So, maxmax will be able to remove the AA filter from the a7 and replace it with a thinner glass cover. The camera will become nearsighted, meaning it will focus slightly beyond infinity with normal adapters, as explained by the suede yesterday. The surgery costs 550$ and service takes 2-3 days. I am getting my camera tomorrow, and I will promptly send it to them for modification. I decided to make it a dedicated full time RF lens camera, so I wouldn't mind if the AF is off after removal of the AA filter.
Also wondering if the modification will actually affect CDAF? Since that is being read directly off the sensor, one would think it shouldn't matter... But that's a secondary concern. If this in fact improves WA RF performance, it will be a big deal.
edwardkaraa wrote:
So, maxmax will be able to remove the AA filter from the a7 and replace it with a thinner glass cover. The camera will become nearsighted, meaning it will focus slightly beyond infinity with normal adapters, as explained by the suede yesterday. The surgery costs 550$ and service takes 2-3 days. I am getting my camera tomorrow, and I will promptly send it to them for modification. I decided to make it a dedicated full time RF lens camera, so I wouldn't mind if the AF is off after removal of the AA filter.
sweet! keep us posted.
might be nice to take a few "before" pics with your zm wides before you send it in so you (and we ) can have some idea about the level of improvement.
edwardkaraa wrote:
So, maxmax will be able to remove the AA filter from the a7 and replace it with a thinner glass cover. The camera will become nearsighted, meaning it will focus slightly beyond infinity with normal adapters, as explained by the suede yesterday. The surgery costs 550$ and service takes 2-3 days. I am getting my camera tomorrow, and I will promptly send it to them for modification. I decided to make it a dedicated full time RF lens camera, so I wouldn't mind if the AF is off after removal of the AA filter.
Hopefully you'll at least keep the camera long enough to take some test shots pre-modification for comparison?
A before/after set of images would be great for reference. Also, I think we know pretty much every WA RF lens suffers some degree of edge sharpness degradation compared to results with the same lenses on the M9. Therefore, I would also love to see a side-by-side comparisons against the M9.
Ron, Sebboh, alwang, definitely the before/after shots are on my agenda. Unfortunately being in Thailand, I should expect at least 15-20 days postage time so that's going to be a very long and unbearable wait.
That's at f/4 I think. There was no difference f/4 to f/11 believe it or not. Or none obvious. I peeped at the house in the right side.
It's very good at 1.2
Any again, while I'd expect the 35/1.4 to have more distortion, I do not think it is one wit less sharp at f/8. In fact it may be sharper. Corners seem good to me.
However the best sample is really the only only one that matters so I may be proven incorrect in the future.
I will test the 35/1.4 more with the landscapes.
at some point I can test it side by side with the m-rokkor 40/2...
Charlie, the trees certainly do look plenty sharp. You're using the first version of this lens, aren't you? If so, it's interesting to see that the 'mid zone dip' character is very similar to my second version copy, that pretty much goes away by f/5.6.
My feeling is the ski lift image you previously posted from with the CV35/1.4 is a bit mushier at the very fine detail level. Do you remember what aperture you used for that image?
p.128 #10 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Hey uhoh7,
If you might have a sec, I'm particularly curious if you see any color cast in the corners with your CV 35 1.2 on the A7r -- doesn't seem to be an issue on A7, but I have less data regarding A7r.
p.128 #11 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
rscheffler wrote:
Charlie, the trees certainly do look plenty sharp. You're using the first version of this lens, aren't you? If so, it's interesting to see that the 'mid zone dip' character is very similar to my second version copy, that pretty much goes away by f/5.6.
My feeling is the ski lift image you previously posted from with the CV35/1.4 is a bit mushier at the very fine detail level. Do you remember what aperture you used for that image?
It's early days so you could be right, but check the lift detail etc. It was a snap, taken fast, mainly to check corners. I'd guess f/8 min, it could even be f/16!
Neither shot is a fair test really, check the shadows with the lift, you can see I'm not far off the sun, and for the 1.2 it's fully overcast.
However there is no mistake at f/1.4 in the shots above. VG sharpness for such an aperture.
We already the 1.2 is very good. But it's pretty big. I just want to be sure those interested know the 35/1.4 looks extremely viable.
As to colorcast, I am not seeing it with either lens, but it can be subtle, as you know.
p.128 #12 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Are you using the first or second version of the f/1.2? Just so we know. I doubt there is substantial image quality difference between the two. At least I have never seen a conclusive comparison...
p.128 #13 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
douglasf13 wrote:
The Voigtlander 35/1.4 has always been a great performer for portraiture and a not so great performer in terms of field curvature when pixel peeping, whether on aps-c or FF. I doubt that has changed with the A7/R, but it is good for some applications.
It's possible I suppose that the sensor toppings are reversing some of the FC, if it happened to be curving inwards before.
p.128 #14 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
edwardkaraa wrote:
So, maxmax will be able to remove the AA filter from the a7 and replace it with a thinner glass cover. The camera will become nearsighted, meaning it will focus slightly beyond infinity with normal adapters, as explained by the suede yesterday. The surgery costs 550$ and service takes 2-3 days. I am getting my camera tomorrow, and I will promptly send it to them for modification. I decided to make it a dedicated full time RF lens camera, so I wouldn't mind if the AF is off after removal of the AA filter.
Are you having them remove the CFA too? I'm giving that serious consideration.
p.128 #15 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
edwardkaraa wrote:
So, maxmax will be able to remove the AA filter from the a7 and replace it with a thinner glass cover. The camera will become nearsighted, meaning it will focus slightly beyond infinity with normal adapters, as explained by the suede yesterday. The surgery costs 550$ and service takes 2-3 days. I am getting my camera tomorrow, and I will promptly send it to them for modification. I decided to make it a dedicated full time RF lens camera, so I wouldn't mind if the AF is off after removal of the AA filter.
Hm.... Since you're voiding warranty anyway - why didn't you pay them a few tenners to actually just cross the street and BUY the camera on their own?
15min delivery time. In stead of 10 days of postal insecurity...
Doubt it would be more expensive than buying locally in Thailand, including freight - or?
p.128 #17 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
theSuede wrote:
Hm.... Since you're voiding warranty anyway - why didn't you pay them a few tenners to actually just cross the street and BUY the camera on their own?
15min delivery time. In stead of 10 days of postal insecurity...
Doubt it would be more expensive than buying locally in Thailand, including freight - or?
Well, I got my A7 today. It is made in Thailand, so the local price is not too bad.
The bad news is that I also took my M9 to have the sensor cleaned and they told me the sensor is delaminating and I kept it there to be sent to Germany for a sensor replacement.
So now I'm stuck with this camera for a few months.
p.128 #19 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
rscheffler wrote:
Are you using the first or second version of the f/1.2? Just so we know. I doubt there is substantial image quality difference between the two. At least I have never seen a conclusive comparison...
v1 the better one, of course
@edward
poor baby to be stuck with such a toy camera
but I hope you will go ahead with sensor surgery so we can all see how it works
check this for sharpness at f/1.2: DSC01037 by unoh7, on Flickr
this is a mere handheld snap, might be even better.
) can have some idea about the level of improvement.
