The GetDPI Photography Forum
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!
A7 or A7r
- Thread starter roanjoh
- Start date
My bad ... I was thinking of the ZA 16-80 which was introduced in 2007. Not a great Zeiss lens.
- Marc
iiiNelson
Well-known member
I agree and this part of your statement is all I was saying regarding the judgment of a product.
A7R
Primary interest in this camera for me: Use with R tele lenses. R lenses on M is fine, but it is hard to not want to try the A7R with good R Tele APO glass.
Don't care too much about putting M lenses on it. They work fine on the M and the skin tones of the M are better than Sony's idea of skin tones which to me look false, like touched up wedding photos, for me.
Would love to see faster FE lenses announced in the 24-70 zoom range and primes. :thumbup: The primes announced will probably be pretty good, I would hope, or this could be a problem. Still struggling to figure out which ZA lens to get in order to have some AF options to balance out with the M MF.
In the end, I'll see if it seems worth keeping for R lenses and what the experience is shooting M lenses. Hoping, it will be a great addition to the M.:thumbs:
I am now going to try and quit the forum dry-lab dissection :dh2: of something I won't have an answer to until I try it for myself (I probably was on the B&H site 5-min after the camera was announced which means either, I'll be one of the first to get the camera or there are so many people ordering from B&H that it will March 2014 before I get this camera).
ps. Just figured out the emoticon in the advanced post section - can you tell?
Primary interest in this camera for me: Use with R tele lenses. R lenses on M is fine, but it is hard to not want to try the A7R with good R Tele APO glass.
Don't care too much about putting M lenses on it. They work fine on the M and the skin tones of the M are better than Sony's idea of skin tones
which to me look false, like touched up wedding photos, for me.Would love to see faster FE lenses announced in the 24-70 zoom range and primes. :thumbup: The primes announced will probably be pretty good, I would hope, or this could be a problem. Still struggling to figure out which ZA lens to get in order to have some AF options to balance out with the M MF.
In the end, I'll see if it seems worth keeping for R lenses and what the experience is shooting M lenses. Hoping, it will be a great addition to the M.:thumbs:
I am now going to try and quit the forum dry-lab dissection :dh2: of something I won't have an answer to until I try it for myself (I probably was on the B&H site 5-min after the camera was announced which means either, I'll be one of the first to get the camera or there are so many people ordering from B&H that it will March 2014 before I get this camera
).ps. Just figured out the emoticon in the advanced post section - can you tell?
So, you like the "not found in nature, post apocalyptic" nuclear skin tones" from the M240. Okay-dokey. I guess everyone has their own ideas of what human flesh looks like.A7R
Primary interest in this camera for me: Use with R tele lenses. R lenses on M is fine, but it is hard to not want to try the A7R with good R Tele APO glass.
Don't care too much about putting M lenses on it. They work fine on the M and the skin tones of the M are better than Sony's idea of skin tones
Would love to see faster FE lenses announced in the 24-70 zoom range and primes. :thumbup: The primes announced will probably be pretty good, I would hope, or this could be a problem. Still struggling to figure out which ZA lens to get in order to have some AF options to balance out with the M MF.
In the end, I'll see if it seems worth keeping for R lenses and what the experience is shooting M lenses. Hoping, it will be a great addition to the M.:thumbs:
I am now going to try and quit the forum dry-lab dissection :dh2: of something I won't have an answer to until I try it for myself (I probably was on the B&H site 5-min after the camera was announced which means either, I'll be one of the first to get the camera or there are so many people ordering from B&H that it will March 2014 before I get this camera
ps. Just figured out the emoticon in the advanced post section - can you tell?
So how will you deal with those
skin tones when using R lenses on the A7R? Or will you just avoid photographing people? :ROTFL:It took Leica years to get the S camera firmware sorted out so the skin tones looked human ... while every Sony cam I've used to date had it right straight out of the camera ... starting with the A900 which is renowned for it's faithful and natural color rendering. The A99 is the same, and it appears this A7R has it right also.
Besides, I don't have a clue what "touched up wedding photos" means ... unless you mean natural looking.
