DPReview reviews the D810... two years after release

[unfocused]

Wow! This thread really went off the rails.

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

I have my moments, but they are fleeting. Especially when someone shouts "squirrel."

On the other hand, after reading the last couple of posts, maybe the battery discussion was better!

 

[Loswr]

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.

Thank you for so effectively supporting my point. Well done!

 

[bwud]

With the A7RII, you get 2 stops of highlight recovery above what the camera identifies as the clipping point.

Don't most cameras, Canons and the A7R II included, identify clipping based on jpeg histograms? And isn't that where the recovery you're discussing comes from? Certainly if expose to the right in RAW, and then add two stops, I can not recover it, even with A7R II.

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.

Is there a tool to directly push by stops? I can't do it in cameraraw (as far as I know, exposure sliders operate on curves which are weighted to the specific file). Are there freeware RAW editors which do so?

 

[J.R.]

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?

The LP-E19 is 10.8 V @ 2750 mAH while the NP-FW50 is 7.4 V @ 1020 mAH - you can make your own conclusions whether the LP-E19 is inferior or superior to the NP-FW50.

My point here is that even though a battery is bigger, has higher output and higher storage capacity, would it be wise to draw conclusions solely on the basis of what it can or cannot do in LV shooting?

 

[J.R.]

...
My point here is that even though a battery is bigger, has higher output and higher storage capacity, would it be wise to draw conclusions solely on the basis of what it can or cannot do in LV shooting?

The criticism being made is that because the battery in the Sony is small, it doesn't last very long meaning an impact to using it.

As it stands, if you use the EVF in place of the OVF, then yes there is an impact because the EVF draws heavily on the battery. However if you use the LCD/LV to do most (or all) of your shooting then there is little to no impact because the Sony offers better battery life.

Canon DSLRs are unlikely to have optimized battery performance keeping in mind the fact that they are not primarily designed for exclusive LV shooting. Unless we get a comparable FF mirrorless from Canon ... who knows.

 

[AvTvM]

my point us: in a really small APS-C mirrorless camera sized like EOS M/M2/M10 ... small battery is ok, there is not more space. improvements to be achieved by better batteries and better energy management (hardware + firmware/software).

as soon as cam / handgrip reaches EOS M3 size or sony A6300 dimensions or even Sony A7 series II, i want to have the best "regular size" (currently canon LP-E6N) inside. there is space for it, maybe handgrip needs to be a tiny bit beefier. given the power needs, it is *stupid* to use little 7-8 Whr "toy" batteries, when we could have 12-14 Whrs.

*as stupid* as sony's decision not to put a touchscreen onto A6300 and canon for not offering an EOS model with built-in EVF or sony's failure to come up with APS-C E-mount lenses as small, good and dirtcheap as Canon's EF-M ...

and no, those corporations do not know better than I, what i want as my next camera.

 

[Loswr]

Canon DSLRs are unlikely to have optimized battery performance keeping in mind the fact that they are not primarily designed for exclusive LV shooting. Unless we get a comparable FF mirrorless from Canon ... who knows.

Canon EOS M10 and SL1/100D use the same battery, the M10 gets 255 shots while the SL1 in LV gets 150.

 

[Loswr]

*stupid*

*as stupid*

and no, those corporations do not know better than I, what i want as my next camera.

No, but nor do those corporations give a damn what you want as your next camera, or care what you think in any way.

 

[J.R.]

Canon DSLRs are unlikely to have optimized battery performance keeping in mind the fact that they are not primarily designed for exclusive LV shooting. Unless we get a comparable FF mirrorless from Canon ... who knows.

Canon EOS M10 and SL1/100D use the same battery, the M10 gets 255 shots while the SL1 in LV gets 150.

Thank you for this. It just emphasizes my point that unless we get a comparable FF mirrorless from Canon that uses a battery like the LP-E6, the criticism of the low shot count using LV in a Canon DSLR is pointless.

 

[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?

The LP-E19 is 10.8 V @ 2750 mAH while the NP-FW50 is 7.4 V @ 1020 mAH - you can make your own conclusions whether the LP-E19 is inferior or superior to the NP-FW50.

My bad, I thought we were referring to the technology used, not merely the capacity and potential differences.

 

[bwud]

With the A7RII, you get 2 stops of highlight recovery above what the camera identifies as the clipping point.

Don't most cameras, Canons and the A7R II included, identify clipping based on jpeg histograms? And isn't that where the recovery you're discussing comes from? Certainly if expose to the right in RAW, and then add two stops, I can not recover it, even with A7R II.

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.

Is there a tool to directly push by stops? I can't do it in cameraraw (as far as I know, exposure sliders operate on curves which are weighted to the specific file). Are there freeware RAW editors which do so?

Do you want to post a screen shot of what you're doing and how you think it isn't working?

Nothing isn't working, I'm just not sure how correlate the sliders to stops. I don't believe, for example, if I set the exposure slider to +4, that I'm getting a 2^4 increase in luminance across the board; the adjustment isn't linear. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

see: http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/59541/understanding-lightroom-acr-exposure-non-linearity

Let me rephrase my question. It was stated "[A7R II] 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."

How do I do that? What combination of exposure and shadows sliders nets me a 5 stop lift in the shadows? If I take a high contrast dark image and set the shadows slider and exposure sliders all the way to the right, I'll see a ton of noise (both varieties), not a minor increase or very little. I did just that while reading this thread last night, but wasn't sure how many stops I'd actually lifted by. Was it 5? 6? 8?

 

[J.R.]

...
My point here is that even though a battery is bigger, has higher output and higher storage capacity, would it be wise to draw conclusions solely on the basis of what it can or cannot do in LV shooting?

The criticism being made is that because the battery in the Sony is small, it doesn't last very long meaning an impact to using it.

As it stands, if you use the EVF in place of the OVF, then yes there is an impact because the EVF draws heavily on the battery. However if you use the LCD/LV to do most (or all) of your shooting then there is little to no impact because the Sony offers better battery life.

Canon DSLRs are unlikely to have optimized battery performance keeping in mind the fact that they are not primarily designed for exclusive LV shooting. Unless we get a comparable FF mirrorless from Canon ... who knows.

One might argue that due to the presence of the EVF, the Sony A7RII is also not primarily designed for exclusive LV shooting.

Then there's the automatic dimming of the LCD at the back which suggests that in fact there has been some amount of work to optimize battery use.

Of course, one can argue anything.

 

[J.R.]

...
Thank you for this. It just emphasizes my point that unless we get a comparable FF mirrorless from Canon that uses a battery like the LP-E6, the criticism of the low shot count using LV in a Canon DSLR is pointless.

I disagree completely. What it means is that some of Canon's camera designs use the LCD in a battery efficient manner and others do not. It may in fact have nothing to do with the battery or LCD. Or maybe it is just the LCD.

What it also means is that a DSLR that has a LV option has different power requirements from a pure mirrorless camera. I'm no engineer but Canon surely has designed the cameras in a way to eek out the max performance from the battery.

One can, of course argue that it is all a big a conspiracy and Canon has intentionally crippled cameras. Believe what you want but unless a direct comparison can be done between 2 mirrorless cameras, one can form any opinion that he feels is right.

 

[Loswr]

...
Thank you for this. It just emphasizes my point that unless we get a comparable FF mirrorless from Canon that uses a battery like the LP-E6, the criticism of the low shot count using LV in a Canon DSLR is pointless.

I disagree completely. What it means is that some of Canon's camera designs use the LCD in a battery efficient manner and others do not. It may in fact have nothing to do with the battery or LCD. Or maybe it is just the LCD.

That wooshing sound – I know, you hear it a lot – was the sound of the point sailing over your head.

 

[AvTvM]

M10 / SL-1 LV difference on same battery just proves that Canon mirrorslappers suck a lot of power, even when that mirror is not slapping ...
Maybe the AF system and its incessant swings between "front-focused and back-focused"?

In reality, difference between DSLR in LV and mirrorless cam battery charge is irrelevant. Just a smoke grenade thrown into the discussion. All i want is the smallest possible mirrorless camera with a good EVF built-in and the strongest battery stuck into it ... to give me 500+ shots on a charge *in real life* ... not interested in CIPA-numbers eithers.

 

[pierlux]

Wow! The farther this thread moves away from the original D810 subject, the more entertaining it gets! ;D

 

[Don Haines]

On battery technology....

Point 1) There is far better battery technology in labs than Canon, Nikon, or Sony is using in their cameras.....

Point 2) Until these new technologies can be produced reliably and cheaply, they will not be mass-marketed.... nobody is going to buy a $10,000 battery for their $1000 camera.....

Point 3) Once one of these newer and superior battery technologies reaches the point where they can be economically and reliably used in cameras, EVERYONE will start using them, so the relative battery life between brands will remain unchanged.

On comparing battery life between mirrorless and mirrored cameras.....

Point A) What are the power requirements between each for focusing camera lenses and how does it compare?

Point B) Same question, only for IS systems......

Point C) When using a mirrored camera in "live view", the mirror is energized and that is a major power drain...

Point D) The rear LCD panel on a mirrored camera and a mirrorless camera SHOULD consume the same amount of power.

Point E) Since mirrored cameras do not have an EVF, that is another power drain that mirrorless have that mirrored do not have, although this is partly mitigated by the info display on viewfinders and shoulder displays on the mirrored cameras.

Point F) A comparison where one is using an EVF and the other is using an LCD panel display plus holding a mirror up is not an even comparison.

Point G) In general, mirrorless cameras have more battery life than their mirrored cousins when working in live view mode.

Point H) In general, mirrored cameras have more battery life than their mirrorless cousins when the mirrored camera is NOT in live view mode.

Point I) The advantage seen in point G is roughly proportional to the larger size of battery found in the mirrored cameras.

In general, the level of technology in mirrored and mirrorless camera is about the same..... the big difference is the mechanical mirror. It seems that it takes a lot of energy to hold that mirror open. Let's say Canon took the 7D2, added in an EVF, and took out the mirror..... Since it appears that mirrorrs take a lot more energy to hold open than it takes to run an EVF, it would be a safe assumption that a mirrorless 7D2 would get a lot better battery life than a mirrored 7D2 in Live-view....

How would it compare to a Sony mirrorless for images per watt of battery power? Probably worse as it has a lot more computing power.... but a mirrorless rebel would probably be about the same. Ultimately, nobody knows as there are far to many variables that none of us know about to make any kind of prediction, but regardless if the number is 300 or if it is 3000, most of us will carry around a spare battery (or more) so in the end, does it really matter?

 

[Loswr]

Don, you sound pretty amped up about this very current issue. Thanks for the powerful summary!

 

[3kramd5]

Don, you sound pretty amped up about this very current issue. Thanks for the powerful summary!

We all get a charge out of it. I can't resist these threads, they have too much potential.

In general, the level of technology in mirrored and mirrorless camera is about the same..... the big difference is the mechanical shutter. It seems that it takes a lot of energy to hold that shutter open.

You mean the big difference is the mirror, and that it takes energy to hold the mirror up. It takes no energy to hold a shutter open or closed, only to move it.

I wonder how a fully electronic shutter compares to a mechanical shutter (not that either is necessary exclusive to either variety of camera).


In any case, in the grand scheme of things (i.e. power requirements of mirrorless vs mirrored cameras), the big difference from a power perspective is indeed due to the mirror, but not because of the power required to hold it up. Rather, the differentiator is power not required while it is down. CIPA data is all well and good, but they only tell you how many exposures you can rattle off if you don't care about composing between shots. With a mirrorless camera, the display must be on while composing.

 

[d]

Don, you sound pretty amped up about this very current issue. Thanks for the powerful summary!

We all get a charge out of it. I can't resist these threads, they have too much potential.

Wattever you think of Canon, I'm sure they're working hard to ion out any excess power consumption...

(Sorry!)