5Diii vs Sony A7s vs GH4

[MichaelTheMaven]

Been shooting with both cameras side by side for 6 weeks now. The lack of native focusing lenses, no internal 4K and the sports focusing sums up my gripes about the A7s. I was able to get some nice voightlander glass for the GH4, wow...what a difference that makes.

Thought you guys might enjoy the final review, which summarizes how they compete against each other. Im still looking for a reliable way to test DR without needing expensive software. Any suggestions or recommendations are appreciated!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdMypfYrKgw

http://youtu.be/qdMypfYrKgw

 

[JohnDizzo15]

Adapting third party lenses sounds great in theory. But in all reality, it pretty much sucks compared to having native glass. I bought the A7r knowing that there would be some losses with the gains.

After having attempted to use basically every piece of Canon glass I own on the Sony, I have found that the IQ is just not where I imagined it would be. However, when I mount the native 55mm, IQ is pretty darn good and I don't believe the lack of performance is any fault of the Canon glass.

My belief is that the issues are caused by having to add a piece of hardware (adapter) in between the body and the lens which leaves a lot of room for variance and play. The other issue is the way the sensor is set up in the A7r body. The EF lenses were simply not designed to work optimally in this scenario (distances, tolerances, etc). Whereas when I mount the Zeiss 55, I know that it was designed specifically for the FE mount bodies and microlenses which translates into much better IQ.

Prior to the A7r, I had already experienced issues with lens adaptation as I have used many M42 screw mount lenses on my Canon bodies. Many of those same issues have manifested themselves with the A7r + EF lens combos.

There may be a small segment of users out there that have gotten the perfectly crafted adapter that causes only minimal degradation, but my belief is that that segment is truly minority.

Furthermore, simply enabling AF and saying you've accomplished the ability to retain most features is not the same as actually making the lenses anywhere near as usable as in their native mounts. Don't be fooled for one second that you will be able to AF EF lenses on any of the Sony bodies in any real world situation where your subject is not lifeless.

IMO, the AF retention feature is a mere gimmick to get our attention and I'm certain less than a ball hair of a fraction of the people adapting EF lenses are bothering with it vs just manually focusing.

I suppose my point is that while it is great that Sony is encouraging the use of adapted glass, the actual reality of the experience is trash (on the average) which means they still need to start producing some of their own quality lenses in FE mount.

 

[Dylan777]

Adapting third party lenses sounds great in theory. But in all reality, it pretty much sucks compared to having native glass. I bought the A7r knowing that there would be some losses with the gains.

After having attempted to use basically every piece of Canon glass I own on the Sony, I have found that the IQ is just not where I imagined it would be. However, when I mount the native 55mm, IQ is pretty darn good and I don't believe the lack of performance is any fault of the Canon glass.

My belief is that the issues are caused by having to add a piece of hardware (adapter) in between the body and the lens which leaves a lot of room for variance and play. The other issue is the way the sensor is set up in the A7r body. The EF lenses were simply not designed to work optimally in this scenario (distances, tolerances, etc). Whereas when I mount the Zeiss 55, I know that it was designed specifically for the FE mount bodies and microlenses which translates into much better IQ.

Prior to the A7r, I had already experienced issues with lens adaptation as I have used many M42 screw mount lenses on my Canon bodies. Many of those same issues have manifested themselves with the A7r + EF lens combos.

There may be a small segment of users out there that have gotten the perfectly crafted adapter that causes only minimal degradation, but my belief is that that segment is truly minority.

Furthermore, simply enabling AF and saying you've accomplished the ability to retain most features is not the same as actually making the lenses anywhere near as usable as in their native mounts. Don't be fooled for one second that you will be able to AF EF lenses on any of the Sony bodies in any real world situation where your subject is not lifeless.

IMO, the AF retention feature is a mere gimmick to get our attention and I'm certain less than a ball hair of a fraction of the people adapting EF lenses are bothering with it vs just manually focusing.

