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!

Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

kuau

Workshop Member
I took my A7 back to the shop and changed it for the A7r. The images lacked the sharpness I have become used to from the Leica M240. This new camera is supremely sharp.
Steve, can you elaborate more on your comment about "lacked the sharpness"
It seems to me that the A7R, forget about the "rumored and proven" shutter vibration issue, still needs to be shot on a tripod for maximum IQ which is not a bad thing let it's not what I am looking for. If I was, then I would probably go with the D800/E.

I wonder if MaxMax is offering a way to remove the AA filter on the A7.
I just them an email.

Steven
 

kuau

Workshop Member
Hi Steven
No decision yet. But like Gary I'm leaning towards the A7 as well. When Matt was here with his I was looking at the results from the kit zoom, and they looked rather good. He has both cameras, so I'm interested in his verdict.

Gary, I have the 3880 as well, but I do like to crop. On the other hand I can't see many situations when the difference between 24mp and 36mp is gonna make or break a photo.

It's just this thing about accepting "second best".!
Thanks Jono,
I am in a holding pattern until you decide which one to get... :thumbs:
Though, I spoke with Ashwin and he went with the A7 also. hmmmm
Steven
 

wuffstuff

New member
Steve, can you elaborate more on your comment about "lacked the sharpness"
Steven
By comparison to the M240.

Side by side, with roughly ( I mean roughly) the same shot with similar speed/aperture, the A7 was not as sharp as the M240. That's all. I felt there was no point having a less sharp image producer when, for a few dollars more, a higher resolution camera is available.

I was right. The A7r is much sharper. Yes, it's more difficult to use, but if you buy the A7 you will always wonder about the quality of the A7r. Maybe.

Try both and you will quickly see the difference. The images from theA7r are a joy to behold.
 

kuau

Workshop Member
By comparison to the M240.

Side by side, with roughly ( I mean roughly) the same shot with similar speed/aperture, the A7 was not as sharp as the M240. That's all. I felt there was no point having a less sharp image producer when, for a few dollars more, a higher resolution camera is available.

I was right. The A7r is much sharper. Yes, it's more difficult to use, but if you buy the A7 you will always wonder about the quality of the A7r. Maybe.

Try both and you will quickly see the difference. The images from theA7r are a joy to behold.
Thanks for your input Steve.

I did rent an A7 and was quite pleased, though I had nothing to compare it to.
I did own a D800/E a while ago with all manual focus Zeiss glass, it was a pain in the *** to use. Tripod, MLU, Live View for focusing with a loupe. I gave up. I found using my Sinar arTec with my 33mp Leaf Aptus back much more forgiving and in some ways easier to use.

36mp with an excellent EVF is very tempting, though I think I may wait for Sony to release an A mount version which although will be bigger then the A7R, more inline with the A99 which I have right now seems to make more sense to me.

I wish Sony would have offered the A7 without AA filter...
 

bensonga

Well-known member
With a Novoflex Leica R to Sony E mount adapter on the way, I'll need to make a decision re A7 or A7R soon.

At this point, I am still leaning towards the A7. I expect to be using this camera primarily with my Leica R lenses. Still planning to get a D800 in the next few months (to replace the one I traded in on the Pentax 645D), so that will handle any situations in which I need/want more than 24 megapixels of resolution in a 35mm sensor body.

Gary
 

Michiel Schierbeek

Well-known member
With a Novoflex Leica R to Sony E mount adapter on the way, I'll need to make a decision re A7 or A7R soon.

At this point, I am still leaning towards the A7. I expect to be using this camera primarily with my Leica R lenses. Still planning to get a D800 in the next few months (to replace the one I traded in on the Pentax 645D), so that will handle any situations in which I need/want more than 24 megapixels of resolution in a 35mm sensor body.

Gary
If you buy a A7r you could probably do without the D800. Saves money and weight. It will be perfect with your R glass.
 
By comparison to the M240.

Side by side, with roughly ( I mean roughly) the same shot with similar speed/aperture, the A7 was not as sharp as the M240. That's all. I felt there was no point having a less sharp image producer when, for a few dollars more, a higher resolution camera is available.

I was right. The A7r is much sharper. Yes, it's more difficult to use, but if you buy the A7 you will always wonder about the quality of the A7r. Maybe.

Try both and you will quickly see the difference. The images from theA7r are a joy to behold.
You will quickly see the difference - at 100% pixel view. If you really need to print or view that large or crop that much, then yes - you will need the extra resolution.

