A7r - and why I'm not keeping it.

[Shashin]

None of which fit the palm of your hand

Once again we drag out the philosophical chestnuts ... "It's not the gear, it's the photographer behind the gear" ... (odd analogy on a thread where the OP is rejecting a $2,400 piece of gear in favor of a $7,000 one ) ... and the ever favorite "Infinite possibilities that stifles creativity story", same as the "Confines of a chess board story".

What that has to do with advancing technology that allows one to better capture content (the personal creative variable) in ways not possible before escapes me. What if content can be better captured in places, or situations not possible before?

- Marc

I do scientific imaging and I am all for imaging breakthroughs. But the A7r is not a breakthrough. What most people are using it for, by the examples that are being posted, is the same thing most people photograph. So in the context of general photography, I agree with Jono that this is just another camera in a long line of cameras you can buy today that are going to produce excellent results. If you don't have a FF camera and this floats your boat, then buy one. If you have a FF camera you like, then the reason to buy gets unclear. If you have a smaller format and really like it, no reason to get these cameras either. This is certainly not a camera that can take pictures are not possible by other existing cameras.

So Marc, as a former art director, which was more important, the photographer's book or their equipment list? I mean, if it is not the photographer… The argument which you seem not to understand is that skill is an important element in an art form. A good photographer understands the limitation in a system and uses them to advantage or controls the situation. Would you ever hire a photographer that blames his tools? Will you sell your M9 because the A7R is "better"? And don't you want to get away from such limited systems as rangefinders--there are so much "better" camera tech than that?

Marc, this is not an either/or discussion. Gear and the photographer go hand in hand. I just think the overemphasis on gear making the image is strange. Unfortunately, when anyone tries to broaden the topic of photography beyond that, it comes to a grinding halt.

 

[FotoIcon]

Yep, we should all go back to film, because then we'll do significant images ... :wtf:

While we are at it let's go back to no computers, no cell phones, 3 channels on the TV ... no wait ... no TV, back to radio ... no wait ... no radio, back to drums. No cars (filthy beasts anyway), back to horses ... no wait, they are filthy also ... back to just walking.

:ROTFL:

- Marc

BTW, I'll go back to film when they pry my digital camera from my cold dead fingers. No wait, if they are cold and dead I can't push the shutter button.

So I guess you don't listen to the radio anymore and don't walk anymore.

 

[tashley]

Yes Tim, but the A7r wouldn't have helped Burtynsky or Becker or Kander, more to my point it wouldn't help Elliot Erwitt either!

We absolutely agree about more pixels, but 50% more isn't, (for me at least) enough temptation to subscribe to a system which currently relies entirely on non native lenses. 35 f2.8. Pshaw!

Subscribing to technological advances doesn't oblige you to drop everything you know and love for the next new step.

All the best

Well it might have done: at a stretch, an A7r file with careful handling could print to 1.2 metres. I would not like to see the results of that from a 25MP camera (I have, and that's why I like 36mp or 60 or 80 preferably for this sort of work). But as you say the limitation of available lenses is a real factor, thug even for the D800E, many lenses that used to be great, aren't!

As for dropping, no, never, every building needs a foundation - but sometimes it benefits from a glittering cupola too!

 

[tashley]

A good photographer understands the limitation in a system and uses them to advantage or controls the situation.

I am sorry but this is just plain wrong. So wrong I can't even be bothered to apply a reductio ad absurdam to it, because that should be obvious.

It is merely an explanation of the magic a good photographer weaves when he turns a technical sow's ear into a creative silk purse - but it doesn't mean that if he was given silk to start with, he couldn't make a better purse.

 

[Godfrey]

...
This morning I did a series of tripod shots ...

You own a tripod? I'm shocked. ;-)

G

 

[jonoslack]

You own a tripod? I'm shocked. ;-)

G

I've got a monopod too :sleep006:

 

[Vivek]

Cheers! :chug:

 

[fotografz]

I do scientific imaging and I am all for imaging breakthroughs. But the A7r is not a breakthrough. What most people are using it for, by the examples that are being posted, is the same thing most people photograph. So in the context of general photography, I agree with Jono that this is just another camera in a long line of cameras you can buy today that are going to produce excellent results. If you don't have a FF camera and this floats your boat, then buy one. If you have a FF camera you like, then the reason to buy gets unclear. If you have a smaller format and really like it, no reason to get these cameras either. This is certainly not a camera that can take pictures are not possible by other existing cameras.

So Marc, as a former art director, which was more important, the photographer's book or their equipment list? I mean, if it is not the photographer… The argument which you seem not to understand is that skill is an important element in an art form. A good photographer understands the limitation in a system and uses them to advantage or controls the situation. Would you ever hire a photographer that blames his tools? Will you sell your M9 because the A7R is "better"? And don't you want to get away from such limited systems as rangefinders--there are so much "better" camera tech than that?

Marc, this is not an either/or discussion. Gear and the photographer go hand in hand. I just think the overemphasis on gear making the image is strange. Unfortunately, when anyone tries to broaden the topic of photography beyond that, it comes to a grinding halt.

