Thanks for the heads up. I agree, the high ISO samples look "plasticy." But these are OOC jpgs, yes? Probably with some sort of default NR turned on. We need to see some high ISO ARW file conversions. I've great interest in the A7r and would hope it performs at least as well as my D800e at high ISOs. We'll see, I guess.
Also, don't know if you've seen this interesting info re: video from A7, A7r and RX10:
http://www.eoshd.com/content/11380/new-sony-a7-a7r-rx10-exclusive-hands-look-video-quality
CHeers!
Thanks for the video link.
It's ok, but if it's not up to 5dIII standards, then it's not close to the gh3's I use as small cams with the REDs.
The Gh3 has very little moire, the Sony's I own the fs100 is a moire machine, so is the 5d2 when it comes to video.
Spoke to a friend that has tested both A series Sony cameras and the A7 track focuses better in stills and video, the A7R doesn't, though my GH3's for video track focusing is very good, not perfect, but with thought and the right settings very, good and the face detection is crazy good.
In regards to the still quality, I guess those samples were out of the camera jpegs, but honestly I expected much more from a full frame 36mpx camera at 640 and 800 iso. The Olympus Em-5 I use with stills has as much real world detail in those same situations at the same iso with jpegs, with raw it gets much better and easier to control and remove that painterly look.
I guess I expected more, both in stills and video for the Sony A7 and A7r and I really had hoped this was a superb camera, but if the samples in video and stills are accurate, I'm not gaining anything other than cost going from the gh3s and the em-5 to the Sonys.
Not to direct compare because the Full Frame Faithful are never going to believe a mft 43 camera is as good as this Sony, even if the results prove it, but I've shot the gh3's next to my RED ones and Scarlet in video, the olympus em-5 next to my canon 1dx and there is not a lot of huge difference in both respects. Obviously the reds for video at 4k and 444 and huge bit rates is better, just like the 1dx has better still tracking focus than the Olympus, but side by side, they all are very usable in the real world, and it takes a really pixel peeping trained eye to tell the difference.
One thing the mft 43 series cameras have going for them are great lenses. The olympus primes are beautifully sharp, the pana zooms useful for still and video and in video have a nice roll off and don't breath like a lot of full frame still lenses.
But regardless of what any of us see, or use or report, people are going to buy, what they want to buy.
I know right now for stills if I was going to buy a small camera, regardless of lens investment, I'd go with the olympus em-1 rather than the Sony, but to be fair I haven't tested the Sony yet.
Right now I'm holding off because panasonic is suppose to have to new cameras in the works a gh4 4k video cam with high bit rate, xlr, etc. etc. and a super gh5 still camera and since I've had such great luck with all my 43 cameras (and great use) I think I'll hold off, though the olympus em1 sure is pretty and everybody hopes the new nikon fm digital will have a big viewfinder, but it's gotta go a long way to get as big as the em1.
IMO
BC
