Lee Saxon wrote:
With all this talk of the thicker sensor glass causing/inflating these WA RF problems, has anyone considered http://www.maxmax.com and their sensor glass replacement and conversion services?
Would that then afford someone to "choose their poison" that Ed was referring to @ amount of color shift vs. amount smearing?
Excellent response, thanks. I ordered one... waterden wrote:
I can't yet speak for the Metabones on the a7 but they say it works fine. I use one on my NEX7 and it is better than the Voigtlander adapter which cost twice as much and which appears to be decentred. Build quality and fit both excellent. The only point I would alert you to is that my copy allows focus to infinity but no further. Now this is fine for me, not that I do many infinity shots, but it leaves no room for error. The Voigtlander adapter does allow focusing beyond infinity, as do the Novoflex adapters I have for other lenses, and I think this is preferable. There will be example variation so may be worth checking this out.
RustyBug wrote:
Would that then afford someone to "choose their poison" that Ed was referring to @ amount of color shift vs. amount smearing?
In fact I have already mentioned this service previously. I think the only disadvantage of such surgery is the increased IR sensitivity, and I find it perfectly alright vs getting perfectly sharp corners. Color shift will not be affected by this procedure so I would imagine the A7 would benefit the most from removing the AA filter.
There's been a lot of chat about the VM 21/1.8 here, and it seems to be a runner with the a7, but nothing I've found about the VM21/4. I remember using the old M39 version on my Leica M6 and MP and it was fine. I imagine if the 1.8 21 works this should too unless the pancake design causes problems. Anyone here tried one yet?
edwardkaraa wrote:
In fact I have already mentioned this service previously. I think the only disadvantage of such surgery is the increased IR sensitivity, and I find it perfectly alright vs getting perfectly sharp corners. Color shift will not be affected by this procedure so I would imagine the A7 would benefit the most from removing the AA filter.
PS: I have already sent an enquiry to maxmax and will post their reply here.
I purchased a crop Nikon D7000 Sony sensor and did a tear-down of the outer layers (IR, mirror coatings, top birefringent) in order to better understand the construction and as a preliminary investigation as to what might be involved.
I attempted to use a hot-air reflow station - used for soldering electronic SMD components to break the epoxy bond that holds the first cover-glass/second half of the AA filter to the sensor ceramic. This was the recommended procedure for removing this layer according to the best generic monochrome conversion instructions I could find. Unfortunately this wasn't successful in breaking the bond, so I am waiting to try again with a more powerful unit.
I've sent out a few emails to try to source a thin IR absorption replacement filter. The ones used for sensors are machined to far more precise thickness tolerances than those that go in front of the lenses, so it's not as easy as simple cutting down a circular-filter to fit.
p.125 #10 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
ISO1600 wrote:
_julian_.....
seriously?
All this stuff filter modification stuff is a well blazed-trail already traveled by astro-photographers, IR photographers and undergrad physics students. The only difference is that nobody has worked with this particular sensor. If Edward's endeavours with third party conversion services prove too expensive then there's bound to be other solutions..
p.125 #12 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
turnstyle wrote:
I'm interested in the CV 35 1.2 as a general walkaround lens -- initially for use on my NEX-7 (for a 50mm FOV) and later on one of the FF Sony bodies.
I'd be grateful for an opinions! -Scott
There are tons of pictures taken with this lens available to whoever searches for them. And, as NEX 7 is a crop camera, this is hardly the right thread for you to get answers, as your question is OT.
p.125 #13 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Disagree about OT. Turnstyle does indicate he would like opinions on the 35/1.2 with Sony a7 as well. Also, I thought the whole point of these forums was to be helpful to other contributors.
On which matter (and On Topic) has any assiduous reader of this extensive thread been able to put a list together of those RF lenses which definitely don't work well with the a7(r) and those that definitely do?
philber wrote:
There are tons of pictures taken with this lens available to whoever searches for them. And, as NEX 7 is a crop camera, this is hardly the right thread for you to get answers, as your question is OT.
p.125 #14 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
waterden, turnstyle already asked tons of questions about the 50mm Summilux. I am not saying he shouldn't ask, but he should post in the right thread. This is not a lens thread IMHO.
p.125 #15 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
? According to the title it is a lens thread. Also, he is not asking about the Summilux 50 here so I don't get your point. Please understand I am not wishing or trying to be confrontational here, merely saying that these forums exist to educate, which I think is wholly laudable.
p.125 #16 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
No offence intended!
1) I'd be happy to start another thread, but I actually thought it would be better etiquette to post here.
2) Even though this thread is titled "A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses" -- I really think of it more as "A7/A7r - performance with RF lenses" -- because I believe the notion that "everything 35 and up is fine" is just not so true after all.
3) I did start off thinking I would get a Lux 50, for exactly that reason -- I was under the impression it would have no complications, as it was a 50 (longer than the 35 cutoff) -- but that proved to be far from clear. And now I think the FE 55 may be the smarter choice.
4) So I reorganized my thinking toward a 35mm -- which I would use BOTH as a 50mm FOV on my NEX-7 and then a bit later as a 35 on A7/A7r.
If I shouldn't post here, that's cool -- but it seemed to me that the performance of a CV 35 1.2 on A7/A7r is appropriate here (even if you don't think NEX-7 is).
Lastly: I honestly do tons of searching! (In fact, probably way too much! ) But it's been hard to actually find good examples, or I wind up finding totally conflicting comments.
Again, no offence intended -- and I'm happy to post here (or elsewhere) as considered appropriate.
-Scott
Nov 30, 2013 at 09:17 AM
Emacs Offline • • [X]
p.125 #17 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
So, I tried A7 with Leica Super Elmar 18 (Novoflex) at its "everything to be sharp setting": f11 and 2.5m of focusing distance. Didn't notice anything criminal. IMO edges are not significantly worse than with NEX-5n. Will try it tomorrow.
Sample shot. You see, it was too dark so vignetting cannot be estimated reliably, but corner smearing.
Unfortunatelly, there is no color profile for A7 in Darktable yet, so colors are questionable. And I don't shoot JPEG
p.125 #19 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
turnstyle wrote:
I'd be happy to start another thread, but I actually thought it would be better etiquette to post here.
I don't know about anyone else, but I think it is fine to post here about a 35mm lens, which is a wide angle, since it is wider than normal lenses. I also think it is fine to discuss 35mm vs. 50mm lens choices, since a 35mm lens appears in that discussion.
p.125 #20 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
edwardkaraa wrote:
PS: I have already sent an enquiry to maxmax and will post their reply here.
Ok, I received a reply from them saying they can remove the AA filter from the A7 but they have to replace it with glass of the same thickness otherwise the camera will become nearsighted. Now I need to convince him that it's ok to make the camera nearsighted as I will only use it with RF glass. Now I think this is an important aspect to consider, that a thinner glass cover will change the focal distance and focusing on lenses designed for the unmodified camera. Your thoughts?
) But it's been hard to actually find good examples, or I wind up finding totally conflicting comments.