Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: A7r first impression  (Read 13865 times)
Harold Clark
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 188


« Reply #40 on: December 05, 2013, 01:00:11 PM »
ReplyReply

These two cameras might not be canikon dslr killers today but I think they show the gap is closing rapidly. Some tweaks like phase detect af on the 36mp sensor version, some better battery life and flash system would get even closer. The real issue remains the lens line which is limited and size is still an issue.

Indeed. I have got a bit fed up with 35mm format cameras being 645 format in size, at least with the D800 it is MFish in resolution. I dislike needing to own a second camera almost soley because a dslr is too imposing and therefore inappropriate in many situations.

The A7R is very appealing to someone like myself, a long time Canon user. About half my work is architecture, and I would love to have the extra resolution and DR this camera could offer, using my TS lenses. I also have a Contax G2, and I expect the lenses from 35mm up would be stellar performers as well. The Canons are great for my other areas  of photography though, editorial, corporate portraits, aerials etc where speed and AF accuracy are important. Many of us have become tired waiting for Canon to produce a high MP/DR camera.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7415


WWW
« Reply #41 on: December 05, 2013, 01:03:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I don't have a A7r, but I do have an Alpha 99 and an Alpha 77 and I have found it useless for focusing. 11X live view is good for focus.

Best regards
Erik

I had the chance to use a a7r last weekend and tried the focus peaking function to set manual focus on the eyes of my daughter in a backlit situation.

It may be not have used it properly, but the peaking kept highlight the edges of her face on the bright background and hardly ever highlighted the eyes where I wanted to set the focus, at least not for more than a split second which made manual focusing impossible.

The lens mounted was the new Zeiss 35mm f2.8.

What is the experience of owners on this?

Cheers,
Bernard

Logged

bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1129


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #42 on: December 05, 2013, 01:50:35 PM »
ReplyReply

I wonder. Mine arrives tomorrow. Seeing it here:


however, I don't know but in my mind, next to my favourite camera of all time, the time has come for FF cameras to be the 'correct' size again.




If you look at your photo, what photographer wouldn't rather have the Canon?   And do you see my point about the Imac look?

If they made it in all Silver and gold it would be a perfect match for an I phone 5s.

The Olympus is much more like your Canon A1.

Once again the Sony hit more points than just size.  The focus is actually good, I'd say 5d2 good (which isn't perfect but ok).

The camera takes any lens without a crop factor.  For 99% of the users that doesn't mean much, but for people the love old legacy glass, don't pixel peep or worry about the corners going soft, this does mean a lot.

A tilt shift on this camera will be much easier and more accurate to focus with an evf than an optical finder or even the lcd on the back with live view.

I think these sonys are less of a camera more of a roll of electronic  film.  In other words nobody would buy this camera because it strikes an emotional cord.   It's not a leica, rolliflex, or even a contax, but the lenses you can put on it will change the way you work.

Once again a tilt shift where you intentionally throw focus is going to take some thought to shoot, a fast 70 to 200 will just bang away.  The lens will make the difference and unlike traditional dslrs with the same detail it's not a lump of curved weight.  Actually with the larger a mount lenses and adapter it does feel right.  

If you drop on an E mount lens or any M mount lens your into leica small and discreet (except for that loud shutter)

If you fire the shutter the noise it makes is gruesome.  Think slapping wet hand down hard on a glass table followed by a metallic click.  Don't take this camera to Obama's press conference, or your sister's third wedding ceremony because everybody is going to get pissed.

The main thing is, it's cheap.  Jesus it's cheap in the world of full frame.  You can buy two an A7 and A7R for the price of a 1dx or D2x and though the lens case is still going to be large in total it's a smaller package.

It's selling like crazy.  This means third party stuff is going to come out daily.  Lens adapters, video supports, filter holders, they're already appearing.

The A mount lenses are Zeiss and I know from my fs100 putting Zeiss lenses on it almost made that camera useable.  It sure made the file prettier.

