p.4 #1 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
Tarocco wrote:
Is it really that surprising? The last high resolution sensor that the corners of many of these lenses saw was Velvia 50... Obviously the Sony sensor is a particular challenge but I doubt these lenses would fare much better on a Canon FF sensor. Only side by side comparisons would reveal the truth but the A7/R is the only game in town for short registration FF.
PS edit. Thankyou Phillip for doing this. I cant wait to see the images you create with this amazing little camera.
+1
the expectations of extreme corner performance are hilarious. 36 mp we are talkin extreme extreme extreme corner.
If I was in business selling the bottom right 2% of 1 meter images,, well I'd start out by focusing on that part, at f/8.
Time will tell how the camera works in the real world. Defining it at the moment with so few samples and such a variety of expectations is .......impossible.
There's no forcing an accurate assessment. It's data data data.
Cry about uncertainty, bemoan imperfection, or relish the chance to explore an unprecedented new imaging tool, which may have strengths and weaknesses arranged in way you don't imagine and won't imagine without experience: yours and that of other shooters.
p.4 #2 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
I don't know... I never shot film, but everyone has been talking about how the FF legacy lenses are so wasted on APS-C, and how much better they would be on a FF mirrorless. Turns out perhaps APS-C was severely underrated all along. I'm withdrawing my for sale ad for my NEX7.
douglasf13 wrote:
Agreed. I think many have forgotten how relatively new the idea of corner to corner sharpness is, especially with lenses wider than 50mm.
p.4 #3 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
briantho wrote:
I don't know... I never shot film, but everyone has been talking about how the FF legacy lenses are so wasted on APS-C, and how much better they would be on a FF mirrorless. Turns out perhaps APS-C was severely underrated all along. I'm withdrawing my for sale ad for my NEX7.
I think I feel the same. But lets see how the lenses perform when they are tested at longer distances.
p.4 #4 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
Phillip Reeve wrote:
I think I feel the same. But lets see how the lenses perform when they are tested at longer distances.
have a look see at this site. lots of modern lenses shooting a test chart at close range with corner crops.
if you guys thought you were gonna get a resolution advantage in the corners with the a7 versus the NEX-7 i'm afraid you are bound to be disappointed. this is another part of the reason modern FF lenses have grown so much in size (besides AF). the advantage of FF is narrow dof, cleaner images at each iso, and capturing the "look" of old lenses. also, it makes ultra fast lenses look sharper in the center than they do on aps-c.
p.4 #6 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
uhoh7 wrote:
the expectations of extreme corner performance are hilarious. 36 mp we are talkin extreme extreme extreme corner.
I don't recall anyone saying this, and there was no general consensus in this direction. It sounds like you are pumping up a balloon of your own here, only to pop it. A one-man party.
Cry about uncertainty, bemoan imperfection, or relish the chance to explore an unprecedented new imaging tool, which may have strengths and weaknesses arranged in way you don't imagine and won't imagine without experience: yours and that of other shooters.
Cry? Bemoan? Honestly, you are way off here. Please don't misrepresent what people are saying. Concern about lens performance are highly relevant. After all, many were looking forward to these cameras exactly to give their old lenses new life.
The A7 and A7R are interesting because they combine small form-factor and short register distance, with high-resolution EVF and FF sensor, nothing more. Expecting a photographic revolution to take place is just silly. Good photos were always possible, high DR and high resolution already existed. The main thing which has changed here is convenience and price, neither of which have any connection to photographic output.
p.4 #7 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
It will be interesting to see how you fare in the field, Philip. I think many of the landscape photos you have taken on the NEX7 have been excellent. Hopefully you get some sunlight so we can see if the A7 shines in the DR department. Judging by the dxo mark scores for the NEX7 and a7R there should be no disappointment in this regard. It would be interesting also to see some cropped infinity shots.
And I forgot to add my thanks for your efforts in my earlier post. Labour of love, I'm sure, but still kind to share it with us.
p.4 #8 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
carstenw wrote:
I was expecting them to clear up faster in general, and especially the performance of the kit zoom is highly disappointing. The results of most of these tests are so bad that I wouldn't bother shooting with these lenses at all. What bothers me the most is that not a single of these lenses is great, or even uniformly good. It makes me wonder about the sensor toppings and the strength of the A7R as an alt platform. More results are needed with stronger lenses, but for now I have lowered my expectations. I do hope the A7 is better.
you should remember that the corner crop is a real corner crop from the ~100x100 pixels in the very corner of the frame (please correct me if i'm wrong about this phillip) on a very near test chart. many lenses especially wide angles are never sharp there. i believe you have complained on occasion about your ZF 50/2 MP needing to be stopped down to f/8 or more to get good extreme corners. not sure why you expected great results from a $300 kit zoom either? 4 of the lenses are ones they i own and like, none of those surprise me in this test (well i thought the MC 50/1.4 would be a little worse in the corners at f/1.4 actually).
have you tried a test like this with your favorite lenses on your d800? i suspect if you do you'll find your ZF 50/1.4 and R 35 lux do worse than a few of these lenses even after you downsample to 24mp.
p.4 #9 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
MC/MD 28/2.8 was an average lens back in the day. Look at the Rokkor files and the other old minolta lens test site.
The MC28/2 is a much better lens with more elements and wider front element.
Lenses with floating elements will obviously do better in close range testing like this. Farther distance testing should be much better. We will see.
My adapted ZA135/1.8 was better in the corners at f1.8 than a Canon 135/2L at f2.
Thanks Phillip for all your testing efforts.
I think I like my RX1 better at 35mm FL!
p.4 #10 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
sebboh wrote:
you should remember that the corner crop is a real corner crop from the ~100x100 pixels in the very corner of the frame (please correct me if i'm wrong about this phillip) on a very near test chart. many lenses especially wide angles are never sharp there. i believe you have complained on occasion about your ZF 50/2 MP needing to be stopped down to f/8 or more to get good extreme corners. not sure why you expected great results from a $300 kit zoom either? 4 of the lenses are ones they i own and like, none of those surprise me in this test (well i thought the MC 50/1.4 would be a little worse in the corners at f/1.4 actually).
have you tried a test like this with your favorite lenses on your d800? i suspect if you do you'll find your ZF 50/1.4 and R 35 lux do worse than a few of these lenses even after you downsample to 24mp.
I own a D800 and this is exactly right. I use a 50MP for landscapes and at those distances it is mushy at the extreme edges and only sharpens up into "usable" territory at around f/7.1. It might be better at closer distances since it's likely optimized for macro but I don't use it much for that. There just aren't many lenses on the D800 which are sharp to the edges at large apertures. One notable exception is the 100MP, which I do use for macros+mid distances and it is unbelievably sharp to the extreme edges even at its widest aperture (f/2). The Sigma 35 is also good to the extreme edges but a few stops down from f/1.4.
p.4 #11 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
Hi Phillip, not wanting to hijack the thread i thought i'd post some of mine.
I tested the A7R today, in a quick and not scientific way like Phillip did. So handheld in a decent SS, in a not ideal light (early morning, lots of shadows, before leaving to work). I had to do it, more detailed work will be done in the weekend...
Leica Summicron-C 40/2 @ A7R
shot at MFD and some meters away...
- My Metabones adapter does not reach infinity (DANG!!) thus no pictures at infinity focus
- I see some smearing at the corners, getting better when closed to 5.6
- The lens is MUCH sharper now Much Much better wide open than when mounted on my Olympus E-P2
- The lens has lots of character like i suspected (never used it on FF before!)
p.4 #12 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
sebboh wrote:
you should remember that the corner crop is a real corner crop from the ~100x100 pixels in the very corner of the frame (please correct me if i'm wrong about this phillip) on a very near test chart. many lenses especially wide angles are never sharp there. i believe you have complained on occasion about your ZF 50/2 MP needing to be stopped down to f/8 or more to get good extreme corners. not sure why you expected great results from a $300 kit zoom either? 4 of the lenses are ones they i own and like, none of those surprise me in this test (well i thought the MC 50/1.4 would be a little worse in the corners at f/1.4 actually).
have you tried a test like this with your favorite lenses on your d800? i suspect if you do you'll find your ZF 50/1.4 and R 35 lux do worse than a few of these lenses even after you downsample to 24mp.
I will just note that I performed a similar test like this to check for de-centering on my RX1. Very happy with the results even in the extreme corners.
p.4 #14 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
Interesting point. Would this apply more the A7 which still have the low pass filer or to both the A7 and A7R? If just the non-R camera, then could this mean that the A7R will be better with SLR wides? Interested to hear more thoughts on this. Currently trying to decide between the A7 and A7R so I'd love to hear from Phillip too as he has both (for example how is micro contrast on the A7R vs the A7).
edwardkaraa wrote:
I would like to add to the excellent spot on remarks above the sensor toppings factor. Sony has traditionally used quite thick material so far. The A900 was a disaster in the corners even with highly regarded lenses. It had smearing even with the 135 ZA. I have the feeling they are still using the same glass thickness. Anyhow an infinity test should be very revealing.
p.4 #15 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
Phillip Reeve wrote:
I think I feel the same. But lets see how the lenses perform when they are tested at longer distances.
Thanks Philip for testing! This reminds me of a FD lens test series on the 5N I did some time ago.
One conclusion was e.g. for the FD 24/2.8, that this lens is very good in the center, but at the edge requires stopping down a lot to even keep up with the kit lens at 24 mm: http://luxorphotoart.blogspot.de/2012/04/pixel-peepers-delight-lens-test.html
I did not experience this with the FD35/2.8 or longer lenses like the FD 50/1.4, but this was on APS-C.
Like you, I did a short-distance test at about 2 m.
Recently, I compared the FD24/2.8 at almost infinity again against the kit lens. I even refocussed on the picture edge: The outcome was still the same: Fd24/2.8 even stopped down is visibly worse than the SEL1855 at the edge of the frame. Again, this was on APS-C! So no, I do not think the distance will change the overall result much.
Strangely, it does not matter for landscape pictures taken outside, but inside people shots suffer a lot.
So where does that leave us? I could use the A7 and crop/forget the edges, or instead use a cheaper metabones speedbooster on the 5N to the same effect (SB loses the outer 7 %).
Philip, what is your conclusion? Do you still like the A7 pictures better than the ones from your Nex 6?
p.4 #16 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
ct8282 wrote:
I'm gutted. The A7R is clearly a crap camera and I'm feeling depressed that I will be spending a small fortune on buying one.
What are you talking about? The camera is anything but crap. The camera can not perform better than the lenses but can certainly make images taken with them look better. You may be somewhat depressed that you do not think that your lenses will perform well, but you will have to check them on the camera. With good or great glass, this camera is going to sing.
