Sony A7R on DXO - Highest full frame IQ ever

[Pi]

So, if this is so important, presumably you are using Nikon or Sony already? These sensors have been out for a while — no need to wait for the A7/A7r.

It is important but it is not enough to make me switch. For now. Are you ever going to admit that DR at low ISO is important, for some at least?

For what it's worth, my Nikon-using friends have never mentioned not being penalized so much for mistakes as a reason for choosing Nikon.

They must be good fiends, protecting your feelings. Nikonians are bragging about DR everyday on dpreview.

 

[zlatko]

So, if this is so important, presumably you are using Nikon or Sony already? These sensors have been out for a while — no need to wait for the A7/A7r.

It is important but it is not enough to make me switch. For now. Are you ever going to admit that DR at low ISO is important, for some at least?

For what it's worth, my Nikon-using friends have never mentioned not being penalized so much for mistakes as a reason for choosing Nikon.

They must be good fiends, protecting your feelings. Nikonians are bragging about DR everyday on dpreview.

DR is important at every ISO. No problem with the current DR of Canon sensors. I'm surprised that you're not using Sony or Nikon already, after you stated, "I will take a camera which does not penalize me (so much) for my mistakes to one that does any day." Apparently it is not that important to you.

Actually those Nikon-using friends are very busy photographers and not the type to spend any time bragging on Dpreview. And they are quite honest about what's good and bad about their gear.

 

[sanj]

I think we should all begin to focus on the things we do agree on so as to avoid rehashing so many of the same topics and arguments time and again:

1. The Sony sensor (D800/e) has the most DR from ISO 100-800.
2. DR levels out and advantage is gone after ISO 800.
3. 5D3 sensor does better in higher ISOs.
4. More DR is useful (and nice to have) but not always/or even often necessary.
5. Each sensor has it's own advantages AS WELL as disadvantages neither of which should be ignored when when assessing IQ or level of advancement in technology.
6. Everyone has differing needs when it comes to photography which most of us in here cannot account for.

Things to avoid since they are so clearly untrue/baseless and continue to cause unnecessary debate due to their antagonistic nature:

1. Any blanket statements such as Nikon image quality "trounces" Canon's.
2. Pre-determining whether something is completely unuseful or not before it is in people's hands.
3. Making any other inferences about how good or bad the new bodies will be since again, they are not in people's hands yet.

You taking the spice out.

 

[Pi]

DR is important at every ISO. No problem with the current DR of Canon sensors.

No problem for you, or for everybody? Do you admit that for some it might be a real problem, not just something in their imagination?

I do not care about high fps, for example. Should I get involved in any discussion about high fps to say: no problem with 3 fps. If you are good photographer, you would be able to nail it even with 3 fps, etc.?

 

[sanj]

DR is important at every ISO. No problem with the current DR of Canon sensors.

No problem for you, or for everybody? Do you admit that for some it might be a real problem, not just something in their imagination?

I do not care about high fps, for example. Should I get involved in any discussion about high fps to say: no problem with 3 fps. If you are good photographer, you would be able to nail it even with 3 fps, etc.?

Valid argument.

 

[zlatko]

DR is important at every ISO. No problem with the current DR of Canon sensors.

No problem for you, or for everybody? Do you admit that for some it might be a real problem, not just something in their imagination?

I do not care about high fps, for example. Should I get involved in any discussion about high fps to say: no problem with 3 fps. If you are good photographer, you would be able to nail it even with 3 fps, etc.?

As I wrote, photographers who actually need more DR than Canon offers should already have switched. These Sony sensors have been out for a while. During that time, many photographers have looked at their options and decided to stick with Canon.

Likewise, there is no problem with 3fps (or 6 or 8fps, etc.), but if someone actually needs more then they should buy it. Why would someone buy 3fps and then blame the manufacturer? The same goes for megapixels, etc. Offering less than the maximum mp doesn't mean there is a problem or deficiency. Not every camera has to offer the maximum of every measure of performance for us to say there is "no problem" with it. A manufacturer chooses which measures to prioritize, such as high ISO performance.

 

[Axilrod]

As I wrote, photographers who actually need more DR than Canon offers should already have switched. These Sony sensors have been out for a while. During that time, many photographers have looked at their options and decided to stick with Canon.

Likewise, there is no problem with 3fps (or 6 or 8fps, etc.), but if someone actually needs more then they should buy it. Why would someone buy 3fps and then blame the manufacturer? The same goes for megapixels, etc. Offering less than the maximum mp doesn't mean there is a problem or deficiency. Not every camera has to offer the maximum of every measure of performance for us to say there is "no problem" with it. A manufacturer chooses which measures to prioritize, such as high ISO performance.

I don't think Pi really cares what you or anyone else has to say, it seems like he's just obsessed with being "right."

 

[JohnDizzo15]

Does anyone know if Nikon's top low light performing sensor outperforms Canon's in low light shooting (DR, noise, etc.)? If Nikon doesn't have anything that currently performs better in lower lighting conditions, have they ever had a sensor that did at any specific point in time?

I would research it myself but I'm on my phone and it just seemed easier to ask you guys. Thanks.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

So, if this is so important, presumably you are using Nikon or Sony already? These sensors have been out for a while — no need to wait for the A7/A7r.

For what it's worth, my Nikon-using friends have never mentioned not being penalized so much for mistakes as a reason for choosing Nikon.

They must be good fiends, protecting your feelings. Nikonians are bragging about DR everyday on dpreview.

Immature people will brag "about DR everyday", but the wise do not use those brags as reference points ... I also shoot with Nikon gear and like so many others have mentioned the DR is great between 100-800 ISO, but it is no big deal to the point of switching from Canon to whatever brand.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I think we should all begin to focus on the things we do agree on so as to avoid rehashing so many of the same topics and arguments time and again:

1. The Sony sensor (D800/e) has the most DR from ISO 100-800.
2. DR levels out and advantage is gone after ISO 800.
3. 5D3 sensor does better in higher ISOs.
4. More DR is useful (and nice to have) but not always/or even often necessary.
5. Each sensor has it's own advantages AS WELL as disadvantages neither of which should be ignored when when assessing IQ or level of advancement in technology.
6. Everyone has differing needs when it comes to photography which most of us in here cannot account for.

Things to avoid since they are so clearly untrue/baseless and continue to cause unnecessary debate due to their antagonistic nature:

1. Any blanket statements such as Nikon image quality "trounces" Canon's.
2. Pre-determining whether something is completely unuseful or not before it is in people's hands.
3. Making any other inferences about how good or bad the new bodies will be since again, they are not in people's hands yet.

Nice summary ... but you have upset those who want a never ending debate

 

[msm]

Does anyone know if Nikon's top low light performing sensor outperforms Canon's in low light shooting (DR, noise, etc.)? If Nikon doesn't have anything that currently performs better in lower lighting conditions, have they ever had a sensor that did at any specific point in time?

I would research it myself but I'm on my phone and it just seemed easier to ask you guys. Thanks.

If you check the measurements at DXO, you will find that Nikon leads on color depth and Canon at DR (at least the 1DX) at ISO 3200+. In the lowlight score DXO ranks the nikons higher as they Canons fall below their color depth criteria, personally I think I prefer the DR though, not sure I can see the difference between 16 and 18bit color depth but the difference between 8 and 9 stop of DR is very noticeable.

 

[JohnDizzo15]

Does anyone know if Nikon's top low light performing sensor outperforms Canon's in low light shooting (DR, noise, etc.)? If Nikon doesn't have anything that currently performs better in lower lighting conditions, have they ever had a sensor that did at any specific point in time?

I would research it myself but I'm on my phone and it just seemed easier to ask you guys. Thanks.

If you check the measurements at DXO, you will find that Nikon leads on color depth and Canon at DR (at least the 1DX) at ISO 3200+. In the lowlight score DXO ranks the nikons higher as they Canons fall below their color depth criteria, personally I think I prefer the DR though, not sure I can see the difference between 16 and 18bit color depth but the difference between 8 and 9 stop of DR is very noticeable.

Thanks for the info.

Reason I ask is I'm curious as to whether the same things that are being criticized about Canon sensors could be used conversely with regard to Nikon sensors in the opposite end (as far as technological development goes)?

 

[msm]

Does anyone know if Nikon's top low light performing sensor outperforms Canon's in low light shooting (DR, noise, etc.)? If Nikon doesn't have anything that currently performs better in lower lighting conditions, have they ever had a sensor that did at any specific point in time?

I would research it myself but I'm on my phone and it just seemed easier to ask you guys. Thanks.

If you check the measurements at DXO, you will find that Nikon leads on color depth and Canon at DR (at least the 1DX) at ISO 3200+. In the lowlight score DXO ranks the nikons higher as they Canons fall below their color depth criteria, personally I think I prefer the DR though, not sure I can see the difference between 16 and 18bit color depth but the difference between 8 and 9 stop of DR is very noticeable.

Thanks for the info.

Reason I ask is I'm curious as to whether the same things that are being criticized about Canon sensors could be used conversely with regard to Nikon sensors in the opposite end (as far as technological development goes)?

Seriously doubt that, the low light differences are small and probably because Canon uses a weaker Bayer filter while the base ISO difference is considerable.

 

[JohnDizzo15]

Does anyone know if Nikon's top low light performing sensor outperforms Canon's in low light shooting (DR, noise, etc.)? If Nikon doesn't have anything that currently performs better in lower lighting conditions, have they ever had a sensor that did at any specific point in time?

I would research it myself but I'm on my phone and it just seemed easier to ask you guys. Thanks.

If you check the measurements at DXO, you will find that Nikon leads on color depth and Canon at DR (at least the 1DX) at ISO 3200+. In the lowlight score DXO ranks the nikons higher as they Canons fall below their color depth criteria, personally I think I prefer the DR though, not sure I can see the difference between 16 and 18bit color depth but the difference between 8 and 9 stop of DR is very noticeable.

Thanks for the info.

Reason I ask is I'm curious as to whether the same things that are being criticized about Canon sensors could be used conversely with regard to Nikon sensors in the opposite end (as far as technological development goes)?

Seriously doubt that, the low light differences are small and probably because Canon uses a weaker Bayer filter while the base ISO difference is considerable.

Would I then be correct in assuming that there is basically no discernible/real world difference between the two when comparing high ISO shooting? If that is in fact the case + the significant difference in the low ISO range...

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The context of this thread is not that "Canon makes the worst sensors", but rather that Canon is getting beat in sensor technology.

I know plenty of great photographers who make great photos with Canon gear. But this has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the Sony sensors, from ISO 100-800 are more advanced than Canon's.

So what? Canon will release some new sensors some day and they will be more advanced than Sonys sensors.
And then will Sony release new sensors.
And then Canon...

I think you got the idea.
Only tech-addicted photographers give a krapp about sensors - their clients don't, except they are tech-addicts as well.

1. I recall a lot of the Canon crowd crowing about Canon sensors for the first few years worth of DSLR releases, including pros too at times and I recall a Getty guy saying he was getting so tired of Nikon sensors being behind that he was seriously eyeing Canon (as he literally eyed my Canon body with envy). And in the cinema world, believe me some pretty damn serious pros talk about stuff like DR all the time and they take it very seriously. I don't recall Nikon users bending over backwards trying to say it was just a tech head thing, they owned it and maybe pointed to less crippled body features from what I recall.

2. To say now that Canon is behind on a certain aspect of sensors that that aspect could only ever matter to tech addicts sounds suspiciously like a fanboy making excuses and tossing cheap insults.

Now maybe you never shoot in scenarios where having more MP or more DR at this point would ever make a difference for you and you never plan to expand your shooting horizons and that is fine enough, but it doesn't mean that is the case for everyone and that it's 100% useless nonsense that matters to absolutely nobody but some tech addicts or those who takes pics of charts and black frame in a lab all day (and I'm curious who exactly these latter people are, because I've never met one myself).

You know you could just as easily have some 100% pure T&S tripod-based landscape shooter start mocking those who bought a 5D3 or 1 series for AF for being silly tech addicts because only tech addict could even need AF like that or AF at all right? I don't think that would make much sense.

You also realize that by far and away most of the people that started asking for more DR only because of limitations they found in the field not in some lab right? Sure you can shoot an infinite number of shots where it doesn't matter, and that is what we do for now, but you can also easily enough find tons of shots where 3 more stops down there would make a difference. It's not the end of the world and of course the overall body can do this and that, as an overall body I'd way take a 5D3 system alone than an A7R alone, in this particular case, for instance, but having access to more DR (and more MP) would be a nice extra to have for quite a few. Nothing wrong with trying to make a big push to wake Canon up so we don't have to wait another decade to get such expanded possibilities open to us too (or to start talk about the A7R which may very soon open them up to Canon lens owners in some cases).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Now, I'm sure somebody will correct me very quickly if I am wrong but...
The A7R does not have an optical low-pass filter. This means it struggles with AF but gets cleaner data from the sensor. Doesn't the low pass filter blur the image slightly?
So yes, you get cleaner images from a sensor without a low pass filter but it also has it's drawbacks - i.e. the AF sucks.

I didn't think that is the case (well the AF sucking probably is, but the reason for it I don't think is correct). Honestly, I'd have preferred if they had put a really light AA filter in it, since 36MP isn't THAT much for FF and you have to think it will moire more easily and constantly put out at least small amounts of aliasing.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The clients give a crap on photographers workflow, only the result matters. If the photogs use an iPhone or a Hasselblad - it doesn't matter, if the result satisfies the client.

Or have one of you ever been hired for the sensor in your camera?

1. Actually some people have (and not always for silly reasons either).

2. Yeah in many cases you can go out and find the 1 or 4 or however many shots you might need and make them ones that work with the sensor you have and in some scenarios the Canon sensor may be every bit as good anyway and the client would never know you had to give up this shot or that, but what about if you are shooting for yourself? Maybe you wanted to shoot that forest scenes where the branches were moving all over and mists were rapidly swirling and a bright sun beam broke through and created extreme DR or something?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Every photographer deals with certain sensor limitations, no matter what brand they are using.

Logical fallacy. Again.

[Certain sensors are no doubt better for certain applications, but many have found Canon IQ (including sensors) to be excellent for a wide range of applications.

Platitude. Again.

The context of this thread is not that "Canon makes the worst sensors", but rather that Canon is getting beat in sensor technology.

I know plenty of great photographers who make great photos with Canon gear. But this has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the Sony sensors, from ISO 100-800 are more advanced than Canon's.

The title of this thread shows the confusion between DR and IQ. DR is not IQ. Sensor technology and IQ are not measured by DR alone, and especially not at lower ISOs alone.

One can say Canon is getting "beat" in one particular measure of sensor technology if one limits one's perspective to only those settings at which it is getting "beat".

You do realize you just said nothing at all, right?

Just dismissing, as you are doing, isn't saying anything.

I'm giving Canon a year and a half to catch up in low ISO dynamic range.

The low ISO dynamic range exhibited in the Sony sensors would be a gigantic boost to how I shoot. Most of what I film is nature (I'm writing this from a tent in Glacier National Park, where it's below freezing). The ability to expose for sky in landscapes, and raise shadows in post with minimal noise would allow me to not fuss with GND filters in the field. Also, the absolute worst lighting conditions are when shooting wildlife. Underexposure is common when a large mammal retreats into woods or runs. Same for birds in flight. The shadow lifting capabilities of the fantastic Sony sensors would help with back-lit birds. A hunting golden eagle or sprinting grizzly bear or rutting bighorns really don't care if you're ready or not.

Those shooting in a controlled lighting environment such as arenas, sports fields, portrait sessions, etc may not desire this technological advancement. But for nature shooters, it is a tremendous leap forward.

I believe this post reveals your key problem with Canon sensors: you underexpose when a large mammal retreats into the woods or runs, or for birds in flight. Adjusting for back-lit subjects and for subjects with very bright or very dark backgrounds have been essential and common tasks for photographers ever since photography was invented. Fortunately, photographers today have a number of ways of adjusting exposure as quickly as these things happen. Whether you use aperture priority, program mode or manual, it just takes a quick twirl of a dial to adjust for these changes. Presumably, a photographer of birds in flight learns not to let the sky influence the exposure to make the birds underexposed. It seems that instead of doing this yourself, you are blaming Canon's sensor for not allowing you to miss the exposure as much as another sensor might.

Athletes outdoors are lit by the same sun as wildlife. They can run suddenly from sun to shadow and sun again. Indoors, subjects can walk/run into and out of shaft of sunlight from a window or skylight. Even artificially lit indoor events do not have uniform lighting from end to end. As a result, a photographer may need to make exposure adjustments throughout an event.

Yes, you often have to do that. The whole AutoISO thing also comes into play here too. There are scenarios where it is impossible, maybe it's running through dabbled sunlight and there is no way to adjust frame to frame, etc. so I could see where the essentially ISO-less nature of the Exmor sensors might be nice. And of course there are the more traditional scenarios maybe part of the animal and scene are hit by a sunbeam and part are not, sometimes keeping it super high key contrast looks best and it doesn't matter at all and sometimes 3 more stops sure could've helped.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Fortunately, photographers today have a number of ways of adjusting exposure as quickly as these things happen. Whether you use aperture priority, program mode or manual, it just takes a quick twirl of a dial to adjust for these changes.

Not having enough DR is just that, not having enough DR. No "proper exposure" can compensate for it, when you have too much DR in the scene. And you cannot always "nail" the exposure.

The examples I was addressing where "large mammal retreats into the woods or runs", and back-lit "birds in flight". Allowing the bright sky to fool the exposure meter is a photographer's error.

The backlit birds things might not be, it depends what else is in the scene and how it affects the subject, sometimes you'd have to completely blow out part of the subject or get nasty noise and lack of detail on the rest of the animal or maybe you can manage the animal but not part of the scene. Sometimes it won't matter, since the rest of the scene doesn't matter and stay dark or some blow out on the outline is fine and you manage to get by with the rest or keeping it with dramatic differences looks better, but sometimes not.

Likewise, not adjusting for sudden changes in light conditions is a photographer's error. The challenge in those examples isn't having enough DR. It is simply for the photographer to make any needed exposure adjustments quickly. No one always nails the exposure, but fortunately today's cameras allow for very quick adjustments — it just takes a twirl of the dial to expose for that bird or mammal. These examples don't show a sensor problem or deficiency. Today's sensors are perfectly adequate for these tasks.

For it just running into evenly lit woods, often you could and then maybe it is on the photographer, although I did mention a different scenario in the prior post though where you could never change the exposures fast enough. And there are times when suddenly come upon something out of nowhere and you were not expecting it to happen and don't have an appropriate C1-C3 set for the condition of these woods since maybe they had been set in preparation for what you had expected to shoot and such. That's always been the breaks, but if you had the option to get around that though, wouldn't that be nice? I mean why not?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

DR is important at every ISO. No problem with the current DR of Canon sensors.

No problem for you, or for everybody? Do you admit that for some it might be a real problem, not just something in their imagination?

I do not care about high fps, for example. Should I get involved in any discussion about high fps to say: no problem with 3 fps. If you are good photographer, you would be able to nail it even with 3 fps, etc.?

As I wrote, photographers who actually need more DR than Canon offers should already have switched. These Sony sensors have been out for a while. During that time, many photographers have looked at their options and decided to stick with Canon.

Likewise, there is no problem with 3fps (or 6 or 8fps, etc.), but if someone actually needs more then they should buy it. Why would someone buy 3fps and then blame the manufacturer? The same goes for megapixels, etc. Offering less than the maximum mp doesn't mean there is a problem or deficiency. Not every camera has to offer the maximum of every measure of performance for us to say there is "no problem" with it. A manufacturer chooses which measures to prioritize, such as high ISO performance.

Nikon has managed to prioritize both low and high ISO though. D800 for low and D4 for high (and the D800 does closer to the 5D3, if maybe not the 6D, at high ISO under tough conditions than the 5D3 does compared to the D800 under very tough low ISO conditions, overall, although in certain ways relating to color under certain circumstances the Canon do worse but that is probably overblown; the Canons are cheating the CFA arrays more though and not telling apart as many colors under natural lighting at any ISO but it's too complex to get into andhasn't been deeply tested and figured out). You say don't buy a fps camera if you need 8fps, problem is Canon does not have ANY model that has very high DR at lower ISOs. And you say then switch, well some have, others maybe have tried to wait for a bit because maybe they prefer the Canon UI, liveview, certain lenses etc. and had been hoping they wouldn't have to eventually switch.