Eric T
Well-known
A big drawback to the Sony A7 or A7r is the very loud shutter. Reminds me of the Leica M8. I am astonished that a camera released in 2013 would have such a loud shutter.
A big drawback to the Sony A7 or A7r is the very loud shutter. Reminds me of the Leica M8. I am astonished that a camera released in 2013 would have such a loud shutter.
Quoting jsrockit:
"The 36 mp version scares me - my computer can handle the 24mp - but would probably crash and burn with the larger file size - and I don't really need it."
This is one of the recurring concern is so hard to understand for me
I am currently working with a composite file made of four scanned photos, one 6x9 and 3 35 mm with a old CS4 on a 2008 PC (32 bit) and the file is about 1 Gb. No problem at all. For back-up I use a Samsung 1 Tera minuscule drive that takes energy from the USB connection.
Because I am very old I wish I could by a 100 Mpix 7r now, I am afraid hat when it will come it could be too late for me
Cheers
Paolo
I think what you described is one of what they call "cognitive biases." It is part of the things that influence our reasoning.
Let's wait and see how many photojournalists run with the Sony--
I am reading about poor performance with wide angle lenses on the new SONY cameras. Has this been verified or refuted?
It would be a major deal breaker.
Results are trickling in. 28cron is apparently quite good.
cant that statement be generally true, but not for the two lenses you cite? why do two examples by themselves, even if true, disprove that statement?
That wasn't what everybody else saw when looking at the corners in Ron Scheffler's examples. The corners from the 28 cron were mush.
If you are referencing another link, please show it here. Thanks.
Are you reading the thread?
I am referencing another camera. Ron tested the A7 which has a different sensor and lacks the gapless offset design which the A7r features. We did not expect the plain A7 to be great with RF glass.
I guess because the cameras look so similar people think there's no difference. The price difference alone should be a be a clue.
oh wait I forgot: the sky is falling 😉
I am referencing another camera.
If you are referencing another link, please show it here. Thanks.
I think the point several are making is that the A7r has not been tested in any meaningful way?
The point was that uhoh7 said in post #96 of this thread that the 28/2 Summicron Asph M "is apparently quite good". Although I have read through commentary and reviews, including both the linked Brian Smith test and the Ron Scheffler test, I cannot remember anybody else but Ron's test that specifically mentions the 28 'cron (and which shows the results to be quite mushy in the corners). Hence I politely asked for a link to that. Even though I sold my 28 cron some time ago, I am always eager to see how a lens that I know intimately performs on a new camera. Yet up to now, there has been some pouting and some chest-beating, but unfortunately no link that supports uhoh7's earlier assertion in post #96 of this thread about the cron 28. (My guess is that uhoh7 has mistaken the Leica 24/2.8 that was used by Brian Smith *on the A7r* for the 28/2 cron which was used on the A7 by Ron Scheffler. The mistake isn't a big deal, providing it doesn't become another internet myth, and uhoh7 should calm down).
Yes, it does appear that the A7r has not yet been tested in a meaningful way, and the differences between the A7 and the A7r are big enough to warrant careful distinction between the two.
It should be interesting, eh?!