edwardkaraa wrote:
Knowing that I do not believe that more pixels demand better lenses (depends on the required output), guilty as charged.
Of course more pixels demand better lenses IF one wants to experience the resolution advantage of the higher density sensor (akin to your required output statement). For everyone else, they can happily continue shooting their 2003 6MP cameras.
Here's an a7r shot with 35 Summilux pre-ASPH. It was on DCHome. The original was extremely dark in the shadows (buildings), and ISO 2500. I probably pulled the jpg shadows 4-5 stops. But it's the first I've seen of this combo and it looks a) pretty sharp, and b) without apparent color shift. I'm inferring a lot, but gives some hope to the 35 Lux crowd...
davewolfs wrote:
The body from a value and technical perspective already surpasses the M240. I have no doubt that Zeiss will deliver.
I agree that Sony has delivered a very good value proposition in the bodies. Adaptability plus Sony's on-going strategy of shoving the largest sensors possible into the smallest bodies possible and now a full frame sensor in a compact body make it difficult to avoid thinking about Leica comparisons at some level even if they are very different beasts in the eyes of many.
At the Vancouver Sony event on Sunday 70 showed up despite it not being publicly advertised, many armed with a mix of Canon, Nikon and M mount lenses. At the Sony A7/r event last Thursday in Richmond I saw quite a few folks toting multi-kilo-dollar Leica lenses mounted on digital M/M 240 bodies, and a few mounted on NEX-6 and -7 too. As a result the A7r outfitted with adapters and "release without lens" setting turned on was busier than the A7r camera with native lenses for much of the evening. Had I been thinking I'd have interviewed a few of them to see what their thoughts were.
Zeiss and others can fill in the gaps where there is demand for "more" or manual handling, or both. I think they'll do well and the comparisons will only become more relevant as more lens types and choices are available.
I'm still hoping a large number of interesting RF lenses deliver nicely on the A7r, but if not, won't cry myself. There will be other options.
Douglas: I see what you mean about the Touits; the 32mm is roughly the same size as the FE55; the 12mm is a centimetre longer and the same diameter at the focus ring but much wider at the front flare... but then again that wouldn't be the first ultrawide with a larger front diameter.
For the native lens line up, Sony's stated strategy of balancing size, speed, and optical performance feels just right but given the body size is also self-evident from the get go. I'm hoping Sony (or Zeiss) bring out a really sweet lens in the around 24 or 25mm and for my needs I'd be quite ok if it was slower, smaller, and well corrected. The FE35 gives some hope this is possible, doesn't it?
This is not a big lens! (36.5mm in length vs 72mm for the faster Touit 32)
shelt wrote:
Here's an a7r shot with 35 Summilux pre-ASPH. It was on DCHome. The original was extremely dark in the shadows (buildings), and ISO 2500. I probably pulled the jpg shadows 4-5 stops. But it's the first I've seen of this combo and it looks a) pretty sharp, and b) without apparent color shift. I'm inferring a lot, but gives some hope to the 35 Lux crowd...
I'm not writing off the Voigtlander 21mm Ultron f1.8 for use on the a7/a7r. Here's a shot I took with the lens on the a7r at 1.8 and at quite close focus. Obviously it becomes impossible to judge edge sharpness, but as you can see there is very little color shift even when not stopped down. And the center of the frame is sharp enough wide open to lift the fingerprints of the man's hands at ISO 1000 (keep in mind the subject's hand was moving). Worst case scenario will be wide open at infinity, and unfortunately given the inside nature of the Vancouver event I was unable to test it. In any case, I'm cautiously optimistic about this telecentric UW lens.
michaelwatkins wrote:
The FE35 gives some hope this is possible, doesn't it?
It sure does. If were talking "slow" f2.8 lenses, then I think there are a lot of possibilities. If we're talking f2 or faster, that's apparently where the size will be more difficult to keep down.
safcraft wrote:
I would say that its very mild and totally acceptable...for me at least !
But would it be at full size if it's already noticeable at this size? If you click on the link for the photo, you can see it at a slightly larger size where the smearing is even more noticeable. I doubt many are buying A7r's for web size images so this degree of smearing would be an issue for most using such expensive glass.
RustyBug wrote:
Any chance it said it didn't have the SAME arrangement (possibly referring to the offset or some nominal change) as the D800E ... yet it could still be utilizing a similar approach.
Then again ... recalling some of the detail in the images produced with native glass (i.e. not rangefinder), does it really matter if it is like the D800E or a true non-AA filter if we aren't shooting rangefinder glass as our primary glass? (Yes, I realize the topic is RF glass)
To what degree have we departed from keeping the main thing, the main thing? Is utilization of RF glass the main objective ... or is IQ the main objective? At the end of the day, RF glass may have its benefit/penalties rooted in film and for some, the RF glass represents the "best" available from a historical perspective ... but is it really the best available for digital, or will it ever be (on a single plane, microlens, bayer array)? Are we being unrealistic in our aspirations to cross-apply a square peg into a round hole with RF on digital?
Is it time to accept that mirrorless is the new RF, and the glass designed to work with it is going to be the best method for achieving the max IQ objective ... if IQ is still "the main thing"? If not, then the aspirations toward size/weight/legacy glass investment/etc. warrant acceptance of the inherent compromises (i.e. software corrections, etc) involved with RF on digital (at least for now). We love to think "out of the box" as alt folks ... but sometimes, just because we can figure out how to put that square peg into the round hole ... doesn't mean it is always in our best interest to do so....Show more →
RustyBug wrote:
To what degree have we departed from keeping the main thing, the main thing? Is utilization of RF glass the main objective ... or is IQ the main objective? At the end of the day, RF glass may have its benefit/penalties rooted in film and for some, the RF glass represents the "best" available from a historical perspective ... but is it really the best available for digital, or will it ever be (on a single plane, microlens, bayer array)? Are we being unrealistic in our aspirations to cross-apply a square peg into a round hole with RF on digital?
Is it time to accept that mirrorless is the new RF, and the glass designed to work with it is going to be the best method for achieving the max IQ objective ... if IQ is still "the main thing"? If not, then the aspirations toward size/weight/legacy glass investment/etc. warrant acceptance of the inherent compromises (i.e. software corrections, etc) involved with RF on digital (at least for now). We love to think "out of the box" as alt folks ... but sometimes, just because we can figure out how to put that square peg into the round hole ... doesn't mean it is always in our best interest to do so....Show more →
I think the main objective is IQ in a smaller, lighter package, which RF lenses on an A7(r) facilitate. Otherwise we could all just use a D600/D800.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
.... I doubt many are buying A7r's for web size images so this degree of smearing would be an issue for most using such expensive glass.
I'm buying the A7 for mostly web size images. I want the A7 for that FF look in a small package, not to make large prints.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Even at the reduced sizes, it looks like there is obvious detail smearing in all the corners of that shot.
I'd say it's jpeg-sharpened soft corners with a hint of transverse CA that isn't as evident because of the tint. It doesn't look so different from what I see with the lens on my friend's M9. If you want better corners at larger apertures, the ASPH is the way to go. I don't think corner to corner sharpness was a high priority for Dr. Mandler on the fast lenses. Not the ones with which I've shot, anyway.
snapsy wrote:
I think the main objective is IQ in a smaller, lighter package, which RF lenses on an A7(r) facilitate. Otherwise we could all just use a D600/D800.
Yep, although it's all to varying degrees. The A7/R with native lenses is still much smaller and lighter than a comparable FF DSLR setup, so I'm beginning to think that native FE lenses may still be the best compromise between size and performance.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
But would it be at full size if it's already noticeable at this size? If you click on the link for the photo, you can see it at a slightly larger size where the smearing is even more noticeable. I doubt many are buying A7r's for web size images so this degree of smearing would be an issue for most using such expensive glass.
As others have said, it's tough to say whether this is sensor topping induced smearing or just the performance of the lens. Many of the non-asph lenses that I used on the M9 were pretty soft in the corners.
I think we may need a A7 vs. A7R vs. m240 shootout with all of these M lenses to get a sensor of what is going on here.
Sorry if this has already been talked about but I haven't been back to read the thread since I last posted as the discussions have been pretty active about all sorts of things sensor-related.
Here is a not so fantastic shot using the a7 with a Zeiss ZM 2,8/28 Biogon. I knew going into the Sony event last Sunday not to expect it to turn out that well.
It looks like there's smearing. I used an el-cheapo Kipon Leica M to E mount adapter. Not sure if that makes much difference though since this is a Biogon design too...
RustyBug wrote:
Any chance it said it didn't have the SAME arrangement (possibly referring to the offset or some nominal change) as the D800E ... yet it could still be utilizing a similar approach.
Then again ... recalling some of the detail in the images produced with native glass (i.e. not rangefinder), does it really matter if it is like the D800E or a true non-AA filter if we aren't shooting rangefinder glass as our primary glass? (Yes, I realize the topic is RF glass)
To what degree have we departed from keeping the main thing, the main thing? Is utilization of RF glass the main objective ... or is IQ the main objective? At the end of the day, RF glass may have its benefit/penalties rooted in film and for some, the RF glass represents the "best" available from a historical perspective ... but is it really the best available for digital, or will it ever be (on a single plane, microlens, bayer array)? Are we being unrealistic in our aspirations to cross-apply a square peg into a round hole with RF on digital?
Is it time to accept that mirrorless is the new RF, and the glass designed to work with it is going to be the best method for achieving the max IQ objective ... if IQ is still "the main thing"? If not, then the aspirations toward size/weight/legacy glass investment/etc. warrant acceptance of the inherent compromises (i.e. software corrections, etc) involved with RF on digital (at least for now). We love to think "out of the box" as alt folks ... but sometimes, just because we can figure out how to put that square peg into the round hole ... doesn't mean it is always in our best interest to do so....Show more →
michael49 wrote:
I'm buying the A7 for mostly web size images. I want the A7 for that FF look in a small package, not to make large prints.
Sure, I was talking specifically about the A7r with it's 36MP's. Of course, who knows what folks will do with them. Maybe they will just leave them on the shelf at home and use their Smartphones.
'Of course more pixels demand better lenses IF one wants to experience the resolution advantage of the higher density sensor (akin to your required output statement).'
No:
'The reason for an overly pessimistic view is the misconception that only the
resolution limit of the system determines the image quality and that it is identical to the resolution of the weakest link of this chain. This is not the case, though, since the curves are multiplied...' Hubert Nasse.
A x B = C
sensor Mp x lens resolution = final image quality
A rising tide floats all boats and a rising number of pixels 'floats' all lenses in terms of final image quality. This phenomenon is apparent in images from old (lesser) lenses used on the a7r.
A better way to express it is to say that while the best results come from the best lenses and the best (highest MP) sensors (all else being equal) - increasing both A and B; but that higher Mp counts (the 'resolution advantage') increase final imaqe quality with ALL lenses, increasing A but B stays constant. These are two different statements and issues, stemming from the same optical science - the multiplication modality of the transfer function.
