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!

A7M

uhoh7

New member
Besides focus issues the A7 is also prone to shutter shake much more than M9 :( So for awhile I was wondering about the CV 35/1.4 (pre-asph 35 lux knock off, as sebboh at FM notes:))

Well I got this one right, around f/8 could even be 5.6:

DSC02987 by unoh7, on Flickr

This is actually superior in the corners to my 40/2 shots.
If you look at the flickr mag, center frame just over the haze in the distant valley is another ridge line. That's 80 miles away. :)
I have to say, for this lens in this situation, the M9 might be no better, except it's pristine CCD look and feel (to me). I remember some zone issues in tests with the M9 on this lens, which led me to find a biogon. They are hard to spot here.

I wonder if there is a LR lens preset which would fix the nokton's distortion in a click?
 

Audii-Dudii

Active member
I sent my A7R to Kolarivision last month to have their thin-filter mod performed.

Curious as to why it was taking them so long -- it had been gone a month as of yesterday -- I emailed them last night requesting a status update and received a reply this morning. Among other things, it said: "[W]e ran out of stock of the thin filter glass which delayed these orders back. The good news is, that we have received a new shipment of these this week, and they are now an even thinner and corrosion resistant version, so your camera will be getting the latest version."

Whether this new, thinner filter glass results in any visual improvement compared to the old, thicker filter glass remains to be seen, but I'm optimistic!
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Does this mean the one uhoh7 and Charles got will corrode in time?

There is not many times one can open/disconnect/reconnect/close all the connections. They are all prone to breaking.
 

mbroomfield

New member
The cover originally offered has the same issue the Leica had (M240?). Kolarivision offered replacement and then upgrade to this new style (when it became available) to the early adopters. So the new glass is available now and if you have trouble with the 1st version you can get it upgraded (not sure if they offer that if you don't have problems).

You can read more about it on the long thread FM
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
Does this mean the one uhoh7 and Charles got will corrode in time?

There is not many times one can open/disconnect/reconnect/close all the connections. They are all prone to breaking.

Hi Vivek. Great question. Over on fredmiranda Charles got a similar question and he was okay with that if it should happen as he didn't plan on using the camera for very long before replacing it with a better one. Well, that was my impression anyway.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
The thread is here and the posters are (presumably) here as well.

K-H, Thanks. :)
 
My A7s.KMod is finally here! 5-week wait seems like forever (the normal turn-around is 1-1.5-week, I chose to wait for the arrival of this Mark 2 glass). It is equipped with the Mark 2 glass with thinner profile (same thickness as the M9) and humidity-resistant feature. The glass, however, has the same transmission property as the previous one. I just paraphrased what Ilija gave me.

Let's get the test method out of the way first. I have both the normal A7s and modded A7s. I used the Jobu Algonquin tripod (Gitzo and RRS Series 4,5 equivalent) together with the Sunwayfoto XB-44DL head (low profile tripod head to improve stability). There was a very light breeze but I am confident that this set-up would be able to handle it so I just shot away. I used IR remote to eliminate any possible user-induced vibration (typical with the wired remote).



To maintain the same framing during the test, I used the battery grip. So I just simply and carefully detach/attach the camera body from/to the grip. I believe the framing was maintained as consistently as possible. Both cameras' WB was set at AWB mode, so there was a different in WB (more cyan for the normal and magenta for the modded). I left it there on purpose for easy ID and to see the effect of changing the filter. There was about 0.5 stop difference in exposure between the two cameras (the normal one was a bit under-exposed). I did not normalize the exposure since I don't believe the lighting shifted at all. It is an overcast day today. Any discrepancy was just the different intrinsic properties between the two cams. There is no additional sharpening. Vignette is corrected (100 amount, 0 Midpoint).



This is with the Zeiss Distagon ZM 15 f/2.8. I shot two aperture-series tests for each camera. I include full-res JPEGs at the end of this post.

The first set is to simply study the improvement as-is without any DOF and field curvature optimization.

Center: I don't see much difference in the center except for a slightly sharper and more moire/false-color with the modded A7s. This is understandable since the modded A7s doesn't have AA filter. Therefore, I just show the f/4 comparison here.

Center f/4 Comparison (Left - Modded, Right - Normal)



Corners: This is where things get exciting.

The order is the same as above, Left - Modded, Right - Normal

f/2.8


f/4.0



f/5.6



f/8.0



This is the second set. The purpose is to find the optimized performance. In Lloyd's test, he mentioned about the extended DOF (i.e. thicker DOF) with the modded camera. Interesting point that I have not seen mentioned anywhere else. With this premise, I took another series with the focus at the corners. I hope the extended DOF would give me a sharp corner-to-corner picture at f/5.6 instead of f/8 or f/11 (to avoid diffraction).

Anyway, the normal A7s with its extremely curved field toward the corners would be useless for this method (only works around f/11). Nonetheless, I do include the results in the rar file. What I am showing right here is the difference between placing the focus at the center vs. corners.

Center: Left - Corners Focus, Right - Center Focus

f/2.8



f/4.0



f/5.6



f/8.0



Corner: Left - Corners Focus, Right - Center Focus

f/2.8



f/4.0



f/5.6



f/8.0



My own conclusions: The KolariVision mod helps tremendously. It greatly reduces not only the field curvature, but also the astigmatism. By doing so, it increases the effective DOF that the lens has. As seen from the results above, I can happily shoot at f/5.6 by simply focusing at the corners/edges. The center, by then, is identical. I doubt M9 and M240 users could do better than this, at least on the ZM 15. Below is the link to the full-res version. Again, you can tell these two cameras apart by their WB (cyan-normal, magenta-modded). There are ten pictures for each cam; the first 5 are center-focus, and the last 5 are corner-focus. I also include an aperture series I took with the Samyang 14 (a copy with the least de-centering out of 6 copies I have tried). In the center, the Samyang needs to stop down to f/5.6 or f/8 to match what the Zeiss can do at WO. In the corners, they match at WO, but the Zeiss pulls ahead after that with the optimization. I didn't optimize for the Samyang shot.

ZM15 Aperture Series

Samyang Aperture Series
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Hiep, on the decreased DOF, this is well exploited by the m43rds users for years (the is a long running thread on bokeh), despite the very small real estate offered by the m43rds sensor. This is entirely possible because of the sensor stack thickness ~5mm.

I am surprised that no one is giving actual stack measurments after the mod and allude it being same as the M9 and such. They can not be the same as the Sony sensor has an epoxied ~0.5mm clear glass on it. The thin UV/IR cut filter then will have to be 0.4 mm thick. To have that and to maintain infinity focus is not an easy thing to achieve.
 

CharlesK

New member
Hi Vivek. Great question. Over on fredmiranda Charles got a similar question and he was okay with that if it should happen as he didn't plan on using the camera for very long before replacing it with a better one. Well, that was my impression anyway.
Heip, excellent work! I was keen to see how the A7s would perform. I love the A7r modification, as it is a very different camera now.


With regards to corrosion I feel this is a non issue, as it is to be upgraded at no expense if any corrosion appears. If I wish to upgrade for any reason before, then I will pay a lesser fee for the upgrade, which I feel is very reasonable.

I have no problems replacing the "thin filter" as it is a very quick turn around. I just wished Leica could have had this service for the RF calibration and M9 sensor replacement. Servicing is not an issue IMO if it is quick and responsive.

The latest thin filter replacements with out the potential for corrosion are even 0.2mm thinner, and think it is the same thickness as the M240.
 
Last edited:

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
Heip, excellent work! I was keen to see how the A7s would perform. I love the A7r modification, as it is a very different camera now.


With regards to corrosion I feel this is non issue, as it is to be upgraded at no expense if any corrosion appears. If I wish to upgrade for any reason before, then I will pay a lesser fee for the upgrade, which I feel is very reasonable.

I have no problems replacing the "thin filter" as it is a very quick turn around. I just wished Leica could have had this service for the RF calibration and M9 sensor replacement. Servicing is not an issue IMO if it is quick and responsive.

The latest thin filter replacements with out the potential for corrosion are even 0.2mm thinner, and think it is the same thickness as the M240.

Many thanks Charles for correcting my impression!
 
V

Vivek

Guest
There is an overall dullness (for the lack of a better description) in the pictures from the modified A7 cams. Anyone cares to address that?

Ario, thanks for the samples! :)
 

CharlesK

New member
There is an overall dullness (for the lack of a better description) in the pictures from the modified A7 cams. Anyone cares to address that?

Ario, thanks for the samples! :)
Hi Vivek,

Yes the RAW files are really no different than the RAW files from the Monochrome. The A7r has an excellent DR, and will appear flat at first, and it allows for a lot of malleability in PP'ing to achieve the look you prefer.

Ario, love the depth and clarity to your shots :)
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Hi Charles, Thanks! :) That ("flat files") plus the colors are basis of my query, I guess.
 
Thank you Charles. I hope this would give people on the fence a push to go through with this :D. In short, if you manage the DOF, sharp corner-to-corner can be achieved around the same optimal aperture on the M9/M240. M9/M240 users don't have the luxury to do so easily (distance scale is just a guideline). The ZM 15 is among the trickiest, shortest flange distance ZMs (only ZM 18 and 21/4.5 are shorter). After this mod, I can shoot WO again.

Vivek: that is an interesting point you raised about the thickness and DOF. In my mind, the thinner DOF is mainly because of the severe bowing of the field curvature. As for the thickness, I would ask Ilija. But no matter what thickness, the current performance is already astounding!

As we discussed on FM, this mod also has other nice side effects, bonuses of sort. Charles, and a few others, noticed a decrease in purple fringing. For longer lenses, this mod would still give noticeable effect. Lloyd's test shows drastic improvements even on the 50 APO. I tested the G90 on this yesterday, and the modded cam shows clear advantage in the corners, at all apertures.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9ti33a0k2nckqng/Contax%20G%2090%20BA.rar?dl=0

If the weather permits, I would test my Contax 55 and 85 Jahre on these cams. Preliminary testing yesterday indicates my 55 no longer has the mild mid-zone dip. I also feel that with the modded cam, the picture has less veiling haze effect at WO. Nothing is definitive yet, so I will hopefully find that out soon. I would feel guilty for keeping my cousin's A7s too long :D (yes, he loves mine so much that he decided to get one himself).
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Hiep, Thanks. :)

As I already mentioned, I have a "thin" filter camera that use (A7) for Ultraviolet.

I am envious about your Zeiss arsenal. Look forward to your pics with the 55/85 f/1.2 lenses.

Oh, the A7s, it is the best that Sony has ever made!
 
Hiep, Thanks. :)

As I already mentioned, I have a "thin" filter camera that use (A7) for Ultraviolet.

I am envious about your Zeiss arsenal. Look forward to your pics with the 55/85 f/1.2 lenses.

Oh, the A7s, it is the best that Sony has ever made!
Vivek, fully agree with you on the A7s thing. It's why I have not been too excited about the new A7R Mark 2 rumor. Going to wait for the A9.

As for this mod, Ilija actually had to re-position the sensor closer to the shutter curtain. Typically from what I heard, the UV mod would need a simple AF adjustment algorithm on the sensor front. But it's all hearsay for me :D.

Quick test on the 55 Jahre WO

Left - normal, right - modded

Center focus on the tree in the middle.



Too bright even with overcast.

Disadvantages with this mod so far: Wonky WB and it seems to rob about 0.5 stop of light.
 
Top