artur5 wrote:
Hmm.. I don't see it exactly that way, Edward. For me the A7 and A7r behave almost likewise for smearing, if we upsize the 24mp. A7 files to 36mp.
Also. those ZM35/2 samples are rather disappointing. By f/4 the whole frame should be very, very good. I had to crop 1.3x to get clean corners from it. I wasn't expecting much good from the A7(r) and the wider Biogons up to 25mm, but I hoped better for the ZM35/2.
BTW The adapter issue is quite easy to detect with a simple micrometer/caliper resolving 0.01mm.
Just check the thickness all around and see if the the tolerance is within 0.01mm ( or even 0.02). That'd be fine. Of course, the combo camera/adapter/lens must be tight with no play or wobble. A tiny bit of rotation isn't as bad as a back and forth sideways play. ...Show more →
In the few comparisons I did, I downsized the 7r file to 24 mp as there is no benefit in upsizing the 7 files for detail that doesn't exist. My impression is that the 7 has noticeably less smearing with the same lenses. Add to that the lower vignetting and color shading.
Anyhow, adapting RF glass on those cameras seems to be an exercice in frustration, almost masochistic. I would rather use RF glass on my M9 and FE glass on the Sonys.
Nanh wrote:
With my G21 on 5N I wasn't able to get the corner sharp even when focusing directly on the corner at larger apertures. It seems either the radial direction is sharp or the tangential. That is what I think Astigmatism. The phenomenon that corner is not sharp at the same time as the center is curvature of field.
Good point. I would imagine that astigmatism wouldn't allow it to be sharp, even when focused into the corners. What I'm curious of is whether the field curvature is increased as you go towards the edges.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Anyhow, adapting RF glass on those cameras seems to be an exercice in frustration, almost masochistic. I would rather use RF glass on my M9 and FE glass on the Sonys.
Agreed, for the most part. At least under 50mm-75mm'ish. After using tons of lenses on NEX, I came to realize that it's no longer just about the lenses like it was in the film days, when we could keep the same lenses and use the same film for years, in order to stay consistent. Now it is all about how a certain lens performs with a certain sensor, and, when I change/upgrade to a new camera, I know there's a chance I'll change my lens lineup, too.
Noodlz79 wrote:
A corner test with the Voigtlander 21mm Ultron f/1.8 today, I think some people wanted to know about smearing etc. There is definitely heavy vignetting and color shift, but I think the smearing is fairly minimal.
It was hard to find a planar subject at infinity so I just aimed for the corners in two separate series of shots.
Thanks for doing this test! It definitely matches what I saw in the brief time I tested the 21mm 1.8 with a pre-production a7r. There's color shift but also lots of resolving power, even in the corners wide open.
douglasf13 wrote:
Agreed, for the most part. At least under 50mm-75mm'ish. After using tons of lenses on NEX, I came to realize that it's no longer just about the lenses like it was in the film days, when we could keep the same lenses and use the same film for years, in order to stay consistent. Now it is all about how a certain lens performs with a certain sensor, and, when I change/upgrade to a new camera, I know there's a chance I'll change my lens lineup, too.
Agree to both of the above.
The A7/A7r is _not_ a RF wide angle friendly platform. Stating that it is would be a lie. It is really a "hit and miss" with the emphasis being on "miss". A RF wide angle platform will enable easy and effortless adaptation of RF glass with a minimum of hassle and image degradation and a minimum of post pro remedies to handle inadequacies in the camera sensor/topping/what have you. As far as Sony goes I would not want to support a half baked product by investing in something that does not meet my needs/criteria just because it is a) available and b) almost there and/or c) there is nothing else in that category at the moment.
The camera as such I really applaud as a step in the right direction for full frame cameras and if the right wide angle lenses would surface I would be very interested. I don't need many lenses - just bring me the three I want.
As it stands my conclusion is that it is an incomplete/unsatisfactory RF lens platform. I don't hold anything against anyone who think it is good enough - but please don't tell me what I should think about it. We simply disagree. And I am fine with that.
Noodlz79 wrote:
A corner test with the Voigtlander 21mm Ultron f/1.8 today, I think some people wanted to know about smearing etc. There is definitely heavy vignetting and color shift, but I think the smearing is fairly minimal.
It was hard to find a planar subject at infinity so I just aimed for the corners in two separate series of shots.
Just default +25 sharpening in Lightroom and pulled back the vignetting some.
Here are the results(Click the link for the 100% version):
Thank you very much!
I was very curious about this for a long time!
This looks quiet good. Is there an easy trick to get rid of the colour cast?
If so, I am going for it. I used it once and I like it a lot. Very little distortion as well.
sculptormic wrote:
Thank you very much!
I was very curious about this for a long time!
This looks quiet good. Is there an easy trick to get rid of the colour cast?
If so, I am going for it. I used it once and I like it a lot. Very little distortion as well.
Hrrrm, unless I'm missing something, the crops are scaled down A LOT and still shows smearing. I bet they look "awful" at 100%.
