Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: John Camp on September 21, 2015, 04:15:06 pm
-
About the Michael Tapes Sony review, a couple of comments:
I buy his products, and have a lot of respect for the guy, but he refers to the Sony a couple of times as a game changer -- I got the feeling it's only a game changer in terms of badly underexposing (by four or five stops) extremely high ISO images, and if you don't do that, then there's hardly any difference between it and the Nikon, and not much between it and the 50mp Canon. There may be some circumstances when you do underexpose by four or five stops at ISO 6400 (or 3200), but I'm not sure then that you need the color recovery, because you're basically then shooting in the dark, and you encounter the same questions that you do with the Northern Lights article, that is, do you want to recover color that the eye can't see? Again, there may be some circumstances where you do (as in police surveillance) but for most of us, rather than being a game-changer, it seems to me that in terms of dynamic range, the Sony is roughly equal to the Nikon, but the Nikon might be a slight bit better in the very ISO ranges that are most used. In other words, it really comes down to what you do, and what you like, and how the camera feels, rather than any particular sensor advantage.
I think the test was well-done, but I have to say, I prefer written reviews. I first looked at this at a coffee shop, but the wi-fi going into my MacAir was so slow that the video kept outrunning the buffer, and then everything would stop. I essentially couldn't watch it until I got home, and I think that a lot of people who are traveling or using a coffee-shop wifi couldn't watch it, either.
-
What can I say? I'm not questioning the results of the comparisons, but they are a bit silly test and not very much related to practical photography. I have been shooting the D810 and the 5Ds R side by side and the D810 wins at any time in DR at low ISO which I shoot for landscape photography. The Canon clearly wins in resolution and does well for moderate shadow pushing with no objectionable noise. Both cameras are well beyond what is needed to medium sized prints anyway like Super A2. For me the sensor itself is not enough for a good camera. The handling is very important to get the results. The Canon does deliver on that as well as the D810. They are both robust and weather sealed cameras. I have not tried the Sony so far.
I would never judge a camera on a test like the one that was presented in this video.
-
To me this piece makes clear how little practical difference there is image-quality-wise between these high-performance gizmos. You have to drive them into extreme behavior to see whatever differences there are. This means I can now ignore such testing. :D
-Dave-
-
This camera is much more than just its sensor technology.
The fact that there is not a lot to pick between the sensor characteristics of the Nikon versus the Sony - they do share the same sensor manufacturer! The Canon 1DX is also fairly competitive to a point.
However there are several other aspects to the Sony A7R mark II that do, in fact, make it a potential game changer. The IBIS has to be used to be believed. I was shooting this last Sunday on a rocky headland on the northern New South Wales coastline. It was stormy and the light was very dull. I shot with a combination of Canon EF and Sony FE lenses including a Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6. Every single image was tack sharp, apart from one where the wind literally caused me to fall. I shot at ISO 100 despite the low light and have been able to push those images as much as required with no discernable noise penalty and certainly without that muddiness in the shadows that so characterises every Canon camera I have ever used.
I would not hesitate to print my picks to 24"X36" or much larger.
The fact that, mated via an adaptor, this camera could potentially use almost any excellent lens from a large variety of sources allied with its sensor characteristics and resolution and the IBIS does, in fact, make it a potential game-changer.
The biggest issue that I can see, and it is a major pain, in using mirrorless-type cameras is sensor dust - no mirror mechanism to protect the sensor from dust. Meticulous attention to sensor cleaning and changing lenses is crucial. This is a pain for someone like me who does nearly all their shooting outdoors and particularly in inclement weather.
Also, although I have yet to exhaustively test AF with the latest Metabones IV adaptor firmware update I cannot see myself using the this Sony for dedicated action/sports/wildlife/bird photography.
Possibly even today though, I will remount my Canon 500mm f4.0 and see what happens.
For almost everything else though it ticks all the boxes.
Tony Jay
-
The biggest issue that I can see, and it is a major pain, in using mirrorless-type cameras is sensor dust - no mirror mechanism to protect the sensor from dust. Meticulous attention to sensor cleaning and changing lenses is crucial. This is a pain for someone like me who does nearly all their shooting outdoors and particularly in inclement weather.
I used a nikon d3x and had to wet clean it every 2 months; the D810 i have now i hardly have to clean at all. The internal cleaning is appropriate and in some rare cases the blower comes to help. Very welcome if you are need to make photographs with F11...
Ming Thein asked himself if you could safely wet clean the Sony without damaging the IBIS system.. any idea?
-
Check out Brian Smith's website for more about cleaning sensors in Sony cameras.
You can wet-clean the sensor if needed but using a blower is normally sufficient.
BTW that web address used - is that the Beeld newspaper based in RSA?
Tony Jay
-
To me this piece makes clear how little practical difference there is image-quality-wise between these high-performance gizmos. You have to drive them into extreme behavior to see whatever differences there are. This means I can now ignore such testing. :D
-Dave-
I agree! Perhaps we have reached the age again of talking about the pictures!😀👍🏻
-
There seemed to be a lot left unsaid, which I suppose we can assume as having "reasonable answers", but still.
Are the various ISOs comparable on the cameras? If ISO3200 doesn't mean the same thing on one camera versus another, then the tests are all wrong.
Why didn't we see highlight recovery and shadow recovery at the same time? Dynamic range is the distance from bottom to top above the noise floor. Telling us that under one set of circumstances I can go 100 feet high, and under anther set of 50 feet deep, does NOT mean the dynamic range is 150 feet. I have to be able to do both at the same time.
I'd have liked to see a more careful test of detail preservation in the shadow recovery tests. Any fool can reduce noise by throwing away detail, and that's what the engineers are likely to try to sneak in there. It's not enough to wave vaguely at some knurls and hair, you've got to actually keep track of the level of detail that's being preserved to be sure the buggers aren't cheating.
It's still a very interested set of real-world tests, I'm just not sure what to call what it's testing, nor how useful it is in practical terms.
