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!
Whats wrong with the A7/R?
- Thread starter devtank
- Start date
Bill_Green
Member
Hi devtank, welcome to GetDPI.
My guess is that the A7r was the latest greatest medium format killer. Eventually people realized the size is both good and bad, the image quality is very good for 35 mm, but still 35 mm. You can adapt almost any lens to this camera, but there are not a lot of native lenses for it. Battery life is short. Autofocus is slow. Your average Metz or Sony flash is bigger than the camera and unbalances it so you really need the $300 vertical grip and then the camera isn't small anymore. The shutter is relatively loud and according to Digilloyd has so much vibration it is impossible to take a sharp picture.
I think that covers it. Same reason you saw a bunch of D800s for sale not too long after it arrived. People bought one expecting it to be the greatest thing ever, only to be disappointed by the reality that it was nothing more than a very good 35 mm camera with a fair number of flaws. So too is the A7r. If you are looking for a small 35 mm camera with very good image quality (providing good technique) at a reasonable cost, it is worth a look. If you are expecting it to replace a medium format camera, unless you are just looking to pixel peep, you will probably be disappointed. It's just a tool.
My guess is that the A7r was the latest greatest medium format killer. Eventually people realized the size is both good and bad, the image quality is very good for 35 mm, but still 35 mm. You can adapt almost any lens to this camera, but there are not a lot of native lenses for it. Battery life is short. Autofocus is slow. Your average Metz or Sony flash is bigger than the camera and unbalances it so you really need the $300 vertical grip and then the camera isn't small anymore. The shutter is relatively loud and according to Digilloyd has so much vibration it is impossible to take a sharp picture.
I think that covers it. Same reason you saw a bunch of D800s for sale not too long after it arrived. People bought one expecting it to be the greatest thing ever, only to be disappointed by the reality that it was nothing more than a very good 35 mm camera with a fair number of flaws. So too is the A7r. If you are looking for a small 35 mm camera with very good image quality (providing good technique) at a reasonable cost, it is worth a look. If you are expecting it to replace a medium format camera, unless you are just looking to pixel peep, you will probably be disappointed. It's just a tool.
iiiNelson
Well-known member
Nothing wrong with it at all. It's not everyone's cup of tea but it's normal for early adopters and GAS violators to jump in an out of systems. The same thing happened with the Fuji XT-1, Olympus OMD EM-1, Nikon D800, etc. As for being able to take sharp pictures well Digiloyd is full of crap. There are plenty of sharp images in the Fun with A7/A7r thread so it's possible. It's not the perfect camera for all but it's my favorite camera since the Leica M9 and a technical improvement in many assets.
As for a MF replacement - no it's not. It does narrow the gap for MOST though when you figure most people are looking at cropped sensor MF in the sense you can print to similar sizes. It can't reproduce the smoother tonal transitions and there's no replacement for larger sensor sizes. If you are going for $50K+ FF MF systems then yeah you probably aren't looking for compromises.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
I'm glad someone said it as I can't and you know what I'm talking about
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Be surprised
devtank
New member
I haven't seen half as many X-T1's on the used market as I have of the A7/r, nowhere near it.
A7's are selling for 2/3 their retail price body only, and the X-T1 is selling for a margin less than retail.. which speaks to me on some level of people dumping them faster than fury.
I wonder is it because its a completely new departure for Sony and that when I compare it to the X-T1 for instance, its routed in an already established system with with reasonable expectations are demanded....?
Id really like to hear from everybody who bought an A7/r who sold it and find out what the under lying reason was for their extraction from that camera.
A7's are selling for 2/3 their retail price body only, and the X-T1 is selling for a margin less than retail.. which speaks to me on some level of people dumping them faster than fury.
I wonder is it because its a completely new departure for Sony and that when I compare it to the X-T1 for instance, its routed in an already established system with with reasonable expectations are demanded....?
Id really like to hear from everybody who bought an A7/r who sold it and find out what the under lying reason was for their extraction from that camera.
ken_vs_ryu
Member
I haven't seen a pentax k01 for sale, must be the best camera made.
iiiNelson
Well-known member
Probably don't have nearly as many people buying XT1's as A7 variants either. Most people who bought them on this board were already pretty entrenched in the Fuji system so they usually knew what they were getting into.
Plenty of people bought into the Sony FE system as a "35mm Digital Back." Many of those people were looking for a cheaper Leica M alternative which it can work as depending on your lens collection. One thing it highlighted for me was how imperfect some of that "perfect" Leica M glass actually is without plenty of engineering and custom lens profiles. Some of it works very well and I'd argue some works as well if not better than it does on M bodies.
For those that bought it for a high resolution solution for SLR lenses - it's probably the best solution there is without going native. I have large hands but I don't find the grip to be too large. I also shoot my M with a half case with built in grip though so I like the enhanced ergonomics for security.
I would say the discounts have nothing to do with quality of the camera. It has more to do with manufacturers rebates. You could get a factory new A7/r for $1200-1800 a couple months ago.
I own both cameras and I promise there's no conspiracy but I won't say it's the camera for everyone. Try both and keep/ buy the one you like. Simple as that.
iiiNelson
Well-known member
No problem I just am tired of people spreading anecdotal misinformation as fact and general disdain for a product they claim to not have interest in due to Sony being a consumer electronics company or whatever reason.
I shoot with native and adapted lenses up to 180/2.8 handheld every week for church with both A7 and A7r. Yes I occasionally get a shot with the 180 that isn't super sharp (though everything 135 and under is butter smooth) but it's usually me and my hands moving too much. Shooting longer lenses isn't unlike long distance rifle shooting. Steady controlled breathing leads to steady controlled hands.
Last edited:
thompsonkirk
Member
One factor is the initial misconception that A7/r would be great hi-ISO bodies for
M lenses. It was discouraging to see how few in the 'normal' 28-50 range would cover the corners adequately. At that point I almost sold mine. I suppose quite a few others did.
The irony, as I see it, is that these turn out to be the bodies that 'save' R lenses, instead. (And C/Y Zeiss.)
M lenses. It was discouraging to see how few in the 'normal' 28-50 range would cover the corners adequately. At that point I almost sold mine. I suppose quite a few others did.
The irony, as I see it, is that these turn out to be the bodies that 'save' R lenses, instead. (And C/Y Zeiss.)
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Exactly and many other old lenses sitting in cupboards. Lol
I bought the A7r used about 3 months back, and I chatted with the seller for about an hour as I was testing it out. He told me the camera was not giving him the IQ he expected for that kind of money. I looked at all his photos since his card was still in the camera, and they were all snap shots of his family and vacation stuff. There were mis-focused action shots that the A7r would have difficulty with. There were boring compositions, that could have been shot with an IPhone. This seller clearly did not understand the strengths and weaknesses of the A7r. That's why he was selling it. My guess is there are many more just like him. I do understand the strengths and weakness of the A7r, which is why I am a very happy buyer.
iiiNelson
Well-known member
Again... Depended 100% on what M lenses you owned. The WATE is fine on both A7 bodies. The 24 Elmar is fine on the A7 but not the A7r. The 21 Lux and 21 Ultron are fine on both bodies. The 35 Nokton II is excellent on both. The 50 Cron and 50 Planar are excellent on both. The 50 Lux is decent for portraits. The 50 Noctilux is excellent on both. I haven't heard of any reported issues with 75 and longer in the M mount. The 90 Cron Pre-AA is excellent for sure though.
The fact remains plenty of "reviewers" out there and some enthusiast put the rumors our there before they got their hands on the A7/r. It was a discredit to their reputations respectively.
I personally bought several Zeiss Contax Yashica lenses for consistent Zeiss look in my pictures. I still own native FE lenses though and can afford to keep the system smaller with the slower zoom lenses because I have fast primes to adapt when need be.
devtank
New member
Thanks for the input, I appreciate the discourse. HiredArm, do you happen to have any images out there with the A7R and that 21 Ultron? Id like to see some images taken with the 35/1.4 Nokton also, if anyone has this combination.
Im 'vocational' documentary maker, which means that if I cant get funding to do a project Ill sell everything and do it anyway, thats what happened a few years back. I had all the nice Leica's and Zeiss's and one day everything changed and i downsized to two X-Pro1's and lenses, and an EOS-M for video (dont let them tell you its crap), the real money is all in the audio gear, but Audio gear is like snake-oil, so there are no forums out there where you get people who have the good gear to actually talk to you about it, so you just have to listen your way through your pocket-book until you find a level thats right for the job- which is usually more than all your photo gear put together.
Stills, I'm very happy with the robustness of the XTrans sensor, I dont think theres much else out there that can beat it, and I originally got into it with premium Leica optics, but I think those Fuji lenses just mechanically out-performed for my purposes and the optical quality doesn't really matter if your client is happy with the results.
Now I see that there are these SpeedBoosters out there that bring me back my FF look in a crop sensor AND do the other impossible thing and make my lenses faster.. Yeah really who'da thunk 4 years ago that was even possible.. Im out of the game on those, and I want in. So Im looking seriously at Sony E mount camera's its only a matter of time before Sony compete with a prosumer GH4, and I like this new A6000 with some choice optics, its a hell of a deal and if you go native you get fast AF & 11fps??? Mind boggling considering the next best thing is an Eos-1Dx.
HOWEVER, that A7R in tests has been utterly blowing my mind in terms of sheer resolution. Thats a very real potential income generator right there. I like the build and design, its made for practical use. Im just not sure Im seeing enough video from it to convince me that this is the right way for me to go. Its not perfect for video, and the A7S hasn't arrived yet, and we have no price for it either, and it not going to resolve like an R anyway, which is 50% of the deal for me.
Sorry if this is going off track, but its where Im at, and I trust your opinions.
Im 'vocational' documentary maker, which means that if I cant get funding to do a project Ill sell everything and do it anyway, thats what happened a few years back. I had all the nice Leica's and Zeiss's and one day everything changed and i downsized to two X-Pro1's and lenses, and an EOS-M for video (dont let them tell you its crap), the real money is all in the audio gear, but Audio gear is like snake-oil, so there are no forums out there where you get people who have the good gear to actually talk to you about it, so you just have to listen your way through your pocket-book until you find a level thats right for the job- which is usually more than all your photo gear put together.
Stills, I'm very happy with the robustness of the XTrans sensor, I dont think theres much else out there that can beat it, and I originally got into it with premium Leica optics, but I think those Fuji lenses just mechanically out-performed for my purposes and the optical quality doesn't really matter if your client is happy with the results.
Now I see that there are these SpeedBoosters out there that bring me back my FF look in a crop sensor AND do the other impossible thing and make my lenses faster.. Yeah really who'da thunk 4 years ago that was even possible.. Im out of the game on those, and I want in. So Im looking seriously at Sony E mount camera's its only a matter of time before Sony compete with a prosumer GH4, and I like this new A6000 with some choice optics, its a hell of a deal and if you go native you get fast AF & 11fps??? Mind boggling considering the next best thing is an Eos-1Dx.
HOWEVER, that A7R in tests has been utterly blowing my mind in terms of sheer resolution. Thats a very real potential income generator right there. I like the build and design, its made for practical use. Im just not sure Im seeing enough video from it to convince me that this is the right way for me to go. Its not perfect for video, and the A7S hasn't arrived yet, and we have no price for it either, and it not going to resolve like an R anyway, which is 50% of the deal for me.
Sorry if this is going off track, but its where Im at, and I trust your opinions.
iiiNelson
Well-known member
I have the 35/1.2 Nokton II. I'm sure I do have some shots with the 21/1.8 Ultron somewhere but I can take a couple if not this weekend.
As far as the rest I hope I didn't come off brash. That wasn't my intent. The A7 and the A7r are both excellent cameras but different. the strength of the A7r is obviously sheer resolution. Nothing else in 35mm (or crop sensors) can touch it in pure IQ save the D800 series or the M Monochrom which exceeds it for black and white photos. The A7 is the jack of all trades and master of none camera. Most lenses will adapt better to it whether it's because of the weak AA filter it uses, the increased resolution of the less forgiving A7r, or the sensor design of the A7r I can't say scientifically. All I know is that it gives fewer complaints about adapting lenses.
Truth be told nothing wrong with any of the cameras you mentioned. They are great in their own right. My internal debate was between the Olympus OM-D and the rumored A7 before the spec sheet was released. I bought the A7 and A7r though on the first day I could and haven't looked back.
As far as the rest I hope I didn't come off brash. That wasn't my intent. The A7 and the A7r are both excellent cameras but different. the strength of the A7r is obviously sheer resolution. Nothing else in 35mm (or crop sensors) can touch it in pure IQ save the D800 series or the M Monochrom which exceeds it for black and white photos. The A7 is the jack of all trades and master of none camera. Most lenses will adapt better to it whether it's because of the weak AA filter it uses, the increased resolution of the less forgiving A7r, or the sensor design of the A7r I can't say scientifically. All I know is that it gives fewer complaints about adapting lenses.
Truth be told nothing wrong with any of the cameras you mentioned. They are great in their own right. My internal debate was between the Olympus OM-D and the rumored A7 before the spec sheet was released. I bought the A7 and A7r though on the first day I could and haven't looked back.
It is probably not for you - if you really like the Fujis and have no fewer than four candidates in mind.
The a7r holds up the mirror to: your shooting technique, your understanding of lenses, your preference for 'imaging over touch' - as Mel Snyder so eloquently put it.
A lot of people don't like what the mirror reveals - that's OK - quality never had much to do with the court of public opinion. It's not a hard camera to use - in fact it's a delight, but it is a connoisseur's camera - for people who don't mind what corkscrew they use to open the 30-year-old championship wine.
It's the results that count..and 10,000 a7r bodies on the used market won't reduce the quality of output one iota. Won't bother Sony either - they sold the bodies and the next guys will reap the rewards.