Once again, it's cheap.  Just a few years ago, for this quality file, you'd have to spend $12,000 for two bodies and when you went to the next sell them for a $6,000 loss.

I think you can probably use these Sonys for a year, sell them and even if you lose have the value, your only talking around $2,000.

The downside.  It's a Sony and who knows what they'll do.  If it sells well Sony is just strange enough to change it to an all E mount or drop some function if it starts to move into their video camera territory.

I'll be honest, I don't want to buy it, but it is perfect for the work we're doing now.  It's a sexless omd em-1, with a lens format I can understand and honestly I was going to buy an em-1.  When I went to the Sony store I expected it to focus hunt, have a silly menu, strange controls and it doesn't have any of those limitations, but if the em-1 was full frame and even cost more, I'd go there in a heartbeat.

Game changer, yea.  . . . as long as it will tether, because Nikon didn't do it with the DF, Canon is just quiet and I'm very comfortable with electronic viewfinders.  

I've thought long and hard about buying a Leica S2 to go with my Contax lenses and offer more hand held use to medium format,  but how do you spend $15,000 on the first gen Leica S,  when this thing is sitting there?

With the way we work, shooting motion and stills, limited time, lots of setups, the m43 system made sense especially for video.  With stills at 16mpx with a small sensor means your on the edge, even with people based photography.   Head an shoulders your golden, full length, your limited no matter how you work it in post.



IMO

BC


« Last Edit: December 05, 2013, 02:11:23 PM by bcooter » Logged

MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 894



WWW
« Reply #43 on: December 05, 2013, 02:27:14 PM »
ReplyReply

I have a similar view to yourself, no big investment (emotional or cash) no clutch of lenses to buy just an outlay on a body and and an adapter that solves a higher MPixel problem that has recently reared its head where there's a possibility of a an ongoing project that the client has insisted on a minimum file size that means d800, but the lenses are expensive and my canon ones better quality.
If it happens I'll buy the sony and metabones adapter for less than £2k and sell it as soon as I'm done with it. Even if doesn't make half the outlay back it's still better business than renting or buying either an MFD or d800 that I have no interest in owning.
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1841


« Reply #44 on: December 05, 2013, 02:43:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Cooter wrote:

"I've thought long and hard about buying a Leica S2 to go with my Contax lenses and offer more hand held use to medium format,  but how do you spend $15,000 on the first gen Leica S,  when this thing is sitting there?"

Yeah.  This about sums up my attitude towards Leica.  There is always something offered at 1:5 or even 1:10 the price that is 98% as good.  M8 - X100.  M9 - XPro-1.  S2 - Nikon D800, 645D and this Sony.  In all cases Leica wins out under certain conditions, even if by a hair, and the ergos are always better with the Leica, but it burns my Scotish heart to pay up to 10x as much because it feels better in my hand and the viewfinder is better.  Oh yeah, and the Japanese products don't do too many strange things that kill your file.
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2811


« Reply #45 on: December 05, 2013, 04:20:37 PM »
ReplyReply

If you look at your photo, what photographer wouldn't rather have the Canon?

Seems a bit baroque to me ;-)

Great price, great performance, zero romance. ... Bottom line, it's really an amazing camera, even if it has the soul of a smartphone and I don't doubt for a minute it is the future of all cameras.

Zero nostalgia. There do seem to be people with, not just a romance but an overwhelming infatuation for their smartphone; so I daresay there'll be a generation who will adore these cameras.

