Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: shadowblade on July 16, 2019, 06:38:37 am
-
https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/last-minute-wild-camera-rumors-one-of-the-new-cameras-is-the-a7riv/ (https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/last-minute-wild-camera-rumors-one-of-the-new-cameras-is-the-a7riv/)
This came a bit earlier than expected - the A7r3's less than two years old, and the A7s3 isn't even out yet. I guess that means Sony has come out with enough cumulative improvements to justify a new model.
Despite primarily shooting cityscapes, landscapes and other things not particularly taxing on the autofocus, I'm actually l more interested in the A9II than this. Pumping the resolution to 60-70MP will only eke out incremental gains - atmospheric effects and other non-sensor-related issues tend to kill resolution at this level, so there are few subjects which would benefit from this and can'tbe stitched (for even better results). Obviously, it's a different case if you're shooting studio portraits, advertising work or art reproduction, particularly if Sony's made their next generation of bodies more flash-friendly. It would take something else - an extra stop or two of DR, a global shutter, several stops of improved noise and DR at mid-ISOs (1600-6400), for instance - to make it particularly compelling.
If the A9II manages 36-45MP while retaining top-tier AF, and particularly if it has a global shutter (although I doubt that's ready for the coming generation of cameras) it would be much more interesting than an A7r4 which is just an A7r3 with 20-30 extra megapixels. It would allow the same camera to function as both a primary landscape camera and top-tier wildlife/action camera, simplifying the logistics of mixed-shooting trips. Of course, that depends what else the A7r4 brings other than increased resolution, and how many of these features are unlikely to also show up in the A9Ii. At the moment, the A7r3 and A9 make a great combination. The next generation could well consolidate both roles into one body - whether it's the A9II or A7r4 which fulfils this role better remains to be seen.
That said, I'm very interested in what they've come up with in terms of new technology. The 42MP sensor is getting on 4 years old now, so the new camera will, presumably, use a new sensor based on updated technology. Anything that shows up here has a good chance of also showing up in other new models.
-
Hmm. I don’t think I will upgrade my A7Riii to the iv either. I’m in agreement with you. I have one client that really wants 40MP and I don’t think me having 60MP will make a difference.
I am more interested in the A9ii. I’m happy with the A9 but kind of interested in how they will make that better. That could tempt me. I’m currently fighting the urge to buy the 200 to 600mm lens. It won’t make me money, I don’t need it, but I want it. Dam.
-
Hmm. I don’t think I will upgrade my A7Riii to the iv either. I’m in agreement with you. I have one client that really wants 40MP and I don’t think me having 60MP will make a difference.
I am more interested in the A9ii. I’m happy with the A9 but kind of interested in how they will make that better. That could tempt me. I’m currently fighting the urge to buy the 200 to 600mm lens. It won’t make me money, I don’t need it, but I want it. Dam.
That's if all it brings is 20-30 extra megapixels. It all hinges on what else it brings, how good its AF is (better or worse than current A9) and, probably most importantly, which of its features will be unique to the A7r4 and not also featured in the A9II.
In other words, which one of the two does a better job of substituting for the other.
-
Just give me the pixels.
Is this for real? Exciting!
Hopefully Nikon will follow soon.
-
New 61MP sensor, apparently.
I wonder if this is the same 60MP sensor they announced a few months back (along with a 36MP 'super sensor') or if it's a different/related, Sony-only premium version.
-
That's if all it brings is 20-30 extra megapixels. It all hinges on what else it brings, how good its AF is (better or worse than current A9) and, probably most importantly, which of its features will be unique to the A7r4 and not also featured in the A9II.
In other words, which one of the two does a better job of substituting for the other.
I would assume, but it’s not guaranteed of course, that the A7riv will be targeted as a high res body and the A9ii, when it comes, as a high performance body. I want the high performance body. That’s all I a, saying. No need to complicate it.
-
I would assume, but it’s not guaranteed of course, that the A7riv will be targeted as a high res body and the A9ii, when it comes, as a high performance body. I want the high performance body. That’s all I a, saying. No need to complicate it.
The thing is, assuming you shoot more than one thing, at some point, both AF performance and resolution run into diminishing returns, and you're better off getting some of the other instead of just more and more of one.
If the A9II has 42MP, 20fps and super AF, does it deliver enough resolution that the A7r4's 61MP become a marginal benefit, with other features being the key points of difference?
Or, if the A7r4 has 61MP, 10fps and an AF system that's better than the A9 (if not nearly as good as the A9II), is the AF system then capable enough that it is no longer a major distinguishing feature between the two bodies for anyone who's not trying to track individual bees in a swarm, with other factors (e.g. DR or high ISO performance) being the main differences?
-
61MP
$3,500
September launch.
-
I’m surprised by the price... now I understand why the previous model has always discounts.
Dual UHS-II slot, at least now both slots are equal.
Real-time eye tracking in video mode looks interesting.
Brochure: http://sonyglobal.akamaized.net/is/content/gwtvid/pdf/2019/ILCE-7RM4/brochure-ilce7rm4.pdf
I will probably stick to my A7r II for a while...
-
Additionally, the new camera features an evolved Pixel Shift Multi Shooting[xi] mode that composites up to 16 full-resolution images. In this mode, the camera precisely shifts the sensor in 1 or 0.5-pixel increments to capture 16 separate pixel-shifted images containing a total of 963.2 million pixels worth of data then composited into a 240.8 million pixels (19008 x 12672 pixels) image using the “Imaging Edge™” desktop application
Any thoughts on the pixel shift capability?
-
16 images.... and people complain about artifacts in the Olympus shifting. 16 images seems a bit much at just half pixel. That is interesting. I know on the Olympus, file dimensions bloat to 80mp...but real world resolution is more interesting line with 50mp...not 80. I’m going to assume the Sony is doing something similar, so expected results may be more in line with 140mp... just with pixel dimensions higher. Stability will surely be needed to extract the maximum out of this. 60mp should be plenty for a lot of applications though.
Things are getting interesting in the high megapixels world. I’ve been waiting and watching...most likely to end up with a mirrorless medium format from my current one. I’m still holding out to see if canon puts out a great system that would work well with its ts lenses and the r adapter with the polarizer built in. This Sony looks interesting...but I haven’t liked the Sony body’s or interface at all any time I’ve used them.
-
Any thoughts on the pixel shift capability?
Unfortunately, it still appears to lag WAY behind what Panasonic has done with the S1R. It apparently uses the same approach of capturing multiple, separate raw files and then requiring you to assemble them after the fact in the crappy Sony software. Lots of motion artifacts if there is anything moving in the files. I believe Panasonic assembles the files in camera as a single raw file and uses very sophisticated computational photography algorithms to mitigate artifacts from motion.
-
Unfortunately, it still appears to lag WAY behind what Panasonic has done with the S1R. It apparently uses the same approach of capturing multiple, separate raw files and then requiring you to assemble them after the fact in the crappy Sony software. Lots of motion artifacts if there is anything moving in the files. I believe Panasonic assembles the files in camera as a single raw file and uses very sophisticated computational photography algorithms to mitigate artifacts from motion.
Personally I'd rather have the combining be done on a computer rather than in camera. I would think you have tons more leeway on a computer with way more memory and way more processing power. I can see third party software being developed which eliminates the need to use Sony software.
-
Personally I'd rather have the combining be done on a computer rather than in camera. I would think you have tons more leeway on a computer with way more memory and way more processing power. I can see third party software being developed which eliminates the need to use Sony software.
Well, the reality today is that you have neither: it's not well implemented in camera, and there is no useful software available from anyone that uses sophisticated computational photography algorithms to seamlessly and simply combine the images AND eliminate motion artifacts after the fact. Sony has the financial and R&D muscle and should have delivered it. Panasonic did it. Why not Sony?
-
Well, the reality today is that you have neither: it's not well implemented in camera, and there is no useful software available from anyone that uses sophisticated computational photography algorithms to seamlessly and simply combine the images AND eliminate motion artifacts after the fact. Sony has the financial and R&D muscle and should have delivered it. Panasonic did it. Why not Sony?
Let the whining begin.
-
Let the whining begin.
😂 And no one has even seen the camera yet. Anyway. I can stand apart from it since I don’t care about the pixel shift in the slightest so perhaps I’m being unfair as not seeing this as an issue.
-
Well, the reality today is that you have neither: it's not well implemented in camera, and there is no useful software available from anyone that uses sophisticated computational photography algorithms to seamlessly and simply combine the images AND eliminate motion artifacts after the fact.
You should add YET to your statement. I see all manufactures incorporating this feature and we'll see software available from multiple manufactures to combine these images...just like we see HDR software and image scaling / sharpening software etc...
Give me the raw details so I have a choice of what I use to process them rather than being stuck having the camera process the images. Choice is always good.
-
You should add YET to your statement. I see all manufactures incorporating this feature and we'll see software available from multiple manufactures to combine these images...just like we see HDR software and image scaling / sharpening software etc...
Give me the raw details so I have a choice of what I use to process them rather than being stuck having the camera process the images. Choice is always good.
YET? One thing I know is to never buy a camera (or anything for that matter) based upon the hope/wish that some feature will be available in the future. If it's not available now, it's best to assume it will never be available.
As for "choice" as to how I can assemble 4 or 16 raw files into a single raw file with no or minimal motion artifacts, no thanks. I personally have no interest in it. I want someone else to figure out how to do it perfectly through sophisticated software. If it's well implemented, it should be better than anything I can do. It has nothing to do with aesthetic vision, like how an HDR photograph is assembled.
-
Let the whining begin.
Can I mention "lossless compressed RAW format" ;-)?
-
Can I mention "lossless compressed RAW format" ;-)?
Of course. On a related point...
They're talking about 15 stops of DR. If they mean EDR, they won't be able to do that with 14-bit precision. If they go to 16-bit, that will break the current craw compression.
Jim
-
Let the whining begin.
I would say that for roughly (pulls number from butt) 99 percent of people shooting photographs, an iPhone is good enough. For the remaining 1% of us, 20-25mp is good enough for a big chunk of shooters. A smaller chunk *really* needs the 47mp. A tiny vanishing few may *really* need the 61 mp. How many people *really* need the sixteen-image pixel shift? (Pulls another number from butt.) Mmm, I'd say...10? Worldwide? Gonna be tough getting companies to devote expensive software research for whatever that number really is...
Perhaps there are industrial applications that I don't know about.
-
Any thoughts on the pixel shift capability?
Utterly senseless in comparison to pano stitching. You could get a better final image with an el cheapo pocketzoom and pano stitching 16 images, than trying to do so with 60mpx shifts and an horrendously expensive lens. Seriously, makes no sense.
Seems a bit like the megapixel race all over again.
-
Utterly senseless in comparison to pano stitching. You could get a better final image with an el cheapo pocketzoom and pano stitching 16 images, than trying to do so with 60mpx shifts and an horrendously expensive lens. Seriously, makes no sense.
Seems a bit like the megapixel race all over again.
In my photography, I don't see much overlap of the two use cases, although I can see how there might be some for some people. I think pixel shift -- when you can use it -- is useful chiefly for eliminating demosaicing artifacts.
-
Of course. On a related point...
They're talking about 15 stops of DR. If they mean EDR, they won't be able to do that with 14-bit precision. If they go to 16-bit, that will break the current craw compression.
Jim
Sony already claims 15-stops of DR for a7rIII.
-
Sounds like a nice upgrade.
The UI and AF improvements are probably more relevant for many photographers than the slight increase of resolution, although I am personally always in favor of more detail.
I see the early announcement as a proactive strike against the upcoming higher res pro mirrorless bodies of Nikon and Canon. Although the Sony is tempting I’ll personally wait for those before making any move.
What I find interesting is the combined claim by some that the a9 is already today a perfect camera easily outdoing the D5/1DxII and the high expectation for an a9II. 😀 I see very very few D5/1DxII shooters saying they are eagerly waiting for the D6/1DxIII.
This whole discussion feels like it’s focused on owning the camera that will enable it’s owners to win in forum discussions rather than the one actually enabling a photographic vision. Which means that the a7rIV isn’t deemed good enough over the anticipated competition to be a sufficiently solid ego support tool (not talking about you Martin). :D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sounds like a nice upgrade.
The UI and AF improvements are probably more relevant for many photographers than the slight increase of resolution, although I am personally always in favor of more detail.
I see the early announcement as a proactive strike against the upcoming higher res pro mirrorless bodies of Nikon and Canon. Although the Sony is tempting I’ll personally wait for those before making any move.
Cheers,
Bernard
Actually the AF abilities and the over speed of the camera are very impressive. Pushing that much data at 10fps is no small feat. The eye AF detection and tracking seem to be a big improvement. Can't wait for the reviews...but this camera seems to fill a lot of gaps including wildlife and sports. Be interesting to see how well focus tracking works in video...that alone could be a game changer for many.
-
Sounds like a nice upgrade.
The UI and AF improvements are probably more relevant for many photographers than the slight increase of resolution, although I am personally always in favor of more detail.
I see the early announcement as a proactive strike against the upcoming higher res pro mirrorless bodies of Nikon and Canon. Although the Sony is tempting I’ll personally wait for those before making any move.
What I find interesting is the combined claim by some that the a9 is already today a perfect camera easily outdoing the D5/1DxII and the high expectation for an a9II. 😀 I see very very few D5/1DxII shooters saying they are eagerly waiting for the D6/1DxIII.
This whole discussion feels like it’s focused on owning the camera that will enable it’s owners to win in forum discussions rather than the one actually enabling a photographic vision. Which means that the a7rIV isn’t deemed good enough over the anticipated competition to be a sufficiently solid ego support tool (not talking about you Martin). :D
Cheers,
Bernard
I have to be perfectly honest and say I will buy an A9 ii in a heartbeat and while it most likely won’t be to win a forum discussion I can’t really say why I would buy it. There isn't t really anything that bothers me with the current model. Thing is I spend so much time with a camera in my hands that its not nothing to get a bit excited about the technology while admitting it’s not currently actually critical to my needs.
Dam Bernard. Now I have splashed cold reality in my face I feel a bit foolish for being excited about the prospect of a new camera.
-
I see the early announcement as a proactive strike against the upcoming higher res pro mirrorless bodies of Nikon and Canon.
Which upcoming Nikon and Canon bodies are those? Presumably at some point in the future they will release new bodies, but when that will be is anybodies guess. The Z6/Z7 and EOS RP/R are less than a year old. I imagine Sony is going to defer selling the 61MP sensor to its competitors for some period of time.
-
Looks impressive, still I don't understand why no H.265 for the video modes
-
Sony already claims 15-stops of DR for a7rIII.
Only in pixel-shift mode, right?
-
Of course. On a related point...
They're talking about 15 stops of DR. If they mean EDR, they won't be able to do that with 14-bit precision. If they go to 16-bit, that will break the current craw compression.
Jim
I-R wrote "The image sensor, paired with a front-end LSI and Sony's latest BIONZ X image processor, processes 16-bit images which are then output at up to 14 bits. Output remains at 14 bit, even when shooting in silent mode or using continuous shooting modes, save for when shooting continuous compressed raw files, which are 12 bits. Like previous Alpha models, it does not appear that the A7R IV offers a lossless compressed raw recording option."... if they are to be believed, then no new mod of the existing raw format
-
Only in pixel-shift mode, right?
