A7RIII from Sony: Dpreview is impressed by Pixel shift

[Don Haines]

One problem with FF sensor stabilisation is the momentum from the size of the sensor - it will be much easier for Panasonic/Olympus to change direction of the sensor because the sensor is one quarter the size.

No fanboy-ism, no shills needed - just plain old common sense and an understanding of high school physics.

But a small one needs to move faster and be four times more accurate, more high school physics.

And yet it appeared on MFT before FF. Go figure.

Yes, but if it is not on a Canon FF camera, does it really exist

And despite the collective internet knowledge telling us that pixel shift only works on static scenes when mounted on a super-stable tripod, there are people out there getting great hand-held results with their toy Olympus cameras..

 

[raptor3x]

One problem with FF sensor stabilisation is the momentum from the size of the sensor - it will be much easier for Panasonic/Olympus to change direction of the sensor because the sensor is one quarter the size.

No fanboy-ism, no shills needed - just plain old common sense and an understanding of high school physics.

But a small one needs to move faster and be four times more accurate, more high school physics.

And yet it appeared on MFT before FF. Go figure.

Yes, but if it is not on a Canon FF camera, does it really exist

And despite the collective internet knowledge telling us that pixel shift only works on static scenes when mounted on a super-stable tripod, there are people out there getting great hand-held results with their toy Olympus cameras..

I haven't seen anyone claiming to have successfully shot in HiRes mode handheld. The current implementation are sensitive enough to motion that vortex shedding off the legs of a tripod is often enough to spoil the image when using longer lenses.

 

[Don Haines]

One problem with FF sensor stabilisation is the momentum from the size of the sensor - it will be much easier for Panasonic/Olympus to change direction of the sensor because the sensor is one quarter the size.

No fanboy-ism, no shills needed - just plain old common sense and an understanding of high school physics.

But a small one needs to move faster and be four times more accurate, more high school physics.

And yet it appeared on MFT before FF. Go figure.

Yes, but if it is not on a Canon FF camera, does it really exist

And despite the collective internet knowledge telling us that pixel shift only works on static scenes when mounted on a super-stable tripod, there are people out there getting great hand-held results with their toy Olympus cameras..

I haven't seen anyone claiming to have successfully shot in HiRes mode handheld. The current implementation are sensitive enough to motion that vortex shedding off the legs of a tripod is often enough to spoil the image when using longer lenses.

Handheld covers a wide range of stability..... some people are more stable than others, some of us like leaning against things, I like resting the camera against a tree, lamp post, building (or whatever)..... and yes, I have seen people use that technique to hand hold the Oly in high res mode....

 

[raptor3x]

Handheld covers a wide range of stability..... some people are more stable than others, some of us like leaning against things, I like resting the camera against a tree, lamp post, building (or whatever)..... and yes, I have seen people use that technique to hand hold the Oly in high res mode....

Do you have any links to examples of hand held HiRes?

 

[Don Haines]

Handheld covers a wide range of stability..... some people are more stable than others, some of us like leaning against things, I like resting the camera against a tree, lamp post, building (or whatever)..... and yes, I have seen people use that technique to hand hold the Oly in high res mode....

Do you have any links to examples of hand held HiRes?

I could ask for the original files, but when I saw them, it was at a club slideshow and projected (and yes, I am aware of how silly it is to take a 50mpixel image, downsample it to a smaller image, and then project it onto a screen at LESS than 2K resolution)..... but hey, it was a new toy and they were happy with it

 

[OSOK]

It really doesn't matter what the specific topic is regarding this camera or Sony in general, the people here will be negative, dismissive and critical. Are we to believe that NOTHING about this camera is good? That it does not have a single feature or capability that can be recognized as excellent? Or, perhaps - even better than Canon?

I've been following these threads, and the usual suspects form a hit squad of Sony bashers and make it a point to trash on the A7R3.

If this were the only site on the internet, one would come to the conclusion that the A7R3 is an overpriced piece of junk. Sony a fraudulent, dishonest company.


