This topic is in the 2015 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2015A7rII rumour
p.10 #1A7rII rumour
Thats totally understandable - the improvements in the A7R II might be valuable for some and not sufficient enough to upgrade or purchase for others. I expect the A9 not before fall this year, but I have no issue being patient since the A7R is an excellent tool in my box.
I just hope that the A7 and the A7r are not the end of the line to have the sensor stack modified to a thin stack for the purpose of using M-mount and film SLR/DSLR lenses for optimum performance on a high resolution digital sensor.
Rich
The modified filter stack will make performance of most modern DSLR lenses (very slightly) worse, since Sony has a rather typical filter stack by modern standards. Some well known ones are actually thicker.
I doubt that Sony care at all about performance with M lenses - as I posted elsewhere someone I know who runs a high end camera store that sells leica says the number of people running M on their A7 series is statistically trivial (though many run Canikon). We get a wrong impression of whats common on forums full of enthusiasts like this one!!
Mar 24, 2015 at 05:44 PM
p.10 #2A7rII rumour
I don't care how much noise the shutter makes, but it better not vibrate the camera at low shutter speeds.
EBH
EBH
Mar 24, 2015 at 05:56 PM
p.10 #3A7rII rumour
DavidBM wrote:
Thats totally understandable - the improvements in the A7R II might be valuable for some and not sufficient enough to upgrade or purchase for others. I expect the A9 not before fall this year, but I have no issue being patient since the A7R is an excellent tool in my box.
I just hope that the A7 and the A7r are not the end of the line to have the sensor stack modified to a thin stack for the purpose of using M-mount and film SLR/DSLR lenses for optimum performance on a high resolution digital sensor.
Rich
The modified filter stack will make performance of most modern DSLR lenses (very slightly) worse, since Sony has a rather typical filter stack by modern standards. Some well known ones are actually thicker.
I doubt that Sony care at all about performance with M lenses - as I posted elsewhere someone I know who runs a high end camera store that sells leica says the number of people running M on their A7 series is statistically trivial (though many run Canikon). We get a wrong impression of whats common on forums full of enthusiasts like this one!!
I should have limited my comment to M-mount lenses and film based SLR lenses. My understanding is that film based SLR lenses should also perform better with a thin sensor stack digital camera than a thicker stack since they were designed for film usage and no filter stack. Many of us prefer usage of manual focus lenses rather than AF lenses that use MF focus by wire.
Rich
Thats totally understandable - the improvements in the A7R II might be valuable for some and not sufficient enough to upgrade or purchase for others. I expect the A9 not before fall this year, but I have no issue being patient since the A7R is an excellent tool in my box.
I just hope that the A7 and the A7r are not the end of the line to have the sensor stack modified to a thin stack for the purpose of using M-mount and film SLR/DSLR lenses for optimum performance on a high resolution digital sensor.
Rich
The modified filter stack will make performance of most modern DSLR lenses (very slightly) worse, since Sony has a rather typical filter stack by modern standards. Some well known ones are actually thicker.
I doubt that Sony care at all about performance with M lenses - as I posted elsewhere someone I know who runs a high end camera store that sells leica says the number of people running M on their A7 series is statistically trivial (though many run Canikon). We get a wrong impression of whats common on forums full of enthusiasts like this one!!
I should have limited my comment to M-mount lenses and film based SLR lenses. My understanding is that film based SLR lenses should also perform better with a thin sensor stack digital camera than a thicker stack since they were designed for film usage and no filter stack. Many of us prefer usage of manual focus lenses rather than AF lenses that use MF focus by wire.
Rich
Mar 24, 2015 at 07:07 PM
p.10 #4A7rII rumour
'My understanding is that *film based SLR lenses* should also perform better with a thin sensor stack digital camera than a thicker stack since they were designed for film usage and no filter stack.'
Ever since the first mainstream DSLR full frame cameras rolled out of the Canon and Nikon production facilities, these and ensuing models have, uncontroversially and to great acclaim, accommodated the installed base of perhaps one hundred million preexisting EOS/F mount lenses of all kinds, of all designs - all of them film era lenses, designed for 135 roll film.
