6 stop push: 5DsR vs A7R vs A7RII
- Thread starter SPKoko
- Start date
[sarc mode] Yeah! Keep pushing 
[/sarc mode]
Honestly:
Yeah! We know about these adavantages of EXMOR. Nothing new. We also know, that Canon didn't show much effort to close that gap. If this is a relevant factor to you and limiting your photography feel free to jump ship.
[/sarc mode]Honestly:
Yeah! We know about these adavantages of EXMOR. Nothing new. We also know, that Canon didn't show much effort to close that gap. If this is a relevant factor to you and limiting your photography feel free to jump ship.
Upvote
0
Yes, it is not really breaking news. But it adds to:
Day Two with the Sony A7RII..so far. WOW! | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS
Here is a shot with the Canon 50 1.2 EF lens at 1.2. What is really incredible? Myself and all here agree, this lens focuses faster on the A7RII than it does on the Canon 5D series. Faster and more accurate.
Day Two with the Sony A7RII..so far. WOW! | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS
Here is a shot with the Canon 50 1.2 EF lens at 1.2. What is really incredible? Myself and all here agree, this lens focuses faster on the A7RII than it does on the Canon 5D series. Faster and more accurate.
Upvote
0
So 5 stops weren't enough, now we have to push 6 stops ? :
The news, it seems, is not so much how the Canon does worse in these tests. We've known this for a long time, and I'm not interested in debating the relevance (or lack thereof) of this kind of exposure lifting, that's up to each photographer to decide.
What's somewhat interesting is how much better the A7RII does compared to the A7R. The lifted A7R crops have the usual look: less noisy, sure, but also flat, washed out, with ugly colors, and so in the end not much more usable than the Canon. The A7RII however seems to have much richer colors, and retain details much better. That's interesting.
The news, it seems, is not so much how the Canon does worse in these tests. We've known this for a long time, and I'm not interested in debating the relevance (or lack thereof) of this kind of exposure lifting, that's up to each photographer to decide.
What's somewhat interesting is how much better the A7RII does compared to the A7R. The lifted A7R crops have the usual look: less noisy, sure, but also flat, washed out, with ugly colors, and so in the end not much more usable than the Canon. The A7RII however seems to have much richer colors, and retain details much better. That's interesting.
Upvote
0
Completion of this test:
Not learn to use your camera. ???
Always use ISO100, even if the light meter indicates that should use ISO6400. :
Image quality is just noise shadows, and nothing else is important in photography. :-[
Not learn to use your camera. ???
Always use ISO100, even if the light meter indicates that should use ISO6400. :
Image quality is just noise shadows, and nothing else is important in photography. :-[
Upvote
0
I don't like what I'm seeing in the over processing of the blacks in Steve Huff's shots - too pure black, a trend that seems to be developing with everyone apart from Nikon & Canon.
Upvote
0
3kramd5 said:
Well spotted, but Tim Parkin did say that they exposed as far to the right as possible in holding highlights, then under exposed from there by 6 stops. So, this suggests the a7RII has more highlight range. Interesting.
However Tim getting involved in under exposing by 6 stops is a real worry. He lives just up the road from me and I think I'll have to drop in and have a serious word with him.
Once we have to resort to 5 or 6 stops under to show differences in sensors it's game over really; they're all the same in practical use.
Upvote
0
Sporgon said:
If at the same sensitivity (ignore in-camera ISO setting; set them up such that the same exposure time and aperture yields the same brightness with a controlled scene) the A7R2 can be exposed for twice as long without clipping highlights, that's something special. But I doubt that's the case.
Rather, it seems like the base native ISO on the A7R2 is lower than the A7R (thus requiring twice as many photons to achieve about the same brightness). Which is fine/great for landscape long exposure work, but not so much for those buying the camera for high-sensitivity uses. Maybe you can wander up to Tim's place and try to determine what's really happening!
Upvote
0
Yet again everyone's clutching to the straws of "underexposing and pushing is only for those that don't know how to use their camera meter". This sort of test is meant to simulate shadow pulls in high contrast situations; I would have preferred it if Tim had shown this with more close to real life contre-jour shots that are more typical situations in landscape photography, but it seems that the British "summer" got the better of him! He has promised more realistic testing in the future.
There are plenty of times when I am stacking ND grads for landscape photography, or having to blend multiple exposures. I would love to be able to just pull the shadows a few stops without worrying about noise, as it would save much time and effort (especially when the wind, rain and sea spray are making life tough).
I think that people should read the whole article again with his updates: even a 2-3 stop (i.e. single ND grad) shadow pull is much cleaner on the A7r ii. I love my 5D Mk3: its build quality; the lovely viewfinder and the ergonomics, but for tripod mounted base-ISO landscape photography, I can't help getting tempted by the Sony + EF mount adapter option. If only Sony would provide 14 bit uncompressed RAW option...
There are plenty of times when I am stacking ND grads for landscape photography, or having to blend multiple exposures. I would love to be able to just pull the shadows a few stops without worrying about noise, as it would save much time and effort (especially when the wind, rain and sea spray are making life tough).
I think that people should read the whole article again with his updates: even a 2-3 stop (i.e. single ND grad) shadow pull is much cleaner on the A7r ii. I love my 5D Mk3: its build quality; the lovely viewfinder and the ergonomics, but for tripod mounted base-ISO landscape photography, I can't help getting tempted by the Sony + EF mount adapter option. If only Sony would provide 14 bit uncompressed RAW option...
Upvote
0
I'm not surprised. We saw this pattern from the 5DmkIII vs D800 comparisons, let alone the D810 which is an even more refined sensor with ISO 64 capabilities. And unlike before, now canon is the one with the higher density pixel count which makes the problem worse so I was expecting the 5DsR to fall flat on its face in this type of test, and it did.
I wish sony would release an update for uncompressed lossless 14 bit raws to really get an idea about what their sensor can do. I don't know if that will change anything on this test, but they are really crippling the sensor with their compression and the issue has gotten a lot of attention.
This is why I'm eager to see this sensor or a similar one on a nikon body: the nikon image pipeline will not make the same compromises sony did, thus it may blow us away even more.
I wish sony would release an update for uncompressed lossless 14 bit raws to really get an idea about what their sensor can do. I don't know if that will change anything on this test, but they are really crippling the sensor with their compression and the issue has gotten a lot of attention.
This is why I'm eager to see this sensor or a similar one on a nikon body: the nikon image pipeline will not make the same compromises sony did, thus it may blow us away even more.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
All they are asking for is lossless compression which is a standard feature on canon and nikon. I don't see anything wrong with an option. After all, if you do not see a value, just don't use it, which is why canon and nikon make it an OPTION.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
psolberg said:
You completely miss the point. What people are asking for is UNCOMPRESSED RAW, as the poster above stated. That's the message Sony is hearing, as stated by Sony's Kimio Maki: "Sony RAW is compressed, not uncompressed. But if we're getting a lot of requests for it, we should make such a kind of no-compression raw. Of course we recognize that. But I cannot give you a guarantee when we're going to fix or not fix."
Yes, what people (presumably) want is lossless compression for RAW files, like pretty much every other camera maker provides. But that's not what they're asking for, and based on the quote above, Sony is getting the wrong message.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Couldn't give a toss how they achieve it, as long as it reduces the occurrence of posterisation and other compression artifacts. But that's not the point of what you are both writing, it's to divert attention from the the real thrust of the thread.
I love Canon bodies as do most people on this forum, but I am getting a bit tired of their sensors not benefiting from the technology advances that the other manufacturers are making. It's a shame to have to make a choice between the best body for my needs and the best sensor.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
