wfrank wrote:
Knowing how controversial that statement is after some 40-50 pages where consensus is that smearing is the same between the cameras I wont come to a verdict. But it would be interesting to know which camera you use
I am actually very convinced now that the 7R induces more smearing than the 7, at least 1, maybe 2 stops difference.
Edward, have you personally compared side by side both cameras with the same lenses ?.
Did somebody else made that direct comparison and showed the results here ?.
I'm not very convinced, nor I can be sure of nothing but my bet would be that, once you've upsampled the A7 24mpix. images to 36 Mpix, it will be a close match between the two ( for what concerns corner smearing).
j.liam wrote:
This may have been covered somewhere on a previous post, but is anyone able to comment on experiences with the 35 Summicron ASPH and 50 Summicron (latest, non-ASPH)?
early on I saw samples demonstrating a surprising amount of smearing with the 35 cron asph, though I think they may have cleared up by f/8.
it looks like earlier crons may actually do better wrt smearing.
Nope, I have only the A7, but there were a couple of comparisons on flickr with the same lenses, and I downsized the 7R shots to 24 mp and they still showed more smearing. I think there is no point in upsizing the 7 files as you're trying to create detail that doesn't exist. I estimate the smearing difference to be 1-2 stops.
Also from my own experience, I feel the smearing with the ZM 35/2 and 25/2.8, while still being unacceptable to me, is quite lower than what I've seen from online samples using 7R and the same lenses.
Add to that the total absence of color shift and the insignificant vignetting on the 7 (on my ZM).
I did a lot of thinking and I really wanted to buy the 7R, but all indications were in the 7's favor.
artur5 wrote:
Edward, have you personally compared side by side both cameras with the same lenses ?.
Did somebody else made that direct comparison and showed the results here ?.
I'm not very convinced, nor I can be sure of nothing but my bet would be that, once you've upsampled the A7 24mpix. images to 36 Mpix, it will be a close match between the two ( for what concerns corner smearing).
edwardkaraa wrote:
Nope, I have only the A7, but there were a couple of comparisons on flickr with the same lenses, and I downsized the 7R shots to 24 mp and they still showed more smearing. I think there is no point in upsizing the 7 files as you're trying to create detail that doesn't exist. I estimate the smearing difference to be 1-2 stops.
Also from my own experience, I feel the smearing with the ZM 35/2 and 25/2.8, while still being unacceptable to me, is quite lower than what I've seen from online samples using 7R and the same lenses.
Add to that the total absence of color shift and the insignificant vignetting on the 7 (on my ZM).
I did a lot of thinking and I really wanted to buy the 7R, but all indications were in the 7's favor.
That may be the case for the A7 "playing nicely" with more WA RF lenses, but for those WA RF lenses that do well with both the A7 and the A7r, I believe there is an advantage in favor of the A7r.
"We are currently working on our next project, the wide-angle IBEGON lens. With Sony releasing the new full-frame mirrorless A7/A7R camera, we have designed a high-speed telephoto APO mirror lens called the IBECAT, named for its sharp image capture, its lightweight construction and fast glass. Additional lenses are in development for full frame mirrorless cameras, including a tilt-shift lens and a compact fixed focal length lens."
PS - sorry if I put this in the wrong thread, but I'm not going to cross post now.
p.146 #10 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
naturephoto1 wrote:
Edward,
That may be the case for the A7 "playing nicely" with more WA RF lenses, but for those WA RF lenses that do well with both the A7 and the A7r, I believe there is an advantage in favor of the A7r.
p.146 #11 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
edwardkaraa wrote:
No doubt about that, Rich. Fully agreed.
Edward,
This is where and why we have 2 different trains of thought. We have people such as yourself that have many WA (in particular) RF lenses hoping that one of these 2 cameras will fulfill their need to use their RF lenses. Then we have the other group, such as myself with mostly SLR or DSLR lenses looking for a camera and hoping to find some WA RF lenses to add to the mix. So, the two cameras offer both groups at least a good to excellent platform for their lenses.
p.146 #12 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
naturephoto1 wrote:
Edward,
This is where and why we have 2 different trains of thought. We have people such as yourself that have many WA (in particular) RF lenses hoping that one of these 2 cameras will fulfill their need to use their RF lenses. Then we have the other group, such as myself with mostly SLR or DSLR lenses looking for a camera and hoping to find some WA RF lenses to add to the mix. So, the two cameras offer both groups at least a good to excellent platform for their lenses.
Rich
As another thread has been indicating, the RF lens performance differences between the two cameras (and color shift with the FE35,) added to the electronic first curtain shutter option makes the decision between the A7 and A7R a lot trickier than I originally imagined.
Dec 13, 2013 at 02:50 PM
freddy_hayek Offline [X]
p.146 #13 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
sebboh wrote:
early on I saw samples demonstrating a surprising amount of smearing with the 35 cron asph, though I think they may have cleared up by f/8.
it looks like earlier crons may actually do better wrt smearing.
p.146 #14 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
My current unfounded hope is that someone manages to pull the current sensor toppings off of the A7R and replace them with a thin IR filter. Even if that breaks AF I will have no problem with that :-)
p.146 #15 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
A 3rd group Rich, a large one numerically - those with or happy to use beautiful legacy SLR lenses bought cheap, like Pentax and Canon FD, Contax etc. at all FLs until Zeiss really deliver the goods in native FE next year. A perfect mix and match for many of us.
It's good the Leicaphiles one percenters are numerically as few as their volume is large. Mainstream consumers, upshifters from APS-C and m43, cross shifters from DSLR will quickly appreciate the a7/r series.
As expected I found just now that the 21mm Distagon is breathtaking on the 36Mp model, I really don't how it avoided the dreaded 'Sony smear' TM../satire..
..and 1/50s are no problem at all hand held; and the shutter is not mushy or indistinct but works just fine, very nice in fact; and the shutter sound is very reassuring, you adjust to it fast; I saw no 11x jaggies; it's very easy to handhold as the adapter provides a good support base for the left hand; the 36mp files open out into .psd files very nicely, say no posterisation. No bad options here.
Anyone know what Lloyd Chambers complaint du jour is today? He has been hard at it, has he exhausted himself already? If so I am disappointed in him. I am enjoying shooting these 'issues' down right now. Where is Max when you need him...what else - yeah, tonal gradations are very lifelike indeed, but you need more attenton to histo tuning. Files are malleable like the RX1/a99. EVF is even better than RX1, noticably so in fact, very nice in all light tried so far. WB is fussy.
New lens maker sounds great, Jeff. More the merrier.
p.146 #16 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
philip_pj wrote:
A 3rd group Rich, a large one numerically - those with or happy to use beautiful legacy SLR lenses bought cheap, like Pentax and Canon FD, Contax etc. at all FLs until Zeiss really deliver the goods in native FE next year. A perfect mix and match for many of us.
It's good the Leicaphiles one percenters are numerically as few as their volume is large. Mainstream consumers, upshifters from APS-C and m43, cross shifters from DSLR will quickly appreciate the a7/r series.
As expected I found just now that the 21mm Distagon is breathtaking on the 36Mp model, I really don't how it avoided the dreaded 'Sony smear' TM../satire..
..and 1/50s are no problem at all hand held; and the shutter is not mushy or indistinct but works just fine, very nice in fact; and the shutter sound is very reassuring, you adjust to it fast; I saw no 11x jaggies; it's very easy to handhold as the adapter provides a good support base for the left hand; the 36mp files open out into .psd files very nicely, say no posterisation. No bad options here.
Anyone know what Lloyd Chambers complaint du jour is today? He has been hard at it, has he exhausted himself already? If so I am disappointed in him. I am enjoying shooting these 'issues' down right now. Where is Max when you need him...what else - yeah, tonal gradations are very lifelike indeed, but you need more attenton to histo tuning. Files are malleable like the RX1/a99. EVF is even better than RX1, noticably so in fact, very nice in all light tried so far. WB is fussy.
New lens maker sounds great, Jeff. More the merrier....Show more →
Philip,
I would really categorize your 3rd group under my second as those lenses are mainly SLR or DSLR lenses.
Great to know about the Contax 21mm Distagon. I plan to purchase my Leica 28mm f2.8 Elmarit V2 next week and then to purchase a Contax 21mm f2.8 Distagon toward the middle of January.
p.146 #17 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
naturephoto1 wrote:
Edward,
This is where and why we have 2 different trains of thought. We have people such as yourself that have many WA (in particular) RF lenses hoping that one of these 2 cameras will fulfill their need to use their RF lenses. Then we have the other group, such as myself with mostly SLR or DSLR lenses looking for a camera and hoping to find some WA RF lenses to add to the mix. So, the two cameras offer both groups at least a good to excellent platform for their lenses.
Rich
Rich,
With the DSLR and R lenses, there are some amazing images that validates both the A7 and A7r with out a doubt. I think the issue is the M lenses at 50 and less, the results have not been conclusive. There has been substantially variability of results, where it may work on a A7r and not the other. I feel there is more at play rather just obtaining the best adapter. I suspect, with the calibrations on the M lenses to match the RF cams, there are very fine shim adjustments that may affect how one M lens performs fine on the A7r, and not the other. I am puzzled, as I know the 50 Lux Asph, for some that own the A7r works amazingly well, and yet others have smearing/blurring and color shifts. I do not have the color shifts, but there is a difference in sharpness mid to far range in the images. I noticed the other day when testing the 50 Nocti f/1.0 at f/5.6 that some trees at 100m appeared to blurry, when I knew that I had accurately focused on them. Yet the closer, the 50 Nocti f/1.0, performs better on my A7r than the M240. I really trying to nail the lenses that work really well, and no issues, and my M list is narrowing.
I am now thinking to invest in some R glass, as I can use them on the M240 also, particularly the 35 Cron R and 50 Cron R II.
p.146 #18 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
So I'm still left wondering if there is a decent 35mm RF lens to use on the A7... Keep hearing mixed reports about the Leicas, and the CV 35/1.2 is a little larger than I'd like but it looks like it works okay?
p.146 #20 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
charles.K wrote:
With the DSLR and R lenses, there are some amazing images that validates both the A7 and A7r with out a doubt. I think the issue is the M lenses at 50 and less, the results have not been conclusive. There has been substantially variability of results, where it may work on a A7r and not the other.
Can you cite any examples of lenses that work on A7r but not A7? I've certainly seen examples the other way around. (Or was that possibly just a typo?) Or did you possibly mean "where it may work on one A7r and not another"?)
