p.109 #3 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
I downloaded it and check it on a couple of virus scanners, it is nothing more than a PDF file. It is safe and it appears to be an offical Sony Document. It certainly beats the the manual the comes with the camera.
p.109 #5 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
I looked at it using my Linux laptop - the file is a PDF containing images rather than text, which is odd - each page is an image. It might be sourced from Sony originally but it should be hyper-linked, searchable, text.
I remember early on in the NEX-7 release there was a fairly useless guide of sorts followed by a more in-depth guide. Probably the more in-depth document takes a while as it has to go out for translation... I'm assuming the originals are all in Japanese. Translation takes awhile.
p.109 #6 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
michaelwatkins wrote:
I looked at it using my Linux laptop - the file is a PDF containing images rather than text, which is odd - each page is an image. It might be sourced from Sony originally but it should be hyper-linked, searchable, text.
I remember early on in the NEX-7 release there was a fairly useless guide of sorts followed by a more in-depth guide. Probably the more in-depth document takes a while as it has to go out for translation... I'm assuming the originals are all in Japanese. Translation takes awhile.
There quite a number of places in the document that indicate copyright 2013, Sony Corporation. I presume this is somehow from Sony.
p.109 #7 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
In order to see whether the Sony FE 35/2.8 is significantly longer than 35mm, I shot a quick test with it and the M-Hexanon 35/2, CV Ultron 35/1.7, and M-Rokkor 40/2 lenses. Here are the results (from widest coverage to narrowest):
It's clear that, while the FE 35/2.8 has a narrower FoV than the other 35s, there's no way it's even nearly equivalent to a 40mm (at least at the distance that I shot, which was about 7 meters).
p.109 #8 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Tariq Gibran wrote:
It's confirmed not to offer the electronic first curtain. Are you raising the question if it actually has it and is simply not activated by the firmware or something?
Thanks, I just wasn't sure if that was confirmed yet or not. The electronic first curtain shutter would be important to me. It was a noticeable difference between my Nex-5 vs. my Nex-5 and Nex-7. I'd hate to go back to the "clunk clunk."
p.109 #9 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
genji wrote:
In order to see whether the Sony FE 35/2.8 is significantly longer than 35mm, I shot a quick test with it and the M-Hexanon 35/2, CV Ultron 35/1.7, and M-Rokkor 40/2 lenses. It's clear that, while the FE 35/2.8 has a narrower FoV than the other 35s, there's no way it's even nearly equivalent to a 40mm (at least at the distance that I shot, which was about 7 meters).
p.109 #10 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
genji wrote:
(...)
It's clear that, while the FE 35/2.8 has a narrower FoV than the other 35s, there's no way it's even nearly equivalent to a 40mm (at least at the distance that I shot, which was about 7 meters).
I think 7 meters is an OK distance. Thank you.
One question: were these images raw and converted how? It's the geek inside me asking... I guess Sony performs some in-camera distortion correction. That's just a guess though, and whether they do or not your results are valid as you show what often will be the end result anyway.
p.109 #11 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Jonas B wrote:
I think 7 meters is an OK distance. Thank you.
One question: were these images raw and converted how? It's the geek inside me asking... I guess Sony performs some in-camera distortion correction. That's just a guess though, and whether they do or not your results are valid as you show what often will be the end result anyway.
Yes, raw images converted with Iridient Developer with no adjustments apart from input sharpening and noise reduction (according to Iridient's default A7R camera profile). All in-camera compensations (Shading, Chromatic Aberration, and Distortion) were turned off. I exported the files as full size JPEGs (quality 80) and uploaded them to Flickr. The files I linked to in my post are the Flickr 1024px versions.
I chose Iridient Developer because it was the only raw converter that I have which fully supports the A7(R) files. There's a Lightroom/ACR Release Candidate that supports the A7(R) cameras but I prefer to wait for the official version. Similarly, Capture One doesn't yet support these new Sony Cameras. When Lightroom/ACR and Capture One properly support the A7R, I'll see what their conversions look like.
p.109 #12 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Question:
How is the consensus playing out now that we have more cameras out in the hands of good users?
Sensor: Is the A7-sensor only different when it comes to resolution? Or are there DR/Color/etc differences too?
Rangefinder lenses: Is there a consensus on which of the cameras are best? I tried my 35mm rangefinder (cv 35/1.2 v2) lens on the a7r and it looked great. But I've also seen the opposite from other lenses. Is the consensus that the A7 s better for RF?
Build quality: does the a7r feel better with all magnesium?
p.109 #13 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
genji wrote:
Yes, raw images converted with Iridient Developer with no adjustments apart from input sharpening and noise reduction (according to Iridient's default A7R camera profile). All in-camera compensations (Shading, Chromatic Aberration, and Distortion) were turned off. I exported the files as full size JPEGs (quality 80) and uploaded them to Flickr. The files I linked to in my post are the Flickr 1024px versions.
I chose Iridient Developer because it was the only raw converter that I have which fully supports the A7(R) files. (...)
I'm not familiar with Iridient but from your reply I understand the situation as there was no distortion compensation at all involved in any of the images you showed. Then I wonder if SOOC JPG images are corrected for distortion when the FE 35/2.8 is used. That's the same question as somebody else already mentioned earlier.
Maybe that explains why some reviewers and users report the lens as being longer?
p.109 #14 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Jonas B wrote:
I'm not familiar with Iridient but from your reply I understand the situation as there was no distortion compensation at all involved in any of the images you showed. Then I wonder if SOOC JPG images are corrected for distortion when the FE 35/2.8 is used. That's the same question as somebody else already mentioned earlier.
Maybe that explains why some reviewers and users report the lens as being longer?
That seems the logical explanation (and, if I recall correctly, Edward Karaa offered a similar explanation earlier in this or another thread). Would the best way for me to test this be to shoot the scene again with distortion correction turned on and then off? (As a sidenote, I just compared my exported-from-raw JPG with the SOOC JPG and the edges are distinctly different, with the former looking much better than the latter.)
p.109 #15 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
I didn't recall who it was but perhaps Edward, yes.
It should be easy to check a couple of images; shooting mode can be JPG+raw, SOOC JPGs with the correction turned on and off respectively, the raw format images converted using a developer of choice comparing them to see if and how the converter supports the meta tags. If possible using more than one converter (I don't know if more basic, if the expression is allowed, third party converters like Raw Therapee supports the A7 and/or A7r).
...and then again, how interesting is it in real life vs how good wouldn't it be to know instead of guess? If you have the time I would appreciate any knowledge on the matter. I started with non-mirror interchangeable lens cameras in November 2008 and the topic surfaces every now and then.
p.109 #16 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
carstenw wrote:
I don't know in which direction this might tend towards infinity, if at all.
There must be an alternative way to calculate it from official data: 0.12x magnification at 35cm.
If the FE 35 is a lens focusing in a traditional way (moving the whole optic block back and forth), 0,12x at 35 cmtr. mean that the focal length is 33.5mm ??
Instead, with your real data of 51,4º at 167.5 cmtr. it's effectively 37,2mm -which translates to 36.4 mm. at infinity
I guess that the 0.12x and 35 cmtr of MFD are only approximate.
p.109 #17 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
ulrikft2 wrote:
Rangefinder lenses: Is there a consensus on which of the cameras are best? I tried my 35mm rangefinder (cv 35/1.2 v2) lens on the a7r and it looked great. But I've also seen the opposite from other lenses. Is the consensus that the A7 s better for RF?
Dies anybody happens to have more info on whether the CV 35 1.2 performs similarly on both A7 and A7r? I've seen mostly favorable opinions of the lens on Sony, but almost all have been with the A7.
I thought I saw more color cast on the big Flickr A7 vs A7r cityscape sets, but I also felt those sets were generally a little bit odd -- so I'd love to hear more if anybody happens to know?
I believe that it is somehow from Sony. If you want I can run a McAfee Security Scan on my whole hard drive before you download the file. It will take close to an hour.
I also just scanned the file itself and it appears to be clean.
Rich
Brilliant, this is already beginning to answer some of my questions. I guess Sony just released the camera before the manual was ready.
p.109 #19 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
ulrikft2 wrote:
Rangefinder lenses: Is there a consensus on which of the cameras are best? I tried my 35mm rangefinder (cv 35/1.2 v2) lens on the a7r and it looked great. But I've also seen the opposite from other lenses. Is the consensus that the A7 s better for RF?
Build quality: does the a7r feel better with all magnesium?
I don't think there is any consensus, and there may never be, but from the results so far it is clear that at the very least, the A7 is better with some RF lenses, I have not seen any results where the A7R was better with RF lenses.
The A7R does feel better, but the difference is not large, the A7 feels very good.
