Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Sony A7r, gamechanger, to be announced Wed
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home Digital Rangefinder / Viewfinder Cameras  Sony-NEX
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 8:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Yes, clearly the numbers are not the same. I think 14 EV sounds more like the accurate one.

Does my memory cheat me?
I thought the dynamic range of the human eye was 12EV. Or is it 20?


PostPosted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Probably 20, but it was 1995 when I studied the human eye at university so memory fails me. Smile


PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 12:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nikos wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Yes, clearly the numbers are not the same. I think 14 EV sounds more like the accurate one.

Does my memory cheat me?
I thought the dynamic range of the human eye was 12EV. Or is it 20?


according to Wikipedia:

static: 6.5
dynamic: 20


PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 12:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nordentro wrote:
Nikos wrote:
uhoh7 wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Nothing to get excited about .....


That's what my dad said when I told him I had a date with Raquel Welch back in '62......

The man was just not easily impressed. Wink

Mmm, you date married women? Bad boy...


She was separated in 1962 Wink


Now you know why......Wink


PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 1:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Different testing methods always means different results.
Even different tonal range in testing target or different RAW/JPEG engine may easily cause such a difference (Chip.de is generally using OOC JPEGs for several good reasons)
Chip.de benchmarks a very decent in effort, I think you can trust their reliability in terms of comparableness to other cameras.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 5:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Full kudos to Sony for giving the market it's wonderful devices at a reasonable price. I for one will be considering this strongly. My only hesitation is the missing sensor based shake reduction. I love that about my A900. Surely Sony will eventually release an A7 with SR someday.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 7:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
thePiRaTE!! wrote:
Full kudos to Sony for giving the market it's wonderful devices at a reasonable price. I for one will be considering this strongly. My only hesitation is the missing sensor based shake reduction. I love that about my A900. Surely Sony will eventually release an A7 with SR someday.


I don't think they will be able to keep the wonderfully small form factor with IBIS.

One rumor is that there will be a bigger version in Jan which not only has IBIS, but can focus from the sensor.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 10:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Imaging Resource have RAW files for download Smile http://www.imaging-resource.com/camera-reviews/sony/a7r/sony-a7rA7.HTM

Last edited by ManualFocus-G on Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:01 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 10:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Imaging Resource have RAW files for download Smile http://www.imaging-resource.com/camera-reviews/sony/a7r/sony-a7rA7.HTM

So here's a quick and dirty RAW high ISO test...are the new Sony cameras better than existing models?

I downloaded the Sony RAW files, opened in Sony Image Data Converter and switched off noise reduction and sharpening. Exported to TIF and opened in Lightroom with RAW files from other cameras with noise reduction switched off. All images were resized to match the camera with the lowest resolution (Canon 6D). I then cropped the same portion of each image for comparison.


Same ISO performance at twice the resolution, means to you that the sensors are equally good?
I don't think so.
The tests of "resize all to least resolution" style, do not look sane to me.
I strongly suspect, that the noise reduction algorithms work better with a better/bigger sample.
I am interested in the final result.
Not in the unsharpened, no-noise-reduction stuff.

As a practical question, which camera do you think would produce a better 100 X 150 cm print ?


PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 11:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nikos wrote:
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Imaging Resource have RAW files for download Smile http://www.imaging-resource.com/camera-reviews/sony/a7r/sony-a7rA7.HTM

So here's a quick and dirty RAW high ISO test...are the new Sony cameras better than existing models?

I downloaded the Sony RAW files, opened in Sony Image Data Converter and switched off noise reduction and sharpening. Exported to TIF and opened in Lightroom with RAW files from other cameras with noise reduction switched off. All images were resized to match the camera with the lowest resolution (Canon 6D). I then cropped the same portion of each image for comparison.


Same ISO performance at twice the resolution, means to you that the sensors are equally good?
I don't think so.
The tests of "resize all to least resolution" style, do not look sane to me.
I strongly suspect, that the noise reduction algorithms work better with a better/bigger sample.
I am interested in the final result.
Not in the unsharpened, no-noise-reduction stuff.

As a practical question, which camera do you think would produce a better 100 X 150 cm print ?


Well I thought this would be the fairest way to compare noise, as normally people would complain that a higher resolution naturally gives greater noise, so that comparison is unfair too Laughing

Now, don't forget these are still pre-production RAWs as the camera hasn't been released yet.

The noise is worse at full resolution of course. To answer your question of which camera would produce a better 100x150 print? D800 judging by their RAW files, as they're not cooked to bits and will allow the user to specify how the picture will look, surely?

But you can't mount all those legacy lenses on a D800 so you takes your choice... Wink


PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 11:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:

But you can't mount all those legacy lenses on a D800 so you takes your choice... Wink


Well, my own choice is sun-bathing. Adapter already attached Wink
I hope to be able to get an a7 soon.



PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 11:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Why look at ISO 6400 results? It would be better to look at more sensible settings, how often does anyone shoot at 6400?

If the A7 and A7r are cooking their RAW files, that's a massive negative for me, RAW should be RAW.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 12:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Why look at ISO 6400 results? It would be better to look at more sensible settings, how often does anyone shoot at 6400?


Every day for me actually...moving things at night require high ISO. I am responding to an earlier comment really about the new Sonys being a big step forward sensor wise. Noise at high ISO is obviously only one element of it.

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
If the A7 and A7r are cooking their RAW files, that's a massive negative for me, RAW should be RAW.


Agree, it doesn't bode well. Hopefully it's just a pre-production issue or result of using the Sony Raw converter.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Why look at ISO 6400 results? It would be better to look at more sensible settings, how often does anyone shoot at 6400?


Every day for me actually...moving things at night require high ISO. I am responding to an earlier comment really about the new Sonys being a big step forward sensor wise. Noise at high ISO is obviously only one element of it.


Me too. Sometimes a noisy pic is better than no pic at all. Especially for parties, pubs, street photography at night, anywhere where you have moving objects in low light or low light and no tripod.
l

I wonder how good these sensors are able to get in terms of noise.
Sony achieved two full stops within 2-3 years (6400 looks as good as 1600 on NEX-3 etc.)
I wonder how good they will be in 10 years.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2013 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Judging ISO performance from current jpegs is ridiculous as widely noted. Raws show some pretty incredible detail.

We are at the tip of the ff imaging spear with this sensor and bionz-x in all respects.

By the time we have them in our hands this reality will trump early JPEG peeping like a rifle trumps a rock.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2013 7:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The comparisons I posted are RAW files converted to JPG Wink


PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
The comparisons I posted are RAW files converted to JPG Wink


Well yes, but take a look here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96nbKAsu42M#t=52


PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nikos wrote:
ManualFocus-G wrote:
The comparisons I posted are RAW files converted to JPG Wink


Well yes, but take a look here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96nbKAsu42M#t=52


The sample I used had none of those settings switched on in the first place, and I double checked all those obvious switches anyway in the RAW converter Wink


PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Update, have run the Sony RAW files through the new Adobe Lightroom 5.3 release and results are much better Smile Sony's software switched off the colour noise reduction somehow and made the files look awful Laughing Using Adobe camera RAW, the files are still noisier than those from the D800 though, interestingly. Possibly due to pre-RAW sharpening or just the additional colour noise.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2013 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nikos wrote:
ManualFocus-G wrote:
The comparisons I posted are RAW files converted to JPG Wink


Well yes, but take a look here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96nbKAsu42M#t=52


TY nikos, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

This sensor/processor combo is ahead of everything 135 and all but the most modern MF.

A7r is a landmark in personal imaging like few cameras can claim, especially when you consider the form factor. If that's not enough, then add the incredible versatility of the mount. The package is unprecedented.

It's great in itself, but it's great for the rest too because they will need to step up their rather staid game. I imagine it's not going to hurt the sony sensor business.

Like I said to start the thread: A7r is gamechanger. The scoffing at such a claim is giving way to gasping at real results.

Of course, for some, scoffing is just normal communication mode, haha. Wink

That's perfectly OK, but they might just miss some fun.

For me, I try to give credit where credit is due---much as my small awareness can manage anyway. The Nex-7 lost my support with it's abysmal performance compared to the Nex-5n with wide angle RF glass. I know most love that camera, I too had it pre-ordered twice, but am so glad I canceled both. It's a good camera for sure, but no improvement on the important stuff over the original from my perspective, and not as good in a number of ways. I sure the majority thinks I'm out of my mind on that.

The A7r is another matter. Hell or Thai floods, I ain't canceling this pre-order (made in first 5min)!

also it likes every alphabet letter:



PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2013 1:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I still disagree that the sensor is better than any other 35mm full frame sensor as it's used in other cameras! Full frame in a small body at this price point IS certainly game changing though.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2013 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
I still disagree that the sensor is better than any other 35mm full frame sensor as it's used in other cameras! Full frame in a small body at this price point IS certainly game changing though.

It is a gamechanger for many reasons.
One of the most important: it will force the others (Canon/Nikon etc) to MOVE.
As was Canon 5D in 2005.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2013 5:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
we are all just very lucky to see this day



when we can shoot these with no crop on a body that's small and does lots of other stuff too Smile


PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2013 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
i'm really hoping my biogon 35/2 works well on this thing!


PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2013 8:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
When will they realise that not everyone wants a small body? Honestly, the small size is a serious downside for me. I like the short register that makes it compatible with many lenses, but I've never found the small size of my NEX anything but a PITA. I know I'm far from the only one, there have been several people in this forum who have posted about large grips they have made to fit to their NEX to make them more ergonomic. I think they are designing these things with primarily the Asian market in mind, and forgetting that there are lots of people who don't have small hands.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home Digital Rangefinder / Viewfinder Cameras  Sony-NEX
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 14, 15, 16 ... 25, 26, 27  Next
Page 15 of 27