Menu
What's new
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!

Most "Conflicted" Camera Ever?

F

fotografz

Well-known member
GrahamB said:
I don't think that combination would make a good sports kit. Here's the quote from Gustav regarding the a7r+LA-EA4. The images in this thread were widely circulated on the web (the quote comes from a Gustav post on pg. 7).my first result with A7r - Dyxum - Page 1

"Gustav,
How do you find the AF with the 70-200? Is it as responsive as on your A99?

hi stinndler , yes i try today the A7R with the adapter LA-EA4 with the sony 70-200 , it was pretty fast , not so fast as with the A99 , but it was really not bad"

Graham
Click to expand...
As I mentioned, inclusion of SSW AF helps ... which the 70-200/2.8G has ... however, the new 70-200/2.8G SSW II apparently inhances its tracking ability and has added nano AR coatings to lens elements.

The new version is a mere $1,000 more than its' predecessor, making it $2,998. ... the most expensive 70-200/2.8 by a good margin. The dang thing doesn't even have IS built in like Nikon/Canon, and relies on the IBIS of the Alpha SLT cameras

So, the question is, do the Canon or Nikon 70-200/2.8 retain their IS with the right adapter ... and how fast are they at AF?

- Marc
 
M

mdg137

Member
Marc,
I think you got a pretty good idea of the focus speed with the metabones III adapter when you tried mine with the 40mm. Every EF lens that I have focuses at live view speed-- slow, but certain-- focuses pat the correct point, then backs up and locks on.

On the plus side, IS works.
 
S

Shelby Lewis

Guest
I think I might be coming back into the fold with the release of this camera... I've been waiting on quasi-MF resolution and Dr, with the color and ease of use from the old a900...
 
kuau

kuau

Workshop Member
Marc,
Can you comment on overall IQ as it compares to the A99?
I realize we are not comparing apples to apples.
Thanks
Steven
 
F

fotografz

Well-known member
mdg137 said:
Marc,
I think you got a pretty good idea of the focus speed with the metabones III adapter when you tried mine with the 40mm. Every EF lens that I have focuses at live view speed-- slow, but certain-- focuses pat the correct point, then backs up and locks on.

On the plus side, IS works.
Click to expand...
Well, that answers the IS question for Guy ... IF it holds true for Nikon also.

Marke, do any your Canon lenses have Super Sonic Wave AF motors in the lenses? I ask because it made a difference in speed with different A mount lenses I'm using. Those with SSW acted just about the same as when on my Alpha DSLR cameras. Those without it were slower ... not nearly as slow as your 40mm was, but not as fast as lenses with SSW.

Question:

Did you figure out how to activate "Eye Focus" and assign it to a custom button? Is that an A7 feature missing on the A7R?

- Marc
 
F

fotografz

Well-known member
kuau said:
Marc,
Can you comment on overall IQ as it compares to the A99?
I realize we are not comparing apples to apples.
Thanks
Steven
Click to expand...
A99 is 24 meg with a AA filter, the A7R is 36 meg without AA.

What would be interesting is someone with the A99 that got the A7 ... more Apples-to-Apples comparison in terms of IQ. I'd be very curious whether the A7 improves on the A99 files, and retains the A7R higher ISO qualities

Steven, here's my "from memory" sort of impressions on IQ (which isn't just a quick answer)

... I still have and use the A900 along side the A99, and now have the A7R with LA-EA4 adapter. So, in terms of lenses it can at least be Apples-to-Apples without mixing in other optical factors.

A900 is the camera that defined a certain color/contrast response that quite a few people found exceedingly pleasing and still do ... including me. What seemed to be sacrificed at that "color response altar" was higher ISO performance.

To me, the A99 seemed to be tuned to balance out the conflict between lower ISO color/contrast response and providing higher ISO performance compared to the A900. IMO, the A900 IQ is still a bit better than the A99 at base ISO, but the A99 is the better all around camera with excellent IQ across a broader ISO range ... making it a more practical everyday camera ... or better for certain applications like ambient light wedding photography I still do from time-to-time. However, when working with flash, there is virtually little difference in the files that I can detect.

