That's some interesting looking color shift ... even in the central edges (floor/ceiling), and that's only on a 28. Its probably better on a 21, 18 or 15 though.
Ohh, that makes more sense. I was a little slow on that one.
Are you sure that is the right link, all I see are adapters, no pics?
I don't think we can blame this corner on the adapter. A poor adapter could lead to vignetting or an unwanted tilt of the focal plane. This looks like smearing to me.
kroyston wrote:
Ohh, that makes more sense. I was a little slow on that one.
Are you sure that is the right link, all I see are adapters, no pics?
I don't think we can blame this corner on the adapter. A poor adapter could lead to vignetting or an unwanted tilt of the focal plane. This looks like smearing to me.
I don't know how you can see smearing from that picture. All I see for sure is the color shift.
kroyston wrote:
Ohh, that makes more sense. I was a little slow on that one.
Are you sure that is the right link, all I see are adapters, no pics?
I don't think we can blame this corner on the adapter. A poor adapter could lead to vignetting or an unwanted tilt of the focal plane. This looks like smearing to me.
I am sorry to make you confused.
The adapter link has nothing to do with the photo above.
I just got the information that a Japanese adapter maker, RAYQUAL, announced that their adapter might have issues with FULL FRAME E-mount. I was too lazy to create another post for it.
That image exif shows 21mm 2.8 for whatever reason but they were talking about adapter affects esp w/ af adapter it might not be clearing the inside.
Here is Brian Smith's latest post: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52376802 I didn't try the ZM 21. The Leica 24 2.8 was pretty clean, but the 18 ZM begins to take a fair amount of work to clean up, so I'm not certain where the 21 ZM would fall. Could probably be fixed with a good Lightroom lens profile.
Q:I hope Sony adds a 16-35 f/4 or similar to the ZE road map soon.
A:That's been suggested and has a ultra wide prime like 16 or 18. The prime would no doubt be smaller which would you prefer?
It will be interesting to see what can be done with these apps. If they're installed on the camera, presumably they could apply correction at capture. The question is, will it be useful for different apertures and focusing distance?
Either way, I think the software side is where this thing gets fixed. A vignetting style adjustment in Lightroom would be perfect.
glacierpete wrote:
Nanh,
At close focus the rear lens element of the G28 moves quite a bit away from the sensor.
As do symmetrical wides like the Biogons. Close in I found them generally great on the NEX and certainly on the GXR; farther out, any warts due to sensor implementations start to show up.
With poor AF and slow shooting speed the biggest reason left to get a NEX FF was the ability to use small sharp range finder lenses - especially the wider ones for small-kit landscape work.
But all the preliminary testing coming out with the A7/A7r is showing that the NEX FF sensors still have significant color shift problems and corner smearing when shooting with very high quality ranger finder wides and ultra-wides.
Like I said earlier in a previous post, and keep on repeating: the Sony NEX FF sensors are pretty much the same sensors inside the Sony A99 and Nikon D800 (minus AA filter plates and 'cosmetic' microlens changes). Contrary to SR hype and claims of Sony having "solved the wide-angle problem" the evidence will roll in that the cameras cannot challenge the Leica M digital for image quality and consistency when shooting with the full range of Leica, Zeiss and Voigtlander m-mount lenses.
The reason for this poor performance is two-fold:
1. When Sony developed the E-mount system and mount mechanics they designed it primarily for APS-C sensors and larger lenses. m-mount support was not part of the design requirement and as more folks will find out in due time neither did Sony plan for very wide-aperture lenses either. Does anyone know what the Leica 21mm f/1.4 Summilux-M Asph looks like wide open on the A7? Anybody?
2. Sony Alpha/Imaging division is only one of Sony semiconductor's customers (and much smaller than Nikon) and Sony balked at the requirement to invest R&D to develop essentially a custom FF CMOS sensor suited for shorter range finder lenses that they couldn't sell to Nikon or others. The 24mpx and 36mpx sensors in A7/A7r were chosen purely because of cost-effectiveness since they were already being produced in large numbers for Nikon.