It is my understanding that Sony specifies 15 stops dynamic range in regular mode. After all, DXO measures dynamic range of 14.7 EV for a7riii (Z 7 measures 14.6 EV). Of course other measure it much less, as they measure it differently.
-
If the A9II manages 36-45MP
it will not - for A9 line so far the main priority still remains is to be finally better in AF vs D* / 1D* dSLRs in all aspects... not in resolution department... making more mp will only complicate achieving the main goal...
-
Is there any description of how the camera takes the 16 shots in multi shot mode?
It seems that Olympus and Panasonic are accomplishing the "same" hi-res mode with only 8 shots, whereas this new Sony requires 16. What is the engineering rationale? etc...
-
It is my understanding that Sony specifies 15 stops dynamic range in regular mode. After all, DXO measures dynamic range of 14.7 EV for a7riii (Z 7 measures 14.6 EV). Of course other measure it much less, as they measure it differently.
I have not seen that assertion from Sony. Do you have a link?
-
A Sony microphone that uses hot shoe connection rather than a wire down the side. That’s useful. Continuous eye AF in video mode is really going to be useful. With the way things are going commercially anything that improves video is going to be good for me.
The reviewers I have watched on YouTube reading from a Sony hand out all say 15 stops of DR. I don’t think that’s surprising since the iii was not far off that. Personally for me the DR wars are pretty much over much like the MP wars but I know that’s not everyone’s opinion on the matter. Deeper grip might also please people, again I don’t care one way or another, I have picked raspberries for a living and if you can do that you can hold any FF camera ever made. Slightly better weather sealing around the battery compartment. I would be more enthusiastic but something to close off in front of the sensor when changing lenses. It’s winter where I live so I haven’t seen a cloud in two months and won’t get any rain until October but dust, loads of dust. I want dust sealing on the sensor. Minority view I know.
Better buttons they are also saying. That could be nice. The Z Nikon buttons have a much better feel than the buttons on my Sony cameras. Better joystick. I haven’t actually found a use for the joystick so far. WiFi tethering, now that’s a thing I could like depending on transfer speeds. I shoot tethered a hell of a lot. Started with scsi all those years ago then various FireWire standards now USB. I’m sick of cables. If the speed of transfer is good enough that could actually push me to upgrade.
Price is also really good for a camera of this level. That’s going to put pressure on Nikon and Canon on what they can charge when they bring out upgrades, which they will have to do at some point, especially Canon. It looks like a very solid upgrade all round.
-
it will not - for A9 line so far the main priority still remains is to be finally better in AF vs D* / 1D* dSLRs in all aspects... not in resolution department... making more mp will only complicate achieving the main goal...
The 36MP sensor announced by Sony alongside the 60MP sensor earlier this year looks very much like an A9II sensor, or closely related to it.
-
I have not seen that assertion from Sony. Do you have a link?
Just read on DPR “that '15 stops of DR' figure Sony is advertising is with downscaled, 8MP images”.
Regarding assertion question:
I have not read anywhere a disclaimer that 15 stops is with pixel shift only, hence I assume it is with regular shooting.
-
The 36MP sensor announced by Sony alongside the 60MP sensor earlier this year looks very much like an A9II sensor, or closely related to it.
I believe that a majority of serious sports shooters would be actively unhappy about a 36mp sensor.
Managing this amount of data would be essentially an issue with little value for real world applications.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I believe that a majority of serious sports shooters would be actively unhappy about a 36mp sensor.
Managing this amount of data would be essentially an issue with little value for real world applications.
Cheers,
Bernard
I would much prefer 24MP on a A9ii and totally uncompromising performance in everything else. If I need more MP there is the R series.
-
I guess I am answering my own question here, it seems the difference is that Sony is a different pixel shift usage case, it needs 16 samples since it does not deBayer the output. It instead captures full color at all photosites, including the half and full steps--this is contrasted to the Olympus/Panasonic which appear to
still need to deBayer the output. undersample the spatial array by a half pixel. (I think my confusion is that I thought I remember reading that Olympus/Panasonic encoded to be read by standard raw converters.)
Practical purposes? I think the Sony is going overboard with 16 samples as the 8 samples shows off a nice image resolution bump. It is too bad you can't elect to do 8 samples.
Here is a cartoon of it, would have preferred a different presentation though...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwwzM81k5VE
Is there any description of how the camera takes the 16 shots in multi shot mode?
It seems that Olympus and Panasonic are accomplishing the "same" hi-res mode with only 8 shots, whereas this new Sony requires 16. What is the engineering rationale? etc...
-
I think the new pixel shift mode is a combination of two modes.
With current Sony pixel shift, the camera takes four frames, offset by a full pixel, to generate full RGB data for each poxel.
With current Phase One, etc. pixel shift, the camera takes four frames offset by half a pixel, generating Bayer data at twice the resolution (four times the pixel count).
The new Sony method uses 16 shots to generate full RGB data for every pixel at twice the resolution of the base sensor.
I suspect you'll be able to select either one (full RGB data or increased resolution), or both pixel shift methods - choosing one requires four frames, choosing both requires 4x4 = 16 frames.
-
I amended my response, it seems that Olympus/Panasonic still don't need to use a proprietary raw converter to render the hi res shots even though they are getting full color. Would be good to understand how the data is packed to allow something that Sony seems unwilling (or unable to do). As the casual information out there doesn't explain this satisfactorily.
-
I think the new pixel shift mode is a combination of two modes.
...
I suspect you'll be able to select either one (full RGB data or increased resolution), or both pixel shift methods - choosing one requires four frames, choosing both requires 4x4 = 16 frames.
Very likely, and hopefully correct. It would at least provide some method to the madness. For those seeking raw output: I think stacking 16 images straight up will provide infinitely more pixel integrity than any gain in resolution will. Perhaps that's how we should look at the 16 image shift: increases SNR while the quasi resolution gain is a bonus.
-
I have not seen that assertion from Sony. Do you have a link?
Watch any video of Sony's official launch of A7RIV - they directly make a claim of 15 stops of DR...
-
I believe that a majority of serious sports shooters would be actively unhappy about a 36mp sensor.
Managing this amount of data would be essentially an issue with little value for real world applications.
Cheers,
Bernard
There are an equally large number of wildlife shooters and mixed media photojournalists who would disagree. 36-42MP gives you much more room to crop when shooting small or distant subjects, while that sort of resolution is needed for 8k video output, which is starting to emerge as the new high-end standard.
If the technology's there to put an AF system exceeding the A9 into a 36-42MP sensor, while retaining (and probably improving on) high-ISO output quality, there's little reason not to do it. It's been more than two years since the A9 - I'd expect progress in every area of performance, resolution included. And that 36MP sensor announced earlier sounds suspiciously A9II-like in its capabilities (although it has been made available to all manufacturers - the actual A9II may have an improved, 'premium' Sony-only version).
Besides, there's nothing stopping you shooting in sRAW or other reduced-resolution formats if you don't want or need large files. They'll even appear cleaner than native 24MP files.
-
Sony could have included the a9 AF in the a7rIII or a7rIV but didn't.
Their marketing is obviously deciding to segregate capabilities based on target market segment, and I think that the main target segment for the a9 and a9II is clearly pro sports shooters, not wildlife shooters.
I could be wrong... but I don't think that I am.
We also know that Sony will not announce an a9II until November at the earliest since they won't want to blur the marketing message associated to the actual availability of the a7rIV with a competing launch.
This means that you won't be able to spend money for at least another 4 months, maybe 6 if you wait for actual a9II real world test results before buying. :D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sony could have included the a9 AF in the a7rIII or a7rIV but didn't.
Their marketing is obviously deciding to segregate capabilities based on target market segment, and I think that the main target segment for the a9 and a9II is clearly pro sports shooters, not wildlife shooters.
I could be wrong... but I don't think that I am.
