Mirrorless FF body for Legacy Lenses

[Cole]

Just joined this group and searched the topic and didn't find anything.....apologies if this has already been covered.

 

I shoot Nikon professionally but also have an A6000 walk around that I love.  I've started hanging some legacy lenses off the Sony and, overall, am very pleased w/ the result.  I'm going to purchase a Sony FF mirrorless just for that purpose (too much invested in Nikon to make complete switch and do love their cameras) and am wondering about which one to go with.

 

My question:

 

Given that the camera will be used almost exclusively for legacy lenses, can I get away w/ purchasing an older Sony FF mirrorless (A7) or do newer bodies generally yield a significantly better image w/ legacy glass?

 

Realize this may be a hornet nest type of question but hope not.

 

Thanks for your help, much appreciated

[addicted2light]

If I were you I'd go for the A7 II (and maybe wait a couple months, given an A7 III could be on the way so prices could go seriously down).

 

The sensor is the same of the one in the "old" A7, but:

 

- IBIS can make a major difference, especially IMO with long legacy glass when you need a stable magnified image to be able to focus it properly (peaking, again IMO, is next to useless because it is way too imprecise)

 

- it should be a more responsive camera

 

I have the original A7r, and, massive shutter shock with long lenses aside, my only real gripe with the camera is the extremely mushy shutter button. Seriously, I hate the gut of that thing, and I really don't understand how did they release the camera without anyone noticing and complaining during the beta testing period... Anyway I use the A7r almost only for landscapes, with the self-timer engaged, so not a big deal in the end.

 

The old A7 should be a tad more responsive, without shutter shock (at least as long as you enable the first curtain shutter, and why wouldn't you?).

 

Keep in mind that most legacy glass made for SLR and DSLR works between "fine" and "wow". I personally use Contax Zeiss and Minolta M-Rokkor and MC/MD lenses, and all of them work beautifully. The only problems stems (and not with all the lenses) usually from rangefinder lenses shorter than 35/40mm.

 

Another problem, that I've encountered with a couple of my lenses, is one related apparently to some sort of weird interaction between adapters and the small opening of the Sony lens mount. It might stem with certain long (> 85mm) lenses and cheap adapters, it is rare, and should you experience it you can solve it just buying a Novoflex or a Metabones adapter. You can read about that here:

 

Weird shadow on A7r with adapted long lenses

 

The only body that I know that behaves significantly better with legacy glass, and even then just with rangefinder legacy glass, is the A7s. And that probably has more to do with the low megapixel count / large pixel pitch than with some kind of sensor-related difference in terms of engineering.

[Cole]

Lots of valuable info. Will review the links. Much appreciated.  Agree about image stabilization being a very good thing.  Biggest bitch w/ the A6000 is high ISO performance....hoping it improves w/ in the A7 bodies...although I hear older A7 not so good.   Current legacy glass includes Nikkor,  M/O,  Helios and looking for a Contax 100 f/2.  Always looking for legacy lenses that can deliver something new glass isn't designed to do.

[addicted2light]

Biggest bitch w/ the A6000 is high ISO performance....hoping it improves w/ in the A7 bodies...although I hear older A7 not so good.

 

 

As for high ISO performance: my opinion is not exactly mainstream, so please take it with a grain of salt. But IMO for anything over 800 ISO (and sometime even over 400 ISO) the A7r is next to useless.

 

The A7 from every test I read has more or less the same ISO performance, especially because you can resize the A7r files to match 24Mp lowering the noise (and the A7 II still uses the same sensor, remember). The problem is not the size of the noise in itself, but the HUNDREDS of hot pixels that plague every image (even shot at short, "normal" shutter speeds), and that are very though to remove in software (only "Despeckle" in Photoshop seems to have some effect, but still leaves many of them behind). Mind you, this even after calibrating the camera and independently from the noise reduction and long exposure noise reduction settings.

 

It might be that I have a faulty body, but I've seen the same with friends' cameras so I don't think so. The combination of mushy shutter button (and the instability that that causes when shooting at low speeds) & terrible high ISO performance has relegated the A7r, like I said, as the landscape camera (where it excels), while for every other "handheld" need I now shoot Fuji (much better shooting experience, IMO, and after being "burned" with the first X100 I avoided Fuji like the plague for years).

 

 

Current legacy glass includes Nikkor,  M/O,  Helios and looking for a Contax 100 f/2. 

 

The Contax is a gorgeous lens (like most/all Contax glass, btw). I don't know if you already read this, it compares the "classic" Contax version with the new ZE/ZF one:

 

Contax 100mm F2 Planar Review

 

If you're in the market for a general purpose zoom give a try to the Contax 28-85/3.5-4. It is a tad big - still not that bigger than a contemporary f/4 lens, though - but the results are actually even SHARPER than the corresponding Contax fixed focal lengths, the colors are next to perfect and @85mm that thing is pure magic. You can see below a couple of pictures I took on my very fist hike with it:

 

http://www.sonyalphaforum.com/topic/1592-pictures-taken-with-sony-alfa-cameras-and-contax-zeiss-lenses/?p=10308

 

Many Nikkors should work wonderfully, and that much you probably already know. I got rid of all my Nikkors only because once I started using Contax glass - that turns "the other way" -, and fell in love with it mixing the two in the field was annoying, but I've been a Nikon shooter for maybe 20 years before switching to Canon (when Nikon declared multiple times they dint' have any intention to go full frame...we've seen how that turned out).

 

And a few Nikkors that I still remember fondly include:

- the 35/2 Nikkor-O (the pre-Ai version) or the 35/2 Ai (same optical scheme, different coating & vastly different price)

- the 35/1.4 pre-Ai (first batch, with the 9 blades rounded aperture; one of the only 2 lenses I regret selling...the other being the Canon 135/2 EF L)

- the 55/3.5 Micro pre-Ai (the first one, super sharp both at close range and at infinity, even if with a greenish tint)

- obviously the 180/2.8 ED AFD

- the 85/1.8 AF

- the 85/2 Ai and the

- 18/3.5 Ai (both vastly under-appreciated)

- the 20/3.5 UD (wonderful piece of glass, even by modern standards, at least on the Canon 5D mk II)

- and lastly the 300/4.5 Ai IF ED

 

 Always looking for legacy lenses that can deliver something new glass isn't designed to do.

 

You nailed it! Actually this is my criterion when buying lenses altogether, legacy or not. Historically, if a lens didn't have "character", I always ended up selling it in the end... Now that I think of it, I do the same with people: if they don't have character I loose touch during the years!  

[Golem]

............. but also have an A6000 walk around that I love.  ..........

............  I'm going to purchase a Sony FF mirrorless just for that

purpose .......... and am wondering about which one to go with.

 

............. can I get away w/ purchasing an older Sony FF mirrorless

(A7) or do newer bodies generally yield a significantly better image

w/ legacy glass?

 

............. 

I use both the a6000 and a7II. It's my 2nd hand understanding

that the a7 and a7II IQ are quite alike. That factoid suppozedly

qualifies me to compare your possible a7 to your current a6000.

   

It's my experience, mostly at ISO 1600, that both cameras offer

approximately the same IQ. Perhaps at some lower ISO things

might not be so, but from 800 to 3200 they're substantially the

same, with possibly a minor improvement at 3200 for the a7II.

"Possibly" cuz I didn't A-B Compare them and I don't use 3200

very often ... so it's just a vague notion. Another vague notion is

that at ISO 800 might be low enuf that the a7II can show off its

"FF Advantage" vs the a6000 ... again, just "possibly". But my   

personal default ISO of 1600 seems to be the Great Equalizer.

  

I don't own an a7ii for any IQ benefit vs the a6000. I have it cuz

I have many bagsful of old FF glass ... IOW for its field of view.

Also, despite its greater bulk, the a7II gets far more use than its

more svelte cousins cuz I looooove IBIS ! YMMV.

[Cole]

I was hoping the high ISO would be less noisy on the Sony FF than on the A6000 but will no doubt pick one up anyway....improved dof and fov for legacy FF glass.  Hate having to spent so much on yet another camera, so was hoping to get away w/ an older A7 but looks like the A7ii may be the way to go for IBIS. 

 

Many Nikkors should work wonderfully,  Yes, and you put up a great list. My current inventory of Nikkor legacy glass includes:

 

• 105 f/4 micro (wow)
• 50 f/1.8 AF-D (super sharp)
• 35-70 f/2.8 AF-D (the deal of the century on a great mid-rage zoom)
• 80-200 f/2.8 AF (too big and heavy but delivers a superb result)
• 85 f/1.8 AF-D (another great deal in a lens...sold a more expensive 1.4 after comparing them)

The 20 UD is nice. Can find pre-AI's everywhere but ones that have been AI'd are getting harder to come by. A lot of those guys who did it are now retired.

 

I had seen the Contax 100 f/2 comparison review.....one of the reasons I decided to go w/ the older version, which is still bringing $800-$1,0000 for a good copy.

[joshinthecity]

A7II

 

legacy glass with 5-axis?

 

It's the holy grail.

j.

[Golem]

I was hoping the high ISO would be less noisy on the Sony FF

than on the A6000 but will no doubt pick one up anyway....

improved dof and fov for legacy FF glass.  Hate having to spent

so much on yet another camera, so was hoping to get away w/

an older A7 but looks like the A7ii may be the way to go for IBIS.  

