Sony Alpha A7 (ILCE-7) and Sony Alpha A7r (ILCE-7r) vs rest of the world. Part 5. Cropping games - A7r and NEX 5N

In the last article I promised to give my opinion about stregths and weaknesses of A7 vs A7r.

The problem is, that thinking more about both cameras, I keep finding new positives (and negatives) for each of them. So, it is not that easy.

A7r is the camera that will give more in terms of resolution and build quality. However, its sensor is more demanding in regard to lens design, there seems to be more software corrections applied in RAW (color casting corrections), I am still worrying about possible shutter shock vibrations that could affect sharpness at certain shutter speeds, and the price is significantly higher too. In combination with a carefully selected lens collection (mainly legacy for now), I will choose A7r for landscape, architecture and studio still life.

A7 seems as more versatile camera. Files coming from its sensor are somehow cleaner - there is less vignetting and color casting even with FE 35/2.8 ZA. Lower resolution doesn't make huge difference, and while on-sensor phase detection AF is still marketing nonsense IMHO, the electronic first curtain and faster sync speed with flash are remarkable advantages in comparison to A7r. Lower price makes it actually also better value for money, and considering that some WA RF lenses will work better on it, I will choose this camera for street, portraiture and aerial photography.

For macro I will choose NEX 7 and for anything where fast movement is expected, I will choose DSLR.

That is not to say, that any of the Sony E-mount cameras can't be used for action, because that won't be true. There are few wildlife and even BIF shooters who are using NEX cameras with MF lenses with great success. But that require lot of skills, and I think that for amateurs and enthusiasts, DSLR will be better - easier tool to use, when fast Af and AF tracking is required.

But let's keep rolling this review, we might find other reasons for this or that...

In this article, I would like to show you what you can expect from A7r camera in APS-C crop mode and how it compare with NEX 5N in that respect.

As you probably now, you can use A7 or A7r cameras in their native - full frame mode (using full size of the full frame sensor), or you can use them in a APS-C "crop" mode, (using only APS-C comparable part of the full frame sensor).

In the FF mode, only lenses designed to cover full frame will cover full format. Sony differ those full frame lenses in E-mount by giving them designation FE in their name.

With the introduction of the A7 and A7r camera, there were only three FE lenses available - kit lens (that comes only as a part of the kit with the A7 camera) - Sony FE 28-70/3.5-5.6 OSS, WA lens - Sony FE 35/2.8 Sonnar T*, and standard lens Sony FE 55/1.8 Sonnar T* (That one has still very limited availability, and I can't get one here yet.)

Of course, there are many legacy full frame lenses, that could be used with the appropriate adapters (but this article is not about them) and Sony SEL lenses designed for APS-C cameras with E-mount, formerly known as NEX series. (Sony decided to abandon NEX name in the future)

To make it simple - FE lenses are FF lenses, while SEL lenses are APS-C lenses.

A7 and A7r allows you to use any of the Sony SEL lenses either in a full frame mode or APS-C crop mode. (In the custom settings - page 5)

There are three options - On, Auto, or Off.

This is one of the very clever settings that A7/r offers. It means that you can decide to use APS-C lenses in full frame mode if you wish so.

Why would you want to do so?

Because most lenses are designed to cover slightly larger than intended area, in some cases (if the lens has flat focus field and do not suffer from significant spherical aberrations, or when you stop lens enough to improve corners), shooting in full frame mode and cropping while post processing, will result in the larger field of view and larger image than in camera APS-C crop mode.

Here is an example of doing so with Sony SEL 24/1.8 Sonnar T* ZA lens.

Original full frame mode result in significant vignetting...

If you set A7/r to APS-C Size Capture "ON" (or Auto if used with E-mount lenses that communicates with camera) image will be recorded at smaller sensor area, resulting in a "cropped image" at the size of 4800px x 3200px (15,36 Mpx)

But I managed in this case to crop larger area - at 5100px x 3400px (17,34 Mpx) using custom crop in Photoshop and still excluding any vignetting in the corners.

To make it easier to understand what I did (for those who are not skilled in post processing), I made outlines within original image, showing the difference in the cropped area - green line shows what camera select in APS-C Size Capture mode, while red line shows my custom crop from the original full frame image.

As you can see, I was very conservative in my cropping and working a little bit on the corners to remove vignetting, you should be able to make even larger crop.

In this case, the original (full frame image) has around 36 MB, while in camera APS-C Size Capture (cropped) image has around 16 MB.

