p.60 #1 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Yes, the odd bokeh shapes and brightness are due to the optics. Given those examples are probably close to the minimum focus distance of the lens, it may be the bokeh looks dramatically better at other distances, particularly since I don't recall seeing FE 35 bokeh that bad previously (and I have been looking at it in examples).
That's because in general the bokeh is excellent---if you like sonnars anyway.
Nothing is easier than to cherry pick shots to demonstrate microscopic discrimination.
Is the RX1 f/2 better? Of course. For one thing it's way in hell faster---and the whole rig is designed around it, and it's a very unique lens.
For truly horrible bokeh the bar in my mind is set by the contax g 45, by which standard the FE 35 is fantastic.
p.60 #2 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Me and maybe quite a few others are contemplating selling the RX1 because of the A7(R), that's why I thought the examples looked interesting and why I compare them to the RX1.
We'll have to wait with conclusions until the people here start receiving theirs. I'm looking forward to it.
p.60 #3 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
I haven't looked to much on the 35mm FE, but I looked pretty extensively at the rendering and other qualities of the 55.
I wouldn't say that the sharpening hurts bokeh, unless you're doing something very strange. I found LoCA in the 55 quite well controlled - at least compared to other fast 50's, except maybe the Otus and the 50AA. Of course it isn't going to be as well corrected as a 15-element short macro, or a 20-element zoom at F2.8 - but that's kind of beside the point I think. Most importantly, they've shoved the NIR and NUV cutoffs outside the really visible part, so quite a lot less purple fringes in sharp highlights and specular reflections.
Another totally unrelated /unsubstantiated observation: The A7R is quite a lot easier to get critically sharp from raw than the D800E - and that's without much digital nastyness to be seen. The Sony is much "smoother" over lines and edges than the D800E at the same kind of overall sharpness. But then I'm comparing with the AFS50/1.8, which even though it's a very good lens doesn't get close to the new FE55. At least not at large apertures, though it gets closer the closer to F8.0 you get.
p.60 #4 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
uhoh7 wrote:
That's because in general the bokeh is excellent---if you like sonnars anyway.
The "Sonnar" lenses of the e-mount and RX1 line aren't exactly the traditional Sonnars, in terms of lens designs, so I'm not sure that the name has much to do with it, in this case. I can't think of two lenses more opposite in vibe than my RX1's Sonnar and the ZM 50/1.5 Sonnar. Sony seems to be using the designation "Sonnar" for their mirrorless lenses that have only a few elements in front of the aperture and have a long exit pupil to sensor distance. The Sigma 30/2.8 would likely also be a "Sonnar," if it were made by Sony/Zeiss.
If anything, as others have mentioned, these new lenses are kind of a Sonnar lens design in reverse.
p.60 #5 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Jochenb wrote:
Me and maybe quite a few others are contemplating selling the RX1 because of the A7(R), that's why I thought the examples looked interesting and why I compare them to the RX1.
We'll have to wait with conclusions until the people here start receiving theirs. I'm looking forward to it.
actually, I am waiting for RX1 II to have EVF build in. This could be a awesome setup that RX1II as one lens body to cover 50% and 2nd body (A7/R) with all other focal length or zoom to cover rest of 50% need.
or Maybe just get RX1 once 2nd price drop enough. This idea keep me away ordering 35 now.
With saying that, I think the sample above from FE35 do have so much contrast, I bet it can be fixed to decent level to reduce global contrast. Both FE lens do seems render pretty good to my eyes.
I dunno about the bokeh, but damn that shooter must have had the saturation cranked up to 11.
That said, if the JPEGs have been "tweaked", it's ridiculously easy to actually exacerbate bad bokeh or make decent bokeh look like crap, especially through reckless use of contrast or "clarity" or curves.
p.60 #9 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
uhoh7 wrote:
haha too few blades, eh?
Houston, I have a temp fix for that: f/2.8
Unfortunately, that's not going to solve the FE 35 bokeh problem (and dear Susan was a little off in her evaluation). All of the examples posted being discussed were shot wide open according to the EXIF so the aperture blades are not the culprit for odd shaped, oblong bokeh nor the distractingly bright appearance of the bokeh. It also goes without saying that sharpening, clarity and other general PP steps will of course not alter the shape of the bokeh. The bokeh that we are seeing is due to the optical design used for the FE 35. My bet is that these examples are worst case scenarios but nonetheless, represent some pretty distracting bokeh imo.
p.60 #10 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Alter the shape, no. Alter how visible it is, most definitely.
That said, silky bokeh is so cliche these days -- I like it (35's IQ) so far
Beauty in the eye of the beholder I guess. That said, 2.8 too slow for me for a 35. F/2 would have been great.
p.60 #13 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
cputeq wrote:
Alter the shape, no. Alter how visible it is, most definitely.
The problem though with the below kind of bokeh (beyond the odd shapes) is that there are super bright oof areas and more subdued areas as well. The bokeh areas that are super hot are dramatically brighter than the other oof areas (more-so than would look natural from just the various distances of light sources). That dramatic difference in oof areas is a lens rendering quality, not one caused by processing. Sure, you could lower the contrast (or not push it as much in the first place) but the huge difference in bokeh brightness oof areas will still be there and still appear unnatural to most.
Like I said though, I suspect this is a worst case scenario. It's going to look different at various subject distances and might actually look better in this case with the lens stopped down some (the bokeh may improve upon stopping down a little).
p.60 #14 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
philip_pj wrote:
'Maybe now the sensor in the a99 (and the camera itself) will get some proper recognition as one of the best sensor’s to date. The images that come from the a99 are IMPRESSIVE ! Even compared to my RX1R theres hardly and difference.'
Comment from SAR, which which I agree. Put it here to confirm that a few of us have been using the 'a7 sensor' for over a year with great satisfaction. There are no poor options between these two cameras.
Actually just bought an A99, liked it so much I switched from Canon and Nikon.. Now sitting in a drycab are 3 A99 bodies and all the Zeiss ZA lenses Sony/Zeiss makes. Shot a bridal fashion shoot with it thus far, and couldn't have been happier. Doing a wedding with the system shortly.
So NOW knowing that the A7 uses the A99 sensor, and the A7r uses the D800 sensor, I'm really more incline to buy an A7... Honestly I had a D800 for a week a while back, and just couldn't handle the look the sensor gave me.. Way more "digital" then my D700 and D4 (especially the D700 with it's amazingly organic sensor).. D800 made it very hard for me to manipulate images to my liking in LR.
All subjective of course, but anything else different about the two cameras, that I should take into consideration, before I go out and buy one??
I am quite intrigued by the 28-70 lens because it seems, to me, to have better edge performance than the 16-70 E Mount OSS that I recently tried, even after that lens had been repaired. Not perfect but actually better than I wold have thought for a Sony kit lens. It is full of distortion though, even at 50mm, and of course correcting that distortion chops off the edges and therefore loses the weakest parts but nonetheless...
Here is an in-camera JPEG compared to the simultaneously captured RAW file processed into JPEG with nothing but sharpening applied. It looks as if in-camera shading correction was applied to the RAW file but distortion corrections clearly weren't! ...Show more →
gallery: http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/p747790927/h15634d9a#h1a712b3f
formula4speed wrote:
Have there been any images/impressions from the cheap 28-70 kit lens available with the A7?
I realize it's probably not very interesting to the crowd here, but if it is a decent performer I'd consider it for what it costs.
p.60 #16 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
adamdewilde wrote:
I guess bokeh is subjective.. I like the creamy sort, but I also love the character bokeh.. The kind you get from lenses like the Contax G 45/2.
In the right hands, the 45 can have a wonderful boca----but you gotta watch the leaves, Or any sharp edges/colors.
p.60 #17 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
adamdewilde wrote:
Actually just bought an A99, liked it so much I switched from Canon and Nikon.. Now sitting in a drycab are 3 A99 bodies and all the Zeiss ZA lenses Sony/Zeiss makes. Shot a bridal fashion shoot with it thus far, and couldn't have been happier. Doing a wedding with the system shortly.
So NOW knowing that the A7 uses the A99 sensor, and the A7r uses the D800 sensor, I'm really more incline to buy an A7... Honestly I had a D800 for a week a while back, and just couldn't handle the look the sensor gave me.. Way more "digital" then my D700 and D4 (especially the D700 with it's amazingly organic sensor).. D800 made it very hard for me to manipulate images to my liking in LR.
All subjective of course, but anything else different about the two cameras, that I should take into consideration, before I go out and buy one??...Show more →
you might want to play with some raws from both first before you decide for sure. i'm sure there's color and circuitry differences around the basic sensor versus what is in the d800.
p.60 #19 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
adamdewilde wrote:
All subjective of course, but anything else different about the two cameras, that I should take into consideration, before I go out and buy one??
The A7r has a magnesium top and front frame while the A7 has only top, which may make the former a little more rigid with heavier lenses. We still don't know which sensor will handle less-than-telecentric older rangefinder lenses better. That's it. I would say if you have a clear feeling on which sensor's look you prefer, that's unquestionably the factor to make your decision on.
p.60 #20 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
formula4speed wrote:
Have there been any images/impressions from the cheap 28-70 kit lens available with the A7?
I realize it's probably not very interesting to the crowd here, but if it is a decent performer I'd consider it for what it costs.
There are very few pictures out there right now.
I ordered the Kit A7+Kitlens and hope it will be as good as the Fuji X 18-55mm 2,8-4.
Then I will keep it for the times when I dont want to swap lenses all the time.
It costs just a few bucks more to order the Kit so if the 28-80 is decent it would be a steal.
