[ Discuss ] What is the attraction of Sony A7 compare to m43?

[ageha]

How was the test done? With the jpegs? Or with Raw files converted by a third party vendor? See, when Fuji's own 35/1.4 was measured using raw files derived from Third Party raw converters, instead of their own Jpegs, the resulting MTF was totally different.

The raw converter itself makes a huge difference. E.g. in LR every camera looks slightly blurry compared to DxO. Usually the 1st party converters are sharper too, that doesn't mean they're bad.

 

[ageha]

to me what's important are the end results. even m4/3 lenses from lumix and the latest ones from oly + em1 employ some software corrections to the lenses to correct distortion/CA/etc.

lenses nowadays can be made smaller and sharper because of software corrections, and i think this started from lumix

Not just the latest, they always did that because their lenses weren't good enough so they tended to sacrifice quality for smaller size.

 

[ricleo]

Not just the latest, they always did that because their lenses weren't good enough so they tended to sacrifice quality for smaller size.

yup hehe which is y i said it started from lumix. People noticed they were not getting the same results with a GF1 vs EP1 using the same lumix lens.

To make lenses small and good quality is a challenge of physics and the solution is better software correction.

 

[Thoth]

yup hehe which is y i said it started from lumix. People noticed they were not getting the same results with a GF1 vs EP1 using the same lumix lens. To make lenses small and good quality is a challenge of physics and the solution is better software correction.

Yeah. Physics FTW.

 

[NazgulKing]

to me what's important are the end results. even m4/3 lenses from lumix and the latest ones from oly + em1 employ some software corrections to the lenses to correct distortion/CA/etc.

lenses nowadays can be made smaller and sharper because of software corrections, and i think this started from lumix

Yeah... but back then no one fiddled with raw files and output to the point that the center was sharper than the edge. And sharpening algorithms aren't for free. You introduce some noise along the way.

 

[tsammyc]

How was the test done? With the jpegs? Or with Raw files converted by a third party vendor? See, when Fuji's own 35/1.4 was measured using raw files derived from Third Party raw converters, instead of their own Jpegs, the resulting MTF was totally different.

He converts the raw files with Adobe Camera Raw 8.3.0.141 then processes them into 16 bit TIF using ProPhotoRGB, then examines the image on a professional display. He knows what he's doing.

 

[tsammyc]

yup hehe which is y i said it started from lumix. People noticed they were not getting the same results with a GF1 vs EP1 using the same lumix lens.

To make lenses small and good quality is a challenge of physics and the solution is better software correction.

Actually I thought it started with Leica, when they realized that their amazingly expensive wide angle rangefinder glass was not going to make it on digital sensors.

 

[ageha]

He converts the raw files with Adobe Camera Raw 8.3.0.141 then processes them into 16 bit TIF using ProPhotoRGB, then examines the image on a professional display. He knows what he's doing.

That test is only useful to people who use Adobe to convert raw files. If you use another converter the test is senseless.

 

[seafood]

I was at Yodobashi.

Molesting the A7/r gave me absolutely NO feeling.

The Nikon Df .... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[Errz]

follow ur heart.

I was at Yodobashi.

Molesting the A7/r gave me absolutely NO feeling.

The Nikon Df .... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[ricleo]

Actually I thought it started with Leica, when they realized that their amazingly expensive wide angle rangefinder glass was not going to make it on digital sensors.

haha have to see which came first then. The m4/3 system started in 2008 with the lumix G1. The M9 was released in 2009. Not sure if the M8 already had issues with UWA RF lenses previously and had lens corrections within camera already

 

[NazgulKing]

Actually I thought it started with Leica, when they realized that their amazingly expensive wide angle rangefinder glass was not going to make it on digital sensors.

At least Leica made an effort to optimise their sensor old film sensors, such as making the top filters as thin as possible and optimising the lenslet array. Sony only made the claim of optimising the lenslet array for only the A7R, which probably needed it because of the small pixel size and the short flange distance.

Regardless, I fully anticipate that Sony will rely heavily on software to correct for color shift etc. which they have employed for the 10-15 mm. It's funny when old SLR lenses actually work best on a mirror less camera.

 

[ricleo]

Hehe for the amount leica is charging for the leica M. They better try as hard as they can. But the leica sensor still cant be optimised for true uwa rf lenses like the 12mm voigtlanders.

But your 2nd statement seems odd as the fe 35 2.8 and 55 1.8 are pretty much the best performers so far on the a7/r sharpness and iq wise. Ppl are going 3rd party for the bokeh n focal lengths not available yet as a new system.

At least Leica made an effort to optimise their sensor old film sensors, such as making the top filters as thin as possible and optimising the lenslet array. Sony only made the claim of optimising the lenslet array for only the A7R, which probably needed it because of the small pixel size and the short flange distance.

Regardless, I fully anticipate that Sony will rely heavily on software to correct for color shift etc. which they have employed for the 10-15 mm. It's funny when old SLR lenses actually work best on a mirror less camera.

 

[NazgulKing]

Hehe for the amount leica is charging for the leica M. They better try as hard as they can. But the leica sensor still cant be optimised for true uwa rf lenses like the 12mm voigtlanders.

But your 2nd statement seems odd as the fe 35 2.8 and 55 1.8 are pretty much the best performers so far on the a7/r sharpness and iq wise. Ppl are going 3rd party for the bokeh n focal lengths not available yet as a new system.

There were some reports that uncorrected, images from the 35/2.8 had color shift. 3rd party lenses are fine but a huge SLR lens on this camera will make things really unbalanced if not ironic.

On some level color correction is fine. What would annoy me is manufacturers get lazy and use software as a panacea for all their deficiencies or desire for more profit at the expense of real optical performance. The trouble with any mirror less system is the balance between size/weight and performance. Sony has already broadly indicated it's preference for the former as it is, which makes me wonder about the latter. Their track record is sketchy at best.

 

[ageha]

There were some reports that uncorrected, images from the 35/2.8 had color shift. 3rd party lenses are fine but a huge SLR lens on this camera will make things really unbalanced if not ironic.

On some level color correction is fine. What would annoy me is manufacturers get lazy and use software as a panacea for all their deficiencies or desire for more profit at the expense of real optical performance. The trouble with any mirror less system is the balance between size/weight and performance. Sony has already broadly indicated it's preference for the former as it is, which makes me wonder about the latter. Their track record is sketchy at best.

Their SLR lenses are just fine even the newer and super cheap easy choice lenses. I think there is something broken with all mirror-less systems, not because the mirror is missing but the short flange distance is a step back from good image quality with all focal lengths especially with larger sensors. So far my favorite is Nikon 1, m43 is still good but NEX was pretty disappointing for me. Personally I stay with DSLR for full-frame for the time being.

 

[N-user]

I was at Yodobashi.

Molesting the A7/r gave me absolutely NO feeling.

The Nikon Df .... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

You are not the first one to say that...... most who touch it feel the same way..... now I am worried to even go near it.... later my EM1 get jealous and freeze on me.....

 

[vengels]

I was at Yodobashi.

Molesting the A7/r gave me absolutely NO feeling.

The Nikon Df .... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Me too..

I am very tempted to get the Sigma 35mm to go with it..

It is surprisingly lighter than it looks..

 

[NazgulKing]

Their SLR lenses are just fine even the newer and super cheap easy choice lenses. I think there is something broken with all mirror-less systems, not because the mirror is missing but the short flange distance is a step back from good image quality with all focal lengths especially with larger sensors. So far my favorite is Nikon 1, m43 is still good but NEX was pretty disappointing for me. Personally I stay with DSLR for full-frame for the time being.

M43 is OK because at least Panasonic doesn't ridiculously apply sharpening algorithms just to inflate MTF values.

On the other hand, the other companies are doing that. Fuji is still 'passable' because the lenses are still decently sharp as claimed and the color shift isn't too extreme. BUT with Sony, cutting costs is sadly part of their DNA.

 

[kei1309]

Wow I'd like to find out where all these accusations are coming feom. Any sources to read?

 

[NazgulKing]

Wow I'd like to find out where all these accusations are coming feom. Any sources to read?

http://photographylife.com/reviews/fuji-xf-35mm-f1-4/3

This article was illuminating.

Further, Sony itself stated that they are using some new-fangled "diffraction reducing" algorithm to suppress the effects of diffraction so YES, they admitted up front that they are using some MTF enhancing algorithms. Don't believe? Read: http://www.sony.com.sg/product/ilce-7 Search for "Find out how α7 achieves extraordinary realistic detail »"