Share your A7(r) Photos :)

[Birma]

Nice shots Darin and Charlie. That skier shot (5827-3) is my favorite Charlie.

Sury

+1

[caporip]

Agree with Sury and Birma, 5827-3 is a terrific shot but the others also show what the A7 is capable of.

[CharlieWebster]

My philosophy is: shoot alot, and eventually somebody will love a few


DSC03762 by unoh7, on Flickr

MD 135/3,5 above

DSC03742 by unoh7, on Flickr
28 Cron

I love the A7 and it is an inspiring camera. Dangerously so. As you guys know I like to shoot in the backcountry, and have collected alot of tiny sharp RF lenses for that purpose which I've used with my nex-5 and 5n.

Of course those lenses are best on the Leica Ms, but I felt an M9 was too big, too heavy, and too expensive. The A7 in fact is nearly the same size and weight. Testing both R and plain 7 I compared hundreds of images to the M9 with the same lens. The M9 has terrible ratings on DXO for it's sensor, but you would never know it by the results. I have come to the conclusion that even today, at 35mm or wider, nothing can really match the M9 with Leica, CV and Zeiss glass (excepting perhaps some MF setup), and in fact I'm not sure anything can up to 135. Big caveat is ISO much must be low to perserve quality.

The sonys are wonderful but they smear the WA RF glass--the R really alot. So you can't really use the great tiny lenses to full potential. Meanwhile A7 + SLR wides = bigger package than M9 with smaller ones, and M9 prices have fallen alot.

So, for 3500, I found a very late m9 just serviced by leica with a new sensor and mainboard, calibrated--even the leather retooled. Appears as new, and arrived today.

It's quite a beautiful machine and very fun to use. I will keep the A7, which i think is a great compliment to the M9.

Any other Leica M shooters around?

[David Kilpatrick]

Charlie, Richard K had an M9, now sold - could not afford to feed it and it would not do the same as the Nikon D4 he now uses, in a professional/practical context. He's sent me his Zeiss Tele-Tessar 85mm f/4 which of course is brilliant on the A7R, and I picked up a Nokton 40mm f/1.4 MC which is also very good. So far I have been defeated by the sensor for wide-angles. I started with the 15mm Heliar, which shows no smearing - the image stays sharp across the frame. However, it shows massive colour shifts and the A7R's 'top yellow patch' is the worst problem. Moved to a 21mm Color-Skopar and this shows a little less colour shift, but terrible smearing losing sharpness across half the image; the centre is bitingly sharp and that's all. I have just acquired a 1990 Vivitar 20mm f/3.8 (mint) which is almost down to RF lens size and it's not bad at all for minimal cost. There's a similar date Tokina RMC 17mm f/3.5 on the way but from memory, these lenses were always softer than the eariler Soligor 17mm f/4 from the same factory - again, low cost. I may get a 20mm f/2.8 Canon FD with luck, I've had one with fungus, returned with regret and the optical quality was by far the best of any lens of that angle I've tried on the A7R.

The argument for the M9 would be compelling if it wasn't for the clever adaptors available for the A7 bodies. I'm considering getting an 18mm f/3.5 Olympus, and OM mount is one of the few for which Kipon make their tilt-shift adaptor - they don't do one for Minolta MD or Canon FD. I have had one helical close-focus Leica M to NEX adaptor, from Pixco/Roxsen, but it was 10mm thick not 9.7-8mm as needed and could not focus on infinity. I returned it as they confirmed that all their stock was 10mm thick (stupid error to make). I found a Novoflex LM to E adaptor at a good price, not helical, and the engineering difference is amazing. My main problem with the M9 is the lack of close focus, forcing the use of close-up lenses. The A7R solves parallax, pinpoints manual focusing to the extreme, and a proper helical adaptor like the Voigtlander which has a 0-4mm extension would just give that extra closer focus range to Leica fit lenses which rarely go below 0.5m.

David

[CharlieWebster]

Charlie, Richard K had an M9, now sold - could not afford to feed it and it would not do the same as the Nikon D4 he now uses, in a professional/practical context. He's sent me his Zeiss Tele-Tessar 85mm f/4 which of course is brilliant on the A7R, and I picked up a Nokton 40mm f/1.4 MC which is also very good. So far I have been defeated by the sensor for wide-angles. I started with the 15mm Heliar, which shows no smearing - the image stays sharp across the frame. However, it shows massive colour shifts and the A7R's 'top yellow patch' is the worst problem. Moved to a 21mm Color-Skopar and this shows a little less colour shift, but terrible smearing losing sharpness across half the image; the centre is bitingly sharp and that's all. I have just acquired a 1990 Vivitar 20mm f/3.8 (mint) which is almost down to RF lens size and it's not bad at all for minimal cost. There's a similar date Tokina RMC 17mm f/3.5 on the way but from memory, these lenses were always softer than the eariler Soligor 17mm f/4 from the same factory - again, low cost. I may get a 20mm f/2.8 Canon FD with luck, I've had one with fungus, returned with regret and the optical quality was by far the best of any lens of that angle I've tried on the A7R.

The argument for the M9 would be compelling if it wasn't for the clever adaptors available for the A7 bodies. I'm considering getting an 18mm f/3.5 Olympus, and OM mount is one of the few for which Kipon make their tilt-shift adaptor - they don't do one for Minolta MD or Canon FD. I have had one helical close-focus Leica M to NEX adaptor, from Pixco/Roxsen, but it was 10mm thick not 9.7-8mm as needed and could not focus on infinity. I returned it as they confirmed that all their stock was 10mm thick (stupid error to make). I found a Novoflex LM to E adaptor at a good price, not helical, and the engineering difference is amazing. My main problem with the M9 is the lack of close focus, forcing the use of close-up lenses. The A7R solves parallax, pinpoints manual focusing to the extreme, and a proper helical adaptor like the Voigtlander which has a 0-4mm extension would just give that extra closer focus range to Leica fit lenses which rarely go below 0.5m.

David

Great to hear you chime in, David.

No question the 17 and 20 canon fds (or preferably nFD) are the best wides I found for the A7r, but I know there will be a great native option soon. As to A7r smearing: it can be misleading. If you really want to see it, shoot a long landscape with details on the edges. Under these conditions the R smears many MF lenses-- not just WAs or RFs, but it's most pronounced at wider apertures. I shot over 5000 frames with it on 30+ lenses before I switched to the plain A7.

As to A7(r) vs m9, to me they are mates, not either or. The M9 can do incredible things:


L1000155 by unoh7, on Flickr

That's the zeiss 18/4 in M mount coded as a tri-elmar at 18. Marilyn Monroe's "Bus Stop" in the movie of the same name.

and here the CV 21/4 (both taken today)

L1000191 by unoh7, on Flickr

This is the sort of shot which tests a landscape lens, and the CV does smear a touch at f/8, but the zeiss is really something.

As you say, what about close focus? Well the M9 will have to turn things over to the A7 LOL. I use the new Hawks v3 CF adapter, E to M, which is far lighter than the voigtlander, only 50 grams, has both a lock and adjustable infinity, and is made really well--much better than previous versions. It's about 180USD.

The M9 is not perfectly reliable either--some take great abuse, others have issues. It was beyond my reach, but for the results above I can justify the new going rate of 3.5k USD, and use the 1600 USD A7 as alternate, and sometimes primary.

Best of both worlds maybe.

[Birma]

I really like the road shot Charlie, especially the way the road disappears in to the fold in the hills.

M9 and A7 - sounds like interesting stable companions

[David Kilpatrick]

Charlie - very early in December/late Nov I got both 20mm and 17mm Canon FDs, but both lenses were not in the right condition, seriously damaged by bad cleaning and one by fungus (very rare in the UK, first time I've ever seen it as clearly - the vendor didn't seem to notice it). However what I could get from the lenses showed me that the A7R can produce the right results.

I have also seen that well-known set of tests using the WATE Tri-Elmar 16/18/21 which indicates no problem, and some slightly less adequate results from the Ultron 21mm f/1.8, but I can't really afford either and the size is not all that ideal.

What you say about smearing with other lenses makes me wonder whether some of the unsharpness seen with the 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS is caused by the sensor and not the lens alone.

David

[CharlieWebster]

For Fun, let's go head to head in daylight with A7 and M9:

L1000529-2 by unoh7, on Flickr


DSC06686 by unoh7, on Flickr

both shot with leica lens formulas which is which? What FLs amd speeds?