We also know that Sony will not announce an a9II until November at the earliest since they won't want to blur the marketing message associated to the actual availability of the a7rIV with a competing launch.
This means that you won't be able to spend money for at least another 4 months, maybe 6 if you wait for actual a9II real world test results before buying. :D
Cheers,
Bernard
I would like to know who exactly is buying the A9. I know wedding guys like it. Up to now the well heeled local wildlife shooters, rich enthusiasts mostly, didn’t like the Sony because of the lack of lenses. I imagine that has shifted now. The A9 is great for PR and events and who needs more than about 6MP for that. It’s mostly just for online newsletters and such.
I am actually considering the new A7R. Not for the MP but I like the WiFi tethering, better buttons, lock button on the over under dial is not insignificant, better EVF. I will wait and see what the A9 delivers. Then I will decide how the two cameras will work as a system. If the A9 goes to 36MP I will buy it and dump the A7R and buy a A6500 as a backup body. Cheap solution. I can’t make a decision on one body in isolation so no decision now.
-
While for many, including me, the extra resolution is not that appealing there are some key improvements that will make the next A7iv significantly more interesting, the better buttons/ergonomics and the improved sealing. The latter was a significant weakness, at least in theory.
-
Just read on DPR “that '15 stops of DR' figure Sony is advertising is with downscaled, 8MP images”.
Regarding assertion question:
I have not read anywhere a disclaimer that 15 stops is with pixel shift only, hence I assume it is with regular shooting.
Thant makes the correction log2(sqrt(8)) = 1.5 stops What's the noise floor that they're using? RN?
Jim
-
A Sony microphone that uses hot shoe connection rather than a wire down the side. That’s useful. Continuous eye AF in video mode is really going to be useful. With the way things are going commercially anything that improves video is going to be good for me.
The reviewers I have watched on YouTube reading from a Sony hand out all say 15 stops of DR. I don’t think that’s surprising since the iii was not far off that. Personally for me the DR wars are pretty much over much like the MP wars but I know that’s not everyone’s opinion on the matter. Deeper grip might also please people, again I don’t care one way or another, I have picked raspberries for a living and if you can do that you can hold any FF camera ever made. Slightly better weather sealing around the battery compartment. I would be more enthusiastic but something to close off in front of the sensor when changing lenses. It’s winter where I live so I haven’t seen a cloud in two months and won’t get any rain until October but dust, loads of dust. I want dust sealing on the sensor. Minority view I know.
Better buttons they are also saying. That could be nice. The Z Nikon buttons have a much better feel than the buttons on my Sony cameras. Better joystick. I haven’t actually found a use for the joystick so far. WiFi tethering, now that’s a thing I could like depending on transfer speeds. I shoot tethered a hell of a lot. Started with scsi all those years ago then various FireWire standards now USB. I’m sick of cables. If the speed of transfer is good enough that could actually push me to upgrade.
Price is also really good for a camera of this level. That’s going to put pressure on Nikon and Canon on what they can charge when they bring out upgrades, which they will have to do at some point, especially Canon. It looks like a very solid upgrade all round.
The reduced price of the A7R3, which arguably is already a better camera than the Nikon or Canon cameras, will put huge downward pressures on the prices from CaNikon. Right now the A7R3 sits at $2,500.
-
Sony could have included the a9 AF in the a7rIII or a7rIV but didn't.
Not really. A7r III or A7r IV use a "traditional" BSI sensor. A9 uses an Stacked-BSI sensor. This allows to read the sensor data at 60 fps and do the calculation of AF tracking without any evf lag. The rest of the system, LSI processor + normal processor in theory, or at least Sony says that, it is the same in all three cameras.
Increasing the resolution of the sensor while still being able to move the amount of data at 60fps it is going to be probably challenging (not meaning they can not do it, I think this is going to happen sooner or later).
For the A9 II in terms of improvement I can see several aspects they could do to make this camera interesting, while keeping the 24 Mpx. They could increase even the frame rate to 120 fps (to say a number), that will be probably allow them to follow with more precision the subject, maybe with a new LSI processor to keep up with the double amount of data per seconds. This new processor could even perform even more complex AF algorithms using "AI".
Increasing the speed they can extract data from the sensor like I'm saying in the previous case while even make the camera electronic shutter less prone to rolling shutter or to flicker effects due to lighting.
Of course, increasing resolution it is an option for them... also even better high ISO performance will be more interesting for sport photographers.
-
I would like to know who exactly is buying the A9. I know wedding guys like it. Up to now the well heeled local wildlife shooters, rich enthusiasts mostly, didn’t like the Sony because of the lack of lenses. I imagine that has shifted now. The A9 is great for PR and events and who needs more than about 6MP for that. It’s mostly just for online newsletters and such.
I am actually considering the new A7R. Not for the MP but I like the WiFi tethering, better buttons, lock button on the over under dial is not insignificant, better EVF. I will wait and see what the A9 delivers. Then I will decide how the two cameras will work as a system. If the A9 goes to 36MP I will buy it and dump the A7R and buy a A6500 as a backup body. Cheap solution. I can’t make a decision on one body in isolation so no decision now.
I believe there are way more wedding photographers buying the A9 than sports photographers. It will be a mistake to limit the mpix because a very small segment ( pro sports photographers ) don't want to deal with larger files.
-
Not really. A7r III or A7r IV use a "traditional" BSI sensor. A9 uses an Stacked-BSI sensor. This allows to read the sensor data at 60 fps and do the calculation of AF tracking without any evf lag. The rest of the system, LSI processor + normal processor in theory, or at least Sony says that, it is the same in all three cameras.
Increasing the resolution of the sensor while still being able to move the amount of data at 60fps it is going to be probably challenging (not meaning they can not do it, I think this is going to happen sooner or later).
For the A9 II in terms of improvement I can see several aspects they could do to make this camera interesting, while keeping the 24 Mpx. They could increase even the frame rate to 120 fps (to say a number), that will be probably allow them to follow with more precision the subject, maybe with a new LSI processor to keep up with the double amount of data per seconds. This new processor could even perform even more complex AF algorithms using "AI".
Increasing the speed they can extract data from the sensor like I'm saying in the previous case while even make the camera electronic shutter less prone to rolling shutter or to flicker effects due to lighting.
Of course, increasing resolution it is an option for them... also even better high ISO performance will be more interesting for sport photographers.
I know we are off subject but regarding the A9ii I heard about a thing called TSR being tested. It stands for total scene recognition and is some kind of more advanced AI than currently being used. Who knows
Anyway I am leaning more and more towards upgrading to the A7Riv. For now I really must resist the urge.
-
Sony could have included the a9 AF in the a7rIII or a7rIV but didn't.
Their marketing is obviously deciding to segregate capabilities based on target market segment, and I think that the main target segment for the a9 and a9II is clearly pro sports shooters, not wildlife shooters.
I could be wrong... but I don't think that I am.
We also know that Sony will not announce an a9II until November at the earliest since they won't want to blur the marketing message associated to the actual availability of the a7rIV with a competing launch.
This means that you won't be able to spend money for at least another 4 months, maybe 6 if you wait for actual a9II real world test results before buying. :D
Cheers,
Bernard
They couldn't have included it on the A7r3 because that camera uses an older sensor design, unable to support it. The A7r4 uses a new sensor, which has been stated to include real-time tracking by Sony and which appears to match the A9 in capability in at least one report.
Sports photographers make up a tiny minority of A9 shooters. They sell far more to wedding shooters, photojournalists and other photojournalist types (e.g. event, live music and live theatre photographers), rich amateurs wanting the newest and fanciest gadget out there, and will have a growing chunk of wildlife enthusiasts now that they're expanding their supertele range. Sports photographers and the Olympics may be their showcase, but are far from their biggest and most important customers.
