pellicle
TalkEmount Veteran
Just to couch this in some terms, I have long been an interested observer in the A7 (like from the rumor stage) and had considered (perhaps still consider) the RX1, but man they're really holding their price.
I don't want to be getting out of m43 (as will become clear in the post) but as to if keeping the A7 and developing a 2nd system (third if you count my LF film system) is "my bag baby". The following is long (quick glance shows that) because I wanted to clarify (even if only to me) what I'm thinking so that others can respond with a greater knowledge of what I'm thinking and why.
There are a number of components in this "experiment" which makes it harder to clarify in my mind, let me break this into:
which becomes apparent when comparing the other aspects:
At lower ISO its obvious that differences aren't as important as both Sony and GH1 sensors give a stout performance, but at the (important to me) higher ISO settings the differences are closing to about a stop. As shown above the GH1 set to 800ISO returns about 1200ISO and the A7 set to 3200 returns about 2400 ISO (or about a stop difference). If you look through all the test charts you'll observe that this pattern is consistent across SNR and DNR, Colour Sensitivity and Tonal Range. Link here.
This is in some ways borne out in real world examples, until you start to push the files away from "standard curves". If one is doing some tonemapping (mask based such as people call HDR processing) noise in the GH files seem more pronounced, which I feel is related to the lack of equality between channels in recording the low end figures in the RAW data.
So depending on what I do sometimes the A7 pulls ahead, other times "not so much".
Lenses
I began using m43 with a lot of legacy lenses, because in 2009 there simply weren't any native alternatives. Being interested in nesting birds I quickly got a 200f4 and 300f4 in FD and was really happy with them. In all I retained them and a 50f1.4 which I kept using in m43 (although the O45f1.8 brought a halt to me using the 50f1.4) and added a 100f2.8 (having parted with my OM100f2.8 just a few years ago now).
Since getting the A7 I quickly found (as expected) that the contrasts SOOC of the 100, 200 and 300 were much better, and the DoF control afforded was superior than when used on the m43 system (although I'm not sure I feel that way about the OM lens). In some ways being able to choose body for the lens makes the lens two lenses. The FD50f1.4 performs wonderfully in a contemplative role
Even the FD300f4 does some great landscape stuff
with much better contrast than anything I currently have in m43 (which would be something like a 150) ... as long as one has some time up ones sleeve ...
However there are a number of very nice (probably better) cost effective native lenses in all these (even effective) focal lengths (lets exclude the 300f4 from that due to costs) in m43 now. For instance I have the P20f1.7 which I feel to be at least the equal of the Samyang 35f2.8 and perhaps not too far behind (what I've seen of) the Batis 40f2 or the Voightlander 40 (which has an unacceptable to me curvature of field). But I wonder would I be able to get an image like the this one from any m43 100 mm lens (taken with FD200f4)
So if money was no question (well I wouldn't be asking anything here) I'd just get the lenses I want on the A7 and ... Bob would be my Uncle ... but a conservative estimate would be about US$5000 to get that (and I only have Australian Pesos).
So I feel that in this way, the A7 is a significantly constrained by my ability to provide it lenses.
Image Details in every side by side I've done with my A7 vs my GH1 (and in comparison between my GH1 and GX80 and G80) suggest that without question the A7 produces what (to my eyes) appears to be about double the actual resolution (even though 6000 is not double 4000), which is also not inconsistent with what one sees in specs of tests over at DxO (which is hard because the A7 has no tested lenses, but looking at differences between say the A7Riii & 85f1.8 and any m43 & O45f1.8).
But a question I've always asked is "how much detail do you need", and to be honest for everything except monster prints (and perhaps 4K viewing in the future) the images of my GH1 are quite sufficient (and even my GF1), for instance this is an album of images I took in Prague with my GF1 here. There is some noise in the shadows but they were (in the main) processed on my android phone (often from a Bar in Prague) and uploaded to Flickr and or shared directly to my friends on Facebook.
So far nobody has ever said of any of my prints: "Oh mate, that really should have been shot on Full Frame".
Handling
I like many things about both systems, if I had to pick however I'd say I do prefer the handling and controls of the A7, I love being able to use the rear wheel (and I did use EOS for many a year) to move ISO quickly. Additional features in the information available in the EVF dislpay (and even making that different to what is shown on the rear display) is fantastic, a great advancement and better / more intuitively done than any m43 camera I've yet picked up and used (G1, GF1, GH1, G2, GH3, GH4, GH5, OM-D EP1, EP2, EM-5 (mk1 and 2)).
