Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 mounted a the a7R

[Steve C]

 

You want to keep shooting crap photos that won't stand up today yet alone the monitors we'll have in next 5-7 years ?

 

And what will Sony offer in 5-7 years to match the monitors? Unless you or anyone else is clairvoyant, it's all guesswork.

Cameras will improve, if you think Nikon are ahead of the game, fine. Up to you. If you think Sony are unable to improve to meet your requirements that's a bit of an erroneous statement.IMO.

As it is, I'm not getting into a rant contest here, done it before with a trio of wankers and that's enough for me.

[andyfromboston]

This has gone pretty far around the bend right now. I'm just going to leave it at this. If a Sony is so bad at raw shooting, why are Trey at stuckincustoms.com and everybody who posts at the Steve Huff site able to get those results? The proof is in the results, not the pixel inspecting tests.

 

Use whatever gear you want, but judge it on real world results. I've done a lot of shooting with a lot of cameras, and the difference in file quality between a Nikon and a Sony is minuscule, insignificant really in comparison to every other factor that would influence a choice of camera. Pixel inspection is a waste of time.

[weinhous]

Here are a couple of interesting articles about Sony's present use of 11+7 lossy compression.

 

Bottom line seems to be...

 

http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/sony-craw-arw2-posterization-detection

Quoting from RawDigger article: "In the vast majority of cases, the compression artifacts are imperceptible unless the heavy-handed contrast boost is introduced. There are, however, exceptions. With some unlucky stars in alignment, the artifacts can become plainly visible, even without much image processing.  All that is necessary for the artifacts to threaten the quality of the final image is a combination of high local contrast and a flat featureless background."

 

https://photographylife.com/reviews/sony-a7-ii/3

Quoting from the photographylife article: "For 90% of photographers out there, the 11+7 bit RAW file compression won’t matter, as they won’t be analyzing images with a loupe at 100% or higher magnifications. However, if you are genuinely concerned about pixel-level image quality and want only the best results at full resolution, you might want to hold off on the Sony A7 series cameras. While you can certainly reduce the problem with artifacts and posterization in RAW files by applying some clever sharpening and noise reduction techniques, it does take quite a bit of extra effort to make those images look good. Such artifacts might also show up in print if they are untreated."

 

... that the seriousness of the issue is in the eyes of the photographer and beholder.

[Neroon]

Sony Artisan of Imagery Jason Lanier reviewed the Metabones IV adapter with Canon lenses and concluded that the Metabones IV does not work.  Go here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oFDK9j6sbQ

 

I bought two A7II and have been making the switch from Canon after more than 27 years (1st was the Canon EOS630). Prior to that I cut my teeth on the Minolta Srt101. 

 

I had planned on using my Canon lenses and after two adapters I sent them back and put my lenses up for sale. Some would at least try and AF, while others just did nothing. I got aperture control, but when AF did 'work' is was a bad and slow experience. It would take from 2-3 seconds for the AF to find focus and then after each picture even in a tripod with a stationary target it would search again for 2-3 seconds. Well, screw that.

 

I will miss my 24-105 and more importantly I will miss my 70-200mm f4 L IS, but I need AF that works.

 

As to the Otus it defeats the main reason I switched - weight. That does not mean I am not jealous of those who can afford it.

 

[andyfromboston]

Try the Sony/Zeiss 55mm as an Otus alternative. It's not quite as good, but it's not far off either.

[Guest PenGun]

I've been following this thread for a while now. I'm a bit saddened by it. Someone shared his opinion and gave factual evidence, this was useful to someone spending a lot of money and time on the a7 cameras. He has been requested to prove his worth, in some futile appeal to authority response. If the work he shows is good, you're likely to criticize it anyway. Let's be realistic here, the photographs taken by PenGun are atrocious. An example can be found of Lela, a poorly processed, poorly framed (look at the right, it's not even vertical), and poorly posed shot (look how uncomfortable her neck looks). A skilful photographer would not have allowed his subject to stretch their neck in such an unnatural position. There are ways to take photographs where someone's neck can look long without ruining the pose. The same demonstration of a low skill photographer can be seen in a photograph of some flowers, a poorly lit (I don't mean it lacks light, I mean it lacks manipulated light), busy photograph. which flower is the subject? We can't possibly know. For this reason, if we want to adopt the ideology that only skilled photographers should be heard and amateurs should be ignored, then Pengun should, by your own logic, be ignored because as you can see, his work is terrible. 

 

As a child, I couldn't afford a camera. I came from a fairly hard-up family. I went to school every day, even on sick-days and I worked my butt off for good grades. Grades that I knew wouldn't really matter because I wanted to be a photographer. I saved up for the cheapest camera I could find and I spent my evenings sat outside the shops up the city, trying to sell paintings. I walked home because I didn't want to spend the money on a coach ticket. Eventually the good grades, and teacher recommendations helped me get a job. A job I absolutely hated. I saved up, spent most of my money on photography equipment and gambled with my life. I quit working to travel around the country and take photographs. I earned just enough to feed and to pay for film. 

 

Eventually I became good enough and wealthy enough that I could buy a house without needing to consider a mortgage. I became good enough that I could pay for better cameras. Did they help me become a better photographer? Of course. Anyone that says "a good camera doesn't make you a better photographer" is talking rubbish. Just like a good car helps you become a better driver. If your car is spent in the garage, 340 days of the year, you are NOT going to get the practise to improve. If your camera ruins files and forces you to spend hours on bypassing and fixing those problems, then you are NOT going to get the same length of time to practise photography. Digital cameras are not film cameras. They are more closely related to a personal computer with an image sensor. The artists in us and the painters amongst us, must accept this fact. We must accept there's more than the "photographers skill", we must accept certain image sensors produce better quality images. We must accept lossy compression is by definition, lossy. It doesn't matter whether you're living in an 8 bedroom mansion with a $150k+ photography studio like me, and it doesn't matter whether you're the broke kid that had to choose between a roll of film or skipping lunch for a few days (like me). What matters is that you use your brain, and if you do use it, you will see that lossy compression is inferior to lossless compression.

 

From time to time, I have had difficult clients. I have been nice to them (even if I didn't want to be) and it has paid off. If we're to be subjective about this, and we're to resort to appeal to authority nonsense, I can tell that very few of you (if any) make a living from photography. 

 

Max the Dog, as much as I agree with what you're saying, I think you are wasting your time. Let people waste their money if they want to. My advice to you would be to invest in different equipment for professional jobs and to use the sony cameras as hobby cameras (assuming you still own them). They can't really be used for professional tasks. Even if you ignore the crappy raw files. The lack of redundancy makes them a no-go for most jobs. Of course there are professional photographers that use them, just like there's been the odd iphone shoot a wedding. But it's just not worth the hassle. Perhaps this post is also a waste of time. It's a great shame that people are so forgiving of sony's lossy compression. If sony were stuck on a desert island with these people, they wouldn't thank them for it. Lossy compression requires additional processing, it requires the truncation of data prior to the compression stage (this is usually done with an entropy encoder). Uncompressed raw uses far less processor resources but it does require larger pipelines for the data to travel. However, the recent 50% reductions to employees show that sony makes such a large mark up from these cameras, they can afford to put more substantial components in the camera. If they wanted to meet in the middle, they could use lossless compression, thereby lowering the requirement for larger pipelines and still keeping the original raw data. This would mean that additional preprocessing would not be required, therefore, potentially saving battery life. Lossy compression is good for one thing only really, and that's to save space. Hard drives are cheap. If anyone is open minded enough and would care to educate themselves, take a photograph at 100, 200, 800, 3200 iso etc. Watch how the file size doesn't change all that much, but it should because more noise = more data. Lossy compression typically only matters when you push the file for example if you bump the exposure by 3 stops. People tout the sony sensors as being superior to canon but it all seems like it's for nothing if the files are going to be thrashed. 

 

To go back on topic. I'd say use the otus with a DSLR only, and get a split prism focus screen. It's much faster to focus with one of them than it is to use the sony's method of "while you focus you cannot compose".

 

 

 

 

Ignoring the obvious that the stabilizer does not mitigate the problem of lossy raw compression, IBIS is useless in a few circumstances, for example if I need 1/2000sec for a moving subject. You're better to think of it as a tripod. A tripod keeps the camera steady but it doesn't keep the subject steady.

 

P.S I'm not interested in the "show your work to prove your worth to unskilled, incapable photographers". You disgust me and you wouldn't know a good photograph if it hit you in the head.

P.P.S Excuse the long post

 Marvelous. Another one. No pictures, just criticism from a self importent fool. BTW it's the 4x5 shots you seem to hate the most.

 

 You should understand I am old and have seen this before. The only time anyone has been less than complimetry has ben exactly these situations where people try to put someone down to make themselves look good. Fill yer boots. I am the guy you should target as I take all criticism as a compliment.

 

 My stuff is simply my stuff on my website. It's what I do for fun and have done for a long time, nearly 50 years now.

 

 Continue with what you pretend is closely reasoned discourse please, cause you got nothing else.

[Max the Dog]

Andy from boston - you're either the troll or the most backwards obtuse low comprehenion TBI candidate I've ever seen on any camera forum. 

 

DXO only calculates resolution, etc.  THEY DON'T TEST.   (READ the threads)

 

PS - I have posted photos.  READ THE THREAD

 

 

 

The professional - thanks for the support - you're right.  It is a waste of time to try to help some of these guys.  BTW PENGUN has some very nice IR work in his other camera section (not A& or A&R but EM1 ?  I think) 

 

 

Why are you providing the DXOMark links? They show that the D800E and the A7R are almost exactly the same.

[Max the Dog]

Pengun -

It's an easy mistake to make - you're on the Sony forums and your Sony photos are bad snapshots at best.  People are going to naturally look at them first, make an assessment and then bail without seeing your other work - some of which is very good. 

 

These are very nice.

 

 

 

 

 Marvelous. Another one. No pictures, just criticism from a self importent fool. BTW it's the 4x5 shots you seem to hate the most.

 

 You should understand I am old and have seen this before. The only time anyone has been less than complimetry has ben exactly these situations where people try to put someone down to make themselves look good. Fill yer boots. I am the guy you should target as I take all criticism as a compliment.

 

 My stuff is simply my stuff on my website. It's what I do for fun and have done for a long time, nearly 50 years now.

 

 Continue with what you pretend is closely reasoned discourse please, cause you got nothing else.

[Max the Dog]

Tim,

 

To get the best views of the mosques go to this hotel/restaurant   - it's where I took the photo from.

Seven Hills Hotel

Tevfikhane Sokak No:8 Sultanahmed 

 

Take the elevator to the top floor and walk up to the deck

 

If you go during non meal periods you will have the place to yourself.  As a courtesy I ordered a coffee and tipped big each time I went. 

 

There are good views of the strait as well.   Closing time is good time to go. Take a tripod. 

 

 

 

I did download your Jpeg, and even spent some time with Capture 1 ... enough time to be curious of what the RAW file looked like. But, I see that no one else bothered to download the file ... so perhaps it would have been interesting for me but obviously no body else cares.

 

Never the less, I don't really have the problems that you do with Sony stuff. The photos I get are sufficient to my needs. Thanks. I liked the photo in Istanbul, I'm visiting there in a month and will be using a Film camera! 

[andyfromboston]

Andy from boston - you're either the troll or the most backwards obtuse low comprehenion TBI candidate I've ever seen on any camera forum.

 

DXO only calculates resolution, etc. THEY DON'T TEST. (READ the threads)

 

PS - I have posted photos. READ THE THREAD

 

 

 

The professional - thanks for the support - you're right. It's a waste of time to try to help some of these guys. BTW PENGUN has some very nice IR work in his other camera section (not A& or A&R but EM1 ? I think)

See? Insults. References to... what photos? Those two or three night shots? Come on, really, show some of your real work. Not replying to my actual point about the difference between p-mpix and imatest, which was the root cause of the insult you flung at somebody that was the very first dumbass thing of yours that I read.

 

Max, you're a troll, and a pixel inspector instead of a photographer.

[weinhous]

Max,

 

Andy from boston - you're either the troll or the most backwards obtuse low comprehenion TBI candidate I've ever seen on any camera forum. 

 

DXO only calculates resolution, etc.  THEY DON'T TEST.   (READ the threads)

 

PS - I have posted photos.  READ THE THREAD

 

 

 

The professional - thanks for the support - you're right.  It is a waste of time to try to help some of these guys.  BTW PENGUN has some very nice IR work in his other camera section (not A& or A&R but EM1 ?  I think) 

 

Your assertion that "DXO only calculates resolution, etc.  THEY DON'T TEST" is puzzling.

 

"DxOMark measurements for lenses and camera sensors" @ http://www.dxomark.com/About/In-depth-measurements/Measurements describes both measurements and calculations.

 

And, similarly for "Measuring sensors using RAW and testing lenses on cameras" @ http://www.dxomark.com/About/In-depth-measurements/Measuring-sensors-using-RAW-and-testing-lenses-on-cameras

 

Please clarify your assertion.

 

Thanks,

 

Marty

[Max the Dog]

They may have at some point done all of those things.  (2009)  But if they were still actually testing vs calculating they could have never have been so far off in their resolution scores of the FE55 on NEX7 vs A7r.

 

A sony fan that also suspects http://www.leica-boss.com/2014/03/hypothesis-dxo-doesnt-actually-test-every-lens-with-every-camera/ 

 

 

 

Max,

 

 

Your assertion that "DXO only calculates resolution, etc.  THEY DON'T TEST" is puzzling.

 

"DxOMark measurements for lenses and camera sensors" @ http://www.dxomark.com/About/In-depth-measurements/Measurements describes both measurements and calculations.

 

And, similarly for "Measuring sensors using RAW and testing lenses on cameras" @ http://www.dxomark.com/About/In-depth-measurements/Measuring-sensors-using-RAW-and-testing-lenses-on-cameras

 

Please clarify your assertion.