Besides, Sony, unlike Canon, doesn't have much of a history of segregating capabilities for the sake of market segmentation. Any technology or new capability can show up in any camera, depending on when it's ready. Animal eye AF first showed up in the A7r3, when the A9 is more of a wildlife camera. The A7r3 works better with mechanical shutter than the A9, when the A9 is more likely to be used in roles that actually call for it. The A7III has better AF and a more advanced (if lower resolution) sensor than the much more expensive A7r3.
Besides, they already have a suitable new sensor, and it's 36MP (it's unlikely that a premium version dedicated to Sony's flagship action camera will have less than this sensor, which is being sold to everyone). The A7r4 went from 42 to 61MP. 24 to 36MP is a similar increase, and would reflect the increased data bandwidth and improved sensor design over the same period of time.
I have no need to spend money on a new body just yet anyway. The A7r3 works fine as it is - almost anything I shoot that can benefit from 61MP can also be stitched, for even better final output. If the A9II has at least 36MP and even better AF and high ISO capability, I'll be seriously looking that as a do-everything body to cover both landscape/cityscape and action work. Doubly so if it has a global shutter, but I doubt that's ready yet (although Sony has surprised me before - I expected A7r3-level AF for the third generation of full-frame mirrorless cameras, with A9-level, SLR-matching AF only coming in the next generation, i.e. those being released now). But I'm more interested in new superteles, a better 70-200/2.8 (the current one is a disappointment which I refused to buy) and some super-sharp f/4 zooms, which Sony should develop now that the f/2.8 zoom lineup for the journalist/wedding crowd is complete.
-
Couldn't a "small raw" capability solve the sports shooters' needs? Many cameras do that these days (although some lose speed in the process).
-
Watch any video of Sony's official launch of A7RIV - they directly make a claim of 15 stops of DR...
The question is not whether they said 15 stops of DR, but rather is it achieved in single shot mode. Of course , there's the larger question of the protocol and whether they scales the measurements to some arbitrary, non-native resolution.
Jim
-
Not really. A7r III or A7r IV use a "traditional" BSI sensor. A9 uses an Stacked-BSI sensor. This allows to read the sensor data at 60 fps and do the calculation of AF tracking without any evf lag. The rest of the system, LSI processor + normal processor in theory, or at least Sony says that, it is the same in all three cameras.
When reading out reduced resolution data for AF use, the a9 can go considerably faster than 60 fps.
https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/sony-a9-dynamic-battery-draw/
However, the a9 is unable to read out the entire sensor at 60 fps.
Jim
-
The question is not whether they said 15 stops of DR, but rather is it achieved in single shot mode. Of course , there's the larger question of the protocol and whether they scales the measurements to some arbitrary, non-native resolution.
Jim
Of course! We will have to wait and see...
-
Of course! We will have to wait and see...
Sony writes for a7rIV: 15-stop dynamic range under Sony's test condition.
Sony's a7rIII page:
A new front-end LSI and BIONZ X™ boost processing speed and are teamed with the Exmor R™ sensor to deliver up to 15-stop dynamic range at low ISO sensitivity for stills, enabling richer tonal expression.
Sony's a7rIV page:
The latest BIONZ X image processing engine works in tandem with front-end LSI to maximize high-resolution sensor performance while achieving up to 15-stop dynamic range at low ISO sensitivity.
-
Sony writes for a7rIV: 15-stop dynamic range under Sony's test condition.
Sony's a7rIII page:
A new front-end LSI and BIONZ X™ boost processing speed and are teamed with the Exmor R™ sensor to deliver up to 15-stop dynamic range at low ISO sensitivity for stills, enabling richer tonal expression.
Sony's a7rIV page:
The latest BIONZ X image processing engine works in tandem with front-end LSI to maximize high-resolution sensor performance while achieving up to 15-stop dynamic range at low ISO sensitivity.
No use directing this post to me - I have read the same thing...
Jim Kasson is making it clear that he wants data, not conclusions...
-
No use directing this post to me - I have read the same thing...
Jim Kasson is making it clear that he wants data, not conclusions...
And the data coming from the manufacturer won’t be trusted and since the camera was launched so recently that the first batteries have barely had time to be charged no one has had the time to do proper tests and make graphs. Give it a few days.
Last night I watched a short YouTube video comparison between the iii and the iv. I didn’t bother keeping the link so can’t post it here but it shouldn’t be hard to find. I was surprised at how big an improvement the new camera shows. I have no idea as to the testing protocol so would like to see more information.
-
“The latest BIONZ X image processing engine works in tandem with front-end LSI to maximize high-resolution sensor performance while achieving up to 15-stop dynamic range at low ISO sensitivity” tells me primarily that the bit depth of the image processing pipeline is able to handle a 15-stop dynamic range. It doesn’t specifically say that the 15-stop dynamic range directly comes of the sensor itself, it could for instance come from averaging a sequence of frames by the BIONZ.
In my opinion a 15-stop dynamic range directly out of the sensor is for now a step too far, technology wise.
I know, still speculating, no real facts yet ;)
Regards,
Jaap.
-
Sony writes for a7rIV: 15-stop dynamic range under Sony's test condition.
Sony's a7rIII page:
A new front-end LSI and BIONZ X™ boost processing speed and are teamed with the Exmor R™ sensor to deliver up to 15-stop dynamic range at low ISO sensitivity for stills, enabling richer tonal expression.
Sony's a7rIV page:
The latest BIONZ X image processing engine works in tandem with front-end LSI to maximize high-resolution sensor performance while achieving up to 15-stop dynamic range at low ISO sensitivity.
The question of what the test conditions are is not even addressed in those quotes, but less answered.
To be precise:
How is the denominator calculated? (I assume the numerator is simply full scale)
Is the pixel-level DR scaled to some arbitrary print size?
By the way, I can understand the utility of normalizing PDR to a fixed viewing angle. I cannot understand what the utility is of normalizing EDR that way -- except to marketeers.
By the way, I see some people saying that Sony made the same claim for the a7RIII. Here's the EDR that I measured:
https://blog.kasson.com/a7riii/sony-a7riii-edr-vs-iso-setting/
Here's what I got for PDR with Claff normalization:
https://blog.kasson.com/a7riii/sony-a7riii-and-nikon-z7-shadow-noise-numbers/
Jim
-
The question of what the test conditions are is not even addressed in those quotes, but less answered.
To be precise:
How is the denominator calculated? (I assume the numerator is simply full scale)
Is the pixel-level DR scaled to some arbitrary print size?
By the way, I can understand the utility of normalizing PDR to a fixed viewing angle. I cannot understand what the utility is of normalizing EDR that way -- except to marketeers.
By the way, I see some people saying that Sony made the same claim for the a7RIII. Here's the EDR that I measured:
https://blog.kasson.com/a7riii/sony-a7riii-edr-vs-iso-setting/
Here's what I got for PDR with Claff normalization:
https://blog.kasson.com/a7riii/sony-a7riii-and-nikon-z7-shadow-noise-numbers/
Jim
Agree with everything you wrote.
My understanding: Sony's 15-stop DR is mainly a marketing point. The only conclusion I deduce from Sony's brochures is that a7rIII and a7rIV have similar DR (assuming they used the same Sony's test conditions). I also assume that Sony's DR is not written in the octal number system ;-).
To compare a7rIV's DR with other cameras, we need to wait for Bill Claff's measurements.
-
It doesn't seem that Sony's actual DR is as important as its DR as compared to other cameras. Is it better, the same as, or worse than the competition.
-
It doesn't seem that Sony's actual DR is as important as its DR as compared to other cameras. Is it better, the same as, or worse than the competition.
At this point, who can tell?
-
The 36MP sensor announced by Sony alongside the 60MP sensor earlier this year looks very much like an A9II sensor, or closely related to it.
A7S line might need 8K ... A9 line does not
-
I would much prefer 24MP on a A9ii and totally uncompromising performance in everything else. If I need more MP there is the R series.
exactly the point - before moving above 24mp on А9 line Sony needs to match or best everything that top line (D* & 1D*) dSLRs do ... 36mp will be only an obstacle to AF and FPS - there is no point to have 36mp on a sports camera if 20-24mp dSLR still does better in some aspects
-
And that 36MP sensor announced earlier sounds suspiciously A9II-like in its capabilities
A7SIII capabilities... not A9II's
-
Sony could have included the a9 AF in the a7rIII or a7rIV but didn't.
no, A9 has stacked sensor assembly ( https://www.sony-semicon.co.jp/products_en/IS/sensor2/technology/exmor-rs.html ) ... neither A7RIII nor A7R4 do.
-
This allows to read the sensor data at 60 fps
just a note 60 fps can be done w/o stacked design too ... see new non stacked 36mp sensor --- 60 fps @ 10bit (to feed EVF/LCD/CDAF/PDAF)
-
I believe there are way more wedding photographers buying the A9 than sports photographers.
I believe in aliens ! wedding is not a repro/product/fashion
-
The question is not whether they said 15 stops of DR, but rather is it achieved in single shot mode. Of course , there's the larger question of the protocol and whether they scales the measurements to some arbitrary, non-native resolution.
Jim
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3979321923/sony-a7r-iv-what-you-need-to-know?slide=7
"...that '15 stops of DR' figure Sony is advertising is with downscaled, 8MP images..."
that is of course not BClaff-like test, but they have the actual camera
-
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3979321923/sony-a7r-iv-what-you-need-to-know?slide=7
"...that '15 stops of DR' figure Sony is advertising is with downscaled, 8MP images..."
that is of course not BClaff-like test, but they have the actual camera
And what is the denominator?
-
exactly the point - before moving above 24mp on А9 line Sony needs to match or best everything that top line (D* & 1D*) dSLRs do ... 36mp will be only an obstacle to AF and FPS - there is no point to have 36mp on a sports camera if 20-24mp dSLR still does better in some aspects
I like the split in capability. I used to use 4x5 and 35mm. Was never a fan of MF. A very high res body and a high performance body gives me that split again but with huge convenience.
As a thought experiment imagine Sony manages to produce a global shutter at 24MP, I’m sure they will one day. I would rather have that than a 36MP camera without the global shutter.
Incidentally the ability to switch to APSC format and still get 26MP is attractive. Turn my 400 into a 600. That could be useful.
-
I like the split in capability. I used to use 4x5 and 35mm. Was never a fan of MF. A very high res body and a high performance body gives me that split again but with huge convenience.
As a thought experiment imagine Sony manages to produce a global shutter at 24MP, I’m sure they will one day. I would rather have that than a 36MP camera without the global shutter.
Incidentally the ability to switch to APSC format and still get 26MP is attractive. Turn my 400 into a 600. That could be useful.
A7S line might need 8K ... A9 line does not
The A9 is a photojournalist's camera, not just a sports camera. Increasingly, photojournalists shoot both stills and video, for print, online and TV publication, mixing the two formats at the same event. This requires a camera capable of the AF needed for fast action, as well as the video capability needed for the high-resolution TV standard of its day. Going forwards, this means 8k.
36-42MP will be the new standard for action cameras, either in this generation or the next. This is needed for 8k output. The A7s series is likely dead in its current form, as a dedicated low-resolution, low-light camera with a strong video focus. Future video standards will also call for 8k, which turns the A7s series more into a cut-down A9 (possibly more optimised for video, at the expense of some stills capability) rather than a dedicated low-light, low-resolution monster.
A camera which is good for still sports photography and not much else won't have much of an audience. Even wedding and event photographers shoot video clips, which, in future, will be 8k. With the latest firmware update, Sony has already beaten both the 1Dx2 and D5 in terms of AF capability, with a 24MP sensor (vs the Canon/Nikon 20MP sensors). In the last two -and-a-bit years, there's no reason they won't have, or can't have, built the same capability into a 36MP sensor.
Totally agree about the ability to crop. That's also why 36-42MP makes sense for a wildlife/sports body. Shooting distant subjects from a fixed location with a long prime often calls for cropping (or switching to a shorter lens, when they get too close). Crop a 36-42MP image to 1.5x and you still have 16-18MP - reasonable for an APS-C camera. Crop a 24MP image to 1.5x and you're not left with much at all.
-
Regarding the dynamic range claim, maybe this news from 7 months ago reveals a bit more:
https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-more-specs-from-the-five-new-sony-full-frame-sensors/ (https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-more-specs-from-the-five-new-sony-full-frame-sensors/)
The A7r4 uses the IMX 551 sensor, with a 14.9 stop DR. This sensor was not made available to other companies (at least not yet).
The less-capable IMX 455 was made available to third parties, and is the sensor Nikon has purchased (https://nikonrumors.com/2019/04/23/rumors-nikon-signed-up-to-purchase-the-new-sony-60mp-sensor-imx455.aspx/) for its own cameras. This will likely show up in the Z8 (https://nikonrumors.com/2019/07/16/the-rumors-about-a-new-nikon-z8-camera-with-a-60mp-sensor-make-more-sense-today.aspx/). Note that the IMX 455 has less DR (14.4 stops), but uses a base ISO of 64 (with another base at 400) (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-another-new-sony-sensors-imx455-a-stripped-down-version-of-the-60mp-imx551-available-off-the-shelf/amp/) - the same setup as has appeared in recent Nikon bodies.
-
The A7r4 uses the IMX 551 sensor, with a 14.9 stop DR. This sensor was not made available to other companies (at least not yet).
What is your source of information?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
What is your source of information?
Cheers,
Bernard
Mentioned sporadically on FredMiranda. Also seems to be mentioned a lot on Chinese-language websites (such as this (https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/74199083) article), accessible using Google Translate. Type in "A7r4" or "A7r IV" and "IMX551" into Google and you'll get a few hits from FredMiranda and other English websites, but a ton of articles in Chinese about it.
Also, it's the only 61MP sensor that Sony itself has announced manages close to 15 stops of DR (14.9 stops). The other 61MP sensor only manages 14.4 stops and also has a base ISO of 64, not 100 like the A7r4.
-
Mentioned sporadically on FredMiranda. Also seems to be mentioned a lot on Chinese-language websites (such as this (https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/74199083) article), accessible using Google Translate. Type in "A7r4" or "A7r IV" and "IMX551" into Google and you'll get a few hits from FredMiranda and other English websites, but a ton of articles in Chinese about it.
Also, it's the only 61MP sensor that Sony itself has announced manages close to 15 stops of DR (14.9 stops). The other 61MP sensor only manages 14.4 stops and also has a base ISO of 64, not 100 like the A7r4.
Does a sensor have a (non-theoretical) dynamic range in isolation from its surrounding electronics? Or is DR the product of the electronic system as a whole?
-
Does a sensor have a (non-theoretical) dynamic range in isolation from its surrounding electronics?
Since the sensor has column ADCs, it does indeed. That assumes perfect power supplies and grounding.
Jim
-
Regarding the dynamic range claim, maybe this news from 7 months ago reveals a bit more:
https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-more-specs-from-the-five-new-sony-full-frame-sensors/ (https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-more-specs-from-the-five-new-sony-full-frame-sensors/)
The A7r4 uses the IMX 551 sensor, with a 14.9 stop DR. This sensor was not made available to other companies (at least not yet).
The less-capable IMX 455 was made available to third parties, and is the sensor Nikon has purchased (https://nikonrumors.com/2019/04/23/rumors-nikon-signed-up-to-purchase-the-new-sony-60mp-sensor-imx455.aspx/) for its own cameras. This will likely show up in the Z8 (https://nikonrumors.com/2019/07/16/the-rumors-about-a-new-nikon-z8-camera-with-a-60mp-sensor-make-more-sense-today.aspx/). Note that the IMX 455 has less DR (14.4 stops), but uses a base ISO of 64 (with another base at 400) (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-another-new-sony-sensors-imx455-a-stripped-down-version-of-the-60mp-imx551-available-off-the-shelf/amp/) - the same setup as has appeared in recent Nikon bodies.
Hi,
I could be somewhat skeptical about that DR figure. They could of course talk about normalized DxO-mark style figures. But, handling 14.9 bits of DR would need a 15 bit data format. It would also mean slower read out. So, color me skeptical about that.
Best regards
Erik
-
I could be somewhat skeptical about that DR figure. They could of course talk about normalized DxO-mark style figures. But, handling 14.9 bits of DR would need a 15 bit data format. It would also mean slower read out. So, color me skeptical about that.
Sony says it's 14 bits:
-
The SonyAlphaRumors specs on the IMX455 mention that it has a 16-bit readout capability. Since the links on SAR are screwed up and the article purporting to lead to the IMX551 specs also goes to the 455 (same article), I can't see whether the 551 has the (probably slowed down) 16-bit mode.
One of the very first cameras to have a true 14 bit readout was the Nikon D3x, which was very slow in 14-bit mode. The (MUCH less expensive) Sony DSLR using a similar sensor released at almost exactly the same time (Alpha 900? It was a long time ago) did not enable the slow 14-bit mode, and ignored several other tricks Nikon used to improve image quality.
Could Nikon pull the same trick again? A camera with a very, very high quality mode that is also disproportionately slow in high quality mode? The D3x 14-bit mode was only a little over 1 fps, and I believe it may have disabled continuous shooting entirely (or could it have automatically reverted to 12-bit when you moved the drive mode dial off of S)?
Would make for an interesting Z8, D900 or both - a camera that does most or all of what the A7r IV can do from a sensor perspective, but also has a mode that offers extra image quality at the cost of speed. They can't charge like a D3x for it, because the GFX 100 is sitting not that far above that price point...
-
The SonyAlphaRumors specs on the IMX455 mention that it has a 16-bit readout capability. Since the links on SAR are screwed up and the article purporting to lead to the IMX551 specs also goes to the 455 (same article), I can't see whether the 551 has the (probably slowed down) 16-bit mode.
One of the very first cameras to have a true 14 bit readout was the Nikon D3x, which was very slow in 14-bit mode. The (MUCH less expensive) Sony DSLR using a similar sensor released at almost exactly the same time (Alpha 900? It was a long time ago) did not enable the slow 14-bit mode, and ignored several other tricks Nikon used to improve image quality.
Could Nikon pull the same trick again? A camera with a very, very high quality mode that is also disproportionately slow in high quality mode? The D3x 14-bit mode was only a little over 1 fps, and I believe it may have disabled continuous shooting entirely (or could it have automatically reverted to 12-bit when you moved the drive mode dial off of S)?
Would make for an interesting Z8, D900 or both - a camera that does most or all of what the A7r IV can do from a sensor perspective, but also has a mode that offers extra image quality at the cost of speed. They can't charge like a D3x for it, because the GFX 100 is sitting not that far above that price point...
If the pixel design is the same as in the 3.76 um IMX 461 and IMX 411, 16-bit precision won't offer much advantage. The read noise is sufficient to provide adequate dither to a 14-bit ADC. At least that's what it looks like from Bill Claff's numbers, although there are a few inconsistencies. It's pretty close, though.
Jim
-
Unless it’s reinventing the wheel in terms of image quality, doesn’t 16 step pixel shift shooting strike anyone as more than a little unwieldy and impractical in 2019?
Hasselblad had this years ago, and it was outstanding, if you had the time and shooting environment to do it.
But, if you really need it now, you’re probably working for an institution that might stretch to the six-shot Hasselblad.
I just don’t see the point in this camera.
I’m still using my old 39Mp multi-shot (4 shot) Hasselblad. In effect, all that it does is remove the effect of the filter. (And having only 39Mp spread over such a huge sensor produces a file of wonderful DR and elasticity) The difference between single and 4 shot is marked.
I’d certainly be interested in seeing how the 4-shot option in the Sony compares with the added bonus of 20+ extra MPs.
But, 16 shot strikes me cumbersome and retrograde.
D.
-
Unless it’s reinventing the wheel in terms of image quality, doesn’t 16 step pixel shift shooting strike anyone as more than a little unwieldy and impractical in 2019?
Hasselblad had this years ago, and it was outstanding, if you had the time and shooting environment to do it.
But, if you really need it now, you’re probably working for an institution that might stretch to the six-shot Hasselblad.
I just don’t see the point in this camera.
I’m still using my old 39Mp multi-shot (4 shot) Hasselblad. In effect, all that it does is remove the effect of the filter. (And having only 39Mp spread over such a huge sensor produces a file of wonderful DR and elasticity) The difference between single and 4 shot is marked.
I’d certainly be interested in seeing how the 4-shot option in the Sony compares with the added bonus of 20+ extra MPs.
But, 16 shot strikes me cumbersome and retrograde.
D.
If you have a lens that's sharp enough, it would be great for product photography and art reproduction.
This mode will give you 240 million pixels with true RGB values for each - provided nothing in you scene moves at all. At present, no other camera will do this - you either get 4x the pixel count but still rely on Bayer interpolation, or you get true RGB values for each pixel, but no overall increase in spatial resolution.
But the requirement for a totally static scene pretty much restricts it to product photography or reproduction. Almost everything else has some sort of moving element in it that would kill much of the resolution gain and/or introduce artifacts. It's a niche application, but an application nonetheless.
-
Repro/copy work is what I use my 4-shot Hasselblad for and it’s superb - DR, colour, etc.
Hasselblad’s new(ish) 6-shot offering looks fantastic, if you trust the PR.
My point still stands; in any kind of pressured environment, where time is money, a 16-shot offering looks like regression to me. I await the (unbiased) reviews.
D.
Ps. On the point of good glass for repro/copy; the Sony 90mm macro has been recommended, albeit a bit on the long side. Any other suggestions?
-
If you have a lens that's sharp enough, it would be great for product photography and art reproduction.
This mode will give you 240 million pixels with true RGB values for each - provided nothing in you scene moves at all. At present, no other camera will do this - you either get 4x the pixel count but still rely on Bayer interpolation, or you get true RGB values for each pixel, but no overall increase in spatial resolution.
But the requirement for a totally static scene pretty much restricts it to product photography or reproduction. Almost everything else has some sort of moving element in it that would kill much of the resolution gain and/or introduce artifacts. It's a niche application, but an application nonetheless.
Who on earth needs that many pixels for product photography? I shoot products day in and day out and 99% ends up on websites. Very few products are so well made than they can stand to show that much detail.
-
Who on earth needs that many pixels for product photography? I shoot products day in and day out and 99% ends up on websites. Very few products are so well made than they can stand to show that much detail.
This is the kind of use to which shed loads of pixels can be put. (Though I think that this is a composite image.)
http://www.insidebruegel.net/#p/v=udroom&lan=en&a=1016&x=s:3_l:1_v1:1016,vis
But, I’d rather get there via a 6-shot Hasselblad than a 16-shot anything else.
D.
-
This is the kind of use to which shed loads of pixels can be put. (Though I think that this is a composite image.)
http://www.insidebruegel.net/#p/v=udroom&lan=en&a=1016&x=s:3_l:1_v1:1016,vis
But, I’d rather get there via a 6-shot Hasselblad than a 16-shot anything else.
D.
I totally get the need for as many pixels as you can lay your hands on with that type of stuff. I used to shoot art work for Sotheby’s on 8x10 and even 11x14 on occasion. Wouldn’t call it product photography though.
