Industry News: Sony Alpha a7s III images leak ahead of tomorrow’s announcement

[NorskHest]

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

www.sonyalpharumors.com

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

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.

 

[RayValdez360]

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

www.sonyalpharumors.com

Sony alpha rumors might finally get something right....less than 24 hours from the actual announcement....

 

[eguzowski]

Low Light crater size 12Mega Pixels and high MBPS and no overheating at 4k with possibly no 30 min limit...It's a winner for event photographers but cinema photographers will choose cinema cameras. It's a win for wedding/party/corporate videographers whom are their target market for DSLR shooters. I shoot Canon but I'll wait for them both tobit the market to see real world reviews before buying either company.

 

[Antono Refa]

Sounds great! If I were making post cards. (12MP?!)

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.

 

[Quackator]

So Canon delivers great stills cameras with inadequate, unusable video,
and Sony delivers a great video camera with inadequate photo capabilities
in a body far less than ideal for a video camera.

Moot race.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

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.

I always process my images at 1:1 view, obviously not all the time but I spend quite a bit of time in 1:1 view. If you're unable to clone properly it's fine, everyone has their own favorite processing techniques, just don't extrapolate your horrific results to everyone.

I know if I have a clean image at 1:1 it'll look good in any lower resolution.

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.

You keep mentioning 'individual pixel' - normally I don't care about individual pixels unless they're dust spots or hot pixels from long exposures. I was saying that pixel-level noise matters when you view your image at its original size, 1:1. When 1 image pixel is mapped to 1 screen pixel.

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.

That's good and useful thing to do, but as above, I never mentioned I was looking at single pixels. What would be the point anyway?.. Viewing at 1:1 isn't the same as looking at individual pixels.

 

[yeahright]

I know if I have a clean image at 1:1 it'll look good in any lower resolution.

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.

It appears to me that your argument is as follows: I am not willing to pay for a higher resolution sensor if it doesn't allow me to crop proportionally further while maintaining the same noise characteristics at pixel level. But that is asking too much from improvement of sensor technology. Because you'd have to improve resolution and on top of that improve noise performance by the same amount.

 

[nekogami]

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.)"

except for this very important one ?

• 600mbps bitrate

Yep well according to the video published to early by B&H, they are half of that. in 4k 120p 4:2:2

EDIT: Nevermind, it looks like ONE codec can do 600mbps (as for the frame rate available, not shown), looks like they did their usual trick to avoid overheating through data transfert (lower the bitrate)

 

[Sporgon]

It shows you the noise when the image is viewed 1:1.

What if you're using a 4K monitor ?

 

[Quarkcharmed]

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.

By 'full image' you mean when it fits the screen or you can see the whole thing on a print?

The thing is, you may not know the target image size. Maybe it's Instagram size or maybe it's a large print. Depends on your workflow, photography genre and what you usually do with your images.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

What if you're using a 4K monitor ?

I am using a 4K monitor btw, and?..

 

[Quarkcharmed]

It appears to me that your argument is as follows

My point is simply that the noise at the pixel level does matter.

 

[Sporgon]

I am using a 4K monitor btw, and?..

I meant to type 5K, but even so at 1:1 you must have the eyes of a hawk

 

[Quarkcharmed]

I meant to type 5K, but even so at 1:1 you must have the eyes of a hawk

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.

 

[RayValdez360]

It looks like the camera a lot of Canon users were looking for many years. Technically it would have been the R6 but that damn thing overheats even in 4K modes. Whast up with the record limit Canon. They need to stop some of the nonsense.

 

[Starting out EOS R]

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.

Dont forget the huge Dyson cool fan to make sure it stays nice and chilly.

 

[Sporgon]

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.

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.

 

[JoTomOz]

My 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

 

[Quarkcharmed]

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

It's not only about high-ISO noise, it's about the noise in general at any given ISO. If I buy a high-MP camera, I'm interested in the pixel-level noise to be as little as possible because it determines the usability of native size images. I don't need a 45Mp camera to always downscale the images to 20Mp. Why would I need 45Mp if I only post to Instagram?

Also the pixel-level noise is important when I crop the images. When I crop but keep the print size the same (or target digital image size the same), I effectively magnify the noise, so again I'm interested in it to be as little as possible.

And also the room for some postprocessing techniques depends on the noise - you can't do certain things with very noise images.