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!
None at all using the Novoflex adapters on my A7.Has anyone felt a little play in the A7/r lens mount?
No play here either Johnny. Something come loose?Has anyone felt a little play in the A7/r lens mount?
Hi Juha,
Appreciate your comments but of course size of a camera is all very subjective. That's the first time I've ever heard the Df described as massive. For myself, I find it relatively compact for a full frame DSLR and although bigger than a Leica rangefinder still consider it in the relm of a travel camera. Of course it greatly depends on lens selection. I'm used to using the large pro sized Nikon DSLR's and also the Pentax 645D, so the Df is a welcome change in size from those two.
Again it's all depends on where one is coming from and what their definition is of "a large camera".
Dave (D&A)
Hi GuyBottom line Jono drank the Leica Koolaid a long time ago. He ain't switching now. Lol
But MarcWell, it's been quite a while Jono. What's the decision?
Reading some of these indecisive posts from all of us … it must take everyone all morning just to get dressed :ROTFL:
- Marc
This probably belongs somewhere in the A7 threads … but in many respects I agree with you, and some others I don't.Just to add a slight diversion to the discussion.
Having played with manual lenses on the A7 because you can and the Carl Zeiss primes because they are there I've come to the conclusion that manual lenses are a waste of time.
It could be my technique but at all times the 35/2.8 and 55/1.8 outshine the two manual Leica lenses I am using. Admittedly, these are the C-40 and C-90 lenses which might not be the height of Leica lens development. I am using a high quality Novoflex mount. My third manual lens, the CV 21/1.8 is damn good but heavy and bulky (which kinda defeats to the object of a compact high quality system).
The latest Sony roadmap shows Carl Zeiss 21/2.8, 24/2.0 and 135/2.0 lenses in the next 12-18 months. Actually, the first two are supposed to be this year.
As soon as the 24/2.0 is available I'm dumping the CV 21/1.8 and likewise all the Leica glass when the 135 is out.
Just my two cents - just because you can doesn't necessarily mean you should.
LouisB
If the rumors are true then that's cool. I'd be more interested in a 100-ish Macro, a "reasonably sized" super telephoto in the 200-400 range, and a wide zoom like say a 16-35/4.Just to add a slight diversion to the discussion.
Having played with manual lenses on the A7 because you can and the Carl Zeiss primes because they are there I've come to the conclusion that manual lenses are a waste of time.
It could be my technique but at all times the 35/2.8 and 55/1.8 outshine the two manual Leica lenses I am using. Admittedly, these are the C-40 and C-90 lenses which might not be the height of Leica lens development. I am using a high quality Novoflex mount. My third manual lens, the CV 21/1.8 is damn good but heavy and bulky (which kinda defeats to the object of a compact high quality system).
The latest Sony roadmap shows Carl Zeiss 21/2.8, 24/2.0 and 135/2.0 lenses in the next 12-18 months. Actually, the first two are supposed to be this year.
As soon as the 24/2.0 is available I'm dumping the CV 21/1.8 and likewise all the Leica glass when the 135 is out.
Just my two cents - just because you can doesn't necessarily mean you should.
LouisB
AbsolutelyJust to add a slight diversion to the discussion.
Having played with manual lenses on the A7 because you can and the Carl Zeiss primes because they are there I've come to the conclusion that manual lenses are a waste of time.
SNIP
Just my two cents - just because you can doesn't necessarily mean you should.
LouisB
I agree that Native lenses are "best" but I don't discount adapting lenses for a look or to fill system gaps until more native lenses are released. Case in point I bought a few Zeiss Contax Yashica lenses for portrait work when focus speed isn't a huge issue to provide a somewhat consistent look/ rendering to my other Sony Zeiss lenses. Most of my M-mount lenses work well with the A7 as well. The only two that sort of disappointed was the 35 Summicron ASPH and the 24 Elmar ASPH ADAPTED TO THE A7r. The 24 Elmar works fine on the A7 (especially when the lens profile is used in Lightroom) but it is better on the M9 in most situations.Absolutely
HI Louis
I think it certainly does belong here - and not a diversion at all. I also completely agree.
The main reason I sent back the A7r back in the autumn was not really the shutter clatter, but because I had bought it to use with M lenses, and with some (few) exceptions I didn't think it did as well as the M240. This really did resolve in my mind that cameras are best used with native lenses (Leica R lenses being an occasional exception).
When I bought the A7 back in January, it was to use with native lenses - I don't even have an M adapter for it at the moment (might get a VM-E helicoid for fun).
Excuse my equipment ignorance Jono (I know nothing about Sony - that's not entirely true .... I did buy a Trinitron TV more than forty years ago!) but until Fuji bring out their weather sealed lenses, isn't the EM-1 with the 12-40 the only combination that would fulfil the above criteria?The Decision was which weather sealed small camera with a zoom I should use.
The A7 and A7r (along with all of the lenses so far) are weather resistant. Probably not to the same level and tolerances as the OM-D but they are "rated" to be weather resistant for moisture and dust.Excuse my equipment ignorance Jono (I know nothing about Sony - that's not entirely true .... I did buy a Trinitron TV more than forty years ago!) but until Fuji bring out their weather sealed lenses, isn't the EM-1 with the 12-40 the only combination that would fulfil the above criteria?
Which manual lenses makes a difference. As does the intent in buying the camera......
Having played with manual lenses on the A7 because you can and the Carl Zeiss primes because they are there I've come to the conclusion that manual lenses are a waste of time.
It could be my technique but at all times the 35/2.8 and 55/1.8 outshine the two manual Leica lenses I am using. Admittedly, these are the C-40 and C-90 lenses which might not be the height of Leica lens development. ..
JonoAbsolutely
HI Louis
I think it certainly does belong here - and not a diversion at all. I also completely agree.
The main reason I sent back the A7r back in the autumn was not really the shutter clatter, but because I had bought it to use with M lenses, and with some (few) exceptions I didn't think it did as well as the M240. This really did resolve in my mind that cameras are best used with native lenses (Leica R lenses being an occasional exception).
When I bought the A7 back in January, it was to use with native lenses - I don't even have an M adapter for it at the moment (might get a VM-E helicoid for fun).
Keep the cameras - Sell the table!
The M stays . . . . but 2 of the others must go . . . .