There are more people that buy flawed cameras for 1-2k than there are people that buy flawed cars for 100-200k.
Industry News: Sony Introduces the High-resolution A7R IV with World’s First 61.0 MP Back-illuminated, Full-frame Image Sensor
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Take Real estate interior photos of an apartment with a window in mid day without bracketing or additional lights for example. Take good sunset photos. Take moonlight over the ocean photos. Beach portraits in the shade with just a little flash fill. I couldn't do it with Canon...
That's interesting. I've not done real estate work (though there are other forum contributors who do), but as I understand it the DR in a scene with an interior and bright outside view is greater than any current camera can manage. Moonlight over the ocean... is that a high ISO scene, where Sony has no advantage over the 1Dx2? Or am I missing something there. Beach portraits with flash... surely if you're using flash you can control the difference in light between background and subject so that any camera could get the exposure right?
If you have some examples it might help us understand. I can certainly believe your new kit makes it easier to get the shots you want. But you couldn't get those shots with a 1Dx2? How does everyone else manage then? Is this just a matter of hyperbole?
It’s mind over camera. Buy a Sony, drink the Kool-Aid, anything is possible!
According to the Sony press release.
It quite clearly says "three times as long in APS-C crop mode". I have no idea if this is correct, in what bit mode, compressed or uncompressed mode, only that it says three times as long. The explanation is obvious, because the camera is saving files that are around a third of the size.
Why bother, when you're going to badly photoshop a fake sky into every photo? Based on my house-hunting, that seems to be what everyone in the industry does.
There are probably cases where the extra .7ish stops of range in the Sony camera is enough to sample a scene for which a Canon camera would be blown out in the sky region. Whether there will be a visible difference in the image of an ETTR capture is unclear. Maybe if the goal is to flatten the image (bright shadows).
Personally I’d probably shoot that at low sensitivity, or brackets Increasing ISO is a great way to overexposed an object as bright as the moon.
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm calling this out. You never actually put the two together under the same exact lighting conditions to find out how they compared after post processing. So if you had trouble with harsher lighting at one time with Canon, then had success with softer lighting another time with Sony, it becomes "Sony has such great DR!" That and you've resorted to shear hyperbole with statements like "take good sunset photos" (Flickr is full of good sunset and moonlight ocean photos from every digital camera made along with E6 slide film).
There's 1ev of difference between an A7r III and a 1DX II. That cannot account for the differences you claim.
There would be a noise difference in the deepest shadow regions visible while pixel peeping, and possibly on a large print before NR. With a little NR there wouldn't really be a difference.
Admittedly Canon makes a lot of cameras where you can't necessarily recover the darkest shadow detail due to noise. I've said before on this forum that if I did RE for a living (rather than on occasion) I would probably have chosen a 5D4 over a 5Ds. There are RE scenes that will easily blow out any camera and scenes that would fit on any camera, but in the middle you'll be blending exposures less often with a Nikon, Sony, 5D4, 1DX II, or R.
But the 1DX II is one of the cameras that's very close to the best offered by Nikon/Sony. So close it really does boil down to post processing so long as you ETTR.
Thanks for the insights! Logically, any increase in DR will mean some scenes can be captured in one shot where before they couldn't, but I'd be surprised if there were many in the case of the cameras discussed above. As for the later case, I don't think you one ever capture the face of the moon and a night scene in one exposure. When I've tried it, I've had to use wildly different exposure values (and blending is rarely natural-looking anyhow).
The important thing to remember is that if you spend a few thousand dollars switching systems, the new system is going to be significantly better. It’s going to be. It must be. Whether it is or not, it will be.
The thing you have to realize is that DxO reported DR is not a matter of "detail present" vs "detail missing." They set an arbitrary noise threshold and when the shadow noise exceeds that value, that's the DR score. So in many cases it's not accurate to say "an increase in DR" when comparing cameras A and B. The correct description is "lower noise in this zone." In other cases it practically is "an increase in DR" because the noise on one camera is so severe you would never bother with the detail at that level. And in the most extreme cases there may literally be a difference in captured detail, i.e. the detail simply doesn't exist that deep in the shadows.
With the 5D4/1DX2/R it's the first case. They're capturing the detail, but there's additional noise.
No. Not without the moon being heavily attenuated by atmospheric haze. I'll try spot metering both tonight to have actual numbers in hand, but the moon is a sunlit object (Sunny 16 works for a full moon with no haze) and the rest of the scene is night. You're not going to capture lunar surface detail and nighttime landscape detail in a single exposure on anything made today.
Last edited:
Dude. I had both cameras for over a month. For me to switch after 18 years, the difference was huge. I am tired of people.not accepting the reality and defending old technology because they are afraid of trying something new or because the usual BS that they have too much money invested in lenses and stuff. It works for me and I am never going back, still I love canon because it was a great system that produced amazing photos and made me a lot of money but the facts are the facts for me. Sony is just better for me and that's that. It's easy to talk when you don't even have a Sony to compare. Please comment again when you have both cameras in hand side by side for a month and tell me Canon is better...
I am tired of people who delude themselves into thinking that their personal ‘reality’ is universally applicable. Yours isn’t. Deal with it.
Then you should have no problem posting side-by-side examples so we can all see the huge difference.
Yes; certainly. You could see the difference by pushing enough, but if the intent isn’t zero shadow maybe you won’t.
Personally I don’t like the look of pushed shadows. There’s no detail there because, you know... they’re shadows. Not much light hit the sensor in those regions. Slightly better DR lets you brighten them more without seeing noise, but they tend to looks flat and lifeless.
That's a factor which is almost never mentioned in all the "DR DR DR" talk. Even if you can push 5ev without obtrusive noise, you often still get a better result by blending due to tonality issues.
Yep. I have done some real estate stuff and generally have to bracket anywhere from 3stops under to 3 stops over exposed to manage the difference. That would mean in order to make a bracketing situation manageable in one shot the sony would have to be 5 stops better DR than the canon. Not the case. A moon over water. No way a one or two stop difference can make that photo magically any different. Anyone who canot tale a decent landscape image on a canon is obviously a poor photographer. Evidenced by the fact that i have seen a bazillion amazing landscape images taken on all sorts of cameras. Even lowly entry level canon dslr's. These claims seem a bit ridiculous
Blending need no motion for perfection. Moon moves. Ocean moves. House not move. No wind, trees still. Then good for blend. Blend not always answer. Try blend Formula 1 car photo when racing: 300kph = 1cm at 1/8000. +2 EV, car move 4cm at 1/2000.