EVF Display quality is great, although I do prefer the way the inscreen histogram is implimented in the Panasonic cameras)
Controls are laid out as if they consulted with me. In some ways I prefer it to the GH1 and its interesting that despite the muscle memory of using the GH1 (since 2011 and the G1 before that) I find myself operating my GH1 as if its my A7 and then going "oh, yeah". So points to the A7 right there for that.
I do miss the swivel screen (which I do use)
Convenience
Both the A7 and the GH1 are about the same size, but when travelling the clean slab nature of the GF-1 is hard to beat. That and the more compact nature of my lens choices (P14f2.5 + GWC-1, P20f1.7, P12-32 and O45f1.8 are my usual travel kit (some of which may remain in accomodation or in the car) and its really hard to imagine that the A7 could match that versatility, low weight and small size.
Which is why I won't be ditching the m43 any time soon ... its my compact travel outfit.
Cost
I guess this is where I just fail to wish to dedicate the money of US$1200 on a lens, which is what I'd have to do to get an even partially automated lens (such as the V40f1.2) or more for an automated one (Batis). I can use manual focus lenses (which I am) and that of course lowers the cost, but (for instance) when doing portraits having AF is a big help when dealing with normal people (meaning not models). Kids in particular (tried doing some of that with my FD100f2.8) were tough and eye controlled AF would be nice (when dealing with the sorts of shallow DoF one can get and use effectively with the A7
However I went into this with the view that the A7 cost me less (a lot less) than a better m43 camera (I was looking at the G9 or the G80) and still give me better IQ when working in a landscape manner that involves 100ISO and manual focus lenses (perhaps at f8 or so).
So for now I will be continuing the "experiment" but somehow it feels "wrong" having two systems hanging around when just the m43 system would do 99% of what I want (well ok, 70% of what I want and please my friends who like my pictures 99% of the time).
Thanks for any thoughts
I don't want to be getting out of m43 (as will become clear in the post) but as to if keeping the A7 and developing a 2nd system (third if you count my LF film system) is "my bag baby". The following is long (quick glance shows that) because I wanted to clarify (even if only to me) what I'm thinking so that others can respond with a greater knowledge of what I'm thinking and why.
There are a number of components in this "experiment" which makes it harder to clarify in my mind, let me break this into:
- lenses
- sensor
- image details (as opposed to sensor stuff)
- handling
- convenience
- cost (price)
---
which becomes apparent when comparing the other aspects:
---
At lower ISO its obvious that differences aren't as important as both Sony and GH1 sensors give a stout performance, but at the (important to me) higher ISO settings the differences are closing to about a stop. As shown above the GH1 set to 800ISO returns about 1200ISO and the A7 set to 3200 returns about 2400 ISO (or about a stop difference). If you look through all the test charts you'll observe that this pattern is consistent across SNR and DNR, Colour Sensitivity and Tonal Range. Link here.
This is in some ways borne out in real world examples, until you start to push the files away from "standard curves". If one is doing some tonemapping (mask based such as people call HDR processing) noise in the GH files seem more pronounced, which I feel is related to the lack of equality between channels in recording the low end figures in the RAW data.
So depending on what I do sometimes the A7 pulls ahead, other times "not so much".
Lenses
I began using m43 with a lot of legacy lenses, because in 2009 there simply weren't any native alternatives. Being interested in nesting birds I quickly got a 200f4 and 300f4 in FD and was really happy with them. In all I retained them and a 50f1.4 which I kept using in m43 (although the O45f1.8 brought a halt to me using the 50f1.4) and added a 100f2.8 (having parted with my OM100f2.8 just a few years ago now).
Since getting the A7 I quickly found (as expected) that the contrasts SOOC of the 100, 200 and 300 were much better, and the DoF control afforded was superior than when used on the m43 system (although I'm not sure I feel that way about the OM lens). In some ways being able to choose body for the lens makes the lens two lenses. The FD50f1.4 performs wonderfully in a contemplative role
ILCE-7
---
NANmm
f/NAN
1/2000s
ISO 160
Even the FD300f4 does some great landscape stuff
ILCE-7
---
NANmm
f/NAN
1/1500s
ISO 1000
with much better contrast than anything I currently have in m43 (which would be something like a 150) ... as long as one has some time up ones sleeve ...
However there are a number of very nice (probably better) cost effective native lenses in all these (even effective) focal lengths (lets exclude the 300f4 from that due to costs) in m43 now. For instance I have the P20f1.7 which I feel to be at least the equal of the Samyang 35f2.8 and perhaps not too far behind (what I've seen of) the Batis 40f2 or the Voightlander 40 (which has an unacceptable to me curvature of field). But I wonder would I be able to get an image like the this one from any m43 100 mm lens (taken with FD200f4)
ILCE-7
---
NANmm
f/NAN
1/750s
ISO 800
So if money was no question (well I wouldn't be asking anything here) I'd just get the lenses I want on the A7 and ... Bob would be my Uncle ... but a conservative estimate would be about US$5000 to get that (and I only have Australian Pesos).
So I feel that in this way, the A7 is a significantly constrained by my ability to provide it lenses.
Image Details in every side by side I've done with my A7 vs my GH1 (and in comparison between my GH1 and GX80 and G80) suggest that without question the A7 produces what (to my eyes) appears to be about double the actual resolution (even though 6000 is not double 4000), which is also not inconsistent with what one sees in specs of tests over at DxO (which is hard because the A7 has no tested lenses, but looking at differences between say the A7Riii & 85f1.8 and any m43 & O45f1.8).
But a question I've always asked is "how much detail do you need", and to be honest for everything except monster prints (and perhaps 4K viewing in the future) the images of my GH1 are quite sufficient (and even my GF1), for instance this is an album of images I took in Prague with my GF1 here. There is some noise in the shadows but they were (in the main) processed on my android phone (often from a Bar in Prague) and uploaded to Flickr and or shared directly to my friends on Facebook.
So far nobody has ever said of any of my prints: "Oh mate, that really should have been shot on Full Frame".
Handling
I like many things about both systems, if I had to pick however I'd say I do prefer the handling and controls of the A7, I love being able to use the rear wheel (and I did use EOS for many a year) to move ISO quickly. Additional features in the information available in the EVF dislpay (and even making that different to what is shown on the rear display) is fantastic, a great advancement and better / more intuitively done than any m43 camera I've yet picked up and used (G1, GF1, GH1, G2, GH3, GH4, GH5, OM-D EP1, EP2, EM-5 (mk1 and 2)).
EVF Display quality is great, although I do prefer the way the inscreen histogram is implimented in the Panasonic cameras)
Controls are laid out as if they consulted with me. In some ways I prefer it to the GH1 and its interesting that despite the muscle memory of using the GH1 (since 2011 and the G1 before that) I find myself operating my GH1 as if its my A7 and then going "oh, yeah". So points to the A7 right there for that.
I do miss the swivel screen (which I do use)
Convenience
Both the A7 and the GH1 are about the same size, but when travelling the clean slab nature of the GF-1 is hard to beat. That and the more compact nature of my lens choices (P14f2.5 + GWC-1, P20f1.7, P12-32 and O45f1.8 are my usual travel kit (some of which may remain in accomodation or in the car) and its really hard to imagine that the A7 could match that versatility, low weight and small size.
Which is why I won't be ditching the m43 any time soon ... its my compact travel outfit.
Cost
I guess this is where I just fail to wish to dedicate the money of US$1200 on a lens, which is what I'd have to do to get an even partially automated lens (such as the V40f1.2) or more for an automated one (Batis). I can use manual focus lenses (which I am) and that of course lowers the cost, but (for instance) when doing portraits having AF is a big help when dealing with normal people (meaning not models). Kids in particular (tried doing some of that with my FD100f2.8) were tough and eye controlled AF would be nice (when dealing with the sorts of shallow DoF one can get and use effectively with the A7
However I went into this with the view that the A7 cost me less (a lot less) than a better m43 camera (I was looking at the G9 or the G80) and still give me better IQ when working in a landscape manner that involves 100ISO and manual focus lenses (perhaps at f8 or so).
So for now I will be continuing the "experiment" but somehow it feels "wrong" having two systems hanging around when just the m43 system would do 99% of what I want (well ok, 70% of what I want and please my friends who like my pictures 99% of the time).
Thanks for any thoughts
---
Last edited: