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!

A7r - and why I'm not keeping it.

tashley

Subscriber Member
Marc, I do agree but I think you're in a minority of those purchasing the A7R because AFAIK there are comparatively few people with a bag of ZA glass in mounts that don't need large adaptors.

I should have written more specifically: for those that already have Sony mount lenses and don't mind using those huge adaptors, the A7R makes some sort of sense as a system extension - but even for them I can't help think that the 'normal' full frame size lenses on an adaptor on a tiny body are likely to look and feel weird and won't allow the owner to capitalise on the promise of a size and weight saving. That's a high price to pay for 36mp and were I a current Sony system owner with those legacy items I would rather have an Alpha line camera with the same sensor, personally.

For the rest of us, with a mixed bag of lenses of different types and mounts, the same holds for the legacy full frame SLR glass, except the adaptors are likely to remove some or all of the functionality. Which largely leaves us with RF lenses which, by comparison, are small in size and take small adaptors and therefore fit the A7R beautifully - except a lot of them won't work satisfactorily. Otherwise it's small recherché legacy primes, a niche but interesting.

So I still think it reasonably fair to say that for an awful lot of actual and prospective A7R purchasers, it is novelty, which most of us like and from which I am certainly not immune, and hope, either that their legacy RF glass will work (some will and some won't) or that the FE range grows quickly and well...
 

Michiel Schierbeek

Well-known member
I am sorry but this is just plain wrong. So wrong I can't even be bothered to apply a reductio ad absurdam to it, because that should be obvious.

It is merely an explanation of the magic a good photographer weaves when he turns a technical sow's ear into a creative silk purse - but it doesn't mean that if he was given silk to start with, he couldn't make a better purse.
All good artists are like alchemists; as one German artist stated; "Art is turning s**t into gold"

http://www.stedelijk.nl/kunstwerk/76347-jpeg-ny06

This work -jpeg nr 06- by Thomas Ruff has been made of a snap he found on the internet and turned into a major artwork with a size of 254,8 x 164 cm. (Collection Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam)

But I am sure he has some nice equipment as well :D
 
Last edited:

Michiel Schierbeek

Well-known member
I should have written more specifically: for those that already have Sony mount lenses and don't mind using those huge adaptors, the A7R makes some sort of sense as a system extension - but even for them I can't help think that the 'normal' full frame size lenses on an adaptor on a tiny body are likely to look and feel weird and won't allow the owner to capitalise on the promise of a size and weight saving. That's a high price to pay for 36mp and were I a current Sony system owner with those legacy items I would rather have an Alpha line camera with the same sensor, personally.

For the rest of us, with a mixed bag of lenses of different types and mounts, the same holds for the legacy full frame SLR glass, except the adaptors are likely to remove some or all of the functionality. Which largely leaves us with RF lenses which, by comparison, are small in size and take small adaptors and therefore fit the A7R beautifully - except a lot of them won't work satisfactorily. Otherwise it's small recherché legacy primes, a niche but interesting.
That's why I ordered the battery grip to make my bigger (C/Y) lenses balance better on it. And I love the way it looks on it. Perfect high resolution street cam for me. Can't do it walking around with an Alpa, although I would love to own one but that is another story.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Marc, I do agree but I think you're in a minority of those purchasing the A7R because AFAIK there are comparatively few people with a bag of ZA glass in mounts that don't need large adaptors.

I should have written more specifically: for those that already have Sony mount lenses and don't mind using those huge adaptors, the A7R makes some sort of sense as a system extension - but even for them I can't help think that the 'normal' full frame size lenses on an adaptor on a tiny body are likely to look and feel weird and won't allow the owner to capitalise on the promise of a size and weight saving. That's a high price to pay for 36mp and were I a current Sony system owner with those legacy items I would rather have an Alpha line camera with the same sensor, personally.

For the rest of us, with a mixed bag of lenses of different types and mounts, the same holds for the legacy full frame SLR glass, except the adaptors are likely to remove some or all of the functionality. Which largely leaves us with RF lenses which, by comparison, are small in size and take small adaptors and therefore fit the A7R beautifully - except a lot of them won't work satisfactorily. Otherwise it's small recherché legacy primes, a niche but interesting.

So I still think it reasonably fair to say that for an awful lot of actual and prospective A7R purchasers, it is novelty, which most of us like and from which I am certainly not immune, and hope, either that their legacy RF glass will work (some will and some won't) or that the FE range grows quickly and well...
There may be more people using Sony DSLRs than you think. When you use a system you tend to be aware of that more than others may be. Folks on this forum are not the universe, nor are their particular needs/novelties universal.

Since I have to carry two FF Sony DSLR cameras to every gig, plus a M body, the size of this camera even with the HUMONGOUS, shoulder dislocating, clavicle collapsing, disc rupturing, tendon snapping LAEA4 SLT AF adapter:rolleyes:, is still considerably smaller/lighter/easier to pack/carry than a A99 DSLR, let alone the A900 it will be replacing in my bag. That I won't need to pack a M camera for the Noctilux further reduces the burden.

I do not have to speculate as to how the A mount adapted lenses balance on this camera ... I tried it. The 24/2, 50/1.4 and even 85/1.4 are fine ... and will most likely be the most used ZAs on this camera ... (not to mention that there is a whole world of smaller legacy Minolta and non-Zeiss AF Sony lenses to explore yet). The bigger ZA zooms will stay with the A99 which will remain my main work-horse, but should the A99 fail at a shoot, the zooms work fine on the A7R.

IMO, the unbalanced notion of big AF zoom lenses on a smaller body is a red herring unless you are in the habit of gripping the camera with both hands ... which I've personally never done ... preferring to cradle the lens ... same as using a telephoto.

I've also changed my mind regarding the FE 35/2.8 ... there is no ZA 35mm in the A mount system, and this would be a perfect walk-about town vacation lens where I almost always carry just a 35mm. The high ISO on the A7R makes the slower max aperture less of an issue.

- Marc
 

algrove

Well-known member
I also ordered the grip for use with larger and all R lenses and large M lenses. But I also got the grip because I was worried that going out, hiking, climbing maybe 5 hours at a time I would need more battery longevity. So with two batteries in the grip combined with the way it drains one battery to nearly zero and then automatically switches to the second, full battery, gave me confidence it might fit into my outdoor plans and uses. Plus I will be using LV and FP a lot so packing 2 extra batteries plus the two in the grip, I figured it should (might) be set for many hours of shooting.

We will see and should I need more batteries they are less than $40 per battery. Then again comparing these batteries to my M240 batteries at $190 each, maybe 5 Sony batteries will not even equal the power of one Leica M240 battery. Just thinking out loud here folks.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I do not have to speculate as to how the A mount adapted lenses balance on this camera ... I tried it. The 24/2, 50/1.4 and even 85/1.4 are fine ... and will most likely be the most used ZAs on this camera ... (not to mention that there is a whole world of smaller legacy Minolta and non-Zeiss AF Sony lenses to explore yet). The bigger ZA zooms will stay with the A99 which will remain my main work-horse, but should the A99 fail at a shoot, the zooms work fine on the A7R.

IMO, the unbalanced notion of big AF zoom lenses on a smaller body is a red herring unless you are in the habit of gripping the camera with both hands ... which I've personally never done ... preferring to cradle the lens ... same as using a telephoto.

I've also changed my mind regarding the FE 35/2.8 ... there is no ZA 35mm in the A mount system, and this would be a perfect walk-about town vacation lens where I almost always carry just a 35mm. The high ISO on the A7R makes the slower max aperture less of an issue.

- Marc
HI Marc
I'm with you with all of this . . . . and if I still had those lenses It'd be my favourite squeeze.

I saw quite a few A99s in Lanzarote - no D800s though.

all the best
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Jono, I have been experimenting with the Lightroom Plugin for making corrections to colour shading. It is the easiest system I have yet found. I know you've returned the camera and don't like LR but I must say that this plugin is somewhat changing how I feel about M glass on the A7R. It is still more of a fuss than one would like, but it makes the 35 FLE and the 28 Cron very useable at all apertures…. here's an uncorrected and corrected example from FLE at F8. Improvements are much more dramatic wide open but if you use vignetting corrections too, it can cause a bit of a noise boost at the edges if vignetting is severe…





It is so easy to use: if you shoot calibration files as you go using a perspex diffuser, as you would with a MF system, then import the files to LR as DNG, you simply select the file you want to correct and the calibration file you shot with it and the plugin does the rest in half a second. Alternatively you can just spend ten minutes for each lens making a library of profiles and use them in a similar way.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Jono, I have been experimenting with the Lightroom Plugin for making corrections to colour shading. It is the easiest system I have yet found. I know you've returned the camera and don't like LR but I must say that this plugin is somewhat changing how I feel about M glass on the A7R. It is still more of a fuss than one would like, but it makes the 35 FLE and the 28 Cron very useable at all apertures
HI Tim
But what about the smearing? does it deal with that as well? I was never worried about the vignetting (easy to deal with in Aperture as well) - but the smearing, especially with the 28 'cron was something awful!
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
HI Tim
But what about the smearing? does it deal with that as well? I was never worried about the vignetting (easy to deal with in Aperture as well) - but the smearing, especially with the 28 'cron was something awful!
Yup, nothing for the smearing - in fact it can make it look worse if you de-vignette because it is lighter. But for shots where it doesn't matter, at least the colour issues are tamed, and the Cron is not terrible by in the corners F8 and really OK by F11. As you know it's not a lens I like greatly anyway but this plugin certainly expands its range of use on the A7R...
 

jonoslack

Active member
Yup, nothing for the smearing - in fact it can make it look worse if you de-vignette because it is lighter. But for shots where it doesn't matter, at least the colour issues are tamed, and the Cron is not terrible by in the corners F8 and really OK by F11. As you know it's not a lens I like greatly anyway but this plugin certainly expands its range of use on the A7R...
Might as well use an RX10 - especially if you need to stop down to f8!

Seriously - I think this camera may be a killer with it's own lenses, and I know it's fine with R (and other SLR lenses), but to put all the effort in with M lenses and still have smeary corners and edges - why would you bother?

I think Bart has it cracked - use it with R lenses. I just don't need a camera for that. When there are some FE lenses I'll definitely reconsider.
 

lambert

New member
Might as well use an RX10 - especially if you need to stop down to f8!

Seriously - I think this camera may be a killer with it's own lenses, and I know it's fine with R (and other SLR lenses), but to put all the effort in with M lenses and still have smeary corners and edges - why would you bother?

I think Bart has it cracked - use it with R lenses. I just don't need a camera for that. When there are some FE lenses I'll definitely reconsider.
I've owned the A7R for a few days and, for me, it's an absolute killer with the WATE, 50 LUX ASPH and 90 LUX ASPH. I no longer own the 28/2 ASPH or 35/1.4 FLE. I found these lenses to be a mixed a bag on my M9. And I could never deal with more than 2 or 3 lenses in the bag. Now with 36mp, it's easy enough to crop a 21mm focal length down to around 32mm and still end up with 24mp of resolution.

If I'd paid $9000 (current street price in Australia) for an M240, I would be looking for a dozen ways to justify keeping it. By comparison, the A7R cost $2000 including a free $400 Canon EF adapter.

The only benefit, to me, of the M240 is the potential to shoot a greater variety of lenses at their full potential. But since I don't have the need to tote around with 10 lenses, I find the A7R to be better in so many ways:

1. higher resolution (lots of cropping potential)
2. better handling due to ergonomic grip/much reduced weight
3. vastly superior video with stereo audio recording when using EVF
4. improved focus accuracy off-centre when using fast lenses (goodbye focus/recompose)
5. option to use AF lenses (plus my Canon EF lenses)
6. no high ISO banding

This is highly subjective, but I also feel that colour images from the A7R look much better than those from the M240. I shot with an M240 for a couple of weeks and there was lots of faffing about just to get pleasing colour. It's taken 12 months for many in the Leica community to reach the point where they're at peace with colour images from the M240. Some never made peace and just ditched their M240 (see Prosophos' blog, for example). By comparison, when you consider that the new Sony's have only been out for a week, we're already seeing some really nice looking colour images.
 

retow

Member
Nothing but perfection is the request from everything made east of Europe no matter the price. I`m glad Solms products, or should I say Portuguese ones, have to pass the same levels of scrutiny. As a RF nostalgic, I might keep my M9. But the A7r I picked up two days ago is the better camera, irrespective of price. And considering that it cost me less than one of the "entry level" Leica optics or a 2 year period write off on a new M body, it`s a darn good deal.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I've owned the A7R for a few days and, for me, it's an absolute killer with the WATE, 50 LUX ASPH and 90 LUX ASPH. I no longer own the 28/2 ASPH or 35/1.4 FLE. I found these lenses to be a mixed a bag on my M9. And I could never deal with more than 2 or 3 lenses in the bag. Now with 36mp, it's easy enough to crop a 21mm focal length down to around 32mm and still end up with 24mp of resolution.

If I'd paid $9000 (current street price in Australia) for an M240, I would be looking for a dozen ways to justify keeping it. By comparison, the A7R cost $2000 including a free $400 Canon EF adapter.

The only benefit, to me, of the M240 is the potential to shoot a greater variety of lenses at their full potential. But since I don't have the need to tote around with 10 lenses, I find the A7R to be better in so many ways:

1. higher resolution (lots of cropping potential)
2. better handling due to ergonomic grip/much reduced weight
3. vastly superior video with stereo audio recording when using EVF
4. improved focus accuracy off-centre when using fast lenses (goodbye focus/recompose)
5. option to use AF lenses (plus my Canon EF lenses)
6. no high ISO banding

This is highly subjective, but I also feel that colour images from the A7R look much better than those from the M240. I shot with an M240 for a couple of weeks and there was lots of faffing about just to get pleasing colour. It's taken 12 months for many in the Leica community to reach the point where they're at peace with colour images from the M240. Some never made peace and just ditched their M240 (see Prosophos' blog, for example). By comparison, when you consider that the new Sony's have only been out for a week, we're already seeing some really nice looking colour images.
In fairness, I think it is essential to note that the inevitable comparison to a M240 is somewhat flawed. The Leica is a different beast, it is a rangefinder camera with its' storied viewfinder experience ... using legendary optics specifically made for M cameras.

In essence, a M is a different approach on seeing the world around you ... as well as a unique sort of tactile involvement ... one with a dedicated following that knows the difference, and in most cases prefers it to other forms of making photographs. I'm personally one of those type people, and have been for 40 years :eek:. Rangefinder photographers are willing to put up with a lot of other short-comings to keep working with a rangefinder ... witness the crop frame, seriously flawed M8 upon its' introduction. The faithful flocked, whining and moaning, but still bought. That is powerful testimony.

That said, the wonderfully tactile "Machine Age" experience of a M has increasingly clashed with the transient obsolescence, albeit highly innovative nature, of the "Digital Age". This makes plopping down $7,000 every so many years a serious consideration in the face of new ways of seeing the world around us ... new ideas that are every bit as innovative as the rangefinder was in its' time.

This leads to the inevitable adaption of superlative M optics to the new cameras ... cameras that were NOT specifically made for M lenses. Some lenses work, some do not. However, as far as I can determine, to make M lenses universally work on a M240, compromises had to be made ... specifically (but not exclusively) a thinner, weaker IR filter that is part of the color exercises so many M240 owners have gone through ... the emphasis was put on retaining optical acuity without the smearing from some M lenses we see on a different camera such as the A7R. At least, that is how the M240 faithful have explained it to me. I can firmly attest to the fact that there is IR contamination with the M240 in situations I would frequently use such a camera.

Enter the A7R triple divide.

One camp sees the use of a few of their M lenses as enough, others feel it is all or nothing, and yet others see it as a multi selective lens exercise drawing from a wide range of optics including those made for the camera.

For me, all it had to do is work with my existing M50/0.95 to justify the A7R cost. Think of it as a 36 meg RX1 with the fastest 50mm available. A marriage made in photographic heaven IMO. The attributes of the A7R's technology plays directly to the use of this daunting lens. Off-center composition and use of higher ISOs compared to a M240. It isn't a rangefinder, but in this case that is a good thing. Granted, one can use the M240 EVF attachment ... at best an inelegant solution similar a Frankenfinder for the WATE, or any aux W/A finder one needs to preserve the rangefinder advantage of a M.

- Marc
 
Last edited:

yatlee

Member
Yup, nothing for the smearing - in fact it can make it look worse if you de-vignette because it is lighter. But for shots where it doesn't matter, at least the colour issues are tamed, and the Cron is not terrible by in the corners F8 and really OK by F11. As you know it's not a lens I like greatly anyway but this plugin certainly expands its range of use on the A7R...
Hi Tim, can you tell me which plugin is that? I know I can do that in capture one, but its not yet support A7 raw.
Thanks.
 

jonoslack

Active member
In essence, a M is a different approach on seeing the world around you ... as well as a unique sort of tactile involvement ... one with a dedicated following that knows the difference, and in most cases prefers it to other forms of making photographs.
HI There Marc
Exactly - it's a different thing altogether.
As I say - I haven't written off the A7r - just for use with M lenses (and Ben, I found the 50 'lux to be imperfect as well - not for portrait or street, but for landscape and foliage).

So, if I had a bag of Sony A mount lenses - I'd have one now - and I'll definitely be interested if the FE lenses prove small and good quality.

Colour on the M? - I acknowledge the slight UV contamination, but haven't found it to be an issue with a couple of weddings and other shooting - apart from this, to my mind, the colour issue was sorted with the firmware update in August(?). I don't find myself doing anything in PP these days. Skin tones seem to me to be a big improvement over the M9 - especially in low light.

But Marc has it - for me there was never any question of having an A7r INSTEAD of an M(240) - the rangefinder is my principle way of shooting. The new M, with it's quiet shutter and greatly improved rangefinder was never up for replacement - especially by something with a shutter as loud as the A7 (even if it's a good noise).

I thought it would make a good sidekick if it worked well with the lenses I use most - but it doesn't. So it'll need to have good native lenses before it's useful to me. 36mp / 24mp doesn't mean much to me to be quite honest.

all the best
 

fotografz

Well-known member
HI There Marc
Exactly - it's a different thing altogether.
As I say - I haven't written off the A7r - just for use with M lenses (and Ben, I found the 50 'lux to be imperfect as well - not for portrait or street, but for landscape and foliage).

So, if I had a bag of Sony A mount lenses - I'd have one now - and I'll definitely be interested if the FE lenses prove small and good quality.

Colour on the M? - I acknowledge the slight UV contamination, but haven't found it to be an issue with a couple of weddings and other shooting - apart from this, to my mind, the colour issue was sorted with the firmware update in August(?). I don't find myself doing anything in PP these days. Skin tones seem to me to be a big improvement over the M9 - especially in low light.

But Marc has it - for me there was never any question of having an A7r INSTEAD of an M(240) - the rangefinder is my principle way of shooting. The new M, with it's quiet shutter and greatly improved rangefinder was never up for replacement - especially by something with a shutter as loud as the A7 (even if it's a good noise).

I thought it would make a good sidekick if it worked well with the lenses I use most - but it doesn't. So it'll need to have good native lenses before it's useful to me. 36mp / 24mp doesn't mean much to me to be quite honest.

all the best
Frankly Jono, without already having ZA lenses to adapt, a blind decision would have been harder ... shooting with the 0.95 on the A7R changed that. :thumbup:

I'm still evaluating the M240 Demo my dealer lent me. Like you, it isn't an either or proposition. The question is, do I want the M240 or not? I already pre-paid for the A7R which was a no-brainer for me. Simply an extension of a system I already have, and rely on quite a bit.

I loaded the new firmware the minute I got the M240 and all my efforts so far are using various WB settings ... but primarily auto and custom. There is much to like, and some to dislike on the M240 ... however, the one question of most concern to me remains the color rendering. I will simply agree to disagree with you on the IR and/or color rendering. Quite a few folks on the LUV that own the camera are still sorting out the color, and some are now trying the IR filters in certain conditions after I posted my controlled test in lower tungsten temp lighting ... the results were vividly obvious. I've come to understand why it is, I have not come to fully understand how to deal with it in post. I am working on that now.

So, perhaps I will post a thread on why I am returning the M240 ;) ... or why I am keeping it. I have to answer that by Monday.

- Marc
 

jonoslack

Active member
however, the one question of most concern to me remains the color rendering. I will simply agree to disagree with you on the IR and/or color rendering.
HI Marc
Sorry - I put UV in my post rather than IR - I certainly agree that it's susceptible, so we don't disagree about that. It's just that I've not found it to be an issue in the real world (unlike the M8 for instance).

As far as the colour is concerned generally it was certainly wrong - and needed either correcting or shooting at a fixed temperature (which is what I did before). Now I like it better than the M9 - but in terms of colour, and in this case familiarity breeds content (for me at least). Certainly I've not had any complaints from my victims!

I'll be interested to see how you get on at any rate!

All the best
 
V

Vivek

Guest
If I ever decide to get the A7 or A7r I guess I won't be bringing it to surreptitiously capture moments at the theater, court or a museum. Or document a bomb defusing. :D

Sony A7R Shutter Shound Comparison - YouTube
I don't know about you Peter, I have not documented any bomb defusal in my entire life and do not anticipate doing one either. In case if I ever have to, I can always video the whole thing and grab high res snaps out of it. Or even better, transmit the whole thing, live, using the built in WiFi. ;)
 
Top