Has anyone compared the image quality between the M240, A7, and A7r?
How close, how different are they ?
Stephen
How close, how different are they ?
Stephen
eleskin
Well-known
This has my interest!
This has my interest!
Well, I am very interested in this, especially when my favorite two lenses are the Leica Noctilux and the 35mm f1.2 Nokton (thanks to Cameraquest!). I see a lot of negative comments about certain wide lenses. For me the sweet spot of Leica has always been for me 35mm and 50mm. I do not feel like dumping 7k on a body that costs too much and will not perform as well as what Sony made especially at f1.0 and f1.2. I had a chance to mount my Noctilux and Nokton at the Photo Plus Expo and felt Sonys implementation brilliant! With peaking, my Noctilux and Nokton were dead on focus with little effort. My M8 left me with many less keepers at wide f stops. Moving subjects and lens calibration are a pain! I can say that just for these two lenses alone, the A7 and A7r are worth it . I would like to see comparisons between the M240 and A7r with the 35mm Nokton and 50mm Noctilux specifically.
This has my interest!
Well, I am very interested in this, especially when my favorite two lenses are the Leica Noctilux and the 35mm f1.2 Nokton (thanks to Cameraquest!). I see a lot of negative comments about certain wide lenses. For me the sweet spot of Leica has always been for me 35mm and 50mm. I do not feel like dumping 7k on a body that costs too much and will not perform as well as what Sony made especially at f1.0 and f1.2. I had a chance to mount my Noctilux and Nokton at the Photo Plus Expo and felt Sonys implementation brilliant! With peaking, my Noctilux and Nokton were dead on focus with little effort. My M8 left me with many less keepers at wide f stops. Moving subjects and lens calibration are a pain! I can say that just for these two lenses alone, the A7 and A7r are worth it . I would like to see comparisons between the M240 and A7r with the 35mm Nokton and 50mm Noctilux specifically.
willie_901
Mentor
Very recently there has been a great deal of discussion in on-line articles and forums reporting shutter shock (excessive vibration) with the A7r.
Some people claim they never see it with focal lengths below 100 mm. Others see it with a 55 mm lens.
Some claim it only happens on a tripod while others find otherwise. The same goes for native and adapted lenses.
The A7 has a different shutter.
Some people claim they never see it with focal lengths below 100 mm. Others see it with a 55 mm lens.
Some claim it only happens on a tripod while others find otherwise. The same goes for native and adapted lenses.
The A7 has a different shutter.
Turtle
Mentor
The 35 1.2 is great on the A7R (genuinely very good, even in the corners) and the 50 noct will be great too. No focus shift to worry about and easy to nail focus.
The 35 1.2 is probably one of the best M mount lenses on the A7/R under 50mm, if not THE best. Its tack sharp on centre of course and, when corner to corner sharpness is not required, its stunning at every aperture. By f4 its sharp in the corners and by 5.6 essentially perfect. If you're shooting landscapes, it will not be wider than this anyway, not if you are looking for overall image sharpness.
The 35 1.2 is probably one of the best M mount lenses on the A7/R under 50mm, if not THE best. Its tack sharp on centre of course and, when corner to corner sharpness is not required, its stunning at every aperture. By f4 its sharp in the corners and by 5.6 essentially perfect. If you're shooting landscapes, it will not be wider than this anyway, not if you are looking for overall image sharpness.
steveclem
Well-known
Is this either version of the 35mm 1.2 ?
well, they aren't the same type of camera, but Cicala did compare the M240 with the A7r using a 50 Lux ASPH and the difference was definitely significant.
very few digital cameras do much I like, output wise, but Ive been EXTREMELY impressed with Sony's color, noise control and the Zeiss lenses themselves. The output is about D800e level for the R, with the A7 being a bit behind, obviously.
one thing I will say is that I have seen some lenses that normally don't look that great on digital (50/1.4 planar, 50/1 nocti, etc) that are STUNNING on the a7(r).
very few digital cameras do much I like, output wise, but Ive been EXTREMELY impressed with Sony's color, noise control and the Zeiss lenses themselves. The output is about D800e level for the R, with the A7 being a bit behind, obviously.
one thing I will say is that I have seen some lenses that normally don't look that great on digital (50/1.4 planar, 50/1 nocti, etc) that are STUNNING on the a7(r).
2WK
Rangefinder User
^Can you post the link to the comparison?
jpfisher
Well-known
With the lenses I had access to, the M 240 delivered better edge-to-edge performance across the board. The A7 does a better job with color shift with the Voigtlander 15mm, but I found that edge and corner sharpness suffered compared to the 240.
Here are the numbers and some sample images :
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2428025,00.asp (A7)
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2428078,00.asp (A7R)
The only modern RF lenses I had on hand were the 50 Lux ASPH, the 28 Elmarit ASPH, and the Voigtlander 15mm (LTM version). I also looked at the Pentax 31mm on the A7 and A7R, as I had previously tested it with the M240. Even with a retrofocus SLR wide-angle, the M did better at the edges; but it wasn't a dramatic difference.