Because, original camera crop is around 16 Mpx, let's see how does it compare with NEX 5N (16Mpx) image taken with the same lens...

Once again - A7r Camera crop (APS-C Size Capture -On)

And Sony NEX 5N

As you can see, difference in FOV is very small. There are some exposure differences, but this is not test about it (they are probably caused by lighting conditions change during testing)

Let's see how the resulting sharpness compare between the two, when we look at both images at 100%

We might talk about minor differences in resolution, but they are most probably caused by marginal different focus plane.

One more thing to mention...

Some lenses for APS-C E-mount cameras, such as Sigma 30mm f/2.8 EX DN E have plastic baffle on the mount side that blocks the lens projection. This baffle serves aesthetic purpose - to hide inner lens electronics and to prevent potential reflections in some situations. By removing this baffle, you can enlarge the projection of the lens and thus use even larger part of the A7/r sensor with a APS-C lens.

Here are two images showing how much more coverage you can get by removing lens baffle

Sony A7 with Sigma 30mm f/2.8 EX DN E with its original baffle inside.

Sony A7 with Sigma 30mm f/2.8 EX DN E with baffle removed

Removing the baffle is quite easy (if you want to see how to do it, check my video instruction, but please note that doing so, you might void Sigma warranty and I take no responsibilities for anything. In fact I am not advising you to do so :-)

This can be done only with some lenses, but it can also be done with the LA-EA1 adapter with very interesting and useful results. By removing adapter baffle, you will almost get functionality of LA-EA3. (There is some remaining vignetting however).

From this little test, I would like to propose the following conclusion...

1.
Using Sony A7r in the APS-C Size Capture mode, will result in a image resolution comparable with Sony APS-C 16 Mpx sensors (NEX 5N/R/T, NEX 3C/F/N, NEX6). In that respect, we can say, that A7 can serve as any other APS-C NEX camera (except NEX 7). So, with A7r, you have 36 Mpx full frame and 16 Mpx (approx.) APS-C cameras. Two in one.

2. 
Using custom cropping during post processing, will result in most cases in even wider FOV and larger images than camera Auto APS-C crop mode. If you have basic skills in post processing, shooting in Full Frame mode and applying custom cropping later, could be better option. 

In the next article, I will show you how A7 with Sony FE 35/2.8 ZA compares to NEX 7 with Sony SEL 24/1.8 ZA, because we have almost identical FOV at the same resolution.


Other parts of the rolling review:


Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9 - A7 vs A7r Final Showdown

To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated. 

Sony Alpha A7 (ILCE-7) and Sony Alpha A7r (ILCE-7r) vs rest of the world. Part 4.

To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated. 

In the last article I tried to show you what size and resolution of the sensor means for field of view. In this article, I would like to show you how different sensor size, affect depth of field.

All this is to give you an idea what those Megapixels, Full Frame, APS-C or Micro Four Thirds terms means to us photographers in a real life. If you can't decide, which camera is right one for you, those articles might help you a little bit.

Of course, there is much more than sensor size, noise or resolution, that you should take in consideration. But Sony A7/r cameras are putting those three aspects in the first plan.
That is why I want to show you, what those marketing numbers brings to us photographers. No hype, just pure facts :-)

In the last article, where I tried to show you what will happen with the framing if you use different sensor size cameras from the same position (FOV difference), I choose  distant subject (with vertical walls for better understanding of FOV), something that was supposed to simulate landscape situation.

When it comes to DOF (Depth Of Field in this case, but it could also mean Dept Of Focus), that is one of the main arguments with which fans of the larger sensors are arguing against smaller sensors, such as MFT (micro four thirds), but also 1" (Nikon J/V series or Sony RX10, 100 etc.). Why?

Because if you can achieve shallow depth of field, you have better chances to use that to isolate your subject from the background. That helps to lead observer sight toward main subject. In other words - imagine that you are shooting bride on the wedding ceremony. There is the ugliest wall in the whole building with a few drunk relatives not so far behind her, and unfortunately you have to capture the moment, because there will be no other chance. You want the bride to look good, and anyone who will watch your image to look at her and not on drunk relatives behind. Shallow DOF can help you in such situation :-)

In general terms, I tried to explain how DOF can influence your image in one of my previous articles about great Canon EF 200/2 L IS lens.

If we now understand what DOF is all about and why it is important creative tool for the look of your images, let's see how it is related to A7/r and other cameras in this comparison. This time however, I will show you simulation of the night portrait with a Nikon Nikkor 50/1.4 Ai SC (single coated) lens.

What will happen, if we keep the cameras at the same position, as in the previous test...

This is Full Frame A7 sensor.

If I don't move the camera and put on tripod NEX 5N instead, this is what I will get

Finally, my Olympus OM-D EM-5 from the very same position will give me this framing

If you look at the blurred area now, you should see that highlight rendering is more or less the same. In other words - quantity and quality of the blur is same.

But what if we want to keep same framing as with our A7 and A7r cameras?

First, here is A7r (same as A7 in this respect) with its full frame sensor. Distance to subject is approx. 60cm.

To get approx.same framing (perspective change when we move from subject, so it can't be exactly the same), I had to move my APS-C camera (NEX 7 in this case) to about 90cm from the subject. This is the result.

Finally, to get close to those big sensor fellas, I had to move my Olympus OM-D EM-5 to approx. 120cm. Here is what I got...

If you want to explore those images in full resolution, you can click here.

You should be able to see from those samples, how sensor size influence resulting images in regard to DOF and related amount of the blur in a real (well almost :-)) life.

In the full frame sensor image, your attention is led to my model. (Name anyone?) With APS-C sensor, attention is still led to my model, but background starts to be a bit more destructing and my eyes feels it more. With Micro Four Thirds sensor, background already start to interfere with my model, and the whole impression from the image is more... harsh, nervous or something like that.

Of course, with deeper DOF we will get more of our model in focus too. So in some extreme situations, while you can isolate your subject perfectly from background using shallow DOF, you can also end with only one eye sharp, or sharp both eyes, but blurred nose. However, in those situations, you can simply stop your lens down on a full frame camera to increase DOF. You can't open your lens more (when it is fully open) to achieve shallower DOF on smaller sensor cameras however.

Last thing related to DOF, that I would like to share with you - is distance...

In my set-up, you can see far background (behind those large circular highlights - it is building across the street). As you can see, the amount of the blur in that area does change between images, but it doesn't have significant effect to our image. That's because it is almost 100m far away and it is rather monolith in color and structure (unlike chess board i.e. :-))
But left to my model, there is that blue/red/green thing and that one makes most of the differences described above. That is because it is only 30cm behind my model.
This is important to note, because it can help you to obey limitations of the smaller sensor related to the DOF.
If possible, you can always ask your  model to move further from the background and you should be able to create smooth background as if using full frame sensor camera in the original situation.

All what I wrote in my last three articles, was meant to show - how different sensor sizes and resolution will affect your resulting images. In all those examples I used always same lens for related comparisons. I am sure that you know, but let me just mention, that lens selection can also influence resulting resolution and even much more DOF discussed here.

If you i.e. put on your A7r camera - Sony FE 35mm f/2.8 lens, and on Olympus OM-D EM-5 - CV Nokton 35mm f/1.2 and you take a shot with both combinations at wide open apertures, you will have slightly shallower DOF with Olympus. If you do it other way around, difference in DOF will be significant. But that is another story, that has not much to do with camera sensor differences discussed here.

You might also want to check article about resolution differences and noise (that Megapixel and ISO things :-))

So, what camera is right one for you?

Only you can know the answer, but in the next article, I will try to give you my POV and to resume strengths and weaknesses of possible solutions.

After that, I will focus purely on the differences between A7 and A7r. I am planning to post some videos about settings, focus speed etc. Stay tuned.

Here are few images for you from my testings...

Sony A7r and Sony A7

Other parts of this rolling review:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8 
Part 9 - A7 vs A7r Final Showdown

To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated. 

Sony Alpha A7 (ILCE-7) and Sony Alpha A7r (ILCE-7r) vs rest of the world. Part 3.

To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated. 

Handling and user interface

There are many more options to customize the menu, than with any previous E-mount camera. That is good.

But there is still not very logical, how certain options are grouped into sections. In that regard, user guide that comes with the camera doesn't help at all. Slightly better is user guide for download, but don't expect it to make you familiar with the camera settings.
As with most previous NEX cameras, expect steep learning curve until you get familiar where is what in the menu.

On the top of the camera, there is mode dial featuring A,S,P,M (creative modes), 1,2 custom settings, movie mode, panorama mode, Scene mode and green Auto mode.

