July 05, 2015, 09:25:24 PM

Author Topic: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?  (Read 39292 times)

SiliconVoid

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
  • Freelance (film days) - Digital Enthusiast
Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« Reply #195 on: August 08, 2014, 10:25:51 AM »
Zigzagzoe, you obviously have an affinity for the D8xx (and/or possibly just anything with Nikon's name on it, or anything with a Sony made sensor) and you created a fresh account on a Canon site so you could inform everyone of your preference - and that is fine. The D8xx is also a fine camera, for some photographers, because it can provide a specific solution to a specific need - not because it, and Sony, produce the end all be all in photographic reproduction.

(Sorry.. I don't really do quotes, and even if I did there are far too many needed to address the volume of brand-fan-biased statements made in your posts - and I am long winded enough as it is.)

The A7S has a great sensor in it, and is a pinnacle example of what a large percentage of the industry (not just Canon users suffering from mp-envy) have been proclaiming and wanting for years. Which is to put todays tech in a sensor that provides minimal work flow in a package that offers lens flexibility, SLR AF performance, reasonably flat ISO performance curve, and solid field ergonomics. The A7 line obviously does not come through in all those areas, most notably lacking in system lens selection and ergonomics, but does demonstrate that MP and +.5ev shadow DR at base ISO is not all there is to this industry. I think the resistance you encounter might stem from your perspective that the area of photography that takes place at base ISO is so significant as to be all that counts in photography when coupled with less than half a stop of shadow DR... and obviously (whether mentioned or not) a complete acceptance of data provided by a rating-for-hire service like DxO - and that is fine as well, for you.

The reality however is that across the entire spectrum of photography more images are captured outside base ISO than within - and at an exponential level - and that is where the D8xx is simply bested by many, if not most. Therefore evaluating the performance of a camera across a reasonable sensitivity range is more relevant and substantive than what might be produced at one specific sensitivity setting. That is not to say that low ISO isn't relevant, but attempting to quantify in comparison to something like the popularity of low speed film is quite skewed. ASA64 speed film for example was certainly popular, and because it did produce the best imagery, however that was/is because of the limitations of light sensitive substrate materials - not because lower sensitivity always produces better IQ. Digital imaging technology does not actually have a 'native' operating range, it is not limited by any specific sensitivity, it is simply the design of the sensor chosen by the manufacturer. Standard film sensitivities are most often targeted in digital sensor design because our environment (the intensity of sun light) and photographic preferences (controlled dof) etc, maintain a demand to retain those sensitivity settings. As an example of preference versus need; Once ASA200 and ASA400 were being produced within acceptable output standards (mid1970s) those speeds not only sold more than lower speed films, even during the rather limited time of sale (~1970 to early 2000s) they accounted for more sales than the total of ASA64/ASA100 film combined. Even if we concede that base ISO were ones only requirement, you still could not evaluate 'pure' IQ -purely- on DR (the only component of IQ something like the D8xx has over anything else) as literally everything else in the visual spectrum are factors of the whole. Measuring 'pure' IQ purely on DR is flawed logic and indicates one who does not know enough about what goes into IQ as they should.

To continue visiting something like the D8xx; The majority of its DR 'advantage' only exists in shadow/dark regions, AND only at base ISO, AND only by .5ev, which is a very subjective need/benefit. If a photographer has no need or intention to raise the shadows of an image then the D8xx offers nothing other than MP, which is an even more subjective need/benefit. DR range (as is measured and rated today) is not an measurement of accuracy, it is a range of a spectrum. If you plotted visible dynamic range on a linear scale (-6 to +6 in this example) the D8xx at its best sensitivity setting offers nothing that is not available from any other camera between say -4 to +4, and when certain exposure modes are enabled it can be increased to -6 to +5 staying within its best sensitivity setting, which is great. However maintaining honesty its curve in highlights steepens to the point of clipping prior to its increased highlight range. Basically it offers the user an option of trading some detail in its increased highlight range to gain some shadow range, which brings us back to the previously mentioned 'advantage' - if not raising shadows, it is purely subjective benefits.

In comparison, the A7S provides an exceptional performance range that would benefit a greater percentage of its industry than anything else available. At base ISO it provides greater IQ (DR + TR + CS) than anything on the market, and through its operating range it maintains a performance curve advantage that just gets greater as ISO sensitivity increases. As is proclaimed by DxO, it is -currently- the king of low light, tone, color, and even DR (because the majority of photography doesn't need .5ev of recoverable shadows at ISO100) - BUT just as IQ is a measure of more than one parameter, a camera is measured by more than its sensor. Were it not for a very significant failing in system lens options and ergonomics the A7S could very well displace a substantial amount of Canon/Nikon market share.. as it is though, as a whole, it simply fills a void, of a niche, just like the D8xx and every other camera that has ever been produced.
Canon - 5DmkII - 40D - Rebel XSi - AE1 - F1 : 3 Ls
Nikon - D700 - D300s : 2 Ns

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« Reply #195 on: August 08, 2014, 10:25:51 AM »

dilbert

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4018
Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« Reply #196 on: August 08, 2014, 11:53:49 AM »
Regardless, my primary point is, as usual, that cameras (and systems) matter more than sensors.
And your primary assumption, as usual, is the assumption in YOUR view that Canon is a better system negating all other considerations.

The fact, as I've stated frequently, is that more photographers have chosen Canon dSLRs over any other brand consistently, every year for the past 11 years.  It's also a fact that I have chosen Canon, but those two facts are independent. 


I for one do not believe Canon's system is superior.

You are certainly welcome to that belief.  Just understand that based on sales figures, you are in the minority. 

So #1 in sales is the only metric worth considering when it comes to judging whether something is top of pile or not?

scyrene

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 554
    • My Flickr feed
Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« Reply #197 on: August 08, 2014, 12:00:08 PM »
I'm not taking sides, I just want to try and bring some balance to this discussion...

Actually John, you insist that Canon is better for EVERYTHING. If Canon isn’t better at something, then no one needs that feature, so they should still buy Canon.

Strictly untrue, cf:

Can you find a post where I claim that Canon sensors deliver better low ISO dynamic range than Nikon/Sony sensors? No, because the opposite is true, as I've stated more times than I can count.  I've also lost count of the times I've stated that if I were primarily a landscape shooter, I'd be using a D800E and 14-24/2.8G.

I don't take photos of my kids or some birds. I take photos that earn quarter of a million dollars (AU) per annum.

And Nikon is best for ME.

As I have said before, this is ad hominem (or whatever the equivalent is to oneself - ad ipsum?). Your personal success does not make your opinions more fact-based. It might well make you more believable or trustworthy, but that is a separate matter (and a subjective choice). Can we not strive to argue points, rather than people? Some of your points are correct. Some seem not to be. This is independent of your ability to make money - just as the validity or otherwise of Neuro's points (not all of which I agree with) have nothing to do with how he makes a living.
5D mark III, 50D, 300D, EOS-M; Samyang 14mm f/2.8, 24-105L, 35 f/2 IS, MP-E, 100L macro, 500L IS II, EF-M 18-55; 1.4xIII, 2x III + 2xII extenders; 600EX-RT; EF-M--EF adaptor.
Former lenses include: 70-200L f/4 non-IS, 85L II, 200L 2.8, 400L 5.6

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 16713
Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« Reply #198 on: August 08, 2014, 03:57:04 PM »
I take photos that earn quarter of a million dollars (AU) per annum.

~US$230K, it takes you a whole entire year to make that much?  Am I supposed to be impressed? 



School yard stuff.

You complete and utter worthless piece of …

Puerile, immature stuff, indeed.  Possibly understandable coming from a petulant child on that schoolyard to which you refer, but from someone purporting to be an adult, it's merely pathetic.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

raptor3x

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 331
Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« Reply #199 on: August 08, 2014, 05:24:54 PM »
I take photos that earn quarter of a million dollars (AU) per annum.

~US$230K, it takes you a whole entire year to make that much?  Am I supposed to be impressed? 

Remember, you can't just compare length, it's length times diameter plus weight over girth divided by angle of the tip squared. =)
« Last Edit: August 08, 2014, 05:38:25 PM by raptor3x »
Bodies: 1DX,1Ds3,5D3,X-T1,A7R,E-M1 Lenses:  12.40 2.8, 16-35L F4 IS, X 18-55 2.8-4, Σ 35 1.4 A, 35 2.8 FE, Σ 50 1.4 A, 24-70L II, 85 1.8, 100L IS, 135L,  70-200L F2.8 IS II

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5192
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« Reply #200 on: August 08, 2014, 06:46:19 PM »
*SIGH*

I have apparently lost all interest in CR forum debates...  :o

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 16713
Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« Reply #201 on: August 08, 2014, 07:23:20 PM »
Someone even created an account on here to send me a message thanking me for it.

LOL.  He's a much better bad penny than you.  You should visit him in Sweden, he'll take you out to shoot pictures of barbecues and awnings, then show you how to push underexposed shots several stops to look for noise.  You'd have loads of fun, I'm sure...   ::)


Absolutely, but I got really bored waiting for you to answer any actual camera related questions so I thought I’d amuse myself.

Good to know that your being crass and insulting amuses you.  Says a lot about you as a person.  You're someone I hope to never meet, and further discussion of any sort with you is truly a waste of my time.

Be well.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« Reply #201 on: August 08, 2014, 07:23:20 PM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5192
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« Reply #202 on: August 08, 2014, 08:13:27 PM »
You guys, I really have to say, BOTH of you are utterly pathetic. It's reciprocal childishness. This is shameful. It's distasteful. It's downright sad.

While we have certainly had our debates on these forums, some of the biggest when he-who-shall-not-be-named was around, but those still stuck to the technology. But this?!? This, right here...this is rock bottom. This is disgusting. This is so far below the level of adults that I'm ashamed to have to write this post. Worse...this is not the first time it's occurred!! ZigZag, you've brought a really disgusting element into our forums. Your first post was interesting. That was it. Since then, you've done nothing but pick fights and be childish. You aren't here for any reason other than to poke and prod at Neuro. Neuro, the only reason your here is to poke and prod at ZigZag. You've done nothing but fuel fights and act childish.

This IS a child's playground, and you two ARE the bullies. And you feed off each other while you revel in childishness.

Knock it off!  >:(  :-[

traingineer

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 193
Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« Reply #203 on: August 08, 2014, 09:14:56 PM »
*SIGH*

I have apparently lost all interest in CR forum debates...  :o

What a shame...  :(

Anyway, I've got a question for you Jrista, what filters are you gonna get for the SBIG?  ;D
7D | 24-70mm F2.8 I | 50mm F1.8 II

raptor3x

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 331
Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« Reply #204 on: August 08, 2014, 09:58:55 PM »

A technique he uses to undermine anyone who does not agree with him that Canon is 100% perfect and there is no need for any other camera manufacturer, and that any discussion on the subject is irrelevant.


I'm curious if you actually believe this is what he's been saying or if you're just trolling him.
Bodies: 1DX,1Ds3,5D3,X-T1,A7R,E-M1 Lenses:  12.40 2.8, 16-35L F4 IS, X 18-55 2.8-4, Σ 35 1.4 A, 35 2.8 FE, Σ 50 1.4 A, 24-70L II, 85 1.8, 100L IS, 135L,  70-200L F2.8 IS II

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5192
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« Reply #205 on: August 08, 2014, 09:59:32 PM »
You guys, I really have to say, BOTH of you are utterly pathetic. It's reciprocal childishness. This is shameful. It's distasteful. It's downright sad.

While we have certainly had our debates on these forums, some of the biggest when he-who-shall-not-be-named was around, but those still stuck to the technology. But this?!? This, right here...this is rock bottom. This is disgusting. This is so far below the level of adults that I'm ashamed to have to write this post. Worse...this is not the first time it's occurred!! ZigZag, you've brought a really disgusting element into our forums. Your first post was interesting. That was it. Since then, you've done nothing but pick fights and be childish. You aren't here for any reason other than to poke and prod at Neuro. Neuro, the only reason your here is to poke and prod at ZigZag. You've done nothing but fuel fights and act childish.

This IS a child's playground, and you two ARE the bullies. And you feed off each other while you revel in childishness.

Knock it off!  >:(  :-[

I couldn't agree more. I'm waiting for Neuro to actually talk about cameras, which he is free to do at any point.

Bullies bully everyone. I just bully the bully.

How many comments has he made now with no mention of cameras? I've lost count.

When he started throwing cheap sarcastic shots thinking I wasn't reading (e.g. "Surely you remember Dean, our award-winning professional photographer who's one-day spree of posts disappeared?  He seems to have inhaled the stench of DxO's BS quite deeply..."), and making his technology points by mocking the intelligence of others which is his routine technique, I bounced that mentality back to him, fully assuming Neuro wouldn't like to be on the receiving end of it, anymore than the people he does it to.

I did not expect it to have gone this long without him answering valid questions about his claims of why his gear is the only gear anyone should own.

The stubbornness is strong in that one.

When he started throwing insults...you should have WALKED AWAY. I'm really sick of hearing you take pot shots at Neuro, just as much as I'm sick of hearing him take pot shots at you. My prior post was about the BOTH of you. That INCLUDES YOU. Your just as stubborn!! Walk away man...your no better...and it's just pathetic!  ???

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5192
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« Reply #206 on: August 08, 2014, 10:21:19 PM »
*SIGH*

I have apparently lost all interest in CR forum debates...  :o

What a shame...  :(

Anyway, I've got a question for you Jrista, what filters are you gonna get for the SBIG?  ;D

That's probably another topic, bit most likely the Astrodon Gen. 2 E-Series for LRGB, and the Astrodon Narrow Band filters. The Astrodon are ridiculously expensive, though. I'll probably start out just getting luminance data (unfiltered), as it's somewhere between $650 per filter for the narrow band, and about $600 or so for the LRGB set.

traingineer

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 193
Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« Reply #207 on: August 08, 2014, 10:38:46 PM »
*SIGH*

I have apparently lost all interest in CR forum debates...  :o

What a shame...  :(

Anyway, I've got a question for you Jrista, what filters are you gonna get for the SBIG?  ;D

That's probably another topic, bit most likely the Astrodon Gen. 2 E-Series for LRGB, and the Astrodon Narrow Band filters. The Astrodon are ridiculously expensive, though. I'll probably start out just getting luminance data (unfiltered), as it's somewhere between $650 per filter for the narrow band, and about $600 or so for the LRGB set.

About the narrow band option, are you going for the 5nm filters or 3nm?
7D | 24-70mm F2.8 I | 50mm F1.8 II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« Reply #207 on: August 08, 2014, 10:38:46 PM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5192
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« Reply #208 on: August 08, 2014, 10:52:42 PM »
When he started throwing insults...you should have WALKED AWAY. I'm really sick of hearing you take pot shots at Neuro, just as much as I'm sick of hearing him take pot shots at you. My prior post was about the BOTH of you. That INCLUDES YOU. Your just as stubborn!! Walk away man...your no better...and it's just pathetic!  ???

I do not intend to be bullied out of offering my view on subjects I have more experience with than Neuro.

I will not walk away like I did last time and watch him bad mouth me in my absence.

The guy is what's wrong with forums and has met his match.

Know it all, aggressive and mocking of those he perceives to be better than, which is everyone, and someone who refuses to answer direct questions to back up the claims he makes.

I've watched him as a casual viewer do this for a long time, and it ends here.

You can choose to walk away from people like that, but that only allows them to carry on being like that.

I choose not to. He may have beaten down others into submission, he will not do that to me.

And I'm happy to play nice with Neuro the first time he chooses to. He has a lot of insights to offer when he's not being sarcastic, and peddling his never changing stance on the religion he calls Canon.

So far he has chosen endless sarcasm, his go to tool of choice when he has no actual answer to something.

Wow, man, you just don't get it. Let me put it in different terms:

GET A FRACKIN ROOM!!!

Is that clearer? You aren't offering your opinion...your being a child. And you mention Neuro in every single post, so it's very clear YOU have a PERSONAL issue with HIM. You...personal...him.  That, and you have a MASSIVE superiority complex, which is also pathetic. No one cares about your personal escapade against "The evil that is Neuro." We don't need that kind of crap here. Your ruining threads for your own personal vendetta...you, some random guy no one here on these forums knows nor cares about...you just blast onto the scene and create a multi-thread war with ONE guy. Childish.

GET   A    FREAKING    ROOM. (BTW, those are called private messages here...just scroll up....find the dark gray bar....click "My Messages").

This thread really needs to be closed.

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5192
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« Reply #209 on: August 08, 2014, 11:33:37 PM »
And, everyone else here is entitled to enjoy reading threads without you starting pissing contests with Neuro every chance you get because you don't like what he has to say or how he says it (hell, I don't like how he says things half the time...but I haven't gone around acting like a macho nutcase every time he acts like a dick!  ::)) You want to defend yourself? That doesn't need to be public. You have issue with Neuro? That doesn't need to be public, either. Sure, you have a right to defend yourself...go do it in private, with the guy you have issue with. Take your fight outside, and duke it out in the ditch where no body else has to have you two splashing drinks over everyone and breaking tables.

I'm not trying to bully you...I'm just trying to make it very clear how you come off...and I'm simply being honest here..really, truly, flat out honest: It's a distasteful display of pathetic childishness...from a grown man. No...from grown MEN. It's a testosterone-fueled pissing contest. It's two bullies fighting in the school yard. It's just low, man.

Go, defend yourself. You certainly do have a right to. Just don't drag the entirety of the rest of the forums with you when you do it. Just as much as you have your right, we also have the right not to have to deal with you and Neuro's personal issues. I'm all for a good technical debate...that is NOT what this is. 

That's all I'm saying.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« Reply #209 on: August 08, 2014, 11:33:37 PM »