My controlled tests were all Imatest charts. Jim Kasson (http://blog.kasson.com/) has been doing some more extensive real-world side-by-side testing with the A7R and M 240. There are some good comparisons showing the corners with the same lens on the M240 versus teh A7R. The native Zeiss 55mm holds up a lot better (both in Jim's outdoor test shots and my boring-to-look-at test chart.) He's got 30+ posts on the A7R.
(Personally, if I was buying the A7R, I'd glue the ZA 55mm f/1.8 to it and leave the 50mm Lux ASPH at home most of the time.)
Here are the numbers and some sample images :
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2428025,00.asp (A7)
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2428078,00.asp (A7R)
The only modern RF lenses I had on hand were the 50 Lux ASPH, the 28 Elmarit ASPH, and the Voigtlander 15mm (LTM version). I also looked at the Pentax 31mm on the A7 and A7R, as I had previously tested it with the M240. Even with a retrofocus SLR wide-angle, the M did better at the edges; but it wasn't a dramatic difference.
My controlled tests were all Imatest charts. Jim Kasson (http://blog.kasson.com/) has been doing some more extensive real-world side-by-side testing with the A7R and M 240. There are some good comparisons showing the corners with the same lens on the M240 versus teh A7R. The native Zeiss 55mm holds up a lot better (both in Jim's outdoor test shots and my boring-to-look-at test chart.) He's got 30+ posts on the A7R.
(Personally, if I was buying the A7R, I'd glue the ZA 55mm f/1.8 to it and leave the 50mm Lux ASPH at home most of the time.)
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/12/sony-a7r-a-rising-tide-lifts-all-the-boats
my bad, it was the APO summicron, not the Lux ASPH
my bad, it was the APO summicron, not the Lux ASPH
kbg32
neo-romanticist
I believe Steve Huff has comparisons on his site.
2WK
Rangefinder User
I would like to see a comparison shot from both the A7r and M9 (or m240 i guess) with the 50 Summilux ASPH. Just a regular portrait…shoulder up…wide open.
raid
Dad Photographer
I would do this but I need a SONY A7r as a loaner.
uhoh7
Mentor
A7r is not great with 50 lux.
50 cron it likes.
But I like A7 better than R with everything. My CV 35/1.2 is much better on the A7, even.
The A7r can deliver spectacular results with native glass, but MF lenses with some exceptions have trouble at wide aperture on the edges.
Which is not to say that we won't see excellent photos with all sorts of lenses and the R, but for technical shots, where you need it crisp across the frame, the R wants its processor working with the natives.
Something I learned the hard way
50 cron it likes.
But I like A7 better than R with everything. My CV 35/1.2 is much better on the A7, even.
The A7r can deliver spectacular results with native glass, but MF lenses with some exceptions have trouble at wide aperture on the edges.
Which is not to say that we won't see excellent photos with all sorts of lenses and the R, but for technical shots, where you need it crisp across the frame, the R wants its processor working with the natives.
Something I learned the hard way
AusDLK
Famous Photographer
My Typ240 will be offered up for sale soon.
So, all of you that are leaving Leica for Sony never cared about rangefinders in the first place? It was only about the lenses?
jpfisher
Well-known
I'm not. I didn't have 100 percent confirmation, but I had a very good source telling me that these cameras were coming prior to taking delivery of the M 240 in August. I just like the rangefinder experience too much to give it up. Having the Live View/EVF option is a bonus, and makes the 240 a more versatile tool that fills some gaps (I need to shoot product shots fairly often, and that requires either an extension tube or an SLR macro lens + adapter.)
Can't say that I wasn't tempted after getting some time in the field with the A7/A7R, however. If I had opted for the M Monochrom instead of the 240, I could see myself using one of the Sony bodies for color work.
And obviously, if I hadn't scrimped and saved (and sold enough gear) to afford a 240, the price tag on the Sony cameras would have been a serious consideration. At a certain point you realize you're paying $5,000+ for an optical viewfinder/rangefinder patch and better edge performance with certain lenses.
Can't say that I wasn't tempted after getting some time in the field with the A7/A7R, however. If I had opted for the M Monochrom instead of the 240, I could see myself using one of the Sony bodies for color work.
And obviously, if I hadn't scrimped and saved (and sold enough gear) to afford a 240, the price tag on the Sony cameras would have been a serious consideration. At a certain point you realize you're paying $5,000+ for an optical viewfinder/rangefinder patch and better edge performance with certain lenses.
steveclem
Well-known
Rangefinders are nice but generally, Leica lenses are more reliable than their rangefinders, my Epsons however,are still the finest for me.
zleica
Established
For rangefinder lenses, I prefer M9/M240 to Sony A7/A7r. I am only interested in Sony for Leica R lenses.
Charlie Lemay
Well-known
I've got a whole series of R lenses. Anyone know how they perform on the A7r. One would think that the added space between the rear of the lenses and the sensor would eliminate any poor edge effects.
zleica
Established
I also have a set of Leica R lenses from 19mm to 180mm. I don't have an A7r yet. But from what I'v read and seen so far, Leica R lenses will be terrific on the Sony 36MP sensor.