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: Tue Dec 24, 2013 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:


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.


Using focus peaking is not a magic bullet, but it can be used successfully, without relying on zooming. Using it on "Low" setting is a mistake, as it is over-generous in its interpretation of sharp edges. Ideally you would use "high" but sometimes it is so restrictive you don't see anything peaked, especially in low light (though for portraits, the specular highlights on the eye will sometimes peak when nothing else does, which is great). "Medium" is probably the most useful. I rock the focus ring back and forward a bit, until I find the position in the middle between when peaking starts and peaking ends. This is pretty reliable, and only takes a second or two with practice. You can always bracket focus a bit as you tweak it.

Admittedly I have only done this with a NEX 5N, so I don't know if it is the same as the A7(R), but the pixel density is roughly equivalent, so critical focus is just as important.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I guess the OVF and the NEX MF Assist magnification are kind of like double edged swords. I like the NEX-C3 sometimes more than my 5N because of the 15x magnification vs 9.5x. I can really get up close to check focus especially when the DOF is so thin. But when the magnification is so high it's hard for composition and is not quite quick enough for moving objects like wild life/birds or even normal everyday shooting with friends and family. One tiny movement may differ from focusing on their face and on their nose at big apertures (eg. F2 or bigger). And I totally feel the frustration when shooting MF when you saw a rare bird, shot it with peaking all over the bird, but then found out that it's not focused after looking it on the computer screen or magnified preview.

The OVF + Focus confirmation combo is not as accurate as the AF assist magnification method but is a lot quicker pretty much like peaking without magnification maybe a little better depending on your OVF size. I use a K-30 and I find it not bad at all not as high as 90% but probably somewhere between 70-80% but depends on lens setting and how far the object is located as well. Not as good as MF assist magnification but you gain more speed. After all, this is how ppl in the old days shoot sports and wild life.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 3:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
blende8 wrote:
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%.


me too!
though I did not dread it when I bought NEX but have liked EVF ever since I was using a Konica Minolta A2. physical implementation of the EVF on the K.M.A2 still is my raw model for an EVF, integrated in the center, that is on top of the lens, articulating and extendable, in front of it it even has space for both integrated flash and hot shoe.

ManualFocus-G wrote:
....

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.


I wished Sony implemented what Ricoh features in the GXR: once magnification is activated half pressing the release and taking off pressure from it again is toggling between chosen magnified view ( one can set in the menu to which magnification first press takes you ) and full view. Toggling makes a great difference to Sony"s implementation where half pressing, with magnification activated, cancels magnification altogether, is great for street photography!


PostPosted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 3:50 pm    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.


same for me Wink


PostPosted: Wed Dec 25, 2013 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well other than OVF of other FF cameras vs EVF of A7/A7R, I'm also interested in the comparison of high ISO noise and dynamic range between the A7 and 6D and perhaps 5D mark II as well.

The A7 maybe the cheapest new FF camera when it launched but now the table seems to have turned in which 6D is cheaper in many places. At least on Amazon 6D is only 1,398 where as the A7 is 1,698 both body only. A 2nd hand 5D Mark II is cheaper than both. So unless you really gonna use RF lenses or 35mm lenses with short register distance like the Minolta or Konica, the 6D is not a bad choice given it's price. And you have a way wider range of AF lenses to choose from vs the Sony FF E mounts. I know this is MF lenses forum but as a consumer I would like to have best of both ends and when I need the AF for events and sports or just AF movie I know the Canon line up is reliable and available for me. Not to mention the flash system that's available with the Canon.

Also I have some Pentax frds that switched to A7 so that they can use the Limited lenses FF, but I don't get it why didn't they switch to Canon instead? Can't you use Pentax lenses on Canon as well with infinity focus?

Any thoughts will be appreciated!

bruzzo


PostPosted: Wed Dec 25, 2013 10:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
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.


Is this the EVF on the Nex 6? Sounds really great!


PostPosted: Wed Dec 25, 2013 11:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
bruzzo wrote:
....

Also I have some Pentax frds that switched to A7 so that they can use the Limited lenses FF, but I don't get it why didn't they switch to Canon instead? Can't you use Pentax lenses on Canon as well with infinity focus?

