Any news on Sony A7R II?
- Thread starter RGF
- Start date
Supposedly shipping soon, I was going to reserve a rental, but even with the 20% discount, I did not want to pay $400 to try it for 10 or was it 14 days.
I'll wait for the user consensus and then likely get a 5D MK IV.
I'll wait for the user consensus and then likely get a 5D MK IV.
Upvote
0
RGF said:
Me too. I won't miss my A7R. Hope to get the II next week.
Plus one of the RAWs post-processed by a redonculous number of people: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56224584
And more RAWs including high ISO: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3880707
Upvote
0
I think it still has merit as a manual focus body and for the IBIS, If (and that's a big if) it doesn't suffer from high ISO noise because of it.
The A7Mk2 was basically a step backwards in terms of low light performance if you wanted a fast shutter speed, and only worked better if you could extend your exposure time.
For some reason people don't like to talk about how much sensor noise that camera has.
The A7Mk2 was basically a step backwards in terms of low light performance if you wanted a fast shutter speed, and only worked better if you could extend your exposure time.
For some reason people don't like to talk about how much sensor noise that camera has.
Upvote
0
Dylan777 said:
I agree with that statement. As I recall, some of the 6400 stuff was darker (f/3.5 ish at something like 1/30, but don't quote me on that, I could be way off).
If you go through dpreview, there is a .zip posted of a series of low-light shots. I got bored playing with other-people's-pictures. I just want my camera haha!
Upvote
0
I processed some of the files posted to Dropbox by robert98 of dpreview. Impressions are they're more flexible and lower noise than my 5D3, but I'll reserve judgement for when I take delivery. I don't own any of the previous Sony cameras with which to compare, nor any Nikon SLRs.
The shelf is ISO6400, the couch ISO25600. Converted in LR with its default noise reduction. The first is downsampled. The second was meant to be 1:1 crop, but in looking at it now I think it may slightly downsampled.
Finally, the trees are ISO100, first merely downsampled and second with the following adjustments, default NR, and down sampling: -4 highlights, +4 shadows, -57 whites, -.72 exposure (to match the original), and -43 blacks for a little punch (to my taste).
I appear to have erroneously applied a copyright statement (imported with my defaults), so let it again be known these images belong to robert98.
The shelf is ISO6400, the couch ISO25600. Converted in LR with its default noise reduction. The first is downsampled. The second was meant to be 1:1 crop, but in looking at it now I think it may slightly downsampled.
Finally, the trees are ISO100, first merely downsampled and second with the following adjustments, default NR, and down sampling: -4 highlights, +4 shadows, -57 whites, -.72 exposure (to match the original), and -43 blacks for a little punch (to my taste).
I appear to have erroneously applied a copyright statement (imported with my defaults), so let it again be known these images belong to robert98.
Attachments
Upvote
0
any news on a lossless compression? and have they fixed where bulb, and the shutter mode is set to continuous drive, speed-continuous drive, continuous bracketing result in a 12bit file instead of 14bit?
What on Earth is Sony thinking in not fixing these issues? i use bracket sometimes to blend images with high DR why would i want to lose information because i am using bracketing? whats the difference between me just changing the exposure for each shot and getting a 14bit file?
What on Earth is Sony thinking in not fixing these issues? i use bracket sometimes to blend images with high DR why would i want to lose information because i am using bracketing? whats the difference between me just changing the exposure for each shot and getting a 14bit file?
Upvote
0
I'm waiting for a trusted source to post some raw results in low incandescent light. High ISO shots always look fairly good in bright light, its the low light shots that interest me. So far, its about what I expected, ISO 6400 is usable with NR.
Upvote
0
I doubt they would enter into an agreement like that, especially given that Sony holds most of the cards in that relationship. Rather I assume they have determined it doesn't matter (and in the preponderance of shooting conditions, it doesn't). Shrug.
Still, there may be an upcoming firmware change to enable lossless raw.
Still, there may be an upcoming firmware change to enable lossless raw.
Upvote
0
3kramd5 said:
It does matter and how exactly can they call something RAW when its lossy compressed it would be like calling JPEG raw when its clearly not, yes i do take photos of stars and also i would not want to worry about any artifacts when i don't have to with other camera like a NIKON that can shot RAW using the same damn sensor. Sony is just damn stupid at this point releasing a amazing camera then crippling it with stupidity.
Then you have 12bit BECAUSE you choose to use BULB? really? or any of the other modes other then single shot.
While Nikon lets you choose this option Sony forces you into WHAT they think is good enough.
Upvote
0
emko said:
Yes, but not in the preponderance of shooting conditions. I would like the option and I'd probably use it because space isn't in issue.
emko said:
Not quite; JPEG is debayered. Is there an industry standard definition of how much processing "unraws" something? A better question is: how can they claim 14-bit output?
emko said:
I've seen plenty of pictures of stars produced with Sony's 11+7 compression and tone curve. I have seen the example by the RAWDIGGER guy of trails with artifacts that he accentuated, but I haven't seen much evidence that it's a pervasive problem, such as "if you shoot stars you're going to get halos." It's an edge case.
emko said:
I don't claim to understand it. Bulb is annoying, as is silent shutter. I wonder if it's a hardware limitation or a software thing.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Deleted member 399245
- EOS R