One of the most interesting topics running on the web after the A7-A7r announcement is: How well (or bad) do third-party manual rangefinder lenses work on the Sony cameras? We have a couple of new image samples to share and as you will see only extreme wide angle lenses will suffer of vignetting or color shift effects and in very rare cases of corner smearing.
1) Leica Noctilux 50mm f/0.95:
SAR reader Albert had the chance to take a shot with the $11,000 Leica 50mm f/0.95 Noctilux on the Sony A7r. You can find the full size picture on Flickr (Click here). If you own that lens you will have no problem at all with the A7-A7r. That said, if you had the money to buy that lens that you will also have the money to use it on a Leica M and not a Sony A7…I guess 🙂
A7R with Voigtlander 12mm, 15mm and 21mm rangefinder lenses mounted by Leo Roos on Flickr (found via Dyxum). As you can see there is vignetting and color shift issue. Easy to fix with Cornerfix. The important thing here is that there is no heavy smearing and detail loss issue!
[shoplink 22380 ebay]Leica Noctilux (Click here)[/shoplink].
2) Voigtlander 12mm, 15mm and 21mm rangefinder lenses:
Leo Roos on Flickr (found via Dyxum) posted a set of images taken with the A7r with wide angle Voigtlander lens. As you can see as wider as you go more vignetting and color shift issues you will see. But the good news us that there is no heavy smearing and detail loss issue (with the exception of the 15mm lens wide open). It means you can fix the corners by using software like Cornerfix (which by the way is free!). Lenses on eBay:
[shoplink 22372 ebay]Voigtlander 12mm (Click here)[/shoplink].
[shoplink 22373 ebay]Voigtlander 15mm (Click here)[/shoplink].
[shoplink 22374 ebay]Voigtlander 21mm (Click here)[/shoplink].
3) Contax G 28mm f/2.8:
There is an image taken with the A7r on Flickr (Click here). That lens shows significant more smearing on corners. This is something you cannot recover in Postproduction work. A discussion about that photo can be found at Fredmiranda.
[shoplink 22375 ebay]Contax G 28mm on eBay (Click here)[/shoplink].
4) Minolta MD/MC, Zeiss ZM and Canon FD lenses:
Phillip Reeve tested various old SLR lenses together with Zeiss 55F18 on A7R. Well controlled careful shots, I think.
All shots together:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/96189377@N08/sets/72157637021609086/
Separate by lens type:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/96189377@N08/sets/
Lenses on eBay:
[shoplink 22378 ebay]Minolta MD (Click here)[/shoplink].
[shoplink 22377 ebay]Minolta MC (Click here)[/shoplink].
[shoplink 22376 ebay]Zeiss ZM (Click here)[/shoplink].
[shoplink 22379 ebay]Canon FD (Click here)[/shoplink].
In Short:
– Lenses from 35mm towards will usually work fine.
– The wider you go the more issues you will have. But this also depends from the kind of lens design (telecentric lenses will have less issues). On some lenses you can fix them in postproduction and on some not.
– If you shoot Black and White Color shift is obviously a no-issues
– Vignetting and Color Shift can be corrected. Color smearing no (the detail is gone).
It will be one of our goals on SAR to review third party lenses on the A series cameras. If you have some review you want to share on SAR drop me a message at sonyalpharumors@gmail.com. Thanks!
—-
Support SonyAlphaRumors: After months of FF mirrorless rumor work I would be glad if you can support my work by making your A7-A7r purchase by using these links below. I will earn a small commission and you don’t pay one single penny more! Thanks!
Specs and Preorders in US and Canada (Click on store name to see direct preorder page):
Dedicated Sony announcement page at Amazon US (Click here).
Sony A7r body at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonystoreUS. TheCameraStore Canada.
Sony A7 body at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonystoreUS. TheCameraStore Canada.
Sony A7 with 28-70mm kit lens at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonystoreUS. TheCameraStore Canada.
Sony RX10 at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonystoreUS.
Zeiss 24-70mm at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonystoreUS.
Zeiss 35mm at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonystoreUS.
Zeiss 55mm at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonystoreUS.
70-200mm A-mount at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonystoreUS.
Sony A-Mount to E-Mount Lens Adapter at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto.
Sony A to E adapter with mirror at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto.
A7/A7r leather case at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonystoreUS.
A7/A7r vertical grip at Amazon, BHphoto, SonystoreUS.
Sony W Series Battery Charger at Amazon, BHphoto.
Sony FA-CS1M Off-Camera Shoe at BHphoto.
Semi-Hard LCD Screen Protector for A7-A7r at Amazon, BHphoto.
Specs and Preorders in Europe:
Sony A7r body at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO, PT, WexUK, WexDE.
Sony A7 body at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO, PT, WexUK, WexDE, Amazon UK, Amazon DE, Amazon FR.
Sony A7 with 28-70mm kit Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO, PT, WexUK, WexDE, Amazon UK, Amazon DE, Amazon FR.
Sony RX10 at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO, PT, WexUK, WexDE.
Zeiss 35mm at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO, PT,
Zeiss 55mm at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO, PT
Asia:
A7r at Digitalrev
A7 at Digitalrev.
A7 with 28-70mm lens at Digitalrev.
167 Responses
“super sharp”?
FlickR photo is full of aberrations.
Which corner are we talking about on the 50 noctilux that is sharp?
the center part which is on focus 🙂
Sorry, I must have misread the post when you mentioned that the corners were sharp too.
I corrected the post because it was easy to misunderstand my words. What I meant say that what’s in focus is super sharp and the corners show no issues at all.
Everything seems to be working surprisingly fine, except the one lens that I am most interested in – the 15mm CV.
But not all hope is gone. At least there is no smearing as bad as the Contax G lens.
Thought of maybe going the C/Y 18mm way? SLR lens, not very big, apparently really nice. Yes, I know, nowhere near as compact as the 15mm but it would save you the ARW->DNG->conerfix->Lr/Ps/C1/DxO
Then again…do they work as well on Leica M9/M? or are the Leicas doing software correction on those files before writing the DNG?
This is a question that I am most curious about (I know Leica does it for its own coded lenses) because Sony could (Oh, please) create software profiles that do all the correction so we would only have to worry about smearing.
There’s always hope! Yep, thought about the CY 18mm and the ZM18mm (which will be better if it works properly), thought also about the SLII 20mm. I am thinking about investing in something bigger, like the 17mm TS-E, but I still want a smaller and lighter alternative for when I don’t need the overkill.
Somebody will eventually create profiles, for some of the lenses the only problems seem to be vignetting and color shift. But there won’t be a content-aware profile 🙂
Compromises, compromises…
Isn’t the Zeiss 15mm ZM better than the CV in the corners anyway?
If I don’t badly remember, it may be a lens that has a rear element not sticking out like the CV UW Heliar.
I think it is, but I haven’t had the opportunity to try it. At that price though and using it on a camera not made for it, and risking that the next camera I get screws everything up, it is a no go. I’d rather buy the big ZE/ZF 15mm and deal with the weight, but have all the IQ I can get. The CV is actually a great lens, I am a bit confused as to its performance here, because the 12mm looks very good. Maybe it has to see with optical formulas, I am not really versed into those.
Lens configurations will not reveal much. If you use the 12 and the 15 on a M camera (or even a NEX), it will be immediately obvious that the 12 shows fewer problems. Also, it has better mechanical construction. 🙂
I tried those two long time ago, don’t remember which I liked better in terms of performance, but the 15mm wasn’t as bad as seen here.
Yes, get a TSE, get a ZE 15, get them all. Can’t wait to see what you can produce with those! They will work much better on this Sony than on a Canon camera, and the total bulk will be wayyyy less. Way to go man!
@myadmirer I am touched by your concern. But are you trying to be sarcastic? 🙂 Because you are failing badly. The TS-E will work just the same on a Sony body.
No man, no sarcasm, I am waiting for your unique combination of art and tech competence.
Cool then. Just continue following my posts.
Except that’s NOT the CV 15…it’s an Orion 15. Andrea, please fix that in your post!
@Fants We are talking about the CV 15mm samples. Scroll down to the table shots.
I think the cv15 is good on the A7R and easily correctable in cornerfix. As pointed out in the dyxum post if you crop to apsc you get a 16 mp file with perfect corners.
You won’t be able to bring back that inexisting detail. As for cropping, what’s the point? Might as well use an APS-C NEX with the 10-18 which will be a stabilized zoom with AF.
The 12mm looks surprisingly well though, so that might be the solution, but then I am wondering how it will perform on the next Sony camera. Adapting SLR lenses is a much safer bet here.
That’s true there is better options out there for this focal length but was thinking from the perspective of if you already had this lens what benefit do these shots show.
Ah, I see. No, I don’t have it, just evaluating potential investments. I don’t envy M-lenses owners, being stuck only with Leica. maybe Ricoh will finally bring that FF GXR…
Not all shots benefit from sharp corners. To a fair amount of them this is no issue, or even a benefit.
Not all, but plenty of shots will benefit of sharp corners, especially at these focal lengths. And no shot is disadvantaged by sharp corners.
Thanks to Admin for collecting the excellent set of links. While the native 55/1.8 is brilliant highlight, many of the well-known wider lenses even at 35mm are not as we hoped for.
Have we seen the CV 35mm 1.2 Nokton II/I yet? For those I have high hopes of becoming the 35mms of the hour.
Ron Scheffler uploaded a bunch of examples with the A7. It’s fine stopped down, but that’s not the point of shooting a f1.2 lens. My feeling is that it’s a bit too soft. It’s also pretty glowy and lower contrast although I already knew that.
Can’t download the file anymore. From people that had the CV 35 1.2 II (among those Steve Huff, from whom I often dislike his bombastic ‘I’m a crazy guy’, ‘you know me, I like Leica’, ‘you know me…’ reviews) mentioned the same, no way of having sharp corners at 1.2 or even up until f4.
The thing is, no lens I know of (say, in 1.4 land) that is 35mm will be sharp in the corners, or edges, at widest aperture. I don’t know how ‘sharp’ the new Sigma 35mm is on the corners and edges, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there were no miracles there either. The Noctilux 35mm M is another example of this. Steve Huff did mention that the CV 35mm was sharp at 1.2 in the center area, which is quite acceptable and remarkable for a lens of that speed, at that price.
I don’t feel I have unrealistic expectations about the lens. I expect the 35 biogons and 35/2 summicron asph to carry good sharpness/contrast for most of the frame. The 35/1.2 is a different animal, but what I’m see appears the same for all the wider lenses – so I think it’s just not playing well with the camera.
I didn’t mean you were unrealistic. Just wanted to say that, in context, the CV 35mm 1.2 may be the lens to go for. I think it was Tim Ashley who pitted the RX1 35mm against the Summicron and Summilux and found that neither of the Leica’s was as good as the Sony/Zeiss.
Although you do loose a stop of light with the ZA FE 35mm, if you are looking for corner to corner performance, that may be the lens to go for.
If you are looking for speed, then maybe the CV will be your salvation.
I want both, hence I will have a hard time parting with my RX1
Ask and ye shall receive.
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/10/28/honky-tonkin-with-the-sony-a7-and-a7r-in-nashville/
Mixed feelings. Looks like it could produce decent results. However a lot of the shots Steve has taken look to have motion blur to my eyes. I think he was shooting at too low a shutter speed for a few of them.
hahahahaha 15mm voigtlander : “there is no heavy smearing and detail loss issue”
Are you serious dude ? Did you look the corner ? My iPhone is 3 times sharper than this mushy horror. Even at f8
Come on, be serious, we are all exited about those new camera but this is just an ugly and unusable result especially for landscape (purpose of this focal length).
It seems that having a good lens on this type of camera is super demanding so we will get a 16-35 F4 super expensive :/
I am afraid that I agree about the CV15. At f5.6, in the center you can see every bleimish of the subject’s skin. While the stumpy/tree in the corner has lost several stops and has terrible horizontal smearing and CA.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leo_roos/10497144304/sizes/o/
You are right and I corrected the post.
I wonder how the Voigtlaender 12mm, 15mm and 21mm perform on the a7 (not a7r).
Ok, after looking at the images on my computer monitor instead of my smartphone the corner sharpness of all of them looks unusable for landscape prints.
+1
My backup solution is C/Y zeiss 18mm or Ricoh GR with wideangle attachment (pretty good corners and nice clean files…
I don’t see anything WOW or 11k worst in that pic… who is so f… crazy and buys that lens?
I was expecting much better performance from the Contax G 28. I have it and I know its rear lens protrudes DEEP into the camera but still.
I didn’t really notice smearing on the NEX-5N which is surprising (I know the APS-C sensor crops out the worst parts but still).
My hopes for a wideangle 14 to 22mm with larger than f/2.0 for auroraphotografic are gone again.
The Voightländer 21 f1.8 looked very promising to me!
Is there any hope/lens out there which could match my need on an A7r?
If you are willing to sacrifice portability and to give up that crazy speed, there are plenty of options 🙂
Already used 16-35mm Sony Zeiss on my A99 (without Mirror).
I want to upgrade to a ‘crazy’ speed and 36MPx, anything else is secondary… (ok i wont pay 10k for a lens)
Maybe you can go for 24mm, you will be able to get some faster lenses there, otherwise you are out of luck.
Seems 21mm/1.8 isnt tested yet on A7r, there’s still some hope left!
Now i have an idea…
Taking Nikon 14-24 2.8, A7r,a Speedbooster and the APS-C Mode…
An 14mm gives you a 21mm on APS-C and a faster lens, so an f/2.8 with Speedboster gives a f/? ?
Nobody
You totally got the Speed Booster wrong.
The Speed Booster is a focal reducer, a 14 with a Speed Booster gives you somewhere from 14-15 with an extra stop and reduced image circle.
If you want 21, you need a 19-20 to go with the Booster.
You totally got the Speed Booster wrong.
The Speed Booster is a focal reducer, a 14 with a Speed Booster gives you somewhere from 14-15(135 equiv. FoV) with an extra stop and reduced image circle.
If you want 21, you need a 19-20 to go with the Booster.
Which crazy speed? Do you mean this would be faster than a Canon with a 24mm F1.4? I thought the Canon would be much faster, I have so much to learn.
Your sarcasm fails yet again. Read the comment I was replying to and answer your own question.
Why, did you write something clever? Point me at it.
Do you mean Leo Roos’ test? I think, he tested CV 21/4 which is a ‘pancake’ symmetric lens. Ultron 21 is a different matter.
Yet another 50mm leica M lens test. Why keep testing 50mm lenses?? They give virtually no issues on any camera.. Its M lenses less than 35mm we are all interested in.
SAR has become a 24/7 promo site for a7 and a7r.
These cameras are not FULLY compatable with any previous sony lenses.
Old c nec need to be used at low resolution an cropped
Old a mount …no ibis.
Obviosly in order to fully utilize thos camera we need to buy all new lenses again.
Of course when sony comes out with thier next new camera we will probably have to buy all new lenses again.
On top of that sar no longer talks about anything but these two cameeas that I dont want.
Perhaps if i wait a couple od years sony will make the rite camera for me and sar will talk about something other than these two cameras
Animal, it’s one week that the A7-A7r are here. It’s obvious we talk about these cameras. What should I report. Football games results?
…talking anout soccer I wouldn’t mind a warm word of support for poor Oliver Baumann, the goal keeper of the SC Freiburg who had a terrible day yesterday in a match against the Hamburger SV. Other than that I think you are doing a fine job and I don’t mind having a trickle of new info on the A7/A7R every day.
For as long as those cameras haven’t hit the stores it also pretty much fits the definition of a rumor site to keep talking about them.
Alpha mount cameras and lenses 😉
(That’s more interesting for me because I already own alpha-mount devices. These new cameras cost more than I want to spend.)
You SHOULD continue to cover these cameras and I do not mean to imply otherwise.
Not everyone however is interested in these two cameras and it would be nice to also mix in other stuff.
For example
New patent
New sensor
A mount
Hybred camera
Future camera industry direction
What is the competition doing
If news is scarce mayby interesting technigue….
Just a little something else here and there.
Perhaps some posts by sar readers so you can continue doing what you do while others help out with other topics
You do a good job. When one topip monopolizes the news however it might be good to break it up with unrelted stuff.
Chris commented on a cannon nikon sony forum a few days ago where future trends were discused…
Mayby he would like to post something about that for sar?
I can compile my notes and the various things I heard from Sony people for SAR. I had a chance to speak to Mark Weir of Sony, he had some interesting things to say. I’ll try to get to it by tomorrow. I also have some a7r booth shots I took with the Zeiss Otus and a Touit lens to show.
Will Andrea post it for you?
Deep breath, Barry. Now exhale.
Have a look at Mirrorless Rumors current post–about Fuji’s reactive plan to the A7, A7r announcements, planning to compete by 2015. The fact is that it is BIG NEWS and the entire world is very interested in it, except you.
I hear there’s a new rumor site, called MPs-R-Us, that has just announced Kodak’s comeback attempt by making a 200 MP sensor, called Big Barry.
Deep breath, Barry. Now Exhale.
“Animal” roflmao
Pay no attention to him, Admin. You are doing a fine job, writing about the only interesting Sony cameras atm.
Interesting article: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/pdn_photoplus_2013.shtml#update
Interesting, indeed, especially the EOSHD part.
I saw the Dyxum post and thought everyone here would be interested in it. Then I read the comments, I don’t understand why some people are anti SAR.
I just saw those comments. SAR “lifting photos”, which are displayed on a sharing service! And heaven forbid SAR gets some internet traffic, which would help Admin get something for his efforts. Funny people.
It is true that their site never ever quotes anything from outside and everything (words, pics- everything) that is there is their own, including the forum’s name. 😉
The few and the proud for the rightful reasons. lol.
link?
Barry, I guess the new 35mm and 55m FE lenses are not FULLY compatible because of lack of IBIS.
You really do spout some utter nonsense.
Please, with respect, stop your relentless moaning.
Maybe you could respect the work Andrea does and stop acting with such a huge sense of entitlement.
I should as always expect comments from my most loyal fan.
The fact that you describe these as NEW lenses actually supports my statement. Im glad you agree with me thanx.
Also no long telephoto or long macro lense whether new or old are fully supported by these cameras..
If you only shoot wide angle and normal there are lots of lenses you can buy, you will have sufficent depth of field and this may be a great camera for you.
Its good to know how much more knowledge is out there than the meager amount I posses and wonderfull to have you to remind me of that after every one of my comments. Thank you again
As I’m sure you’ve guessed, I am not a fan, Barry. I see you as an irritant.
Please explain why the FE 35mm and 55m are not new lenses.
Your view that a lens is not FULLY supported based purely on lack of stabilisation is bizarre to say the least.
If I did comment after every one of your repetitive and quite frankly strangely obsessive posts, I would be a tired man.
I took YOUR statement that they ARE new lenses as correct therefore your statement actually supports what I said rather than disputes it ( which i assume was your intention)
I think you need to purchase a sarcasm detector.
I’ll let you have the last word.
Lotus, have you ever tried shooting a tele without stabilisation? With no sunshine? When flash is not an option? With no tripod?
To me, these A7/A7R area nice try, but not too useful. Maybe in a couple of years. I am sorry the nonsense annoys you. Have you had your lotus today?
Please enlighten me on what is not fully compatible about them? And don’t bring up IBIS again as I see in every comment because they has nothing to do with compatibility of a lens. Not to mention you clearly don’t know how to shoot without it.
E mount c….crop to 10 or 16mp or vignette.
A slower af or mirror adapter and no ibis.
Not unusable but not FULLY compatable.
Animal, It is compatible. A big tongue twister for you, I know. lol.
Yes, Mr. Unicorn, please come back in two years when Sony has it’s 56 MP sensor. I for one want to read constructive criticims on SAR, not constant whining
Spend 11000 $ to shoot people palm in dark?