Any thoughts will be appreciated!

bruzzo


yes, Pentax lenses can be used with infinity focus on Canon dSLR. I used to use Pentax dSLR before I went NEX ( don't own the A7/r..yet ), and one of the most important reasons why I had chosen Pentax was the small size of both cameras and lenses. I guess that other Pentax users also find adapting a small limited lens on a small A7 much more attractive than adapting it on a much bigger FF Canon dSLR


PostPosted: Wed Dec 25, 2013 11:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
bruzzo wrote:
Well other than OVF of other FF cameras vs EVF of A7/A7R, I'm also interested in the comparison of high ISO noise and dynamic range between the A7 and 6D and perhaps 5D mark II as well.

The A7 maybe the cheapest new FF camera when it launched but now the table seems to have turned in which 6D is cheaper in many places. At least on Amazon 6D is only 1,398 where as the A7 is 1,698 both body only. A 2nd hand 5D Mark II is cheaper than both. So unless you really gonna use RF lenses or 35mm lenses with short register distance like the Minolta or Konica, the 6D is not a bad choice given it's price. And you have a way wider range of AF lenses to choose from vs the Sony FF E mounts. I know this is MF lenses forum but as a consumer I would like to have best of both ends and when I need the AF for events and sports or just AF movie I know the Canon line up is reliable and available for me. Not to mention the flash system that's available with the Canon.

Also I have some Pentax frds that switched to A7 so that they can use the Limited lenses FF, but I don't get it why didn't they switch to Canon instead? Can't you use Pentax lenses on Canon as well with infinity focus?

Any thoughts will be appreciated!

bruzzo


I'm someone who should be buying the 6D, I've been a Canon shooter since not long after the 40D came out, I have a collection of Canon-compatible lenses (as well as manual lenses), I'm looking to purchase a full-frame camera in January.

What attracts me to the A7 or A7r over the 6D is primarily two things:
- WYSIWYG exposure metering in the EVF
- Focus peaking and EVF focus magnification

The greater sensor resolution is also an appeal, but mostly for future-proofing (once I upgrade I don't plan on changing camera again for at least five years). It also gives me the same reach that I'm used to using an APS-C camera by cropping the image at a greater resolution than my current APS-C camera.

The attraction of the 6D is:
- AF lens availability at affordable prices
- Faster AF
- Compatibility with my radio triggers and flash gear
- a new-found discovery that there are RB67-EOS adapters available for my medium format lenses

None of my current MF lenses would cause a problem with the 6D, and I'm not looking for anything wider than 30mm so I can avoid the mirror-clash lenses by careful checking of compatibility for future purposes.

But, I don't want to always be shooting wide open with manual focus lenses. My experience with the 40D is that Canon does not easily or accurately/reliably expose or focus with MF lenses. Live View exposure mode is inaccurate and unreliable, and for manual focussing aids there is a reliance on third-party firmware (Magic Lantern) that Canon refuses to acknowledge.

As I only have two AF lenses that are not EF-S specific (Canon 50/1.8, Sigma 105/2.Cool, and given that my preferred AF lens is the Sigma 30mm and this is one of the EF-S specific lenses in my collection, I face almost the same situation whether I stay with Canon or make the switch to Sony. But it's not going to be cheap (or even quick, give the release schedule) to get either Sony with a couple of decent AF lenses for those occasions I don't want (or need) to be shooting MF lenses.

It's not an easy decision, and I suspect the pixel count and EVF of the A7r are swinging the decision away from the 6D for many people facing it. A new body is always a major commitment in to a system. Whether you're already invested in that system or not.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 25, 2013 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kuuan wrote:
bruzzo wrote:
....

Also I have some Pentax frds that switched to A7 so that they can use the Limited lenses FF, but I don't get it why didn't they switch to Canon instead? Can't you use Pentax lenses on Canon as well with infinity focus?

Any thoughts will be appreciated!

bruzzo


yes, Pentax lenses can be used with infinity focus on Canon dSLR. I used to use Pentax dSLR before I went NEX ( don't own the A7/r..yet ), and one of the most important reasons why I had chosen Pentax was the small size of both cameras and lenses. I guess that other Pentax users also find adapting a small limited lens on a small A7 much more attractive than adapting it on a much bigger FF Canon dSLR


Thanks kuuan for the explanation, makes sense I totally missed this point!

GeorgeSalt wrote:
bruzzo wrote:
Well other than OVF of other FF cameras vs EVF of A7/A7R, I'm also interested in the comparison of high ISO noise and dynamic range between the A7 and 6D and perhaps 5D mark II as well.

The A7 maybe the cheapest new FF camera when it launched but now the table seems to have turned in which 6D is cheaper in many places. At least on Amazon 6D is only 1,398 where as the A7 is 1,698 both body only. A 2nd hand 5D Mark II is cheaper than both. So unless you really gonna use RF lenses or 35mm lenses with short register distance like the Minolta or Konica, the 6D is not a bad choice given it's price. And you have a way wider range of AF lenses to choose from vs the Sony FF E mounts. I know this is MF lenses forum but as a consumer I would like to have best of both ends and when I need the AF for events and sports or just AF movie I know the Canon line up is reliable and available for me. Not to mention the flash system that's available with the Canon.

Also I have some Pentax frds that switched to A7 so that they can use the Limited lenses FF, but I don't get it why didn't they switch to Canon instead? Can't you use Pentax lenses on Canon as well with infinity focus?

Any thoughts will be appreciated!

bruzzo


I'm someone who should be buying the 6D, I've been a Canon shooter since not long after the 40D came out, I have a collection of Canon-compatible lenses (as well as manual lenses), I'm looking to purchase a full-frame camera in January.

What attracts me to the A7 or A7r over the 6D is primarily two things:
- WYSIWYG exposure metering in the EVF
- Focus peaking and EVF focus magnification

The greater sensor resolution is also an appeal, but mostly for future-proofing (once I upgrade I don't plan on changing camera again for at least five years). It also gives me the same reach that I'm used to using an APS-C camera by cropping the image at a greater resolution than my current APS-C camera.

The attraction of the 6D is:
- AF lens availability at affordable prices
- Faster AF
- Compatibility with my radio triggers and flash gear
- a new-found discovery that there are RB67-EOS adapters available for my medium format lenses

None of my current MF lenses would cause a problem with the 6D, and I'm not looking for anything wider than 30mm so I can avoid the mirror-clash lenses by careful checking of compatibility for future purposes.

But, I don't want to always be shooting wide open with manual focus lenses. My experience with the 40D is that Canon does not easily or accurately/reliably expose or focus with MF lenses. Live View exposure mode is inaccurate and unreliable, and for manual focussing aids there is a reliance on third-party firmware (Magic Lantern) that Canon refuses to acknowledge.

As I only have two AF lenses that are not EF-S specific (Canon 50/1.8, Sigma 105/2.Cool, and given that my preferred AF lens is the Sigma 30mm and this is one of the EF-S specific lenses in my collection, I face almost the same situation whether I stay with Canon or make the switch to Sony. But it's not going to be cheap (or even quick, give the release schedule) to get either Sony with a couple of decent AF lenses for those occasions I don't want (or need) to be shooting MF lenses.

It's not an easy decision, and I suspect the pixel count and EVF of the A7r are swinging the decision away from the 6D for many people facing it. A new body is always a major commitment in to a system. Whether you're already invested in that system or not.


Thanks GeorgeSalt for the extensive reply on your thoughts with the 6D vs A7/A7R choice. It's a very tough choice for me as well cause I look at my NEX-5N as a camera solely for MF usage. And for a few hundred bucks it's totally worth it. But now we're talking about 1,698 USD for a camera dedicated to MF only. I keep my Nikon system in cases when I need the extensive flash system and quicker reaction time for events and work purposes. And so the combo of say a D7100 ($1,100)+ NEX-5N ($300) works for me money distribution wise on my cameras. But now we're talking about $1,698 solely for MF fun and I have to give up my events/work camera to get it, it's quite big a sacrifice for me.

Hence, I have this thought of considering the 6D instead because then at least I have a camera that does a good job in both events and other situations where I need fast AF (compared to MF on A7), and when I just want MF fun. And I can still keep my 5N for when I really need the light and small size and when I am using RF/ MD / Konica AR lenses.

But the quality of image results of the A7 may swing my decisions towards the A7 if it's really better than the 6D. But I heard that the 6D has great image quality even in high ISO. Maybe low ISO the Nikon D600 beats the 6D in terms of dynamic range but the 6D beats the D600 in high ISO range. Both have their strengths and weaknesses and I await the A7's comparison to the other two cameras.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 25, 2013 5:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Go to Cameralabs site. There are extensive comparaisons between A7 A7r Canon and Nikon FF in terms of noise and resolution.

In terms of pure technique I don't see the advantage of OVF over EVF.

In an OVF you have the dynamic of your eyes ,it does not help.
In an OVF you cannot judge the exposure correction.
In an OVF if you stop down your manual lens, it is dark.

Focusing in an EVF is easy.
You have more informations in an EVF.
EVF gives 100% sized view.

I find strange that some argue that they prefer how it looks in an OVF. But you don't watch your pictures in the viewfinder, you expect that it helps you to make well exposed sharp pictures.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 12:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I tool the a7 out again today and it was another frustrating experience with the EVF, not nailing focus in 50% of my shots Sad

I'm also really disappointed in the high ISO performance compared to my 6D. ISO 3200 is really noisy in RAW. Not sure what to think really, I love the size and feel of the camera, but it's not working for me as a tool.

No sharpening has been applied to the files.

a7 at ISO 3200 (pushed 0.5EV in RAW) as it got the exposure wrong - Contax Tessar 45/2.8



6d at ISO 4000 - Contax Tessar 45/2.8



Sony



Canon



PostPosted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 3:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The canon looks softer to me and I prefer the more grainy details of the sony to be honest.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 6:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
I tool the a7 out again today and it was another frustrating experience with the EVF, not nailing focus in 50% of my shots Sad


Aren't you using magnified live liew?


PostPosted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just to clarify, I was focusing on the eyes and the canon has produced more detail (look at the eye lashes).

The magnified liveview option may be the key here, but it doesn't work for me when taking action shots as it slows the workflow and causes framing issues if the subject is moving. I will persist though to see if I can make it work for me.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
What RAW Converter did you use?
Try the Sony one (IDC).
Would you mind uploading an ARW file somewhere?


PostPosted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 10:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lightroom 5.3. All settings were identical in Adobe Camera Raw. Comparisons by review websites (DP Review, Imaging Resource etc.) show the same at higher ISO settings - the a7 has a lot of noise compared with the Canon (even with the image downsampled).

My biggest issue is with focusing though. I will try to make the magnified view work for me as without it the EVF simply doesn't have enough resolution to consistantly shoot sharp images with. Peaking is inaccurate and makes for a horrible, unnatural shooting experience IMO. As does turning the EVF "down" into standard mode, which introduces moire throughout the contasty areas. Bah Laughing


PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2013 7:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
The magnified liveview option may be the key here, but it doesn't work for me when taking action shots as it slows the workflow and causes framing issues if the subject is moving.


it's the key... too bad if it's not working for you. Did you try to change the button to a different one.. to a better position? The original C1 didn't work for me too, I switched it to the big one in the middle of the wheel and it works much better for me.. even for action shoots.

Last edited by Tedat on Sat Dec 28, 2013 5:30 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2013 8:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Certainly there will be some who prefer another FF option, be it Leica, Canon or Nikon.

I do marvel at shooting ISO3200 as some sort of benchmark. Dealing with that kind of noise is not a simple matter, esp with a new camera. I use fast lenses when the light gets dim, so I can avoid such PP, which will never be crisp as 800 or less.

But because one user can't get the 3200 files to work in these early days tells us nothing more than exactly that.

So my advice: slap on a fast 50 and shoot more!

Smile

PS not to mention you are closer to the kid with the canon, LOL


PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2013 8:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Shooting at f/1.2 is fine if you just want one eye in focus, not great for a usable photo though. I shot the Canon slightly closer as it is a lower resolution camera, and wanted to compare detail at similar magnification Smile

The reality is that the Sony sensor isn't as good at higher ISO (whatever DXOMark claim), which is where I need the camera to peform a lot at the moment. If I wanted a good low ISO camera then I would never have sold my 9 year old 5D!

Don't get me wrong, the Sony a7 is a very capable camera and is a fantastic small size. But the viewfinder simply isn't up to the quality of a full frame optical viewfinder. I've found that using the high quality display mode has improved things a bit, so I'll continue with it for a bit longer.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2013 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Have you activated HIGH ISO Noise reduction on menue 1-5-3 ?

Try to play with this options.. and the results are better.

You havent reported the choosen entries in cam in your comparison, so i think this would be a matter of the values you activated in both cams.

There are a lot of options in the newly A7, which the A7 owner has to understand (me included)... Very Happy

The new A7 cams are great cams, but the delivered instruction manual is bigger and larger than the cam dimensions itself.

