Sony A7 and RF wides: a possible solution.

[uhoh7]

So, despite my recent screaming, you might not need to throw your A7 in the dustbin yet:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1340474/0

I will try this, I think, with my own A7.

[std]

Sounds exciting - finally a good reason to upgrade my Deotech Adapter for Contax G.
Please share your results if you decide to make the A7 conversion.

[ZoneV]

It is interessting that a company offers such a modification.
But like I wrote there and the company admits there is a glass corrosion problem with this new thinner filter.
Now I wait how thick that filter is, probably it have additional not a good enough IR absorption too - then you get interessting colors for foilage and black cloth under bright sun (like with Leica M9 at the beginning).

[Lightshow]

[cyrano]

Well, a possible solution presents itself. Positive thinking,now, where's the M9?

[ZoneV]

From the 1.85mm thickness of the normal IR cut and antialiasing filter on the A7 I think it could be reduced to ~1mm thickness with no / not much problems. 0.5mm thickness would be doubtful for me. Don´t know how thin they make the filter.

I wonder why the A7R has 1.85-2mm thickness for the IR-cut filter alone, and the A7 for IR-Cut + AntiAliasing 1.85mm.
Has Sony added a clear glass to the A7R stack to get the same optical thickness?

The warranty is good for some user, but from my point of view still not that good. For example for European customers such a repair would be time and proably expensive (shipping cost + customs). Furthermore I still use my EOS 5D, so I would not be to sure wheter that company is still alive when the filter gets worse probably after 5 years. And likely you recognize the problem when you look at your images - with some bad luck you find out a lot of images with that defect.
IR-Cut filters are no easy thing when looking into the details and with some special requirements.

But yes, I like it that a company offers such a service, and it seems they offer their best possible way to work with that concerns.

[Gerald]

[ZoneV]

Yes, it is clear for me that dust gets more visible with closer distance to the sensor. I work for a camera manufacturer as optical engineer.
It would be possible to use for example a 1mm glass and have some air between IR-cut and sensor. With this way even larger distances and less dust problems are possible. To glue the A7R filter to the sensor increase stability, reduces reflections, but makes scratch repairs very expensive, and IR and other modifications hard.

But for a high resolution camera with small dedicated lens outfit it would be good to have low thickness glass. The older Sony / Minolta lenses are likely all designed with not glass between lens and image (but I think there are not many fast lenses).
Some of the Sony A-mount to E-mount AF adapters add some additional glass.


But to have the same optical thickness would be better for future good fast lenses, especially for f/1.0 and such
The Canon EF 50/1.0L is most likely designed for no glass after the lens - so it would improve with thinner glass on the sensor.

For the FourThirds standard 4mm thick glass could be good - but for the many people who adapt other lenses to 43 it is not so good. At least from theory for fast glass.

[Gerald]

[uhoh7]

[Gerald]

[cyrano]

Any chance of these threads continuing without the pissing contest and resentment?

[uhoh7]

[Gerald]

[ZoneV]

[uhoh7]

[ZoneV]

At least on the German Sony for the Sony A7R it is stated the camera has no optical low pass filter - i am pretty sure they talk ablut the low pass filter, not the IR-cut. So their filter stack has less functionality than that on the A7 but the same thickness or more.

I hope I will not get to frustrated with the Sony Alpha II I buy now

[memetph]

Only in Germany , of course !
The A7 and A7r are nice cameras. Like all cameras they have their flaws.
Sony and Zeiss are putting now lenses on the market which are conceived for these models.
Meanwhile many people have tried mf and af lenses with adapters.
They have been interesting exchanges about these experiments.
When I read the internet litterature produced by some Leica fan's ( how to qualify some of them ?) concerning their experiments with the A7 , I think those guys are a little bit egocentric. If a Leitz WA does not work with the A7 , it is a problem for the camera !

Personnaly I found some retrofocus WAs working fine with my A7 . I paid 18 euros for one of them. After many tests , I came to the conclusion that there were a bunch of mediocre of retrofus slr WAs and that the A7 is very good camera...not the contrary.

[cyrano]

There is a forum for Leica aficionados, some are what you would call "fanboys", they get upset if you point out faults in their precious god. There are not few manufacture faults in the occasional lens. The camera bodies fare less well. If I pay top whack, and I mean top whack for am item I will be pissed off if I need to send it back for recalibration or repair. I expect it to be spot on for the premium I'm paying.
Thankfully, my 20mm Hexanon SLR lens works fine on the A7, just not so the M mount glass.

[ZoneV]

[Gerald]

[uhoh7]

[memetph]

These pictures made with the A7 and the Leitz WA are not very convincing. These lenses work certainly perfectly with a Leica body.
May I ask you why do you insist on trying to use them with an A7 as you own a M9 ?
in addition the A7r might be a better tool for landscape if you use it the proper lenses.

[cyrano]

I like the straightforward function of the Leicas and the CCD sensor. I had 2 Epsons in my time, I know what a rangefinder can do but its rubbish for longer lenses. The M system is outdated, its a lovely machine to look at and it has a unique appeal but it is not some all conquering deity despite what the hardcore aficionados say. And they say it all the time.. Its fine if you want t to collect expensive toys though, however unreliable they may be. M (type 240) strap lugs anyone? The Sony cannot handle UWA lenses not 'glass' , lenses. But it does an excellent job of utilising old MF SLR lenses. The M9 does not.

Anyone can criticise my cameras, it won't hurt their feelings, they're inanimate objects, it won't hurt my feelings either for that matter, I don't care. You see, I use these machines, I don't put on a nice cardigan and lovingly rub them in front of a log fire each evening and one day, they'll be an old,electronically busted paperweight. By then I'll have bought a new Sony or Fuji or whatever, that does handle UWA perfect!y well and for a third of the price of a precious red dot.
Ive seen plenty of reviews that state that there are quite often very minimal differences between Leica lenses and some of their competitors alternatives. All this bollocks about corners etc quite often doesn't transmute to the real world unless you're enlarging many times. It's in the eye of the beholder not a test chart.
And I'll take the cost saving for now I bought four 50's for £1000 a couple years back. CV f1.1, Leitz f2.8 collapsible, Canon screw thread f1.2 and a black J3 f1.5.....what could I have bought with the red dot for that and would it have been a better choice than all or any of the others?
Yes, quality costs, which is fine as long as there's quality control, not recalibration or factory adjustment no matter if it is free eventually. But if you want a retro look fashion accessory then the M system is the one, not saying you are like this but there are people who adorn themselves with such in order to pose. Hermes edition? M60? There's the snob value right there. Fine, not my money but you cannot say I'm generalising on those grounds.

[rbelyell]

i'm considering the a7s which i understand has no issues with WA or other rf lenses, so as to not bother with this whole magilla. like they say, its simpler to just choose the best tool for the job vs trying to remake a hemmer into a screwdriver. ):
tony