I suppose my point is that while it is great that Sony is encouraging the use of adapted glass, the actual reality of the experience is trash (on the average) which means they still need to start producing some of their own quality lenses in FE mount.

I still don't understand why they didn't not release FE UWA prime(focal length can be anywhere, from 16 to 20mm f4)

 

[sdsr]

After having attempted to use basically every piece of Canon glass I own on the Sony, I have found that the IQ is just not where I imagined it would be. However, when I mount the native 55mm, IQ is pretty darn good and I don't believe the lack of performance is any fault of the Canon glass.

There may be a small segment of users out there that have gotten the perfectly crafted adapter that causes only minimal degradation, but my belief is that that segment is truly minority.

Furthermore, simply enabling AF and saying you've accomplished the ability to retain most features is not the same as actually making the lenses anywhere near as usable as in their native mounts. Don't be fooled for one second that you will be able to AF EF lenses on any of the Sony bodies in any real world situation where your subject is not lifeless.

I guess I'm one of the lucky ones, as the Canon lenses I've tried on my a7r and a6000 seem to produce results at least as good as (better, to the extent the extra resolution & dr matter) they do on my Canon bodies (I say "seem to" because I've not done anything resembling a scientific comparison, merely taken shots of similar things in similar conditions). And I'm very pleased with the results I'm getting with most of the old legacy lenses (various brands) I've been using, though with them I have nothing to compare the results to except the photos I've taken using them on my OM-D, where similar adapters are involved.

But you're certainly right about AF - if you need to photograph moving things or use the camera in other situations when you don't have a few seconds to spare, AF with the metabones adapter is, as they readily admit up-front, useless. I don't think anyone claims otherwise. But if you're willing to wait, the AF is, in my experience, accurate and it's nice not to have to worry about AFMA. I tend to think MF is faster, though, and it's partly the opportunity to use old MF lenses easily that makes me a fan of mirrorless cameras, regardless of who makes them (I rather like the process of manually focusing, and good MF lenses are far nicer to use that way than any AF lens I've used). (And when you're photographing static subjects, I'm not even sure that AF, even with native lenses, is much faster, if at all, unless you already have a focus point over the subject - in the time you've moved the focus point to where you want it, you could likely have manually focused too, especially if what you're focusing on is small and located among other things that may distract the camera's AF).

In any event, no, these cameras certainly aren't for everyone....

 

[JohnDizzo15]

@ Dylan - Agreed, something wide would have definitely been nice to have at the outset.

@ sdsr - Glad you have gotten good results out of the combo. I agree with you that when you are able to get a usable shot with an adapted EF lens, the extra resolution and DR are nice to have. However, the process and frequency I have experienced with regard to getting keepers has been rough. The bumps in those two departments are insignificant when the shots riddled with blur from shake.

For instance, I took about 150 shots with the 85II mounted yesterday. My hope was to be able to get good results at wide open or close to. However, this was not the case. I've had a lot of problems not getting camera shake/blur even at faster shutter speeds than I would normally use. The other problem is with when I would frame the subject away from the center. It was impossible to get anything sharp between (what the camera showed) f1.3-1.7. In the center, it was okay and good enough at times. But for the most part, I was underwhelmed and thoroughly disappointed with anything out of the dead center of the frame. Things started to get acceptable around 2.8 which is definitely not where I wanted to shoot with the 85.

Regarding shutter speed, I was shooting in the backyard at no less than 1/400 and still got plenty of shake/motion blur on a relatively static subject. Not exactly sure what is causing it. But I do have my suspicions about the adapter, weight of the body, and shutter mechanism.

 

[Etienne]

I think the A7s is great for video since that is almost always manual focus, but stills really needs good AF performance, which in this case means native lenses. Unfortunately there aren't many yet.

Sony is something to watch, and Canon has to respond to these innovations, and I think they will soon. The dual pixel technology is extremely promising, they just need to pull out all the stops on their sensor development.

