p.10 #1 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
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.
I agree.. I was just offered a Fuji Xe-1 to compare next month. Not FF, but could be a valid comparo
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.
Yeah, I really thought at some point they would start to reconsider and stop being completely off topic, but it seems this will never end.
p.10 #3 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
5% OT... seriously.
Be the change you want to see in the world and contribute something relevant.
Or.. go over to the other topic, which is much less focused and drifting all over the place, and let us continue our examination of corner sharpness, distortion and CA with various lenses on the Alpha compared to other available cameras.
p.10 #4 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
johnvanr wrote:
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.
Very interesting. According to "Fotoingo2":
fotoingo2 wrote:
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.
p.10 #7 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
Makten/Martin has some testshots with Summicron C 40 over HERE, images are 1500 wide (A7). All Swedish but info is below the images. Some of those are on Flickr too, dont know if theyre fullsize though.
BTW, check the ISO8000 (Elmar 90) shot too and look for noise.
p.10 #12 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
wfrank wrote:
Makten/Martin has some testshots with Summicron C 40 over HERE, images are 1500 wide (A7). All Swedish but info is below the images. Some of those are on Flickr too, dont know if theyre fullsize though.
BTW, check the ISO8000 (Elmar 90) shot too and look for noise.
Thank you... those look phenomenal. The ISO 12,800 shots look like ISO 800 from my APS camera. (however it's not clear to me whether these shots were RAW or in camera jpegs (with noise reduction).
EDIT:
Here's the page translated into English via Google:
p.10 #13 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
zmix wrote:
Thank you... those look phenomenal. The ISO 12,800 shots look like ISO 800 from my APS camera. (however it's not clear to me whether these shots were RAW or in camera jpegs (with noise reduction).
EDIT:
Here's the page translated into English via Google:
They are RAW:s, through Adobe DNG converter and then into ACR for PS CS5. Just a tad of luminance noise reduction and a little bit more of color noise reduction.
And yes, the a7 does amazingly good at low light. However, I think there's a bit of cheating with the ISO values (as usual nowadays?). I can't recall that I've had to use such high numbers with my D700 at similar light, but I'm not sure.
Also, note that these two lenses give fairly low contrast (single coated and low correction for spherical aberration), so PP was harsher than you'd need with a modern lens. Which makes the results even more impressive.
Edit: The a7 JPG motor is terrible at high ISO speeds. There are artefacts all over the place and noise is much worse than with my converted DNG:s, even through the "oldish" ACR for PS CS5.
p.10 #16 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
Phillip I love your shots !! They are a VERY welcome departure from the endless "street" we have to endure in mirrorless threads, lol. The earlier deer/lynx pictures were amazing, and I love this early morning stuff as well. Thanks a lot.
p.10 #18 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
Phillip Reeve wrote:
No, I did not.
Maybe I could have gotten sharper trees in the sample image if i had focused a bit farther away?
I assume you didn't re-focus any of the test chart shots for the corners either, which could explain why they're so soft across the board, as any field curvature was revealed by the near distance... while I wouldn't expect SLR lenses to have perfect corners on FF, I was very surprised by your FD 35/2 corner results - compared with e.g. Gary Reese's FDn 35/2 tests :
Aperture Center Corner
f/2 ------- B ------- B-
f/2.8 ------- A- ------- A-
f/4 ------- A ------- A-
f/5.6 ------- A ------- A
f/8 ------- A ------- A-
f/11 ------- A- ------- B+
But who's using FF for wide open sharp corners, anyhow? Thanks for all the tests, and your more usual (beautiful) shots.
p.10 #19 · Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests
alan_m wrote:
I assume you didn't re-focus any of the test chart shots for the corners either, which could explain why they're so soft across the board, as any field curvature was revealed by the near distance... while I wouldn't expect SLR lenses to have perfect corners on FF, I was very surprised by your FD 35/2 corner results - compared with e.g. Gary Reese's FDn 35/2 tests :
Aperture Center Corner
f/2 ------- B ------- B-
f/2.8 ------- A- ------- A-
f/4 ------- A ------- A-
f/5.6 ------- A ------- A
f/8 ------- A ------- A-
f/11 ------- A- ------- B+
But who's using FF for wide open sharp corners, anyhow? Thanks for all the tests, and your more usual (beautiful) shots....Show more →
The FDn Version is a different lens than my FD (last Version, stops down to f/22).
today i tested the Dynamic Range. I have to say that i am impressed. This looks to me like the A7 is much better, more than 2 stops.
I used ISO 100 for all exposures. Nex-6DR by reevedata, on Flickr
