The Sony A7 thread [Merged]

[douglasf13]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

That article has a lot of misinformation. For one thing, as I mentioned in the comments, Leica uses the Kyocera BS7 IR filter, which is among the cheapest and worst IR filters out there, and the very standard IR filters used by major brands are both better and thinner.

[Advertisement]

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

[naturephoto1]

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?

 

If you believe the quote from the other thread (and I do not) then everything 35mm and less is a problem.

 

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.

 

As to the question what percentage is less than 24mm at this point I am not really sure. I have modified some of my shooting since I have not been using 4" X 5" for sometime due to using smaller formats including my Fujfilm X-E1- APS-C.

 

But if I had to guess somewhere around 10 to 15% and possibly more may not be out of line.

 

For usage with the Sony A7r I have opted for the Minolta CLE MC 40mm f2 Rokkor-M to split the difference between the 50mm and 35mm focal lengths. I am hoping to get possibly something in the range of 28mm as well as something around 21mm as my wide angle lenses. These will provide me with a small package that I can use to supplement my Leica R 35-70mm f4 and 80-200mm f4 Vario Elmar zoom lenses, macro lenses (60mm elmarit and 100mm Apo), tele lenses (180mm f3.4, both 280mm Apo lenses and 560mm f5.6 Telyt) and even my Summicron 50mm R and 35mm R lenses.

 

Rich

[Rick]

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.

 

Yeah, maybe to all of this except we do have a pretty good idea how well the M lenses are going to work functionally - not so good. How are you going to focus them accurately and quickly. EVF and focus peaking? Good luck. That doesn't work so well on the M240 and EVF why is going to be much better on the A7.

[k-hawinkler]

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.

 

When I ordered through the Sony online store it gave several options of different multi year length. IIRC I think it was from 1 to 3 or 4 years. But I didn't pay a lot of attention to this.

[douglasf13]

Yeah, maybe to all of this except we do have a pretty good idea how well the M lenses are going to work functionally - not so good. How are you going to focus them accurately and quickly. EVF and focus peaking? Good luck. That doesn't work so well on the M240 and EVF why is going to be much better on the A7.

 

Having spent years both shooting NEX cameras with manual lenses and the M9, I find that each works equally well, despite different strengths and weaknesses. The poor EVF of the M240 isn't a good indicator as to how well magnification and focus peaking works. In fact, I often just crank sharpening all the way up (doesn't affect raws) with the Sonys and manual focus without using either magnification or peaking. This creates a bit of a shimmer around the areas in focus that pops the subject, and it's kinda like using ground glass.

 

Either way, that's why I said one either needs a rangefinder or doesn't. I like using rangefinders, but I don't need one. If the A7 and M240 were close to the same price, I might consider the M240, but I see these cameras as equals, with different strengths and weaknesses, so the price of the Sonys really tips the balance.

[k-hawinkler]

Having spent years both shooting NEX cameras with manual lenses and the M9, I find that each works equally well, despite different strengths and weaknesses. The poor EVF of the M240 isn't a good indicator as to how well magnification and focus peaking works. In fact, I often just crank sharpening all the way up (doesn't affect raws) with the Sonys and manual focus without using either magnification or peaking. This creates a bit of a shimmer around the areas in focus that pops the subject, and it's kinda like using ground glass.

 

Either way, that's why I said one either needs a rangefinder or doesn't. I like using rangefinders, but I don't need one. If the A7 and M240 were close to the same price, I might consider the M240, but I see these cameras as equals, with different strengths and weaknesses, so the price of the Sonys really tips the balance.

 

What seems to help me focus is contrast -2, saturation 0, sharpness +2.

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When I ordered through the Sony online store it gave several options of different multi year length. IIRC I think it was from 1 to 3 or 4 years. But I didn't pay a lot of attention to this.

 

Thanks. Presumably you bought their extended warranty as I did for the Nex 6. I thought maybe they included a longer warranty for you for free for some reason.

[douglasf13]

What seems to help me focus is contrast -2, saturation 0, sharpness +2.

 

I usually use Neutral creative style with -1, 0, +3.

[Ozkar]

Yeah, maybe to all of this except we do have a pretty good idea how well the M lenses are going to work functionally - not so good. How are you going to focus them accurately and quickly. EVF and focus peaking? Good luck. That doesn't work so well on the M240 and EVF why is going to be much better on the A7.

 

Focus peaking is not the only way to focus using an EVF. I used an NEX7 for a brief time last year and was able to focus my LUX ASPH lenses perfectly well using the magnified view method. In fact, when focussing on eyelashes, I found this to be considerably more accurate (higher keeper rate) than attempting to do the same using the RF patch on my M9P. Of course, the M9P also meant that I had to recompose after focussing causing the focus point to shift.

[Rick]

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.

 

Fine, use the A7R in the examples I gave and M-lenses still may not be optimized for the A7R. Why would Sony put firmware in the camera to correct the M lenses like Leica does in the M240? And, my point is that the manual focus M-lenses are going to be much more of a pain in the ass to focus on the EVF of the A7R than the M240 RF. We don't need the A7R to know this... we can try it out on the M240 with the EVF and it is a pain in the ass except in very low light.

 

 

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.

 

Ok, let's be honest... I have not been over to Steve Huff's house and shot the A7 + 50 Lux around his livingroom for 30-seconds (like Steve has) and reviewed it on the back of the camera to determine if the A7 is as easy to focus as the M240. Really? You're going with that as your leadoff of the argument?

 

And, again, my point is that the manual focus M-lenses are going to be much more of a pain in the ass to focus on the EVF of the A7R than the M240 RF. We don't need the A7R to know this... we can try it out on the M240 with the EVF and it is a pain in the ass except in very low light. I believe that no matter how good the EVF is, how are you going to tell where the point of focus is? Focus peaking... good luck. Maybe you are hoping all of these things you quoted about the superior optics of the EVF are going to save you... stop down top f5.6 and you will have no idea what is the point of focus. RF and manual M lenses will still be superior.

 

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.

 

Yes, true but I still have not realized why this is such a big deal, focus recompose, that is. And, just when I thought how happy I was being able to add the EVF to my M240 to use on my wides you tell me it sucks now. And, I thought it was an advantage that I didn't have to add the EVF to the RX1 and now I find out that a permanent hump on my RX1 would have been better? I'm always confused.

 

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

 

Here we go, always the money thing when all else fails. I bet I've spent less money than most other people who spend their whole life jumping from the next best thing to the next best thing. Lenses are forever. Shiny black gizmos come and go.

[k-hawinkler]

Focus peaking is not the only way to focus using an EVF. I used an NEX7 for a brief time last year and was able to focus my LUX ASPH lenses perfectly well using the magnified view method. In fact, when focussing on eyelashes, I found this to be considerably more accurate (higher keeper rate) than attempting to do the same using the RF patch on my M9P. Of course, the M9P also meant that I had to recompose after focussing causing the focus point to shift.

 

 

On a tripod I use magnification a lot.

Then, when switching to the full view, focus peaking areas are clearly visible.

[k-hawinkler]

The GetDPI Photography Forums - View Single Post - FF NEX and F E lenses

 

With a grain of salt.

[douglasf13]

Ok, let's be honest... I have not been over to Steve Huff's house and shot the A7 + 50 Lux around his livingroom for 30-seconds (like Steve has) and reviewed it on the back of the camera to determine if the A7 is as easy to focus as the M240. Really? You're going with that as your leadoff of the argument?

.

 

Like many of us, Steve has been using A7-like focusing systems for a long time, so it isn't just 30 seconds of experience.

 

Also, both LR and C1 have built-in color shift correction features. It only takes shooting a couple of quick profile shots.

[Ozkar]

Having spent years both shooting NEX cameras with manual lenses and the M9, I find that each works equally well, despite different strengths and weaknesses. The poor EVF of the M240 isn't a good indicator as to how well magnification and focus peaking works. In fact, I often just crank sharpening all the way up (doesn't affect raws) with the Sonys and manual focus without using either magnification or peaking. This creates a bit of a shimmer around the areas in focus that pops the subject, and it's kinda like using ground glass.

