Rick Knepper: Why does this seem like a Sony-centric forum? Because of the easy adaptability, Canon users have been adapting many brands of lenses long before Sony released their first ILC.
"Focus peaking is not needed if you have an adapter with an AF confirm chip."
As long as you are happy being limited to focus and recompose.
Mfritter: 1. How well do various cameras support adapted lenses in terms is EXIF data. At a minimum, the camera should allow one to enter the focal length. This should tie into to reasonable auto ISO functionality - e.g., minimum desired shutter speed. One should be able to code the lens in some way so it can be quickly identified when mounted. It would be super if the identification could correspond to lens profiles in one's software of choice.
3. The issue of smearing with wide lenses on Sony Alphas. Lots of discussion regarding M-mount wides, but more discussion of other options would be welcome. I assume this is not an issue on crop-sensor cameras. So a discussion of 21-mm-effective focal lengths on mirrorless cameras would be very interesting, as well as techniques for meliorating the problem on the Alphas.
The smearing talk seems to be focused on the A7R. Do the A7S and A7 exhibit different performance? Might not less pixel density be more forgiving?
"3. The issue of smearing with wide lenses on Sony Alphas. Lots of discussion regarding M-mount wides, but more discussion of other options would be welcome. I assume this is not an issue on crop-sensor cameras. So a discussion of 21-mm-effective focal lengths on mirrorless cameras would be very interesting, as well as techniques for meliorating the problem on the Alphas."
Other options generally don't have the smearing issues that the rangfinder lenses do. SLR lenses don't have the large exit angles of the light that don't play well with the sensor stack.
Olympus OM 21mm f/3.5 for example works beautifully, as does 20mm CZJ Flektagon f4. It's really only the rangefinder wides that have an issue.
Great stuff. Thanks for posting, it has me thinking and I can't ask for more than that.
papa natas: Well, I'll get hell back here from the teeming millions on account of what I think, and by the way, I NEVER write OMHO.. I'm not humble.1- It's stupid to ass-u-me that we ALL have converted to 4K. That goes to whomever had the brilliant idea to post this video in 4K.2- This Hurley guy, of which I never seen his work, may have or be rough talent. Then, I cannot help but to reminisce the Old talent: those guys such as Hamilton, Adams, Leidmann, Clarke, Newton, and the list goes on, who were issued from the Plastic Arts & Visual Media environment; then came to discover photography with MANUAL cameras.They had to LEARN the trade the good old way: to master composition, f stop and shutter speed with a narrow window of 36 shots. Nowadays it will be a capital sin not to get a dozen of decent images out of 500 shots. It's like shooting fish in a barrel, mind you.For these guys Bokeh wasn't an artistic expression.
"I never heard of" != it didn't happen.
Gary Bernstein's work is good, but he looks to be trying to capture something different than Peter. Most of his celebrity work for example seems to be "in character", rather than the person behind the character. It's work of it's time, and I really don't enjoy the eighties aesthetic.
The shot of Gene Kelly, wonderful. The shot of Kenny Rogers, woeful. Lot's of cliche in there too. That's not a shot of Robert Wagner, it's a shot of Jonathan Hart.
Actually, no. The further I get in, the worse it gets. I don't like Berstein's work. Leaves me flat.
"Well, I'll get hell back here"
Yeah, you likely will. You are writing garbage. That's what happens when you write garbage.
a) You didn't watch the video. b) He shot, and developed plenty of film, which you would know if a) wasn't true.
olyduck1: Leica M glass on Sony A 7R II - I have some M mount Leica lenses circa early 1960's. Setting aside issues of connectivity and functionality, I was wondering about any opinions of how well these old lenses do OPTICALLY when used via adapters on the newer digital cameras.
I'm trying to decide whether to just use my Leica M-3 and scan the film as needed vs. investing in a digital camera that could really take advantage of the Leica M glass.
I use the Hawk's Factory adaptor with the built-in helicoid for closer focusing with a Sony A7m2. Most lenses I have tried (and seen tests for) above 35mm works beautifully. 35mm and wider it's a bit more challenging for the rangefinder glass. Some will exhibit colour shift, vignetting, and corner smearing, some will not. Some will exhibit one or more but not others.
I've chosen to use the Leica M-mount as my universal mount. Almost all other mounts have adapters to M (currently using LTM/M39, Konica AR, Olympus OM, M42, and Leica M), and it can be used easily on other mirrorless systems too, so it should make the lens and adaptors investment a one-time thing.
It also means that each lens+adaptor is a little smaller, and they all benefit from the close focus of the Hawk's adaptor if needed.
Michael Ma: Apple likes their pictures with a little bit of warmth filter and a boost in the shadows. Kinda like a mild instagram for all their pictures out of their camera. Not really accurate so it'll always underperform according to accuracy. You talk to people out in the wild, they'll always say "I don't know what it is but iPhone always takes so much better pictures" because they judge based on emotion, not technical accuracy. The Galaxy S6 and Note5 (S6 with RAW/DNG output) is more of a best available camera on a smartphone to bridge the gap between cameras and smartphones, while Apple is just trying to produce a better jpeg files for mobile use. Different schools of thought. There are advantages to both.
Agree, but Apple dropped the ball here. The image quality should be better.
Thank you for including the work of three photographers in the samples. Makes a big difference.
Thank you for leaving some blacks black!
fakuryu: "And while the RGB+IR metering sensor should have brought AF subject tracking benefits to the line, it's not really noticeable for the type of candid portraiture such photographers are wont to shoot."
Or is it "it's not really noticeable for the type of candid portraiture such photographers WANT to shoot."?
ozturert: Excellent lens, excellent sensor, sluggish user experience (menus, review etc..).Why Sony, why... This is a $3000+ camera. Whhhhhhhyyyyyyyyy....
I think it's likely slightly more nuanced than that. :-)
Those can't cost more than $50 to produce...
I'd say Casio's marketing department is doing something right. Doesn't say anything for the rest of the company, however.
The actual figures on Apple hardware is closer to 40-50% gross profit. Once you get down to the nett, it's less. If you think any other electronics company is not in the same ballpark, you are kidding yourself.
"Apple has 80% profit margin" - Source?
Sorry, but Apple's figures show something different.
Yep, they have the margins on a camera like this to up the processor speed, the bandwidth, buffer, etc. It should be done.
Does the RX1RII still have the slow ~35MB/sec write speed bottleneck? They've had a couple of years to increase this now, it's time to up the ante.
spitfire31: As an owner of (a license for) Exposure 7, I was surprised and disappointed to discover that, when I entered my license code for Exposure 7 (I had the automatic upgrade from Exposure 6 to 7, btw), there was no free download at all but a 99 bucks price tag.
I don't see much difference between Exposure 7 and Exposure X, except for the RAW developing, and my preferred RAW editors are CR and LR anyway, so I'll pass on this one.
How many free upgrades were you expecting?
Wonderful, this is how all lenses should be built.
Michael Ma: I'd love to hear Jony Ive describe the seamless curves of this monstrosity.
I think Jony is drunk and crying in his office over this one being released.