A7r first impression

[Isaac]

Obviously they don't have your extensive market research data ;-)

And need I mention the complete lack of touch controls on any Sony camera. ... Talk about miss the obvious.

Do you just make stuff-up?

September 2011, Sony NEX-5N Review -- "The 5N's new stand-out feature is the introduction of a touchscreen that provides alternative access the the camera's operational controls, as well as adding few additional features that take advantage of this input method."

[barryfitzgerald]

I don't use NEX I use Alpha mount. There are no A mount touch screen cameras
I have used a 70d though and it works surprisingly well.

As this thread is about the A7 I guess you missed the fact that doesn't have touch screen controls either.
Making stuff up? Maybe time to check some details before you hit the post button.

[allegretto]

Including P&S and the weird smart phone thingies dpreview lists 20 in 2013.

For Nikon dpreview lists 21. For Canon 17.
  

you're tight, I'm sure

but was thinking about cameras aimed at more the P&S. And of course Barry notes the one I love best, the QX series. Fire that guy...

too many new mid-high end models and few lenses relatively speaking I guess. Two distinct types

arrrgh

[bcooter]

Cooter wrote:

"I've thought long and hard about buying a Leica S2 to go with my Contax lenses and offer more hand held use to medium format,  but how do you spend $15,000 on the first gen Leica S,  when this thing is sitting there?"

Yeah.  This about sums up my attitude towards Leica.  There is always something offered at 1:5 or even 1:10 the price that is 98% as good.  M8 - X100.  M9 - XPro-1.  S2 - Nikon D800, 645D and this Sony.  In all cases Leica wins out under certain conditions, even if by a hair, and the ergos are always better with the Leica, but it burns my Scotish heart to pay up to 10x as much because it feels better in my hand and the viewfinder is better.  Oh yeah, and the Japanese products don't do too many strange things that kill your file.

Leica is there own worst enemy.

Beautiful cameras, great lenses, (mostly), crazy expensive and always a glitch.  Slow tethering with the S2, slightly better with the S, non tethering with the M.

Everybody that works professionally has to show an image to a client and though I wish tethering never existed, it is the standard of professional production and yes I would tether an M.

I'd love an S2 or S, but it's a limited device even if the file is 20% deeper, because I can fake a 20% deeper file.

Now Leica isn't alone at this.   Olympus hobbles themselves with video and tethering, Fuji doesn't tether and takes a while for lenses and their autofocus is limited and the one small mirrorless camera with great autofocus and usability (the gh3) has a less than equal still file.

Even the A7(r) which I do think changes things, is suppose to tether, but nobody says exactly how or when and it's not a usb3 camera it's a usb 2.

This must take forever to tether on the A7R with 30 something mpx.

I know that Leica may be bling proof given their name, but I find it hard to believe that the Sonys and Fujis haven't had an impact on their sales.

Some things I don't understand.

IMO

BC

[Isaac]

There are no A mount touch screen cameras

Maybe if you'd checked what you wrote before you hit the post button -- "And need I mention the complete lack of touch controls on any Sony camera."

[Isaac]

but was thinking about cameras aimed at more the P&S

They're all listed, so count up the ones you want to count.

And of course Barry notes the one I love best, the QX series. Fire that guy...

That guy seems to be the guy who brought you the a7.

too many new mid-high end models and few lenses relatively speaking I guess. Two distinct types

How many "mid-high end models" did Nikon have? Count them.
How many "distinct types" does Nikon have?

[eronald]

J,

Tethering basically assumes a robust multitasking environment. Most of these camera corps have been flogging the same ROMS for ages, they don't have the will to rewrite for the few percent who want to tether, if it wasn't in the original specs.

But fear not, with the abundance of iThings, connectivity is becoming a must-have feature for the next gen.
Edmund

PS wouldn't one of those eyefi cards help, maybe?

Leica is there own worst enemy.

Beautiful cameras, great lenses, (mostly), crazy expensive and always a glitch.  Slow tethering with the S2, slightly better with the S, non tethering with the M.

Everybody that works professionally has to show an image to a client and though I wish tethering never existed, it is the standard of professional production and yes I would tether an M.

