my conclusions:
1) i have no idea what he was using for a focus point
2) either his m adapter is rather crooked or his m lenses have weird asymmetrical field curvature
3) the cv 12 looks surprisingly decent (for a 12mm lens)
4) the oly 18/3.5 looks like a good performer except in the center
Hi sebboh, sorry these shots were not so helpful, but let me try to answer some of your questions:
1) focus is on the bridge, checked with magnification and focus peaking; my experience with the NEX is that when you get focus peaking on the first level of magnification, the focus is spot on. I mentioned it on Flickr but forgot to mention this in the Dyxum thread
2) I used the Voigtlander M > NEX adapter, which I hope isn't crooked
3) yes the 12mm is a pleasant surprise
4) I haven't used the Oly 18 a lot yet, but centre performance at close focus is very good; I have the Novoflex adapter
The a7R I used was not mine. A fellow Dyxum member got it from Sony to try it for a few days (it went back to Sony yesterday). He's not a RF guy and obviously wanted to do his own thing with it. So very limited time for me; but I'm very grateful to have been given the opportunity to test it with RF lenses at all! In these circumstances only a quick and dirty test was possible.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
I am amazed by the incompetence over there to produce samples which actually tell me something about a lenses performance.
Thank you for your respect sir!
As I wrote to sebboh:
The a7R I used was not mine. A fellow Dyxum member got it from Sony to try it for a few days (it went back to Sony yesterday). He's not a RF guy and obviously wanted to do his own thing with it. So very limited time for me; but I'm very grateful to have been given the opportunity to test it with RF lenses at all! In these circumstances only a quick and dirty test was possible.
"So it appears the Zeiss 21 2.8 works great on the A7 and has color issues on the A7R. (Magenta sides). So far, for wide angle M mount glass 28mm and under the A7 may just be the better option."
^ I think Steve knows to look out for these WA/UWA color shifts and smearing. He did state that the Zeiss 28/2 that he used showed some magenta color shift but no more than what he sees on the Leica. I think we need many more shots with many more lenses to draw conclusions. It's likely to be there but how problematic will really be remains to be seen I guess.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Well the good news is that the 21/2.8 works well, the bad news is that it works well on the wrong body
Now, the 21/2.8 is a bit problematic even on the Leica bodies, so that's very promising that it works on the 7.
The 28/2 he used is the Voigtlander by the way.
Steve has never been much of a reliable source when it comes to M lenses on e-mount. While he may be right about color shift, in this case, there's still a chance that the A7R will have better resolution at the edges. Who knows?
It'll be funny if the A7 is the better camera for M lenses, in terms of color shift, and the A7R is the better camera, in terms of smearing.
elroos wrote:
Hi sebboh, sorry these shots were not so helpful, but let me try to answer some of your questions:
1) focus is on the bridge, checked with magnification and focus peaking; my experience with the NEX is that when you get focus peaking on the first level of magnification, the focus is spot on. I mentioned it on Flickr but forgot to mention this in the Dyxum thread
2) I used the Voigtlander M > NEX adapter, which I hope isn't crooked
3) yes the 12mm is a pleasant surprise
4) I haven't used the Oly 18 a lot yet, but centre performance at close focus is very good; I have the Novoflex adapter
The a7R I used was not mine. A fellow Dyxum member got it from Sony to try it for a few days (it went back to Sony yesterday). He's not a RF guy and obviously wanted to do his own thing with it. So very limited time for me; but I'm very grateful to have been given the opportunity to test it with RF lenses at all! In these circumstances only a quick and dirty test was possible. ...Show more →
thanks for extra info. a few questions/comments regarding the shots.
1) did you focus and then recompose or did you move the magnified area over to the bridge without changing final framing? i ask because in some cases focus is cleary at the the back of the bridge and in other photos it is clearly in front of the bridge. in my own experience with NEX cameras i find that focusing in magnified mode is more accurate with peaking off btw.
2) it appears to be a bit crooked as the in focus area slants. funny jpeg settings make it difficult to follow the plane of focus though. if you want to check it i suggest shooting at infinity with a slanted horizon so it passes through opposite corners (2 shots slanted opposite ways). if some corners are noticeably worse than others, either your lens or your adapter is decentered.