The A7R is as good as the base ISO A900 in terms of color response, obviously delivers more resolution when properly used, and retains its image characteristics well into the higher ISOs ... effectively leaving both the A900 and A99 behind for lower light applications.

For some of the test shots I've done so far, the A7R with ZA lenses smokes the Leica M9 and M240 for out of camera color/contrast/DR response. It is reminiscent of the M9 "Leica look" but walks away from the M9 from ISO 640 on up, and has a much more forgiving DR at all ISOs. IMO, the M240 is still to fraught with color issues and IR contamination in comparison ...the skin tones from the A7R are much better out of the camera, and allow flexible creative explorations, rather than trying to fix something.

At this early stage of exploring the A7R I can say that my "CCD verses CMOS" personal debate has been seriously challenged. This is the first CMOS camera I've used that may well trash my argument in favor of CCD. :bugeyes:

There, I said it.

- Marc
 
iiiNelson

iiiNelson

Well-known member
fotografz said:
A99 is 24 meg with a AA filter, the A7R is 36 meg without AA.

What would be interesting is someone with the A99 that got the A7 ... more Apples-to-Apples comparison in terms of IQ. I'd be very curious whether the A7 improves on the A99 files, and retains the A7R higher ISO qualities

Steven, here's my "from memory" sort of impressions on IQ (which isn't just a quick answer)

... I still have and use the A900 along side the A99, and now have the A7R with LA-EA4 adapter. So, in terms of lenses it can at least be Apples-to-Apples without mixing in other optical factors.

A900 is the camera that defined a certain color/contrast response that quite a few people found exceedingly pleasing and still do ... including me. What seemed to be sacrificed at that "color response altar" was higher ISO performance.

To me, the A99 seemed to be tuned to balance out the conflict between lower ISO color/contrast response and providing higher ISO performance compared to the A900. IMO, the A900 IQ is still a bit better than the A99 at base ISO, but the A99 is the better all around camera with excellent IQ across a broader ISO range ... making it a more practical everyday camera ... or better for certain applications like ambient light wedding photography I still do from time-to-time. However, when working with flash, there is virtually little difference in the files that I can detect.

The A7R is as good as the base ISO A900 in terms of color response, obviously delivers more resolution when properly used, and retains its image characteristics well into the higher ISOs ... effectively leaving both the A900 and A99 behind for lower light applications.

For some of the test shots I've done so far, the A7R with ZA lenses smokes the Leica M9 and M240 for out of camera color/contrast/DR response. It is reminiscent of the M9 "Leica look" but walks away from the M9 from ISO 640 on up, and has a much more forgiving DR at all ISOs. IMO, the M240 is still to fraught with color issues and IR contamination in comparison ...the skin tones from the A7R are much better out of the camera, and allow flexible creative explorations, rather than trying to fix something.

At this early stage of exploring the A7R I can say that my "CCD verses CMOS" personal debate has been seriously challenged. This is the first CMOS camera I've used that may well trash my argument in favor of CCD. :bugeyes:

There, I said it.

- Marc
Click to expand...
Agree 100% with everything you said regarding the A7/r versus the Leica M9 and M. Hands down this is the closest a CMOS sensor has gotten to the "CCD look."
 
johnnygoesdigital

johnnygoesdigital

New member
Although, I really loved my A900, I ultimately sold it because of the hot shoe adaptor. I'm shooting lot's of on location strobes, and having a proprietary hot shoe, imo, is not a good design, especially if you have a PW or Air remote. It seems that the A7R shares that feature.
I do like the Zeiss Touit lenses, and the ability to adapt many others, but can't justify a completely new camera system for portable, on location shooting as a back up camera.
 
M

mdg137

Member
fotografz said:
Well, that answers the IS question for Guy ... IF it holds true for Nikon also.

Marke, do any your Canon lenses have Super Sonic Wave AF motors in the lenses? I ask because it made a difference in speed with different A mount lenses I'm using. Those with SSW acted just about the same as when on my Alpha DSLR cameras. Those without it were slower ... not nearly as slow as your 40mm was, but not as fast as lenses with SSW.

