Sony A7Rii and Sony/Zeiss 35mm F2.8 v Fuji X100V

Started Oct 27, 2020 | Discussions thread
SafariBob
SafariBob Senior Member • Posts: 2,591
Re: Sony A7Rii and Sony/Zeiss 35mm F2.8 v Fuji X100V

theoverratedphotog wrote:

SafariBob wrote:

theoverratedphotog wrote:

SafariBob wrote:

theoverratedphotog wrote:

SafariBob wrote:

theoverratedphotog wrote:

SafariBob wrote:

theoverratedphotog wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

theoverratedphotog wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

42mp A7r II with such lens destroys 26mp APS-C X100V easily, not that close.

FE 35/2.8 ZA is actually not among the sharpest prime lenses on E-mount, but still be much sharper than APS-C X100V with the fixed prime. The reason is very clear that the much smaller APS-C sensor has to enlarge pixels much more to project to the same size of output which is the same as digital cropping. As a matter of fact, 61mp A7r IV in APS-C mode (as cropped to 1.5x AOV) = 26mp APS-C sensor in resolution (and entire IQ).

Sharpness is more to do with lens than MP. I don't think you can make broad statement like this. A crap lens on a full-frame body is not better than a good lens on an APSC body.

That is misunderstanding by many including you. Sensor is the key part in the system sharpness. Bear in mind, neither lens alone nor senor can take photos but lens+sensor as a system. DXO lens+sensor tests proved what I said. Smaller APS-C sensor has to enlarge pixels much more that is the same as cropping that soften a photo in large degree. Otherwise some lenses on mFT, 1" or cellphone are excellent, as good as on APS-C in some eq FL lenses.

I have both the X100V and the 35 f/2.8 although I have the A7riii not the A7rii. I'll do some tests this weekend.

Waiting to see. Suggest on a concrete building as the sample I demo'ed and compared at the same size, ideally enlarge 26mp from X100V to the same 42mp as on A7r III/II

In theory, what you are saying is correct, but the impact is so small in the overall equation that it is negligible. Lens quality, ISO etc would have much bigger impacts. Looking at a 24MP on both APSC and full-frame with the same equivalent focal length and aperture, the images are almost indistinguishable.

Put a 56 f/1.2 on an APSC and the Sony 85mm f/1.8 and you'd be hard-pressed to identify the difference between the two. The test I saw with the Fuji 50-140 and the Canon 70-200 f/4 showed the Fuji was sharper which disproves exactly what you were saying.

https://www.instagram.com/theoverratedphotographer/
https://www.theoverratedphotographer.com/

There is some truth to this, but bear in mind that making a doubly sharp,1 stop faster lens seems to be very expensive for many classical lensdesigns. Hence I don’t think this really pans out - case in point your 56 1.2 is nearly twice the cost of the equivalent Sony.

F/1.2 is the equivalent aperture to f1.8 on full frame just like the x100v is an f2 which is close to the f2.8 of the 35 zony

that said, the 70-200 f4 is the same price as the 50-140 so it doesn’t explain the 50-140 beating the 70-200. As I mentioned, glass quality is far more important than the sensor resolution in modern day sensors over 24mp

when you compare lenses, most people would test at the equivalence level as its the only way to get a comparable image quality

Yes, but the 56 1.2 is much more expensive than the 85 1.8, same with 35 1.4 vs 50 1.8 for example.

Isn’t that exactly what I was saying? I was trying to point out that lens quality has a bigger impact on the image than the resolution of the camera. PW was trying to insinuate that the high resolution of the full frame would immediately make it (the 35 f2.8) sharper than the x100v

Is it? If yes, then I misunderstood something.

Regardless, as to the point whether it’s lens design or sensor that makes the biggest difference, I don’t think you can separate it the way you do. Because basically, it’s the lens that gives “the look” at a distance, but it is the sensor that gives the details in a well exposed image.

also, the sensor design whether it has aa filter or is foveon makes a material difference - even without pixel peeping. Check out the difference between the rx1 vs rx1r for example.

PW made the statement that because the 35mm f/2.8 was on a higher resolution sensor, the image quality would be better than the Fuji despite the 35 f/2.8 not being the sharpest lens. I said it was flawed to make a blanket statement like this.

"FE 35/2.8 ZA is actually not among the sharpest prime lenses on E-mount, but still be much sharper than APS-C X100V with the fixed prime. The reason is very clear that the much smaller APS-C sensor has to enlarge pixels much more to project to the same size of output which is the same as digital cropping"

I think that the 35 za is better quality than the x100s lens at least. Not sure about x100v. It is generally true that apsc magnifies optical imperfections.

The X100V has a new lens which is supposed to be a big. The 35 f/2.8 could well be better, but that's likely more to do with lens quality than the APSC vs full frame.

I'll do some tests over the weekend. I can test it with both the A7riii and A7iii.

I agree that a superior, but equivalent lens on apsc will beat full frame if same resolution. If not same resolution I think it’s trickier.

 SafariBob's gear list:SafariBob's gear list
Sony RX1 Sony a7R II Sony a7R IV Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM Sony 70-400mm F4-5.6 G SSM +3 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow