hiepphotog
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
artur5 wrote:
After reading the last page of this thread, a couple of questions come to my mind :
1- AFAIK there has been two different versions of the Kolari mod. The first one used a glass somehow affected by humidity in the long term. Kolari offered a free replacement for possible corroded filters. Afterwards they switched to a new glass type, much more immune to corrosion and also, if I remember correctly, they said that it was thinner than the first version. Maybe 0.7mm vs 0.9mm. ? The question is : which Kolari version of the mod are we seeing in the tests ?. The first or the second?. You'd think that 0.2mm. wouldn't make any visible difference and here springs my second doubt :
2- If we use the same lens on a Leica M240 and a A7M and the IR filter has the same thickness, in theory any difference in performance must be due to the sensor itself.
Now, according to those tests, the M240 is clearly better than a modded A7 with the same lens, same pixel count and the glass cover is quite the same thickness, isn't it ?. How do we explain then the different performances in corner sharpness ?.
I don't believe in Leica magic, so we must assume that there's something wrong : either user error on the test, either the Kolari mod on that case wasn't quite successful or the sensor of that Sony A7 wasn't perfectly aligned with the lens mount. We wouldn't know but my point is that, everything else being the same, the sharpness of a M lens on the Leica M240 vs. an A7M should be very, very close, If not, there's something amiss somewhere. ...Show more →
1. The total physical thickness after the mod is about 1.3mm since the clear cover glass is not removed. The A7II certainly has the latest version since Ilija has completely switched since then. So until someone can remove that clear cover glass and put that thin IR/UV filter directly on top of the sensor, I think it's understandable that the modded Sony still lags behind a bit.
2. If you notice the lenses that the modded Sony clearly behaves worse than the M240 are those designed for film: Elmarit 24 ASPH, Biogon 35 with the exception Elmarit 28 ASPH. Optically, these have more light bending with the modded Sony, and it might just cross the threshold right there.
On the other hand, lenses that were designed recently, SEM 18, WATE, and Elmar 24, are very close (if not identical) between the two. In the WATE case, the modded cam is actually a bit better at 16mm.
His Elmar 24 modded WO result might be a mistake since mine was clearly sharper than that. His previous comparison between the modded and stock also shows sharper corner at WO.
|
. I'm curious that somehow the 15 picture seems to have a slightly higher magnification (i.e. the buildings look to be bigger). From the above, the WATE is slightly softer at WO with visible field curvature. However, stopping down to f/8, it's better (less vignetting and LCA and sharper).