4) it appears that from you stopped down sample with the oly 18/3.5 that the central portion is much less sharp then the edges, which is very odd. perhaps it has a fair bit of field curvature.
The a7R I used was not mine. A fellow Dyxum member got it from Sony to try it for a few days (it went back to Sony yesterday). He's not a RF guy and obviously wanted to do his own thing with it. So very limited time for me; but I'm very grateful to have been given the opportunity to test it with RF lenses at all! In these circumstances only a quick and dirty test was possible.
Thank you for sharing. Some people do appreciate it, even if it was only a quick test.
douglasf13 wrote:
Steve has never been much of a reliable source when it comes to M lenses on e-mount. While he may be right about color shift, in this case, there's still a chance that the A7R will have better resolution at the edges. Who knows?
It'll be funny if the A7 is the better camera for M lenses, in terms of color shift, and the A7R is the better camera, in terms of smearing.
Indeed, but this info is very important because I was planning to pay a deposit on the 7R tomorrow and luckily I read Steve's comment before I committed. We will need to see more tests that's for sure.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Indeed, but this info is very important because I was planning to pay a deposit on the 7R tomorrow and luckily I read Steve's comment before I committed. We will need to see more tests that's for sure.
If this ends up being anything like aps-c NEX and M lenses, with which I have more experience than I'd like to admit, it may be several months before we have a real idea as to the intricacies of these issues.
douglasf13 wrote:
If this ends up being anything like aps-c NEX and M lenses, with which I have more experience than I'd like to admit, it may be several months before we have a real idea as to the intricacies of these issues.
That'll be quick, considering there's a guy I know who took years to realize the intricacies of the cv 34/1.4
edwardkaraa wrote:
Indeed, but this info is very important because I was planning to pay a deposit on the 7R tomorrow and luckily I read Steve's comment before I committed. We will need to see more tests that's for sure.
On blind faith I've paid in full my A7r order, but also because Sony in this country sends cameras to fully prepaid customers first. There's another twist to my approach: I know A7r bodies are outselling A7 bodies locally by a large factor. If convincing evidence points me to the A7 in the next couple of weeks I'm betting that I can switch my order, get a chunk of money back, and keep my place near the very front of the line. Hopefully.
As I know I can cancel outright for a refund any time before delivery, I'm not too worried about Sony holding VISA's money until near the end of November when I actually have to pay off that card.
rji2goleez wrote:
^ I think Steve knows to look out for these WA/UWA color shifts and smearing. He did state that the Zeiss 28/2 that he used showed some magenta color shift but no more than what he sees on the Leica. I think we need many more shots with many more lenses to draw conclusions. It's likely to be there but how problematic will really be remains to be seen I guess.
If you look at what Huff tends to shoot, it's a lot of shallow DoF central subjects: he rarely shoots stopped down scenes with a lot of edge-to-edge detail at infinity. I'm pretty sure he's commenting mostly on color shift and isn't looking closely for corner smearing.
Michael, in any case, it doesn't really make any sense to me that the 7 should be better than the 7R with RF lenses especially after Ron's test. I still think the 7R is the way to go with the better build and better micro lenses. I'm very anxious to see Steve's samples tonight.
alwang wrote:
If you look at what Huff tends to shoot, it's a lot of shallow DoF central subjects: he rarely shoots stopped down scenes with a lot of edge-to-edge detail at infinity. I'm pretty sure he's commenting mostly on color shift and isn't looking closely for corner smearing.
alwang wrote:
If you look at what Huff tends to shoot, it's a lot of shallow DoF central subjects: he rarely shoots stopped down scenes with a lot of edge-to-edge detail at infinity. I'm pretty sure he's commenting mostly on color shift and isn't looking closely for corner smearing.
Well this is one aspect that is quite important as well. Though at close range color shift seems to be minimal and sometimes undetectable.
I hope that's true, Steve Huff's photo's are interesting, but I'm not sure how much he's has cropped from his photos. The last few shots at infinity should have the rear element at closest to the sensor at infinity, thus more likely to provoke corner issues, but the shot itself doesn't look like the 35mm perspective to me.
