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.7 #1Bailing on the A7r....
spieden wrote:
The Leica Tri Elmar WATE 
Really? You consider this the solution?
It is an option, and from the images I have seen with the WATE and A7R the combo is pretty sweet.
What is the problem?
http://3d-kraft.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=148:ultra-wide-angle-m-mount-lenses-on-sony-a7r&catid=40:camerasandlenses&Itemid=2
Edited on Dec 09, 2013 at 01:45 PM · View previous versions
digitalfx wrote
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.It is an option, and from the images I have seen with the WATE and A7R the combo is pretty sweet.
What is the problem?
http://3d-kraft.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=148:ultra-wide-angle-m-mount-lenses-on-sony-a7r&catid=40:camerasandlenses&Itemid=2
Edited on Dec 09, 2013 at 01:45 PM · View previous versions
Dec 09, 2013 at 01:32 PM
p.7 #2Bailing on the A7r....
MaxBerlin wrote:
A second image - (as a note - no variations on PP could duplicate the A7r banding) I suspect the orange peel can be exacerbated by sharpening (which I primarily leave out of my workstream)
http://i42./2h80nr9.jpg
Wow... I am sorry to ventured into this thread. I don't think I have ever look so closely at an image. I guess I never had a dream to grow up as a mad camera scientist.
A second image - (as a note - no variations on PP could duplicate the A7r banding) I suspect the orange peel can be exacerbated by sharpening (which I primarily leave out of my workstream)
http://i42./2h80nr9.jpg
Wow... I am sorry to ventured into this thread. I don't think I have ever look so closely at an image. I guess I never had a dream to grow up as a mad camera scientist.
Dec 09, 2013 at 01:39 PM
p.7 #3Bailing on the A7r....
digitalfx wrote:
The Leica Tri Elmar WATE Really? You consider this the solution?It is an option, and from the images I have seen with the WATE and A7R the combo is pretty sweet.
What is the problem?
http://3d-kraft.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=148:ultra-wide-angle-m-mount-lenses-on-sony-a7r&catid=40:camerasandlenses&Itemid=2
I suspect there are about 6,295 problems with that lens.
spieden wrote
digitalfx wrote
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.What is the problem?
http://3d-kraft.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=148:ultra-wide-angle-m-mount-lenses-on-sony-a7r&catid=40:camerasandlenses&Itemid=2
I suspect there are about 6,295 problems with that lens.
Dec 09, 2013 at 01:56 PM
p.7 #4Bailing on the A7r....
But you can save $30 off a copy of LR5!
I suppose you could see it as a steal compared to the price of buying three individual Leica lenses...
I suppose you could see it as a steal compared to the price of buying three individual Leica lenses...
Dec 09, 2013 at 02:04 PM
p.7 #5Bailing on the A7r....
used they are about $4500.
You get what you pay for. We are talking about a body that cost $2300.
You get what you pay for. We are talking about a body that cost $2300.
Dec 09, 2013 at 02:09 PM
p.7 #6Bailing on the A7r....
digitalfx wrote:
used they are about $4500.
You get what you pay for. We are talking about a body that cost $2300.
The WATE is actually a zoom and you can zoom between 16mm, 18mm, and 21mm. Still quite costly though. But if possible it can be purchased as the lens alone without the finder.
Rich
used they are about $4500.
You get what you pay for. We are talking about a body that cost $2300.
The WATE is actually a zoom and you can zoom between 16mm, 18mm, and 21mm. Still quite costly though. But if possible it can be purchased as the lens alone without the finder.
Rich
Dec 09, 2013 at 02:12 PM
p.7 #7Bailing on the A7r....
itai195 wrote:
But you can save $30 off a copy of LR5!
I suppose you could see it as a steal compared to the price of buying three individual Leica lenses...
Except the performance will be a little less than Leica primes with the Wate (on a camera that can deal with the wide M's that is).
But you can save $30 off a copy of LR5!
I suppose you could see it as a steal compared to the price of buying three individual Leica lenses...
Except the performance will be a little less than Leica primes with the Wate (on a camera that can deal with the wide M's that is).
Dec 09, 2013 at 02:23 PM
p.7 #8Bailing on the A7r....
MaxBerlin wrote:
I guess the problem is that 11:1 is so limiting. I really need to zoom in more.I am still laughing over this one! I expected better from you. It's not about pixels. It's about the transitions.
If there is no room in life for appreciation of a funny quip, then life just got a lot duller.
Examination at the pixel level shows that the A7r has an issue that wasn't present in the NEX7.
I still don't know what we are looking at. Do the images show the same field of view? Where is a comparison of the same subject shot with both A7r and D800E? Does that tell us anything? What software was used for the conversion? Beta ACR? Sony? DXO? Does it make a difference (I've no idea)?
I've already noted earlier in this thread that the NEX-7 has higher pixel density. Has this been discussed? More pixels per unit of measurement means the potential exists for smother pixel level transitions, period. What's the big controversy? My 12.3MP camera looks a lot less smooth than the A7r.
Have I learned anything useful to my photography in viewing using 11:1 magnification a red toy against a green background to see pixel level transitions?
Doubtful, but maybe there's something to be learned once all the questions are answered and even then, still doubtful. Was the quip funny? Yes.
Edited on Dec 09, 2013 at 02:36 PM · View previous versions
michaelwatkins wrote
mco_970 wrote
If I only look at one pixel, it looks perfect. I guess the problem is that 11:1 is so limiting. I really need to zoom in more.If there is no room in life for appreciation of a funny quip, then life just got a lot duller.
Examination at the pixel level shows that the A7r has an issue that wasn't present in the NEX7.
I still don't know what we are looking at. Do the images show the same field of view? Where is a comparison of the same subject shot with both A7r and D800E? Does that tell us anything? What software was used for the conversion? Beta ACR? Sony? DXO? Does it make a difference (I've no idea)?
I've already noted earlier in this thread that the NEX-7 has higher pixel density. Has this been discussed? More pixels per unit of measurement means the potential exists for smother pixel level transitions, period. What's the big controversy? My 12.3MP camera looks a lot less smooth than the A7r.
Have I learned anything useful to my photography in viewing using 11:1 magnification a red toy against a green background to see pixel level transitions?
Doubtful, but maybe there's something to be learned once all the questions are answered and even then, still doubtful. Was the quip funny? Yes.
Edited on Dec 09, 2013 at 02:36 PM · View previous versions
Dec 09, 2013 at 02:34 PM
p.7 #9Bailing on the A7r....
Here's a picture. I would say that any issues with color balance and color is more of a function of my post processing capabilities versus the camera. I've never shot here with a camera that didn't give it too warm of a white balance selection.
http://www.devine.us/img/s5/v122/p309666737-6.jpg
-Tim
MaxBerlin wrote:
mco_970 wrote
MaxBerlin wrote
mco_970 wrote
If I only look at one pixel, it looks perfect. I guess the problem is that 11:1 is so limiting. I really need to zoom in more.And again your not getting the larger point. It is about the transitions at the pixel level. Straight conversion, no sharpening, no smoothing.
The A7r fails at some transitions.
I make pictures, not inter-transitional pixel aggregations. And sometimes I even only zoom in to 1:2 to pixel peep, because I know it's a good image even without looking at 11:1. It's probably the thorzine causing my crazy-talking.Dec 09, 2013 at 02:34 PM
p.7 #10Bailing on the A7r....
tsdevine wrote:
Here's a picture. I would say that any issues with color balance and color is more of a function of my post processing capabilities versus the camera. I've never shot here with a camera that didn't give it too warm of a white balance selection.
http://www.devine.us/img/s5/v122/p309666737-6.jpg
-Tim
I guess the problem is that 11:1 is so limiting. I really need to zoom in more.Where's your image ?
And again your not getting the larger point. It is about the transitions at the pixel level. Straight conversion, no sharpening, no smoothing.
The A7r fails at some transitions.Oh, I am probably not going to post an image today. I make pictures, not inter-transitional pixel aggregations. And sometimes I even only zoom in to 1:2 to pixel peep, because I know it's a good image even without looking at 11:1. It's probably the thorzine causing my crazy-talking.OK let's see some 'pictures'.
Tim,
The image was taken with your A7r and what lens?
Rich
Here's a picture. I would say that any issues with color balance and color is more of a function of my post processing capabilities versus the camera. I've never shot here with a camera that didn't give it too warm of a white balance selection.
http://www.devine.us/img/s5/v122/p309666737-6.jpg
-Tim
MaxBerlin wrote
mco_970 wrote
MaxBerlin wrote
mco_970 wrote
If I only look at one pixel, it looks perfect. I guess the problem is that 11:1 is so limiting. I really need to zoom in more.And again your not getting the larger point. It is about the transitions at the pixel level. Straight conversion, no sharpening, no smoothing.
The A7r fails at some transitions.
I make pictures, not inter-transitional pixel aggregations. And sometimes I even only zoom in to 1:2 to pixel peep, because I know it's a good image even without looking at 11:1. It's probably the thorzine causing my crazy-talking.Tim,
The image was taken with your A7r and what lens?
Rich
Dec 09, 2013 at 02:37 PM
p.7 #11Bailing on the A7r....
Zeiss Distagon 15mm f/2.8 ZE w/Metabones Smart Adapter III
-Tim
Dec 09, 2013 at 02:40 PM
p.7 #12Bailing on the A7r....
Gotta love your shot, Tim! But pray do tell, is the fact that there is a mix of beige and white colors what Max calls "transitions", which he says the camera fails at? I would so love to know, please, pretty please...
Dec 09, 2013 at 02:44 PM
p.7 #13Bailing on the A7r....
Tim,
I have never been inside the State Capitol in Harrisburg, PA. Very nice image.
Rich
I have never been inside the State Capitol in Harrisburg, PA. Very nice image.
Rich
Dec 09, 2013 at 02:47 PM
p.7 #14Bailing on the A7r....
I'm still getting over the amount of details and a lack of crud in the shadows.
In fairness to Max I believe it's certain colors, to which I don't know if this is a good shot to critique.
But I guess from my perspective we might be splitting hairs here. If we were using this camera as a genetic code storage mechanism, it might fail. But I haven't seen anything alarming in my experience so far. Granted it's only been a few days.
-Tim
philber wrote:
Gotta love your shot, Tim! But pray do tell, is the fact that there is a mix of beige and white colors what Max calls "transitions", which he says the camera fails at? I would so love to know, please, pretty please...
Dec 09, 2013 at 02:50 PM
p.7 #15Bailing on the A7r....
Thanks Rich, I was there briefly yesterday in between tours. I know this shot screams for a TS-E, but most of my work is outdoors and I like the simplicity of the Zeiss.
I did have to adjust things a little to get the proper perspective balance (rotate slightly and pull the right side of the image forward a little) in the shot. No matter how hard I try...I never get things perfect when I take this type of shot. I ended up having to crop a little more off the top than I would have liked.
-Tim
naturephoto1 wrote:
Tim,
I have never been inside the State Capitol in Harrisburg, PA. Very nice image.
Rich
Dec 09, 2013 at 02:54 PM
p.7 #16Bailing on the A7r....
Oy... I can't see how thread will possibly end up going anywhere productive.
I'm not a wildlife shooter, personally, but my primitive understanding is that capturing clean feather detail is kind of important
I'm not a wildlife shooter, personally, but my primitive understanding is that capturing clean feather detail is kind of important
Dec 09, 2013 at 03:00 PM
p.7 #17Bailing on the A7r....
If we're talking about the bird...a Foveon sensor is probably the route you'd have to go. At some point a standard Bayer pattern is going to give you artifacts. Also the lack of an AA filter will aggravate this type of issue as well.
Dec 09, 2013 at 03:08 PM
p.7 #18Bailing on the A7r....
tsdevine wrote:
If we're talking about the bird...a Foveon sensor is probably the route you'd have to go. At some point a standard Bayer pattern is going to give you artifacts.
A Foveon sensor will still be undersampling in certain conditions and give monochromatic moiré. Remember, even the human eye suffers from moiré...
If we're talking about the bird...a Foveon sensor is probably the route you'd have to go. At some point a standard Bayer pattern is going to give you artifacts.
A Foveon sensor will still be undersampling in certain conditions and give monochromatic moiré. Remember, even the human eye suffers from moiré...
Dec 09, 2013 at 03:49 PM
p.7 #19Bailing on the A7r....
Tim, plenty of good bird photos have been taken with non-foveon sensors. Her problem is the 300mm f4 is too sharp according to her.
Her's is the kind of insight one only gets after 2 decades of building a catalog of 'pictures'
Her's is the kind of insight one only gets after 2 decades of building a catalog of 'pictures'
Dec 09, 2013 at 03:51 PM
p.7 #20Bailing on the A7r....
At least try the camera out first with a clean unbiased slate.
Dec 09, 2013 at 03:53 PM