Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              90      
91
       92              152       153       end
  

Archive 2013 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses

  
 
michaelwatkins
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.91 #1 · p.91 #1 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


This is off topic but...

I had a look through the A7/r manual and clearly it states you can turn MF Assist on and off but what was less clear is if you can assign magnify to a button as a toggle. I'm glad to hear it can be done on the RX1 and am inclined to believe the manual just isn't complete as it feels very light to me.

The RX1 manual includes a notation:
AF/MF Control Toggle
You can switch auto focus and manual focus temporarily.
1. MENU
3
[Func. of C Button]
[AF/MF Control Toggle]
2. Press the C (Custom) button to switch auto focus and manual focus.
When [Focus Mode] is set to [Manual Focus], the camera switches to [Autofocus], and when [Focus
Mode] is set to other than [Manual Focus], it switches to [Manual Focus]. Press the C (Custom)
button to return to the previous mode.


The current A7/r manual doesn't have that notation.

PS: As I understand it the RX1 gripe is you don't get peaking *without* a magnified view. That isn't the case on the A7/r cameras.



Nov 16, 2013 at 10:52 AM
sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.91 #2 · p.91 #2 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


turnstyle wrote:
Oh, that's good news, as that has been one of the most annoying things about manually focusing with an e-mount lens on NEX (for me).

So, to sum up -- on RX1 you can disable the automatic zoom in when you turn the focus ring (lens set to manual focus) -- and you can still press a button to engage Focus Assist. Right?

I gather one downside on RX1 is that you don't get Peaking when zoomed out? From what I understand so far, you do get Peaking zoomed out on a7/a7r...


yup, that's right. the one downside from my perspective of the rx1 implementation is that a single button push gives you the bounding box to move around and select the area to be magnified rather than jumping directly to magnification. you need to double tap the button to go directly to magnification.




Nov 16, 2013 at 12:34 PM
philber
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.91 #3 · p.91 #3 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


Bijltje wrote:
I used the 24 elmar on the A7r last Tuesday. The edges showed clearly smearing wide open, closing down to f/5.6 helped but not enough.


I expect the A7R to take some getting used to when pixel peeping, because of its huge resolution. Th emore pixels, the more magnification when viewing at 100%, thus the more defects show up. Once the picture is equalized for size, be it in print or on screen, this effect goes away.
Whether or not that helps enough to let me use my beloved 24 Elmar, I don't know. Maybe it has just become a 28 Elmar...



Nov 16, 2013 at 02:14 PM
wfrank
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.91 #4 · p.91 #4 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


alwang wrote:
Am I looking at the same pictures as everyone else?

I'm actually pleasantly surprised at how good some of the wides are on the A7. The ZM25 and ZM21 both look pretty good to me: about as good as my CV15 on a NEX. The color cast isn't too bad, and there's definitely detail in the lower corners (obscured a bit by the vignetting, but I'm pretty sure that could be easily fixed)

I think there's definitely some misfocusing happening on the wide-aperture shots, so I'm not too worried about those.


Agree. I'd say the ZM21 looks better on the A7 than the G21 on a NEX 5N which is a point of reference of mine. Undoubtedly the ZE21 would do better but I am not too fond of carrying that weight. Perhaps Zuiko is the answer, we'll see.

I think I could cement the CV15 on the 5N, judged by equal share of bad performance and unpractical focal length on FF.

Would be interesting to see a stopped down landscape shot with ZM21 on the Leica M9. Anyone knows how to find one fullsize?



Nov 16, 2013 at 02:24 PM
uhoh7
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.91 #5 · p.91 #5 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


alwang wrote:
Am I looking at the same pictures as everyone else?

I'm actually pleasantly surprised at how good some of the wides are on the A7. The ZM25 and ZM21 both look pretty good to me: about as good as my CV15 on a NEX. The color cast isn't too bad, and there's definitely detail in the lower corners (obscured a bit by the vignetting, but I'm pretty sure that could be easily fixed)



wfrank wrote:
Agree. I'd say the ZM21 looks better on the A7 than the G21 on a NEX 5N which is a point of reference of mine. Undoubtedly the ZE21 would do better but I am not too fond of carrying that weight. Perhaps Zuiko is the answer, we'll see.


You Heretics!

Don't you know the only path to respect is to trash anything not perfect!!!?

How can you forgo the sublime satisfaction of "I told you so, all RF wides are unusable!"?

Smug snickering is the bitcoin of photo punditry, remember that.

