jcolwell wrote:
Nice lineup, Rich. How do you like the RRS grip? I have the rail, but held off on the grip and L, because I want to keep it small. I often shoot it handheld at events with two other cameras, X100s and 6D. The grip would make it easier to grab teh camera & lift to my eye, but it seems OK without.
Thanks. I leave the RRS L bracket and grip on the camera all of the time. I think that the grip adds dramatically to the balance and the handling of the camera. Since the photo was taken I have applied a little gaffers tape to the grip in places to make the grip itself a little less slippery; the tape also adds just a slight amount more cushioning.
I also like the fact that the L bracket does not interfere with access to the camera doors for the battery, memory card, and the remote cable.
I will definitely be ordering the L bracket for the A7r once they become available; since the A7r has a built in grip the bracket will be a little less expensive than the L bracket and grip for the X-E1.
Ron Pfister wrote:
Rich, what has your experience with the Novoflex ASTAT-NEX been when using heavy lenses as shown in your images? Is it rigid enough to prevent shake caused by the shutter? I wish the A7R had an electronic first curtain...
The Novoflex rotating collar for the Leica R to M4/3 and the Fujifilm X-E1 use a different rotating collar than the Novoflex ASTAT-NEX adapter. I also found out at PhotoPlus in October that my rotating collar was changed since I purchased it earlier in the year. Like the ASTAT-NEX it now includes a nut to screw and lock the collar. I will have to purchase the Novoflex ASTAT-NEX adapter for using many of my Leica R lenses on the A7r.
I like the rotating collar and it does a good job. Make sure that you don't loosen the collar too much when using it to position your set-up because due to its weight, the equipment could move a lot. Also, make sure that you slide the collar as far forward as you can against the large lip/flange on the lens adapter to position the collar in place. Once in place then lock the screw/collar.
I just read Nasses explanation of lens designs again, and this is the most interesting part:
"Lenses with a very large beam tilt react in a
much more sensitive manner to a change of
refractive index in the image space caused
by filter plates in front of the sensor (such
as low pass and IR-blocking filters). If the filter plate is not considered in the design of
the lens, the edge definition will suffer."
So? Well, if the native lenses are going to give equally good results on both the a7 and the a7R, they ought to have the same optical properties of the filter stack. If that is the case, Zeiss would have much more freedom to design the FE lenses, and any new lens coming later.
I don't know if they though of that, but I suppose they did. And considering that the FE 35/2.8 has its exit pupil fairly close to the sensor (almost exactly the same as CV 35/1.2 and Leica 40/2), it could mean that it was designed with the filter stack as a part of the optical system.
If this makes any sense, the a7 and a7R should give the same "smearing" effect with M glass having the exit pupil very close to the sensor.
Possibly, but this does not take into account the differences between the sensors in terms of resolution, sensel well design and microlens array layout. All of these will have an effect on 'smearing' and color shift.
Ron Pfister wrote:
Possibly, but this does not take into account the differences between the sensors in terms of resolution, sensel well design and microlens array layout. All of these will have an effect on 'smearing' and color shift.
I'm not so sure about that. Why would any smearing occur that is "wider" than pixel-to-pixel distance, because of the sensor itself? Color shift is a different issue where the R seems worse.
I am not an expert in sensor optical design by any means, but from what I understand, it would be close to impossible to design two sensors with nearly identical properties of their optical systems (i.e. filter stack, microlens array, sensel well design) as you suggest, if the sensors are as different in terms of resolution, presence/absence of OLPF and CRA-optimization of the microlens-array as those of the A7 and A7R are. As a result, I expect clearly visible differences in both 'smearing', vignetting and color shift between the two sensors at the same file resolution (i.e. 24MP). Since we don't know the specifications of each of the components of the two sensor's optical systems, we can only guess what the outcome will be. Perhaps Toothwalker can comment on this?
Makten wrote:
I just read Nasses explanation of lens designs again, and this is the most interesting part:
"Lenses with a very large beam tilt react in a
much more sensitive manner to a change of
refractive index in the image space caused
by filter plates in front of the sensor (such
as low pass and IR-blocking filters). If the filter plate is not considered in the design of
the lens, the edge definition will suffer."
So? Well, if the native lenses are going to give equally good results on both the a7 and the a7R, they ought to have the same optical properties of the filter stack. If that is the case, Zeiss would have much more freedom to design the FE lenses, and any new lens coming later.
I don't know if they though of that, but I suppose they did. And considering that the FE 35/2.8 has its exit pupil fairly close to the sensor (almost exactly the same as CV 35/1.2 and Leica 40/2), it could mean that it was designed with the filter stack as a part of the optical system. ...Show more →
I think that a lens "with the filter stack considered in the design", is nothing else than a lens with an exit pupil farther away from the sensor. A smaller maximum aperture also helps a bit. If there are other measures, I don't know what they could be. It would also not be a strong selling point for a lens if it were matched to one particular sensor.
TW: Agree... that was the consensus back when the white paper was first making the rounds and thus symmetrical designs didn't feel like a good long term solution as sensor sizes and pixel counts both grow.
Interchangeable lenses for a camera system are of course going to survive and be used over more than one camera, sometimes generations of cameras, so they can't be tuned for one.
Zeiss's new designs will sport exit pupils farther away. Are there alternatives? Didn't Fujifilm make use of very large rear elements in some of their X mount lense -- a similar technique as used in the RX1 and X100 cameras -- presumably to reduce the beam tilt?
I agree. In the digital age (i.e. with the different optical characteristics of sensors compared to film), it simply doesn't make sense to build new lenses as compact as possible, thus moving the exit pupil of the lens into the zone where artifacts are likely on larger sensors. A look at recent WA-designs for mirrorless APS-C cameras clearly shows that manufacturers are favoring more telecentric lens designs that avoid these issues. It is therefore likely that WA FE-lenses will be considerably larger than the Sonnar FE 2.8/35 ZA.
Ron Pfister wrote:
Since we don't know the specifications of each of the components of the two sensor's optical systems, we can only guess what the outcome will be. Perhaps Toothwalker can comment on this?
I don't know much about sensor design, and there are contradictory stories about these two sensors in particular. TheSuede is your best bet.
It's still light, feels good on the camera, and really isn't that big at all. The FE35 is quite a bit smaller.
The new Zeiss manual focus FE class lenses ought to be a little smaller in diameter (no autofocus), no?
Unfortunately there are no MF close focus and infinity hard stops or aperture rings on the FE lenses. This makes things difficult for many applications.
The Zeiss FE-offerings should be a little skinnier than Sony's AF-lenses. I don't expect them to have aperture rings (akin to the Touit E-mount series), but they will have hard stops if they are indeed MF .
Edit: I wonder if they will on average be smaller than a compact MF SLR lens on an adapter.
I tried the Sony A7R at a show in Paris today. Though it was possible to insert a card and fit a lens, conditions were very poor indeed, and I couldn't get a decent shot, only impressions. As other have reported, the shutter is very loud, and unpleasant sounding. Build didn't feel as good as I had hoped. Controls were stiff rather than classy. This was a pre-production camera which didn't feel as nice, by far, as a RX-1. I tried my 'LUX 50. As I couldn't use the magnifying function, any hope of focusing was pure illusion. All I can say is that the image has a crazy amount of detail, and that colours look very nice. If I didn't know, I wouldn't guess that this wasn't my NEX7, except for the amount of detail, the absence of noise, and the DR. This should be taken with a grain of salt as the camera was defintely not set at base ISO, nor didi I know what other settings were used, and it was JPEG only.
I also tried my Elmar 24. There wasn't a single spot I could really use a a reference for corner performance. All I can say is that, again, the image clarty was striking in the middle of the picture.
As far as lenses, I didn't get to use either Zeiss 35 or 55, but saw the 24-70 zoom. That is no weakling! Not very long, but definitely stout!
According to Sony, they will ship before month end.
Ron Pfister wrote:
... I wonder if they will on average be smaller than a compact MF SLR lens on an adapter.
As discussed in a recent thread, look to the Olympus OM system for guidance on small SLR lenses. The vital stats of most Oly "usual suspects" are published in the Lens Price Database, and the Olympus "Lens Group" site is a great place to start looking for more info on the Oly OM lens lineup.
naturephoto1 wrote:
Unfortunately there are no MF close focus and infinity hard stops or aperture rings on the FE lenses. This makes things difficult for many applications.
Agreed. One only has to struggle trying to get a fly by wire lens to focus on infinity in the pitch black to capture the stars, once, before lamenting that there is no manual focus lens in the bag.
When the dust settles I hope that there'll be a good selection of rangefinder wides to choose from but if not, SLR or eventually new MF glass from Zeiss and others will fill the need.
philber wrote:
I tried the Sony A7R at a show in Paris today. Though it was possible to insert a card and fit a lens, conditions were very poor indeed, and I couldn't get a decent shot, only impressions. As other have reported, the shutter is very loud, and unpleasant sounding. Build didn't feel as good as I had hoped. Controls were stiff rather than classy. This was a pre-production camera which didn't feel as nice, by far, as a RX-1. I tried my 'LUX 50. As I couldn't use the magnifying function, any hope of focusing was pure illusion. All I can say is that the image has a crazy amount of detail, and that colours look very nice. If I didn't know, I wouldn't guess that this wasn't my NEX7, except for the amount of detail, the absence of noise, and the DR. This should be taken with a grain of salt as the camera was defintely not set at base ISO, nor didi I know what other settings were used, and it was JPEG only.
I also tried my Elmar 24. There wasn't a single spot I could really use a a reference for corner performance. All I can say is that, again, the image clarty was striking in the middle of the picture.
As far as lenses, I didn't get to use either Zeiss 35 or 55, but saw the 24-70 zoom. That is no weakling! Not very long, but definitely stout!
According to Sony, they will ship before month end....Show more →
Thanks for your assessment. When I listened to the shutter at PhotoPlus I did not think that it was that loud. Louder than some make like, but it is a FF focal plane shutter so it is large. Additionally, there is not that much mass for the body to hide the shutter sound. I thought that the camera handled and balanced well.
michaelwatkins wrote:
Agreed. One only has to struggle trying to get a fly by wire lens to focus on infinity in the pitch black to capture the stars, once, before lamenting that there is no manual focus lens in the bag.
When the dust settles I hope that there'll be a good selection of rangefinder wides to choose from but if not, SLR or eventually new MF glass from Zeiss and others will fill the need.
for what it's worth, if you have stars and a tripod i don't find focusing to infinity to be terribly hard with focus by wire – just open the lens up and use magnified liveview. it's when you want to focus on infinity in the dark with no stars or on something closer than infinity that the real problem crops up.
This makes things difficult for many applications. 