[Birma]

Hi Charlie, I like the first one best if pushed to chose. At first I thought the detail equal in both but preferred the rendering of the background in the first. On closer inspection I think there is more detail in the first. The first seems to be with a wider angle lens and the second telephoto and I'm basing this on the backgrounds. I'm hoping the first is the A7, purely as it's more affordable (although I fear the glass in both cases may not be)

[Dr. Harout]

The first has a FOV wider than the second shot. That's for sure!
I guess the first was set to a wider aperture than the second.
But I give up for the cameras. Though the slight vignetting on the second shot might hint for the a7.
Don't hang me if I'm wrong.

[Darinm]

To take a break from the expensive rangefinders here is a Industar-26 52mm 2.8 on the A7.

_DSC7331.jpg (259.06 KiB) Viewed 4650 times

I like seeing how different lenses look on the A7. Mounted via a Contax/Nikon RF adapter to the A7. Only $50 with the lens.

_DSC3207.jpg (158.32 KiB) Viewed 4650 times

[Rhtubbs]

For Fun, let's go head to head in daylight with A7 and M9:
...
both shot with leica lens formulas which is which? What FLs amd speeds?

It would seem the first is a wide-angle lens, with a shutter fast enough to stop the blowing hair, I guess maybe between F 5.6 and F8 and 1/200?
The second is definitely from further away, the wind does not seem to be blowing. However, since I believe it might be a longer lens the F stop and shutter speed could actually be the same.

I don't know how Leica cameras assign file names, but Sony cameras name the files DSCnnnn. If the file names were not manipulated maybe the first is Leica, and the second Sony?

It is just a guess!

[David Kilpatrick]

I've got a 55mm version of the Industar (they came in various exact focal lengths from 52 to 55) on the way. I just bought a really strange assembly from an ETSI vendor - a rig mating up T-mount, Leica thread adaptor, and various parts of 1960s manual aperture Miranda engineering including a 10mm extension helical focus tube. Combined with parts of my Minolta 1960s extension tube sets (like Miranda, they use a 44mm thread but have a different pitch...) I managed to get a couple of enlarger lenses working, one Komuranon supplied only in close range, one Schneider Componon-S 80mm all the way to infinity. Probably the best bokeh fingerprint I've seen.

No nice piccies yet though.

David

[CharlieWebster]

nice Darinm

Shot 1 is 28 Summicron on M9
Shot 2 is M-rokkor 40/2 on A7

Canon LTM 85/1.8 on A7:

DSC06881-3 by unoh7, on Flickr


DSC06942-2 by unoh7, on Flickr

This is pretty rare lens 2000 copies made. These are wide open.

To really see the Sony A7s in action this is the hottest thread right now:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1255248

[David Kilpatrick]

My 'new' Canon 20mm f/2.8 FDn arrives tomorrow. Today I sent the Voigtlander 21mm to a new owner with some regret, and I expect to resell the 20mm Vivitar I got last week - it's tiny and really pretty good but the Canon is going to be better. Today a 17mm Tokina RMC f/3.5 in pretty good nick (not entirely new and unused like the Vivitar) arrived. This is good enough for professional work with about the same softness and distortion as the 20mm Minolta/Sony AF, to the extreme corners. The Tokina is free from serious CA, free from colour shift, and free from smearing on the A7R yet I can tell you for sure that this same lens - the Tokina 17mm - gave me terrible colour shift when used on the Kodak DCS 14n (full frame 14 megapixels).

Here's a shot from today's tests. I find that for many of my typical shots using the 17mm its f/16 minimum is not enough, on 36 megapixels I'm running out of depth of field at f/11 or even f/16. I have tilt adaptors but not for Minolta MD. I've got SMC Pentax screw thread 28mm f/3.5 and 50mm f/1.4 lenses coming which will work with my M42 tilt adaptor. But I'd like an MD tilt adaptor for the 17mm/20mm/28mm I will have in MD mount. Otherwise, I'm never going to get the sharpness in depth I want. Using the A7R is like working with 6 x 9cm on a view camera.



For the full size image - link to open - http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/im ... 4/original

This is at f/11, focused on the top of the ivy-covered tomb. I like the defcoused image quality at the top towards the corners, there's no bad colour bokeh or fringeing, and overall this lens (67mm filter thread, metal body, around 1980 I'd guess) can be recommended on the A7R.

David