Such an idiots!!! 😀
Palms and whatever else stays still. 🙂 You have to appreciate the fact that he took it out of his house and took it out of its box to do this. 🙂
So true, have you ever searched Flickr for “Leica”? There are some of the worst pics ever. And huge amounts of pictures of gear, of course.
Anyone seen any links to Zeiss E 24mm f1.8 tested on the A7/R yet?
Cornerfix is OK – but the Adobe Labs Flat Image plug in is amazing. There are a few lenses here that will just be garbage in the corners (they suck on the M9 too) but if you have a Lightroom workflow, this makes it very very easy:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=7787
At the Sony store. AF on the a7 is lightning fast. As fast as my D300 was. Way faster than my NEX6. Startup time is about 7 seconds. Way slower than the old Nikon. Maybe firmware version… I can’t read the Chinese menus. The a7 I was using had the hand grip… Not sure if the extra power makes the AF faster…. Dunno.
Also, this thing ain’t loud. Same or quieter than NEX6.
This thing is awesome. Also, I can pick it up on Nov 15. Price was $12,000hkd.
Didn’t play with 7r
AF was tested with 35f2.8. They didn’t have the 55 there with the a7 /a7r.
Good to hear. The startup time has probably to see with the firmware,as you suggested.
I was truly amazed as well with the A7 performance. I tried it out with all the lenses at the Photo plus Expo over the weekend and using any lens it seems, is lightning quick. It sort of gave me a similar effect as when 4G LTE first rolled out for cell service. It was almost as if the web page loaded before I even tapped the screen. With the A7, there were times I felt it auto focused and locked on my subject before I was even aware I had half-pressed the shutter.
The A7r was also very fast though, not with the same response. A noticeable difference to me, but I’d be surprised to hear of anyone complain about it unless they’re EM1 shooters or something.
Not sure why the A7 is so much quicker than the NEX6. Did they approach the concept from a completely new angle with the hardware or perhaps it’s something a firmware update could fix? I use the 5n so I don’t regularly use the 6 so I have nothing to compare the A7 to. Is it like night and day for you? Or just a little faster maybe?
Also, I can confirm it is region unlocked. NTSC video on all cameras. But, weirdly, it is only one at a time. The sony guy switched the cam to NTSC from Pal in front of me. It requires a reboot, and then only NTSC. Not all in one menu for some reason. Need to switch the camera back and fort
Admin,
Please round up some A7 testing with non-range-finder legacy lenses.
ok!
Now it’s clearer that Sony strongly prefers us to use FE lenses. Even A7r, using rangefiner lenses won’t work well. It’s time to start financial plan for Zeiss.
Hello Admin,
May I make a humble suggestion ?
Your emphasis on legacy glass is hurting the A7R for several reasons:
Legacy glass is many times overrated.
Legacy glass on the Sony A7R is in most cases not a good match.
The market for the A7R is orders of magnitudes larger than that represented by legacy glass.
I am suggesting that your emphasis should be on the camera, the lenses already designed for it and the lenses sure to come if the camera lives up to its potential.
Wait till the end of the week. This week another storm is coming.
Bengt,
Don’t think there’s anything wrong with Andrea covering legacy lens and adapted lens when Sony employees themselves in PDN was actually PUBLICLY advertising about adapting lens onto their A7/R. What Andrea is doing is actually good because it allows reader to know what works and what doesn’t. And, I appreciate that effort!
Half of this glass above is actually still produced, so it is not exactly “legacy”. It is perfectly understandable that you might not be interested in such posts, but it makes much more sense to have them and for those uninterested to skip them, then not to have them at all. Why whine when you can skip?
When most of the image samples shown are sub standard many people will conclude that the camera is at fault.
I’d actually blame Sony for not providing extensive samples from their own lenses.
I actually like this approach (compare with the RX1). Those in Asia got to handle it and snap away first, instead of the usual web outfits from elsewhere blogging (often with more adolatory words than any useful images- look at the linked video here: http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/new-a7-a7r-rx10-touit-hands-on-reports-at-pdnshow/ find anything new or useful?). I welcome Sony’s approach to actually let the people handle and use the camera. I just wish they would expand this globally. This FF E cams are a disruptive introduction in a saturated market. So “legacy” lenses (good and bad) are an integral part of the equation.
Given the limited selection of native lenses and the fact that these cameras were just introduced, legacy lenses are a perfectly reasonable topic. Perhaps, you should consider them for yourself. Keep up the topic of legacy glass. It is relevant for all of us that have owned previous camera systems.
i’m SO much waiting for test with canon ef 16-35mm USM II. f/ 2.8 L…now i’m using it with metabones speedbooster and nex, but vignetting is there to around 18mm…which is fine with me, if it will be at least same on a7 (of course 16mm could be best).
Design of Leica M WA lenses have colour shift issues even with the M240 (because the rear element is only a few millimetres from the sensor) but Zeiss Distagon 15mm has a very different design and the incoming ray angles are almost perpendicular to the sensor not at acute angles at all. Would love to see the someone using it on the A7R via a Nikon adapter.
I keep waiting, and that is not easy! I would love to own the A7r but not sure if the M isn’t the better buy. I am pretty sure that the Sony sensor is better but I want to use it with WA as well.
Hmm I might sell my M9 and buy an M or should I complement the M9 with the A7r? Arrg always those choices!
I think it’s still better to wait for more and really proper tests. That 12mm CV looks perfectly fine (except the color shift), for example.
Agree waiting is just terrible, particularly as I know that I have to wait then for the camera again…
Correcting colour shift with CornerFix on a handful of images is no problem at all, it only becomes a complete pain when you are processing a couple of hundred images from a shoot. On the A7 and A7/r, the files should take a little more punishment than the Nex7 files. Correcting images taken with the Voigtlander 12mm on the Nex7 used to introduce a fair bit of noise at times.
Agreed. But it’s always a thin line, between what I am willing to carry and how much I’d sit in front of the computer 🙂 Thankfully, Sony brought the 10-18, which does the job for me, lightweight and good IQ. I hope the upcoming UWA Sony Zeiss will also be something like that.
After my elmarit 28mm test on 7/7r I’m quite sure the 7 is the better choice.
BUT,
all my shots don’t show if there is smearing with leica glass on the 7 in the corners.
So it would be a big help to have the same image with 7 and 7r (with corner sharpness)
I don’t have access to them any longer.
See also my comments in this thread:
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/new-a7-a7r-rx10-touit-hands-on-reports-at-pdnshow/#comments
Hello Thomas!!!
I’d very much like to thank you for testing a7/r with elmarit 28mm!
Was it asph version?
This lens is only one in my camera bag I’ve been worried how it will perform with these cameras!
I’m worried specially about smearing!
Please do you have some other pictures from a7/a7r shoot with this lens? I’d really love to see them!
thank you very much!
S.
