Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Sony A7 torture test
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Rangefinder / Viewfinder Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:35 pm    Post subject: Sony A7 torture test Reply with quote
http://www.ronscheffler.com/techtalk/?p=224


PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I can't download the CV 15/4.5 Evil or Very Mad


PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes seems that the traffic got over the quota.
The conclusion is there - seems that the 7R is the way to go for RF lenses.

Quote:

My take on the results: I’m hoping these lenses will fare better on the a7R. Results on the a7 are for the most part disappointing. All I can surmise at the moment is that the toppings on the a7′s sensor work against achieving optimal (or in some cases, good enough) results with the rangefinder lenses I had available for this test.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
right now it's easier to access the files via Ron's flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ronscheffler/sets/72157636762872786/
e.g. the samples taken with the Heliar 4.5/15: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ronscheffler/tags/voigtlandersuperwideheliar15mmf45asphericalm/


PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
when announced, sony said the R was the one of the two 'optimized' for legacy glass.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 6:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quite disappointing indeed - My Nex 5n gets better resolution and similar vignetting.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 7:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
results with the CV 15/4.5 are pretty bad indeed Crying or Very sad


PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I would say, that the test targets are really not very helpful, for lens testings!


PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
did anyone pay attention to my above post? there are TWO cameras being released. the camera they tested was NOT supposed to be optimized for legacy glass, while the one they did NOT test was, according to sonys announcement. assuming sony knows what it is talking about, and they themselves made a distinction about which camera is designed to work with legacy glass, why again is this so troubling?

i am no sony fan at all. i personally dont like the IQ from the nex series, and i dont like the 'small camera big lens' concept, so im not a sony defender. but the same hand wringings and criticisms follow every single release, many many of them before there is a final version of the camera even available. this seems particularly gauling because sony specifically headed off this criticism--but here it is anyway, facts be damned!

why dont we wait until the real actual camera, and the one that sony designed to work with legacy glass, is actually available before we upset ourselves. we are supposed to be camera 'enthusiasts', itd be cool for once if we just had a couple of weeks to have a little 'enthusiasm' for a truly groundbreaking product.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote "why dont we wait until the real actual camera, and the one that sony designed to work with legacy glass, is actually available before we upset ourselves . . ."

Amazing that any reviewer would get something so elementary so wrong . . . Wink But then, I just looked at the images taken with the one lens I actually own out of the selection (40/1.4 Nokton) and - surprise! surprise! - it seems to work just about the same as it does on my Leica M8, allowing for the wider field covered on the Sony and whatever effect producing the jpegs might have had.

Maybe my standards are abysmally low, but are these samples really so bad?. Even allowing that the 'wrong' camera has been used? A murky urban landscape with a flat sky is certainly going to show how well/badly a lens illuminates the corners of its field and in the case of my 40/1.4, this Sony camera is showing things pretty much as they are. Of course, I can't speak for any of the others..

In any case, I agree totally with rbelyell that until the 'proper' model is demonstrated it's pointless to tear our shirts, beat our breasts and utter wails and lamentations.

Maybe someone should also point out to Ron-the-Reviewer that his enthusiasm to be first-with-the-goods might have prejudiced the rigour of his testing methodology . . . Still, whatever advice or opinion he's offering is worth at least as much as we're paying to read it.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
no stephen, your quality standards are great! the thing is, as i understand it, the problem is much more visible and pronounced as you go wider with the FL youre using. usually this starts getting 'picked up' around 35mm and gets more pronounced as you go wider, so that by 21mm you have a muddled mess. typically, one doesnt notice adverse effects from 50mm on up, so maybe your 40 fits into that category. then again, its one test on a beta model, so i wouldnt put much stock in it either way.
tony

Last edited by rbelyell on Tue Oct 22, 2013 3:44 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 1:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tony wrote:
did anyone pay attention to my above post? there are TWO cameras being released. the camera they tested was NOT supposed to be optimized for legacy glass, while the one they did NOT test was, according to sonys announcement. assuming sony knows what it is talking about, and they themselves made a distinction about which camera is designed to work with legacy glass, why again is this so troubling?

