The Sony A7 thread [Merged]

[algrove]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just curious -- with which Leica R lenses did the A7r disappoint? I though the performance looked great with my 100 APO Macro and very good with the 28-90.

 

For me the 15/2.8, 80/1.4, 75-210, 80-200, 280/4, APO70-180, APO180/2.8, All these lenses (and more R lenses I regularly use) for me on the M240 produce a much better and in focus clear image than on the a7R. I cannot stand fuzzy shots at normal view or at 100%, not to mention 200% which I often use to remove dust spots if needed.

[Advertisement]

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

[ModernMan]

For me the 15/2.8, 80/1.4, 75-210, 80-200, 280/4, APO70-180, APO180/2.8, All these lenses (and more R lenses I regularly use) for me on the M240 produce a much better and in focus clear image than on the a7R. I cannot stand fuzzy shots at normal view or at 100%, not to mention 200% which I often use to remove dust spots if needed.

 

Very interesting. Ok, I'll be back in the "lab" for some more testing (M240/A7r w/ more R lenses).

 

While the corner smearing with M 28/2, M 50/1.4 etc was most obvious, I have not yet observed the fuzziness with R lenses -- except that with slower shutter speeds, camera shake is certainly evident. So, more investigation to see if I can observe an "optical compatibility" problem with R lenses on the A7r.

[woorob]

I recall one or two recent inquiries about performance of the 19-R and 500-R (mirror) lenses on the a7R.

 

I've been really busy lately, but took this afternoon off to clear my head and acquaint myself with operation of the a7R. I have a slew of R lenses that I hope to use on the a7R, as well as to have the convenience of a second [less expensive] digital body that will accept my Leica lenses. That's why I purchased the camera again after having sold my first one to my brother.

 

In any event, as others have noted the camera seems to perform just fine with some Leica lenses and inadequately with others. I really don't know what accounts for the difference.

 

I shot a bunch of comparison pictures on this [bitter cold] afternoon, using the same lenses on both my M and the a7R, with both cameras mounted on sturdy tripods and focused as carefully as I could on a dead tree about 250 yards/meters in back of my house.

 

Obviously my results are anecdotal and subjective. That said, here are my observations after comparing the images at high magnification using Lightroom's compare feature:

 

16-18-21 Tri-Elmar -- Surprisingly,considerably better on the M.

 

19mm Elmarit-R II 1:2.8 -- Subject to left side color casts on the M. Quite sharp on both and certainly acceptable on the a7R.

 

75mm APO-Summicron-M f/2.0 ASPH -- Better on the M; a bit soft on the Sony.

 

100mm APO-Macro-Elmarit-R 1:2.8 --- Perhaps sharper on the Sony.

 

100mm APO-Macro-Elmarit-R 1:2.8 with 2x-APO extender -- Brilliant on the M; not acceptable on the Sony.

 

135mm APO-Telyt-M 1:3.4 -- A top performer on both.

 

180mm APO-Elmarit-R 1:2.8 -- Excellent on the M; not bad on the Sony and for me, quite acceptable.

 

280mm APO-Elmarit-R 1:2.8 -- Almost as good on the Sony as on the M (and that's saying a lot as this is one of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned).

 

280mm APO-Elmarit-R 1:2.8 with 1.4x-APO extender -- Significantly better on the M; soft on the Sony.

 

500mm MR-Telyt-R 1:8.0 -- Shockingly good on the M; unacceptable on the Sony.

 

500mm MR-Telyt-R 1:8.0 with 2x-APO extender -- Shockingly good on the M; unacceptable on the Sony.

 

The biggest surprise of the afternoon was the unexpected quality of the images with the 500mm mirror lens -- better than the 280mm APO-Elmarit-R 1:2.8 with 2x. It's a lens that I purchased new years ago but have rarely used. I think it might be just the ticket for use with the M, so long as one also uses the EVF. Very lightweight and compact, for me a real eye-opener.

 

Speaking of the EVF, I personally am finding it easier to focus extreme telephoto lenses when I use the M and its EVF, as compared to the Sony. For me the focus peaking feature on the Sony has more depth in front of and in back of the subject when set to medium or high, and it frequently doesn't seem to do anything when set to low. This results in less accurate focusing versus the M, which appears to have much more narrow scope.

 

These are my personal results, obtained In a specific manner, on a particular day and at a particular time of the day. Clearly your results and conclusions may vary.

