Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: Guillermo Luijk on August 27, 2015, 04:08:02 pm
-
Only in dynamic range (base ISO), the Nikon D810 beats the Sony. The A7R II beats the Canon 5DS in every aspect:
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7R-II-versus-Nikon-D810-versus-Canon-EOS-5DS-R___1035_963_1009
Regarding ISO, it is more balanced than the genuine ISOless Sony sensors. That is why it beats the A7S (another non ISOless sensor) up to ISO6400:
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7R-II-versus-Sony-A7R-versus-Sony-A7S___1035_917_949
I wonder how the rumored RAW noise reduction applied by Sony can affect these figures.
Regards
-
There are two parts to any technology: what it is capable of and how it is implanted. As an example Nikon was able seemingly able to get more out of a Sony sensor that were Sony themselves. Is that is what is being measured here? I ask only because DxO is open to so much criticism and its technicalities are way beyond my understanding.
-
Only in dynamic range (base ISO), the Nikon D810 beats the Sony. The A7R II beats the Canon 5DS in every aspect:
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7R-II-versus-Nikon-D810-versus-Canon-EOS-5DS-R___1035_963_1009
Regarding ISO, it is more balanced than the genuine ISOless Sony sensors. That is why it beats the A7S (another non ISOless sensor) up to ISO6400:
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7R-II-versus-Sony-A7R-versus-Sony-A7S___1035_917_949
I wonder how the rumored RAW noise reduction applied by Sony can affect these figures.
From the numbers, these look like single shot (SS) shutter mode results.
While I see evidence of spatial filtering in bulb shutter modes, I don't see any for camera-timed SS shots. Can you think of a raw noise reduction method that wouldn't show up an a departure from flatness for dark-field spectra?
http://blog.kasson.com/?p=11180
http://blog.kasson.com/?p=11192
http://blog.kasson.com/?p=11542
Jim
-
From the numbers, these look like single shot (SS) shutter mode results.
While I see evidence of spatial filtering in bulb shutter modes, I don't see any for camera-timed SS shots. Can you think of a raw noise reduction method that wouldn't show up an a departure from flatness for dark-field spectra?
A hard offset by some computed noise floor?
Edmund
-
A hard offset by some computed noise floor?
Edmund
Ah, Edmund, the old M240 trick.
I don't see how that can be the case in the a7RII, since the camera doesn't subtract the black point (nominally 512 in 14-bit representation) before writing the data to the raw file.
There are some typical dark-field histograms in the following post:
http://blog.kasson.com/?p=11142
Jim
-
Looking at the scores, the two are pretty close, within 1 point, and on the individual testing only the low light sports seemed to score better for the Sony. I had expected the Sony to break 100 or so.
Paul
-
From the numbers, these look like single shot (SS) shutter mode results.
While I see evidence of spatial filtering in bulb shutter modes, I don't see any for camera-timed SS shots. Can you think of a raw noise reduction method that wouldn't show up an a departure from flatness for dark-field spectra?
http://blog.kasson.com/?p=11180
http://blog.kasson.com/?p=11192
http://blog.kasson.com/?p=11542
Jim
Geez...and I thought I clicked on a photography forum. Guess I'll carry on and make photos.
-
Hi,
It seems that Nikon (and Pentax) always make better use of Sony's sensors than Sony themselves. I actually suspect that 100 points are already, not only by RED One but also all Sony based MFD sensors, but DxO has not tested them, unfortunately.
On the other hand, it also shows how much development it takes to get a few DxO points more.
Now, the new Sony sensor was meant to work well with video, having high readout rates, on sensor PDAF and so on. It needed to meet many design targets.
Best regards
Erik
Looking at the scores, the two are pretty close, within 1 point, and on the individual testing only the low light sports seemed to score better for the Sony. I had expected the Sony to break 100 or so.
Paul
-
Geez...and I thought I clicked on a photography forum. Guess I'll carry on and make photos.
Yes, probably better than reading an "Equipment & Techniques" forum, with a thread that's discussing sensor specifications, and expecting to see pretty pictures of e.g. cats ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Those results confirm the a7rII as a very talented all rounder.
This being said, the pace of improvement in sensors tech seems to be decreasing significantly even at Sony. The value over a one year old D810 in terms of image quality is questionable.
There are of course other aspects where the a7rII shines.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Kind of disagree. Then which camera enjoys a non questionable value?
Those results confirm the a7rII as a very talented all rounder.
This being said, the pace of improvement in sensors tech seems to be decreasing significantly even at Sony. The value over a one year old D810 in terms of image quality is questionable.
There are of course other aspects where the a7rII shines.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Kind of disagree. Then which camera enjoys a non questionable value?
From an image quality standpoint in terms of delta relative to a D810? None in the 35mm world I believe if you consider overall metrics.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
That is the essence, there are ares where each system shines. There is no nirvana on earth Some systems excel in one area and some in some others. Select one and live with it…
Best regards
Erik
Those results confirm the a7rII as a very talented all rounder.
