[Jon L]

I like THAT 

[navi]

My 5DIII is a great camera but at 100% crop I just don't get this kind of detail and resolution, even using the same lens.

Hi PeteG
You prefer the Sony A7r over the canon 5D MKIII?
Do you think the colour reproduction is better than the 5D MKIII?

I ask because I was tempted to jump to Sony after reading about the A7r but changed my mind after hearing they don't have many lenses for the camera (100mm macro is very important for me as it's the workhorse lens)

Ivan.

[Jon L]

You could use the 100 macro on the A7r via various adapters.  The ones without AF are pretty cheap, but there are quite a few that preserve AF, IS.  From researching these in an effort to find a reliable one, the user experience seems to be that AF is similarly slow via all of them, and each has different electronics/software leading to one working better with some lenses while another adapter may work better with other lenses (Canon or third party).

Metabones Mk III adapter seems to be the most popular with most user reviews but also the most expensive.  It does not work with all lenses at all, however:
"Only Canon-branded lenses introduced in or after 2006 are officially supported. Autofocus may be disabled for older Canon lenses and most third-party lenses, including most Sigma, Tamron and Tokina lenses and all Contax N lenses modified by Conurus."
http://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB-EF-E-BM3

Next choice would be RJ Electronics one which is cheaper with good user reviews available. Some claim it gives sharper results than Metabones III and works with new AND old Canon lenses.  RJ admits it does not work well with Sigma lenses.  I read one user who said that Canon 100L Macro did NOT AF when focus limiter was set to 0.3-0.5m (Macro range) but AF was fine at other settings including "Full."
http://www.rjcamera.com/ocart/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=81

This Viltrox zinc-alloy one seems okay as well.  I have a Viltrox Canon EF to M adapter which works OK though a bit loose on camera end.  One can find a couple of user reviews on line, so at least you know it works.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Auto-focus-AF-Adapter-Canon-EF-EF-S-Lens-to-Sony-NEX-Camera-NEX-3-NEX-5-NEX-7-/181327865685?pt=US_Lens_Adapters_Mounts_Tubes&hash=item2a37fba755

This Chinese one is claimed to be made from brass with AF intact.  Unfortunately, no user reviews can be found.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EF-Mount-Lens-Mount-Auto-Focus-Adapter-for-Sony-NEX-7-a7-a7R-5N-5R-3N-/271342856622?pt=US_Lens_Adapters_Mounts_Tubes&hash=item3f2d4b69ae


This "King" adapter looks interesting as well but again no reviews can be found.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/201023366624?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

[Jon L]

dup

[PeteG]

Hi PeteG
You prefer the Sony A7r over the canon 5D MKIII?
Do you think the colour reproduction is better than the 5D MKIII?

I ask because I was tempted to jump to Sony after reading about the A7r but changed my mind after hearing they don't have many lenses for the camera (100mm macro is very important for me as it's the workhorse lens)

Ivan.

Ivan, I do like the Sony's color reproduction and WB better but any action/sports/birding or anything I need fast AF/FPS its hard to beat the 5Dlll, so for most of my shooting it will be with my 5DIII.

[Jon L]

Ivan, I do like the Sony's color reproduction and WB better but any action/sports/birding or anything I need fast AF/FPS its hard to beat the 5Dlll, so for most of my shooting it will be with my 5DIII.

Isn't that a shame?  My A7R body just arrived today, but the Zeiss 55 mm lens I ordered is still on its way, so I can't test the combo. 

The announced Sony A6000 appears to have incredible AF speed/accuracy/FPS; if Sony can incorporate some of that hybrid AF goodness on next gen of A7R, it could be a killer camera for Pro-level work.  Assuming Sony can come up with overheating-free pro-level speedlite by then, hopefully with some RF triggers, the Sony platform could be very viable as replacement for CaNikon, not merely a supplement like it is right now.

[PeteG]

Jon, hopefully you don't have to wait long. The A6000 does look amazing.

A funny video (5dIII vs a7r):

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=13x4gF1RPBQ

[Jon L]

It's finally here.  Sony A7R and Zeiss 55 mm f/1.8.


EOSE1378 by drjlo1, on Flickr

[JerryLove]

I find some of what they've done with the A7R exciting but... no phase sensors (seriously? requiring a new lens mount, and already having at least hybrid sensors (A7), and there's no phase sensor on the A7R?).

Add to that Sony's tendency to abandon their mounts, and what looks like a dearth of physical controls (could be wrong on that second complaint), and I just can't make the investment in the glass. Also, no in-body IS? That's one of Sony's more compelling features.

Nikon and especially Canon have been playing a "good enough" game with features (look how crippled the 6D is to prevent it from beating out the 5DmkII. 180/sec flash sync? Really?), so it's nice to see other companies trying to push them; but there's so little foothold from Sony or Samsung at this point. The only credible challenger seems to be micro 4/3.