Next to it there is shutter, that is slightly closer to the palm and thus less comfortable to use, and even closer to the palm is EV dial, which someone likes, someone doesn't really understand why it is there. It has it's use, mainly in the M shooting mode, but also in the panorama or movie mode. In the M mode, it is very convenient way of adjusting your exposure, especially when you set Auto ISO. You can have fixed aperture and shutter speed, set the LCD/EVF exposure effect to ON and follow the scene (histogram). With the EV control dial, you will affect ISO value in a real time.

There is also Custom 1 (from 3 custom buttons all together) on the top plate. That button is quite difficult to reach by finger when you hold the camera, but that is basically the same for all custom buttons, so doing some finger gym in preparation, is not that bad idea.

Back panel is very much NEX 7 like. On top of the back panel, left to the viewfinder, there is Menu button. And on right there is Custom 2 button. Both buttons are important, but switching one or the other, will take your hand in front of the EVF sensors. So if you want to access menu while reviewing images, your LCD will probably black out when you move your hand to press menu button. Because switching between LCD and EVF is not very fast, whole experience is rather annoying.

There are actually two more control wheels, kind of tri-navi system, one on the back, and one on the front, and usually you use them to alter exposure (aperture and shutter speed) in shooting creative modes.

Very useful control, that I loved on NEX 7 is the back AE-L/AF/MF  combined lever with the button. You can configure your A7/r cameras to focus only when this button is pressed, and that is very useful in many situations.

Overall Sony A7/r cameras are nice move ahead in terms of interface ergonomy, but there is still lot of work to be done. I am sure, firmware update will fix some of shortcomings, such as complicated zooming in playback mode. (You have first to press C2 button, then the image zoom to 100% and then you can zoom out using back scroll dial or AF/MF button. It will be much easier if you can program center button (from main back dial command, to instantly zoom in steps, as it was with previous NEX models) Adding possibility to set minimum shutter speed in A and P mode, will be also highly appreciated.

Sensor size and resolution

Back to image comparisons. In this part, I would like to show you what those different sized sensors mean in a real life from another perspective...

I used Nikon 14-24 G ED IF AF-S lens set at 16mm for this test. All cameras were on tripod and at the fixed position. That means that unlike in the ISO12333 chart comparison, I didn't move to compensate for differences in FOV.

This comparison should help you to better understand differences in sensor size, sensor resolution and FOV, so that you can consider what camera suits your needs better. (In that regard).

As I said before, things are not black and white like it might seem, when it comes to resolution. 36 mpx on FF can actually mean less resolution at the same distance from the subject, than 16 mpx on m4/3.

What am I talking about? Let's see...

First, let's compare FOV differences:

As you can see, with a different sensor size, FOV changes and as a result - magnification changes too. (building in the background is largest in the Olympus OM-D E5 (smallest sensor) image.

In this moment however, resolution of the sensor starts to play its role. Let's look at the 100% crops  of that building in the background, without up-sampling or down-sampling images, but leaving them in their native resolution.

You can see now, that beside same sensor size of A7r and A7 or NEX 7 and NEX 5N, magnification using same crop size differ. So NEX 7 will resolve more than NEX 5N, despite same FOV, and Olympus OM-D has an edge in terms of resolution of that distant building, no matter than it has smallest sensor and lowest resolution.

This is something that quite lot of my friends still don't understand. They think that more megapixels and larger sensor will always resolve more. As you can see, it is not that simple.

Trick is, that as you can see in the first sample, you can fit more of the image with the same lens with a Full Frame sensors than with m4/3 i.e. and that you should resolve more details from a higher resolution sensor at a comparable sensor size (A7r vs A7).

If you want, you can download original DNG files here and explore them yourself.

Please, note that if you want to share any of those images for non commercial purposes, you are allowed to do so, and I will be grateful if you credit the source with a tag "verybiglobo.blogspot.com". 
If you consider to use image/s for commercial purpose, you should contact me first.
All rights are reserved.

There is another thing that goes together with sensor size and that can affect final resolution - Depth Of Field (DOF), but more importantly for purpose of this article - it will affect subject isolation at comparable field of view.

To make you better understand what I am talking about, without explaining why it is so (you can find many great web explanations about differences in DOF related to the sensor size, subject distance, background distance and lens FL) I will show you another comparison in the next chapter... But that will take few days :-)

Keep watching this blog, as there is many more to come, that should help you to decide were A7 and A7r are cameras for you, and if so, which one should you buy.

Other parts of this rolling review:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9 - A7 vs A7r Final Showdown

To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated. 

Sony Alpha A7 (ILCE-7) and Sony Alpha A7r (ILCE-7r) vs rest of theworld. Part 2.

To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated. 

There are already many reviews about both cameras, so I will go through main topics just briefly and will try to get to the point from the user perspective. Which camera is better for what, what are real life differences between them, and how they compare to other alternatives? All that with image samples that should say more than my chit chat.

Opening the box:

Short Video 

Boxes for both cameras are of the same size and they slightly differ in design. Sony made A7r camera box a little bit more refined with more empty black space that should say - luxury. Well, it doesn't. They could save few bucks and keep boxes the same.

Comparing boxes with the NEX 7 original black box, is like comparing Rolex with Timex box. Never-mind, it's just a piece of a cardboard, right? It's only that you expect a little bit more "pro" or "luxury" feeling when you pay for those cameras. Instead, you get average hair dryer kind of packaging.

Inside the box, you will find something that Sony consider to be user instructions in all languages except the one from the country where you live, instructions how to connect your iA7 with your iPhone or using NFC to your fancy Android (one of approximately two who supported that technology), camera in white plastic textile bag, battery (almost empty, so that you have to wait 5 hours before you start to play with your camera), cables with adapter to charge your batteries in camera and two AC socket adapters, one for UK and the other one DIN (for the rest of Europe). I think that it is great to have UK socket adapter, because if you get the contract to shot Manchester United players at Old Trafford every Sunday night, you'll be ready out of the box.

On contrary, why would you need external battery charger for your 36mpx FF camera? As a soccer mom, you are probably used to charge your camera on your night table before week-end.

This is the moment, when you start to feel a bit hollow. You are not disappointed yet, you just expected slightly more intensive experience. But what a hack, take your camera in your hand and turn it around!

Design:

I believe that Sony finally found a real meaning of the word - Hybrid Camera with its A7 and A7r. They are perfect example of what you might expect when you combine rangefinder body with the SLR pentaprism, magnesium alloy with cheap looking plastics, superior sensors with gimmicks such as orange metallic ring around mount.
At certain point, they could also glue the OVF up on the EVF, because it can't make any more harm to the overall look.

Don't get me wrong, you might like it. But be sure to see it in reality and hold it in your hands, before you buy it. I never thought that camera design will matter to me, but than I never had such ugly cameras either.

Like Rafael Nadal, turning his bottles with the label in the right direction, I have to be careful to look at my A7/r from quarter profile view, from which they looks acceptable, otherwise I will be seriously tempted to cut off that terrible hump on the top and smash the body with the hammer, to make it look slightly better.

The most annoying is not the design itself. I am sure there are people who would like it, who would even say that A7/r s are the most beautiful cameras they ever had, but than, there are also people who would say same about Yugo with few plastic spoilers in the fluorescent color.

Most annoying is the only possible reason for doing so - pandering to the customers.

Behind the look of the camera, I can see marketing and not design department. Sony cameras should look like DSLR, and DSLRs are cameras with pentaprism. Majority of customers (that means - we) are stupid to see things like that, so Sony needs design that will be comparable at the first sight with Canikon market leaders. Put the pentaprism there and be done with it.

NEX is dead baby, NEX is dead...
I can just hope, that Sony will keep their NEX line style alive, no matter that they killed NEX name. But we shell know soon...

Build quality:

They are both (A7 and A7r) built ok, but far from outstanding. They both feel hollow and  they lack that solid feeling that one might expect from this price point cameras. In comparison to Olympus OM-D EM-5 that I also own, they feel cheaper, which might be at the end just a feeling. Looking at the construction diagram i.e. here, everything seems well made and assembled.

A7r feels a bit better due to the front plate being made of magnesium. (A7 has plastic front plate), but that is not a big difference.

I would like to have cameras slightly tougher and probably little bit heavier, because of the balance with most lenses. You can read about that hollow feeling in almost all reviews that I have seen, so it is nothing new what I am saying. Maybe that feeling will change with use...

After few weeks of using both cameras, I am still more afraid to mount heavy lens on them and put them on the tripod than I was with Sony NEX 7 or even small NEX 5N. That is rather strange, but it probably describe well - that "hollow" feeling thing.

