Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Just got my LA-EA4 for the A7r
#11
Zeiss doesn't produce lenses for sony, they merely design them given sony's time and budget constraints. 

 

Quote:(undoubtably why they also selected zeiss as a lens maker)
#12
Quote:Zeiss doesn't produce lenses for sony, they merely design them given sony's time and budget constraints.
….which might explain why the quality control that one would expect from a zeiss made lens is not obvious from sony versions of zeiss lenses (and i speak from experience here)….so my wording above was wrong….

 

….but, my approach to everything has been….'if you can’t do it right, best to not do it at all'….and, although i might be speaking out of turn(again), seems to me (from experience) that sony professional products are quite a different company from sony consumer gear, unfortunately….so the nice blue zeiss logo should have underneath an orange logo with ‘zeiss designed, sony built’ maybe….now have i stuffed up this thread enough yet?….promise to keep my fingers off the keyboard from now on….

#13
Quote:If it's not embarrassing when anybody sees you mounting 70-300 on it, same goes for 16-80 Smile. Though Klaus anyway does it at home behind closed doors.
 

FWIW, the A7r does exactly what it is supposed to do with the 16-80 - it switches to APS-C mode.

Otherwise it would be have been outside of its specs (which is ... pointless).
#14
Quote:….hmmm, it may be not obvious here i suppose but i am actually trying to stop posting stuff, however in this case i can’t avoid saying….

 

1.  the 7r is made by sony to apparently be a small light mirrorless thingy that one might, or might not, buy for easy compact photography, yes for street photography too….that is before said creative street photographer is beaten up by natives who hate him/her showing the beauty of the species….but never mind that, this is central coast oz after all….

 

2.  the lenses of which you speak are large and heavy + need (so far on this little system) a lumpy adapter, all of which: (1) look(imho) foolish, (2) don’t fit in your pocket no matter how deep it is, and (3) catch on every little thing as you try to quickly drag the monster out of your shoulder bag….

 

….so sony in their infinate wisdom no doubt, built this little full frame thingy to be used with small, light, high quality, full frame lenses(undoubtably why they also selected zeiss as a lens maker)…
That reminds me of a nighty walk with my new 6D when I just had received my Nikkor 55mm f1.2 from Japan. There was some light art through the city and I was taking some snaps from projections on a church, handheld (just to see how this lens performs). Next to me there were two men with cameras on tripods, one had a small MFT camera and the other not sure... maybe a Pentax, I do not remember really. The MFT guy was boasting to the other guy how sharp he got everything on the display or something. 

While I was taking some snaps, the MFT man turned to me asking how it went with handheld shooting. I showed him my lens and said that I was trying out my new old f1.2 lens, and that higher ISO's were no problem with the camera.

 

When I walked on, it dawned on me just how much more portable my "fat" FF DSLR was than his MFT with tripod setup... Kind of ironic.

 

You are right of course, that the A7r (and A7) are designed for compactness. There are people who like "mirrorless" for that quality, which is understandable and sane.  There are also people who like mirrorless for the lack of mirror, and see it as a replacement for everything and every situation. That is a bit less sane.

 

Not sure why, but some who call themselves "landscape photographers" think they need the highest resolution sensors. It is those who will want to use the A7r for its sensor, not for its form factor.

Ironic though, that those "landscape photographers" stop down to get "everything sharp", and then incur so much diffraction softening that the higher resolution sensor is kinda useless ... The high res. sensors are of benefit for those who shoot with relatively large apertures... Street photographers, portraits and so on. Also ironic (in that "landscape photographer" scenario) that the A7r on a tripod gets hit by the shutter vibration. And that those "landscape photographers" drag along tripods, making the compactness of mirrorless a bit pointless.

 

Is it ironic also that my spellchecker keeps complaining about "mirrorless"? 
#15
The guy could have chosen the Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 for handheld shooting - on an E-M1 or GX-7 with in-body IS, he would have easily matched you here. But maybe he preferred to shoot at f/8.

#16
Quote:The guy could have chosen the Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 for handheld shooting - on an E-M1 or GX-7 with in-body IS, he would have easily matched you here. But maybe he preferred to shoot at f/8.
Yes he could have, but didn't. He had a compact mirror less with a tripod. Which made it ironic. 

 

As to f8, that was not really helpful under the circumstances (standing far away from the subject, with just the subject lighted and nothing of interest in the foreground).
#17
Quote:That reminds me of a nighty walk with my new 6D when I just had received my Nikkor 55mm f1.2 from Japan. There was some light art through the city and I was taking some snaps from projections on a church, handheld (just to see how this lens performs). Next to me there were two men with cameras on tripods, one had a small MFT camera and the other not sure... maybe a Pentax, I do not remember really. The MFT guy was boasting to the other guy how sharp he got everything on the display or something. 

While I was taking some snaps, the MFT man turned to me asking how it went with handheld shooting. I showed him my lens and said that I was trying out my new old f1.2 lens, and that higher ISO's were no problem with the camera.

 

When I walked on, it dawned on me just how much more portable my "fat" FF DSLR was than his MFT with tripod setup... Kind of ironic.

 

You are right of course, that the A7r (and A7) are designed for compactness. There are people who like "mirrorless" for that quality, which is understandable and sane.  There are also people who like mirrorless for the lack of mirror, and see it as a replacement for everything and every situation. That is a bit less sane.

 

Not sure why, but some who call themselves "landscape photographers" think they need the highest resolution sensors. It is those who will want to use the A7r for its sensor, not for its form factor.

Ironic though, that those "landscape photographers" stop down to get "everything sharp", and then incur so much diffraction softening that the higher resolution sensor is kinda useless ... The high res. sensors are of benefit for those who shoot with relatively large apertures... Street photographers, portraits and so on. Also ironic (in that "landscape photographer" scenario) that the A7r on a tripod gets hit by the shutter vibration. And that those "landscape photographers" drag along tripods, making the compactness of mirrorless a bit pointless.

 

Is it ironic also that my spellchecker keeps complaining about "mirrorless"? 
 

Does it mean one cannot use a tripod if he uses a mirrorless camera? ;-)

 

One can buy a small MFT system they will use 90% of the time handheld, but still want to use a tripod during these rare occurences when they need it.

Maybe that guy wanted to use a slow shutter speed for some reason. Or he wanted to use the lowest possible ISO?

I don't see a contradiction here.

--Florent

Flickr gallery
#18
Quote:Ironic though, that those "landscape photographers" stop down to get "everything sharp", and then incur so much diffraction softening that the higher resolution sensor is kinda useless ... The high res. sensors are of benefit for those who shoot with relatively large apertures... Street photographers, portraits and so on.
It might be ironic in certain ways, however having more pixels to play with is without a doubt a great bonus.
Quote:And that those "landscape photographers" drag along tripods, making the compactness of mirrorless a bit pointless.
Compactness is not just for portability. With a compact camera (even dragging along a tripod) is still more portable than a bulky FF camera plus a strong tripod.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)