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!

Sony 7/7R as a landscape camera?

kit laughlin

Subscriber Member
@ Dave, which wrote:

It got me thinking: I wonder what the best small and (relatively) light 24mm will be for this camera? Any suggestions?
Olympus OM 24/2.8. I have one; it's excellent, and that's what I will be using for this FL on the A7 (when I get one!).
 
There is another (possible) issue with the a7/a7r cameras and B&W shooting...

The compressed RAW file effectively reduces the bit depth from 14 bits to something smaller (10 bits approximately?). This could prove to be disastrous for B&W shooting in situations where any kind of filtration is needed or desired.

I haven't tried that out yet, but I have had problems with images from an uncompressed RAW file from the a900 and posterization with B&W filtration. I suspect that it will be far more susceptible on a compressed RAW file.

I doubt it will be noticeably different straight out as a B&W conversion, but applying some filtration to simulate a red filter with B&W film may show a marked difference.

At that point, I suspect that nothing will be the equivalent of the MM (or the non-Bayer filter MF backs).


---Michael
To avoid the possibility of posterization or other artifacts, than often appears when using digital filtering in BW conversion, just use glass filters as you would do with the MM.
(obviously selecting in camera or in the raw converter the WB applying to the actual light conditions, and not auto)

Sergio
 

mjm6

Member
To avoid the possibility of posterization or other artifacts, than often appears when using digital filtering in BW conversion, just use glass filters as you would do with the MM.
(obviously selecting in camera or in the raw converter the WB applying to the actual light conditions, and not auto)

Sergio
Sergio,

That may work somewhat, but do not think it will work very well. If you put a red filter on the camera, the majority of the non-red pixels will have almost no value to them, and will therefore fall into a narrow range of values that will cause posterization as well. At that point, The non-red values are possibly usefully providing some dithering into the red channel for a B&W conversion, which may be handy.

I should be able to try some out this weekend to compare. I'll include shots from the a900 and a7r with and without filtration to see what happens.

I still need to do M lens comparisons, but something has to wait.

---Michael
 
Sergio,

That may work somewhat, but do not think it will work very well. If you put a red filter on the camera, the majority of the non-red pixels will have almost no value to them, and will therefore fall into a narrow range of values that will cause posterization as well. At that point, The non-red values are possibly usefully providing some dithering into the red channel for a B&W conversion, which may be handy.

I should be able to try some out this weekend to compare. I'll include shots from the a900 and a7r with and without filtration to see what happens.

I still need to do M lens comparisons, but something has to wait.

---Michael
Michael, waiting for your results.


_DSC0585 by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr


_DSC0585bw by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr

(I get no trace of artifacts-you'll have to work only on luminance sliders)

Sergio
 
Last edited:

mjm6

Member
Sergio,

Excellent... two questions...

1. What filter is that in the top? Looks like an orange to me?

2. What did you do to convert to grayscale? Did you 'convert to grayscale' or did you go through the B&W conversion (with the filter sliders), or possibly convert to Lab and then drop the ab?

There is one clear advantage to using the filter on the camera; you gain the exposure in the camera to bring it up to ideal with the filter on the camera, and when using color filter sliders in PS or other apps, all you have the ability to do is subtract the values downward, and this moves you toward the bottom of the scale in some cases (in particular with red filtration and the B values).

---Michael
 
Sergio,

Excellent... two questions...

1. What filter is that in the top? Looks like an orange to me?

2. What did you do to convert to grayscale? Did you 'convert to grayscale' or did you go through the B&W conversion (with the filter sliders), or possibly convert to Lab and then drop the ab?

There is one clear advantage to using the filter on the camera; you gain the exposure in the camera to bring it up to ideal with the filter on the camera, and when using color filter sliders in PS or other apps, all you have the ability to do is subtract the values downward, and this moves you toward the bottom of the scale in some cases (in particular with red filtration and the B values).

---Michael
1.orange zeiss 5x

2. Adobe Camera Raw convert to grayscale without touching filter sliders. (that can probably be slightly used with lighter filters). The file appears to be essentially monochromatic. This procedure eliminates also the halos in the transitions between darker and highlight zones that appear using filter sliders.

I noticed before that bw conversions in artificial light of very low temp seem to be much "richer".

Sergio

Sergio
 

algrove

Well-known member
A7r, ancient 50mm, handheld, f2, iso 25600. Are there any landscape photography rules I forgot to break? If so apologies, I'll try harder.


Being serious for a second, I think the main problem at present is lenses that can give the potential this sensor so obviously has. Especially wide angle and even more especially, lenses which don't look like bazookas when mounted on this tiny camera.
Beni
What is the "ancient lens" you were using please?
 

GDI

Member
Olympus OM 24/2.8. I have one; it's excellent, and that's what I will be using for this FL on the A7 (when I get one!).
It is a cheap and lowly lens, and too slow. But until I can get the FE 24mm f/2.0 I am having to make do; I find it much better than any of my M mount lenses even - 28 s or 35s. Here is a shot, but on the A7r and linked to the full rez so its flaws may be pointed out.


_DSC1074 by gdi2003, on Flickr
 
V

Vivek

Guest
It is a cheap and lowly lens, and too slow. But until I can get the FE 24mm f/2.0 I am having to make do; I find it much better than any of my M mount lenses even - 28 s or 35s. Here is a shot, but on the A7r and linked to the full rez so its flaws may be pointed out.
It is not too slow unless you would use the f2 lens wide open. The advantage of a fast lens is for "auto", SLR/DSLRs. Not for stopped down metering cams like the A7R.

If you consider the CA to be the biggest issue, make sure that you mask all the shiny bits inside the adapter. The simple CA after that can be easily taken care of in the post.

I think the 24/2.8 is a superb and compact lens.
 

GDI

Member
It is not too slow unless you would use the f2 lens wide open. The advantage of a fast lens is for "auto", SLR/DSLRs. Not for stopped down metering cams like the A7R.

If you consider the CA to be the biggest issue, make sure that you mask all the shiny bits inside the adapter. The simple CA after that can be easily taken care of in the post.

I think the 24/2.8 is a superb and compact lens.
I was kinda joking about slow, I find the A7r great for stopped down use. i was thinking my CA was just a lens issue - but you think it may be the adapter? I would think that would affect flare more.

thanks
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Got it. :)

If the shiny surface is uniform then it is just flare or lowered contrast (that the 24/2.8 suffers from on its own). It is not the adapter but the lens' bayonet mount itself that is not uniform and is a shiny mirror and is seen by the sensor. Just look at the rear of the lens with the adapter.

Simplest solution is to put a thin black rubber gasket of appropriate dimension from a plumbing supply to mask that. Applies to all adapted lenses. Just make sure that the gasket is washed with soap and water and dried well before using it.
 

Michiel Schierbeek

Well-known member
Some of my C/Y Zeiss lenses with a mount with a bigger shiny surface, suffer from these flare problems, you describe, Vivek.
My Zeiss Planar 100/2 is not usable right now, still have to find a ring for it. Did not really search yet.

FD lenses have no chrome/silver reflecting, because they are completly covered by the outside mounting of the adapter. That is why they fare so well on the A7's
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Some of my C/Y Zeiss lenses with a mount with a bigger shiny surface, suffer from these flare problems, you describe, Vivek.
My Zeiss Planar 100/2 is not usable right now, still have to find a ring for it. Did not really search yet.

FD lenses have no chrome/silver reflecting, but are completly covered by the outside mounting of the adapter. That is why they fare so well on the A7's
Hornbach has them Michiel. :)
 

dchew

Well-known member
Holy purple fringing Batman...

My Zeiss 35 ZE w/ metabones III. LR does a good job removing it but wow. The 5D II didn't show any of this. I'm glad I placed an order for the 35mm FE lens.

Dave





100% crop of second image:
 

GDI

Member
Got it. :)

If the shiny surface is uniform then it is just flare or lowered contrast (that the 24/2.8 suffers from on its own). It is not the adapter but the lens' bayonet mount itself that is not uniform and is a shiny mirror and is seen by the sensor. Just look at the rear of the lens with the adapter.

Simplest solution is to put a thin black rubber gasket of appropriate dimension from a plumbing supply to mask that. Applies to all adapted lenses. Just make sure that the gasket is washed with soap and water and dried well before using it.
Ah, thanks - are there any example photos you could point me to?
 
Top