A7 or A7r

[Chuck Jones]

Agreed, and we have talked about this before ...a rangefinder, is a rangefinder, is a rangefinder.

And for me, it is the M Monochrome. Done. Couldn't be happier.

I just wouldn't mind something small to use the M lenses I already own for a few color snaps here and there ... and a $7,000 Leica M240 isn't it

I just pre-ordered the a7r ... Now I don't have to settle for one of those APSc Leica knock-offs.

Hope they ship it before I go on Winter vacation :thumbs:

- Marc

I pre-ordered one as well Marc. How can I not, with the features this baby sports. It is the A7R all the way for me.... I feel the need for full frame pixels, and frankly my 5D3 kit is way too big and heavy to tote around as much anymore.

 

[jonoslack]

Well no one would promote another company for use on there product. So no as far as Sony is concerned Leica don't exist as they want you to buy their brand. Totally understandable. It's up to a community like this with end users to test and report their findings as too what is workable or not. I totally get that so I would not expect Sony to bring up any brand but theirs..

Quite right Guy. My point was that WA M lenses aren't going to work on the A7 or the A7r without specific firmware adjustments for each lens(as Leica have done on the M240). Sony are not going to do that.

Seems to me though that the shortage of Sony/Zeiss lenses at launch can be more than made up for by using Zeiss ZF and Leica R lenses, which surely will work.

 

[Vivek]

Seems to me though that the shortage of Sony/Zeiss lenses at launch can be more than made up for by using Zeiss ZF and Leica R lenses, which surely will work.

Why restrict to a tiny pool of lenses though they enjoy the advantage of being from orphaned systems?

Expensive need not translate to high performance. This is what Sony are trying to prove with the A7/A7R pricing.

 

[Vivek]

Just canceled my order for the A7R. I could have received it as one of the earliest but had to do it.

Sony.nl took a day to set up the A7/R pages. I ordered one right after the announcement. After a few days, they added a free 3 year service plan with any purchase of A7 or A7R. I asked them to add that to my initial order. They said that can not be done.

Part of this has to do with all the crappy pictures I see from all the initial tests. Nothing has been reassuring.

Now, I have more time to think about A7 or A7R.

I appreciate this thread and all the discussions.

 

[Michiel Schierbeek]

Hi Vivek, in contradiction with you I just ordered the A7r in a place where you don't have to prepay and loan them the full amount for a month's.

I don't know why that is but the first pictures of any groundbreaking camera always have been crappy. These people have no time to concentrate.

But I am quiet confident that the camera will be fine, even if it can't handle all RF wideangles. And I am looking forward to use some of the new native AF lenses on it.

 

[Vivek]

Hi Vivek, in contradiction with you I just ordered the A7r in a place where you don't have to prepay and loan them the full amount for a month's.

I don't know why that is but the first pictures of any groundbreaking camera always have been crappy. These people have no time to concentrate.

But I am quiet confident that the camera will be fine, even if it can't handle all RF wideangles. And I am looking forward to use some of the new native AF lenses on it.

Hi Michiel, Please send me a link (PM) or post it here. In that case, I will order both the 7 and 7R!

Thanks!

I don't know why that is but the first pictures of any groundbreaking camera always have been crappy. These people have no time to concentrate.

You know, this had always been my drive with all the NEX cams from the beginning. And only the NEX-6 comes close to being a satisfactory camera for me.

 

[Michiel Schierbeek]

PM send!

 

[Vivek]

Appreciate it much, Michiel.

Incidentally, I bought all my NEX lenses from Foka.

The decision stands.

Will wait and watch how these cameras perform.

 

[Kolor-Pikker]

Appreciate it much, Michiel.

Incidentally, I bought all my NEX lenses from Foka.

The decision stands.

Will wait and watch how these cameras perform.

Have you seen this though? SLRCLUB A7r preview

It's a huge collection of pictures and information, you have to let it load and it's in Korean, but the samples they have are pretty good IMO.

[linked images broke]

Glad to see some shots actually taken by a photographer.