So Sony could have designed and built a sensor and mount that was fully compatible with most "M" mount lenses if they had wanted to but they decided early on that they were not willing to invest such resources in order to enter such a niche market for manual focus digital rangefinders.
Alternatively they could have decided to build a NEX camera system that didn't need old range finder lenses by building out there own set of Leica inspired small, HQ APS-C and FF AF lenses but they chose instead to focus almost completely on iterating on dozens of variations of consumer NEX bodies matched with a limited selection of large, slower consumer lenses.
So I'm basically saying that the hope of a poor man's Digital Leica is just not happening any time soon, at least not from Sony.
The irony is that if you want to shoot wide or ultra-wide angle landscape with small kit you're probably better off shooting with an original APS-C NEX5/6 or 7 and Sony's 10-18mm lens or Zeiss 12mm APS-C E -mount Touit.
The only other alternative if you insist on NEX FF at this point is to go back to using bulky SLR wide angle lenses with thick adapters and lose one of the main reason for buying the A7/A7r in the first place.
Well, it is still too early to tell. Although i've been saying all along that i'm not holding my breath, the ZM25 for example has a rear element that isn't as close to the sensor at infinity as the G28. In fact, the whitepaper by HH Nasse mentions that the Contax G system had a back focus distance that was a few mm less than the ZM lenses.
One of the things about the emount that never really occurred to me until recent is that the sensor isn't recess deeply into the body like the Leica M. On a Leica, the rear element can protrude past the flange making the throat size a non issue. On the A7/A7r, you can use an adapter, but it adds length. Native lens will inevitably stick out more. Its not the end of the world, but I'm a bit ambivalent about it.
HopeIsEternal wrote:
So I'm basically saying that the hope of a poor man's Digital Leica is just not happening any time soon, at least not from Sony.
The irony is that if you want to shoot wide or ultra-wide angle landscape with small kit you're probably better off shooting with an original APS-C NEX5/6 or 7 and Sony's 10-18mm lens or Zeiss 12mm APS-C E -mount Touit.
The only other alternative if you insist on NEX FF at this point is to go back to using bulky SLR wide angle lenses with thick adapters and lose one of the main reason for buying the A7/A7r in the first place....Show more →
actually except for that annoying evf hump, the a7r + oly OM wides are smaller than NEX-7 + touit or 10-18mm and of course the a7r + FE 35/2.8 is much smaller than the NEX-7 + ZA 24/1.8. surprisingly, even with the adapter the OM wides are pretty competitive in size with most of the m-mount wides, performance typically isn't as good and build certainly isn't either though. in any event, poor performance of rangefinder wides is disappointing, but the a7r still looks like a much better and much smaller landscape package than the only other 36mp dslr. for my purposes it looks like a better all round camera than the d800e, but that is because i have little patience for AF.
the truth is we don't know if there is smearing on the a7r, and if so, how much
sony's marketing might overstate the effects of offset microlenses on the sensor, sure, but we'll only know when we see full sized samples from the a7r (of which there are none, yet)
the fact that nikon is a larger customer for sony sensors than sony itself influences sony's decisions on its own cameras only marginally, especially in terms of r&d.
would you expect sony to rely on its competitors to tell them what their future should look like?
besides, I think sony realized that the dslr market is going to be a niche market soon. and in the non-slr cameras, they are winning, so again, future decisions on sensors should take into account sony's own camera division much more than nikon.
and another point: not all nikon's sensors are made by sony
and again: most sensors sony produces are small cell-phone and compact camera sensors - they are the most profitable for them
I'm also just going to mention in passing that a lot of dslr manual focus lenses, even with adapter, are rather small and perform quite well, meaning that the a7/a7r would still hold a size/adaptability advantage over any slr.
but hey if you don't want to buy the a7/a7r because you don't like mf dslr lenses, good for you.
and good for me, one person less who can steal my ebay auctions.
HopeIsEternal wrote:
Don't sell your Digital M yet!