You are right, for moving objects and fast action, the OVF is clearly better, but the A7 cams are better for people who cant nail the focus on their OVF because of not 100% aligned focussing screens - especially on f1.4 or faster lenses or if they wear glasses...etc.

The EVF has some advantages for this people, but if fast reaction is needed, the OVF will win... its better to see things clearly, instead of playing the "key piano" on the tabs.

One of the reasons, why i keep my 5D MKII until her end Very Happy

Cheers
Henry


PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2013 9:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi Henry,

You are correct about the manual, the options really aren't documented well! Noise reduction is off as I am shooting RAW, but looking back at last night's photos I can see a definite improvement from:

a) Using the high quality display mode
b) Adjusting the diopter several times

I'm certainly a lot happier now, but it won't displace my 6D as the main camera Wink

ISO 5000 - Carl Zeiss Tessar 45/2.8



ISO 160



ISO 640



PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2013 11:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Looks better a lot as before.

Me, i came to the same conclusion.. the A7 is a very good addendum to my 5D MKII, but cant replace the 5D MKII.

One of the main reasons, why i did buy the A7 was to make the lenses work, i cant use on the 5D MKII because of the mirror hang's for my converted Canon FD 1.2/55mm Aspherical lens and some others, dont work on 5D MKII.

Another problem is shutter vibration on A7 and A7R realized by myself on the use of long telelenses like my Canon FD 2.8/300mm L and Canon FD 4.5/500mm L...

First i didnt realize the menue-option to set the electronic first shutter option to "ON",
With setting to "NO" the results ending in some blurred images with those lenses. This option is hidden in "menue - tree" 2-4-2 and must be set to "ON".

After setting this to "ON" result is far better then before. Owners of a A7R dont have this "electronical first shutter - option", and have to wait for a fix in firmware update...
So iam happy to buy "only" the A7 instead of A7R... so i can wait and see, how that would be solved in the future.

So my conclusion after some weeks with the new toy... i have to work out, whats in the option menue and how it affects the image quality. This will take time... Very Happy


Cheers
Henry


PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2013 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It seems to be a mechanical problem. The shutter causes vibrations. I wonder if a firmware would solve this problem in the future.
I think I will go for the A7.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2013 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="bruzzo"]
kuuan wrote:

Thanks GeorgeSalt for the extensive reply on your thoughts with the 6D vs A7/A7R choice. It's a very tough choice for me as well cause I look at my NEX-5N as a camera solely for MF usage. And for a few hundred bucks it's totally worth it. But now we're talking about 1,698 USD for a camera dedicated to MF only. I keep my Nikon system in cases when I need the extensive flash system and quicker reaction time for events and work purposes. And so the combo of say a D7100 ($1,100)+ NEX-5N ($300) works for me money distribution wise on my cameras. But now we're talking about $1,698 solely for MF fun and I have to give up my events/work camera to get it, it's quite big a sacrifice for me.


Thanks for adding to the thought process. In the end, I think I've decided not to go with either of the full-frame options. I need a complete system that will give me AF as well as MF options and no matter how I try and balance the costs, the Sony A7/A7r is just too expensive as a system.

I still think a change of system is going to be my upgrade from the 40D, but I think it's going to be to the Fuji X-Pro1 - which complete with the 18mm, 35mm and 60mm lenses comes in under £1200. I can almost add a back-up X-series body and remain under the full-frame body only cost.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 4:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Hi Henry,

You are correct about the manual, the options really aren't documented well! Noise reduction is off as I am shooting RAW, but looking back at last night's photos I can see a definite improvement from:

a) Using the high quality display mode
b) Adjusting the diopter several times

I'm certainly a lot happier now, but it won't displace my 6D as the main camera Wink


You won't know what you are really doing with the camera until a month of hard use. Until then conclusions by any of us are pre-mature, especially concerning things like high iso and raw editing.

Of course I broke my own rule and sent the A7r back, but that was after several thousand images and alot of close looks. I like the A7 quite a bit.

Today I shot quite a bit of skiing with the LAEA4 and the 100-200 f/4.5 Maxxum zoom, which is surprisingly decent.

The A7 is big for my taste, but I can ski with it under my parka, something I would not do with a 6D.


DSC03094 by unoh7, on Flickr
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Rangefinder / Viewfinder Cameras
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4