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!
Yes, it clearly is. See shutter vibration thread and Lloyd Chambers' comparison of A7 vs. A7R. With the A7 (with EFC enabled), vibration is essentially a non-issue.i guess my point in this context is at the worst case of vibration blur with the A7R, is it any worse than the no vibration blur from the A7?
assuming the R does not produce inherently more shake...
If you go by the sales figures of mirrorless ( one of the rumor sites had that up), it is Asia and Europe where these get sold and not the US. Most who bought A7/7R do not know the two you quote.The test results from two of the most respected and capable people who have tested the Sony Zeiss FE 35mm f/2.8 have been quite spectacular. Lloyd Chambers and Roger Cicala of lensrentals.com. The former tests by analyzing real world imagery from the field at multiple apertures. The latter's testing is based upon lens testing charts and protocols that lensrentals uses to evaluate the lenses that they buy. Roger Cicala asserts that the sensor/lens combination of the A7R and the Sony Zeiss 35mm FE lens are among the best he has seen. Comparable to the Zeiss Otus 58mm lens on a D800e. I think we will see something similar with the Sony Zeiss 55mm FE lens.
The takeaway is is that the native FE lenses are likely to be the best performers by a substantial margin. The Leica M lenses will probably not be able to keep up. It's not that they are less than amazing lenses. It's that they are optimized for a completely different camera. The native FE lenses are optimized for the A7R and its sensor. Moreover, the A7R is in its infancy. There is much to be done in terms of improvements in the imaging pipeline. Both firmware and raw conversion software. The lenses now coming out from Sony are also not the end all be all of lens design. Zeiss apparently has its own line of high end, manual focus lenses for the FE mount coming out. What can Zeiss produce at a $2,000 price point for an FE lens?
Now if Sony can only solve the shutter vibration issues with longer lenses.....
Yor first comment is a complete non-sequitor. Who cares where they sell the most mirrorless cameras? What does that have to do with the competence of the people who test camera equipment?If you go by the sales figures of mirrorless ( one of the rumor sites had that up), it is Asia and Europe where these get sold and not the US. Most who bought A7/7R do not know the two you quote.
Also, the assertion that the FE lenses are optimized for the A7R is debatable since there is A7 and it is a very different camera.
I have no desire to buy the FE35 or the FE55. I am not sure about the Zeiss lenses either. They are neither compact nor worth their prices and or the tag they sport going by the NEX lenses.
The A7/7R to me are digital backs. I tried several native lenses for the NEX. All are shelved and it was a terrible waste of money for me.
It is very relevant just as whether LC or RC say whatever. Regardless of such opinions, tools are going to be as one sees fit. That alone is my point.Yor first comment is a complete non-sequitor. Who cares where they sell the most mirrorless cameras? What does that have to do with the competence of the people who test camera equipment?
As for your second and third comments, extrapolating from your experience with a NEX camera and its lenses strikes me as a particularly flawed way to analyze these things. In fact, it's not analysis at all. It's really an unfounded and irrational opinion. I suppose in your world where the basis of comparison is a NEX camera, the Sony Zeiss 35mm FE lens is not compact. In my world, that is a very light and compact lens for use with a 36MP sensor.
Your response is incomprehensible. We are clearly talking past each other. Perhaps English is not your native language. I will not be rude and spell out the other possibility.It is very relevant just as whether LC or RC say whatever. Regardless of such opinions, tools are going to be as one sees fit. That alone is my point.
If you find FE lenses great, use them and enjoy them. Share some pics as well.
If you want to critique their analyses and conclusions, go ahead, but you should try to do so in a objective way. Saying they should be ignored because they are Americans and they don't sell as many mirrorless cameras in America as they do in Japan and Europe, or that the native FE lenses for the A7R must suck because that was "Vivek's experience" with some other Sony Zeiss lens or lenses on a NEX camera is just embarrassing. Gotta love the internet. Everybody gets a soapbox.hmm.. You can be more rude?. That is a shocker! Listen, LC and RC may be your photo idols. Don't try to shove that idea on others.. Life goes on and photos get taken with or without them.
I was typing. And I am very slow at it. It's a generational thing!So Howard, I guess you missed Guy's post?
Nicely stated, Louis. This is basically my situation too, so I've been on the fence about these cameras. I've really appreciated the analysis in this thread and others. I whip my little GR around one-handed and more times than not shoot my Nex 7 at waist-level, so these Sonys don't appear to be the right solutions for me. As much as I like the overall package, they seem designed for the more deliberate shooter, so I'm looking elsewhere.I'm still mulling over the whole A7 vs A7r question. I already have a RX1 and the results are generally spectacular. I hanker for both wide angle, at least 21mm and a 50mm 'normal' lens hence the desire to add an interchangeable system.
Looking at most of the results from the A7r posted to date I feel a lot of disappointment and I now realise that Guy's analysis from above is probably the reason.
I think it comes down to the type of photography you do. Mine is generally out in urban areas and often grab shots. It might make more sense for me to go with the A7.
In any case, the results I am seeing from the Df are superior in all respects, so I am mulling over that as the basis of a system.
I'm in no hurry to make a decision - especially as I am suspicious about what Sigma are up to. They are either fire-selling the last stock of their cameras pending an exit, or something new is coming down the line.
Here's to the New Year.
LouisB
John, as far as the A7R is concerned, that's probably a very fair assessment. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if the A7 would fit your needs nicely. Due to the considerably greater pixel pitch (and with EFC enabled), it should be more forgiving in terms of motion blur than either the GR or the NEX-7. And the image quality is a very noticeable step up from the NEX-7.Nicely stated, Louis. This is basically my situation too, so I've been on the fence about these cameras. I've really appreciated the analysis in this thread and others. I whip my little GR around one-handed and more times than not shoot my Nex 7 at waist-level, so these Sonys don't appear to be the right solutions for me. As much as I like the overall package, they seem designed for the more deliberate shooter, so I'm looking elsewhere.
I don't know, John. I posted this in another thread, and it's obviously just a snap shot of my baby daughter destined for the family "shoebox", but I think it makes a point:Nicely stated, Louis. This is basically my situation too, so I've been on the fence about these cameras. I've really appreciated the analysis in this thread and others. I whip my little GR around one-handed and more times than not shoot my Nex 7 at waist-level, so these Sonys don't appear to be the right solutions for me. As much as I like the overall package, they seem designed for the more deliberate shooter, so I'm looking elsewhere.
John