While it is true that this will not work with scenes containing movement - there's a lot of scenes where it will work. DPR's urban landscape is a good example. The quality improvement is stunning. Also, this makes any kind of still life that much better. Had the 5DSR have this feature, it would be praised as a worthy "studio" feature and select landscape use. Sony has it, it's criticized as useless.

It is fair to criticize the utility of this feature, but to do so to such an extreme extent shows blatant disregard for the truth. Sony isn't the only company to implement this. But when they do, it's time to downplay it.

I would not equate this to the 5D4's dual pixel raw. Dual pixel raw is truly worthless. Pixel shift is orders of magnitude more useful and practical.

 

[SecureGSM]

yeah? how about an extra stop of DR that is hidden in the subrame B of the Canon DPRAW file? still worthless ?

https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/Canon-dual-pixel-technology

https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/canon-dual-pixel-mode-highlights-are-there

.. I would not equate this to the 5D4's dual pixel raw. Dual pixel raw is truly worthless. Pixel shift is orders of magnitude more useful and practical.

 

[Loswr]

It really doesn't matter what the specific topic is regarding this camera or Sony in general, the people here will be negative, dismissive and critical. Are we to believe that NOTHING about this camera is good? That it does not have a single feature or capability that can be recognized as excellent? Or, perhaps - even better than Canon?

I've been following these threads, and the usual suspects form a hit squad of Sony bashers and make it a point to trash on the A7R3.

Seems you can't distinguish between disparaging the message and shooting the messenger. Normally, the latter is frowned upon, but when the messenger is biased and has been previously shown to be a liar, the 'shooting' is justified. So far in this thread, pixel shift has been called 'good' and 'beneficial' albeit with some major caveats around use cases – which you, in fact, acknowledge.

But perhaps we could also discuss the 'usual suspects' for whom every Canon body is crap. The 5DIII had 'poor, sub-par, unacceptable IQ', the 6DII was a joke, etc. Have you followed those threads, too?

yeah? how about an extra stop of DR that is hidden in the subrame B of the Canon DPRAW file? still worthless ?

More DR was useful and of incredible value...when Canon had less. But now that Canon has effectively matched (or in the case of a properly processed dual pixel RAW file, exceeded) the DR of their competitors...yeah, DR is useless.

 

[raptor3x]

yeah? how about an extra stop of DR that is hidden in the subrame B of the Canon DPRAW file? still worthless ?

https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/Canon-dual-pixel-technology

https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/canon-dual-pixel-mode-highlights-are-there

.. I would not equate this to the 5D4's dual pixel raw. Dual pixel raw is truly worthless. Pixel shift is orders of magnitude more useful and practical.

Do you know if anyone has written anything to capitalize on this yet? The potential is there but last I had checked there was no way to realize it.

 

[Don Haines]

It really doesn't matter what the specific topic is regarding this camera or Sony in general, the people here will be negative, dismissive and critical. Are we to believe that NOTHING about this camera is good? That it does not have a single feature or capability that can be recognized as excellent?

Not everyone in the forum bashes everything.....

And on the subject of pixel shifting sensors.... Olympus does it.... Panasonic does it.... and now Sony does it.... it must work on mirrorless cameras, or why does everyone seem to have it?

Canon and Nikon are conservative companies.... They are slow to innovate, but what they have is usually rock solid. That is why a particular type of people gravitate towards those cameras..... Companies like Olympus and Panasonic (and now Sony) are more innovative and you see new features faster, but at a cost of stability. That is why the latest gadget type of people gravitate towards them.....

You can have stability, or you can innovative, but not both together.... unless you put a foot in both camps.

Personally, my ideal setup would be a 5D4 and lots of FF lenses for when quality and reliability is the answer, and an E-M1 MarkII for portability and playing around.....

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

It really doesn't matter what the specific topic is regarding this camera or Sony in general, the people here will be negative, dismissive and critical. Are we to believe that NOTHING about this camera is good? That it does not have a single feature or capability that can be recognized as excellent?

Not everyone in the forum bashes everything.....

And on the subject of pixel shifting sensors.... Olympus does it.... Panasonic does it.... and now Sony does it.... it must work on mirrorless cameras, or why does everyone seem to have it?

Canon and Nikon are conservative companies.... They are slow to innovate, but what they have is usually rock solid. That is why a particular type of people gravitate towards those cameras..... Companies like Olympus and Panasonic (and now Sony) are more innovative and you see new features faster, but at a cost of stability. That is why the latest gadget type of people gravitate towards them.....

You can have stability, or you can innovative, but not both together.... unless you put a foot in both camps.

Personally, my ideal setup would be a 5D4 and lots of FF lenses for when quality and reliability is the answer, and an E-M1 MarkII for portability and playing around.....

Beware, just because a camera advertises a feature does not tell you if its very useful. How useful to forum members is ALO? Some may find it useful, but I bet most turn it off. Dual Pixel RAW sounds good, and sells cameras, but how useful is it really?

Pixel shift works, but the circumstances are so limited that its only for specialized shooting. I looked at the test images, and the buildings that don't move are definitely and noticeably sharper. Even the trees looked sharper. The clouds that are, of course moving are blurred. So there is a benefit when you have a subject that does not move, and, of course, your camera needs to be very stable as well. It can be a benefit in that people who are moving will be blurred and unrecognizable which you would likely want if you are selling the images.

From the image they posted, which studiously avoids things that move, like people, automobiles, water, and the like, I get the idea that there would be very few images that would benefit, but for those who are interested in landscape photography and have subjects that don't move, You can definitely get technically sharper images. Just how many of them would be interesting is another matter. What would a waterfall look like?

 

[deleteme]

I shoot architectural interiors primarily and at first this seemed to have some promise. However contemporary fashion is to include humans and other elements to show use of the space.
This will not work.

What is useful is that my clients would never see the additional res so its absence is not missed.

 

[SecureGSM]

Absolutely. One can open DPRAW file in Rawdigger and then export each individual subframe (A and B) as a separate TIFF file. Then blend these two TIFF files in Lightroom or any other HDR capable editor. This option is available in Rawdigger as of late August 2016. I am unsure why Adobe and others have not utilised this feature yet. It seems only logical to me but what do I know.

yeah? how about an extra stop of DR that is hidden in the subrame B of the Canon DPRAW file? still worthless ?

https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/Canon-dual-pixel-technology

https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/canon-dual-pixel-mode-highlights-are-there

.. I would not equate this to the 5D4's dual pixel raw. Dual pixel raw is truly worthless. Pixel shift is orders of magnitude more useful and practical.

Do you know if anyone has written anything to capitalize on this yet? The potential is there but last I had checked there was no way to realize it.

 

[Don Haines]

One problem with FF sensor stabilisation is the momentum from the size of the sensor - it will be much easier for Panasonic/Olympus to change direction of the sensor because the sensor is one quarter the size.

No fanboy-ism, no shills needed - just plain old common sense and an understanding of high school physics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nZvfSx7ZsU
Sony takes four seconds to do what Pentax does in a little over one second.

Sony's implementation is just bad, it's inferior to the competition. Anyone who doesn't point out that flaw is clearly a marketing agent for Sony.

If Rishi Sanyal isn't a shill then he's just the biggest sucker on the internet.

On the Olympus E-M1, it takes a shade under a second to take the 8 pictures, but it takes another 2 or 3 seconds to process them.... could that be what the Sony does?

 

[traveller]

One problem with FF sensor stabilisation is the momentum from the size of the sensor - it will be much easier for Panasonic/Olympus to change direction of the sensor because the sensor is one quarter the size.

No fanboy-ism, no shills needed - just plain old common sense and an understanding of high school physics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nZvfSx7ZsU
Sony takes four seconds to do what Pentax does in a little over one second.

Sony's implementation is just bad, it's inferior to the competition. Anyone who doesn't point out that flaw is clearly a marketing agent for Sony.

If Rishi Sanyal isn't a shill then he's just the biggest sucker on the internet.

On the Olympus E-M1, it takes a shade under a second to take the 8 pictures, but it takes another 2 or 3 seconds to process them.... could that be what the Sony does?

The A7RIII doesn't process the images at all, you have to import the files into Sony's "Imaging Edge" software.

 

[Don Haines]

One problem with FF sensor stabilisation is the momentum from the size of the sensor - it will be much easier for Panasonic/Olympus to change direction of the sensor because the sensor is one quarter the size.

