I have spent (wasted?) hours going through the various a7(r) threads on this forum and have yet to see any good evidence (ie 50-100% crops) that the a7R produces sharper, crisper, clearer images in the real world than the a7. I also have seen no good evidence as to which copes better with sub 35mm RF lenses. I do wish we could cut to the chase here because it would save so much time. Of course, there may be no practical difference between the two bodies, in which case the choice is easy. Please someone tell me I am wrong here but please back up any assertions with evidence.
waterden wrote:
I have spent (wasted?) hours going through the various a7(r) threads on this forum and have yet to see any good evidence (ie 50-100% crops) that the a7R produces sharper, crisper, clearer images in the real world than the a7. I also have seen no good evidence as to which copes better with sub 35mm RF lenses. I do wish we could cut to the chase here because it would save so much time. Of course, there may be no practical difference between the two bodies, in which case the choice is easy. Please someone tell me I am wrong here but please back up any assertions with evidence....Show more →
You are most definitely incorrect regarding the sharpness of the 2 cameras. Without question, the 36MP A7r is sharper with crisper, clearer, images than the 24MP A7.
As to which produces better results with WA RF lenses wider than 35mm we are still feeling that one out. The A7 may well play better with more WA RF lenses than the A7r. But some of this may be able to be corrected PP. It is going to be lens dependent. For those lenses that do perform better with the a7r they will in all likelihood produce sharper, crisper, clearer images than the A7. Unfortunately for those interested it is going to take time for sufficient testing to make this determination.
waterden wrote:
I have spent (wasted?) hours going through the various a7(r) threads on this forum and have yet to see any good evidence (ie 50-100% crops) that the a7R produces sharper, crisper, clearer images in the real world than the a7. I also have seen no good evidence as to which copes better with sub 35mm RF lenses. I do wish we could cut to the chase here because it would save so much time. Of course, there may be no practical difference between the two bodies, in which case the choice is easy. Please someone tell me I am wrong here but please back up any assertions with evidence....Show more →
There's a lot of contradictory info out there, and the matrix of lenses is very long. It's best to wait for these cameras to be out for a few months and the inevitable super RF lens test on both cameras if RF lenses are important to you. If you read the threads on FM, the rumor sites, and other review sites at this point in time, you'll just get confused.
naturephoto1 wrote:
You are most definitely incorrect regarding the sharpness of the 2 cameras. Without question, the 36MP A7r is sharper with crisper, clearer, images than the 24MP A7.
As to which produces better results with WA RF lenses wider than 35mm we are still feeling that one out. The A7 may well play better with more WA RF lenses than the A7r. But some of this may be able to be corrected PP. It is going to be lens dependent. For those lenses that do perform better with the a7r they will in all likelihood produce sharper, crisper, clearer images than the A7. Unfortunately for those interested it is going to take time for sufficient testing to make this determination.
I run around in the backcountry shooting landscapes with the 5n alot, and I never go to f/16 or beyond because I start loosing cripsness--well sometimes I go there, but I see it.
Am I high, or do these A7r f/16, f/22 images look really crisp?
waterden wrote:
I also have seen no good evidence as to which copes better with sub 35mm RF lenses. I do wish we could cut to the chase here because it would save so much time.
Cut to the chase ... (only imo of course )
The design of the lens optical projection will make more difference than the difference in sensor variation of A7 vs. A7R as both are 24x36 as it pertains to the applicability of RF glass issues. The microlens offset seems to be of little significance for non-native optical projections.
The decision to A7 vs. A7R ... MP & AA filter.
If you want/need the greater MP count, go A7R
If you want/need/like the no AA filter, go A7R
If you are a detail junkie (see Tariq below) the combination of the MP count and no AA filter makes the A7R your cup of tea.
Trying to ascertain which variant of optical projection is going to produce a "clear winner" with RF glass is folly, imo. Accept the fact that RF glass is inherently challenged on 24x36 by the trig involved from the optical projection ... that is a property of the projected image, not the sensor ... and it either plays nice with the sensor or it doesn't @ angles of incidence.
waterden wrote:
I have spent (wasted?) hours going through the various a7(r) threads on this forum and have yet to see any good evidence (ie 50-100% crops) that the a7R produces sharper, crisper, clearer images in the real world than the a7. I also have seen no good evidence as to which copes better with sub 35mm RF lenses. I do wish we could cut to the chase here because it would save so much time. Of course, there may be no practical difference between the two bodies, in which case the choice is easy. Please someone tell me I am wrong here but please back up any assertions with evidence....Show more →
The difference in theoretical resolution between the A7 and A7r is 22%. That difference may or may not matter to an individual user but, if the lens is up to it, that difference is visible. Below are 100% crops with the A7r on left and the A7 on right from the Imaging-Resource RAW studio samples. http://www.imaging-resource.com/camera-reviews/sony/a7r/sony-a7rA7.HTM
Same lens used on both. Raw processed through ACR with defaults.
The caveat above though is important because if the lens is not up to it, one will not experience the full benefit of that 22% resolution difference.
My educated speculation is that one will be lucky to see that difference when using most adapters or lenses that may not be up to the task. Only with very good native lenses (only the FE 35 and upcoming 55) and probably flawless adapters with exceptional glass will one reap the rewards of the difference IMO.
I run around in the backcountry shooting landscapes with the 5n alot, and I never go to f/16 or beyond because I start loosing cripsness--well sometimes I go there, but I see it.
Am I high, or do these A7r f/16, f/22 images look really crisp?
Can you link to one of these images? If I really wanted that much DoF, I'd start looking for a good tilt and shift lens instead.
I run around in the backcountry shooting landscapes with the 5n alot, and I never go to f/16 or beyond because I start loosing cripsness--well sometimes I go there, but I see it.
Am I high, or do these A7r f/16, f/22 images look really crisp?
When you get up to f16 and f22 you will undoubtedly be getting into diffraction issues. I would normally only use an f16 or an f22 setting only if the DOF was needed. I would never use these f stops for a 35mm camera lens otherwise.
However, if we were talking about f16 or f22 on a Large Format lens particularly for film these would be perfectly normal and excellent producing f stops.
p.101 #10 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
naturephoto1 wrote:
You are most definitely incorrect regarding the sharpness of the 2 cameras. Without question, the 36MP A7r is sharper with crisper, clearer, images than the 24MP A7.
Well that is what one might expect but as I said I have seen no good evidence of this apart from the comparative shots done by Imaging Resource. Viewed side by side the 7R images are better, sure, but in isolation I wonder if anyone would notice except at extreme magnifications. Have you got evidence / links to back up your strong assertion?
p.101 #11 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
uhoh7 wrote:
I run around in the backcountry shooting landscapes with the 5n alot, and I never go to f/16 or beyond because I start loosing cripsness--well sometimes I go there, but I see it.
Am I high, or do these A7r f/16, f/22 images look really crisp?
Think about it for a minute ...
Take a little diffraction (optical projection) and then blur it MORE by intentionally pushing it through an AA filter on the way to the sensor.
vs.
Take a little diffraction (optical projection) and DON'T blur it any more at all before it gets to the sensor.
Which one do you think will look more crisp ... and require less PP to get there.
p.101 #12 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
waterden wrote:
Well that is what one might expect but as I said I have seen no good evidence of this apart from the comparative shots done by Imaging Resource. Viewed side by side the 7R images are better, sure, but in isolation I wonder if anyone would notice except at extreme magnifications. Have you got evidence / links to back up your strong assertion?
I would have to dig at this point. I can not recall where having seen so much in the last several weeks. Also as Tariq has mentioned, you need to have lenses that can live up to the performance, use extremely good practice and/or use a tripod, be very careful in focus, and in many cases view at fairy high magnification.
For myself, I want the higher resolution and the option of printing larger to say 40" long for the purpose of sales and exhibit. But, in my case I use a tripod for probably over 90% of my work which allows for not only the resolution but for consistency in composition. Also, I come from a background which included using 4" X 5" cameras for much of my work over a long period of time.
p.101 #13 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
waterden wrote:
Well that is what one might expect but as I said I have seen no good evidence of this apart from the comparative shots done by Imaging Resource. Viewed side by side the 7R images are better, sure, but in isolation I wonder if anyone would notice except at extreme magnifications. Have you got evidence / links to back up your strong assertion?
I think you really want to know if YOU really need it. These sensors are known quantities. They've been in other cameras for years. One has an AA filter. The other does not. It's unquestioned that the 36mp A7r is sharper, based on past empirical evidence (D800E vs D800, D800 vs others), the images posted, and all the reviewers who have tried both cameras. Is 50% linear resolution enough of a threshold for your needs? That's up to you. You might be hard pressed to see a difference in small prints, but the advantage is still there.
For those who want that little bit of extra oomph for when we'd notice it now and then, we're going to get the higher resolution one no matter what. The A7 is perfectly fine. You don't need to stress out on not having the highest res.
p.101 #14 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Even without the extreme magnifications ... the crispness (see Uhoh7's question) of not having an AA filter in play (or only 1/2 an AA filter as we still don't know which it is for sure on the A7R) means that there will be less pp sharpening needed to recover from the induced blur of the AA filter. Less PP means cleaner file, even if not @ extreme magnifications.
THIS ^ is why I prefer no AA filter and still shoot 99.9% with my 14MP SLR/C ... no AA filter.
p.101 #15 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
RustyBug wrote:
Think about it for a minute ...
Take a little diffraction (optical projection) and then blur it MORE by intentionally pushing it through an AA filter on the way to the sensor.
vs.
Take a little diffraction (optical projection) and DON'T blur it any more at all before it gets to the sensor.
Which one do you think will look more crisp ... and require less PP to get there.
Kent, maybe it's the AA, you could be right, but more importantly: am I correct the f/22 stuff is looking very crisp at screen size rez, say 2k pixels?
p.101 #17 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
uhoh7 wrote:
Kent, maybe it's the AA, you could be right, but more importantly: am I correct the f/22 stuff is looking very crisp at screen size rez, say 2k pixels?
It's also important to distinguish if one is referring to out of camera jpegs at F22 or raws since Sony is doing more extreme sharpening on jpegs that is dependent upon F-Stop used in an effort to minimize diffraction effects. It's still a band-aid though for diffraction since there is no way around the loss of real resolution at something extreme like F22 vs F4/5.6.
p.101 #18 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
+1 @ sharpening jpgs algorithms ... i.e. no AA filter can better TOLERATE the extreme sharpening push because it is starting from a different place (kinda/sorta/loosely/bad analogy @ S/N floor).
+1 also @ f22 vs. f5.6.
For f22 vs. f22, the AA filter and lighting variance can make a diff.
So, even if the diff might seem subtle @ visual RAW observation ... the pp algorithms that follow take notice of where they are starting from. For me, this (no AA filter) is how you get your clarity ... not by slamming the clarity slider over to the right. My pp sharpening algorithms vary depending on whether I'm shooting no AA or AA bodies.
Also, depending on the lighting for the image ... low contrast vs. high contrast ... the impact of diffraction can either be amplified (lowered contrast @ diffraction + low contrast lighting) or mitigated (lowered contrast @ diffraction + higher contrast lighting).
So while f22 does induce more diffraction for a given lens focal length, the absence of an AA filter and good contrast lighting can render f22 much more crisp than f22 on AA filter + soft light. We shouldn't forget and discount the impact of the lighting variance when making comps.
p.101 #19 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Good point
RustyBug wrote:
Even without the extreme magnifications ... the crispness (see Uhoh7's question) of not having an AA filter in play (or only 1/2 an AA filter as we still don't know which it is for sure on the A7R) means that there will be less pp sharpening needed to recover from the induced blur of the AA filter. Less PP means cleaner file, even if not @ extreme magnifications.
THIS ^ is why I prefer no AA filter and still shoot 99.9% with my 14MP SLR/C ... no AA filter.
) 
is that one will be lucky to see that difference when using most adapters or lenses that may not be up to the task. Only with very good native lenses (only the FE 35 and upcoming 55) and probably flawless adapters with exceptional glass will one reap the rewards of the difference IMO.
@ S/N floor).