Sony A7 IV official topic

[bjohn]

On 8/18/2022 at 7:53 AM, lebigmac said:

In addition to my previous takes on my A7iv – at least when you own a lot of bread and butter vintage analogue lenses and like to shoot photos with them – you might be a little disappointed.

Good to know. I know of one photographer who claims that the best Sony camera for vintage glass is the first-generation A7s, the one before they added image stabilization. I have the A7iii and have been happy with it (never use it for video, though); I am intrigued enough about the original A7s that I might get one to see. The photographer I'm referring to says that about half the shots in this album were with the A7s; the other with Leica M9, all using vintage glass: http://www.outlierimagery.com/street

And most of the shots in this album were with the original A7s with vintage glass: http://www.outlierimagery.com/bts

[lebigmac]

1 hour ago, bjohn said:

Good to know. I know of one photographer who claims that the best Sony camera for vintage glass is the first-generation A7s, the one before they added image stabilization. I have the A7iii and have been happy with it (never use it for video, though); I am intrigued enough about the original A7s that I might get one to see. The photographer I'm referring to says that about half the shots in this album were with the A7s; the other with Leica M9, all using vintage glass: http://www.outlierimagery.com/street

And most of the shots in this album were with the original A7s with vintage glass: http://www.outlierimagery.com/bts

Great pics! I didn‘t have any issues using the Minolta MD‘s on the Nikon Z6 - which features a stabilization system as well - all clean and sharp. I am not sure if this would be the reason.

[bjohn]

1 hour ago, lebigmac said:

I didn‘t have any issues using the Minolta MD‘s on the Nikon Z6 - which features a stabilization system as well - all clean and sharp. I am not sure if this would be the reason.

I didn't mean to imply that stabilization was at play -- that guy prefers the original A7s because it's smaller and lighter (stabilization in the A7sii added a bit of weight and size to the camera). It's a different sensor than the later models, still 12.2 megapixels but not the same sensor technology. I have to say it does look great and I'm tempted, especially since the A7s is quite affordable on the used market. Hopefully I didn't just change that situation. 🙂

[bjohn]

I've been using Minolta MC and MD Rokkor lenses for the past 3-4 years on Sony A7iii with no issues, most rangefinder lenses also are great on the A7iii as long as they're 35mm or longer; the wider rangefinder lenses (28 and wider) tend to have more problems with corner smearing and other issues related to the thicker Sony sensor stack. That's not an issue with the Rokkors of course.

So if you're experiencing problems with Rokkors on the A7iv, it's due to that particular camera. It's not the higher resolution that's the issue, since plenty of people use Rokkors on the A7r-series cameras, which have much higher resolution than the A7iv. What adapter are you using for SR mount to E mount? The Novoflex is the best, although pricey.

[Andrew Reid]

9 hours ago, lebigmac said:

Great pics! I didn‘t have any issues using the Minolta MD‘s on the Nikon Z6 - which features a stabilization system as well - all clean and sharp. I am not sure if this would be the reason.

The reason they work well on the Z6 is it has one of the thinnest filter stack on a full frame digital camera. The thinner that glass, the better for old lenses.

[lebigmac]

On 8/20/2022 at 2:01 PM, bjohn said:

I didn't mean to imply that stabilization was at play -- that guy prefers the original A7s because it's smaller and lighter (stabilization in the A7sii added a bit of weight and size to the camera). It's a different sensor than the later models, still 12.2 megapixels but not the same sensor technology. I have to say it does look great and I'm tempted, especially since the A7s is quite affordable on the used market. Hopefully I didn't just change that situation. 🙂

The A7 and A7s share the same body, more or less and there's really much to love about it, still today. It feels like a digital version of the X-700. The A7 is a little cheaper than the A7s, I got mine for around 350 €, and it's great for photos when it's not too dark.

[lebigmac]

On 8/20/2022 at 9:32 PM, bjohn said:

What adapter are you using for SR mount to E mount? The Novoflex is the best, although pricey.

I don't know, since there's no brand name on it and I have since the old NEX-3 days, but it's solid and of metal. 

[lebigmac]

On 8/20/2022 at 9:36 PM, Andrew Reid said:

The reason they work well on the Z6 is it has one of the thinnest filter stack on a full frame digital camera. The thinner that glass, the better for old lenses.

I wasn't aware of this at all, would have definitely been a reason to keep it. If this is behind the lackluster performance of the A7iv (and supposedly other modern cameras to come), it's outright painful to accept that one has to lay the old glass to rest sooner or later. 

[bjohn]

3 hours ago, lebigmac said:

I don't know, since there's no brand name on it and I have since the old NEX-3 days, but it's solid and of metal

I only asked because some cheap adapters aren't quite the right length, which can affect focus but mainly at infinity (which is not what you were shooting at in your examples).

The Rokkors perform beautifully on Sony A7iii so it's hard to understand why they wouldn't perform as well on the A7iv.

[lebigmac]

8 hours ago, bjohn said:

I only asked because some cheap adapters aren't quite the right length, which can affect focus but mainly at infinity (which is not what you were shooting at in your examples).