 

It was a nice way to get away from the daily grind and have some fun.

[ModernMan]

I recall one or two recent inquiries about performance of the 19-R and 500-R (mirror) lenses on the a7R.

 

I've been really busy lately, but took this afternoon off to clear my head and acquaint myself with operation of the a7R. I have a slew of R lenses that I hope to use on the a7R, as well as to have the convenience of a second [less expensive] digital body that will accept my Leica lenses. That's why I purchased the camera again after having sold my first one to my brother.

 

In any event, as others have noted the camera seems to perform just fine with some Leica lenses and inadequately with others. I really don't know what accounts for the difference.

 

I shot a bunch of comparison pictures on this [bitter cold] afternoon, using the same lenses on both my M and the a7R, with both cameras mounted on sturdy tripods and focused as carefully as I could on a dead tree about 250 yards/meters in back of my house.

 

Obviously my results are anecdotal and subjective. That said, here are my observations after comparing the images at high magnification using Lightroom's compare feature:

 

16-18-21 Tri-Elmar -- Surprisingly,considerably better on the M.

 

19mm Elmarit-R II 1:2.8 -- Subject to left side color casts on the M. Quite sharp on both and certainly acceptable on the a7R.

 

75mm APO-Summicron-M f/2.0 ASPH -- Better on the M; a bit soft on the Sony.

 

100mm APO-Macro-Elmarit-R 1:2.8 --- Perhaps sharper on the Sony.

 

100mm APO-Macro-Elmarit-R 1:2.8 with 2x-APO extender -- Brilliant on the M; not acceptable on the Sony.

 

135mm APO-Telyt-M 1:3.4 -- A top performer on both.

 

180mm APO-Elmarit-R 1:2.8 -- Excellent on the M; not bad on the Sony and for me, quite acceptable.

 

280mm APO-Elmarit-R 1:2.8 -- Almost as good on the Sony as on the M (and that's saying a lot as this is one of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned).

 

280mm APO-Elmarit-R 1:2.8 with 1.4x-APO extender -- Significantly better on the M; soft on the Sony.

 

500mm MR-Telyt-R 1:8.0 -- Shockingly good on the M; unacceptable on the Sony.

 

500mm MR-Telyt-R 1:8.0 with 2x-APO extender -- Shockingly good on the M; unacceptable on the Sony.

 

The biggest surprise of the afternoon was the unexpected quality of the images with the 500mm mirror lens -- better than the 280mm APO-Elmarit-R 1:2.8 with 2x. It's a lens that I purchased new years ago but have rarely used. I think it might be just the ticket for use with the M, so long as one also uses the EVF. Very lightweight and compact, for me a real eye-opener.

 

Speaking of the EVF, I personally am finding it easier to focus extreme telephoto lenses when I use the M and its EVF, as compared to the Sony. For me the focus peaking feature on the Sony has more depth in front of and in back of the subject when set to medium or high, and it frequently doesn't seem to do anything when set to low. This results in less accurate focusing versus the M, which appears to have much more narrow scope.

 

These are my personal results, obtained In a specific manner, on a particular day and at a particular time of the day. Clearly your results and conclusions may vary.

 

It was a nice way to get away from the daily grind and have some fun.

 

Very interesting. A7r performance does seem to *roughly* correlate to the proximity of the rear element to the sensor plane (excepting the WATE, but notably including the extenders).

[woorob]

Agreed. That seems to be one of the common denominators. Under the right conditions with Leica lenses it produces outstanding results.

[k-hawinkler]

I recall one or two recent inquiries about performance of the 19-R and 500-R (mirror) lenses on the a7R.

 

I've been really busy lately, but took this afternoon off to clear my head and acquaint myself with operation of the a7R. I have a slew of R lenses that I hope to use on the a7R, as well as to have the convenience of a second [less expensive] digital body that will accept my Leica lenses. That's why I purchased the camera again after having sold my first one to my brother.

 

In any event, as others have noted the camera seems to perform just fine with some Leica lenses and inadequately with others. I really don't know what accounts for the difference.

 

I shot a bunch of comparison pictures on this [bitter cold] afternoon, using the same lenses on both my M and the a7R, with both cameras mounted on sturdy tripods and focused as carefully as I could on a dead tree about 250 yards/meters in back of my house.