Neither major company embarked on a massive 'digital ready' lens redevelopment program, in fact many - perhaps even most - C/N lenses have either been 'warmed over' only very recently or remain pristine since their inception, mostly in the 1990s. EF lens development if anything underwent a low period at the time the first full frame cameras were being released by Canon - 2002 (1Ds) to 2005 (5D).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_lens_mount
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canon_EOS_digital_cameras
According to Roger Cicala's lensrental blog:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/sensor-stack-thickness-when-does-it-matter
..some earlier FF DSLRs had relatively thin sensor stacks (D1x: 0.7mm; D100: 0.75mm; 1DsII: 1.0mm) but others had more normal dimensions (5D: 1.5mm (optical 2.0mm); D700 (1.7mm) and if anything, recent releases have thicker sensor stacks (6D: 2.0mm). There are many data gaps.
[For completeness there are differing views about the a7r dimensions, Roger's table shows it as 1.85-2.0mm (optical 2.55m) and the a7 as 1.85 physical, but there are other opinions on this matter, the sensor uses a wafered air gap from what I understand.]
From web searches, I have been unable to find a skerrick of evidence regarding the issue you raise, Rich, and people have been pixel peeping ever since they could do so, and professionals and others using Canon and Nikon optics (and Adobe) would presumably have noticed any degradation of IQ during the past decade or so, perhaps even variations from camera to camera - if sensor stack dimensions mattered for film era SLR lens performance. I've been here for six years, and I don't recall any discussion on this matter among the (non M, of course) alt lens user community here, or elsewhere.
The depth and extent of research conducted into these matters by all makers over the past decade can be presumed to be profound, and in a competitive marketplace any edge (with caveats of durability etc.) will go immediately into production.
So my question is this: if a reader has this evidence, would you share it? White papers, comparative analysis, technical reports, even reviewer commentary - that kind of thing.
Ever since the first mainstream DSLR full frame cameras rolled out of the Canon and Nikon production facilities, these and ensuing models have, uncontroversially and to great acclaim, accommodated the installed base of perhaps one hundred million preexisting EOS/F mount lenses of all kinds, of all designs - all of them film era lenses, designed for 135 roll film.
Neither major company embarked on a massive 'digital ready' lens redevelopment program, in fact many - perhaps even most - C/N lenses have either been 'warmed over' only very recently or remain pristine since their inception, mostly in the 1990s. EF lens development if anything underwent a low period at the time the first full frame cameras were being released by Canon - 2002 (1Ds) to 2005 (5D).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_lens_mount
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canon_EOS_digital_cameras
According to Roger Cicala's lensrental blog:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/sensor-stack-thickness-when-does-it-matter
..some earlier FF DSLRs had relatively thin sensor stacks (D1x: 0.7mm; D100: 0.75mm; 1DsII: 1.0mm) but others had more normal dimensions (5D: 1.5mm (optical 2.0mm); D700 (1.7mm) and if anything, recent releases have thicker sensor stacks (6D: 2.0mm). There are many data gaps.
[For completeness there are differing views about the a7r dimensions, Roger's table shows it as 1.85-2.0mm (optical 2.55m) and the a7 as 1.85 physical, but there are other opinions on this matter, the sensor uses a wafered air gap from what I understand.]
From web searches, I have been unable to find a skerrick of evidence regarding the issue you raise, Rich, and people have been pixel peeping ever since they could do so, and professionals and others using Canon and Nikon optics (and Adobe) would presumably have noticed any degradation of IQ during the past decade or so, perhaps even variations from camera to camera - if sensor stack dimensions mattered for film era SLR lens performance. I've been here for six years, and I don't recall any discussion on this matter among the (non M, of course) alt lens user community here, or elsewhere.
The depth and extent of research conducted into these matters by all makers over the past decade can be presumed to be profound, and in a competitive marketplace any edge (with caveats of durability etc.) will go immediately into production.
So my question is this: if a reader has this evidence, would you share it? White papers, comparative analysis, technical reports, even reviewer commentary - that kind of thing.
