The Sony A7 thread [Merged]

[jdlaing]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, I read that article.

 

Reason (1), mechanical slop in the adapter, is a real issue. Adding an adapter introduces an opportunity for variability (Karl-Heinz has written a lot on this issue in this forum). However, if you buy a precision machined adapter like the Novoflex, it isn't an issue. I have one and have used it extensively on my NEX-5n. Steve Huff also made the same comment about cheap adapters.

 

Reason (2) struck me as a confusingly technical explanation of what Michael Hussmann describes better on this forum. The throat and register distance of the M mount was designed for film. Film is forgiving of high angles of incidence off centre, but digital sensors are not. The M9 & NEX-5n (granted, less of an issue with APS-C, but it was an issue with the NEX-7) had microlenses over the chip sites to deal with this issue, and they generally did a great job. The CMOSIS sensor has shallower buckets to obviate the need for such microlenses. The A7r, apparently has a different solution with offset chips and reduced gaps between chips. It will be very interesting to see if this works.

 

What surprises me is that colour shift and drop of in sharpness is not just a factor of focal length. Some Zeiss wides on the M9 had terrible colour shift, and wasn't the Elmarit 28 a problem? Yet others which were far wider had no such problems.

 

So, when you say:

 

it naturally piques my interest, which I guess was the plan.

 

Everything from 35mm down?

 

It's great that you got the opportunity to actually take some shots onto an SD card and download them. I didn't think that was possible at the moment (Steve Huff wasn't allowed to when he played with the cameras). It would be fantastic if you could upload some of the images here, with the details of what lenses were used. Hopefully, if Sony is allowing images to be loaded, we will see lots more images we can look at in detail and make up our minds on an informed basis.

 

Cheers

John

 

When I am allowed to share the images I surely will.

[jdlaing]

My 50mm and 90 were fine. The wide angle lenses were a disappointment on that camera.

[AlanG]

(think also of ground glass viewing on large format.)

 

Every time I see someone holding up an iPad to take photos I think if only the image was upside down and reversed and they had a dark cloth, they'd be re-creating the 8x10 experience.

[Ozkar]

Bad new boys and girls.

 

Everything from 35mm down to 16mm in Leica lenses are ca ca on the Sony A7 bodies.

Exponentially worse the wider the FOV.

 

Color cast is everywhere.

Darkness multiplies outward from the center in a bad way. Worse than vignetting.

 

Good luck with it.

 

The Camera Store have tested the brutally difficult to correct 28 Elmarit ASPH and confirmed that they observed no noticeable colour shift or vignetting.

 

Please provide your source of wisdom.

[douglasf13]

When I am allowed to share the images I surely will.

 

Great, we'd love to see the tests. One thing to keep in mind, when you're able to show the images, is that there are three distinct potential problems that need to be addressed: Vignetting, color shift, and smearing. If a lens has the first and/or second issue, it could be an easy software fix. It's the loss of resolution that is the real problem, so we'll need some pretty detailed mtf testing.

[douglasf13]

Reflex cameras have a possibility for staying ahead in the race: three layer sensors, like the Foveon.

 

The longer flange distance would allow an optimum performance of these thick sensors. Sigma already offers an APS-C Foveon sensor with 15MP, so a 24x36 sensor of 30MP (x3 layers) would be possible and would bring image quality to another territory.

 

Foveon is great for detail, but not good for DR, high ISO, and accurate color, so it's a trade off.

 

The future is probably organic sensors, and they actually behave better than our current Bayer CMOS, in terms of receiving highly angled light.

[Ozkar]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

100%. I am in a different position to many on this thread in that I don't own any FF camera just an M8 and a small bunch of M mount lenses. The A7 or A7r is very compelling as it would cost much the same as upgrading from my M8 to an M9 but instead I could keep the M8 and use the A7/r to "shift" my existing focal lengths. The 28mm Elmarit on the M8 for example is currently my favourite but could be a real 28 when used on the A7 but I struggle with wider frame lines than the 37mm equivalent ones in the M8. Thus in essence the A7 would fulfil all the roles for me that the M8 doesn't give me for focal lengths wider than 35mm and longer than 90mm, or where close up focusing is required etc. etc. Within that mix its a dead duck if it doesn't perform with wide angle lenses, but at least one report on here so far has claimed it works well with the 28mm Elmarit. Fingers crossed.

 

I would suggest that the biggest question will be how well the the A7R plays with M mount lenses from 28 to 75mm since this represents around 90% of the market. If it doesn't play well with 18mm, for example, so be it. They lose 10% of the potential market. But the the other 90% is up for grabs.

[Ozkar]

The biggest question and the biggest if is whether the new Sony A7 and the A7r cameras will play nicely with WA M lenses and to which focal lengths that these cameras will perform well.

Rich

 

Why is this the big issue? Do you take 90% of your shots with lenses wider than 21mm?

[Rick]

Rich, I agree with a lot of your post overall. Guys like k-hawinkler are going to love the A7 to use with all of their lenses including their R lenses.

 

But, I already use my M240 with R lenses so, the A7 just won't be that big of an improvement for me, especially since bugs and birds aren't my thing (I mean long lenses and macro).

 

I was grateful to Leica to get the most versatile FF compact camera ever made when Leica gave me LV on the M240. It also gave me the chance to shoot wide as well. Been there done that already with the M240... and it is the best body ever made to shoot the standard focal length M lenses.

 

So, I'm left with a Sony A7 that doesn't have enough good lenses in its system, can't shoot the standard M lenses, I use so often, as well as the M240. What is left? The A7 is small, I'll give you that. And, I'll agree with dwell that the A7R is probably going to print out a little larger than the A7 or M240, granted. And, it will be a little better with the R lenses for various reasons.

[naturephoto1]

Why is this the big issue? Do you take 90% of your shots with lenses wider than 21mm?

 

If there are issues with 35mm and wider, that is a major issue and question. As I say though the question is which focal lengths are an issue if so is there a lower range and what is the limit.

 

For the purposes of smaller and a lighter package to carry this can be an issue. I probably shoot about 40% or so of my images in the 35mm to wider focal lengths.

 

Rich

[Rick]

It's all really pretty simple. If you must use a rangefinder, then the m240 is a no-brainer. If not, than the A7/r is a no-brainer.

 

I agree with your post except this part I quoted from you above. I would have said, if you must use a RF and want high quality small lenses. The small body on the A7 is going to end up with huge lenses needed to get the same f1.4 and autofocus. It isn't going to give much size advantage over current DSLR lenses. What is it that you like about it that makes it a no-brainer.

 

The beauty of the M240 is the small system overall. You start adding these big Zeiss auto focus lenses and we are back in the neighborhood of the DSLRs.

[douglasf13]

I agree with your post except this part I quoted from you above. I would have said, if you must use a RF and want high quality small lenses. The small body on the A7 is going to end up with huge lenses needed to get the same f1.4 and autofocus. It isn't going to give much size advantage over current DSLR lenses. What is it that you like about it that makes it a no-brainer.

 

The beauty of the M240 is the small system overall. You start adding these big Zeiss auto focus lenses and we are back in the neighborhood of the DSLRs.

 

That's all contingent on how well M lenses work on the camera, which we don't know yet. If some M lenses are usable, the size advantage of the M240 isn't there. 50mm and longer will surely be fine, so that's much of the battle, and, although the new Zeiss 35/2.8 is kind of slow, it is about the same length as the ZM 35/2.8.

 

Even if we're talking about the new Zeiss 55/1.8, it may not be as small as the faster Summilux, but it isn't exactly a huge difference in overall camera + lens length (especially if you don't count the A7's EVF protrusion and/or attach the M's EVF,) and it looks like it may even be more even across the frame than the Summilux, so we're talking about a bit of give and take in some areas. Plus, the A7 is likely a half stop better in noise than the M240, so that half stop advantage of the Summilux isn't all that necessary.

 

Compact Camera Meter

 

The no-brainer part comes down to wanting something much smaller than a DSLR setup, with the best of FF image quality, at a price significantly lower than the Leica m240. Take the rangefinder off of the m240, and I'd have a hard time justifying it at 3-4x for only the body.

[ModernMan]

I just tried a quick test to examine the corner sharpness on a WATE at f4 16mm, both with and without lens detection enabled. No difference observed. So, in that quick test I was unable to observe any evidence of M240 in camera deconvolution processing hypothesized in the article which jdlaing referenced. That is of course assuming that turning lens detection off would disable such processing.

[Ozkar]

RX1 and M240 RF Shooter's Perspective:

I know M-lenses will not work functionally anywhere near as well on the Sony A7 as they do on the M240. I suspect that M lenses may also perform optically better on the M240 as well, because of better edge color and sharpness. And, realistically there won't be much, if any, difference between the M240 and the A7 in print... and probably, little difference even with the A7R.

 

But that is where the closeness of performance of these two cameras starts to diverge. They become such different functionally-specific cameras beyond their near indistinguishable image quality.

 

I understand that the new Sony A7 is a little different from the RX1, but they are very similar for this discussion. Both have about the same sensor and EVF. Both the A7 and the RX1 are ergonomically the same. Outside of the interchangeable lens feature on the A7, the RX1 is the closest camera in the wild to compare to.

 

Having used the RX1 with its Zeiss lens, I can attest to the problems that the RX1 has in manual focus. The Zeiss lens isn't designed to manually focus easily, and it isn't just a matter of having a nice big focus ring to easily grab. The focus by wire is somehow disconnected, vague and not designed well as a human-to-mechanical interface. Therefore, I would not choose these Sony cameras to focus lenses (Sony Zeiss) that were not designed initially as manual focus lenses, like the M series lenses are. Which is fine, by the way, because the RX1 and its Zeiss lens actually works well in AF mode, much to the contrary of what a lot of reviewers nitpick about. I assume the A7 will be even better. But, I would not use the A7 with Sony lenses in MF mode.

 

As far as all the interest in placing M-series lenses on the A7 goes, they are going to be somewhat difficult to focus. The only way to focus will be to use the EVF and focus peaking. Experience from the M240 and EVF shows us that this isn't going to work as well as the RF method except in very low light. The A7's superior EVF will help, but it won't overcome the inherent problem that the EVF has no other aid to focus except highlighting edge contrast and the visual confirmation of TTL DOF, which doesn't work well when stopped down.

 

Which brings us back to the M240 and its wonderful sensor and best in class lenses that work so well with the improved M RF. The clunky old M240 with a trove of M-system lenses, that will not be completely matched by Sony, in this decade anyway:), leaves us with a viable alternative in the M-system, still very much alive and competitive for those willing to spend the money.

 

In the end, what I discovered with my experience with the wonderful RX1 is that, given the choice, I always wanted to take the M240 along with me to shoot and not the RX1. It really wouldn't matter if I could have used my M lenses on the RX1, I still would want to shoot the M240, mainly because of the lenses and how well they work on the M.

 

It would be a very difficult choice for me to give up the M and all of the lenses to shoot a technically "better" A7 body with not so good Sony lens choices. Even if I used the A7 with the M lenses, I would still choose the M240 for the reasons mentioned above.

 

For me, the A7 is just an RX1 that would enable me replace the 35mm lens with other AF Zeiss lens. But, most of us have DSLRs with excellent zooms and tele's that AF already. And, smaller DSLR bodies are no doubt coming from Canon and Nikon to utilize their stable of excellent lenses. So, why jump to a new cool small system that doesn't yet have the lenses?

 

I'd just be careful abandoning the M240 (or DSLR) before the new kid (A7) has enough good lenses that will meet your creative needs and optical expectations. And, I'm not sure how many will be satisfied squinting out pictures with manual M-lenses on the A7. I mean really, other than smaller, what does the A7 have going for it?

 

There seems to be an awful lot of 'clutching at straw' arguments in your assessment of the A7 v RX1 v M240.

 

First up, given that the vast majority of 'Leica' enthusiasts on this and other related forums seem to be far more interested in the A7R, rather than the A7, most of your pros and cos will weigh in favour of the A7R, if you were to consider this in place of the A7. For example, unlike the A7R, the A7 does not appear to have the offest/gapless/microlens array.

 

And let's be honest, you can't claim that you "know M-lenses will not work functionally anywhere near as well on the Sony A7 as they do on the M240" unless, of course, you have shot with the former. Steve Huff has already confirmed that it is just as easy to focus the 50/1.4 ASPH on the A7R as on the M240. And The Camera Store have already confirmed that the difficult to correct 28/2.8 ASPH performs nicely on the A7R.

 

The EVF in the A7R is considerably better than any other EVF from Sony. From imaging resource's review:

 

"The first and most obvious thing that catches your eye (literally) is the eye-level electronic viewfinder (EVF), housed in angular bulge very reminiscent of the pentaprism on an SLR. EVFs have been steadily evolving in recent years, and the one in the Sony A7R is a good example of the state of the art. It uses OLED technology, and sports no fewer than 2.4 million dots, a level of resolution that means I can only just barely see hints of pixels along the edges of letters, and not at all in images displayed.

 

Its very high resolution is only part of the story of the Sony A7R's EVF, though. Possibly more important is the optics that Sony's put behind it. Viewfinder optics are often an afterthought in camera design, with optical artifacts like coma, blur, and chromatic aberration all too common. Since they're not being used to take a picture through, they often receive short shrift in the camera-design process.

 

Not so the EVF on the Sony 7R. It uses a three-lens optical system similar to that found in the flagship Sony A99 SLT camera, although with a slightly improved configuration. The dioptric adjustment range for eyeglass-wearers is an unusually broad -4 to +3 diopters, very welcome for far- or nearsighted people like myself. The net result is a very highly-corrected view of the OLED screen, that's sharp from corner to corner, with nary a sign of CA anywhere, and a nice, wide field of view (0.71x with a 50mm lens focused at infinity). The OLED screen itself has also been enhanced a good bit, with three times the contrast of the one used in the A99. The result is a remarkably clear view, with better than average dynamic range, although still not quite up to what my eye can see when looking through an optical viewfinder. There are some areas in which optical viewfinders still outperform EVFs, but there are at least as many in which EVFs surpass, and the one on the Sony A7R is truly state of the art for current technology."

 

An EVF may not be perfect but unlike a RF, it supports the use of all focal lengths, provides 100% framing, and it allows for accurate focussing with subjects not located in the centre of the frame.

 

Unfortunately, with the M240, if you need to shoot those all-important wides, you will be forced to use an EVF (after removing your thumb grip) that is three generations old with poor resolution, low contrast, and with considerable lag/blur if moved. And you're still stuck (as per the last 50 years) with having to use a central focus point requiring that you constantly focus/recompose.

 

And to top it off (in Australia), one will cost $2500 and the other $10,000.

[Ozkar]

If there are issues with 35mm and wider, that is a major issue and question. As I say though the question is which focal lengths are an issue if so is there a lower range and what is the limit.

 

For the purposes of smaller and a lighter package to carry this can be an issue. I probably shoot about 40% or so of my images in the 35mm to wider focal lengths.

 

Rich

 

If there is an issue, it will be with 21mm, perhaps 24mm, and wider. We already know that the 28/2.8 ASPH is fine.

 

Out of genuine interest, what percentage of your shots are in the 24mm and below range?

[IkarusJohn]

So, I'm left with a Sony A7 that doesn't have enough good lenses in its system, can't shoot the standard M lenses, I use so often, as well as the M240.

 

You might be right on this, but actually we don't know yet.

 

No one is pushing you to buy this camera, and as you already have an M(240), what would the A7r add? The M(240) has live view and an EVF, plus the optical rangefinder.

 

The only thing I can think of is that the Sony might have better electronics, a better sensor, better image quality (even with Leica M & R lenses), it's smaller and cheaper (not a concern if you have already invested in the M(240), granted). But then, we don't know yet.

 

Cheers

John

[biglou]

Well this is a subjective thing.

Personally I find that once you attach a Thumbs Up! to an M body it is one of the most comfortable cameras to hold and manually focus on the market.

 

You are right, very comfortable.

This is why i so regret the designers choose a wrong place for the evf plug, you can't use it with a thumb up.

When Leica addresses this and improve electronics to allows for a state of the art evf i will come back and buy one.

While they are at it may be they could use the same connection to allow a remote screen (tablet ?) allowing to see the image and control the shutter.

[k-hawinkler]

Every time I see someone holding up an iPad to take photos I think if only the image was upside down and reversed and they had a dark cloth, they'd be re-creating the 8x10 experience.

 

 

Actually using an iPad, say for a closeup shot, can be a lot of fun.

One certainly can see a lot of detail right there when taking the photo,

[AlanG]

BigLou, you said that you got a 3 year warranty on the Sony. Was that via the Sony on-line store and how did you get it? The Sony site says the camera comes with a 1 year warranty.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[douglasf13]

There seems to be an awful lot of 'clutching at straw' arguments in your assessment of the A7 v RX1 v M240.

 

First up, given that the vast majority of 'Leica' enthusiasts on this and other related forums seem to be far more interested in the A7R, rather than the A7, most of your pros and cos will weigh in favour of the A7R, if you were to consider this in place of the A7. For example, unlike the A7R, the A7 does not appear to have the offest/gapless/microlens array.

 

And let's be honest, you can't claim that you "know M-lenses will not work functionally anywhere near as well on the Sony A7 as they do on the M240" unless, of course, you have shot with the former. Steve Huff has already confirmed that it is just as easy to focus the 50/1.4 ASPH on the A7R as on the M240. And The Camera Store have already confirmed that the difficult to correct 28/2.8 ASPH performs nicely on the A7R.

 

The EVF in the A7R is considerably better than any other EVF from Sony. From imaging resource's review:

 

"The first and most obvious thing that catches your eye (literally) is the eye-level electronic viewfinder (EVF), housed in angular bulge very reminiscent of the pentaprism on an SLR. EVFs have been steadily evolving in recent years, and the one in the Sony A7R is a good example of the state of the art. It uses OLED technology, and sports no fewer than 2.4 million dots, a level of resolution that means I can only just barely see hints of pixels along the edges of letters, and not at all in images displayed.

 

Its very high resolution is only part of the story of the Sony A7R's EVF, though. Possibly more important is the optics that Sony's put behind it. Viewfinder optics are often an afterthought in camera design, with optical artifacts like coma, blur, and chromatic aberration all too common. Since they're not being used to take a picture through, they often receive short shrift in the camera-design process.

 

Not so the EVF on the Sony 7R. It uses a three-lens optical system similar to that found in the flagship Sony A99 SLT camera, although with a slightly improved configuration. The dioptric adjustment range for eyeglass-wearers is an unusually broad -4 to +3 diopters, very welcome for far- or nearsighted people like myself. The net result is a very highly-corrected view of the OLED screen, that's sharp from corner to corner, with nary a sign of CA anywhere, and a nice, wide field of view (0.71x with a 50mm lens focused at infinity). The OLED screen itself has also been enhanced a good bit, with three times the contrast of the one used in the A99. The result is a remarkably clear view, with better than average dynamic range, although still not quite up to what my eye can see when looking through an optical viewfinder. There are some areas in which optical viewfinders still outperform EVFs, but there are at least as many in which EVFs surpass, and the one on the Sony A7R is truly state of the art for current technology."

 

An EVF may not be perfect but unlike a RF, it supports the use of all focal lengths, provides 100% framing, and it allows for accurate focussing with subjects not located in the centre of the frame.

 

Unfortunately, with the M240, if you need to shoot those all-important wides, you will be forced to use an EVF (after removing your thumb grip) that is three generations old with poor resolution, low contrast, and with considerable lag/blur if moved. And you're still stuck (as per the last 50 years) with having to use a central focus point requiring that you constantly focus/recompose.

 

And to top it off (in Australia), one will cost $2500 and the other $10,000.

 

I agree with just about all of this, although, to be fair, I wouldn't take the Camera Store's advice, when it comes to the 28/2.8, as very serious. When NEX came out, it took months and months of testing amongst various lenses and cameras to figure which camera and lens combos had only color shift issues vs. actual smearing issues, and some 28mm lenses may be fine, while others may not be, depending on the design. Plus, some just don't see the more subtle color shift which can still drive me crazy, although it is easy to fix. It's the drop in resolution towards the edges that can be the big problem, though.