wfrank wrote:
Cant help thinking that the A7 with those offset microlenses would have been something. Given what we've seen. The increased pixeldensity in A7r wont help, rather equalize or ruin the potential advantage.
rji2goleez wrote:
Remember, only the a7R has the offset microlenses, the a7 does not. This still leaves hope that Sony was paying atttention to the color shift issuese with the NEX-7. I still think we won't know until we are able to see tests like Ron Scheffler's performed with an a7R.
PDAF and offset microlenses seem to be mutually exclusive with the current technology. It could be that the effect of smaller pixels is more detrimental to PDAF than to incident angle sensitivity in general.
It is a good thing that Sony is serious about both issues and provides two different sensor versions at this time. From an alt lens user perspective, the ideal option would be a version with offset microlenses and 24 or evel less MP. This could make it difficult to release the PDAF version as the high MP version if the PDAF would suffer more.
The A7r is more than I ever hoped for, even with limited lens compatibility. The weather sealing was a huge bonus over the expectations, as were the 36 MP sensor right away. I hope the reality is that my friends who want less MP won't suffer as much from the high pixel count as we fear.
rscheffler wrote:
Sure, it's a niche market, but maybe not as small as you might think. While I don't know how many individuals this represents, since I posted the images on Flickr, they've received just over 600K views. Kind of surprised me.
Imagine if you'd had the R! Might have crashed the whole thing.
It was great to see the rumours site feature your work Ron, which was very informative indeed, and thanks for it. A lot of people are interested in anything on the cameras in this information-starved stage of pre-release.
sebboh wrote:
i feel like their dominant use is making puddles look like lakes...
Yes that's true, but I think that's also why UWA can be fun to use. You can get dramatic looking effects very easily. Put something close in the foreground and it looks huge. It also pushes the background away. A very distinct look. I guess you either love it or hate it.
Jochenb wrote:
Yes that's true, but I think that's also why UWA can be fun to use. You can get dramatic looking effects very easily. Put something close in the foreground and it looks huge. It also pushes the background away. A very distinct look. I guess you either love it or hate it.
I am not fond of Long lens, anything after 100mm is difficult get interesting photo to me. But WA is different, It still can get very interesting, (interesting to me at least) to use it right require some effort, and I can't discard them. 35 and 50 are two absolutely king pf important focal length to me, the best works still from here as you can't rely on anything dramatic to draw attention but content.
In UWA the lens character is paramount. That raking everything in focus, deep 3D that the 21mm Distagon does just gets me every time and makes startling photos. Maybe the Leica guys feel that way about theirs. It's easy to overdo the UWA look. Other end - unless reach is absolutely needed, 100mm is it.
zhangyue wrote:
I am not fond of Long lens, anything after 100mm is difficult get interesting photo to me. But WA is different, It still can get very interesting, (interesting to me at least) to use it right require some effort, and I can't discard them. 35 and 50 are two absolutely king pf important focal length to me, the best works still from here as you can't rely on anything dramatic to draw attention but content.
The same for me. I often don't like the compressed look of tele lenses.
I love UWAs in the range of 19-21mm, too. Often they are useful and give a good perspective of being in the scene. A subject with foreground, something in the mid and background is ideal for this kind of shooting.
Compression of teles may also be nice. Look at Feiningers photography of New York. Only 50mm I never use.
My trend for the last 5-6 years is normal. I shoot 35 and 50 90% of the time. Makes me concentrate on content rather than on photographic effects. I can't stand the perspective of longer than 100mm lenses these days.
Awesome variety, tastes and preferences. I like!
I accidentally pulled the trigger on a RX1... is it wrong to have both with an A7(r) and FE35? Ooops....
24/25 is my fav on the WA/UWA side ... foreshortening effect draw, yet still can look normal depending on where you put your feet. Just gotta keep lines straight, to keep it from looking too cheezy when you start foreshortening beyond 21 (i.e. my Oly's and TS-E's).
I've been thinking about a ZE 25 for a while ... now I'll be waiting to see what Zeiss comes up with for the A7R.
Truth is my shooting is 90% 28mm and the rest somewhere between 85 and 100 and this is why I hoped I could swap my ZM18 and ZM35 that I use on the 5N with a ZM28 or the Leica 28/2.8 and get whatever they have with AF for the longer shots. Too bad it does not look like I will be able to follow this path. Instead I will probably get a 28/2.8 Distagon.
slungu wrote:
Truth is my shooting is 90% 28mm and the rest somewhere between 85 and 100 and this is why I hoped I could swap my ZM18 and ZM35 that I use on the 5N with a ZM28 or the Leica 28/2.8 and get whatever they have with AF for the longer shots. Too bad it does not look like I will be able to follow this path. Instead I will probably get a 28/2.8 Distagon.
At this point if you are considering the new A7r, we have absolutely no idea as to what WA rangefinder lens will work with the new camera and how well they will perform. Keep watching and keep your fingers crossed.
Rich
Oct 23, 2013 at 10:58 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
slungu wrote:
Truth is my shooting is 90% 28mm and the rest somewhere between 85 and 100 and this is why I hoped I could swap my ZM18 and ZM35 that I use on the 5N with a ZM28 or the Leica 28/2.8 and get whatever they have with AF for the longer shots. Too bad it does not look like I will be able to follow this path. Instead I will probably get a 28/2.8 Distagon.
You might also consider a Leica R 28mm f/2.8 version II. This is a fantastic SLR lens and is almost as sharp as the Leica M 28 f/2.8 Asph and even has an advantage over it--the Leica R has a floating element and performs very well close up.
