p.10 #1 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
So the more I read and see, the more I feel this urge to just go pre-order. Then I come back to reality. For instance, I have my Fuji X-E1 with 35/1.4 sitting in front of me. This is a stellar combo, with outstanding image quality. The A7 probably has slightly better high ISO. The 55/1.8 is probably a little sharper at wide apertures than the 35/1.4.
Is the A7 + 55/1.8 combo better than my X-E1 with 35/1.4? Yes. It probably is. I spent $1300 on my X-E1 + 35/1.4. The A7 with 55/1.8 is $2,700. Is it $1,400 better? Eh....
I paid $1,300 for that combo, $700 for my 55-200 and $900 for my 14/2.8. So for only $200 more than the A7+55/1.8 combo, I got the X-E1, a fantastic fast normal, a truly outstanding super-wide and a truly excellent telephoto zoom. This covers 21-300mm in FF focal length and produces extremely high image quality. For $200 more than the A7 with one normal prime.
I'm an enthusiast photographer...I'm not printing 50" art prints or satisfying clients with the utmost in picture perfection. And yet, somehow, my brain is telling me 'do it!'
p.10 #2 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Jman13 wrote:
So the more I read and see, the more I feel this urge to just go pre-order. Then I come back to reality. For instance, I have my Fuji X-E1 with 35/1.4 sitting in front of me. This is a stellar combo, with outstanding image quality. The A7 probably has slightly better high ISO. The 55/1.8 is probably a little sharper at wide apertures than the 35/1.4.
Is the A7 + 55/1.8 combo better than my X-E1 with 35/1.4? Yes. It probably is. I spent $1300 on my X-E1 + 35/1.4. The A7 with 55/1.8 is $2,700. Is it $1,400 better? Eh....
I paid $1,300 for that combo, $700 for my 55-200 and $900 for my 14/2.8. So for only $200 more than the A7+55/1.8 combo, I got the X-E1, a fantastic fast normal, a truly outstanding super-wide and a truly excellent telephoto zoom. This covers 21-300mm in FF focal length and produces extremely high image quality. For $200 more than the A7 with one normal prime.
I'm an enthusiast photographer...I'm not printing 50" art prints or satisfying clients with the utmost in picture perfection. And yet, somehow, my brain is telling me 'do it!'
Shutup brain, you're dumb.
...Show more →
I sense you are trying to holding yourself, desperately
p.10 #3 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
mcbroomf wrote:
Camerastore TV video said that 200ISO is the lowest, not 100 listed here and DPR. Maybe they had an earlier firmware?
•ISO 100-25600 (with 50 ISO extension)
I pasted the below from sony.com:
ISO : Still images: ISO 100-25600 (ISO numbers up from ISO 50 can be set as expanded ISO range), AUTO (ISO 100-6400, selectable lower limit and upper limit) Movies: ISO 200-25600 equivalent, AUTO (ISO 200-6400 equivalent)
p.10 #4 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
I have to chuckle a bit reading through this thread.
I'm a climber / backpacker who really uses lighter gear - I went with an RX1 and RX100II all summer to save on size and weight, so I'm super excited and happy with this new system.
BUT...
I think most folks on here and around the 'net are being FAR to optimistic, especially regarding wide angle, non-Sony primes (less than 35mm) and performance. I hope you're all wrong, but we've all seen this kind of hype before. Remember the NEX-7? I think if you're only using MF, adapted wides on this camera you should probably resist the urge to pre-order until you let others test it.
As for native lenses? That's another problem. This promise of 15 lenses in two years is not going to happen and I hope folks realize that! I bought one of the first NEX-7's available and waited a long time for decent native lenses, eventually going back to m43 and Fuji simply because Sony doesn't release their top end lenses very quickly. That 70-400 f/4 won't show up for at least another year - and I won't be surprised if it's more like 2 years before it's widely available.
p.10 #5 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Jman13 wrote:
So the more I read and see, the more I feel this urge to just go pre-order. Then I come back to reality. For instance, I have my Fuji X-E1 with 35/1.4 sitting in front of me. This is a stellar combo, with outstanding image quality. The A7 probably has slightly better high ISO. The 55/1.8 is probably a little sharper at wide apertures than the 35/1.4.
Is this similar to what you thought when you wanted the X-E1 and knew that you had the E-M5 and PL25/1.?
p.10 #7 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Vern Dewit wrote:
I have to chuckle a bit reading through this thread.
I'm a climber / backpacker who really uses lighter gear - I went with an RX1 and RX100II all summer to save on size and weight, so I'm super excited and happy with this new system.
BUT...
I think most folks on here and around the 'net are being FAR to optimistic, especially regarding wide angle, non-Sony primes (less than 35mm) and performance. I hope you're all wrong, but we've all seen this kind of hype before. Remember the NEX-7? I think if you're only using MF, adapted wides on this camera you should probably resist the urge to pre-order until you let others test it.
As for native lenses? That's another problem. This promise of 15 lenses in two years is not going to happen and I hope folks realize that! I bought one of the first NEX-7's available and waited a long time for decent native lenses, eventually going back to m43 and Fuji simply because Sony doesn't release their top end lenses very quickly. That 70-400 f/4 won't show up for at least another year - and I won't be surprised if it's more like 2 years before it's widely available....Show more →
Agreed. The only place this camera might make a lot of sense right away is for adapting SLR/DSLR lenses.
p.10 #8 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Jman13 wrote:
Is the A7 + 55/1.8 combo better than my X-E1 with 35/1.4? Yes. It probably is. I spent $1300 on my X-E1 + 35/1.4. The A7 with 55/1.8 is $2,700. Is it $1,400 better? Eh....
For that extra $1400, you have a bigger sensor, more MP, most likely higher DR, better tonality, and a traditional and well-behaved Bayer matrix. I will wait to see more test on the 55/1.8. My hunch is it will stomp the 35/1.4 both WO and stopping down. The 35/1.4 has good central sharpness, but the edges and corners are not so much from the reviews I have read. This is a new system, so lens selection is lacking. But as a whole, Sony has a more mature flash system (even with all the grieves about over-heating and less wireless option than Canikon). Sony mirrorless is getting more support from third parties than Fuji in term of lens (Touit is clearly for Sony), adapters, etc. And you don't need to print 50" to see the difference between 16MP APS-C and 24MP FF. So I'm just putting my perspective here why I would pick Sony over Fuji.
p.10 #9 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Fred Miranda wrote:
I pasted the below from sony.com:
ISO : Still images: ISO 100-25600 (ISO numbers up from ISO 50 can be set as expanded ISO range), AUTO (ISO 100-6400, selectable lower limit and upper limit) Movies: ISO 200-25600 equivalent, AUTO (ISO 200-6400 equivalent)
Source
Thanks Fred, I think he got his video and still base ISO mixed when he was talking. Glad to see that it's 100 with 50 expansion for stills.
p.10 #11 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Vern Dewit wrote:
As for native lenses? That's another problem. This promise of 15 lenses in two years is not going to happen and I hope folks realize that!
I am wary about Sony as far as filling out a great native glass system, also. And about their QC.
I'm still waiting for a good native macro lens for my 5N.
p.10 #12 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
mhh, i look forward to proper reviews using adapted m-lenses.
if this combo proves to shine i might have a glorious system that uses my m-lenses without having to spend leica money.
sure, technically not even close but if the iq is neat i might not even care.
p.10 #13 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
hiepphotog wrote:
For that extra $1400, you have a bigger sensor, more MP, most likely higher DR, better tonality, and a traditional and well-behaved Bayer matrix. I will wait to see more test on the 55/1.8. My hunch is it will stomp the 35/1.4 both WO and stopping down. The 35/1.4 has good central sharpness, but the edges and corners are not so much from the reviews I have read. This is a new system, so lens selection is lacking. But as a whole, Sony has a more mature flash system (even with all the grieves about over-heating and less wireless option than Canikon). Sony mirrorless is getting more support from third parties than Fuji in term of lens (Touit is clearly for Sony), adapters, etc. And you don't need to print 50" to see the difference between 16MP APS-C and 24MP FF. So I'm just putting my perspective here why I would pick Sony over Fuji....Show more →
Shh...don't feed my dumb brain. He needs to be quieted.
Rational me says: More MP means nothing to me...I've been shooting with 16MP sensors for 4 years and have never really wanted for more resolution. DR is also a minimal increase. I've pulled absolutely insane shadows and highlights out of my Fuji files, to a point where I almost never shoot HDR any more because the pulled and pushed single file ends up looking better than a 5 stop bracketed HDR. I feel no real need for an extra stop of DR. Tonality...Fuji's tonality is pretty darn good. Is the A7 better? Yeah, probably a little, but not THAT much. Well-behaved Bayer? You have a point, though with C1, I almost never have an issue with X-Trans, even with foliage heavy scenes. I'm sure the 55/1.8 is sharper at the edges than the 35/1.4. But again, $1400 sharper? That's the kicker. Do I WANT the A7 with 55/1.8? Yes...yes I do. Does it make SENSE for me to spend the money on it?
p.10 #14 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
douglasf13 wrote:
If those mtfs are to be believed, maybe if you have the 50 Cron AA, but the regular cron can't quite compete, if we're talking resolution and flat field performance. The 55/1.8 looks like it could be a real halo lens for the system.
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.10 #15 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
hiepphotog wrote:
The difference in lens size (and as a whole package) between the m4/3 and FF NEX is not that great, definitely no where near "gigantic." And when you compared the size between the two without taking into account of equivalent DOF, it will just skew the result over to m4/3. You said that the Sony 70-200 is 2.3x heavier than the Pana 35-100. But what if the Pana is f/2 or the Sony is f/5.6. In my opinion, the difference in weight and size would not be as drastic as you make it out to be.
You definitely downplay a lot of the FF benefits by saying you don't need such features (high MP, shallower DOF, better DR, tonality, etc.), and I understand that since I do have different needs than you; I would never pick m43 since I don't shoot extreme long telephoto and I need all the MP, DR, DOF controls I can have. But you made your argument in such a way that if anyone wants to go only with native lenses route for a mirrorless system, m4/3 is drastically superior since Sony lenses are gigantic for their capabilities. Looking at Steve Spencer's analysis, I would say FF is definitely bigger, but it's not by much and certainly within the reason of being one or two stops shallower DOF. And I think that's why Steve thinks your comparison is not fair. In the end, I think they're all on equal ground in term of size and what they offer....Show more →
Thanks you said this better than I could.
Oct 16, 2013 at 03:24 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.10 #16 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Jman13 wrote:
Shh...don't feed my dumb brain. He needs to be quieted.
Rational me says: More MP means nothing to me...I've been shooting with 16MP sensors for 4 years and have never really wanted for more resolution. DR is also a minimal increase. I've pulled absolutely insane shadows and highlights out of my Fuji files, to a point where I almost never shoot HDR any more because the pulled and pushed single file ends up looking better than a 5 stop bracketed HDR. I feel no real need for an extra stop of DR. Tonality...Fuji's tonality is pretty darn good. Is the A7 better? Yeah, probably a little, but not THAT much. Well-behaved Bayer? You have a point, though with C1, I almost never have an issue with X-Trans, even with foliage heavy scenes. I'm sure the 55/1.8 is sharper at the edges than the 35/1.4. But again, $1400 sharper? That's the kicker. Do I WANT the A7 with 55/1.8? Yes...yes I do. Does it make SENSE for me to spend the money on it?
To me it makes sense to wait on the Sony. It will still be there in a year and the A7/55 f/1.8 combo should be somewhere between $2000 and $2250 on the used market. You will also know a lot more about native lenses by then. Is is reasonable to expect a decent wide angle, for example? That way you could look to transitioning away from Fuji to Sony over a bit of time, and you could keep your m4/3rds for quick action and most telephoto work.
p.10 #17 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Jman13 wrote:
Shh...don't feed my dumb brain. He needs to be quieted.
Rational me says: More MP means nothing to me...I've been shooting with 16MP sensors for 4 years and have never really wanted for more resolution. DR is also a minimal increase. I've pulled absolutely insane shadows and highlights out of my Fuji files, to a point where I almost never shoot HDR any more because the pulled and pushed single file ends up looking better than a 5 stop bracketed HDR. I feel no real need for an extra stop of DR. Tonality...Fuji's tonality is pretty darn good. Is the A7 better? Yeah, probably a little, but not THAT much. Well-behaved Bayer? You have a point, though with C1, I almost never have an issue with X-Trans, even with foliage heavy scenes. I'm sure the 55/1.8 is sharper at the edges than the 35/1.4. But again, $1400 sharper? That's the kicker. Do I WANT the A7 with 55/1.8? Yes...yes I do. Does it make SENSE for me to spend the money on it?
p.10 #19 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
mco_970 wrote:
I read the instructions on the Leitax site when I switched to Nikon and it's definitely not something I'd try. Esp. not after having issues with the much simpler adaptation to Canon.
I do see that after my mess with it, Leitax is now automatically supplying a new metal ball bearing... I think the reason for that is me.
I did that V.Sonnar 35-70 conversion and, yes, it was a 'sweaty' task.
Luckily, all ended well.
p.10 #20 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
artur5 wrote:
I did that V.Sonnar 35-70 conversion and, yes, it was a 'sweaty' task.
Luckily, all ended well.
Sweaty is a nice way to put it. What I really don't like about the Leitax conversions to Nikon is how the back of the lens ends up staying open (with no dust skirt)... I have a kit on my OM21, but am planning to convert it back to the original mount for that reason. Then can go OM > NEX for A7, which I already have an adapter for. Woot!
