Michiel Schierbeek
Well-known member
The Zeiss zm 18/4 looks good here Field Test: Sony A7R l Brian Smith Pictures
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!
The devil is in the corners and they are chopped off.The Zeiss zm 18/4 looks good here Field Test: Sony A7R l Brian Smith Pictures
An insipid (with pretty much no detail on wides) promo here: Sony A7R Hands-OnFor some photographers (myself included) putting Leica M mount lenses on the Sony A7R may be reason enough to break out a bottle of Veuve Cliquot champagne and celebrate. Using an M to E adapter (I have a Metabones), virtually every Leica M lenses that I own works well on the A7R. Some of the ultra-wide and very wides do vignette, so be aware of this. There is no software correction for this, because we're mixing and matching. With other systems where the lens and camera are from the same company there's a lot of magic that can be done in firmware.
I had neither the time nor the full selection of lenses to test in detail what works and what doesn't, but I think it fair to say that most retrofocus design Leica M lenses will work on the A7R. When you consider that this camera has a high resolution EVF, focus peaking, intelligent Auto-ISO – so manual aperture lenses can be used in a semi-automated manner, and of course a 36 Megapixel sensor, this is hot stuff indeed.
I get the reasoning of spending on lenses. But after using the M9 and now Ricoh GR, I'm sold on no AA filter. Perhaps there are other factors involved, but I see an acuity that I find particularly pleasing.As a dedicated RX1 owner I will almost certainly be going with the A7.
Probably not the A7r as I am still suspicious about the image quality unless the E mount lenses really are excellent quality that can match the resolution of the sensor.
The 24mpx sensor in the RX1 - which is the same as the A99 - which it is claimed will be the same in the A7 - which I am highly suspicious is equal to or the same as the new 'M' is an absolute winner. Colouration, detail etc are excellent. I've never been happier with the output of a digital camera (although either of my two Sigma DP Merrils do contain sharper detail at 100%).
I'd rather spend a little less on a body like the A7 and more on glass.
Well done Sony. I have always felt (and sometimes stated) that Sony are a bit like the Microsoft of the camera world. Always a little late but they will end up owning the camera market.
LouisB
Considering their price, why not both?I get the reasoning of spending on lenses. But after using the M9 and now Ricoh GR, I'm sold on no AA filter. Perhaps there are other factors involved, but I see an acuity that I find particularly pleasing.
I suspect if I went for the A7 I'd always be thinking about what I might have gotten with the A7r. Probably irrational, but we all know how it goes with cameras.
John
The measurements don't consider volume, the handgrip and viewfinder bulges make the camera seem bigger by absolute measurements, but it's going to "feel" very small.Size comparisons are already out:
Compare camera dimensions side by side
Compare camera dimensions side by side
HI There TimMy 2 cents: one of the problems with the NEX range has been the lack of convincing 'native' lenses, particularly important given the lack of in-body stabilisation and notably marked in the mid-range zoom sector.
This should have been answered by the new Sony Zeiss 16-70 F4 but my first impressions of this lens (see samples in the relevant thread in this forum) are that it is more like a kit lens than you would expect given its label and price point.
For me what that means is that the new A7r is possibly a risky pre-order (not that this has stopped me from pre-ordering one!) because the key lens for my use will be the new 24-70 f4. It's a small and light lens compared to the (near) equivalents from Canikon but if it doesn't aim any higher than the 16-70 F4 E mount lens (and it is comparable in price) then it risks rendering that lovely sensor somewhat pointless: of course like all diligent photographers I use primes for serious use but a better than adequate mid range zoom is a core requirement for me in a system camera...
Yep, suddenly 200 years of photography are rendered invalid by nature of not having been shot with image stabilization.Image stabilization No
sigh, there goes the neighborhood...