But everything depends on POV. While in direct comparison with NEX 7, I feel that both A7 and A7r took a step back, when I got my Sony FE 3528 Zeiss lens delivered by courier, I asked him to wait till I unpack it, because I was 100% sure, that the box is empty. 

OMG - for 1000 USD (where I live) I got a toy-like looking, hard to feel in hand, 49mm plastic filter thread Zeiss!?! lens. WTF!!! If this thing doesn't make sharp images from corner to corner, I will send it back in a split of a second. And I will keep bashing it, because that is just a bit over the line, that I am ready to tolerate when it comes to the first impression.

So for the money, I got products that doesn't really feel or look luxury, neither Pro, and that come in a cheap looking paper-box. Where is all magic than?

I hope it is in IQ...

Resolution differences and ISO noise. 

Lot of my friends keeps asking me which camera to choose A7 or A7r. Most of them are gearheads and they keep changing cameras faster, than my wife change shoes. To give them any answer it won't really help, because they will try both anyway. But for many others, I would try to show on examples what that sensor size and megapixel race might mean in a real life. One of the main marketing message that A7 and A7r are bringing with them is - larger sensor means better IQ. And by better IQ people usually mean higher resolution (more detail). Better sensitivity is another selling evergreen of the full frame club. Finally, one of the favorite war hammers in the battle of the camera system fans (sometimes I have a feeling that it is not about sensor sizes), is shallower DOF.

Let's take a look if we can find an objective point of view, to better understand differences...

After short introduction in the first part of this rolling review, here are more complex results of testing against each other and their competitors.

Let me just repeat few things about this ISO 12333 chart... I decided to use Leitz Elmarit Macro R 60mm/2.8 lens, because I wanted to include Nikon D800E in the test, and I didn't want to give it the advantage of hosting native mount lens.

All cameras are somehow equal now, using third party lens.

I also choose macro lens, because it is optimized for short focusing distances and because it has flat focus field with minimum of aberrations.

To shot JPEGs doesn't make much sense for comparison test, because that way we would compare jpeg engines and different standard settings that each producer and camera model has. But I was more interested to see, how much resolution I am able to squeeze from the cameras in the similar conditions.

However, there is also problem with RAW files. RAW software developers are using different presets as their standard, and thus resulting images might look quite different too. This mainly affect sharpness, contrast and white balance read out, but the differences are sometimes very significant and they might lead to the wrong conclusions. You might check it for yourself, opening A7r file in Sony IDC software and using Adobe LR 5.3 RC or Adobe DNG converter or Camera RAW. Files in Sony IDC look much sharper at the first glance, than when opened with Adobe. To make the comparison as valid as possible I used Adobe DNG converter for all files, and than imported them in LR 4.3, where I made WB equalization and very slight exposure compensation (up to max +0.33 EV). Finaly, files were exported to Photoshop for creating comparable formats and exported to JPEG using "Web and Devices" at the best quality settings.

Putting those files in comparison, posed another usual problem for consideration - should I up-size smaller images to match the size of the larger ones (A7r and Nikon D800E), or should I do it other-way around. There is no valid answer for this dilemma, so I did both.

Finally, there are several ways to think about resolution using different format cameras. If one is shooting BIF (bird in flight :-)) with a 300mm lens i.e., he/she should be able to squeeze more detail in a resulting image from NEX 7 than A7r. Because at the same distance to the subject, NEX 7 will record 24 mpx while A7r "only" 15+mpx (If you crop the image to equalize FOV of APS-C).

But on the other hand, if you will shot portrait and you can adjust your distance to the subject with both cameras, you will get more mpx from A7r (36) than from NEX 7 (24).

In this comparison, I moved the camera on tripod to compensate for differences in FOV, so it applies for the situations, where you can effectively control distance between camera and your subjects. I will however be able to show you also other situation, (the real life shots) where I will keep the camera in the same position.

Presented here are 100% crops of the ISO 12333 chart, with adjusted camera position to fill the frame with the chart.

This is center 100% crop comparison image, when all files were downsized to match Olympus OM-D image size.

Corner 100% crops

And when all files were enlarged to match Sony A7r (and Nikon D800E) file size

Center 100% crop

Corner 100% crop

Let's look closer at few direct face offs

A7 vs Olympus OM-D (downsized)

A7 vs A7r original file size

A7 vs A7r (Downsized)

 

And A7r vs Nikon D800E

What I learned from those formal comparison...

