Sony Sony A7R Extensive Review- E.J. Peiker

A bit cheeky of them to pull out a Nikon f/2.8 lens in a size comparison with the Sony's f/4. Compared with the identical specification Canon 24-70mm f4L lens the size differences are shown below, although the difference in weight should still be almost half a kilo in the Sony's favour. Canon also doesn't have a 36mp camera to mount that lens on, of course.

A7vs6D_zps5e84730d.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Compact Camera Meter
 
We just discussed this in talkemount forum also as Sony f4 lenses pretty much are matching the Canon f4 lenses. I am still keeping my smallish $160 Sigma 24-60 2.8 EF zoom which is nearly same size as these zooms with nearly zero distortion, but it is mf w/ Sony and don't know how it will do w/ high MP and sometimes I prefer to have the IS then the faster 2.8 esp when you stop down... Of course Zeiss will give better colors and contrast.

I added up the other f2.8 mirrorless zooms to your comparison, as most of them are not that small unless you go to high distortion pancake slow zooms (no Fuji 2.8 zooms available yet, so only kit lens and m43 2.8 zooms comes w/ 6-6.5% distortion correction)... I added up 24MP Sony A77 w/ 16-50 also as unique photo had one selling for $1100 as a combo which is cheaper then all these fast mirrorless zooms, so I can see why the mirrorless sales are struggling (at least we still have some weight savings w/ mirrorless as you said):
Compact Camera Meter

Zeiss zoom is not the perfect lens for A7(R) like the FE primes esp w/ Sony QC, but it is good enough walk around zoom that made Tim Ashley to sell his perfect EM1+12-40 and his comment:
Sony 24-70 F4 Lens

This lens will not even leave my cold, dead hands. I will be buried with it. The holy grail has arrived: a mid range zoom which can make acceptable thru very good prints at exhibition sizes at every focal length, and mounts on a camera that, with a change of lens, becomes effectively medium format. Yay!
 
On a slight tangent, how do you convert those CameraSize.com comparisons into a JPG that you can post?

A bit cheeky of them to pull out a Nikon f/2.8 lens in a size comparison with the Sony's f/4. Compared with the identical specification Canon 24-70mm f4L lens the size differences are shown below, although the difference in weight should still be almost half a kilo in the Sony's favour. Canon also doesn't have a 36mp camera to mount that lens on, of course.

Compact Camera Meter
 
We just discussed this in talkemount forum also as Sony f4 lenses pretty much are matching the Canon f4 lenses. I am still keeping my smallish $160 Sigma 24-60 2.8 EF zoom which is nearly same size as these zooms with nearly zero distortion, but it is mf w/ Sony and don't know how it will do w/ high MP and sometimes I prefer to have the IS then the faster 2.8 esp when you stop down... Of course Zeiss will give better colors and contrast.

I added up the other f2.8 mirrorless zooms to your comparison, as most of them are not that small unless you go to high distortion pancake slow zooms (no Fuji 2.8 zooms available yet, so only kit lens and m43 2.8 zooms comes w/ 6-6.5% distortion correction)... I added up 24MP Sony A77 w/ 16-50 also as unique photo had one selling for $1100 as a combo which is cheaper then all these fast mirrorless zooms, so I can see why the mirrorless sales are struggling (at least we still have some weight savings w/ mirrorless as you said):
Compact Camera Meter

Zeiss zoom is not the perfect lens for A7(R) like the FE primes esp w/ Sony QC, but it is good enough walk around zoom that made Tim Ashley to sell his perfect EM1+12-40 and his comment:
Sony 24-70 F4 Lens

Nice thorough line-up! I also compared the Sony and Canon with their respective 70-200mm f4 zooms and again their is only a tiny difference in length, but I forgot to check the weight.

Not surprised that Tim Ashley sold his E-M1 as I remember reading a blog post of his where he was moaning about it having barely acceptable image quality so I don't get why he even bought one in the first place.
 
We just discussed this in talkemount forum also as Sony f4 lenses pretty much are matching the Canon f4 lenses. I am still keeping my smallish $160 Sigma 24-60 2.8 EF zoom which is nearly same size as these zooms with nearly zero distortion, but it is mf w/ Sony and don't know how it will do w/ high MP and sometimes I prefer to have the IS then the faster 2.8 esp when you stop down... Of course Zeiss will give better colors and contrast.

Does the AF not work on the A7 with a Metabones adapter?
 
He was saying EM1+12-40 corner resolution is better then Nikon D800+24-70 lens for landscapes, maybe the weight factor also.

Not surprised that Tim Ashley sold his E-M1 as I remember reading a blog post of his where he was moaning about it having barely acceptable image quality so I don't get why he even bought one in the first place.

Not the third party lenses, esp Sigma which uses non-official hacked Canon af algorithms. I saw that the other third party adapters might work, but they may not be as reliable. Even af is working, it is too slow for walk around lens, since it is cdaf for pdaf lens. I don't know if A7 pdaf sensors will work with these adapters since I have A7R. It will be very nice if it works. Currently 70-300 EF IS (non-L) is focusing like 50-200 (non SWD) w/ EM1 at night time, back and forth until it finds the contrast to focus.

Does the AF not work on the A7 with a Metabones adapter?

Usually Sony LEA4 is recommended for fast af w/ Sony dslr lenses, but that is more due to some of the Sony lenses w/o af motors. Eventually Sony pdaf will catch up like EM1, maybe next generation dslrs, so they can get rid of the mirrors to save some weight but still those Sony lenses need a motor.
 
I think Tim's main issue with the EM-1 was, that he likes to print very big.

Nice thorough line-up! I also compared the Sony and Canon with their respective 70-200mm f4 zooms and again their is only a tiny difference in length, but I forgot to check the weight.

Not surprised that Tim Ashley sold his E-M1 as I remember reading a blog post of his where he was moaning about it having barely acceptable image quality so I don't get why he even bought one in the first place.
 
Back
Top