I tink I will stick to my 5N with ZM18 for now until I can see what the new Zeiss/Sony lenses can do with the A7.I do not expect a rangefinder solution for my 28mm needs, I do not like the C/Y 28/2.8 because it is cold on the colors and has a little too much CA and the other solutions ( C/Y 20/2 or L28/2.8 II ) are heavy and big. Might keep an eye on that 24-70 with OSS
philip_pj wrote:
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) -
This is what matters in practical use to me. I have seen lenses tested with each major jump in sensor resolution to the point where there was no practical advantage to going with that lens and the higher resolution sensor when using the native size output from the newer, higher resolution sensor. Sure, if you want to sample down the image to the output size of the older/ lower resolution sensor, there are gains. This was why I specified the "IF" in my initial statement. At smaller sizes there are gains but at native or larger sizes there are not in practical use, at least in my experience. Thus, the higher resolution sensor demands more from the lens to take full advantage of the jump in sensor specification (where "to take full advantage" means using native or larger output sizes).
Tariq Gibran wrote:
This is what matters in practical use to me. I have seen lenses tested with each major jump in sensor resolution to the point where there was no practical advantage to going with that lens and the higher resolution sensor when using the native size output from the newer, higher resolution sensor. Sure, if you want to sample down the image to the output size of the older/ lower resolution sensor, there are gains. This was why I specified the "IF" in my initial statement. At smaller sizes there are gains but at native or larger sizes there are not in practical use, at least in my experience. Thus, the higher resolution sensor demands more from the lens to take full advantage of the jump in sensor specification (where "to take full advantage" means using native or larger output sizes). ...Show more →
You are missing the point. If I choose between two cameras with 24 and 36 mp resolution respectively, to do the same thing, the higher resolving camera does NOT "demand" better lenses. You won't ever get worse results than with the 24 mp camera (if we exclude sensor introduced smearing of the corners and such).
Makten wrote:
You are missing the point. If I choose between two cameras with 24 and 36 mp resolution respectively, to do the same thing, the higher resolving camera does NOT "demand" better lenses. You won't ever get worse results than with the 24 mp camera (if we exclude sensor introduced smearing of the corners and such).
That's true but you will not be taking full advantage of that sensor jump if the lens resolves less than the sensor is capable of. Just common sense. Where you would see the advantage is in down sampling the larger sensor image. So, you will not get worse results but you are not necessarily getting noticeably better results either with a lower resolving lens than the sensor.
davewolfs wrote:
Nice to see that people are getting it. I have no doubt that Zeiss will be giving Leica users a run for their money. The body from a value and technical perspective already surpasses the M240. I have no doubt that Zeiss will deliver. The native mounts produced by Zeiss will be all the rage within the next 12 months. Leica has already lost its edge. But I'm sure most refuse to believe that, their tune will change once the first MF Zeiss lenses show up.
OK, I'll bite.
I think if anything, these cameras from Sony have a much greater influence on Canon relative to the Alt community here, than Leica. For years Canon EF was the most adaptable platform for various SLR lines. That Canon has been lagging in sensor development, in terms of features valued in this community (dynamic range, lack of shadow noise, color quality - rather than video or high-ISO performance), has left a user group eagerly looking forward to anything offering improved performance.
If you go to the Canon board, there is a 47+ page post about Canon EF lenses on the Sony cameras. It's not just the 'traditional' Alt community that has taken note. As someone in both camps, as a Leica M and Canon EF shooter, the Sonys interest me in both respects. It might be worth getting the a7R even if only to use with my TS-E collection as the client images I make with these tend to place the greatest technical demands on image/sensor quality. Added bonus if it will work well with at least some of my RF collection.
I'm not sure what edge Leica has lost. If they really wanted to compete in this CSC market, they would have had to release a non-RF camera half the price of the M240. According to their executives at the time of the M240 launch, the camera was first and foremost made for Leica's rangefinder users. A few years ago I too would have thought 'so what,' but now in the system, I realize it's pretty much THE reason for its existence. No matter how quaint or antiquated it might seem to the 'non-believers' it actually works really well in real-world applications if it suits your style of work.
Leica's lenses, particularly their most current ones, work great on their cameras. Should this be any surprise? Fuji's XF lenses work best on their cameras (compared to adapting many RF lenses). As much as we won't like it, it's certainly in Sony's interest to have their and their partner's lenses deliver the best technical results on their cameras. In some respects, they're following in Fuji's footsteps, touting their system's adaptability with other lens systems. While the lenses physically fit, there is no guarantee the optical results will always be satisfactory, as previously seen with RFs on the Fuji platform, which prior to these Sony cameras were touted by some as Leica-killers....
douglasf13 wrote:
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.
What could possibly be wrong with RF lenses at 50 or above on the A7r? For example, performance of the ZM 50 planar or 50 Summicron should be great and I'd like to see what Zeiss comes up with that will beat a 90 Summicron on the A7r.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
That's true but you will not be taking full advantage of that sensor jump if the lens resolves less than the sensor is capable of. Just common sense. Where you would see the advantage is in down sampling the larger sensor image. So, you will not get worse results but you are not necessarily getting noticeably better results either with a lower resolving lens than the sensor.
I completely disagree. I have never seen a lens that did not look noticeably better at any given print size (or viewing size) when used on a significantly higher mp sensor. the smaller the print the less noticeable obviously. I found this most noticeable switching between the NEX-7 and NEX-5N.
rscheffler wrote:
It's not just the 'traditional' Alt community that has taken note.
Sony in Australia is gifting their A7/r buyers a coupon in the box redeemable for a free Metabones Nikon, Canon, or M mount adapter. I wonder which adapters go out the door the most?
Tariq Gibran wrote:
"full advantage". Man, you guys like to argue.
what does full advantage mean though? nothing can take "full advantage" of the 36mp sensor unless you know of some lenses that are so good that no lens could possibly look better on the same sensor?
i'll be satisfied with totally visible advantage, and i'm pretty sure the 50 year old 35 lux pre-asph will benefit from that (barring weird corner smearing differences on between the a7 and a7r) as would the $40 olympus OM 50/1.8.
I am buying the A7R and i do not print large. I like to crop and have my images tack sharp. And i rarely shoot at infinity, 80% of my shots are focused up to 2m to 3m away, so always there is a subject in the foreground.
slungu wrote:
I do not like the C/Y 28/2.8 because it is cold on the colors and has a little too much CA and the other solutions ( C/Y 20/2 or L28/2.8 II ) are heavy and big.
I have never understood why people care about color rendering from different lenses in the digital age. I figure a white balance adjustment shouldn't be that hard?
sebboh wrote:
what does full advantage mean though? nothing can take "full advantage" of the 36mp sensor unless you know of some lenses that are so good that no lens could possibly look better on the same sensor?
i'll be satisfied with totally visible advantage, and i'm pretty sure the 50 year old 35 lux pre-asph will benefit from that (barring weird corner smearing differences on between the a7 and a7r) as would the $40 olympus OM 50/1.8.
Interpolating up a soft image gives you a larger soft image. Once the lens resolution has been exceeded, no real detail is gained just by going further up in size.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Once the lens resolution has been exceeded, no real detail is gained just by going further up in size.
And there is no "demand" for better lenses either. I don't understand why you are arguing about this.
Since nothing is getting worse with higher resolution, why would you need better lenses?
eightfold wrote:
I have never understood why people care about color rendering from different lenses in the digital age. I figure a white balance adjustment shouldn't be that hard?
It is about colour resolution, and colour reproduction. A given lens won't just have a slight tint which can be easily corrected, but a completely different reaction to the entire spectrum. If you shoot with regular old OEM lenses for a while, and then put on a Leica or Zeiss lens, you will almost certainly see a colour difference, a clarity which you were missing. For me this happened with a Canon 5D, and a handful of Canon lenses, which I all sold soon after trying my first Leica R lens.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Interpolating up a soft image gives you a larger soft image. Once the lens resolution has been exceeded, no real detail is gained just by going further up in size.
increasing mp resolution is different from interpolating up an image! that's why more mp make better images than just interpolating smaller images. lenses that exceed the resolution capabilities of 36mp have been made for more than a 100 years. the issue is more a matter of how much contrast the lenses have at spatial frequencies near the limit of the sensor (and the lower contrast is at high frequencies the more you need additional mega pixels to see it). nearly any lens made in the last 50 years will easily outresolve the a7r's sensor over 80% of the frame (statistic i just made up but would be shocked to see disproven), and even the one that can't will still look better in 36"x24" inch prints than they would from a 24mp sensor.
The downsides of Moore's law. If you demand a high-speed workflow, 16-20MP files are probably the best choice today (it is no accident that high-end pro DSLRs fit in this bracket - D4, 1Dx). For the fine art photographer, these concerns are largely irrelevant - and for everyone else demanding maximum quality. It's still a lot faster than darkroom work, at any rate...
Oh dear.... i was afraid of this...this means i should expect a 3x slower performance from my 5D to 7R.
So if i find my 2Ghz DualCore slow....i will call it Jurassic in a few weeks time .....ugh...