 

Obviously my results are anecdotal and subjective. That said, here are my observations after comparing the images at high magnification using Lightroom's compare feature:

 

16-18-21 Tri-Elmar -- Surprisingly,considerably better on the M.

 

19mm Elmarit-R II 1:2.8 -- Subject to left side color casts on the M. Quite sharp on both and certainly acceptable on the a7R.

 

75mm APO-Summicron-M f/2.0 ASPH -- Better on the M; a bit soft on the Sony.

 

100mm APO-Macro-Elmarit-R 1:2.8 --- Perhaps sharper on the Sony.

 

100mm APO-Macro-Elmarit-R 1:2.8 with 2x-APO extender -- Brilliant on the M; not acceptable on the Sony.

 

135mm APO-Telyt-M 1:3.4 -- A top performer on both.

 

180mm APO-Elmarit-R 1:2.8 -- Excellent on the M; not bad on the Sony and for me, quite acceptable.

 

280mm APO-Elmarit-R 1:2.8 -- Almost as good on the Sony as on the M (and that's saying a lot as this is one of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned).

 

280mm APO-Elmarit-R 1:2.8 with 1.4x-APO extender -- Significantly better on the M; soft on the Sony.

 

500mm MR-Telyt-R 1:8.0 -- Shockingly good on the M; unacceptable on the Sony.

 

500mm MR-Telyt-R 1:8.0 with 2x-APO extender -- Shockingly good on the M; unacceptable on the Sony.

 

The biggest surprise of the afternoon was the unexpected quality of the images with the 500mm mirror lens -- better than the 280mm APO-Elmarit-R 1:2.8 with 2x. It's a lens that I purchased new years ago but have rarely used. I think it might be just the ticket for use with the M, so long as one also uses the EVF. Very lightweight and compact, for me a real eye-opener.

 

Speaking of the EVF, I personally am finding it easier to focus extreme telephoto lenses when I use the M and its EVF, as compared to the Sony. For me the focus peaking feature on the Sony has more depth in front of and in back of the subject when set to medium or high, and it frequently doesn't seem to do anything when set to low. This results in less accurate focusing versus the M, which appears to have much more narrow scope.

 

These are my personal results, obtained In a specific manner, on a particular day and at a particular time of the day. Clearly your results and conclusions may vary.

 

It was a nice way to get away from the daily grind and have some fun.

 

 

Bob,

 

Many thanks indeed.

I don't have many of your lenses.

I have the gear I marked in blue.

I also have the APO 280/4 and Vario 105-280/4.2.

 

Before I ask more questions about the blue stuff, please let me briefly address the red stuff.

I never rely on focus peaking on any of my cameras. It's way too inaccurate.

What I rely on is maximal magnification on a stable tripod.

Once I have a stable image I find I need to use a very gentle touch to achieve optimal manual focus.

So, in light of what I just said, are you sure that your shots with the A7R are optimally focused?

Please, take no offense to my question.

As I don't have an M240 I need to rely on measurements by folks like you so that I can develop a correct understanding.

 

From the blue stuff I find most interesting that the images from your 280mm APO-Elmarit-R 1:2.8 are almost equal on M240 and A7R.

However, with 1.4x extender the image with the A7R is significantly worse than the one from the M240.

Could you please post 100% crops showing these differences?

I mean for both cameras with and without extender?

 

If true, this would be an important clue for me. Thank you in advance.

[k-hawinkler]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Bob,

 

I suspect your observation may be correct.

That's my working assumption.

[k-hawinkler]

If somebody could independently confirm Bob's discovery/observation that would be very important!

It also would be interesting to know how an R camera would react to adding an APO-Extender 1.4x to any of the 280 mm APO-Telyts.

Thanks in advance.

 

What I plan on doing is shooting my A7R with APO-R 280/4 and then with an APO-Extender-R 1.4x added.

Then compare the images with one like this, taken with NEX-7 + APO-R 280/4.

 

http://winklers.smugmug.com/photos/i-8P5vQvG/0/O/i-8P5vQvG.jpg

 

My question is if and by how much the image taken with A7R + APO-Ext 1.4x + APO-R 280/4 is worse than one taken with NEX-7 + APO-R 280/4.

[jaapv]

Very interesting. A7r performance does seem to *roughly* correlate to the proximity of the rear element to the sensor plane (excepting the WATE, but notably including the extenders).

It might be interesting to compare the exit pupils of these lenses.

