douglasf13 wrote:
There's no indication that the 5N has offset microlenses. It is likely just a happy accident from the sensor topping design. It still doesn't perform great like the GXR or anything.
Strange, it was linked to earlier in this thread and looked trustworthy. But if youre sure thats fine. Looks like the A7 may have it though which probably would cement my choice of A7.
Mikael Risedal wrote:
They don't need off set micro lenses when that camera has a 15x23mm sensor area
Well, something was done. The 5N is better, sometimes way better, than the 5 and 7.
Jonas B wrote:
Well, something was done. The 5N is better, sometimes way better, than the 5 and 7.
It's likely just a happy accident resulting from a slightly different sensor topping arrangement. It's not only micro lenses that affect things, but also the IR filter, AA filter, CFA, etc., and also the spacing between these. While the 5N was certainly better than the 5 and 7 in this regard, it still wasn't as good as the GXR M module, which was specifically tuned for M lenses.
Of course, the much larger sensor of the A7/R is going to bring even more issues.
douglasf13 wrote:
It's likely just a happy accident resulting from a slightly different sensor topping arrangement. It's not only micro lenses that affect things, but also the IR filter, AA filter, CFA, etc., and also the spacing between these. While the 5N was certainly better than the 5 and 7 in this regard, it still wasn't as good as the GXR M module, which was specifically tuned for M lenses.
Of course, the much larger sensor of the A7/R is going to bring even more issues.
There are various comments on the net claiming the NEX 5N having offset microlenses. Is there a trustworthy source that it does *not* have those offset microlenses?
For the FF Leica M9, Leica themselves described the offset microlenses early on. They even provided a diagram (here linked from dpreview)
Of course Sony noticed this with its even shorter registry distance - and with 24MP over Leicas 18. Obviously the A7r has it and given that the A99 has it too (quote from Sony engineer) it now seem likely that the A7 got it too. Or?
The strange bit is that according to the early Youtube review (quoted in the OP) the A7r was the only one to have it. Hope that is a misconception. Have anyone seen the claim repeated in any Sony text about the cameras, or is the Sony Australia video the only source?
This is very confusing and annoying but somewhat hopeful still
wfrank wrote:
There are various comments on the net claiming the NEX 5N having offset microlenses. Is there a trustworthy source that it does *not* have those offset microlenses?
Of course Sony noticed this with its even shorter registry distance - and with 24MP over Leicas 18. Obviously the A7r has it and given that the A99 has it too (quote from Sony engineer) it now seem likely that the A7 got it too. Or?
The strange bit is that according to the early Youtube review (quoted in the OP) the A7r was the only one to have it. Hope that is a misconception. Have anyone seen the claim repeated in any Sony text about the cameras, or is the Sony Australia video the only source?
This is very confusing and annoying but somewhat hopeful still ...Show more →
Where are these various comments stating that the 5N has offset micro lenses? I've only seen assumptions based on the fact that the 5N performs better than the 7 with wide angle rangefinder lenses, although the 5N still isn't really optimized for M lenses like the GXR.
That leads to a much broader point, in that it isn't just one of these factors that makes everything work. Microlenses, the AA (or lack of,) the IR filter, the CFA, the distances between these filters, the pixels design, etc., all go into the soup that makes M wides work. Having offset micro lenses is just one ingredient, and, as we know, Leica still has to rely pretty heavily on software correction in-camera to get all the way there.
TheSuede pointed things out nicely on page 54 in this very thread: link
You may be right that the "myth-building" source is the 5N being better than the 7 but regarding the opposite, what is the source for that?
And I know the GXR has its followers, but it has never caught my interest, nor the broad public.
What I am trying to say is that with Sony's throughput of sensors, now also with 4-5-6 new FF sensors the last 18 months or so (amazing) it sounds reasonable that they would pick up any useful tech for any new cam. In particular for the e-mounts registry distance. (And why not for a APS-C sensor or two too)
While I don't disagree with the importance of other factors, I also think that pixel density matters. Lower density helps the GXR, at the expense of resolution. Higher density penalises the NEX 7 over the 5N. And, all other things being equal -but are they?- the A7R over the A7.
When I did the 4-way 21mm shootout on the M9, I also did some testing on the NEX-7 and GXR. Recently a reader asked me if I thought the GXR retained any edge sharpness advantage over the 7. At full rez, the 7's images tended to look noticeably worse than the GXR's in many cases. Resizing those down to GXR dimensions definitely reduced the appearance of optical defects, but there were still discernible edge detail advantages in the GXR images taken with the same lens and same scene (though maybe not enough of a difference for non-pixelpeepers). I'm not sure that would be explained solely by the pixel density differences at full resolution. That said, the downsized NEX-7 images definitely looked sharper and smoother in the central image areas. I believe theSuede stated that an advantage of shooting a sensor resolution much higher than needed, is the look of fine details in the final images when downsized.
If I ever get my hands on an a7R, and can shoot identical scenes with the M9, I'll definitely want to compare the a7R images sized down to 18MP. It will be interesting to see how this will change the impression of edge smearing...
The voices in my head are starting to tell me I need an A7 for wides, and an A7R for everything else.
Do you think that's true? Or do you think the A7R will be just fine with SLR wides, especially:
ZE 21mm f2.8
Canon 24mm TS-E II
Canon FD 24mm f2
Canon FD 28mm f2 and f2.8
CY Zeiss 28mm f2.8
Nikon 28mm f2.8 AIS
OM 21mm f2
OM 24mm f2.8
You may be right that the "myth-building" source is the 5N being better than the 7 but regarding the opposite, what is the source for that?