No fanboy-ism, no shills needed - just plain old common sense and an understanding of high school physics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nZvfSx7ZsU
Sony takes four seconds to do what Pentax does in a little over one second.

Sony's implementation is just bad, it's inferior to the competition. Anyone who doesn't point out that flaw is clearly a marketing agent for Sony.

If Rishi Sanyal isn't a shill then he's just the biggest sucker on the internet.

On the Olympus E-M1, it takes a shade under a second to take the 8 pictures, but it takes another 2 or 3 seconds to process them.... could that be what the Sony does?

The A7RIII doesn't process the images at all, you have to import the files into Sony's "Imaging Edge" software.

So it takes 4 times longer for the camera to take the pictures and then you have to export them and run them through special software? "innovative"......

 

[9VIII]

One problem with FF sensor stabilisation is the momentum from the size of the sensor - it will be much easier for Panasonic/Olympus to change direction of the sensor because the sensor is one quarter the size.

No fanboy-ism, no shills needed - just plain old common sense and an understanding of high school physics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nZvfSx7ZsU
Sony takes four seconds to do what Pentax does in a little over one second.

Sony's implementation is just bad, it's inferior to the competition. Anyone who doesn't point out that flaw is clearly a marketing agent for Sony.

If Rishi Sanyal isn't a shill then he's just the biggest sucker on the internet.

On the Olympus E-M1, it takes a shade under a second to take the 8 pictures, but it takes another 2 or 3 seconds to process them.... could that be what the Sony does?

The A7RIII doesn't process the images at all, you have to import the files into Sony's "Imaging Edge" software.

So it takes 4 times longer for the camera to take the pictures and then you have to export them and run them through special software? "innovative"......

It really seems like the limitation is arbitrary, why they allow people to set more time between capturing frames is beyond me. This suggests it’s a simple issue of software designers doing weird things just because they can.

 

[Don Haines]

One problem with FF sensor stabilisation is the momentum from the size of the sensor - it will be much easier for Panasonic/Olympus to change direction of the sensor because the sensor is one quarter the size.

No fanboy-ism, no shills needed - just plain old common sense and an understanding of high school physics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nZvfSx7ZsU
Sony takes four seconds to do what Pentax does in a little over one second.

Sony's implementation is just bad, it's inferior to the competition. Anyone who doesn't point out that flaw is clearly a marketing agent for Sony.

If Rishi Sanyal isn't a shill then he's just the biggest sucker on the internet.

On the Olympus E-M1, it takes a shade under a second to take the 8 pictures, but it takes another 2 or 3 seconds to process them.... could that be what the Sony does?

The A7RIII doesn't process the images at all, you have to import the files into Sony's "Imaging Edge" software.

So it takes 4 times longer for the camera to take the pictures and then you have to export them and run them through special software? "innovative"......

It really seems like the limitation is arbitrary, why they allow people to set more time between capturing frames is beyond me. This suggests it’s a simple issue of software designers doing weird things just because they can.

You are probably right.....

When Nikon started into digital cameras, it seemed like their menu system was designed by programmers with little or no thought as to how a photographer would actually use them.... They got a lot better with time.... This could be the same.....

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Since no one mentioned it, how about 200 MP? From 2011!

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3698399703/hasselbladms

It has now quitely vanished, I suspect that few found the feature useful in actual usage.

 

[Tugela]

It is likely useful for still life photos, its my impression that any movement spoils the effect.

That's a example of how something like the still scene at DPR could mislead less experienced photographers into believing that all their photos will benefit.

I know that some, including me, have a camera support that's bolted down (mine is literally bolted down) In that case I could benefit, except that most of my product photos are drastically downsized for the internet, so my support is bolted down for convenience and to prevent accidental bumps rather than ultra high resolution.

It would, because the final image is made up of multiple exposures. It would be a lot like HDR in that respect. Any element that is moving is going to blur out.

When they first mentioned this feature I was hoping that the shifts would happen a lot faster. Unfortunately it is too slow if anything moves in the frame, so I think it will only really work for some sort of still life/static subject matter.

It should be great for images that work for the technology however.