Just be sure to do your comparisons at the resolution you really need before jumping to the next level of cost and shutter movement. However, if cost is no concern and you don't mind the loss of the electronic first shutter, then you have no worries. Just enjoy.

In fact, if you just want it for the sake of wanting it, that is reason enough as well.

Sony was diabolical. In actual resolution terms, if both sensors were without AA filter, there would be few reasons to spring for the extra MP, the difference would not be all that much at the pixel level.

Best regards,
DGM
 

bensonga

Well-known member
If you buy a A7r you could probably do without the D800. Saves money and weight. It will be perfect with your R glass.
I may be one of the few who here who still prefers the size and weight of a traditional DSLR over the smaller mirrorless cameras. If I could mount my Leica R lenses on a Nikon DSLR, without having to do a Leitax type conversion of the Leica lens mount, I would have been quite happy to stick with Nikon DSLRs and wouldn't even be looking at the A7/A7R.

But yes, I am hoping that the A7 (or A7R) will indeed be perfect for my R glass. I will probably need to get the vertical battery grip, just to make the camera feel more comfortable in my hands.

Gary
 

GrahamB

New member
I may be one of the few who here who still prefers the size and weight of a traditional DSLR over the smaller mirrorless cameras.
Gary
I don't think anyone awards additional points for producing images with minimal equipment. My a7r is a fantastic camera to use in many circumstances, but I don't intend to sell my full size OVF full frame, or my cropped frame high FPS body anytime soon.

Cameras are just tools. Use the one the job calls for.

Graham
 

Luvwine

New member
I am happy I got the A7r. Course, I have a 44" printer (Canon IPF 8300) so that makes it an easier call. Having said this, even for smaller prints, if you are shooting handheld and the image is a touch soft due to focus or what have you, you are more likely to have a useable image with 36 than 24 due to the joys of downsampling. I think of it as adding margin for error sometimes. My wife took a pic of me with a Leica 90/2 APO (a simply marvelous lens on the A7r!) and it was a bit out of focus. Still, it was a nice image, and downsampled to web size, it works quite nicely.

Getting back to the upsampling discussion, I just finished reading Schewe's book on Digital printing and I am pretty sure his recommendation is to upsample prior to sending it to the printer as, if memory serves, the printers usually just use nearest neighbor and the routines in LR and PS are better, in his view. I don't have an opinion having not done a comparison.
 
Sorry to loop so far back in the conversation, but …

Tim, if you use a Canon 6300, why not use the Photoshop plug-in that bypasses the printer-driver entirely and lets you use 600 ppi resolution right out of PS?

Please advise – is there really a better way?

Kirk
 

bensonga

Well-known member
Hard to believe that we ever managed to make decent prints from 8, 12, 16 or 20 megapixel images. Now it seems that nothing less than 36 will do....not even 24.

Guess I should just throw most of my cameras away....and all the prints I ever made from them.

Gary
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Hard to believe that we ever managed to make decent prints from 8, 12, 16 or 20 megapixel images. Now it seems that nothing less than 36 will do....not even 24.

Guess I should just throw most of my cameras away....and all the prints I ever made from them.

Gary
Yes, toss them all Gary ... it is cathartic.

Better yet, hop into the "DeLorean Time machine" ... go back and un-buy all of it except one, because none of the others made any difference either ... think of how much money you'd have now :ROTFL:

(Scary thought actually :eek:)

- Marc
 

bensonga

Well-known member
Yes Marc, we all could have saved a lot of money on camera gear over the past 10+ years if Sony, Nikon, Canon etc had offered 24-36 megapixel cameras for sale 10+ years ago for $3k or less, but they didn't.

My Nikon D700 produced very good images when it was first released in 2008. Amazingly enough, it still produces good images.

I guess if only 36 megapixels is good enough anymore, then there are quite a few folks here who just wasted $3k on a new Nikon Df.

Gary
 

turtle

New member
We did produce great images from fewer megapixels, but the truth is that things have moved on. its not that you cannot produce a great image from 12 or 16 MP, but that you can do more with a 36 MP image. At 40" a 12 MP native mage of a detailed scene will look quite miserable next to a 36 MP capture. In my experience, it will already be looking quite weak at A2, compared to a 20 MP capture, where very fine detail is present (grass etc).

The last camera I bought is hardly amazing in resolution (16mp GM-1) and as an overall 'resolution package' (including lens, sensor etc) compared to my 5D III and A7R, but I bought it for its tiny size and the fact that it will go everywhere with me. Its important, however not to confuse the fact that we can do 'lots with a few MP' with the empirically factual benefits of having more resolution to play with. I expect to bag loads of portfolio and sellable images with the GM-1, but they wont be getting printed to huge sizes. As always there are pros and cons.... just as the Nikon DF users will be able to do lots in low light I cannot do with the GM-1, or A7R.
 