 

Either way, that's why I said one either needs a rangefinder or doesn't. I like using rangefinders, but I don't need one. If the A7 and M240 were close to the same price, I might consider the M240, but I see these cameras as equals, with different strengths and weaknesses, so the price of the Sonys really tips the balance.

 

Your last statement sums it up perfectly for me. One week ago, I (finally) found an M240 in stock with an online vendor and promptly placed it in my shopping cart. I sat for 5 minutes deliberating on whether to key in my credit card details. In the end, I backed out.

 

Today, there is no way I will pay 4x more for a camera that offers 4x time less.

Particularly, since even if I had purchased the M240, I would still be looking to buy an A7R as a backup since, like many, I would never take just my M9P (or an M240) on any extended shooting gig, be it a holiday or otherwise, without a backup.

[Ozkar]

Ok, let's be honest... I have not been over to Steve Huff's house and shot the A7 + 50 Lux around his livingroom for 30-seconds (like Steve has) and reviewed it on the back of the camera to determine if the A7 is as easy to focus as the M240. Really? You're going with that as your leadoff of the argument?

 

And, again, my point is that the manual focus M-lenses are going to be much more of a pain in the ass to focus on the EVF of the A7R than the M240 RF. We don't need the A7R to know this... we can try it out on the M240 with the EVF and it is a pain in the ass except in very low light. I believe that no matter how good the EVF is, how are you going to tell where the point of focus is? Focus peaking... good luck. Maybe you are hoping all of these things you quoted about the superior optics of the EVF are going to save you... stop down top f5.6 and you will have no idea what is the point of focus. RF and manual M lenses will still be superior..

 

Well at least Steve Huff actually shot with the A7R / 50 LUX combo prior to making his statement. This means more to me than conjecture.

 

And yes, shooting with an EVF on the M240 is a pain. But only because the EVF and supporting electronics/firmware in the M240 are so poorly implemented.

[douglasf13]

Your last statement sums it up perfectly for me. One week ago, I (finally) found an M240 in stock with an online vendor and promptly placed it in my shopping cart. I sat for 5 minutes deliberating on whether to key in my credit card details. In the end, I backed out.

 

Today, there is no way I will pay 4x more for a camera that offers 4x time less.

Particularly, since even if I had purchased the M240, I would still be looking to buy an A7R as a backup since, like many, I would never take just my M9P (or an M240) on any extended shooting gig, be it a holiday or otherwise, without a backup.

 

Yeah, at the risk of a car analogy, I would generally choose a manual transmission over an automatic one in a sports car, because it is fun to drive, but, if the manual transmission made the car 4x the price, I'd likely pass. Sony really needs to get together with Zeiss and build a $3K Ikon digital.

[Ozkar]

 

Here we go, always the money thing when all else fails. I bet I've spent less money than most other people who spend their whole life jumping from the next best thing to the next best thing. Lenses are forever. Shiny black gizmos come and go.

 

I am purely referring to the M240 body. I have no problem putting money into quality glass. I agree, Leica lenses are forever.

 

With respect to the bodies, the incredibly irony is there isn't a single attribute of significance where the M240 is better than the A7R. The monetary difference is just the icing on the cake.

 

In the end, all digital bodies will depreciate, the M240 included. And I suspect that if Sony continue on this path, the M240 may depreciate more than most.

[biglou]

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.

 

Yes, i received confirmation.

My order was by phone, Sony in France.

Don't know about online but i think the warranty time may be different in different countries.

I think they did it for customers ordering during the presentation day.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[douglasf13]

I am purely referring to the M240 body. I have no problem putting money into quality glass. I agree, Leica lenses are forever.

 

With respect to the bodies, the incredibly irony is there isn't a single attribute of significance where the M240 is better than the A7R. The monetary difference is just the icing on the cake.

 

In the end, all digital bodies will depreciate, the M240 included. And I suspect that if Sony continue on this path, the M240 may depreciate more than most.

 

I don't really think lenses are forever, either. Many are upgrading to the Leica ASPH lenses as we speak. I've bought and sold as many M lenses as I have for other system's lenses.

[biglou]

Hello,

I looked at my bill again.

What i got is the three year extended guaranty and they charged me 0.01€ for it.