p.23 #1 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
retrofocus wrote:
I would rather be interested in a real-life landscape shot (with some contrasty areas) comparing for example the 5D MkIII/II with a given lens (like the 24/3.5 TSE II) with the same aperture and ISO number with the A7R, Metabones adapter and same lens taking the exact same composition shortly after each other. Then comparing zoomed-in areas of both photos. This should tell us clearly about IQ and DR.
p.23 #2 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
jcolwell wrote:
You're right. The attachment point has to be "ahead" of the shift mechanism...
Honestly, I would not worry too much about parallax problems. Photoshop does a great job stitching and merging images. This is a 3 image stitch with the 17 TS-E and Photomerge worked great. I pushed stitching the extreme with this image since the lens was very close to the foreground stone.
Best,
Fred
p.23 #3 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
dgdg wrote:
Stop making so much sense!
...I know! I see a bunch of beautiful shots taken with the A7 cameras and different kind of lenses, but if I wouldn't know which camera/lens/sensor it was taken with, I couldn't tell easily because the comparison to existing (Canon) camera gear is missing. It is like a scientific experiment - you have a reference and test the new component under the same conditions.
p.23 #5 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
Fred Miranda wrote:
Honestly, I would not worry too much about parallax problems. Photoshop does a great job stitching and merging images. This is a 3 image stitch with the 17 TS-E and Photomerge worked great. I pushed stitching the extreme with this image since the lens was almost very close to the stone.
Best,
Fred
Hi Fred,
Here's an example of a recent TS-E 17/4L image using tilt for plane of focus control and left-shift/centre/right-shift image stitching. I used camera plate contra-shift to eliminate parallax before PP, which I think was worthwhile for this type of image.
p.23 #6 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
Fred Miranda wrote:
...
As Jim mentioned, the main problem with this adapter tripod mount is the height. When using it, the 17 & 24 TS-E can't be rotated and a grip for the A7R won't fit.
Perhaps Kirk or RSS will develop a custom L-bracket for the A7R and A7R with Grip so we can get better mount stability and forget about using the Metabones tripod mount...
How about something like this? If mounted beneath the Metabones, I suspect that the camera assembly would not interfere with the ArcaSwiss clamp or underlying tripod head.
p.23 #8 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
It will be interesting to see if the a7r reveals any surprises in the IQ of the top Canon (and other for that matter) glass. I wonder which lenses will out resolve the sensor and which will not, even though they may seem on par on current Canon FF bodies.
Not that impressive,, but you really won't get the best out of this sensor hand-holding and using slow shutter speeds IMO. Maybe RAW's will look better, but the jpgs from last week of the models were amazing.
p.23 #11 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
galenapass wrote:
All shot on a blah overcast day. But, you are correct they are not that impressive.
I did not see, were those SOC?
Yes, no RAW's yet.
Lot of people are going to be disappointed when they see their results. They think a 36MP sensor sans AA filter will magically give them tack sharp results, yet fail to realise how such a camera will demand better technique, good glass and often a tripod to truly realise the potential. This thing will be brutal for showing up even the slightest motion blur. For landscape hands down you'll want a tripod, no more being lazy. Hand held you'll want faster shutter speeds or stick to IS lenses. I guess if you are going to be down sampling that'll help, but then you might as well get the A7.
Of the several full sized shots I looked at, none were tack sharp (yes I do realise these are huge images), and wouldn't be any better than say a D600/6D/5DIII if resized, for per pixel sharpness. I think for this type of happy snap walkabout in general you won't get full value of the 36MP. Of course their be plenty of exceptions and some people have steadier hands and some will have IS lenses, but a lot of people are just going to jump on the bandwagon thinking it'll make them better photographers.
p.23 #14 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Lot of people are going to be disappointed when they see their results. They think a 36MP sensor sans AA filter will magically give them tack sharp results, yet fail to realise how such a camera will demand better technique, good glass and often a tripod to truly realise the potential. This thing will be brutal for showing up even the slightest motion blur. For landscape hands down you'll want a tripod, no more being lazy. Hand held you'll want faster shutter speeds or stick to IS lenses. I guess if you are going to be down sampling that'll help, but then you might as well get the A7.
Of the several full sized shots I looked at, none were tack sharp (yes I do realise these are huge images), and wouldn't be any better than say a D600/6D/5DIII if resized, for per pixel sharpness. I think for this type of happy snap walkabout in general you won't get full value of the 36MP. Of course their be plenty of exceptions and some people have steadier hands and some will have IS lenses, but a lot of people are just going to jump on the bandwagon thinking it'll make them better photographers. ...Show more →
No big deal...you treat all cams the same way you normally shoot. How do you think 18MP cropper sensor (~46MP FF) being handled... all on tripod
If not the SENSOR then who cares about A7(r), we all shoot all canon cams by now, mine still work fine
p.23 #15 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Yes, no RAW's yet.
Lot of people are going to be disappointed when they see their results. They think a 36MP sensor sans AA filter will magically give them tack sharp results, yet fail to realise how such a camera will demand better technique, good glass and often a tripod to truly realise the potential. This thing will be brutal for showing up even the slightest motion blur. For landscape hands down you'll want a tripod, no more being lazy. Hand held you'll want faster shutter speeds or stick to IS lenses. I guess if you are going to be down sampling that'll help, but then you might as well get the A7.
Of the several full sized shots I looked at, none were tack sharp (yes I do realise these are huge images), and wouldn't be any better than say a D600/6D/5DIII if resized, for per pixel sharpness. I think for this type of happy snap walkabout in general you won't get full value of the 36MP. Of course their be plenty of exceptions and some people have steadier hands and some will have IS lenses, but a lot of people are just going to jump on the bandwagon thinking it'll make them better photographers. ...Show more →
I think you are going well overboard there. It's just not that magically difficult to get sharp results out of such beasts as this or the D800. It's less motion blur than Rebel or xxD have been for years and less than the 7D. Sure in some cases it takes a little more, but plenty of scenarios it's trivial to get full use of the 36MP FF sensor for landscapes hand-held so long as the lens can deliver to the edges.
p.23 #16 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
I'll challenge you to show me a statistically significant difference at the pixel level between the A7 and A7R with A7R downsampled to A7 size, when handheld.
p.23 #17 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I'll challenge you to show me a statistically significant difference at the pixel level between the A7 and A7R with A7R downsampled to A7 size, when handheld.
Who are you challenging? And why that particular challenge
What does that have to do with ability to hand hold a landscape shot and get more detail out of the A7R? Why are we downsampling it away? (that said downsamply from a higher MP sensor to the dimensions of a lower usually does leave you with noticeable differences in de-bayer artifacts and micro-contrast in favor of the higher MP camera, in this case the AA-filterless A7R might start with so many more de-bayer artifacts I don't know that would happen in this particular case though).
p.23 #18 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
jcolwell wrote:
You're right. The attachment point has to be "ahead" of the shift mechanism...
I just wish Canon had included a tripod mount at the front of the lens - the Hartblei tripod collar costs 500 euros!
I know it doesn't really make a difference unless you have objects really close to the camera, but it would definitely make me feel better to know that there was absolutely zero parallax!
p.23 #19 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I'll challenge you to show me a statistically significant difference at the pixel level between the A7 and A7R with A7R downsampled to A7 size, when handheld.
You can already see this difference in the FF sensor of the 5D MkII. The AA filter is removed in the A7R camera, which gives you an increase in resolution. I see this on my second 5D MkII body clearly: it is an IR-converted camera, the AA filter was removed. I often take photos exactly from the same spot both in color (with my regular 5D MkII) and in IR (with my converted 5D MkII camera body). I can easily tell that the resolution in the IR-based RAW files is a lot better - and this is IR which tends to be not as sharp as regular light photos. In theory, the AA filter reduces the sensor resolution depending on brand and AA filter properties about 20-30%. Unfortunately camera manufacturers are not very open to share this information.
