I found edge/corner smearing on noticeable when using the NEX 5N with the ZM35/2 and to some degree with the ZM25/2.8, yet smearing was virtually absent on the Ricoh GXR/M.
Still, the NEX-5N was very usable but it seems that came about basically by accident; the NEX-7 similarly by accident broke some of the usability.
Supposedly the A7 / A7r sensor packs will accommodate a broader range of glass but is that by design or merely, again, a happy accident as a result of having to accommodate their own native glass?
If it works, great, but I still don't believe Sony has poured a ton of energy very specifically into supporting a diverse range of alt-glass and M glass in particular. I do believe they pour energy into ensuring their sensor packs will support their own glass designs. The question with each new model introduction (and even model revisions) is whether the sensor pack by happy accident supports ^insert your favourite alt-glass here^.
Gary Clennan wrote:
I have zero issues with all my 35's on my 5N.... Perhaps it is only certain RF lenses? Not sure...
+1
I used my Leica 35 Cron on my 5N and really didn't have any issues which would bother me.
Back to A7R, I really really want my 21 SEL and 28 Cron to work. Those two, please.
edwardkaraa wrote:
The ZM 25 is currently my widest lens, and it rarely has any color issues, I would say less than 1% of the photos.
This is want I'm hoping for with the a7r, the ZM25 is wide enough for me and saves me from buying the Leica 24 Elmar. Having a good image from the Contax G28 is icing on the cake.
Well, obviously there is no magic solution to our problem. Offset microlenses can help a lot but are unable to solve the problem completely, especially with some notorious lenses like the ZM 21/4.5 or the CV 15/4.5. If the 7r proves to be as good as the M9, meaning no corner softness, just vignetting and Italian flag, I'm sure it will be a success with RF lens owners. If not, well, too bad.
^Here is a throwaway shot from the ZM25 on a M9 without sharpening or cornerfix. The reason why I'm so keen on the ZM25 working is because to my eyes, it has a lot (if not the most) "pop" of all the wide angles lenses I've ever tried. Personally still skeptical that all wide angle rangefinder lenses will work, but if some of the moderate-behaving ones work, that's probably be good enough. The M9 is old tech (albeit charming), sony just has to match or exceed that bar and i'd be happy.
We will have to wait a long long time for shots from the A7/A7r
Because I want the ff look without a speed booster or big camera. If the M9 wasn't an overpriced turd, I would have bought it a long time ago.
I basically want the A7, with ooc jpegs and no color shift. If they put out a decent wa prime I'll be all over it, but unless somebody confirms an affordable rf wide that does work with it, I'll shoot SLR lenses under ~28mm...
So far there hasn't exactly been anything to make me optimistic about the situation (<28mm rf wides).
JimBuchanan wrote:
May I ask, why not just get a Fuji X, and call it a day?
ISO1600 wrote:
Because I want the ff look without a speed booster or big camera. If the M9 wasn't an overpriced turd, I would have bought it a long time ago.
I basically want the A7, with ooc jpegs and no color shift. If they put out a decent wa prime I'll be all over it, but unless somebody confirms an affordable rf wide that does work with it, I'll shoot SLR lenses under ~28mm...
So far there hasn't exactly been anything to make me optimistic about the situation (<28mm rf wides).
Again, two people (including me) have asked you where are you getting this information? That "rf wa won't work well"? Or is it just your opinion after seeing 1 resized pic on the net from 1 wide lens?
It is a bit premature to be forming such opinions. How can somebody confirm a lens working when it's more than a month away from being released to the public?
From there to making a statement that essentially all rf wa lenses won't work well, well, it's not fact, it's an unfounded opinion at best. At least post a source to back up what you are saying.
Don't be surprised, I remember that the same thing happened with the release of the NEX-5N and NEX-7. Most 'celebrity' reviewers didn't care about RF glass and the others were clueless about the real issue ( smeared corners). At most, they mentioned vaguely some colour cast or darkened corners.
It wasn't until the cameras were available to ordinary people like us that we could see decent tests, i.e. accurately focused subjects with plenty of detail in the corners, at several apertures, both at infinity and nearer distances.
artur5 wrote:
Don't be surprised, I remember that the same thing happened with the release of the NEX-5N and NEX-7. Most 'celebrity' reviewers didn't care about RF glass and the others were clueless about the real issue ( smeared corners). At most, they mentioned vaguely some colour cast or darkened corners.
It wasn't until the cameras were available to ordinary people like us that we could see decent tests, i.e. accurately focused subjects with plenty of detail in the corners, at several apertures, both at infinity and nearer distances.
In the official launch video that I watched there was a big song and dance made about the offset microlenses with gapless design. They even had schematics explaining the advantages and specifically talked about their value for 'short registration' mounts. This is marketing material that is designed to be pitched at the public, so I believe SONY must be aware that some folks are interested in this stuff - folks that might be interested in purchasing a fullframe rangefinder or mirrorless. When reviewers can't manage to actually evaluate these claims then they've fallen short of their responsibilities. I agree that it seems we will have to wait until the ordinary public get hold of the bodies before we will find out how they perform
I very much like the sound of this in theory, and as an owner of a good range of M lenses, it is at least interesting. I will have to decide between this camera and the Leica M240. However, for me there is one caveat that few are mentioning - the EVF.
As far as I can see, people are lauding this as a wonderful EVF, yet, it seems to be the same resolution as the EVF on my Fuji X100S. Now, I have the benefit, on that camera, of switching to the OVF (not as good as Leica's, but ok). I find that in almost all circumstances the OVF is incomparably better than the EVF (I cannot stress this enough). The OVF is clear, with full dynamic range, the EVF is at best, less clear with a distinctly narrower dynamic range - reality versus a TV screen.
At worst, even in dull daylight, I have to shade the EVF viewfinder top left with my hand to get it bright enough (it is set to bright). In sunlight, forget it. The dynamic range is blasted by the brightness and full of unreadable shadows. On top of this there is always a slight juddering delay as I move the thing around.
Now while the EVF on the X100S is nowhere near as pitifully awful as the Nex 7 EVF, it still seems to me to be a massive compromise versus an optical finder, even one as mediocre as the X100S OVF. This, and the potential issues with wides is what is making me think I might just have to keep saving my pennies for the Leica.
Is the Sony Ar EVF really going to be any better than that in the X100S?
Hey I'll be happy if it turns out my assumptions are wrong about wa rf performance on this camera. But until I hear/see more positive things than what has already been vaguely summed up by reviewers, I'm leaning on the pessimistic side.
I'd rather be wrong in the lenses' favor.
I can't remember which reviewer it was, but there was only one (English language) that had favorable things to say, and they send very generalized.
The Chinese (?) review people keep referencing about heliar images-are we even sure it is translated correctly?