Edit: OK, it was the new Flickr UI that screwed everything up. Now I know how to view the image at 100%, and it actually looks really good! Even better than I'd expect from a fast 21 mm SLR lens.
p.112 #10 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
kosmoskatten wrote:
As it stands my conclusion is that it is an incomplete/unsatisfactory RF lens platform. I don't hold anything against anyone who think it is good enough - but please don't tell me what I should think about it. We simply disagree. And I am fine with that.
ha, my conclusion is that it's a suboptimal platform for rangefinder lenses, but still more satisfactory than having to use a rangefinder camera for those lenses.
the silver lining of the less than stellar performance with rangefinder lenses is that it'll save me money. i don't really need any new lenses.
but the cv 21/1.8 and 35 lux pre-asph do sound nice...
p.112 #11 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Makten wrote:
Hrrrm, unless I'm missing something, the crops are scaled down A LOT and still shows smearing. I bet they look "awful" at 100%.
yes, you have to go to flickr to see full sized crops. they look bad but not really smeared at 100% till f/5.6 where they look decent to good for a $1k 21mm.
p.112 #14 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
kosmoskatten wrote:
The A7/A7r is _not_ a RF wide angle friendly platform. Stating that it is would be a lie. It is really a "hit and miss" with the emphasis being on "miss". A RF wide angle platform will enable easy and effortless adaptation of RF glass with a minimum of hassle and image degradation and a minimum of post pro remedies to handle inadequacies in the camera sensor/topping/what have you. As far as Sony goes I would not want to support a half baked product by investing in something that does not meet my needs/criteria just because it is a) available and b) almost there and/or c) there is nothing else in that category at the moment.
The camera as such I really applaud as a step in the right direction for full frame cameras and if the right wide angle lenses would surface I would be very interested. I don't need many lenses - just bring me the three I want.
As it stands my conclusion is that it is an incomplete/unsatisfactory RF lens platform. I don't hold anything against anyone who think it is good enough - but please don't tell me what I should think about it. We simply disagree. And I am fine with that. ...Show more →
+1 @ ^
That sums it up pretty well for me, regarding RF wides on A7/A7R. I'll be sticking to SLR glass for my wides (TS-E, Zeiss, Oly) on 24x36 whether it is the A7/A7R or a DSLR ... at least until we see what the native glass for the platform can bring to us. The wider and steeper you go, the tougher it gets. Choose your poison(s) ... and how much of them you can tolerate.
p.112 #15 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
sculptormic wrote:
I have seen examples with the 28 cron on the M9 wide open and it does not look good!
You could call it smearing.
It gets better @ 5.6.
I think we're getting to critical around here.
Who shoots landscapes or other well chosen subjects wide open anyway?
While the 28 Cron is not edge to edge sharp w/o, it's still better on the M9 than the A7. A problem with the sensor induced smearing is it changes the lens's look/character in that region, IMO for the worse.
p.112 #16 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Hi, I agree with many of you that smearing matters but vignetting and color shift aren't.
But I am more concerned with the workflow on correcting the corner color shift. From what I've seen, it should depends on the aperture, isn't it?
If that's true, is it possible to create one profile to correct all different aperture and focus distance? If not, how Leica do it in camera?
It would be best if one profile can do it all. But still make sense if it requires different profile on different aperture. But if it requires different profile for different focusing distance, I am afraid that's too much work for me.
Thanks a lot.
p.112 #17 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
(regarding the edge smearing changing the character of lenses such as the 28 Cron)
Yep. I believe that's because it's introducing strong saggital blurring. Whereas typically lenses do worse tangentially near the edges (dashed lines on MTF charts).
p.112 #18 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
kolen wrote:
Hi, I agree with many of you that smearing matters but vignetting and color shift aren't.
But I am more concerned with the workflow on correcting the corner color shift. From what I've seen, it should depends on the aperture, isn't it?
If that's true, is it possible to create one profile to correct all different aperture and focus distance? If not, how Leica do it in camera?
It would be best if one profile can do it all. But still make sense if it requires different profile on different aperture. But if it requires different profile for different focusing distance, I am afraid that's too much work for me.
Thanks a lot....Show more →
yes, it's different at different apertures and focus distances but the differences aren't huge. leica cameras try to guess the aperture for exif so it's possible they use this info to choose a filter, but given the lack of total correction i suspect they just use one profile for each lens.
to use my g28 on my nex-7 i made a separate profile in pic for every aperture at infinity and then another one for every aperture at ~1.5 meters. it took about 2 min. there really isn't enough change from one focal distance to another to justify more than one set of near profiles and one set of far profiles. many people seem happy with just one profile for one aperture at infinity. when i decide a picture needs it i can apply the appropriate profile with a few clicks in LR.
p.112 #19 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
I am inclined to the positive and think that the VC is the best option so far for wide RF lenses.
Still would like to see a shot from a facade on a clear day @ lets say a distance between 5 and 8 meters. (fore my personal interest )
For the rest I hope my SLR wide alt lenses can give me hopefully some surprises. But I probably can be happy with the FEza 35 for a while.
And then all the lenses above 35mm could that be fun!
Anyway I have to wait one weekend more because the deliveryman went to the wrong doorstep, not at home, and my A7r was taken back as not deliverable. Life is a bitch sometimes
p.112 #20 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
sebboh wrote:
yes, it's different at different apertures and focus distances but the differences aren't huge. leica cameras try to guess the aperture for exif so it's possible they use this info to choose a filter, but given the lack of total correction i suspect they just use one profile for each lens.
to use my g28 on my nex-7 i made a separate profile in pic for every aperture at infinity and then another one for every aperture at ~1.5 meters. it took about 2 min. there really isn't enough change from one focal distance to another to justify more than one set of near profiles and one set of far profiles. many people seem happy with just one profile for one aperture at infinity. when i decide a picture needs it i can apply the appropriate profile with a few clicks in LR.
Thanks. Then it means that you have to record the aperture you used in the field?
I tried to do it but it's very difficult for me. One way I managed to "remember" the aperture I used is to stick to F1.4 or 5.6 only, and by just looking at the images I can separate them. And occasionally I used other aperture and try really hard to remind myself when I get home this is F4, this is F4...
Are there any way better? And by the way, how Leica can guess the aperture without a communication?
