Small Eos 5D IV comparison to Nikon, Sony, Fuji...

Found at: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a7r-iii/sony-a7r-iiiA.HTM#comparison

"The main outlier here is the 5D Mark IV, which due to its optical low pass filter shows considerably less fine detail than the other three cameras in this test. From a pure sharpness point of view, all three of the other cameras outperform the 5D Mark IV"

A7RIII: " ...but right now it looks like it is capable of quite a bit, and possibly earning the place of the most versatile full frame camera on the market. "

Where ist the 5DSR MKII?

Remark: interestingly, this site shares the same pictures like DPReview... They did the comparison on the same event....
 
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
On the other hand, the loss of sharpness due to an optical low pass filter is well defined, making it very amenable to correction with sharpening during post processing. Applying more than a small amount of sharpening to an image from an AA-less sensor produces artifacts. So, with proper post processing ( versus the identical processing performed by review sites), there's really very little difference in practice when considering sharpness.
 
Upvote 0
Mar 25, 2011
16,848
1,835
While, I'd expect that higher MP sensors will indeed resolve more fine detail, the choice of jpg images to compare them does not impress. The fact that different lenses were used also raises my eyebrows.

Its good though to have higher resolution cameras, not so smart though to compare low resolution sensors with high ones, and guess what, the higher mp sensors win. You only do that when trying to prove a point and hope that no one will notice the obvious bias in the test.
 
Upvote 0
Mt Spokane Photography said:
While, I'd expect that higher MP sensors will indeed resolve more fine detail, the choice of jpg images to compare them does not impress. The fact that different lenses were used also raises my eyebrows.

Its good though to have higher resolution cameras, not so smart though to compare low resolution sensors with high ones, and guess what, the higher mp sensors win. You only do that when trying to prove a point and hope that no one will notice the obvious bias in the test.

I see your point. But does the "normal reader" sees the Bias?
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,355
22,534
neuroanatomist said:
On the other hand, the loss of sharpness due to an optical low pass filter is well defined, making it very amenable to correction with sharpening during post processing. Applying more than a small amount of sharpening to an image from an AA-less sensor produces artifacts. So, with proper post processing ( versus the identical processing performed by review sites), there's really very little difference in practice when considering sharpness.

You can correct for acutance post processing but you can't restore detail that is lost because of the AA-filter. My experience of using the 5DSR versus 7DII and 5DIV is that I get about an extra 10% resolution with telephotos from the absence of an AA-filter.

There is a very nice article by Brandon Dube on the effect inter alia of AA-filters on resolution - (he uses OLPF as nomenclature) https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/10/the-8k-conundrum-when-bad-lenses-mount-good-sensors/
He points out that as the number of mpx increases, the importance of an AA-filter (OLPF) becomes less importance for Moire. I have just posted some photos from my 5DIV and one of those has some Moire, despite the filter - http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1280.msg693091#msg693091
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
xps said:
But, despite these annoying comparisons, the A7RII (or in future III) combined with an 27-70 GM 2.8 lens is an great combo.
Met an Sony semi/pro workshop-group in the mountains. And they showed what´s in this body.

I´m waiting for such an lens from Canon too... 24-70 III...

Why wait?

The Canon 24-70/2.8L II already beats the Sony 24-70/2.8 GM.
 
Upvote 0
xps said:
Found at: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a7r-iii/sony-a7r-iiiA.HTM#comparison

"The main outlier here is the 5D Mark IV, which due to its optical low pass filter shows considerably less fine detail than the other three cameras in this test. From a pure sharpness point of view, all three of the other cameras outperform the 5D Mark IV"

A7RIII: " ...but right now it looks like it is capable of quite a bit, and possibly earning the place of the most versatile full frame camera on the market. "

Where ist the 5DSR MKII?

Remark: interestingly, this site shares the same pictures like DPReview... They did the comparison on the same event....

This test is full of issues.
  • Looking at the original JPGs you can see that the shots are not taken at the same magnification. There's around a 12% difference between the A7R3 and 5D4
  • Shutter speed for the FF cameras is 1/40s and 1/20s for the Fuji (remember this is a live model not a stationary test scene), they claim it was shot on a tripod but I'm a little skeptical of that due to the framing/magnification differences. They also didn't use a delayed release so there's going to be a small advantage for Sony since it's using a stabilized sensor and lens which will help combat the little shutter press movements that become visible when pixel peeping on high res sensors.
  • The shots are not actually 100% crops, they're upscaled (and maybe downscaled?) to some common size
  • There's also a major question of whether or not the focus is on which the author acknowledged not really checking in any meaningful way
 
Upvote 0
Feb 8, 2013
1,843
0
It also borrows the A9's impressive trick of a truly live viewfinder display, at least up to 8 frames/second

And thus, mirrorless in sports applications is still a joke. Sony has no equivalent to a top of the line SLR.

To their credit 8fps at least gets them on the same level as the 8 year old 7d.

I expect Mirrorless to superceed SLR’s “someday” (the “Solid State” camera is still an attractive idea) but I also expected uninterrupted viewfinders shooting 20fps with an electronic shutter in anything above “entry level” by now.
At least they should be doing that in a crop mode. But no, Sony is all bark and no bite.
 
Upvote 0
9VIII said:
It also borrows the A9's impressive trick of a truly live viewfinder display, at least up to 8 frames/second

And thus, mirrorless in sports applications is still a joke. Sony has no equivalent to a top of the line SLR.

To their credit 8fps at least gets them on the same level as the 8 year old 7d.

I expect Mirrorless to superceed SLR’s “someday” (the “Solid State” camera is still an attractive idea) but I also expected uninterrupted viewfinders shooting 20fps with an electronic shutter in anything above “entry level” by now.
At least they should be doing that in a crop mode. But no, Sony is all bark and no bite.

Live view limit at 8 fps is only for the A7RIII. The A9 maintains 60 fps liveview all the way up to 20 fps burst mode.
 
Upvote 0
Feb 8, 2013
1,843
0
raptor3x said:
9VIII said:
It also borrows the A9's impressive trick of a truly live viewfinder display, at least up to 8 frames/second

And thus, mirrorless in sports applications is still a joke. Sony has no equivalent to a top of the line SLR.

To their credit 8fps at least gets them on the same level as the 8 year old 7d.

I expect Mirrorless to superceed SLR’s “someday” (the “Solid State” camera is still an attractive idea) but I also expected uninterrupted viewfinders shooting 20fps with an electronic shutter in anything above “entry level” by now.
At least they should be doing that in a crop mode. But no, Sony is all bark and no bite.

Live view limit at 8 fps is only for the A7RIII. The A9 maintains 60 fps liveview all the way up to 20 fps burst mode.

Good catch, so it seems the A9 has that right:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a9/sony-a9A.HTM
the A9 aims to take it to the next level with zero viewfinder blackout, even when shooting at 20 frames per second, and a direct viewfinder image of the subject during tracking and capture.

Sony just has to make an A9II that lets people use the menu while the buffer clears (really slowly apparently).

Cons

Sluggish power-on time compared to pro DSLRs
Slow buffer clearing even with fast UHS-II card
Can't access menus while buffer is clearing (Function menu & custom buttons still work, though)
Only one card slot supports UHS-II
Default JPEG colors a bit muted
Somewhat cool auto white balance outdoors
Still no lossless RAW compression option
Burst rate limited to 5fps with mechanical shutter, and 12 fps with uncompressed RAW
4K video is cropped in by about 1.2x at 30p
No visual feedback for tap-to-focus in video
Lacking 4K/60p video option
Expensive (but it is competing against $5/6K flagship DSLRs)

Sony certainly appears to be trying very hard, I’m grateful the industry has a “disruptive force” pushing technical specs forward, but the end results coming out of Sony are still a calamity of odd decisions that make them look like a flailing infant of the industry.
I actually feel sorry for all the people who are blindly buying into this system.
 
Upvote 0
Feb 8, 2013
1,843
0
In the end the A7RIII looks like it’s priced exactly where it should be, but the problem is the “marketing” of the crippled 10fps burst is selling people something they aren’t getting.

The D850 with a Battery Grip shooting 45MP at 9fps (that better be 14bit) is really the story of the year, but the marketing bias favoring Sony is still ridiculously strong.
 
Upvote 0
Dec 11, 2015
1,054
0
Don Haines said:
As many of us know, nothing is as good as a Sony sensor..... they are so good that they can put 15 stops of DR into 14 bit files.... Funny though, Hasselbad needed to go to 16 bits to fit in 15 stops of DR..... perhaps this means that they know how to do math......

And what's even funnier - DxO will confirm those 15 stops.
 
Upvote 0
Upvote 0
Dec 11, 2015
1,054
0
SecureGSM said:
15 stops of DR thingyo is a Sony Marketing Department Black Magic :
I bet this is to do with the new Pixel shift multi shooting mode when camera will combine 4 images in one. kind of exposure bracketing / blending / HDR...

Could be the case, like DxO's claim with their own DxO Uno camera in a multi-shot mode.
Theoretically for a perfectly still subject it's possible to do the same with any camera by combining multiple frames even without "pixel shift", which is pretty much useless IRL - leaves shake, water runs, people move, etc... It will probably work for interior shooting or portraits in a morgue? :)
 
Upvote 0