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(r) versus a n other FF camera
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Rangefinder / Viewfinder Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Dec 20, 2013 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Bille wrote:
invisible wrote:
As a Nikon D700 user, I've been wondering not only if switching to the Sony A7 would be an upgrade, but also if I would still be able to use my two go-to Nikon lenses (14-24 and 24-70). Both lenses look huge compared to the A7, and I wonder if the camera will be sturdy enough to support their weight when mounted on a tripod (I never shoot handheld). Neither lens has a tripod mount, of course, as they were not designed for a camera as small/light as the A7.

Another concern that I have is the use of adapters to mount my Nikon lenses on the A7. What would I be losing, if anything? Autofocus? Metering? Do these adapters even exist yet?

Finally, I do a lot of night shooting, in particular the aurora borealis. I wonder how the A7 would fare shooting the night sky at high ISOs (800 to 3200) compared to the D700.


Get a D800. There is no point in "upgrading" to the a7 at the cost of AF and possible adapter / lens mount issues.

Thank you. The point of switching to the A7 instead of the D800 would be the ability to use MF lenses of other mpunts, of which I have plenty.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 20, 2013 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
invisible wrote:
Bille wrote:
invisible wrote:
As a Nikon D700 user, I've been wondering not only if switching to the Sony A7 would be an upgrade, but also if I would still be able to use my two go-to Nikon lenses (14-24 and 24-70). Both lenses look huge compared to the A7, and I wonder if the camera will be sturdy enough to support their weight when mounted on a tripod (I never shoot handheld). Neither lens has a tripod mount, of course, as they were not designed for a camera as small/light as the A7.

Another concern that I have is the use of adapters to mount my Nikon lenses on the A7. What would I be losing, if anything? Autofocus? Metering? Do these adapters even exist yet?

Finally, I do a lot of night shooting, in particular the aurora borealis. I wonder how the A7 would fare shooting the night sky at high ISOs (800 to 3200) compared to the D700.


Get a D800. There is no point in "upgrading" to the a7 at the cost of AF and possible adapter / lens mount issues.

Thank you. The point of switching to the A7 instead of the D800 would be the ability to use MF lenses of other mpunts, of which I have plenty.


I can use 1% of the lenses with MF with your Nikon gear compared to the A7R. Cleaver decision would be to preserve the D700 - for the glasses you already own and for the AF possibilities - and get a Nex camera for MF lenses.

[]s,

Renato


PostPosted: Sat Dec 21, 2013 12:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
blende8 wrote:
ManualFocus-G wrote:
I have a 6D and a7. I find the 6d easier to focus and is cleaner at high iso.

What, exactly, do you mean by "easier to focus"?


I find focusing harder with an EVF. With an optical viewfinder things pop into focus, whereas with an EVF I find myself looking for jagged edges to confirm the focus point (focus peaking is highly inaccurate at larger apertures in my experience). Whilst this is the best EVF I've experienced, it still can't match a decent OVF imo.

I will try to conduct some horrible comparison tests over the weekend Smile


PostPosted: Sat Dec 21, 2013 2:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
edited

Last edited by bernhardas on Tue Apr 26, 2016 1:09 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Dec 21, 2013 3:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
edited

Last edited by bernhardas on Tue Apr 26, 2016 1:09 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Dec 21, 2013 3:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
hoanpham wrote:
nikon 14-24 and 24-70 f2.8 might be too heavy for a cheap adapter.


My thoughts exactly. I wouldn't trust a cheap tripod collar adapter with my expensive camera/lens combo.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 21, 2013 5:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
DSG wrote:
SonicScot wrote:
Nordentro wrote:
Steve Huff compares Nikon D800 against A7R, but not with the same lens.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/12/16/the-sony-a7r-vs-the-nikon-d800e-by-andrew-paquette/

I don't really understand the reasoning there, two different sensors and two different lenses. What is he comparing, lenses or sensors? Either way, it's not a level playing field so the exercise seems pointless to me. Surprised


Actually the sensor is exactly the same, the only difference is that the A7r has no AA filter. Throughout his comparison Steve Huff seems constantly surprised that the A7r produced sharper images than the D800 and he keeps banging that it must be a focussing problem...He seems totally oblivious to the fact no AA filter and using different apertures on each camera can easily explain the difference!


I briefly scanned through the above article, and found, first of all, that the comparison photos were really lacking in, um, "comparisonness" if you will. IOW, he could have chosen better subjects, IMO.

A point: it was not Steve Huff who wrote that article, but Andrew Paquette, as is clearly stated at the article's beginning. Just thought that this should be cleared up.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 21, 2013 6:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
blende8 wrote:
ManualFocus-G wrote:
I have a 6D and a7. I find the 6d easier to focus and is cleaner at high iso.

What, exactly, do you mean by "easier to focus"?


I find focusing harder with an EVF. With an optical viewfinder things pop into focus, whereas with an EVF I find myself looking for jagged edges to confirm the focus point (focus peaking is highly inaccurate at larger apertures in my experience). Whilst this is the best EVF I've experienced, it still can't match a decent OVF imo.

I will try to conduct some horrible comparison tests over the weekend Smile


With manual legacy lenses like my Takumars , the EVF should be far better than any OVF. It is not darker if you stop down the aperture.
It is my experience with micro 4/3 bodies.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 21, 2013 10:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
invisible wrote:
As a Nikon D700 user, I've been wondering not only if switching to the Sony A7 would be an upgrade, but also if I would still be able to use my two go-to Nikon lenses (14-24 and 24-70). Both lenses look huge compared to the A7, and I wonder if the camera will be sturdy enough to support their weight when mounted on a tripod (I never shoot handheld). Neither lens has a tripod mount, of course, as they were not designed for a camera as small/light as the A7.


I do use my A7 with LA-EA4 (AF Adapter for Sony A-Mount lenses) and 2 not so small Zeiss zooms (SAL-2470Z and SAL16-35Z).. no problem at all. If you prefer a bit more grip on the camera side.. use the optional battery grip (VG-C1EM). I'm very happy with this combination and thinking about to sell my A900..

invisible wrote:

My lenses have NO tripod mount. The camera would be mounted on the tripod. The lenses are big and heavy, which makes me wonder if the camera would be sturdy enough.


the LA-EA4 has a tripod mount, which won't help you since you are a nikon user. But there are novoflex adapters (also for Nikon lenses) and the optional and excellent tripod mount. This one is sturdy enough, even for huge lenses
Of course you still would loose ability to use AF


PostPosted: Sat Dec 21, 2013 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tests should not only compare pictures.
There's other things to consider.
Example: how performing is the electronic viewfinder of the A7 compared to the pentaprism of the 5D?
This might look secondary for people who shoot macros or landscape, but it's of vital importance for people shooting sports or fashion.
Another example: how good is the flash metering and automation system of the A7 compared to Canon's E-TTL and 600EX?
While it's true that for posed photos most use flashes in manual mode, for some live applications (wedding, indoor sports) a well performing E-TTL system can be a life saver.
There could be other things to add but I think the point is clear: a complete comparison should not be limited to per-pixel performance only.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 21, 2013 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
invisible wrote:
Dogtag wrote:
There is absolutely no concern what so ever that the camera is sturdy enough, with heavy lenses the lens functions as tripod stand and the camera hangs on the lens. This camera feels really well build even with heavy lenses.

I think you misunderstood my question. My lenses have NO tripod mount. The camera would be mounted on the tripod. The lenses are big and heavy, which makes me wonder if the camera would be sturdy enough.


No I did understand your question, but most really heavy lenses have a tripod mount, because the SLR's where no different to structural stresses as the Sony a7. So in your eyes what's heavy? My heaviest lens is a 200mm without tripod mount around 800g. No problems. I would not put a 4 kilo lens on a a7 nor would I do so on a 5D, without tripod mount.
edit: Or do you mean the 24-70, 900 grams is not really heavy. Very Happy, I was wondering, what kind of heavy lens has no tripod collar...
So compare this with this :



Pontus wrote:
hoanpham wrote:
nikon 14-24 and 24-70 f2.8 might be too heavy for a cheap adapter.


My thoughts exactly. I wouldn't trust a cheap tripod collar adapter with my expensive camera/lens combo.


Are you kidding me Very Happy those lenses weigh both less then a kilo, most adapters are made out of solid aluminium or brass and or iron.
I've seen much smaller rings endure much higher stresses.

Last edited by Dogtag on Sat Dec 21, 2013 7:01 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Sat Dec 21, 2013 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
SonicScot wrote:
ManualFocus-G wrote:
I have a 6D and a7. I find the 6d easier to focus and is cleaner at high iso.

That's interesting, thanks for that G Very Happy

Have you ever tried shooting with the same lens and the two bodies, side by side?


Well the weather has been terrible today, so just one garden shed shot for presentation Laughing

This is NOT a scientific test. I just shot the same lens on two cameras of a similar scene, handheld, as is usually my style. I took four captures with each camera, and refocused each time (this is not usually my style but I wanted to see how consistant my focusing was). Shutter speed was the same for all shots (1/125) as was the aperture (f/4) and ISO (1600). The lens was a Contax Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 MM.

3 out of 4 shots were sharp on both cameras. Below is a sharp example from each camera. Both images converted to JPG from RAW directly from Lightroom with the Adobe 2012 colour profile.

Canon sample:



Sony sample:



The sides to the Sony image don't look as sharp, so I presume either I was stood at a funny angle, or I'm suffering adapter tilt.

Last edited by ManualFocus-G on Sat Dec 21, 2013 7:08 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Dec 21, 2013 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice one Graham Very Happy
I can see a slight colour change between the images, but I guess only you can tell us which appears more 'true' to the scene you saw.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 21, 2013 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
SonicScot wrote:
Nice one Graham Very Happy
I can see a slight colour change between the images, but I guess only you can tell us which appears more 'true' to the scene you saw.


