This topic is in the 2013 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2013Bailing on the A7r....
p.4 #1Bailing on the A7r....
Lee Saxon wrote:
.......The A7/r would be really impressive if it was 2010 and this was their first mirrorless, but after 87 iterations of the NEX line and two stabs at the RX1 they really ought to have it together much better than this. Why can't anyone, not even CaNikon, build a mirrorless camera that's as good as a CaNikon DSLR?
FF, 24/36MP, EVF is a pretty big hook. Based on the image thread, it's looking like the camera delivers the goods in the right hands. That said, I agree with your last sentence. I *suspect* it's very much about marketing. Give the consumers of this camera enough to make them happy for now. No need to dole out all the goodies at once, because then the followup will be that much more challenging, especially when considering there is no other competition at the moment. Remember, this is *only* the '7' model. There's bound to be a 3, 5 and 9. 9 is where I'm hoping we'll see much better performance speed, ergonomics, fewer 'hidden' cut corners, etc.
With the big hook we got upfront, it's not surprising there's a bunch of dirt swept under the carpet that is just now being found. Will it diminish potential image quality or the shooting experience? For that we each have to judge based on our own needs.
bpark42 wrote:
Bit depth may or may not allow an inference about whether lossy compression has been applied. In the case of an image being converted to 16 bit tiff from the original raw, the 16 bit channels mean nothing. The original was not 16 bit, so there isn't 16 bits worth of useful information to be had. This doesn't stop the conversion process from stuffing the original data, whether it was 8, 12, or 14 bit, into 16 bits.
On the other hand, if we knew that the original raw only contained 8 bits per channel, then obviously data has been lost,...Show more →
It sounds very much like Sony is using a similar compressed RAW approach to what Leica offers with the M8 and M9... which IIRC, is 8-bit. The M9's uncompressed RAW is in the 34-35MB range, and being 18MP vs. the a7R's 36... yeah there's something going on. That said, having shot compressed RAW with the M9 for certain applications, I'm hard pressed to see any obvious image quality degradation compared to uncompressed... And though I haven't followed it closely, there has been a fair amount of discussion on the Leica boards about whether there is a discernible disadvantage to compressed RAW vs. uncompressed...
As for Lloyd: the difference between him and me when it comes to these reviews is he has a business plan. In hindsight, seeing how popular my early look at the a7 and RF lenses was, it would have been nice to earn a bit more $$$ from the effort that went into it. But definitely thanks to the handful who donated!
JaKo wrote:
Oh, don’t drag Ron Scheffler into this! He seems too nice to be named in this tossing match.
Aw shucks!
.......The A7/r would be really impressive if it was 2010 and this was their first mirrorless, but after 87 iterations of the NEX line and two stabs at the RX1 they really ought to have it together much better than this. Why can't anyone, not even CaNikon, build a mirrorless camera that's as good as a CaNikon DSLR?
FF, 24/36MP, EVF is a pretty big hook. Based on the image thread, it's looking like the camera delivers the goods in the right hands. That said, I agree with your last sentence. I *suspect* it's very much about marketing. Give the consumers of this camera enough to make them happy for now. No need to dole out all the goodies at once, because then the followup will be that much more challenging, especially when considering there is no other competition at the moment. Remember, this is *only* the '7' model. There's bound to be a 3, 5 and 9. 9 is where I'm hoping we'll see much better performance speed, ergonomics, fewer 'hidden' cut corners, etc.
With the big hook we got upfront, it's not surprising there's a bunch of dirt swept under the carpet that is just now being found. Will it diminish potential image quality or the shooting experience? For that we each have to judge based on our own needs.
bpark42 wrote:
Bit depth may or may not allow an inference about whether lossy compression has been applied. In the case of an image being converted to 16 bit tiff from the original raw, the 16 bit channels mean nothing. The original was not 16 bit, so there isn't 16 bits worth of useful information to be had. This doesn't stop the conversion process from stuffing the original data, whether it was 8, 12, or 14 bit, into 16 bits.
On the other hand, if we knew that the original raw only contained 8 bits per channel, then obviously data has been lost,...Show more →
It sounds very much like Sony is using a similar compressed RAW approach to what Leica offers with the M8 and M9... which IIRC, is 8-bit. The M9's uncompressed RAW is in the 34-35MB range, and being 18MP vs. the a7R's 36... yeah there's something going on. That said, having shot compressed RAW with the M9 for certain applications, I'm hard pressed to see any obvious image quality degradation compared to uncompressed... And though I haven't followed it closely, there has been a fair amount of discussion on the Leica boards about whether there is a discernible disadvantage to compressed RAW vs. uncompressed...
