Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: A7 vs other mirrorless options - quality/variety of lenses a real issue?  (Read 4536 times)
Chris L
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83


« Reply #40 on: December 06, 2013, 02:45:07 PM »
ReplyReply

sorry as this is a bit off topic;i want to use my voigtlander Ultron pancake EF mount 40mm lens on the new sony a7r, but looks like the adaptors are around $400. I really only use one lens so I maybe should just get an E mount 50mm or near. All the options for that look pretty big, is there a small E mount pancake lens out there? Or any more affordable EF to E lens mount adaptors?
Logged
Johnny_Johnson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 112


« Reply #41 on: December 06, 2013, 03:51:34 PM »
ReplyReply

sorry as this is a bit off topic;i want to use my voigtlander Ultron pancake EF mount 40mm lens on the new sony a7r, but looks like the adaptors are around $400. I really only use one lens so I maybe should just get an E mount 50mm or near. All the options for that look pretty big, is there a small E mount pancake lens out there? Or any more affordable EF to E lens mount adaptors?

Yeah, there are some $15-20 adapters out there since you won't need any electronic communications with a Voigtlander lens. Check eBay.

Later,
Johnny
Logged

------------------
Johnny Johnson
Cleveland, GA
Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 646



« Reply #42 on: December 06, 2013, 04:14:59 PM »
ReplyReply

There are lotsa different lens adapters around...have a look on eBay for some less expensive options. Buyer beware, of course. I use mostly Novoflexes but that's 'cuz I have a long history of high satisfaction with their products.

Re. the shallow DOF thing...I treat it as a strawman argument when it comes from online advocates but take it seriously coming from folks who use DOF creatively. (My friend Jeanne named the attached photo "Quantum Tunnel." I took it with a Panasonic GX7 & Zeiss 85/1.4 + Metabones SpeedBooster.) There's no question that subject isolation/separation is easier to achieve with larger formats than smaller ones. For some people this is more relevant than for others. This all oughtta be blatantly obvious by now...

-Dave-
Logged
Chris L
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83


« Reply #43 on: December 06, 2013, 04:58:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Yeah, there are some $15-20 adapters out there since you won't need any electronic communications with a Voigtlander lens. Check eBay.

Later,
Johnny

Actually the voigtlander does need electronics for the aperture and focus confirmation. Any ideas of cheap electronic ones?
Logged
Johnny_Johnson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 112


« Reply #44 on: December 06, 2013, 05:22:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Actually the voigtlander does need electronics for the aperture and focus confirmation. Any ideas of cheap electronic ones?

Oops, sorry about that. Nope, no ideas.

Later,
Johnny
Logged

------------------
Johnny Johnson
Cleveland, GA
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6897


WWW
« Reply #45 on: December 07, 2013, 01:46:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I really would like a small kit for easy travel. I could do well with an A7/A7r and a 24-70/4. The problem comes that I need a 70-400/4-5.6 lens, too. Those lenses don't come in small and lightweight packages. I guess an argument for 4/3?

Best regards
Erik

Dave,

I agree with you most of the time and yes there is a place for all formats, but comparing a m43 to a full frame camera with virtually the same features for virtually the same costs (except lenses of course) is hard to justify.

Wouldn't you love to see your older full frame 35mm lenses on a full frame sensor rather than cropped down to 1/2?

IMO

BC
Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5069


« Reply #46 on: December 07, 2013, 08:25:22 AM »
ReplyReply

... I need a 70-400/4-5.6 lens, too. Those lenses don't come in small and lightweight packages. I guess an argument for 4/3?
As an enthusiast for photographing distant and/or small objects, that "argument for 4/3 has worked for me -- but it is at heart an argument for high sensor resolution (high l/mm, small pixels) even if cropping is required, and for some people, the compromise could be something like the 4 micron pixel pitch of a 24MP NEX body.

I am skeptical about two other options often proposed, if the object is a relatively small, lightweight travel kit with substantial telephoto reach:

1. "Carry two camera bodies that use the same lenses; one 'full frame', one 'APS-C'.
Not my idea of compact!

2. "Soon enough, sensors in 36x24mm will offer the same pixel pitch as those in 'APS-C' or even 4/3, and the lenses will be sharp enough for these extreme pixel counts in the central part used to crop for telephoto reach".
I have read this idea many times over the last decade, but during that time the trend has instead been somewhat the opposite: the ratio of pixel counts between the different DSLR formats has reduced, so the ratio of pixel sizes has increased, and thus the ratio of focal lengths needed to get equal pixel count of the same distant subject has increased. That is, the "smaller telephoto lens" advantage of smaller format systems has increased somewhat.

The main strength of a compact camera with a large sensor is, as Erik and others indicate, when working at roughly "normal" FOV choices, like with the FOV options covered by a standard zoom lens.
Logged
Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 646



« Reply #47 on: December 07, 2013, 01:20:02 PM »
ReplyReply

I really would like a small kit for easy travel. I could do well with an A7/A7r and a 24-70/4. The problem comes that I need a 70-400/4-5.6 lens, too. Those lenses don't come in small and lightweight packages. I guess an argument for 4/3?