[woorob]

K-H,

 

Thanks for your comments. I would certainly never take offense to your question. I’ve learned a lot on this forum and, like most people on this earth, can still learn a thing or two. I’m enjoying my M immensely and find the long lenses really outstanding on the M.

 

As you note, though, focusing at anything over about 300mm is tough. My comment about focus peaking was made in the context of trying to figure out how to make it work best. The Sony has three settings – low, medium and high – but so far as I can tell the manual doesn’t even mention these settings. Experimenting with them, it seems that the “high” setting covers quite a bit, so that nothing would be in critical focus, and the “low” setting often will not show any focus peaking at all. On the M there are no settings and it seems to be more critical in terms of what it picks up as a focus point. On both cameras there also seem to be differences in focus peaking dependent on the lens used and the f/stop of the lens as well. So I quite agree with you that focus peaking is a tool but not a guarantee of critical, definitive focus.

 

When I took these comparison shots I would start by trying to use focus peaking and then switch to the highest focus magnification setting and carefully try to get a critical focus that way. I’m guessing that you use the same approach, but if there’s a better way, please let me know!

 

What I discovered, and have gathered from your previous posts on the subject, is that it is extremely difficult to obtain accurate focus and stability at high levels of magnification.

 

To make matters worse, we have a major storm brewing and yesterday afternoon it was rather windy in advance of the storm (a “dangerous and historic cold air outbreak will continue through Tuesday morning. The combination of extremely cold air temperatures and gusty west winds will bring wind chill values of 45 to 65 below zero”). There were episodes of considerable wind yesterday afternoon when I took the pictures, which may have been a factor in the outcomes. I always use the best tripod I have when using long lenses and a 10 or 12 second delay on the camera’s self timer, but it is certainly possible that wind was a factor. If time permits, I might reshoot some of the long-lens images and post my results later. In the meanwhile, feel free to download these full size RAW files if you’d like to examine them more carefully:

 

 

16-18-21 Tri-Elmar

 

M (L2000791)

https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D243783_74498898_300619

 

a7R (_DSC0070.ARW)

https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D243783_74498898_300762

 

19mm Elmarit-R II 1:2.8

 

M (L2000792)

https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D243783_74498898_300612

 

a7R (_DSC0071.ARW)

https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D243783_74498898_300775

 

75mm APO-Summicron-M f/2.0 ASPH

 

M (L2000793)

https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D243783_74498898_300626

 

a7R (_DSC0073.ARW)

https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D243783_74498898_300779

 

100mm APO-Macro-Elmarit-R 1:2.8 with 2x-APO extender

 

M (L2000796)

https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D243783_74498898_300620

 

a7R (_DSC0075.ARW)

https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D243783_74498898_300758

 

280mm APO-Elmarit-R 1:2.8 with 1.4x-APO extender

 

M (L2000801)

https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D243783_74498898_300623

 

a7R (_DSC0083.ARW)

https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D243783_74498898_300752

 

500mm MR-Telyt-R 1:8.0

 

M (L2000803)

https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D243783_74498898_300636

 

a7R (_DSC0085.ARW)

https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D243783_74498898_300765

 

500mm MR-Telyt-R 1:8.0 with 2x-APO extender

 

M (L2000804)

https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D243783_74498898_300630

 

a7R (_DSC0086.ARW)

https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D243783_74498898_300769

 

I’d also be interested in anyone’s insights into tripod use with longer lenses. I have a nice Velbon carbon tripod (model “El Carmagne 540”) and a Manfrotto ballhead (model 486RC2) that have served me well, but I may be reaching (or have exceeded) the limits of this combination for anything over, say, 300 mm. Right now I can’t really afford to spend a whole lot on a new heavy-duty tripod/ballhead combo, but, then again, if a good deal showed up on that certain auction site or elsewhere I might be tempted.

 

The biggest challenge I face with this tripod/ballhead is that at magnifications of 500 mm or greater, I get a slight shake and, more significantly to me, it becomes difficult to frame the subject properly. You’ll notice that the last image linked above, at 1000 mm, is not centered because of this. My Manfrotto ballhead does not have any fine-tuning capabilities and I wonder if Linhof or other manufacturer makes a ballhead where tiny adjustments, both vertically and horizontally, can be dialed in using a toothed gear or other similar mechanism.