The Rokkors perform beautifully on Sony A7iii so it's hard to understand why they wouldn't perform as well on the A7iv.

The adapter served me well in all those years, I really think, it's something else that's at play here.
I even sent my camera in to Sony's repair contractor before posting here, and they told me that me copy is perfectly 'within the normal parameters'. Not being technically savvy at all, it sounds logical what you and Andrew said about the thickness/layers on the sensor. Or maybe the software in the A7iv is processing the sensor information with these lenses in a way it shouldn't. Strangely, the motifs always look perfectly well in the evf, whereas the playback already shows clearly the diminished quality. I still have to compare it to what comes out of the video mode. 

[bjohn]

3 hours ago, lebigmac said:

Or maybe the software in the A7iv is processing the sensor information with these lenses in a way it shouldn't.

Are you shooting raw or JPEG? I've never shot JPEGs on my A7iii so I don't know if they would look different but raw has always been fine with the Minolta lenses. The only lenses that have given me any trouble due to the thicker sensor stack are wide-angle rangefinder (M mount and some LTM mount) lenses. I use a 35mm Canon LTM lens on my A7iii all the time with no issues, but I have a 28mm MS Optical M-mount lens that shows extreme corner smearing; that's due to the filter stack. I try not to go wider than 35mm.

I haven't seen any reports of other people having issues with vintage lenses on Sony A7iv.

[lebigmac]

52 minutes ago, bjohn said:

Are you shooting raw or JPEG? I've never shot JPEGs on my A7iii so I don't know if they would look different but raw has always been fine with the Minolta lenses.

I work with raws usually, above there is also link to the raw files of the comparison shots. It would be great to know, how others A7iv shooters experience the work with old analogue lenses.

[Andrew Reid]

Well here is my test with the A7 IV

Original RAWs are here:

https://we.tl/t-6sae7A5zAH

I compared it to the S1R.

Same lens, Canon FD 50mm F1.2L @ F1.4

The A7 IV does look a little bit more veiled.

Ignoring the difference between 30MP and 47MP, there is definitely a fraction more softness but it doesn't seem as soft as your tests above.

[lebigmac]

5 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

there is definitely a fraction more softness but it doesn't seem as soft as your tests above.

That looks familiar. Possibly, it looks a little more favorable because the canon glass is of better quality than these old Minolta kit lenses. But the S1 picture doesn't look as detailed as one might expect from the Canon, does it? 
I'll put a bunch of my analogues in front of the A7, GX85 vs. A7iv to the test again, under the same daylight conditions.

[Andrew Reid]

It looks pretty good for an F1.2 lens at F1.4

Obviously would be much crisper at F2.8 or 5.6

I wouldn't have it any other way - don't like cuttingly sharp digital images. It's very un-cinematic.

Which is the Minolta that showed the poor result on the A7 IV on other page even when stopped down?

[hyalinejim]

On 8/20/2022 at 8:36 PM, Andrew Reid said:

the thinnest filter stack on a full frame digital camera. The thinner that glass, the better for old lenses.

That's very interesting, what's the advantage - is it sharper corners?

One thing that I've noticed is that digital seems to have much more vignetting than film with the same lens and aperture, which is due to the depth of the pixel wells, or something like that. In the center, light goes straight in but at the edges it's shaded because it hits the well at an angle.

[lebigmac]

10 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Which is the Minolta that showed the poor result on the A7 IV on other page even when stopped down?

I directly compared the A7 to the A7iv with three lenses (there are raw examples for all 3 behind the link in the post  above) and they showed all about the same quality gap in between the cameras. The MD 28mm 2.8, came out worst, but it is the weakest lens of the set on the A7 as well, followed by the 50mm 1.7., and the 35mm 1.8mm. 

[Andrew Reid]

12 hours ago, lebigmac said:

I directly compared the A7 to the A7iv with three lenses (there are raw examples for all 3 behind the link in the post  above) and they showed all about the same quality gap in between the cameras. The MD 28mm 2.8, came out worst, but it is the weakest lens of the set on the A7 as well, followed by the 50mm 1.7., and the 35mm 1.8mm. 

Maybe they just don't have the resolving power for 30 megapixels?

So when you view it close up 1:1, you see more of the softness of the lens than you would on the A7.

[bjohn]

4 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Maybe they just don't have the resolving power for 30 megapixels?

I don't think that's it, since people use these and other vintage lenses on the A7riii and A7riv with no complaints.

I wonder if the sensor stack was modified on the A7iv compared with the A7iii. I wonder if the use of focus peaking could also be a factor here, since it's not very reliable in all situations.

[lebigmac]

5 hours ago, bjohn said:

I wonder if the use of focus peaking could also be a factor here, since it's not very reliable in all situations.

I thought of that too, but the pictures were sharp to my eye in the evf. And I worked the same way with the A7. So that would imply that the fp works more accurate on the A7 than on the A7iv.

 

 

10 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Maybe they just don't have the resolving power for 30 megapixels?

So when you view it close up 1:1, you see more of the softness of the lens than you would on the A7.

Maybe, but then from 24 to 33 is not that of a difference as that increase in blurryness, I would say.