The downside.  It's a Sony and who knows what they'll do.  If it sells well Sony is just strange enough to change it to an all E mount or drop some function if it starts to move into their video camera territory.

otoh
I'm about to eBuy a 25 year-old A-mount Minolta lens for my 2 year-old A-mount Sony camera.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2013, 05:10:56 PM by Isaac » Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #46 on: December 05, 2013, 04:27:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Anyone who knows me personally – and God help them there are one or two here – would confirm that I’m anything but moneyed, in fact quite the opposite. Despite this I don’t choose anything that really matters to me based on value for money.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2013, 02:53:53 AM by KLaban » Logged

allegretto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 440


« Reply #47 on: December 05, 2013, 07:17:29 PM »
ReplyReply

let's see

about a year ago Sony came out with the RX-1

since then I cannot count how many cameras they have introduced, but it's a LOT. Probably more than any manufacturer.

R&D money must be flowing like cheap champagne around there

when do you think they'll get around to talking to each other...?
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5129


« Reply #48 on: December 05, 2013, 08:44:44 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm totally pre-sold on the A7r and Zeiss zoom ... the same size as the Oly E-M1 plus 12-40 zoom (and about the same weight).
Indeed, the A7R with 24-70/4 is about the same weight as the E-M1 with 12-40 f/2.8. This is the sort of thing that make me skeptical about matching smaller formats with bulky, expensive zooms of constant low minimum f-stop like f/2.8 (let alone f/2 or f/1.8): for about the same size and weight, you could use a somewhat larger format and cover the same FOV range with a longer lens of about f/2.8-4 or constant f/4, so that the greater sensor speed balances out the lower lens speed, and lens designs like f/4 seems easier and can offer options of wider zoom range and such. That is why I wish Olympus and Panasonic would get back to designs like the Olympus Four Thirds pair of f/2.8-3.5 4x zooms and the f/2.8-4 12-60 with its 5x zoom range, instead of all these f/2.8 zooms of more limited range and higher prices. If I wanted to get more speed and less of my image in focus from an expensive zoom lens, I would probably use an "APS-C" format system instead of 4/3", like a Fujifilm X body with 18-55/2.8-4, less expensive and slightly lighter than the Olympus 12-40 (though the wider coverage of the 12-40 could justify some of that).

Still, I hear those old Four Thirds SLR lenses AF quite well with the newer PDAF sensor of the EM1, so I will not complain too much.

On the other hand, that Sony/Zeiss 24-70/4 sacrifices on both brightness and zoom range for low size and weight; I would prefer a more typical f/4 standard zoom range like 24-105 or wider. Likewise with the Fujifilm 18-55: why does nobody yet make exactly the lens I want for a mirrorless system?!
« Last Edit: December 05, 2013, 09:03:32 PM by BJL » Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4033



« Reply #49 on: December 05, 2013, 09:09:25 PM »
ReplyReply

They were talking to each other!
Reason with me:

In the Canon and Sony comparison, notice that both are flatter than most electronics SLRs and yet the Sony needs to have a back display and heatsink, which the Canon does not, hence the flange to sensor distance will be really short - oh wait, that is a good description of the RX1 lens. So I think The RX1 was basically a feasability study for the lens and sensor compatibility issues in the A7.

In the best japanese tradition, they made a product from their study - and disguised their true intent.

Edmund

let's see

about a year ago Sony came out with the RX-1

since then I cannot count how many cameras they have introduced, but it's a LOT. Probably more than any manufacturer.

R&D money must be flowing like cheap champagne around there

when do you think they'll get around to talking to each other...?
« Last Edit: December 05, 2013, 11:13:40 PM by eronald » Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #50 on: December 05, 2013, 10:28:30 PM »
ReplyReply

If I wanted to get more speed and less of my image in focus from an expensive zoom lens, I would probably use an "APS-C" format system instead of 4/3", like a Fujifilm X body with 18-55/2.8-4, less expensive and slightly lighter than the Olympus 12-40 (though the wider coverage of the 12-40 could justify some of that).
why 'd you want to aggravate yourself with subpar Fuji AF /even w/ all those firmware patches/ vs m43 one Wink , if is AF zoom... you are not getting it to focus manually, are you ?
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #51 on: December 05, 2013, 10:33:25 PM »
ReplyReply

though the wider coverage of the 12-40 could justify some of that
5mm wider... that's A LOT.
Logged
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 604


« Reply #52 on: December 06, 2013, 05:21:26 AM »
ReplyReply

As the Canon images show, none of the makers has managed the small lenses design goal.