Edited on Nov 16, 2013 at 02:49 PM · View previous versions



Nov 16, 2013 at 02:30 PM
rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.91 #6 · p.91 #6 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


alwang wrote:
Am I looking at the same pictures as everyone else?

I'm actually pleasantly surprised at how good some of the wides are on the A7. The ZM25 and ZM21 both look pretty good to me: about as good as my CV15 on a NEX. The color cast isn't too bad, and there's definitely detail in the lower corners (obscured a bit by the vignetting, but I'm pretty sure that could be easily fixed)

I think there's definitely some misfocusing happening on the wide-aperture shots, so I'm not too worried about those.


The tests I did with the ZM21/2.8 on the a7 look bad, IMO, if you're into infinity landscape images. You pretty much have to stop down to f/11, though f/8 might suffice. It will need stopping down a fair amount.

wfrank wrote:
Would be interesting to see a stopped down landscape shot with ZM21 on the Leica M9. Anyone knows how to find one fullsize?


Please see my 4-way 21mm shootout on the M9, including a subset shot on the NEX-7 and GXR. There are full-fez downloads with samples through the full aperture range up to f/11. On the M9, the ZM21 had color shift problems until the more recent firmware versions, but still probably isn't perfect. It also has field curvature, which means flat, frame filling subjects result in soft edges/corners until around f/5.6. Overall it's a really good lens, especially stopped down a bit. I'm less enthusiastic about it on the a7...

Edited on Nov 16, 2013 at 02:48 PM · View previous versions



Nov 16, 2013 at 02:45 PM
wfrank
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.91 #7 · p.91 #7 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


philber wrote:
I expect the A7R to take some getting used to when pixel peeping, because of its huge resolution. Th emore pixels, the more magnification when viewing at 100%, thus the more defects show up. Once the picture is equalized for size, be it in print or on screen, this effect goes away.
Whether or not that helps enough to let me use my beloved 24 Elmar, I don't know. Maybe it has just become a 28 Elmar...


Agree Philippe, 36MP FF represents the biggest magnifying glass yet for
1) mishaps in shooting technique
2) discovering lens performance limits
And also induces
3) disk space & performance cancer for PP:ers

A7 have a wealth of 24 million pixels which - by far - is enough for any images I do or print.

For the 24 Elmar used on the NEX7 you'll off course only have find a replacement 35mm lens. There ought to be plenty apart from the FE :-)



Nov 16, 2013 at 02:46 PM
wfrank
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.91 #8 · p.91 #8 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


rscheffler wrote:
The tests I did with the ZM21/2.8 on the a7 frankly look very bad, if you're into infinity landscape images. It will need stopping down a fair amount.

Please see my 4-way 21mm shootout on the M9, including a subset shot on the NEX-7 and GXR. There are full-fez downloads with samples through the full aperture range up to f/11. On the M9, the ZM21 had color shift problems until the more recent firmware versions, but still probably isn't perfect. It also has field curvature, which means flat, frame filling subjects result in soft edges/corners until around f/5.6. Overall it's
...Show more

Thanks Ron, will have a look.



Nov 16, 2013 at 02:49 PM
xbarcelo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.91 #9 · p.91 #9 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


One thing I was trying today was the G21 on the NEX and its corners. Have you tried to focus on the far corner? I've been trying this today and the corners are a lot better than I thought. So it means that it's not so much smearing (although there is some), but field curvature. I wonder if this will be the case in the A7…


wfrank wrote:
Agree. I'd say the ZM21 looks better on the A7 than the G21 on a NEX 5N which is a point of reference of mine. Undoubtedly the ZE21 would do better but I am not too fond of carrying that weight. Perhaps Zuiko is the answer, we'll see.

I think I could cement the CV15 on the 5N, judged by equal share of bad performance and unpractical focal length on FF.

Would be interesting to see a stopped down landscape shot with ZM21 on the Leica M9. Anyone knows how to find one fullsize?




Nov 16, 2013 at 02:54 PM
wfrank
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.91 #10 · p.91 #10 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


xbarcelo wrote:
One thing I was trying today was the G21 on the NEX and its corners. Have you tried to focus on the far corner? I've been trying this today and the corners are a lot better than I thought. So it means that it's not so much smearing (although there is some), but field curvature. I wonder if this will be the case in the A7…


Hola Xavier. No I am a far to sloppy photographer for that, dont have the patience and detest tripods :-)

It's an interesting point, field curvature makes smearing look worse and perhaps over exaggerated, particularly in this thread.



Nov 16, 2013 at 03:12 PM
uhoh7
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.91 #11 · p.91 #11 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


Just dust off the 21/1.4:

http://flic.kr/s/aHsjMyGC9U

edges seem to be there @f/2

hey buddy, just put that lens down. I don't care how it works. My mentors at FM told me: no usable RF WAs.



Nov 16, 2013 at 03:30 PM
edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.91 #12 · p.91 #12 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


I am not familiar with the G21, but sensor toppings can increase the field curvature of a lens, as it has been discussed earlier in this thread.

xbarcelo wrote:
One thing I was trying today was the G21 on the NEX and its corners. Have you tried to focus on the far corner? I've been trying this today and the corners are a lot better than I thought. So it means that it's not so much smearing (although there is some), but field curvature. I wonder if this will be the case in the A7…





Nov 16, 2013 at 03:54 PM
alwang
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.91 #13 · p.91 #13 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


rscheffler wrote:
The tests I did with the ZM21/2.8 on the a7 look bad, IMO, if you're into infinity landscape images. You pretty much have to stop down to f/11, though f/8 might suffice. It will need stopping down a fair amount.

Please see my 4-way 21mm shootout on the M9, including a subset shot on the NEX-7 and GXR. There are full-fez downloads with samples through the full aperture range up to f/11. On the M9, the ZM21 had color shift problems until the more recent firmware versions, but still probably isn't perfect. It also has field curvature, which means flat,
...Show more

Ron, your ZM21 shots on the a7 do indeed look terrible: I feel like there must have been something off with the camera or adapter. But when I look at this shot at 1:1:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/inikon/10867266285/sizes/l/in/set-72157637688730425/

It's not far off to me from the ZM21 f8 shot in your M9 21mm shootout (the one of the cityscape at infinity). Neither one has perfect corners at f8, but both seem pretty decent, and I suspect if I downrezzed the a7 shot to 18MP, the results would be awfully close (setting aside the color cast and vignetting, which doesn't bother me).



Nov 16, 2013 at 04:09 PM
Emacs
Offline
• •
[X]
p.91 #14 · p.91 #14 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


Tried Lux 35 ASPH FLE + A7r today at Moscow presentation. Generally dislike the camera (no touchscreen, fixed EVF instead of swivel, the ergonomics seems to be sacrificed for retro look, it is too large for mirrorless, larger than Pentax K-M which I owned), but Lux did work OK. There's quite a noticeable vignetting WO, but no color shift. There's no evident edge smearing from what I saw. Unfortunately, I forgot a card, so no test samples here, I'm sorry (they would be from the store room though, so nothing to regret much about).


Nov 16, 2013 at 04:23 PM
uhoh7
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.91 #15 · p.91 #15 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


alwang wrote:
Ron, your ZM21 shots on the a7 do indeed look terrible: I feel like there must have been something off with the camera or adapter. But when I look at this shot at 1:1:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/inikon/10867266285/sizes/l/in/set-72157637688730425/

It's not far off to me from the ZM21 f8 shot in your M9 21mm shootout (the one of the cityscape at infinity). Neither one has perfect corners at f8, but both seem pretty decent, and I suspect if I downrezzed the a7 shot to 18MP, the results would be awfully close (setting aside the color cast and vignetting, which doesn't bother me).


Looking at the A7r shots, what do you think?

To my eye when the huge size is factored in, the same could be true.

I was pretty flabbergasted when Ron's test shots were taken here as the gold standard, and now zhang's shots are "proof" that RF wides are "useless" on the the A7r.

I really don't get the rush to declare death.

We need to see the various downsizes and and corrected images from a variety of careful shooters.

It will be quite some time for that.


A7R-ZM21F2.8-8 by ZhangQL, on Flickr


A7-ZM21F2.8-8 by ZhangQL, on Flickr

Edited on Nov 16, 2013 at 04:57 PM · View previous versions



Nov 16, 2013 at 04:49 PM
xbarcelo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.91 #16 · p.91 #16 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


edwardkaraa wrote:
I am not familiar with the G21, but sensor toppings can increase the field curvature of a lens, as it has been discussed earlier in this thread.


Very true, I was aware of it. But what I mean is that if it is so, then we can actually focus on the edges and, with the right amount of DOF, get most of the picture in focus and with more or less decent sharpness. Then it's not a matter of hopeless edges, but it would deeply depend on the scene.



Nov 16, 2013 at 04:52 PM
uhoh7
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.91 #17 · p.91 #17 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


xbarcelo wrote:
Very true, I was aware of it. But what I mean is that if it is so, then we can actually focus on the edges and, with the right amount of DOF, get most of the picture in focus and with more or less decent sharpness. Then it's not a matter of hopeless edges, but it would deeply depend on the scene.


