I hope you are correct re the vibration problem. I haven't read enough
to know that the "problem" is minimal or not. However, I do take
exception to your first comment. I will accept that Steve's excellent
images do show him to be a curious and talented photographer. I also
accept your evaluation of the camera and lens as superlative (and I'd
love to have one) but neither of those images tells me that... too small
to stress either camera or lens.
ps: Actually, the ball image shows a lot of red/blue chroma around the
backlit twigs. I don't know if that's sensor or lens or both.
Chuck Norcutt
On 12/21/2013 8:30 AM, philippe.amard wrote:
> Steve's images which I re-posted I think just show that it is a
> superlative camera when used with a superb lens by a curious - and
> otherwise talented- photog
>
> the "vibration problem" as described only occurring in fewer than 2 in
> 10,000 of the pixes I will take next year, seems so irrelevant to me.
>
> Amities
> Philippe with paradise in view
>
>
> Le 21 déc. 13 à 13:51, Chuck Norcutt a écrit :
>
>> It's not at all clear to me how any of the images shown here relate to
>> the vibration problem that Mike reported for the 7R. The claim in the
>> blog posts was that the vibration seemed to reduce the 36MP resolution
>> sensor down to 24MP or the same as the 7 (non-R model). How does
>> showing a a 1-2MP (or less) web image have anything to do with
>> demonstrating that the 7R doesn't really have a problem?
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>>
>> On 12/21/2013 6:34 AM, Andrew Fildes wrote:
>>> Ran into a mere lad the other day with his 7R. Damien (The Omen)
>>> claims to have the second one landed in Australia. With a tidily
>>> little Zeiss prime on the front. I've seen what he's done with it
>>> in a studio.
>>> I bloody hate him.
>>> Andrew Fildes
>>> afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> www.soultheft.com
>>>
>>> Author/Publisher:
>>> The SLR Compendium:
>>> revised edition -
>>> http://blur.by/19Hb8or
>>> The TLR Compendium
>>> http://blur.by/1eDpqN7
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21/12/2013, at 9:35 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
>>>
>>>> They are most definitely all right, Philippe.
>>>>
>>>> I have had YFFF* for a while, but I also have a great (and perhaps
>>>> irrational) antipathy towards Sony.
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>> *Yearning for full frame
>>>>
>>>> On 21 Dec 2013, at 08:15, philippe.amard <philippe.amard@xxxxxx>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A friend from another list posted these - I know 80mm is not "long"
>>>>> yet it seems to work alright
>>>>>
>>>>> *******************************
>>>>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/barbour/paw2013/ball.jpg.html
>>>>>
>>>>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/barbour/paw2013/
>>>>> winter_001.jpg.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Leica R 80mm 1.4 at 1.4 on Sony A7r in RAW w focus peaking (red)
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>>>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>>>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> --
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
> One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible
> to the eye. Antoine de Saint Exupéry in Le Petit Prince.
> NO ARCHIVE
>
>
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
