Indeed I'm lucky to receive the A7 the same day, but now I'm not sure I want to send it away for modification and stay without a camera for 3 weeks. I think I will use it as is for a few days and if I'm not happy with the ZM 25 and 35, I might decide to send it afterall.
turnstyle wrote:
Just to clarify, should I also be interpreting that to mean you thought the 1.2 generally outperformed the 1.4? (As I could also read your comment to mean they were equal.)
Yes. Some factual, some opinion ("sharpness" and bokeh).
EDIT: But uhoh7's findings are interesting and should be checked out (you need more and bigger samples for that of course).
Thanks Ron. Nope, sold the GXR long ago. It seems the turn around at this time is about 5-6 months due to lack of spare parts. The shop told me they send 7-8 bodies a week to Germany for exactly the same problem, so it might have something to do with the tropical weather in Thailand.
rscheffler wrote:
Sorry to hear that Edward. No longer have a GXR as back-up back-up?
edwardkaraa wrote:
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.
Sorry to hear the bad news Edward Hope it may still be covered under warranty.
My discussion today with Camera Clinic in Melbourne, they also do the glass replacement on sensors. Apparently the glass on the RX1 is about 2mm, and they suspect the new A7's may have the same thickness, which may cause the WA issues. Of course the RX1/r is optimized here, but replacing with a 1mm glass, will of course affect the focusing, and needs to adjusted carefully.
Have fun with the A7 for now, I am sure you will enjoy it until the M9 arrives back
edwardkaraa wrote:
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.
Hi Edward,
Sorry to hear about the delamination issue with the M9 and having to send the camera back to Germany.
Thank you Charles. Yes it is still under warranty, but the shop told me Leica is changing the sensors free of charge even for out of warranty items as it is a known issue.
I expect the A7/R glass replacement to become a standard procedure with M glass owners. Any idea about the cost?
edwardkaraa wrote:
Thank you Charles. Yes it is still under warranty, but the shop told me Leica is changing the sensors free of charge even for out of warranty items as it is a known issue.
I expect the A7/R glass replacement to become a standard procedure with M glass owners. Any idea about the cost?
Good news at least on that front I have to inquire further into the details, but they do it for the Nikon 800 and many other cameras specialized for IR work. The main cost is the sheet of glass as it large, costing about 2,500 for the sheet, which amortized over a number of cameras would bring the cost down considerably. They may be able to use another manufacturers glass cover, should it be close to the same size. Apparently going for the 2mm glass would alleviate some of the issues with dust. My discussions today, were regarding tightening the tolerance on the Novaflex adapter for some of the older lenses.
Jonas B wrote:
EDIT: But uhoh7's findings are interesting and should be checked out (you need more and bigger samples for that of course).
Rgr, my observations are far from definitive. Note it's easy to see the originals by clicking on the titles.
In the end, users should make up their own minds, and beware conclusions, especially of those who do own a given camera and lens.
In science, opinion is constantly revised and refined. Very smart people turn out to be "wrong" all the time. They are usually happy to be wrong, since they know more in then end.
When I now peep at my CV 35/1.4 landscape I see some interesting variation in sharpness, not entirely logical,
But peeping at 36 mp is something new for many of us.
I think it is obvious the CV 35/1.4 is very good on the A7r, and it's bokeh is really quite good to my taste. It certain can make landscapes any non peeper will appreciate, but it's not at a 50 cron level in my test shots yet.
Included in the series are adapted M/LTM lenses on the A7r - the photographer presents the first shot au natural and then the image processed by Lightroom's Flat File Correction plug-in. This is the first time I've seen some of these lenses done up this way.
Included in the series are adapted M/LTM lenses on the A7r - the photographer presents the first shot au natural and then the image processed by Lightroom's Flat File Correction plug-in. This is the first time I've seen some of these lenses done up this way.
Unfortunately his conditions are terrible and it's all jpgs. They look OK reduced, but full size not so much.
p.129 #12 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
It was expected (and maybe documented somewhere else), but the ZM 35 2.8 is not happy on the A7R regarding color shift. Didn't even bother with testing for smearing since I don't want to deal with Corner Fix. Looks like I might have to try out the CV 35 1.4
p.129 #13 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Dustobub wrote:
It was expected (and maybe documented somewhere else), but the ZM 35 2.8 is not happy on the A7R regarding color shift. Didn't even bother with testing for smearing since I don't want to deal with Corner Fix. Looks like I might have to try out the CV 35 1.4
If you use LR, the Flat Field plugin (cornerfix equivalent) is very effective and makes for a much simpler workflow. Not ideal versus a clean image, but not a big deal since all corrections are applied within LR.
p.129 #14 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Dustobub wrote:
It was expected (and maybe documented somewhere else), but the ZM 35 2.8 is not happy on the A7R regarding color shift.
I may be wrong, but I thought that Ron said that the ZM 35/2.8 was better than the FE 35/2.8 in this regard and everyone seems to be pretty happy with the FE.
p.129 #15 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
shelt wrote:
If you use LR, the Flat Field plugin (cornerfix equivalent) is very effective and makes for a much simpler workflow. Not ideal versus a clean image, but not a big deal since all corrections are applied within LR.
I'm stuck in Aperture for now, but that is another reason to consider switching... I'd still prefer to find a RF 35 that doesn't have color shift. The hunt continues
p.129 #17 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
Jeff Kott wrote:
I may be wrong, but I thought that Ron said that the ZM 35/2.8 was better than the FE 35/2.8 in this regard and everyone seems to be pretty happy with the FE.
I know Ron did some tests on the A7, but I don't think he has tested the ZM35C on the A7R.
Hope it may still be covered under warranty.