Mar 24, 2015 at 09:20 PM
p.10 #5A7rII rumour
naturephoto1 wrote:
Thats totally understandable - the improvements in the A7R II might be valuable for some and not sufficient enough to upgrade or purchase for others. I expect the A9 not before fall this year, but I have no issue being patient since the A7R is an excellent tool in my box.
I just hope that the A7 and the A7r are not the end of the line to have the sensor stack modified to a thin stack for the purpose of using M-mount and film SLR/DSLR lenses for optimum performance on a high resolution digital sensor.
Rich
The modified filter stack will make performance of most modern DSLR lenses (very slightly) worse, since Sony has a rather typical filter stack by modern standards. Some well known ones are actually thicker.
I doubt that Sony care at all about performance with M lenses - as I posted elsewhere someone I know who runs a high end camera store that sells leica says the number of people running M on their A7 series is statistically trivial (though many run Canikon). We get a wrong impression of whats common on forums full of enthusiasts like this one!!
I should have limited my comment to M-mount lenses and film based SLR lenses. My understanding is that film based SLR lenses should also perform better with a thin sensor stack digital camera than a thicker stack since they were designed for film usage and no filter stack. Many of us prefer usage of manual focus lenses rather than AF lenses that use MF focus by wire.
Rich
Hi Rich
Yes the modification won't make film SLR lenses any worse; but I doubt that it'll make them any better either, since SLR lenses have to be built with a forward exit pupil because of the mirror box. Could be wrong in some extreme cases...
DavidBM wrote
I just hope that the A7 and the A7r are not the end of the line to have the sensor stack modified to a thin stack for the purpose of using M-mount and film SLR/DSLR lenses for optimum performance on a high resolution digital sensor.
Rich
The modified filter stack will make performance of most modern DSLR lenses (very slightly) worse, since Sony has a rather typical filter stack by modern standards. Some well known ones are actually thicker.
I doubt that Sony care at all about performance with M lenses - as I posted elsewhere someone I know who runs a high end camera store that sells leica says the number of people running M on their A7 series is statistically trivial (though many run Canikon). We get a wrong impression of whats common on forums full of enthusiasts like this one!!
I should have limited my comment to M-mount lenses and film based SLR lenses. My understanding is that film based SLR lenses should also perform better with a thin sensor stack digital camera than a thicker stack since they were designed for film usage and no filter stack. Many of us prefer usage of manual focus lenses rather than AF lenses that use MF focus by wire.
Rich
Hi Rich
Yes the modification won't make film SLR lenses any worse; but I doubt that it'll make them any better either, since SLR lenses have to be built with a forward exit pupil because of the mirror box. Could be wrong in some extreme cases...
Mar 25, 2015 at 12:04 AM
p.10 #6A7rII rumour
philip_pj wrote:
'My understanding is that *film based SLR lenses* should also perform better with a thin sensor stack digital camera than a thicker stack since they were designed for film usage and no filter stack.'
Ever since the first mainstream DSLR full frame cameras rolled out of the Canon and Nikon production facilities, these and ensuing models have, uncontroversially and to great acclaim, accommodated the installed base of perhaps one hundred million preexisting EOS/F mount lenses of all kinds, of all designs - all of them film era lenses, designed for 135 roll film.
Neither major company embarked on a massive 'digital...Show more →
Hi Philip,
I believe that some that have had their filter stacks of either their A7 or A7r cameras have suggested that they have noticed some improvement of their film based SLR lenses on the modified cameras. I believe these were noted mostly or all with WA SLR lenses but I can not recall which member (s) has/have made this observation and which lenses were entailed in this thread:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1340474?b=2
Until the release of the Leica M240 and now the replacement stack of the modified A7, A7r, and A7s cameras I do not believe that anyone would have had the opportunity to test film based SLR lenses (particularly WA) on a thin sensor stack digital FF camera. As has been mentioned, DSLR cameras tend to have a much thicker filter stack, much like those of an A7, A7r, or an A7s.
To this point I have not made the filter stack modification to my A7r but I am leaning that way for the noted improved performance of the M-mount Minolta CLE MC 40mm f2 M-Rokkor and the Leica WATE lenses both of which I use on the camera. From what I have been reading in the thread there have been no noted performances changes noted for any Leica R lenses which make up all of the other lenses that I am using with the camera.
Rich
Edited on Mar 25, 2015 at 05:49 AM · View previous versions
'My understanding is that *film based SLR lenses* should also perform better with a thin sensor stack digital camera than a thicker stack since they were designed for film usage and no filter stack.'
Ever since the first mainstream DSLR full frame cameras rolled out of the Canon and Nikon production facilities, these and ensuing models have, uncontroversially and to great acclaim, accommodated the installed base of perhaps one hundred million preexisting EOS/F mount lenses of all kinds, of all designs - all of them film era lenses, designed for 135 roll film.
Neither major company embarked on a massive 'digital...Show more →
Hi Philip,
I believe that some that have had their filter stacks of either their A7 or A7r cameras have suggested that they have noticed some improvement of their film based SLR lenses on the modified cameras. I believe these were noted mostly or all with WA SLR lenses but I can not recall which member (s) has/have made this observation and which lenses were entailed in this thread:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1340474?b=2
Until the release of the Leica M240 and now the replacement stack of the modified A7, A7r, and A7s cameras I do not believe that anyone would have had the opportunity to test film based SLR lenses (particularly WA) on a thin sensor stack digital FF camera. As has been mentioned, DSLR cameras tend to have a much thicker filter stack, much like those of an A7, A7r, or an A7s.
To this point I have not made the filter stack modification to my A7r but I am leaning that way for the noted improved performance of the M-mount Minolta CLE MC 40mm f2 M-Rokkor and the Leica WATE lenses both of which I use on the camera. From what I have been reading in the thread there have been no noted performances changes noted for any Leica R lenses which make up all of the other lenses that I am using with the camera.
Rich
Edited on Mar 25, 2015 at 05:49 AM · View previous versions
Mar 25, 2015 at 05:21 AM
p.10 #7A7rII rumour
naturephoto1 wrote:
Ever since the first mainstream DSLR full frame cameras rolled out of the Canon and Nikon production facilities, these and ensuing models have, uncontroversially and to great acclaim, accommodated the installed base of perhaps one hundred million preexisting EOS/F mount lenses of all kinds, of all designs - all of them film era lenses, designed for 135 roll film.
Neither major company embarked on a massive 'digital ready' lens redevelopment program, in fact many - perhaps even most - C/N lenses have either been 'warmed over' only very recently or remain pristine since their inception, mostly in the 1990s. EF lens development if anything underwent a low period at the time the first full frame cameras were being released by Canon - 2002 (1Ds) to 2005 (5D).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_lens_mount
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canon_EOS_digital_cameras
According to Roger Cicala's lensrental blog:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/sensor-stack-thickness-when-does-it-matter
..some earlier FF DSLRs had relatively thin sensor stacks (D1x: 0.7mm; D100: 0.75mm; 1DsII: 1.0mm) but others had more normal dimensions (5D: 1.5mm (optical 2.0mm); D700 (1.7mm) and if anything, recent releases have thicker sensor stacks (6D: 2.0mm). There are many data gaps.
[For completeness there are differing views about the a7r dimensions, Roger's table shows it as 1.85-2.0mm (optical 2.55m) and the a7 as 1.85 physical, but there are other opinions on this matter, the sensor uses a wafered air gap from what I understand.]
From web searches, I have been unable to find a skerrick of evidence regarding the issue you raise, Rich, and people have been pixel peeping ever since they could do so, and professionals and others using Canon and Nikon optics (and Adobe) would presumably have noticed any degradation of IQ during the past decade or so, perhaps even variations from camera to camera - if sensor stack dimensions mattered for film era SLR lens performance. I've been here for six years, and I don't recall any discussion on this matter among the (non M, of course) alt lens user community here, or elsewhere.
The depth and extent of research conducted into these matters by all makers over the past decade can be presumed to be profound, and in a competitive marketplace any edge (with caveats of durability etc.) will go immediately into production.
So my question is this: if a reader has this evidence, would you share it? White papers, comparative analysis, technical reports, even reviewer commentary - that kind of thing.Hi Philip,
I believe that some that have had their filter stacks of either their A7 or A7r cameras have suggested that they have noticed some improvement of their film based SLR lenses on the modified cameras. I can not recall which member has made this observation and which lenses were entailed in this thread:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1340474?b=2
To this point I have not made the filter stack modification to my A7r but I am leaning that way for the noted improved performance of the M-mount Minolta CLE MC 40mm f2 M-Rokkor and the Leica WATE lenses both of which I use on the camera....Show more →
I am following the sensor stack modification topic now since several weeks, and it is pretty obvious that the thinner sensor glass allows improved sharpness especially of renagefinder lenses in the corners. But this is honestly not my main issue with rangefinder lenses on my A7R - it is the purple color cast in the corners which won't be removed by the thinner glass either. For now I decided that it might not be worth for me paying $400 for the modification since I am also using (D) SLR glass on my A7R which doesn't have any issues at all with the sensor stack. The color cast only occurs on my two wide/ultra-wide rangefinder lenses, and I found good workarounds in post processing thanks to advice from members here in this and the Alt forum.
philip_pj wrote
'My understanding is that *film based SLR lenses* should also perform better with a thin sensor stack digital camera than a thicker stack since they were designed for film usage and no filter stack.'Ever since the first mainstream DSLR full frame cameras rolled out of the Canon and Nikon production facilities, these and ensuing models have, uncontroversially and to great acclaim, accommodated the installed base of perhaps one hundred million preexisting EOS/F mount lenses of all kinds, of all designs - all of them film era lenses, designed for 135 roll film.
Neither major company embarked on a massive 'digital ready' lens redevelopment program, in fact many - perhaps even most - C/N lenses have either been 'warmed over' only very recently or remain pristine since their inception, mostly in the 1990s. EF lens development if anything underwent a low period at the time the first full frame cameras were being released by Canon - 2002 (1Ds) to 2005 (5D).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_lens_mount
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canon_EOS_digital_cameras
According to Roger Cicala's lensrental blog:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/sensor-stack-thickness-when-does-it-matter
..some earlier FF DSLRs had relatively thin sensor stacks (D1x: 0.7mm; D100: 0.75mm; 1DsII: 1.0mm) but others had more normal dimensions (5D: 1.5mm (optical 2.0mm); D700 (1.7mm) and if anything, recent releases have thicker sensor stacks (6D: 2.0mm). There are many data gaps.
[For completeness there are differing views about the a7r dimensions, Roger's table shows it as 1.85-2.0mm (optical 2.55m) and the a7 as 1.85 physical, but there are other opinions on this matter, the sensor uses a wafered air gap from what I understand.]
From web searches, I have been unable to find a skerrick of evidence regarding the issue you raise, Rich, and people have been pixel peeping ever since they could do so, and professionals and others using Canon and Nikon optics (and Adobe) would presumably have noticed any degradation of IQ during the past decade or so, perhaps even variations from camera to camera - if sensor stack dimensions mattered for film era SLR lens performance. I've been here for six years, and I don't recall any discussion on this matter among the (non M, of course) alt lens user community here, or elsewhere.
The depth and extent of research conducted into these matters by all makers over the past decade can be presumed to be profound, and in a competitive marketplace any edge (with caveats of durability etc.) will go immediately into production.
So my question is this: if a reader has this evidence, would you share it? White papers, comparative analysis, technical reports, even reviewer commentary - that kind of thing.
I believe that some that have had their filter stacks of either their A7 or A7r cameras have suggested that they have noticed some improvement of their film based SLR lenses on the modified cameras. I can not recall which member has made this observation and which lenses were entailed in this thread:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1340474?b=2
To this point I have not made the filter stack modification to my A7r but I am leaning that way for the noted improved performance of the M-mount Minolta CLE MC 40mm f2 M-Rokkor and the Leica WATE lenses both of which I use on the camera....Show more →
I am following the sensor stack modification topic now since several weeks, and it is pretty obvious that the thinner sensor glass allows improved sharpness especially of renagefinder lenses in the corners. But this is honestly not my main issue with rangefinder lenses on my A7R - it is the purple color cast in the corners which won't be removed by the thinner glass either. For now I decided that it might not be worth for me paying $400 for the modification since I am also using (D) SLR glass on my A7R which doesn't have any issues at all with the sensor stack. The color cast only occurs on my two wide/ultra-wide rangefinder lenses, and I found good workarounds in post processing thanks to advice from members here in this and the Alt forum.
Mar 25, 2015 at 05:39 AM
p.10 #8A7rII rumour
philip_pj wrote:
'My understanding is that *film based SLR lenses* should also perform better with a thin sensor stack digital camera than a thicker stack since they were designed for film usage and no filter stack.'
Ever since the first mainstream DSLR full frame cameras rolled out of the Canon and Nikon production facilities, these and ensuing models have, uncontroversially and to great acclaim, accommodated the installed base of perhaps one hundred million preexisting EOS/F mount lenses of all kinds, of all designs - all of them film era lenses, designed for 135 roll film.
Neither major company embarked on a massive 'digital...Show more →
Philip, I believe up till now it was much harder to compare digital and film output. Furthermore, without the possibility of LV-ing anywhere on the frame, mismatched focus was often the reason to dismiss any test; I have seen too many of those. So over time, people would take the 5D classic and 1D mark 1 and 2 output as the standard. The sensor stack issue, though well-known by some already, just became wide-spread knowledge recently, thanks to Sony mirrorless. Heck, no one actually investigated and published as to why those RF WAs performed so badly on m43 bodies until then.
And even though all those DSLR of the same brand seem to have different physical thickness of the sensor filter stack, these stacks should have the same optical thickness (refractive index). Reading carefully Zeiss' explanation on Lloyd's blog, where he shared Zeiss MTF measurement of the ZM 35/1.4 on a 2.5mm stack, suggests the same conclusion.
DavidBM wrote:
Hi Rich
... but I doubt that it'll make them any better either, since SLR lenses have to be built with a forward exit pupil because of the mirror box. Could be wrong in some extreme cases...
David, have you done any test on this matter? My comparisons (with Sonnar G 90 and Contax 55 Jahre) between the stock and modded A7s show otherwise. The difference can be seen as academic since it's only visible under such comparison; however, users would notice these over time. I have been doing these comparisons for the past week, and posted them all with full-res pictures in the thin filter thread. I have to say that the benefit largely have to do with the improvement of RF WA and UWA on these A7 bodies. I see any other side-benefits as bonuses.
retrofocus wrote:
... it is the purple color cast in the corners which won't be removed by the thinner glass either. ....
Color cast is the result of cross-talk between sensels; heck even the M8, M9 and M240 have these. Only bigger sensel (going from A7R to A7 to A7S) or more efficient sensel (BSI sensor) would help. On my A7s, I don't even see any color cast on the ZM 15 or the Biogon G 21; the mod seems to rid of any leftover cyan cast on the stock A7s. I have done lots of comparisons and a few shoots in the past week, and none of my pictures show any cast.
'My understanding is that *film based SLR lenses* should also perform better with a thin sensor stack digital camera than a thicker stack since they were designed for film usage and no filter stack.'
Ever since the first mainstream DSLR full frame cameras rolled out of the Canon and Nikon production facilities, these and ensuing models have, uncontroversially and to great acclaim, accommodated the installed base of perhaps one hundred million preexisting EOS/F mount lenses of all kinds, of all designs - all of them film era lenses, designed for 135 roll film.
Neither major company embarked on a massive 'digital...Show more →
Philip, I believe up till now it was much harder to compare digital and film output. Furthermore, without the possibility of LV-ing anywhere on the frame, mismatched focus was often the reason to dismiss any test; I have seen too many of those. So over time, people would take the 5D classic and 1D mark 1 and 2 output as the standard. The sensor stack issue, though well-known by some already, just became wide-spread knowledge recently, thanks to Sony mirrorless. Heck, no one actually investigated and published as to why those RF WAs performed so badly on m43 bodies until then.
And even though all those DSLR of the same brand seem to have different physical thickness of the sensor filter stack, these stacks should have the same optical thickness (refractive index). Reading carefully Zeiss' explanation on Lloyd's blog, where he shared Zeiss MTF measurement of the ZM 35/1.4 on a 2.5mm stack, suggests the same conclusion.
DavidBM wrote:
Hi Rich
... but I doubt that it'll make them any better either, since SLR lenses have to be built with a forward exit pupil because of the mirror box. Could be wrong in some extreme cases...
David, have you done any test on this matter? My comparisons (with Sonnar G 90 and Contax 55 Jahre) between the stock and modded A7s show otherwise. The difference can be seen as academic since it's only visible under such comparison; however, users would notice these over time. I have been doing these comparisons for the past week, and posted them all with full-res pictures in the thin filter thread. I have to say that the benefit largely have to do with the improvement of RF WA and UWA on these A7 bodies. I see any other side-benefits as bonuses.
retrofocus wrote:
... it is the purple color cast in the corners which won't be removed by the thinner glass either. ....
Color cast is the result of cross-talk between sensels; heck even the M8, M9 and M240 have these. Only bigger sensel (going from A7R to A7 to A7S) or more efficient sensel (BSI sensor) would help. On my A7s, I don't even see any color cast on the ZM 15 or the Biogon G 21; the mod seems to rid of any leftover cyan cast on the stock A7s. I have done lots of comparisons and a few shoots in the past week, and none of my pictures show any cast.
Mar 25, 2015 at 07:38 AM
p.10 #9A7rII rumour
hiepphotog wrote:
Color cast is the result of cross-talk between sensels; heck even the M8, M9 and M240 have these. Only bigger sensel (going from A7R to A7 to A7S) or more efficient sensel (BSI sensor) would help. On my A7s, I don't even see any color cast on the ZM 15 or the Biogon G 21; the mod seems to rid of any leftover cyan cast on the stock A7s. I have done lots of comparisons and a few shoots in the past week, and none of my pictures show any cast.
Didn't know that even the Leica M cameras share similar issues. But yes, the higher pixel density of the A7R sensor increases the color fringe issue compared to the A7S for example.
retrofocus wrote
... it is the purple color cast in the corners which won't be removed by the thinner glass either. ....Didn't know that even the Leica M cameras share similar issues. But yes, the higher pixel density of the A7R sensor increases the color fringe issue compared to the A7S for example.
Mar 25, 2015 at 08:56 AM
p.10 #10A7rII rumour
hiepphotog wrote:
philip_pj wrote:
'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_lens_mount
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canon_EOS_digital_cameras
t of the ZM 35/1.4 on a 2.5mm stack, suggests the same conclusion.
... but I doubt that it'll make them any better either, since SLR lenses have to be built with a forward exit pupil because of the mirror box. Could be wrong in some extreme cases...David, have you done any test on this matter? My comparisons (with Sonnar G 90 and Contax 55 Jahre) between the stock and modded A7s show otherwise. The difference can be seen as academic since it's only visible under such comparison; however, users would notice these over time. I have been doing these comparisons for the past week, and posted them all with full-res pictures in the thin filter thread. I have to say that the benefit largely have to do with the improvement of RF WA and...Show more →
Hi
I haven't done any testing with those lenses: I did borrow a modded body to see how much worse it was with some DSLR lenses (canon 17TSE, Canon 402.8, canon 1002.8L and 135 f2)
With maximum pixel peaking I could see a slight worsening at the edge of the unshifted 17, a slight worsening on the 40 2.8, and no change (worse or better) on the other two.
The differences were not great, though.
philip_pj wrote:
'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_lens_mount
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canon_EOS_digital_cameras
t of the ZM 35/1.4 on a 2.5mm stack, suggests the same conclusion.
DavidBM wrote
Hi Rich... but I doubt that it'll make them any better either, since SLR lenses have to be built with a forward exit pupil because of the mirror box. Could be wrong in some extreme cases...
retrofocus wrote
... it is the purple color cast in the corners which won't be removed by the thinner glass either. ....Hi
I haven't done any testing with those lenses: I did borrow a modded body to see how much worse it was with some DSLR lenses (canon 17TSE, Canon 402.8, canon 1002.8L and 135 f2)
With maximum pixel peaking I could see a slight worsening at the edge of the unshifted 17, a slight worsening on the 40 2.8, and no change (worse or better) on the other two.
The differences were not great, though.
Mar 25, 2015 at 08:45 PM
p.10 #11A7rII rumour
Got to keep this rumor going
http://www.ubergizmo.com/2015/03/the-sony-a7rii-should-arrive-soon/
Not much new information but it does look like in a few week there's going to be a new a7r camera
http://www.dailycameranews.com/2015/03/sony-a7rii-rumored-specifications/
http://www.ubergizmo.com/2015/03/the-sony-a7rii-should-arrive-soon/
Not much new information but it does look like in a few week there's going to be a new a7r camera
http://www.dailycameranews.com/2015/03/sony-a7rii-rumored-specifications/
Mar 26, 2015 at 04:44 PM
p.10 #14A7rII rumour
EB-1 wrote:
Has there been any further news on the A7rII?
Not really, the most up to date info is there will be an official product announcement before the end of May.
Has there been any further news on the A7rII?
Not really, the most up to date info is there will be an official product announcement before the end of May.
Apr 20, 2015 at 03:41 AM
p.10 #15A7rII rumour
If Sony doesn't announce any replacement of the A7r by the summer, I am sure that the price of the A7r in the used market would rebound a bit 
.
.Apr 20, 2015 at 02:22 PM
p.10 #16A7rII rumour
Assuming the new a7rII uses the same battery as the a7r, are there any external battery chargers that can charge via a USB cable? The official sony one has a USB output but not an input.
I need an external charger for a long hike and I want to be able to use my camera while one battery is charging
I need an external charger for a long hike and I want to be able to use my camera while one battery is charging
Apr 20, 2015 at 03:50 PM
p.10 #17A7rII rumour
Wish Sony would hurry up. Have sold my Leica MM and looking to move to a Sony based system and really don't want to buy an A7r new and then 6 weeks later the new one is announced, but also don't want to wait either. Impatient I know but what do you do?
Apr 20, 2015 at 04:14 PM
p.10 #19A7rII rumour
naturephoto1 wrote:
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-confirmed-new-a7rii-new-a6000-and-a-new-rx-camera-coming/
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr4-two-new-cameras-to-be-shown-on-thursday/
Looks pretty solid this time, but man do I hate that site and all sites using that business model and mindset.
He says it looks like he was right about the new cameras coming...this is laughable and insulting. It's like me talking for 11 months of the year about how I know there's a new Toyota Camry coming out...
How about he mention all the time he's wrong and posts wild speculation? It's scummy clickbait trash.
He does have some sources, I just wish someone else had those sources that was willing to post them to the community in a better manner.
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-confirmed-new-a7rii-new-a6000-and-a-new-rx-camera-coming/
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr4-two-new-cameras-to-be-shown-on-thursday/
Looks pretty solid this time, but man do I hate that site and all sites using that business model and mindset.
He says it looks like he was right about the new cameras coming...this is laughable and insulting. It's like me talking for 11 months of the year about how I know there's a new Toyota Camry coming out...
How about he mention all the time he's wrong and posts wild speculation? It's scummy clickbait trash.
He does have some sources, I just wish someone else had those sources that was willing to post them to the community in a better manner.
Apr 21, 2015 at 05:55 PM
p.10 #20A7rII rumour
So that means no A7rII soon if the announcements will be for a non-E mount.
I guess it's time to look at other options.
EBH
I guess it's time to look at other options.
EBH
Apr 21, 2015 at 06:26 PM