OK. Thank you! I was under the impression it eas the other eay round. Dors thos mean other factots causes the 7r to perform wors with WA RF lenses? I would guess so.
Jonas B wrote:
OK. Thank you! I was under the impression it eas the other eay round. Dors thos mean other factots causes the 7r to perform wors with WA RF lenses? I would guess so.
I don't know. I think this is a case where there is a fog of confusion until the cameras are shipped and more people can investigate. We're all discussing a lot of unknowns and relying on contradictory information. I'm basically tuning out till the cameras have been out for a month.
wfrank wrote:
You sure that there are more (Sony) sources than the release-day Sony Australia Video? If so, please link.
Now you've sowed the seed of doubt in me. Man, maybe even the customer facing spokespersons are getting their info from the internet forums too. I tried to google this topic and found almost no other sources. I take back what I've said about Sony being clear on this. I had expected an A7(r) mini website but couldn't find one. It now appears to me that Sony isn't emphasizing the offset micro lens aspects so your luck with RF lens may vary.
ebrandon:
The best SLR WAs give nothing to almost nothing away to the best RF WAs. They are exactly the lenses most in the frame for Sony as they hand out adapters for C/N lens to fit the a7r. Some have rather unique characteristics, such as the endless DoF of the D21.
Many Zeiss D lenses that appear to fall off in corners are actually affected by CoF, and this gives a rather beneficial photographic effect for non-wall shooters. The CY 28/2.8 puts over 80% in the image centre for 40lpmm (that is as good as it gets) so if it 'doesn't work well' I'd look elsewhere for the cause - adapter, decentre, etc.
If anything it's stronger than the 21mm at that point. Use everything in that list with confidence - I will. Lenses can be too small, some of the SLR lenses looked perfect ergo-wise on the siammirrorless site...it's not a 'race to the smallest'.
You are really only down the extra thickness of the adapter, perhaps 15mm, for extra length. As you see in the siam site the result is just fine ergonomically - I actually enjoy a little more forward focus/support room. And many leave your wallet relatively intact, not reducing it to a miserable shadow of its former self.
Most also weigh the same as the RF variety, around or less than 250-300 grams (CY28, both OMs, AIS 28/2.8, both FDs). These are far from interim, 'get by' lenses, although Zeiss will surprise us with a spectacular FE wide one day.
Phillip, the one in focus shot of a store wall I grabbed with the CY 28 showed the very typical CY 28 high central sharpness... Looked great. I have been shooting this lens on my GXR for a while now, I really want to get it back on a full frame sensor... Until the Sony demo this week, the last time this lens had been used on a full frame sensor that sensor was Kodachrome.
The CY 28/2 (Hollywoood) is an amazing lens all aspects. I'd be surprised if it wont shine even more on an A7 (or r - wont matter) than on Canons etc. Steep light angles is not a problem with this lens. But it is huge in comparison to the 28/2.8.
I have the CY 28/2.8, it's small and a great performer. I think (given comments here on FM) that my copy is not an A+ but it is a solid performer with all the Zeiss character.
Chipworks took photos of the IMX071 used in the NEX 5n with an electron microscope. It's easy to verify that it doesn't have offset microlenses. Also the bigger picture here is corner smearing (since it can't be fixed in post) and that's entirely due to the bits above the microlenses.
sflxn wrote:
Now you've sowed the seed of doubt in me. Man, maybe even the customer facing spokespersons are getting their info from the internet forums too. I tried to google this topic and found almost no other sources. I take back what I've said about Sony being clear on this. I had expected an A7(r) mini website but couldn't find one. It now appears to me that Sony isn't emphasizing the offset micro lens aspects so your luck with RF lens may vary.
I think I may be partly responsible for that as I quoted it in the OP. Now when we have (somewhat) more information I am not so sure, especially given Leica and A99 input. This thread is full of speculation of various (mostly tech) reasons for behavior in various directions but substance is scarce.
I think we know that the short flange Voigtländer 15 behaves good on the A7 (Ron) and e.g. the Contax G28 behaves badly on the A7r (Phillip). Reasons lure but we dont know.
Guess we will know much more in just a couple of weeks.
philber wrote:
If I am not mistaken, you are talking about a Contax C/Y 28mm f2.8. How does it compare to the Contax C/Y 28mm f:2.0?
While I've never used the C/Y 2/28, I can vouch for the 2.8/28. I have an MM version, and it's truly excellent.
Another C/Y lens I can whole-heartedly recommend is the Sonnar 2.8/85. This lens out-resolves the sensor of my D800E handily all the way across the frame at f/5.6. Field curvature is minimal, and the lens is small and light-weight. It should be a very good fit for the A7R.
My opinion is that the best bang for the buck for M lenses will be the A7 since the larger pixel wells are a more relaxed design less affected by light falloff and color shift. The low-pass filter/IR hot mirror can then be physically removed leaving only the thin IR absorption plate which will dramatically reduce corner smearing following the same principle that Leica use for their digital Ms.
Not that this matters for manual lenses, but the reason for the presence of the A7's OLPF apparently is phase detection AF. If you remove this filter, you _may_ loose PDAF (or screw up AF altogether, since it's a hybrid AF system). Just a thought...
Why are so many concerned about offset microlenses? I don't give a damn. I want to know WHICH sensor is the best for RF lenses, not how they did it. If it was due to offset microlenses, fine. If it was due to a thinner filter stack, fine.
There is still no proof that the a7 is better than the a7R, or the other way around. No A/B comparisons, no nothing. Just subjective thoughts and theories.
Modifying the filter stack will affect SLR/SLT type phase-detection due to the change in the optical path length causing misalignment with the PD sensors. It would be unlikely to affect the on-sensor PDAF. If a native lens reports it's focus distance to the camera so that it can be baked into the Exif then this data will probably be slightly incorrect.
Makten wrote:
Why are so many concerned about offset microlenses? I don't give a damn. I want to know WHICH sensor is the best for RF lenses, not how they did it. If it was due to offset microlenses, fine. If it was due to a thinner filter stack, fine.
There is still no proof that the a7 is better than the a7R, or the other way around. No A/B comparisons, no nothing. Just subjective thoughts and theories.
I guess within 10 days, people will start receiving the cameras and hopefully there will be more definitive testing
wfrank wrote:
You sure that there are more (Sony) sources than the release-day Sony Australia Video? If so, please link.
The Sony product pages for the A7R explicitly state the camera has gap less on sensor lenses and that these are optimally positioned relative to their position on the sensor:
Now this is certainly not conclusive, but given the fact they mentioned it on the A7R page, they know it's a marketable feature. So I would expect had they been present they would have mentioned this for the A7.
Now I'm also in the camp that could care less if the lenses are offset. I just want solid results, regardless of how it is achieved.
philip_pj wrote:
ebrandon:
The best SLR WAs give nothing to almost nothing away to the best RF WAs. They are exactly the lenses most in the frame for Sony as they hand out adapters for C/N lens to fit the a7r. Some have rather unique characteristics, such as the endless DoF of the D21.
Many Zeiss D lenses that appear to fall off in corners are actually affected by CoF, and this gives a rather beneficial photographic effect for non-wall shooters. The CY 28/2.8 puts over 80% in the image centre for 40lpmm (that is as good as it gets) so if it 'doesn't work well' I'd look elsewhere for the cause - adapter, decentre, etc.
If anything it's stronger than the 21mm at that point. Use everything in that list with confidence - I will. Lenses can be too small, some of the SLR lenses looked perfect ergo-wise on the siammirrorless site...it's not a 'race to the smallest'.
You are really only down the extra thickness of the adapter, perhaps 15mm, for extra length. As you see in the siam site the result is just fine ergonomically - I actually enjoy a little more forward focus/support room. And many leave your wallet relatively intact, not reducing it to a miserable shadow of its former self.
Most also weigh the same as the RF variety, around or less than 250-300 grams (CY28, both OMs, AIS 28/2.8, both FDs). These are far from interim, 'get by' lenses, although Zeiss will surprise us with a spectacular FE wide one day. ...Show more →
I like your enthusiasm.
I already own all the lenses in that list, except for the ZE 21mm, so if they work well that will be light on the wallet, going forward at least.
philip_pj wrote:
These are far from interim, 'get by' lenses, although Zeiss will surprise us with a spectacular FE wide one day.
Sony, not zeiss. Every za "zeiss", as well as all fe-s and both 24/1.8, 16-70/4 are designed and manufactured by sony. The only zeiss thing is badge
Emacs wrote:
Sony, not zeiss. Every za "zeiss", as well as all fe-s and both 24/1.8, 16-70/4 are designed and manufactured by sony. The only zeiss thing is badge
Hmm I've heard that Zeiss designs them, but Sony does the manufacturing.
