Sony A7 torture test

[Orio]

http://www.ronscheffler.com/techtalk/?p=224

[Rick1779]

I can't download the CV 15/4.5

[std]

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.

[kuuan]

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/

[rbelyell]

when announced, sony said the R was the one of the two 'optimized' for legacy glass.

[std]

Quite disappointing indeed - My Nex 5n gets better resolution and similar vignetting.

[Rick1779]

results with the CV 15/4.5 are pretty bad indeed

[OPAL]

I would say, that the test targets are really not very helpful, for lens testings!

[rbelyell]

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.

[scsambrook]

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 . . . 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.

[rbelyell]

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

[poilu]

[iangreenhalgh1]

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.

[rbelyell]

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. ):

[poilu]

[iangreenhalgh1]

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.

[poilu]

[Orio]

[azimuth68]

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.