p.146 #2 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
carstenw wrote:
---
I hesitate to mention this, since I haven't really done any proper testing yet, but am I the only one who feels that the image quality of the A7 isn't quite as impressive as expected? It is good, no doubt, but (ignoring resolution), my feeling is that the D800 is better. I need to do some proper testing, and I might finally get a good chance to do so tomorrow. The specific problems are tonality and skin tones. I find the files "thinner" than the D800 files, and harder to make subtle changes to. Skin tones are a touch dead.
Maybe it is just Lightroom. I haven't tried other developers yet. It wouldn't surprise me. However, this is my hunch at the moment....Show more →
Agree, using Adobe's Camera Raw converter creates rather plain images, even a little tinted towards the warm side and requires a fair amount of adjusting in Photoshop, regardless of having been set to 16 bit and higher PPI.
When working with Nikon's RAW files when color is important I tend to use Capture NX2 to do the conversion and the images are much richer.
For a brief time before Adobe added the A7 RAW files to their converter I used the "RAW2NEF" convert and then put it through Capture NX, the results were better than what I'm getting now.
Also, agree with Samuli regarding Sony's "image data converter", the user interface takes some getting used to, but the images are somewhat better than what comes out of Adobe. Of course this depends on how the preferences are set up.
Cheers
p.146 #3 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
miklar wrote:
Agree, using Adobe's Camera Raw converter creates rather plain images, even a little tinted towards the warm side and requires a fair amount of adjusting in Photoshop, regardless of having been set to 16 bit and higher PPI.
When working with Nikon's RAW files when color is important I tend to use Capture NX2 to do the conversion and the images are much richer.
For a brief time before Adobe added the A7 RAW files to their converter I used the "RAW2NEF" convert and then put it through Capture NX, the results were better than what I'm getting now.
Also, agree with Samuli regarding Sony's "image data converter", the user interface takes some getting used to, but the images are somewhat better than what comes out of Adobe. Of course this depends on how the preferences are set up.
Cheers
Agreed With the A7r and FE 55/1.8, the files are incredibly sharp, detailed almost MF in IQ, but files seem very thin compared with the M240. For portrait work at close to medium distance, the sensor combined with the FE 55, is nothing short of amazing. The AF seems to easily capture the closet eye also. But I do find the files lacking using Lr 5.3. I cannot really describe, other than the files lack personality for now! I have tried exporting into CS6, and PP'ing with Lab, but still the depth is not there. Maybe an update to the RAW convertor will address this
p.146 #4 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
charles.k,
Thank you for your post. Please keep us updated with your findings. I am a portrait, not a landscape guy and I'm having a hard time finding info specific to portraiture.
p.146 #6 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
For those finding lens flare as with the FE lenses are you seeing any flare in the view finder or on the LCD at the time of taking the image or only after reviewing the images?
p.146 #7 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
The rumours guy posts:
'As we have seen from previous tests the Leica still shows a better corner performance also because Leica provides Lens correction and the Sony doesn’t. In all other areas (High ISO, color, resolution) the A7r is definitely better. Still, I would love Sony to deliver a cameras as well built and as elegant as a Leica M.'
Which raises something - in the digital age what is the point of a beautifully crafted very expensive camera, when a more utilitarian yet still well constructed model at a fraction the cost wil do? It might be time to reconsider 'coach building' in the present age, when camera bodies may be rendered obsolescent in shorter periods.
How would people respond to a 'well built and elegant' $4000 a7/a7r?
What I see so far is corroborated here - better means better. Better colour, better ISO, resolution...files are ridiculously easy to work to exactly how you want them.
p.146 #8 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
charles.K wrote:
Agreed With the A7r and FE 55/1.8, the files are incredibly sharp, detailed almost MF in IQ, but files seem very thin compared with the M240. For portrait work at close to medium distance, the sensor combined with the FE 55, is nothing short of amazing. The AF seems to easily capture the closet eye also. But I do find the files lacking using Lr 5.3. I cannot really describe, other than the files lack personality for now! I have tried exporting into CS6, and PP'ing with Lab, but still the depth is not there. Maybe an update to the RAW convertor will address this ...Show more →
Charles
There are a few settings Adobe Camera Raw imposes to which changes may be helpful, at least it's worth a try, as follows:
- Under "Basic" reset the "tint" from +3 to 0
- Under "Camera Calibration" > "Camera Profile" > "Name:" change to "Camera Standard" the default is "Adobe Standard".
- Leave "Process:" in the default "2012 (current)"
- Under "Lens correction" enable lens profile if Adobe recognizes the lens
- Make sure to set the "Workflow Options" > "Color Space" to Adobe RGB (1998), and the "Depth" to 16 Bits/channel, also "Resolution" to 300 or 360 Pixels/Inch
Try using the above settings on a dark image by first using Adobe's default settings and then the same file with the above settings and see the changes.
It would be good to compare thoughts on various settings.
