Super-Takumar f/2.5

 

(my 75mm Heliar is in the shop… alas).

 

In all of these cases when I took landscape shots, chromatic aberration was so bad as to make the images unusable. If you're on the fence and don't have access to Amazon and it's no hassles return policy, rest assured that the A7R is not useable with RF glass yet. If you want a second system with its own set of glass, I guess you could use it for that, but better wait for the A8R or A9R. I've thought about the A7, but since it hardly offers anything more than my M240, I might as well stick with what I've got and, well, what works.

[wildlightphoto]

Tell that to everyone with a M240 in one hand, a broken lug and a damaged lens in the other. See how much they care about statistically correct claims. By the way, didn't Leica issue a recall for M240s specifically addressing the QC issue that resulted in the lug fiasco?

 

I'm not denying there's a problem. What I have issues with is the assertion that Leica has no QC or that QC is slipping. The problems reported with the M240 (or with any other product) are not random samples and there is no control sample from some time in the rose-tinted past when Leicas were perfect.

 

Would you like to hear about my 400mm f/6.8 and Leicaflex SL problems? My 280mm f/4 APO problems? My problems with the parts department from 1980? I'd like to know when Leica products and service were so perfect that the self-reported problems of today are conclusive proof that Leica's QC is slipping.

[Guest polygamer]

Still no statistical basis for drawing a conclusion.

How very true ...

 

But what shall I do?

 

Buy 10 Leicas or 100, before I can make a statement?

 

For me, it is enough that the paint on the back of my M9 is wearing off after 3 years.

 

I call this shoddy workmanship,

 

or poor quality,

 

as a Leica customer,

 

despite my very limited statistical basis ...

[wildlightphoto]

How very true ...

 

But what shall I do?

 

Buy 10 Leicas or 100, before I can make a statement?

 

For me, it is enough that the paint on the back of my M9 is wearing off after 3 years.

 

I call this shoddy workmanship,

 

or poor quality,

 

as a Leica customer,

 

despite my very limited statistical basis ...

 

Call it whatever you want to, makes no difference to me. Doesn't make it an accurate statement.

[magosak]

... In all of these cases when I took landscape shots, chromatic aberration was so bad as to make the images unusable. ...

I had the same experience with my Leica 28-90 R and I am disappointed. I did not try my 21-35 R yet.

[thompsonkirk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Quote:

My lenses are

28mm Elmarit f/2.8

35mm Nokton f/1.4

35mm Summarit f/2.5

50mm Summarit f/2.5

50mm Nokton Classic f/1.5

135mm Super-Takumar f/2.5

 

(my 75mm Heliar is in the shop… alas).

 

In all of these cases when I took landscape shots, chromatic aberration was so bad as to make the images unusable.... I've thought about the A7, but since it hardly offers anything more than my M240, I might as well stick with what I've got and, well, what works.

End quote

 

Some of the lenses on your list should be OK. But I'm surprised you expected an improvement over M240, because of course there are no lens profiles for Sony, and the increase in hi ISO is small. The extra pixels would matter only in you make XL prints.

 

IMO the A7 is an interesting supplement – using just the few M lenses that work well on it – for those who didn't go for M240 and have stayed with M9 and its limited ISO range. I'd recommend the A7 only to others in this situation. It's a usable hi-ISO substitute for M9 when light level is low. Not desirable for landscapes, though – except for absence of parallax problems?

 

Kirk

[Guest polygamer]

IMO the A7 is an interesting supplement – using just the few M lenses that work well on it – for those who didn't go for M240 and have stayed with M9 and its limited ISO range. I'd recommend the A7 only to others in this situation. It's a usable hi-ISO substitute for M9 when light level is low. Not desirable for landscapes, though – except for absence of parallax problems?

Hi, this is my approach, too.

 

A7 as a complementary camera, used with the M9.

 

I am working through my 21 Leica M mount lenses.

 

The Leica Elmarit 2,8/21 ASPH performs beautifully,

the Summicron 2/35 V4, too,

however with slight vignetting occasionally, even at f8.

[viramati]

So far of RF lenses that I have tried on the A7 the one that performs best in the less than 50 mm class is the CV nokton 35 f1.2 v2 a real beauty wide open. I have tried the 28 summicron but it doesn't really perform and focusing with peaking is a pain on anything wider than 35. The lux 50 asph is just Ok but I took delivery today of the Sony/Zeiss 55 f1.8 and OMG this is one hell of the lens and is really the reason why I bought the A7. It is sharp wide open, auto focus is fantastic and the eye-lock function is amazing. I have the WATE but will only use it on the M(240) as focus peaking with anything that wide and slow is next to useless and I have found that with the M's 24 megapixel sensor I need to use the Rf to get accurate focusing. I have tried my elmarit-M 90 and 135 apo-telyt on the A7 and they appear to work well. I also have the Sony/zeiss 35 f2.8 which is a great lens but somewhat slow. As I mainly work with 2 focal lengths being 50 and 28 I will now carry the M with the cron 28 asph and the A7 with the 55.

[k-hawinkler]

So far of RF lenses that I have tried on the A7 the one that performs best in the less than 50 mm class is the CV nokton 35 f1.2 v2 a real beauty wide open. I have tried the 28 summicron but it doesn't really perform and focusing with peaking is a pain on anything wider than 35. The lux 50 asph is just Ok but I took delivery today of the Sony/Zeiss 55 f1.8 and OMG this is one hell of the lens and is really the reason why I bought the A7. It is sharp wide open, auto focus is fantastic and the eye-lock function is amazing. I have the WATE but will only use it on the M(240) as focus peaking with anything that wide and slow is next to useless and I have found that with the M's 24 megapixel sensor I need to use the Rf to get accurate focusing. I have tried my elmarit-M 90 and 135 apo-telyt on the A7 and they appear to work well. I also have the Sony/zeiss 35 f2.8 which is a great lens but somewhat slow. As I mainly work with 2 focal lengths being 50 and 28 I will now carry the M with the cron 28 asph and the A7 with the 55.

 

 

Hi David,

 

Congratulations on your new lens.

It looks like you got an excellent copy without any issues.

That's good to know.

Some folks have noticed a bit of de-centering with their lens.

I am still thinking about whether or not to get the 55/1.8 as well.

The FE 35/2.8 I have is just great, even for portraits.

It certainly knows to nail focus on the near eye with AF!

[wildlightphoto]

The FE 35/2.8 I have is just great, even for portraits.

It certainly knows to nail focus on the near eye with AF!

 

Has anyone tried this with non-human eyes?

[gpwhite]

......... And where is the evidence that QC has declined. ????

 

Provide a percentage please ........... With a comparison to the past.......

 

Leica's output has increased and the number of reports of problems will inevitably go up too ..... But that doesn't mean that QC is worse .........

 

I do not think that I understand the real intent of your reply, thighslapper, but I can give you my reasoning why I wrote Leica QC has declined.

 

I have been shooting Leica gear since M2 several decades ago. I spent more $$ on new Leica gear in 2013 than probably all previous years combined (in order this year: brand new 50 APO ASPH, M240, MM, Noct 0.95 and 90 APO ASPH). The first four items in my list each have some noticeable issue, and the first two were recalled by Leica. Additionally, my 2012 18 SEM shows lower right corder smearing on my M240 (and less so on MM), probably because the element centering is not spot on factory specification. I have not returned any of my equipment to Leica (yet) because I can work with the defects and do not look forward to the hassle of waiting for Solms response. After all, I am shooting photos, not performing clinical studies!

 

So, you will likely write, why did I make a negative comment about Leica if I am not rejecting the equipment? Please read my comment in the context I wrote it, and in the context of numerous posts on this forum and other well-regarded reviews (Thein, Chambers, to name two). My point is that Leica is charging the extreme premium price in 35mm for what it claims is the best equipment... each piece hand assembled, checked and signed for by someone. Each piece, body or lens, should be free from obvious defects and function within a very tight deviation around nominal factory specification. Leica is not fulfilling its claim; so say many capable and knowledgable Leica shooters . Percentages, ratios? No one has them because Leica does not publish even gross volume data, but what does that matter anyway when the customer pays such a large premium to supposedly receive reliable QC?

 

After shooting with my Sony and Zeiss equipment, what I wrote is that if Leica is planning its future based on a profit picture fed by systems such as the M240 + 50 APO ASPH ($15k), then Leica better get its QC cleaned up pronto. The Sony A7R + Otus ($7K) is surely a worthy competitor (having both advantages and disadvantages versus the Leica kit)... if I were directing Leica, I would be staying up late trying to get our performance up to a level to meet our claims.

[viramati]

Hi David,

 

Congratulations on your new lens.

It looks like you got an excellent copy without any issues.

That's good to know.

Some folks have noticed a bit of de-centering with their lens.

I am still thinking about whether or not to get the 55/1.8 as well.

