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!
Decisions Decisions
- Thread starter jonoslack
- Start date
johnnygoesdigital
New member
Has anyone felt a little play in the A7/r lens mount?
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Not the camera itself but with my Sony 4 adapter yes but not my Sony 3 adapter . With FE no play
Godfrey
Well-known member
None at all using the Novoflex adapters on my A7.
Chuck Jones
Subscriber Member
No play here either Johnny. Something come loose?
jonoslack
Active member
Hi Guy
Maybe I shouldn't have included the M in the shot, as it's not part of the decision. As you say, I was convinced by an optical rangefinder a few years ago. Someone else brings one out and I might look, I can't see it happening now though.
The Decision was which weather sealed small camera with a zoom I should use.
But Marc
If I decide I'll have to qualify my decision (tough to qualify purely subjective decisions), and anyway, it'll spoil the thread (I rather like the vegetable diversion).
Worse than that I might offend someone who doesn't agree with my decision (and then where would I be!).
Actually, I have kind of made up my mind: Juha has been extremely perceptive all the way through. In fact, I had pretty much made up my mind when I started the thread. Maybe I'll try and make a reasoned response later in the weekend.
johnnygoesdigital
New member
The lens is the native 55mm1.8, but there's a tiny bit of play at the mount. Maybe it's normal.
biglouis
Well-known member
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
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
This probably belongs somewhere in the A7 threads … but in many respects I agree with you, and some others I don't.
It is usually true that native mount lenses work best … most would agree that to get the most from a Leica M lens, use it on a Leica M. However, there are a few special M lenses that DO work very well on the Sony.
What is not clear in the FE lens roadmap is whether the coming Zeiss lenses are AF. Do you know?
I already have a M 21/1.4 I use on a Leica MM which does work well on the A7R, and while it is relatively large like your CV version, I don't use that focal length often enough to worry about anything new from Zeiss especially if it's slower. Now if is really tiny, I may reconsider.
I already have a ZA 24/2 I can use on the A7R with the LAEA-4 adapter … also not a frequently used focal length. I'd consider a FE24/2 only if and when I move out of the A mount system in future.
Same with the ZA 135/1.8 I already have. While I'm sure a FE 135/2 would be smaller, it still will not be "small" on the A7/A7R since most anything fast from Zeiss tends to be bigger. Maybe they will surprise us.
Bottom line is IF the new lenses are manual focus, I'll be sticking with the current 35, 55, and 24-70 AF lenses, with the 35 being just the right size for toting about in casual shooting situations, and the 24-70 a one lens solution for a lot of work.
In other words, I'm not one of those looking to fill up a camera sack with yet another system to cover every possible photographic scenario. The idea is SMALL and I plan on keeping it that way.:thumbup:
To use your words: just because you can, doesn't mean you should
- Marc
BTW, I'd be far more interested in a fully featured, small but powerful speed-light for the FE cameras … one with bounce and swivel head and ability to trigger the bigger 60 speed-light off camera. Until Sony offers such a light, my A7R can't replace or even back-up my A99 wedding camera.
iiiNelson
Well-known member
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.
jonoslack
Active member
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).
iiiNelson
Well-known member
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.
Most SLR lenses seem to do well with mirrorless it seems as many are buying the A7 and A7r for that but I don't think most are in a rush to have a mirrorless body hanging off a 800mm lens either.
Elderly
Well-known member
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?
iiiNelson
Well-known member
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.
ken_vs_ryu
Member
Jono, it's hard to argue with the results your posting on the a7 thread.
Godfrey
Well-known member
Which manual lenses makes a difference. As does the intent in buying the camera...
I didn't buy the A7 because I wanted to use it with my M-mount lenses. I have an M9 for that (and an M4-2, and a CL, and a Ricoh GXR ...). I bought an A7 because I had acquired a nice kit of Leicaflex SL lenses that were looking for a FF format sensor to work with, and hoped that the A7's sensor and viewfinder were a compatible match.
I've long ago passed the point where that which might be 'better' about the Sony/Zeiss lenses is of no particular consequence to my photography. I prefer manual focus, I like having the aperture ring on the lens, I like being in control of focus zone and SEEING it clearly in a bright viewfinder. And I dislike the bulk of most DSLRs ... just like I disliked the bulk of the generations of 35mm film SLRs once they went to AF, built in motor drives, etc.
The A7 is about as transparent to these lenses as the Leicaflex SL itself: testing by shooting some film against what I see out of the A7, the lenses produce the same results with only minor differences. I love the look these lenses produce. The A7 is the right size, shape, weight ... fitted with the Novoflex adapter, and an R lens, it feels for all the world like my favorite old Nikon F3 or FM2 does in my hands, and sounds similar too.
I am done.
The M-mount gear is going, along with a lot of other stuff. I will most likely never buy a Sony lens. I may be missing getting the "most" out of the A7 without them, but it is completely irrelevant to me. What I have now is good enough, the A7 is good enough. If an A7r or A8, or whatever, works as well with my lenses, maybe I'll update the body at some point. But there's really no need.
My goal now: Sell the rest, put the money back into the bank, and get on with doing photography.
G
The secret to success:
- Start at the beginning.
- Proceed step by step to the end.
- Then stop.
biglouis
Well-known member
Jono
That is very much my thinking. If I did still have a Leica Rangefinder then an A7/R would be a nice complement but if I did have a M240 then... well, no cigar.
I'm just glad that the Sony range is filling out and will give those with less deeper pockets (and skinflints like me) access to good cameras and high quality lenses.
BTW, answering another poster above, I would be appalled if the roadmap lenses were not AF. Perhaps for me the difference is that as I've grown older I need AF?
BTW, one reason for keeping the Olympus kit would be the blindingly fast AF. I have held onto my GH-2 and 100-300 for backyard birding. Even though it is a generation or two behind the AF and frame rate is incredible.
LouisB
Keep the cameras - Sell the table!
The M stays . . . . but 2 of the others must go . . . .
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Agree.
I would unload the Oly and Fuji myself. The Sony and Leica can work together to some extent and the Sony has 24mpx when you need it and AF when you need it. To me its real simple the Oly and Fuji really don't bring anything better over the Leica and Sony combo together. Certainly not IQ which is the most important to me at least.
I would unload the Oly and Fuji myself. The Sony and Leica can work together to some extent and the Sony has 24mpx when you need it and AF when you need it. To me its real simple the Oly and Fuji really don't bring anything better over the Leica and Sony combo together. Certainly not IQ which is the most important to me at least.