Perfect tech cam companion ?

[fotografz]

I'm no engineer but according to my calculations it must be possible but without much room for movements.
Eduardo
http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/mediabase/original/e_Rodenstock_Digital_Lenses_3-26__8236.pdf

Movements wouldn't be the point if used on the A7R in context to carrying something as companion to a Tech camera and big meg DB.

I was thinking you could just use the lenses you are already carrying for the tech camera. Probably a different flange to sensor distance … but then I wondered if tech lenses could just be used on the A7R using a Helical focuser
verson.

Carrying the idea further, I'd love a little bellows unit that took some of these outstanding tech lenses for macro work (39mm Leica thread).

- Marc

 

[fotografz]

It's quite interesting to note that the RX-10 is already ~0.8kg and a full A7R rig 1.8kg.
The problem for me is the long end - since a full frame 200mm lens tends to be on the heavy side.

Couldn't you use an A7R set to APSc crop with a M-135mm? That's a pretty small lens and optically excellent. Granted, it's not AF, but in my experience so far, the Sony manual focus aids are really fast especially when used with a lens designed for manual focus, especially Leica M lenses.

Just a thought.

- Marc

 

[Ken_R]

Hi !

Sorry if this is slightly OT, but it does fit roughly this forum since it's about a camera to complement my tech cam rig. So here goes.

I am really enjoying my Arca Swiss Factum + IQ160 + 32mm / 50mm / 90mm combo. It's a nice system to hike with, not too heavy or bulky. I'll probably grab a 150mm lens to complete the kit at some point.
But, there are things the tech cam is not suitable - longer focal lengths, quick and dirty shots, for example when you see a cute bird in a tree or a mountain goat somewhere. Soooooo. I need another camera to go with the tech cam.

What I want:
- Small and lightweight. I have also enough Canon gear, but I don't want to lug the 7D+70-200mm f/2.8 in addition to the tech cam. Doesn't have to be pocketable, but also can't eat much space in the camera bag.
- Focal length from something wide-angle-ish (30mm equiv ?) to ~200mm-300mm FF equivalent.
- I don't want a new system. So NO, I will not buy a camera and "a couple of lenses" to cover the wide angle to ~200mm equiv range. I have enough systems... It's one camera, one lens. Period.
- The image quality should not be ridiculous, but I don't need crazy high ISO. I really like sharp from corner to corner pictures, the lens should be pretty good.

I really like my Sony RX-100, but the long end of the zoom is too short. That got me thinking, and the RX-10 seems pretty close to what I want. Another option I see is some micro-four thirds with a single lens (14-140 ?). But I am a bit wary about the image quality of a "super-zoom". I suspect the other compact with built in super-zooms will disappoint with their image quality (optically and sensor-wise). DSLRs are usually a bit too bulky.

Ideas and thoughts ?

Thanks !

Humm, I would choose an Olympus OM-D E-M5 or E-M1. Really nice image quality in a very small and light package. Great color and the aspect ratio is similar to MFDB's. (4:3)

 

[Wayne Fox]

Hey this may be a stupid question, but is there a way to use the tech lenses on a A7R?

- Marc

Pretty cool idea, and even the 23 HR theoretically would work as it's rear to sensor distance when focused appears to be 1mm more than the a7r flange distance. Challenge would be an adaptor that would let you use the current mount (such as mine for Arca), with the ability to focus the lens.

How about my concept cam?
Have you read in this article on getdpi / sony forum?
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/49962-making-compact-technical-camera-a7-a7r.html

Very cool, but I what some of think would like to do is to use the tech lenses for the system we are hauling around on the a7r, not use lenses such as canon with added tilt/shift. We can't remove the tech lens from it's mount, so it means adapting the mount (arca, alpa, or cambo) to the a7r body. The ability to shift it then would be sweet for stitching, tilt not as important.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I'm in the camp of if I'm just not in the mood or I all of a sudden need or want to shoot fast and the tech cam would not work I want something as close as possible to it. If course that's when I had a tech cam. Lol

But you know what I mean you get on a location and the tech cam maybe too much of a challenge to get what your after. I want to turn to something with some horsepower.

 

[Sunchai]

the Ar7 mounted with Rodenstock digital 45mm lens
one show bellow and the other without.
the original designed was for P1or Mamiya 645 to be able to swing tilt and shift.

Sunchai.

 

[archivue]

i'm using a D800 along with my arca RM3D… but, if it was to do it again, i will probably go with the sony 7r !

Still the D800+Sigma ART35 is a nice set up !

 

[mmbma]

May I suggest an iphone

 

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

No!

 

[Guy Mancuso]

i'm using a D800 along with my arca RM3D… but, if it was to do it again, i will probably go with the sony 7r !

Still the D800+Sigma ART35 is a nice set up !

Sigma 35 art series in Sony mount on A7r is sweet as pie.

 

[miska]

So I have been reading your contributions (thanks very much !), and researching different options. Here is a brief summary:

1) Sony Alpha 7R + 24-70 f/4 + 70-200 f/4: total weight: 465g + 426g + 840g = 1.7kg. Image quality: oh yeah ! This does fit into my grand scheme of having a very good landscape body for my Canon gear (I do wildlife photography too, and then I take the Canon bag, with the 24-70mm, 70-200 and 500mm f/4 and 1Ds III body - and no, that's not necessarily lightweight). But the Sony combo is a bit on the heavy side, especially compared to the featherweight option 4.

2) Canon 7D+18-200. This is because I already have a 7D, so adding a super-zoom would be easy. Weight: 820g+600g = 1.4kg. Image quality: so-so, at lead photozone isn't very positive about the zoom. But the sensor is probably pretty good. Improving the IQ would mean schlepping either the 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8II (that I already have), and that's a no go.
I could also combine the Sony A7R with the Canon 70-200mm f/4 for example (which I don't have, but would allow to not invest too heavily into Sony, in the hopes that one day, Canon gets it's act together).

3) Olympus OM-D E-M5 + 14-150 mm: 425g+280g = 0.7kg. Image quality: good to very good. It seems the zoom is pretty decent. I could split the focal range into two lenses instead of the super zoom, and that would probably significantly increase IQ (at a moderate cost in weight). But it's more hassle and an increase in bulk.

4) Sony RX-10: 0.8kg. Doesn't look that attractive anymore considering the option 3 above. It's heavier, less zoom range, but I suspect the Sony lens is better that the Olympus 14-150mm. Any idea which would be sharper corner to corner ?

I had a chance to have a look at 3) and 4) in a real store yesterday. The build quality of 3) seemed a bit flimsy compared to 4) - but maybe that's what you get, when you want really lightweight. I didn't really like the powered zoom of the Sony. Perhaps Sony's viewfinder was a tad better than Olympus'. The Olympus was really lightweight, and the zoom range quite nice.

Choices, choices !

 

[dchew]

I use the a7r. I look at it as a backup camera in addition to a quick versatile camera. It does have the weight problem on the long end though. I think that is a key decision factor. If you want a lens longer than say 135mm, the M4/3 makes more sense.

I want Sony to come out with 2 stellar primes for this camera: a 24mm f/2 and 200mm f/4 or even f/5.6. The 70-200 weighs almost the same as my canon f/4 IS.

Gonna be a while I think...

Dave

 

[jagsiva]

Same here, A7R. Think it is the best size/quality compromise out there.

 

[ondebanks]

LOL. But both the canon and sony US sites show US weight specs. So I didn't bother converting ... not that I would have -- too late to teach this old dog new tricks.

Wayne, I was kidding of course, and glad it made you LOL.

[OT] I have to admit, we've actually been slow in going fully metric here in Ireland. It took a generation really, to cover all aspects. First, we "decimalised" from "old money" (240 pennies in a pound/punt...not to mention shillings, farthings, thruppence, sixpence and half-crowns) to "new money" (100 pennies in a pound) in 1971, in conjunction with the UK. The currency transition to Euros with 100 cents was therefore painless, in 2002. (Meanwhile, the UK is still clinging to their pound )

Metric weights and volumes lived alongside imperial ones at least into the 1990s, with cookery shows and recipes among the worst offenders for persisting to measure everything in ounces and pints. People here still tend to report their weight in stones and pounds, and their height in feet and inches, although medical staff will always use kg and meters or cm. The old glass pint bottle of milk became the Tetrapak litre of milk in the 1980s. While if you buy beer in a bottle or can, it will be 500ml; but buy it in a bar, it will still be a pint (568ml). It would be trivial to serve 500ml instead, but the invitation "are you going for a half-litre?" just doesn't have the same ring as "are you going for a pint?" ("a", of course, is generally used in the plural sense :chug. The key to successful national systemic transitions is to be sensitive to cultural norms.

For some years we had road signage with distances in km, but speed limits still displayed in mph. Took a bit of mental arithmetic to figure out how long it would take you to get there, travelling at a certain speed! :facesmack: Speed limits were eventually changed to km/h in 2005 - that, I think, marked the final step in national metric conversion. Part of the official reluctance to do it sooner was a fear that it might lead to more speed-related accidents (since the number for km/h is larger than the number for mph). In actual fact, road accidents have declined steadily in this period, to one of the lowest per capita in the EU :clap:.

Ray

 

[miska]

Yes, I think you are right. The problem is not to get a good and compact solution for the 24-70mm range. The A7R provides this with the Sony zoom.
Getting longer focal lengths than that gets heavy and bulky though, with a FF sensor.
I suspect this is because for the longer focal lengths, clearing the mirror box doesn't drive the lens size anymore. So a mirrorless camera doesn't allow the optical designer to shrink the longer focal length optics. Only solution to do that is to shrink the sensor size.

 

[kdphotography]

Everything has trade-offs or compromises, whether that be for weight, size, convenience, ease of use, focal length reach, lens quality, image quality, resolution/megapixels, etc.

If not otherwise, we'd be able to use one camera for everything without compromise. Not possible really considering personal subjective tastes, and I think rather boring if such a solution were ever reality.

I think the A7r appears to be a popular choice and for good reason. It's still on my short list of wants. But in the meantime, the more I read about the Panasonic GM1, the more I like its offerings in a rather tiny footprint. I don't plan on using more than one or two lenses with it---but consider that a rather small/light 45-200 lens on this tiny M4/3 combination provides a quite respectable reach (~90-400).

Take a look at your list again, maybe expand it a bit. Then pick two.

ken

 

[kdphotography]

I just wanted to share how ridiculously small the Panasonic GM1 is---you read the specs on how small it is, but not until it is in your hands do you realize how small this camera is! It's a capable camera, and will suit me fine as a tech cam companion and moreso as a casual snap shooter. I don't think anyone can/will make an interchangeable lens camera that's smaller. It's usable now but any smaller and you won't be able to push the buttons.

I think I'm more in Guy's camp. The A7r is the best small high res camera, but at the risk gaining weight as a companion with more lenses to carry...

A7r with the 55mm is on my short list. Ease of use and carry-around of the GM1 is just too cool to pass up.

ken

 

[stephengilbert]

A photo of a camera in a hand doesn't tell us much. For example, is that Don's hand?

 

[GrahamWelland]

A photo of a camera in a hand doesn't tell us much. For example, is that Don's hand?

You mean like a peanut in a catcher's mitt? :ROTFL:

 

[miska]

This GM1 is one minuscule camera ! I am a bit sceptical about making sharp long focal length images with such a small thing with only a screen to frame. I think (but perhaps I am wrong) that putting your eye to an EVF allows to better hold the camera in place (since you hold it close to you, and the eyecup provides extra stability). Just a screen ? You have to hold the cam with your arms straight, and that may not be the most stable configuration.
But it is small, and certainly has a good image quality. Hmmmm.