Archive 2013 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
p.10 #1Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
turnstyle wrote:
Personally, I welcome the comparison to GXR. I think to understand the behavior of M lenses on the new Sony bodies, it helps to consider the behavior of M lenses on other bodies.
I agree.. I was just offered a Fuji Xe-1 to compare next month. Not FF, but could be a valid comparo
waterden wrote
Hasn't this thread gone completely off-topic? I thought it was supposed to be about a7 impressions and tests and personally have no interest whatsoever in reading about a Richoh GXR. With respect this ancillary stuff is clogging everything up and should be discussed elsewhere in this forum, on a separate thread if necessary.I agree.. I was just offered a Fuji Xe-1 to compare next month. Not FF, but could be a valid comparo
Nov 23, 2013 at 03:58 PM
p.10 #2Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
philip_pj wrote:
fotoingo2, maybe put your comments here:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1247673/114#lastmessage
this thread lurched off into Ricoh pining and may never escape. It would help others if you could humour readers with the specifics about the lenses - good enough or not, for example - except the day has a good adjective, so you have a bloody beauty too, mate.
Yeah, I really thought at some point they would start to reconsider and stop being completely off topic, but it seems this will never end.
This thread is a dead end then.
Thank you guys!
fotoingo2, maybe put your comments here:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1247673/114#lastmessage
this thread lurched off into Ricoh pining and may never escape. It would help others if you could humour readers with the specifics about the lenses - good enough or not, for example - except the day has a good adjective, so you have a bloody beauty too, mate.
Yeah, I really thought at some point they would start to reconsider and stop being completely off topic, but it seems this will never end.
This thread is a dead end then.
Thank you guys!
Nov 23, 2013 at 05:01 PM
p.10 #3Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
5% OT... seriously.
Be the change you want to see in the world and contribute something relevant.
Or.. go over to the other topic, which is much less focused and drifting all over the place, and let us continue our examination of corner sharpness, distortion and CA with various lenses on the Alpha compared to other available cameras.
Be the change you want to see in the world and contribute something relevant.
Or.. go over to the other topic, which is much less focused and drifting all over the place, and let us continue our examination of corner sharpness, distortion and CA with various lenses on the Alpha compared to other available cameras.
Nov 23, 2013 at 05:14 PM
p.10 #4Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
johnvanr wrote:
I started having serious doubts when Huff clearly avoided the subject. He mentioned how great it is, but he didn't post any shot with a Leica lens wider than 50mm, he only posted a couple of CV shots and then started claiming he "covered" the subject extensively. Something smelly for sure....
I will be fine if I can use my 28R, 50 Lux, 90 APO and 135 Telyt on it + CV 125 APO and a couple of other R lenses.
I will later replace my wider M lenses with a native Zeiss "solution" and I will be all set.I think at some point he said wide angle third party lenses didn't do so well. He also said to get the A7 over the A7r for third-party lenses, but Sony told me at PPE that the r is much better suited for other lenses.
Very interesting. According to "Fotoingo2":
fotoingo2 wrote:
My conclusions so far :
Corner smearing is the same with the A7 and A7R.
Colour cast ist much higher on the A7R!
Chromatic Aberations are higher on the A7R !
Tested this on both production cams with an
Leica Elmar-M 24mm f3.8
Contax G 28mm 2.8
Contax G 35mm 2.0
Leica Summilux Asph 35mm 1.4 non-fle
and longer lenses.
Have a nice day !
Perhaps he can post some examples.
snowboarder wrote
Lee Saxon wrote
The incompatibility with older rangefinder lenses is even worse than I was expecting given what samples we have so far. But what's troubling me more is the amount of moire.I will be fine if I can use my 28R, 50 Lux, 90 APO and 135 Telyt on it + CV 125 APO and a couple of other R lenses.
I will later replace my wider M lenses with a native Zeiss "solution" and I will be all set.
Very interesting. According to "Fotoingo2":
fotoingo2 wrote:
My conclusions so far :
Corner smearing is the same with the A7 and A7R.
Colour cast ist much higher on the A7R!
Chromatic Aberations are higher on the A7R !
Tested this on both production cams with an
Leica Elmar-M 24mm f3.8
Contax G 28mm 2.8
Contax G 35mm 2.0
Leica Summilux Asph 35mm 1.4 non-fle
and longer lenses.