Re: Phillip Reeve tests
Does that FE 55mm f/1.8 have a decentering problem? A lot of the shots are soft down the left-hand side.
Hmmm…maybe micro 4/3 isn’t such a bad idea after all.
Legacy lenses work just fine.
That’s no wonder considering the 2.0 crop… M4/3 delivers the filet piece of the lens and to get the same 35mm Field of View as with a 35mm on A7(r) You’d have to use a 17mm lens on M4/3. Certainly not comparable.
True, but there seems to be a problem with the register distance. You need to buy new lenses, custom made for the A7:s.
I’ll wait for the A-mount Full Frames.
Have you seen anything about autofocus with A-mount lenses on adapter? That’s my question. Sony, Minolta and/or third party — how well and how quickly do they focus?
la ea4 uses the af module from the a65 I’ve heard, so I would expect about the same performance. the af points will be tightly packed in the middle if the frame though when used with a full frame sensor. la ea3 should be useless for af if it is anything like the al ea1 which I have owned. and sold.
So, ah, exactly what is the benefit of the A7/R system? It will let you shoot third-party lenses with decent quality, as long as they are over 35mm?
My A-mount will let me shoot Minolta/Sony/Zeiss lenses with excellent quality depending on the lens, at all focal lengths. Stabilized. Even AF sometimes.
And the A7/R is not a pocket-sized system. Heck, I don’t even consider the R1X to be pocket-sized with that lens, unless you have a bit pocket. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but larger sensor = larger lens = non-pocketable system.
The A7/R over NEX? Thinner DOF sometimes? Wider possible FOV? Although I don’t use those systems, that would seem minimal advantage, with the added detriment of lack of third-party lens usability below 35mm.
What about macro performance on the A7/R? Anybody have any info? For macro DOF, nothing beats a small sensor, no?
Please excuse my technical ignorance.
it’s not pocketable but still – it’s a LOT smaller than my a850. there will be native wide angle lenses further on. and the Minolta 20mm 2.8 will work fine. ff beats aps c in low light and regarding control over depth of field. for macro I guess I would prefer the nex 7 or if I was shooting elephants like Barry. I agree: most people don’t need ff. but it’s damn nice to have!
Low light and DOF advantages, yes, but at what cost over NEX? The same low-light performance can be had on A-mount, minus the use of these super third-party lenses, which apparently aren’t useable below 35mm anyway. There are some very nice A-mount lenses below 35mm that will probably give performance better than the A7/R system with any third-party lens, and more economically than a purpose-built A7/R lens, and there are of course excellent A-mount offerings above 35mm.
I understand the size savings versus the 850, but that relates to handling in the field…in the studio, it shouldn’t matter so much. Regarding handling in the field, the A7/R system might not handle as well as the 850, even given its reduced weight, because there are many factors other than weight.
I could see this having a place for people whose hands are just too small, or who just aren’t strong enough, to manipulate an 850 or 900 or 99…but with these super third-party lenses, there is no AF, so handling is much more difficult in certain shots, and in those shots where handling isn’t more difficult, who cares? Like tripod use, and other manual-focus situations.
I understand that tools ultimately involve trade-off’s, and that everybody has their own analysis and decision to make. I guess it really comes down to more light, and better DOF control.
I have a hard time appreciating how important DOF is to people, since I’m not a razor-thin DOF-seeker.
right. thin dof is your main reason to upgrade from a point and shoot when you’re a beginner. as you mature, you learn to appreciate other things. that said – I own a couple of nice compact Minolta primes that would kill to make love to the a7 and the la ea4. imagine 20mm 2.8, 35mm f2, 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 2.8, la ea4 and the a7. what a neat little full frame system! oh well, I’m going to have to wait a couple of years still, I’ve promised myself to become a significantly better photographer before spending more money on this hobby.
Larger sensor also leads to sharpness advantage. Same lens used on FF always looks sharper due to lesser magnification printed/viewed at the same size thanks to lesser magnification (in APS-C case we upscale 24×16 image to print/view dimension, in case of FF we do 36×24 upscale). And when we compare similar FOV lenses, e.g. 24mm on APS-C vs 35mm on FF with similar DOF we have following facts:
1) Longer focal length will likely have higher resolution thanks to higher magnification factor
2) Lens on FF is stopped down, so this becomes sharper, with less aberrations.
Lowlight performance will be about the same as on APS-C in this case.
3) We also have a versatility to open the aperture on FF lens which can give unique look and lowlight capabilities which you cannot repeat with APS-C.
So you will not lose anything in wide and normal focal length range, where in practice there’s no much difference between size of APS-C and FF lenses. The only drawback, practically speaking, is size of longer focal length lenses.
Little trade off for wa and normal agreed.
Trade off progressively more extreme for macro and long telephoto closeups.
+1
macro
http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/third-result-a7r-18-pics_topic102306_page1.html
I enjoy Gustav’s photography as much as anybody, but there is that thin DOF again, which doesn’t do it for me on macro. I want to see the wings in focus, too.
f5 was the max he reached, probably trying to keep the shutter speed down because there is no IS, and he didn’t want to go too high on the ISO.
That thin DOF is great for some shots, like the butterfly on the leaf, from the side, with the entire background in bokeh–but notice that a butterfly from the side is essentially a planar subject. Also, it is not really that small. For some shots, like many fungi, thin DOF is totally undesirable.
I’d like to see how some deeper-field handheld shots turn out, given that there is no IS. I must say that, at first glance, those shots are no better at all than what I can do with the a850+100macro. Butterfly photography, and kingfisher photography for that matter, are not my thing, although Gustav does both well.
Do you actually do any hiking and photography? Do you actually do any travel photography? These small FF cams offer the weight and size advantage over the traditional DSLR (as a whole package). It’s not meant to be pocketable (give me an example of an interchangeable mirrorless that you can pocket). This is not meant as a huge compromise as the m43 system. Certainly, FF is not for everyone. If you can’t think of an advantage to go with FF, then this is not for you.
This system is still in the introductory period. Native lenses will come. WA angle problem only happens with rangefinder legacy (not SLR). Yes, the SLR WA will be bigger. But again, the overall package is smaller and lighter than a DSLR package. So no, you can still have your WA working just fine. By the look of it, the FE 35 and 55 already beat the majority of RF lenses while maintaining a relatively small size.
And you are completely wrong to think that smaller sensor has DOF advantage in macro. Technically, magnification and aperture size are the only two things govern the DOF. At one magnification (e.g. life size, 1:1), DOF will be the same for a given aperture regardless of focal length. So, depending on how you shoot macro, FF would offer a huge advantage since you need good ISO performance there.
Rolleiflex–
I do TONS of hiking and traveling photography. For traveling I take a Canon A95–AA batteries, metal case, and $25 to buy another if and when it gets broken and stolen. This latest 5 weeks in europe I took a Lumix GF2. I never take a camera I care about traveling, after having slugged an SLR around for years.