-
There seemed to be a lot left unsaid, which I suppose we can assume as having "reasonable answers", but still.
Are the various ISOs comparable on the cameras? If ISO3200 doesn't mean the same thing on one camera versus another, then the tests are all wrong.
Why didn't we see highlight recovery and shadow recovery at the same time? Dynamic range is the distance from bottom to top above the noise floor. Telling us that under one set of circumstances I can go 100 feet high, and under anther set of 50 feet deep, does NOT mean the dynamic range is 150 feet. I have to be able to do both at the same time.
I'd have liked to see a more careful test of detail preservation in the shadow recovery tests. Any fool can reduce noise by throwing away detail, and that's what the engineers are likely to try to sneak in there. It's not enough to wave vaguely at some knurls and hair, you've got to actually keep track of the level of detail that's being preserved to be sure the buggers aren't cheating.
It's still a very interested set of real-world tests, I'm just not sure what to call what it's testing, nor how useful it is in practical terms.
Exactly this :-))
While the video was very interesting, I noticed that the highlights on the microphone in the shadow recovery test CHANGED between the cameras (the size of it was the most revealing). That shows either a change of lighting setup between the test (I doubt this given the track record of the reviewer) or the exposure/native iso of the cameras not being equal. Also processing difference can account for this.
Also I lacked highlight recovery comparison in the blue and red channel, could be very revealing. Green is responsible for most of the light intensity recovery, but if red and blue are deficient, you cannot properly recover color (this partly translates into the magenta/green casts in the shadow recovery tests).
Let's hope the next parts go into these questions.
-
Well, some of the criticism of this review seems a little off target to me. First of all, it is not intended as a full comparison of these cameras, just a comparison of DR. Second, although we might not often shoot 5 stops underexposed, it does happen that we shoot to preserve a bright sky and still want to see some details in dark foreground. Whether we want to do that at ISO 64000 is another issue, but the test also covers more reasonable ISO
-
Well, some of the criticism of this review seems a little off target to me. First of all, it is not intended as a full comparison of these cameras, just a comparison of DR. Second, although we might not often shoot 5 stops underexposed, it does happen that we shoot to preserve a bright sky and still want to see some details in dark foreground. Whether we want to do that at ISO 64000 is another issue, but the test also covers more reasonable ISO
To shoot landscapes and preserve a bright sky would only make sense at base ISO og the camera and lifting exposure by 5 stops would hardly ever give good quality for these parts. That's the case for either grad filters or bracketing imho. Why one would ever lift exposure by 5 stops from ISO 6400 I don't know. I would be scratching my head ;)
Edit: I guess what I have a problem with are these constant DR comments on cameras as if this is the only and most important parameter in a modern camera. By now it has become a bit boring and like, yeah, we know that so can we move on?
-
It's great to see another comparison so we have more eyes on these cameras but I do have a couple of methodology improvements
1) Checking highlights in Lightroom probably isn't the best idea. Although it's more "Real World", it would be better to check clipping using Rawdigger so you can actually say for certain that it's the sensor clipping at the same point on each camera.
2) The shadow comparison conflated colour errors in the shadows with lack of dynamic range. If you were to colour correct some of those magenta shadows you would probably notice that the comparisons were different to those shown in the video. I noted this in a test of the A7R2 vs A7R where the A7R2 had better looking shadows but the A7R, despite having magenta shadows, corrected to a point where it had better shadow tonality/SNR etc.
Otherwise excellent work..
Tim
-
To shoot landscapes and preserve a bright sky would only make sense at base ISO og the camera and lifting exposure by 5 stops would hardly ever give good quality for these parts. That's the case for either grad filters or bracketing imho. Why one would ever lift exposure by 5 stops from ISO 6400 I don't know. I would be scratching my head ;)
I think you are somewhat repeating what the review says. He shows the results of raising the exposure by 5 stops at 6400 and they aren't pretty. Arguably the Sony is less ugly. At 100, well, hard to say - the author is at least presenting the data that one might use to make a choice.
-
To shoot landscapes and preserve a bright sky would only make sense at base ISO og the camera and lifting exposure by 5 stops would hardly ever give good quality for these parts. That's the case for either grad filters or bracketing imho. Why one would ever lift exposure by 5 stops from ISO 6400 I don't know. I would be scratching my head ;)
But that was not to promote a good practice, but rather to test how the cameras would hold up, and to show differences.
I also saw (and not too much mention was made of it) considerable differences in color quality as the pushed exposures went up, and I don't mean the magenta black point noise (which BTW can be solved with e.g. Topaz Denoise quite well), but rather in the saturated blues and reds. Of course, we are also looking at a specific 'look' as produced by a single Raw converter. Other converters may behave 'a bit' different.
Also, no attention was given to (as it was not the topic under investigation) how good noise reduction would be able to close the gaps in visual appearance. We rarely see any comparions between noise reduction applications anymore, because it is so much less of an issue nowadays, but it's still very useful, and also much cheaper than purchasing this years new 'game changer', every year ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
To shoot landscapes and preserve a bright sky would only make sense at base ISO og the camera and lifting exposure by 5 stops would hardly ever give good quality for these parts. That's the case for either grad filters or bracketing imho. Why one would ever lift exposure by 5 stops from ISO 6400 I don't know. I would be scratching my head ;)
Handheld night photography?
I think this is the strong point of the Sony: a great overall camera with a high resolution, a high iso, a high dr, a great video capability. All at the same time.
I barely managed to get away at low iso on this one, handheld, and it was back-lit so pushing shadows was important.
(http://ihvweb.net/tmp/sanmarino.jpg)
-
But that was not to promote a good practice, but rather to test how the cameras would hold up, and to show differences.
I also saw (and not too much mention was made of it) considerable differences in color quality as the pushed exposures went up, and I don't mean the magenta black point noise (which BTW can be solved with e.g. Topaz Denoise quite well), but rather in the saturated blues and reds. Of course, we are also looking at a specific 'look' as produced by a single Raw converter. Other converters may behave 'a bit' different.
Also, no attention was given to (as it was not the topic under investigation) how good noise reduction would be able to close the gaps in visual appearance. We rarely see any comparions between noise reduction applications anymore, because it is so much less of an issue nowadays, but it's still very useful, and also much cheaper than purchasing this years new 'game changer', every year ...
Cheers,
Bart
Hi Bart,
I know it was not to promote good practice, of course. In my view there are tests that are interesting because they match what is needed in situations we personally come across in our photography. This one was not one of these in my view.
You other point of noise reduction, I agree with, if the test was matching a real situation rather than a synthetic test with little real life photography relevance. Especially the pushing from ISO 6400. Shadow pushing from base ISO has relevance for landscape photographers and knowing the limits has merit. But the workarounds are almost trivial these days anyway.
-
Handheld night photography?
I think this is the strong point of the Sony: a great overall camera with a high resolution, a high iso, a high dr, a great video capability. All at the same time.
I barely managed to get away at low iso on this one, handheld, and it was back-lit so pushing shadows was important.
Shadow pushing from base ISO make sense to me, but you could have made this picture easily with a lesser DR camera by simply bracketing even at slightly higher ISO. A small photo like this could be done even if there were noise in the shadows. A tripod would be a good investment :)
-
It's great to see another comparison so we have more eyes on these cameras but I do have a couple of methodology improvements
1) Checking highlights in Lightroom probably isn't the best idea. Although it's more "Real World", it would be better to check clipping using Rawdigger so you can actually say for certain that it's the sensor clipping at the same point on each camera.
Tim, I fully agree, it's not very scientific. But to Michael's defense, it's valid enough for those with a Lightroom/ACR centric workflow. A more objective comparison/conclusion would indeed be given based on real highlight ETTR exposure levels.
2) The shadow comparison conflated colour errors in the shadows with lack of dynamic range. If you were to colour correct some of those magenta shadows you would probably notice that the comparisons were different to those shown in the video. I noted this in a test of the A7R2 vs A7R where the A7R2 had better looking shadows but the A7R, despite having magenta shadows, corrected to a point where it had better shadow tonality/SNR etc.
Yes, absolutely correct. Noise correction, which should also address magenta black points, will reveal the real differences in color response/shifts because it removes a lot of distraction. I found the Red to Magenta shifts in saturated colors quite noticeable (and the desaturation of Blues), but it's hard to say how much of that was noise induced and how much was actual color shift.
Otherwise excellent work.
Yep.
Cheers,
Bart
-
If you don't need high DR fine but to claim it's a useless test because "you" don't need for your shooting scenario's it is a bit stretched (and selfish) and then further critiquing it didn't test other aspects of the camera is a bit over the top as well. It was just a simple test to test DR, nothing more, nothing less. Depending on the situation tested sometimes the Nikon is better, sometimes a Canon is better and sometimes a Sony is better. So what is all the angst over?
-
Shadow pushing from base ISO make sense to me, but you could have made this picture easily with a lesser DR camera by simply bracketing even at slightly higher ISO. A small photo like this could be done even if there were noise in the shadows. A tripod would be a good investment :)
Yes, he could, but as he had the Sony camera he didn't HAVE to; he could go for a stroll with his wife with no tripod and also shoot a single exposure of a vampire leaving the tower if necessary. There are many versions of the "real world" ;)
-
Shadow pushing from base ISO make sense to me, but you could have made this picture easily with a lesser DR camera by simply bracketing even at slightly higher ISO. A small photo like this could be done even if there were noise in the shadows. A tripod would be a good investment :)
Bracketing wouldn't be possible if this scenario also involved people moving on the stairs and a tripod would not have helped either (and is heavy to lug around). There's probably a lot of situations where a high DR is not needed or can be overcome by other techniques but that doesn't mean it's never needed. Therefore I think it's useful to know which cameras can handle higher DR under what circumstances.
-
Very instructive test. Whatever one may think about the real world significance of ISO 6400 files being pushed by 5 stops, the comparison of ISO 6400 files without any push is surely instructive and has real world significance. On my monitor, the Canon 5DSR file at 6400 appears significantly noisier and looks smeared to me compared to the Sony A7RII and Nikon files. The Canon file looks like a veil was pulled over the image, seriously degrading fine detail in an attempt to control noise. Even at base ISO of 100, the Sony and Nikon files have less noise in the shadows than the Canon 5DSR. A 5 stop push at ISO 100 may be extreme, but I would expect that even a 2-3 stop push would also show the Canon file deteriorating much more significantly than the Sony and Nikon files.
-
Bracketing wouldn't be possible if this scenario also involved people moving on the stairs and a tripod would not have helped either (and is heavy to lug around). There's probably a lot of situations where a high DR is not needed or can be overcome by other techniques but that doesn't mean it's never needed. Therefore I think it's useful to know which cameras can handle higher DR under what circumstances.
Bracketing surely would be possible in this scenario even with people on the stairs. But as I said: Pushing shadows from base ISO or close to makes sense as there is a lot of DR to push from and especially for ISO less sensors (which we all know is the Sony Exmor sensors and not Canon). Pushing shadows from ISO 6400 which was what I critisized, does not make sense to me since there is much more limited DR to push from and most cameras are not that great anyway without pushing at these ISO's although socalled "usable". But please enlighten me on why you would want to push 5 stops from ISO 6400 which is equivalent to ISO 204800?
-
Bracketing surely would be possible in this scenario even with people on the stairs.
Not without a lot more PP then with a single exposure.
Pushing shadows from ISO 6400 which was what I critisized, does not make sense to me since there is much more limited DR to push from and most cameras are not that great anyway without pushing at these ISO's although socalled "usable". But please enlighten me on why you would want to push 5 stops from ISO 6400 which is equivalent to ISO 204800?
The test involved seeing the effect of the right exposure per stop until pushing 5 stops. You only find your boundaries if you go to and beyond the extremes. Everybody has to decide for themselves where to make the cut based on their IQ requirements, some will say don't push at all while others might be happy with 3 or 4 stops for their use. I certainly don't want to speak for every photographer out there, but I do know that finding that boundary for your own use is a good thing to do.