With poor AF and slow shooting speed the biggest reason left to get a NEX FF was the ability to use small sharp range finder lenses - especially the wider ones for small-kit landscape work.
But all the preliminary testing coming out with the A7/A7r is showing that the NEX FF sensors still have significant color shift problems and corner smearing when shooting with very high quality ranger finder wides and ultra-wides.
Like I said earlier in a previous post, and keep on repeating: the Sony NEX FF sensors are pretty much the same sensors inside the Sony A99 and Nikon D800 (minus AA filter plates and 'cosmetic' microlens changes). Contrary to SR hype and claims of Sony having "solved the wide-angle problem" the evidence will roll in that the cameras cannot challenge the Leica M digital for image quality and consistency when shooting with the full range of Leica, Zeiss and Voigtlander m-mount lenses.
The reason for this poor performance is two-fold:
1. When Sony developed the E-mount system and mount mechanics they designed it primarily for APS-C sensors and larger lenses. m-mount support was not part of the design requirement and as more folks will find out in due time neither did Sony plan for very wide-aperture lenses either. Does anyone know what the Leica 21mm f/1.4 Summilux-M Asph looks like wide open on the A7? Anybody?
2. Sony Alpha/Imaging division is only one of Sony semiconductor's customers (and much smaller than Nikon) and Sony balked at the requirement to invest R&D to develop essentially a custom FF CMOS sensor suited for shorter range finder lenses that they couldn't sell to Nikon or others. The 24mpx and 36mpx sensors in A7/A7r were chosen purely because of cost-effectiveness since they were already being produced in large numbers for Nikon.
So Sony could have designed and built a sensor and mount that was fully compatible with most "M" mount lenses if they had wanted to but they decided early on that they were not willing to invest such resources in order to enter such a niche market for manual focus digital rangefinders.
Alternatively they could have decided to build a NEX camera system that didn't need old range finder lenses by building out there own set of Leica inspired small, HQ APS-C and FF AF lenses but they chose instead to focus almost completely on iterating on dozens of variations of consumer NEX bodies matched with a limited selection of large, slower consumer lenses.
So I'm basically saying that the hope of a poor man's Digital Leica is just not happening any time soon, at least not from Sony.
The irony is that if you want to shoot wide or ultra-wide angle landscape with small kit you're probably better off shooting with an original APS-C NEX5/6 or 7 and Sony's 10-18mm lens or Zeiss 12mm APS-C E -mount Touit.
The only other alternative if you insist on NEX FF at this point is to go back to using bulky SLR wide angle lenses with thick adapters and lose one of the main reason for buying the A7/A7r in the first place....Show more →
HopeIsEternal wrote:
Don't sell your Digital M yet! With poor AF and slow shooting speed the biggest reason left to get a NEX FF was ...
It's kinda funny that you'd cite "poor AF" and "slow shooting speed" (FPS?) first in your list of reasons not to sell one's Leica digital M camera when no Leica offers AF be it slow or fast, and the newest Leica might spit out ~3.5 FPS max but only for 6 or so frames before buffer writes slow things down.
Neither camera is designed to be a machine gun monster, but the A7 in these two regards is likely to be more than sufficient for a great many photographers.
actually except for that annoying evf hump, the a7r + oly OM wides are smaller than NEX-7 + touit or 10-18mm and of course the a7r + FE 35/2.8 is much smaller than the NEX-7 + ZA 24/1.8. surprisingly, even with the adapter the OM wides are pretty competitive in size with most of the m-mount wides, performance typically isn't as good and build certainly isn't either though. in any event, poor performance of rangefinder wides is disappointing, but the a7r still looks like a much better and much smaller landscape package than the only other 36mp dslr. for my purposes it looks like a better all round camera than the d800e, but that is because i have little patience for AF.
