jaapv Posted September 6, 2015 Share #81 Posted September 6, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) 7 posts deleted for fighting. Please don't. I have better things to do than cleaning up threads. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 Hi jaapv, Take a look here Leica's organic rendering versus plasticized Sony 7RII. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Peter Kilmister Posted September 6, 2015 Share #82 Posted September 6, 2015 Fight, what fight? A real bust up or handbags at dawn? Has the referee issued a yellow card? Anyone in the sin-bin? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 6, 2015 Share #83 Posted September 6, 2015 9 now ... The first one to post again in this matter will have to sit out a cool-off period. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jto555 Posted September 6, 2015 Share #84 Posted September 6, 2015 I'll risk the cool-off period... As photographers, what a great problem to have! Two great cameras to pick from. I have to say it really comes down to post processing to get the best out of each camera. I had a look at some Leica DNG files that I had processed this time last year and I re-processed them today. What a difference!!! I now use a custom camera profile, then Jonathon Perkin's Green Shadows (removal) Lightroom plug-in (http://blog.perkins.org.uk/). Plus a bit more finesse in ACR. So the difference to the images is huge, way more than the difference between the Leica and Sony. I think the real biggest difference between the two cameras is in the usage. Where is the aperture control, the shutter dial, do you want/need AF...??? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uhoh7 Posted September 6, 2015 Share #85 Posted September 6, 2015 Leica make their cameras with their lenses in mind. Sony does the same. A Leica lens on a Sony body will never be a true and fair comparison. Gordon A major factor in the Sony success with the E mount has been it's ability to shoot other makers lenses. When the A7 was released, with few lenses, this was touted by Sony and their reps. "Don't worry you can put other lenses on there" Which would have been fine with a thin cover glass. Instead they had totally broken with the norm for FF and put a very thick one in place, which to this day is problematic for many reasons. I'm still miffed at Sony's cynical hype and misleading claims in 2013. I certainly was taken in. Basically the Sony "talkers" had no connection with the design team at all, before or after the camera was built. It's too bad because it would be so easy to please many current and potential customers with a specific version for this application: use of film lenses in general. They already have many versions of the camera, and they cannot make enough 25/2s as it is. Even the abilty to recognize and correct M lenses is a simple affair which could be accommodated in firmware on such a A7 version. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 6, 2015 Share #86 Posted September 6, 2015 That would mean licensing Leica's patents... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted September 6, 2015 Share #87 Posted September 6, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) For organic results one must use film developed in Cafenol. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted September 6, 2015 Share #88 Posted September 6, 2015 Which would have been fine with a thin cover glass. Instead they had totally broken with the norm for FF and put a very thick one in place, which to this day is problematic for many reasons. And what do you think is the norm for FF? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted September 7, 2015 Share #89 Posted September 7, 2015 And what do you think is the norm for FF? Depends on the choice of the people designing the firmware for the rendering they like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uhoh7 Posted September 7, 2015 Share #90 Posted September 7, 2015 Depends on the choice of the people designing the firmware for the rendering they like. I don't think it's anything of the sort. Lens rentals has a DB of CG thicknesses so you can compare. Instead, I think it's a matter of cost, function, and hubris. The A7 series has a very strong processor, and that's how the FE 35/2.8 does as well as it does. In camera correction with the processor. The Q, of course, relies on it's processor to make some large distortion corrections for the 28, before we ever see the files in any form. But that sort of correction is very simple compared to the compensation required to fix the FC induced by the Sony cover glass. What makes this Sony decision really defy belief is that a thick cover glass worsens in effect as the register shortens. So we have a relatively small FF form factor which needs special lenses which tend to the large size. With a truly thin cover, an entire lens set could be made much much smaller, taking advantage of the short register. Instead the A7 bloat grows in body and lens to the point where a 6D is really not much bigger, and far tougher, with a far more complete and thought out interface. Basically Sony is winging it. At least the FF evil market is now established, and i read stories everyday of guys switching platforms to the Sony all the time. But, I also read stories of the same guys giving up in frustration for various reasons. The siren song of high megapixel is helping alot as well, which I also fell for in the original A7r. In fact, if you are not cropping, some many pixels are a disadvantage, as the A7S performance showed. What is curious to me is the very high emotion the Sonys bring with them, both for and against. It's already very clear a good shooter can do great work with them. It's equally clear quirks abound. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkonkkrete Posted September 7, 2015 Share #91 Posted September 7, 2015 I'll throw this quote into the mix from an A7rII review We’ve heard about copper wiring being used to speed up the data transfer on the sensor. It turns out this probably has more beneficial effects than a simple speed boost. In HiFi, copper has a “low res” highly natural sound. If sounds organic, fluid and analog where other metals can sound shrill & brittle. The A7rII feels exactly like this. More airy, more atmospheric, more natural. As if 12 bits had been upped to 16 … Full review here http://www.dearsusan.net/2015/08/20/392-sony-a7r-vs-sony-a7rii-what-evolution/ And hey these are his words not mine This is grade A snake oil BS, my friend. I know you are just quoting, though, not trying to shoot the messenger ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 7, 2015 Share #92 Posted September 7, 2015 The camera part is BS, the HiFi part not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted September 7, 2015 Share #93 Posted September 7, 2015 A major factor in the Sony success with the E mount has been it's ability to shoot other makers lenses. When the A7 was released, with few lenses, this was touted by Sony and their reps. "Don't worry you can put other lenses on there" Which would have been fine with a thin cover glass. Instead they had totally broken with the norm for FF and put a very thick one in place, which to this day is problematic for many reasons. I'm still miffed at Sony's cynical hype and misleading claims in 2013. I certainly was taken in. Basically the Sony "talkers" had no connection with the design team at all, before or after the camera was built. It's too bad because it would be so easy to please many current and potential customers with a specific version for this application: use of film lenses in general. They already have many versions of the camera, and they cannot make enough 25/2s as it is. Even the abilty to recognize and correct M lenses is a simple affair which could be accommodated in firmware on such a A7 version. Yep. They did. The VAST majority of lenses that can be adapted to the A7x cameras are SLR lenses and these have few issues because of their design. RF lenses are more problematic but only a tiny percentage of alternative lenses available. You don't get the same issues with wide R lenses that you might with an equivalent M lens. And there's many fine lenses from Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus etc, etc, etc that work brilliantly. To be fair Sony never said "all" lenses would adapt. They said that the A7 would work with many adapted lenses. And that is true, mostly with a cheap lens adaptor. It's not like Sony even makes adaptors for other brand lenses. As much as I would like ALL my M lenses to work on the Sony, I have to accept that there's no magic pill. I accept that the best overall match for my M lenses is an M body. I too bought my first A7 body hoping it would overcome some of the M system limitations. It has only been partly successful. And I've had to adapt a bit. Such is life. Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted September 7, 2015 Share #94 Posted September 7, 2015 This is grade A snake oil BS, my friend. I know you are just quoting, though, not trying to shoot the messenger ... Of course it is but just goes to show how people view these things and how hard it can be for people trying to get real info on any camera can be. I have always been amazed about how aggressive or defensive people get about any form of product (camera seems especially prone to this) on web forums and how the facts just get lost in the heat of the debate and the fact that Jaap has felt it necessary to delete 9 posts says it all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 7, 2015 Share #95 Posted September 7, 2015 [...] RF lenses are more problematic but only a tiny percentage of alternative lenses available. You don't get the same issues with wide R lenses that you might with an equivalent M lens. [...] I would have thought that the vast majority, if not the totality, of M wides show soft borders and/on corners at infinity on Sony bodies and that R wides are not immune from this problem either. Apart from MATE and WATE, would you mind to quote M and/or R wides having not such issues if any? I would be interested about the following lenses personally: - M 21/2.8 asph, M 21/3.4 asph, M 24/3.8 asph, M 28/2, M 28/2.8 asph, M 35/1.4 asph FLE, M 35/1.4 pre-asph, M 35/2 asph, M 35/2 v4. - R 21/4, R 24/2.8, R 28/2.8, R 35/2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted September 7, 2015 Share #96 Posted September 7, 2015 I think there is enough evidence that the thick sensor glass cover on the Sony A7 series causes enough image degradation in the corners to affect SLR wides as well. Now many camera owners tend to be more forgiving, shooting their lenses at f/11 or f/16, because this is where the results start to look ok. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted September 7, 2015 Share #97 Posted September 7, 2015 I would be interested about the following lenses personally: - M 21/2.8 asph, M 21/3.4 asph, M 24/3.8 asph, M 28/2, M 28/2.8 asph, M 35/1.4 asph FLE, M 35/1.4 pre-asph, M 35/2 asph, M 35/2 v4. - R 21/4, R 24/2.8, R 28/2.8, R 35/2 Here is the SEM21. 1:1 extreme upper-right corner crops of far and near shots, focusing for the center of the image. All SOOC with Lightroom 6.1.1; I only corrected exposure and WB in post (not perfectly matched, but this is a sharpness test). Note that the M240 was correcting vignetting in-camera, and the A7R2 was not. My personal opinion: A7R2+SEM21 is no go for landscape. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/249707-leicas-organic-rendering-versus-plasticized-sony-7rii/?do=findComment&comment=2884036'>More sharing options...
uhoh7 Posted September 8, 2015 Share #98 Posted September 8, 2015 The film lenses are just not optimal on the stock A7 cameras. Yes SLR too. But it's more subtle. If I was using an un-modifed A7, I would only use the native glass, except maybe the CV 15 v3, because there is no alternative yet. I cringe to even think of it. Focus by wire, no infinity stop, too big...have you seen the 25/2? But you see some very good results. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 8, 2015 Share #99 Posted September 8, 2015 I often hear this notion of film lens but i can't seem to comprehend what it means exactly re compatibility with Sony bodies. Lenses like 21/3.4 asph, 24/3.8 asph and 28/2.8 asph have been made for digital Ms if memory serves and have the same vignetting and softness problems in borders and corners as earlier lenses if i understand well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 8, 2015 Share #100 Posted September 8, 2015 A lens is not made "for film" or "for digital" That is an urban myth. (Or as we call it in Dutch a Monkey Sandwich story) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.