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.

fotografz

Well-known member
What ? Smeared edges with a wide angle doesn t matter ? It sure does . Every professional I ve worked with has stressed the importance of using the entire frame . Look at Alex Webbs work ..how to you layer a composition without concern over the entire frame ?

We aren t talking about the outside boarder ...Jono was speaking to the outside 1/4th of the frame ..most off center compositions use this area . Most street shooting is done with 24-35MM lenses at distances of 6-10 FT . My number one reason for losing an image is clipping an edge .

Its not the same as landscape ,of course , but at 36MPs you have to picky because you will see the difference .
I agree. I doubt there's a single person that uses M wides that wouldn't want any camera it gets bolted to, to be at its' best right to the edges ... even if they say differently. It'd be better if they did.

Frankly, I have a fortune in Leica WA lenses that I use so infrequently for color work as to make them a true indulgence. I'm a 35mm and mostly 50mm sort of shooter for street and candid work, probably due to using a rangefinder where aux finders spoil the whole organic process for me. So each of us decides based on preferences.

For me this is an extension of a system I already have, that I happen to be able to use a few M lenses on ... not the other way around. That IMO is the crux of all this debate. It ain't a M mount camera, it can use some M mounts.

- Marc
 
J

JohnW

Guest
I turned 57 today and **** I'm still willing to play the game just to see what kind of edge something brings me.
Mind you, this is coming from a non-pro who has never had such aspirations. But beyond a minimum standard for today's professional work, is there really such thing as a TECHNICAL edge?

There are a handful of pros whose commercial work I enjoy following -- Mark Tucker, Rodney Smith, Michael Kenna, Prabuddha Dasgupta, and others -- who invariably say they are hired for their distinctive vision. Isn't that the real edge among today's pros?

Maybe I'd quickly go bust if I were to turn pro. But assuming technical competence, I'd want to offer something special creatively. That seems so much more satisfying than the endless pursuit of technical supremacy.

Again, a naive amateur speaking here.

John
 

cunim

Well-known member
Enjoyable discussion. Marc, my own feeling is that the A7r was designed for the prosumer market. Therefore, the product has the life expectancy of a mosquito. Meeting sales targets requires that it change frequently (new!, improved!) so no use bemoaning that. Enjoy it as a toy or creative aid if you can afford to, and ignore it if your priority is making a return on investment. I think that is what you have decided to do.

It was an easy decision for me to buy the A7r because it does not have to pay for itself. My most used camera is an Arca Monolith because I enjoy studio work. However, I find I also enjoy using the A7r as a carry quickie so why not? Sony and I are both happy about my purchase, even though I fully expect it to age quickly. The reason I rant here is that I am going to regard it as a failed technology unless something fixes the silly corners. Sony should meet a higher standard than that or lose share.

The Arca stays, long term, because it serves a deeper need. I love that cranky, old fashioned, expensive and low-tech monster. I also love the superb lenses that make my old eyes feel younger again. I have no interest in moving to the latest gen digital back because the old one does everything I want just fine. In pro gear, I have a completely different set of expectations than I have with cute toys. Expensive stuff needs to last for years. Cheap and cheerful (A7) not so much so Sony, ring out the changes.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Marc, my own feeling is that the A7r was designed for the prosumer market. Therefore, the product has the life expectancy of a mosquito.
I really do not understand this line of talk. Will the A7R self destruct in a short time?

I was looking at one fashion artist's work the other day. Stunning stuff. All shot with an ancient D300 and a zoom. It was the lighting that did the work there. The D300 was definitely not a "pro" camera, even according to Nikon, just as the A7/7R are not.

Also, what corners are you talking about? :confused:
 

Kamoulox

New member
I really do not understand this line of talk. Will the A7R self destruct in a short time?

I was looking at one fashion artist's work the other day. Stunning stuff. All shot with an ancient D300 and a zoom. It was the lighting that did the work there. The D300 was definitely not a "pro" camera, even according to Nikon, just as the A7/7R are not.

