p.154 #3 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Yesterday's actions didn't stop the issue completely. Even covering whole adapter with non-reflective tape didn't help. Reflection is caused by something in camera. So I did same as Sony had done to their lenses, and this works!
5 minutes with black carton, scissors and one more bag of Sugru. Not nice looking, but who cares...
Samuli
Very interesting info on the G90. Thanks. I get my metabone Contax G adapter tomorrow. I just bought the G90 and G45 and can't wait to try the G90. I'll have to keep an eye out for this. I assume you cut the rectangle to the same size as the one on the FE 35.
p.154 #4 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
secondclaw wrote:
Oh, these are cool!. I think you're on to something new
Is it possible the patch you put on the adapter is adding reflection from some of the strands?
Anything is possible. I thought probably just either sensor reflection or something in the lens. It seemed pretty consistent. I thought it was kind of amusing, though.
p.154 #5 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
mco_970 wrote:
Cool, thanks Fred. I think the Cron 50-R is just haunted. Or maybe it's my house. I'm Baffled.
I'm not getting little white ghosts anymore, now it's owls in the corners. Does anyone other than me see this?!
I found that 50-R Cron to be a really outstanding lens when used on the Sony a900 I once owned. Even in testing in harsh situations (back-lit tree leaves), it was fairly flare resistant and exhibited high contrast and saturated color by F4. As such, all these flare issues would seem to be caused by the A7's design. It's both impressive but also somewhat pathetic that you guys have to resort to these extreme fixes in order to correct what is a flawed camera design.
p.154 #6 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Tariq, I pretty much bought this lens for NEX, but the obvious thing is to shoot it more on my D600 and see what it does. It's just not as easy to focus for me w/o EVF. Got spoiled by the EVF really fast.
And not all of my pictures have flare! So no one should take my bitching seriously. I still think it could be the adapter causing troubles.
ETA: on a general note, I am not seeing ANY white ghosts this morning with the baffle installed on either Cron 50-R or Minolta 35-70, so that problem seems to be solved. YAY!
p.154 #8 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
mco_970 wrote:
Tariq, I pretty much bought this lens for NEX, but the obvious thing is to shoot it more on my D600 and see what it does. It's just not as easy to focus for me w/o EVF. Got spoiled by the EVF really fast.
And not all of my pictures have flare! So no one should take my bitching seriously. I still think it could be the adapter causing troubles.
If it's solely an adapter issue, it seems fairly widespread (others experiencing issues) whereas this was not the case with the same adapters and Sony APS mirrorless (I used the 50 R on the NEX-7 with no issues). It could point to an inherent design problem with shoehorning a full frame sensor into the E-mount - one that in fact requires special attention and measures to be taken with native lens construction.
Anyway, it's interesting and informative to follow the trials, tribulations and general experiences of ye brave early adopters. Sony should give all of you a free lens for your research.
p.154 #9 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Tariq Gibran wrote:
If it's solely an adapter issue, it seems fairly widespread (others experiencing issues) whereas this was not the case with the same adapters and Sony APS mirrorless (I used the 50 R on the NEX-7 with no issues). It could point to an inherent design problem with shoehorning a full frame sensor into the E-mount - one that in fact requires special attention and measures to be taken with native lens construction.
Anyway, it's interesting and informative to follow the trials, tribulations and general experiences of ye brave early adopters. Sony should give all of you a free lens for your research. ...Show more →
I would agree with what you have written. I think there are adapter problems, and then sensor reflection problems, and it's not easy for a doof like me to sort it out.
A free lens would be nice, but I'd settle for a hug. The Sony is going to be the easiest solution for me travelling, so I really want it to work. Even if I have to kludge a few adapters...
@ James - the Fotodioxs I have are lined with matte black, too.
p.154 #10 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Tariq Gibran wrote:
If it's solely an adapter issue, it seems fairly widespread (others experiencing issues) whereas this was not the case with the same adapters and Sony APS mirrorless (I used the 50 R on the NEX-7 with no issues). It could point to an inherent design problem with shoehorning a full frame sensor into the E-mount - one that in fact requires special attention and measures to be taken with native lens construction.
Hard to imagine it would be adapter issue, at least with G90. The surface of adapter, which was still visible after my 1st Sugru experiment, was covered by tape (cloth like surface, nothing reflects from it), and the issues wasn't still cured. Mask with rectangle hole seemed to cure the issue 100% - based on indoor tests, can't do outdoor tests before weekend and if it's still 1/20s, f/2 light test is not worth much.
Also for some reason FE35 and FE55 happen to have mask with rectangle hole. As well as Metabones EF-adapter has just 36x24 size rectangle hole. Based on this I assume that A7 has been designed so that lens controls light shown to "mirror chamber" (I know there is no mirror, but don't have better name for it). If I get reflection issues in future, I'll just add black mask with rectangle hole to adapter. Little extra work, but we also have to keep in mind that Sony has not sold these cameras to be used with non-FE lenses (thou marketing campaigns like Australia "get A7 and free adapter of your choice" give mixed feelings about this...)
p.154 #11 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
The small native NEX lenses I have are also masked, as is the 28-70 FE. It's either a design decision, or they tested their sensors with masked lenses and would not have seen issues.
I would guess testers who submitted sensor bugs based on lenses with the mask removed were laughed out of the triage room.
p.154 #12 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Hard to imagine it would be adapter issue, at least with G90. The surface of adapter, which was still visible after my 1st Sugru experiment, was covered by tape (cloth like surface, nothing reflects from it), and the issues wasn't still cured. Mask with rectangle hole seemed to cure the issue 100% - based on indoor tests, can't do outdoor tests before weekend and if it's still 1/20s, f/2 light test is not worth much.
Also for some reason FE35 and FE55 happen to have mask with rectangle hole. As well as Metabones EF-adapter has just 36x24 size rectangle hole. Based on this I assume that A7 has been designed so that lens controls light shown to "mirror chamber" (I know there is no mirror, but don't have better name for it). If I get reflection issues in future, I'll just add black mask with rectangle hole to adapter. Little extra work, but we also have to keep in mind that Sony has not sold these cameras to be used with non-FE lenses (thou marketing campaigns like Australia "get A7 and free adapter of your choice" give mixed feelings about this...)
Yeah, Sony would like to have it both ways initially with regard to promoting the use of these cameras with non-FE lenses (due to their lack of native lenses). Perhaps we will see cheaper adapters made for the E-Mount with this internal rectangle baffle built in.
p.154 #13 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Yesterday, I evaluated the difference in flare and reflection behavior between the NEX 5R and the A7. I shot in my basement using a shop light as a light source, that explains the very poor subject matter, but it was 13F outside so I wasn't going out. I used both an OM 135/2.8 on a Kipon adapter and a G90 on a cheap Rainbow Imaging adapter (ebay). My intention was to see if there was any discernable difference between the two cameras susceptibility to flare and reflection.
I shot both handheld and using a tripod. Handheld with a live view/EVF is very easy to explore the impact of flaring and reflections on the image with a continuous light source, it is live after all. From the handheld shots, where I was able to move the camera relative to the light source, exploring the flare around the edges and within the frame, I've come to the conclusion that using these two lenses with these adapters there is little difference between the two cameras.
However, the images below lead me to believe the A7 is more sensitive to the adapter design and internal surface than the 5R. In these images I used the G90 on an unmodified adapter and an adapter in which I used matte black electrical tape to bridge the internal lens felt to adapter (modified), thereby covering the electrical contacts on the lens. The images were shot using a tripod, so the images with the same camera have the same framing and relative location to the light source. I tried to maintain the framing and AOV between the A7 and 5R though. So the relative location of the lightsource and the relative intensity of the light source in the 5R and A7 images are slightly different... so flare magnitude between cameras in these shots is not directly comparable. What is comparable is the flare on the same camera using an unmodified and modified adapter.
p.154 #16 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
I think this has more to do with NEX-7 having an APS-C sensor. The flare must occur outside of that boundary, but within FF boundary. I tested it myself, placing Metabones + Canon lens on NEX-7, and was unable to replicate the flare. There is also no flare when using E-mount 18-55 on A7R, either due to the baffle, or to A7R running in crop mode.
kroyston wrote:
Yesterday, I evaluated the difference in flare and reflection behavior between the NEX 5R and the A7. I shot in my basement using a shop light as a light source, that explains the very poor subject matter, but it was 13F outside so I wasn't going out. I used both an OM 135/2.8 on a Kipon adapter and a G90 on a cheap Rainbow Imaging adapter (ebay). My intention was to see if there was any discernable difference between the two cameras susceptibility to flare and reflection.
I shot both handheld and using a tripod. Handheld with a live view/EVF is very easy to explore the impact of flaring and reflections on the image with a continuous light source, it is live after all. From the handheld shots, where I was able to move the camera relative to the light source, exploring the flare around the edges and within the frame, I've come to the conclusion that using these two lenses with these adapters there is little difference between the two cameras.
However, the images below lead me to believe the A7 is more sensitive to the adapter design and internal surface than the 5R. In these images I used the G90 on an unmodified adapter and an adapter in which I used matte black electrical tape to bridge the internal lens felt to adapter (modified), thereby covering the electrical contacts on the lens. The images were shot using a tripod, so the images with the same camera have the same framing and relative location to the light source. I tried to maintain the framing and AOV between the A7 and 5R though. So the relative location of the lightsource and the relative intensity of the light source in the 5R and A7 images are slightly different... so flare magnitude between cameras in these shots is not directly comparable. What is comparable is the flare on the same camera using an unmodified and modified adapter.
p.154 #17 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Mico, if the baffle solution continues to work, do you foresee (eating more yogurt and) making a baffle for each lens used on A7/r or moving a baffle from lens to len? Is there any reason you would have to remove baffle to use on other cameras? thanks to all of you for all your detective work!
p.154 #18 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Hi Joan, you only need 1 baffle per adapter, so at this point I made them for my 3 adapters. Just had to dig through the recycle pile for lids.
They are easy to make - trace a NEX cap on paper to make a circle approx. adapter size. Cut the circle down as needed to fit in the adapter. Fold the paper circle twice so you can find the center and have some straight reference lines. Measure the cutout size you need (mine are 22cm x 30cm) onto the circle, using your center point for reference. Use the circle as a pattern for the plastic. Then stick dark stuff on it, and cut out your center square. Stick it in the adapter in the correct orientation and secure w/ tape or something. It's super easy and fast after you make the first one.
Since they go in the adapter, it's not a problem to use the lens on other cameras.
p.154 #19 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
mco_970 wrote:
I decided to give the A7 one last hurrah before I send it back, and try a different Nikon adapter since thats the main thing I have not liked about the camera (adapted lenses, my reason for trying it anyway).
I setup and noticed some pretty distinct internal reflections, even w/ the hood extended on my 'Cron 50-R. I test it with a Novoflex > Canon > NEX adapter and also with a Fotodiox Pro > NEX adapter, just because I could (I know, stacked adapters are a crapshoot). The Novoflex combo had less reflections, but the corners are not nearly as good.
Anyway, not sure if these are interesting results but it does show how much difference the adapter is making. I had to use a large piece of cardboard held on the side as a baffle to stop the internal flare.
These are at f/5.6, flare gets worse as it's stopped down. A7 sadly goes back today and we wait for the next version.
Oh, realize I am late to the party but sorry to hear that Michelle. I never seen any of those now so well described reflections - as are visible in your test images too - but I guess I am too ignorant to get affected by them when they show (if they have so far, 500 images later). Or maybe the light here in this part of the globe isnt just able to show it
Regardless, sad to hear. I just left my 5D2 and if nothing else works I am more than happy to put my old Contax SLRs on it and will enjoy harvesting the extra DR in comparison. And regarding 5D2 people raved for at least 36 months about terrible banding when pushing shadows. It never stopped me from enjoying that camera. Anyway as usual, time will tell
p.154 #20 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
carstenw wrote:
Kroyston, if you overlay a 1.5x crop on the A7 shots, is the remaining flare comparable?
Certainly when the light source is within the frame this is the case. When the light source is on the edge of the frame, the correlation is not so good... probably due to imprecise movement of the light source relative to the camera between the sequences.
secondclaw wrote:
I think this has more to do with NEX-7 having an APS-C sensor. The flare must occur outside of that boundary, but within FF boundary. I tested it myself, placing Metabones + Canon lens on NEX-7, and was unable to replicate the flare. There is also no flare when using E-mount 18-55 on A7R, either due to the baffle, or to A7R running in crop mode.
The sensor size probably does play a role in how reflections are managed within the camera/lens/adapter assembly. Light has a much higher probability of hitting sensor glass as opposed plastic with a larger sensor. But the fact that the E 18-55 does not flare on the A7R could also be because there was no adapter (no third party designed internals or couplings).
The Sony is going to be the easiest solution for me travelling, so I really want it to work. Even if I have to kludge a few adapters...