 

All in all, I’m enjoying my foray into long-lens photography. The M with EVF works fine for landscape or tripod use, but would be pretty inadequate for action sports photography (where Nikon and Canon truly excel).

[k-hawinkler]

Thanks Bob, many thanks indeed!

I really appreciate your candor and honesty.

Please let me first digest your material thoroughly before I respond.

Your images certainly deserve careful consideration.

Thanks again.

[AlanG]

Other than issues from corner smearing with some lenses, I am trying to understand how a lens can present different resolutions onto different sensors - assuming the sensors themselves have comparable resolution. Even angled microlenses should not affect resolution since the they are at the pixel level. By definition, shouldn't two different 24mp FF sensors have exactly the same resolution from the a given lens, all things being equal? So what is not equal?

 

Is there something in the image processing or some other factor at play?

[jdlaing]

By definition, shouldn't two different 24mp FF sensors have exactly the same resolution from the a given lens, all things being equal? So what is not equal?

 

Is there something in the image processing or some other factor at play?

 

Processing and conversion by the firmware.

[JimKasson]

The biggest challenge I face with this tripod/ballhead is that at magnifications of 500 mm or greater, I get a slight shake and, more significantly to me, it becomes difficult to frame the subject properly. You’ll notice that the last image linked above, at 1000 mm, is not centered because of this. My Manfrotto ballhead does not have any fine-tuning capabilities and I wonder if Linhof or other manufacturer makes a ballhead where tiny adjustments, both vertically and horizontally, can be dialed in using a toothed gear or other similar mechanism.

 

I am a big fan of the Arca Swiss C1 Cube, but it's not cheap.

 

Jim

[pop]

Other than issues from corner smearing with some lenses, I am trying to understand how a lens can present different resolutions onto different sensors - assuming the sensors themselves have comparable resolution. Even angled microlenses should not affect resolution since the they are at the pixel level. By definition, shouldn't two different 24mp FF sensors have exactly the same resolution from the a given lens, all things being equal? So what is not equal?

 

Is there something in the image processing or some other factor at play?

 

AA filters?

[k-hawinkler]

I am a big fan of the Arca Swiss C1 Cube, but it's not cheap.

 

Jim

 

 

Jim thanks. How does that device handle the A7R and super tele lenses in portrait mode?

TIA.

[JimKasson]

Jim thanks. How does that device handle the A7R and super tele lenses in portrait mode?

TIA.

 

The good news: I've found that it works about as well as the big RRS ball head.

 

The bad news: I've found that it works about as well as the big RRS ball head.

 

By the way, I've modified mine to use the RRS QR clamp. The Arca Swiss QR clamp is fiddly, flimsy, and a great fingernail breaker.

 

Jim

[algrove]

Other than issues from corner smearing with some lenses, I am trying to understand how a lens can present different resolutions onto different sensors - assuming the sensors themselves have comparable resolution. Even angled microlenses should not affect resolution since the they are at the pixel level. By definition, shouldn't two different 24mp FF sensors have exactly the same resolution from the a given lens, all things being equal? So what is not equal?

 

Is there something in the image processing or some other factor at play?

 

Alan

Bob is comparing the M240 24MP sensor with the a7R 36MP sensor. So all things are not equal in this case.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[k-hawinkler]

The good news: I've found that it works about as well as the big RRS ball head.

 

The bad news: I've found that it works about as well as the big RRS ball head.

 

By the way, I've modified mine to use the RRS QR clamp. The Arca Swiss QR clamp is fiddly, flimsy, and a great fingernail breaker.

 

Jim

 

 

Thanks Jim. I would also use a similar RRS clamp if I got the thing.

But there are a few other things for me to tryout first.

Here are a couple of images of my most stable setup yet in Landscape mode.

 

The GetDPI Photography Forums - View Single Post - A7r - and why I'm keeping it ...

 

I find this type of configuration to be very stable.

Once I have an RRS L-plate for my A7R I can see whether I also can stabilize the A7R and super teles in Portrait mode.

 

What are your experiences so far? TIA.

[JimKasson]

Alan

Bob is comparing the M240 24MP sensor with the a7R 36MP sensor. So all things are not equal in this case.

 

Right you are. When comparing images from cameras of different resolutions looking for absolute performance, the fair thing to do is res both images to some third resolution that's higher that either. When I compare images from the M240 to images from the a7R, I res both to 10,000 pixels wide.

 

Jim