DPReview reviews the D810... two years after release

[Mikehit]

Here's some data.

Camera	CIPA shot count
5DIII (v/f only)	950
5DIII LV only	200
5DS LV only	200
D750 (v/f only)	1230
D750 LV only	unknown
A7RII (LCD)	340
A7RII (EVF)	290

So what can we learn from this?

The 5DIII battery is not as strong as the A7RII battery when operating in comparable modes (live view =~ LCD) yet the A7RII battery is smaller than the 5DIII battery. If Canon used the battery design from the A7RII for the 5DIII then the 5DIII would get ~1530 (340/200*900.) i.e. Nikon do not publish CIPA numbers for live view only but would appear to fall somewhere between Canon and Sony.

You can't conclude anything of the sort. You are assuming that the LVF in Canon and the LCD in Sony have the same power requirements so is it the battery not as strong or the LV taking more juice? You even acknowledge thi in your comment in the same post.
And given that people using the 5DIII will use the OF most of the time (much the same way a a&R user will use the EVF most of the time, comparing LCD/LV usage is at best grossly misleading.

 

[Mikehit]

@woody: yes, current cameras are typically not very energy efficient. i am convinced, a well-designed, new Mirrorless camera (milc) not larger/heavier than a Sony A7 series II could hold a current technology battery and get 500+ shots in a regular usage scenario, and also 500+ CIPA shots.
better firmware/software could already do the trick, with existing battery packs. no new battery technology or "bending laws of physics" needed.

Which begs the question 'why don't they do it already' given that Sony are touted as the leaders in MILC, breaking new ground etc?

 

[Woody]

Just out of curiosity, added more cameras to the list below:

- A6300 NP-FW50 battery (7.2V, 1020 mAh, 400 shots with LCD)
- A7R Mark II NP-FW50 battery (7.2V, 1020 mAh, 340 shots with LCD)
- A7S Mark II NP-FW50 battery (7.2V, 1020 mAh, 370 shots with LCD)

- E-M1 BLN-1 battery (7.6V, 1220 mAh, 350 shots)
- E-M5 Mark II BLN-1 battery (7.6V, 1220 mAh, 310 shots)

- X-T1 NP-W126 battery (7.4V, 1250 mAh, 350 shots)
- EOS-M3 LP-E17 battery (7.4V, 1040 mAh, 250 shots)
- 80D LP-E6N battery (7.4V, 2000 mAh, 300 shots in LV)

 

[Woody]

Which begs the question 'why don't they do it already' given that Sony are touted as the leaders in MILC, breaking new ground etc?

;D

Based on the data collected so far, I suppose Sony is already up there. But trying to achieve DSLR capability of > 700 shots per battery charge is proving to be more difficult than thought.

 

[Mikehit]

;D

Based on the data collected so far, I suppose Sony is already up there. But trying to achieve DSLR capability of > 700 shots per battery charge is proving to be more difficult than thought.

And that is the main issue.
Of course, Sony not being battery manufacturers, if they do get battery technology and camera architecture right to give 700 shots per charge, it will be an open secret such that CaNikon will be using the same methods and getting 1,200 per charge. Or staying at 700 per charge and making an even better more powerful AF, or combined OF/EVF, or some other such gimmicks to leave Sony behind again.
Nowadays I really can't see one manufacturer making significant advances that gives a real advantage for more than a generation.

 

[Loswr]

@woody: yes, current cameras are typically not very energy efficient. i am convinced, a well-designed, new Mirrorless camera (milc) not larger/heavier than a Sony A7 series II could hold a current technology battery and get 500+ shots in a regular usage scenario, and also 500+ CIPA shots.
better firmware/software could already do the trick, with existing battery packs. no new battery technology or "bending laws of physics" needed.

You're also convinced that MILCs mean imminent doom for dSLRs, that the very next Sony FF MILC will be the death of Canon's dSLRs, and so many other ridiculous fantasies that you being convinced of something makes it less likely to be true.

 

[Don Haines]

@woody: yes, current cameras are typically not very energy efficient. i am convinced, a well-designed, new Mirrorless camera (milc) not larger/heavier than a Sony A7 series II could hold a current technology battery and get 500+ shots in a regular usage scenario, and also 500+ CIPA shots.
better firmware/software could already do the trick, with existing battery packs. no new battery technology or "bending laws of physics" needed.

with "modestly innovative technology" and next gen battery packs, 1000+ shots on a charge should be no major technical obstacle. camera makers dont even have to invent anything themselves, they could license/buy it from smartphone and drone companies and their suppliers.

One of the design constraints of modern cameras is heat, particularly when running video.... As a result, it is a sure bet that all camera makers are trying to be as energy efficient as possible in order to minimize the problem, and that means improved battery technology (or bigger physical size) are going to be the only realistic way of significantly increasing the number of shots.

 

[quod]

"You can underexpose your images to protect your highlights as much as you'd like. Leave your graduated ND filters at home or, better yet, sell them while they're still worth something."

Really?

I have an A7RII. After 10K+ photos, I have overexposed once. Yes, really.

 

[Mikehit]

And that's the entire point. When operating in a comparative way (using the LCD on the back of the camera), the Sony A7RII does better than the Canon. Whether it is better battery or just a better system overall you might argue is up for grabs.

So you drew a conclusion that you admit is irrelevant. Odd.

What you should be pointing out is that the Sony A7RII battery is only rated to 1020mAh - about 55% of the Canon battery.

I wasn't aware I should be pointing out anything. I was countering a claim you made about battery capacities

Maybe the difference is simply this: the Sony A7RII makes more efficient use of the battery than does the Canon 5D Mark III.

Maybe. 'Efficiency' is not comparison you can make until you know what the camera is using the battery power for and it is not just recording pictures.

The only conclusion you can reliably draw is that Sony has a system that if your preferred method is using the LV/LCD may be preferable to Canon, but if you prefer using OF/EVF the Canon has advantages.

 

[d]

Maybe the difference is simply this: the Sony A7RII makes more efficient use of the battery than does the Canon 5D Mark III. Given that you might rightly claim it is unfair to compare the two.

I wonder what percentage of the energy used per shot on a 5DIII is spent on the movement of the mirror, as opposed to metering/focusing/shutter movement/processing? Or to put it another way, if the 5DIII was mirrorless, would the number of shots it could achieve in LV mode per battery charge increase significantly?

d.

 

[J.R.]

Maybe the difference is simply this: the Sony A7RII makes more efficient use of the battery than does the Canon 5D Mark III. Given that you might rightly claim it is unfair to compare the two.

I wonder what percentage of the energy used per shot on a 5DIII is spent on the movement of the mirror, as opposed to metering/focusing/shutter movement/processing? Or to put it another way, if the 5DIII was mirrorless, would the number of shots it could achieve in LV mode per battery charge increase significantly?

d.

The mirror does not move while shooting in LV, it's locked-up in the process. AF takes up a lot of battery power and contrast detect AF, more so. Not sure what findings can we arrive at if we compare AF using a DSLR and a mirrorless with the same Canon lens.

That being said, the 1DX Mark II has a way bigger battery and in LV shooting, it's rated to only 260 shots max. You wouldn't say that the LP-E19 is inferior to what Sony puts in the A7R II.

Now I'm no engineer but even I can infer that Canon would have thought this out in the architecture of the camera - DSLRs are not supposed to be used exclusively for LV shooting so I'd guess there would be structural issues which would take up more power when LV is engaged. For a compromise, to me, the number of shots is decent enough.

 

[3kramd5]

That being said, the 1DX Mark II has a way bigger battery and in LV shooting, it's rated to only 260 shots max. You wouldn't say that the LP-E19 is inferior to what Sony puts in the A7R II.

Would you say that what LP-E19 is superior to what Sony puts in the A7R2?

Either way, how do you know?

 

[d]

Maybe the difference is simply this: the Sony A7RII makes more efficient use of the battery than does the Canon 5D Mark III. Given that you might rightly claim it is unfair to compare the two.

I wonder what percentage of the energy used per shot on a 5DIII is spent on the movement of the mirror, as opposed to metering/focusing/shutter movement/processing? Or to put it another way, if the 5DIII was mirrorless, would the number of shots it could achieve in LV mode per battery charge increase significantly?

d.

The mirror does not move while shooting in LV, it's locked-up in the process. AF takes up a lot of battery power and contrast detect AF, more so. Not sure what findings can we arrive at if we compare AF using a DSLR and a mirrorless with the same Canon lens.

The mirror has to be raised prior to locking - that takes power. Is it drawing power while locked-up as well? And even when shooting in LV, I don't leave the mirror permanently raised on LV on - only for composition and capture. So there's a regular up/down mirror cycle I'm going through. Would I get many more shots if there was no mirror?

d.

 

[3kramd5]

Is it drawing power while locked-up as well?

Yes, I believe that the mirror is held up by the actuation motor (turn on lockup and turn off your camera - what happens?).

 

[unfocused]

Wow! This thread really went off the rails.

 

[ahsanford]

Wow! This thread really went off the rails.

Somehow a thread I started about DPR declaring a two year old camera being the finest thing on the planet, capable of rendering faces of people backlit by the sun, obsoleting all contrast management tools, etc.

It then turned into a referendum on mirrorslapping, the imminent doom of Canon and a fine survey of battery life in the industry.

CR: pursuing a higher state of entropy since 2010

- A

 

[Loswr]

CR: pursuing a higher state of enDRropy since 2010[/i]

Fixed that for ya.

 

[Don Haines]

Wow! This thread really went off the rails.

and quite ironic that someone called Unfocused is the one to see this clearly

 

[quod]

CR: pursuing a higher state of enDRropy since 2010[/i]

Fixed that for ya.

I will fix it for you, Neuro, with facts. With the A7RII, you get 2 stops of highlight recovery above what the camera identifies as the clipping point. You can lift the shadows about 5+ stops or so with a minor increase in luminance noise, very little chroma noise, and little loss in detail. You should stop the snarky comments about the DR until you've shot with these cameras and worked with the files. The IQ is appreciably better than what I have gotten with my Canon cameras in the detail of the images and yes, the DR of the files. This is not to say that the files are perfect. For that, I think the Pentax K-1 is a more relevant camera, but that's an entirely different issue, albeit with an Exmor at its core.

 

[9VIII]

CR: pursuing a higher state of enDRropy since 2010[/i]

Fixed that for ya.

I will fix it for you, Neuro, with facts. With the A7RII, you get 2 stops of highlight recovery above what the camera identifies as the clipping point. You can lift the shadows about 5+ stops or so with a minor increase in luminance noise, very little chroma noise, and little loss in detail. You should stop the snarky comments about the DR until you've shot with these cameras and worked with the files. The IQ is appreciably better than what I have gotten with my Canon cameras in the detail of the images and yes, the DR of the files. This is not to say that the files are perfect. For that, I think the Pentax K-1 is a more relevant camera, but that's an entirely different issue, albeit with an Exmor at its core.

And to state that you don't need or want images with that level of DR is equally valid. HDR photography is usually a separate category for a reason, it's a significant stylistic choice, and some people don't even like the way it looks. Part of my standard processing ever since I got into this hobby is to crush the shadows, and it still is, and still would be if I used Exmor.
Highlight protection sounds great, but it's still not a deal breaker.

The notion that a great sensor -- no matter how great it is -- will see photographers walk away from the AF / responsiveness / ergonomics / controls / handling / lenses / flashes / accessories is simply insane.

+1

+2

+3

+4