I wonder how a camera "touches up" a RAW image anyway. Doesn't make any sense what-so-ever.- Marc
Ben Rubinstein
Active member
I spent a long time comparing skin tones between the A99, 5D3 and D800 from a test subject shot with raw and using the Adobe Raw Converter (same engine as LR) with personal custom presets. I found the colour to be best in the above order. The A99 was superior to the other two in my opinion with the D800 losing the battle. This is from someone who really does not like the colour from the A900, too much pop for my taste and I'm a canon/nikon shooter (I own the other two cameras) so no sony bias. I would assume that taking the 36 megapixel sensor and having current 'sony' colour from it would give a similar great result.
Marc,So, you like the "not found in nature, post apocalyptic" nuclear skin tones" from the M240. Okay-dokey. I guess everyone has their own ideas of what human flesh looks like.
So how will you deal with those
It took Leica years to get the S camera firmware sorted out so the skin tones looked human ... while every Sony cam I've used to date had it right straight out of the camera ... starting with the A900 which is renowned for it's faithful and natural color rendering. The A99 is the same, and it appears this A7R has it right also.
Besides, I don't have a clue what "touched up wedding photos" means ... unless you mean natural looking.
- Marc
The skin tone I have seen from M photos with the newer firmware has more of a natural red tone and is more realistic to what skin with capillaries and the natural tone of the skin really looks like.
Touched-up means the look of an image when the red is desaturated and the skin ends up with a more desaturated look. This is a good look and provides for visually pleasing color because subjects like not having red blemishes or red cheeks etc.. This is what looks unnatural in Sony color to me and what I mean by touched-up.
As to your question of how I would deal with skin tones with the R lenses? They should look fine as the Sony skin tone is fine, just not natural. But, you are right, I would probably avoid taking pictures of people to some extent just due to the length of the Tele lenses and how I would tend to use them for landscape and nature. My use would be less so as long portrait lenses, although I love that look of models taken with long lens from way further back.
Anyway, I don't want to get into a pissing contest about this one area of what I see between the photos taken from the M and Sony cameras... I was just trying to answer the question of the OP and take part in the survey of which camera I would chose and why. You don't have to bust my balls for having an opinion about color and why that would dictate my choice. This is why I don't come around here much and post over the last 5 years.
Auni
Kolor-Pikker
Member
Speaking of the M system, a wild helicoid appears! Voigtlaender - VM-E Close Focus Adapter
It's an M to E mount adapter with a built-in heli to reduce the close-focus distance from the typical 50-70cm down to 15-30cm or so.
I sure do hope that it's not gonna introduce any alignment issues.
It's an M to E mount adapter with a built-in heli to reduce the close-focus distance from the typical 50-70cm down to 15-30cm or so.
I sure do hope that it's not gonna introduce any alignment issues.
Kolor-Pikker
Member
Well, yeah, the new news is that VL can now sell them to us for 5 times the price.
I've heard about those hawks things getting loose with use, so here's hoping this one is made of solid unobtanium.
Fair enough. If you had attached some reasoning to the "touched up wedding comment" puncuated by an
... which I admittedly read as slightly condescending, then maybe I wouldn't have responded at all ... which isn't the same as agreeing with you BTW. I found that Sony cameras tend to favor the mid-tone spread which produces a more gentle and natural gradation with skin ... "tones" being the operative word, not just color and hue.
Color whether vivid or subdued is highly influenced by the operator either while shooting, or after the fact. NO camera, including any Sony, renders red blemishes or rosey cheeks as desaturated ... they just aren't made worse due to a harder tonal contrast ... which can effect the red/orange palette faster and more severely.
I've also observed that native color rendering can slightly differ between the Zeiss ZA lenses and the Sony lenses using identical WB settings in the same ambient light. For consistency, and ease of batching, I now only use the ZAs. The ZAs tend to produce a bit more native cool rendering ... all settings being equal.
Leica may have adjusted the M response with new firmware, however there are still a significant number of people that feel it is still inconsistent and over-saturated requiring a lot of fiddling in post. Very reminiscent of the earlier S files with decent lighter skin tones and neon ears and hands.