I've just re-uploaded the Canon shot as Lightroom had sharpened it for some reason (!). The difference is now not as stark. I will adjust the colours to match and resize the Sony image in a mo to see if they match Smile


PostPosted: Sat Dec 21, 2013 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here you go:

Canon



Colour adjusted and downsized Sony

[/b]


PostPosted: Sat Dec 21, 2013 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Sony looks warmer to me. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but I prefer the more neutral Canon image here.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just to clarify, the Canon's selected white balance seemed warmer than the Sony's. For the second post, I adjusted In Lightroom the Sony's white balance to match the figure set by the Canon. Oddly, the Sony's image was now warmer than the Canon's Confused Laughing

Anyway, the two are very similar, but I prefer the Canon's noise profile at ISO 3200 and above.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 22, 2013 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've seen comparision between A7 and A900 with Minolta AF 135/2.8
A7 had very slight color fringing problems on the left and the right side (I guess not fied relevant as long as you don't make pics of snow ^^) but better noise control.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 23, 2013 4:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
but more to the point, how come your misses is growing 'erbs up against your shed!

You have to put your foot down somewhere man. Next thing you know she'll be asking you to store her empty shoe boxes because "she" has run out of room!!


PostPosted: Mon Dec 23, 2013 9:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:
I've seen comparision between A7 and A900 with Minolta AF 135/2.8
A7 had very slight color fringing problems on the left and the right side (I guess not fied relevant as long as you don't make pics of snow ^^) but better noise control.


I have A7 and A900, but didn't made a direct comparision with same motive/lens/time yet. I don't think I ever will do this since I'm not testing my gear.. I just use it.

Anyway.. after a few shoots with the A7 and the STF I can tell you there is a huge difference in bad light with high ISO settings (the A900 isn't very useable above ISO800). MF lenses are much more fun to use (of course I did already know this from my times with the NEX), AF with A7 + LAE-A4 adapter and Minolta/Sony AF lenses works really good.. this good that I won't have any use for the A900 anymore and probably will sell next year.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 23, 2013 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tromboads wrote:
but more to the point, how come your misses is growing 'erbs up against your shed!

You have to put your foot down somewhere man. Next thing you know she'll be asking you to store her empty shoe boxes because "she" has run out of room!!
Laughing Laughing


PostPosted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 12:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
blende8 wrote:
ManualFocus-G wrote:
I have a 6D and a7. I find the 6d easier to focus and is cleaner at high iso.

What, exactly, do you mean by "easier to focus"?


I find focusing harder with an EVF. With an optical viewfinder things pop into focus, whereas with an EVF I find myself looking for jagged edges to confirm the focus point (focus peaking is highly inaccurate at larger apertures in my experience). Whilst this is the best EVF I've experienced, it still can't match a decent OVF imo.

I will try to conduct some horrible comparison tests over the weekend Smile


Graham: Do you not use the focus zoom? When I got the NEX I dreaded the thought of EVF, but have come to appreciate it for exactly the reason you don't prefer it. While focus peaking is helpful, I use it only to tell me the approximate point of focus - and sometimes with fast moving objects. It is the enlargement (zoom) feature of the Sony that allows me to get a perfect focus. I'd estimate that I hit it perfectly 90% of the time now versus maybe 40% with optical. There are many times with optical that you might think you're spot-on, but aren't. Same for focus peaking, but the zoom (at two different degrees) really makes it easy.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 8:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
When I got the NEX I dreaded the thought of EVF, but have come to appreciate it for exactly the reason you don't prefer it. While focus peaking is helpful, I use it only to tell me the approximate point of focus - and sometimes with fast moving objects. It is the enlargement (zoom) feature of the Sony that allows me to get a perfect focus. I'd estimate that I hit it perfectly 90% of the time now versus maybe 40% with optical. There are many times with optical that you might think you're spot-on, but aren't. Same for focus peaking, but the zoom (at two different degrees) really makes it easy.

Exactly my experience, too.
Agree 100%.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 9:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
same here.. I'm not sure if I ever want switch back to a optical viewfinder


PostPosted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
ManualFocus-G wrote:
blende8 wrote:
ManualFocus-G wrote:
I have a 6D and a7. I find the 6d easier to focus and is cleaner at high iso.

What, exactly, do you mean by "easier to focus"?


I find focusing harder with an EVF. With an optical viewfinder things pop into focus, whereas with an EVF I find myself looking for jagged edges to confirm the focus point (focus peaking is highly inaccurate at larger apertures in my experience). Whilst this is the best EVF I've experienced, it still can't match a decent OVF imo.

I will try to conduct some horrible comparison tests over the weekend Smile


Graham: Do you not use the focus zoom? When I got the NEX I dreaded the thought of EVF, but have come to appreciate it for exactly the reason you don't prefer it. While focus peaking is helpful, I use it only to tell me the approximate point of focus - and sometimes with fast moving objects. It is the enlargement (zoom) feature of the Sony that allows me to get a perfect focus. I'd estimate that I hit it perfectly 90% of the time now versus maybe 40% with optical. There are many times with optical that you might think you're spot-on, but aren't. Same for focus peaking, but the zoom (at two different degrees) really makes it easy.


The problem is that I prefer to see the whole frame as I'm shooting it. I agree that this method works fine when shooting a static object though, but not for street photography etc.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Rangefinder / Viewfinder Cameras
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4