My (brief) experience with a 50 Lux on an NEX7 surprised me when the AWB changed substantially at f/1.4 -- in the screencap above, I was taking some lovely photos of brick walls at different apertures, and noticed that the f/1.4 shots were always a different color because at f/1.4 the camera would always pick a different (warmer) AWB.
So, if I am understanding "magenta cast" correctly, that's a property of the lens, not the camera.
The Nex has horrible corners and noticeable loss of sharpness compared to the Ricoh.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
I think you got many things wrong. Colorshift or Magenta Hue as you call it is not related to CA, my Zeiss Biogn 28 for example shows really litte CA but some Colorshift. The Minolta MD 2.8/28 has a lot more CA but no Colorshift.
I don't think I got "many things wrong" Phillip. ...
"There are two types of chromatic aberration: axial (longitudinal), and transverse (lateral). Axial aberration occurs when different wavelengths of light are focused at different distances from the lens, i.e., different points on the optical axis (focus shift). Transverse aberration occurs when different wavelengths are focused at different positions in the focal plane (because the magnification and/or distortion of the lens also varies with wavelength; indicated in graphs as (change in) focus length). The acronym LCA is used, but ambiguous, and may refer to either longitudinal or lateral CA; for clarity, this article uses "axial" (shift in the direction of the optical axis) and "transverse" (shift perpendicular to the optical axis, in the plane of the sensor or film)."
"There are two types of chromatic aberration: axial (longitudinal), and transverse (lateral). Axial aberration occurs when different wavelengths of light are focused at different distances from the lens, i.e., different points on the optical axis (focus shift). Transverse aberration occurs when different wavelengths are focused at different positions in the focal plane (because the magnification and/or distortion of the lens also varies with wavelength; indicated in graphs as (change in) focus length). The acronym LCA is used, but ambiguous, and may refer to either longitudinal or lateral CA; for clarity, this article uses "axial" (shift in the direction of the optical axis) and "transverse" (shift perpendicular to the optical axis, in the plane of the sensor or film)." ...Show more →
Now you are mixing two problems:
1) Cornersmearing which only happens with symmetrical wide angel lenses like the CV15 or G28. The Sony A7 performs rather bad here, true.
2) Unsharp corners in general. The A7 will produce as sharp corners as a Nikon D600 or Canon 5d 2/3 with the same lenses.
p.9 #5 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
Sorry to disturb you but could we go back to topic ?
All this technical stuff has been written down a hundred times in other A7/R threads and many other mirrorless threads too.
I uploaded 2 pictures taken with the Summilux 50mm Asph @ 1.4 @ ISO 2000 with the A7 + A7R.
Cant see too much difference in the files but maybe you see something more
p.9 #7 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
Ooops, sorry for continuing the off topic commentary, started this earlier and only just pressed the post key.
zmix wrote:
Ricoh attribute this to a series of "micro lenses" over the sensor, optimized for Leica RF lenses. I suppose a generic mount like the Sony E adapted to Leica M couldn't be expected to provide such specific performance goals. As they say "Jack of all trades, master of none".
Not quite apropos... the A7/r cameras are master of their own domain. Native glass delivers on the cameras as one would expect. SLR/DSLR lenses generally look like solid bets but perhaps there'll be exceptions. And select RF glass should do very well.
Let's not forget the Ricoh GXR/M (I've been shooting one for some time now) is only a 12.3MP APS-C sensor. Certainly the format plays a big role in perceptions of performance. Chop off the ugly bits and everything looks better, simple as that.
As for micro-lenses being attributed as the basis for improved performance, I might be forgetting some GXR/M lore but my recollection from group discussion that sensor toppings - the lack of an AA filter and other factors - were given credit to the GXR/M's performance.
Myself I don't attribute great engineering to the GXR/M so much as bog-standard industry progress and available, almost off-the-shelf, parts. I'm not suggesting that Ricoh played no role in producing a good camera only that given the parameters - an already dated 12.3MP sensor whose properties were well known, and an APS-C crop, Zeiss pronouncements on astigmatism being largely the fault of sensor toppings and in particular AA filters on the sensors of that day, Ricoh could call up Sony and order what they wanted without doing a lot of heavy lifting.
Given the Ricoh GXR/M camera module couldn't have been expected to be a runaway hit, they would not have invested a ton of engineering into it, no more so than any other module and, bonus, they didn't need to design a lens system for it.
