_julian_ wrote:
I agree that the 50s (ZM50p, ZM50c, 'Lux 50) all under-perform on both cameras. Queue the insults..
Well, the 50Lux-M under-performed with my Nex-5 so I'm not that surprised it doesn't works better with a FF version. One has to wonder if the glass stack on top of the Sony sensors are designed by random. Sony went from Nex-5 to the 5N. Now give me a A7n...
The Tri-Elmar struggled on my NEX7, so IF Sony used the same glass stack technology on the A7r, the it will struggle in the corners as well. Sony, does not want its user's using RF glass, they want you buying Sony and Zeiss. I am still waiting to see some high resolution shots on either camera from the Tri-Elmar. It has been tested, we all know that, but where are the samples??
_julian_ wrote:
I agree that the 50s (ZM50p, ZM50c, 'Lux 50) all under-perform on both cameras. Queue the insults..
50 lux asph seems to underperform a bit, i'd still happily use it though. the zm 50's both seem to perform very well except for that one test where the zm 50/2 is misfocused and tilted (i've seen a couple others where it looks just like it does on the m240). the zm 50/1.5 sonnar actually seems to lose less than the lux. i'd say downsampled shots from the a7r should look as good or better than they do on the m9.
also the 40 cron, 50 cron pre-AA, and g45 all look as shapr as they do on the m9/film.
Jonas B wrote:
Well, the 50Lux-M under-performed with my Nex-5 so I'm not that surprised it doesn't works better with a FF version. One has to wonder if the glass stack on top of the Sony sensors are designed by random. Sony went from Nex-5 to the 5N. Now give me a A7n...
Yes, as best I can determine the NEX 5 filter stack was 1.1mm thick comprising AA filter/UV-IR/dust shaker. The 5n is 0.6mm and performs a better for smearing.
uhoh7 wrote:
Just dust off the 21/1.4: http://flic.kr/s/aHsjMyGC9U
edges seem to be there @f/2
hey buddy, just put that lens down. I don't care how it works. My mentors at FM told me: no usable RF WAs.
I sure hope that lenses worth seven kilo-bucks are not necessary to get decent edges at 21mm. I'm willing to suffer some pain to get what I want - pain of waiting, of adapting larger lenses than I'd like, etc., but that kind of wallet pain I'm not ready for.
I remain in the hopeful yet pragmatic middle, but I don't think this game is going to get any more fun going forward with new camera releases. Quite the opposite.
Glass stack technology ... isn't the elephant in the room the angle of incidence to the micro-lens?
For falloff and color-shift yes (although color-shift may also be related to hot-mirror where the pass-band changes with incidence unlike an absorption filter). Smearing is all about the shit above the micro-lenses. Different ray paths take different profiles though the upper stack and refract differently which smears the result spatially across multiple pixels.
philber wrote:
I expect the A7R to take some getting used to when pixel peeping, because of its huge resolution. Th emore pixels, the more magnification when viewing at 100%, thus the more defects show up. Once the picture is equalized for size, be it in print or on screen, this effect goes away.
Whether or not that helps enough to let me use my beloved 24 Elmar, I don't know. Maybe it has just become a 28 Elmar...
Sure more defects show with more resolution. Nevertheless I don't think the edges will improve much in print as they were pretty dominant. The center of the image was very fine and showed lots of detail. Like I'm used to with the (super)elmars.
But, this was a quick test inside the store. Maybe some better tests show different results. I think the elmar is worth it to keep the hopes up.
_julian_ wrote:
(although color-shift may also be related to hot-mirror where the pass-band changes with incidence unlike an absorption filter).
Indeed. Anyone that has shot the M8 with and without an UV/IR filter knows that the filter adds a cast towards the edges, because the filter acts thicker when tilted. IIRC this cast is cyan rather than purple, though.
RustyBug wrote:
Being "not hopeless" is quite different from being the "holy grail" many are/were clamoring for. Realistic expectations @ required/available corrections and tolerances for contending with such seems to be a considerable factor at how folks are assessing the viability of the results.
Imo ... what began as a much anticipated "quest for the best" @ utilization of RF excellence on 24x36, has morphed into "compromise for size" trying to save face for the love of RF with a little bit of the Emperor's Clothes being applied in some instances.
I can't say I read every page of this thread, but I can say I never saw anyone claim it was going to be the holy grail for RF wides. The whole point of the thread was to see which ones would work--if any depending on your standards.
The camera is a total gamechanger, no matter what it does with RF wides, so for sure there has been huge excitement. Add to that the descriptions of the sensor tech and it's "gapless" design--certainly one could hope it might do well.
Then were the very early reports of good performance with the zm18--that got me excited, but I never accepted it as proven. If it is then the idea the A7r doesn't work with RF wides is out the window, and those who've declared that to be the case will have chocolate colored toppings on their sensors.
The "sony fanboy" who sees the "holy grail" is I guess the straw man the mob in here has been beating.
Far as I can tell, this is a fictional character.
But PM me the posts if I have that wrong
I would have guessed the cv 15 might have done better, since it is the sh*t on the 5n, but I certainly never predicted it would or heard anyone else do so. I'm not sure how bad it is yet, an M8 crop might be possible--but I don't own the lens so it doesn't matter to me.
If a 15mm crop can be pulled from the CV 12mm it is hardly "useless"--again we'll have to see on that. The cv21 smearing is no surprise--since it smears a bit on the 5n as well.
I'm still getting used to the tiny pixels---the 100%s are not on the same bar i don't think---it was the same with the nex-7 I always thought. I was never a fan on the nex-7 period--but it's a good camera. The A7r is not a good camera, it's a great camera. It will go down in history like the Nikon F. Now we just have to figure out how to use it.
sebboh wrote:
don't know why, it's not helping them sell any lenses and i doubt it'll have any impact significant impact on their cameras sales either.
Long run this is worst case for Leica. It could be the Zeiss revenge
sebboh wrote:
don't know why, it's not helping them sell any lenses and i doubt it'll have any impact significant impact on their cameras sales either.
Except for maybe that cheap WATE right? There were certainly also a lot of pundits writing about the effect of these Sony's on Leica so it was out there in the press (not just on forums). For users, the fact that the A7's are less than stellar with wide angle rangefinder lenses still means that if you want the most compact FF ILC body for use with wide angle compact lenses, it's still a Leica and not a Sony (and Leica has to be grinning about that after all the A7 press lately). I'm certainly not saying it's a good thing, just that it's a current fact.
..and crying - or maybe not. I would be in their shoes. But maybe you get used to behaving that way.
...and they know they have users that will still put up with that nonsense. They certainly better get their act together but right now, they don't seem to have much to be concerned about (for compact/ wide FF ILC).
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Except for maybe that cheap WATE right? There were certainly also a lot of pundits writing about the effect of these Sony's on Leica so it was out there in the press (not just on forums). For users, the fact that the A7's are less than stellar with wide angle rangefinder lenses still means that if you want the most compact FF ILC body for use with wide angle compact lenses, it's still a Leica and not a Sony (and Leica has to be grinning about that after all the A7 press lately). I'm certainly not saying it's a good thing, just that it's a current fact. ...Show more →
That won't last for very long. I'm sure zeiss will fill out the wide end rather nicely.
