p.62 #1 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Toothwalker wrote:
The fact that some blur disks are much brighter than other ones, is simply due to the fact that some highlights are much brighter than other ones. The lens has nothing to do with it.
Not always the case in my experience. Some lens designs can accentuate oof highlights and render them harsher more than other designs. That seems to be what I'm seeing in that example.
p.62 #2 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I expected it to render like a slower RX1 Sonnar. That's obviously not the case.
I "hoped" it would be like the RX1 Sonnar in nature but never expected it given simply shoving the RX1 formula unaltered wouldn't be possible on E mount. Here's the RX1 lens:
Here I've tried to estimate how far back the RX1's lens extends into the camera and have overlaid that on to the A7r / FE35, with both camera's focal plane even. Don't ask me if the cmparison is meaningful or not.
Sony elected to produce a small prime first for competitive reasons. Maybe one day we'll see from them a premium, somewhat faster, somewhat larger and heavier and more expensive 35mm. In the meantime...
p.62 #3 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Not always the case in my experience. Some lens designs can accentuate oof highlights and render them harsher more than other designs. That seems to be what I'm seeing in that example.
Harsher, yes. That is possible. But to render some highlights brighter than other ones is not possible. (Unless the actual highlight is brighter, or less out of focus.) The appearance of blurred image parts depends on both the lens and the subject matter.
Anyway, the blur disks seem to be fairly uniformly illuminated in the examples. A neutral bokeh.
p.62 #4 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
@ Michael:
Yeah, I know. The RX1 Sonnar is actually closer to the film plane than even your rendering.
Sony has unfortunately indicated that fast aperture, FE native lenses is not going to happen. They are purely going after pseudo light weight for FF. Give that we have an FE 55 1.8 and this FE 35 2.8, I don't think we can expect even an F2 35mm FE lens from Sony. Who knows, maybe Zeiss will offer an F2 35mm FF E-Mount at some point...or even Sigma.
p.62 #5 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
michaelwatkins wrote:
I "hoped" it would be like the RX1 Sonnar in nature but never expected it given simply shoving the RX1 formula unaltered wouldn't be possible on E mount. Here's the RX1 lens:
Here I've tried to estimate how far back the RX1's lens extends into the camera and have overlaid that on to the A7r / FE35, with both camera's focal plane even. Don't ask me if the cmparison is meaningful or not.
Sony elected to produce a small prime first for competitive reasons. Maybe one day we'll see from them a premium, somewhat faster, somewhat larger and heavier and more expensive 35mm. In the meantime... ...Show more →
After reading one of the Sony interviews this past year, I was under the impression that the rear of the lens actually attaches to the sensor assembly, and the rear of the lens essentially sits right on top of the sensor toppings.
p.62 #6 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Toothwalker wrote:
Harsher, yes. That is possible. But to render some highlights brighter than other ones is not possible. (Unless the actual highlight is brighter, or less out of focus.) The appearance of blurred image parts depends on both the lens and the subject matter.
Anyway, the blur disks seem to be fairly uniformly illuminated in the examples. A neutral bokeh.
Perhaps it's then the harshness that makes it seem brighter. Anyway, that particular bokeh example looks very distracting and harsh to me on many levels. Perhaps I have just been spoiled by the softer, creamier bokeh from my RX1.
p.62 #7 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Ouch! The F2 Sonnar on the RX1 is dramatically better than that with bokeh. That's the first example of poor bokeh I have seen from the FE 35 2.8.
p.62 #8 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
SLRClub has posted several samples of FE 2.8/35mm bokeh on this link
The character of the bokeh from the FE 2.8/35 is definitely different from the RX1 Sonnar, the bokeh disks have a stronger outline with a resulting OOF-rendering less smooth than the RX1. But it does´t look bad to me, I often find the RX1 OOF areas too smooth, and think samples like this from the SLRClub is very promising:
p.62 #9 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
theophilus wrote:
what lens is that?
55 micro, one piece of glass this sensor will not out-resolve. 80 bucks--some say sharpest NIkon lens ever made. Numerous versions, but all the late ones, both 3.5 and 2.8 are fantastic at infinity. One older version from late 60's may be best close---but all are very very good.
p.62 #11 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
twoeye wrote:
SLRClub has posted several samples of FE 2.8/35mm bokeh on this link
The character of the bokeh from the FE 2.8/35 is definitely different from the RX1 Sonnar, the bokeh disks have a stronger outline with a resulting OOF-rendering less smooth than the RX1. But it does´t look bad to me, I often find the RX1 OOF areas too smooth, and think samples like this from the SLRClub is very promising:
I dont know about lighting in Korea (?) but some amount of processing should have been done there like recovering the partly outblown background (and possibly lighting up the dog too), dont you think? Look a bit like crude PP and artificial to me as Tariqs examples. Some of the shots look like SOOC, but this one dont.
p.62 #12 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Anyway, that particular bokeh example looks very distracting and harsh to me on many levels.
Out of curiosity, can you link to any similar shot with something else than the RX1 that does this better (wide open) at 35 mm?
uhoh7 wrote:
55 micro, one piece of glass this sensor will not out-resolve. 80 bucks--some say sharpest NIkon lens ever made. Numerous versions, but all the late ones, both 3.5 and 2.8 are fantastic at infinity. One older version from late 60's may be best close---but all are very very good.
Yes, I had the 55/2.8 for a while and it was amazingly sharp (not necessarily meaning high resolving). And it has ZERO distortion. Fairly light as well, despite the protruding front barrel.
p.62 #13 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
sebboh wrote:
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.
Fair point.. I'm not in any hurry to get one. So maybe I'll wait a bit so I can see/test some raw files.
p.62 #14 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
douglasf13 wrote:
After reading one of the Sony interviews this past year, I was under the impression that the rear of the lens actually attaches to the sensor assembly, and the rear of the lens essentially sits right on top of the sensor toppings.
Tariq, Douglas - I was conservative in drawing the overlay on top of the RX1, trying to guess what percentage of the lens was hidden within the camera by mentally folding that area back over top of the image of the alleged actual lens and then adding that to the overlay. In any case... it's bigger than it seems.
Looking at the RX1 and other cameras in that series, and now the A7 cameras and their lenses, what impresses me about their compact camera efforts of late is that Sony seems to be placing optical qualities high on the list of design priorities, not just resolution or other features that make for good results in comparison lists.
It feels like there is a new sheriff in town at Sony-land.
p.62 #15 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
adamdewilde wrote:
Fair point.. I'm not in any hurry to get one. So maybe I'll wait a bit so I can see/test some raw files.
The Sony rep I spoke to at the weekend told me that the A7R sensor is not the same as in the D800. As to what exactly that means I don't know, but I'm guessing the raws will have differences.
If you wonder why the man doesn't have a lens on the camera, he actually does. It's the CV 40/2 completely hidden by the huge D800.
Edit: And look at the "pink" straps under his left arm. They are the same color as the rest of the straps. That's pure moire.
There is a lot of greenish CA around the camera hotshoe in this picture.
I wonder whether a better RAW converter might help alleviate some of the colour shift caused by the moire (as compared to the jpg-engine in the camera).
p.62 #19 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
OpticalFlow wrote:
There is a lot of greenish CA around the camera hotshoe in this picture.
It's because it's out of focus. LoCA is clearly seen at 100%, but looks like something else downscaled. By the way I added 100% crop of the stripes in my previous post. The pink was not from moire, but from the downscaling.
Hmm. I think it is hard to say much without having good A/B samples. And again, taste is different. But here goes:
I don't like the horizontal electric wire to the left (ni-sen bokeh) and the green area behind the dog's nose detracts from the subject by making the central area look busy. The area further away (above the dog's head and nose) is better.
All in all it is an image a good photographer knowing his gear would have composed differently. (Yes, my opinion, not a hard rule.) It is also an image telling me I would find the FE 35/2.8 not only slow but also less versatile than I wish for. A mediocre photographer, like me, could have tried that image with an RX1 at either f/2 or f/2.8 and gotten away with a more pleasing image.
I'm looking forward to other samples taken with 35mm lenses, like the CV35/1.2 and the 35 Lux-M ASPH pre-FLE. I'll probably wait for the next generation of these FF cameras but I think Sony has shown the way and now the press is on Canikon to give us something serious!
80 bucks--some say sharpest NIkon lens ever made. Numerous versions, but all the late ones, both 3.5 and 2.8 are fantastic at infinity. One older version from late 60's may be best close---but all are very very good.
