Eventually I will test all compatible E-mount lenses on the A7R - the next E-mount lens will be the 55.
However, some tests on Fuji and Canon will come prior of this one.
If I was a regular user I would have chosen the A7 - I reckon it is less demanding, yes.
FWIW, I used the available profile of the 28-70 in LR and the distortion charts of the 24-70 were fairly well corrected.
Based on what I've heard the performance seems to be similar.
The 55 is suppose to be fantastic; though it remains to see how well it will do in your test. To be honest this is kind of a disappointment along with the very loud shutter and vibration issues.
I really like the fuji lens selection but the QC makes me shiver esp because I like to buy and use for occasional picture taking and not constantly worry about having a lemon. The Lemon rate for fuji is really quite awful.
I compared, at 70mm f8 and f16 on 'real' pictures, the border and corner performances of the Sony Zeiss with an old Minolta 35-70mm f3.5. There is a world of difference in favor of the old minolta (paid 47 euros). This is incredible.
I'd even say that the lens is not the real issue. The shutter is.
I've taken a couple of hundred images back there during the vacation in New Zealand.
Subjectively more than half of them show a suspicious degree of overall blur that cannot be explained by the lens nor the shutter speed.
The A7R will certainly start collecting dust in my closet except for those occasions where I have to use it for testing purposes.
Yes, and it doesn't seems consistent. I used often where possible take multiple exposures if the shutter speed was around 1/fl; but gave up on cameras with IBIS since it wasn't necessary.
On the A7r I've found that in those shutter speed areas I can take three exposures at 1/80 with the FE 35, and likely two will be utterly blurred and one just fine.
It's a bit weird. If it's shutter shock, why so inconsistent? Or is it just that I've forgotten what its like to handhold with no stabilisation a very light camera (which makes it harder compared to shooting unstabilized on the 5D Mk III)?
I've had no evidence of shake on the tripod: though I have been avoiding the "danger zone" where possible. Maybe i should try to replicate the evidence on the web...
I'm still overall happy, though it is a camera that repays more care than most I've used recently.
PS (would be good to be able to edit posts is there a way)
1/80 is no typo; so this is at 1/3fl ...
Yes, the A7R is, so far, the only camera requiring to add extra weight for stabilizing the tripod.
And the tripod is already a Gitzo studio tripod with a heavy head.
Without it is fairly easy to spot asymmetric MTF values at comparatively short shutter speeds.
The A850/A900 was similar but the camera itself was quite a brick here which helps to compensate the shutter I guess.
Sony should focus on delivering an electronic shutter rather than more megapixel insanity.
You can buy the A7 instead of the A7r. Actually I find the reviews here in the last time to emotional.
Anyway after using the Ricoh GR for some time I will not go back to an interchangeable camera system. All this system religion is really annoying. And the GR shows that you can make an good camera with a stealth look.
Hi all, just read the Zeiss review and it's not a stellar performer at all.
I miss only one point: it's nice to test a lens with 36MP A7R, but what about the focus shifts ? The A7R has contrast-type AF so via AF you can't see the focus shift as contrast type AF focuses just like LiveView: aperture already on it's final value - so focus will be much more exact than with phase-type AF-s.
Of course with MF, focusing on the ruler to the zero point and then aperture down, any kind of focus shift could be still measured but i'm just missing this part of the test really.
Because nowadays I see more and more very nice constructed lenses coming out - with focus shifts. Which is rather an "issue" coming from the optical formulas and construction, not a focus issue at the body, nor at the lens. But it affects focus, pretty much.
On my D800 I have a pretty decent Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC USD. With it's huge focus shift from f/2.8 to f/4. As I was looking at another "perfect" fullframe standard zooms, none of them are perfect, actually: Nikkor 24-70 is expensive and no OS, Sigma 24-105 no-go either, Nikkor 24-120 f4 same no-go (just too soft for a D800) and same applies for the Canons (24-70 expensive and no IS, 24-105 too soft). So, the only option would be to use contrast-based focus (liveview) on DSLR-s - then the Tamron could be one of the winners I think, but what else ?
In real life when I go from 2.8 to 4, my Tamron needs a new AF fine tune value, I have to change it to a different value. Insane. I use it at f/4 and beyond with 1 value, constantly. Due to increased DOF, that's good for everything already.
Sony A7R, due to it's contrast based focus, is a totally different story. My Tamron would be just perfect on the Sony, either as a native Sony mount, or with the Nikon adapter.
But this Zeiss is just .. big surprise.
Big name, big issues.