lebigmac

Here is a hopefully more consistent set. All with f8 and 1/30 on tripod. In contrast to the previous sets, I didn't rely on focus peaking at all but on magnification. 
All .jpgs and raws here, and there's also a set with IBIS on (which doesn't seem to make a difference): 

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/466oznln2oz53txn3nyn6/h?dl=0&rlkey=4a0m3kmpo1puuatt1f5xfojq3

A7 above, A7iv is below
Minolta MD 50:

Olympus 50mm:

Sony FE 50mm

 

The manual lenses look here far better than on the previous pictures. 

7 minutes ago, bjohn said:

What software do you use to process your photos

Lightroom and  Luminar

2 hours ago, bjohn said:

All I can say is that I'm glad I didn't decide to get an A7iv as my second camera for stills; I'll either get an original A7s or another A7iii. 

Maybe, you should wait what comes out of this.
Apart from the issue discussed here at the moment, I find it a bit difficult to adapt my workflow to the raw files of the A7iv. Normally, I look for room in the shadows and lift it, for instance, and alter an image starting from there. With the A7iv, all the dynamic range seems already baked in when taking the picture and it is sometimes surprising that I can't seem to lift the shadows as far as I am used to.    

48 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

However, it is pretty simple to make one yourself using a guide such as this one.

I really feel honored, but I think, you are overestimating my skills by a long margin. BUT the setup that you've send now is outright genius!! You are just awesome. I'll arrange things as advised first thing tomorrow, and I'll give my best in the kitchen sink to make the aromaboy look like the one in your pic. And I'll look for a constant lighting environment.

Regarding your 'out of focus' observation, there is a comparison set with balcony pictures linked above in one of the first posts, there seems to be the center of the scene out of focus as well on several pictures. And that was my impression after starting to shoot with the new camera. I've been shooting for years with these lenses, on a gx85, NX1, Nex5n/t, Nex3, Z6, a ton on the A7, and while they performed differently, they did always as expected and I never had the impression that something is not right with the results – until the A7iv. That's how it started. I can't rule out that in the end the photographer is to blame, since my eyesight seems in steep decline - esp. after sunset – due to my fast progressing age and decades of screen work – but still, it feels strange.

Is the EXIF from the last shot? 'Steady Shot' was on and set on 50mm focal length for this, it was handheld.   
 
     

Here a quick shots handheld with f 11 and the MD. Only relied on focus magnification, no focus peaking (Sorry Andrew for the file size). 

59 minutes ago, bjohn said:

In every case, the A7iv photo appears to be more zoomed in; are you using it in APS-C mode?

No, I zoomed booth it in for convenience in preview, by the same factor, and the image of the A7iv is larger.

53 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

n some it favours the A7 and in others the A7iv in terms of appearing sharper but at the actual focus point for each camera within each comparison image they are both much of a muchness.

Yes, I've seen that, but for me, it's hard to explain. I shot all from a tripod, the distance to my aroma boy is about 1m. With f 5.6 both objects should be in focus. I checked the focus bfore pulling the trigger with the peaking function, and based on that, both items laid with in the focus area. I'll look for a brighter area and make some photos with around f 11.   

.. Aperture was 5.6 with 1/60

Here is another comparison a7->A7iv with three different 50mm lenses: The vintage Olmypus OM 50 1.8 and Minolta MD 50mm 1.7 plus the modern Sony FE 50mm AF lens. Shocking.

The whole set with jpg and raws is here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/qa013alqdxzgxgw/AAC_xXoEPTZ_p-U1lOU0qTYda?dl=0

The above is the A7, the below the A7iv

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. 

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. 

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.

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.

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.

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.

It was in daylight, I think the aperture was between 5.6 and 8.
I thought that the focus/peaking is maybe not accurate, but there's nothing really in focus on the A7iv pics.
Here is the set with raw files:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/f4mzk3guqmyhswj/AACOxMDpvfQ6VaNd_FBeTJk5a?dl=0

1 hour ago, Phil A said:

You didn't hit the same focus in both pictures. If this is with the same lens at the same aperture, the plant in the foreground shouldn't be this much sharper on the left than the right pic.

All pics are like that, I employed focus peaking on both devices and used the same settings like apterture and shutter speed.

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. I put the A7 and the A7iv side by side with the Minolta MD 28/2.8, 35/1.8 and the 50/1.7, and I am left with the impression that the old A7 produces noticeably better, i.e. more detailed results. I don't know the reason, maybe the newer sensor is less forgiving facing average quality glass, but this puzzles me quite a bit.    

What about this fella? 200 € seems reasonable for a start into phone raw. Seems to have a quite recent Snapdragon. Does anyone have experience with it?
https://www.amazon.de/dp/B08Y8MDMF4/?coliid=I3AZGVYDI6P390&colid=35QJ5W1J5CG75&psc=1&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it

On 1/11/2022 at 7:06 PM, Mark Romero 2 said:

If the a7 IV had full-frame 4K 60p, I would probably have gone for it. Despite my experiences with Sony aps-c cameras.

Keep us informed how it works out.

Here for some first impressions (I did not posses the A7iiI, some things might be familiar to you that are new to me). I can’t say anything substantial about the IQ just yet. But I’d like to share what I think about the overall handling in comparison.

First of all, the package does not look like a Japanese gift at all, more like for a north korean showel. Strange for a product of this price. Maybe it is due to environmental considerations, but there was no label or explanation of sort.

Weight and size: All seems more balanced, smaller and lighter than the nikon z6, although that might not be the case. The body gives a kind of hollow impression, which is not unpleasant. The feel of the buttons and dials: Cheapo. All feels like plastic parts from an 3D printer were stitched together afterwards without fitting to 100%. All dials and buttons give you a sort of resistance like they don’t want to be used. No comparison to the refined feel of superior material of an Z6 or the NX1.

EVF is okay, but you always have to hit the center with your eye, otherwise it gets unsharp very quickly to the sides (like on the gx80). I tend to press my eye bone to the frame of the evf all the time, in order to get it right, and that starts to hurt after some time. LCD screen ist okay, but certainly not as brilliant as the one from the NX1 and it’s smaller than the Z6’s. It has a huge bezel, so why in the world is it not possible to make the screen a bit bigger as 3’’ ?. A digital camera is an optical tool in the end, and this one competes with smartphones to a certain extend, which offer a brilliant bright screen twice as big as the Sony A7IV’s one. It think, it is all a bit outdated, and it is a prospect of things to come. Maybe, it was not the best idea to design digital DSLRs on the basis of its analogue predecessors from the 60ties at all, which sported no LCD obviously. Maybe future cameras will have to look different.

Menu is good, I had no problems with the one from A7 mark I though, but it is definitely a revelation compared to the classic NEX menus.
Focus peaking implementation is great, you can switch it on and off easily and when it’s on, it doesn’t intrude too much in the picture (like it does on the z6).

Button and dial assignment is straightforward as well, it’s a quick and easy affair.

A great feature is that you can use the lcd screen as a touchpad for focusing while looking through the EVF. It works not as snappy as on the gx80, but it is definitely usable.
In terms of heat, I can’t say anything, ( I shot 1 short piece outside without any problems) yet, but I noticed that the camera gets noticeably hot while charging the battery.

On 12/1/2021 at 5:37 PM, MrSMW said:

So yes, price comes into it as it has to + use case + I have to say, enjoyment which is an important factor for me.

I finally sold almost all my gear and pulled the trigger on the A7IV which is probably the most unreasonable option. Main reason, I guess, is the enjoyment I had with the first A7, which was just fun to hold and operate. Other than that, on the plus side, you have a flip out screen and 10bit. On the other side, you'll get a resolution bump that nobody needs – if, you would get an A7rIII for 600 $ less – at the the expense of comparably lackluster low light performance (deplorable) and rs.    
So, time to get convinced by practice. 

On 11/29/2021 at 4:38 PM, MrSMW said:

f I was with Panny and had an S5, nah, the S5 is a bit of a beast and especially for the price.

What's the difference between the two?

Basically the same size and weight as makes no difference.

SOOC the Panny is 'probably' better video and the Sony 'arguably' better stills...but we're talking tiny, tiny amounts.

L-mount glasses are still a bit of an invest. I've watched a ton of videos on the S5, and my impression is that it has a bit of an unpleasant highlight roll off and from what If have seen does have a more videoish look SOOC, compared to the A7iii and A7c - which share the same sensor with the S5, I guess.
On the other hand, at least here, prices for the body are far apart.
New with cashback:
S5 is € 1.390.-
A7iii is at € 1.550.-

A7iV is € 2800.-

So opting for the A7IV over the 24mp sensor would really be a bold move – is it worth the up to € 1500 extra and considering that it might be outpaced sooner than the A7iii was in its time, by models with less rolling shutter and better stabilization. 
 

I fear, the AIV with '131 x 96 x 80 mm, 659 g'  is no less bulky than the S5 (133 x 98 x 82 mm, 714 g). I loved the look of my Minolta lenses on the A7 m I, and I really hope, the A7IV would perform the same way, despite the higher resolution sensor.  Ibis is certainly big plus for the S5, although the cropped in electronic IS on the Sony seems to narrow that a bit.