I don't know why that is but the first pictures of any groundbreaking camera always have been crappy. These people have no time to concentrate.

But I am quiet confident that the camera will be fine, even if it can't handle all RF wideangles. And I am looking forward to use some of the new native AF lenses on it.

I have to agree, anyone remember the first photos that were released for the D800(E)? People thought it looked bad and had poor dynamic range. Turns out the shots were all under-exposed, or shot with average quality glass, or hand-held at low shutter speeds or were just plain bad. I originally thought that Nikon had made a 36mp measurebation camera for the heck of it, because megapixels sell, but I guess myself and many others were wrong.

 

[Michiel Schierbeek]

Manual Zeiss lenses will be made for the end of 2014 with exif info exchange. (SAR)

They will have time enough to make these (wide) lenses to perform optimal for these cameras. (I hope)

 

[Michiel Schierbeek]

Appreciate it much, Michiel.

Incidentally, I bought all my NEX lenses from Foka.

The decision stands.

Will wait and watch how these cameras perform.

W'll make an appointment when I have one so you can check it out for yourself with your favourite lenses!?

 

[Vivek]

Thank you, Michiel! Will do!

FWIW, I will bring just the 50/1.8 OSS sans the baffle.

 

[Michiel Schierbeek]

These examples on Dyum with the new Zeiss 35 are sharp sharp sharp...... that model is growing a beard

 

[Vivek]

These examples on Dyum with the new Zeiss 35 are sharp sharp sharp...... that model is growing a beard

I am not trying to be a spoiler but one has to be cautious about that Gustav's pics. He is the one who posted amazingly impressive images of the crappy (see: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/48063-sony-zeiss-16-70-4-oss.html) 16-70 Zeiss zoom.

The hirsuitic model pics are old- ever since the "high resolution" Nikon D2X became available.

 

[Vivek]

W'll make an appointment when I have one so you can check it out for yourself with your favourite lenses!?

While we should do this, the on again off again order is on again.

When I try to reorder immediately after the cancellation to add the free 3 year service warranty, sony site said the expected delivery was 9 Dec.

Today, the expected delivery is 19 Nov-20 Nov (like the original order), so the order is back on.

I suspect that many cancelled their pre-orders when they realized that they get charged immediately.

 

[iiiNelson]

I am not trying to be a spoiler but one has to be cautious about that Gustav's pics. He is the one who posted amazingly impressive images of the crappy (see: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/48063-sony-zeiss-16-70-4-oss.html) 16-70 Zeiss zoom.

The hirsuitic model pics are old- ever since the "high resolution" Nikon D2X became available.

Just curious - why one would believe the negative view but not the positive ones as fact? It's just as plausible that was a bad example of the Zeiss 16-70 as his was a good example.

Most people do SOME work in PP. Some obviously do more than others but it remains that even SOME "crappy" kit lenses make a good image here and there. Overall I like what I see from the ZFE 35/2.8 so far(although I will see if my 35 Cron ASPH works well first.) I'm more likely to get the ZFE 55/1.8 over the ZFE 35/2.8 though in either case.

I'm not trying to be argumentative but I would reserve more concise and accurate judgement (whether positive or negative) until the firmware is closer to being finalized and more RAW converters support the files and more samples of the lenses are available. Just my early thoughts though.

 

[Vivek]

Just curious - why one would believe the negative view but not the positive ones as fact? It's just as plausible that was a bad example of the Zeiss 16-70 as his was a good example.

Most people do SOME work in PP. Some obviously do more than others but it remains that even SOME "crappy" kit lenses make a good image here and there.

A few things to consider:

A. Sony fanboy claiming even the A3000 is a great camera (along with the 16-70/4zoom).
B. Returned samples were from people who actually bought the lens.
C. It is not a "crappy" kitzoom that comes with a camera purchase. Far from it, the Zeiss labelled lenses are in a special category, even within the Sony sites and with a matching price tag.

 

[iiiNelson]

A few things to consider:

A. Sony fanboy claiming even the A3000 is a great camera (along with the 16-70/4zoom).
B. Returned samples were from people who actually bought the lens.
C. It is not a "crappy" kitzoom that comes with a camera purchase. Far from it, the Zeiss labelled lenses are in a special category, even within the Sony sites and with a matching price tag.

Fair enough and I will concede that maybe SOME people returned their lenses but did everyone? I'd reserve judgement for myself in that type of situation because I understand it's very personal. For instance I hate 28mm lenses because I just hate the focal length. Doesn't mean it's bad but they're all bad to me (not quite wide enough and not quite close enough for me.)

Just saying that it's plausible that there are some "good samples" out there. Then there are also the samples that are good enough for the owner and the zoom focal range is a bigger benefit to them. It simply fits their wants and needs even if it doesn't fit the optical expectations of some of us that care more about specific rendering or "optical perfection."

I'm not going to address the fanboy issue too deeply but as a fellow Leica owner I'm sure you can understand the stigma of a modern day Leica owner (rich poser that doesn't actually use it to take pictures.) For some I'm sure the A3000 is a fine camera FOR THEM. It's not the camera for many of us but I wouldn't call it crappy solely because it doesn't fit my wants/ needs.I just don't deal in absolutes like that for most things personally - to each their own though.

 

[tashley]

We will know soon enough - when I tried to return the 16-70 (in utterly perfect and pristine condition) I was told I'd either have to pay a 20% restocking fee (almost unheard of in the UK) or the lens would have to go to Sony to verify that it is faulty. Of course, whether they regard it as faulty or not I fully intend to get my full refund - but I will be curious to hear whether they want to admit that the problem is an inability to design a lens that meets expectations (set by them*) at the price point, or an inability to consistently assemble it... or perhaps they will feel that my testing was in some way not adequate.

* excerpt from their press release at launch:
"The new Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* 16-70mm F4 zoom lens gives photographers the opportunity to experience legendary Carl Zeiss optical excellence in a supremely compact, easy-to-carry zoom lens. A practical 4x zoom range of 16-70mm (24-105mm in 35mm full-frame equivalent) makes this model ideal for a wide range of everyday photo situations, from landscapes and portraits to informal snapshots and everything in between.

This premium lens provides outstanding contrast and resolution at all zoom settings, and it has a renowned T* coating on optical surfaces that reduces glare and ghosting for natural color reproduction, superb definition and clarity. Lens size and weight are minimized thanks to Advanced Aspherical lens (AA lens) technology, which combines four aspherical elements with one ED glass element."

 

[fotografz]

A few things to consider:

A. Sony fanboy claiming even the A3000 is a great camera (along with the 16-70/4zoom).
B. Returned samples were from people who actually bought the lens.
C. It is not a "crappy" kitzoom that comes with a camera purchase. Far from it, the Zeiss labelled lenses are in a special category, even within the Sony sites and with a matching price tag.

Meh, I agree. Everyone makes some sort of crappy lens ... keeping in mind that "crappy" is relative, and is usually based on consumer expectations from what the Brand stands for over-all ... and the level of demand from the person using it.

A lot of Sony's initial stuff after buying Minolta was consumer level cameras and lenses ... including a few from Zeiss. Personally I never even considered the 16-70, which I believe was the first ZA lens. I saw it as trading on the Zeiss name to fill a consumer brand demand.

I wasn't shot in the rump with the ZF25 either when shooting Nikon. Freakin' 14-24 was better.

I recall learning that lesson with the Contax ND Zeiss lens line-up ... the Zeiss 50/1.4 was touted to the high heavens, and I found it produced disgusting wormy Bokeh at frequently used distance to subject. Trust me, that was the first thing I looked for when buying the new ZA50/1.4 Planar. :thumbup:

Conversely, the Zeiss N85/1.4 was a much better lens than the CY 85/1.4, and even better than the current ZA 85/1.4 I use today. Then there is the Zeiss ZA 135/1.8 which massacres every SLR 135 I've used from anyone ... and that is ALL of them.

Ya gotta do your homework based on your demands ... not someone else's.

- Marc