Probably the sound won't change much with production units but perhaps blackout and lag may be improved with production firmware. I'm going to check the camera out in person in 2 weeks.
Vancouver area folks, there's a Meetup organized at Broadway Camera in their training centre, Sunday Nov 10; the A7 and A7r and I believe all sorts of other accessories (LEAx adapters, Alpha lenses and such) will be available.
Jeff Kott wrote:
Kirk Tuck seems like a nice enough fellow, but I'm a little suspicious of his "association" with Samsung. He was very high on the Nex 7 and then sold all his Nex stuff when Samsung started sending him gear to use. This is despite the fact that most of the Samsung cameras don't have EVFs after he had been singing the praises of EVFs for several years. My conclusion is he either has some kind of deal with Samsung or is very fickle with his opinions on photo equipment. .
Indeed I remember him praising non-stop the Sony approach; OVF's were dead, EVF's the way of the future. If I recall he really loves gear of all sorts and was often promoting m4/3 even while shooting Sony and buying more Sony product for his own business.
As for one of his comments, I don't get how "airplane mode" is a bad thing. Don't want Wifi or NFC draining your batteries? Shut them off. That's a good thing and serves his self-stated grumpy old man needs.
I find this Alternative Gear forum to be the best source of info on the web. I read the "professional" reviewers for entertainment, but after following them for a while you realize you have to take what they say with a big grain of salt.
In my opinion, Steve Huff and Ron Martinson love everything and they will love it more if you purchase it from their links.
Kirk Tuck and the guy from Sound Image Plus are unbelievably flakey. They totally fall in love with systems and expound their praises only to switch to a different system and never mention their previous love.
Lloyd is actually pretty true to himself with his likes and criticisms and I think he has some great info, but what's important (and unimportant) is often very different from my likes and dislikes. It's unfortunate that he has the multiple door pay wall with different subscriptions for general stuff (DAP), Zeiss, Leica, other mirrorless, etc. Does anyone actually subscribe to all of his different sites?
And Sean Reid - has anyone ever been able to read one of his reviews in the entirety without falling asleep or changing to a different web site. Talk about wordy.
I actually like the way MR at LL reviews camera stuff and feel like he's pretty objective. KR is not worth a full sentence......
Jeff Kott wrote:
Lloyd is actually pretty true to himself with his likes and criticisms and I think he has some great info, but what's important (and unimportant) is often very different from my likes and dislikes. It's unfortunate that he has the multiple door pay wall with different subscriptions for general stuff (DAP), Zeiss, Leica, other mirrorless, etc. Does anyone actually subscribe to all of his different sites?
His problem is he only really photographs one thing (two if you count his bike and doll collection) and his opinions are heavily influenced by the production of the content he shares (or forces you to pay for to see). I have always said that I am very suspicious of people with opinions that don't really share a portfolio or representative sample of their work. Based on that, Chambers is more of a technician with an interest in chasing optical perfection than an artistic photographer.
For a lot of people, that's enough to be satisfied, but part of excelling in an artistic field is the creativity to work around the limitations of your tools (cameras, lenses, strobes, etc) and produce something awesome. I don't get the sense he has the ability to do that compared to many other internet photogs.
zhangyue wrote:
Since I am not technical enough for offer more detail about this topic. I can contribute some of my thoughts into discuss:
1. Floating element: I thought that is for optimizing close focus performance and remove focus shift for fast glass.
2. Since there are two group of lens element move away or toward during focus, the chance the lens operating at its optimized setting with different flange distance is zero or close to zero.
3. Assuming the flange distance is shorter in most case, the infinity reached with adapter on will be equivalent to pass infinity on regular usage. If we assume the lens is designed/optimized at infinity, I can’t imagine the performance won’t get hit.
4. We all know most lens are designed optimized either infinity or other with most fast glass perform better at infinity WO, that means focus distance will affect lens performance, the same apply with flange distance change.
5. During regular shooting, this most likely acceptable depend on certain lens, but once pixel PP, this put a huge disadvantage on adapted lens. I seem remember Lensrental.com have a test confirm this.
This is the exact complain I am having with 50lux as I feel the Leica design is not very practical for long term reliability of use this lens, especially for rangefinder usage.(can't see focus beforehand) I haven’t had any problem since the last time I get my lens back, but it is not rare I found people having problem with this lens.
In that sense, it also can explain why the lens behaves differently over different distance on post above with NEX7. ...Show more →
I want add the shorter flange distance the lens was designed for, the more sensitive to this adapter thickness tolerance. This put Leica M in worst position compare to Canikon, Zeiss legacy lens. This also make sense why we saw so many contradicted results over internet about all the zm, Leica M, Voigtlander, and Contax G lens so far...
All this talk off shimming adapters to get them to work better with floating element lenses has really piqued my curiosity. Can anyone explain, or post a link to an explanation, of how to shim an adapter?
Jeff Kott wrote:
I actually like the way MR at LL reviews camera stuff and feel like he's pretty objective.
Lloyd sure is entertaining when he fires up his opinion generator but no, I've never subscribed. Of all of the above I'd agree MR tends to offer more and better information, more quickly, without dotting each paragraph with !!!!! and at no cost. At the very least he gets the information ball rolling with news on interesting products until folks here start getting their hands on the goods.
Speaking of MR, I'm reminded of this quote from his first hands-on with the A7r: For some photographers (myself included) putting Leica M mount lenses on the Sony A7R may be reason enough to break out a bottle of Veuve Cliquot champagne and celebrate. Using an M to E adapter (I have a Metabones), virtually every Leica M lenses that I own works well on the A7R.
He later went on to highlight very specifically retrofocus rangefinder lens designs as being highly likely to work. I'd concluded previously that MR likely has narrowed his own selection of M lenses to retrofocus designs to minimize problems with the NEX-7, a camera he used for his own personal work not just reviews. I bet he's wishing he didn't invest in APS-C E mount glass now.
No mention of shutter sounds at all.
Reichmann should have a more extensive hands on review of the A7r within a couple weeks if past Sony releases are any indication.
ebrandon wrote:
All this talk off shimming adapters to get them to work better with floating element lenses has really piqued my curiosity. Can anyone explain, or post a link to an explanation, of how to shim an adapter?
I usually just dismantle them and sand down the correct item.
easiest is remove mount, put some paper or plastic shim and put back the mount, or put it between lens mount and adapter. Assume you have good adapter that can reach/pass infinity before the shimmer
p.6 #10 · Sony A7r some full resolution test shots
Based on the specs of this camera will the Zeiss 84 1.4 and the Zeiss 135 1.8 dwarf this body and look very oversized on it? Also will the ZA lenses work without the adapter and autofocus? Considering the Sony with the smaller lower resolution.
I feel like these cameras as almost to what I would love to have:
1) Full frame
2) Auto focus.
3) Lenses that are compatible in size to the camera and keep the benefit of the small system.
4) FIle sizes in the 24mp and under.
5) Fast 1.4 lenses.
6) My setup that would be all I would need is a 35 1.4 and 85 1.4
Fuji is almost there with the 23 1.4 and the upcoming 56 1.2. The size and weight of their system is great but I'm a little concerned about getting to deep into Fuji with the push to full frame and Leica is not an option.
p.6 #11 · Sony A7r some full resolution test shots
Sorry I'm not sure if I tested the af lens with manual focus - which I think was the intent of the original question.
michaelwatkins wrote:
Yay.
Wasn't this a bone of contention with the RX1? The line from Sony at the time was they had to restrict the focus peaking area to provide acceptable performance.
It would seem the new processor has upped the performance ante again.
p.6 #15 · Sony A7r some full resolution test shots
zhangyue wrote:
easiest is remove mount, put some paper or plastic shimmer and put back the mount, or put it between lens mount and adapter. Assume you have good adapter that can reach/pass infinity before the shimmer
I like the idea of plastic because it won't flatten, absorb moisture etc. like paper would. What kind of plastic do you use, and how do you cut it into the shape of a lens mount?
Is there some suitable plastic I can just cut with a knife?
p.6 #16 · Sony A7r some full resolution test shots
ebrandon,
Tinfoil works well too. Sometimes it has taken as much as 8 layers to get the correct flange distance. Paper will work as well, it is compressed behind the adapter mount, so no moisture problems. I usually take the mount off and the cut out the shape to match. The screws are usually quite dainty, so once you have the adapter and shim in position, use a pin to pouch holes for the screws.
p.6 #17 · Sony A7r some full resolution test shots
ebrandon wrote:
I like the idea of plastic because it won't flatten, absorb moisture etc. like paper would. What kind of plastic do you use, and how do you cut it into the shape of a lens mount?
Is there some suitable plastic I can just cut with a knife?
Thanks!
You don't need whole mount, just small piece here and there, as for material, I don't know, I never did that my self.
Maybe a water bottle, yogurt case depend on thickness required.
Carstenw, forgive me the spell error, I am on iPhone and just let it do for whatever I am not sure about spell.
p.6 #18 · Sony A7r some full resolution test shots
zhangyue wrote:
I want add the shorter flange distance the lens was designed for, the more sensitive to this adapter thickness tolerance. This put Leica M in worst position compare to Canikon, Zeiss legacy lens. This also make sense why we saw so many contradicted results over internet about all the zm, Leica M, Voigtlander, and Contax G lens so far...
p.6 #19 · Sony A7r some full resolution test shots
ebrandon wrote:
I like the idea of plastic because it won't flatten, absorb moisture etc. like paper would. What kind of plastic do you use, and how do you cut it into the shape of a lens mount?
Is there some suitable plastic I can just cut with a knife?
Thanks!
Majority of the adapters out there focus past infinity. Most of these would go past only by a little amount. You don't need that thick of a layer. Personally, I use electrical tape since I can easily cut them to the shape I want, and they're thin enough for fine adjustment and durable enough for this kind of job. My Novoflex adapter needed exactly 2 layers to get spot on infinity. The most efficient way is to put the shims at three equi-spacing points.
p.6 #20 · Sony A7r some full resolution test shots
I assume Phillip used this same M-adapter already on some Nex bodies?
And thereby achieved acceptable results?
If true, can the potential need for fine-tuning of adapter flange distance really be the explanation for the weak corner performance of a lens such as the Leica Apo Aspherical 90 F/2?
It should be outstanding, has no FLE and is not a wide lens.
Edit: @ Phillip - 1000x thanks for these efforts, by the way