 

Thanks,

 

Marty

[weinhous]

Max,

 

Your provided link

 

"A sony fan that also suspects http://www.leica-bos...-every-camera/�"

 

is broken producing a "The page you trying to reach does not exist, or has been moved. Please use the menus or the search box to find what you are looking for." message.

 

Also, would you provide a link to the methodology and parameter definitions for the graphs you've displayed. Only with that additional information can sense be made of them.

 

Tnx.

 

They may have at some point done all of those things.  (2009)  But if they were still actually testing vs calculating they could have never have been so far off in their resolution scores of the FE55 on NEX7 vs A7r.

 

A sony fan that also suspects http://www.leica-boss.com/2014/03/hypothesis-dxo-doesnt-actually-test-every-lens-with-every-camera/ 

 

[iul]

http://www.sonyalphaforum.com/topic/486-why-you-shouldnt-trust-dxo-lens-testing/?p=3173    ;-)

[weinhous]

Am beginning to suspect that the difference between DXOMark and Imatest results cited may be due to the use and display of different sharpness parameters. See   http://www.imatest.com/docs/sharpness/  for a description of possible parameters. The discrepancy may come down to a normalization difference 'tween the DXOMark and Imatest results.

 

Would need to see, side by side, the DXOmark and Imatest fully labeled/annotated results for the same camera, lens, and camera+lens to understand the issue(s).

 

All this fun technical stuff aside, technical specs should only be taken as a rough guide in selecting equipment because of sample-to-sample variations and because individual photographers' needs will be different.

[weinhous]

Beginning to see some light....

 

DXOMark uses a rather different metric for "sharpness" than does Imatest. DXOMark's is described at http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Looking-for-new-photo-gear-DxOMark-s-Perceptual-Megapixel-can-help-you

 

So, without translating 'tween the various sharpness metrics, i.e. converting competing metrics into a same metric, it's almost impossible to compare DXOMark and Imatest results (apples and oranges).

 

One other comment. DXOMark has been criticized (accused) of not testing every possible body/lens combination for which they cite results. Now, here's a quote from Imatest "The beauty of using MTF (Spatial Frequency Response) is that the MTF of a complete imaging system is the product of the the MTF of its individual components."

 

So, if DXOMark (or anyone) has the MTFs for bodies and lenses, multiplying the MTFs will yield the combo MTF. If DXOMark's P-Mpix is MTF-based, then their calculation of sharpness of a combination should be OK (so long as they have the individual measured data for the bodies and lenses).

[Max the Dog]

Real quick - all the information needed is in those charts - see selected EXIF data.

 

For those that imatest often the NEX7 + FE55 results are stellar as far as the flatness of corner to corner. 

[weinhous]

Real quick - all the information needed is in those charts - see selected EXIF data.

 

For those that imatest often the NEX7 + FE55 results are stellar as far as the flatness of corner to corner. 

 

Real quick - wasn't inquiring about EXIF data.

[Max the Dog]

https://sonyvnikon.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/zeiss-apo-sonnar-135mm-imatest-on-sony-a7r-and-nikon-d810/

[Max the Dog]

Where are your photos Henri ?

 

See? Insults. References to... what photos? Those two or three night shots? Come on, really, show some of your real work. Not replying to my actual point about the difference between p-mpix and imatest, which was the root cause of the insult you flung at somebody that was the very first dumbass thing of yours that I read.

Max, you're a troll, and a pixel inspector instead of a photographer.

[Max the Dog]

Sunken costs, lack of identity, it's all in the psychology (that and the obvious image degradation of Sony) 

 

 https://sonyvnikon.wordpress.com/2015/03/25/why-sony-fanboys-fail-to-see-the-light-and-14-bit-color/

[flyingrooster]

One of those threads providing interesting personal experience in the beginning and becoming completely useless right away from posting #2.

 

https:/.sonyvnikon.word.press.com/ and calling others fanboys. Cute and sad at the same time...

[Robert Crawford]

Since my original post, I've gone ahead and purchased the Zeiss Otus 1.4/85 mm and the new Zeiss Otus 1.4/28 mm.    I love both lenses.  Manual focus is a snap with the a7R ii's focus magnification and focus peaking.

​

​I've also switched from Lightroom 6.4 to DxO Optics Pro 10 for my post processing.    DxO produces fabulous JPG's from Sony's 83-84 bit uncompressed RAW images.

 

​The lenses and DxO, coupled with the Sony a7R ii, are winners.

 

 ​Go here for NBA images shot from my seat yesterday using my Sony a7R ii with a Zeiss Sonnar APO T* 2.0/135: https://www.facebook.com/robertcrawfordwis/media_set?set=a.993020270733291.1073742083.100000759819582&type=3