Samuli Vahonen wrote:
It's sad that so many old lenses have only 5 or 6 blades - so many great legendary lenses ruined by that. Of course it depends on usage, and in some usage this isn't much of an issue. But regardless it would be nice to see OM 90/2 (and why not OM 50/2) A7/A7r samples.
BTW. As I'm not 100% happy to FE55 rendering style (emphasis on style, not commenting about "performance") also boke quality is quite "iffy" for my taste. I just ordered C/Y 1.4/50 and only thing I'm doubting is the closed down aperture shape due to 6-blade aperture. Not much choices as ZE 1.4/50 is difficult and frustrating to operate on A7 and A7r due to focus shift, ZF version focuses to wrong direction and I really hate MP50 rendering style. Also I would prefer to wait for wide angle OTUS before wasting my last Euros to OTUS-lens...
wfrank wrote:
I dont think you're picky. The A7 is noisier than Canon 5D2 (ancient alert!) at base ISO with default settings in ACR. Easy enough to get rid of with NR but it surprised me and there's always a cost with NR. Not so much for a sky but more so on some structural surface where you'll lose some "organics".
My thanks to you Wilhelm for taking the time to answer what I regarded as a pretty simple question. This level of noise is a disappointment and no doubt the 7R is worse than the 7.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Stass (or anyone else) can you provide sample of some more challenging boke situation - this kind of photo, where background is +20x distance compared to subject is not showing anything else than boke quantity, any lens will do just fine in this kind of scenario - I'm personally more interested about quality.
Sure, will do in the evening (busy at work ATM). But most photos I posted here were with OM 90/2 and OM 50/2.
There some on my flickr:
I will look through other things that I have and post some with more bokeh detail.
Stass, thanks for the links. I already closed computer, will check tomorrow as well as your posting history. I was thinking getting few more OM glass (I currently have 24/2.8, 50/1.7 and 135/3.x), but 90mm f/2 is pretty expensive. Have to check also 85mm f/2, it would be 1/3 or 1/2 of price of 90mm...but 85mm might be also much worse than 90mm. At the moment don't want to spend too much on OM as it's "just" secondary set of "brushes" while I mostly shoot with Zeiss.
Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 1.8/55 ZA @ f/11, 1/50s, A7r @ ISO 100, Carl Zeiss T* Circular Polarizer 58mm
Where can I see the noise comparison on base ISO? I am talking about from the RAW, initial step, anything else comes after. Sry if I put out too loud, I just dont know - and I havent seen e.g Canon "gain" anything in this department from DXO. Rather I always see a consistent lower combined score of each sub category that then builds up to an even lower final score.
Would be interesting to know since that old sensor regularly less noise on things like overcast skies, and anything midtone. This is experience based from a number of years with the 5D2 (many rhousands of shots) and on now 3 months with the A7 (ca 1000 shots now I guess).
wfrank wrote:
Where can I see the noise comparison on base ISO? I am talking about from the RAW, initial step, anything else comes after. Sry if I put out too loud, I just dont know - and I havent seen e.g Canon "gain" anything in this department from DXO. Rather I always see a consistent lower combined score of each sub category that then builds up to an even lower final score.
Would be interesting to know since that old sensor regularly less noise on things like overcast skies, and anything midtone. This is experience based from a number of years with the 5D2 (many rhousands of shots) and on now 3 months with the A7 (ca 1000 shots now I guess).
The DXO SNR data has results for each ISO. Across the full ISO range the A7r has 1/3 stop less noise vs the A7 on a per-area basis. The A7 actually underperforms its 24MP Sony EXMOR peers by the same 1/3 stop (D600, RX1), I'm guessing due to the integration of Sony's first generation on-sensor PDAF sensors.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Stass, thanks for the links. I already closed computer, will check tomorrow as well as your posting history. I was thinking getting few more OM glass (I currently have 24/2.8, 50/1.7 and 135/3.x), but 90mm f/2 is pretty expensive. Have to check also 85mm f/2, it would be 1/3 or 1/2 of price of 90mm...but 85mm might be also much worse than 90mm. At the moment don't want to spend too much on OM as it's "just" secondary set of "brushes" while I mostly shoot with Zeiss.
85/2 is actually great. I like it's bokeh much better than OM 90/2. It's a bit less sharp of course,
does not do macro and flares much easier, but bokeh is unbelievable to my taste. Another one
I like is 21/2 which is also expensive, but amazongly sharp and has a beautiful bokeh as well.
There is also OM 50/1.4 which renders similar to summilux, but of course not that sharp. It's low
contrast is great for black and white though. 50/1.4, 21/2 and 90/2 are the lenses I use and enjoy
most on A7, and my best results came from the first two.
Neither actually. The lens is the Nikon F mount version that i had for my film body (F90x). I used a mechanical adapter, and had to focus manually... Video and Photos... For Landscape and Portrait shots it was ok, but in action shots it was a bit harder... I still managed to get a few good ones but i am now considering to try out an AF option for this range...
Okay I had guessed that you used a Sigma 70-300 OS. This is the only affordable lens with OS and HSM and I think it would be really handy so I am interested in reports on this lens.
lenticular11 wrote:
My thanks to you Wilhelm for taking the time to answer what I regarded as a pretty simple question. This level of noise is a disappointment and no doubt the 7R is worse than the 7.
Perhaps visible noise in your sample images was caused by some sort of post processing or conversion?
Just mounted my Summicron-R 50 and took a test image matching your settings then compared few recent images with captured sky and honestly I am not convinced A7/R is noisy at base ISO. Far from it, in fact.
Gosh it makes me sad about the lovely Zuiko 90 macro; I had a whole host of Zuiko glass and when I moved internationally for a while about 15 years ago I had no darkroom, so I gave up film photography, and didn't really get back into digital for quite a while afterwards.
Anyway my glass was stored in Auckland NZs humid atmosphere, and when I pulled it out a few years later it was all badly fungus ridden: 90mm f2 macro, 50m f2 macro, 24 mm shift, 21mm f3.5 lots more more mainstream glass. Sold it all for a song to a camera store that allegedly would clean it up.
I understand that the A7/A7R cameras will accept Canon lenses. But the adapter costs around $399. Ouch.
If this has been mentioned in an earlier reply, excuse me. I just didn't want to go through over 200 other posts.
Better in color or B&W?
My personal preference is BW! Incredibly striking image! Gotta love the 90 Cron's!
A couple taken today with the A7+Revuenon 55 1.2...
Thanks for looking,
Gregg
Luvwine wrote:
Haven't been shooting much. Here is one that I recently took with a Leica 90/2 at F 5.6 or 8 on A7r. Better in color or B&W?
[fre]
[fra]
lovely image Luvwine - I generally prefer colour, so I'm going to say colour - but in this one - the light seems better managed in the the B&W - the highlights look almost blown in the colour version and it's very yellow. If you could get some more gradation, and maybe turn down the brightness of the yellow , especially on the right side of the road - and the yellow tone generally, then colour. lol - sorry - after all that it sounds like I found nothing but fault with the colour version - I hope you know, it's not like that at all.
Sony manage to destroy their A7's value within 5 month. I can't sell them at current value. I doubt the price will go up ever with A9 A7II coming at this price, I better keep it.
55FE great pop, typical Zeiss and I like it here. Great lens!
Bokeh is very good in this case. it show well corrected optics.