The difference between sensors in terms of resolution is of course visible.
Most significant is difference between A7r and Olympus OM-D E5 as expected, but at the end, someone might be disappointed, because it is not as not that big as sensor size and mpx numbers might indicate.

Surprisingly I can see more moire in A7 image than in any other. Maybe it's because AA filter is rather very weak, and 24mpx is still not enough to surpass moire with a sharp lens. A7r with its 36 mpx, despite lack of AA filters does better job in that regard.

Nikon D800E look sharpest in some areas (top of the 100% crop i.e.) but A7r in the other (central target). In a real life, I don't expect big differences between the two.

Here are ISO comparison crops at few ISO stops

All cameras did very well in my ISO test. Again, Olympus with its small sensor shows most noise, but that start to show up in direct comparison above ISO 1600. And that is for some, including me, usually upper limit anyway.

In the next part, you will see some real life image comparisons between those cameras.

Other parts of this rolling review:

Part 1
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9 - A7 vs A7r Final Showdown 
 

To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated. 

Sony Alpha A7 (ILCE-7) and Sony Alpha A7r (ILCE-7r) vs rest of theworld. Part 1.

To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated. 

I am working on my Sony A7/A7r review, and believe me, there are lot of interesting things about those two cameras. Many great and some not so great...

Meanwhile, here are few shots and thoughts, that you can take a look at.

If you like those unpacking videos, here is mine :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYHvOwG6aJc

Post your questions, I will try to answer them as they come.

MFT forum community is quite busy those days. They are permanently looking for the reasons, why their Oly EM-1 and Panasonic GX7 still makes sense, after Sony launched A7s.

Don't worry guys, there are many reasons to be happy with your/my MFT cameras. Just that sheer IQ is unfortunately not one of those...

Don't get me wrong, I like my EM-5 but it is a different camera tool. It is versatile, well built, with solid image quality. I would expect it however to be much smaller and lighter, once it has so small sensor. The price, size and form put it against Sony E mount cameras, but the much smaller sensor is keeping it behind. In terms of image quality and low light usablity.

But they have with Sony A7/7r one thing in common. Both are ugliest camera bodies that I ever had in my life, including many Russian tough contenders (in that respect). Goodbye dear, stylish NEX (on the right). I will miss your curves... (I know, I know, it's me and my deformed taste...)

So, back to the IQ - ISO 6400 is not what I shot every day, but you can get the idea about what the difference in sensor size means in low light. 

(To be fair to MFT, once I post other ISO comparisons, you shell see that up to ISO 3200 - Oly EM-5 is actually very good and it is ISO 6400 where it starts to fall appart.

Resolution in the center after equalizing image size with Olympus.

I can hear you MFT fans - "that's not fair, you should enlarge them to A7r size..." Ok.

Is the difference really that big? That all depends on our own criteria. Usually what we have, is big enough right? Just don't directly compare it with the bigger one.

Seriously - Oly is a great camera. To be fair, you might notice the difference in resolution if you print very large, or make huge crops. For web use and normal size prints (including A3), Oly EM-5 (and I guess EM-1) are good more than enough.

Sure, there are those DOF issues, but they goes both direction, and longer reach with larger DOF  is quite useful sometime.

But there is something more about high resolution, that people usually don't mention. Post processing. Higher input resolution gives you more information to work with. If you are extensively working in pp on your images, you will understand what I am talking about. This is for me much more important than any other difference. 

So far, I have one serious problem with A7/7r.

I am concerned about FE35/2.8 Zeiss Sonnar T* lens. 

No conclusions yet, but take a look at my first test shots. Vignetting looks enormous, and there is significant color shift :-( I know that flange distance is short, and people want small lenses, but this IQ from 800 USD lens? I hope, that I did something wrong and lens is fine...

I can only suggest to wait for more professional reviews, before you order yours.  My findings so far are disappointing, mainly because of a huge vignetting and significant color shift. It seems that SEL 1018 on FF has less color shift than FE35/2.8!

This is with EV +1,5 and with lens correction switched on in camera. It's f/5.6!!! (Lens is without that strange lens hood.)

In the sample image bellow, I equalized contrast in 100% crops, because edges are naturally so dark, that you wouldn't be able to judge acutance and resolution. All camera corrections were switched off, but I wasn't able to get rid of vignetting even at f/8, using Sony Image Data Converter.

Do you see the left side being a bit softer than the right one as I do? De-centering? So what, it's only 800 USD lens (actually 1000 USD where I live). Hopefully, it is just my mistake.

I mentioned less color shift in the corners with SEL 1018, but don't trust those who are telling you, that SEL 1018 works well in FF mode on A7r (from 12mm on). It doesn't, because of a very complicated distortion in the corners. (That stairs are straight in reality)

I mean, you will cover full sensor from 14mm -18mm, but if you can live with that amount of distortion in the corners, I honestly think that you can save a lot of money, buying much cheaper camera. 

On the other hand, SEL 1018 f/4 OSS works fairly well in the crop mode, and you can happily walk away with 4800 x 3200 px image. That is... 15,36mp! Two cameras in one :-)

Putting aside my doubts about FE 35/2.8, I was curious to see, how will A7 with it compare with NEX 7 and Zeiss 24/1.8.

While on A7, vignetting and color shift is less pronounced, it is still quite visable. And that is at f/8!!!

 

Center is almost indistinguishable, left corner is sharper with SEL 2418 on NEX 7, while right corner is sharper with A7 and FE3528. Right corner is closer to the camera, so that could cause loss of sharpness, but left corner is certainly within DOF of the focus plane, and that makes me nervous.

Otherwise, in this particular case, I would rather choose NEX 7 and SEL 2418 than A7 and FE3528, because the price difference right now is significant, and IQ and FOV, almost same.  
 
I need to make more comparisons however, but I also need more time and better weather, and none seems to be coming soon :-(

Here are few shots with other lenses on A7r.

A7r + Canon TS-E 17 f/4 + Metabones SA III

One funny thing happened while i was testing TS-E. Somewhere deep in my mind, I wanted to believe that it will cover FF sensor of A7/7r with Metabone SB. TS-E lenses usually have much larger projection circle, because... well you can shift them quite o lot on both sides. 

I mounted lens on MB SB, put them both on A7r and held my breath. I press the shutter and eagerly press the play button right after! Wow, no vignetting at all - brilliant image quality across the frame. Great! I was so excited, to be probably the first who will report this, because having a 12mm f/2.8 lens with almost perfect optical corrections on a FF camera sounds great.

I also made few test shots with MB Smart Adapter version III, to show the difference in FOV, but didn't pay attention to those. Opening shots in RAW developer, I somehow got lost, which shot is taken with SB and which with SA. There was not visible difference in FOV. But I was still believing and even wanted to post a teaser image on the photo forum. 

I realized my mistake when I tried to downsize image for the web. Original file was smaller because A7r automatically switched itself to the crop mode. So I got basically same FOV like with the SA, but of course, smaller resolution.

I switched the auto crop off and than tried again, but this time there was significant vignetting in the corners. Honestly, I think that vignetting is coming from MB SB adapter construction, because the lens should be able to cover FF even when "focal reduced" to 12mm.

But in it's FF mode, it works very well, with a very slight greenish cast in the corners.

A7r + CV 50 f/1.1 Nokton

CV Nokton 50/1.1 wide open has heavy vignetting but insignificant color shift. Stopped down, it looks very good.

A7r + CV 21/1.8 Ultron

I have read somewhere that this lens works without issue on A7r. Well, it doesn't as you can see. But this amount of vignetting and color shift can be corrected. There is no big difference in amount of color shift wide open and stopped down to f/5.6, which is rather strange. However wide open, there is much more pronounced light fall in the corners.

A7r + CV Nokton 35/1.2 Asph. II

Surprisingly, CV Nokton 35/1.2 Asph. II work very well stopped down to f/5.6. In the extreme corners are however signs of hard vignetting even at this aperture. Fortunately, they are very small. Wide open, this lens is very soft except in the center of the frame, where it is rather soft. But that is its character.


A7r + Konica 28/2.8 Hexanon M

No luck with Konica. Pronounced color shifting, but light fall off doesn't look bad at f/5.6. This should be easy to correct with Adobe Flat field and similar plug-ins.

A7r + Leitz Wetzlar Summicron 40mm f/2

Cute little lens, that works quite well. I would like a bit stronger contrast, but otherwise, it is nice combination.

A7r + CV Nokton 50/1.5 Asph. (new)

This is beautiful lens and it works well with new Sony A7r. I expect this lens to be my standard fifty on A7r. Wide open there is significant vignetting but very small color shift. Vignetting is a part of this lens character, so it doesn't matter to me.

Other parts of this rolling review:

Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9 - A7 vs A7r Final Showdown 

To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated.