A7r with RF glass

victor, youre 'too lazy for dslrs' and i,m too lazy for gobs of PP! ): we've all seen pretty stunning results with the X series of cams just with ooc jpegs. look, i want this to be great, i want FF with my 35biogon. but many of these photos have no 'pop', no 'super clarity' that one would expect from a 36mp FF. i mean thats part of 'testing' isnt it? again, i hope i'm wrong, but these shots leave me cold.
 
I am not convinced the A7R can be my "go to" camera, and I am on the fence about whether or not is is even a worthwhile complement to my D700, NEX6 and my ZI's.

It seems to me -- and this is ***ONLY*** about MY NEEDS -- that there are 3 advantages to the A7R: 1) 36MP for LARGE prints on my walls, 2) RF glass on fullframe sensor without the price associated with the Leica and 3) smaller than a DSLR.

At this point, I am starting to consider getting a D800 for large prints, which allows me to utilize that wonderful Nikon CLS for my strobist needs (primarily macro) and allows me to use Nikon's super tele glass for birding and other applications. The D800 gives me 36MP, and while it does not solve #2 and #3 above, my current gear may have to suffice.

So, I am not ruling it out, but I am not yet convinced that the A7R is for me.
 
uhoh7 said:
Elmarit 90 f/4
.....
Click to expand...

I had a good laugh when I read the description for your linked image:

Sony A7R, Leica Elmarit M 2,8/90. Very first shots with A7r, out of the shop with a battery with only about 20%. To be honest I had difficulties to get sharpness because without manual I couldn´t find the focus aids, thus perhaps I am able to improve tomorrow. This one with f4
Click to expand...

:p
 
rbelyell said:
victor, youre 'too lazy for dslrs' and i,m too lazy for gobs of PP! ): we've all seen pretty stunning results with the X series of cams just with ooc jpegs. look, i want this to be great, i want FF with my 35biogon. but many of these photos have no 'pop', no 'super clarity' that one would expect from a 36mp FF. i mean thats part of 'testing' isnt it? again, i hope i'm wrong, but these shots leave me cold.
Click to expand...


I have an X-e1, and I'll agree that the Fuji Jpeg engine is quite extraordinary, but when I look at the Fuji raw files I am always disappointed. The finest details are just missing...I used to believe that this was because of ACR, now I lean towards thinking that this is simply a result of the X-trans design. My NEX-7 and NEX-6, despite their AA filters, manages to produce raw files with greater detail. The pop you perceive may result from amazing AWB or Fuji's discreet noise suppression, both aspects Sony fail to deliver.

I'll also say that "POP" is a factor of many aspects of a photo - If I'm only shooting a plaster wall any camera is pretty much the same. I don't see many "interesting" photos in this thread, but judging from the dpreview sample the A7r is right up there with the D800E in terms of 135 format performance.
 
tom.w.bn said:
I wasn't content with the Fuji raws in combination with LR4. Tested Photo Ninja and it's much better in the details. But then I tested LR5 and it seems they fixed some problems with the Fuji details. Got the upgrade to LR5 instead of Photo Ninja, the upgrade was even cheaper.
Click to expand...

I have LR5 with the latest ACR. Finest detail is still subpar compared to the NEX-6, which uses the same basic sensor electronics. That is why I came to conclusion that there is inherent detail loss with non-bayer filters, since that is the only difference between the two sensors.
 
YYV_146 said:
I have an X-e1, and I'll agree that the Fuji Jpeg engine is quite extraordinary, but when I look at the Fuji raw files I am always disappointed. The finest details are just missing...I used to believe that this was because of ACR, now I lean towards thinking that this is simply a result of the X-trans design. My NEX-7 and NEX-6, despite their AA filters, manages to produce raw files with greater detail. The pop you perceive may result from amazing AWB or Fuji's discreet noise suppression, both aspects Sony fail to deliver.

I'll also say that "POP" is a factor of many aspects of a photo - If I'm only shooting a plaster wall any camera is pretty much the same. I don't see many "interesting" photos in this thread, but judging from the dpreview sample the A7r is right up there with the D800E in terms of 135 format performance.
Click to expand...

I haven't used any NEX body, but the output from my X-pro 1 was good enough in controlled tests against my M9 that I sold the Leica. So maybe I need to try this A7r.
 
gdi said:
I haven't used any NEX body, but the output from my X-pro 1 was good enough in controlled tests against my M9 that I sold the Leica. So maybe I need to try this A7r.
Click to expand...

If it's anything like the D800E you can expect to be amazed. I never realized 135 format could deliver such output before I tried one - The files were so much more malleable and detailed than anything I've seen that's not digital medium format.
 
Here willie is remarking about my claim that the A7r was incredible stopped down:

willie_901 said:
Apparently the A7s are so good the laws of physics no longer apply. It seems the A7s are the first devices in history that contradict quantum mechanics. SONY's engineers deserve a Nobel Prize as scientists have been trying to find experimental evidence that is inconsistent with QM for about 90 years.
Click to expand...

Tonite I stumbled into this:

Forgive google trans from Japanese, these are lead designers of the camera. Apparently, I'm not a blind fan boy ;) :

"Diffraction blurring reduction function is whether the effect of how much?
- So, please tell me the features of picture making.

