wfrank wrote:
Here's a far corner from Ron's images with ZM21 at F/11.
I dont see a deal-breaking lack of performance.
I guess that for shooting daylight scenes at f8-f11 would be possible with some M-lenses. I also wonder how much more sensitive these setups are with regard to the adaptors. My setup of ZM18 and ZM35 plus 5N is already very sensitive about the adapter thickness. Still hope that the ZM28 would be ok on one of these A7(r)s
edwardkaraa wrote:
Yes, I finally found a used one a couple of months ago, not an easy feat. I paid more than a new lens price but it's really worth it. It is by far the sharpest lens I have ever used
I paid more than new for mine as well but I figure for a lens my son will inherit one day it's cheap at half the price I can't wait to put it on one of the A7s. Just not sure which one yet.
BenM wrote:
I paid more than new for mine as well but I figure for a lens my son will inherit one day it's cheap at half the price I can't wait to put it on one of the A7s. Just not sure which one yet.
Congratulations! I had to wait 2 years to find one! You should get the A7R, of course
All the "hints" and "talks" i have seen until now, point that the A7R is WORSE than the A7 when it comes to color shift with RF lens. I dont know why people insist on being "hopeful" based solely on fancy word specs like "offset gapless pixels"....
Until i see a real test like Ron has provided the comunity (Thank YOU ron) i am holding to my money ...
safcraft wrote:
All the "hints" and "talks" i have seen until now, point that the A7R is WORSE than the A7 when it comes to color shift with RF lens. I dont know why people insist on being "hopeful" based solely on fancy word specs like "offset gapless pixels"....
Until i see a real test like Ron has provided the comunity (Thank YOU ron) i am holding to my money ...
Because color shift and corner smearing are caused by different things. Color shift is primarily a function of the thickness of the sensor wiring, which Sony managed to reduce for both A7 and A7R, see:
I suspect A7R shows worse color shift because of its pixels being smaller.
Whereas corner smearing is due to thickness of the glass toppings. On this topic we don't know much except the fact that A7 has an AA-layer whereas A7R doesn't, which might reduce the glass thickness.
So in summary, color shift is caused by structures under the micro lens array where as corner smearing caused by structures on top of the micro lens array. The offset micro lens array itself, only available on A7R it seems from the above links, just reduces corner vignetting(me thinks).
rscheffler wrote:
I wondered about this too, but I think the a7R's sensor physically lacks the AA filter. For the D800E, Nikon went the route of neutralizing the filter by turning it 90 degrees, IIRC, so the the total sensor thickness would remain the same as the D800, which meant the identical perimeters for focus accuracy could be maintained, resulting in simplified production.
Ron, thanks for the info on D800E. I always wonder why Nikon still put a LPF on D800E, and now I know the reason. BTW, your test result from A7 is by far the most valuable on Internet.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Absolutely agree, but apart from the ridiculous MTF at f/8, the shape of the graph is still valid and corresponds to teal life performance. The Suede mentioned earlier that the theoretical graph doesn't take diffraction into account. Easy to compensate for mentally IMHO.
Agreed. Even just comparing this to the mtf of my RX1 shows that the 55/1.8 is going to be a stunner.
I had some time with both the A7 and A7R today, the same store as the folks from the Chinese site. I had the ZM 35/2, CV Nokton 50 and G 90 with me. I snapped off some quick shots with each quickly... I wasn't sure how long they'd let me have with these. Unfortunately, the damn menu was in Chinese and I didn't get it switched until I already got my samples. This proved to be a problem as the magnification and peaking was off, so focus was an issue. I will however share some impressions.
That said smearing was clearly more of a problem on the A7, both the ZM and Nokton showed smearing wide open on the A7. I also noticed color shift with the ZM more on the A7. This conflicts with what the Chinese forum mentions, so either something is lost in translation or the behavior differs lens to lens.
The G90 deserves 36 MP.
The FE 35 really is good, I may just forget about the ZM although I'll have to get it outdoors first.
The wheel on the front of these is more form than function. A narrower but fully protruding DSLR type would be easier to use.
kroyston wrote:
I had some time with both the A7 and A7R today, the same store as the folks from the Chinese site. I had the ZM 35/2, CV Nokton 50 and G 90 with me. I snapped off some quick shots with each quickly... I wasn't sure how long they'd let me have with these. Unfortunately, the damn menu was in Chinese and I didn't get it switched until I already got my samples. This proved to be a problem as the magnification and peaking was off, so focus was an issue. I will however share some impressions.
That said smearing was clearly more of a problem on the A7, both the ZM and Nokton showed smearing wide open on the A7. I also noticed color shift with the ZM more on the A7. This conflicts with what the Chinese forum mentions, so either something is lost in translation or the behavior differs lens to lens.
The G90 deserves 36 MP.
The FE 35 really is good, I may just forget about the ZM although I'll have to get it outdoors first.
The wheel on the front of these is more form than function. A narrower but fully protruding DSLR type would be easier to use.
Not overly familiar with ZM designs ... do they utilize a similar mustache distortion design characteristic that Zeiss uses with UWA SLR lenses? If so, the angles of incidence at the corner/edges are different from that of other lenses without mustache distortion. In that regard, they may be better suited than those lenses without mustache to avoid the color shift/smearing on FF micro-lens, Bayer array.
Personally, I've been using Oly to avoid the mustache ... but I could see how the mustache is a tradeoff to allow for changing the extreme angles to something slightly less steep. Sharpness, smearing, color shift, vignetting improvements vs. the mustache. Always a series of compromises ... choose your poison.
RustyBug wrote:
Not overly familiar with ZM designs ... do they utilize a similar mustache distortion design characteristic that Zeiss uses with UWA SLR lenses? If so, the angles of incidence at the corner/edges are different from that of other lenses without mustache distortion. In that regard, they may be better suited than those lenses without mustache to avoid the color shift/smearing on FF micro-lens, Bayer array.
Personally, I've been using Oly to avoid the mustache ... but I could see how the mustache is a tradeoff to allow for changing the extreme angles to something slightly less steep. Sharpness, smearing, color shift, vignetting improvements vs. the mustache. Always a series of compromises ... choose your poison....Show more →
No ZMs like the 35/2 Biogon wide mentioned here are symmetrical lenses and generally free of any distortion.
rscheffler wrote:
IMO, not many adapted RF lenses were perfectly free of edge smearing on the NEX camera. It was more a matter of whether or not it was casually noticeable and tolerable. Michael did some comparisons a while back between the 5N and Ricoh GXR M module, and from those it was evident just how much better the GXR was optimized for RF wides.
As I look back at some of the GXR vs NEX-5N test images I can see that even on the GXR some symmetrical RF wide angle lenses showed some minimal smearing at the extremes. Softness clears up when stopped down, smearing never does although it can appear better at regular viewing distances.
I could have extrapolated those observations to full frame and probably conclude back then that in the absence of new tech to address the issue, a full frame GXR with the same base technology would probably not have satisfied us. Then again, in 2011 the prospects for a full frame non-Leica RF lens compatible camera seemed a very long way off.
Maybe giving you the A7 is all part of the grand plan Ron, and the A7r really is intended to be better for both native and adapted lenses. Sony in their grand plan clearly would need a trusted name to get the word out on the A7 (check; done; rapidly so!) and now needs to fill the void with news of the A7r's greatness. ;-)