Have a nice day !
Perhaps he can post some examples.
Nov 24, 2013 at 11:21 AM
p.10 #5Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
okay, back to topic:
Sigma_24mmf28_infinity_SonyA7 by reevedata, on Flickr
Minolta_MD_35mm_f28_SonyA7_infinity by reevedata, on Flickr
Minolta MD 35mm f2.8 Sony A7 atf8 full resolution by reevedata, on Flickr
Minolta_MD_3570mmf35_35mm_infinty2 by reevedata, on Flickr
Minolta_MD_3570mmf35_50mm_infinty2 by reevedata, on Flickr
Minolta_MD_3570mmf35_70mm_infinty by reevedata, on Flickr
Sigma_24mmf28_infinity_SonyA7 by reevedata, on Flickr
Minolta_MD_35mm_f28_SonyA7_infinity by reevedata, on Flickr
Minolta MD 35mm f2.8 Sony A7 atf8 full resolution by reevedata, on Flickr
Minolta_MD_3570mmf35_35mm_infinty2 by reevedata, on Flickr
Minolta_MD_3570mmf35_50mm_infinty2 by reevedata, on Flickr
Minolta_MD_3570mmf35_70mm_infinty by reevedata, on Flickr
Nov 25, 2013 at 10:46 AM
p.10 #6Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
Thank you Phillip.
The Full frame shot is a brilliant test, with the electrical wires running to the corners of the frame. It looks fantastic, especially the colors.
I used to have that Sigma 24 for my Contax RTS, it was never stellar in the corners, even on film. The other lenses look acceptible.
Anybody have a Summicron 50mm (any gen), Dual range Summicron, Summicron-C 40mm, Summicron 90, Zeiss ZM 25mm, 35mm, 50mm to test?
The Full frame shot is a brilliant test, with the electrical wires running to the corners of the frame. It looks fantastic, especially the colors.
I used to have that Sigma 24 for my Contax RTS, it was never stellar in the corners, even on film. The other lenses look acceptible.
Anybody have a Summicron 50mm (any gen), Dual range Summicron, Summicron-C 40mm, Summicron 90, Zeiss ZM 25mm, 35mm, 50mm to test?
Nov 25, 2013 at 11:10 AM
p.10 #7Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
Makten/Martin has some testshots with Summicron C 40 over HERE, images are 1500 wide (A7). All Swedish but info is below the images. Some of those are on Flickr too, dont know if theyre fullsize though.
BTW, check the ISO8000 (Elmar 90) shot too and look for noise.
BTW, check the ISO8000 (Elmar 90) shot too and look for noise.
Nov 25, 2013 at 02:17 PM
p.10 #8Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
Phillip Reeve wrote:
okay, back to topic:
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2892/11051837756_aa6955c404_o.jpg
Sigma_24mmf28_infinity_SonyA7 by reevedata, on Flickr
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3682/11051938234_149591caff_o.jpg
Minolta_MD_35mm_f28_SonyA7_infinity by reevedata, on Flickr
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5512/11037938503_0670cac9e9_b.jpg
Minolta MD 35mm f2.8 Sony A7 atf8 full resolution by reevedata, on Flickr
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5479/11051731185_608931e1a0_o.jpg
Minolta_MD_3570mmf35_35mm_infinty2 by reevedata, on Flickr
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3689/11051731025_ed605504e9_o.jpg
Minolta_MD_3570mmf35_50mm_infinty2 by reevedata, on Flickr
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7339/11051849764_162c48cf94_o.jpg
Minolta_MD_3570mmf35_70mm_infinty by reevedata, on Flickr
things look better for the wides at longer focus distances.
the MD 35/2.8 seems to have pretty heavy inward field curvature in your field shot but not in the test series. did you refocus for the corner crops?
okay, back to topic:
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2892/11051837756_aa6955c404_o.jpg
Sigma_24mmf28_infinity_SonyA7 by reevedata, on Flickr
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3682/11051938234_149591caff_o.jpg
Minolta_MD_35mm_f28_SonyA7_infinity by reevedata, on Flickr
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5512/11037938503_0670cac9e9_b.jpg
Minolta MD 35mm f2.8 Sony A7 atf8 full resolution by reevedata, on Flickr
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5479/11051731185_608931e1a0_o.jpg
Minolta_MD_3570mmf35_35mm_infinty2 by reevedata, on Flickr
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3689/11051731025_ed605504e9_o.jpg
Minolta_MD_3570mmf35_50mm_infinty2 by reevedata, on Flickr
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7339/11051849764_162c48cf94_o.jpg
Minolta_MD_3570mmf35_70mm_infinty by reevedata, on Flickr
things look better for the wides at longer focus distances.
the MD 35/2.8 seems to have pretty heavy inward field curvature in your field shot but not in the test series. did you refocus for the corner crops?
Nov 25, 2013 at 02:58 PM
p.10 #9Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
sebboh wrote:
things look better for the wides at longer focus distances.
the MD 35/2.8 seems to have pretty heavy inward field curvature in your field shot but not in the test series. did you refocus for the corner crops?
No, I did not.
Maybe I could have gotten sharper trees in the sample image if i had focused a bit farther away?
things look better for the wides at longer focus distances.
the MD 35/2.8 seems to have pretty heavy inward field curvature in your field shot but not in the test series. did you refocus for the corner crops?
No, I did not.
Maybe I could have gotten sharper trees in the sample image if i had focused a bit farther away?
Nov 25, 2013 at 03:06 PM
p.10 #10Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
Phillip Reeve wrote:
the MD 35/2.8 seems to have pretty heavy inward field curvature in your field shot but not in the test series. did you refocus for the corner crops?No, I did not.
Maybe I could have gotten sharper trees in the sample image if i had focused a bit farther away?
where exactly did you focus out of curiousity? the distant trees in the center are quite sharp as is the grass in the near corners.
sebboh wrote
things look better for the wides at longer focus distances.the MD 35/2.8 seems to have pretty heavy inward field curvature in your field shot but not in the test series. did you refocus for the corner crops?
Maybe I could have gotten sharper trees in the sample image if i had focused a bit farther away?
where exactly did you focus out of curiousity? the distant trees in the center are quite sharp as is the grass in the near corners.
Nov 25, 2013 at 03:08 PM
p.10 #11Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
sebboh wrote:
the MD 35/2.8 seems to have pretty heavy inward field curvature in your field shot but not in the test series. did you refocus for the corner crops?No, I did not.
Maybe I could have gotten sharper trees in the sample image if i had focused a bit farther away?where exactly did you focus out of curiousity? the distant trees in the center are quite sharp as is the grass in the near corners.
the farm in the center I think
Phillip Reeve wrote
sebboh wrote
things look better for the wides at longer focus distances.the MD 35/2.8 seems to have pretty heavy inward field curvature in your field shot but not in the test series. did you refocus for the corner crops?
Maybe I could have gotten sharper trees in the sample image if i had focused a bit farther away?
the farm in the center I think
Nov 25, 2013 at 03:16 PM
p.10 #12Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
wfrank wrote:
Makten/Martin has some testshots with Summicron C 40 over HERE, images are 1500 wide (A7). All Swedish but info is below the images. Some of those are on Flickr too, dont know if theyre fullsize though.
BTW, check the ISO8000 (Elmar 90) shot too and look for noise.
Thank you... those look phenomenal. The ISO 12,800 shots look like ISO 800 from my APS camera. (however it's not clear to me whether these shots were RAW or in camera jpegs (with noise reduction).
EDIT:
Here's the page translated into English via Google:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fotosidan.se%2Fblogs%2Fhertsius%2Findex.htm&act=url
Makten/Martin has some testshots with Summicron C 40 over HERE, images are 1500 wide (A7). All Swedish but info is below the images. Some of those are on Flickr too, dont know if theyre fullsize though.
BTW, check the ISO8000 (Elmar 90) shot too and look for noise.
Thank you... those look phenomenal. The ISO 12,800 shots look like ISO 800 from my APS camera. (however it's not clear to me whether these shots were RAW or in camera jpegs (with noise reduction).
EDIT:
Here's the page translated into English via Google:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fotosidan.se%2Fblogs%2Fhertsius%2Findex.htm&act=url
Nov 25, 2013 at 03:24 PM
p.10 #13Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
zmix wrote:
BTW, check the ISO8000 (Elmar 90) shot too and look for noise.Thank you... those look phenomenal. The ISO 12,800 shots look like ISO 800 from my APS camera. (however it's not clear to me whether these shots were RAW or in camera jpegs (with noise reduction).
