Is the A7 better than the A7R at the edges with wides?

[Guy Mancuso]

I would not go by that lens either as it is known to be soft in the corners, why I sent mine back and never replaced it. Nice lens but my corners where bad.

 

[tashley]

Maybe the micro lenses on the A7R 'does' something unhelpful to wides? -tashley

That seems to imply more than just the 35mm f/2.8.

Micro - lenses in the A7r are probably more to offset the short back flange distance because of the shallow angles of incidence. Lens design is also prone to many variables, so what one lens does on a particular camera may not in fact, do the same on another. Although some of your inputs are thought provoking, I'd be careful not to do "something unhelpful" to A7r just because of a casual observation from one shoot.

Ahhh but... I do roughly know what I'm doing. So far I have certainly identified to my own satisfaction that there are edge improvements with the 35mm (with which I started this thread) and the 24-70 at 24mm, when shot on the 7 rather than the R. I have made no further claims than that, merely raised the question. We've all read the spec differences between the micro lenses on the two sensors and many of us have had M240 and M9 and M8 and have seen how that all panned out.

I wouldn't expect 'normal' design lenses (i.e. SLR type flange distances) to be affected and in my experience so far (I have tried many) I haven't had reason to suspect that they perform any worse on the R than on, say, a D800e. But I do at least suspect that some of the Leica M wides I recently sold may have performed better on the 7 than the R.

I think most experienced photographers, especially those with experience of Leica digital M and Sony A7/R, are aware of all the issues relating to back flange distance and micro lenses.

So I have no intention of doing something unhelpful: thinking by extrapolation is something I use in order to reach hypotheses for further testing, rather than conclusions! But I do suspect that shooters of short flange distance wide lenses, even those designed specifically for FE mount, might as a good generalisation get tighter edges on a 7 than an R and that is, I think, useful information. It's not unhelpful to know more, in my book...

 

[tashley]

I would not go by that lens either as it is known to be soft in the corners, why I sent mine back and never replaced it. Nice lens but my corners where bad.

Guy, mine is a reasonably good copy (my third I think) but the same thing is visible on the wide end of the Zeiss zoom. It's the smaller pixels and the micro lenses and the ray angles, I'd make an educated bet on it.

 

[tashley]

For anyone wanting a refresher the original brochure for both cameras is linked here and it is worth noting that the differences are on pages 16 and 17 and in short are:

A7R has no AA filter, A7 does
A7R has smaller pixels
A7R has gapless on-chip lenses

I assume that this is because the smaller pixels of the R mean that peripheral areas need 'cleverer' lenses in order to mitigate the various problems introduced by the pixels being smaller.

 

[jonoslack]

Maybe the micro lenses on the A7R 'does' something unhelpful to wides? -tashley

That seems to imply more than just the 35mm f/2.8.

Micro - lenses in the A7r are probably more to offset the short back flange distance because of the shallow angles of incidence. Lens design is also prone to many variables, so what one lens does on a particular camera may not in fact, do the same on another. Although some of your inputs are thought provoking, I'd be careful not to do "something unhelpful" to A7r just because of a casual observation from one shoot.

HI Johnny
It is more than just the 35mm f2.8

It's not just one shoot (at least, not for me) - I tried thoroughly and carefully with 9 different rangefinder lenses. Smudgy corners and colour casts were the order of the day with many (but not all) of the lenses 35mm and wider - mostly longer than that was okay. . . . and I'm certainly not alone in this. Others have found the same. The A7 is better (but not completely okay). . . . It's hardly surprising, and not really a criticism either - just an observation.

For me - I'll happily use the A7 or A7r with pretty much any SLR lenses (like Leica R lenses) but I've given up using it with M lenses because the results are patchy and unpredictable - not worth the candle IMHO.

 

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

I can't speak for the a7, but this shot is from the a7r and 12 mm Voigtlander - they don't come much wider. The purpose was to look for colour casts. There were lots, so I'm using P1's LCC to correct and it works very well. I chose the ice because any errant colour would show up easily.

Other shots show perfectly satisfactory edge and corner detail; perhaps it would be better on the a7, but what I'm getting with the a7r is fine for my purposes.

Georgian Bay is completely frozen from shore to shore!

Bill

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

HI Johnny
It is more than just the 35mm f2.8

It's not just one shoot (at least, not for me) - I tried thoroughly and carefully with 9 different rangefinder lenses. Smudgy corners and colour casts were the order of the day with many (but not all) of the lenses 35mm and wider - mostly longer than that was okay. . . . and I'm certainly not alone in this. Others have found the same. The A7 is better (but not completely okay). . . . It's hardly surprising, and not really a criticism either - just an observation.

For me - I'll happily use the A7 or A7r with pretty much any SLR lenses (like Leica R lenses) but I've given up using it with M lenses because the results are patchy and unpredictable - not worth the candle IMHO.

Hi Jono,

Thanks for the comment. I agree that some rangefinder lenses will show color casts based on the physics of the the A7r sensor. That's why I chose the A7 specifically for the use of wide lenses. This is something many have pointed out regarding the a7/r. Either one is an outstanding camera. Perhaps an A7r for b/u will suffice when I want the absolute in resolution with something 50mm and up!

