Mike, it's there in the file. It was already quite dark, so it's a high dynamic range. Wether it comes from the sensor or the lens, I don't know. Here's the crop of a mostly unprocessed version:
H.Lux wrote:
I think it's essentially HDR? I took a single shot out of the hand.
Not HDR -- I think it's just tone mapping to compress the DR (lifting shadows and bringing down highlights). Many cameras have this function (5Dmk2 for instance), but it affects jpegs, not RAW.
Your 4th shot in your opening post reminded me of the A7 flare issue because the distance between the flares and the light source, which increases with the radial distance from the image center. The flare in your test shots doesn't look excessive, but I haven't seen similar test shots from the A7.
Some pictures with the 18-105. It's got bad reputation because of the distortion, but recent versions of LR solve it pretty well. It's got lovely backgroung blur, except something the bokeh looks a bit harsh. I think it's a great 500$ lens, but a bit expensive at 600-650$ given the issue with the bokeh. The size is larger than I would have liked it to be, but it is easy to manage since it doesn't extend and the balance of the camera never changes.
Perhaps someone can give me some feedback. I tested an a6000 today in a local store with the Zeiss 16-70 zoom, indoors at 400, 800, and 1600 ISO. Granted I was shooting at 1/40th and above at f4.0. The images are extremely soft, so much so that is was a deal breaker for me.
I tested the Zeiss lens the same way on my Nex-7 with great results. Was this just a bad demo camera?
,