A7 small body big lenses
APS-C offerings the same
Micro 4/3 has small lenses, but only because the sensor is smaller, ditto Nikon 1 and the tiny sensor Pentax Q

I for one find it quite comical makers are trying to sell this "smaller better" take when the lenses they have are actually bigger than normal DSLR lenses.

Partly down to design I believe (ie they have trouble at the extreme edges esp on full frame even with micro lenses)
In lens motors and IS on some lenses
Electronic aperture control probably adds some size too.

I've plenty of old full frame screw driven lenses that are quite a bit more compact than anything Sony can put out on E mount
Personally I don't see the point of a compact body with not that compact lenses

The only way around it is to offer mostly pancake primes like Pentax does. You'll never get a small full frame zoom lens in a million years.
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #53 on: December 06, 2013, 05:39:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Leica, small bodies, small lenses.

Big price.
Logged

barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 604


« Reply #54 on: December 06, 2013, 06:22:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Leica, small bodies, small lenses.

Big price.

There is Voigtländer
The affordable Leica  Tongue

Shame they don't do a digital body option, but they have some good lenses at decent prices
Logged
scooby70
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 215


« Reply #55 on: December 06, 2013, 08:12:01 AM »
ReplyReply

There seems to be something very odd here with folk saying the A7 is an iphone...  Huh

I spent many years in the computer industry so maybe I'd be many peoples idea of a geek but all of my life I've considered myself to be an artist, an artist who graduated away from paint, pencil and paper and towards cameras and film and then on to digital. Anyway, I like to think that I see both sides but I just don't get the view that gthe Sony is a soulless mobile phone type device.

Maybe it's the name on the camera that people have the real issue with?

BTW. I'm using my A7 with manual Rokkor and Zuiko lenses, the magnified view is wonderful, precise focus is possible to a degree beyond any conventional DSLR and I've found focus peaking to be very accurate.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5129


« Reply #56 on: December 06, 2013, 09:07:02 AM »
ReplyReply

why 'd you want to aggravate yourself with subpar Fuji AF ...
To clarify: I am not actually choosing the Fujifilm X system (at least for now); I just used the example of that f/2.8-4 lens for its speed/size/cost trade-off.

Cynically, one thing that MFT has going for it is that none of the other mirrorless systems has yet put together the full package of good sensor-based AF, good IS, good EVF options, and a good wide selection of native lenses, including things like a good "step up from entry level" standard zoom of about 4x to 5x zoom range and the "24mm equivalent" wide-angle coverage that most people seem to prefer these days. Limiting to "28mm" equivalent is for me a sacrifice to size and cost reduction that belongs only at the entry-level. (That is, I agree with your "5mm is a lot".)
« Last Edit: December 06, 2013, 09:12:45 AM by BJL » Logged
JV
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 620


« Reply #57 on: December 06, 2013, 09:43:42 AM »
ReplyReply

why 'd you want to aggravate yourself with subpar Fuji AF /even w/ all those firmware patches/ vs m43 one Wink , if is AF zoom... you are not getting it to focus manually, are you ?

Fuji AF works really well for me.  I am really sorry it doesn't work for you. 
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #58 on: December 06, 2013, 11:22:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Fuji AF works really well for me.  I am really sorry it doesn't work for you. 
that's an elegant way to acknowledge that I was correct, thank you.
Logged
JV
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 620


« Reply #59 on: December 06, 2013, 12:00:57 PM »
ReplyReply

that's an elegant way to acknowledge that I was correct, thank you.

I am very pleased with the speed and the accuracy of the Fuji AF.  I don't shoot moving targets, so I have no need for focus tracking
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad