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!

One more A7r shutter question

cunim

Well-known member
Now this brings back memories. The A7r displays shutter-induced vibration like any similar camera. This issue is obvious if you are looking for it - but it would be with any other camera with an fp shutter. Given there is no mirror lockup, solution is not to look for it or use appropriate exposure discipline. Perfectly standard stuff.

The more serious problem is that the A7r also has a resonance mode that is easily excited. When it happens the results are bad enough to ruin those images. Mounting and FL have little to do with it - at least in my hands. For example, the gross vibration happens a lot with a Summicron 50 or 90 at exposures between about 1/10 and 2 x FL. Putting the camera on a massive studio stand vs a light carbon tripod makes no difference. Hand holding may even help. Worst case is mounting the camera to a rigid and light set of steel legs. That whole system can form a resonant circuit. The images are trash.

In contrast, the Sony FE55 is very well behaved. With that lens I have only seen normal fp shutter effects.
 

jonoslack

Active member
First, please let me turn the issue back to the original question: I was not asking whether the A7r was a better body for BW than MM. Please leave that aside; I only wanted to know how an A7r might be used optimally, especially with reference to exposure duration and shutter vibration.

Second, I should have said more about what I wanted to use it for, which is landscape photography with short focal-length lenses. (Examples, http://kirkthompson.visualserver.com/Portfolio.cfm?nK=17645
Great images Kirk - and I wouldn't have thought vibration would be an issue for any of those. Obviously it depends on what lenses you're using as well - the A7r doesn't play that well with some of the wider M mount lenses - especially if you want sharp corners (but I'm sure you know that).

I think this must be very personal - Hand Holding I found that I needed to use shutter speeds of twice the focal length to get sharp pictures (and I'm normally good for 1/2 focal length with a rangefinder), this is different from the shutter shock problem on a tripod and simply relates to the shutter shaking the camera during exposure.

Others seem to have no problem . . . really difficult to come to any kind of empirical conclusion on this one (maybe I have bonier hands, skinnier wrists than others? there are a million variables). It's pretty drab light a lot of the time here in the UK and I like to use longer focal length lenses a lot of the time - all that added up to trouble for me, but clearly not for Guy and lots of others; one person's old crap might be another persons dirty shoes ;).

I do agree with Vivek that there isn't anything quite like the MM files in Black and white - especially if you aren't planning to do a great deal of manipulation. Personally I'm really looking forward to the IBIS on the A7ii, but as Annna said - the A7s files convert nicely to black and white (as do the M240 files).

all the best
 

turtle

New member
Hi cunin, you say focal length has not had much do so with resonance/vibration in your use, so I assume you have noted issues with wide angles? I have not heard of this and consensus seems to suggest that under 50mm you are safe regardless (my own tests show this to be true, at least with my set up).

You also mention adapted lenses and I think this is a rather important issue. Native lenses seem to remove the potential for mount-adaptor-lens related issues. I have to say, however, that with two M adaptors and one Eos, I have not seen any issues with short focal lengths, once again. I was able to observe blur with 90mm adapted M lenses, but not 50mm.

Looking at the OP's images, I think the A7R will serve fine; however, the curve of A7R and MM files is different. The latter is a bit more organic and gentler, somehow (CCD roll-off in highlights?). The A7R files are a little more modern/technical looking. I have no other camera that produces files like the MM, but that does not mean they cannot produce beautiful files in their own right. I just find they take more work to do so.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
In a nutshell:

1) Tonal range from Bayer or non-bayer is identical assuming proper filtration and/or initial color balance -- this is a fact regardless of how many of you don't want it to be. There can be differences from the base chips, but a given chip will render the same tonal range with or without the Bayer matrix.

2) Sensor IR and UV filtration, or lack of it -- meaning presence of excessive IR or UV can alter the "appearance" of the tonal range from off the chip visible spectrum, but it does not alter the limits.

3) A Bayer matrix and interpolation introduces at most about a 30% "loss" of resolution over non-Bayer -- meaning a 36MP Bayer will render about the same resolution as a 25MP non-Bayer sensor.

4) Final output processing, especially careful local contrast adjustments (clarity), or systems with certain such parameters built-in to their on-board processing, can render a significant increase toward the "appearance" of more detail or more tonal range, but in the end it isn't adding any physical gain to either, only a perceived one.

I know my comments may shatter the beliefs of many adherents of certain brands or systems, but it is reality.
~~~

To the OP: If you like the way your A7 handles "casual color," you will like the way the A7r renders mono, as it will have superior resolution -- that is assuming you take the time to learn how to convert the files to your optimal taste preference.

Cheers,
 
V

Vivek

Guest
I know my comments may shatter the beliefs of many adherents of certain brands or systems, but it is reality.
No worries at all about your comments. :)

Since I am lucky enough to own both (MM and the A7r), I know when to use what. :)

Regardless of these hypothetical wranglings, "downstairs" has been quietly posting his MM outputs and medium format (Bayer) ones without getting into this very discussion. :)
 

jonoslack

Active member
In a nutshell:

1) Tonal range from Bayer or non-bayer is identical assuming proper filtration and/or initial color balance -- this is a fact regardless of how many of you don't want it to be. There can be differences from the base chips, but a given chip will render the same tonal range with or without the Bayer matrix.


I know my comments may shatter the beliefs of many adherents of certain brands or systems, but it is reality.
~~~


Cheers,
Beliefs are never shattered by facts Jack (that's the whole point of beliefs).

Actually, beliefs aside I'm not quite sure that it's as simple as you say in that the demosaicing program itself will have an effect on the tonal range, so that what you say may be a fact, but it's probably not the whole story (and it may vary from one converter to another).