As for Lloyd: the difference between him and me when it comes to these reviews is he has a business plan. In hindsight, seeing how popular my early look at the a7 and RF lenses was, it would have been nice to earn a bit more $$$ from the effort that went into it. But definitely thanks to the handful who donated!
JaKo wrote:
Oh, don’t drag Ron Scheffler into this! He seems too nice to be named in this tossing match.
Aw shucks!
Dec 08, 2013 at 10:16 PM
p.4 #2Bailing on the A7r....
I subscribed one year to his mirrorless review area to get info on the E-M5. I found literally nothing in his review I couldn't find on the various forums and had to dig through his rhetoric about how the m43 format was flawed. That was a mistake I won't make again.
If someone want to give him money, fine. But there is absolutely nothing photographic to learn from his writings and his technical evaluations are definitely biased by his own preferences. I have no idea why some seem to think he is some kind of authority.
Back on the original topic, if someone is really interested in a camera, then buy it and try it. But I fail to see the value in the drama tactics on telling the world why the camera isn't good enough for you. There have been lots of spectacular photos taken on cameras less capable than this one.
If someone want to give him money, fine. But there is absolutely nothing photographic to learn from his writings and his technical evaluations are definitely biased by his own preferences. I have no idea why some seem to think he is some kind of authority.
Back on the original topic, if someone is really interested in a camera, then buy it and try it. But I fail to see the value in the drama tactics on telling the world why the camera isn't good enough for you. There have been lots of spectacular photos taken on cameras less capable than this one.
Dec 08, 2013 at 10:21 PM
p.4 #3Bailing on the A7r....
rscheffler wrote:
It sounds very much like Sony is using a similar compressed RAW approach to what Leica offers with the M8 and M9... which IIRC, is 8-bit. The M9's uncompressed RAW is in the 34-35MB range, and being 18MP vs. the a7R's 36... yeah there's something going on. That said, having shot compressed RAW with the M9 for certain applications, I'm hard pressed to see any obvious image quality degradation compared to uncompressed... And though I haven't followed it closely, there has been a fair amount of discussion on the Leica boards about whether there is a discernible disadvantage to compressed...Show more →
The M8 and M9 used a lossy compression vs the M240 which uses a lossless compression. "lossless compression" is not a marketing term, its is an actual compression technique that results in no image degradation over uncompressed.
It sounds very much like Sony is using a similar compressed RAW approach to what Leica offers with the M8 and M9... which IIRC, is 8-bit. The M9's uncompressed RAW is in the 34-35MB range, and being 18MP vs. the a7R's 36... yeah there's something going on. That said, having shot compressed RAW with the M9 for certain applications, I'm hard pressed to see any obvious image quality degradation compared to uncompressed... And though I haven't followed it closely, there has been a fair amount of discussion on the Leica boards about whether there is a discernible disadvantage to compressed...Show more →
The M8 and M9 used a lossy compression vs the M240 which uses a lossless compression. "lossless compression" is not a marketing term, its is an actual compression technique that results in no image degradation over uncompressed.
Dec 08, 2013 at 10:29 PM
p.4 #4Bailing on the A7r....
A7 might be the better choice, but when the A7r hits it, results are rich and deep.
Dec 08, 2013 at 10:36 PM
p.4 #5Bailing on the A7r....
I am still getting the camera. Still giving it a fair shake. Just wanting to see if others are seeing any of the same issues.
I don't look at files at 11x (per pixel) typically but if there is something disturbing at 1x or 2x yes I will look.
The A7r has some issues - (like all cameras) - but knowing where and how hard to look are worth knowing in advance.
The camera isn't the long pole by any means - the tens of thousands of $$$ spent on traveling and hours spent taking photos that won't stand up to the test of time are the real issue.
I don't look at files at 11x (per pixel) typically but if there is something disturbing at 1x or 2x yes I will look.
The A7r has some issues - (like all cameras) - but knowing where and how hard to look are worth knowing in advance.
The camera isn't the long pole by any means - the tens of thousands of $$$ spent on traveling and hours spent taking photos that won't stand up to the test of time are the real issue.