EDIT:
Here's the page translated into English via Google:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fotosidan.se%2Fblogs%2Fhertsius%2Findex.htm&act=url
They are RAW:s, through Adobe DNG converter and then into ACR for PS CS5. Just a tad of luminance noise reduction and a little bit more of color noise reduction.
And yes, the a7 does amazingly good at low light. However, I think there's a bit of cheating with the ISO values (as usual nowadays?). I can't recall that I've had to use such high numbers with my D700 at similar light, but I'm not sure.
Also, note that these two lenses give fairly low contrast (single coated and low correction for spherical aberration), so PP was harsher than you'd need with a modern lens. Which makes the results even more impressive.
Edit: The a7 JPG motor is terrible at high ISO speeds. There are artefacts all over the place and noise is much worse than with my converted DNG:s, even through the "oldish" ACR for PS CS5.
wfrank wrote
Makten/Martin has some testshots with Summicron C 40 over HERE, images are 1500 wide (A7). All Swedish but info is below the images. Some of those are on Flickr too, dont know if theyre fullsize though.BTW, check the ISO8000 (Elmar 90) shot too and look for noise.
EDIT:
Here's the page translated into English via Google:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fotosidan.se%2Fblogs%2Fhertsius%2Findex.htm&act=url
They are RAW:s, through Adobe DNG converter and then into ACR for PS CS5. Just a tad of luminance noise reduction and a little bit more of color noise reduction.
And yes, the a7 does amazingly good at low light. However, I think there's a bit of cheating with the ISO values (as usual nowadays?). I can't recall that I've had to use such high numbers with my D700 at similar light, but I'm not sure.
Also, note that these two lenses give fairly low contrast (single coated and low correction for spherical aberration), so PP was harsher than you'd need with a modern lens. Which makes the results even more impressive.
Edit: The a7 JPG motor is terrible at high ISO speeds. There are artefacts all over the place and noise is much worse than with my converted DNG:s, even through the "oldish" ACR for PS CS5.
Nov 25, 2013 at 03:58 PM
p.10 #14Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
some more full resolution samples
Sony_FE_2870mmf3556_at70mmf56-01112 by reevedata, on Flickr
Sony_FE_2870mmf3556_at28mmf11-2 by reevedata, on Flickr
Sony_FE_2870mmf3556_at28mmf11 by reevedata, on Flickr
Sigma_24mmf28_atf11 by reevedata, on Flickr
Minolta_MD_Macro_100mmf4_atf4 by reevedata, on Flickr
Minolta_MC_58mmf12_atf2 by reevedata, on Flickr
(pushed quite a bit)
Sony_FE_2870mmf3556_at70mmf56-01112 by reevedata, on Flickr
Sony_FE_2870mmf3556_at28mmf11-2 by reevedata, on Flickr
Sony_FE_2870mmf3556_at28mmf11 by reevedata, on Flickr
Sigma_24mmf28_atf11 by reevedata, on Flickr
Minolta_MD_Macro_100mmf4_atf4 by reevedata, on Flickr
Minolta_MC_58mmf12_atf2 by reevedata, on Flickr
(pushed quite a bit)
Nov 26, 2013 at 12:38 PM
p.10 #15Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
Great shots, thanks for those!
Looks like the kit lens does a decent enough job--not a bad extra $300 to spend (especially since it's half of the available lenses at this time)
Looks like the kit lens does a decent enough job--not a bad extra $300 to spend (especially since it's half of the available lenses at this time)
Nov 26, 2013 at 03:59 PM
p.10 #16Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
Phillip I love your shots !! They are a VERY welcome departure from the endless "street" we have to endure in mirrorless threads, lol. The earlier deer/lynx pictures were amazing, and I love this early morning stuff as well. Thanks a lot.
Nov 27, 2013 at 02:42 AM
p.10 #17Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
posting to keep in the loop; sincere thanks, Phillip.
Nov 27, 2013 at 05:23 AM
p.10 #18Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
Phillip Reeve wrote:
the MD 35/2.8 seems to have pretty heavy inward field curvature in your field shot but not in the test series. did you refocus for the corner crops?No, I did not.
Maybe I could have gotten sharper trees in the sample image if i had focused a bit farther away?
I assume you didn't re-focus any of the test chart shots for the corners either, which could explain why they're so soft across the board, as any field curvature was revealed by the near distance... while I wouldn't expect SLR lenses to have perfect corners on FF, I was very surprised by your FD 35/2 corner results - compared with e.g. Gary Reese's FDn 35/2 tests :
Aperture Center Corner
f/2 ------- B ------- B-
f/2.8 ------- A- ------- A-
f/4 ------- A ------- A-
f/5.6 ------- A ------- A
f/8 ------- A ------- A-
f/11 ------- A- ------- B+
But who's using FF for wide open sharp corners, anyhow? Thanks for all the tests, and your more usual (beautiful) shots.
sebboh wrote
things look better for the wides at longer focus distances.the MD 35/2.8 seems to have pretty heavy inward field curvature in your field shot but not in the test series. did you refocus for the corner crops?
Maybe I could have gotten sharper trees in the sample image if i had focused a bit farther away?
I assume you didn't re-focus any of the test chart shots for the corners either, which could explain why they're so soft across the board, as any field curvature was revealed by the near distance... while I wouldn't expect SLR lenses to have perfect corners on FF, I was very surprised by your FD 35/2 corner results - compared with e.g. Gary Reese's FDn 35/2 tests :
Aperture Center Corner
f/2 ------- B ------- B-
f/2.8 ------- A- ------- A-
f/4 ------- A ------- A-
f/5.6 ------- A ------- A
f/8 ------- A ------- A-
f/11 ------- A- ------- B+
But who's using FF for wide open sharp corners, anyhow?
Thanks for all the tests, and your more usual (beautiful) shots.Nov 27, 2013 at 11:09 AM
p.10 #19Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
alan_m wrote:
the MD 35/2.8 seems to have pretty heavy inward field curvature in your field shot but not in the test series. did you refocus for the corner crops?No, I did not.
Maybe I could have gotten sharper trees in the sample image if i had focused a bit farther away?I assume you didn't re-focus any of the test chart shots for the corners either, which could explain why they're so soft across the board, as any field curvature was revealed by the near distance... while I wouldn't expect SLR lenses to have perfect corners on FF, I was very surprised by your FD 35/2 corner results - compared with e.g. Gary Reese's FDn 35/2 tests :
Aperture Center Corner
f/2 ------- B ------- B-
f/2.8 ------- A- ------- A-
f/4 ------- A ------- A-
f/5.6 ------- A ------- A
f/8 ------- ...Show more →
The FDn Version is a different lens than my FD (last Version, stops down to f/22).
today i tested the Dynamic Range. I have to say that i am impressed. This looks to me like the A7 is much better, more than 2 stops.
I used ISO 100 for all exposures.
Nex-6DR by reevedata, on Flickr
SonyA7DR by reevedata, on Flickr
Phillip Reeve wrote
sebboh wrote
things look better for the wides at longer focus distances.the MD 35/2.8 seems to have pretty heavy inward field curvature in your field shot but not in the test series. did you refocus for the corner crops?
Maybe I could have gotten sharper trees in the sample image if i had focused a bit farther away?
Aperture Center Corner
f/2 ------- B ------- B-
f/2.8 ------- A- ------- A-
f/4 ------- A ------- A-
f/5.6 ------- A ------- A
f/8 ------- ...Show more →
The FDn Version is a different lens than my FD (last Version, stops down to f/22).
today i tested the Dynamic Range. I have to say that i am impressed. This looks to me like the A7 is much better, more than 2 stops.
I used ISO 100 for all exposures.
Nex-6DR by reevedata, on Flickr
SonyA7DR by reevedata, on Flickr
Nov 27, 2013 at 04:04 PM
p.10 #20Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
Nice minolta shots Phillip!
Makten nice shots on your blogs. Those would be the same lenses I would use if I had an A7. What made you decide on the A7 over the A7r?
Makten nice shots on your blogs. Those would be the same lenses I would use if I had an A7. What made you decide on the A7 over the A7r?
Nov 27, 2013 at 06:57 PM