Taylor Sherman wrote:
Thanks! I think it was WO. I don't mind the funky bokeh for the most part, I might like it better from a different lens but I'd have to see it to know.
Here's one showing the rear window. I haven't seen many of these myself (I'm not sure I've ever seen one in person). Another guy on the sidewalk said he knew the owner of this car, and that it was all original, and local to the area even.
Now we're talking, that's what I call a rear window!
And thanks for the story. I again am not disturbed by the bokeh in that image but possibly because it is dark. There's some noise there but that could be fixed.
Generally my A7 gives me much more noise than expected, starting at base ISO. Honestly I am surprised (comparing to Canon 5D2 which can be made to look more or less noiseless uptil ISO 1600) but so far I attribute that to me going ARW -> DNG -> ACR. But I am not sure, Canon could actually be doing some rights still.
Regarding funky bokehs, the 35/1.2 dont do it for me. When off it is just busy. I guess many of us use these subjective words differently. Michiel here (sculptormic) has skillfully & repeatedly shown super funk from the ancient Leica Summitar 50/2. The better known Rokkor 58/1.2 has it too, but another flavor, slightly more swirly but a tad less funk. Right, we should have a vocabulary sticky around here
wfrank wrote:
...
Generally my A7 gives me much more noise than expected, starting at base ISO. Honestly I am surprised (comparing to Canon 5D2 which can be made to look more or less noiseless uptil ISO 1600) but so far I attribute that to me going ARW -> DNG -> ACR. But I am not sure, Canon could actually be doing some rights still.
...
Why convert to DNG? ACR or Lightroom reads the ARW file directly, converting to DNG doesn't add anything.
I just came back from the Sin City after spending 2 nights - although I took 3 lenses with me but I ended up using only 2; the 55mm f/1.8 "mini Otus" and Leica M 24mm Summilux ASPH, which is the best performing wide angle rangefinder lens in my lineup on the A7r. I noticed that the adapter plays a role in determining the results and this is my third and so far, the best Leica M to Sony E adapter. I am very pleased with the results of both but these are only images taken with the Leica M at aperture between f/2.0 and f/4.
Sad story. The Contax G 28 is excellent on the NEX 5N and it has been shown already that it is no good on the A7('s). I wanted to try myself because of my-lower-than-average threshold. But it failed.
To try it I went to the top of a scenic downtown hill in the neighborhood. Three images and inspection in the screen was enough to tell. But in between #2 and #3 my gloves (not me!) pressed the trigger. An unwanted exposure was registered in the ground gravel lit by a strong low sun.
wfrank wrote:
Generally my A7 gives me much more noise than expected, starting at base ISO. Honestly I am surprised (comparing to Canon 5D2 which can be made to look more or less noiseless uptil ISO 1600) but so far I attribute that to me going ARW -> DNG -> ACR.
I have also noticed that, although I haven't tested for it explicitly yet...
wfrank wrote:
Now we're talking, that's what I call a rear window!
And thanks for the story. I again am not disturbed by the bokeh in that image but possibly because it is dark. There's some noise there but that could be fixed.
Generally my A7 gives me much more noise than expected, starting at base ISO. Honestly I am surprised (comparing to Canon 5D2 which can be made to look more or less noiseless uptil ISO 1600) but so far I attribute that to me going ARW -> DNG -> ACR. But I am not sure, Canon could actually be doing some rights still.
Regarding funky bokehs, the 35/1.2 dont do it for me. When off it is just busy. I guess many of us use these subjective words differently. Michiel here (sculptormic) has skillfully & repeatedly shown super funk from the ancient Leica Summitar 50/2. The better known Rokkor 58/1.2 has it too, but another flavor, slightly more swirly but a tad less funk. Right, we should have a vocabulary sticky around here
Wilhelm, the funny thing is you can make the Summitar look rather smooth. The bokeh, I mean. To make it funky you need certain background and light. Hard to explain.
You are right, the long distance bokeh of the VS 35/1.2 does not look funky but a bit messy, sort of structure less. Swirly gives the bokeh a structure which can be quiet charming, but it doesn't.
I never really noticed the structureless background of the VC 35/1.2. The second car shot, as beautiful as the car is, has it even worth. May be it is my taste but I find it rather distracting and unpleasant to look at.
May be it has something to do with evening lights, I don't know.
That lens always was on my wanting list but not so much now.
Bob, Michiel, you put your 100mm to good use! I've got to learn how to do more with longer lenses. Amusingly, I was testing for "shake" with a 180mm lens I bought but never used, and, even though it was a test shot only, I found it was much nicer than I would have thought...
2014 must be my year of the longer lens, and it will be your fault, guys! My dealer should any day get a 'Cron 75 AA and a 90, and I thought I would get the shorter one because "I would get more shots out of it", but now you maye have to rething this.
Thanks, guys -NOT!
Philippe - in good light and even wide open, I find little issue with getting sharp images. Sure, not every one is a winner but I have not felt that I lose more due to shutter vibration issues. So far, so good at 100mm. Even my Canon 70-200/2.8 with a metabones III works very well. However, this is a bit cumbersome and defeats the purpose for my A7R (compact system). As for size, the Zeiss 100/2MP is as big as I hope to go.
AGeoJo, you are a gret tease! First with this lovely set of shots from Vegas, with the cheapest of lenses. Then with telling us about the best adaptor, but without naming which it is. Will you tell us, pretty please?
philber wrote:
AGeoJo, you are a gret tease! First with this lovely set of shots from Vegas, with the cheapest of lenses. Then with telling us about the best adaptor, but without naming which it is. Will you tell us, pretty please?
Sure, it is not a secret. This is my second flawless Metabones adapter and the other one is for Nikon G. The one for Canon EF is on its way. I would not think that a "dummy" adapter, which is basically like an extension tube, would play any difference whatsoever in rendering of the host lens but somehow it does. Mostly the difference shows up in the edges and corners.
bcaslis wrote:
Why convert to DNG? ACR or Lightroom reads the ARW file directly, converting to DNG doesn't add anything.
I still use Photoshop/ACR CS5 as there are no relevant improvements IQ-wise since then. And I did not get my login/pswd hacked the other month... Supposedly CS6 "natively" supports A7's now so I may need to reconsider. Could improve noise compared to DNG converter but I'd like to see that first.
carstenw wrote:
That is an awesome shot, Wilhelm! I would love to know what that looks like without motion
Thanks Carsten and Michelle!
Carsten, the scene is mundane, available tomorrow too. Observe the shadows from the fence, somewhere there is the answer. Time is 1/60. I'll try 1/30 or 1/15 next time
Sure, it is not a secret. This is my second flawless Metabones adapter and the other one is for Nikon G. The one for Canon EF is on its way. I would not think that a "dummy" adapter, which is basically like an extension tube, would play any difference whatsoever in rendering of the host lens but somehow it does. Mostly the difference shows up in the edges and corners. 
Supposedly CS6 "natively" supports A7's now so I may need to reconsider. Could improve noise compared to DNG converter but I'd like to see that first.