I don't think that Sony care about optimizing for Leica lenses
the problem is that digital pixels of the sensor 'see' only straight ray of light
it is the reason why digital sensor vignette more than film
silver grain of film don't care about the angle of light and work fine with rangefinder lenses
if the sensor could see angled light, it would work with rangefinder lenses
digital photography is only 25 years old, I hope that they can fix the problem in the next 10 years


PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
One thing occurs to me, a lot of people probably don't shoot film anymore and have never shot ultrawides on film.

The corners on film of a lot of ultrawides ain't that great anyways.

They should include film shots in these tests, that would make them more objective.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu, while i may believe what youre saying, that has nothing to do with what sony said, and they said the A7r, and not the A7 which was the subject of this test, was being optimized for 'legacy' glass. if one wants to argue your point, i would think it makes more sense to wait until the intended product is finished and publicly available for testing. otherwise it seems to me we're all just pissin' in the wind, and i think we know how messy that can be. ):


PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The corners on film of a lot of ultrawides ain't that great anyways


http://forum.contax-club.org/viewtopic.php?p=54605

in this test with film, the Biogon 21 is as good as the Distagon 21
if you check the border of the Flektogon 20/4.0, you will see that it is almost as good as the biogon or distagon
on digital (full frame) the Flektogon don't have nice borders, it is because ray of light are too much angled for digital sensor


PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 2:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, and the Hexanon 4/21 has good borders too, I was thinking of the 18mm Distagon and it's Pentax brother. The Tokina 3.5/17 has weak corners too unless stopped down 2-3 stops. There are other examples but they escape me just now. Ultrawides are one area where old lenses are often not so hot.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tony wrote:
poilu, while i may believe what youre saying, that has nothing to do with what sony said, and they said the A7r, and not the A7 which was the subject of this test, was being optimized for 'legacy' glass. if one wants to argue your point, i would think it makes more sense to wait until the intended product is finished and publicly available for testing. otherwise it seems to me we're all just pissin' in the wind, and i think we know how messy that can be. ):


seems that Sony was pissin' in the wind more than us Wink


FM wrote:

extracts from http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1247673/40

carl zeiss biogon 2.8/28 on sony a7r by Phillip Reeve, on Flickr
...
Oh dear, those corners look pretty horrible. Did you try any other lenses?
...
Looking at the full size image the corners look very blurred ... not much help for corner fix for that unfortunately.
...
Wow, really disappointing... oh crap!
...
For the brave, here's a link to Phillip's fullsize image http://www.flickr.com/photos/birnenbaumgarten/10489198784/sizes/o/
...
Another rank amateur from Asia http://www.flickr.com/photos/kroyston/10489339485/
I think the A7R hates Biogons
...



PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 1:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:

For the brave, here's a link to Phillip's fullsize image http://www.flickr.com/photos/birnenbaumgarten/10489198784/sizes/o/


Oh my gosh, really awful
It looks as the M9 is not going to retire any time soon.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have a pretty hard time getting anything useful from Ron S.'s test, I'm sympathetic that he didn't have a lot of time with the camera but the first thing that is needed is a lens-to-lens A-B against the only other 'mirrorless' FF camera.

As someone else mentioned--the corners on film with mf UWA's wasn't all that good to begin with. I've been looking at a lot of archival transparencies lately, mostly kodachrome 64, shot with Nikon and Leica R from the 80's, the photographer's notes indicate Nikkor 15mm f3.5, Nikkor 24mm f2.8, Elmarit R 19mm and Elmarit R 28mm, generally well focused sharp centers and I would describe the corner performance as usually mediocre at best, you can do way better today with a cv 15 on a 'baby' NEX.

I'm still on the fence about the A7/r though, until I can see some well done samples and tests I am holding off, the preorder thing is a circus.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Rangefinder / Viewfinder Cameras
Page 1 of 1