German Sony A7sIII press text leaked: Price is 4200 Euro! – sonyalpharumors

Upvote
0
No it doesn’t. Looking at an individual pixel doesn’t give you that information it is too focused, spend an hour cloning at 1:1 then zoom out to output size, it will look horrific.It sets limits on cropping, printing large and on postprocessing in general. The cleaner the image is, the more room you have for postprocessing. Full-sized image IS your photograph and starting point for any manipulations. Not a downscaled to instagram size thumbnail.
Sony alpha rumors might finally get something right....less than 24 hours from the actual announcement....German Sony A7sIII press text leaked: Price is 4200 Euro! – sonyalpharumors
www.sonyalpharumors.com
Sounds great! If I were making post cards. (12MP?!)
No it doesn’t. Looking at an individual pixel doesn’t give you that information it is too focused, spend an hour cloning at 1:1 then zoom out to output size, it will look horrific.
But then in the second sentence you hit the nail on the head, “the cleaner the image is” not the pixel “the more room you have for post processing” an individual pixel is irrelevant in assessing the cleanliness of the image.
I custom set a keyboard shortcut to zoom to the output size in PS, no resizing no downscaling just show me the image on screen the size I am outputting, doesn't matter if it is a 36” print or a 2” thumbnail, I want to see it on screen at life size. Only then will I know what I can do to the file, looking at a single pixel tells me absolutely nothing.
But if you have a noisy image at 1:1 from a high resolution sensor it may well be a perfectly clean image when you view the full image.I know if I have a clean image at 1:1 it'll look good in any lower resolution.
except for this very important one ?THe list of features in this article matches word for word pretty much as found at Sony Alpha Rumors.
....with the exception of this major one:
"no overheating, no recording time limit
(They are claiming to not have overheating issues for at least 1hr even at the highest framerate.)"
By 'full image' you mean when it fits the screen or you can see the whole thing on a print?But if you have a noisy image at 1:1 from a high resolution sensor it may well be a perfectly clean image when you view the full image.
My point is simply that the noise at the pixel level does matter.It appears to me that your argument is as follows
I meant to type 5K, but even so at 1:1 you must have the eyes of a hawkI am using a 4K monitor btw, and?..
It's a big 32" monitor with relatively large pixels. If it had a higher pixel density, yes be I might need to view not 1:1 but 2:1 sometimes. In fact sometimes I do just that already.I meant to type 5K, but even so at 1:1 you must have the eyes of a hawk![]()
Dont forget the huge Dyson cool fan to make sure it stays nice and chilly.What is wrong with all these camera companies that they can't give us the tools we need?? It's getting ridiculous. This needs to have 245MP sensor and 47.32k at 2400 FPS or it is DOA. It's 2020 Sony..... time to wake up to what the YouTubers need. Time to go back to the drawing board.
For portraits, and so not "resolution limited" as the subject is close and filling the frame, A3 prints from my original 12.7 mp 5D were / are superb. Easily as good as from my 50 mp 5DS.A4 at 300 DPI is 8.3 MP, and that's only needed if you're looking at the image from reading distance, e.g. a photo printed in a magazine.
And we know most photographers have their photos printed at least A3 size in such magazines as national geographics.
Reading this discussion I’m not seeing the logic to your argument. Yes, at the highest ISOs the R5s extra megapixels would be wasted so to speak due to the pixel level noise (in terms of effective resolution or say max printable size) but whether you are printing big or posting to Instagram, if the pixel level noise is effectively the same between both cameras when downsized or viewed at viewing size, why would you care about pixel level noise of a raw file? People are not viewing your raw images surelyMy point is simply that the noise at the pixel level does matter.
Reading this discussion I’m not seeing the logic to your argument. Yes, at the highest ISOs the R5s extra megapixels would be wasted so to speak due to the pixel level noise (in terms of effective resolution or say max printable size) but whether you are printing big or posting to Instagram, if the pixel level noise is effectively the same between both cameras when downsized or viewed at viewing size, why would you care about pixel level noise of a raw file? People are not viewing your raw images surely
I shoot a lot of night photography (not Astro) so am genuinely interested