PS shutter shock - when I see fine detail in small objects 5 kms away in handheld shots, I smile wryly at that claim. Try before you buy!
The a7r holds up the mirror to: your shooting technique, your understanding of lenses, your preference for 'imaging over touch' - as Mel Snyder so eloquently put it.
A lot of people don't like what the mirror reveals - that's OK - quality never had much to do with the court of public opinion. It's not a hard camera to use - in fact it's a delight, but it is a connoisseur's camera - for people who don't mind what corkscrew they use to open the 30-year-old championship wine.
It's the results that count..and 10,000 a7r bodies on the used market won't reduce the quality of output one iota. Won't bother Sony either - they sold the bodies and the next guys will reap the rewards.
PS shutter shock - when I see fine detail in small objects 5 kms away in handheld shots, I smile wryly at that claim. Try before you buy!
The XT1 is still backordered in some markets. Just wait until demand and supply are back in balance. The A7(r) have been out there for some time now. Ever tried to sell X Pro1? I think I`ll donate mine to an art student and hope he will accept it.
I'm a bit of an agnostic regarding the Sony A7R I own. It is like any other photographic tool, with its' own set of strengths and weaknesses.
I think this Sony differs from the Nikon D800 in one key regard: Sony is seen more as a pro-sumer or consumer camera company (a market position they are currently striving to adjust upward). As such, many who bought an A7R may not apply the discipline required to make the most of it. On the other hand, I firmly believe that a greater percentage who bought the Nikon D800/E knew exactly what they were getting into … and even Nikon was forthcoming as to which of their lenses would perform best, and which would not.
Also there was an initial rush to the Sony by M mount lens owners, then the crash of disappointment because all of their lenses didn't work well. Some are stellar, some suck. Then there are those who adapted longer lenses using different adapters that in combination revealed the effects of the shutter shock, some solved it by adding the grip, other didn't have the issue, and yet others were disappointed and bailed. So, it is very specific to how the camera is being used.
As a long time MFD user, I grasp what such a densely packed 35mm sensor @ 36 meg means … it means apply the same discipline as a MFD to realize the best results. If I shoot off-the-cuff candid work, hand-held in crappy light then my "pixel peeping" expectation are lowered.
I have 3 native FE AF lenses, 7 ZA AF lenses used with the Sony LEAE-4 adapter, and 4 Leica M lenses that are all wonderful on my A7R.
The shutter is too noisy, and there is some lag in viewing … IMO, neither of which has proven to be the issue it is proclaimed to be by those who need to "fault-find" to get the blog-sphere attention they require, or for some other ulterior motive.
It is what it is.
All I can say, is that it doesn't do everything well, but what it does do well, it does VERY well.
- Marc
I think this Sony differs from the Nikon D800 in one key regard: Sony is seen more as a pro-sumer or consumer camera company (a market position they are currently striving to adjust upward). As such, many who bought an A7R may not apply the discipline required to make the most of it. On the other hand, I firmly believe that a greater percentage who bought the Nikon D800/E knew exactly what they were getting into … and even Nikon was forthcoming as to which of their lenses would perform best, and which would not.
Also there was an initial rush to the Sony by M mount lens owners, then the crash of disappointment because all of their lenses didn't work well. Some are stellar, some suck. Then there are those who adapted longer lenses using different adapters that in combination revealed the effects of the shutter shock, some solved it by adding the grip, other didn't have the issue, and yet others were disappointed and bailed. So, it is very specific to how the camera is being used.
As a long time MFD user, I grasp what such a densely packed 35mm sensor @ 36 meg means … it means apply the same discipline as a MFD to realize the best results. If I shoot off-the-cuff candid work, hand-held in crappy light then my "pixel peeping" expectation are lowered.
I have 3 native FE AF lenses, 7 ZA AF lenses used with the Sony LEAE-4 adapter, and 4 Leica M lenses that are all wonderful on my A7R.
The shutter is too noisy, and there is some lag in viewing … IMO, neither of which has proven to be the issue it is proclaimed to be by those who need to "fault-find" to get the blog-sphere attention they require, or for some other ulterior motive.
It is what it is.
All I can say, is that it doesn't do everything well, but what it does do well, it does VERY well.
- Marc
devtank
New member
Ive tested everything, and the OMD-EM1, though lovely build quality and very responsive, the floppy sensor would be a definite problem while inert and in vibration zones like helicopters and the backs of trucks, I have some camera technician background and that old paranoia surfacing. Also, I really did not like the IQ from it. I was quite disappointed in it, though, its the only M4/3 sensor Ive looked at seriously, the GH4 sucks for stills and excels for video, so I didnt test it any further.