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!

In Case anyone cares - me and the A7

jonoslack

Active member
I tried, I really did, but I couldn't manage.
On the other hand, the principle is fantastic . . . so
I already sold the A7r. Now my A7 kit is on ebay . . . but
The 55 f1.8 and the 24-70 zoom are snuggled up in my lens cabinet, waiting for the 36mp camera with EFC and proper weather sealing and no shutter lag.

Then I'll be back!
all the best
 

jfirneno

Member
I tried, I really did, but I couldn't manage.
On the other hand, the principle is fantastic . . . so
I already sold the A7r. Now my A7 kit is on ebay . . . but
The 55 f1.8 and the 24-70 zoom are snuggled up in my lens cabinet, waiting for the 36mp camera with EFC and proper weather sealing and no shutter lag.

Then I'll be back!
all the best
.

Don't worry Jono, based on the rate at which Sony is churning out cameras they're bound to have something interesting pretty soon. Problem is they're just as likely to take out something else you want when they add in the EFC! But please stick around and provide your feedback. I guess I'll have to check out the Leica forum to see some of your highly evocative scenes from the English countryside.
Best regards,
John
 

ThomasZ

Member
Yes, Sony seems to produce iterations of their cameras much faster than the urgently needed lenses. So lets see what the A9 will be. I own the A7r and honestly, I'm a bit frustrated about it. I've got it in Dec 2013 and there is no sign of an available FE ultrawide. The latest rumors talk about a delivery date around August for the 16-35. I was tempted by the WATE, but with respect to the price, I must first see the IQ of the 16-35.
Meanwhile, I bought the Fuji XE-2 with the 10-24 and got amazing results (first 6 images are made with the fuji). Upsized to 36mp, the Fuji delivers better corners than the A7r with the 24-70 at 24mm. Unbelieveable. If the 16-35 delivers the same level of "performance" like the 24-70, I will sell my whole A7r kit.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
The 24-70 sucks at 24mm it's pretty simple outside of that it's not to bad. I finally got a decent one to bad it was a rental. Goes home tomorrow. You want a great wide look at Zeiss in the ZE or ZF. Bottom line hardest lenses to design from 28 wider so you want a good one it will cost you. This is just a basic fact. No zoom at there wide end is worth anything compared to a prime of the same focal length. Pick any brand it won't be better. I tried every system there is.

Don't expect that 16-35 to be good at wide either. None of them are, these are design limitations and unless a OEM is willing to spend a lot of money on the lens design don't expect miracles.
 

Amin

Active member
I had the A7R on loan, and somehow it didn't click with me. I don't know why, because some months later I've bought the very similar A7 and love it. By far my favorite camera for having all kinds of fun with adapted lenses.


DSC00566 by Amin Sabet, on Flickr
 

jonoslack

Active member
The 24-70 sucks at 24mm it's pretty simple outside of that it's not to bad. I finally got a decent one to bad it was a rental. Goes home tomorrow. You want a great wide look at Zeiss in the ZE or ZF. Bottom line hardest lenses to design from 28 wider so you want a good one it will cost you. This is just a basic fact. No zoom at there wide end is worth anything compared to a prime of the same focal length. Pick any brand it won't be better. I tried every system there is.

Don't expect that 16-35 to be good at wide either. None of them are, these are design limitations and unless a OEM is willing to spend a lot of money on the lens design don't expect miracles.
Hi there Guy
The WATE is excellent from corner to corner, that's an f4 zoom 16-21.
The Olympus Zuiko 12-40 (24-80 equivalent) is perfectly sharp, corner to corner from 24mm and f2.8. right on up. Nikon 14-24 is pretty good too. There are more examples. (Just not very many). So let's hope Sony have got it right this time.

All the best
 

jonoslack

Active member
What is the lag like on the T?
Hi there Ben
It's not fantastic, but it seems to be better than the A7.the shutter is so quiet in comparison that it seems less of an issue. The Fuji X-T1 is the best of the Mirrorless, closely followed by the Ollympus.
All the best
 

ThomasZ

Member
You want a great wide look at Zeiss in the ZE or ZF. Bottom line hardest lenses to design from 28 wider so you want a good one it will cost you. This is just a basic fact. No zoom at there wide end is worth anything compared to a prime of the same focal length. Pick any brand it won't be better. I tried every system there is.