When I got into digital there was Kodak instant Capture and Phase and Agfa scanning backs pretty much. I made the decision I wasn’t doing scanning backs and later made the decision I wasn’t doing multishot anything.
If I really needed the ultimate in pixels as your link demonstrates I would buy the Phase 150MP monster. Sixteen frames on a Sony? I don’t think so.
-
And having only 39Mp spread over such a huge sensor produces a file of wonderful DR and elasticity
with consumer level non liquid nitrogen or something cooled CCD sensor ? may be ~2 stops less DR than consumer level CMOS in modern 50mp MF or 40-something FF ;D ... but you can dream of course about that 16-bit color tales from those backs so popular on this very forum a while back
-
Why bother bringing actual photographic needs in this discussion? :D
Wouldn’t it be faster to just admit that the a7rIV is superior in every possible way for every possible application?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Why bother bringing actual photographic needs in this discussion? :D
Wouldn’t it be faster to just admit that the a7rIV is superior in every possible way for every possible application?
Cheers,
Bernard
Finally you are starting to make sense Bernard :)
Speaking of needs. If the the wireless tethering is fast enough the iv will be close to perfect for my admittedly modest studio requirements. High enough res when I need it and APSC giving me a useful reach and perfect MP count for most of my work. As an example today I am photographing 50 power sockets. Tomorrow about 40 Polo bags. Unfortunately that’s not all I do. But it is true that cameras are becoming more versatile. I have 6 short videos to produce and will use the same camera I used for all the products to shoot that.
-
61mp on a 36x24mm sensor means that the pixel size is roughly the same as an M43 20mp sensor. On my GH5 I can see diffraction softening setting in when I stop down past 5.6 so for critical work so on the IV you will need to keep below F8 to get the best out of this sensor. Given that many lenses used in applications like landscape where edge and corner sharpness as well as DOF are important you have to ask is everyone going to benefit from 61mp? My main commercial tool is an A7r3 used in conjunction with Canon Shift lenses ( 24mm TS-EII and 17mm) for architecture. I find that in order to optimise resolution across the frame I need to stop down past the diffraction limit to F11 so I have serious doubts as to how useful 61mp will be unless Canon updates these now quite old lenses (or Sony brings out a set of shift lenses). Having said that I've just pre ordered a IV.....
-
https://m.dpreview.com/news/4477765388/sony-shows-off-specs-of-six-full-frame-sensors-including-a-quad-bayer-sensor
Plenty of opportunities.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Repro/copy work is what I use my 4-shot Hasselblad for and it’s superb - DR, colour, etc.
Hasselblad’s new(ish) 6-shot offering looks fantastic, if you trust the PR.
My point still stands; in any kind of pressured environment, where time is money, a 16-shot offering looks like regression to me. I await the (unbiased) reviews.
99% of the time spent shooting anything that would be amenable to any sort of pixel shift technique consists of setting up the shot - subject, backdrops, lights, cameras, tripods. Actually taking the shot takes almost no time - and, if multiple exposures are exposed, the camera does it all for you once the remote trigger is pressed. Whether it's a single exposure, four exposures or sixteen exposures, the time difference is minimal - seconds at most - compared to the many minutes spent setting up the shot. And, once the shots are taken, the computer does all the work combining them, with minimal human input.
A sixteen-shot technique has a significant advantage over current four-shot techniques. By getting a true RGB reading for every pixel, without relying on interpolation, colour artifacts are almost completely eliminated. At 240MP - likely outresolving the lens - moire is also almost completely eliminated. With a four-shot technique that uses full pixel shifts, you eliminate the colour artifacts but don't get the resolution increase. With a four-shot technique that uses half pixel shifts, you get the increased resolution, but still get the colour artifacts. In most subjects, the artifacts will be subtle, but, if you're going to the effort of pixel shifting anyway, you're probably after every little bit you can get.
I could see this technique being taken to the extreme for certain macro subjects (e.g. dead bugs or flowers), in combination with focus stacking and averaged exposure (HDR being unnecessary with controlled lighting). Sixteen exposures, repeated eight times and averaged for an effective ISO of 12.5, focus stacked perhaps 10 times to get the whole object in focus, for a total of 1280 frames (or more, if more stacked layers are required). Probably overkill, but someone's bound to try it, if only to get a tack-sharp, flawless, everything-in-focus, billboard-sized print of an ant.
-
99% of the time spent shooting anything that would be amenable to any sort of pixel shift technique consists of setting up the shot - subject, backdrops, lights, cameras, tripods. Actually taking the shot takes almost no time - and, if multiple exposures are exposed, the camera does it all for you once the remote trigger is pressed. Whether it's a single exposure, four exposures or sixteen exposures, the time difference is minimal - seconds at most - compared to the many minutes spent setting up the shot. And, once the shots are taken, the computer does all the work combining them, with minimal human input.
A sixteen-shot technique has a significant advantage over current four-shot techniques. By getting a true RGB reading for every pixel, without relying on interpolation, colour artifacts are almost completely eliminated. At 240MP - likely outresolving the lens - moire is also almost completely eliminated. With a four-shot technique that uses full pixel shifts, you eliminate the colour artifacts but don't get the resolution increase. With a four-shot technique that uses half pixel shifts, you get the increased resolution, but still get the colour artifacts. In most subjects, the artifacts will be subtle, but, if you're going to the effort of pixel shifting anyway, you're probably after every little bit you can get.
I could see this technique being taken to the extreme for certain macro subjects (e.g. dead bugs or flowers), in combination with focus stacking and averaged exposure (HDR being unnecessary with controlled lighting). Sixteen exposures, repeated eight times and averaged for an effective ISO of 12.5, focus stacked perhaps 10 times to get the whole object in focus, for a total of 1280 frames (or more, if more stacked layers are required). Probably overkill, but someone's bound to try it, if only to get a tack-sharp, flawless, everything-in-focus, billboard-sized print of an ant.
True enough. The a7RIV seems to lack focus bracketing, which seems like an oversight in this context.
-
https://m.dpreview.com/news/4477765388/sony-shows-off-specs-of-six-full-frame-sensors-including-a-quad-bayer-sensor
Plenty of opportunities.
Cheers,
Bernard
Interesting Quad-Bayer structure sensor:
(http://guillermoluijk.com/misc/quadbayer.png)
Photodetectors can be read:
- With different exposure time (HDR): could produce artifacts with moving subjects
- With different conversion gains (ISO) at the same exposure time: no moving artifacts but SNR enhancement will not be that high with ISO-invariant cells
- Regular Bayer readout by binning each 4-photodetectors in a single pixel
Reminds me of the Fuji's Super CCD (http://guillermoluijk.com/article/superccd/superccd.jpg) philosophy.
Regards
-
True enough. The a7RIV seems to lack focus bracketing, which seems like an oversight in this context.
It sure does lack focus bracketing..... a feature I really wished it had as that would cement a purchase for me. I would think Sony could add it with a firmware update but maybe there just isn't enough demand even though it's featured on other mirrorless cameras.
Victor
-
A7SIII capabilities... not A9II's
shadowblade as expected was proved wrong... 24mp, baby ;D ;D ;D
-
The 36MP sensor announced by Sony alongside the 60MP sensor earlier this year looks very much like an A9II sensor, or closely related to it.
:-*
-
shadowblade as expected was proved wrong... 24mp, baby ;D ;D ;D
Hardly a surprise. It was more daydreaming than informed conjecture.
-
Hardly a surprise. It was more daydreaming than informed conjecture.
Shadowblade has a near perfect track record of being wrong in his forecasts... ;)
- Nikon's releases were never as bad as he predicted,
- Sony's releases were never as good as he predicted.
Cheers,
Bernard