The FE 35/2.8 I have is just great, even for portraits.

It certainly knows to nail focus on the near eye with AF!

 

De-Centering oh dear. am doing some tests but so far hard to tell. Can you point me to where this has been brought up. Thanks

[gpwhite]

Oh, thighslapper, I forgot to add that my new 90 APO ASPH is a superlative lens in every way on M240, MM and A7R. The lens certainly meets Leica's claims for design, function and finish. And, I really enjoy it most shooting with the A7R EVF

[k-hawinkler]

De-Centering oh dear. am doing some tests but so far hard to tell. Can you point me to where this has been brought up. Thanks

 

Tim Ashley

post #41 55 1.8 - The GetDPI Photography Forums

[thighslapper]

I do not think that I understand the real intent of your reply, thighslapper, but I can give you my reasoning why I wrote Leica QC has declined.

 

I have been shooting Leica gear since M2 several decades ago. I spent more $$ on new Leica gear in 2013 than probably all previous years combined (in order this year: brand new 50 APO ASPH, M240, MM, Noct 0.95 and 90 APO ASPH). The first four items in my list each have some noticeable issue, and the first two were recalled by Leica. Additionally, my 2012 18 SEM shows lower right corder smearing on my M240 (and less so on MM), probably because the element centering is not spot on factory specification. I have not returned any of my equipment to Leica (yet) because I can work with the defects and do not look forward to the hassle of waiting for Solms response. After all, I am shooting photos, not performing clinical studies!

 

So, you will likely write, why did I make a negative comment about Leica if I am not rejecting the equipment? Please read my comment in the context I wrote it, and in the context of numerous posts on this forum and other well-regarded reviews (Thein, Chambers, to name two). My point is that Leica is charging the extreme premium price in 35mm for what it claims is the best equipment... each piece hand assembled, checked and signed for by someone. Each piece, body or lens, should be free from obvious defects and function within a very tight deviation around nominal factory specification. Leica is not fulfilling its claim; so say many capable and knowledgable Leica shooters . Percentages, ratios? No one has them because Leica does not publish even gross volume data, but what does that matter anyway when the customer pays such a large premium to supposedly receive reliable QC?

 

After shooting with my Sony and Zeiss equipment, what I wrote is that if Leica is planning its future based on a profit picture fed by systems such as the M240 + 50 APO ASPH ($15k), then Leica better get its QC cleaned up pronto. The Sony A7R + Otus ($7K) is surely a worthy competitor (having both advantages and disadvantages versus the Leica kit)... if I were directing Leica, I would be staying up late trying to get our performance up to a level to meet our claims.

 

I was having a RickLeica moment

 

He seems to have quiet for a while so I stepped in with a suitably inflammatory blind defence of leica to liven things up a bit .......

[Jeff S]

A new article from Roger at lensrentals.

 

Jeff

[AlanG]

As postulated in Roger's article, it would be interesting to know if Sony E mount lenses are designed with the thickness of the cover glass in mind. Presumably so as a complete optical sytem. That would explain a lot. Of course the reverse seems true for Leica that their cover glass is thin and/or has specific refraction properties to work with existing M w/a lenses.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[gpwhite]

I was having a RickLeica moment

 

He seems to have quiet for a while so I stepped in with a suitably inflammatory blind defence of leica to liven things up a bit .......

 

Well Done!! Bravo!!

 

Actually, I agree about RickLeica. He started a chorus with Jaap a few months back that put me so far askew,, I didn't look at our forum for almost one month ... but I notice things have settled down a lot since that heroic defense against posts impugning the reliability of the M240.

 

For myself, I love to love Leica and complain about it too. It keeps alle im Ordnung.

[CheshireCat]

As postulated in Roger's article, it would be interesting to know if Sony E mount lenses are designed with the thickness of the cover glass in mind.

Presumably so as a complete optical sytem. That would explain a lot.

 

Sensor layers are indeed part of the optical system. This is especially true for mirrorless designs where the short backfocal distance does not allow a high degree of telecentricity.

 

Of course the reverse seems true for Leica that their cover glass is thin and/or has specific refraction properties to work with existing M w/a lenses.

 

I would rather say that Leica's legacy lenses are designed for film, and Leica sensors are designed to mimic film to avoid breaking compatibility with legacy lenses. I guess the M8 sensor did not have an IR filter layer to keep the optical scheme "as film as possible".

It is easier for Sony, as the E-mount system has been designed from the ground up in the digital era.