p.24 #3 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
Actually, all full resolution I've seen so far gets mudgy above iso800 included. Can't wait to get a few raw into lightroom to judge myself. Anyway I don't care as I use only iso50 and iso100. And there it seems clean with lot of details even at 100%. Will do some printing test with a few, but sure would help my business. Time to say goodbye Canon I dunno, as I also particulary hate Sony as a whole, but seems on this particular aera, they got things right !!
p.24 #4 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
If I get an A7R, I'll generally use it at 'native' ISO, which I figure is 100, but could be elsewhere. I'll be keeping my 1DX and 1DIV for other types of photography.
I hope jpeg compression was high, somes are totally pixelated, others are full of artefacts in sharp/blur transitions :/
Also, I would here more about focusing problems with adapter. Does LiveView with focus peaking works well with adapter and Ef lenses ?
Even with Sony’s focus peaking, we found this lens to be incredibly tough to focus when shooting with it wide open. The version that we’re using has an EF to E mount Metabones adapter, and so focus confirmation doesn’t exactly work in the same way that it can with a DSLR.
p.24 #9 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
AGeoJO wrote:
No offense, Fred, but looking at those pictures, I am underwhelmed by both the camera and lens and that's an overstatement .
Sony's jpegs seem to be too compressed and their noise reduction algorithm is over the top. Some may like the processing but it does not help us looking at the image at 100% and looking for that magic detail.
Even the ARW files (RAW) are hard to be converted at the moment. Sony's Image Data Converter (ARW converter) "cooks" the RAW data with default Auto Noise reduction, Auto Dynamic Range compression, shading compensation, etc...
So, some samples will look good while other won't depending on how they are post-processed. Another factor to consider is the photographer, technique and lighting used.
Hopefully Lightroom will support A7R RAW files soon so we can make a better comparison.
p.24 #10 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
Fred Miranda wrote:
So, some samples will look good while other won't depending on how they are post-processed. Another factor to consider is the photographer, technique and lighting used.
Ain't that the truth? The photographer's skill in capturing and processing images plays a significant role, more so than the tool of capturing the images.
I am on a pre-order list for the Sony A7r but I may want to wait until the dust has settled before actually getting one. Frankly, I have been using an e version of the other 36MP camera for several months now plus their top native lenses. Except for the ever so slightly higher MP, I could barely tell, if any, the difference compared to files from my 5D Mark III, for my photographic needs. This is only my personal opinion but I am sticking to it . I tend to think that a lot of Canon shooters suffer from the "grass is greener on the other side" syndrome, including yours truly, I admit .
p.24 #18 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
Okay, do you want me to turn off NR on the high ISO shot? I turned it off for the ISO 100 ones, didn't have much impact. But the ISO 4000 shot it makes quite a difference.
p.24 #19 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
tsdevine wrote:
Okay, do you want me to turn off NR on the high ISO shot? I turned it off for the ISO 100 ones, didn't have much impact. But the ISO 4000 shot it makes quite a difference.
Go the Sony A7 and A7R article (currently 3rd from the top) and dig around for other RAWS. The ISO 4000 shot looks terrible when viewed. Maybe grab some better sample RAWs
.
