The biggest differentiator for me will be how the A7s performs with my wide angle M lenses. I was never interested in the 36mp sensor of the A7r and I was not happy enough with the performance of the 15mm Voigtlander or the 25mm ZM biogon on the A7. If, ( and it's a BIG if at this point), the A7s is sufficiently improved over the two previous models, then it becomes a real possibility for me. I'd prefer 16mp over 12, but I'll settle for it in return for a full frame body for my favourite lenses with state of the art EVF and silent shutter. The low light capabilities would be more of a bonus for me than a reason to choose the A7s over the A7.
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!
A7s!
- Thread starter Rawfa
- Start date
Ben Rubinstein
Active member
I've heard that it cures the colour cast but what about the smearing?
It's very early days so there's not much info available , but Steve Huff's review of the A7s contains several images from the VM15 which, while not sharp right into the corners, would appear acceptable to my eye. Of course this is far too little evidence to draw firm conclusions on just yet so I'm still at the hopelessly over-excited prior to bitter disappointment phase of the process!
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
The general theme is looks like a lot of us are not convinced yet. That makes sense since its a new release and maybe smart to not jump on it out of the gate. To me this cam just might be the video king and stills as a afterthought. But will see.
ashwinrao1
Active member
While the debate rages, I am thoroughly enjoying the A7s...It does play better with M lenses, in terms of vigntetting and color casts, which don't appear to be bad, or at least are easily corrected. The jury is still out on smearing at the edges with wides. I have seen it and posted earlier regarding the 28 summicron, which still smears. While this may not be a huge issue for street, or when stopping down, it could be an issue with critical work at the edges, landscapes, etc....and for those purposes, I wouldn't use the lens. I did see a drop off in detail at the edges with the 21 Super Elmar as well, but it wasn't as objectionable as I recall with the A7 or A7r (not accounting for file size, resolution, etc).... FOr me, the biggest deal is that the camera seems to produce files that require less correction after the fact than the A7 or A7r, when specifically using M mount rangefinder lenses. As a M lens user, with a substantial investment in glass, coupled with Sony's limited lens lineup, this is the biggest deal for me. I often shoot wide open to f/5.6, and require center sharpness to my images, and what I am seeing from the camera is enough to make me pause and consider whether I need my M240 (I am keeping my M monochrom)....
Given that, a few more images from my photo shoot of 2 evenings ago, with the WATE (works well on all bodies, not just A7s):
Given that, a few more images from my photo shoot of 2 evenings ago, with the WATE (works well on all bodies, not just A7s):
iiiNelson
Well-known member
Nice images Ashwin.While the debate rages, I am thoroughly enjoying the A7s...It does play better with M lenses, in terms of vigntetting and color casts, which don't appear to be bad, or at least are easily corrected. The jury is still out on smearing at the edges with wides. I have seen it and posted earlier regarding the 28 summicron, which still smears. While this may not be a huge issue for street, or when stopping down, it could be an issue with critical work at the edges, landscapes, etc....and for those purposes, I wouldn't use the lens. I did see a drop off in detail at the edges with the 21 Super Elmar as well, but it wasn't as objectionable as I recall with the A7 or A7r (not accounting for file size, resolution, etc).... FOr me, the biggest deal is that the camera seems to produce files that require less correction after the fact than the A7 or A7r, when specifically using M mount rangefinder lenses. As a M lens user, with a substantial investment in glass, coupled with Sony's limited lens lineup, this is the biggest deal for me. I often shoot wide open to f/5.6, and require center sharpness to my images, and what I am seeing from the camera is enough to make me pause and consider whether I need my M240 (I am keeping my M monochrom)....
Given that, a few more images from my photo shoot of 2 evenings ago, with the WATE (works well on all bodies, not just A7s):
While I am mostly interested in more FE lenses, I am actually pretty convinced that the A7s is different enough that there COULD be room in my bag for a third body. All things said I'm waiting until after Photokina before anymore body purchases happen as I'm still crossing my fingers for a Sony MF camera or A7 Monochrom.
Show Performance
Member
Thanks for the early work Ashwin.
I could care less about the ultra high ISO but I am very interested in the 7s for its low light AF capabilities. I couldn't remember if you have any native lenses.
I did a concert shoot last night with the 7 and the 55/1.8. Still amazing results but painfully slow focus. If the 7s gives me a steady (non-hunting) focus in low light, I may be in.
Best,
Chad
I could care less about the ultra high ISO but I am very interested in the 7s for its low light AF capabilities. I couldn't remember if you have any native lenses.
I did a concert shoot last night with the 7 and the 55/1.8. Still amazing results but painfully slow focus. If the 7s gives me a steady (non-hunting) focus in low light, I may be in.
Best,
Chad
Show Performance
Member
Agreed. I think all these flat low light photos are disappointing some people that had unrealistic expectations. Just because you can gain up the sensor, doesn't mean you are going to magically get an aesthetically pleasing scene.
More and more interesting. I confess, I'm one of the ones with high expectations but have been unmoved by the high-ISO low light shots I've seen so far.
I'd hoped this camera would be a game changer for me. Ashwin, I'm wondering if you can consider giving up your M for an A7S in part because you haven't had the M that long, have not bonded with it?
ashwinrao1
Active member
The 28 cron does well for real world shooting...no color shifts, and in this type of work, I don't detect the smearing, as it just adds to the OOF lol...
And complements the 50 APO well
And complements the 50 APO well
ashwinrao1
Active member
This week-end, I will put high ISO to the test....we'll see where it takes me...
Hulyss Bowman
Active member
Yes.
absolutely wonderful pictures regardles of isoSorry, I must be going dyslexic. I forgot to type "look"
I would really love seeing a direct comparison between A7S photos vs downsized A7 photos. It´s the difference between me spending us$1200 or us$2500 on second camera for the A7 I already own!
Here are some samples from my A7 and a Canon FD 50mm 1.4. I had high hopes to have much cleaner iso 6400 with the A7S in similar conditions...and much better iso 12800 (which for me is useless for professional work with the A7).
Ricoh GR is my main and only camera right now, but there is a high risk of the A7S would supply to be the second camera
thorkil
Show Performance
Member
I know this thread is "useless without photos" but a few thoughts after 24hrs with the 7s.
As a regular ole A7 owner I was a little concerned about the resolution drop and can imagine how A7r owners may feel. For my purposes, there was nothing to be worried about. Viewing at 100% on MB Pro Retina, the A7s produces a gorgeous file with nice perceptual sharpness. Color is even nicer than the A7 - just a bit warmer and appears to respond to edits with less fuss (and I thought the A7 files were a dream).
The EVF is nicer, showing less moire shimmer on the standard quality setting. This is actually a bit of a negative for me since I use that shimmer for MF in lieu of peaking. EVF performance in hyper low light is astounding.
The camera really does see in the dark in terms of AF performance - much better than the A7 although the A7 PDAF sensors make it a fraction quicker in good light. Think of it this way, the A7s is always going to use Contrast Detection raking, front to back, but it does it very quickly. When the A7 uses PDAF it jumps right to focus so you shave a fraction of a second. Can't really comment on the comparison between 7s and 7r but my guess is that it is a hair faster.
The silent shutter is unnerving but for the right subjects is a game changer.
The construction looks to be the same as the A7r with full magnesium jacket and metal dials.
For those of you with the battery grip, the camera powers on quicker on first start-up than the A7. Maybe twice as fast.
After much testing, thinking and agonizing, I believe it is time to sell the A900. I was only holding on to it for steady shot with the 135mm and 200mm but I think the added sensitivity of the A7s will compensate when using the LAEA-4. The Minolta 20/2.8 worked great on the A7 but it is even better on the 7s. Based on Huff's comments about success with the Heliar 15mm, this might just be the FF compact for wides.
For the first time I can definitely see the end of A-mount (for me) if Sony gets their act together and builds a viable lens lineup for FE. Give me a Zeiss 135/2 with OSS and I can die happy.
As a regular ole A7 owner I was a little concerned about the resolution drop and can imagine how A7r owners may feel. For my purposes, there was nothing to be worried about. Viewing at 100% on MB Pro Retina, the A7s produces a gorgeous file with nice perceptual sharpness. Color is even nicer than the A7 - just a bit warmer and appears to respond to edits with less fuss (and I thought the A7 files were a dream).
The EVF is nicer, showing less moire shimmer on the standard quality setting. This is actually a bit of a negative for me since I use that shimmer for MF in lieu of peaking. EVF performance in hyper low light is astounding.
The camera really does see in the dark in terms of AF performance - much better than the A7 although the A7 PDAF sensors make it a fraction quicker in good light. Think of it this way, the A7s is always going to use Contrast Detection raking, front to back, but it does it very quickly. When the A7 uses PDAF it jumps right to focus so you shave a fraction of a second. Can't really comment on the comparison between 7s and 7r but my guess is that it is a hair faster.
The silent shutter is unnerving but for the right subjects is a game changer.
The construction looks to be the same as the A7r with full magnesium jacket and metal dials.
For those of you with the battery grip, the camera powers on quicker on first start-up than the A7. Maybe twice as fast.
After much testing, thinking and agonizing, I believe it is time to sell the A900. I was only holding on to it for steady shot with the 135mm and 200mm but I think the added sensitivity of the A7s will compensate when using the LAEA-4. The Minolta 20/2.8 worked great on the A7 but it is even better on the 7s. Based on Huff's comments about success with the Heliar 15mm, this might just be the FF compact for wides.
For the first time I can definitely see the end of A-mount (for me) if Sony gets their act together and builds a viable lens lineup for FE. Give me a Zeiss 135/2 with OSS and I can die happy.