I think the obvious is that Zeiss worked directly with Sony on this idea of micro lenses and we will eventually get a press release where the claim is that the sensor and lens achieve never before seen performance specifically because of the joint design.
There are enough variables changed between the A7 and A7R -- smaller pixel pitch, different well design, different microlenses, different toppings - that it's fairly pointless to try to speculate whether or not the microlens design, specifically, "works".
EG I've seen some comments that the "offset microlenses don't do any good". Which is rubbish, because nobody's ever seen what the results would look like for the exact same sensor+toppings+lens but without the offset microlenses.
Obviously the sensor, as a whole, does not work perfectly with many lenses. But beyond that, we'd have to start changing variables one at a time to find out for sure why.
Taylor, while I agree with you, I don't even care why. What matters to me is only a roadmap of which lenses do work, and what that tells me about the attractiveness and suitability of the A7R for my needs.
edwardkaraa wrote:
It does matter in my opinion because the sensor toppings can be removed or modified. Anyhow it can't be the microlenses fault here.
It does seem the most likely case, and cause for hope in the future since the topping can be altered more easily than a complete redesign of the sensor.
Many would love a 24mp sensor with a ultra thin cover.
But since it seems the A7 project was cancelled several times, I think I will just have some fun with the A7r while we wait for the RF UWA "solution".
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Isn't it the unusual, tall oblong shape of the Leica M240 Microlenses that supposedly result in better corner/ border performance? As has been mentioned elsewhere, the filter stack can result in astigmatism with wides outside of the center, which I guess shows up as general smearing, but for a difference in focus point that can be corrected by focus (I don't think that's the case with general smearing?), perhaps the microlenses do play a role. The difference may be academic to many.
I think this is where a lot of confusion does arise. It seems that the particularly good micro lenses, whether offset or oblong or whatever, improve sensitivity, but they can actually make color shift worse with steep light rays, whereas the sensor toppings above the micro lenses contribute to the actual smearing.
This makes sense to me, since the A7r seems to have worse color shift, and even the MFDBs out there with micro lenses trade off color shift for improved sensitivity.
douglasf13 wrote:
I think this is where a lot of confusion does arise. It seems that the particularly good micro lenses, whether offset or oblong or whatever, improve sensitivity, but they can actually make color shift worse with steep light rays, whereas the sensor toppings above the micro lenses contribute to the actual smearing.
This makes sense to me, since the A7r seems to have worse color shift, and even the MFDBs out there with micro lenses trade off color shift for improved sensitivity.
Thanks for the link. I do remember seeing that post which seems to corroborate what Edward and others have said about the filter stack being the likely culprit for smearing. I knew that was the case as far as smearing goes - I just was not sure if the filter stack was also responsible for increasing/ accentuating the effects of lens field curvature. It seems it's likely the case.
Amen to that, michael.
Never in the history of photography has there been so much attention paid by so many, to so few pixels, with so many hypotheses, with such little importance to so many photographs.
p.107 #11 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Taylor Sherman wrote:
There are enough variables changed between the A7 and A7R -- smaller pixel pitch, different well design, different microlenses, different toppings - that it's fairly pointless to try to speculate whether or not the microlens design, specifically, "works".
EG I've seen some comments that the "offset microlenses don't do any good". Which is rubbish, because nobody's ever seen what the results would look like for the exact same sensor+toppings+lens but without the offset microlenses.
Obviously the sensor, as a whole, does not work perfectly with many lenses. But beyond that, we'd have to start changing variables one at a time to find out for sure why. ...Show more →
Yes, you're correct in assuming/stating that the statement "offset microlenses don't do any good" is indeed rubbish.
But you're wrong in that "no-one" has seen the same sensor with different amounts of ML offset. We see that all the time, as we specify exact angle optimization point for all small-sensor orders. And even provide a choice of different head units for WA/fish or longer FL usage for clients. Mismatches can be quite easily spotted, even in 2K res video sensors.
p.107 #12 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Hate to be that guy, but...could anyone speculate as to how the Canon FD 50mm 1.2L might perform on the A7/R? With the various 50mm RF samples available, I'd like to believe it will perform OK, but maybe someone with a little more knowledge/experience could correct me if I'm mistaken. I have been hoping to see quite a few FD tests, but no such luck. Really happy with the samples I've seen of the 85L, but the 50 is the one I'm worried about. Thanks in advance.
Seth
Nov 20, 2013 at 07:30 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.107 #13 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
sdpeebler wrote:
Hate to be that guy, but...could anyone speculate as to how the Canon FD 50mm 1.2L might perform on the A7/R? With the various 50mm RF samples available, I'd like to believe it will perform OK, but maybe someone with a little more knowledge/experience could correct me if I'm mistaken. I have been hoping to see quite a few FD tests, but no such luck. Really happy with the samples I've seen of the 85L, but the 50 is the one I'm worried about. Thanks in advance.
Seth
Hi Seth,
Phillip Reeve has posted some test shots with the Minolta MC Rokkor 58 f/1.2 along with a lot of other SLR 50s and the Rokkor which I know well looks just like it does on a DSLR. Pretty sharp in the center WO, weak in the corners WO, but sharpens up nicely as it stops down. The other SLR 50s are much the same as on a DSLR too, but I say that with less confidence because I know them less well. I think there is every reason to believe that SLR 50s including the very nice nFD 50L will work just as they do on a DSLR, and specifically the nFD 50L will be a lot like the Rokkor.
p.107 #15 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Thanks for your response, Steve. I looked at Phillip Reeve's flickr and there were some impressive shots with FD lenses. Definitely gives me some confidence!
p.107 #17 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
I think the whole point of having a full frame camera is _not having to crop_ your lenses by default.
I think my conclusion (that I came to on page sub ten) is that neither the A7 or A7r are any good full frame solutions for wide angle RF lens users. Acceptable? To some, sure, not for me. Still, hope lingered on for a few weeks as there was a slight possibility that "some" would do better than others.
On the whole test chart and scene analysis with comments on where the lens was focused (mid zone, corners, taking field curvature into account) I can only say: if you can't produce an acceptable image under controlled shooting conditions of a bookshelf/brick wall - how in the heck are you supposed to fair in real life shooting conditions? If the lens does not work it does not work. While people are debating on how a beautiful but old and perfectly good lens should be focused "critically" in various conditions other people are taking "sharper" photos with consumer grade zooms already.
I think a NEW camera that does not do any good unless you; crop, de-smear and color correct every other image is worthless as a platform for alt lenses. I think it is more than evident that Sony did not put any extra special effort into accommodating RF wides. Anyone who isn't seeing that by now is clearly delusional.
Though I miss a lot of my old RW wide glass (Voigt 15, ZM18, ZM25, Cron28)
for their size and performance I decided some time ago I would not perpetuate the search for the holy camera grail. Instead I will actually see what will surface in the next few years with new stuff and a small-ish outfit that would meet my criteria.
I am keeping tabs on the Sony development and I don't really mind if Sony would have Zeiss churn out just a few really good wide angle lenses. I need just a few really good lenses and a reliable platform. I don't need expensive compromises - those I can have any day of the week already.
I also think people who have bought the A7/r should not feel to bad - some great non alt glass might be just around the corner and the potential of the offering is pretty awesome, to end on a good note.
p.107 #18 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
uhoh7 wrote:
107 pages and the jury is still out on a number of candidates: zm18, cron28, 28/2.8 v3.
the 28 cron is a pretty known quantity. lots of smearing from wide open to f/5.6. at f/11 the corners are decent but still look a little smeared. no real color shift on the a7, but definitely noticeable on the a7r.
i have yet to see a full sized pic with the zm 18/4 though...
