Sony A7R on DXO - Highest full frame IQ ever

[scottkinfw]

Enough vitriol, more discussion.

Every camera in the world has sensor limitations. Knowing and working with sensor limitations is a part photography, no matter what camera you are using. Ansel Adams frequently wrote about sensor limitations.

Yes, all true. And so?
We know what they are and shoot around them and have fun doing so.

How does that make the A7R useless for everyone? How does that explain why it's sin to like the idea about having more DR and more shooting options open?

You are angry... Love how you resort to calling others fanboys because they have a different opinion than you on the value of a test. I see the problem, you saved all your hard earned pesos and now feel betrayed by Canon because you can't afford anything else. Some of us have multiple brands and don't have to rely on just Canon. We also can rationally think about pluses and minuses on many levels. You should read the posts a little more when you're not ragging with DR constipation. You like the cherry picking other comments and excel at jumping to conclusion on rage induced dyslexia. No one said the A7r was useless. Take a deep a couple deep breathes and try to relax a little. The initial complaint about the A7r was wonky AF and metering.

Some of us might like a little more DR or god forbid better AF, or some could care very little about DR... Why are different opinions causing you to convulse. Just because you have a personal axe to grind don't take it out on others. You saw DR and immediately jumped in with your axe to attack all ill-perceived naysayers.

Take your winter vacation from photography, save up some money, threaten any manufacture not living up to your standards with "If they don't... I'm going" and buy anything else you like, nobody cares what you shoot with.

Easy man! You sound rude and biased.

 

[Skulker]

DXO claimed wonderful High ISO performance for the sensor, but forgot to mention that the DR was rated a ISO 200, and that the 5D MK III has better DR at the very high ISO settings I was using, 12800 and up.

Where did they forget that?

When they base two of their three Subscores solely on performance at base ISO, and use those Biased Subscores (BS) to determine (via an undisclosed weighting) an overall Biased Score (bigger, smellier BS).

That is why you look at the individual plots. There is no way the overall score could possibly be weighted to satisfy everyone or even most people. Look at the individual plots and find out what you want to find out.

It's good that you know that. I know it, too. A lot of people don't. A lot of other sites (e.g., Snapsort) incorporate DxOMark's BS into their rankings, with no link or reference to the Measurements. If everyone understood how the BS worked, the title of this thread would have been, "Sony A7R on DXO - Highest full frame ISO 100 IQ ever." But it's not.

Sorry Nero, I don't normaly try to correct you. But can I suggest that a better title would have been.

"Sony A7R on DXO - Highest full frame ISO 100 IQ ever apart from one of the cameras its being compared to that gets the same score, oh and the other that gets a higer score."

I'm not sure I'm cut out to be a headline writer. ;D

 

[MLfan3]

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.

Autofocus and the low pass filter are completely unrelated. Phase Detect autofocus was not put on the A7R to differentiate between the two models, it's pretty much just a marketing decision.
I'm guessing that this is also exactly the same sensor being put in the D800, and for the sake of using the same manufacturing process, and not splitting the lines, they just stuck the chip in without changes to the silicone.

actually, the Sony Alpha 7R has special micro lens design, and thus, Sony could not put the Phase Detect AF on the sensor, not just a minor marketing decision.

and the D800E sensor is not the same sensor as the one in the 7R.
the Alpha 7R sensor is more advanced new design,and the D800E sensor has Nikon original micro lens design.

anyway, the point here is the 7R sensor has different micro lens design from that of the Alpha 7 sensor and that is why it does not get the PDAF on the sensor.
the real reason Sony needed that odd micro lens design for that particular sensor was that the mount diameter of the E mount was a bit too narrow for FF sensor since it was originally design for APS-C sensor.
just the mount can take FF sensor does not mean it fully optimizes it or even fully utilizes it. alpha 7R has some corner image quality issues with many many lenses I have used with an A7R(I tested the A7R a few times at Sony plaza).
Again, I am quite sure it was not a marketing decision alone but the corner IQ issue was the main reason why Sony used that unique special micro lens design for that specific 36 mp sensor used in the 7R(typical R buyers are more obsessed with corner IQ) even at the big cost of losing fast PDAF.

I think landscape type of D-SLRs are literally killed by that Sony A7R (the sudden 20 percent drop of the D800E resale value tells that), however , event high ISO type of D-SLRs may be able to survive for a few more years(until sony or fuji comes up with serious FF mirrorless system with great AF design).

So it is Nikon that is really doomed after the A7R not Canon.
Personally, I will replace my D800E with this new Sony A7R , but I will keep my EOS6D for lowlight event work.

PS. Sony stock hits hard here in Japan after its announcement of its Q3 financial result, and some of Sony stockholders asking Sony to quit all digital still camera and consumer video camera business.

 

[zlatko]

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".

The number of photographers who choose Canon despite this, and who do great work with Canon despite this, proves how little relevance that one measure of getting "beat" has. Their gear choices and their excellent work prove that Canon is making excellent sensors for the needs of many photographers, including some with very demanding applications. If Canon didn't, those photographers would quickly migrate to other brands and Canon wouldn't be the market leader that it is.

 

[sdsr]

[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.

Right; but it may suggest that for "plenty of great photographers" it doesn't matter and thus that the whole issue is overrated. It seems to bug a lot of people that perfectly legitimate responses to the statement "Sony makes better sensors than Canon" include not only "I wish Canon would catch up" and "I want one" but also "So what?"

(For whatever it's worth, I quite agree that extra DR would be nice in some circumstances, including those you set forth.)

 

[sdsr]

I'm interested to find out how many people in this forum and elsewhere are going to be getting this body specifically to shoot landscape with their Canon glass?

The suggestion that these new Sonys can be used as a stop-gap until Canon comes out with sensors with higher DR etc. is interesting, and it may end up being the best way to use them. It's hardly the obvious market for them, though. Presumably Sony makes them small to compete with M43 and other small cameras, and Sony doubtless hopes that someone like me, who very much likes his/her mirrorless OM-D, will jump at the chance to own a camera that's much the same size but with a bigger, better sensor. The problem is, that's not what it will be like at all. M43 lenses can be so small because the sensor is smallish. We've been told that Leica makes some small FF lenses, but few can afford them, few will want to use manual focus, and as far as I know the longest focal length of any Leica is 135mm. Few Sony or vintage Minolta FF lenses are small (and regardless of size, most good Minolta lenses, being metal, are relatively heavy) and because all prior FF Sony cameras have IBIS, none of the relevant lenses do except some of those made specifically for the new cameras (and none of those look appealing, do they?). So unless you're willing to limit the focal range of your lenses, you'll end up with a small camera body with big, unstabilized lenses, thereby missing much of the point of small cameras - low weight, low bulk, unobtrusiveness, stealth, etc. So far, M43 still seems to be the way to go as far as such considerations go.

And when it comes to the model with the higher MP count, as the test report cited above and many users of the D800 explain, to get full benefit of all that extra resolution you will need either impeccable hand-holding technique (especially since there's no IBIS) or a tripod; and if you need a tripod, there goes an advantage of a small camera body - you would likely be better off with a larger body. I could be wrong, but I suspect a rather large number of those who buy that body will end up with photos that are best not viewed at 100% or cropped much; and if you're not going to do either of those things, how many need a 36mp sensor in the first place?

 

[sdsr]

But with a metabones smart adapter you can best of both worlds , a7r sensor+canon glass (even though AF is gonna be slow).
An a7r ,35 2.8 , metabones adapter, and grip sounds like a pretty nice addition for someone with canon bodies/glass wanting that sensor performance in such a compact housing.

Actually, most of those a7r sales are probably gonna be canon users wanting 36mp in a compact body.
I am wondering who sony is targeting with the a7r, an a7r with 2 lenses seems pretty pricy for a family, especially with all those phones around.

If I was new on the market , I would not invest in sony ( lets say an a7 and couple of those new lenses)
The lenses are smaller, hence slower, but surprisingly I find them rather expensive.
The same goes if you intend to use sony's adapter to use a mount lenses, you do get the a77 AF capabilites (which is build into the adapter), but again quite expensive ( especially 300 2.8 and 500 f4 compared to others).

Unless you're going to put a Canon lens on your A7/R that's no bigger than, say, the 100mm f/2, what's the appeal of "such compact housing?" In terms of ergonomics, putting an 85 L, not to mention a 70-200 2.8 L II or heavier, on a small body is surely quite unappealing unless you're using a tripod (in which case the size of the housing hardly matters, does it?). The same goes for the better Sony and Minolta lenses, only with them there's an additional problem - Canon puts IS in lots of its lenses, especially its bigger ones. None of Sony's (or Minolta's) equivalent A mount lenses has IS because Sony Alpha bodies all have IBIS - but these two don't have IBIS.... And you're right - the new Sony lenses are indeed expensive (and, for the most part, don't seem very appealing or useful except to the extent they have IS).

 

[Loswr]

...the D800E sensor is not the same sensor as the one in the 7R.
the Alpha 7R sensor is more advanced new design...

Interesting. So, when Sony works for a couple of years and brings out a sensor with the same DxOMark Scores, and puts it in the a7R, it's a 'more advanced new design'. But, when Canon works for a couple of years and brings out a sensor with the same DxOMark scores and a revolutionary phase detect AF using most of the pixels on the sensor, it's the 'same old APS-C sensor being recycled yet again'.

 

[Pi]

...the D800E sensor is not the same sensor as the one in the 7R.
the Alpha 7R sensor is more advanced new design...

Interesting. So, when Sony works for a couple of years and brings out a sensor with the same DxOMark Scores, and puts it in the a7R, it's a 'more advanced new design'. But, when Canon works for a couple of years and brings out a sensor with the same DxOMark scores and a revolutionary phase detect AF using most of the pixels on the sensor, it's the 'same old APS-C sensor being recycled yet again'.

He did not say anything about Canon. Next, he says it is more advanced not in the sense that it is "better" but because it has to deal with some of the problems coming with the more oblique rays hitting the sensor.

 

[spinworkxroy]

If you do still shooting, I doubt this move would harm you. I have 2 young kids, therefore, my 5D III + L lenses will cont. to be used next 4-5yrs.

I carry x100s and my wife uses her RX1 when we take the kids out. Yes, I do love the size of those camera.

Well, i would love the keep the 5D3 and my L lenses but unfortunately i can't afford to keep it and also get the A7R and lenses. It was a big decision i had to make. Keep something that i will seldom use or sell and use the money to change to something i know i will use. And i am expecting my first child soon and even if i still had the 5d..i wouldn't bring it out with the baby stuff..that's just added weight i do not need and the EOS M just isn't going to keep up with any kind of movement..period..i don't even think it'll catch up with grass growing haha.it's that slow.
But considering 90% of the time i'm shooting portraits, i don't need a fast Af camera, low light camera or anything from a 5D for that matter..i just need a good IQ camera. As for the kids...well, we'll see how the A7r fairs..it won't be as fast as a 5D for sure but at least it'l be something i can bring it with me..better to have a camera on hand than one sitting at home.

 

[MichaelHodges]

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?

The number of photographers who choose Canon despite this, and who do great work with Canon despite this, proves how little relevance that one measure of getting "beat" has. Their gear choices and their excellent work prove that Canon is making excellent sensors for the needs of many photographers, including some with very demanding applications. If Canon didn't, those photographers would quickly migrate to other brands and Canon wouldn't be the market leader that it is.

I shot with one of the top photogs in the U.S. yesterday. He uses Canon gear exclusively. He makes amazing photographs. But that has NOTHING to do with the fact that Canon's sensors are lagging behind the competition in DR at ISO 100-800. Numerous, repeated platitudes and logical fallacies do not change this. It might not be a bad idea to research these methods of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Loswr]

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?

...

I shot with one of the top photogs in the U.S. yesterday. He uses Canon gear exclusively. He makes amazing photographs. But that has NOTHING to do with the fact that Canon's sensors are lagging behind the competition in DR at ISO 100-800. Numerous, repeated platitudes and logical fallacies do not change this. It might not be a bad idea to research these methods of intellectual dishonesty.

In fact, zlatko's statement was cogent, logical and accurate. It's your response that said nothing.

You state that, "Canon's sensors are lagging behind the competition in DR at ISO 100-800." That has been acknowledged countless times here on CR and everywhere else. DR at low ISO is one aspect of 'image quality' - are you suggesting it's the only factor? The most important factor...for everyone?

It might not be a bad idea to research these methods of narrow-minded thinking.

 

[zlatko]

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.

 

[Pi]

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.

 

[zlatko]

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. 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.

 

[zlatko]

In fact, zlatko's statement was cogent, logical and accurate. It's your response that said nothing.

Thank you neuroanatomist.

 

[Pi]

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. 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.

Errors happen, and those animals are faster than me. I will take a camera which does not penalize me (so much) for my mistakes to one that does any day.

 

[Loswr]

These examples don't show a sensor problem or deficiency. Today's sensors are perfectly adequate for these tasks.

+1

While it's true that there is sometimes more DR in the scene than the camera can capture, I can honestly say there have been very, very few situations where an extra two stops of DR in the ISO 100-800 range would have done the job. For openers, about 50% of my shots are at higher than ISO 800, where the DR of the 'inferior', 'lagging' sensor in my 1D X delivers greater DR than the D800 or a7R. In the majority of those situations where there are more than 12 stops of DR in a scene that I'm shooting at low ISO (which was the case when I was out shooting architecture last night, actually), there are also more than 14 stops of DR in those scenes (last night, the guy next to me with his D800 was shooting multiple exposures for HDR, just like I was).

 

[JohnDizzo15]

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.

 

[zlatko]

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. 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.

Errors happen, and those animals are faster than me. I will take a camera which does not penalize me (so much) for my mistakes to one that does any day.

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 typically have other reasons. And they still deal with the same common tasks of adjusting and prioritizing exposure, especially in the situations above.