[JerryLove]

My 5DIII is a great camera but at 100% crop I just don't get this kind of detail and resolution, even using the same lens.

But you are compensating for a mis-setup with a kludge. It's one we've all done, and that's fine; but properly you'd use something like a Tamron 150-600 and recompose your shot to not need to crop.

That said: the 5DmkIII is a little long in the tooth at this point (second only to the 7D and 1D for age). I'm really hoping there's a mkIV around the corner with more pixels, a -3ev focus, and the dual-pixel system from the 70D.

[gnuyork]

But you are compensating for a mis-setup with a kludge. It's one we've all done, and that's fine; but properly you'd use something like a Tamron 150-600 and recompose your shot to not need to crop.

I don't know what you are implying here, but I don't think that's the point PeteG was trying to make referring to 100% crops. It's purely based on pixel peeping the detail each sensor is capable of capturing. 100% crops show that easily.

[JerryLove]

How do "detail" and "resolution" differ at 100%?

[PeteG]

How do "detail" and "resolution" differ at 100%?

I understand resolution is more or less the number of pixels, which is detail. When I used the word “detail” I was thinking more of the no anti aliasing filter to let more detail through. I didn’t explain it very well.

I was pixel peeping the image to see how it (a7r) compares, it’s funny you brought up the Tammy 150-600mm I’ve been using it on my 70D for the last couple of months, so far I like it.

-Pete

[gnuyork]

How do "detail" and "resolution" differ at 100%?

View an image with the 5D MkII or III at 100 % and then the Sony a7R and you will see what I mean. I have the Sigma DP2M and it also crushes my 5D MK II for detail. I never said anything about resolution, that is what it is.

[Jon L]

View an image with the 5D MkII or III at 100 % and then the Sony a7R and you will see what I mean. I have the Sigma DP2M and it also crushes my 5D MK II for detail. I never said anything about resolution, that is what it is.

It always makes me uneasy when audiophiles or photographers use words like "crush" to describe differences that are only visible when compared side-by-side at 100% magnification. 

Looking at my 5D III and A7R photos, not pixel peeping at 100%, I am more impressed by the fact both look pretty darn good and that I would not be able to tell them apart on my computer screen if I didn't know which was which.  Lighting, strobist techniques, composition, the "message" still make far, far more difference IMHO. 

[gnuyork]

It always makes me uneasy when audiophiles or photographers use words like "crush" to describe differences that are only visible when compared side-by-side at 100% magnification.

Wow! Sorry that makes you uneasy. It makes me uneasy that your uneasy. I guess "crush" is a relative description, and yes maybe extreme and over zealous, I'll retract that. I have both cameras, and the MKII is collecting dust. I also like to print large, so every bit of detail helps. Viewing at 100% gives me a clue what I have to work with. Funny thing is the Sigma actually has less resolution, but it still captures more detail than the 5DmkII - different sensor technologies...

I also don't think the difference is only apparent in a side by side comparison at 100% either.

Looking at my 5D III and A7R photos, not pixel peeping at 100%, I am more impressed by the fact both look pretty darn good and that I would not be able to tell them apart on my computer screen if I didn't know which was which.  Lighting, strobist techniques, composition, the "message" still make far, far more difference IMHO.

That's great, I know there is much more to photography than detail and resolution, but I was just commenting from what Pete G said about the differences between the MkII and the A7R at 100%. I agree with his sentiments. For my own needs detail and resolution are important, and yes, I pixel peep. I also shoot a 4x5 camera, and let me tell you, it's not because I enjoy hauling it all over blue blazes. I also hold more value in what an image looks like printed than on a screen.

[JerryLove]

I never said anything about resolution, that is what it is.

Not any more. Guess I should have quoted

« Last Edit: Yesterday at 09:53 am by gnuyork »

though interestingly: you reused that phrase later (though in a slightly different context)

That's great, I know there is much more to photography than detail and resolution

[gnuyork]

Not any more. Guess I should have quoted

Huh?

[JerryLove]

Neat article (with pics to show differences) between the 36MP Nikon D800 (same Sony sensor) and 5DmkIII.

http://blog.kareldonk.com/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-review/

Also: Glad you are happy with your Sony A7R, but I couldn't go back to contrast detection.
Flash sync is oddly crap too (I get better on my XSi).

[Jon L]

Woke up this morning with this sunrise, so I took a shot with Sony A7R with FE55 and 5D III and 24-70 f/2.8 II both at around 55 mm and at f/3.2  The 24-70 is a bit disadvantaged as it's barely stopped down, and the auto white balance of both cameras yielded very different WB, so I did my best to match WB. 


Sony A7R, FE55mm by drjlo1, on Flickr


5D III white balance match by drjlo1, on Flickr


For the curious, this is how 5D III WB looked before matching.  Recalling what my own eyes saw, I would say the sky looked like somewhere between Sony and Canon but more towards Canon.


Canon 5DIII WB, exposure match by drjlo1, on Flickr