Ron Pfister
Member
Don't know about diabolic, but certainly a bit hyperbolic...
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Steve, can you elaborate more on your comment about "lacked the sharpness"I took my A7 back to the shop and changed it for the A7r. The images lacked the sharpness I have become used to from the Leica M240. This new camera is supremely sharp.
Thanks Jono,Hi Steven
No decision yet. But like Gary I'm leaning towards the A7 as well. When Matt was here with his I was looking at the results from the kit zoom, and they looked rather good. He has both cameras, so I'm interested in his verdict.
Gary, I have the 3880 as well, but I do like to crop. On the other hand I can't see many situations when the difference between 24mp and 36mp is gonna make or break a photo.
It's just this thing about accepting "second best".!
By comparison to the M240.Steve, can you elaborate more on your comment about "lacked the sharpness"
Steven
Thanks for your input Steve.By comparison to the M240.
Side by side, with roughly ( I mean roughly) the same shot with similar speed/aperture, the A7 was not as sharp as the M240. That's all. I felt there was no point having a less sharp image producer when, for a few dollars more, a higher resolution camera is available.
I was right. The A7r is much sharper. Yes, it's more difficult to use, but if you buy the A7 you will always wonder about the quality of the A7r. Maybe.
Try both and you will quickly see the difference. The images from theA7r are a joy to behold.
If you buy a A7r you could probably do without the D800. Saves money and weight. It will be perfect with your R glass.With a Novoflex Leica R to Sony E mount adapter on the way, I'll need to make a decision re A7 or A7R soon.
At this point, I am still leaning towards the A7. I expect to be using this camera primarily with my Leica R lenses. Still planning to get a D800 in the next few months (to replace the one I traded in on the Pentax 645D), so that will handle any situations in which I need/want more than 24 megapixels of resolution in a 35mm sensor body.
Gary
You will quickly see the difference - at 100% pixel view. If you really need to print or view that large or crop that much, then yes - you will need the extra resolution.By comparison to the M240.
Side by side, with roughly ( I mean roughly) the same shot with similar speed/aperture, the A7 was not as sharp as the M240. That's all. I felt there was no point having a less sharp image producer when, for a few dollars more, a higher resolution camera is available.
I was right. The A7r is much sharper. Yes, it's more difficult to use, but if you buy the A7 you will always wonder about the quality of the A7r. Maybe.
Try both and you will quickly see the difference. The images from theA7r are a joy to behold.
I may be one of the few who here who still prefers the size and weight of a traditional DSLR over the smaller mirrorless cameras. If I could mount my Leica R lenses on a Nikon DSLR, without having to do a Leitax type conversion of the Leica lens mount, I would have been quite happy to stick with Nikon DSLRs and wouldn't even be looking at the A7/A7R.If you buy a A7r you could probably do without the D800. Saves money and weight. It will be perfect with your R glass.
I don't think anyone awards additional points for producing images with minimal equipment. My a7r is a fantastic camera to use in many circumstances, but I don't intend to sell my full size OVF full frame, or my cropped frame high FPS body anytime soon.I may be one of the few who here who still prefers the size and weight of a traditional DSLR over the smaller mirrorless cameras.
Gary
Yes, toss them all Gary ... it is cathartic.Hard to believe that we ever managed to make decent prints from 8, 12, 16 or 20 megapixel images. Now it seems that nothing less than 36 will do....not even 24.
Guess I should just throw most of my cameras away....and all the prints I ever made from them.
Gary
Well, I suppose I could have stopped 5 years ago with the 24 meg Sony A900 for under $3,000Yes Marc, we all could have saved a lot of money on camera gear over the past 10+ years if Sony, Nikon, Canon etc had offered 24-36 megapixel cameras for sale 10+ years ago for $3k or less, but they didn't.
My Nikon D700 produced very good images when it was first released in 2008. Amazingly enough, it still produces good images.
I guess if only 36 megapixels is good enough anymore, then there are quite a few folks here who just wasted $3k on a new Nikon Df.
Gary
If the DF had a Vertical grip I probably would have bought one and in hindsight I'm glad it didn't. I got the A7r from a friend on a whim since he was not fond of it and I seriously wanted one but was going to wait it out. The Sony came and after I saw the EVF and the focus peaking I jumped on it faster than a rabbit being chased by a dog. I sold everything Nikon and bought everything I could with the money. Seriously I got a better second body a extra lens that I did not have and maybe out of pocket was about 500 dollars and I feel already it was a crazy move but a smart one for me. I lose nothing in the deal I still have a D800e sensor and with the A7 I gained a Nikon D610 plus I can manual focus Soooooooooo much better. I'm pretty damn pleased and really close to having a complete kit right now.Yes Marc, we all could have saved a lot of money on camera gear over the past 10+ years if Sony, Nikon, Canon etc had offered 24-36 megapixel cameras for sale 10+ years ago for $3k or less, but they didn't.
My Nikon D700 produced very good images when it was first released in 2008. Amazingly enough, it still produces good images.
I guess if only 36 megapixels is good enough anymore, then there are quite a few folks here who just wasted $3k on a new Nikon Df.
Gary