Question:

Did you figure out how to activate "Eye Focus" and assign it to a custom button? Is that an A7 feature missing on the A7R?

- Marc
Click to expand...
Marc,
Just tried it with the metabones and the 14mm f2.8 II, the new image stabilized 100mm Macro, and the 70-200mm IS, all of which are USM lenses.

Focusing is significantly faster, but it displays the same "drive past focus, back up, and lock on" behavior. I assume the A7, using PDAF would not do this.

Figured out the eye detection. I set the button in the AF/MF-- AEL toggle to the following:
1. Toggle in up (AF/MF) position, button activates
magnifier for manual focus

2. Toggle in down (AEL) position, button activates eye
focus.
This set up seems to be very quick, and intuitive for me. The eye focus is a bit hit and miss, but Im sure that's a question of me learning its limitations. But, it does seem very promising.
 
F

fotografz

Well-known member
johnnygoesdigital said:
Although, I really loved my A900, I ultimately sold it because of the hot shoe adaptor. I'm shooting lot's of on location strobes, and having a proprietary hot shoe, imo, is not a good design, especially if you have a PW or Air remote. It seems that the A7R shares that feature.
I do like the Zeiss Touit lenses, and the ability to adapt many others, but can't justify a completely new camera system for portable, on location shooting as a back up camera.
Click to expand...
Shares what feature?

The A99, A7 and A7R have conventional hot shoes. I've fired strobes with the A7R using both Profoto AIR and PW.

The A900 required a little inexpensive adapter. The unconventional Minolta shoe mount wasn't so great for strobe work because it did need that adapter, but for fast paced work like weddings where you are mounting and removing the speed-light a lot, it was far quicker and much more stable than Canon or Nikon.

-Marc
 
kuau

kuau

Workshop Member
fotografz said:
A99 is 24 meg with a AA filter, the A7R is 36 meg without AA.

What would be interesting is someone with the A99 that got the A7 ... more Apples-to-Apples comparison in terms of IQ. I'd be very curious whether the A7 improves on the A99 files, and retains the A7R higher ISO qualities

Steven, here's my "from memory" sort of impressions on IQ (which isn't just a quick answer)

... I still have and use the A900 along side the A99, and now have the A7R with LA-EA4 adapter. So, in terms of lenses it can at least be Apples-to-Apples without mixing in other optical factors.

A900 is the camera that defined a certain color/contrast response that quite a few people found exceedingly pleasing and still do ... including me. What seemed to be sacrificed at that "color response altar" was higher ISO performance.

To me, the A99 seemed to be tuned to balance out the conflict between lower ISO color/contrast response and providing higher ISO performance compared to the A900. IMO, the A900 IQ is still a bit better than the A99 at base ISO, but the A99 is the better all around camera with excellent IQ across a broader ISO range ... making it a more practical everyday camera ... or better for certain applications like ambient light wedding photography I still do from time-to-time. However, when working with flash, there is virtually little difference in the files that I can detect.

The A7R is as good as the base ISO A900 in terms of color response, obviously delivers more resolution when properly used, and retains its image characteristics well into the higher ISOs ... effectively leaving both the A900 and A99 behind for lower light applications.

For some of the test shots I've done so far, the A7R with ZA lenses smokes the Leica M9 and M240 for out of camera color/contrast/DR response. It is reminiscent of the M9 "Leica look" but walks away from the M9 from ISO 640 on up, and has a much more forgiving DR at all ISOs. IMO, the M240 is still to fraught with color issues and IR contamination in comparison ...the skin tones from the A7R are much better out of the camera, and allow flexible creative explorations, rather than trying to fix something.

At this early stage of exploring the A7R I can say that my "CCD verses CMOS" personal debate has been seriously challenged. This is the first CMOS camera I've used that may well trash my argument in favor of CCD. :bugeyes:

There, I said it.

- Marc
Click to expand...
Thanks for your input Marc.
I did rent a A7 and matching 35/2.8 FE lens.
I did a comparison with my A99 which I was using a Zeiss 35/2.8 ZF lens with a leitax mount and I also did a test comparing the A99 with a Zeiss 50/2 ZF lens with leitax mount and on the A7 I used a Zeiss 50/2 ZM and used a voigtlander NEX to M adaptor.