Yes, I tend to agree. Even if the A7r turns out to be just awful with rangefinder wides (and it's way too early to know), folks should still keep in mind that there are quite a number of older manual focus SLR wides that are not that big at all. The A7r still looks to change the value proposition - and lens options - for anyone who desires a FF 36MP sensor. We have a small, compact body with tilt LCD, vastly superior LV and accurate manual focus ability via EVF...all at $700 - $1000 cheaper than the only other option, the D800E. That's still quite the revolutionary proposition, particularly for ALT lens users. The future for smallish, manual focus lenses also looks bright now that Zeiss has said they will be releasing such lenses for the FF E-Mount. We also have Samyang releasing 5 manual focus FE mount lenses rather soon as well, which will likely offer quite the bargain proposition given the performance of their other offerings.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The future for smallish, manual focus lenses also looks bright now that Zeiss has said they will be releasing such lenses for the FF E-Mount.
And they likely will be around the same size as the Oly's or other smallish FF WA/UWA lenses at best, closer to Zeiss current DSLR sizes at worst (it is still the same size image circle needed). How much of the typical Zeiss mustache distortion design will they introduce is yet to be seen, but they'll essentially have their choice at mustache distortion vs. vignette/shift/smear for WA/UWA's. My money is that they'll go with their mustache distortion approach that they do better than anyone one else as the methodology to contend with the trigonometry involved. Their results speak for themselves in the results/trade-offs as historically seen in DSLR FF.
Meanwhile, removing the mirror still retains the same optical projection challenges, it just allows them to come in a little closer IF ... IF that helps achieve the angles needed for optimal imaging. If the distance from those lenses (SLR) with mirrors is already challenging to contend with the microlens refraction, how much more challenging will it be by moving in even closer?
You simply are not going to get a free pass on the physics of the trig no matter how thin you make the camera. The area of coverage for the image circle remains the same size @ FF, and the distance from the film plane is critical to the angle of incidence to the micro-lens. The only way to get the same coverage and a less steep angle is to be farther from the film plane ... which puts you closer to the distance that SLR lenses are (with or without the mirror). The absence of the mirror is a bonus for size/weight and negates the need for MLU (that's always nice), but it doesn't change the demands on the projected image relative to the microlens imposed limitations.
While rangefinder glass has enjoyed the benefit of being closer, the penalties for the steep angles are readily noticeable in vignetting. In film, that is the primary penalty and has been readily accepted by rangefinder users as par for the course. In digital, however the introduction of the microlens into the optical path creates an additional refraction of the light light path and it is only able contend with a nominal amount of angle of incidence before the angle of refraction has unwanted negative effects that impede the retention of the properly converged light as designed by the lens to achieve.
The mirror itself is not the limiting factor as people want to associate it to be. The limiting factor is the angle of incidence that the microlens can receive and still retain the proper convergence of light, both for smearing and for color. I find it interesting that it was mentioned that Leica has their sensor set deeper in the box. I don't know if this is true or not (the Leica sensor placement distance) ... but, if it is then it would certainly contribute to better results with rangefinder glass by affording different angles of incidence to the microlens.
In short, the mirror isn't the problem, the angle to the microlens and its subsequent refraction of the converged light rays is. Rangefinder glass (and legacy SLR glass) was never designed to contend with this subsequent refraction of light. As long as the microlens is in the path, the uber-steep angles will not afford proper retention of the converged light. Employing a mustache distortion design affords a change in the angles of incidence coming from the more distant portions of the projected image circle. Doing so from farther (like the TS-E's) rather than closer aids also in the reduction of those angles ... with or without a mirror.
Zeiss will likely get it as right as it can be done ... the physics of the trig for vector forces can't be violated, only slightly bent (mustache distortion) before it becomes obvious. The physics of converging light to cover a 24mm x 36mm area (for a given fov) is the exact same with or without a mirror. The closer vs. farther you move to the film plane, the steeper or less steep the angles of incidence become. It isn't rocket science ... it's trig.
Those planned Samyang FE mount lenses won't be precisely small if they're, as I suspect, optically the same as their reflex versions. Like a Canon, Nikon or Sony A lens with a non removable E mount adapter ring attached.
