I think it would be a bit tacky for Sony to charge $9.99 for an app when someone just paid $2300 for the camera. I would hope the version for the A7's are free to those users.
I think it would be a bit tacky for Sony to charge $9.99 for an app when someone just paid $2300 for the camera. I would hope the version for the A7's are free to those users.
I was surprised to see the battery charger isn't included. Sony, charge what you need for the package, but include the basics in the box. Maybe everyone won't use a wired remote (although I consider it mandatory), but not including the battery charger is mickey mouse for a $2,300 camera.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I think it would be a bit tacky for Sony to charge $9.99 for an app when someone just paid $2300 for the camera. I would hope the version for the A7's are free to those users.
Oh, I definitely think that Sony is looking at their little camera app market as a source of revenue. At least it's good the camera isn't $2999, I guess.
douglasf13 wrote:
Oh, I definitely think that Sony is looking at their little camera app market as a source of revenue. At least it's good the camera isn't $2999, I guess.
That's true...and I suppose they figure they are providing an app which is to be used with third party lenses they are not generating revenues from the sale of.
Unfortunately, Bruno Masset doesn't know a lot about Leica IR filters. They use about the cheapest, worst thing on the market (Kyocera BS7,) according to theSuede, and they're still twice as thick as most IR filters from other manufacturers.
john_edwards wrote:
The Online Photographer has a short article by Bruno Masset that may pour water on your hopes (RF WA on A7r)
Scroll down to the 16th of Oct.
John (And we may need a dislike button for this post)
not anything new there. zeiss had a white paper on this about 2 years ago and many people have experienced the effects with the NEX-7.
given sony's explicit mention of some of the issues and apparent interest in attracting rangefinder lens adapters, i'm hopeful they've taken steps to address the issues of cover glass refraction as best as is cost effective. we won't really know for sure till somebody can do real tests of the camera with rangefinder wides though.
john_edwards wrote:
The Online Photographer has a short article by Bruno Masset that may pour water on your hopes (RF WA on A7r)
Scroll down to the 16th of Oct.
John (And we may need a dislike button for this post)
Has Bruno used an A7R? Very much doubt it, sounds like he's trying to convince himself that he doesn't need one.
Who is Bruno Masset anyways? Never heard of him.
Luke: "I put my Zeiss ZM 21mm ƒ/2.8 on the A7r we have here [Luke works at Imaging-Resource —Ed.]. I'm sad to report that color shifts were severe and covered most of the frame. There was also severe darkening of the image away from the center, way too much to simply call vignetting. I chose this lens carefully, based on the experience of other users, to avoid this problem with my early NEX cameras. It worked well, with visible but very minor color shifts and vignetting. It stayed glued on my NEX-3 for years. Well, I just saved myself a couple grand."
Guys, I managed to get my hands on an a7, 35/3.8, 55/1.8 and 28-70 kit lens. Unfortunately, not the a7R, which is what I'm more interested in. I picked it up tonight and plan to do some infinity test shots in the morning (though forecast is calling for rain) before I have to give the camera back at midday... But I've been playing with it around the house, doing some bookcase test shots with various M mount lenses. So far I'm not very optimistic. Color shift doesn't seem to be a huge issue, even with the CV15 (I have all in-camera lens corrections turned off, in case these would also be applied to non FE/E lenses). That said, most of the lenses I've tried so far need to be stopped down a fair amount, such as 5.6-8, to get reasonable edge sharpness. At or near wide open many exhibit considerable detail smearing. About the best so far have been the ZM50/2 and the CV35/1.2 II. 21SEM is bad wide open and better stopped down, but I know this lens is a stellar performer even wide open on the M9... ZM21/2.8 was also pretty bad. I have two adapters - one from Kipon and one from Novoflex - results seem pretty consistent between the two.
Depending on how busy I get over the weekend, might have some images available for inspection on Monday...
A couple other observations: yep, the shutter is too loud for my taste. At least with the A7, it is an electronic first curtain. Buffer is decent and buffer clear speed is card dependent. I tried SDHC Class 10 as well as SDHC UHS-1 Class 10, with the latter being somewhat faster and allowing deeper bursts. RAW buffer depth at ISO 200 is in the 28-35 frame range and clears fully in 18 seconds with the faster card, about 25 seconds with the slower one...
I should also mention that the camera is a preproduction model and may not be fully indicative of results once the cameras ship. FW version is 0.9. But I doubt the RF WA image smearing will change...
Definitely not a Leica killer so far. Focus peaking is not fine-grained enough for precise focal plane placement with many lenses and focusing with magnified view simply takes too long. It's fine for stationary subject matter, but futile for fluid situations. My feeling is this should be a decent performer with system lenses where one can benefit from AF. So far the two Zeiss lenses seem quite nice. Interestingly the 55/1.8 seems to be quite a long optical package, with the rear element quite close to the lens mount, and therefore the sensor.
Honestly with an AA layer, I wouldn't expect the A7 to do anything, but to smear the corners of WA RF lenses. At least the color/vingetting looks good/correctable. With that said, I'm still very optimistic for the A7R.
Yeah, it will be nice to see some samples from the A7R as well. A7 is not looking so good - at least for my needs.... I think the A7R *should* be quite different in output.
rscheffler wrote:
Guys, I managed to get my hands on an a7
Ah, too bad you weren't able to score an a7r so we could quickly get to the bottom of the adapted lens prospects on an AA-filter-less body. Can we bribe anyone for you Ron? So nice to have voices here we trust getting an early look.
It'd be great if we can prove or disprove the utility of the camera(s) for alt-glass purposes quickly. I still remember how long it took for decent info on the NEX-7 to accumulate to the point where opinions could be relied upon.
Of course if not M mount glass, what about older SLR gems lurking in our drawers...?
Alt-glass aside, a good close look at native glass performance on either A7 model would be terrific to have in hand. I'd love to see comparisons between the RX1 and the A7 with FE 35/2.8.
rscheffler wrote:
Guys, I managed to get my hands on an a7, 35/3.8, 55/1.8 and 28-70 kit lens. Unfortunately, not the a7R, which is what I'm more interested in. I picked it up tonight and plan to do some infinity test shots in the morning (though forecast is calling for rain) before I have to give the camera back at midday... But I've been playing with it around the house, doing some bookcase test shots with various M mount lenses. So far I'm not very optimistic. Color shift doesn't seem to be a huge issue, even with the CV15 (I have all in-camera lens corrections turned off, in case these would also be applied to non FE/E lenses). That said, most of the lenses I've tried so far need to be stopped down a fair amount, such as 5.6-8, to get reasonable edge sharpness. At or near wide open many exhibit considerable detail smearing. About the best so far have been the ZM50/2 and the CV35/1.2 II. 21SEM is bad wide open and better stopped down, but I know this lens is a stellar performer even wide open on the M9... ZM21/2.8 was also pretty bad. I have two adapters - one from Kipon and one from Novoflex - results seem pretty consistent between the two.
Depending on how busy I get over the weekend, might have some images available for inspection on Monday...
A couple other observations: yep, the shutter is too loud for my taste. At least with the A7, it is an electronic first curtain. Buffer is decent and buffer clear speed is card dependent. I tried SDHC Class 10 as well as SDHC UHS-1 Class 10, with the latter being somewhat faster and allowing deeper bursts. RAW buffer depth at ISO 200 is in the 28-35 frame range and clears fully in 18 seconds with the faster card, about 25 seconds with the slower one...
I should also mention that the camera is a preproduction model and may not be fully indicative of results once the cameras ship. FW version is 0.9. But I doubt the RF WA image smearing will change...
Definitely not a Leica killer so far. Focus peaking is not fine-grained enough for precise focal plane placement with many lenses and focusing with magnified view simply takes too long. It's fine for stationary subject matter, but futile for fluid situations. My feeling is this should be a decent performer with system lenses where one can benefit from AF. So far the two Zeiss lenses seem quite nice. Interestingly the 55/1.8 seems to be quite a long optical package, with the rear element quite close to the lens mount, and therefore the sensor.
Thanks so much for the heads up! I think everyone is so keen to have an understanding of how the M lenses would perform with various adapters. It would seem for now, the A7's are best suited for the Sony/Zeiss range of lenses!
douglasf13 wrote:
Are they OK or not OK just based on color shift and vignetting, or is this taking resolution drops into account?
It's for color shift. I think.
Since we don't have the original un-touched image file, nor do we have seriously test result, all we can know for now is something like OK or Not OK, isn't it?
Apparently there are only a few of these cameras in Canada, so not sure when/if I can get an a7r. As mentioned, it's really the one I want to try with M mount lenses.
I think the a7 will be fine with SLR glass of any vintage, but I have no such glass to test on it. Only Canon EF and I don't have an adapter.
My motive for looking at the a7R is also for technical applications, where I'd need the resolution and would be taking the time to set up shots properly. Hence an interest in how the camera will work with my Canon TS-E lenses. It's an area Canon is lacking at the moment - no high-rez sensor, let alone one that generates images clean enough for heavy PP manipulation.
And so far the a7 doesn't make me want an M240 any less...
