Noodlz79 wrote:
Ahh thanks Phillip! I edited the links so you can click on the title at the bottom of each image
I still can't access the full resolution. Maximum is 2048px wide.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
The 5dII hat much less DR and different colors, in the end I liked them quite a bit. Sony colors are a little less natural I think, but this might also be because of my PP.
Hmm, why should 100% crops of the corners be an indicator of performance for images like these? Cornershaprness doesn't matter for these (or 95% of my images).
I am pretty sure that Sony colours are much more accurate, but the Canon colours fit certain subjects very well. I found that in your landscape images, the Canon browns and greens were muted and lacked subtlety, much preferring the Sony colours.
I asked because the same lenses which showed dark, smeared and unsharp corners on your test were showing sharp, clear corners on some of these images, and I am wondering about the reason for that. I guess it is either focusing distance, or curvature of field.
carstenw wrote:
I asked because the same lenses which showed dark, smeared and unsharp corners on your test were showing sharp, clear corners on some of these images, and I am wondering about the reason for that. I guess it is either focusing distance, or curvature of field.
I think this comes down to 100% crops vs. resized images. An once stopped down the corners weren't that bad. I bet most of your much more expensive WA angles are not that much better at f/8 or f/11.
The corners are still not super sharp (which would be FE55 sharp) but certainly acceptable. The corners were in the shadows so they are rather heavily lifted and they are not 100% in focus so I am not showing any crops here.
Philip, since you have been looking quite closely at aperture series, what is your sense of the presence of diffraction at small apertures in real world images?
philip_pj wrote:
Phillip, since you have been looking quite closely at aperture series, what is your sense of the presence of diffraction at small apertures in real world images?
I concentrated on taking some nice pictures yesterday and did no further testing. Ask me again in a week or so
Just laid my hands on a 35 ZA Waiting for the camera to show up today....
The C/Y 21 is one of the few primes I don't have in the Contax line but I will try to come up with some samples of the 18/4 and 28/2.8 and also the FD 20/2.8 and the MD 20/2.8
Philip. And anyone else. How do you find the a7 compares with the NEX7? This is a key question for me as it is becoming clear that the new cameras are no better with LM mount wide angled lenses than is the NEX range. However, they still have interest for me because they can use legacy SLR manual lenses at their correct focal length without worrying about the issues that affect Biogon type lens designs. That said, I would see little point in upgrading from my NEX 7 unless there is a significant uplift in sensor performance with regard to IQ and low light behaviour. I am also very interested to know if you find the EVF in the A7 to be an improvement on that of the NEX 7, particularly in low light where the NEX7 EVF is pretty poor.
On another matter dpreview has just done a fascinating studio comparison between the a7, a7r, d800 and d7100 in jpeg and raw. There is a large number of iterations both for ISO and for cameras and the widget allows you to focus on different areas of the very comprehensive studio scene for comparisons of absolute behaviour. these are shot with adapted fast 85mm lenses for full frame and 50mm (75 eq) for crop frame, all at f5.6. Unfortunately there is no option to include the NEX-7 but the NEX-6 can be included and has significantly weaker behaviour than the a7(R).. However, I expect that resolution on the NEX-7, with its higher pixel density than even the a7R, would compare very favourably with both new cameras, albeit with a cropped perspective. The jpgs are good but clearly there is a lot of noise reduction going on. The raw files give a much better indication of comparative strengths. Interestingly, in many ways I think this demonstration, admittedly studio testing rather than real life, tends to favour the a7 rather than the a7r. The Canon 5D3 comes out very well, rather better than the D800 in my view. I was also fascinated by the poor comparative performance (in my opinion) of the RX1R across the ISO range to the extent that I wonder whether it has been mis-focused. http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-alpha-7-7r/6
Added comment:
I went to our local stockist and tried out the A7 and have now been able to compare the NEX-7 and A7 with real life photos. Direct comparison is still not possible for me because I have no way presently of converting the A7 raw files and jpg vs jpg may also disguise differing internal algorithms. However it is evident, whether comparing LR4 adjusted Nex7 raw files with A7 jpgs or jpgs from each camera , that the IQ from the A7 is significantly better at mags up to 100% (I saw no point in going further). By comparison the Nex7 files are muddy and lack clarity. I took the comparison photos within 15 minutes of each other and used the Rokkor-M 40/2 CLE at 5.6.
Phillip's work amazing as always (that Sigma 24/2.8 gives pretty impressive rendering), colors bit less (nope its not your fault or PP . About Nikon level colors. Seems nothing beaten NEX-5N so far..
Tho still seems like really fine camera for those going from Nikon FX to something smaller and lighter (and much more alt friendly .
So what's wrong with this lens, as I red, besides a little distortion?
I mean what do you think of it?
All I did with it until now was taking 3 pictures and several test shots, so not enough to have an opinion on it.
The test shots can be found here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1255761