If someone knows a place where I can upload the raw files, I would be happy to share.

To me they look very close, yet would love to have some younger eyes look at the files.

Steven
 
johnnygoesdigital

johnnygoesdigital

New member
Good to know, thanks guys. I didn't like that adaptor on the A900, for the simple fact that it's another connection that can fail. I'd also be curious how the Otus performs on the A7R.
 
F

fotografz

Well-known member
Feels like Deja vu all over again ... :ROTFL:

"The QC sucks." ... "No it doesn't." ... "Yes it does!" ... "No it doesn't!"

"Can't AF." ... "Yes it can." ... "No it can't!" ... "Yes it can, and does!"

Look at it this way ... at least it isn't a $20K+ MFD camera or $7,000 Leica M triggering all the conflicted debate as has been the case in past. Digalloyd swore the S2 couldn't focus accurately to save its life, and proved it with countless examples ... which had some owners like me scratching our heads since we couldn't duplicate the issue, nor were we experiencing it. I still have the camera. Some folks think the M240 color is fine, and others think it has to much IR contamination and produces ghastly OOC color (including me) ... never the twain shall meet.

What would we speculate the reason that Sony launched two different cameras at the same time?

Could it be that no one camera can fit everyone's specific needs? Not to mention that neither one of the A7s may be a match to some people's needs.

Canon 1D MK-III, Canon 1Ds MK-III ... One was lightening quick and the other: the "s" allegedly stood for "Studio."

Different people are coming to this new camera with different experiences and different expectations. Reviewers also.

Long lens blur? Anyone remember the Mamiya RZ long lens requirements? The telephotos came with an elaborate support arm system for the lens itself ... and talk about crippled: top leaf shutter speed was 1/400 even with a 360mm tele.! No shutter shock, but this camera/lens configuration was a "sail" outdoors. If someone coughed in the next county, the images were blurred.

IQ/QC? Digalloyd swore the ZF/ZE 100/2 macro was the holy grail of optics, mine had irritatingly difficult CA, so did the replacement, and the replacement for that replacement. :wtf:

Etc., etc., etc.

I'll tell you one thing, this Sony camera has so many different settings, and ways to configure it, that it has my head spinning. Honestly, to get the most out of it is like learning to play the flute. Your fingers have to be trained to press this, then this, in the right sequence. Off-putting for some, fun for others. While I normally like simple and no-brainer, I actually like the challenge of this camera ... something new to master during the winter months as a fun break from the usual. Maybe I'll take on cell phone "texting" with my sausage fingers as the next challenge ... :rolleyes:

All "Gear Whore" jokes aside ... it is very conceivable that someone like Guy, (and to a lesser extent, me), get both A7s ... and I just noticed Guy has done exactly that! :thumbup:

I currently carry the A900, A99 and often the S2, (and sometimes the M Monochrome) to weddings and larger, more important events. The bigger camera is for large group photos, bridal portraits, and sweeping environmental shots that will be printed larger and viewed closer. That could easily be reduced to the A99, A7 and A7R ... that is a significant difference.

It's pretty hard to sort out all the conflicting reports from owners and reviewers. Mounting a Leica 280mm with a third party adapter using this tri-pod, that head, and some other QR system, introduces so many variables I'm at a loss as to what-is-what. What worked before is no guarantee it will work in this instance. Luckily, I don't use anything over 135 ... except the occasional AF 500/8 on the IBIS A99 ... I won't be using that lens on the A7R or the A7 even if I had one because neither A7 is Image Stabilized.

All that said, I wouldn't deny there is shutter vibration with the A7R ... so best not try to cheat shutter speeds or any other stringent technique requirement ... (any more than I can with the Leica S2 or my previous H4D/60).

BTW, this thing KILLS in the studio, or on-location with lighting.

- Marc

My holiday card to you all ... an exercise in light balance using strobes and old time incandescent Christmas tree lights. A7R, 135/1.8, Profoto strobes with gridded softbox.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top