Dec 08, 2013 at 10:36 PM
p.4 #6Bailing on the A7r....
In defense of chambers, whose opinion I never consider, at least he nit picks a real camera. 
Around here one picks the nits till the body is bare....and then one buys it! 
Around here one picks the nits till the body is bare....and then one buys it! Dec 08, 2013 at 10:41 PM
p.4 #7Bailing on the A7r....
MaxBerlin wrote:
We all know that every camera or lens has some compromise or issue. But on the whole Lloyd has been pretty satisfied with the Sigmas, (just need FF and EVF) although he's found a few issues. Same with the D800e, the Ricoh GR and the Sony RX1(s). He is mainly liking the A7 and he was thrilled with the Zeiss APO 135mm and the Otus. (deservedly so)
I do find LC to be a useful resource, but his opinion doesn't hold anymore weight than any other knowledgeable person on the Internet.
You say he likes the Sigmas? It took him a while to come around to that opinion, and only after initially moaning endlessly about the raw conversion headaches, battery life, and ergonomics. He's also been totally irrational about anything Fuji X, complaining that he somehow can't manage to focus the cameras. I think he has opinions that are often worth listening to, but take them with a grain of salt. He's just one voice, and he does also evolve on his opinions over time.
Ditto to whoever it was who took issue with his weird political beliefs. He also has a weird love-hate relationship with Apple products. I'm glad there are cynical people out there who can point out the faults in something so that I don't have to live my life that way
We all know that every camera or lens has some compromise or issue. But on the whole Lloyd has been pretty satisfied with the Sigmas, (just need FF and EVF) although he's found a few issues. Same with the D800e, the Ricoh GR and the Sony RX1(s). He is mainly liking the A7 and he was thrilled with the Zeiss APO 135mm and the Otus. (deservedly so)
I do find LC to be a useful resource, but his opinion doesn't hold anymore weight than any other knowledgeable person on the Internet.
You say he likes the Sigmas? It took him a while to come around to that opinion, and only after initially moaning endlessly about the raw conversion headaches, battery life, and ergonomics. He's also been totally irrational about anything Fuji X, complaining that he somehow can't manage to focus the cameras. I think he has opinions that are often worth listening to, but take them with a grain of salt. He's just one voice, and he does also evolve on his opinions over time.
Ditto to whoever it was who took issue with his weird political beliefs. He also has a weird love-hate relationship with Apple products. I'm glad there are cynical people out there who can point out the faults in something so that I don't have to live my life that way
Dec 08, 2013 at 11:00 PM
p.4 #8Bailing on the A7r....
rscheffler wrote:
It sounds very much like Sony is using a similar compressed RAW approach to what Leica offers with the M8 and M9... which IIRC, is 8-bit. The M9's uncompressed RAW is in the 34-35MB range, and being 18MP vs. the a7R's 36... yeah there's something going on. That said, having shot compressed RAW with the M9 for certain applications, I'm hard pressed to see any obvious image quality degradation compared to uncompressed... And though I haven't followed it closely, there has been a fair amount of discussion on the Leica boards about whether there is a discernible disadvantage to compressed...Show more →
digitalfx wrote:
The M8 and M9 used a lossy compression vs the M240 which uses a lossless compression. "lossless compression" is not a marketing term, its is an actual compression technique that results in no image degradation over uncompressed.
Yes, no doubt there is a quantifiable loss of image information. And I would much prefer the M9 had true lossless compression. That said, is it a visually perceptible loss? At least from my experience with the M9, I can't say I've seen any obvious sign of quality loss. I would guess that there's probably more technical file degradation from personal post production preferences.
Maybe someone will release for the a7/R an equivalent of what has recently been released by an independent software developer for the M8 - a 'true RAW' option: http://m8raw2dng.de
It sounds very much like Sony is using a similar compressed RAW approach to what Leica offers with the M8 and M9... which IIRC, is 8-bit. The M9's uncompressed RAW is in the 34-35MB range, and being 18MP vs. the a7R's 36... yeah there's something going on. That said, having shot compressed RAW with the M9 for certain applications, I'm hard pressed to see any obvious image quality degradation compared to uncompressed... And though I haven't followed it closely, there has been a fair amount of discussion on the Leica boards about whether there is a discernible disadvantage to compressed...Show more →
digitalfx wrote:
The M8 and M9 used a lossy compression vs the M240 which uses a lossless compression. "lossless compression" is not a marketing term, its is an actual compression technique that results in no image degradation over uncompressed.
Yes, no doubt there is a quantifiable loss of image information. And I would much prefer the M9 had true lossless compression. That said, is it a visually perceptible loss? At least from my experience with the M9, I can't say I've seen any obvious sign of quality loss. I would guess that there's probably more technical file degradation from personal post production preferences.
Maybe someone will release for the a7/R an equivalent of what has recently been released by an independent software developer for the M8 - a 'true RAW' option: http://m8raw2dng.de
Dec 08, 2013 at 11:04 PM
p.4 #9Bailing on the A7r....
Lee Saxon wrote:
Why can't anyone, not even CaNikon, build a mirrorless camera that's as good as a CaNikon DSLR?
Maybe because it's not as easy as it sounds? When you're designing an entirely new product line, some details are going to be left out in the first few iterations. That's life.
Also, why can't CaNikon build great live view cameras? Much less of an excuse there, several competitors have already paved the way. Why can't CaNikon build great EVFs? Why can't CaNikon build smaller cameras and lenses? Why can't CaNikon put tilting LCDs on their pro bodies? Why can't Canon build a 36 megapixel camera? Things sure look different if you shift the perspective a bit.
Edited on Dec 08, 2013 at 11:16 PM · View previous versions
Why can't anyone, not even CaNikon, build a mirrorless camera that's as good as a CaNikon DSLR?
Maybe because it's not as easy as it sounds? When you're designing an entirely new product line, some details are going to be left out in the first few iterations. That's life.
Also, why can't CaNikon build great live view cameras? Much less of an excuse there, several competitors have already paved the way. Why can't CaNikon build great EVFs? Why can't CaNikon build smaller cameras and lenses? Why can't CaNikon put tilting LCDs on their pro bodies? Why can't Canon build a 36 megapixel camera? Things sure look different if you shift the perspective a bit.
Edited on Dec 08, 2013 at 11:16 PM · View previous versions
Dec 08, 2013 at 11:08 PM
p.4 #10Bailing on the A7r....
The RAW file compression is interesting and I suspect well beyond anyone here. With respect to varying opinions, a99 and RX1 output (24Mb RAW files) never showed any of the nasty posterised skies often seen in a900 36Mp RAW files..feel free to find anyone with one who has a complaint.
Sony made great strides from the a900, and they simultaneously adopted the pre-existing cRAW compressed format as standard. They also went to 14 bit files, of course this is hotly contested as is compression generally, by nerdy types.
I can only say what I see - much better DR, much cleaner shadows, better tonal transitions in highlights (often quite sublime in fact) and NO posterised skies like the a900 used to surprise me with sometimes, not to mention the sometime blotchy shadows and poor noise characteristics, despite lack of SLT.
So, given the above and the fact they make some of the best sensors on the planet - I trust their judgment. They can sweep dirt of that quality under my image files any day of the week.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3376735#forum-post-50769461
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-rx1/sony-rx1A5.HTM
Sony made great strides from the a900, and they simultaneously adopted the pre-existing cRAW compressed format as standard. They also went to 14 bit files, of course this is hotly contested as is compression generally, by nerdy types.
I can only say what I see - much better DR, much cleaner shadows, better tonal transitions in highlights (often quite sublime in fact) and NO posterised skies like the a900 used to surprise me with sometimes, not to mention the sometime blotchy shadows and poor noise characteristics, despite lack of SLT.
So, given the above and the fact they make some of the best sensors on the planet - I trust their judgment. They can sweep dirt of that quality under my image files any day of the week.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3376735#forum-post-50769461
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-rx1/sony-rx1A5.HTM
Dec 08, 2013 at 11:44 PM
p.4 #11Bailing on the A7r....
millsart wrote:
Who is Lloyd Chambers other than a guy who thinks I should have to pay to read his opinion on the internet ?
I mean, I know his site and that he does reviews, but what are his credentials as a photographer ? Does he have an extensive background in optic design or electrical engineering ?
Well, he did manage the Stanford darkroom while a student:
"Photographic experience
Lloyd is a longtime photographer, having used a wide variety of film formats and lenses including 35mm, 4X5 view camera, 6X7, 645 and 617.