On the other hand I'm not saying the MM files are in any way mystical. Personally I do most of my black and white with a conversion from colour because I like to be able to mix my channels.

All the best
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
And I should have added one significant caveat: It's all about how the final image looks to you ;) That said, *IF* I could still accurately focus an RF (sadly, I no longer can as well as I'd like) and *IF* I wanted to shoot dedicated mono (not quite there yet as I am happy with my current conversions and in-cam results from camp N), I'd own an MM, 50 Lux and 28 Cron and call it a day!
 
V

Vivek

Guest
And I should have added one significant caveat: It's all about how the final image looks to you ;) That said, *IF* I could still accurately focus an RF (sadly, I no longer can as well as I'd like) and *IF* I wanted to shoot dedicated mono (not quite there yet as I am happy with my current conversions and in-cam results from camp N), I'd own an MM, 50 Lux and 28 Cron and call it a day!
That is a shame, Jack (eye sight). :(

I still would like an A7 monochrome aka Leica MM with the microlenses for various applications. If that ever becomes a reality (or a rumored Samsung NX), these discussions for the Bayer will not hold water.

The fact is that there is only one affordable monochrome camera and that happens to be a Leica RF! :eek:
 

jonoslack

Active member
That said, *IF* I could still accurately focus an RF (sadly, I no longer can as well as I'd like)
That is a shame, Jack (eye sight). :(
This is an aside, but as an even older person I think that there are some solutions here: I've been using "mono vision" contact lenses for 15 years now (reading lens in my left eye and distance in my right ). It's been a splendid way of shooting a rangefinder without a dioptre adjustment, and I reckon I'm still spot on.

Sadly, at my last eye test a few weeks ago the optician said that I was in the first stages of developing a cataract in my right (rangefinder) eye. My first response was that would put paid to my rangefinder shooting. BUT NO! The specialist says he'll just swap my right lens for one that focuses properly at ten metres, which will be perfect for shooting with the rangefinder and better than my current real lens (which also has an astigmatism problem). Of course I can have reading glasses if necessary, or just carry on with one contact lens.

not suggesting it solves everyone's problem, but it seems pretty good to me.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
I also have reading glasses now and I will not disclose the results of the visual acuity test lest it brings back distant memories for some. Well, it is only a matter of time. :(
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Regarding adapters I recommend using a quality one. I believe it makes a difference. Many people use cheap ones (as in poor quality one) built with loose tolerances. I'd recommend only buying quality ones and to check that the lens focuses as it would on a native body. Theses of course much easier if you have a native body still. I use Voigtlander M-mount adapters but there are other decent ones as well that are less expensive. It's just what I have leftover from my NEX-5 days. I use Novoflex for my Contax Yashica lenses. Again there are less expensive ones that work well but I don't mind paying for piece of mind.
 

cunim

Well-known member
Hi cunin, you say focal length has not had much do so with resonance/vibration in your use, so I assume you have noted issues with wide angles? I have not heard of this and consensus seems to suggest that under 50mm you are safe regardless (my own tests show this to be true, at least with my set up).

You also mention adapted lenses and I think this is a rather important issue. Native lenses seem to remove the potential for mount-adaptor-lens related issues. I have to say, however, that with two M adaptors and one Eos, I have not seen any issues with short focal lengths, once again. I was able to observe blur with 90mm adapted M lenses, but not 50mm.
Sorry, Turtle, but I have very limited experience with wides. I use down to 40 mm on MF (leaf shutters), but have nothing wider than 50mm for the Sony. At 50mm I tried a Summicron R (Novoflex adapter) and the FE55. I also tried an old rigid Summicron but can't remember the result of that.

The Summicron R/Novoflex is subject to the resonance I spoke of. Much of the effect can be controlled by avoiding the sensitive exposure range, but sometimes it surprises you and blurs at faster and slower speeds than you expect. At its worst, the effect is grossly obvious. YMMV

I have never seen any serious vibration with the FE55. Pixel peeping stuff yes, but not the sort of blurred multiple image nastiness the Summicron 50R sometimes gave me. I just leave the 55 mounted most of the time. When I do switch to the 90 asph (love that lens on the A7r) I am careful to manage exposure.

Looking forward to a new A9 that leaves me a bit more room in the usable exposure range.
 

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
I have all the currently available FE lenses and only see the a7r vibration problem with the 70-200 - and then it is quite bad. My solution is to shoot manually with (typically) f5.6 and 1/250th and let the camera set the ISO.

I can't use the lens at a slower speed than 1/200th. I hope the a7r II will perform better with long lenses.
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
I have all the currently available FE lenses and only see the a7r vibration problem with the 70-200 - and then it is quite bad. My solution is to shoot manually with (typically) f5.6 and 1/250th and let the camera set the ISO.

I can't use the lens at a slower speed than 1/200th. I hope the a7r II will perform better with long lenses.

Thanks. That's my hope as well and I am willing to wait for some reviews before ordering it.
 

turtle

New member
I don't agree with Jack on the tonality issue. The MM's files do not suffer the same mealy halftone effect when heavily manipulated as you get with Bayer cameras and this is a component of tonality (as is the look of the 'grain'). As for the overall tonal scale, Ming Thein hit the nail on the head when comparing MM and D800 files and commented on this. Sure, lenses fit into the equation, but in many cases I prefer the MM files and cannot ever get the Bayer files to look the same. They just have a different tonal rendering.

I own A7 and A7R and I am always looking for a reason to get rid of my expensive Leica MM and lenses, but its not easy. The reason is the results. Its a combination of no Bayer, CCD and lenses. Seeing as you can't shoot a MM with Sony or Canon lenses on it, one has to consider the whole package.
 
Top