 

[Professional]

I am not good reader mostly if it is long posts or threads, so let me ask you:

What i should buy [even i bought already], A7 or A7R?

Which lenses to buy for any of them if i get one of them?

 

[tashley]

I am not good reader mostly if it is long posts or threads, so let me ask you:

What i should buy [even i bought already], A7 or A7R?

Which lenses to buy for any of them if i get one of them?

Tareq,

A) How experienced are you? (0= I never took a photo, 10= Ansel Adams)
B) Do you ever make prints? If you do, what is your maximum print size?
C) What sort of subjects do you mostly photograph?
D) Do you often shoot at 35mm or wider?
E) Are you experienced with processing from RAW or do you shoot JPEG?
F) What is you current camera?

 

[Professional]

Tareq,

A) How experienced are you? (0= I never took a photo, 10= Ansel Adams)
B) Do you ever make prints? If you do, what is your maximum print size?
C) What sort of subjects do you mostly photograph?

A) I can't answer this about myself, i am not a beginner at all but i am not a master or pro, just very closer to a semi pro, but say advanced freelancer hobbyist

B) I did print some before, but not much lately, but i will for sure. Size? Depends for whom i print, for myself i like to print minimum A4, for some galleries say from A2 and larger, few photos i love i can print up to 1m wide

C) Landscapes if i will buy one of those Sony A 7 series, architecture, cityscape

 

[Professional]

Tareq,

A) How experienced are you? (0= I never took a photo, 10= Ansel Adams)
B) Do you ever make prints? If you do, what is your maximum print size?
C) What sort of subjects do you mostly photograph?
D) Do you often shoot at 35mm or wider?
E) Are you experienced with processing from RAW or do you shoot JPEG?
F) What is you current camera?

A, B, C answered

D) Ofcourse, in landscape and architecture i mostly shoot at widest, even sometimes i try to make 24mm as longest i shoot, so imagine what widest i want to use.

E) What do you think? I shoot with Canon top DSLRs and i have Hasselblad digital medium format, so do you think i am not shooting with RAW? even when i shoot soccer of our local team i do shoot in RAW while press photographers all shoot with JPEG for reasons i know.

F) My current camera i use mostly is Canon 1DX, not much using my H4D-60, 1Ds3 is a backup for my 1DX, 1D3 is another backup for sports but i may sell it, i already have 1Ds2 and 1D2n and 5Dc and 30D and large format and many film medium formats, also my last addition is Sony A....

So which one to go with or you think which one i chose? I hope i didn't make a wrong choice for any reason

 

[jonoslack]

HI There Tareq
What I would say is that if you are going to print up to 30" then you should get the A7 - it has advantages with a quieter shutter, less camera shake and some improvements with wide angle lenses.

If you want to print up to 40" then you may find the A7r is better, but you'll have to be much more careful with your lens selection.

If you want to print larger than 40" then you'd better go back to Medium Format.

All the best

 

[tashley]

I agree 100% with Jono.

I have the R and will soon get the normal 7 for use with wider lenses and the zoom, but I also keep medium format if I want really big prints.

You obviously know what you're doing, and will make good shots with either camera... your needs are mostly better met by the A7 with the exception of the occasional need to print larger. There's no 'one size fits all'... yet!

 

[Professional]

Ok, let's say you answered my half question, the another half is: what lenses to choose? suppose i go with A7 or with A7R, what lens[es] to get for this or for that?

 

[jonoslack]

My feeling is that there is a real argument for having both cameras . . . . . . . . .
But if you're going to have one, then it's probably better to have the A7.

 

[jonoslack]

Ok, let's say you answered my half question, the another half is: what lenses to choose? suppose i go with A7 or with A7R, what lens[es] to get for this or for that?

Get the native lenses . . . .

55 f1.8 and 24-70 zoom

If you have other third party lenses already then try them . . . . . but don't buy them specially.

 

[tashley]

You might want to add a Canon 17mm TSE with Metabones III adaptor. It'll give you a very nice wide prime with the bonus of movements for architecture and the ability to make bigger files by stitching for when you are doing landscapes and want to print large.

 

[Professional]

Get the native lenses . . . .

55 f1.8 and 24-70 zoom

If you have other third party lenses already then try them . . . . . but don't buy them specially.

Well, i have Canon DSLR lenses already so later will buy an adapter to use those, also i have Hasselblad manual lenses of 500 series, not sure if there is an adapter for those.

But, why you chose those 2 lenses of 50 and 24-70 as first choices? why not 35 and 16-35, or 50 and 70-200?

 

[Professional]

You might want to add a Canon 17mm TSE with Metabones III adaptor. It'll give you a very nice wide prime with the bonus of movements for architecture and the ability to make bigger files by stitching for when you are doing landscapes and want to print large.

I am a poor guy, but i will add this lens for sure later to my collection, for now i will practice with TS-E 24mm II until i can afford that 17mm and adapter

 

[tashley]

The 55 is the second best lens ever made (not starting a war here but it could be argued) after the Otus. The 24-70 is just really useful. The 35 is nice but is optional since the zoom is good at that focal length. There's no native FE mount 16-35.

EDIT: I have the 17 TSE and it is quite useful.