Raw Quality of upcoming Sony A99 II

[xps]

German Magazine "Color Foto" 5/2017 released some test results with RAW shots.

They see the Sony A99 II in the Image Quality far in front of their competitors.
A99II reaches 49 Points @Iso 100, The Canon 5D IV 37.5, Canin 1DX II 34 and the M5 32.5..
This is a big gap.


Sony seems to be still leading in sensors.... The A99II has some shortcomings, but not in IQ

 

[Mikehit]

We may well have got to the point where camera ergonomics outweigh any real or perceived increase in resolution when looking at the market as a whole.
But it will be interesting to see how the numbers stack up at ISO 800 and above.

 

[xps]

We may well have got to the point where camera ergonomics outweigh any real or perceived increase in resolution when looking at the market as a whole.
But it will be interesting to see how the numbers stack up at ISO 800 and above.

At 1600Iso, with 3 different Lightroom-settings (variations in sharpness, noise-reduction), the A99 II reaches 38/36/33 Points, The 5D IV 31/27/26, the 1DXII 28/25.5/25.5 and the M5 24.5/21/20 Points

My dream: 5DIV with an Sony sensor ;D

 

[Mikehit]

interesting.
The next question comes is what do the numbers mean. As an example, DxO explains what level of differences in their measurements are likely to be noticeable.

 

[xps]

interesting.
The next question comes is what do the numbers mean. As an example, DxO explains what level of differences in their measurements are likely to be noticeable.

http://www.pc-magazin.de/ratgeber/testverfahren-dslr-systemkamera-image-engineering-2715033.html

 

[Sporgon]

The wonders of sensor measurements !

Go onto the DXO Mark site and have look at the measurements for the Pentax K5ii. It uses the Sony sensor, and in the dxomark measurements for SNR, tonal range and colour sensitivity (as well as DR) it absolutely annihilates even the recently introduced Canon crop sensors, and even keeps up with recent FF offerings such as the 5DIV.

So it must be great !

Now have a look at the attached picture, taken on the K5. In reality the blue jersey worn by the woman and the blue anorak tied around the man's waist are completely different shades of blue. The woman's jersey is a much lighter, pastel "power" blue, whereas the man's coat is a darker, more vivid blue. Yet despite the cameras superior tonal range and colour sensitivity it has recored them as the same ! The Canon has them perfectly distinguishes ( but I can't lay my hands on a file to prove it at the moment). It isn't the raw converter in Adobe that is to blame either, I have tried this in the Pentax raw format as well as processing in the "Silkipix" or what ever it's called and it is just the same - the blues are pretty well identical.

This result has further reduced my faith in these "measurements" telling me how good a sensor is, or at least the ability to accurately define the practical improvements in these sensors that are all so close anyway.

 

[dak723]

This result has further reduced my faith in these "measurements" telling me how good a sensor is, or at least the ability to accurately define the practical improvements in these sensors that are all so close anyway.

Maybe I am just too old to understand the fascination and reliance upon these types of measurements when it comes to cameras and photography. Shouldn't it be about - "What camera takes the pics that I like the best, or makes it easiest for me to take the best pics?" And the only way to make that judgement is to try out the cameras for yourself. If you like Canon color better, who cares what the numbers say. If you think the tonal curves of the Sony produce the pics you like best, get the Sony. If you like the overall look of Nikon - or find that the ergonomics of one camera make it much easier for you to shoot - get that brand.

As Sporgon says, the sensors are all so close anyway. So why care about what some website says in regards to made up numbers?

 

[fentiger]

also the black labrador is really a gold labrador ;D ;D

 

[Pookie]

This result has further reduced my faith in these "measurements" telling me how good a sensor is, or at least the ability to accurately define the practical improvements in these sensors that are all so close anyway.

Maybe I am just too old to understand the fascination and reliance upon these types of measurements when it comes to cameras and photography. Shouldn't it be about - "What camera takes the pics that I like the best, or makes it easiest for me to take the best pics?" And the only way to make that judgement is to try out the cameras for yourself. If you like Canon color better, who cares what the numbers say. If you think the tonal curves of the Sony produce the pics you like best, get the Sony. If you like the overall look of Nikon - or find that the ergonomics of one camera make it much easier for you to shoot - get that brand.

As Sporgon says, the sensors are all so close anyway. So why care about what some website says in regards to made up numbers?

Heresy, you're a witch !!!!!! You turned me into a newt and must be burnt !!!!

On this forum to speak in such a manner is blasphemous... Here we only care about what doesn't have IS, what has a better sensor and DR. Photography is only to serve this purpose and this alone

 

[Aglet]

I have a K5iis and while it has fabulous DR and had it years ago I concur that Pentax rendering of hue is not very accurate and sometimes not even pleasing.
But you should be able to color-checker that into submission since it has such low noise and a very decent metamerism index.
HAHA! The standard program for ooc jpgs is a little acid-trippy! The neutral is good and, of course, you can also quite thoroughly customize the ooc look for color and tone in the basic camera settings for those who play with jpgs.
Biggest problem I have with that camera is color moiré issues and color-fringed specular hilites with the lack of AA-filter and no sensor-jiggle like the newer models use to mimic that function.
Still a damn solid camera body in many respects.

The wonders of sensor measurements !

Go onto the DXO Mark site and have look at the measurements for the Pentax K5ii. It uses the Sony sensor, and in the dxomark measurements for SNR, tonal range and colour sensitivity (as well as DR) it absolutely annihilates even the recently introduced Canon crop sensors, and even keeps up with recent FF offerings such as the 5DIV.

So it must be great !

Now have a look at the attached picture, taken on the K5. In reality the blue jersey worn by the woman and the blue anorak tied around the man's waist are completely different shades of blue. The woman's jersey is a much lighter, pastel "power" blue, whereas the man's coat is a darker, more vivid blue. Yet despite the cameras superior tonal range and colour sensitivity it has recored them as the same ! The Canon has them perfectly distinguishes ( but I can't lay my hands on a file to prove it at the moment). It isn't the raw converter in Adobe that is to blame either, I have tried this in the Pentax raw format as well as processing in the "Silkipix" or what ever it's called and it is just the same - the blues are pretty well identical.

This result has further reduced my faith in these "measurements" telling me how good a sensor is, or at least the ability to accurately define the practical improvements in these sensors that are all so close anyway.