Not really all that strange if you consider this is a Brand name, gear oriented thread ... on a forum that is primarily broken down by Brand names ... so what did you expect? Besides, what does trotting out Chestnuts about it being the photographer, not the camera and other related tired old platitudes have to do with any salient point about creatively making images?

Saying that "I do not understand the element of skill in an art form" made me chuckle. I've spent my entire life mastering the skills needed to create visual ideas and bring them to fruition. From drawing and painting, to the plethora of skills required to succeed as an illustrator, Designer, Art Director, and a Chief Creative Director (in that order). You Sir, do not know the half of it. In my lifetime, technology roared through my industry like a Tsunami. Photography is just another extension of that.

In fact, "skill" seems a good part of why Jono made his decision ... for what he does, he feels skillful with his rangefinder, and I totally understand that. I feel that way about rangefinders also.

However, I did try the A7R ... for one thing there are only two 36 meg FF choices right now, and I do not want to lug around a DSLR brick the rest of my life. So, the first thing I did was put a few favorite M lenses on it and shot something in conditions I know for a fact the M9 and M240 would be hard pressed to handle ... but a condition I've faced numerous times while making photographs. So, now there is a tool that extends my creative reach like nothing before it.

What I do have some confidence in is my own ability to become skillful with most any tool because I feel driven to use it to ... make photographs ... the skill part isn't Rocket Science it is persistence and practice ... and if it is too much, there is most certainly something else that won't be. That's the great thing about choice.

- Marc

 

[peterb]

Boy do I feel badly for Sony.

For years so many have complained about digital cameras.

Too big.

Too bulky.

Too heavy.

Too much noise at high ISO's.

Too many buttons.

No FF.

Not enough dials.

Too much moire.

Not enough detail.

The files are too small.

The files are too big.

Not rugged enough.

Not weather sealed.

No Digital M.

The lenses have casts to them.

Not enough bokeh.

Great bokeh. Not sharp enough.

55mm? Who needs that size?? (Common complaint for the new Nikon f1.4)

Too expensive.

Etc.

Etc.

So Sony listens to all these issues and comes out with the 24mp A7 and 36mp A7r. Both in smallish bodies about the size of Nikon FM or Olympus OM-1 from the film era that so many have yearned for.

No mirror? No problem, they've got a super sharp, non-tearing (for once) EVF.

LCD? It flips out for you for crazy angles.

Dials: De minimus

Menus? Refreshingly logical (I think).

No split image? Peaking beats that.

Lenses? Okay here's Sony kinda blundered coming out with a drool-worthy camera but not having any optics initially to go with it. The lenses they do have planned are kept deliberately slow to keep them small (FF still requires beefy optical designs if you want impressive light gathering unfortunately). Zeiss to the rescue with a (slowish but still quite sharp apparently) 35mm f2.8 and a blazingly sharp 55mm f1.8 to be followed by the f4 24-70mm zoom. Meanwhile adapters have gotten experimenters out with their closets full of old glass to try out.

High ISO? So far things look great up to ISO 6400--something NO FILM could ever achieve even with Kodak's revolutionary T-technology (or whatever it was) at film's peak.

Shutter noise? Okay, some. But more along the lines of a Hasselblad-like 'shluck'.

AF issues? Not lighting fast. But fast enough. Okay maybe not fast enough to use for peak basketball shots or Super G skiing but certainly useable for other sports.

Meanwhile I'm seeing threads with comments like:

"I love it but..."

"Great cam...but...

"My other cameras are fine..."

"Can't use anything wider than 28mm.

"Too loud for museums! Shutter's too loud"

"Too loud for street photography? (Seriously even in NYC?)

"It's all about the photographer. Not the equipment.

Etc.

Etc.

In all honesty I've really enjoyed these threads.

But I can only imagine Sony engineers now going through their cabinets looking for their hair kari knives.

:grin:

 

[tashley]

Hair Kari? I'm not sure they'd be cutting their own hair at this stage

 

[peterb]

Hair Kari? I'm not sure they'd be cutting their own hair at this stage

LOL Stupid spell check!!

 

[tashley]

But seriously, these camera manufacturers are mostly 'spoiling the ship for a ha'penny worth of tar'.

Sony like to make things smaller than anyone else and packed full of features, but it's so often the packing, rather than the quality of the features, that they pander to. They need to get some good glass and everyone but them appears to know this. In the meantime, the A7R is selling on hope and novelty.

They are not alone in this: Nikon's D800 had a reputation for unreliable focus and also has a problem with gaps in the availability of key lenses of the right quality. Canon can't (or won't) 'do' high MP yet and some people feel their sensors are bandy at higher ISO. Leica charge a fortune but not everyone trusts their QC or their logic. Pentax keep on nearly getting most of it right. Sigma are spectacular in some ways and meh in others. Olympus is the brightest kid in the B stream. And so on and so on.

The people with the system that is broadest and best and most ready to take ALL of this to the next level are Canon. Let's hope they're about to man up.