Panasonic makes a compact & light 45200/4.55.6 for m43 that would fit the bill. Optical performance is in the meh (wide open) to decent (f/811) range. Olympus' 50200mm is truly excellent but also larger & heavier. I'd travel with the Panasonic unless taking long-reach pics were the reason for the trip.

It's a dilemma. High quality long-reach lenses are neither compact nor light. For most of my pic-taking life I've stayed away from the long stuff, either out of necessity (with rangefinder cameras, discounting the Visoflex rabbit hole) or by choice. When I did go through a bout of "long lens fever" with the coming of D-SLRs I ended up doing a number nerve-wise on my neck/right shoulder/arm. Anyway, I see the A7(r) as best-suited to the 35mm-format focal length range I've mostly prefered...and if I'm honest where I see best: 200mm tops, with a 1.4x TC on hand just in case. This is in line, I think, with what BJL is saying.

A question for folks who have an A7 or A7r: does the camera offer aspect ratios other than 3:2 and 16:9? (It should since this is trivial to implement with an EVF.) Even though I've used 3:2 for most of my pic-taking I really do prefer 4:3 or even 5:4.

-Dave-
« Last Edit: December 07, 2013, 01:32:19 PM by Telecaster » Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 989


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #48 on: December 07, 2013, 01:54:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Panasonic makes a compact & light 45200/4.55.6 for m43 that would fit the bill. Optical performance is in the meh (wide open) to decent (f/811) range. Olympus' 50200mm is truly excellent but also larger & heavier. I'd travel with the Panasonic unless taking long-reach pics were the reason for the trip.

It's a dilemma. High quality long-reach lenses are neither compact nor light. For most of my pic-taking life I've stayed away from the long stuff, either out of necessity (with rangefinder cameras, discounting the Visoflex rabbit hole) or by choice. When I did go through a bout of "long lens fever" with the coming of D-SLRs I ended up doing a number nerve-wise on my neck/right shoulder/arm. Anyway, I see the A7(r) as best-suited to the 35mm-format focal length range I've mostly prefered...and if I'm honest where I see best: 200mm tops, with a 1.4x TC on hand just in case. This is in line, I think, with what BJL is saying.

A question for folks who have an A7 or A7r: does the camera offer aspect ratios other than 3:2 and 16:9? (It should since this is trivial to implement with an EVF.) Even though I've used 3:2 for most of my pic-taking I really do prefer 4:3 or even 5:4.

-Dave-

I'm with you, but the aspect ratio for stills is 3:2 or 16:9.

I love long lenses, especially for motion imagery. They're hard to use, hard to direct the talent but when they work, they have a look of importance, that standard lenses don't offer.

I think the best focal length (in 35mm terms) is 150 to 200, or really wide like 20mm, (for motion).

For stills at least for fashion style imagery 105mm is perfect though most of the world has moved to 85m because of the Canons and Nikon and Sigma followed suit.

Though for fashion oriented imagery, it really depends on the talent.  If you have a very slender subject with long limbs and a shape that makes triangles, you can use about anything without changing the look of the subject.  With real people or less than A grade talent long lenses make for a much more attractive look as actors tend to be short and curvy.  Notice how few times short talent is shown full length in films and television and if they do use wide lenses how they frame the subject so they are only part of the frame, which also compresses the talent.

Also notice how on movies and television how talent is  shot slightly lower to make the talent seem taller and have more presence.

That slightly lower angle with a heavy camera is brutal on the back, but looks great. 



IMO

BC

Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #49 on: December 07, 2013, 03:16:42 PM »
ReplyReply

I love long lenses, especially for motion imagery. They're hard to use, hard to direct the talent but when they work, they have a look of importance, that standard lenses don't offer.
Tony Scott was really into his long lenses, he was kind of the anti Terry Gilliam.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 989


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #50 on: December 07, 2013, 05:39:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Tony Scott was really into his long lenses, he was kind of the anti Terry Gilliam.

Loved Tony Scott, really loved Terry Gilliam who proves that pharmaceuticals really do work.

Anyone that makes imagery should study Brazil, maybe two dozen times, because it's just an amazing excersize in controlled insanity.

It's not just wide lenses, I don't even know if he understands lenses, he just loves to make the 2 dimensional seem flatter where most directors, dps, photographers spend there life trying to make a two dimensional image have depth.

He's been copied a million times and never well because he understands that the absurd has to really be absurd but not so overdone that you know what's going to happen next.

I always get the feeling I'm looking at comic book art, rather than a "movie" and I love him for his daring.

How he ever got a project green lighted is probably a book within a movie and maybe that's why Zero Theorem was announced in 2009 and just hits the screens now.

IMO

BC

« Last Edit: December 07, 2013, 05:43:08 PM by bcooter » Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #51 on: December 07, 2013, 07:24:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Brazil is a favourite film of mine [seen it many times] and Terry Gilliam's book about his film making experiences is well worth reading. As is watching the Lost in La Mancha, the very entertaining documentary about Giliam's disastrous attempt to shoot Cervante's Don Quixote. Though I'm sure I heard recently that he was having another go at making it.
I always think of his movies of having great depth to them, so not sure why you think they are flatter than most.

As for him having difficulties getting films made, I recall Gilliam having a big argument with the studios about the end of Time Bandits as they wanted to change the end to one that kids wouldn't be 'upset by'. Yet the reality was, kids particularly loved that ending.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad