Sony A7r Light Leak video by Ferrell McCollough
Our friends at Dicahub found that official Sony Korea note where they say that the LIght Leak issue isn’t a “general problem”. But they will investigate further and then notify their more detail action in March. But now we have to report a quite interesting and surprising report:
Imaging Resource tested the light leak and said it’s actually present in Nikon and Canon cameras too and the [shoplink 25011 ebay]Canon 5dmarkIII[/shoplink] actually shows an even greater leak! They write:
Drawing it together, is a light leak of the sort seen in the A7 in any way unusual? Absolutely not. The best Canon and Nikon models exhibit similar behavior. While a perfect camera might block every last photon, the tolerances required of lens and flange make this exceedingly difficult. To our minds, based on what we’ve seen with our A7 and the best competing models, this is really a non-issue.
Well, I guess this will quiet down some of the noise around the A7-A7r light leak issue 🙂
0 Responses
“the tolerances required of lens and flange make this exceedingly difficult”
How does he know? Most likely it only requires a minor tweak in the flange design. And I don’t know, it just seems to me that if the two components that leak light in between are locked together in an “s” shape then no light should leak through. Or maybe just fill the seam with black rubber injected in a liquid state.
Any engineer will know this is a hard thing to achieve. The sensors these days are SO sensitive that if you place it in a bright room with the lens cap on, ultimately something will get through. Think logically – how often will you be doing that long of an exposure, at that ISO level, in an environment where the light shining at the interface between the camera and the lens will be this bright?! It would require orders of magnitude difference between the ambient light level and what you are shooting, which is absurd. It’s a totally meaningless test.
Further, engineers work on real tolerances. We expect car tyres to be airtight, but not absolutely so. We might still expect, over a course of a year, to top the air pressure up a few times. It doesn’t affect the performance of the tyre, and the penalties of achieving an absolutely perfect hermetic seal in terms of costs, weight and materials are simply not worth it.
Maybe some weather sealing on lens acting as a light leak prevention?
You did see how they solved this right? They tied a hair band onto it. Surely engineers could come up with some alternative to a hair band!
When you design something, you do it fully aware of manufacturing tolerances. The tighter the tolerances specified by the design, the more expensive manufacture becomes. I’m sure Sony could have made a camera with even less light leak, but that would have made for a more expensive camera. I’m pretty sure that the level of light leak at the lens mount exhibited by the A7/R, is fairly common among cameras from all manufacturers. It’s just that someone discovered it in the Sony cameras, and assumed it was an anomaly. Because of the internet uproar this has caused, Sony now says that they will look into it.
The best question is: Is it present on all units or just few “lucky” ones?
Because if that is the case, present in few units, of course I want to have mine fixed.
Don´t know how much Sony paid Imaging Resources but, light leaks are the real life problem.
Here is the example posted to the same imaging resources article:
http://www.grahamclarkphoto.com/sony-a7r-field-notes-with-canon-ef-lenses/
One of the pictures:
http://www.grahamclarkphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Sony-A7R-Light-Leak.jpg
It would be interesting to see if those are due to the camera or the adapter.
And if the leaks come between the camera and the adapter or between the adapter and the lens.
Sony aren’t going to pay attention to any shots taken with a third party adapter
Especially as the leak in those shots is in a different place to all the others with native lens or body cap
So you know that effect is caused by a light leak and not just lens flare? In any case, those were via an adapter, which has two interfaces and a bit of third party engineering.
Incidentally, it’s difficult to see how a slight composition change would have any effect on a light leak (assuming exposure is comparable). A light leak is caused by incident light on the camera/lens, and wouldn’t be substantially changed by a minor adjustment in composition. Of course, lens flare can be. Possibly if this was a poorly engineered adapter, there may have been so “wobble” given the two interfaces. Whatever this effect is, it’s many orders of magnitude than a very lengthy “exposure” at high ISO with the lens cap on and a light deliberately aimed at the camera. And by many orders of magnitude, I’m talking of factors of millions, or even billions.
I’d say anyone that uses an OVF camera and whines about the light leak on the A7 is completely clueless.
Lightleak is part of OVF nature.
Canon supplied a viewfinder cover to use for long exposures with the 5d2. I put it to good use.
My a99 leaks much more. The first photo was taken without any lens (a cap on the mount). The second – with Sony Zeiss 135mm f/1.8. Both in sunlight, 30 sec., iso 25600.