 

[k-hawinkler]

Isn't competition great?
Getting varies cameras/systems is just an investment in my education!
Oh, and entertaining! :ROTFL:

 

[peterb]

Sony like to make things smaller than anyone else and packed full of features, but it's so often the packing, rather than the quality of the features, that they pander to. They need to get some good glass and everyone but them appears to know this. In the meantime, the A7R is selling on hope and novelty.

That's why I've decided to pull the trigger on the RX1r (with an EVF) and not the A7 or A7r.

While I like the compact size, I like the silent, leaf shutter and deliciously sharp 35mm Zeiss Sonnar that has been mated perfectly to the camera even more. Also, having a fixed, non-interchangeable lens doesn't bother me since I've always preferred the 35mm FOV and I like the idea of not having to worry about exposing the sensor to dust and pollutants (which aren't as much of an issue when sensors have larger pixels but certainly become an issue when more are crammed into every square mm).

Yeah it's absurdly expensive (and with the optional EVF even more so) and, admittedly, the A7 and A7r are definitely better bangs for the buck/pound/yen/yuan/DM/Kroner/Rial/Peso.

But not necessarily better cameras for me.

As another poster put it, these things aren't always a rational decision but an emotional one.

 

[tashley]

I can't sell my RX1, for exactly the reasons you state. It is a lovely, lovely camera...

 

[Amin]

Jono, thanks for this post. It helps me as I think through whether to cancel my A7R pre-order. I'm pretty much only interested in the camera as a Leica M mount lens shooter, and the only focal lengths I care about are 35mm and 50mm. That said, I don't think I'm going to find manual focus with the A7R nearly as enjoyable as using a rangefinder, and for me, 90% of the time I just want to use my Micro 4/3 kits anyway.

 

[mazor]

Lens.. Lens Lens. Sony really needs to be a bit faster at bringing out native FE lens for the A7 and A7r. This would be less of an issue for some, as instead of using legacy glass, they could use Native pricey Zeiss glass.

 

[jonoslack]

Lens.. Lens Lens. Sony really needs to be a bit faster at bringing out native FE lens for the A7 and A7r. This would be less of an issue for some, as instead of using legacy glass, they could use Native pricey Zeiss glass.

I quite agree. In the UK the camera was sold without a single available lens!

I'll certainly come back and have another look when there are more lenses (as long as they don't defeat the object by being huge)

 

[Ario Arioldi]

I quite agree. In the UK the camera was sold without a single available lens!

I'll certainly come back and have another look when there are more lenses (as long as they don't defeat the object by being huge)

I am afraid that it will be quite difficult to produce lenses that are telecentric, fast and compact at the same time.:scry:

 

[fotografz]

But seriously, these camera manufacturers are mostly 'spoiling the ship for a ha'penny worth of tar'.

Sony like to make things smaller than anyone else and packed full of features, but it's so often the packing, rather than the quality of the features, that they pander to. They need to get some good glass and everyone but them appears to know this. In the meantime, the A7R is selling on hope and novelty.

They are not alone in this: Nikon's D800 had a reputation for unreliable focus and also has a problem with gaps in the availability of key lenses of the right quality. Canon can't (or won't) 'do' high MP yet and some people feel their sensors are bandy at higher ISO. Leica charge a fortune but not everyone trusts their QC or their logic. Pentax keep on nearly getting most of it right. Sigma are spectacular in some ways and meh in others. Olympus is the brightest kid in the B stream. And so on and so on.

The people with the system that is broadest and best and most ready to take ALL of this to the next level are Canon. Let's hope they're about to man up.

I think they are ALL pandering to the "Gotta have it now" consumer mentality. "What's next? Gimme it"!

Who can blame them? It accelerates the buying patterns into shorter cycles. One has to wonder how any of these companies survived in the film era when a camera could last you a decade ... or in the case of Leica, a lifetime.

People seem to evaluate a new system in the aggregate ... they lump everyone's application needs together, and bemoan the lack of some element in a system even though many (if not most) personally do not need it all. When the Leica S2 came out, it had one lens, a 70mm, and a 180mm if you could source one. Now it is one of the most comprehensive and versatile mobile MFD systems available. Patience was a virtue.

Sony has been banging out consumer cameras ever since they acquired Minolta. I paid them no mind until they teamed up with Zeiss ... and even then didn't jump until the FF A900 (not even remotely interested in crop frame solutions). Then came the smaller, more capable FF A99 ... and now the even smaller more potent FF A7R ... all compatible with the ZA lenses I've acquired over time (including some smaller lenses). So, as a "patient" Sony owner, the A7R is a remarkable "systems" addition. That I can also use a few exotic M lenses is just a cherry on top of the desert.

Hardly "Hope and novelty" for my needs.

So Jono was right, I have a different perspective as a Sony user. I can trundle along with the A7R quite nicely as the FE lenses trickle in ... and get what may be attractive, or not. I also have some inkling as to what may be coming yet from Sony ... they are not done by any stretch of the imagination. The A7R is just a shot over the bow of the digital camera industry.

If as you say Canon "man's up" they will have to turn their Aircraft Carrier around in a pond ... their current lenses are huge, and have become quite expensive. I have no doubt that they WILL come forth with a stunning meg count ... what it is in, will be the question.

- Marc