p.4 #1 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
Color profile for a lens at f/3.8, 5.6, 8, 11, 16 only has to be done once with a WB disc/card. I still do this even with the WATE, particularly if there are scenes with a lot of side lighting.
The examples that Lloyd has posted internally, sizes up to 4320 are excellent, and clearly shows how much difference there is!
p.4 #2 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
I'm not so surprised about the improvement over the stock configuration, but IMO, the bigger question is how does the modified sensor compare against those same lenses on an M240? That would seem to be the 'gold standard' for optimal RF lens performance, in respect to the least edge smearing allowing 'native' lens character to prevail. Since it hasn't been mentioned, I assume Lloyd didn't compare results against the M240?
p.4 #3 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
Hi Ron, the results are remarkable on their own merits. Lloyd did not compare to the M240 maybe for practicality reasons adding a another variable would have been very tedious and time consuming. Based on what I see now, I would be very happy to use these lenses if the results replicate what Lloyd has presented with A7rM.
p.4 #5 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
Lloyd published results with the 50mm APO Summicron and Zeiss ZM 21mm Biogon-C f4.5 tonight. While the improvements in the Biogon are expected (and it still has huge color shift issues, also as expected) the improvements with the 50mm APO Summicron show that, with a good enough lens, the problem is not limited to wides and ultra-wide lenses if one is looking for the ultimate in performance - which is what having 36MP is about, yes?
p.4 #6 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
Bummer about the replacement glass corrosion in high humidity.
Living right smack on the Equator, I probably can't afford the risk and the potentially costly and lengthy back and forth for replacements.
Probably wait out about half a year to see how all this pans out.
Thanks for the info everyone.
Jan 20, 2015 at 02:09 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #7 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
charles.K wrote:
Lloyd has further detailed his results http://diglloyd.com/index.html , comparing with the stock A7r and modified A7r, comparing with actual examples with the 18 SEM and 24 Elmar, at f/3.8, 5.6, 8 and 11. The results are very compelling in the difference between the stock and modified version of the A7r. There is no difference in the effect of vignetting or magenta cast. But this is very easily corrected in PP'ing with a simple step in LR, by taking WB disc shots with the lens at difference f stops, and keeping this shots on file. This is no different than with M9 prior to the later firmware corrections.
I must admit I had to subscribe to see the results but it was well worthwhile. I am very glad now that I have sent my A7r to Kolari Vision I really did not expect to see such an improvement, but the 18 SEM and 24 Elmar are definitive options with the A7r MOD. I am sorry I just sold my 21 SEM ...Show more →
If you converted a A7S, you would probably get virtually no magenta colour cast as well. For low light shooting with the 50 lux ASPH or the 28 cron ASPH, this might be worth it to some. Especially if they hoped to use those lenses for video.
I also have one other question that I hope the early adopters can address, what about sensor reflections? I worry that because the glass used for the mod in uncoated that it might be prone to sensor reflections.
p.4 #8 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
sebboh wrote:
looking forward to seeing some tests that don't require a subscription.
Don't agree with you on this one. I've tried setting up the kinds of shoot-outs he does. It's plenty challenging enough (not to mention acquiring all the gear is expensive enough) to justify the subscription fee.
p.4 #9 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
charles.K wrote:
Lloyd did not compare to the M240 maybe for practicality reasons adding a another variable would have been very tedious and time consuming.
Plus the built-in correction profiles the camera has would skew the tests.
p.4 #10 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
Lee Saxon wrote:
Don't agree with you on this one. I've tried setting up the kinds of shoot-outs he does. It's plenty challenging enough (not to mention acquiring all the gear is expensive enough) to justify the subscription fee.
i'm not saying he shouldn't be charging for it, i'm just saying i'm not going to pay for it. i have also set up these kinds of tests and agree its long boring work. if there was a lower price to pay to see just specific articles i'd be tempted, but 99% of what he does is of zero interest to me so i'm not paying to see it.
i expect i will soon see similar comparisons from slightly less skilled testers who use other reimbursement models.
p.4 #12 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
mdemeyer wrote:
Lloyd published results with the 50mm APO Summicron and Zeiss ZM 21mm Biogon-C f4.5 tonight. While the improvements in the Biogon are expected (and it still has huge color shift issues, also as expected) the improvements with the 50mm APO Summicron show that, with a good enough lens, the problem is not limited to wides and ultra-wide lenses if one is looking for the ultimate in performance - which is what having 36MP is about, yes?
The results with the 50 Cron APO are quite amazing the difference between A7r stock and mod version. I do hope Sony engineers/R&D department are paying attention here.
I feel the results for the ZM 21 Biogon C f/4.5 is not in the same league as the 18 SEM and 24 Elmar. As Lloyd mentioned it could be a lens/adapter/camera issue. The other issue with or without the modification there is a very strong magenta cast with this lens. I feel this would be difficult to fully compensate with a profile for a given f stop.
p.4 #13 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
Steve Spencer wrote:
If you converted a A7S, you would probably get virtually no magenta colour cast as well. For low light shooting with the 50 lux ASPH or the 28 cron ASPH, this might be worth it to some. Especially if they hoped to use those lenses for video.
I also have one other question that I hope the early adopters can address, what about sensor reflections? I worry that because the glass used for the mod in uncoated that it might be prone to sensor reflections.
If the mod to the A7r proves to be really good, I will also send in one my A7s. (The other belongs to my wife, and it is off limits) If the 50 Lux Asph improves without any further issues, the modification is worthy just to be able to use this lens fully to its limits.
p.4 #14 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
charles.K wrote:
Hi Ron, the results are remarkable on their own merits. Lloyd did not compare to the M240 maybe for practicality reasons adding a another variable would have been very tedious and time consuming. Based on what I see now, I would be very happy to use these lenses if the results replicate what Lloyd has presented with A7rM.
Sure, there are considerable improvements, but I'd still like to know how close it comes to native use on a digital M. As you say, for real world use, it likely will be close enough.
---------------------------------------------
charles.K wrote:
Lloyd did not compare to the M240 maybe for practicality reasons adding a another variable would have been very tedious and time consuming.
Lee Saxon wrote:
Plus the built-in correction profiles the camera has would skew the tests.
The built-in correction in no way would skew results in respect to sharpness and edge smearing. The profiles only correct color shift and a degree of vignetting.
p.4 #15 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
rscheffler wrote:
Sure, there are considerable improvements, but I'd still like to know how close it comes to native use on a digital M. As you say, for real world use, it likely will be close enough.
Hi Ron, I am sure the M240 test comparison results will come soon as early modified A7/A7r and A7s' are available. In my discussions with Kolari Vision, it was mentioned other types of glass that are thinner than what is presently available on the M240 is on their radar for evaluation.
I do think the after market thin filter modifications will evolve quickly, and maybe Sony will take serious note and implement these improvements in their production models!
p.4 #16 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
charles.K wrote:
I do think the after market thin filter modifications will evolve quickly, and maybe Sony will take serious note and implement these improvements in their production models!
I hope you are correct. It may take a Sony, Ricoh or, of course, Leica to drive the R&D through the promise of larger than tiny niche sales that is required to solve the existing issues of corrosion and IR contamination with thinner cover glass. Otherwise, one must really question why these issues have not been solved already given both Leica's long time involvement AND Sony's huge mirrorless push since a solution would solve many existing gripes (large long lenses) and relax optical design restraints quite a bit.
Jan 20, 2015 at 07:57 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #17 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
charles.K wrote:
Hi Ron, I am sure the M240 test comparison results will come soon as early modified A7/A7r and A7s' are available. In my discussions with Kolari Vision, it was mentioned other types of glass that are thinner than what is presently available on the M240 is on their radar for evaluation.
I do think the after market thin filter modifications will evolve quickly, and maybe Sony will take serious note and implement these improvements in their production models!
My take is that Sony won't implement a change. There are tradeoffs. As Toothwalker has pointed out in this thread, a thinner sensor stack means more issues with dust. I think it also means there are more potential issues with IR contamination, more issues with durability, and less flexibility with AA filters (which are themselves a tradeoff). For Leica having a thin stack is critical--they need it for their lenses. For Sony I can see that the tradeoffs would not be worth it. They get a lot of manufacturing hassles, more dust problems, more fragile sensor cover, less flexibility in filtering all to make it easier to use somebody else's lenses. I think the fact that Leica has a thin sensor cover and Sony has a thicker one makes sense for each company. It would be nice if Sony reduced the thickness of their cover, but I can't see it happening. It is very nice, however, that it looks like we can do it through this modification.
p.4 #18 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
Steve Spencer wrote:
My take is that Sony won't implement a change. There are tradeoffs. As Toothwalker has pointed out in this thread, a thinner sensor stack means more issues with dust. I think it also means there are more potential issues with IR contamination, more issues with durability, and less flexibility with AA filters (which are themselves a tradeoff). For Leica having a thin stack is critical--they need it for their lenses. For Sony I can see that the tradeoffs would not be worth it. They get a lot of manufacturing hassles, more dust problems, more fragile sensor cover, less flexibility in filtering all to make it easier to use somebody else's lenses. I think the fact that Leica has a thin sensor cover and Sony has a thicker one makes sense for each company. It would be nice if Sony reduced the thickness of their cover, but I can't see it happening. It is very nice, however, that it looks like we can do it through this modification....Show more →
+1. I am afraid that a thinner sensor stack is currently a low priority for Sony. In fact it would facilitate business for competitors like Leica and could take away some profit margin from sales of Sony FE lenses. I am sure that Sony is well aware that many users of the A7 series are using third party MF lenses including rangefinder options. But they likely rather compromise there than letting the more profitable event/sport shooting margin go - that's why the next Sony mirrorless FF cameras will offer better options for this kind of shooting (improved AF, better fps, maybe less shutter lag, FE tele lenses).
p.4 #19 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
When thinking about future Sony sensor stacks I think it is interessting to see that they have about the same stack thickness on the A7 and A7R - the later without the Anti Aliasing filter.
Normaly they could have made the stack thinner, when they need the distance because of the dust they could mount it in some distance.
To have about the same optical glass thickness let me think about planned very fast lenses. It would be bad to have a f/1.0 or even faster lens that does not work on all cameras equal because of the snesor stack thickness.
pinholecam wrote:
Bummer about the replacement glass corrosion in high humidity.
...
Yeah, uncoated BG39 in a camera where you change the lenses is not bes idea for an area with high humidity!
p.4 #20 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
Hah, after more comparisons from Lloyd, the conversion cost has gone up from $350 to $400.. I hope it would not hit $500 by the time I send mine in in March
I really did not expect to see such an improvement, but the 18 SEM and 24 Elmar are definitive options with the A7r MOD. I am sorry I just sold my 21 SEM