I'd love an S2 or S, but it's a limited device even if the file is 20% deeper, because I can fake a 20% deeper file.

Now Leica isn't alone at this.   Olympus hobbles themselves with video and tethering, Fuji doesn't tether and takes a while for lenses and their autofocus is limited and the one small mirrorless camera with great autofocus and usability (the gh3) has a less than equal still file.

Even the A7(r) which I do think changes things, is suppose to tether, but nobody says exactly how or when and it's not a usb3 camera it's a usb 2.

This must take forever to tether on the A7R with 30 something mpx.

I know that Leica may be bling proof given their name, but I find it hard to believe that the Sonys and Fujis haven't had an impact on their sales.

Some things I don't understand.

IMO

BC

[Telecaster]

PS wouldn't one of those eyefi cards help, maybe?

I have an Eye-Fi SD card in my Pentax for image transfer to iDevices. Useful for sure, but it ain't tethering by a long shot. If Sony chooses to upgrade its WiFi app(s) maybe it'll get closer to tethering-like capability with the A7(r). We shall see...

-Dave-

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I don't know if professional studio photographers are Leica's main market. I am not that sure that Leica is that expensive, it may just be an example of small scale production in  Europe being expensive. Japanese firms operating on a larger scale like Sigma can invest a lot in rational production, so economics of scale comes into play. I would also expect Leica to have tighter tolerances than say Sigma.

The M-series is very different from the S-series. M-series firmware was developed by Jenoptik while the S-series was developed at Leica according to the Leica factory visit video here on LuLa.

Diglloyd reports a lot on Leica, and it seems that he had quite a few problems with different lenses, so I guess that Leica may have a few problems in the Quality Assurance department.

Best regards
Erik

Leica is there own worst enemy.

Beautiful cameras, great lenses, (mostly), crazy expensive and always a glitch.  Slow tethering with the S2, slightly better with the S, non tethering with the M.

Everybody that works professionally has to show an image to a client and though I wish tethering never existed, it is the standard of professional production and yes I would tether an M.

I'd love an S2 or S, but it's a limited device even if the file is 20% deeper, because I can fake a 20% deeper file.

Now Leica isn't alone at this.   Olympus hobbles themselves with video and tethering, Fuji doesn't tether and takes a while for lenses and their autofocus is limited and the one small mirrorless camera with great autofocus and usability (the gh3) has a less than equal still file.

Even the A7(r) which I do think changes things, is suppose to tether, but nobody says exactly how or when and it's not a usb3 camera it's a usb 2.

This must take forever to tether on the A7R with 30 something mpx.

I know that Leica may be bling proof given their name, but I find it hard to believe that the Sonys and Fujis haven't had an impact on their sales.

Some things I don't understand.

IMO

BC

[bcooter]

Hi,

I don't know if professional studio photographers are Leica's main market. I am not that sure that Leica is that expensive, it may just be an example of small scale production in  Europe being expensive. Japanese firms operating on a larger scale like Sigma can invest a lot in rational production, so economics of scale comes into play. I would also expect Leica to have tighter tolerances than say Sigma.

The M-series is very different from the S-series. M-series firmware was developed by Jenoptik while the S-series was developed at Leica according to the Leica factory visit video here on LuLa.

Diglloyd reports a lot on Leica, and it seems that he had quite a few problems with different lenses, so I guess that Leica may have a few problems in the Quality Assurance department.

Best regards
Erik

I would think anyone is Leica's market, at least anyone that buys their products

You buy an M that doesn't tether. (actually it did for the first ten minutes of the m8)., you don't buy that camera again and their metrics show nobody that buys leica tethers, so they don't worry about it.

Anyway, everytime I plug anything into my macs a window appears and says camera not found, so obviously it's looking for some type of protocol.  

With the em-5 I've used the wi-fi, too flaky even with shutter snitch, too slow.   In testing it works fine, real world not.

If you work with others you have to show the image.  Period.  It's expected, it's just standard.  You may not do it every job, but you will have to do it and if your camera system doesn't allow it, you'll change systems.

Save with video.  If you don't use secondary monitors then your not shooting for money.  

Anyway, the best way to approach this is to make a user pay for it.  Software or hardware.   Why not put ethernet in a right angle grip and if you want it you just buy it?


IMO

BC

[eronald]

J,

 Don't worry, be happy. In a couple of years everything will have good wifi.
 In the mean time, those that don't (tether) just can't and won't.

Edmund

I would think anyone is Leica's market, at least anyone that buys their products

You buy an M that doesn't tether. (actually it did for the first ten minutes of the m8)., you don't buy that camera again and their metrics show nobody that buys leica tethers, so they don't worry about it.

Anyway, everytime I plug anything into my macs a window appears and says camera not found, so obviously it's looking for some type of protocol.  

With the em-5 I've used the wi-fi, too flaky even with shutter snitch, too slow.   In testing it works fine, real world not.

If you work with others you have to show the image.  Period.  It's expected, it's just standard.  You may not do it every job, but you will have to do it and if your camera system doesn't allow it, you'll change systems.

Save with video.  If you don't use secondary monitors then your not shooting for money.  

Anyway, the best way to approach this is to make a user pay for it.  Software or hardware.   Why not put ethernet in a right angle grip and if you want it you just buy it?


IMO

BC

[Ray]

The dynamic range is amazing. You push a totally dark image all the way up, and there is no color bending. It stays absolutely clean. Impossible on the 5DIII which will then always give you color artifacts.

Has anyone noticed that the DR of the A7r at ISO 200 is not as good as that of the D800E?

At ISO 100 they are pretty close, the D800E being only 0.26 EV better. But at ISO 200, the D800E is 0.71 EV better, which is quite significant at almost 3/4ths of a stop.

[Telecaster]

Has anyone noticed that the DR of the A7r at ISO 200 is not as good as that of the D800E?

At ISO 100 they are pretty close, the D800E being only 0.26 EV better. But at ISO 200, the D800E is 0.71 EV better, which is quite significant at almost 3/4ths of a stop.

Well, six stops of DR (Fuji Astia...more or less) is significant compared to five stops (most other transparency films). Yet, that didn't stop Velvia from being far more popular than Astia.     What are we dealing with here? Twelve stops vs. 12.75 or thereabouts? Not insignificant but not something to get exercised about either (IMO). Post work is likely to render that amount of difference moot.

-Dave-

[Ray]

Well, six stops of DR (Fuji Astia...more or less) is significant compared to five stops (most other transparency films). Yet, that didn't stop Velvia from being far more popular than Astia.     What are we dealing with here? Twelve stops vs. 12.75 or thereabouts? Not insignificant but not something to get exercised about either (IMO). Post work is likely to render that amount of difference moot.

-Dave-

In the days of film it would have taken more expertise than most photographers possessed to get a Velvia appearance from an Astia film in the darkroom, would it not? 

A  DR advantage of 0.71 stops might not be something to get excited about, yet I recall just a few years ago the great excitement when Nikon produced its first full-frame DSLR, the D3. It was praised because of its extraordinary high-ISO performance which at ISO 3200 was a whopping 1/2 stop better than the 2-year-old Canon 5D, according to my own tests, and according to DXOMark test results which appeared later. 

[BJL]

Has anyone noticed that the DR of the A7r at ISO 200 is not as good as that of the D800E?

At ISO 100 they are pretty close, the D800E being only 0.26 EV better. But at ISO 200, the D800E is 0.71 EV better ...

... and at all higher ISO speed settings, the difference goes away.

A single measurement like that which falls outside the trend of all other measuremements (and what we might expect based on the evidence that the two cameras use essentially the same sensor) and comes from measurements on a single sample of each camera, should be treated with skepticism. It might be real (weird Sony firmware?), but it is also quite likely to be due to measurement error or sample variation.

Also, if this 0.7 notch worries anyone, it can be avoided by setting the A7R to ISO 100 while still choosing exposure levels as if one were at ISO 200. (Ray, you are aware of this approach, are you not?)

[eronald]

Well, six stops of DR (Fuji Astia...more or less) is significant compared to five stops (most other transparency films). Yet, that didn't stop Velvia from being far more popular than Astia.     What are we dealing with here? Twelve stops vs. 12.75 or thereabouts? Not insignificant but not something to get exercised about either (IMO). Post work is likely to render that amount of difference moot.

-Dave-

For any current CMOS sensor, 1.5 stops at the top may be victim to a shoulder, and therefore not give clean color, 2 stops at the bottom can be throwaway (banding etc), 1 stop is lost to channel mismatch due to unbalanced light. What remains?

Edmund

[MrSmith]

"... and at all higher ISO speed settings, the difference goes away."

Not a pixel peeping scientist but I wonder if that's because of different native iso's and how the doubling of ISO can be less noisy than an intermediate setting like using 160-320-640 etc on the 5dIII?

[BJL]

"... and at all higher ISO speed settings, the difference goes away."

Not a pixel peeping scientist but I wonder if that's because of different native iso's and how the doubling of ISO can be less noisy than an intermediate setting like using 160-320-640 etc on the 5dIII?

Looking at the data at  http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7R-versus-Nikon-D800E___917_814 I do not think that is the reason. The sensors seem to have the same base ISO speed of 73 (probably because they are essentially the same sensor, just used a bit differently) and the readings are all at the "mainline" ISO settings of 100, 200, 400 ...

There is no corresponding discrepancy in 18% SNR, or in the DxO measurement of sensitivity on its so-called "ISO" graph, or in any of the other DxO measurements, which if anything raises my suspicions of a glitch in measurement or in the processing (by Sony's firmware or the raw convertor).

[Ray]

... and at all higher ISO speed settings, the difference goes away.

Indeed it does. However, I happen to find ISO 200 one of the more frequently used settings. If most of my shots were at ISOs of 400 and above, I wouldn't be so concerned.

I recall when I switched from using the Canon 5D to the Nikon D700, I found that the higher base ISO of the D700 a tremendous benefit. At its base ISO of 200, the D700 had a full stop better DR than the Canon 5D had at ISO 100, and furthermore the D700 at ISO 200 was not worse in any other parameter, such as color sensitivity, and still marginally better with regard to SNR at 18%, compared with the 5D at ISO 100.

Using a shutter speed that's sometimes unnecessarily fast is not usually a problem and will tend to result, overall, in fewer rejects due to camera shake and/or unwanted subject movement.

A single measurement like that which falls outside the trend of all other measurements (and what we might expect based on the evidence that the two cameras use essentially the same sensor) and comes from measurements on a single sample of each camera, should be treated with skepticism. It might be real (weird Sony firmware?), but it is also quite likely to be due to measurement error or sample variation.

Quite so, which is why I asked the question, "Has anyone noticed that the DR of the A7r at ISO 200 is not as good as that of the D800E?". If one suspects that a DXO reading might be a glitch or an error, it's advisable to test the situation for oneself, if one is able to. That's what I do. For most of us, it's the practical significance of those DXOmark readings that count.

One should also bear in mind that there are previous examples of Nikon and Sony using the same sensor in their respective models, yet the test results have been significantly different in some respects. So we know that there can be other features in a camera, whether software, firmware or hardware, that can affect the final result from the bare-bones sensor.

Also, if this 0.7 notch worries anyone, it can be avoided by setting the A7R to ISO 100 while still choosing exposure levels as if one were at ISO 200. (Ray, you are aware of this approach, are you not?)

Indeed you can. If the DXO test result is correct, then a 1 stop underexposure at ISO 100 should result in the same DR as the same exposure used at an ISO 200 setting, but that DR from the A7r will still be 0.71 EV worse than the DR that the D800E produces in exactly the same circumstances at an ISO 200 setting.

[Ray]

For any current CMOS sensor, 1.5 stops at the top may be victim to a shoulder, and therefore not give clean color, 2 stops at the bottom can be throwaway (banding etc), 1 stop is lost to channel mismatch due to unbalanced light. What remains?

Edmund

Edmund,
If we're comparing the A7r with the D800E at ISO 200, then what remains is at least 2/3rds of a stop of cleaner shadows in the D800E image. In circumstances where you need to throw away 2 stops at the bottom, using the A7r, you need to throw away only 1.29 stops with the D800E. I've noticed no banding from the D800E in the deep shadows.