Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: dreed on September 21, 2015, 06:11:09 pm
-
I know I should probably watch the video first (and please spank me if that addresses this but...)
now that Sony has announced a lossless raw format for this camera is to be forthcoming, will this need to be redone? Or is the feeling that while it will help deliver better quality images (in various cases), it won't impact DR?
-
Yes, maybe it will have to be updated. Most likely though if Sony does what they say they will with the update the results would only be better. We'll wait and see. When this project was started by Michael the release of uncompressed RAWS was not known.
-
Is DR all people care about these days? What happened to caring more about 'Good photography'?
I must throw out all my images.. all shot with sensors with poor DR.. oh well.. better go buy a Sony so I can make a good photograph *shakes head in utter amazement*
-
Is DR all people care about these days? What happened to caring more about 'Good photography'?
It's among the few remaining aspects of photo tech where you can geek out on specs while claiming this means something when applied to actually taking photos. Thus the intensified attention paid to it. No doubt when all cameras have 16+ usable stops of DR we'll come up with something else to avoid confronting our own limitations as photographers. ;)
-Dave-
-
Is DR all people care about these days? What happened to caring more about 'Good photography'?
I must throw out all my images.. all shot with sensors with poor DR.. oh well.. better go buy a Sony so I can make a good photograph *shakes head in utter amazement*
As an owner of both the A7R and the mark II version DR is not the only thing I care about.
My equipment is currently both Canon and Sony.
Although I own some Sony FE lenses (and they are very good) I still mostly use my Canon glass (also top-notch).
The bodies I use are dependent on what I am shooting - 5D mark III for wildlife/birds/action and the Sony bodies in preference for most of the rest.
I have a saying that almost everyone who has tried to use a camera to make meaningful images can probably relate to: is that it is the easiest thing in the world to shoot rubbish - shooting well is a little harder.
In this regard the equipment is almost irrelevant.
However, on some occasions where the images produced might justify the equipment used a greater DR could have been useful.
DR, and any other sensor characteristic, can never save a rubbish image. A sow's ear ever remains a sow's ear, DR never magically converts it into a silk purse.
Like you Josh I shoot almost exclusively outdoors and the gain in DR from the 5D mark III to the Sony A7R series cameras has made a difference in the images obtainable and the quality obtained.
Hopefully I know a little about exposure and getting the best out a sensor.
Not knowing how to expose well and lever the advantages of whatever sensor I am using in whatever camera just makes the images I want unobtainable. The equipment used then becomes completely irrelevant.
For what it is worth I am comfortable still shooting with both Canon and Sony bodies.
The 5D mark III still provides me with capabilities that the Sony bodies cannot match especially when wielding super telephoto lenses.
Tony Jay
-
I have to say, I use AIS lenses on a D3100, which doesn't couple at all with them. So all exposures are by guess and glancing at the back of the display.
It is a very rare circumstance when even my initial shot is 5 stops off, and generally that only happens when I last used the camera under radically different light, and have time to burn, so I just blast off a test shot as the fastest way to tell where I am at. If I am more pressed for time, I dial in a guess, which is rarely more than 2 stops off.
So this notion that one might need to push as much as 4-5 stops is.. odd to me.
-
I agree. The last section that compares which of the 4 look best at 6400 is really silly. Even the best looks awful. What does this really prove?
-
Humm....
What's with the negativism folks? Is this test really so hard to understand?
It's like testing which car goes round the track faster than another. This can tell you something about how the car handles at the extremes, including acceleration, top speed, braking, handling, etc, etc.
This isn't saying that you should drive on the roads at reckless speeds, and certainly not that you have to. Just, that when a device is pushed to its limits, which one fails first. As a consequence, we learn something about how well the car (camera) does overall when pushed.
Testing something under ordinary circumstances....driving to the grocery store in traffic tells us nothing, just as pretty pictures at normal ISO isn't terribly instructive.
So, the comments that this isn't about real world photography, are simply gratuitous. Of course this isn't what we do in the real world, any more than is pushing a car around the track at top speed. But we learn something because of the stress circumstances, don't we?
Also, I find comments such as "the easiest thing in the world to shoot rubbish - shooting well is a little harder.." to be an unhelpful non-sequitar under the circumstances.
Michael
-
Humm....
What's with the negativism folks? Is this test really so hard to understand?
It's like testing which car goes round the track faster than another. This can tell you something about how the car handles at the extremes, including acceleration, top speed, braking, handling, etc, etc.
This isn't saying that you should drive on the roads at reckless speeds, and certainly not that you have to. Just, that when a device is pushed to its limits, which one fails first. As a consequence, we learn something about how well the car (camera) does overall when pushed.
Testing something under ordinary circumstances....driving to the grocery store in traffic tells us nothing, just as pretty pictures at normal ISO isn't terribly instructive.
So, the comments that this isn't about real world photography, are simply gratuitous. Of course this isn't what we do in the real world, any more than is pushing a car around the track at top speed. But we learn something because of the stress circumstances, don't we?
Also, I find comments such as "the easiest thing in the world to shoot rubbish - shooting well is a little harder.." to be an unhelpful non-sequitar under the circumstances.
Michael
hmm ... the test is more like testing straight line acceleration. all the other parts (braking, handling etc.) are not tested :-) Most notably I am missing highlight clipping test for red and blue channels. green only helps recovering the luminance part of highlight information but you need all 3 channels to recover color. I hope this is tested in the next videos in the series.
anyway the test is extremely interesting. I was very suprised how the 1DX handles things compared to D810/A7 ...
-
I think it's an interesting, useful but non-scientific test, just like in the old days you needed to know developer strength and times to get the best of your negatives I think it's useful in the digital days to know how far you can push your sensor without too much compromise on image quality. No need to be cynical or derogatory about it, the technical aspect has always been part of photography and we all know that mastering the technique alone doesn't produce worthwhile images, nothing new there either.
-
I'd like to applaud Michael Tapes for taking the time and effort to do the testing and make a video for all of us to benefit from.
I would like to see the maximum capabilities of the cameras tested like iso 64 on the D810 (min and max iso for each camera)
These tests are extremely difficult at best because the scientific method is flawed to begin with(I forget the name of the chemist who proved this statistically I think he worked for Dow?) ....lets set up a test, hold all variables constant except one, change the one variable and draw a conclusion.
To test properly one needs to optimize the 2 interfaces to the changed variable, run the tests then draw a conclusion. An example, I'm testing the best tire of 2015 and pick a Corvette, stock wheels, mount the tires and run the tests. I then draw the conclusion XYZ is the best or ABC has the best dry braking etc. A proper test would optimize both interfaces first, change the width and diameter of the wheel to optimum(interface of the tire to the wheel) and optimize the tire pressure(the interface of the tire to the pavement). When this method is used the conclusions are accurate but it takes exponentially more time and tests.
Bottom line these tests are useful but not 100% accurate like optimizing the D810's dynamic range by using iso 64. The point is one variable is not changing rater 2 interfaces are, these need to be optimized. But one can conclude for overall performance the A7rII is the winner and for landscapes on a tripod the D810 would be my choice. Can't wait to see what Nikon does with the next Gen Sony sensor in a D8xx!
Marc
-
Humm....
...
Also, I find comments such as "the easiest thing in the world to shoot rubbish - shooting well is a little harder.." to be an unhelpful non-sequitar under the circumstances.
Michael
Michael, I make the connection in the next sentence - shooting well or shooting badly is almost always completely independent of the equipment used.
Josh's comments are little over the top - a lot of hyperbole there.
He actually produces excellent images with whatever he uses (Canon equipment I think) and clearly not Sony mirrorless.
However, even Josh must (should) agree, that even if it is only occasionally, a bit more DR can help.
Tony Jay
-
Is DR all people care about these days? What happened to caring more about 'Good photography'?
I must throw out all my images.. all shot with sensors with poor DR.. oh well.. better go buy a Sony so I can make a good photograph *shakes head in utter amazement*
No, it's not all people care about (and there's no implication that good photography is dependent on having the ultimate in DR), but it's a good thing to discuss in a test entitled "Sony A7RII Review - Dynamic Range"
-
However, even Josh must (should) agree, that even if it is only occasionally, a bit more DR can help.
Thats why we have Grad ND filters ;D
Actually in all seriousness.. more DR can really help in certain limited situations. However, the fascination with it (speaking generally for what is rampant on the web) as the 'be all and end' I find over the top.
Measuring DR seems to be the trendy thing to do these days.. I for one would rather see more general reviews about how these machines actually perform in the field in real world use. With thoughts on battery life, ergonomics, general usability, weather sealing etc. In other words, look at the full gamut of what makes a camera great; rather than distilling it down to the 'DR' argument.
-
Hi Michael,
Absolutely agree. Specific tests are often the best way to find out special aspects.
Just to say, web size images without processing information can be nice, but they don't yield any information...
Best regards
Erik
Humm....
What's with the negativism folks? Is this test really so hard to understand?
It's like testing which car goes round the track faster than another. This can tell you something about how the car handles at the extremes, including acceleration, top speed, braking, handling, etc, etc.
This isn't saying that you should drive on the roads at reckless speeds, and certainly not that you have to. Just, that when a device is pushed to its limits, which one fails first. As a consequence, we learn something about how well the car (camera) does overall when pushed.
Testing something under ordinary circumstances....driving to the grocery store in traffic tells us nothing, just as pretty pictures at normal ISO isn't terribly instructive.
So, the comments that this isn't about real world photography, are simply gratuitous. Of course this isn't what we do in the real world, any more than is pushing a car around the track at top speed. But we learn something because of the stress circumstances, don't we?
Also, I find comments such as "the easiest thing in the world to shoot rubbish - shooting well is a little harder.." to be an unhelpful non-sequitar under the circumstances.
Michael
-
Measuring DR seems to be the trendy thing to do these days.. I for one would rather see more general reviews about how these machines actually perform in the field in real world use. With thoughts on battery life, ergonomics, general usability, weather sealing etc. In other words, look at the full gamut of what makes a camera great; rather than distilling it down to the 'DR' argument.
I think DR was very important when digital cameras or slide film did not have the dynamic range (static) of human sight. Now that current sensors accomplish this you can capture and print a scene that represents what you saw. Now its how much highlight recovery or shadow recovery or sloppy exposure you can tolerate. But you are buying "a refrigerator full of the same film for 3 years" so why not buy the best film for your purpose? I think we have some great resources to evaluate a new purchase, LULA, DPReview, DxOmark, Photozone reading all will give you a balanced review.
Marc
-
Measuring DR seems to be the trendy thing to do these days.. I for one would rather see more general reviews about how these machines actually perform in the field in real world use. With thoughts on battery life, ergonomics, general usability, weather sealing etc. In other words, look at the full gamut of what makes a camera great; rather than distilling it down to the 'DR' argument.
I'm sorry Josh, I don't agree with you. I think the trendy thing on the internet (and the reactions to this test are no exception) is to complain about what it is not rather then appreciate the information it provides and the effort that went into it.
-
Thats why we have Grad ND filters ;D
Actually in all seriousness.. more DR can really help in certain limited situations. However, the fascination with it (speaking generally for what is rampant on the web) as the 'be all and end' I find over the top.
Measuring DR seems to be the trendy thing to do these days.. I for one would rather see more general reviews about how these machines actually perform in the field in real world use. With thoughts on battery life, ergonomics, general usability, weather sealing etc. In other words, look at the full gamut of what makes a camera great; rather than distilling it down to the 'DR' argument.
I agree that no camera can really afford to be a one-trick-pony - I don't think that the new Sony mirrorless options are that.
Nonetheless they do have limitations.
Individual battery life is not great.
I also don't think that the weather sealing is quite up to the standards of the high-end Canons but I intend to use my Sony's in all sorts of weather conditions - thats where the fun images are - but I am not sure how they would stand up to one of your expeditions Josh.
I mentioned in another thread that sensor dust is a major pain with mirrorless cameras however one gets used to regularly cleaning sensors using both blowers and the built-in cleaning mechanisms. Sometimes wet cleaning is also required.
I don't think that, even with the new Metabones firmware updates, that I could use the A7R mark II mated with Canon super telephoto lenses for bird and wildlife.
Also I am not sure that Sony's repair services are necessarily up to that of Canon Professional Services. However time will tell.
Tony Jay
-
No, it's not all people care about (and there's no implication that good photography is dependent on having the ultimate in DR), but it's a good thing to discuss in a test entitled "Sony A7RII Review - Dynamic Range"
+1
The Part 1 video focused on Dynamic Range, because it is useful to have.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Thats why we have Grad ND filters ;D
Actually in all seriousness.. more DR can really help in certain limited situations. However, the fascination with it (speaking generally for what is rampant on the web) as the 'be all and end' I find over the top.