Having learned darkroom technique in high school and later managed the Stanford darkroom while a student, I am glad to be working faster and cleaner with digital!
Diglloyd.com is targeted at photographers seeking objective and high-quality information which can be trusted to make buying decisions, to learn or enhance skills, or to find best-practices for a smooth photographic workflow."
About Lloyd Chambers
Edited on Dec 09, 2013 at 12:01 AM · View previous versions
Who is Lloyd Chambers other than a guy who thinks I should have to pay to read his opinion on the internet ?
I mean, I know his site and that he does reviews, but what are his credentials as a photographer ? Does he have an extensive background in optic design or electrical engineering ?
Well, he did manage the Stanford darkroom while a student:
"Photographic experience
Lloyd is a longtime photographer, having used a wide variety of film formats and lenses including 35mm, 4X5 view camera, 6X7, 645 and 617.
Having learned darkroom technique in high school and later managed the Stanford darkroom while a student, I am glad to be working faster and cleaner with digital!
Diglloyd.com is targeted at photographers seeking objective and high-quality information which can be trusted to make buying decisions, to learn or enhance skills, or to find best-practices for a smooth photographic workflow."
About Lloyd Chambers
Edited on Dec 09, 2013 at 12:01 AM · View previous versions
Dec 09, 2013 at 12:00 AM
p.4 #12Bailing on the A7r....
Hmm, never once did I have an issue with posterized skies via the lossless raw (not cRaw) format with my A900...and I shot a lot of skies. In fact, I would say that camera produces some of the most subtle tonal transitions I have seen this side of medium format digital. NEX 7 - yes, it was certainly an issue.
I don't know that we ever got to the bottom of it but Derek (sebboh) has posted a number of RX1 images in the image thread with varying degrees of posterization in the sky. I do believe it's a possibility that when an RX1 image is pushed in processing, it might reveal artifacts related to Sony's use of cRAW lossy compression. In any case, it would be nice for the user to have the option of lossless raw vs lossy raw (cRaw) as Sony offered in the A900. Perhaps they will give it to us with the A9, though why Sony did not offer it as a selectable option in the A99 is troublesome. I hope they are not just doing away with lossless raw.
In fact, I would say that camera produces some of the most subtle tonal transitions I have seen this side of medium format digital. NEX 7 - yes, it was certainly an issue.I don't know that we ever got to the bottom of it but Derek (sebboh) has posted a number of RX1 images in the image thread with varying degrees of posterization in the sky. I do believe it's a possibility that when an RX1 image is pushed in processing, it might reveal artifacts related to Sony's use of cRAW lossy compression. In any case, it would be nice for the user to have the option of lossless raw vs lossy raw (cRaw) as Sony offered in the A900. Perhaps they will give it to us with the A9, though why Sony did not offer it as a selectable option in the A99 is troublesome. I hope they are not just doing away with lossless raw.
Dec 09, 2013 at 12:01 AM
p.4 #13Bailing on the A7r....
I have to wonder what you are comparing to.
1. The D800 (D800E)? OK, Reasonable. Both 800's are just really big. If you can stand the size... these are actually better options all things considered. The lens options (without all the issues) make this system hard to beat. Admittedly, the size of this system is not ideal. Keep in mind... the A7r does not beat a D800 in image quality.
2. The RX1? Fixed 35mm lens. Great camera and lens. It is just limited.
3. Almost any other camera? Accept lower dynamic range and less resolution and you are fine.
This is all pretty easy stuff to understand.
The A7 and A7r have one fatal flaw for now. There are no ultra-wides that work well except the huge Nikon (with adapter) 14-24. A few other DSLR lenses (with adapters) also come to mind. The Leicas, Zeiss and V RF lenses just have too many color and vignetting issues at the corners to be useful. The Sony 10-18 is "barely useable" but you have to crop before you are done. Messy.
What a difference full frame makes.
While I am ranting... DXO makes the best RAW workflow. It is second to none. I use Photoshop AFTER I do the 1st pass in DXO Optics Pro. If you haven't tried DXO... you need to.
BTW... I like the A7r. But I won't REALLY love it until I have an ultra wide option that is a bit smaller than the 14-24 with an adapter. The camera is terrific. The lens options are not... yet.
1. The D800 (D800E)? OK, Reasonable. Both 800's are just really big. If you can stand the size... these are actually better options all things considered. The lens options (without all the issues) make this system hard to beat. Admittedly, the size of this system is not ideal. Keep in mind... the A7r does not beat a D800 in image quality.
2. The RX1? Fixed 35mm lens. Great camera and lens. It is just limited.
3. Almost any other camera? Accept lower dynamic range and less resolution and you are fine.
This is all pretty easy stuff to understand.
The A7 and A7r have one fatal flaw for now. There are no ultra-wides that work well except the huge Nikon (with adapter) 14-24. A few other DSLR lenses (with adapters) also come to mind. The Leicas, Zeiss and V RF lenses just have too many color and vignetting issues at the corners to be useful. The Sony 10-18 is "barely useable" but you have to crop before you are done. Messy.
What a difference full frame makes.
While I am ranting... DXO makes the best RAW workflow. It is second to none. I use Photoshop AFTER I do the 1st pass in DXO Optics Pro. If you haven't tried DXO... you need to.
BTW... I like the A7r. But I won't REALLY love it until I have an ultra wide option that is a bit smaller than the 14-24 with an adapter. The camera is terrific. The lens options are not... yet.
Dec 09, 2013 at 12:11 AM
p.4 #14Bailing on the A7r....
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I don't know that we ever got to the bottom of it but Derek (sebboh) has posted a number of RX1 images in the image thread with varying degrees of posterization in the sky. I do believe it's a possibility that when an RX1 image is pushed in processing, it might reveal artifacts related to Sony's use of cRAW lossy compression. In any case, it would be nice for the user to have the option of lossless raw vs lossy raw (cRaw) as Sony offered in the A900. Perhaps they will give it to us with the A9, though...Show more →
i have seen posterization quite a bit, but i don't believe i've ever seen it without doing something drastic in post (something so drastic that most other cameras would have had more issues than just posterization). i'll have to dig through and look at the original versions of some egregious examples.
also, i think most of the posterization example i've posted are actually due to the way adobe executes dual toning – there seems to be a crossover zone between highlights and shadows where the colors for both are applied to the same pixels.
spieden wrote:
While I am ranting... DXO makes the best RAW workflow. It is second to none. I use Photoshop AFTER I do the 1st pass in DXO Optics Pro. If you haven't tried DXO... you need to.
what is so great about it out of curiosity?
I don't know that we ever got to the bottom of it but Derek (sebboh) has posted a number of RX1 images in the image thread with varying degrees of posterization in the sky. I do believe it's a possibility that when an RX1 image is pushed in processing, it might reveal artifacts related to Sony's use of cRAW lossy compression. In any case, it would be nice for the user to have the option of lossless raw vs lossy raw (cRaw) as Sony offered in the A900. Perhaps they will give it to us with the A9, though...Show more →
i have seen posterization quite a bit, but i don't believe i've ever seen it without doing something drastic in post (something so drastic that most other cameras would have had more issues than just posterization). i'll have to dig through and look at the original versions of some egregious examples.
also, i think most of the posterization example i've posted are actually due to the way adobe executes dual toning – there seems to be a crossover zone between highlights and shadows where the colors for both are applied to the same pixels.
spieden wrote:
While I am ranting... DXO makes the best RAW workflow. It is second to none. I use Photoshop AFTER I do the 1st pass in DXO Optics Pro. If you haven't tried DXO... you need to.
what is so great about it out of curiosity?
Dec 09, 2013 at 12:28 AM
p.4 #15Bailing on the A7r....
As to Max bailing on the A7R, that is probably the best that any manufacturer can hope for. Expecting that any product will satisfy all self-proclamed reviewers and experts on the Internet is a fool's errand.
And his not buying a camera because of how it won't perform sounds perfectly logical, except that should be posted on a forum about not taking pictures.
As for me, I am preparing to go out and shoot some real pics.
Enjoy!
And his not buying a camera because of how it won't perform sounds perfectly logical, except that should be posted on a forum about not taking pictures.
As for me, I am preparing to go out and shoot some real pics.
Enjoy!
Dec 09, 2013 at 12:30 AM
p.4 #16Bailing on the A7r....
spieden wrote:
.. I like the A7r. But I won't REALLY love it until I have an ultra wide option that is a bit smaller than the 14-24 with an adapter. The camera is terrific. The lens options are not... yet.
The Leica Tri Elmar WATE
.. I like the A7r. But I won't REALLY love it until I have an ultra wide option that is a bit smaller than the 14-24 with an adapter. The camera is terrific. The lens options are not... yet.
The Leica Tri Elmar WATE
Dec 09, 2013 at 12:34 AM
p.4 #17Bailing on the A7r....
what is so great about it out of curiosity?
DXO has the absolute best inline NR known to man. See PRIME.
It also has the very best color and perspective control.
I have tried Capture (name a number) One, Lightroom, Aperture and Camera RAW. None comes close to DXO Optics Pro.
Dec 09, 2013 at 12:34 AM
p.4 #18Bailing on the A7r....
digitalfx wrote:
The Leica Tri Elmar WATE
Really? You consider this the solution?
spieden wrote
.. I like the A7r. But I won't REALLY love it until I have an ultra wide option that is a bit smaller than the 14-24 with an adapter. The camera is terrific. The lens options are not... yet.Really? You consider this the solution?
Dec 09, 2013 at 12:55 AM
p.4 #19Bailing on the A7r....
OK... I get it. The Sony A7r uses the same sensor technology (Sony) as the Nikon D800 and has the same DXO scores (95).
The problem is the lenses.
The A7 system, by using adapters, gives you several lens options and a wickedly small camera body. This is great.
But let's get real for a minute. The lens options are a problem. The ultra wides have serious issues.
Compare to the larger sized D800. The DXO scores are the same except the Nikon lenses actually work with the D800, including everything... starting with the 14-24 and ending with the 800mm.
I'd love for the A7 (A7r) to take over. Just give me lenses that don't have issues.
The problem is the lenses.
The A7 system, by using adapters, gives you several lens options and a wickedly small camera body. This is great.
But let's get real for a minute. The lens options are a problem. The ultra wides have serious issues.
Compare to the larger sized D800. The DXO scores are the same except the Nikon lenses actually work with the D800, including everything... starting with the 14-24 and ending with the 800mm.
I'd love for the A7 (A7r) to take over. Just give me lenses that don't have issues.
Dec 09, 2013 at 01:08 AM
p.4 #20Bailing on the A7r....
digitalfx wrote:
If you based your decision on reviews alone you would never buy anything. Withhold your comments until you own the camera.
Ive had mine for a week and its defiantly a love hate relationship. At first I hated it, mostly based on what I read. But the more I use the camera the more I like it. Ive nearly returned it twice. Does it have flaws? of course it does. Have you ever owned a perfect camera? A perfect camera simply doesn't exist.
I am primarily a rangefinder shooter and use a M240 as my primary camera and a 5D3...Show more →
Love/hate for me too, coming from the N7 that I just plain LOVE. To top that my A7 unit has a wonky WB module that spreads a nasty greenish/amber (no magenta here) on *everything* in every WB setting, but I'm getting a replacement unit because the DR and overall IQ of that thing is not easily given up. Don't take anybody's word for it, try your own. The fact that Sony does NOT provide a useful, or even decent user manual, sure doesn't help. I'm discovering little things everyday (had it a week) about the camera that make me bond with it a bit more. Sure, I still HATE the central EVF, I might even never be able to get used to it, but that's one sweet camera overall, you should at least give it a spin.
If you based your decision on reviews alone you would never buy anything. Withhold your comments until you own the camera.
Ive had mine for a week and its defiantly a love hate relationship. At first I hated it, mostly based on what I read. But the more I use the camera the more I like it. Ive nearly returned it twice. Does it have flaws? of course it does. Have you ever owned a perfect camera? A perfect camera simply doesn't exist.
I am primarily a rangefinder shooter and use a M240 as my primary camera and a 5D3...Show more →
Love/hate for me too, coming from the N7 that I just plain LOVE. To top that my A7 unit has a wonky WB module that spreads a nasty greenish/amber (no magenta here) on *everything* in every WB setting, but I'm getting a replacement unit because the DR and overall IQ of that thing is not easily given up. Don't take anybody's word for it, try your own. The fact that Sony does NOT provide a useful, or even decent user manual, sure doesn't help. I'm discovering little things everyday (had it a week) about the camera that make me bond with it a bit more. Sure, I still HATE the central EVF, I might even never be able to get used to it, but that's one sweet camera overall, you should at least give it a spin.
Dec 09, 2013 at 01:47 AM