Advice re Sony A7 and Sony 24-70 F4 ZA

[Saintsman]

I currently use an MFT outfit and recently bought myself an Panasonic LX100. I have been very pleasantly surprised by the image quality from the LX100 which for 90% of pictures is in real world terms, as good as that from my MFT outfit.

I have seen a used A7 and 24-70 for sale, both described 'as new', and can pretty much do a straight swap for my MFT outfit, thus keeping my LX100 as a small carry about outfit. The 24-70 covers most of the range I would use. My MFT camera is a Pen F, which I am very happy with, but I do miss the quality that can be gained from a good full frame camera (especially at higher ISO's) and the greater control it gives with DOF. I am mindful the A7 is 'getting on' in camera terms but wondered if there was anyone out there who uses this with the 24-70 who could give me some feedback. If you have also used MFT and can give some feedback on comparisons between the two that would be very helpful.

 

[woof woof]

I have an A7 and mft.

The A7 has more dr and the files will look better if you pixel peep and of course better higher ISO performance. FF pictures may well be sharper too when pixel peeping probably due at least in part to less magnification.

MFT does have advantages, it's smaller and quick to focus, you'll notice the A7 isn't as fast.

 

[snerkler]

I have an A7 and mft.

The A7 has more dr and the files will look better if you pixel peep and of course better higher ISO performance. FF pictures may well be sharper too when pixel peeping probably due at least in part to less magnification.

MFT does have advantages, it's smaller and quick to focus, you'll notice the A7 isn't as fast.

How do you rate the 24-70mm against the Olly 12-40mm as I've read reports that the 24-70mm f4 isn't that sharp?

 

[nandbytes]

MFT does have advantages, it's smaller and quick to focus, you'll notice the A7 isn't as fast.

Perhaps you should try using a AF lens once in a while

How do you rate the 24-70mm against the Olly 12-40mm as I've read reports that the 24-70mm f4 isn't that sharp?

Its not as sharp as 12-40mm but its not soft either. The softness is mainly at the telephoto in extreme corners. Its still very much usable wide open. The centre is very sharp at all focal lengths. Better than 12-40mm I'd say.

 

[snerkler]

Perhaps you should try using a AF lens once in a while



Its not as sharp as 12-40mm but its not soft either. The softness is mainly at the telephoto in extreme corners. Its still very much usable wide open. The centre is very sharp at all focal lengths. Better than 12-40mm I'd say.

Thanks. So, assuming decent light are you saying that the results of say and EM1 with 12-40mm would be better than an A7 with 24-70mm f4, or would the full frame advantage of the A7 counteract it?

 

[nandbytes]

Thanks. So, assuming decent light are you saying that the results of say and EM1 with 12-40mm would be better than an A7 with 24-70mm f4, or would the full frame advantage of the A7 counteract it?

Depends on what you are after. Its hard to generalise to be frank. If you are shooting general shots in bright day light tbh it doesn't matter, even my rx100m3 is capable. But if you are trying to achieve shallow DoF A7 will of course be better.

In a high dynamic range situation obviously FF will have an advantage. FF sensor will always have an advantage in terms of colour depth and tonality. A picture is just not sharpness. While its nice to have corner to corner sharpness I think it rarely makes or breaks a picture.

So for example the new sigma 85mm/1.4 and Sony 85mm/1.4 GM are both very sharp and some of the sharpest lenses around wide open. But I would much rather use canon 85mm/1.2 for portraits even tho its no where as sharp.

Basically horses for courses...

 

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

Perhaps you should try using a AF lens once in a while


.

 

[snerkler]

Depends on what you are after. Its hard to generalise to be frank. If you are shooting general shots in bright day light tbh it doesn't matter, even my rx100m3 is capable. But if you are trying to achieve shallow DoF A7 will of course be better.

In a high dynamic range situation obviously FF will have an advantage. FF sensor will always have an advantage in terms of colour depth and tonality. A picture is just not sharpness. While its nice to have corner to corner sharpness I think it rarely makes or breaks a picture.