Don't expect that 16-35 to be good at wide either. None of them are, these are design limitations and unless a OEM is willing to spend a lot of money on the lens design don't expect miracles.
I have to disagree here. I own the Nikon 14-24 and it delivers exceptional image quality, even in the corners. So it is possible. I wished Sony would have done something like that, just a bit smaller and with F4. On the other hand, the rest of the w/a zoom lenses are indeed all weak in the corners. The Nikon 16-35 and 17-35, also the Canon 16-35 and 17-40.
Let's hope Sony will do a better job.
 

philip_pj

New member
All FF midzooms will not be suitable for corner pixel inspectors at 24mm - these are all rounder compromise lenses in the context of a 36Mp camera - versatility and flexibility are their virtues, but they are always weak somewhere in the FL range and at wider apertures, so less useful in some respects. Nikons 24-70 G is $1900 and is no great shakes at 24mm in the corners, esp at wider apertures. So Sony did well enough for the intended usage in the $1200 FE 24-70.

Your 28-70mm kit lens Jono, which made some fine images you posted, went past the FE 24-70 in 'sharpness' at DxO, note - on an a7r:

New DxOmark lens test: 28-70mm FE and Samyang 24mm A-mount lens. | sonyalpharumors
 

philip_pj

New member
Full frame WAs - just an opinion, this area is very different for primes and zooms. In the zooms, you can get away with pretty good performance but much less versatility advantage because for most of us, wide is wide, few own (or need) one each of 15mm-18mm-21mm-25mm. Nikon's 14-24 - it is poor at wider apertures yet weighs a kilo, has this giant bulging element at the front of it. But for a zoom it is excellent at f5.6 and f8 (by which time the centre has sadly lost a fair bit), it has Nikon's odd colours, some CA (self-defeating on high Mp cams) and poorer micro-contrast, 4% distortion (at 14mm) all compared with say Zeiss's 2nd best Distagon, the 15/2.8:

Ultrawide Comparison: Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 15 mm f/2.8 vs. Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 vs. Samyang 14mm f/2.8

Nikkor AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G ED (FX) - Review / Test Report - Analysis

diglloyd - 15mm f/2.8 Distagon Zeiss Interview - Zeiss 15/2.8 Distagon Q&A ? Optical Performance

The Nikon lens alone outweighs: an a7r body, 55/1.8, 35/2.8, two filters and a battery or two. I could not contemplate one for field work. The 16-35/4 must be light-ish and easy to get on with.

Primes have a significant lead: the better Zeiss Distagons (15mm, 21mm and 25mm), TSE Canons, ZA 24/2, Leica 19mm R, some more also, but these are the champs. Zeiss primes are more versatile, as f2.8 are excellent already and the Zeiss lenses take filters, have much more microcontrast and impact = easier processing. WATE is like 3 primes in one, and that is about the cost of one too. ;-)
 

Steve P.

New member
Thanks very much for sharing your early impressions on this and other cameras so readily, despite having to don your tin hat from time to time.:salute:
Much appreciated.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Thanks very much for sharing your early impressions on this and other cameras so readily, despite having to don your tin hat from time to time.:salute:
Much appreciated.
Hi Steve
Thank You.
I think some would say I have a tin-head these days :facesmack::ROTFL:
 

jonoslack

Active member
The Nikon lens alone outweighs: an a7r body, 55/1.8, 35/2.8, two filters and a battery or two. I could not contemplate one for field work. The 16-35/4 must be light-ish and easy to get on with.

Primes have a significant lead: the better Zeiss Distagons (15mm, 21mm and 25mm), TSE Canons, ZA 24/2, Leica 19mm R, some more also, but these are the champs. Zeiss primes are more versatile, as f2.8 are excellent already and the Zeiss lenses take filters, have much more microcontrast and impact = easier processing. WATE is like 3 primes in one, and that is about the cost of one too. ;-)
Hi Philip
It's an interesting subject -I've read that you can turn a WA into a zoom without much penalty - Personally I'm mystified why the Nikon 14-24 has to be so much bigger than the tiny WATE (which is a true zoom, unlike the MATE).
In fact, the Sigma ultra-wide zooms are often pretty good as well (bearing out the theory).

But that Mid Range zooms are much harder to make - hence the fact that they're all more or less compromised.

all the best
 

ThomasZ

Member
Hi Philip
It's an interesting subject -I've read that you can turn a WA into a zoom without much penalty - Personally I'm mystified why the Nikon 14-24 has to be so much bigger than the tiny WATE (which is a true zoom, unlike the MATE).
I've read that the WATE is a true zoom, but has click stops at 16-18-21. Can anyone confirm this?
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I don't think it is to be honest. I read somewhere that the way it is constructed mechanically it is not. But I can't remember where I read it. Going through the Leica factory years ago they had a cut version of the Mate 28,35,50 lens similar to the Tri and it was so complex the mechanical design Leica finally stopped making it. Now I may have been a little to general in my zoom comment but I did allude to lower cost zooms. This is not one of them and really neither is the Nikon 14-24 which I bought when I got my D800 but that lens was good it had terrible focus shift on it. Now that could have been my copy hard to say as I did not test another. But my statement holds true it's very hard to find a full frame wide angle that is very good at its widest focal length. Olympus don't count as that's 4/3rds and not what we are really discussing here. Its full frame is the area this happens almost universally. The WATE is very expensive at 4800 plus used no less. I had one very nice lens slightly sterile in look but extremely good. Like to have it again to be honest. But price for many is a bit much. Regardless I just used the Sony 24-70 in NY shooting the city and just did a three day job with it. I put a metal hood on it that vignettes at 24mm but cleans up at around 27. I did it on purpose so I would not shoot wider than 27mm. Im a tricky little ****. But it kept me away without looking on top of the lens to avoid the bad areas. I'm going to buy it again as my first copy did not seem quite right. I have stopped buying stuff out of the gate recently and just wait for that first batch to go by. If you noticed the complaints have died down some. Does that mean anything, not sure but it's just to nice a lens to have for fast PR type work. The one problem in low light last night it had a hard time focusing because its F4. I switched to my Sigma 35mm 1.4 which did better. Again work arounds you really need to figure them out for success.
 

nostatic

New member
I had the A7R on loan, and somehow it didn't click with me. I don't know why, because some months later I've bought the very similar A7 and love it. By far my favorite camera for having all kinds of fun with adapted lenses.
For whatever reason I ended up in the same boat. I loved the files out of the A7r, but found that I preferred shooting the A7.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
The A7 is just more responsive and shooting them side by side the last three days it was pretty evident for me. Which makes me want to use them differently. For PR style or speed work I am going either A7 and a A6000 or a A77II and a A6000 and leave the A7r home. For more slower work which I always go for the bigger gun so the A7r and the A6000 on those jobs. I rented the A6000 this weekend so i will see how I get along with it as a backup type cam for both setups. For 650 dollars i think its worth having it in the bag and if it can track really well with my 135 1.8 than i will be in heaven.

But I can see very clearly why most folks would prefer shooting the A7. Its a great cam
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Hi there Ben
It's not fantastic, but it seems to be better than the A7.the shutter is so quiet in comparison that it seems less of an issue. The Fuji X-T1 is the best of the Mirrorless, closely followed by the Ollympus.
All the best
hmm. Testing the X-T1 against my E-M1, I found the E-M1 to be much more responsive. And I prefer the look of photos made with it and the Summilux-DG 25/Macro-Elmarit-DG 45 to anything I got out of the X-T1 and its equivalent lenses. With luck, our Leica rep will be at the store tomorrow AND I'll have time to stop over there to see the T.

Meanwhile, I'm pretty darn happy with the A7 and the lenses I've collected to use with it. It's responsive enough, the EVF is good enough, the sensor is excellent, etc.
Gads, I have too darn many cameras ... !

G
 
Top