A7r - and why I'm not keeping it.

[tashley]

Sorry, I don't buy all this 'the cameras are now so good that it is the photographer that is the limiting factor' stuff: for most of what most of us do, that might be true but at least sometimes the margins are where we can make a difference and distinguish ourselves from others. Every wedding and event photographer could do with more low-light performance. Many landscape photographers could do with more resolution. Nearly all of us could do with more and better colour and more DR and nearly all of us could do with faster, smaller, lighter, better lenses that are sharper into the corners. We want longer battery life, better IS, faster and more accurate AF, the list is long and the hope of its fulfilment, which is slowly being realised, is what keeps us buying gear. I also think that the average standard of enthusiast and prosumer photography has improved as the technical limitations and price points have made more possibilities open to more people.

To say that a talented photographer can make amazing images with a basic camera is true but it isn't the same thing as claiming that further advances in that photographer's technical reach won't allow him to make even more great images and possibly more often.

Vive la revolution!

 

[Vivek]

Vive la revolution!

Pass the cigar around!

 

[algrove]

Sorry, I don't buy all this 'the cameras are now so good that it is the photographer that is the limiting factor' stuff: for most of what most of us do, that might be true but at least sometimes the margins are where we can make a difference and distinguish ourselves from others. Every wedding and event photographer could do with more low-light performance. Many landscape photographers could do with more resolution. Nearly all of us could do with more and better colour and more DR and nearly all of us could do with faster, smaller, lighter, better lenses that are sharper into the corners. We want longer battery life, better IS, faster and more accurate AF, the list is long and the hope of its fulfilment, which is slowly being realised, is what keeps us buying gear. I also think that the average standard of enthusiast and prosumer photography has improved as the technical limitations and price points have made more possibilities open to more people.

To say that a talented photographer can make amazing images with a basic camera is true but it isn't the same thing as claiming that further advances in that photographer's technical reach won't allow him to make even more great images and possibly more often.

Vive la revolution!

Agree Tim. BUT it is also how the image creator can use a mouse that often determines whether an image is OK or outstanding. I know that is one of my many limitations, but the learning curve for me is very steep regarding PP. And then add a new piece of digital gear and my learning curve goes nearly straight up for many images until I develop my own acceptable (and hopefully simple) workflow.

So IMHO, gear+PP can make a difference. So shooting flow and PP workflow.

 

[Quentin_Bargate]

Difficult, surely, for anyone to reach a definitive conclusion about any camera when it has so far been used for the most part with lenses not designed for it.

My first experience of the A7R, hopefully at the end of this week, will be with the Zeiss 35mm F/2.8 ZE lens.

 

[JohnW]

Tim, it's this preoccupation with the technical margins that often makes us lose our way creatively and remain on photography's surface. Granted, some can handle both and bring these technical advancements into the service of their vision. But there's no doubt in my mind that most of us would produce better work and find photography more fulfilling by redirecting the energy spent on gear into what we photograph, and how, and why.

John

 

[jonoslack]

Difficult, surely, for anyone to reach a definitive conclusion about any camera when it has so far been used for the most part with lenses not designed for it.

My first experience of the A7R, hopefully at the end of this week, will be with the Zeiss 35mm F/2.8 ZE lens.

HI Quentin
I absolutely agree - and my rejection was not based on any shortcoming of the camera itself - but because I don't want to carry a bag of big lenses around with me, having a teeny body just means that they handle badly!

At first I thought it would be interesting - I could use the A7r with the 24-70 zoom, 1 telephoto and then use M lenses shared between it and the M(240) - and get rid of my µ43 kit. However I realised that there were too many compromises involved in using M lenses between it and my Leica (I was expecting vignetting, but not smearing).

My current setup works really well - 2 M bodies, an E-M1 and an E-P5 together with some excellent lenses - the A7r was going to muddy the water badly, without really bringing anything new to the party . . . . . . . I reserve the right to change my mind later if the native lenses turn out to be excellent quality and small .

 

[jonoslack]

Sorry, I don't buy all this 'the cameras are now so good that it is the photographer that is the limiting factor' stuff: for most of what most of us do, that might be true but at least sometimes the margins are where we can make a difference and distinguish ourselves from others. Every wedding and event photographer could do with more low-light performance. Many landscape photographers could do with more resolution. Nearly all of us could do with more and better colour and more DR and nearly all of us could do with faster, smaller, lighter, better lenses that are sharper into the corners. We want longer battery life, better IS, faster and more accurate AF, the list is long and the hope of its fulfilment, which is slowly being realised, is what keeps us buying gear. I also think that the average standard of enthusiast and prosumer photography has improved as the technical limitations and price points have made more possibilities open to more people.

I agree with all of this - without question BUT. In every situation there is a primary limiting factor - until recently (maybe 2009?) the limiting factor was often the quality of the image, but IMHO the day has come where the usability of the equipment is more often the limiting factor.

To say that a talented photographer can make amazing images with a basic camera is true but it isn't the same thing as claiming that further advances in that photographer's technical reach won't allow him to make even more great images and possibly more often.

Vive la revolution!

But we aren't talking about basic cameras here - I'm not arguing against technical advances, just wary of changing an entire way of working on the basis of being able to do 60" prints which you can look at from 12" instead of 40" prints which you can look at from 12".

As for weddings, I've done a few, and I'm not sure that I really need better high ISO any more (3 years ago - yes). . . . at least, not if I've got to sacrifice other really important features like image stabilisation in the Olympus or a rangefinder with Leica (important for me that is of course).

all the best

 

[Ulfric Douglas]

I keep seeing (on various forums) similar thread titles : I like it, actually. :clap:
The great thing is reading WHY the new A7/A7r didn't suit each buyer according to his needs and expectations.
I'm still waiting for a thread to address my specific A7 expectations but so far there hasn't been a casual cheapskate with a Jupiter-8 (or similar low-grades) who just wants the proper sensor size and to hell with resolution.

Jono's post here is acutely influenced by his comfort and expertise with a proper rangefinder, a rare point of view I'm sure.

One thing I'm interested Jono is how similar were the A7r and your E-M1 viewfinders?

 

[Quentin_Bargate]

HI Quentin
" having a teeny body just means that they handle badly! "
.

I'm using that as an excuse to avoid further diets...

But more on point, the 35mm looks small and a great focal length for general work.

More when I actually have the items in hand.

 

[jonoslack]

One thing I'm interested Jono is how similar were the A7r and your E-M1 viewfinders?

Hi there Ulfric. I did a very careful comparison, and it seemed to me that the E-M1 had better colour and was bigger, but of course the 4:3 aspect ratio affects that. I also found the A7 seemed a bit 'fizzy' in comparison. But the differences were small.

............

 

[jonoslack]

I'm using that as an excuse to avoid further diets...

But more on point, the 35mm looks small and a great focal length for general work.

More when I actually have the items in hand.

Personally I'd have been more interested in the 55. F2.8 is pretty slow though - but one lens does not a system make. I'll certainly think again when there are more lenses available.

 

[fotografz]

Tim, it's this preoccupation with the technical margins that often makes us lose our way creatively and remain on photography's surface. Granted, some can handle both and bring these technical advancements into the service of their vision. But there's no doubt in my mind that most of us would produce better work and find photography more fulfilling by redirecting the energy spent on gear into what we photograph, and how, and why.

John

Perhaps we are confusing web banter regarding gear on a site dedicated to that, with private creative explorations? New tech info is something that can be shared, it is what it is ... creative musing are a bit delicate and introspective for having a dialog with people I've never even met.

I tend to think the technical advancements open new creative doors for the clever photographer that sees what is now creatively viable, or is now easier to do. Every limitation that is lifted is a new possibility ... and new possibilities are the very essence of creativity.

- Marc

 

[Shashin]

And with every limitation, new possibilities. There is a wonderful little film called The Legend of 1900, in which the main character 1900 is describing why he did not leave the ship he was on. He said the landscape was infinite. Being a piano player, he explained with 88 keys he can make an infinite variations in music, but if the keyboard was infinite, where would he even begin?

Yes, I am all for technical innovation, but that does lead to better creative photography. It might lead to new images, but those tend to be neat because we have never sen them before rather than intrinsically good. I have found the photographers we label as "great" were not limited by technology and the technology was not the defining factor in their images.

As far as the A7R, it really is simply a FF mirrorless. Nothing about that is innovative in any significant sense in regards to creativity. As far as quality, it is no better than a whole host of FF digital cameras available today.

 

[Vivek]

Perhaps we are confusing web banter regarding gear on a site dedicated to that, with private creative explorations? New tech info is something that can be shared, it is what it is ... creative musing are a bit delicate and introspective for having a dialog with people I've never even met.

I tend to think the technical advancements open new creative doors for the clever photographer that sees what is now creatively viable, or is now easier to do. Every limitation that is lifted is a new possibility ... and new possibilities are the very essence of creativity.

- Marc

Well said!

 

[fotografz]

And with every limitation, new possibilities. There is a wonderful little film called The Legend of 1900, in which the main character 1900 is describing why he did not leave the ship he was on. He said the landscape was infinite. Being a piano player, he explained with 88 keys he can make an infinite variations in music, but if the keyboard was infinite, where would he even begin?

Yes, I am all for technical innovation, but that does lead to better creative photography. It might lead to new images, but those tend to be neat because we have never sen them before rather than intrinsically good. I have found the photographers we label as "great" were not limited by technology and the technology was not the defining factor in their images.

As far as the A7R, it really is simply a FF mirrorless. Nothing about that is innovative in any significant sense in regards to creativity. As far as quality, it is no better than a whole host of FF digital cameras available today.

None of which fit the palm of your hand

Once again we drag out the philosophical chestnuts ... "It's not the gear, it's the photographer behind the gear" ... (odd analogy on a thread where the OP is rejecting a $2,400 piece of gear in favor of a $7,000 one ) ... and the ever favorite "Infinite possibilities that stifles creativity story", same as the "Confines of a chess board story".

What that has to do with advancing technology that allows one to better capture content (the personal creative variable) in ways not possible before escapes me. What if content can be better captured in places, or situations not possible before?

- Marc

 

[FotoIcon]

I betcha there are still a lot more significant images made on film than those made digitally. Even though I'm sure there are now 10x more digital images made than film.

 

[jonoslack]

I tend to think the technical advancements open new creative doors for the clever photographer that sees what is now creatively viable, or is now easier to do. Every limitation that is lifted is a new possibility ... and new possibilities are the very essence of creativity.

- Marc

Hi Marc.
This was a personal opinion, but I felt that this new technological advancement was closing existing creative opportunities and adding limitations (rather than the other way around). But I don't have a stack of A mount lenses to put on it! If I did I would certainly feel differently.

 

[fotografz]

I betcha there are still a lot more significant images made on film than those made digitally. Even though I'm sure there are now 10x more digital images made than film.

Yep, we should all go back to film, because then we'll do significant images ... :wtf:

While we are at it let's go back to no computers, no cell phones, 3 channels on the TV ... no wait ... no TV, back to radio ... no wait ... no radio, back to drums. No cars (filthy beasts anyway), back to horses ... no wait, they are filthy also ... back to just walking.

:ROTFL:

- Marc

BTW, I'll go back to film when they pry my digital camera from my cold dead fingers. No wait, if they are cold and dead I can't push the shutter button.

 

[tashley]

And with every limitation, new possibilities. There is a wonderful little film called The Legend of 1900, in which the main character 1900 is describing why he did not leave the ship he was on. He said the landscape was infinite. Being a piano player, he explained with 88 keys he can make an infinite variations in music, but if the keyboard was infinite, where would he even begin?

Yes, I am all for technical innovation, but that does lead to better creative photography. It might lead to new images, but those tend to be neat because we have never sen them before rather than intrinsically good. I have found the photographers we label as "great" were not limited by technology and the technology was not the defining factor in their images.

As far as the A7R, it really is simply a FF mirrorless. Nothing about that is innovative in any significant sense in regards to creativity. As far as quality, it is no better than a whole host of FF digital cameras available today.

I'm afraid I buy not a word of that! It is attractive as whimsy only. The pianist would be welcome to take one look at his infinite keyboard, as I do with the Granny On the Beach By Moonlight HDR Panorama Mode, and ignore all but the 88 keys he knows, However, sometimes, he might want to reach for the 90th or the 100th. Beethoven would not have written as well had he only had access to an accordion.

Aside from writing a lot about the gear side of photography I have a fine art practice. I am personally quite certain that better gear frees me in pursuit of the images I want. I also collect images and have on my wall a Burtynsky which is probably three metre long and an Olaf Otto Becker which is at least 1.2 metres and a Kander which is the same and a Lyon which is as long as a door. All of which would not have the same creative impact were they small. More pixels with higher bit depth and less noise in better bodies fronted by superior lenses = more creative freedom, control and potential.

The danger comes in reaching for the 100th key before you have become very good at keys 1-88...

 

[jonoslack]

Aside from writing a lot about the gear side of photography I have a fine art practice. I am personally quite certain that better gear frees me in pursuit of the images I want. I also collect images and have on my wall a Burtynsky which is probably three metre long and an Olaf Otto Becker which is at least 1.2 metres and a Kander which is the same and a Lyon which is as long as a door. All of which would not have the same creative impact were they small. More pixels with higher bit depth and less noise in better bodies fronted by superior lenses = more creative freedom, control and potential.

.

Yes Tim, but the A7r wouldn't have helped Burtynsky or Becker or Kander, more to my point it wouldn't help Elliot Erwitt either!

We absolutely agree about more pixels, but 50% more isn't, (for me at least) enough temptation to subscribe to a system which currently relies entirely on non native lenses. 35 f2.8. Pshaw!

Subscribing to technological advances doesn't oblige you to drop everything you know and love for the next new step.

All the best