HopeIsEternal wrote
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.
I don't mind that either. With a C/Y Distagon 18/4 it will still be small enough for my taste.
artur5 wrote:
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.
Agreed - which is why I hope that Zeiss is able to make some small high quality primes for the A7(r).
HopeIsEternal wrote:
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 preliminary testing has shown that the A7 and A7r will behave quite differently, and that individual lenses will not behave in a predictable pattern on the A7r based on what you see on the Leica M or A7. There is very little data on the A7r yet.
Your premature conclusion also seems to be based on comparing uncorrected Sony images with software corrected Leica images.
HopeIsEternal wrote:
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.
Based on what I know about the sensors used in Leica, Sony and Nikon cameras today, I would not say that the A7r sensor cropped to 24 MP will yield any less image quality than the full Leica M sensor.
By cropping slightly (1.1 x - 1.2x) and often also for aspect ratio, I don't think I will prefer a NEX 7 over an A7r in any case except when focal length limited.
RustyBug wrote:
And they likely will be around the same size as the Oly's or other smallish FF WA/UWA lenses. 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).
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 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....Show more →
Perhaps Zeiss will go with the Sonnar wide angle designs, which do not have complex mustache distortion but do typically suffer vignetting (if the Sony Zeiss Sonnar wides - RX1- are used as a template, though we do not know distortion/ vignetting yet on the FE 35 2.8). In any case, there is no doubt there is no "free lunch" - and that applies to Leica as well. If we end up with superb Zeiss manual focus wides the size of Olympus OM wides + adapter length, I suspect most folks around here would be pretty happy. That would still almost certainly be a much smaller and compact a package (A7+ Zeiss MF lenses) than a DSLR body + lenses. I do think Zeiss will concentrate their design efforts on making such lenses as compact as possible (vs their current DSLR manual focus options) to go along with the ethos of the FF E-Mount A7's.
I have to say - and this is not just directed at you - that it's amazing to me how many optical design/ lens experts we have on these forums (seemingly all of a sudden).
Tariq Gibran wrote:
.... I do think Zeiss will concentrate their design efforts on making such lenses as compact as possible (vs their current DSLR manual focus options) to go along with the ethos of the FF E-Mount A7's.....
alundeb wrote:
Your premature conclusion also seems to be based on comparing uncorrected Sony images with software corrected Leica images.
+1 @ uncorrected images vs. software corrected ones as it pertains to the image projection actually captured. Everything is correctable to some degree, on some level with software. I prefer to have the optical projection need as little correction as possible.
Granted there will be those who want to know the final combined output @ projected image + software as well as those who yearn to compare the initial uncorrected files ... but at least don't mix/match ... keep it apples to apples.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I have to say - and this is not just directed at you - that it's amazing to me how many optical design/ lens experts we have on these forums (seemingly all of a sudden).
No worries.
+1 @ optical design experts (although I did personally study under one from the Pentagon) ... which I'm obviously not. I just know my trig really well (which you really can't violate with vector forces, but just develop complex compromises) and have paid close attention to the cause/effects in differing UWA designs ... sufficient to realize that there is no "free lunch" here just because the mirror has been taken out of the equation. The equation to be solved still remains the same (given fov to cover 24x36), just one less obstacle to contend with (mirror).
I've said it for a very long time that optics are a series of compromises and the wider you go, the tougher it gets ... choose your poison(s). Rangefinders have long ago accepted the angles (vignetting) to the edges/corners as compromise for the increased contrast afforded by the closer proximity to the film plane.
Zeiss, Leica, Schneider may have the best chops to give it a go, but Zeiss liekly has the most $$$ interest to do so, given their relationship with Sony. That, and they really do know how to employ mustache distortion better than anyone else. Which btw, if you're in the market for progressive bifocals ... get the Zeiss.
I know everyone hoped for better, but I don't think it's too bad. I wonder what the G28 would look like on the M9 with no correction. We just need a little help from the software side to make fixing color shift easier. It wouldn't be any worse than vignetting if we had an easy way to correct it, and I suspect that is coming sooner rather than later.
In the mean time, I've gone on a buying spree. In the last week I picked up a Tokina ATX 17mm, Rollinar 21mm, and SMC Pentax 30mm. I can't wait to try them out on the 7r. That's a huge part of the fun for me, finding gems from the film era and putting them back into service.
It's not that Zeiss can't do it, rather, their current lens design philosophy seems to be more about 'optical relaxation' through the use of more lens elements that each do less of the work, thus resulting in larger lenses. I.e. the Otus.
It would be interesting to know what Zeiss management thinks about creating a third MF line of new lenses for FF mirrorless cameras, as opposed to just porting ZE/ZF to FE... (the other two being the ZE/ZF series, and the new Otus series)
Isn't that exactly what they have done with the Touit, and what they are doing now with the 3 Sony-Zeiss ZA? Let's also not forget that they announced more ZMs to come. Not having the A7 in mind when releasing ZMs would be daft, wouldn't it?
rscheffler wrote:
It's not that Zeiss can't do it, rather, their current lens design philosophy seems to be more about 'optical relaxation' through the use of more lens elements that each do less of the work, thus resulting in larger lenses. I.e. the Otus.
It would be interesting to know what Zeiss management thinks about creating a third MF line of new lenses for FF mirrorless cameras, as opposed to just porting ZE/ZF to FE... (the other two being the ZE/ZF series, and the new Otus series)
I guess I need to see the Touits in person, but didn't get the feeling they're very small.
Rich, thanks. Indeed, I hadn't seen it.
Maybe Leica could be encouraged to enter the game as a 3rd party lens manufacturer... Though considering how many a balking at ~$1000 for the 55/1.8...
Clearly when it comes to Sony, yes you could say I'm not exactly unbiased or full of eternal hope even though almost all my photogear is Sony or Minolta.
I read many of the over-hyped rumors posted on SAR (and some here too) and all the astroturfing comments posted there about how so many well known problems (AF, wide angle range finder lenses, etc..) had been "solved" by Sony and how we should just wait and see. I felt strongly that many of the rumors were either false or misleading and that it was underhanded to promise so much that I knew could not be delivered based on previous Sony track record.
A lot of my FF Sony kit was stolen not too long ago and I was hoping against hope that Sony would actually live up to the hype so that I could purchase the compact FF NEX instead of the mediocre Sony A99 DSLR or worse having to move to Canon or Nikon and have to rebuy my standard lenses again.
Now that I'm open to moving to another platform and having seen the mess that was made of the FF NEX hype I'm more antagonistic towards SONY and folks who are singing their praises. Hence my occasional party-popper attitude.
It seems to me that your problem is not so much with Sony as with the rumor sites. Now I read the rumor sites for entertainment, but don't expect the rumors to be true and and am not angry or disappointed when it turns out they are not true. So for example, I'm excited about the new A7r and not angry at Sony or disappointed because the rumor about IBIS was not true. The only advice that I can give you is to skip the rumor sites and just focus on actual announced products. Life is too short to get worked up about these things.
Interesting. I hadn't seen that. I will take a look.
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.
Which Olympus OM wides were you thinking of? The 24mm? That is not that wide right? same with FE 35mm. What I want to know is how do you shoot ultra-wide on a Sony A7/A7r? On the the APS-C NEX cameras you can use the SEL1018. or the 16mm f/2.8 with ad-on lens. What non-bulky lens would give you ultra-wide on A7/A7r without image quality issues?
Oct 22, 2013 at 02:52 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Well there is the Olympus OM 18 f/3.5 which only weighs 250 grams and is tiny. There is the Olympus OM 21mm f/3.5 which weighs 185g and is pretty good. There is Olympus OM 21mm f/2 which only weighs 250g. All are quite decent wides. They are less sharp in the centre than a lot of lenses, but the good news is that the sharpness doesn't drop off as much at the edges and corners.
HopeIsEternal wrote:
Guilty as charged, I admit.
I'm just trying to balance the hype for these cameras.
Well you def have the neg hype.
you KNOW A7r will suck with RF glass.
People are excited by the A7r. You call it hype. SAR has been pretty accurate, better than any other rumor site I know. This is the first real FF alternative camera in well, ever.
You feel the need to balance that?
Why?
If you hate Sony, just ignore the threads.
Obviously, for you, hope is not eternal. It's something you feel the need to kill.
I didn't steal your kit, so leave my hope alone.
Now, if you have some evidence about A7r sucking, by all means show it.
