5D4 in-camera JPGs and RAW files posted at DPR

[Mikehit]

So, at ISO 409,600 the noise levels look visually similar to ISO 102,400 on the 5DIII (H2 setting). Since H2 on the 5DIII pretty much looks like unusable crap, it's really great that you can shoot two stops higher on the A7S and get the same unusable crap. Go DPR! Go Sony!

Not sure if that is



or

;D

or

: (statin' the bleedin' obvious)

PS Don't forget Nikon's ISO 3,000,000

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Re: Real World 5D4 Samples Have Dropped!

Jpeg images with a ton of nr look good at first, but in actual real world photos, not those taken by someone who has a prototype camera loaned by Canon, things may start to look differently.

Until production cameras are available, there are no genuine Real World Photos, just ones taken with prototype cameras that may or may not match production cameras.

 

[GuyF]

Since the Olympics, my African Grey is saying, go, go Canada. I'm sure I can get go go Sony out of him if I try...

Steady on, Jack. I think that would constitute cruelty to animals.

 

[tr573]

?? Physics agrees because that "other" brand can do 2 full stops better.

Lol.

Yes, but the joke is you... From that "other" site this site does not want us to link to:
"ISO 204,800 and beyond: up to a 2 EV advantage" A7S compared to 5DIII

Well boy howdy that sure looks like a useful metric to me

 

[Maiaibing]

?? Physics agrees because that "other" brand can do 2 full stops better.

Lol.

Yes, but the joke is you... From that "other" site this site does not want us to link to:
"ISO 204,800 and beyond: up to a 2 EV advantage" A7S compared to 5DIII

Well boy howdy that sure looks like a useful metric to me

Nice try.

But your statement was that it went against physics. So you're caught with your pants down and try to flee by derailing the discussion by shifting the topic.

I'm sure you will not repeat your silly claim again. End of story. ;D

 

[Sharlin]

But your statement was that it went against physics. So you're caught with your pants down and try to flee by derailing the discussion by shifting the topic.

I'm sure you will not repeat your silly claim again. End of story. ;D

There's also the tiny issue that the A7S is a 12 Mpix camera. Apples and oranges.

 

[Loswr]

?? Physics agrees because that "other" brand can do 2 full stops better. We only do not know yet if Canon is able to match this.

Really? From that "other" site this site does not want us to link to:
"ISO 204,800 and beyond: up to a 2 EV advantage" A7S compared to 5DIII

Sorry, but where have you demonstrated that the A7S is 2 stops better at high ISO? Based on the title of a DPR article? When DPR's own comparator tool clearly demonstrated that title to be false?

Yeah, that's proving your point... : : :

 

[Sharlin]

Or in RAW, yeah, quite comparable, right.

 

[tr573]

?? Physics agrees because that "other" brand can do 2 full stops better.

Lol.

Yes, but the joke is you... From that "other" site this site does not want us to link to:
"ISO 204,800 and beyond: up to a 2 EV advantage" A7S compared to 5DIII

Well boy howdy that sure looks like a useful metric to me

Nice try.

But your statement was that it went against physics. So you're caught with your pants down and try to flee by derailing the discussion by shifting the topic.

I'm sure you will not repeat your silly claim again. End of story. ;D

I said zero words about physics. I laughed at your claim that it was two stops better , and I continue to laugh because even the claim made by DPR that it is at those ISOs is ridiculous as evidenced by the photo samples on their own site.

both of those photos are unusable trash , and judging which one is 'better' is an exercise in futility - assigning a hard mathematical value to how much better one is, is even more futile and worthy of a 'lol' at best.

I fail to see how posting photos displaying the claim that DPR & You made, from their own website , is shifting the topic. Please tell me how you assign 'two stops' better performance to one vs the other. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

 

[tr573]

Or in RAW, yeah, quite comparable, right.

Clearly two stops better!

 

[tr573]

I said zero words about physics. I laughed at your claim that it was two stops better , and I continue to laugh because even the claim made by DPR that it is at those ISOs is ridiculous as evidenced by the photo samples on their own site.

both of those photos are unusable trash , and judging which one is 'better' is an exercise in futility - assigning a hard mathematical value to how much better one is, is even more futile and worthy of a 'lol' at best.

I fail to see how posting photos displaying the claim that DPR & You made, from their own website , is shifting the topic. Please tell me how you assign 'two stops' better performance to one vs the other. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

And by the by, even DXO doesn't make this ridiculous claim - on normalized photos, which is what DPR was referring to, remember

"For example, at ISO 409,600 the shadows and darker midtones of the A7S show a nearly 2 EV advantage over the 5D Mark III and A7R - where, at web resolutions (5 MP), the noise levels of the A7S look visually similar to ISO 102,400 on the other cameras."

DXO shows the SNR to be slightly less than one stop better on the A7S2 than the 5D3. So yes, I will fully admit that by buying a 12MP camera, it seems you can get slightly less than one stop better noise performance ONLY at ridiculous ISO's that are not good for much other than security footage, which nobody would buy this kind of camera for anyway because they would buy a nightvision camera instead.

 

[zim]

I seem to remember this argument discussion before, I think the answer was that the two stop advantage was at a specific bit of the image, you've picked the wrong 'bit' ;D