Sony A7R on DXO - Highest full frame IQ ever

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

The D3s was class leading for low light and they were ahead for low light then (with the caveat that the D3s was also lower res than the 5D2 so while it had better SNR and much better DR up there, the 5D2 had smaller 'grain', so for scenes where the DR was not much and large areas of the frame were not near black, maybe the 5D2 could look better in other cases the D3s might have looked noticeably better).

Currently I believe that the 1DX,6D and D4 are best for low light. The D4 does it without cheating the CFA so much though. OTOH the others can produce a bit smaller 'grain'.

 

[V8Beast]

I don't understand what the big stink is about. Sony now offers a camera that allows taking advantage of Exmor sensor technology while using Canon glass. Even though I won't be buying an A7R, as a Canon user, shouldn't this be good news?

If a bunch of Canon users start snatching up A7R bodies, perhaps it will put more pressure on Canon to improve their sensors. Again, as a Canon user, shouldn't this increased competition be good news?

 

[zlatko]

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).

You keep putting words in my mouth, arguing with points I didn't make. I don't have time to correct all of this. So just a few examples of how you twist things to make your point:

"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." —— I didn't say that. I said DR is adequate for many photographers, including some of the best. If someone finds DR so lacking they should of course switch brands. With a healthy market for used equipment, that's easier to do than ever.

"... 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 ..." —— I didn't say that." Again, if someone finds DR so lacking they should of course switch brands. Many don't switch because DR is fine and they have other priorities. Many prefer Canon because the image quality is amazing for what they do. Of course some switch and that is a valid thing to do.

"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?" Perhaps, but some of those in the field can't seem to avoid getting underexposed birds against a bright sky — such a basic photographer error. The same for a mammal running into the woods. Having that happen "in the field" doesn't prove or validate a sensor deficiency. This are common photographic situations since the invention of photography, and photographers have addressed them with exposure adjustments rather than blaming them on a sensor "problem".

"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 ..." I don't see a big push to "wake" Canon up. Instead I see people complaining about something that they could easily address by changing brands. They claim DR is so important that they would choose a Sony sensor over a Canon sensor "any day", and yet they keep using Canon. So that "any day" apparently hasn't come yet. I'm sure Canon is quite "awake", but they have to deal with diverse priorities and their own timetable for development.

As I wrote above, photographers can always use more of everything, including DR. But DR isn't the be all and end all of image quality. (Clearly, if you are still using Canon, then you agree on some level.) Photographers can use more of absolutely everything — higher shutter speeds, longer battery life, wider apertures, lighter cameras, stronger cameras, more waterproof cameras, more flash power, more sensitive sensors, quieter shutters, bigger viewfinders, faster autofocus, more responsive cameras ... anything you can think of. That doesn't mean that all existing cameras have a "problem" or "deficiency".

 

[zlatko]

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.

For the formats used in the cinema world, DR is very important and taken seriously. So it is interesting that Canon has a significant presence in the cinema world, and in the video world generally. For the past few years I've regularly seen videographers using Canon DSLRs and have yet to see one using Nikon or Sony.

 

[zlatko]

I don't understand what the big stink is about. Sony now offers a camera that allows taking advantage of Exmor sensor technology while using Canon glass. Even though I won't be buying an A7R, as a Canon user, shouldn't this be good news?

If a bunch of Canon users start snatching up A7R bodies, perhaps it will put more pressure on Canon to improve their sensors. Again, as a Canon user, shouldn't this increased competition be good news?

I think the A7/A7r is great news. But the body design is what is most interesting about it: full-frame image quality in a very small camera body, & open for use with an incredible variety of lenses. If the sensor attracts someone, that is fine too.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

For the formats used in the cinema world, DR is very important and taken seriously. So it is interesting that Canon has a significant presence in the cinema world, and in the video world generally. For the past few years I've regularly seen videographers using Canon DSLRs and have yet to see one using Nikon or Sony.

+1

Cinematographers are concerned about DR, sure. But just as they don't rely on a camera's autofocus to control where the camera is focused, they don't rely on the image capture medium to control the DR at capture. Rather, they control the DR of the scene by managing the lighting (floods, diffuser 'tents', grad NDs, etc.).

Canon has Ron Howard, Nikon has.......Ashton Kutcher.

 

[JohnDizzo15]

Interesting point regarding video. Reminded me that Canon had made the most recent major exhibition of low light capture in video with the fireflies in Japan at 0.01 lux. That in and of itself is a major technological advancement in sensor tech albeit currently intended primarily for HD video capture according to Canon.

 

[Pi]

Not every camera has to offer the maximum of every measure of performance for us to say there is "no problem" with it.

To be more precise, you are actually saying that not a single Canon has to offer the DR that any other (except Leica maybe) brand does.

 

[zlatko]

Not every camera has to offer the maximum of every measure of performance for us to say there is "no problem" with it.

To be more precise, you are actually saying that not a single Canon has to offer the DR that any other (except Leica maybe) brand does.

Canon DR is fine. In recent years Salgado chose Canon gear to complete his magnificent 8-year Genesis project. He switched from medium format film to Canon digital. Amazing landscapes, wildlife, etc., all over the world, from Antarctica to the Arctic. He is one of the most renowned photographers in the history of photography and could have chosen any brand or camera, especially if DR were a concern. Again, more DR is certainly welcome, but it's currently at a level that meets the needs of some of the best in the business, in diverse and challenging environments and lighting conditions.

Edited to add: As this thread is about Sony's new A7/A7r, this interview with Sony's Kimio Maki, Senior General Manager at Division 2 of Sony's Digital Imaging Business Group, may be of interest:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9689111831/every-six-months-i-want-to-do-something-new-kimio-maki-of-sony

Some interesting quotes from the interview:

"Within the DSLR market you have the entry-level, smaller cheaper cameras like the Nikon D3200, and at the top there are high-end models like the Nikon D4 and Canon EOS 1D X. Until now, there was no ‘top end’ for mirrorless cameras - now that’s the A7R."

"... I do think about countermeasures from other manufacturers - so for example I think about whether Canon will create a product to compete with us. I’m interested in whether they will do this, because enhancing the market together is important. But that’s not a worry. What worries me is the market - what will happen if customers start to lose interest. If they just say ‘I don’t want a camera, a smartphone is good enough for me’. I don’t think it will happen, but it’s a concern."

 

[J.R.]

Is it just me or does anyone else also thinks that we've entered a vicious circle here?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Is it just me or does anyone else also thinks that we've entered a vicious circle here?

I'll repeat what I posted on p.4 of this thread: DRoners gonna DRone...

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Is it just me or does anyone else also thinks that we've entered a vicious circle here?

+1 ... but all these DR / Canon vs Nikon vs Sony posts are pretty much the same old same old ... but I still cannot resist participating sometimes ;D

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Canon has Ron Howard, Nikon has.......Ashton Kutcher.

Even Ashton dumped Nikon ... he is now "Product Engineer" for Lenovo :
Ashton Beta Tests Lenovo Yoga Tablet

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I don't understand what the big stink is about. Sony now offers a camera that allows taking advantage of Exmor sensor technology while using Canon glass. Even though I won't be buying an A7R, as a Canon user, shouldn't this be good news?

If a bunch of Canon users start snatching up A7R bodies, perhaps it will put more pressure on Canon to improve their sensors. Again, as a Canon user, shouldn't this increased competition be good news?

+1

Who exactly does this hurt? How does it hurt any Canon user? If Canon gets moved to give you more in the next body how is that bad for you??? Do all the naysayers and extreme defenders own a ton of Canon stock? How could it be anything be absolutely neutral at worst and very good news for ALL Canon users?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

You keep putting words in my mouth, arguing with points I didn't make. I don't have time to correct all of this. So just a few examples of how you twist things to make your point:

"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." —— I didn't say that. I said DR is adequate for many photographers, including some of the best. If someone finds DR so lacking they should of course switch brands. With a healthy market for used equipment, that's easier to do than ever.

Hah, you do realize I was responding to.... Alrik? And right in my very message was quoted: "Only tech-addicted photographers give a krapp about sensors - their clients don't, except they are tech-addicts as well."

And then you blast me for twisting your words and making stuff up?

I wasn't twisting your words since I wasn't even responding to you in that post . Second, the very thing about tech-addicted addicts was a direct quote right there for you to see.

"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?" Perhaps, but some of those in the field can't seem to avoid getting underexposed birds against a bright sky — such a basic photographer error. The same for a mammal running into the woods. Having that happen "in the field" doesn't prove or validate a sensor deficiency. This are common photographic situations since the invention of photography, and photographers have addressed them with exposure adjustments rather than blaming them on a sensor "problem".

1. you are picking one little scenario and acting like that is everything and has nothing to do with the claims of the others that only people who never get out to shoot outside of a lab care

2. if the bird is super backlit sometimes the only way to expose it well it to blow out the sky and other stuff, which may or may not matter, if it does then....

3. as I said, if you had a camera that could make something out of a shot where you didn't have time to adjust, something out of the blue popped up and it was a one second chance with no time to set, why not want a camera that for the first time in the photographic era could rescue such a shot?

4. what if it is running in and out sun beams in the woods and you wanted to get both directly lit and shaded shots and be free to pick from all frames, no way to flip dials fast enough, not the end of the world, not the most common scenario, but why not desire a sensor where you could get around that much more easily?

those are mostly side issues though

"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 ..." I don't see a big push to "wake" Canon up. Instead I see people complaining about something that they could easily address by changing brands. They claim DR is so important that they would choose a Sony sensor over a Canon sensor "any day", and yet they keep using Canon. So that "any day" apparently hasn't come yet. I'm sure Canon is quite "awake", but they have to deal with diverse priorities and their own timetable for development.

why shouldn't we want them to up the time table? how the heck does it do anything positive for you for them to keep milking away the old sensor line? so why defending their sacred honor to the ends of the earth? they sure don't do that for you, they try to get away with absolutely the least they can for the most money they can.

As I wrote above, photographers can always use more of everything, including DR. But DR isn't the be all and end all of image quality. (Clearly, if you are still using Canon, then you agree on some level.) Photographers can use more of absolutely everything — higher shutter speeds, longer battery life, wider apertures, lighter cameras, stronger cameras, more waterproof cameras, more flash power, more sensitive sensors, quieter shutters, bigger viewfinders, faster autofocus, more responsive cameras ... anything you can think of. That doesn't mean that all existing cameras have a "problem" or "deficiency".

Well it does mean the Canon have a deficiency in DR. And the title of this thread was talking about sensors not overall systems.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

For the formats used in the cinema world, DR is very important and taken seriously. So it is interesting that Canon has a significant presence in the cinema world, and in the video world generally. For the past few years I've regularly seen videographers using Canon DSLRs and have yet to see one using Nikon or Sony.

The big directors are not using a Canon DSLR as the A camera on a major picture.
(Black Swan used a funky mix of lower end cameras 16mm instead of 35mm, 7D for subway stuff, etc., but that was by design and not typical.)

And if you looked at those video reviews where they got some together to talk over digital video cameras you could clearly tell that many cared about DR.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I don't understand what the big stink is about. Sony now offers a camera that allows taking advantage of Exmor sensor technology while using Canon glass. Even though I won't be buying an A7R, as a Canon user, shouldn't this be good news?

If a bunch of Canon users start snatching up A7R bodies, perhaps it will put more pressure on Canon to improve their sensors. Again, as a Canon user, shouldn't this increased competition be good news?

I think the A7/A7r is great news. But the body design is what is most interesting about it: full-frame image quality in a very small camera body, & open for use with an incredible variety of lenses. If the sensor attracts someone, that is fine too.

Maybe, but I think there are more, certainly in Canon-land who find the sensor the big deal, not the body size. Once you hook up the big adapter how it is small compared to a 5D3? And with big lenses it's huge compared to a P&S. At least with native lenses, and smaller picked lenses, it might come out a bit lighter and smaller than a 5D3, but I don't know that many 5D3 users would sell off their stuff to use an A7R natively alone.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Is it just me or does anyone else also thinks that we've entered a vicious circle here?

I'll repeat what I posted on p.4 of this thread: DRoners gonna DRone...

That's rich. This was a freaking thread about an amazing sensor and then YOU all come in and start complaing that some people are excited by the sensor. If you don't give about this sensor then stay out of this thread and stop droning about how DR is no big deal.

Since this one can also take Canon lenses and people now have an easy option to put their money where their mouth is instead of going on about it in forums you think you'd be praising the release of this camera to the heavens instead of trying to minimize everything about it.

 

[zlatko]

"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 ..." I don't see a big push to "wake" Canon up. Instead I see people complaining about something that they could easily address by changing brands. They claim DR is so important that they would choose a Sony sensor over a Canon sensor "any day", and yet they keep using Canon. So that "any day" apparently hasn't come yet. I'm sure Canon is quite "awake", but they have to deal with diverse priorities and their own timetable for development.

why shouldn't we want them to up the time table? how the heck does it do anything positive for you for them to keep milking away the old sensor line? so why defending their sacred honor to the ends of the earth? they sure don't do that for you, they try to get away with absolutely the least they can for the most money they can.

You're showing two misconceptions here. The first misconception is that bashing Canon on a rumors forum somehow pushes the company to "wake up" or "up the time table" for new products. It doesn't. Their investment in sensor research, development and production is huge and isn't going to be moved even slightly by anonymous complaints on a rumor site.

The second misconception is that "they try to get away with absolutely the least they can for the most money they can." Well, Canon has a huge product line to disprove that notion. It simply wouldn't exist in anything near its current form if they were trying to get away with absolutely the least for the most money. They offer such a diverse line of products, some with 2nd or 3rd generation refinements, and some of them unmatched by any other manufacturer. Their products (like the 1DX, 5D3, 600EX-RT and new wide angle primes) have shown outstanding responsiveness to the needs of many photographers, fulfilling many wishlists for improvements over predecessor models. These creations don't just happen at the flick of a switch, but rather require very substantial investment, planning, effort, testing and risk. A company trying to "get away with absolutely the least they can for the most money they can" would have no where near the acceptance in the professional market that Canon does, nor would it be preferred by some of the best and most demanding people in photography.

And this raises a question. If you really feel that Canon tries "to get away with absolutely the least they can for the most money they can", why in the world would you stick with Canon??? I mean if they do that, and provide deficient sensors, *when* do you decide to switch? How productive is it to just keep bashing Canon on a rumors forum? When do you decide that some other company is more properly aligned with your interests?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

"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 ..." I don't see a big push to "wake" Canon up. Instead I see people complaining about something that they could easily address by changing brands. They claim DR is so important that they would choose a Sony sensor over a Canon sensor "any day", and yet they keep using Canon. So that "any day" apparently hasn't come yet. I'm sure Canon is quite "awake", but they have to deal with diverse priorities and their own timetable for development.

why shouldn't we want them to up the time table? how the heck does it do anything positive for you for them to keep milking away the old sensor line? so why defending their sacred honor to the ends of the earth? they sure don't do that for you, they try to get away with absolutely the least they can for the most money they can.

You're showing two misconceptions here. The first misconception is that bashing Canon on a rumors forum somehow pushes the company to "wake up" or "up the time table" for new products. It doesn't. Their investment in sensor research, development and production is huge and isn't going to be moved even slightly by anonymous complaints on a rumor site.

The second misconception is that "they try to get away with absolutely the least they can for the most money they can." Well, Canon has a huge product line to disprove that notion. It simply wouldn't exist in anything near its current form if they were trying to get away with absolutely the least for the most money. They offer such a diverse line of products, some with 2nd or 3rd generation refinements, and some of them unmatched by any other manufacturer. Their products (like the 1DX, 5D3, 600EX-RT and new wide angle primes) have shown outstanding responsiveness to the needs of many photographers, fulfilling many wishlists for improvements over predecessor models. These creations don't just happen at the flick of a switch, but rather require very substantial investment, planning, effort, testing and risk. A company trying to "get away with absolutely the least they can for the most money they can" would have no where near the acceptance in the professional market that Canon does, nor would it be preferred by some of the best and most demanding people in photography.

And this raises a question. If you really feel that Canon tries "to get away with absolutely the least they can for the most money they can", why in the world would you stick with Canon??? I mean if they do that, and provide deficient sensors, *when* do you decide to switch? How productive is it to just keep bashing Canon on a rumors forum? When do you decide that some other company is more properly aligned with your interests?

Sure they do, did you not hear the speech one of their reps gave at a show some years back? See how they played games with something as critical as MFA and removed it from the 60D so they could offer it as a 'new' feature again in the 70D (one of their reps got caught admitted they removed it so the future 70D could have a extra selling point), look at how they dribble out something as trivial to implement as AutoISO over a decade and did you see some of the user surveys they sent out where they were all but stating they were trying to figure out how locked in by lenses people felt and how much they could get away with dribbling out slowly.

Because even if a company is acting a bit too far IMO like that now doesn't mean they have to continue doing so or that they don't make good lneses and have a friendly UI.