Agree with Taylor, he's referring to colour shift, so far. Huff hasn't looked at each camera with regard to smearing, hasn't looked at each at various subject differences and certainly hasn't done a bunch of testing at infinity with various lenses on each camera.
The conclusions after others do more and useful testing might be the same, but for now I'm not changing my plans or committing to buy new lenses (other than native).
phigment wrote:
I've also added auto-mag inhibit/enable on half shutter press. This will be in an upcoming firmware release.
4 configurable modes:
-no auto magnify
-always magnify when focus change
-magnify when focus change if shutter half pressed
-magnify when focus change if shutter is not half pressed
excellent! that should make it much more useful to me.
btw, in another thread we were wondering if your adapter uses a physical linkage to detect focus movement of rangefinder lenses or if there is something else involved since it was reported to work on R lenses via a novoflex R to m adapter.
phigment wrote:
I've also added auto-mag inhibit/enable on half shutter press. This will be in an upcoming firmware release.
4 configurable modes:
-no auto magnify
-always magnify when focus change
-magnify when focus change if shutter half pressed
-magnify when focus change if shutter is not half pressed
Hi Paul,
Many thanks. That will be very useful.
As you know, I am now using version 04 of the firmware.
Here is what I seem to observe:
Switch camera on. Magnification is on when focusing.
However, after I half press the shutter it seems to switch off despite focusing.
When I fully press the shutter to take an image and focus again, magnification is back on.
Do I understand this correctly?
Could I toggle between on and off by repeatedly half pressing the shutter?
I think I would like that as another option.
Thanks for your help.
sebboh wrote:
excellent! that should make it much more useful to me.
btw, in another thread we were wondering if your adapter uses a physical linkage to detect focus movement of rangefinder lenses or if there is something else involved since it was reported to work on R lenses via a novoflex R to m adapter.
Correct, I reported that it seemed to work with several of my R lenses via an R to M adapter attached to the Phigment adapter!
sebboh wrote:
excellent! that should make it much more useful to me.
btw, in another thread we were wondering if your adapter uses a physical linkage to detect focus movement of rangefinder lenses or if there is something else involved since it was reported to work on R lenses via a novoflex R to m adapter.
I was surprised when I read that as well. There is only a physical linkage.
I'm not actually familiar with the R lenses so up to now I assumed that in the novoflex adapter somehow coupled R lenses to the RF pickup... I guess not.
This was not a designed 'feature'. I've hear reports that the pickup mechanism doesn't instill confidence in it's durability (it is after all only plastic... but my design options were limited by space). So it wouldn't surprise me that when no lens is making contact with the pickup it may move a bit during focus movement due merely to camera shake. This could have triggered a focus event.
Anyways, this is a bit off topic, so I'd prefer to keep this sort of conversation to PM, email or the thread about my adapter.
Very frankly, at this stage, at the expense of sounding like an idiot, I have to say the information I have been getting is much too contradictory to form a complete opinion. No offense meant to anyone having posted part of this information, it is not their fault if someone else posted something different and contradictory.
For now, I will say this. Based on Brian Smith's shots, I have high hopes for the A7R and Zeiss FE 35.
Anything wider than that looks iffy, but the hierarchy of lenses that work -or not- on the NEX 7 seems up to now fairly consistent. So I pretty much gave up hope for my G 28, but not my Elmar 24, and I started looking for a Summicron 28 M, which would in any case be a FL I use more. My 'Lux 50 should be all right per Huff, but others say otherwise. And I just ordered a 'Cron 75 APO. For really wide stuff, I am keeping my NEX 7 and Touit 12 until Zeiss come up with their own A7-optimized solution, which I have zero doubt they will; Until then I will also check on the 24-70 f:4.0, in the unlikely possibility that its is good enough to wean me off my prime-only snobbery.
philber - Ooh, congrats on the 75AA! Been eyeing those for a while too.
Otherwise, I think you summed it up pretty well. I too have been wondering what I'll do with my Touit 12. If the 21SEM is good enough on the A7R, I could see letting go of the 12. 18 is not 21, but it's probably close enough for me.
The A7 appears to have less color shift and less light fall-off in the corners (estimated to be about 3 stops with the CV15).
In spite of the marketing, the offset-microlens design of the A7r appears not to be as effective as simply having larger pixel well sites for these issues, that will be less affected by the fixed-sized front-side support circuitry.
I wonder if short-flange WA lens users should focus attention on the A7 - and then look at options to remove the AA filter to reduce smearing and improve corner sharpness?
A bit like how tinkerers remove the IR filter to create IR or full-spectrum cameras.
philber wrote:
Very frankly, at this stage, at the expense of sounding like an idiot, I have to say the information I have been getting is much too contradictory to form a complete opinion. No offense meant to anyone having posted part of this information, it is not their fault if someone else posted something different and contradictory.
For now, I will say this. Based on Brian Smith's shots, I have high hopes for the A7R and Zeiss FE 35.
Anything wider than that looks iffy, but the hierarchy of lenses that work -or not- on the NEX 7 seems up to now fairly consistent. So I pretty much gave up hope for my G 28, but not my Elmar 24, and I started looking for a Summicron 28 M, which would in any case be a FL I use more. My 'Lux 50 should be all right per Huff, but others say otherwise. And I just ordered a 'Cron 75 APO. For really wide stuff, I am keeping my NEX 7 and Touit 12 until Zeiss come up with their own A7-optimized solution, which I have zero doubt they will; Until then I will also check on the 24-70 f:4.0, in the unlikely possibility that its is good enough to wean me off my prime-only snobbery. ...Show more →
I still have hope for lenses such as the Voigtlander 21/1.8 (which I do not own), the ZM 18/4 (as you stated) and the Oly OM 21/3.5 which I do own. It's actually quite the sharp little lens and I can't wait to see it on the a7R. Otherwise, I will shoot my Zeiss ZEs with Metabones adapter. At the end of the day, it's about getting the shot and creating art.
I think the new line of MF Zeiss primes will give you a good idea when they start to show up. Those are the lenses that I'm most excited to see. I will probably live with compact SLR lenses for now, with the hope of replacing them with the Zeiss lenses eventually.
Now I don't want to be unpleasant to people, but, even though I am technically inept, I do have some memory and a bit of logic left despite my old age. I remember all the learned comments that colour shift and smearing were made much worse by AA filters, and that removing them would be a giant step towards photographic Valhalla. If that was so pre-A7, it still is so, and, thus, A7R must be better than A7 in this respect. If it isn't, then the negative influence of the AA filter isn't all that it was construed to be.
Yet now, after a couple of learned comments indicating that A7 is better in this respect, the "AA filter theory" is put on the back burner, and the A7 is recommended -but in AA-less form!
Might I respectfully suggest that Sony themselves recommend the A7R for RF lenses, and that, though it is chic to disparage any advice coming from a manufacturer, I will at least give them the benefit of the doubt.
Lastly, all cameras have less-than-final firmware. As one who has shot all successive versions of the NEX 7 firmware, I can testify that firmware does indeed have the ability to influece results in a significant way.
To sum it up, jumping to conclusions seems a bit premature, methinks.
philber wrote:
Now I don't want to be unpleasant to people, but, even though I am technically inept, I do have some memory and a bit of logic left despite my old age. I remember all the learned comments that colour shift and smearing were made much worse by AA filters, and that removing them would be a giant step towards photographic Valhalla. If that was so pre-A7, it still is so, and, thus, A7R must be better than A7 in this respect. If it isn't, then the negative influence of the AA filter isn't all that it was construed to be.
Yet now, after a couple of learned comments indicating that A7 is better in this respect, the "AA filter theory" is put on the back burner, and the A7 is recommended -but in AA-less form!
Might I respectfully suggest that Sony themselves recommend the A7R for RF lenses, and that, though it is chic to disparage any advice coming from a manufacturer, I will at least give them the benefit of the doubt.
Lastly, all cameras have less-than-final firmware. As one who has shot all successive versions of the NEX 7 firmware, I can testify that firmware does indeed have the ability to influece results in a significant way.
To sum it up, jumping to conclusions seems a bit premature, methinks....Show more →
the AA filter thickness plays a strong role in corner smearing but not corner shift. the microlenses and pixel density play a strong role in color shift. based on this and what i've seen sample wise to date, i expect that the a7r will have less corner smearing and the a7 will have less color shift. i'm sure neither will be completely devoid of either.
philber wrote:
Now I don't want to be unpleasant to people, but, even though I am technically inept, I do have some memory and a bit of logic left despite my old age. I remember all the learned comments that colour shift and smearing were made much worse by AA filters, and that removing them would be a giant step towards photographic Valhalla. If that was so pre-A7, it still is so, and, thus, A7R must be better than A7 in this respect. If it isn't, then the negative influence of the AA filter isn't all that it was construed to be.
Yet now, after a couple of learned comments indicating that A7 is better in this respect, the "AA filter theory" is put on the back burner, and the A7 is recommended -but in AA-less form!
Might I respectfully suggest that Sony themselves recommend the A7R for RF lenses, and that, though it is chic to disparage any advice coming from a manufacturer, I will at least give them the benefit of the doubt.
Lastly, all cameras have less-than-final firmware. As one who has shot all successive versions of the NEX 7 firmware, I can testify that firmware does indeed have the ability to influece results in a significant way.
To sum it up, jumping to conclusions seems a bit premature, methinks....Show more →
The smearing is due to thickness and different refractive indexes of the entire filter stack. The fact that the A7r doesn't appear much better than the A7 so far as smearing is concerned in spite of removal of the AA filter suggests that the no glass has actually been removed. Instead, the second birefringent layer has been rotated 90 degrees to eliminate the low-pass effect. For this we already have the precedent of the D800e versus d800. Alternatively an optical flat of appropriate thickness has been substituted in the A7r to keep the optical path length the same for compatibility with other NEX lenses and phase-detect AF. The net result is no improvement for rangefinder wides, while telecentric lenses do receive the usual sharpness versus moire tradeoffs.
Jabberwockt wrote:
The ebay helicoid M to E adapter i've tried has a bit of slop in the helicoid itself. It is perfect usable for macro work, but if i was shooting landscape, i'd probably throw on solid adapter instead to avoid any performance degradation from misalignment .
Has anyone taken measurements of the thickness of the eBay adapters with a micrometer? Tempted to buy one just to test my adapters.
Yes, I bought a 0-25mm. micrometer when I was using adapters for my Canon EOS and several of them didn't reach infinity, so I took the 'sanding' way to fix them. It's an easy task but requires a micrometer, sanding paper and lots of patience
Now I've got also a 25-50mm. unit to deal with NEX to SLR adapters .because most of them are between the 26-29mm. range.
I've found that even $20 adapters can have a very good tolerance on thickness all around the ring -often within 0.01 mm. Usually the problem with cheap models isn't that but the loose fitting on the lens or the camera side. You can have an adapter with the two faces perfectly parallel but if there's some play or wobble between adapter and lens or adapter and camera it won't do a good job on keeping all corners focused at once, specially with wideangles. Unfortunately, in my experience, even reputable brands like Kipon or Metabones aren't always free from fitting problems.
That said, buying 'elcheapo' adapters on eBay it's a lottery. If you're lucky you can get a perfect unit for 1/10 the price of a Novoflex. If the first one is a lemon, try again and maybe the second or third time ..bingo !
philber wrote:
Very frankly, at this stage, at the expense of sounding like an idiot, I have to say the information I have been getting is much too contradictory to form a complete opinion. No offense meant to anyone having posted part of this information, it is not their fault if someone else posted something different and contradictory.
For now, I will say this. Based on Brian Smith's shots, I have high hopes for the A7R and Zeiss FE 35.