So I don’t think it’s a huge problem.
I don’t see the point of the first image. Since when is a cap suppose to be ‘light-tight’? It’s merely suppose to stop dust and stuff like that.
My a99, first I did a control shot of the camera w/ 24-70 in a zipped up camera bag in a closet:
Then I replicated it on a bright window sill, same settings (max ISO, 30sec):
Sorry Sony, but for such a price, I would certainly not buy this camera with that light leak, NO WAY, I complain those who have this now and Sony does nothing to help ???? it’s scandalous
So…. From the article above you would not buy a camera. Full stop.
This is not a Sony unique issue & is a general camera issue visible in Canon & Nikon cameras for sale at higher price points.
I have yet to see an example shot at anything like normal shooting conditions so call this a complete non point.
there are enough sample available for this problem
More telling would be any other high end OVF camera shot side by side with the same image parameters. Assuming there were no adapters involved….
And the Exif from that image (posted larger above by the photographer), tells us it was shot using a Canon lens with adapter. Which makes it a useless example without knowing how the adapter affected the result.
You say you wouldn’t buy this camera because of the leak yet all cameras exhibit the same problem… Thus you wouldn’t buy any camera.
I bet your intellect translates into beautiful photos.
You sound like an idiot anyway.
Don’t buy the Canon 5d3 either.
Oh wait, you sound like you just bought a 1dx to take photos of your kids. LOL
according to this article : http://www.ubergizmo.com/2014/03/sony-acknowledges-a7-a7r-light-leak-issue/ Sony finally admit the problem, so the only idiot here is you for ignore it.
This was announced several days ago on this forum!
For such a price? You mean, the cheapest FF camera on the market has a minor issue.
Yes, even if it is the cheapest FF on the market, it has to flowless, otherwise it’s inperfect, and Sony know’s it, so I don’t want any product which I know have a problem what so ever, do I have you’re permission for that, thanks.
Most of this stuff is utterly nonsensical and bears no relationship to real life circumstances. I struggle to work out under what actual circumstances there are where a camera will be subject to intense light such that the few photons which arrive at the sensor through such leaks will register yet they won’t be wholly swamped by those arriving through the lens. Even if you are in direct sunlight and stop the lens down to its maximum (which will cause considerable blurring through diffraction and is thus normally to be avoided), any stray photons through leaks will still be vastly lower that the inherent photonic (shot) noise levels. I suppose you could add a very dense neutral filter on top of fully stopping the lens down to provoke it, but then its getting fanciful.
At the other end of the scale (say astrophotography), then the general light levels are so low that light leaks are also not an issue. Indeed you do everything in your power to avoid light pollution.
Of course, in the days of film it was a rather different matter. If you had light leaks, you could get fogging as the film accumulates exposure, although there the issues were different as it was about light leaks through the shutter and the film chamber. Light leaks through lens mounts were never an issue then, and nor do I think they are now.
In short, until somebody can demonstrate a real effect on a real camera under actual real-life type conditions (on any system), then I can’t see this is an actual problem that has any impact on anybody. Just performing long exposures with a lens cap on under intense light does not count as a real-life condition.
Please refer to the post with the pictures below.
take a look here : using lee big stopper for long exposure..
http://community.sony.com/t5/Alpha-NEX-Cameras/A7-A7R-Light-leaks/td-p/254835
What were the settings for that image?
A few examples:
1. Long exposure using ND filters
2. IR photography
3. Macro photography where lights/flashes must be directly in front of the lens
4. Macro photography using high magnifications (very little light enters lens)
5. HDR capture where small levels of contamination may be amplified during tone mapping
Pure theory.
For you perhaps. For other it’s purely practical application of a camera.
Until there are actual tests of the five scenarios listed above showing the issue, then it’s pure theory for everyone. Right now, I’ve seen proof of only the first one and with a rather extensive use of ND filters.
Theory based on a sound knowledge of physics is not necessarily completely flawed… and therefore should be receivable at least for what it is: pure and simple logical facts.
Then it should be demonstrated /illustrated with the facts.
Never said it was flawed, you made that one up. I said it’s a theory. And even a sound theory is not a fact and cannot be received as a fact.
I mentioned ND filters, but quite why would you have one so strong that you get exposures measured in the 10s of seconds? And you wouldn’t be running the sort of high ISO
Of course you use very, very strong ND filters on solar photography, but the exposures are very short.
As far as IR photography is concerned, then if it’s the type done with a modified sensor (by removing the IR blocking filter), then that’s unlikely to be any different. Of course if you do IR photography without a modified sensor and use an IR lens filter, you can get into very long exposures, but that never strikes me as very satisfactory anyway. In any case, go into those sort of extremes of exposures of 10s of seconds in bright conditions is hardly mainstream photography, and those doing it will be aware of special precautions.
I don’t see macro photography as much of an issue. You might have the flash/strobe close to the camera, but it’s bad practice to actually aim it towards the lens/camera.
I also don’t see HDR photography being affected. The differences between the high and low levels are only a few stops, and don’t come close to the exposures of 10s of seconds at high-ISO levels that exposed the light leaks through the lens/camera flange.
These are all situations where the ratio of light hitting the camera body to light entering the lens can be large, which is where an issue like this would be noticeable.
ND filters can be used to control motion effects. Ex: Blurring out ocean waves over 10s of seconds.
I don’t have an IR modified camera, just a filter which is much cheaper.
Lighting for high-magnification macro is very challenging as the lens is often only millimeters from the subject, and it’s nearly impossible to prevent light from spilling onto the lens barrel & camera body (let alone the front lens element). In many cases even direct sunlight requires 10s of seconds for proper exposure. Some lenses are even designed to get more light onto the subject by redirecting light to exit the front of the lens.
HDR from images spanning 20+ stops are common, but usually avoided because other problems like lens flares that are normally not visible suddenly become visible when amplifying darker regions of an image. Light leaks are similar.
Are people confusing “Amp Glow” with “light leak”? Amp glow is very well documented for any and every digital camera out there!
No. Amp glow should only appear in one corner, and seems to be almost non-existent with newer CMOS sensors (either due to improved design or calibrating it out). Amp glow was largely a problem due to makers being lazy and leaving the amps on all the time, rather than just turning it on when reading out the sensor.
It’s still a problem with many sensors today at their extreme end of their ISO range. Here’s an example and a fix:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/41059442
The A7R and A7 suffer from it in similar ways as the D800, D610 etc.
I get the same on my A7, I’ve reported it just in case Sony do something about it so I’m in the queue
But bottom line… it’s not affecting my shots, maybe someone who does astrophotography will be frustrated by it at some point but will be able to work around it by stacking shots I guess.
How can astrophotography be affected as it’s done in the dark? Indeed, one of the principles to minimise any extraneous sources of light.
Yeah good point – was just trying to think of scenarios where the camera settings needed to reproduce the issue would be used
Oh my god, Canon and Nikon got “Light Leak” too and every camera get it.You can’t protect sensor with photon from cap or mount interface completely. But Canon or Nikon seeders have done well, make it serious !
Ahaha that’s awesome…the 5D leaks worse than the A7…classic…Maybe the whiners will take a break till they have something to moan about tomorrow…
I used a 5Dmk2 for 4 years before I replaced it with an A7R. I use the same exact ND filters taking the same exact kind of daytime long exposure photographs. YES, with SLRs the OVF needs to be capped in order to keep light entering into the mirror box via the OVF. Not *once* did I see with my 5Dmk2 the kind of light leak from the flange like the ones that are easily reproducible with my A7R. Non-issue my stinking ass.
Your 5D2 did not have this problem, so what? Many others do not encounter this problem with their A7R either, do their experience invalidate yours? No? So don’t make it sound like the 5D2 is free of light leak. What’s important here is how prevalent the issue is on A7R compared to other cameras.
So what? I *know* that there are copies of A7/Rs out there that do not have this problem, even when conducting the “EXTREME” stress test. I’m not saying there’s an inherent design flaw, I’m saying there is a batch of defected units out there, including mine. The fact that there *are* units out there that don’t display this issue whatsoever is *proof* that the light leaks that we *are* seeing in *some* of the units is *not* normal.
Problem Solved! They only cost $2.75 for 250, enough to last several life times. Works with any camera.
That’s called a workaround, not a solution. Tell me, if your waterproof camera shipped with a hole in the body thereby leaking water into the body, would you accept “Duct Tape! The only cost $3 a roll, enough to last several lifetimes!” as a “solution”? What if the remote keys to your car came dysfunctional and somebody handed you a coat hanger as a “solution”?
