Ron Pfister
Member
Let me just say that Lloyd Chambers is a very thorough and methodical reviewer, and let's leave it at that...
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!
Are the A7 & A7r too light?
- Thread starter peterb
- Start date
V
Vivek
Guest
I am not, for example, and I hesitate to share anything when such "authorities" are quoted without having any public access to whatever they have "found".
Let me add this example- Here: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/49569-shutter-shake-macro.html
is a clear indication of the use of an open forum like this where exchange of ideas and suggestions are beneficial instead quoting someone and creating a "below 1/160s" myth.
Last edited:
k-hawinkler
Well-known member
Like everybody Lloyd Chambers has his bias.
k-hawinkler
Well-known member
Hi Bart. Me thinks you are in deep doo-doo now.
If you feel like unloading your A7R I offer 50 cents on the dollar.
Ron Pfister
Member
True, but the images posted as part of the aforementioned shutter vibration test report speak for themselves…
Ron Pfister
Member
As exposures get longer, the detrimental influence of the relatively short-lived shutter vibration decreases proportionally, until it becomes completely invisible by approx. 2s (see my above observation regarding the APO-Telyt-M 135).
Edit: you're not in trouble, but you are giving away image quality that your setup is capable of by using sub-optimal shutter speeds.
V
Vivek
Guest
Ron Pfister
Member
I don't need to answer that Vivek, do I?
V
Vivek
Guest
Ron, Just like that macro thread demonstrated what if people are oblvious to certain physics facts and start philosphizing their failure to understand the subtleties? Anything that reaffirms ones belief is worth the cash, I suppose. Sort of like comfort food.
Ron Pfister
Member
I think it's perfectly fine if people post their findings in words instead of in images that you can evaluate yourself. What you do with that information is entirely up to you...
V
Vivek
Guest
Sure.
The common culprit to me is very clear. A7r sensor is fine, apo sonnar, apo etc are fine, the culprit is the Novoflex adapter.
Take a look at the Novoflex "Castle" from 50 years ago and the current one with attractive blue anodized aluminum. Which one is better and why? I will leave it to the curious to find out.
:worthless:
While I admit to being a novice with this camera, only having had it in hand for an hour or so .... here are a few shots ... one at ISO320 and the other at ISO1600 ... both hand-held @ 1/30 ... keeping in mind this was after consuming three of my usual palsy inducing triple shot lattes
Not to contradict his Lordship Lloyd Chambers, but no tripod, monopod, strap-pod, bean-bag or leaning on anything ... pure USDA Prime hand held in both portrait and landscape orientations.
Maybe the Fat A$$ 50/0.95 adds enough mass to tame any vibrations
- Marc
Oh, and these files are so huge that most prints I'd make would be native sized or reduced ... increasing the visual impression of acuity.
While I admit to being a novice with this camera, only having had it in hand for an hour or so .... here are a few shots ... one at ISO320 and the other at ISO1600 ... both hand-held @ 1/30 ... keeping in mind this was after consuming three of my usual palsy inducing triple shot lattes
Not to contradict his Lordship Lloyd Chambers, but no tripod, monopod, strap-pod, bean-bag or leaning on anything ... pure USDA Prime hand held in both portrait and landscape orientations.
Maybe the Fat A$$ 50/0.95 adds enough mass to tame any vibrations
- Marc
Oh, and these files are so huge that most prints I'd make would be native sized or reduced ... increasing the visual impression of acuity.
Ron Pfister
Member
For my part, I can clearly see strong motion blur (whatever the cause) in the crop you provided.
At any rate, comparing the motion blur of an image taken with a 50mm lens to that taken with a 135, 180 or 280mm lens is comparing apples to oranges (or more like cherry tomatoes to water melons).
Maybe the Fat A$$ 50/0.95 adds enough mass to tame any vibrations
If it were indeed blur free, I'd say that the dampening provided by your body is a significant advantage over a very rigid tripod setup.
I agree that I wouldn't like to see these images at 24x36" on my wall
. A landscape image with that amount of blur would not even make it to my printer. It might be used online/on-screen or end up in the trash.
V
Vivek
Guest
For my part, I can clearly see strong motion blur (whatever the cause) in the crop you provided.
At any rate, comparing the motion blur of an image taken with a 50mm lens to that taken with a 135, 180 or 280mm lens is comparing apples to oranges (or more like cherry tomatoes to water melons).
If it were indeed blur free, I'd say that the dampening provided by your body is a significant advantage over a very rigid tripod setup.
I agree that I wouldn't like to see these images at 24x36" on my wall
In case you have not heard, Peter B moved on to a wonderful Canon 6D where these problems are absent.
Show Performance
Member
Sounds like a lot of unwarranted hand wringing and teeth gnashing. The cameras are not too light, rather perfect for a small handheld.
I had the RX1 and I haven't noticed any more or less blur in photos taken by the A7. Maybe the A7r is more of a challenge due to the denser sensor but I can't report first hand.
I had the RX1 and I haven't noticed any more or less blur in photos taken by the A7. Maybe the A7r is more of a challenge due to the denser sensor but I can't report first hand.
Personal expectations/demands for the technical quality of one's work aside, it seems to me that there is value in equipment that rewards more precise use.
The question I have is whether high resolution images actually deteriorate when not used in such an exacting manner. Is there any case where an image is technically worse due to camera motion blur than if it would be if taken with a lower resolution camera?
My initial thought is that, if the A7r has 22% (linear) smaller pixels than the A7, shake blur affecting 1.22 pixels would be the maximum amount that wouldn't be detected on an A7. Yet, if that blur were horizontal, the A7r would still have 22% more vertical resolution. The blur would affect some subjects more than others, but that's not a technical quality: the A7r still has more resolution on other planes. And, if the blur does have a negative effect, one can add directional blur in post to make the image have the same resolution as a camera that would not have been affected by the shake.
But initial thoughts are often wrong and I respect the knowledge of this community. Anyone care to share a pointer or two?
Cheers.
Jon
The question I have is whether high resolution images actually deteriorate when not used in such an exacting manner. Is there any case where an image is technically worse due to camera motion blur than if it would be if taken with a lower resolution camera?
My initial thought is that, if the A7r has 22% (linear) smaller pixels than the A7, shake blur affecting 1.22 pixels would be the maximum amount that wouldn't be detected on an A7. Yet, if that blur were horizontal, the A7r would still have 22% more vertical resolution. The blur would affect some subjects more than others, but that's not a technical quality: the A7r still has more resolution on other planes. And, if the blur does have a negative effect, one can add directional blur in post to make the image have the same resolution as a camera that would not have been affected by the shake.
But initial thoughts are often wrong and I respect the knowledge of this community. Anyone care to share a pointer or two?
Cheers.
Jon