Exactly, one wonders about the images above, if the shooter had used such technique.

Again, why we do regard the issue as settled based on a single set? Do we have smearing from curvature--hence the edges can be be sharp, or because the light is scattered?

I'd guess a great number of Rf wides may require crops for a good number of shots to get near the corners---how much?

These factors are going to vary lens by lens.

I'm curious, and more concerned with learning than distributing my limited knowledge. Summary judgements are over simplified to my taste.

I'd also remark about the incredible center of the A7r image above--have we ever seen an image center from this lens so sharp on any camera? It's quite aways past the plain A7.

some hearsay from RFF today:

YYV_146:
"On the A7 the ZM18 has minor red corners, no smearing. The 12mm f5.6 has a little bit of smearing - but I guess it could be cropped down to about 15mm and still be plenty wide. The Leica 21/24mm Summilux, CV 21 1.8, Zeiss 15mm Distagon are all more or less okay, but with exaggerated falloff (this is what my friend in HK reported)

The 16-18-21 is perfect on both the A7 and A7r. I might be buying one myself - Leica apparently went with such a retrofocus design that the rear element is further away than some SLR lenses."






Nov 16, 2013 at 04:59 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.91 #18 · p.91 #18 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


uhoh7 wrote:
These factors are going to vary lens by lens.


So if a Distagon with an M mount is longer than a Distagon with EF/F mount and yields good edges/corners ... is that a "win" for RF glass compared to a smaller Biogon/pancake RF that has significant issues in the outer areas?

xbarcelo wrote:
Then it's not a matter of hopeless edges


Being "not hopeless" is quite different from being the "holy grail" many are/were clamoring for. Realistic expectations @ required/available corrections and tolerances for contending with such seems to be a considerable factor at how folks are assessing the viability of the results.

Imo ... what began as a much anticipated "quest for the best" @ utilization of RF excellence on 24x36, has morphed into "compromise for size" trying to save face for the love of RF with a little bit of the Emperor's Clothes being applied in some instances. This isn't saying WA RF on A7R is useless (as some are suggesting is being said) ... just that it is an issue of choose your poison(s) @ the wider + closer = tougher for those with discriminating expectations and demanding applications. Folks with lesser discrimination, less demanding applications and more tolerance for correction may find the trade-offs perfectly acceptable ... others, not so much.

At the end of the day, I think it is going to be largely a matter of realistic expectations / perspective @ what constitutes / defines individual levels of tolerance for an imperfect application of some WA RF on digital. Is it worth being enthused about as an offering that did not exist before, or an alternative to a Leica platform ... sure. Is it the solution to the best IQ possible for wides just because the mirror has been removed = great IQ ... well, I'm not so sure.

It seems that we have largely misapplied the notion that where the mirror has been a limiting factor regarding lens design criteria, that if only we could just remove the mirror on 24x36, that those limits would be removed. While that may sound great ... the limits of the micro lens angles of incidence present a challenge that the removal of the mirror does little to change, and in fact largely serves to exacerbate certain issues by moving closer to the film plane.

It would seem that while the increased utility of RF glass is a highly welcomed event ... the lens design projected angles of incidence to the micro-lenses will still rule the day on digital (at least for now). Those lenses (legacy, adapted, native or future offerings) that accept the trigonometry involved to yield angles of incidence that play nice with micro-lenses are likely to fare better than those that are designed for diminutive considerations. In that regard, as "generic principal", the TS-E's offer the best AOV:AI for WA/UWA, RF's the worst, regular SLR glass somewhere in the middle (much variance to individual lens, i.e. pancake SLR vs. large RF, etc.) as the trig follows the projected image distance from the film plane.


I think the case for UWA/WA RF on digital is a bit of be careful what you wish for ... you just might get it.


Choose your poison(s) @ the wider (and closer) you go, the tougher it gets ... YMMV




Edited on Nov 16, 2013 at 07:05 PM · View previous versions



Nov 16, 2013 at 06:16 PM
turnstyle
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.91 #19 · p.91 #19 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


Just saying, but it's not just about wides -- I've been paying close attention to the Lux 50, and (so far) it seems to be under-performing too (despite much talk of "everything over 35 should be fine").


Nov 16, 2013 at 06:21 PM
_julian_
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.91 #20 · p.91 #20 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses


I agree that the 50s (ZM50p, ZM50c, 'Lux 50) all under-perform on both cameras. Queue the insults..


Nov 16, 2013 at 06:31 PM
1       2       3              90      
91
       92              152       153       end




FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              90      
91
       92              152       153       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.