6 stop push: 5DsR vs A7R vs A7RII

[Loswr]

Couldn't give a toss how they achieve it, as long as it reduces the occurrence of posterisation and other compression artifacts.

Perhaps 100+ MB image files and a buffer that fills after 3-4 continuous shots and takes ages to clear are fine with you, but I doubt that's a common viewpoint. Be careful what you ask for...you may get it.

It's a shame to have to make a choice between the best body for my needs and the best sensor.

The choice remains what it has always been – picking which camera system best meets your needs.

 

[wockawocka]

I'm shooting a wedding and my second has the A7rii, we've something radical planned as a side by side shootout.

Properly exposed images to see which has the nicest colours and look.

5DSr, A7Rii, 85L, Sigma 24-35 F2 and a Metabones Mk4

 

[TeT]

Great, all 3 images look equally crummy in their own way...

Looking at the original images.. A7II was the only one that looked crummier than the others in comparison...

Whats the point... Show me a viable image resulting from pushing that could not be captured better using proper exposure techniques...

 

[lycan]

Check this article that is somewhat a response to those "tests" (if it should be considered tests....) Tim Parkin did

http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2015/08/04/photographic-myths-and-platitudes-that-noise-is-awful

 

[traveller]

Couldn't give a toss how they achieve it, as long as it reduces the occurrence of posterisation and other compression artifacts.

Perhaps 100+ MB image files and a buffer that fills after 3-4 continuous shots and takes ages to clear are fine with you, but I doubt that's a common viewpoint. Be careful what you ask for...you may get it.

It's a shame to have to make a choice between the best body for my needs and the best sensor.

The choice remains what it has always been – picking which camera system best meets your needs.

Yeah whatever, lossless compressed would be fine if it delivers the same results and RAW file compression is not really the point of this thread.

The best camera system for landscapes (other than medium format) is rapidly becoming nothing with a Canon made sensor. I really wish that this were not the case, because I really don't want to buy a sh*tty A7 series body.

 

[Famateur]

Yes, it is not really breaking news. But it adds to:


Day Two with the Sony A7RII..so far. WOW! | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

Cool!!!!

Now maybe -- since absolute image quality is so critical -- he can get a header image for his website that isn't so grainy!

Then again, maybe that image is a 10-stop push! :

 

[Ewinter]

Couldn't give a toss how they achieve it, as long as it reduces the occurrence of posterisation and other compression artifacts.

Perhaps 100+ MB image files and a buffer that fills after 3-4 continuous shots and takes ages to clear are fine with you, but I doubt that's a common viewpoint. Be careful what you ask for...you may get it.

It's a shame to have to make a choice between the best body for my needs and the best sensor.

The choice remains what it has always been – picking which camera system best meets your needs.

Yeah whatever, lossless compressed would be fine if it delivers the same results and RAW file compression is not really the point of this thread.

The best camera system for landscapes (other than medium format) is rapidly becoming nothing with a Canon made sensor. I really wish that this were not the case, because I really don't want to buy a sh*tty A7 series body.

I'd be quite happy if my £4600 canon body could focus my 85 1.2l with more precision than my £2600 Sony body, but it can't. I hate to sound like a fanboy, but for some people, those crappy A7 bodies are becoming the best option.

Now if they crammed the A7rii into a 5d body and gave it 1dx focus speed I'd be on cloud 9

 

[Loswr]

Yeah whatever ... is ... the point of this thread.

Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

 

[Famateur]

Sony A7Rii compared with Sony A7R and Canon 5DSr

Yep -- it's much better than the Canon. It will feel so smug sitting next to the Canon images it joins in the recycle bin.

[ I get it, I get it -- if 6 stops looks so much less crappy, then 2-3 stops must look amazing. Okay. If Canon does fine with 2-3 stops, then who cares? I know, I know -- there are some high-contrast situations in which it would be useful. For the tiny sliver of the market to which those situations are frequent, maybe we could come up with a prefix for forum thread titles letting everyone know that the thread is just for them. I know, I know -- including "6 stop push" accomplishes that. I just couldn't resist jumping in to poke some fun... ]

 

[Famateur]

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.

Now that you mention it, I see it, too. Kind of like eye floaters -- once I think about them specifically, they're a bit hard to ignore and become distracting...

 

[wockawocka]

Couldn't give a toss how they achieve it, as long as it reduces the occurrence of posterisation and other compression artifacts.

Perhaps 100+ MB image files and a buffer that fills after 3-4 continuous shots and takes ages to clear are fine with you, but I doubt that's a common viewpoint. Be careful what you ask for...you may get it.

It's a shame to have to make a choice between the best body for my needs and the best sensor.

The choice remains what it has always been – picking which camera system best meets your needs.

Yeah whatever, lossless compressed would be fine if it delivers the same results and RAW file compression is not really the point of this thread.

The best camera system for landscapes (other than medium format) is rapidly becoming nothing with a Canon made sensor. I really wish that this were not the case, because I really don't want to buy a sh*tty A7 series body.

I'd be quite happy if my £4600 canon body could focus my 85 1.2l with more precision than my £2600 Sony body, but it can't. I hate to sound like a fanboy, but for some people, those crappy A7 bodies are becoming the best option.

Now if they crammed the A7rii into a 5d body and gave it 1dx focus speed I'd be on cloud 9

I don't know if this helps but the 5DSr seems to focus better than my 1DX.

Attached : The 85L at 1.6 and 1.8 - All straight from the camera.

 

[Famateur]

Yeah whatever ... is ... the point of this thread.

Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

Touché!

Thanks for the laugh...

 

[Famateur]

I don't know if this helps but the 5DSr seems to focus better than my 1DX.

Attached : The 85L at 1.6 and 1.8 - All straight from the camera.

Your images show one way to get around the "so much resolution is unflattering for a portrait and will require more softening in post" comments I've seen here and there: buttery-smooth, shallow depth-of-field.

 

[traveller]

Yeah whatever ... is ... the point of this thread.

Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

No, but it sums up your contribution to threads that dare to mention dynamic range. It may not matter to you, but it does impact upon a lot of people's photography. If the topic is becoming a bit of a broken record, then it's really time that Canon did something about fixing it. If it was an issue that never affected my photography, I wouldn't care less, but it often does in one form or another.

You can't blame people for making comparisons and they are going to crop up on CR Forums as they're all over the bloody internet these days.

On a side note: I look forward to Tim's promised comparison between the 5DSr with ND grads and the A7R II bare: it should answer my own usage case questions better.

You can write whatever you like now, as I've got to go to bed -it's getting late in non-America!

 

[TeT]

Attached : The 85L at 1.6 and 1.8 - All straight from the camera.

Nice balance colors etc..., Surely a little exposure push would make them better, yes?

 

[Sporgon]

Sony A7Rii compared with Sony A7R and Canon 5DSr

Note that, in this comparison, the A7R and 5DSR were exposed for 1/2500s, while the A7R2, at the same aperture, was exposed for 1/1000s.

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.

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!

I believe the a7r and the II both have a 100 ISO base, so I'm not quite sure what's going on. Agree that one full top of extra highlight is, although exciting, highly unlikely. I wonder if the light changed.

I'm surprised Tim got drawn into the old '6 stop push' comparison. I've got some 6x7 negs for scanning that I'll be taking to Tim - he's Mr Drum Scanner round here, so I'll what happened !

I'm shooting a wedding and my second has the A7rii, we've something radical planned as a side by side shootout.

Properly exposed images to see which has the nicest colours and look.

5DSr, A7Rii, 85L, Sigma 24-35 F2 and a Metabones Mk4

I'll be very interested to see real examples, shot 'normally'. I've an urge for the new Pentax FF when it finally arrives, and they say it will have the same sensor as the a7rII.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Couldn't give a toss how they achieve it, as long as it reduces the occurrence of posterisation and other compression artifacts.

Perhaps 100+ MB image files and a buffer that fills after 3-4 continuous shots and takes ages to clear are fine with you, but I doubt that's a common viewpoint. Be careful what you ask for...you may get it.

It's a shame to have to make a choice between the best body for my needs and the best sensor.

The choice remains what it has always been – picking which camera system best meets your needs.

Yeah whatever, lossless compressed would be fine if it delivers the same results and RAW file compression is not really the point of this thread.

The best camera system for landscapes (other than medium format) is rapidly becoming nothing with a Canon made sensor. I really wish that this were not the case, because I really don't want to buy a sh*tty A7 series body.

I'd be quite happy if my £4600 canon body could focus my 85 1.2l with more precision than my £2600 Sony body, but it can't. I hate to sound like a fanboy, but for some people, those crappy A7 bodies are becoming the best option.

Now if they crammed the A7rii into a 5d body and gave it 1dx focus speed I'd be on cloud 9

I don't know if this helps but the 5DSr seems to focus better than my 1DX.

Attached : The 85L at 1.6 and 1.8 - All straight from the camera.

How dare you?
It's rude of you to post beautiful and properly exposed pictures in a post on lifting shadows and dynamic range.
You committed the heresy of keeping black shadows under the ears, when you know that all the shadows should be raised to exist only gray shadows.

"SARCASM detector activated"

 

[3kramd5]

I believe the a7r and the II both have a 100 ISO base, so I'm not quite sure what's going on.

They have the same base camera setting, but clearly those settings are not equivalent, otherwise it wouldn't take more than twice the time to expose the a7r2 than the a7r, all else being equal. Light falling by over a stop? Maybe; the a7r2 image was captured almost an hour after the a7r image, though both appear to be under direct sunlight, and both within an hour of midday.

Regardless, there are way too many unknown variable at play to draw any meaningful conclusions, IMO.

 

[unfocused]

Attached : The 85L at 1.6 and 1.8 - All straight from the camera.

Nice balance colors etc..., Surely a little exposure push would make them better, yes?

Obviously an example of how poorly Canon performs. If you push those bricks in the background six stops the noise is terrible. And, your black background has no shadow detail. Absolutely unacceptable.

(Message to the particularly thick-skulled participants: this is what is known as "sarcasm")

 

[gdanmitchell]

Check this article that is somewhat a response to those "tests" (if it should be considered tests....) Tim Parkin did

http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2015/08/04/photographic-myths-and-platitudes-that-noise-is-awful

Ah, you found my article. Thanks.

Tim Parkin's article is what is says it is, but you have to read beyond the hyperbolic headline and that catchy three panel photograph — which sure makes the 5Ds(R) look pathetic, doesn't it? — and understand what you are really looking at and what it does and does not mean.

Hint: Anyone imagining that they are going to see something like what is shown in the test samples is barking up the wrong tree.

Stipulations: Sony sensors are able to capture a larger dynamic range than current Canon sensors. On the other hand, Canon sensors can also capture an impressive, albeit slightly smaller, dynamic range. And while dynamic range is a factor in camera selection, it is not even close to being the most important issue.

Observation: I'm confident that if we could go into a gallery where high quality 24 x 36 prints were hung side by side and among them were photographs made with 5DIII, 5Ds, 5DsR, A7r, A7rII, D800/D800e, and D810 cameras that no one would be able to accurately identify which came from which camera. This encourages a bit of perspective on this whole thing.

Sony, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Fujifilm, etc — they all make excellent cameras and the importance of the differences among them are based on a whole range of parameters related to each photographer's intended use. (I just made a bunch of 18" x 24" prints from my 16mm Fujifilm X-trans sensor camera that look great — it is my choice for street photography.)

Now, to get an idea of what it takes to make Canon 5DsR files look awful — yes, it is possible! — follow the link to my article and take a look. Start by looking at the utterly awful noise in the first sample I share. Then look at what I started with — a photograph exposed to the right and containing huge grossly underexposed areas. Them track my explanation of what it took to so completely destroy the image.

Articles like Parkin's and like mine can serve a useful purpose, at least from a highly technical perspective. Even though almost no one will ever actually do to a photograph what we did — therefore these do not demonstrate real world performance at all — we can learn some things that could be a bit useful. What is the "quality" of the noise? Just how far can you push before things fall apart? (Quite an astonishing distance, actually.) What is happening on the outer boundaries of sensor design? All of these are interesting questions for the technically inclined — but don't make the mistake of presuming that they represent anything remotely close to what you'll see in photographs from any of the cameras.

Take care,

Dan