shelt wrote:
My A7 just arrived. Initial RF impressions (after experience with NEX-7, NEX-6, 5Dm2 as recent cameras):
Leica 24 Elmar (on Fotodiox): Very slight color shift. Slight vignetting. Smeared corners/edges which clean up by f/8 for the most part. Jury still out, but certainly usable. Edges very weak vs M9.
Leica 35 Lux FLE (on Fotodiox): Nice! Vignettes a fair bit at 1.4 and 2.0; tiny vignette at small apertures. Possibly very tiny color shift at widest apertures (I don't think so, but not 100% sure). CA at f/1.4-2.0. Soft perimeter at 1.4-2.0 (which is fine by me). Almost ZM 50 Planar-like at infinity and f/4. Extremely sharp at 5.6 (tiny perception of softness in extreme corners). Pixel sharp to corners at f/8. No need to LCC correct -- vignette adjustment works fine.
Contax g35: Nice! Light vignetting at 2.0-2.8 but no color shift. Very soft mid-zone at 2.0, and still soft corners at 2.8. Sharp at f/4 to edges; Very sharp to extreme corners at 5.6, 8. Sharper than on APS-C NEX-7 for some reason.
OM 24/2.8: Works fine like on any DSLR. A touch soft in corners; central frame razor sharp. Corners look "1970s sharp" at least at 5.6 and 8. Not quite the g45 or ZM 50/2, but really solid after 2.8.
Zeiss ZM 50 Planar: A beauty! Tiny vignetting (not sure if same in M9). No shift. Mostly sharp extreme corners at f/2. Very very sharp by f/4 (I'm picky). Every pixel looks like center pixel at f/5.6+. Not sure it could look better on any camera. p.s. - something obviously wrong with those early Shanghai samples...
Well, those are the early returns. I still have the CV 50/1.5, g90, and various SLR lenses to try. Overall, I'm extremely happy. The 24 Elmar was a long shot, and I intend to work a bit more with it, but it's really the only disappointing lens I have.
shelt wrote:
Leica 35 Lux FLE (on Fotodiox which focuses way past infinity btw): Nice! Vignettes a fair bit at 1.4 and 2.0; tiny vignette at small apertures.
Just curious, is that different from what you'd get on M240 with in-camera corrections turned off?
douglasf13 wrote:
Great info. The G35 performance bodes well for the 35 Summicron IV, which has similar characteristics and is also small.
I would think so. It's definitely a bit funky at f/2 (especially the OOF areas), but certainly looks pretty solid overall. We have horrible haze and overcast today; I'll try to put a few infinity shots up once things clear up...
@shelt… excluding the extreme corners, that actually looks quite nice… frankly I don't know that I have ever looked that far into the corners on actual pics that i have printed… they're just not what makes the picture (for me), even in detailed landscape shots.
shelt wrote:
I would think so. It's definitely a bit funky at f/2 (especially the OOF areas), but certainly looks pretty solid overall. We have horrible haze and overcast today; I'll try to put a few infinity shots up once things clear up...
The corner sharpness at smaller apertures is better at longer distances...
Thanks. That's about what I would expect from the 35 IV Summicron, too. It looks good. Those corners do look blurry, but my expectations are probably a little skewed from the RX1. The 35 IV wasn't perfect in the corners on the M9, either, if I remember correctly.
p.s. here are the (very similar) mtfs and designs for the G35 and 35 Summicron IV. I wouldn't expect the corners to be super sharp, judging by these, so those corners may just be attributed to the lens design, rather than the A7's sensor:
shelt wrote:
I would think so. It's definitely a bit funky at f/2 (especially the OOF areas), but certainly looks pretty solid overall. We have horrible haze and overcast today; I'll try to put a few infinity shots up once things clear up...
p.122 #10 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
turnstyle wrote:
Just curious, is that different from what you'd get on M240 with in-camera corrections turned off?
Good question -- I'm not sure. Perhaps someone can let us know... BTW, I measured the color in the 35 Lux FLE vignette -- it's not neutral, but looks pretty neutral to my eye. I also compared a cloudy sky shot a) uncorrected, b) corrected with flat field, and c) corrected with LR5 vignette adjustment. I could not see any color difference in the corrected areas, so I'm pretty relaxed about it...
p.122 #13 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
shelt wrote
BTW, I just measured the colors in the vignetted areas above -- they are totally neutral.
The numbers I saw were about 8-9 points short in green @ TR & BR, and about 5-7 short @ RL & BL. Certainly not a lot, but not quite what I would call totally neutral.
p.122 #14 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
RustyBug wrote:
The numbers I saw were about 8-9 points short in green @ TR & BR, and about 5-7 short @ RL & BL. Certainly not a lot, but not quite what I would call totally neutral.
I went back and checked more carefully. You're right -- there's a tiny bit of color bias (using LR tool). However, I honestly can't see it at normal levels. Here's the g35 f/2 shot with color saturation at 100% (!) -- I don't think it should be a real world problem.
p.122 #15 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Not much opportunity to shoot on Day 1. I wanted to see how the a7/35Lux did stopped down with a long exposure. Not bad considering it was very hazy out. It's a 13 sec exposure at ISO 250 and f/5.6 (VCSO Velvia).
p.122 #16 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
+1 @ not a big deal for real world (and certainly very correctable for the retentive).
I try to get my neutrals to < 5 point variance, but even @ < 10, it takes a discriminating look to detect that small of a shift. And if it is in an area that is supposed to be non-neutral (and isn't very light), it is even harder to detect by eye alone. And if that's all the more it is @ 100% cranked saturation, then no worries at all for normal saturation levels.
p.122 #17 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
shelt wrote:
Not much opportunity to shoot on Day 1. I wanted to see how the a7/35Lux did stopped down with a long exposure. Not bad considering it was very hazy out. It's a 13 sec exposure at ISO 250 and f/5.6 (VCSO Velvia).
I however have some reservations about the pixel quality of the 7/7R at low iso. It looks to me quite grainy, and in the 7R samples I played with on IDC, the chroma noise at iso 100 is very disturbing (when auto NR is turned off).
p.122 #18 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
shelt wrote:
Not much opportunity to shoot on Day 1. I wanted to see how the a7/35Lux did stopped down with a long exposure. Not bad considering it was very hazy out. It's a 13 sec exposure at ISO 250 and f/5.6 (VCSO Velvia).
p.122 #20 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
edwardkaraa wrote:
Wow, that looks pretty good!
I however have some reservations about the pixel quality of the 7/7R at low iso. It looks to me quite grainy, and in the 7R samples I played with on IDC, the chroma noise at iso 100 is very disturbing (when auto NR is turned off).
I too am seeing a bit more chroma and fine grain luminance noise than I expected at low ISO and low light. But...it's clearly much better than the APS-C sensors. The chroma cleans up fine; I'm struggling a bit more with luminance grain, but it's not a huge issue. I'm also wondering whether the LR5 beta might be less than ideal.
I'm just so happy to have a small FF camera that can use 90% of lenses ever made, and with the exception of some RF wides, use them quite well! It's quite an achievement, and given Sony's recent history of innovation, I feel good about what we'll see over the next few years.
