p.133 #1 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Wouldn't a thick filter pack likely get in the way of the camera delivering high resolution as testing is showing? I'm thinking of Roger's Imatest results.
I recall one comment from Sony saying no D800E-like AA filters but can't find the link at present.
p.133 #2 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
carstenw wrote:
Does the A7R really have no opposed AA-filters, like the D800? I have heard both.
With all the smearing and corner problems, I am beginning to wonder if the filter pack is quite thick (which it might be, considering the prices of these cameras are so low).
Yeah, I've read two or three posts in the past couple days saying that it really has "no" AA filter, wheras I'd not heard for sure either way before that.
If it doesn't have the two-cancelling-filters D800E trick, then it must have just a thick layer of optical glass in its place, because of the corner smearing?
p.133 #3 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
the only person I've heard state that the a7r has d800e like canceling AA filters is Edward and he was just speculating. corner smearing could be just due to a thick IR filter.
I've not seen any comments from people at sony who might actually know, so I expect we'll have to wait till someone takes one apart.
p.133 #6 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
^^ Yup, sorry, I should have been more clear. I was looking at the FE35 edge performance on the A7r where it is turning in pretty impressive corner numbers relative to the Nikkor and ZF on the D800E despite the theoretical disadvantage of the short flange distance.
p.133 #7 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
sflxn wrote:
I just went outside to go get some coffee and shot with this lens on my A7R. It's quite bad. The shading isn't as bad as I have seen some tests on the internet, but the smearing is very bad in the edges and corners. I was quite surprise to find most of the shading are gone in the 13-15mm range, but I wouldn't call the images usable. This is the lens that have me torn over selling my NEX-7. It's not like it's a world beater. It's just that for the size, it's quite spectacular on APS-C. I can only imagine how much larger the FF version will be. My current thinking is to keep the NEX-7 to use with this lens, and sell every other APS-C E lenses....Show more →
What lens are you planning to use on your A7R for an UWA?
Interesting that your results were unusable. I would def. call my SY 15 on A7 unusable, but again, just as likely to be the adapter.
I will probably set up my SY 15 + D600 and take a look at it against A7 + 10-18. I guess I should also look at 5N + 10-18 @ 10mm. The 10-18 is new to me, so I haven't played with it much on 5N, either.
p.133 #8 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
snapsy wrote:
Hey Roger, thanks for the test. What shutter speed was used on the A7R? I know you get inundated with requests after one of these tests but I'd love to know how well the A7R performs across various shutter speeds vs the D800E w/MLUP+timer (ie, a test integrating camera vibration into the results). Most interesting would be from 1/125 to 1/8.
Snapsy, these are all tripod mounted, remote release, ISO 400 shots with controlled lighting so we don't really have any shutter variation to speak of. These all were around 1/200.
p.133 #9 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
carstenw wrote:
Not centrally...
My understanding is that the A7r does not have the AA filters, but it does have a slightly thicker glass, to eliminate dust issues. This was the discussion I had with the head technician, in Melbourne, from Camera Clinic. They do a lot of work, modifying many cameras for purely IR work, and other specialist applications. He did suggest it would be possible to replace the filter glass with a thinner version, and of course the sensor would need to be readjusted so the focusing would be re calibrated correctly. His thinking, suggested he felt this is where the corner issues may be arising from. With the thinner glass, which may be only 0.5 or 1mm rather 2mm, would present less issues with diffraction.
After reading preliminary evaluation by Roger, I decided to test my 50 Lux Asph again with A7r with the Metabones adapter, with a different mind set. My previous tests showed a difference compared to the M240, but in real life shots, low light the 50 Lux Asph works amazingly well. My take on the results, is that there will no doubt be variability due to differences in adapters, and the drop off in sharpness towards the edges, and it really may not be so much of an issue shooting in 3D, unless you are shooting high res landscapes.
Of course I would hope for consistent sharpness, but then I use older lenses, such as the 50 Nocti f/1.0, for their unusual rendering.
p.133 #10 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
mco_970 wrote:
What lens are you planning to use on your A7R for an UWA?
Interesting that your results were unusable. I would def. call my SY 15 on A7 unusable, but again, just as likely to be the adapter.
I will probably set up my SY 15 + D600 and take a look at it against A7 + 10-18. I guess I should also look at 5N + 10-18 @ 10mm. The 10-18 is new to me, so I haven't played with it much on 5N, either.
I couldn't figure out what you meant by SY 15. I was talking about the 10-18 on the A7R. On my NEX 7, this lens is wonderful. You can get a slight magenta cast once in awhile, but that doesn't bother me. 99+% of my shots with this lens on the NEX 7 do not have any cast and have wow'ed me. I did all my test at f/4. Tomorrow, I'll try it out on the A7R with all aperture and will check it out in crop mode. I don't think you will have any problem with it on a 5N. I've had to fix some CA in the corners on some images in the past, but surprisingly, I haven't had a lot of this issue. I went to the Sierra Nevada a few months ago to shoot Autumn foliage. I tried to find CA in those images, but I couldn't really find any. Who knows, I might just have a good copy or they cleared up at f/8 where I shoot most of my landscapes. Compared to the ginormous 14-24/2.8 I used to have, this lens is much more pleasant to walk around with.
When I think about selling all my APS-C NEX equipment, I think about how much bigger a Zeiss FE 16-35/4 would be over this lens. I assume the FF version will be at least 3x the size. I'm predicting 1lb, even with all the plastic inside. I'm thinking I will stick with APS-C NEX for zooms and A7R for primes. I think NEX-7 + 10-18 will be fine for UWA until Zeiss produces an FE UWA prime. The other reason I am thinking of avoiding zooms for the A7R is that these FE lenses are made of what seems like aluminum and a lot of plastic. They are not designed to last a long time. Imageine a heavy giant UWA zoom made of aluminum and plastic. The eventual Zeiss UWA prime will likely be all metal and glass and will last forever.
p.133 #11 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Hi,
Yes, I was talking about Samyang 15 vs. the Sony 10-18. The Samyang is just not good at all, despite being a bang-up lens on my D600.
I did test both lenses at on A7 at f/4, 5.6, and 8 and tested nearer objects and closer to infinity shooting (which is not very far ), I will be interested to hear how your test shooting goes tomorrow. I thought the 10-18 didn't look too bad at 15mm - esp. stopped down. As well, I have no other options with the SY knocked out of play.
Yes, packing the 10-18 on a NEX alongside of the A7/R is definitely a palatable option. Easily small enough for a hiking kit.
Please let me know your results tomorrow, interested to hear how it goes.
p.133 #12 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
sflxn, I'm with you on the plastics, but I don't understand why you're contrasting lenses made of aluminum with "all metal" lenses. Very few lenses are made out of aluminum. A decade ago some silver Leica M's were still chromed brass (though the black ones were already aluminum) but now even those are aluminum, just clear anodized instead of black-dye anodized.
p.133 #13 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Lee Saxon wrote:
sflxn, I'm with you on the plastics, but I don't understand why you're contrasting lenses made of aluminum with "all metal" lenses. Very few lenses are made out of aluminum. A decade ago some silver Leica M's were still chromed brass (though the black ones were already aluminum) but now even those are aluminum, just clear anodized instead of black-dye anodized.
are you sure about modern silver leicas being made from aluminum? if that's the case, why do they weigh more than the black versions?
p.133 #14 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Lee Saxon wrote:
sflxn, I'm with you on the plastics, but I don't understand why you're contrasting lenses made of aluminum with "all metal" lenses. Very few lenses are made out of aluminum. A decade ago some silver Leica M's were still chromed brass (though the black ones were already aluminum) but now even those are aluminum, just clear anodized instead of black-dye anodized.
Nothing wrong with aluminum if the body was all aluminum. I have little doubt if you cut these lens in half, you'll find the outer barrel is aluminum and "essential" components (I think that was Zeiss words for the Touits) inside are aluminum, but the rest of the body is probably plastic. I mean, the FE 35mm is way too light to be all aluminum and glass. Modern plastic is pretty strong, but I bet they'll wear out faster. Imagine a 1lb 16-35/4. 5yrs of constantly moving all that glass around gotta be bad for all that plastic.
p.133 #17 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Some are still brass. The 50 Lux ASPH is brass, and I would guess that if there is a chrome 35 FLE, it might also be brass. The brass feels nicer for sure, but it is very heavy. The focus and aperture rings also feel very different on the brass lenses. I had a 35 Lux ASPH (pre-FLE) in brass which felt awesome to focus, although the aperture ring movement always felt a little light. Not problematic, just a little less positive than I would have preferred.
p.133 #18 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
carstenw wrote:
Not centrally...
Actually it does, at least with / at F1.8 or larger apertures. In the center, at F5.6 - no real difference.
Optical flats in the ray path change the spherical aberration behavior. It's the same type of aberration change as corner blur - the main problem is angle, or actually angle difference. Like this; article originally meant for microscopy, but it's the same principle. http://www.nikon.com/products/instruments/resources/tech/info/microscope_tech/coverglass/index_02.htm
The thicker the glass, the more it changes the SA and comatization effect.
And additionally, if you introduce more surfaces you also get more reflection/scatter/internal scatter. I've seen some recent cameras that actually uses four separate layers above the sensor surface proper (one AA sensor plate cover, one AA/phase plate lamination, one hot-mirror/absorption color filter, one dustoff filter (static charge+vibration). Total madness according to me, but there must be some reason. Probably price, or prioritizing the efficiency of the dust-off function over the optical performance.
Another thing with angle is that reflection/refraction for different polarizations diverge more and more as you increase angle. And reflection increases in total effect. When you have optical flats close to each other like this you see that as a lowering of global/LF contrast. If you take two surfaces with a 4% reflection, you get 0.04*0.04 = 0.16% = -9Ev contamination, increase that reflection to 10% at 35º angle and you get 0.1*0.1 = 1% = -6.6Ev contamination. ANY bright patch close to darker areas will then contribute almost as much veiling flare to the dark detail as the detail itself - effectively halving the MTF.
p.133 #19 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
theSuede wrote:
Actually it does, at least with / at F1.8 or larger apertures.
Perhaps it's no coincidence that the FE 55 is 1.8 and not faster due to this effect in the center (assuming the A7r does indeed use a thick cover glass).
p.133 #20 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
sflxn wrote:
I couldn't figure out what you meant by SY 15. I was talking about the 10-18 on the A7R. On my NEX 7, this lens is wonderful. You can get a slight magenta cast once in awhile, but that doesn't bother me.
@sflxn - I did a small comparison of 10-18 on 5N @ 10mm versus A7 @15mm, on tripod, OSS off, f/4, f/5.6, f/8.
A7 loses a bit in the wee corners to 5N, but seems to have has a larger central zone of sharpness. I can post crops if anyone cares other than me.