So for example the new sigma 85mm/1.4 and Sony 85mm/1.4 GM are both very sharp and some of the sharpest lenses around wide open. But I would much rather use canon 85mm/1.2 for portraits even tho its no where as sharp.

Basically horses for courses...

Thanks. The reason for my question is that it's a move I've been contemplating, but it's mainly for travel so landscapes, cities etc and I'm trying to gauge if I'll actually see any difference, let alone £1000's difference.

 

[LeeRatters]

I bought the cheap kit 28-70mm recently to use while out walking/hiking/landscapes etc so save swapping primes about & although it doesn't match a prime wide open, at f/8-11 typical landscape apertures it's plenty sharp IMO.

The 24-70mm is reputed to be a slightly better performer again.

 

[nandbytes]

Thanks. The reason for my question is that it's a move I've been contemplating, but it's mainly for travel so landscapes, cities etc and I'm trying to gauge if I'll actually see any difference, let alone £1000's difference.

Probably not tbh, unless you spend lot of time waiting around for the right time or moment (eg: golden hour) with tripod setups etc, in which case you could benefit from FF.

But for cities if you are into using UWA lenses for some funky/interesting shots you can go as wide as 10mm on an A7 but I think 15mm is the widest you can go on m43.

 

[dcash29]

Sony A7ii - 28-70 28mm f8 SOC

EM5ii -12-40 14mm f4 SOC

 

[snerkler]

Sony A7ii - 28-70 28mm f8 SOC

EM5ii -12-40 14mm f4 SOC

Eww, those Sony greens

Can’t really asses the detail as I’m on the phone but the Sony is much warmer. Both auto WB?

 

[dcash29]

Yeah greens are a bit s***
I'm sure they were both on auto WB, however all software states manual?

 

[woof woof]

Perhaps you should try using a AF lens once in a while



Its not as sharp as 12-40mm but its not soft either. The softness is mainly at the telephoto in extreme corners. Its still very much usable wide open. The centre is very sharp at all focal lengths. Better than 12-40mm I'd say.

I know you're joking... but just to be clear for the OP... I do indeed have an A7 and sometimes use AF lenses and when I do they're nowhere near as quick to AF as my Panny MFT cameras. A later Panny and doubtless a later Oly too when partnered with a quick lens are very fast indeed to focus.

 

[woof woof]

How do you rate the 24-70mm against the Olly 12-40mm as I've read reports that the 24-70mm f4 isn't that sharp?

Sorry, don't have either of those lenses.

 

[dcash29]

EM5 PS one click correction



Sony PS one click correction

 

[woof woof]

Thanks. So, assuming decent light are you saying that the results of say and EM1 with 12-40mm would be better than an A7 with 24-70mm f4, or would the full frame advantage of the A7 counteract it?

FF will show a lead in several situation...
The DR is better so in high DR scenes you'll notice, it's easier to capture the highlights with FF.
Higher ISO's are better with FF.
Given vaguely comparable lenses FF will be sharper if only because it needs to be magnified less.
If you print large or crop like crazy or pixel peep FF is usually better.

If all you do is look at whole images on screen or don't print the size or a barn and don't test the envelope of DR maybe you wont see much if any difference.

When using MFT one thing I do to try and equalise things is apply the crop factor and shoot wide open to f4 or f5 or so. This keeps the ISO down and the quality up and gives a FF look to the DoF and luckily some if not all MFT lenses are good enough from wide open.

I use my A7 mostly for a couple of reasons, firstly because I like using old manual lenses and secondly because I want the best file I can easily get. I tend to use MFT for social stuff because it's small and fast and inconspicuous and also when I'm out with people and don't want to make a show of being the geek with the camera.

 

[snerkler]

Sony A7ii - 28-70 28mm f8 SOC

EM5ii -12-40 14mm f4 SOC

OK, so I've now viewed these on my computer. Really not much in it at all and if I had a gun to my head I would say that the Olympus looks slightly better, although a bit cool on the WB.

EM5 PS one click correction
View attachment 121742


Sony PS one click correction
View attachment 121743

Have you uploaded those differently as they both look really soft?

FF will show a lead in several situation...
The DR is better so in high DR scenes you'll notice, it's easier to capture the highlights with FF.
Higher ISO's are better with FF.
Given vaguely comparable lenses FF will be sharper if only because it needs to be magnified less.
If you print large or crop like crazy or pixel peep FF is usually better.

If all you do is look at whole images on screen or don't print the size or a barn and don't test the envelope of DR maybe you wont see much if any difference.

When using MFT one thing I do to try and equalise things is apply the crop factor and shoot wide open to f4 or f5 or so. This keeps the ISO down and the quality up and gives a FF look to the DoF and luckily some if not all MFT lenses are good enough from wide open.

I use my A7 mostly for a couple of reasons, firstly because I like using old manual lenses and secondly because I want the best file I can easily get. I tend to use MFT for social stuff because it's small and fast and inconspicuous and also when I'm out with people and don't want to make a show of being the geek with the camera.

Thanks. TBH I do know the main advantages of FF vs M4/3 etc as I have the D750 also. I was just trying to gauge the A7 24-70mm f4 combo vs the EM1 12-40mm combo rather than FF vs M4/3 as this would be the switch I'd consider. From the samples above with the Sony 28-70mm I actually prefer the Olly, and if the 24-70mm is only marginally better than the 28-70mm then it's only going to be on par with the Olly or only marginally better so for me certainly not worth the £2k to switch.

 

[niko]

How do you rate the 24-70mm against the Olly 12-40mm as I've read reports that the 24-70mm f4 isn't that sharp?

I've had both and I found the sony sharper tbh but with the number of mixed reviews I do wander if the quality control is a bit rubbish and bad copies are getting out

 

[Riz_Guru]

I bought the Sony Zeiss 24-70mm f4 with my original A7, it was a great walkabout lens but not worth the new RRP price.

 

[nandbytes]

I bought the Sony Zeiss 24-70mm f4 with my original A7, it was a great walkabout lens but not worth the new RRP price.

its a compromise lens just like sony 16-70mm f/4 which also gets mixed reviews. The compromise is IQ vs. size.

I also feel both are not worth the RRP but you won't find a set-up that'll will provide the same quality as A7+24-70mm or A6X00+16-70mm at equivalent size.

 

[Riz_Guru]

its a compromise lens just like sony 16-70mm f/4 which also gets mixed reviews. The compromise is IQ vs. size.

I also feel both are not worth the RRP but you won't find a set-up that'll will provide the same quality as A7+24-70mm or A6X00+16-70mm at equivalent size.

I agree, I even considered a A6X00 body and 16-70mm f4 in the past as a backup body but decided to wait it out. My Sony A9 kind of broke the budget and some! lol

 

[woof woof]

I agree, I even considered a A6X00 body and 16-70mm f4 in the past as a backup body but decided to wait it out. My Sony A9 kind of broke the budget and some! lol

Although I keep looking at the A6xxx range one thing that stops me is that the difference between an A6xxx and 16-70mm f4 and my GX7/GX80 with 12-35mm f2.8 is probably going to be minimal one way or the other.

 

[nandbytes]

Although I keep looking at the A6xxx range one thing that stops me is that the difference between an A6xxx and 16-70mm f4 and my GX7/GX80 with 12-35mm f2.8 is probably going to be minimal one way or the other.

How about 70mm i.e. 105mm equivalent vs. 70mm equivalent plus more cropping room and DR?

 

[woof woof]

How about 70mm i.e. 105mm equivalent vs. 70mm equivalent plus more cropping room and DR?

I'm often tempted to an A6xxx but compared to MFT...
- No f2.8 zoom.
- No compact and reasonably priced 35mm f1.8 equivalent prime.
- Lenses are usually bigger and more expensive.
- No dual control wheel. They really should IMO go back to having two control wheels like the Nex 7.
A6xxx plus points...
- Could use A7 lenses.
- Maybe +0.001% image quality
- Probably a better EVF than the semi awful field sequential one on the Panny RF style cameras.

 

[nandbytes]

I'm often tempted to an A6xxx but compared to MFT...
- No f2.8 zoom.
- No compact and reasonably priced 35mm f1.8 equivalent prime.
- Lenses are usually bigger and more expensive.
- No dual control wheel. They really should IMO go back to having two control wheels like the Nex 7.

in order:
- Well f/4 on APS-C is similar-ish to f2.8 on m43.
- i agree, they have a 24mm f/1.8 but its not reasonably priced
- erm... I don't think so... expensive may be, I don't think they are much bigger tbh but probably depends on specific examples
- yeah hated that on A6000. nex7 sucks too tbh. (I had both A6000 and nex7 at the same time for a while)
On nex7 all three wheels are thumb operated. What you need is a front wheel you can operate with your forefinger and a rear wheel you can operate with your thumb.

 

[Riz_Guru]

What we need is a Sony A7000, basically a APS-C version of the Sony A9
Some APS-C G Master lenses

 

[woof woof]

in order:
- Well f/4 on APS-C is similar-ish to f2.8 on m43.
- i agree, they have a 24mm f/1.8 but its not reasonably priced
- erm... I don't think so... expensive may be, I don't think they are much bigger tbh but probably depends on specific examples
- yeah hated that on A6000. nex7 sucks too tbh. (I had both A6000 and nex7 at the same time for a while)
On nex7 all three wheels are thumb operated. What you need is a front wheel you can operate with your forefinger and a rear wheel you can operate with your thumb.

I think the difference between f4 on APS-C and f2.8 on MFT might sway things towards MFT or at least make it not worth changing.
Yup. The lenses I have... Panny 12-35mm f2.8 - no Sony equiv., Panny 14-42mm prime sized zoom - Sony have 101 kit lenses some pf which are reasonably small so that I could replace, Oly 9-18mm - the Sony wide is big and expensive, Tiny Panny 45-150mm - no Sony to match that, Tiny and cheap Oly 17, 25 and 45mm f1.8's - Sony have 35 and 50mm f1.8's but no compact and cheap 24mm, but do have a 28mm f2.8 pancake. I think.

Changing from MFT to A6xxx would cost a bit and would mean more expensive and much larger wide, long zoom and 35mm equiv f1.8's and arguably worse ergonomics but I'd gain compatibility with the A7 and a % pixel peeping goodness. On balance it's not worth it for me so I'll stick with MFT for the more compact and cheaper kit.

 

[snerkler]

I think the difference between f4 on APS-C and f2.8 on MFT might sway things towards MFT or at least make it not worth changing.
Yup. The lenses I have... Panny 12-35mm f2.8 - no Sony equiv., Panny 14-42mm prime sized zoom - Sony have 101 kit lenses some pf which are reasonably small so that I could replace, Oly 9-18mm - the Sony wide is big and expensive, Tiny Panny 45-150mm - no Sony to match that, Tiny and cheap Oly 17, 25 and 45mm f1.8's - Sony have 35 and 50mm f1.8's but no compact and cheap 24mm, but do have a 28mm f2.8 pancake. I think.

Changing from MFT to A6xxx would cost a bit and would mean more expensive and much larger wide, long zoom and 35mm equiv f1.8's and arguably worse ergonomics but I'd gain compatibility with the A7 and a % pixel peeping goodness. On balance it's not worth it for me so I'll stick with MFT for the more compact and cheaper kit.

Plus if you switched you'd have to cope with Sony's greens

 

[dcash29]

OK, so I've now viewed these on my computer. Really not much in it at all and if I had a gun to my head I would say that the Olympus looks slightly better, although a bit cool on the WB.

I'm not sure you have taken into account that the comparison is between a FF kit lens and a MFT pro lens? Plus I wouldn't be to hasty thinking the WB is so fantastic on the Olympus because its not.

 

[snerkler]

I'm not sure you have taken into account that the comparison is between a FF kit lens and a MFT pro lens? Plus I wouldn't be to hasty thinking the WB is so fantastic on the Olympus because its not.

Yes I know it's a pro lens vs a kit lens, may I refer to you my last paragraph in post #18. As for WB where did I say it was so fantastic on the Olly? I think you'll find that I said it's a bit cool

 

[dcash29]

Yes I know it's a pro lens vs a kit lens, may I refer to you my last paragraph in post #18. As for WB where did I say it was so fantastic on the Olly? I think you'll find that I said it's a bit cool

Possibly as you only referred to the WB as a bit cool and I know certain greens and blues aint that good. However I've found Colour Efex to be quite good in resolving the issue when in camera adjustment cannot cope.

I thought the Sony would have been better, should have bought another Nikon.

 

[dcash29]

This was only a hand held snap to get a quick comparison but with the Sony there's far more detail to resolve.

 

[Swiss Toni]

I have to say that of the two shots at the top of the thread the clarity and detail in the window frames of the lower shot is remarkable.

 

[Eloise]

Opening a can of worms and this is only my own opinion based on in store testing...

I wouldn’t do the swap without trying the camera... personally I could never live with the A7 EVF but found the Pen-F to be acceptable.

As to...

I have been very pleasantly surprised by the image quality from the LX100 which for 90% of pictures is in real world terms, as good as that from my MFT outfit.

Isn’t the LX100 essentially a m43 camera with built in “Leica” 24-75 (35mm equivalent field of view) lens? So not surprising it’s similar to the Pen-f in quality.

 

[Saintsman]

Opening a can of worms and this is only my own opinion based on in store testing...

I wouldn’t do the swap without trying the camera... personally I could never live with the A7 EVF but found the Pen-F to be acceptable.

As to...

Isn’t the LX100 essentially a m43 camera with built in “Leica” 24-75 (35mm equivalent field of view) lens? So not surprising it’s similar to the Pen-f in quality.

Eloise

Yes the LX100 is an m43 camera but 13mp vs 20mp. What surprised me was how good it based on the resolution.

I have reflected on this and decided to keep my current outfit. Whilst the A7 should have better high ISO and DOF, I have a few very fast prime lenses for my Pen F. Also, at the end of the day, I very much enjoy using my Pen F which, after all, is what matters

 

[Eloise]

Yes the LX100 is an m43 camera but 13mp vs 20mp. What surprised me was how good it based on the resolution.

Sorry reading my comment again was a bit explaining the obvious

I have reflected on this and decided to keep my current outfit. Whilst the A7 should have better high ISO and DOF, I have a few very fast prime lenses for my Pen F. Also, at the end of the day, I very much enjoy using my Pen F which, after all, is what matters

Good decision for an even better reason!

 

[snerkler]

Opening a can of worms and this is only my own opinion based on in store testing...

I wouldn’t do the swap without trying the camera... personally I could never live with the A7 EVF but found the Pen-F to be acceptable.

As to...

Isn’t the LX100 essentially a m43 camera with built in “Leica” 24-75 (35mm equivalent field of view) lens? So not surprising it’s similar to the Pen-f in quality.

Interesting, the current A7 EVFs are some of the best on the market, bigger and clearer than Olympus Pen F and clearer than the EM1 (I think the EM1 is the same size are the A7's but could be wrong, certainly bigger than the Pen). But as you say, it's whatever you prefer using

 

[dcash29]

Interesting, the current A7 EVFs are some of the best on the market, bigger and clearer than Olympus Pen F and clearer than the EM1 (I think the EM1 is the same size are the A7's but could be wrong, certainly bigger than the Pen). But as you say, it's whatever you prefer using

I would say the EM5ii EVF is clearer than the A7ii

 

[Eloise]

Interesting, the current A7 EVFs are some of the best on the market, bigger and clearer than Olympus Pen F and clearer than the EM1 (I think the EM1 is the same size are the A7's but could be wrong, certainly bigger than the Pen). But as you say, it's whatever you prefer using

I was assuming the OP was discussing the original A7. I just found during movement I saw (what I would describe as) smearing with the A7, the Pen F just felt more natural. Generally is more a feeling about using them than anything I can really put into words.

(As I said... can of worms)