Also, what corners are you talking about? :confused:

Oh no! is there an issue for the self destruction, i've just bought my A7R, it's terrific! :facesmack::ROTFL:
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Mind you, this is coming from a non-pro who has never had such aspirations. But beyond a minimum standard for today's professional work, is there really such thing as a TECHNICAL edge?

There are a handful of pros whose commercial work I enjoy following -- Mark Tucker, Rodney Smith, Michael Kenna, Prabuddha Dasgupta, and others -- who invariably say they are hired for their distinctive vision. Isn't that the real edge among today's pros?

Maybe I'd quickly go bust if I were to turn pro. But assuming technical competence, I'd want to offer something special creatively. That seems so much more satisfying than the endless pursuit of technical supremacy.

Again, a naive amateur speaking here.

John

Actually most of the pursuit for me is the look. I have a Leica 19, Zeiss 135f2, sigma 35 1.4 getting my Zeiss 25 f2 back and want a 200 f2. All look glass and that's the edge I'm after. What I see here in the Sony more than anyone else buying it is the color tone and smoothness over my Nikon D800e. From what I see even without C1 is better color. I come from the best looking files of MF with Dalsa sensors and Phase backs. I'm looking to match it and the Nikon gets close but takes post work to get close. This Sony may just eat it for breakfast but I'm waiting until C 1 supports it. If the look is better than I'm jumping and I agree it's totally about my vision. That's what I'm after to support the it. I still need high mpx or I can't jump but if this Sony regardless of any tech feat or not is not my concern. I can shoot anything and work around any situation . It's the look if the file. That's what supports me the shooter. How much effort I have to workaround is meaningless. It's the look that drives me
 

cunim

Well-known member
I really do not understand this line of talk. Will the A7R self destruct in a short time?

I was looking at one fashion artist's work the other day. Stunning stuff. All shot with an ancient D300 and a zoom. It was the lighting that did the work there. The D300 was definitely not a "pro" camera, even according to Nikon, just as the A7/7R are not.

Also, what corners are you talking about? :confused:
Re the first comment, I think you are being disingenuous. The A7 will work for years but no one will care because there will be an A8 or whatever.

Your corner question deserves an answer and is best handled with images, but I have returned the 35 FE. It is performance with native lenses that I regard as critical. Tim Ashley provides useful images of intensity vignetting, and makes heroic efforts to get lovely real world images out of this lens. He also does a great job of summing up the 35 FE. See this topic, especially the last post.

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/49498-fe-35mm-f2-8-za.html

What Tim regards as "a bit of smearing, but not much", I found to be a problem. Matter of taste.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Re the first comment, I think you are being disingenuous. The A7 will work for years but no one will care because there will be an A8 or whatever.

Your corner question deserves an answer and is best handled with images, but I have returned the 35 FE. It is performance with native lenses that I regard as critical. Tim Ashley provides useful images of intensity vignetting, and makes heroic efforts to get lovely real world images out of this lens. He also does a great job of summing up the 35 FE. See this topic, especially the last post.

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/49498-fe-35mm-f2-8-za.html

What Tim regards as "a bit of smearing, but not much", I found to be a problem. Matter of taste.

No, I am not being disingenuous. I own an A7R (still have time to return it to Sony if I want to) and would use it. 2099 Euros is enough cash for me to "care" in 2 years even if there is an A9 with 100 MP. YMMV. Just speak for yourself and not for everyone else. :)

I am riveted to Tim's ongoing and open ended thesis on the 35mm f/2.8. Once there is a positive conclusion (at the moment, it is up in the air), I will certainly consider buying one, if he recommends it to be suitable for use. I am not in a rush as I have >10 lenses in the 35mm FL range that do work on the A7R for me. :)
 

engel001

Member
Marc,

Why are you getting the Sony LAEA4? You already use A900 and A99 with IBIS which this adapter does not have.

- Christopher
 

Ron Pfister

Member
Regarding the FE 2.8/35, I think we should not set higher expectations than the price point of that lens warrants. We will not be getting Otus performance, that should be clear to anyone. I'm personally not expecting wonders from Sony's FE lens-lineup. I'll reserve that for the MF FE offerings Zeiss has hinted at...
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
No, I am not being disingenuous. I own an A7R (still have time to return it to Sony if I want to) and would use it. 2099 Euros is enough cash for me to "care" in 2 years even if there is an A9 with 100 MP. YMMV. Just speak for yourself and not for everyone else. :)

I am riveted to Tim's ongoing and open ended thesis on the 35mm f/2.8. Once there is a positive conclusion (at the moment, it is up in the air), I will certainly consider buying one, if he recommends it to be suitable for use. I am not in a rush as I have >10 lenses in the 35mm FL range that do work on the A7R for me. :)
There's a conclusion - I have finished my work on it...
 

cunim

Well-known member
Regarding the FE 2.8/35, I think we should not set higher expectations than the price point of that lens warrants. We will not be getting Otus performance, that should be clear to anyone. I'm personally not expecting wonders from Sony's FE lens-lineup. I'll reserve that for the MF FE offerings Zeiss has hinted at...
Good point, Ron. These first native lenses are fairly low in cost so better may be coming.

Vivek, a bit more of "what corners". Here is the Summicron R50 f2, focused on the vines at the upper right corner. Image is at f3.5, with 100% crops at f2 and f5.6. Note the severe degradation of corner MTF at F2 (not typical of this lens, I think), which has become very nice at f5.6. This lens lives on my A7r, as long as I can keep it above f3.5.

I would really like to try the Nocti 0.95. Given what Ashwin and Marc report that might be an answer. Sadly, no way to get my hands on one.
 
Last edited:
V

Vivek

Guest
Good point, Ron. These first native lenses are fairly low in cost so better may be coming.

Vivek, a bit more of "what corners". Here is the Summicron R50 f2, focused on the vines at the upper right corner. Image is at f3.5, with 100% crops at f2 and f5.6. Note the severe degradation of corner MTF at F2 (not typical of this lens, I think), which has become very nice at f5.6. This lens lives on my A7r, as long as I can keep it above f3.5.

I would really like to try the Nocti 0.95. Given what Ashwin and Marc report that might be an answer. Sadly, no way to get my hands on one.
I have that lens (the first version, few samples), which measured a 160 lp/mm (Pop photo, decades ago) at the center, and have shot with it on my SL2. What you see is absolutely the way it behaved on film as well. Incidentally, this was the lens that taught me why a tripod is useful to get the most out. :)

I have the Canon 50/0.95. That lens is superb on the A7R, in fact I find it behaving better on the A7R (color) than the Leica MM (monochrome!) !
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Good point, Ron. These first native lenses are fairly low in cost so better may be coming.

Vivek, a bit more of "what corners". Here is the Summicron R50 f2, focused on the vines at the upper right corner. Image is at f3.5, with 100% crops at f2 and f5.6. Note the severe degradation of corner MTF at F2 (not typical of this lens, I think), which has become very nice at f5.6. This lens lives on my A7r, as long as I can keep it above f3.5.

I would really like to try the Nocti 0.95. Given what Ashwin and Marc report that might be an answer. Sadly, no way to get my hands on one.
Peter, Could you post a shot of the lens + adapter (the rear view showing the inside)? I would strongly encourage your to put it in a new thread. We really do not need more advertisement for the A7R as a lot of people are waiting in line to buy one. :)
 

carstenw

Active member
Case in point I'm going to go play golf. I had a perfectly viable driver that I hit 260 yards almost always in the center of the fairway. Had it 6 months , what did I do traded it yesterday for a updated driver with new tech to gain a extra 10-20 yards. Its a vicious circle that you can apply in almost anything. Okay I'm off for the day, peace out and wish me that extra 10 yards to the old geezer. LOL
Happy Birthday, Guy, enjoy your game!
 
Top