Man, I just love people who like to point out how “easy” it is to “solve” problems that they don’t have. Give me a break.
Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
I don’t shoot the scenarios that seem to cause the issue with my A7r. However that doesn’t mean that to some people shooting certain subjects in a certain way that the problem is very real.
To be fair the hair band solution is dirt cheap and appears to be 100% effective. I belive you can actually pay a little more and buy actual external o-rings that will maintain weather sealing. Over the years as with all manufactured equipment I have had issues some serious some trivial. This one has such a simple fix that it can barely be called a problem.
I have a D800e/D700 & D610 I can replicate pretty similar results with them all as can my mate Joe with his 5DmkIII/1Dsmk2. They are just as easy to fix as my Sony A7r though as I say it hasn’t affected any of my shots with my A7r { yet!}. Some degree of light leak is present in every interchangeable lens camera perhaps yours is outwith normal tolerances.
If I was as unhappy as you I would return the camera immediately, perhaps try a replacement model and if this doesn’t work more to your expectations then I would just return for refund and look elsewhere.
I was one of those owners with a light leak at the flange that was corrected by applying a thin strip of black electrical tape to cover the gap between the silver flange and the red ring adjacent the port flap doors. Nothing to do with 3rd party mount or body cap. I don’t know what is so difficult for people to understand. The exchanged A7 I received either did not slip past quality control like the first one, or the problem was found and fixed mid-production because this one does not have the light leak. I’m convinced that a defect exists in certain batches of this camera. If you just can’t understand the simple concept that 30 sec at max ISO is a test, extreme as it may be, and NOT an indication of how we plan to shoot with these cameras, then be on your way and enjoy yours. On the other hand, if you believe that a defect where the flange meets the camera body is not acceptable of a camera at this price range, then act. If you are solely afraid of being tagged as part of the lunatic fringe long-exposure crowd and have social acceptance issues, then we can’t help you.
BTW, did you all see the video by Ferrell linked above? You seriously think that behavior with very normal exposures is a “non-issue”? Jeez…
Since when shooting with the cap on is a “very normal exposure”?
Cap on is, truly, a non-issue here. It was left on to make the leak much more apparent in the image. If the cap were off, you’d see an actual image of the object you are shooting. The light leak will still be there. Now if you’re the type of photographer who doesn’t care if you’re constantly losing contrast and creating a crescent shape “flare” on your image, then more power to ya 🙂
The type that uses strobes directly pointed at the mount, within a distance of less than a feet, in a dark exposure, yes, reason to acknowledge the existence.
But again, which cameras do better? And if they do, show the exact same exposures from both side by side to back that up please. Talk is talk.
Like I said elsewhere:
———————
Here is an image with just two stacked NDs (ND400 + ND8) for a total of 12-stops of ND, 2.5 minute exposure, ISO50. https://dl.dropboxusercontent…. I’d been doing daytime LE work for 4 years with a Canon 5Dmk2 before I replaced it with an A7R using these same filters, and sometimes stacking even more (e.g., Lee Big Stopper + ND8 for 13 stops, Big Stopper + ND400 for 19 stops, ND400 + ND8 + CPL for 14-15 stops, etc.) and never did I see light leaking from the flange. With my A7R it’s a “guarantee”. It’s not the angle or composition, it’s the ambient light. This image was taken facing north as the sun rose from my right. The light leaky spot on the flange is to the left (hence, the crescent showing up on the right). There was no direct sunlight hitting the flange at this time. And yet, the leak. So go ahead and tell me this is an OMGOMGXTREME photo.
————————
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/131577/forums/FB%20Samples/DSC02718-Edit.jpg
So, in answer to your question, my 5Dmk2 did better. WAY better.
Until I see a side by side with that Mark II (or a Mark III) in the same scene (snow is reflective…), same shot (no adapter on the A7R), I’m not convinced it’s unique for your A7R. Especially after seeing the Imaging Resource results.
It would also be interesting to see the unaltered version, since there are tons of masks and retouches done to the image posted, according to the Exif. And last but certainly not least, you used a Canon 17-40 f/4, which means there was an adapter used. Whithout knowing how the adapter affected the outcome (another reference shot without adapter), this is actually a useless example based on that fact alone:
http://i59.tinypic.com/dcri8x.jpg
Deny all you want. I’m telling you, as someone who have been making the same exact kind of photographs for years, using the same ND filters, from a Pentax K20D, K7, Canon 5D, 5Dmk2, and now the A7R, I have *never* seen light leaking from the lens flange. The image above was one of the first long exposure shots I took with the A7R. I’ve done several since, and it was a guarantee, every time I did daytime LE with more than 9-10 stops worth of ND @ more than 2-3 minutes, the leak was evident. Something like this never was an issue with any of the cameras I’ve owned in the past.
If you read carefully, you’ll notice I didn’t deny the existence, I said I doubt it’s unique to your A7R based on that single image or your experiences for that matter.
That’s what side by side tests are for.
And you skipped over the part about how, in my 5-6 years of experience doing exactly this kind of photography, I’d never once found light leaking issue from the flange? Now, I can’t do a side-by-side, because I’ve sold off my other digital cameras, and my A7R is currently in Japan in hopes of getting it repaired. I’ll leave that up to somebody else; I don’t need any convincing, I already know that the leak I saw in my A7R is not “normal” or a “non-issue”
No, again if you read carefully, I did mention your experience not being proof that the A7R is unique. Even if your Pentax and Canon had not shown the same issues with that exact same shot, that would be no proof that the A7R is unique in this (a sample of 2 cameras would not be exactly give high confidence in stating other cameras do not suffer). The Imaging Resource article already tells us it’s not. With so many models and cameras in general, it takes a whole lot of testing to prove they do not suffer, but it relatively takes a few positive hits (see article, 2 out of 2) to prove that they do.
One more time, I don’t deny the existence, but you can’t deny existence in other cameras either. Even if the 2 other cameras you owned did not exhibit it, that does not mean others shooting with those cameras weren’t affected either. You acknowledge there are A7(R) cameras unaffected, so you should realize you could have been lucky before too. Especially after seeing the Imaging Resource results for new (and weather sealed) high end cameras.
You’re losing me here. If the point you want to make is that other makers have defective units, too, then sure fine, I’m not gonna argue that. I don’t care about wars between manufacturers or fanboys of any make. Simply not interested. What I *do* know is that (a) this should be considered a defect (b) because there are plenty of cameras out there, made by other makes as well as Sony *as well as other A7/R units* that do not display this *at all*––and I’m not saying they display this to a lesser degree; there are units out there that no matter how much more stress they put on it, they will not display this characteristic crescent shaped leak whatsoever. Is it wildly prevalent? Is Sony worse or better than other makes? Not interested. Don’t give a damn. What *don’t* want to hear is people telling me, and others who have this issue, which is affecting real-life images that I take all the time with my cameras, that this is a “non-issue”. Cuz it’s not. Have a fine day.
The point is that you call it defective, the Imaging Resource article suggests tolerances in general do not seem tight enough to ensure total absense in any of the current high end cameras from Canon and Nikon. In short, more of a luck game than anything else, regardless of brand.
If that’s your type of photography, it’s an issue that you could encounter with any camera and should be aware of. Great you were lucky before, great if tolerances could be improved for all these manufacturers. Until then just another piece of tape for that specific purpose (just like the OVF’s without cap out there).
And many AF lenses exhibit light leaks at the range window.
Bottom line: black tape is/should be an essential element of an LE shooter’s kit.
Leaks elsewhere are easier to deal with; leaks on the barrel of the lens can be easily covered up; leak from the OVF is taken care of with a cap. light is leaking from the range window of a zoom lens, you could use a prime lens. But when you have light leaking right at the flange, it’s very difficult to cover up, and I can’t switch to another flange without a leak. One of the reasons why I was excited about the A7R is that it is a mirrorless camera, hence no light leaks from the VF. One fewer source of light leaks; that’s great. Then I get this. I agree that light leaks are something that LE shooter always has to deal with, but wouldn’t you agree that fewer potential leaky areas there are, the better? And wouldn’t you agree that the flange really should be a light-tight area of a camera? I’m not even talking about the lens/flange interface, which should be light tight, but sometimes is not. But the issue with the A7/R is not even that;, it’s within the flange mechanism itself. People are seeing the same leaks using First Party (Sony/Zeiss), weather-sealed lenses.
Yes, I used a Metabones EF-FE Mk3 adapter. And you know what? That was the very first thing I blamed. I went on the Facebook Sony Alpha group and told everybody that the Metabones leaks light like nobody’s business. I would like apologize to the good folks at Metabones, because since then, I’ve established I was dead wrong. The light leak is absolutely, 100% coming *not* from between the rear of the lens and the silver flange but between the silver flange and the orange outer ring of the A7R; this can easily be verified by applying a thin strip of gaffer’s tape to cover ONLY the gap between the silver flange and the orange ring; the tape will not come in contact with the Metabones adapter at all, and yet, the light leak will go away. And yes, sure I retouched the image, but are you denying that there’s a light leak there that affects the image??? You *are* in denial mode.
He’s probably using a 10$ adapter from ebay and blame his Sony A7R for the leak …
Rawhead… seriously… you should be ashamed.
I wonder if the sensor proximity in the A7 makes a difference too, its very close to the lens flange?
Isn’t a point of using stobes so you don’t have to use ISO 1600?
Usually, but not always. Sometimes it is still necessary to use a strobe for your subject and a high ISO for your background.
If the issue is apparent anyway, then why leave the cap on? Clearly, because it’s not apparent. His test is more in the realm of pure experimentation. And your shot is indeed extreme. You are shooting with a 3rd party adapter and using 12 stops of ND, something that I would consider out of the ordinary. Obviously, there’s an issue for your type of shooting, but your type of shooting is exceptional. So, overall, a non-issue.
Has anyone measured the tolerances for plastic body caps? Maybe the Sony marketed cap is better than third party caps. We can do light leak tests to determine which caps are better. We need to test hundreds of caps to determine manufacturing uniformity as a function of acceptable tolerances, however.
Then we can test to see how bad the light leak is with the “leakiest” cap versus the “most leak free” cap.
After we do these tests, we can check various lenses, different models of the same lens, to see how severe the leaks are with actual lenses.
Then we have to buy various copies of various cameras to test.
And then we can vary the test conditions to determine the extent of the light leak.
Of course, manufacturing tolerances should not exist. Mass production tolerances are garbage and problematic. If you can’t accomplish exact replicas of perfect parts, we need to go back to manufacturing parts individually to maintain absolute uniformity in product quality. So what if we have to pay ten times more for the product, instead of using a “sock of some sort” tied around possible leak points to minimize possible leaks. Every optical device should be crafted like the Hubble space telescope. We all deserve nothing less.
I propose that these test will ultimately determine the quality of the work that a “photographer” or “videographer” actually delivers.
Nice! Especially the last sentence.
Img. resource sonyfanboy buy an xt1 instead
Note that, A7 was tested under far more severe condition( with 2 bright flash), and the other two (D800E, 5DIII) were just under normal sunlight.
It can’t be mistakes from Sigma flange?
I tested my A7 with the 55FE today. Lens cap on, stopped down all the way, ISO 25600, 30″ exposure, sitting on my desk in a well lit office. The image was black with no leaks that I could see.
Either my camera is special, or this issue is blown way out of proportion.
At this point, it is pretty clear that the issue is both blown out of proportion and does not affect every camera.
“blown out of proportion” is sadly standard practice for internet camera forums 🙂
We will not know how “blown out of proportion” this is until we carry out a rigorous random sample tests on at least 30 units that are out in the wild. The fact that you have one unit that doesn’t have this problem tells us nothing, in a similar way that one person *with* the issue (e.g., me) tells us nothing just how prevalent this is, or how blown out of proportion this is. It’s called science.
I just tested my A500 and A77 and lo and behold, both show a light leak (top left and top right respecively) quite a bit worse than the A7R sample shown here.
The A500 is about to hit 100k shots and I had no clue all this time.
And to think that you now need to throw away all of these 100K shots. I mean, even if not visible, the light leak is still there.
So Mr. “I need to see side-by-side tests with all the same settings to make a determination” now knows that his test, the settings and conditions of which is completely omitted, yet now knows his A500 and A77 “leak quite a bit worse than the A7R sample shown here”. How convenient.
You’ve seen my real world example. Put 12-stops worth of ND, go out on a sunny day, and take a 2.5 minute shot @ ISO50 (should be around F22) pointing at least 90˚ away from the sun, and if you consistently get the kind of ghosting *not* from the lens, *not* from your OVF (make sure cap it), and *not* from the lens/flange interface, but from the camera body itself, then come tell me how worse your A500 and A77 is than my A7R.
Tssk tssk, no need to get all snappy. Not sure how establishing my cameras show light leaks is conventient to me. Nor the countless other people having similar results.
I tested my A500 and A77 following the description given by IR, first without tape, just the lens cap and original OVF cover (in the case of the A500 obviously…), then with tape to see if the light leak could be ascribed to either of those. And still the same light leak. Then tried 4 other lenses with the same effect.
Any other assumptions mr. grumpy?
Are you dyslexic or are you purposefully ignoring the point I’ve been making that the test conditions by IR is likely extreme, and in order to make a fair comparison, you would need to conduct a more modest test? I mean, I outlined it really clearly in the post to which you just replied. I’ll make it simple: go out, lens cap on, OVF and lens barrel covered, so the the only location of light leak could be the lens mount, and shoot 2.5 minutes at ISO50 in daylight. If your A500 and A77 show light leak with those settings, please come back with images retaining EXIF. Thanks 🙂
If you really think your caveman attitude will prompt anyone to do tests for you, then you’ve long lost touch with reality.
But it’s in my nature to test things so I’ve done plenty of testing beyond what was described. And what was described is what I reacted to, mine being worse than the IR results (the A7R sample in the OP, not everything here revolves around you). Which puts your dyslectic remarks back in to your own alley. 😉
I’ve run tests with a mere 30 sec exposure at ISO 200 to 12800 in a scene merely lit (not the camera) by a 40 watt bulb. The A500 being the worst offender is still worse than the IR results indicate. Your test scene leaves me cold at this point. So do your conclusions and assumptions.
When there are quality control or manufacturing issues not every item manufactured will be faulty. Neither you nor your camera are special, the defective units are most likely in the minority – but what percentage is unknown.
I would say the reaction to the problem has been appropriately proportional – there is an on-going discussion on the official Sony community board, there has been an acknowledgement by Sony (they are rightfully looking into it), and there have been a few posts on blogs or rumor sites about it. This isn’t national news nor is there an international recall.
I’ve need had that problem in an alpha camera.
After reading the imagining resources article and the associated posts, their seems to be two issues that are getting slightly confused. 1 light can leak in between the flange on any camera given the right circumstances after all the lens and camera are likely to have some tolerance between them and since the flange on both are shiny silver you would expect some photons to possibly reflect off enough points to make it through… 2. The A7 leak isn’t necessarily happening at the lens to camera connection, one poster was adamant that he sealed that and it appeared the leak was actually happening between the mounting flange on the camera and the camera body itself, and if that is the problem then it is more concerning than simply having light between a lens to camera connection because it would imply poor design or manufacturing process.
If #2 happens, that is an issue for sure.
Exactly. I’ve been saying this from the very beginning but I think people are just too dull to understand the difference. OR, the issue is so absurd that people just dismiss that as a possibility :LOL:
if it’s reason #2 just get the camera back to Sony and have it fix. That’s why warranty for. There’s no need to fix the problem your self.
I think the possible issues are very simple to solve and that is…. Send the a7(r) back to sony repair if you think you have issues with the camera If you send a testshot (with full metadata info) acompanied with the camera, Sony can see and learn from it on a case by case situation.
Otherwise the issue is non-excisting to Sony
agree. I’ve tested my A7r for serious light leakage which might effect real life use and I can’t find any. If some one camera is faulty they should send it back to Sony and get it repair. Don’t need to fix it your self and the camera certainly wont’ fix it self by posting the problem on the internet.
The Sony FE lenses were supposed to be weather-sealed. Weather-sealed lenses include rubber seal around the mount, which does not let air and moisture in, let alone light.
Looks like a case of false advertisement.
Photons are infinitely smaller than water or air molecules.
Exact ! That’s the answer.
If light can penetrate several millimetres of material in a joint to form a ring sector on the sensor, would you rely on that same joint to be impenetrable to water?
No bayonet lens mount has anywhere near such tight tolerances.
+1 Indeed ! Agreed !
What? Rubber seal around the mount?!?… Show me a weather sealed lense with a rubber around the mount!! The weather sealing of lenses don’t include the mount…Unless it’s an underwater camera…
Maybe tolerances should be reduced to ten angstroms, or maybe even an angstrom. Of course, even that kind of tolerance won’t stop a lot of “persistent” photons from reaching the image sensor.
The nature of these light leaks indicates a problem with weather sealing on Sony, Canon and Nikon cameras. Are people having problems with the weather seal on 5D MarkIII? If not, how do we explain the light leak at the joint with the lens? I’m skeptical of the idea that it’s water tight and not light tight. It’s not impossible, but it seems very unlikely unless there is light passing through the rubber…
To your view point, which has the larger size and present the highest viscosity: photons or water molecules aggregated into much larger droplets ?
So, are you saying that light being able to penetrate the joint is an indication that water will not be able to do the same? Or that people should take the chance, because maybe there’s only room for light, not for water?
That is not what PJP is saying; his point is that water molecules are bigger than photons so it is possible for material to be water tight but not light tight. Consider: pane of glass, transparent plastic, etc.
This is not the same as saying that the weather sealing is good. The point is that a light leak does not necessarily mean faulty weather sealing.
Or, to put it another way, testing for light leaks is not a proxy for testing the weather sealing. Weather sealing needs to be tested separately.
Agreed ! Testing light and environmental protection / sealing separately is necessary to certify the level to which the camera complies to a given specification or standard for each. There is not such thing as one fits all… Does weather protection implies that the A7/A7r cameras can survive a mooson rain unscathed or does it applies more to fog and light rain ? The answer should be found in the standards… Light tightness, yes but to which extent ? Nothing is really absolute in this world, everything is a sort of compromise.
Any plumbing in homes are the same way, they are water tight, but not necessarily air tight. As long as there is some pressure on the water side, everything is fine. But if pressure drops, you may get air sucked in.
For instance on the suction side of a circulation pump.
Air tight and water tight are two completely different matters.
Look at a weather sealed L-Series lens from Canon. Any difference to the lens used in this test?
It’s a shame that someone feels the need to impersonate a person that first shared the sample pics from japan. How sad their life must be. All the examples shown in here are taken with 3rd party adapters. I think if you have a fe lens then Sony should repair the lens.
LOL, fuck off, because I’m not impersonating anyone; I’m that same dude, Japanese, but I live the US. And what part of “the leak is in the camera body, not in the lens or the adapter” can’t you understand?
If you are dr rawhead I am sorry and in awe of your pics. You have some amazing shots. There is something you wrote that is inconsistent and more consistent with another person on here that lives under a bridge.
I don’t see the reply you posted, but apologies accepted. And if you know my work, then you should know that I am a serious photographer, and that I do a lot of LE photography. I don’t know it *all* by any means, but I *do* know my way around LE, and it is my evaluation that there is something very wrong with my A7R. Thanks for the compliments, and excuse my French.
So after all this, how many people still don’t realize or know that the light leak is *not* happening at the lens, *or* the lens/flange interface, but in the body of the A7/R itself?
That is, if you sealed the mount opening of the A7R 100% so that not a single photon could seep in, the problematic A7/R is still going to leak light, because the actual offending location is the gap between the silver flange and the orange outer ring.
You can confirm this because the light leak will go away by applying a very thin strip of gaffer’s tape so that it just covers that gap (making sure it doesn’t touch the top surface of the silver flange. (First pic is not mine; couldn’t find the larger version of the shot I took, which is the second one).
Only Metabones give me a leak!
I have A7r with Metabones 3 for Canon lenses. I get a leak here but NOT with my two Sony primes 35 and 55.
The conclusion I draw is that Metabones is NOT well built! And it does not surprise meat all. My first Metabones did not work at all had to send it back to HongKong. It did not lock on A7r body.
Rawhead – why don’t you try a Sony lens?
If your Metabones is the source of *your* leak, and nothing else causes leak, then congratulations, you have a good copy. In the mean time, there’s a set of us that has 100% confirmed that there’s a leak in the camera body itself, and that a leak will occur regardless of what we put on it. The Metabones adapter interfaces the camera on the surface of the silver flange. There is no light leaking from there at the settings I’m using. The light is leaking between the silver flange and the orange ring. What about that is so difficult for some people to understand?
Here’s a shot that someone took with A7R + FE 35/2.8 (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152250061992433&set=p.10152250061992433&type=1&theater)
First pic is mine. And I approve this message. ; )
This whole thing reminds me of the iPhone antennagate issue.