Hotokesaki: image processing engine will change to "BIONZ X", there was the evolution of the three. The first is the "detail reproduction technology". who ever felt image is look unnatural by contour is emphasized in digital photography might also ever been, but to raise the texture in the natural depiction while maintaining the sense of resolution this time .

　The second is the reduction of diffraction by the aperture. I think you refine, such as landscape photography, had been concerned about the fact that sharpness is lost also come. This time, we have to reduce the diffraction blur by multiplying the optimal filter in accordance with the aperture value.

　The third, coupled with detail reproduction technology, noise reduction is divided into areas that traditionally has improved both in terms of noise and detail.


Hotokesaki Jian, who was in charge of quality design.
- The detail reproduction technology do you have what kind of processing in particular?

Hotokesaki: I had that line, such as the border is attached to the edge of a simple edge enhancement of the past, the process has put a mechanism in the shallow, to restore the detail in a process different this time.

- That's called "process was different" Would whatever they?

Hotokesaki: I can not answer this for more information, but I give contrast local processing sharpness and adaptive processing in accordance with the subject.

- The diffraction reduction process followed, but the process of claiming the same effect in each company has begun to be adopted today. Do you have realized in any processing Sony?

Hotokesaki: calculates the filter in reverse to return the diffraction blur from the data of the lens, it has been applied to the image.

- The data of the lens, or would you use the data of design time or do you keep measuring individual lens in advance?

Hotokesaki: Based on the design data, we have optimized to confirm the influence.

- Of that data for correction do you are in the better of the lens.

: Hotokesaki please refrain more about it too.

- Does this also supports any lens?

: Hotokesaki you have any effect in any lens. I also supports A-mount lenses.

- If you want to get a deep depth of field, what all right in understanding that all right, narrow down any number of do not care about the diffraction blurring?

: Hotokesaki does not mean that any number. For example, in the case of lens best, at the same image quality as much the F5.6 to F8, F5.6 has kept a decent quality even F11. However, you will see the influence of diffraction slightly and squeeze until F16.

- If you do so, what all right even squeeze in extra is about two-stage from the F value of the diffraction blur acceptable yourself?

: Hotokesaki Yes. I think because there is a place by the pixel size of the sensor and the characteristics of the lens of what stage improvement numbers, it is good when I have to understand the degree to "image quality degradation is a concern squeeze" as there was prior art to be improved."

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/interview/20131122_623858.html

Translation: they spent alot of time and energy to improve diffracted images. First I've heard of this.
 
Duane Pandorf said:
Leica M-E, Leica Summilux-M 35mm FLE shot at f/1.4 ISO 640 1/30s DNG converted to JPG in LR 5.3. Auto WB. Nothing else was done to this image. No Cornerfix, no vignette removal.

So you decide how much work you're willing to do in post process to get the most from your Leica glass. If shooting stopped down at f5.6 is good enough for you with a $5,000 lens that's been designed to shoot at all of its aperture settings then go for it.
Click to expand...

Seems some lenses play better on the A7R than others. Some leica lenses seem to work pretty good wide open with minimal vignetting, where as other have to be stopped down to f4.0-5.6 to get clean results. Anyone posting a list of lenses that combine well?
 
hunz said:
Seems some lenses play better on the A7R than others. Some leica lenses seem to work pretty good wide open with minimal vignetting, where as other have to be stopped down to f4.0-5.6 to get clean results. Anyone posting a list of lenses that combine well?
Click to expand...

What's your definition of plays "well"?
 
tom.w.bn said:
Don't know a Nex but with LR5 I have the impression that there is no difference between the raw and jpg files regarding details for the X-E1.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I don't know if I could tell the difference in detail between the Raw and Jpgs from the XP1. When I was testing with the M9 the X-Trans processing situation was still up in the air and I had to try several convertors. But the detail looked as good as the Leica to me when comparing all except the really wide angles. It looks like this may be the situation with the A7r, but it seems there would be little reason not to consider it for 35mm on up.
 
At least now you understand the narrow aperture images are inherently flawed to the point where modeling methods must be applied.

This situation is no different than any other post-acqusition modeling that estimates correction parameters for vignetting, color shifts and chromatic aberrations. So bragging about how great your results are is the same saying a any given lens or sensor is great because the JPEGs show no chromatic aberration or vignetting. In the end you are happy with the images and you didn't need to spend more money (or were able to use your favorite brand) to achieve this result. This is common.

Using model-based algorithms to minimize diffraction effects is well-known. And SONY isn't alone in remediating diffraction effects post-acqusition. You can even use Photoshop techniques to do increase edge acuity and micro-contrast when rendering raw files. Helicon software supposedly has similar abilities.

Perceived decrease in IQ at narrow apertures is due a loss of resolution as well as a reduction in micro-contrast. The entire image is affected by diffraction in order to reduce edge smearing caused by optics that are incompatible with this sensor technology. Then the contrast and edge acuity is recovered based on parameters derived from the physics governing diffraction. Now the optic-sensor mismatch is acceptable. Given the native SONY lens line up, this is great for people who like to re-purpose lenses. When SONY gets around to marketing their own lenses, their cost will be lowered; just like every other brand.

SONY (and other brands) have really no choice because diffraction losses increase as the pixel density increases. Diffraction losses with a 36 MP sensor occur about two stops sooner than a 24 MP sensor (with the same surface area, pixel design and clot filter array).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom