6 stop push: 5DsR vs A7R vs A7RII

[3kramd5]

When in doubt, doubt.

I love this.

 

[unfocused]

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...

Great article. Puts things into perspective.

I am honestly dumbfounded by the number of people on this forum who – judging by their comments – seem incapable of producing a quality photograph using equipment that is currently available today. It seems as though the narrowing gap between the lowest-priced and highest-priced cameras has generated a whole group of people desperate to identify miniscule differences and ascribe to those differences a significance that far exceeds rationality.

 

[thepancakeman]

So, would this count as a real world example? (Unfortunately, no photo to go with...)

I was tasked with shooting a talent show at night in a dimly lit church with no flash allowed. One of the people put on a karate demonstration. The only way I could get even close to stopping the motion was to severely underexpose (I think I used about 3 stops) the image and try to recover it in post.

But I'm also somewhat of a novice, so maybe there is another way to do this? Also: I was at f1.8 and ISO 3200 on my 7D, which was already way too high IMHO. And yes, I realize going to a 5D III would help a fair amount, but even then I can see it coming up short.

 

[3kramd5]

But I'm also somewhat of a novice, so maybe there is another way to do this? Also: I was at f1.8 and ISO 3200 on my 7D, which was already way too high IMHO. And yes, I realize going to a 5D III would help a fair amount, but even then I can see it coming up short.

Assuming I can't augment the light in any way besides flash, I would do (a) what you did; or (b) slow my shutter speed and time shots deliberately, for example at full extension of a punch or kick, etc., when his motion is minimized.

 

[Botts]

Who is going to lift shadows 6 stops in real life. This had nothing to do with the image quality the 5dsr can deliver.

You'd think it's absurd, but on the Sony forums and Fred Miranda the comparisons are occurring at 7 stops. They're also arguing about the 12/14 bit raw voodoo that occurs in bulb or electronic shutter mode.

I don't think I've pushed anything in my library more than 3 stops. If I am missing by 7 stops, something crazy happened.

I'm actually impressed with the 5DsR's performance considering how many words were spilled on the Sony vs Canon DR debate.

 

[Sporgon]

Who is going to lift shadows 6 stops in real life. This had nothing to do with the image quality the 5dsr can deliver.

You'd think it's absurd, but on the Sony forums and Fred Miranda the comparisons are occurring at 7 stops. They're also arguing about the 12/14 bit raw voodoo that occurs in bulb or electronic shutter mode.

I don't think I've pushed anything in my library more than 3 stops. If I am missing by 7 stops, something crazy happened.

I'm actually impressed with the 5DsR's performance considering how many words were spilled on the Sony vs Canon DR debate.

And when you have to push 8 stops to see a difference, once at 6 there isn't enough to be obvious, this is what some people will do.

I'll be much more interested to see what wockawoo comes up with, using the two cameras together in real world shooting, without trying to force a difference by being overly extreme.

I'm guessing that at low ISO there want be any difference beyond personal taste between the FF Exmor R sensor and the Canon 50mp one, despite the fact that the R is 'back-lit'.

 

[neuroanatomist]

So, would this count as a real world example? (Unfortunately, no photo to go with...)

I was tasked with shooting a talent show at night in a dimly lit church with no flash allowed. One of the people put on a karate demonstration. The only way I could get even close to stopping the motion was to severely underexpose (I think I used about 3 stops) the image and try to recover it in post.

But I'm also somewhat of a novice, so maybe there is another way to do this? Also: I was at f1.8 and ISO 3200 on my 7D, which was already way too high IMHO. And yes, I realize going to a 5D III would help a fair amount, but even then I can see it coming up short.

So, you were at ISO 3200 and you needed 3 more stops (ISO 25600). Yes, the a7RII would be perfect in that situation. To realize the amazing benefits you're seeing with Exmor, all you have to do is shoot at ISO 100 and lift in post. In your case, that means a mere 8-stop push – nothing Exmor can't handle. With a thin DoF and really dim lighting, the awesome motion-tracking capability of the a7RII (especially if you need to couple it with the high reliability of a Metabones adapter) will be just the ticket to success. I predict Sony cameras will be used by all the top sports photographers at all the indoor events at the 2016 Olympics.

[/sarcasm]

 

[thepancakeman]

So, would this count as a real world example? (Unfortunately, no photo to go with...)

[/sarcasm]

I was not trying to say that the Sony (or anything else) would be better or worse, I was suggesting and honestly asking if there was any solution to this other than an extreme push, which is what I did (but not enough) and was still unhappy with the results. (Too noisy of an ISO, still too much motion blur, too thin DOF.)

 

[NancyP]

Best part of the "on landscape" review: "If you are too drunk to get the exposure right, grab the Sony". ;D

In other news, Sony A7R/RII s are getting used as "digital backs" on modern geared-movements view cameras that take digital backs (product and architectural photographers use these). Plus, if you want a Canon 11-24mm or Nikon 12-24mm lens with tilt/shift capacity, Hans at Hartblei can modify the lens a bit and stick it on an adapter for the Sony A7. Those lenses happen to have substantially larger image circle than needed for the 24 x 36 mm frame.

 

[Perio]

Would love to see a comparison of properly exposed shots at few ISO settings.

 

[tpatana]

[sarc mode] Yeah! Keep pushing [/sarc mode]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xI_OlP_nEM

 

[neuroanatomist]

So, would this count as a real world example? (Unfortunately, no photo to go with...)

[/sarcasm]

I was not trying to say that the Sony (or anything else) would be better or worse, I was suggesting and honestly asking if there was any solution to this other than an extreme push, which is what I did (but not enough) and was still unhappy with the results. (Too noisy of an ISO, still too much motion blur, too thin DOF.)

As you already stated, a FF camera (ideally with good AF) would help. You could get lower noise or deeper DoF. Else, sounds like you did the best you could with your gear.

 

[tpatana]

So, would this count as a real world example? (Unfortunately, no photo to go with...)

[/sarcasm]

I was not trying to say that the Sony (or anything else) would be better or worse, I was suggesting and honestly asking if there was any solution to this other than an extreme push, which is what I did (but not enough) and was still unhappy with the results. (Too noisy of an ISO, still too much motion blur, too thin DOF.)

As you already stated, a FF camera (ideally with good AF) would help. You could get lower noise or deeper DoF. Else, sounds like you did the best you could with your gear.

I do plenty indoor no-flash sports, and there's only few things you can do:
-Get body with less noise at high ISO
-Get lens with bigger aperture
-Get body which you can push real good

Also often it's better to ETTR. Most times that looks better than lower ISO but more push on post.

 

[gbchriste]

How about expose the shot so it doesn't need a 6-stop push.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It may not matter to you, but it does impact upon a lot of people's photography.

Indeed, it impacts every photographer who is critically dependent on the need to severely underexpose their images then drastically push them in post. So...about 50 people who post excessively on the Internet. Wait...I forgot Mikael, that makes 51.

 

[unfocused]

It may not matter to you, but it does impact upon a lot of people's photography.

Indeed, it impacts every photographer who is critically dependent on the need to severely underexpose their images then drastically push them in post. So...about 50 people who post excessively on the Internet. Wait...I forgot Mikael, that makes 51.

So, would this count as a real world example? (Unfortunately, no photo to go with...)

I was tasked with shooting a talent show at night in a dimly lit church with no flash allowed. One of the people put on a karate demonstration. The only way I could get even close to stopping the motion was to severely underexpose (I think I used about 3 stops) the image and try to recover it in post.

But I'm also somewhat of a novice, so maybe there is another way to do this? Also: I was at f1.8 and ISO 3200 on my 7D, which was already way too high IMHO. And yes, I realize going to a 5D III would help a fair amount, but even then I can see it coming up short.

Unfortunately, Neuro's sarcasm is unwarranted.

Too often I run into situations where I do have to deliberately underexpose because the light simply isn't sufficient. My paid work requires me to shoot many private meetings and presentations. Invariably, these are held in dimly lit rooms. Too often, a speaker will turn off most of the lights in a room so the audience can see their presentation better.

When a group that has hired me has a 15 minute opportunity to meet with the Governor and the meeting takes place in his office, which is lit like a cave, you don't have a lot of options. You can't be flashing a strobe every five seconds so you do what you can.

That's somewhat comparable to the "real world" situation mentioned above. Here is my take (I shoot with a 5D III):

Remember that the "miracle" Sony sensor has no greater dynamic range than Canon sensors at high ISO. Remember also that the noise performance (which is far more important than dynamic range) is at least as good and maybe better on the Canon.

So, the short answer (sure to be disputed by internet "experts" who don't have to live in my world) is
1) use a full frame camera -- there is simply no substitute for larger pixels;
2) use a camera with reasonable resolution (the new high resolution 5Ds and the new Sony A7RIII are not the camera's for this) The 5DIII, 6D or 1DX are more suitable for these situations, as would be the Nikon D4S or the D750.
3) Use IS and practice handholding. I have successfully shot speakers as slow as 1/15th of a second with the 70-300 "L" at 300mm, but you have to brace yourself and wait for the subject to pause.
4) Understand how movement works. In the old Tri-X film days, we used to try to time sports shots to coincide with the moment the body in motion slows down before reversing motion (for example, shooting someone jumping at the exact moment when their jump is at its peak and they are about to begin their descent.)
5) Pick your subjects carefully. Not everything has to be about the action. Some of the best wrestling shots I ever took were the expressions of high school wrestlers as they were about to be pinned. No action, but they were much more compelling.
6) Learn Photoshop. In the film days, no true photographer would turn their pictures over to the neighborhood drugstore to develop the film and make prints. If you aren't using Photoshop, you are handicapping yourself and only doing half the job.
7) Keep in mind the final product. Most pictures live on the web today at 72dpi. That can be very forgiving.
8 ) Just accept the tradeoffs. A poorly exposed, noisy picture of a interesting subject beats a perfectly exposed picture of a boring subject any day of the week.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Too often I run into situations where I do have to deliberately underexpose because the light simply isn't sufficient. My paid work requires me to shoot many private meetings and presentations. Invariably, these are held in dimly lit rooms. Too often, a speaker will turn off most of the lights in a room so the audience can see their presentation better.

When a group that has hired me has a 15 minute opportunity to meet with the Governor and the meeting takes place in his office, which is lit like a cave, you don't have a lot of options. You can't be flashing a strobe every five seconds so you do what you can.

That's somewhat comparable to the "real world" situation mentioned above.

A question for you – in the real world situations you describe above, do you select an ISO in the range of 100 to 400 when you deliberately underexpose due to lack of available light?

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Too often I run into situations where I do have to deliberately underexpose because the light simply isn't sufficient. My paid work requires me to shoot many private meetings and presentations. Invariably, these are held in dimly lit rooms. Too often, a speaker will turn off most of the lights in a room so the audience can see their presentation better.

When a group that has hired me has a 15 minute opportunity to meet with the Governor and the meeting takes place in his office, which is lit like a cave, you don't have a lot of options. You can't be flashing a strobe every five seconds so you do what you can.

That's somewhat comparable to the "real world" situation mentioned above.

A question for you – in the real world situations you describe above, do you select an ISO in the range of 100 to 400 when you deliberately underexpose due to lack of available light?

I agree that some people benefit from EXMOR in ISO100, and then lift the shadows.

But ... in ISO1600 and above this, the EXMOR advantage disappears. If anyone can prove me wrong, then post images with controlled lighting, where EXMOR allows better recovery of shadows on ISO6400.

Someone?

 

[benperrin]

Best part of the "on landscape" review: "If you are too drunk to get the exposure right, grab the Sony". ;D

Haha. Love it!!!

 

[unfocused]

Too often I run into situations where I do have to deliberately underexpose because the light simply isn't sufficient. My paid work requires me to shoot many private meetings and presentations. Invariably, these are held in dimly lit rooms. Too often, a speaker will turn off most of the lights in a room so the audience can see their presentation better.

When a group that has hired me has a 15 minute opportunity to meet with the Governor and the meeting takes place in his office, which is lit like a cave, you don't have a lot of options. You can't be flashing a strobe every five seconds so you do what you can.

That's somewhat comparable to the "real world" situation mentioned above.

A question for you – in the real world situations you describe above, do you select an ISO in the range of 100 to 400 when you deliberately underexpose due to lack of available light?

I think I made it very clear, that's not the case. I just feel that pancakeman asked a question and I would rather respond in a way that presumes he was legitimately seeking an answer. Even if he wasn't, someone else might be.

It was clear from his question that the Church of Exmor crowd has convinced some people that the slight advantage the sensor has at base ISO somehow translates into pure magic under all conditions.

I thought I was pretty clear, but in case I wasn't, I am talking about situations where there just isn't enough light to get a decent exposure and I have a choice of underexposing a bit or using some ridiculous ISO that I know will be garbage. It's never a good choice -- expose as best you can under the existing conditions and hope you can salvage something or choose an crazy ISO that you know is going to produce an unusable image.

I agree that some people benefit from EXMOR in ISO100, and then lift the shadows.

But ... in ISO1600 and above this, the EXMOR advantage disappears. If anyone can prove me wrong, then post images with controlled lighting, where EXMOR allows better recovery of shadows on ISO6400.

Someone?

That was exactly my point. I would add that from the images I have seen, the Exmor sensor may be able compete with the Canon for dynamic range at some of the higher ISOs, but it cannot compete in noise and at higher ISOs noise is (for me) a much more serious problem than dynamic range.

In fact, after comparing sensor examples on multiple review sites I have come to the conclusion that there simply is no substitute for pixel size. Which, by the way, explains why the flagship Canon has an 18mp sensor, the flagship Nikon has a 16 mp sensor and the Sony A7s has a 12 mp sensor.

Now, with each succeeding generation, it seems that all three manufacturers are able to squeeze a little better noise performance out of their sensors, while boosting the megapixel count a bit.