  

If you DON'T care about IBIS just get a SpeedBooster for

your APSC. You'll get 95% of the FF FoV from FF lenses

on an APSC camera. As to "improved" DoF ... uh no. You

need to dial higher apertures just get the SAME DoF [if

NOT using a SpeedBooster].

 

Cool thing about SpeedBoosters is that DoF remains the

same at the MARKED aperture number, whether the lens

is on a FF body [no SpeedBooster] or an APSC body [with

SpeedBooster].

 

Acoarst, thaz cuz the marked aperture becomes one full

stop faster when using a SpeedBooster [thus the name].

[Gilgenberg]

i shoot with legacy glass only

 

had the NEX-7 (APS-C) with Speedbooster

 

than A7 (much better) but corner smearing and color shift with RF glass was unpleasant

 

looked for A7II but weight and body size i did not like, also shutter sound, and same sensor like A7 (corner problems)

 

so now i have A7S and i´m very happy!

 

no need for IBIS because of 4x better ISO, except for video IBIS would be better, no shutter sound because of silent shooting, no color cast and smearing in the corners

 

but only 12MP, what can be a good thing! ...i like the smaller RAW files and the better color´s from A7S

 

if you don´t mind the bigger body and much bigger RAW file size  the A7RII would be also a good body for legacy glass....... don´t know about the corner issue with A7RII

[IamJF]

Hi,

 

I also think the A7s is the perfect partner for legacy glas. Can be quite small, great build quality, 12MP is nice to these lenses. If noise is your concern (street? indoor? kids?) - A7s is the way to go. (had A77 and A5100 before - the diference is HUGE).

 

But if you photograph steady objects OSS is great (love it on my 90mm Macro, also helps for video). A7sII would be the king - but would be to expensive for me for just this task.

 

btw. - I'm sure you will not stick with an A7 or A7II. But the A7s will be in your bag for quite a while ...

[LCT]

Kolari mod A7s. 100% legacy lenses, Leica M mainly. My favorite SLR in 30+ years. Only con (aside from messy menus ) is moiré due to the thin sensor stack but there is no free lunch.

[Kilsort]

Some wise advice in this thread.

 

I was considering the A7ii and A7s and in the end the price decided, the A7 is rather good value nowadays for legacy glass. Additionally I wasn't sure about entering the focal length of the lens to use with IBIS every time I switched (think this is a pretty minor annoyance though) and not to keen on the even lesser battery life with said IBIS.

Considered the A7s since without cropping a lot the images are res enough for my purposes..though downloaded and processed RAWs from the A7 and A7s and I just couldn't match the detail of the former's shots with the latter's. In blind tests  (of the same test scene, granted ) I preferred the A7 (and A6000) every time. At base ISO, anyways..  there's something about just saying "Sod it" and turning the ISO up to 12800 that appeals to the human psyche. And outside of DPR's test scene I have seen very few images from an A7s that I didn't like.

[Golem]

........ I preferred the A7 (and A6000) every time. At base ISO, anyways..  .........

 

Natcherly !!!

 

The "S" version is *all about* high to very-high

ISO. It's reputation at low to mid ISO is nothing

to brag about. If you're a night owl, and a pub

crawler, thaz when you want the "S" !

[Cole]

Been on the road so have not been able to respond.  Lots of good info here.  Like the A7s idea...but not the price.  Particularly so, since I shoot Nikon and this is a secondary system for me.  The speed booster seems worthy of consideration but I'm a bit apprehensive about the reduced image quality in the corners and reported increase in chromatic aberration.

[Golem]

The SpeedBooster "penalty" is verrrry dependent on

what type of shooting you do. I use a Mitakon version,

regarded as inferior to a Metabones, but the purpose

to which I apply it is rather immune to IQ problems. In

music clubs and nighttime downtown street views etc

shot handheld at 1600 to 3200 ISO, there's nothing

[much] about the subject matter, that would look any

better if I had better optics.

  

So much for the "penalty". Let's not ignore that these

devices offer benefits. There's a boost in lens speed.

They're a bit more compact than non-optical adapters.

You can interchange lenses in risky environments that

might threaten a naked sensor, but the sensor is NOT

exposed when using these devices, and cleaning the

lens surface [if needed] is a minor chore, nothing like

cleaning up an image sensor. Altho absent with the

Mitakon, the Metabones includes a fine tripod socket,

definitely better than the one on the camera.

  

SpeedBoosters are not for everyone. To some they're

just one more affront to their pursuit of optical nirvana.  

To me they're a great tool to great results. And if ever I

find myself wishing to improve the optical performance

I'm in luck ! As a Mitakon user, I can [supposedly] find

that improvement by switching to a Metabones :-) Not

that I'm leaning in that direction ...