Image courtesy: Arthur.
Arthur: I’ve been Paris photoshow today and tested the Sony a7r on rhinocam and it works! More That That we can get 2 extra collums ( 6×2 pics) so close to 8×4,5cm of digital frame. Pictures on Flickr”
Hands-on with the Sony Alpha 7R with Meta Bones adapter and EOS lenses at PF.nl (google translation here).
Sony RX10 review by Steve Huff.
An Initial Test Of The Sony A7r at Proimagenz.
first impressions hands on comparing the A7 to the OM-D and 5DmkIII at Fotograf-stockholm.
RX10 Image quality comparison crops at Imaging Resource.
SAR reader Tommy posted some A7r test videos on Youtube (Click here).
Some pictures with A7r & 24-70mm + OTUS at DearSusans.
Siammirrorless reposted the A7r review with legalcy lenses on Pantip. should be server crash proof this time 🙂
RX10 vs RX100MII by Lesnumeriques.
Sony A7r A7r full frame camera price in Thailand (Thailandfacts).
Specs and Preorders in US and Canada:
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
Zeiss 24-70mm at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, SE, PT
Asia:
A7r at Digitalrev.
A7 at Digitalrev, Amazon Cina.
A7 with 28-70mm lens at Digitalrev.
56 Responses
Heck of a typo there author. Testes 🙂
Still no idea if the A7 is any good, everybody talks about A7r only 🙁
The A7 is getting no love.
I still think it’s the better one for me. I hope it gets here soon.
I do find it quite interesting especially since the A7r is the more expensive model.
Yep, and the less well featured one too. I guess, the sensor really does matter.
The A7 is kind of junk to be honest. I much prefer an iPhone 5 camera. Seriously, the A7 non-R performs like the A7R with an antialiasing filter applied. Tiny softness if pixel peeping, but good otherwise. Lower megapixel count potentially give you a little bit better low light performance. I’m not sure there is too much to say about it?
Lets wait another 4 weeks when most of us got her Cameras and we will hear serious Comments of real Lifer Users of both Cameras. Then the Trough come out.
‘The Zeiss 16-70/4 is about the same size aas the 24-70/4 so not sure why both exists…’
I can not believe if this guy is for real! If you don’t understand the difference between FF, APSC and 4/3 lenees then I think he should not be writing nonsense on the web.
Which link was that?
The link from ‘Fotograf-stockholm.’
I asked you so I can avoid it, but my curiosity won over. Unfortunate.
There are no 24-70mm shots, only 28-70mm shots since the 24-70mm does not arrive until February 2 2014.
http://www.ronscheffler.com/techtalk/?p=224
GO TO THIS SITE AND SEE IT YOURSELF.
a7 is not THAT dope, third party wide angle lens give fairy disappointing results, just like the a7r. Ugh…after reading this i don’t think a7 will be on my order list.
Fotodiox loaded a promotion video for the Rhinocam on
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an8jWrExAdI
they used pictures from me and I got the link from them. But there are some errors (picture and comments) in it, that may be the reason, why they don’t show it on there HP
they show the A7 on the Rhinocam, but as Arthur said in flickr:
“A7 works only on horizontal mode, i tried to turn it but the EVF hit the groundglass support”
Besides that, I don’t think, that the A7R will give a higher resolution, as the pixel density is less that from the NEX-7, and pixel density is all, that counts, not the sensor size. A bigger sensor will only result in shooting less images for one total image.
Please correct me, if I am wrong.
In principle (if it is possible to take 6×2 shots), you can get more pixels using the A7R (12x36MP from an A7R vs 12x24MP from a NEX-7).
Hendrick,
there is an error in your calculation:
you can shoot 2×5 images (one more column on the right side, but depending of the lens you can only use a part of it as you get into vignetting) with APS-C and get (I got!) about 170 MPix with the NEX-7.
if you shoot 2×5 images with a FF sensor, you just have much more overlap but not more pixels.
The NEX-7 has 24 MPix on APS-C (resulting in 48 MPix on the FF area of the A7R) and the A7R has 36 MPix on FF equals twice the size of the APS-C.
As explained before:
all you have is the image circle of the MF lens (used the Zeiss 40mm/4), that covers 6×6 cm plus some extra space
with the technique of the Rhinocam (and others) you “scan” this image circle with the sensor. The bigger the sensor, the less images you need (assuming the same amount of overlap for stitching) but you don’t get higher resolution.
This is also the error in the youtube movie from Fotodiox.
Here is an image with 2×5 made with my infrared modified NEX-7 and the Hasselblad Zeiss 40mm/4 wide angle
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dierktopp/9558648614/in/set-72157634801332367
how did you remove your hot filter to make it IR? Was it hard? I did it to a Canon g10 but never bothered to look into doing to nex 7
Randy,
this is a bit OT,
I got my NEX-7 modified to IR by
http://www.dslr-astrotec.de/index-eng.html
if you are interested in IR, here is my post on this topic at Steve Huff:
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/09/19/shooting-sony-nex7-modified-for-infrared-by-dierk-topp/
Is this RhinoCam significantly better than ‘standard’ panorama technique with a (relatively) telephoto lens?
Each has its issues. The standard panorama method leads to distorted projections that need to be fixed in software. Plus it also allows 360×180 panos, if you want those.
The moving back (“rhinocam”) method limits perspectives to whatever the lens you put in the front. It works like a regular large film/sensor camera except one photo requires multiple shots. There are virtually no rectilinear lenses that can do much more than 120 degrees in the supported mounts, so it’s not the tool for uber-wide/VR panos. It does overcome the projection distortion issue.
There are some real cons in the shifting back/rhinocam approach: the lens needs to be top notch as you will be using very high res small sensors on large lenses that were typically designed for film cameras. With panos, you’re using high res lenses and their center all the time. So the resolution of the latter will be more consistent and higher. There also can be issues with corner smearing if the lenses are very wide on the rhinocam but since the supported mounts are SLR ones, this might not be a huge issue. It would be if you use non-SLR medium format lenses.
Last line should be “… non-slr film medium format lenses”
Although the shifting back is the “purer” method, I would much rather go with a gigapan that’s fully automated and works with smaller, sharper lenses. The loss of resolution from software distortion correction can be more than countered by shooting with a longer lens (I.e. more res for the same FOV).
Very good explanation!
C’mon , 98% of people on earth don’t even need fullframe , just get a fuji x-trance and the photo ninja software and forget all about the a7s’.(and save a lot of money)
98% of all people in the world don’t NEED camera’s, only a few who earn money by it. And mankind did come this far, merely without photography, so the NEED for it is always an exaggeration. We NEED air, food, water, health, safety, and that’s about it.
OK, this being clear, I could want a FF-camera, why not? I could want a lead Zeppelin or a second wife, as long as I don’t state I NEED that.
sure , you’re right. Air , food , water… are the first step on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. But when I comment on a site like this I clearly mean the people who do photography and their means and needs of making a photo. Hell yeah I want to have a medium format digital but for a lot of people who do photography having a mdf would be stupid. I did leave a suggestion take it or leave it , don’t be a fanboy about it…
I never understand comments like these, are we spending your money on the A7? Nope, don’t think so. It’s an open world, we are free to spend on what we prefer.
And 92% don’t even need APS-C. In any case, I certainly won’t invest into a pointless sensor redesign, just to write petitions to software makers years after the release.
Except the Fuji’s have ugly color rendition and made-up ISO values. No thanks.
Well, Mr. Marlon, jusr sold my X-M1 today, months of horrendous colors with it, had enough. Although, where did you get the info on ‘fake ISOs’, just interested, not into debates.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3509778
How come the image sensor of RX10 is said to be “1 inch” in size,
none of its width, height, or diagonal is 1 inch long.
anyone knows it?
http://www.dpreview.com/glossary/camera-system/sensor-sizes
http://www.spotimaging.com/iq/image-sensor-format.html
equiv to a one inch video tube from 50 years ago
I dislike these cameras:
1) They are too large. They are larger than Pentax K-m or K-x (depth is hardly valuable, width and height are more important)
2) A7 is no go for me due to smearing even with Lux 50.
3) A7r’s lag is too long
4) Fixed EVF is crap-crap-crap! It one BIG CRAP. F@ck you Sony, for this idiotic decision. EVF can and MUST be tilted. It’s another freedom degree and in fact I mostly used evf angled to something between 45° and 90°: it’s much more stable, my nose won’t touch back LCD, lower positions are much less awkward and much more stable when I bow compared to bending knees with fixed EVF.
5) No touch screen. Bunch of idiots. I just don’t get how these idiots could thing it’s not that important? I was using it all the time. F@ck you another time, oriental pricks.
6) EC wheel is way too tight. To the extent of not being usable enough.
7) Lux 35 ASPH FLE works good enough: there’s a vignetting WO, but no color shift. I forgot the card though, so don’t have samples.
8) FE 35 is tiny. Too bad the camera has no DOF marking tool and there’s no DOF scale on the barrel.
I love the fixed EVF, and because the external with the 5n constantly snagged in my bag. For different viewing angles the tilt-screen is enough.
Agree 100% about the smearing issue though – even on lenses like the ‘Lux 50. Like you said DOF markings are essential.
I think, even prime lenses with focusing “by wire” like the Zeiss 24/1.8 can not have any DOF marks by technical reasons. There is no mechanical connection and the focusing ring can have any position.
I think it would be possible to make hard stops on the lenses (and thus DOF markings) given that each Lens needs/has specific Firmware. There’s no need for the endlessly turning of the Focussing ring… maybe someday…
LOL
Sonyarl Sonyeiss “Sonynar” 24/1.8 is a pure joke. It costs more than Fuji 23/1.4 (which has DOF scale). It performs worse than this Fuji lens at equal apertures. And Fuji has DOF scale (funny, isn’t it?)
F@ck! It costs 4-5 times more than Canon 22/2, it performs worse than Canon at equal apertures. It is 3 times larget. It weight 2 times more. And it’s a Sony in all its glory, stupid posers. Real zeiss lenses would be much more small than this pathetic FE crap, especially huge underspeced and still crazy overpriced 55/1.8.
Emacs you are being too rude man, take it easy!
My own personal response:
1) Except the Hump, I cannot see why are “too Large”… and if you also wanted a tillable EVF (see point 4), wouldn’t it be even bigger?
2) Well… the camera is not been made for that lens specifically. It shouldn’t be.
3) Don’t know what lag are you talking about…
4) Tiltable EVF? No thanks.
5) No need for touch screen… Would be nice to have, probably, IF it could be also turned off
6) If it’s like the the RX1, yes, it’s too tight
7) Not sure if it’s a point
8) “FE 35 is tiny” Is that really a problem?!?! “Too bad the camera has no DOF marking tool and there’s no DOF scale on the barrel.” I agree 100% on that
I forgot this is “why I dislike list” writing it
#6 and #7 are rather plus items
I see no reason to buy any crap Sony “zeisses” (which should cost at least 3-4 times less based on their specs) when I have leicas.
You tell ’em Emacs: Sony, Fuji, Oly, Canikon – you tell all them “oriental pricks” where to go!!! These cameras are barely released but you have it all figured. So why not design and build your own camera from the bottom up? Then go and use it in your narrow little xenophobic misanthropic world – far away from here!
All reasonable criticisms except:
Tilt evf? Not for me… not until I get a submarine so I can use it as a periscope or something.
DOF markings: utterly useless and virtually meaningless junk. People who use them are film-day morons who think evryone prints to 6×4. Focus distance scales on the other hand aren’t too bad. But they’re likely omitted cos of the free rotating focus by wire approach. I don’t like focus by wire either.
hyper focal distance markings are useless? Come again? Why is that?
Because hyperfocal distance and DOF are functions of viewing magnifications too. If viewed at a smaller size, HFD is closer and DOF is deeper. Opposite is true if viewed at a large magnification, limited by captured resolution.
So to have one number written saying DOF is X and HFD is Y is mind-numbing in this day and age. For every image, it varies based on how you look at it.
I recall a post from Lloyd Chambers after the D800E came out
the meaning was about:
on a flat sensor with 36 Mpixel resolution the DOF scale is about 2 apertures too high. My understanding was, if you use set f/8 use f/5.8 or better f/4 on the DOF scale. And besides that he said, with a 36 MPix sensor there is only one part of the image sharp, the one, that is in correct focus.
And if you want to get the maximum out of this sensor, use tripod and remote trigger for the exposure – and of course the best lenses, you can get/afford.
it is really impressive,
how somebody, who does not like these cameras in this post invests so much time and effort to read all this and post “comments”
and it is even more impressive,
how somebody forgets all his education(?), when she/he is writing incognito in a forum like this
dierk
i just order a rhinocam for my a7.
understood it may need modification.
i may even modify it to adapt 47xl or 58 xl with shift tilt
Sounds like an adventure… if you don’t have the helical adapters for those lenses, I’d try to adapt the rhinocam as a back for an existing 4×5 or something and use the 4×5’s focusing mechanism. With lenses as wide as 47 and 58 things become very tricky with tolerances.
But the biggest issue that you’re going to face is going to be in terms of smearing in the corners. SSXL/SAXL are conventional wide-angle lenses and they even require center filters on film. I’ve experienced corner smearing even on 45-50-degree lenses in the corners of the image cirle. Getting anything useful from the corners of a regular 90-120 degree UWA lenses would be nothing short of a miracle. Would be nice to hear what your findings are once you get it… good luck!
thanks for advice.
i have some helical devices.i also have 6×9 / 4×5 cameras
with lenses from 47 to 360mm.
i will start using rhinocam with pentax 645 35/45mm first. after familar with the stuff. i will adapt large format lenses.
That ridiculous. Circles of confusion and hyper focal are absolutely necessary marking for a lens unless you are a landscape photographer shooting at f32 and above. It has very little to do with print magnifications other then ALL the circles get bigger. Might I suggest a book by Leslie Stroble that is required for all students at RIT. Basic materials and processes of photography. I depend on knowing the hyperfocal distance for a given lens when I am shooting no look no Af in places where holding a camera up to my face would get me arrested or my head blown off
Circles of confusion rely heavily on magnification/perception. Even airy disk sizes, that don’t rely on perception, vary based on wavelength… and here you are talking about them as if they’re fixed numbers that make sense when written on the barrels of lenses.
No… landscape shooters shouldn’t use f/32 unless they’re on 8×10 large format or larger or if they’re using very narrow perspectives, if possible. That’s why tilt/swings are a must to get the most from larger formats. Anyone shooting above f/8-11 and expecting the most from high res sensors should be smacked for reading outdated crap 🙂
First READ THIS http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles0307/rb0307-1.html
For the first definition,
H = \frac{f^2}{N c} + f
where
H is hyperfocal distance
f is focal length
N is f-number (f/D for aperture diameter D)
c is the circle of confusion limit
For any practical f-number, the focal length is insignificant in comparison with the first term, so that
H \approx \frac{f^2}{N c}
This formula is exact for the second definition, if H is measured from a thin lens, or from the front principal plane of a complex lens; it is also exact for the first definition if H is measured from a point that is one focal length in front of the front principal plane. For practical purposes, there is little difference between the first and second definitions.
its a post about Rhino cams and I KNOW FOR A FACT that my hyper focal markings on my Mamiya lenses are accurate. As they use this formula If your having wavelength focus at different focal plans then maybe get some better glass that doesn’t have chromatic aberration problems. Or NOT A ZOOM LENS. I can’t speak to cheap glass zooms having bad markings. obviously Zooms that have the marking it can only be an average. In the FEATURE FILM WORLD ESPECIALLY but also on prime stills glass all hyper focal marking HAVE TO BE ACCURATE. OR YOU CAN MARK THEM YOURSELF.
BUT THE MATH IS THE MATH and if you have other shit like crap UV filter or AA filters that screw that up thats not the lenses problem it the camera’s problem. I have yet to have that problem even on my NEX 7 with Contax G glass. I don’t own any other SMALL digital camera and all MY STUDIO GLASS is Rodenstock and Rodenstock Digital.
Please show me your work?
http://blog.calumetphoto.com/2013/09/photo-of-the-week-24-september-2013/
@Randy S.
You have given the perfect demonstration of how the ability to regurgitate knowledge that one has seen elsewhere has very little relevance to the understanding of the subject. You don’t even know the Airy disk reference that I made. First time hearing about it? Nothing that I said had anything to do with chromatic aberrations. Well done on making a public spectacle of yourself.
Also, you can find out more about me and what I do if you click on my name, as you haven’t figured that out yet. Also, since you were harping on about zoom lenses and what not, do you want to see the gear I use?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/10903087544/
Finally, see this post of mine? It had no use of profanity or flawed assumptions… did you learn anything?
LOL so you have a lot of gear. My work is just published all over the world and and doesn’t look like crap. In Fact MY work is those KIA ads we run in Australia from In Ocean. I learned that you have a myopic understanding of how optics and sensors work. The circular area of detraction counts on 2 things. Lens resolving power and pixel size. So a proper non crap D lens that has a higher resolving power doesn’t have that problem until a much smaller size. Ether way HYPerFOCAL Distance doesn’t NOT HAPPEN because of circular diffraction. Circular diffraction also happens FASTER with lens with chromatic aberrations. In fact a medium format sensor isn’t even diffraction limited until OVER f32 and most 35mm get to past f22 and past. IN FACT based on the math a 36MP array with 4.9um pixel on say a 35mm FF with a viewing distance of 1 m AT f32 on a 30in print. you have a Max COC of 42.67um and a Airt disk of 42.6um and GUESS WHAT THAT MEANS. YOU ARENT DIFFRACTION LIMITED
Nice picture of gear. ;-/ really? have any descent work to show?
NOTES ON REAL-WORLD USE IN PHOTOGRAPHY
Even when a camera system is near or just past its diffraction limit, other factors such as focus accuracy, motion blur and imperfect lenses are likely to be more significant. Diffraction therefore limits total sharpness only when using a sturdy tripod, mirror lock-up and a very high quality lens.
Some diffraction is often ok if you are willing to sacrifice sharpness at the focal plane in exchange for sharpness outside the depth of field. Alternatively, very small apertures may be required to achieve sufficiently long exposures, such as to induce motion blur with flowing water. In other words, diffraction is just something to be aware of when choosing your exposure settings, similar to how one would balance other trade-offs such as noise (ISO) vs shutter speed.
This should not lead you to think that “larger apertures are better,” even though very small apertures create a soft image; most lenses are also quite soft when used wide open (at the largest aperture available). Camera systems typically have an optimal aperture in between the largest and smallest settings; with most lenses, optimal sharpness is often close to the diffraction limit, but with some lenses this may even occur prior to the diffraction limit. These calculations only show when diffraction becomes significant, not necessarily the location of optimum sharpness (see camera lens quality: MTF, resolution & contrast for more on this).
Are smaller pixels somehow worse? Not necessarily. Just because the diffraction limit has been reached (with large pixels) does not necessarily mean an image is any worse than if smaller pixels had been used (and the limit was surpassed); both scenarios still have the same total resolution (even though the smaller pixels produce a larger file). However, the camera with the smaller pixels will render the photo with fewer artifacts (such as color moiré and aliasing). Smaller pixels also give more creative flexibility, since these can yield a higher resolution if using a larger aperture is possible (such as when the depth of field can be shallow). On the other hand, when other factors such as noise and dynamic range are considered, the “small vs. large” pixels debate becomes more complicated…
@Randy S.
I’ve discussed topics on the net with diverse individuals to the point that I’m able to tell if a certain discussion is worthwhile to anyone just by looking at how the other party constructs their arguments and chooses their words. So, judging by your failure to perform so far, it’s clear to me that you need to go back and complete highschool. The photography business is a little eco-system in a bubble with a lot of individuals like that so you can use your regular antics inside it and co-exist. If and once you decide you want to evolve, so that you can have an intellectual conversation with people outside that bubble, get in touch and I’ll teach you 😉