Anything wider than that looks iffy, but the hierarchy of lenses that work -or not- on the NEX 7 seems up to now fairly consistent. So I pretty much gave up hope for my G 28, but not my Elmar 24, and I started looking for a Summicron 28 M, which would in any case be a FL I use more. My 'Lux 50 should be all right per Huff, but others say otherwise. And I just ordered a 'Cron 75 APO. For really wide stuff, I am keeping my NEX 7 and Touit 12 until Zeiss come up with their own A7-optimized solution, which I have zero doubt they will; Until then I will also check on the 24-70 f:4.0, in the unlikely possibility that its is good enough to wean me off my prime-only snobbery. ...Show more →
At this point until we get better information, I would not suggest any of us investing in any WA RF lenses until we have more information. This was also the suggestion of Richard Schleuning of Zeiss. As to longer RF lenses these have a greater likelihood of having no issues.
For myself, I am watching very carefully and reading the reviews and keeping an eye on those lenses that are being reported or suggested as likely to perform well. I know that I have a large battery of Leica R lenses to use certainly in the longer focal lengths and also the Minolta CLE MC 40mm f2 M-Rokkor lens. The Minolta lens was purchased recently for the A7r and hopefully this will work well with the camera.
At this point, hopefully we can find 2 WA RF lenses in the 21mm (or around) and 28mm focal lengths to work well with the A7r.
wfrank wrote:
What's interesting is that he clearly states that the A7 is the one to get for RF lenses below 35mm. At this point I guess he is the only one that have compared the two cams.
If this is correct it means that the offset microlenses are something needed to take care of the massive number of pixels in the A7r, not to cater for RF WA's (which may have been a vain hope from the start). Gives some hope for e.g. the G28 that seem to be bad on the A7r (Phillip Reeves shots).
I think the non AA option in the A7R is similar to the D800E in that is just a marketing gimmick just to say, hey, we do it MF and Leica style, we have no AA because our lenses are very sharp. In reality it is all BS, because both Nikon and Sony cannot afford to have one camera with and one without AA. Otherwise they would have to design a completely new body with different registration distance. It takes a company with it's back to the wall to come up with real no AA solution, or big balls, but I think the former So like others have mentioned as well, I think the glass thickness is the same as the A7, giving us all the disadvantages of the non AA and none of the advantages. Lame move.
It does seem that way. A bit unfortunate considering they already spent that much effort to put in a different sensor. If it was like the RX1 and RX1R, I could forgive them haha.
edwardkaraa wrote:
In reality it is all BS, because both Nikon and Sony cannot afford to have one camera with and one without AA. Otherwise they would have to design a completely new body with different registration distance.
as far as i know this statement is not true. first of all they clearly made two cameras with completely different sensors since one is 24mp and one is 36mp. second of all there is no need to make the registration distance different on a mirrorless camera with and without the AA filter because the AF focus doesn't need to be calibrated to match the sensor on mirrorless cameras (the AF is done from sensor data rather than with a different sensor via a mirror as it is with dslrs). it is of course entirely possible that the a7r still has a thick layer of cover glass for other reasons because sony didn't care much about actually catering to rf users. i eagerly await the first person to tear their camera apart and tell me how it's arranged...
sebboh wrote:
as far as i know this statement is not true. first of all they clearly made two cameras with completely different sensors since one is 24mp and one is 36mp. second of all there is no need to make the registration distance different on a mirrorless camera with and without the AA filter because the AF focus doesn't need to be calibrated to match the sensor on mirrorless cameras (the AF is done from sensor data rather than with a different sensor via a mirror as it is with dslrs). it is of course entirely possible that the a7r still has a thick layer of cover glass for other reasons because sony didn't care much about actually catering to rf users. i eagerly await the first person to tear their camera apart and tell me how it's arranged...
The A7R is designed to be used with FF ZA glass via adapters, at least one of which has a SLT mirror and PDAF sensors. This is one case where different registration would screw up AF. It is true though that we are just speculating, but IMO there are more chances than not that the sensor cover is as thick as the A7. Just look at how much trouble Kodak and Leica had with IR and what not because their cameras have really no AA not the gimmick of Nikon.
So like others have mentioned as well, I think the glass thickness is the same as the A7, giving us all the disadvantages of the non AA and none of the advantages. Lame move.