Having said that, I would never, ever again take with me traveling a camera that would not fit comfortably into a pocket, unless the purpose of the trip was photography. The RX1 is even too big for my liking, as is my old Leica film camera.
Hiking, I do very much mushroom photography. I have used excellent Sony stuff (a850), and crappy Canon travel stuff (a95), as well as FF Canon DSLR. Actual hiking, not out of the car, but in the bush for weeks canoeing, or in the high alpine for a week? a95. Why? AA batteries, which is my form factor for everything outdoors, at least 10 different devices should I need them. NiMH rechargeables, they are the system power source. Looking at moving up to an old a640, twice the mpix without the a95 sensor issue.
From the car, I use the Canon because it has live view. Used to use the Sony, but no live view on the forest floor or in a bog, or wherever, really sucks. Most of the time the cam sits on the ground. Such a treat to use a real cam instead of an AA-powered bush cam.
In winter, I still take the Leica with b&w film, there is something about how it renders in both high-contrast and low-contrast situations that I love, love, love. Plus it seems totally unaffected by seriously low temps here, which regularly get down to -20’s Fahrenheit.
The A7/R system (lenses or zoom lens included) is way too big for a long-term bush cam and has a totally inappropriate power source. It’s too nice for a travel cam, and IMO is way too big anyway, and I still prefer AA’s when away from what I know. Maybe you only travel to places with a fnac, I don’t know.
Yes, the overall package is smaller and lighter than SOME dslr packages…but significantly smaller and lighter, such that it can do what a dslr cannot? Not in my case. If you enjoy walking around with a cam on your neck for “general purposes”, then maybe, but I don’t do that, you might.
As far as macro goes, I love the a850+minolta100/2.8macro combo, but I have to tell you, I have gotten some pretty good macro out of that crappy a95, I don’t know what it is. It’s much more difficult, but the results can be pretty good, even with the slow lens.
This A7/R system is, I think, either the best or the worst of all worlds, depending on how one looks at it.
Let me make it short. If your goal is “good enough” IQ for web, AA compatibility, and cheap enough that you have to spend only $25 to replace, these Sony FF are clearly not for you. I doubt that any interchangable-lens digital system would meet this need.
For a photo-centric hike or travel (yes, to actually print large and display), these would be a heaven-sent. I don’t need to lug around the D800E to get the same MP. The left-over space in my backpack will be used for something else.
Finally, these cams act as a universal platform for all FF optics. No other DSLR or mirrorless can claim the same. You now can use the all kind of optics from any brand on these. You don’t need to maintain a dual system. This is, admittedly, a gear head mentality. But it’s the big draw of this main system. If you over-look this and are willing to maintain multiple cameras for your different needs, it is not for you. But certainly, there are merits in getting these Sony FF.
Embrace the new tech and you will see the new opportunity. It was like wondering about the benefits of having a on-camera AE, AF system, liveview or EVF. You just need to be open-minded.
Rolleiflex, I’m beginning to wonder if YOU do any actual photography.
FYI, I have printed images from that A95 up to and including 3′ x 4′, and with some resizing like bicubic, produced excellently usable results–to the point that I have to TRY NOT TO SELL MY PHOTOS. From that A95 alone, I produced series at 8×10, 16×20, and 18×24″, and some larger…when I agreed to put them on display there was so much demand that I didn’t know what to do. I decided to sell none of them! My modus operandi since has been to sell the rights to the original file along with a print made to spec, while retaining a lifetime license for myself to reproduce the image for purposes of self-promotion only with a quality and size limitation, and also retaining for myself one print made to my spec, replaceable as I or my successors see fit. My prices start at 5,000USD, and I have the luxury of restricting to whom I will sell, and that includes images initially captured with an A95, or composites of images initially captured with an A95.
I’m not a novice in the world of art, and in “printing and displaying”, as you put it. Given the tenor of your posts I have no doubt that your images might be technically competent, but your evident techno-centrism makes me wonder if they would be worth looking at as anything other than an object lesson in technical ability: sharp and distortion-free, but probably artistically sterile.
“these cams act as a universal platform for all FF optics”: Really? Even though all sorts of “great” lenses shorter than 35mm might not work well? A universal platform for inferior performance from any FF optic? You can have it.
And finally, it is YOU who needs to be open-minded. Although live view is essential for me, for some it is useless. Same with all the “features” you claim: EVF, AF, etc. Embracing new tech for its own sake is a sucker’s game. I encourage you to get out with some “old tech”, and see what you can do.
You know, lots of very, very technically competent painters have moved on to embrace less technically-proficient styles of painting, not using many of the techniques they had so painstakingly perfected. Technical perfection is merely a stepping-stone, unless one develops an unusual technique unique to them, for which they then become known as a pioneer. If you are continually “upgrading” your technical proficiency in response to increasing technical capabilities of cameras, your development as an artist will forever be stunted, and you will stagnate in an awkward adolescent state, and continue to believe that you can only reasonably “print and display” images captured with a FF camera.
everyman! show us your work! please!
LOL, I’ll let the insult slide. I’ll prepare a few of my pictures to share here. I know quite a few wouldn’t consider them to be sterile….
Let me make it clear first. I am not a professional photographer. It’s my own personal enjoyment. So I have my own standard. Your 3’x4′ might be enough for your clients. But I’m sure as hell, I wouldn’t settle with that. However, I don’t need to sell tons of pictures to make my point valid. And yes, I am also a gear head since I can afford it
Let’s talk about the technical aspect first. If you’re as real of a photographer as you claim, you wouldn’t claim such thing as “What about macro performance on the A7/R? Anybody have any info? For macro DOF, nothing beats a small sensor, no?” Have you shot enough and sold enough prints to know that there is no such advantage… I explained it in my previous post, but you seemed to gloss over that technical issue.
Then you moved on to this ““these cams act as a universal platform for all FF optics”: Really? Even though all sorts of “great” lenses shorter than 35mm might not work well?” You should have done more research before you make such claim. The problem only occurs with rangefinder wide angle, and not all RF WA would give you problem. Can you name one other system would be able to do the same? I bet you can’t. This one is as close to be a universal platform than any other system out there. Period. That is a fact.
Finally, did I ever claim that no one can make a photograph without LiveView, AF, AE, etc. On the other hand, you clearly dismissed the usefulness of these Sony FF for any type of photography (quite clear right there). Let me be clear. I shot with a 6×6 Rolleiflex in the past (yes, those without AF, AE, or liveview). But I don’t dismiss the usefulness of technology. Tech alone can’t get you anywhere. You have to know how to use it. You can then decide for yourself if it would fit your style. A true master would not easily dismiss progress. Ansel Adams employed all of the latest tech at that time in his work flow. It’s the photographer job to figure out the use of the new technology. If you can’t, it’s fine. But don’t say it’s irrelevant.
Finally, to printing. Sure, you can enlarge your S95 picture to 3’x4′. But would you deny that a 3’x4′ of the same scene taken from a FF would be better than that 3’x4′? Yes, it’s only on a technical point, but looking at sharp prints gives me more incentive to go out and shoot. And like I said, if the S95 is “good enough” for you, you don’t need these cams. I also wonder why you need any other cams for that matter. Heck, if I’m happy with a 3’x4′ print from my P&S, I wouldn’t be here reading rumors on a “technically” more advanced camera. I would rather go out and shoot to my heart content.
I would be more inclined to agree with you if you say that these cams don’t fit your style. But you make it to be “either the best or the worst of all worlds.” Such hyperbole! It’s neither the best nor worst. It serves its purpose to many however.
Now, to the artistic side, I would love to see your work. I’m willing to learn from other photographers. I will compile some of my pictures and post it here. If your artistic vision is better than mine, then you are a better photographer. However, that doesn’t mean you’re right on this matter. Different horses different courses. If you can’t find use for it, move on. Making hyperbole statement wouldn’t help your case.
“So, ah, exactly what is the benefit of the A7/R system?” A lot if you really look at it….
As promised, a few samples of my type of photography:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lg7rv8twkrhnsx6/Samples.rar
Nowadays, I shoot more landscape/urbanscape than macro. Now, let’s see yours.
Rolleiflex, can you hear yourself?
You try to make a point by slicing the baloney every more thinly.
My counter to your “universal platform” comment remains valid, as you yourself have just demonstrated.
I can also afford multiple systems, and I use multiple systems, often.
I don’t use the web for photographic purposes. I don’t need to, nor would I ever choose to. I also am not a “professional” photographer, although I do get paid for not only my art shots, but also for functional shots for several businesses. I will not explain to you why none of my art images are online.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with being a gearhead–your problem seems to be that you believe everyone could benefit from looking at the world through a gearhead lens. There is nothing wrong with being aware of, and investigating, new technical developments. Of course not. But it is the photographer as artist who must be the master–and no, I would not consider everybody who captures images to be a photographer.
I go further back, in fact. As part of what I do, I still do photograms, eliminating the camera entirely. I must admit that I’m not at all interested in viewing the photos to which you linked, given your conduct on this board. Why don’t you tell me something about your photography to make me interested? It will be an exercise that might help you understand what I’m talking about, in general.
I don’t know Mr. everyman. There is at least one more person here waiting to see your exceptional work. Why are you making bold claims without substance? It is so easy to insult another person (calling an incompetent photographer, calling me a belligerent person, calling me baloney…) without raising any valid argument. Why do I need to justify myself to you by telling you about my photography when I already included some of my pictures here? Are you too afraid to show your pictures? You obviously has the raw files. How difficult is it to make a few small JPEG to show your work instead of giving excuses? Do you realize that you’re making a big fool out of yourself if you keep going like this? I know I’m not the best photographer out there, but I’m not afraid to back down when I know I have valid points. You, on the other hand, is all talk so far. If you don’t want to take advantage of tech, then move on. I share my opinion, and I believe many photographers would share the same sentiments as well. Heck, seriously, you don’t know how to use technology to your advantage, then it’s your fault. Now if someone else knows how, but choose not to, then it’s a different matter. Stop acting like you’re all that of a photographer….
Rolleiflex, I’m not an insecure 10-year old. While I appreciate that your type of interaction works on some people, I can assure you that it doesn’t, and won’t, work on me.
What I do is considered, and not arbitrary, and not done out of ignorance or default.
I notice you still haven’t provided me any particular reason to experience the images to which you linked, which is totally unsurprising, because you have not the faintest idea about the concepts of which I speak. Your failure to even attempt to provide me a reason is some, but not the only, evidence for this proposition.
Grow up, Rolleiflex.
I eagerly await the next A-mount development.
Yes, I need to “grow up.” Said the man who is under the delusion of being an elite photographer, yet couldn’t muster a single picture to prove it. People know that you are afraid since you can’t back it up.
As an elite photographer, you sure know how to dig a deeper hole for yourself. You can’t even understand the difference between magnification and field view… You linked me Steve Huff article and a wiki page. If you actually read and learn what they are saying, you would realize that they’re talking about field of view. Magnification is independent of sensor size. A 1:1 (life size) magnification would not change whether it’s on an APS-C or FF. So DOF would be governed only by the aperture and magnification. If you can’t even get your technical knowledge right, how can you claim to be such an elite photographer? Such hubris. And you call me pathetic. You hide behind Dyxum community and other well-known photographers as if… You can lie to me and to anyone else, but don’t lie to yourself. That emptiness inside you after you read this means that you realize the lie now. Don’t make big claim if you can’t back it up.
Well Rolleiflex, you’ve proven yourself once again.
I’m solidly type-A, but as I have matured I have come to realize that there are many different types of people in the world, and I act accordingly.
While it is useless trying to discourse meaningfully with you, every post you do make is of value in helping people appraise not only your personality, but your intelligence, creativity, and self-understanding.
We’re still waiting for a reason to look at your images, but your posts suggest that your view of, interpretation of, and presentation of, anything, would be particularly uninteresting.
******************************
I encourage everybody interested to actually read about macro photography, magnification, FOV, sensor size, and DOF–and not read what blowhard Rolleiflex says and have to endure how he says it, but to read any of a variety of other available sources, easily google-able.
While the A7/R program is interesting, I still can’t but help think that it takes valuable resources away from other systems. Why E, FE, FF-A APSC-A, and P&S? Why not limit systems, and put the money into making OSPDAF work better, or making a better flash system, or something else more worthwhile? Sony imaging might be spread too thinly, they do not have infinite resources to throw at things. Sony, “where quantity (of systems) is job 1”, while attention to critical concepts may suffer.
In the real world, with real world magnifications which are not all the same for differing format sizes, smaller sensors give a deeper DOF.
Don’t believe me? Believe Steve Huff, or anybody else who has demonstrated the effect on the web, for equivalent FOV.
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/12/01/just-for-fun-sensor-sizes-compared-for-depth-of-field-small-medium-and-large/
For a general discussion, the Wikipedia page on “depth of field” can be consulted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field
, which says, among other things,
“When the “same picture” is taken in two different format sizes from the same distance at the same f-number with lenses that give the same angle of view, and the final images (e.g., in prints, or on a projection screen or electronic display) are the same size, DOF is, to a first approximation, inversely proportional to format size (Stroebel 1976, 139).”
Read more for more info on how things world in the real world, not how they work in Rolleiflex’s oppositionally-defiant world.
Admin, I took some test shots at PhotoPlus with the a7r and adapted Zeiss 55mm Otus lens (and I put my ad card in the camera). They are just shots of the Sony booth (the camera was attached via security cable). I can probably get them up online tomorrow and share a link if there is interest.
Can you elaborate on the handling and balance? I assume this is the Canon EF version. I want to see if there is any visible centering issue.
The handling felt fine. I didn’t get to use it for an extended period of time – perhaps 10 minutes or 12 minutes so I can’t speak to shooting with it all day. A few days earlier I tested the 5d3 + 55mm Otus. It the balance and feel was a little nicer – again I only used it for 10 or so minutes, but Im also much more accustomed to a large lens on a 5d size body. I hope to get the misc. samples up tonight, I’ll send a link when I do.
As an aside, the focus ring on the otus is perfection.
Thank you, Chris. I’m looking forward to seeing the samples on the Sony. As for the manual focus feel, are they better than the ZE/ZF? I think the current ZE is a bit slack.
Vignetting can be corrected? If Vignetting were like -2EV or worse, attempts to correct for it would still leave behind a fair bit of noise due to underexposure!
This is where Sony’s advertised selective noise reduction (A7R) of the RAW files should come in handy. If that fails, one should use a suitable center filter.
Hi all, I added some new photos to my Flickr set http://www.flickr.com/photos/leo_roos/sets/72157636975598525/. I also tested the a CV 28 and 35, and the Summicon M 35 , and a Russian RF lens, the Orion 15 (=28mm F6). Also new photos with the CV 12 and 21.
Even the 35mm show some colour shift, but the Summicron least of all.
To show that it is a RF lens problem I also tested a few non-RF (U)WA lenses. I will add these shots later!
Thanks for your effort. Even the 35summicron is mush at 2.8 and 4.
You’re welcome John. Yes, I had hoped for something a bit better. But I won’t cancel my order. It’s a great camera that will work perfectly with a lot of lenses and I’m sure with some careful PP in RAW, maybe some software corrections, and, OK, a bit of cropping here and there, even many WA RF lenses will give satisfactory results in the end.
Here’s the problem with Sony’s A7/A7r:
1) The quantity of Initial native lens support (with quality results) is less than acceptable.
2) The quality of results (non-native lenses) is less than acceptable.
3) The previously released APS-C Nex lenses are not optimally forward compatible with full frame.
4) The tripod mount is wobbly.
5) The flashes have plastic mounts (wobble and break).
6) The low light and high speed focusing is less than acceptable.
7) The jpg’s are overly cooked (Sony’s poor algorithms).
8) The lenses are highly overpriced.
9) Backward and forward consistency is already poor.
10) 99% of all working photographers avoid Sony cameras like the plague.
Sony will no longer get my money. In fact, I wouldn’t even buy their insurance (where they make their money), even if I was still living in Japan.
Kind of glad you won’t be buying one – will keep the discussion in Sony forums that much better.
“2) Voigtlander 12mm, 15mm and 21mm rangefinder lenses:
Leo Roos on Flickr (found via Dyxum) posted a set of images taken with the A7r with wide angle Voigtlander lens. As you can see as wider as you go more vignetting and color shift issues you will see”
Actually, the tests are there with 24, 28, 35, 50 too, and everything up to and including 35mm (both CV Color-Skopar and Leica Summicron) is just terrible. Well, Samyang 24mm can pass in a pinch.
Agree they are awful.
Well look at it like this rangefinder lenses, forget it esp wide end.
DSLR or MF oldies with adaptor yes worth looking at.
On the other hand one wonders if Sony will sell many of their own lenses, I suspect they won’t!
It is simply a matter a geometry. There is no chance in hell that a sensor with color filter array (any color filter – Bayer or X-Trans or whatever) can behave well when the rear element of a lens is closer to the sensor than diagonal of the sensor. 18mm flange distance with 44mm diameter is just stupid, sorry – the angles turn out to be extreme. Even BSI would not save it from color shifts (and the sensors in A7/A7r are not even BSI).
If they’d installed a Foveon-like sensor and did distortion correction separately in each color channel specifically for each lens, then in would be a very different story. Until then you are better off carrying that necessary throat once in camera body than in each and every lens.
Foveon is more sensitive to angle well because the pixel well is deeper (for each color) resulting in different illumination at different depths.
You didn’t get his idea. First, there will be no problem, when light passed via green filter lays on blue photodiode and so on. At second, there can be layer mismatches at edges due to steep angle of incidence. In case of foveon we can mutually squeeze channels (in software) to fix those inconsistencies.
Now I see why did they keep SLR-like shape of the body–the camera doesn’t even pretend to be RF compatible.
Cool then. Just continue following my posts.
Oops, mistake, that’s a reply actually.
I’m not taken with the pic from the expensive Noctilux . That much money for a lens which obviously requires heavy colour fringing correction ? Come on , is this a case of the Emperors new clothes ?
I’ve tuned out on most of these posts since the A7/A7r announcement. Post after Post regarding rangefinder and older manual lenses… followed by complaint after complaint.
Bleh. I’ll just continue to wait for a full bodied A-mount mirrorless.
All I can see on samples taken with “legacy” lenses is that the biggest problem comes from adapters…
When you look at the pictures (full size) there is always decentering, also the left side (above all corners) is always worse.
Most of adapters are not set to infinity, often further so all shots are unsharp. It was already a problem with Nex camera and now even more with A7/A7r.
I’ve got a Metabones and several noname other ones and ALL were bad at infinity (and sometimes even decentered) so you have to check with magnifying to get “correct” focus…
Nico – don’t just slap your lens to infinity. You can confirm focus and even focus to infinity with the aperture wide then stop down if you have to. Never ever had a problem with this.
Why is the bokeh on the Noctilux picture psychedelic? It’s looks like ghosts were playing with flashlights in the background. Is this normal? I was hoping the 0.95 would work on the a7r.
Is it directional lighting/spotlights?
The Cron 35 looks worse than my Distagon 35/2 wide open
So, results are underwhelming. Heck, even Summicron 35 ASPH doesn’t work well. Well, at least it saves my money: I don’t have any intention to buy into toyish sony optics, whatever optical quality it have. I need DOF scale and infinity. And touch screen, and electronic shutter. Just too many quirks.
The Noctilux photo – more than a dozen issues with that photo. I wouldn’t post it in a Scottish toilet.
Issues? Please specify. The beauty of the Noctilux is that it isn’t perfect. I rent lenses that cost £20k+ to buy, technically pefect but utterly boring. The Noctilux has a character and you need to work with it, not against it. That said the example image is abysmal. It tells me absolutely nothing other than you managed to take a bad picture. I’ve just shot a commercial on RED Dragon using a Noctilux and the images were astounding, FULL of flaws, but that was exactly what gave the shots their distinctive look.