 

[MichaelTheMaven]

+1 on the lens selection issue. Sony has my attention now, but the lack of internal 4K, cost, sports focusing and lens selection make it hard to beat that $1700 price point of the GH4, which can do internal 4K. That Shogun external recorder is another $2000, Id rather have 2 voightlanders for the GH4.

The 55 1.8 was by far the best lens i tested on Sony. Id even say that might be a better first lens than the 24-70 f4, which is ok, but the 1.8 was amazing. If Sony has a wider selection of fast glass they will be a force to be dealt with. I also tried the 12mm 2.8 Zoutt, was not impressed with it (the Panasonic 7-14 on MFT was actually wider @7mm (?!?)

 

[scyrene]

The dpreview comparison shots are really useful - you can compare at a common size, even better.

I was only personally interested in how the A7s compared to the 5D3, and it's pretty good. If I had the spare cash, I'd love to get one for experimental wildlife work, especially video, and low light events. Hard to say without many more shots, but I'd say for me, its upper limit for shareable photos is 51200, although the higher you go, the further it pulls ahead. Now I hope someone does comparison test shots with the 645z

 

[sdsr]

@ sdsr - Glad you have gotten good results out of the combo. I agree with you that when you are able to get a usable shot with an adapted EF lens, the extra resolution and DR are nice to have. However, the process and frequency I have experienced with regard to getting keepers has been rough. The bumps in those two departments are insignificant when the shots riddled with blur from shake.

For instance, I took about 150 shots with the 85II mounted yesterday. My hope was to be able to get good results at wide open or close to. However, this was not the case. I've had a lot of problems not getting camera shake/blur even at faster shutter speeds than I would normally use. The other problem is with when I would frame the subject away from the center. It was impossible to get anything sharp between (what the camera showed) f1.3-1.7. In the center, it was okay and good enough at times. But for the most part, I was underwhelmed and thoroughly disappointed with anything out of the dead center of the frame. Things started to get acceptable around 2.8 which is definitely not where I wanted to shoot with the 85.

Are your non-center focus problems via AF or MF? Have you had similar problems with other non-native lenses? (Unfortunately I don't own a 85L.) If this is mainly an AF thing, it's perhaps just as well I do MF instead! As for shutter vibrations, while I don't seem to have been as affected as you, it would certainly nice if Sony could fix this (it doesn't seem to be an issue with the other two A7 bodies).

 

[JohnDizzo15]

@sdsr - only manual focus for anything I've adapted so far. Only tried the AF for curiosity's sake.

Regarding the vibration, I don't know that it is necessarily just the shutter or if it is merely one part of the cause. I just know I'm having issues with what appears to be slight motion blur even when my shutter speed is super fast on static subjects.

 

[sanjosedave]

I'd like to see capture video, say, of a baseball game during the day, perhaps as the pitcher throws the ball and the batter gets ready to hit, and then pull a frame from the 4k video and present the still. Thx

 

[scyrene]

I'd like to see capture video, say, of a baseball game during the day, perhaps as the pitcher throws the ball and the batter gets ready to hit, and then pull a frame from the 4k video and present the still. Thx

Remember, whatever the resolution, video frames tend to be much longer exposures than stills for moving subjects. So at 30fps, you might have 1/50 for each frame. The ball would likely be a blur in every single frame, so not much use as an alternative to short exposure stills.

 

[StudentOfLight]

I'd like to see capture video, say, of a baseball game during the day, perhaps as the pitcher throws the ball and the batter gets ready to hit, and then pull a frame from the 4k video and present the still. Thx

Remember, whatever the resolution, video frames tend to be much longer exposures than stills for moving subjects. So at 30fps, you might have 1/50 for each frame. The ball would likely be a blur in every single frame, so not much use as an alternative to short exposure stills.

+1, For smooth video playback the shutter speed is typically selected as 2x faster than the fps so as to allow for enough blur in each frame for them to flow into the next. If you use an excessively high shutter speed then the individual frames would be sharper but the gap between exposures would be relatively long, so there could be a "big" difference from frame to frame resulting in a jerky/staccato feel to the playback.