This being said, the pace of improvement in sensors tech seems to be decreasing significantly even at Sony. The value over a one year old D810 in terms of image quality is questionable.
There are of course other aspects where the a7rII shines.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Those results confirm the a7rII as a very talented all rounder.
This being said, the pace of improvement in sensors tech seems to be decreasing significantly even at Sony. The value over a one year old D810 in terms of image quality is questionable.
There are of course other aspects where the a7rII shines.
Cheers,
Bernard
To me the point of A7 series cameras is not that they're significantly better than a DSLR but that they're this good in a small form CSC body.
Since going digital what I've wanted is a DSLR of about the same bulk and weight as my 35mm SLR's and a more compact digital to replace the RF's and compact 35mm cameras I used to own and with the A7 series and MFT I now have them bulk wise but weight wise the modern electronic kit is still heavier but they're much more acceptable to me than a heavier and bulkier Canon or Nikon DSLR and lens.
So, my question isn't "is the A7rII better than a D810" it's "is there anything better in this small a form factor."
-
Those results confirm the a7rII as a very talented all rounder.
This being said, the pace of improvement in sensors tech seems to be decreasing significantly even at Sony. The value over a one year old D810 in terms of image quality is questionable.
There are of course other aspects where the a7rII shines.
Cheers,
Bernard
Many people will take 5 axis stab and internal 4K every day.
Edmund
-
Many people will take 5 axis stab and internal 4K every day.
Yes, indeed but that isn't something DxO's results cast any new light on.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes, indeed but that isn't something DxO's results cast any new light on.
Cheers,
Bernard
If DxO measurements translated directly into sales numbers ... market research and forum disagreements would be a thing of the past :)
Edmund
-
Hi,
My take is that wonderful images can be made with almost any camera. Well, I guess that any camera can make great pictures, but some cameras may be more limited than others. Just think interchangeable vs. fixed lens.
After a couple of hundreds of pictures with my new A7rII I would say that it is a great picture making machine. But it is also a complex machine. Takes time to learn.
Just had the camera for 4.5 days, so I don't think I made any great images yet.
Best regards
Erik
If DxO measurements translated directly into wonderful images I'd throw the towel in.
-
There is some explanation for the so close DxO scoring of the A7RII vs Nikon D810, while the real sensor improvement is a bit higher IMO:
- Nikon managed to implement real ISO64 boosting maximum dynamic range
- The A7RII on the other side has increased robustness at high ISOs, probably because it is more video oriented. In fact the behaviour of the A7RII is in the middle point between the A7S and a genuine "ISOless" sensor
- DxO final scoring weights dynamic range a lot. This is the reason why Canon scores unfairly low in the DxO benchmark. I never look at those figures but go straight into the detailed plots.
In brief, while the D810 is still the best performer when set on a tripod, the A7RII is a more balanced camera with outstanding resolution, dynamic range and low light capabilities. More than that single point score could reveal at a first glance.
Regards
-
As a painter I believe wonderful paintings are created by wonderful people rather than wonderful brushes.
Were your pix published in french camera magazines some 30 years ago?
E.
-
I never quite understood why folks not interested in the relevance of DxO results bother to comment in threads about DxO results. ;)
The facts that a camera is more than a sensor and that great images are made by people and not cameras have been documented to death.
And it should be clear that even if they are aware/convinced by these 2 facts, some people are still interested in sensor performance. Some for academic reasons, some because they prefer to use a camera delivering the best possible image quality everything else being equal.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Now, where are those Nikon and stitching threads...
Even if that were true (and it clearly isn't), proposing credible alternative solutions to photographic challenges would still be more valuable than criticizing the relevance of other people discussing freely available information.
But OK, I'll get a a7rII regardless of it's lowish DxO DR score if that can please you. I am aware that not bowing to the Sony god is risky business these days (already owning 2 Sony cameras must not be good enough). ;)
I'll probably throw away my existing equipment that really isn't up to the task.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/773/21080684991_d7532feb35_o.jpg)
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5788/21073026355_ff826be786_o.jpg)
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5669/20885118418_5777576b98_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nice image.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well, I guess that any camera can make great pictures, but some cameras may be more limited than others. Just think interchangeable vs. fixed lens.
I like to say that every camera or system has a "gamut" of photographic tasks that it can do well (or "well enough"). I reject as insincere clichés those claims about the camera being irrelevant in the hands of a good photographer. Especially when they come from people who use bulky, expensive, high-end 35mm or medium format gear, and so rather clearly believe that this gear can sometimes achieve distinctly better results than a smaller, lighter, cheaper kit.
The question for me is how often the greater "photographic gamut" of a camera like the Sony A7R2 would improve on what my current kit [OMD EM5 etc.] gives me. My quick reckoning is that the higher resolution would be irrelevant to any photograph of mine that I can think of, but other aspects like DR or AF performance might have improved a small fraction of them.
-
I like to say that every camera or system has a "gamut" of photographic tasks that it can do well (or "well enough").
Yeh, that's exactly it. I've got a kit room full of stuff, and the cameras complement each other.
I've got a RED which is fantastic for video, has probably the best dynamic range of any camera I own, and the ergonomics for video are unsurpassed. (eg indicating RAW channel clipping live on screen). I could use it for stills, it even has a mode for tagging still frames as part of a video feed. But it isn't comfortable in that role (eg don't think it can trigger strobes).
I've got a Hasselblad which is great in the studio but which eats a ton of light. I could use it for available light shooting, but it is really outside its gamut.
I've got a GH4 which is great for the mountains. I could use it for my fetish fashion photography, but it doesn't do that as well as the Hasselblad- it is one place where the lack of megapixels and slightly less than stellar skin tone rendition really matters to me.
I have a 7D which is reasonable for available light, but whose shutter is about to fail. (I know the sick shutter sound of old, having burnt out the shutters on several Canons over the years).
I decided to replace the 7D with an A7RII, rather than just replace the shutter, because the strengths of that camera seem to fill in the gaps in my kit lineup. I'm enjoying it so far. I shot an ISO 1000 pic which none of the other cameras in my kit room could have got without serious time to rig light sources (rather than quickly popping out a reflector).
Cheers, Hywel
-
My 4 meg old canon 1d images looked more real to me than the ar7ii images do why is that? And I could shoot it at 8fps. That was in 2001 I think?
-
My 4 meg old canon 1d images looked more real to me than the ar7ii images do why is that? And I could shoot it at 8fps. That was in 2001 I think?
Perhaps simply because in your case "more real" means "more like film?" I didn't switch from film until 2006, and really struggled because I couldn't get the 20D to look "more real."
Dave
-
My 4 meg old canon 1d images looked more real to me than the ar7ii images do why is that? And I could shoot it at 8fps. That was in 2001 I think?
Prossibly because of the limited DR of the 1D sensor combined with what I anticipate may be your focus - I guess inherited from slide days - on a sub-set of scenes manageable by a limited DR device vs a less selective approach by a7rII users (resulting from their confidence that wider DR scenes can be managed)?
It takes a lot more work to give a realistic look to an image containing a wider DR, because it requires a form of implicit tone mapping (typically implemented by the shadow/highlight tool of the raw converter).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It takes a lot more work to give a realistic look to an image containing a wider DR, because it requires a form of implicit tone mapping (typically implemented by the shadow/highlight tool of the raw converter).
I agree with Bernard's observation, and it may also have to do with the 'look' that a particular Rawconverter / profile assigns to the image. Lightroom / ACR for example by default compresses highlights a lot. That will change the appearance of an image, but it may not be immediately obvious unless one compares it with a re-adjusted version of the same image.
Cheers,
Bart
-
It takes a lot more work to give a realistic look to an image containing a wider DR, because it requires a form of implicit tone mapping (typically implemented by the shadow/highlight tool of the raw converter).
Is not the photographers search for "magic light" also usually a search for moderate DR?
One might ask if we search for low DR scenes because they are inherently prettier, or because we (perhaps unconsicously) know that our tools cannot do high DR scenes justice.
-h
-
Is not the photographers search for "magic light" also usually a search for moderate DR?
One might ask if we search for low DR scenes because they are inherently prettier, or because we (perhaps unconsicously) know that our tools cannot do high DR scenes justice.
I understand and agree to a large extend, but I would still say that it depends. For instance, I like these 2 images I captured recently, yet they are very different from a DR standpoint and need also very different processing.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/721/20566548284_b239ae7d81_o.jpg)
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5698/21063019782_b2ec7a7406_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Is not the photographers search for "magic light" also usually a search for moderate DR?
One might ask if we search for low DR scenes because they are inherently prettier, or because we (perhaps unconsicously) know that our tools cannot do high DR scenes justice.
Maybe in part the latter, but with the tools in questions being the prints. Photographic prints are limited to a reflectivity ratio of under 100:1 (the blackest substance used in printing reflects more than 1% of incident light), or about six to seven stops, so:
- if the goal "straight prints" on paper of normal contrast response, then keeping the Subject Brightness Range [SBR] within a roughly seven stop range makes sense, and
- even if one is willing to do some contrast manipulation in the printing, if the goal is a print that avoids an appearance of unnatural compression of luminance levels compared to what the photographer saw, again keeping the SBR not much beyond seven stops make sense.
P. S. I say "Subject Brightness Range" because that is the established photographic term when describing the scene being photographed -- it is unfortunate that the engineering term "Dynamic Range" now sometimes gets used for this, along with being used with several other related but different meanings. Not as bad as the half-dozen meanings of "ISO", but still confusing!