Last edited:

fotografz

Well-known member
Yes Marc, we all could have saved a lot of money on camera gear over the past 10+ years if Sony, Nikon, Canon etc had offered 24-36 megapixel cameras for sale 10+ years ago for $3k or less, but they didn't.

My Nikon D700 produced very good images when it was first released in 2008. Amazingly enough, it still produces good images.

I guess if only 36 megapixels is good enough anymore, then there are quite a few folks here who just wasted $3k on a new Nikon Df.

Gary
Well, I suppose I could have stopped 5 years ago with the 24 meg Sony A900 for under $3,000 :)

Actually, a buddy and I were talking about this subject yesterday ... we both had Contax N Digital cameras 10 years ago!

It employed a Full Frame 6 meg Phillips sensor previously used in the Jenoptik Medium Format Eyelike back. The "Fat Pixels" were quite delicious. My pal recently revisited some of his N Digital files, and with the newer software was able to produce stunning stuff from it. However, it is easy to forget that anything over ISO 100 was an unacceptable compromise in IQ ... and the thing gulped batteries by the doz.

The studio shots I used to do with my 555ELD and original Kodak Proback still look good ... any ISO as long as it was 100 ;) Contax 645 and 16 meg Kodak ProBack 645C was fantastic, it could decently do a whopping ISO 200. Same for the 203FE and 16 meg Hasselblad back.

I think the difference here is not just 24 or 36 megs of FF resolution ... but that the A7/A7R can do it in a package so small, and at ISOs and DR not thought possible 5 or 10 years ago. My A900 still produces images every bit as beautiful as day one, but runs out of gas at ISO 800, where the A7R hasn't even broke a sweat. The previous barriers that accompanied high resolution sensors are being broken down ... and for well under $3,000.

I suspect the same for the DF appeal ... modern sensor performance in something other than a D4 brick. Not my cup of tea, but I understand the appeal.

I gotta say, when it came to running out the door and grabbing a camera on the way ... I almost always opted for the Leica M9 over all my other big assed choices ... now it's the A7R.

Everything in my gear vault is trembling in fear. Maybe not so much from this specific camera, but from what it represents in the near future. The handwriting is on the wall.

Perhaps at some point I'll have to stand my ground and become Luddite :ROTFL:

But probably not ...

Hi, I am Marc Williams, and I am a gear slut. It has been 3 days since I bought a new piece of photo gear.


- Marc
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Yes Marc, we all could have saved a lot of money on camera gear over the past 10+ years if Sony, Nikon, Canon etc had offered 24-36 megapixel cameras for sale 10+ years ago for $3k or less, but they didn't.

My Nikon D700 produced very good images when it was first released in 2008. Amazingly enough, it still produces good images.

I guess if only 36 megapixels is good enough anymore, then there are quite a few folks here who just wasted $3k on a new Nikon Df.

Gary
If the DF had a Vertical grip I probably would have bought one and in hindsight I'm glad it didn't. I got the A7r from a friend on a whim since he was not fond of it and I seriously wanted one but was going to wait it out. The Sony came and after I saw the EVF and the focus peaking I jumped on it faster than a rabbit being chased by a dog. I sold everything Nikon and bought everything I could with the money. Seriously I got a better second body a extra lens that I did not have and maybe out of pocket was about 500 dollars and I feel already it was a crazy move but a smart one for me. I lose nothing in the deal I still have a D800e sensor and with the A7 I gained a Nikon D610 plus I can manual focus Soooooooooo much better. I'm pretty damn pleased and really close to having a complete kit right now.

But my prints are the same if not better than my Nikon and I like the color, tonal range and DR better. The Nikon was great but it did not turn me on, this has some thrill to it for me.

I'll be on the road for 3 weeks with it and I'll have a better final thoughts on it.i wish I just had enough money to grab the 55FE with me but that will have to wait. I really want to see how this 35FE is as I have yet to really shoot it much.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I know. It was not a easy decision for me outside the cameras itself . I have to think about rentals, repairs, durability, sales on where I can stuff in a hurry and stuff like that. Now the Sony is not as bad in certain ways. I can get rentals and actually rented a A 70-200 and sales are easy as well. Repair maybe more difficult but I think I'm okay. Native lenses play a role as well but on the other hand you can bolt just about anything to it. I say this buy one try it than see if it works out.
 
Top