Cheers
p.146 #9 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
charles.K wrote:
Agreed With the A7r and FE 55/1.8, the files are incredibly sharp, detailed almost MF in IQ, but files seem very thin compared with the M240. For portrait work at close to medium distance, the sensor combined with the FE 55, is nothing short of amazing. The AF seems to easily capture the closet eye also. But I do find the files lacking using Lr 5.3. I cannot really describe, other than the files lack personality for now! I have tried exporting into CS6, and PP'ing with Lab, but still the depth is not there. Maybe an update to the RAW convertor will address this ...Show more →
The files are thin. The RAW has a bit depth of 11 bits. This is going to limit tonality as there are a maximum of 2048 distinct values per channel. A different RAW converter is not going to change this significantly. Different converters can dither differently to try to mask it but the tonal depth is not there in the RAW.
p.146 #10 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
miklar wrote:
Agree, using Adobe's Camera Raw converter creates rather plain images, even a little tinted towards the warm side and requires a fair amount of adjusting in Photoshop, regardless of having been set to 16 bit and higher PPI.
When working with Nikon's RAW files when color is important I tend to use Capture NX2 to do the conversion and the images are much richer.
For a brief time before Adobe added the A7 RAW files to their converter I used the "RAW2NEF" convert and then put it through Capture NX, the results were better than what I'm getting now.
Also, agree with Samuli regarding Sony's "image data converter", the user interface takes some getting used to, but the images are somewhat better than what comes out of Adobe. Of course this depends on how the preferences are set up.
Cheers
Adobe's RAW converter now includes camera profiles that mimic the Sony JPEG styles. If you select one of these in most cases you are going to have a better starting point than the Adobe standard profile which is used by default.
p.146 #11 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
naturephoto1 wrote:
For those finding lens flare as with the FE lenses are you seeing any flare in the view finder or on the LCD at the time of taking the image or only after reviewing the images?
Rich
Can't speak for FE lenses, but I see them live ... its just sometimes they're hard to notice on a small screen if there is a lot of light already in the area. But once loaded on the computer, flair becomes pretty obvious.
p.146 #14 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Well - so my A7 won't recognize a single SEL lens that I mount!
I've tried:
16/2.8
30/3.5
35/1.8
55-210
They all just sit there dumbly at f/22 and no AF, with the camera acting the same as if it had a legacy lens attached (no aperture info).
It's as if my electronic contacts just don't work. This is the first time I've tried it so I haven't noticed it yet in the three weeks I've had the camera.
p.146 #16 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
It's interesting that in the last few pages, we have people raving about the A7 and A7r files and others saying they look "thin." I don't know if this is a Lr and ACR conversion problem, but I did notice that my A7r files looked better to me as soon as Capture One was updated and I started to use that for my raw conversions a few days ago. I understand Akuba's point about the 11 bits (2nd FM post ever for Akuba), but my files look great converted in Capture One. But unlike Carstenw, I've never had a D800. It's probably not fair to compare the 24 MP A7 to the D800 directly, but if anyone in the SF Bay area has a D800 and wants to do some comparison shots with my A7r, send a PM to me.
Switching gears, I really don't need another 50, but it's hard to ignore the almost unanimous praise for the FE 55. My 50 M Cron is looking great to me on the A7r and it's hard to imagine it could be improved upon in a meaningful way. If there is anybody in the SF Bay area who has an FE 55 and wants to get together with me to do some comparison shots with my 50 M Cron and 50 ZM planar, I think it would be pretty interesting, although if we're going to use my camera and tripod, we'll need to wait until I get my RRS L bracket.
p.146 #17 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
I have a question for those owning the A7 and the FE 55/1.8:
In the case of the Sony RX1 the lens stops down as soon as you turn the aperture ring. That means light measuring, AF (and MF) all are done at the working aperture. This is true for the range from f/2-f/8 I think, then it doesn't stop down further until the image is taken. I very much like the way camera behaves in this case as you get full control over focal plane, DOF, flare, focusing and what not all the time.
Is it the same with the A7 and the FE 55/1.8?
p.146 #18 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
akuba wrote:
The files are thin. The RAW has a bit depth of 11 bits. This is going to limit tonality as there are a maximum of 2048 distinct values per channel. A different RAW converter is not going to change this significantly. Different converters can dither differently to try to mask it but the tonal depth is not there in the RAW.
Unclear. 11 bits cannot support the purported dynamic range of 14 EV.
Edit: A bit depth of 11 bits does no justice to a dynamic range of 14 EV. Or is it a matter of definition - again? If the dynamic range (the ratio of the largest non-saturating input signal to the smallest detectable input signal) is 14 EV, I would use at least 14 bits to store the information.
p.146 #19 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Makten wrote:
As you can see, it's not really large once you compare it to a medium sized standard SLR lens,
Well sure, but then what's the point of these cameras? I thought the whole reason we bought mirrorless was to use smaller / more efficiently-designed lenses. If that advantage doesn't materialize, or we don't care about it, there are FAR better cameras available (even if you demand an EVF).
p.146 #20 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Lee Saxon wrote:
Well sure, but then what's the point of these cameras? I thought the whole reason we bought mirrorless was to use smaller / more efficiently-designed lenses. If that advantage doesn't materialize, or we don't care about it, there are FAR better cameras available (even if you demand an EVF).
Which cameras also sporting electronic viewfinders are FAR better? And FAR better in what regard?