And I know the GXR has its followers, but it has never caught my interest, nor the broad public.
What I am trying to say is that with Sony's throughput of sensors, now also with 4-5-6 new FF sensors the last 18 months or so (amazing) it sounds reasonable that they would pick up any useful tech for any new cam. In particular for the e-mounts registry distance. (And why not for a APS-C sensor or two too)...Show more →
I'm not sure you're getting what theSuede's post is saying. Offset micro lens would likely contribute to MORE color shift, so, it wouldn't make sense that the 5N has them. Keep in mind that the majority of medium format digital backs don't have micro lenses at all, at the expense of worse lowlight sensitivity. MFDB shooters who use tech cameras with lens shifts generally don't choose MFDB's with micro lenses, because the color shift is worse. To quote theSuede, "The major part of this is actually caused by having microlenses that are too good..."
In other words, micro lenses improve sensitivity, but they make color shift worse. Both the M9 and M240 have pretty sever color shift with a lot of lenses, and both have special micro lens designs. We don't see color shift in DSLRs, because the light rays are more perpendicular than with the M mount.
Until we see and do a million tests with the A7 and A7R, it's impossible to know how they'll react with M lenses. My preliminary guess is that the A7 behaves better, in terms of color shift, because it doesn't have the offset micro lenses, but it'll probably have smearing issues, because of the filter stack with an AA filter. The A7R seems to have more color shift issues, and it'll be interesting to see how it deals with smearing, because, while it doesn't have an AA filter, we don't really know about the design of the sensor toppings.
CY Zeiss 28mm f2.8... I think you will be fine with this on an A7r.
I only had my CY28/2.8 mounted on the A7r for a couple shots and wasn't able to do any menu diving to get focus peaking on and it looks like ISO was pushed way low by the person who used the camera last. Consequently I have some motion blur shots and out of focus shots that don't tell me much. The one that seemed to come through ok showed very high central sharpness and decent enough performance to the edges... but I'd like to see more before being sure.
ebrandon wrote:
The voices in my head are starting to tell me I need an A7 for wides, and an A7R for everything else.
Do you think that's true? Or do you think the A7R will be just fine with SLR wides, especially:
ZE 21mm f2.8
Canon 24mm TS-E II
Canon FD 24mm f2
Canon FD 28mm f2 and f2.8
CY Zeiss 28mm f2.8
Nikon 28mm f2.8 AIS
OM 21mm f2
OM 24mm f2.8
No. If you want the A7r as do I, think that if you are interested in using M mount WA RF lenses with the camera we will have to wait to determine which will perform best or at least acceptably on an individual basis. Once we have a better idea then we can make up and/or save for our ideal kits.
Rich, eBrandon was asking about SLR wides, and there I think the answer is going to be generally... if not universally... YES, SLR wides should be pretty good.
michaelwatkins wrote:
Rich, eBrandon was asking about SLR wides, and there I think the answer is going to be generally... if not universally... YES.
Oops. Didn't see those were all SLR WA lenses. But, still why then the preference for the A7 with DSLR lenses rather than the A7r? I would still prefer the A7r. If I am unable to find my MF WA M mount lenses to meet my wants, I will opt for the SLR WA lenses.
naturephoto1 wrote:
If I am unable to find my MF WA M mount lenses to meet my wants, I will opt for the SLR WA lenses.
That's my Plan A actually (unless we turn up some really stellar rangefinder/A7r pairings) and I'm glad that these lenses feel right at home on the A7.
I'm operating under the principle that I know I want the A7r for the sensor and if that precludes me from using rangefinder lenses I might otherwise have considered, so be it.
For the time being I expect to fill in the lens blanks as needed from a mix of native lenses, adapted SLR lenses, and adapted rangefinder lenses in normal to telephoto focal lengths. Plus I also want to leave options open to checking out anything Zeiss might bring forth in a native FE class manual focus lens with automation albeit we are unlikely to see those before late 2014.
p68#4: I wrote: ...sure. But here can doesn't mean they actually do it. I also don't see the relation to the sensor size you mentioned.
...and that means I don't always find they improve on things.
Mikael Risedal replied: ??
explain please
OK. Maybe I was confused but I can try.
The Nex-7 was released after the 5N, sports the same sensor size and performs worse (with regards to corner smearing and blur when using WA RF lenses. So they don't always do whatever it is they are capable of.
The Alpha 7 and 7R seem to be different. We have seen reports saying the 7 has off center micro lenses while the 7R does not. Maybe that is true, maybe not. All this together doesn't make sense. You are claiming two different things: First off set micro lenses is needed due to the registry distance. Yet we have sensors here behaving differently. One of them probably has the off set micro lenses and the other one not. (We don't know for sure.) In any case, what we have right now is mainly questions. Why one of them only (off set...)? Why, in that case, not the 7r which has higher pixel density?
Do you think both the cameras have off center micro lenses or just one of them?
Sony has been clear that the A7R has offset micro lens and the A7 does not. It's the internet forums that sometimes flip the two and promotes confusion as to which has it and which doesn't. They've said the A7 sensor is the same one from the A99. They probably didn't do anymore engineering on it to save on cost. IR says the A99 sensor have offset micro lens too, but they were offset for light angles in the A99 so it probably isn't going to be all too useful for the A7.
but somewhat hopeful still 