My subjective opinion is that they tried to make up for the loss of color depth and contrast punch of the M9 CCD rendering with a more abrupt tonal rendering from the M240 ... which can often produce a not found in nature "colorized" effect in the mid-tones.
Yet, you are right, we all have different views of "reality". So we see it differently.
As to someone responding with a counter opinion ... this is the Sony forum, what did you expect?
- Marc
Expect? I expected you to be unbiased. Actually, I didn't expect that, I just hoped it. But, thank you, I now understand this is a Sony forum I posted on and I apologize. I understand that Leica owners are seen as having a condescending attitude, but that is just not me... I think.
I want you to know that I have an RX1 and it a fantastic achievement from Sony. I like Sony products. I just wanted to participate in this thread because, I just bought the camera (A7R). I wanted to add my answer as to why I bought the camera and I am both a little excited about this camera, and like most, I'm trying to define this camera.
As to the color comment I made: I was mistaken in using the wedding photographer analogy. Sorry. I thought this term would convey the concept of false skin color and over processed faces (under sharpened and under "clarity" processed, etc...) that I associate with wedding photography and i was associating with Sony color.
Personally, I don't think anyone who engages in any creative endeavor is going to be unbiased, about what they do, or what they use to do it ... including you and I.
I've been a professional wedding photographer for decades, and now do more portrait work than weddings as I semi-retire. All I can say is that your generalized characterization of wedding photography is dated, uninformed, and a wee bit condescending. The range of skill levels, styles and creative approaches is just as broad and diverse as any other form of photography practiced today.
If a specific photographer choses to over process and under-saturate images, or push them to unnatural punch and eye-poping color, it isn't the camera doing it, they are. No camera does that on their own, including Sony.
I explained my preference for Sony's tendency to favor mid-tone response because it helps in rendering the graduated subtleties of skin more realistically. You have a different take on it.
I remain unconvinced regarding the M240 color or tonal bias. Not that I couldn't fix it in post, it is just that I don't want to put that much work into every image (an on-going and persistent comment, even from owners of the M240)... I also know from extensive experience that altering skin is one of the most difficult retouching efforts I can think of.
So, the M240 is now the first M iteration I have passed on since the M4. I'll wait until it is all sorted out rather than struggle on as a beta tester for who knows how long. Been there, done that.
- Marc
roanjoh
New member
Link to Sony A7 vs A7r with a 12 mm lens.
Quick samples from Sony A7 and A7r with 12mm Voigtlander! | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS
I don't see the "special" angled corner touted from the 7r faring any better than the a7 - there is still some vignetting and (color shift?) on both versions.
Quick samples from Sony A7 and A7r with 12mm Voigtlander! | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS
I don't see the "special" angled corner touted from the 7r faring any better than the a7 - there is still some vignetting and (color shift?) on both versions.
V
Vivek
Guest
Actually this is encouraging (regardless of A7/R). It actually looks about the same as from the NEX 5N or 6. Good!
Show Performance
Member
A7 for me.
I need AF speed in low light for concert work where I am handheld with slowish shutter speeds and high ISO.
I get the demand for the A7r and have thought about it for portraits but will wait to see what else Sony cooks up in the future.
I need AF speed in low light for concert work where I am handheld with slowish shutter speeds and high ISO.
I get the demand for the A7r and have thought about it for portraits but will wait to see what else Sony cooks up in the future.
Show Performance
Member
Agreed. At least with this lens, the A7 looks par for the course - some vignetting and color shift but the edges look pretty darn detailed.
V
Vivek
Guest
http://cityusam01.blogspot.tw/2013/10/sony-a7-ilce-7.html
Really impressive (I am impressed) performance of the A7 with LTM/M lenses.
A Russar 20/5.6 (as symmetrical as a lens gets) !! That is impressive! :thumbs:
Really impressive (I am impressed) performance of the A7 with LTM/M lenses.
A Russar 20/5.6 (as symmetrical as a lens gets) !! That is impressive! :thumbs:
jabberwocky
New member
Are we looking at the same picture? The iPad in the bottom right hand corner is so smeared that it looks like it is moving on its own.