I'd love to spend a day with the Alpha 7 or 7r to see how it performs with my selection of LTM and M lenses
I hope you get the chance. Take some tissue paper with you though, just in case!
While I like the GXR/M very much, I can think of many reasons to want to switch beyond just getting back from APS-C crop limitations the original field of view and depth of field properties of full frame lenses. The GXR isn't a "fast" camera, which holds it back. The sensor while great for its day, quickly suffers as sensitivity is jacked up. 12.3MP might be "enough" but a modern 36MP sensor provides a noticeable difference even in prints let alone pixel peeping albeit not merely for resolution reasons alone.
Sadly, Ricoh appears unlikely to follow up the GXR and GXR/M module with another such experiment going forward. I'd surely be interested in buying one if they were, although not blindly without reservation. That I save for my Sony purchases. (kidding)
p.9 #8 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
Phillip Reeve wrote:
Now you are mixing two problems:
1) Cornersmearing which only happens with symmetrical wide angel lenses like the CV15 or G28. The Sony A7 performs rather bad here, true.
2) Unsharp corners in general. The A7 will produce as sharp corners as a Nikon D600 or Canon 5d 2/3 with the same lenses.
Regarding CA: You did not respond to my argument.
I guess I didn't realize that you had stated an argument, but I would like to address it, perhaps you could clarify your point of view beyond stating that you thought I had gotten "many things wrong".
In my initial response, I was actually pointing out several separate issues with the Alpha and Nex series cameras and attributing them to their specific causes, not "mixing two problems", as you contend, Phillip
Allow me to address two of my points separately:
Problem 1
Distortion and blurring in the corners.
This is a serious problem on both the Alpha 7 and the NEX series cameras. Ricoh designed a layer of micro lenses to correct this on the A12 (M-mount) module. They have different modules for their own lenses (which include their own sensors in a sealed module). The RF dedicated A12 module has been wonderful for the Leica user. It is unlikely that Sony will address this issue for the reason stated earlier in this thread: they are interested in selling new lenses.
Problem 2: Magenta Hue, (as one poster here named it regarding his Summilux) is the result of spherical chromaticism. This is a function of the lens, and as I showed in my examples, can even be reproduced by the Leica - optimized Ricoh GXR. As I demonstrated by my tests, it occurs across the entire field, not just at the edges as you would find with the more common "CA"
I'm certain I wold be very upset and disappointed if I had bought the Alpha 7 and discovered the issues you have bravely revealed here, Phillip. This thread has been a great resource of possible solutions and other issues (as well as a wealth of misinformation and speculation, but hey - it's the internet!). Let's hope it continues in a collaborative vein.
p.9 #9 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
zmix wrote:
Problem 1
Distortion and blurring in the corners.
This is a serious problem on both the Alpha 7 and the NEX series cameras. Ricoh designed a layer of micro lenses to correct this on the A12 (M-mount) module. They have different modules (which include sensors) for their own lenses. It's been a great service to the Leica user. It is unlikely that Sony will address this issue, for the reason stated earlier in this thread: they are interested in selling new lenses.
Problem 2: Magenta Hue, (as one poster here named it regarding his Summilux) is the result of spherical chromaticism. This is a function of the lens, and as I showed in my examples, can even be reproduced by the Leica - optimized Ricoh GXR. As I demonstrated by my tests, it occurs across the entire field, not just at the edges as you would find with the more common "CA"
I'm certain I wold be very upset and disappointed if I had bought the Alpha 7 and discovered the issues you have bravely revealed here, Phillip. This thread has been a great resource of possible solutions and other issues (as well as a wealth of misinformation and speculation, but hey - it's the internet!). Let's hope it continues in a collaborative vein. ...Show more →
It is a common misconception that special micro lenses improve corner blurring. Offset or optimized microlenses improve sensitivity by directing the light into the pixel well, which is particularly important with more symmetrical lens designs, but they are not related to blurring in the corners. It is the sensor toppings on top of the micro lenses that cause corner blurring, and the GXR apparently has a filter stack (with no AA filter) that is designed to handle this.
You'll notice that Ricoh only speaks of peripheral illumination when speaking about micro lenses, not corner blurring: "The adoption of a CMOS sensor with an optimized micro lens layout makes it possible to secure sufficient brightness levels even in the peripheral areas of the image."
Oddly enough, offset micro lenses can actually make the magenta hue that you speak of worse, as mentioned by Joakim: link
p.9 #10 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
michaelwatkins wrote:
the A7/r cameras are master of their own domain. Native glass delivers on the cameras as one would expect. SLR/DSLR lenses generally look like solid bets but perhaps there'll be exceptions. And select RF glass should do very well.
Excellent point. I bought my first digital camera in January (the Ricoh GXR), up till then it was all Leica Ms and Leica IIIs. I wanted my "Look" in digital, so the Leica mount A12 sensor for the GXR was a no-brainer. The issues with the NEX were shocking next to the GXR, and I've not been unhappy with the results. I don't want to start again with new lenses... I've got over 15 Leica lenses already...!
michaelwatkins wrote:
Let's not forget the Ricoh GXR/M (I've been shooting one for some time now) is only a 12.3MP APS-C sensor. Certainly the format plays a big role in perceptions of performance. Chop off the ugly bits and everything looks better, simple as that.
As for micro-lenses being attributed as the basis for improved performance, I might be forgetting some GXR/M lore but my recollection from group discussion that sensor toppings - the lack of an AA filter and other factors - were given credit to the GXR/M's performance
Myself I don't attribute great engineering to the GXR/M so much as bog-standard industry progress and available, almost off-the-shelf, parts. I'm not suggesting that Ricoh played no role in producing a good camera only that given the parameters - an already dated 12.3MP sensor whose properties were well known, and an APS-C crop, Zeiss pronouncements on astigmatism being largely the fault of sensor toppings and in particular AA filters on the sensors of that day, Ricoh could call up Sony and order what they wanted without doing a lot of heavy lifting.....Show more →
Well, I'll counter that with two words: "Daido Moriyama". He's the most famous fine art photographer in Japan and the GR series was made for him. I've shown the GXR to professional Fuji X-pro and Oly Pen users and they have commented that the GXR was obviously NOT designed for an amateur...
Not to rehash, but the APS / FF equivalent pixel count mentioned on this thread puts the Alpha 7 at 10MP and the Alpha 7R at 16MP... Not a pixel peeper, so the 12.3MP isn't an issue.. I used to shoot only Tri-X and soup it in Rodinol, so 1/8th second shutter speeds, grain and noise are a part of my "look"
michaelwatkins wrote:
Given the Ricoh GXR/M camera module couldn't have been expected to be a runaway hit, they would not have invested a ton of engineering into it, no more so than any other module and, bonus, they didn't need to design a lens system for it.
I hope you get the chance. Take some tissue paper with you though, just in case!
While I like the GXR/M very much, I can think of many reasons to want to switch beyond just getting back from APS-C crop limitations the original field of view and depth of field properties of full frame lenses. The GXR isn't a "fast" camera, which holds it back. The sensor while great for its day, quickly suffers as sensitivity is jacked up. 12.3MP might be "enough" but a modern 36MP sensor provides a noticeable difference even in prints let alone pixel peeping albeit not merely for resolution reasons alone.
Sadly, Ricoh appears unlikely to follow up the GXR and GXR/M module with another such experiment going forward. I'd surely be interested in buying one if they were, although not blindly without reservation. That I save for my Sony purchases. (kidding)...Show more →
I hear you... maybe the Leica Monochrom is the only thing..
p.9 #11 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
douglasf13 wrote:
It is a common misconception that special micro lenses improve corner blurring. Offset or optimized microlenses improve sensitivity by directing the light into the pixel well, which is particularly important with more symmetrical lens designs, but they are not related to blurring in the corners. It is the sensor toppings on top of the micro lenses that cause corner blurring, and the GXR apparently has a filter stack (with no AA filter) that is designed to handle this.
You'll notice that Ricoh only speaks of peripheral illumination when speaking about micro lenses, not corner blurring: "The adoption of a CMOS sensor with an optimized micro lens layout makes it possible to secure sufficient brightness levels even in the peripheral areas of the image."
Oddly enough, offset micro lenses can actually make the magenta hue that you speak of worse, as mentioned by Joakim: link ...Show more →
Thanks for the reply Douglas. I've dug into the corners of images created on my GXR with all of my lenses from the weird 1930 design Zeiss biogon, largely considered incompatible with modern digital cameras due to it's non retrofocus design, large rear element and small distance between the rear element and the sensor (as seen here), and all of my Leica 50s, 90s, etc, to my newest lens, the Zeiss ZM 25mm f/2.8, , ) and not seen any chromatic aberration or blur, or vignetting, so whatever they're dong it's working!
p.9 #12 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
As Douglas said, the GXR-M sensor is APS-C and only 12mp. If Ricoh had released a 36mp full frame M module ( I hope they will, some day ) with the same design that the current 12Mp. APS-C, I bet that we would have seen more color shift and possibly some smearing.
To be fair, I can testify that there was visible color vigneting with the Ricoh GXR and my CV 15/4.5 and Zeiss ZM 25/2.8. Even the ZM35/2 exhibited very mild purplish corners.
As a matter of fact, there's a option in the menu for applying in-camera correction for corner color shading, as you will surely know.
On the other part I agree that, in the smeared or blurred corners question, the GXR-M is flawless.
p.9 #13 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
Hasn't this thread gone completely off-topic? I thought it was supposed to be about a7 impressions and tests and personally have no interest whatsoever in reading about a Richoh GXR. With respect this ancillary stuff is clogging everything up and should be discussed elsewhere in this forum, on a separate thread if necessary.
p.9 #14 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
waterden wrote:
Hasn't this thread gone completely off-topic? I thought it was supposed to be about a7 impressions and tests and personally have no interest whatsoever in reading about a Richoh GXR. With respect this ancillary stuff is clogging everything up and should be discussed elsewhere in this forum, on a separate thread if necessary.
p.9 #15 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
waterden wrote:
Hasn't this thread gone completely off-topic? I thought it was supposed to be about a7 impressions and tests and personally have no interest whatsoever in reading about a Richoh GXR. With respect this ancillary stuff is clogging everything up and should be discussed elsewhere in this forum, on a separate thread if necessary.
Personally, I welcome the comparison to GXR. I think to understand the behavior of M lenses on the new Sony bodies, it helps to consider the behavior of M lenses on other bodies.
turnstyle wrote:
Personally, I welcome the comparison to GXR. I think to understand the behavior of M lenses on the new Sony bodies, it helps to consider the behavior of M lenses on other bodies.
p.9 #17 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
artur5 wrote:
As Douglas said, the GXR-M sensor is APS-C and only 12mp. If Ricoh had released a 36mp full frame M module ( I hope they will, some day ) with the same design that the current 12Mp. APS-C, I bet that we would have seen more color shift and possibly some smearing.
To be fair, I can testify that there was visible color vigneting with the Ricoh GXR and my CV 15/4.5 and Zeiss ZM 25/2.8. Even the ZM35/2 exhibited very mild purplish corners.
As a matter of fact, there's a option in the menu for applying in-camera correction for corner color shading, as you will surely know.
On the other part I agree that, in the smeared or blurred corners question, the GXR-M is flawless. ...Show more →
Oh yes the C/V 15mm...!! I forgot that I had borrowed one from my brother this summer. It had some slight vignetting.. I'll have to dig through those RAW files... nice lens, though!
p.9 #18 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
My conclusions so far :
Corner smearing is the same with the A7 and A7R.
Colour cast ist much higher on the A7R!
Chromatic Aberations are higher on the A7R !
Tested this on both production cams with an
Leica Elmar-M 24mm f3.8
Contax G 28mm 2.8
Contax G 35mm 2.0
Leica Summilux Asph 35mm 1.4 non-fle
and longer lenses.
this thread lurched off into Ricoh pining and may never escape. It would help others if you could humour readers with the specifics about the lenses - good enough or not, for example - except the day has a good adjective, so you have a bloody beauty too, mate.
p.9 #20 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
snowboarder wrote:
I started having serious doubts when Huff clearly avoided the subject. He mentioned how great it is, but he didn't post any shot with a Leica lens wider than 50mm, he only posted a couple of CV shots and then started claiming he "covered" the subject extensively. Something smelly for sure....
I will be fine if I can use my 28R, 50 Lux, 90 APO and 135 Telyt on it + CV 125 APO and a couple of other R lenses.
I will later replace my wider M lenses with a native Zeiss "solution" and I will be all set.
I think at some point he said wide angle third party lenses didn't do so well. He also said to get the A7 over the A7r for third-party lenses, but Sony told me at PPE that the r is much better suited for other lenses.
