ritholtz said:Difference in DR is 1.1 (13.1 vs 12) stops. A6000 is going to write 12bit raw with 11 fps shooting. You are going to end up lower DR than even Canon sensor. But my question is, are we going to see all those advantages (The signal is so clean SO deep, you just don't ever have to think about having to fix an issue with the data. It's clean, pristine data, stops and stops deeper than any Canon could ever go) you mentioned between d6000 vs 760d sensor with approximately 1 stop DR difference.jrista said:ritholtz said:DR difference between latest rebel and Sony a6000 is 1stop. Do you think, one going to see this much difference between sensors with only 1 stop extra DR.jrista said:I think that pretty much sums up a large part of my interest in Exmor in a nutshell right there!There isn't ever anything to fix in the first place with an Exmor. The signal is so clean SO deep, you just don't ever have to think about having to fix an issue with the data. It's clean, pristine data, stops and stops deeper than any Canon could ever go.
I don't have to think about ETTR when making the shot, I don't have to worry about clipping highlights, I don't have to worry about fixing color blotch or removing bands or recovering DR. With the Sony's I've used, it's just take the shot, adjust exposure and maybe color to taste and style...that's it!
The Sony cams outside of the A6000 haven't performed as well on the AF front, I still generally prefer my 5D III for AF critical applications. Very interested in the A7r II + Metabones + EF 600/4 though....really wonder how that will perform.
With the A6000, it is over stop (PrintDR 11.96 -> 13.14; ScreenDR 11.17 -> 12.34), plus significantly higher quantum efficiency, plus 11fps, plus a much better AF system, plus smaller and lighter (mirrorless), pocket portable (I can drop the camera and a couple lenses into the pockets of my birding slacks, which have some extra pockets on the legs).
The AF system and frame rate are the real big bonuses with the A6000. Were talking 11fps vs. 5fps, and 25/179 point AF system vs. 19 point AF system.
So, for all of you "It's the full package that counts" guys out there...the A6000 trounces the Canon options in the same price range. In every category, not just dynamic range, it delivers better. The way I account for dynamic range...at full RAW image size in Lightroom (no downsampling here, it is no longer RAW if you downsample and edit), the difference in DR is 1.17 stops.
The only thing I don't like about the A6000 is that it doesn't work as well with my Canon lenses when adapted via Metabones. I'm hoping the A6100/A7000 will resolve that issue. But it's the SOLE issue, and I only have it because of my existing Canon lens collection.
I feel this is just digging for negatives in the Sony to complain about.
If you actually use these Sony cameras, and dig around in the utter depths of their signals, you would understand what I am referring to when I talk about the clean data. Sony data can be lifted far more than the stops difference in DR between a Canon. I've lifted A7r data as much as seven stops. That is far beyond the literal differences in dynamic range between any two cameras. The A6000 is still an Exmor. It's the Exmor technology that delivers clean, low noise data. The dynamic range increases because the STDev of noise drops. But there is a lot more to it than that.
The characteristic of the noise changes as well. I don't like lifting my Canon data more than two stops...not because the random noise looks bad (it looks fine)...but because of all the other kinds of noise that show up in Canon data. The blotching and the banding and everything else. This is the area that DXO doesn't cover with their tests, and while some people seem to think that if DXO DID cover it, the noise characteristic realm, that it would paint Canon's in better light. I think it would actually do exactly the opposite, because the noise characteristics of Canon cameras are rather poor.
You might get away with a a two stop lift in a DR-heavy scene (where you've ETTRed heavily) without any hint of banding. If you are really good about debanding, you MIGHT be able to pull the data up three stops. You could easily pull up four, five, maybe even six stops with an A6000, and easily six stops or more with an A7r/A7s, not a hint of banding, not a hint of blotch, not a hint of hot pixels, nothing. Just low STDev random noise.
Oh, as for 12 stops of DR. It doesn't matter as much in practice, not that I've seen. Canon cameras don't even support 12 bits of data in the RAW information coming off the sensor (downsampled images are not telling you about the per-pixel signal actually being read off the sensor and converted to digital numbers...you have to reference the Screen DR/SNR measures for that.) At least the A6000 is fully utilizing every single bit their ADCs support with extremely clean information. Additionally, the data isn't even really 12-bit. It's 11+7 bit encoded. The lossy 11+7 bit encoding doesn't bother me much either (I would certainly prefer true RAW, and it sounds like Sony is working on that.) On rare occasions I've seen situations where that results in some slight artifacting. The article that used RAW Digger to demonstrate the problems with the compression algorithm used the worst possible kind of data there is for it, star trails. In all my time using Alpha series cameras or working with Alpha series RAW data, I've NEVER seen that level of artifacts. Most of the time I work with astro images from Alpha cameras, and I've never seen compression artifacts. I've seen some slight amounts of posterization at the bottom of the signal in dark black background skies in a few cases. Stacking usually cleans most of that up as well. Overall, I'm happy to trade off a couple bits of output precision for the very clean data and all the other features. I have no complaints about the IQ coming from Alpha series cameras. (And, as most people here know, I have a lot of complaints about the data I get from Canon cameras. :\)
I like the pocketable size in particular...I love my 5D III and 600mm f/4 lens. I hate that I cannot safely bring them to work every day without worrying about someone damaging it, or stealing it, because I miss too many opportunities. A pocketable, ultra light weight camera with a high frame rate and excellent IQ is currently at the very top of my value list. Canon doesn't have anything that competes with all of those features at the moment. And I no longer have any interest in waiting for Canon to catch up...I don't even know if they are trying, or are even interested in making a camera that could compete with the A6000. If I knew Canon was interested and trying, that's one thing...but the EOS M isn't even being brought to the states, and the specs have been fairly lackluster. Taken as a whole package, the A6000 is a phenomenal deal, and it STILL has more DR and the ability to recover shadows much, much deeper than any Canon camera on the market.
Upvote
0