Measuring DR seems to be the trendy thing to do these days.. I for one would rather see more general reviews about how these machines actually perform in the field in real world use. With thoughts on battery life, ergonomics, general usability, weather sealing etc. In other words, look at the full gamut of what makes a camera great; rather than distilling it down to the 'DR' argument.
+1.
DR is good to have and never be a bad thing to have, but I agree there are many other things that are important for a good tool for the picture taking. I have been shooting now for a couple of weeks on Isle of Skye in Scotland with the Canon 5Ds R and the camera really delivers. DR (as we know) could be better but more extreme DR situations would need blending anyway on my D810 or ND grad filters (which I don't use). Blending in Lightroom CC is amazing and so far I have not found any faults for the type of pictures I take. With that the lack of DR for landscapes has become a much lesser issue in my opinion.
-
Josh how can you fail to recognize that this was a look at one aspect of performance. The full review is being worked on by Michael. It says so in the introduction.
-
But if I am driving my kids to school, I don't care which car fails first under racing conditions. I want to know about cup holders.
Not to throw stones, though. It was definitely a fun video with a lot of interesting data. Just not data that's really useful to me. I love Top Gear. But I use a Toyota Sienna.
-
Hi,
I don't think so. Raw compression has little to do with dynamic range.
As it is now, it has a delta compression that ideally is lossless but can introduce artefacts on high contrast edges. Taking out that delta compression would be a good thing, but it would not affect DR.
Another factor is that Sony's data representation is actually more 13 bits than 14 bits. That may be more of a limitation. The elephant in the saloon is that Sony switches to 12 bit mode in a lot of cases.
Best regards
Erik
I know I should probably watch the video first (and please spank me if that addresses this but...)
now that Sony has announced a lossless raw format for this camera is to be forthcoming, will this need to be redone? Or is the feeling that while it will help deliver better quality images (in various cases), it won't impact DR?
-
I don't think so. Raw compression has little to do with dynamic range.
Hi Erik,
I also do not think that delta compression as such, makes any difference. It is totally reversible, without loss if implemented as it should be.
As it is now, it has a delta compression that ideally is lossless but can introduce artefacts on high contrast edges. Taking out that delta compression would be a good thing, but it would not affect DR.
Indeed. Delta compression simply allows to capture spatial luminance variations in smaller numerical values, which would allow faster data transmission, and potentially smaller compressed results (depending on the type of compression and amount of time/power that can be allotted).
Another factor is that Sony's data representation is actually more 13 bits than 14 bits. That may be more of a limitation. The elephant in the saloon is that Sony switches to 12 bit mode in a lot of cases.
Now that is the real issue, and that can cause issues in reconstruction. Especially when the compression would also be somewhat 'lossy' or technically more correct 'irreversible'.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Is DR all people care about these days? What happened to caring more about 'Good photography'?
I think lots of people still care about good photography, especially this website. Here's a sampling of non-technical articles that focus on the art, craft, and philosophy of photography from just the past two months.
https://luminous-landscape.com/loving-long-expsoure/ (https://luminous-landscape.com/loving-long-expsoure/)
https://luminous-landscape.com/elements-principles-design/ (https://luminous-landscape.com/elements-principles-design/)
https://luminous-landscape.com/circular-fisheye-photography/ (https://luminous-landscape.com/circular-fisheye-photography/)
https://luminous-landscape.com/windows-or-mirrors/ (https://luminous-landscape.com/windows-or-mirrors/)
https://luminous-landscape.com/silo-city-again-challenging-yourself-to-see-different/ (https://luminous-landscape.com/silo-city-again-challenging-yourself-to-see-different/)
https://luminous-landscape.com/the-perfect-photograph/ (https://luminous-landscape.com/the-perfect-photograph/)
https://luminous-landscape.com/developing-a-personal-style/ (https://luminous-landscape.com/developing-a-personal-style/)
https://luminous-landscape.com/on-the-deeper-meaning-of-seeing/ (https://luminous-landscape.com/on-the-deeper-meaning-of-seeing/)
-
Hi Marc,
I would say that I have been lucky enough to have cameras with a decent amount of DR all the time. Back in 2006 when I was shooting a Konica Minolta Dimage 7D sometimes I felt that DR was lacking and darks were not really good. But since that time I have been quite happy with all Sony cameras I had.
I have been shooting with a P45+ for about two years, and I found that DR was a bit limited compared to late generation Sonys, but it was really (almost) never a real problem. Knowing your system, shooting ETTR and do some bracketing solves many problems.
That said, I feel that plenty of DR is a god thing. What we need to keep in mind that good DR essentially mean clean shadows. There is nothing like highlight DR, just bad exposures. Expose correctly ETTR and any sensor will be optimally utilised.
Best regards
Erik
Ps. Are you still flying for Emirates (?) or have you retired and doing some supersonic loudspeaker designs?
I think DR was very important when digital cameras or slide film did not have the dynamic range (static) of human sight. Now that current sensors accomplish this you can capture and print a scene that represents what you saw. Now its how much highlight recovery or shadow recovery or sloppy exposure you can tolerate. But you are buying "a refrigerator full of the same film for 3 years" so why not buy the best film for your purpose? I think we have some great resources to evaluate a new purchase, LULA, DPReview, DxOmark, Photozone reading all will give you a balanced review.
Marc
-
...
It's like testing which car goes round the track faster than another. This can tell you something about how the car handles at the extremes, including acceleration, top speed, braking, handling, etc, etc.
...
I used to think that there was no point to this, or massively powerful engines..
Then I learned about the difficulty in overtaking on country roads - it needs to be done as quickly as possible and as safely as possible. For this, quick acceleration and braking are key.
Which is to say that what's being tested is quite likely importand and useful even if we don't know how it relates to our day to day use.
-
It's among the few remaining aspects of photo tech where you can geek out on specs while claiming this means something when applied to actually taking photos. Thus the intensified attention paid to it. No doubt when all cameras have 16+ usable stops of DR we'll come up with something else to avoid confronting our own limitations as photographers. ;)
-Dave-
It's amazing how much focus there is on DR. Professional photographers used to shoot transparency film, despite it's distinct disadvantage in DR to color negative film, because that's what the customers wanted. Somehow they still managed to produce jaw dropping spreads in Nat Geo and Sports Illustrated.
My smartphone's got more DR than Ektachrome. I mean really...
-
In the end, the purchase of a new camera ends up being a good move in the mid term (after the "I got a great new toy" phase ends) if it allows to capture observably better images. That includes images better than those you would not have taken before because the image was outside the scope of achievable imagery with your old gear (you left it home cos' it was too big/heavy, AF wasn't able to deal with the subject, the camera died of water exposure, the scene was so contrasty you didn't bother attempting the shot, auto ISO was stuck on too high a minimal shutter speed although you had zoomed to 24mm and noise killed the shot, you were busy checking focus peaking and missed the 0.5 second smile of your daughter,...).
That's the reason why the purchase I made these past years of exotic gear such as a Betterlight back, a Hassy V system,... were clearly very poor purchasing decisions by the way.
Anyway, tests such as this one are relevant and interesting data points in the selection process but whether this data point will trigger a purchasing decision depends on individual needs.
I am on the fence for the a7rII. It offers very little in image quality vs my current gear, it will in fact be a regression for a large majority of what I shoot, especially when considering body + lens. The only measurable advantage in the end is likely to be compactness, which may help with the "I had left my camera home" use case... except the I haven't found that the D810 + Otus 85mm f1.4 is really a problem carrying around even for casual shooting such as the family camping weekend I am just back from. I was tempted by the EVF focusing with manual lenses, but I am forced to realize that I am getting nowadays a high ratio of very well focus images using the OVF for close to mid distance subjects and live view for more distant ones.
My current take is therefore that the a7rII is too expensive for the value it would bring me, but it is clearly the camera I would buy if I were starting from scratch and didn't need the super teles.
I will keep monitoring the Sony alpha system and may invest at a later stage. In the mean time I'll save for the future P1 large CMOS camera or Leica S 008. :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Best regards
Erik
Ps. Are you still flying for Emirates (?) or have you retired and doing some supersonic loudspeaker designs?
Erik
Left Qatar for Saudia so still in the Mid East but a very good company one that I will retire from, on par with my first airline Pan Am and Japan Airlines that I worked for. 6 years till I retire and design/build loudspeakers again
Thanks
Marc
-
I also do not think that delta compression as such, makes any difference. It is totally reversible, without loss if implemented as it should be.
Apparently, it was not implemented as it should be, it used an additional localized 16 pixel block compression. According to DPreview (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6144418951/what-difference-does-it-make-sony-uncompressed-raw?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu), this is fixed in the upcoming uncompressed version, and they also believe that the fall back to 13-bit quantization is gone.
Cheers,
Bart
-
That's the reason why the purchase I made these past years of exotic gear such as a Betterlight back, a Hassy V system,... were clearly very poor purchasing decisions by the way.
Cheers,
Bernard
My God that hurts!
If I could, I'd go back to my two 500 Series bodies and a 180mm lens. And probaly nothing beyond that. In any format.
I'm so bored wandering around going click! at almost anything that stands a chance of turning into a picture. I came to realise some time ago that the only thing that I honestly care a damn about in photography is the human element, and of that, the face tells more than anything else. One good face, and you can work as long as you like.
But, the rub: to get the best out of the 'blad you need 6x6. That square fills so beautifully, and to have to think again about masks, outer limits etc. defeats the beauty of the system and how those focal lengths really work within their natural space.
Rob C
-
Thanks for sharing this review.
Frankly I dont get the negative postings. Some are interested in tech aspects. Those intersted in other topics of photo can safely ignore this video and publish their own articles.
On my wish-list is a short text summary of findings. Its my personale problem to be attentive to videos longer than 3 seconds and to unmute sound at all. Perhaps this is the way to go with reviews, but I doubt on video versus text for informative content as this. Please dont let this rant destroy the pleasure of well made content, and keep up the good work.
-
Thats why we have Grad ND filters ;D
Actually in all seriousness.. more DR can really help in certain limited situations. However, the fascination with it (speaking generally for what is rampant on the web) as the 'be all and end' I find over the top.
Measuring DR seems to be the trendy thing to do these days.. I for one would rather see more general reviews about how these machines actually perform in the field in real world use. With thoughts on battery life, ergonomics, general usability, weather sealing etc. In other words, look at the full gamut of what makes a camera great; rather than distilling it down to the 'DR' argument.
I think we've reached what we need in the way of resolution but dynamic range still has a ways to go. Even in the film days, we all wanted more dynamic range. Ask a top cinematographer what he wants most out of a new camera and he will most likely say "dynamic range", not 4k or 8k, but more dynamic range. As an architectural photographer, I can say 20 megapixels is quite enough for 99% of my work, but I'll take all the dynamic range I can get. The more stops of shadow and highlight I can capture, the less lighting I would be forced to do to capture a natural looking space. It lets me concentrate on the composition and the feeling I have for a space rather than worrying about deep shadows that I'll have to contend with. Basically it lets me think about the aesthetics and not the technical. Isn't that what we all want?
-
As an architectural photographer, I can say 20 megapixels is quite enough for 99% of my work, but I'll take all the dynamic range I can get. The more stops of shadow and highlight I can capture, the less lighting I would be forced to do to capture a natural looking space.
Yes. More DR is certainly a Good Thing. I poke fun at our fixation with it not to diminish its importance but to note that techie types such as myself tend to fixate as much for its own sake as for real-world benefit. The pleasure of obsessing. We should try to be self-aware enough to realize this when we're doing it…which might then help cut down on flame wars, excessive pedantry, etc.
-Dave-
-
The A7rII is going to be junk when the III comes out. I'm guessing January based upon Sony's recently accelerated new model release schedule, plus knowing that their next gen sensor is already in their 1" models.
We need to be constantly buying latest model cameras because our images deserve no less.
-
Sony have multiple generations of cameras available. If your needs are met by the previous RX100 you can still buy it new.
-
Hi,
It was a painful wait of two years for the A7rII. The sensor in the A7rII is a totally new generation, backside illuminated and using copper interconnects.
Best regards
Erik
The A7rII is going to be junk when the III comes out. I'm guessing January based upon Sony's recently accelerated new model release schedule, plus knowing that their next gen sensor is already in their 1" models.
We need to be constantly buying latest model cameras because our images deserve no less.
-
Hi,
It was a painful wait of two years for the A7rII. The sensor in the A7rII is a totally new generation, backside illuminated and using copper interconnects.
Best regards
Erik
But not stacked Exmor as per their current 1". Wait a bit LOL
-
Yes. More DR is certainly a Good Thing. I poke fun at our fixation with it not to diminish its importance but to note that techie types such as myself tend to fixate as much for its own sake as for real-world benefit. The pleasure of obsessing. We should try to be self-aware enough to realize this when we're doing it…which might then help cut down on flame wars, excessive pedantry, etc.
-Dave-
Amen to that !
-
Amen to that !
I think these discussion will not stop any time soon :) I'm on my way to the Dolomites again and Erik is joining me in the Eastern part and then we can compare the Sony with the D810 and 5Ds R in reality. I think we may be too obsessed with the amazing views that we forget about the technicalities... At least if we have great weather. :D
-
I think these discussion will not stop any time soon :) I'm on my way to the Dolomites again and Erik is joining me in the Eastern part and then we can compare the Sony with the D810 and 5Ds R in reality. I think we may be too obsessed with the amazing views that we forget about the technicalities... At least if we have great weather. :D
I'm sure you'll find both cameras will work just fine. You know how much I love that area. Your images will be spectacular how could they not be. Go have fun taking pictures.
Kevin
-
I'm sure you'll find both cameras will work just fine. You know how much I love that area. Your images will be spectacular how could they not be. Go have fun taking pictures.
It is a great area! I've just come out of there - lost the last day to bad weather (and by bad I mean cloud level at 5000'.) I didn't think it was very photographically well known until I found a group of photographers by the roadside at Sella Pass on one evening and roadside at Giau Pass on another!
-
I'm sure you'll find both cameras will work just fine. You know how much I love that area. Your images will be spectacular how could they not be. Go have fun taking pictures.
Kevin
Thanks Kevin, so far both camera worked fine on the first afternoon (no surprise, of course). Attached one shot during the 5 minutes it took the sun to get out from the cloud layer and down below the mountains. This was with the D810 at ISO 64, 1/320s, f/8, 70mm using the Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR (lighter than the Sony FE 70-200 f/4 :)). Metering highlight weighted with +1EV adjustment. Post processed in Lightroom exposure +1.9, shadows +100, highlights -100, whites 0, blacks -31 and a few more things. It was shot a Passo Giau near the hotel I use outside of Cortina. It's also near this lovely church you loved so much.
-
It is a great area! I've just come out of there - lost the last day to bad weather (and by bad I mean cloud level at 5000'.) I didn't think it was very photographically well known until I found a group of photographers by the roadside at Sella Pass on one evening and roadside at Giau Pass on another!
The Dolomites not photographically known? I'm running my photo workshop number 14 and 15 in the Dolomites in the coming two weeks. There are many photographers who post pictures from the Dolomites. Just check 500px.
-
.... I think we may be too obsessed with the amazing views that we forget about the technicalities...
Thanks Kevin, so far both camera worked fine on the first afternoon (no surprise, of course). Attached one shot during the 5 minutes it took the sun to get out from the cloud layer and down below the mountains. This was with the D810 at ISO 64, 1/320s, f/8, 70mm using the Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR (lighter than the Sony FE 70-200 f/4 :)). Metering highlight weighted with +1EV adjustment. Post processed in Lightroom exposure +1.9, shadows +100, highlights -100, whites 0, blacks -31 and a few more things...
Speaking about technicalities... Try this photo with a Canon 5dsr and spot the differences.
-
Speaking about technicalities... Try this photo with a Canon 5dsr and spot the differences.
Actually I forgot to mention that there was a grad filter also dragged up from the bottom and to just under the sun of +0.5EV.
There is no competition between the D810 and 5Ds R! However I did another shot with the 5Ds R with the 100-400 attached. This one was also edited similarly with +1.4EV exposure, highlights -100, shadows +100, whites 0, blacks -17. A grad filter also with +0.5EV. In this shot I did not include the sun since I had walked away from the car and only had the 100-400 on the Canon and the 70-200 on the Nikon. No time to go back. There is no noise in either shots in 1:1 on my MacBook Pro retina screen.
-
Just kidding:)
Both photos look great!
Last time i was walking in the dolomites near Cortina one of the cinque torri collapsed.
Very nice mountains indeed but not much surface water to drink!
I just came back from Valmalenco, south of the Bernina mountain.
Every year i just have to spend some time in the italian alps.
It is the mountans and the people.
-
Just kidding:)
Both photos look great!
Last time i was walking in the dolomites near Cortina one of the cinque torri collapsed.
Very nice mountains indeed but not much surface water to drink!
I just came back from Valmalenco, south of the Bernina mountain.
Every year i just have to spend some time in the italian alps.
It is the mountans and the people.
It seems we share a passion :) When walking under the Tre Cime (which I will tomorrow morning) I have been thinking where I would take cover if some of that structure Collapsed! The snow will probably disappear soon, but a nice addition to a landscape that is already breathtaking in many places.