-
Not without a lot more PP then with a single exposure. The test involved seeing the effect of the right exposure per stop until pushing 5 stops. You only find your boundaries if you go to and beyond the extremes. Everybody has to decide for themselves where to make the cut based on their IQ requirements, some will say don't push at all while others might be happy with 3 or 4 stops for their use. I certainly don't want to speak for every photographer out there, but I do know that finding that boundary for your own use is a good thing to do.
Lightroom HDR merge works wonders. In principle I do not disagree with your view on everybody finding the limits for the IQ requirements. I guess I find this DR discussion and Michael Tapes findings a little long in the tooth and trivial and maybe I should have just ignored it. If is relevant for some thats fine.
-
Thanks for sharing these test results.
I would say they simply confirm what we have known for years.
They also confirm that there is little reason for GAS as a D810 owner. I am more and more tempted to save money for a larger camera with measurably better IQ instead of jumping on the smaller one today. ;)
It is jusr a bit of a pity the Pentax 645Z was not part of the test though.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard,
I've done a similar (though less rigourous) comparison between the A7RII and the Pentax Z and it's my sense that the Z has a slight edge.
I'm traveling in Italy at the moment, but I may try and depicted Michael's T's tests when I get home.
M
-
Hi Folks,
Thanks for taking the time to watch my video and sending your comments and feedback. All is taken in and appreciated. Please allow me to take this opportunity to put the video into a fuller context. Not in any special order or significance.
- I am not a fanboy for any camera or camera system. I simply want to take the best pictures that I can, and also I unabashedly love to experiment with and try lots of cameras. Some might say I like to play. Not unlike many others here at LuLa :>)
- This presentation came about because I was doing some comparisons for myself as I investigated the Canon 5Dsr and Sony A7r2 and shared them with friends and associates. Michael R and Kevin R were 2 of those. Michael invited me to create a presentation for LuLa and Kevin helped to sort out the details. I love to do this kind of testing and welcomed what I see as an opportunity to share my results and observations, and I emphasize my results and observations since that is what they are, mine. If they are useful to others, great. If not, OK as well. Obviously Michael and Kevin thought that their readers would be interested.
- I had planned a written introduction, and had some other information in the video that would have placed it into better context, but at 20 minutes, I decided to get right to the point and try to keep to it. Maybe an error on my part. Some ask, why not a written review? .....the answer is simple. I find writing technical pieces very painful, while making videos, is hard and tedious, but fun and satisfying for me. My goal in life is to have as much fun as possible without hurting anyone, so for me, it has to be videos :>)
- I have a love/hate relationship with the Sony. While I gush about the dynamic range and IQ in general I think it is a poorly designed camera in terms of the HUI. In general I do not like handling the camera. Whether that is because I am simply used to the Canon UI or if it simply does not mesh with my preferences and hands, only time will tell. At one point I thought that i would sell my Canon 5DsR, since the Sony has "better" IQ, but I continue to be drawn to the much better "shootability" of the Canon (for me, YMMV). For now, they are both useful tools for me, so I am keeping both of them.
- In terms of the actually testing. I agree and stated that it is not scientific, but please do not assume that what you see is the total sum of my research. For example, I extensively used RawDigger to correlate my visual tests, and decided not to present the RawDigger data to keep the presentation more simple (20 mins already!) and geared to as wide an audience as possible. I made very deliberate decisions as to what and how I would present the data, and it might not be perfect for all, but the feedback from a pre-publication viewing audience of friends and associates led me to my final presentation format and content. I trust that it will be useful or of interest to at least some of you :>)
- I am an active photographer, mostly concentrating on Bird Photography these days, but I enjoy and partake in whatever interests me at the moment. Here are 3 recent shots (https://goo.gl/photos/JFicZ3HsL9G9JQEw7), one each on the A7r2 (Stacked Macro with Sony 90mm), 1Dx (Bird in Flight with 1Dx and Canon 400mm DO II), 5DsR (Bird portrait with Canon 600mm f4 II).
- When shooting Birds in Flight (BIF), high shutter speeds is a requirement, and that leads to high ISOs. That is one of many reasons why high ISO testing is of interest to me. Also, exposure during BIF is predominantly done manually (there is good reason) which can lead to gross errors if one does not track the changing light carefully. For example a cloud can sneak in on me when my mind is somewhere else, and I miss the exposure change and end up with a grossly underexposed picture. That is one of the reasons to test for the ability to bring up shadow detail from underexposed RAW files. I try to learn the full capabilities of the tools at hand (our cameras and lenses) so that i can best use them in my photographic pursuits.
- I have much data and observations in hand already, and more to gather. I hope to present 2 or 3 additional videos to share my further observations about the Sony and the associated cameras of interest to me. If it is of interest to you as well, then please watch for them on LuLa.
Again, I really appreciate Michael and Kevin giving me this opportunity, and I thank you all again for taking the time to watch and comment.
Respectfully,
Michael Tapes
-
I agree with many of the other comments, this review answered an uninteresting question for most photographers most of the time: how well can your camera recover from extreme under- or over-exposure. The obvious conclusions that the author failed to highlight are:
1. The supposedly game-changing camera is no better than some existing models
- for almost every conceivable normal usage scenario of a camera,
- for extreme underexposure at normal ISO up to 1600 or so.
2. The one case where the Sony is clearly superior is for 4 or more stops underexposure as ISO greater than 3200 or so. The only time that might matter is if you are taking photos in more or less complete darkness, or if you need to do single-image HDR in extremely contrasty scenes.
To call this camera a game-changer is absurd.
-
It is not a good idea to use Lightroom for comparisons, not even regarding "real world" results.
Lightroom uses various "under the hood" corrections and manipulations depending on the camera model. Important parameters like the black point, the default tone curve (which is not linear), the meaning of "zero" for sliders, etc. could depend on the camera model and/or camera profile chosen.
While Lightroom is popular and hence results could be regarded as what many users would experience, a test that only uses default (or equal settings) does not tell you what the potential of a sensor is, i.e., which noise levels would be visible if the optimal Lightroom profile and setting choices were made for that sensor.
I'd say that when it comes to sensor performance, DxOMark is a good source and if one really wants to do one's one test then a level playing field should be created by using a converter like dcraw that does not customise results based on the camera model.
Also, when it comes to "dynamic range", it does not make sense to distinguish between "highlight headroom" and "shadow detail". Dynamic range is expressed through a single number. Two sensors with the same dynamic range (at a given ISO value) may show differences regarding how highlights are rolled-off or shadow details are visible but these differences are then are caused by different post-processing parameters (typically different default tonal curves).
BTW, DxOMark is generally in agreement with Michael's findings (http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7R-II-versus-Nikon-D810___1035_963); below ISO 150, the D810 has higher dynamic range, but at higher ISO values, the A7RII is better.
-
Hi Michael,
Thanks for your efforts and sharing!
Sorry to see that you get a lot of FLAK. Personally, I feel that sharing information and experience is always a good thing.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Folks,
Thanks for taking the time to watch my video and sending your comments and feedback. All is taken in and appreciated. Please allow me to take this opportunity to put the video into a fuller context. Not in any special order or significance.
- I am not a fanboy for any camera or camera system. I simply want to take the best pictures that I can, and also I unabashedly love to experiment with and try lots of cameras. Some might say I like to play. Not unlike many others here at LuLa :>)
- This presentation came about because I was doing some comparisons for myself as I investigated the Canon 5Dsr and Sony A7r2 and shared them with friends and associates. Michael R and Kevin R were 2 of those. Michael invited me to create a presentation for LuLa and Kevin helped to sort out the details. I love to do this kind of testing and welcomed what I see as an opportunity to share my results and observations, and I emphasize my results and observations since that is what they are, mine. If they are useful to others, great. If not, OK as well. Obviously Michael and Kevin thought that their readers would be interested.
- I had planned a written introduction, and had some other information in the video that would have placed it into better context, but at 20 minutes, I decided to get right to the point and try to keep to it. Maybe an error on my part. Some ask, why not a written review? .....the answer is simple. I find writing technical pieces very painful, while making videos, is hard and tedious, but fun and satisfying for me. My goal in life is to have as much fun as possible without hurting anyone, so for me, it has to be videos :>)
- I have a love/hate relationship with the Sony. While I gush about the dynamic range and IQ in general I think it is a poorly designed camera in terms of the HUI. In general I do not like handling the camera. Whether that is because I am simply used to the Canon UI or if it simply does not mesh with my preferences and hands, only time will tell. At one point I thought that i would sell my Canon 5DsR, since the Sony has "better" IQ, but I continue to be drawn to the much better "shootability" of the Canon (for me, YMMV). For now, they are both useful tools for me, so I am keeping both of them.
- In terms of the actually testing. I agree and stated that it is not scientific, but please do not assume that what you see is the total sum of my research. For example, I extensively used RawDigger to correlate my visual tests, and decided not to present the RawDigger data to keep the presentation more simple (20 mins already!) and geared to as wide an audience as possible. I made very deliberate decisions as to what and how I would present the data, and it might not be perfect for all, but the feedback from a pre-publication viewing audience of friends and associates led me to my final presentation format and content. I trust that it will be useful or of interest to at least some of you :>)
- I am an active photographer, mostly concentrating on Bird Photography these days, but I enjoy and partake in whatever interests me at the moment. Here are 3 recent shots (https://goo.gl/photos/JFicZ3HsL9G9JQEw7), one each on the A7r2 (Stacked Macro with Sony 90mm), 1Dx (Bird in Flight with 1Dx and Canon 400mm DO II), 5DsR (Bird portrait with Canon 600mm f4 II).
- When shooting Birds in Flight (BIF), high shutter speeds is a requirement, and that leads to high ISOs. That is one of many reasons why high ISO testing is of interest to me. Also, exposure during BIF is predominantly done manually (there is good reason) which can lead to gross errors if one does not track the changing light carefully. For example a cloud can sneak in on me when my mind is somewhere else, and I miss the exposure change and end up with a grossly underexposed picture. That is one of the reasons to test for the ability to bring up shadow detail from underexposed RAW files. I try to learn the full capabilities of the tools at hand (our cameras and lenses) so that i can best use them in my photographic pursuits.
- I have much data and observations in hand already, and more to gather. I hope to present 2 or 3 additional videos to share my further observations about the Sony and the associated cameras of interest to me. If it is of interest to you as well, then please watch for them on LuLa.
Again, I really appreciate Michael and Kevin giving me this opportunity, and I thank you all again for taking the time to watch and comment.
Respectfully,
Michael Tapes
-
Hi Michael,
Thanks for your efforts and sharing!
Sorry to see that you get a lot of FLAK. Personally, I feel that sharing information and experience is always a good thing.
Best regards
Erik
+1, indeed thanks a lot.
-
high shutter speeds is a requirement, and that leads to high ISOs.
yet a raw shooter shall compare not @ equal nominal ISOs, but at "best" nominal ISOs (which might be different for each camera) for the equal exposure on different cameras... why did you think that nominal ISO6400 is best for A7R2 to take on nominal ISO6400 of other cameras ?
-
yet a raw shooter shall compare not @ equal nominal ISOs, but at "best" nominal ISOs (which might be different for each camera) for the equal exposure on different cameras... why did you think that nominal ISO6400 is best for A7R2 to take on nominal ISO6400 of other cameras ?
Hi,
While I agree that optimal ISO may vary somewhat between cameras, I don't think that that's fair criticism. Had Michael used different ISOs between camera's he'd had gotten a lot more comments, not just questions but harsh comments, DPreview style.
Besides, the review already took a lot of work collecting the shots and comparing them at equal ISO settings, it would have taken much longer to do all possible cross-references and then only present a few. I know there are shortcuts possible, but that requires a lot of prior testing and custom software to avoid a lot of manual work. Maybe useful if someone was paying for it ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
yet a raw shooter shall compare not @ equal nominal ISOs, but at "best" nominal ISOs (which might be different for each camera) for the equal exposure on different cameras... why did you think that nominal ISO6400 is best for A7R2 to take on nominal ISO6400 of other cameras ?
For these situations isn't the practical question "which camera gives the best result with a given amount of light, shutter speed and aperture". I don't think it's relevant if some camera's can do that optimal base iso and others not.
-
For these situations isn't the practical question "which camera gives the best result with a given amount of light, shutter speed and aperture". I don't think it's relevant if some camera's can do that optimal base iso and others not.
I am sorry - if you use raw then you establish for yourself the best gain you dial in ... if you are seriously using the camera yourself and if you concern about the performance of your own camera in situations where you have to deal with underexposure... so the reasonable person aiming to write a review owes to readers to do the homework... and that goes to the technical (as in technology) editorship of LuLa btw... any technical article has to be scrutinized, otherwise it is a kindergarten.
-
Had Michael used different ISOs between camera's he'd had gotten a lot more comments, not just questions but harsh comments, DPreview style.
right - but at least there will be some educational value for some people (like those out there who still think that ISO is a part of exposure itself)... this is the forum, the purpose of the forum is to have discussions and hopefully share the knowledge... not ISO6400 vs ISO6400.
-
For these situations isn't the practical question "which camera gives the best result with a given amount of light, shutter speed and aperture". I don't think it's relevant if some camera's can do that optimal base iso and others not.
Hi Pieter,
I think that it depends ..., as usual. We already (should) know that most cameras have a somewhat optimal trade-off between DR, ISO, and S/N ratio, at approximately ISO 800-1600. People like Jim Kasson have posted results about that for various cameras. For faster shutter speeds, one can just underexpose at that ISO and push in postprocessing. For higher DR and S/N ratio, one drops the ISO and exposes with more Photons. It's as simple as that, the best one can do is not make mistakes during testing and predictably arrive at that same conclusion every time.
But that's not what the Part 1 test was about. As Michael explained, he often is confronted with rapidly changing exposure situations and the need for higher shutterspeeds, and the risk of underexposure (or highlight clipping) is a part of reality. That's one of the reasons he tested what he presented.
Cheers,
Bart
-
But that's not what the Part 1 test was about. As Micheal explained, he often is confronted with rapidly changing exposure situations and the need for higher shutterspeeds, and the risk of underexposure (or highlight clipping) is a part of reality. That's one of the reasons he tested what he presented.
right. that's why he presented ISO100 and ISO6400, w/o care to argue why ISO6400 worth to be considered in underexposure situation vs for example suggested by certain researchers ISO640 for Sony for example ? this is __SLOPPY__ ! stop defending the guy.
-
Thanks Bart, that made it a lot clearer.
-
To call this camera a game-changer is absurd.
If the game was vendor lock in PDAF with Canon glass certainly changes it.
-
Hi,
Just to say, a good exposure metering system and good histograms go a long way to avoid bad exposures.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Pieter,
I think that it depends ..., as usual. We already (should) know that most cameras have a somewhat optimal trade-off between DR, ISO, and S/N ratio, at approximately ISO 800-1600. People like Jim Kasson have posted results about that for various cameras. For faster shutter speeds, one can just underexpose at that ISO and push in postprocessing. For higher DR and S/N ratio, one drops the ISO and exposes with more Photons. It's as simple as that, the best one can do is not make mistakes during testing and predictably arrive at that same conclusion every time.
But that's not what the Part 1 test was about. As Michael explained, he often is confronted with rapidly changing exposure situations and the need for higher shutterspeeds, and the risk of underexposure (or highlight clipping) is a part of reality. That's one of the reasons he tested what he presented.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Folks,
Thanks for taking the time to watch my video and sending your comments and feedback. All is taken in and appreciated. Please allow me to take this opportunity to put the video into a fuller context. Not in any special order or significance.
- I am not a fanboy for any camera or camera system. I simply want to take the best pictures that I can, and also I unabashedly love to experiment with and try lots of cameras. Some might say I like to play. Not unlike many others here at LuLa :>)
- This presentation came about because I was doing some comparisons for myself as I investigated the Canon 5Dsr and Sony A7r2 and shared them with friends and associates. Michael R and Kevin R were 2 of those. Michael invited me to create a presentation for LuLa and Kevin helped to sort out the details. I love to do this kind of testing and welcomed what I see as an opportunity to share my results and observations, and I emphasize my results and observations since that is what they are, mine. If they are useful to others, great. If not, OK as well. Obviously Michael and Kevin thought that their readers would be interested.
- I had planned a written introduction, and had some other information in the video that would have placed it into better context, but at 20 minutes, I decided to get right to the point and try to keep to it. Maybe an error on my part. Some ask, why not a written review? .....the answer is simple. I find writing technical pieces very painful, while making videos, is hard and tedious, but fun and satisfying for me. My goal in life is to have as much fun as possible without hurting anyone, so for me, it has to be videos :>)
- I have a love/hate relationship with the Sony. While I gush about the dynamic range and IQ in general I think it is a poorly designed camera in terms of the HUI. In general I do not like handling the camera. Whether that is because I am simply used to the Canon UI or if it simply does not mesh with my preferences and hands, only time will tell. At one point I thought that i would sell my Canon 5DsR, since the Sony has "better" IQ, but I continue to be drawn to the much better "shootability" of the Canon (for me, YMMV). For now, they are both useful tools for me, so I am keeping both of them.
- In terms of the actually testing. I agree and stated that it is not scientific, but please do not assume that what you see is the total sum of my research. For example, I extensively used RawDigger to correlate my visual tests, and decided not to present the RawDigger data to keep the presentation more simple (20 mins already!) and geared to as wide an audience as possible. I made very deliberate decisions as to what and how I would present the data, and it might not be perfect for all, but the feedback from a pre-publication viewing audience of friends and associates led me to my final presentation format and content. I trust that it will be useful or of interest to at least some of you :>)
- I am an active photographer, mostly concentrating on Bird Photography these days, but I enjoy and partake in whatever interests me at the moment. Here are 3 recent shots (https://goo.gl/photos/JFicZ3HsL9G9JQEw7), one each on the A7r2 (Stacked Macro with Sony 90mm), 1Dx (Bird in Flight with 1Dx and Canon 400mm DO II), 5DsR (Bird portrait with Canon 600mm f4 II).
- When shooting Birds in Flight (BIF), high shutter speeds is a requirement, and that leads to high ISOs. That is one of many reasons why high ISO testing is of interest to me. Also, exposure during BIF is predominantly done manually (there is good reason) which can lead to gross errors if one does not track the changing light carefully. For example a cloud can sneak in on me when my mind is somewhere else, and I miss the exposure change and end up with a grossly underexposed picture. That is one of the reasons to test for the ability to bring up shadow detail from underexposed RAW files. I try to learn the full capabilities of the tools at hand (our cameras and lenses) so that i can best use them in my photographic pursuits.
- I have much data and observations in hand already, and more to gather. I hope to present 2 or 3 additional videos to share my further observations about the Sony and the associated cameras of interest to me. If it is of interest to you as well, then please watch for them on LuLa.
Again, I really appreciate Michael and Kevin giving me this opportunity, and I thank you all again for taking the time to watch and comment.
Respectfully,
Michael Tapes
Hi Michael,
Despite what was said I appreciate your efforts. Had you explained the reasons for the ISO 6400 push my comments would have been different. As I alluded I have a certain fatigue on the DR topic as it has been beaten to death, but I understand why Michael R and Kevin would like to present what you did :)
-
I've done a similar (though less rigourous) comparison between the A7RII and the Pentax Z and it's my sense that the Z has a slight edge.
I'm traveling in Italy at the moment, but I may try and depicted Michael's T's tests when I get home.
Thanks Michael.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
First, I'm so glad there are people like Michael Tapes who can do painfully detailed, process-y analysis, because I can live happily knowing no one will ever ask me to do it. I'd have clubbed myself into unconsciousness about the fourth exposure sequence. Some people have the gift of attention to detail whatever it takes. I admire (and lack) that.
I'm always amazed at how rapidly people throw up defensive "well I'm happy with what I have so your analysis is wrong" responses to something like this. It tells me that they either didn't really pay attention, or didn't think very hard about what was being tested. Or the power of cognitive dissonance defenses runs deep, and really they ARE discomforted a bit, enough to swear they're not.
What I liked about the test is that they represent some very real situations I've encountered, where the light is so abysmal that you have to be insane to be trying to get a photo. Example from a shoot I did last year: 20x24 foot room with a 20 foot ceiling, and one CFL in a single light fixture about 14 feet up, for lighting... and now it's time to shoot the musicians who are performing for the assembled crowd. And oh yeah, sodium vapor streetlight coming through a window in one corner. Besides ISO 12000 being clearly marginal for a shutter speed sufficient to stop any action at all, there are unsightly shadows everywhere, plus high gloss highlights on dark skinned faces because it's over 90 degrees F and humid. Sometimes you are forced to torture a file in much the way was done in the analysis. I drag my DSLR gear around because in fact you can deal with really heinous lighting and color balance problems - the files have headroom and foot room everywhere that isn't there in a much nicer to carry APS-C or micro 4/3 kit.
Under 95% of shooting conditions, my Fuji or micro 4/3 kit can produce images that make a customer happy and print at a very nice size for shows. Which is why I shoot at least 80% of my work now with those kits. The DSLR comes out when I can't control the shoot lighting, or don't know what might happen. If I can expose to the right and not have to torture shadows, a point and shoot would probably do the job. Note the gap in % - I often find myself lugging DSLR gear and afterwards realizing I could have done fine with the smaller systems.
It was interesting how close the systems were - one stop was the definition of "better" which is why as interesting as the Sony kit is, I won't be buying into it. Lens systems are like gravity - takes an awful lot of energy to break away and go to another system. With 10-12 Nikkors that cover the range I shoot - Sony is going to have to be much more than 1 stop better here or there on edge of shootable light situations.
And since I'm sure Canon and Nikon will have watched the Tapes tapes, the frogs will leap and the gaps will close, and gravity won't turn out to be such a bad thing.
-
I buy his products, and have a lot of respect for the guy, but he refers to the Sony a couple of times as a game changer -- I got the feeling it's only a game changer in terms of badly underexposing (by four or five stops) extremely high ISO images, and if you don't do that, then there's hardly any difference between it and the Nikon, and not much between it and the 50mp Canon.
This phrase is horribly overused. It is an incremental update to the sony sensor with some better stabilisation for a $1000 price hike over it's predecessor.
-
It is an incremental update to the sony sensor with some better stabilisation for a $1000 price hike over it's predecessor.
A7R -> A7R2 :
sensor (mp + bsi)
ibis
efcs
better cdaf/os-pdaf
body (design/ergonomics, mount)
does it make it worth $1000 in price ? market decides
-
I got the feeling it's only a game changer in terms of badly underexposing (by four or five stops) extremely high ISO images, and if you don't do that, then there's hardly any difference between it and the Nikon, and not much between it and the 50mp Canon.
John - have you never shot in a situation where an image you NEEDED was underexposed, or in a situation where the light was harsh enough that proper exposure was at best theoretical?
No question that in 80% of situations, what's shown is irrelevant. Frankly, in nearly 90% of situations, shooting with anything above a 1 inch sensor, or an m4/3 sensor, with great lenses will produce an image indistinguishable from that from a DSLR. I have personal experience with this - I took the top 4 places in an ASMP annual photo competition for my state, and listened to many senior, and professionally well respected ASMP members tell me how happy they were that my images weren't shot with those crappy small sensor cameras. All four were shot m4/3. NONE of them believed it, I had to bring the raw files for them to see. I had another show where, in disgust and frustration, I offered $100 cash to anyone who could tell me with 80% accuracy which sensor size was used for the 24 images in the show. I didn't have to shell out any money - in fact, I wish I'd have challenged them to pay ME if they weren't better than random guessing.
What Michael was showing was exactly what I use to decide whether I shoot with a smaller, lighter, but smaller sensor kit, or a DSLR. His comparison was all full frame sensors... but the conclusion was marginal differences. But, no question that the differences between full frame and APS-C and micro 4/3 aren't marginal, but nevertheless, under most situations, will produce images indistinguishable from full frame high end DSLRs. I've put my money on that, with some of the best photographers in the New York City market, and I wish I'd have made them put their money up, because I'd have been able to fund a couple of shows.
I've shot in many situations where my best options were going to produce files that needed serious torture - another post of mine describes one at a private concert in Trinidad, Cuba last year. If you shoot a lot, I'm surprised if you've not been in similar situations.
-
To clarify one thing, even though I started this thread I have no problem at all with Michael Tapes' tests and comparisons. What I had a problem with was his characterization of the results, in calling the Sony a game-changer. As I said in the original post, I actually buy stuff from the guy, have done so on a number of occasions, and a couple different products, and so I am familiar with him and trust his stuff and his experiments. But I think the Sony is at best an incremental improvement on a number of existing cameras. I personally don't own any of those cameras -- I own a D800, and consider the 810 only a minor incremental improvement on the 800 -- but do virtually all of my shooting with an m4/3 system. But "game changer" is a sales term, not a testing term.
-
On sensor phase detect, copper fabrication, BSI... I would not call that incremental updates. More like a complete redesign.
-
On sensor phase detect, copper fabrication, BSI... I would not call that incremental updates. More like a complete redesign.
True, a complete redesign resulting in a much better alpha camera that generates an incremental change in the overall enveloppe of what 35mm cameras can do.
It will be a game changer for, for example, canyon photography and a mere "what's the excitment about" for many other applications, such as tripod based landscape work.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I enjoyed the review and learned a lot from it. I know those are not easy to do and I prefer to focus on what I am learning from it than try and find flaws, which, inevitably, always seem to creep up somehow.
Thank you Michael!
-
True, a complete redesign resulting in a much better alpha camera that generates an incremental change in the overall enveloppe of what 35mm cameras can do.
It will be a game changer for, for example, canyon photography and a mere "what's the excitment about" for many other applications, such as tripod based landscape work.
Cheers,
Bernard
Well even for a tripod only shooter it brings a lot to the table. It's nothing unique but can you imagine having the quality of a D8xx Nikon and a flip screen! :)
-
One comment about Michael's review that I felt was left out, was that he failed to point out pattern noise as a special characteristic which makes noise level much less tolerable and correctable.
-
Well even for a tripod only shooter it brings a lot to the table. It's nothing unique but can you imagine having the quality of a D8xx Nikon and a flip screen! :)
I personally vastly prefer the ability to have a cleaner ISO64 over a flip screen, but the main point of my post was, as I am sure you have understood, that speaking of the a7rII as an overall game changer doesn't make sense. I will change the game for some photographers, but it probably won't for a majority.
It doesn't mean that the a7rII isn't a very nice camera.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
And I'm gonna reiterate my view that the combined features of a mirrorless, on sensor focusing, ibis, small, adaptable camera changes the game for the big boys. They can not rest on their laurels much longer. One upping the other and incremental updates will not work.
It will be interesting to see what they come up with.
-
Hi,
Some interesting aspects. Just to say, I am pretty sure sensor based focusing, manual or auto, is needed for world class lenses at large apertures. Just to mention, Sony A7 series II is the only way to get an image stabilised full frame camera with the Otuses. Than, there is of course internal recording to 4K.
So, yes, it is a game changer.
Obviously, those features don't make say 5DSR or D810 obsolete, those are fine cameras of their own. But, there are a lot of thing the A7 marks II can do that those cameras can not. Yeah, there are many things 5DSR and D810 can do that the A7 marks II can not. Like continous AF with long lenses.
I would also say that Sony does not have the set of native lenses it needs.
Best regards
Erik
And I'm gonna reiterate my view that the combined features of a mirrorless, on sensor focusing, ibis, small, adaptable camera changes the game for the big boys. They can not rest on their laurels much longer. One upping the other and incremental updates will not work.
It will be interesting to see what they come up with.
-
A flip screen is awfully useful if you are shooting close to the ground.
Best regards
Erik
I personally vastly prefer the ability to have a cleaner ISO64 over a flip screen, but the main point of my post was, as I am sure you have understood, that speaking of the a7rII as an overall game changer doesn't make sense. I will change the game for some photographers, but it probably won't for a majority.
It doesn't mean that the a7rII isn't a very nice camera.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Here's a real world example from a shoot yesterday in Florence.
Posted for fun with no implications. I just thought it might be worthwhile to remember why it is that we fuss over technical arcana.
Sony A7R II with 16-35mm f/4 @ ISO 100
(https://luminous-landscape.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/DSC1362-2.jpg)
(https://luminous-landscape.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/hist01.jpg)
(https://luminous-landscape.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/DSC1362.jpg)
Shadows opened about 4 stops. There was a lot more, but I wanted to retain the mystery.
I also tried a bracket, but an HDR version just didn't look as honest.
(https://luminous-landscape.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/crop.jpg)
Michael
-
One comment about Michael's review that I felt was left out, was that he failed to point out pattern noise as a special characteristic which makes noise level much less tolerable and correctable.
Hi,
The issue of noise is a subject with quite a few aspects to address, on its own. Of course it helps tremendously if the sensor array itself is well behaved with regards to pattern noise, but part of that can/should be addressed by the Raw converter. It would be interesting to compare against the performance of the Camera manufacturer's own Raw conversion solution, afterall they could use proprietary/calibration data without having to reverse engineer that from the file's Metadata, and other (commercial) solutions.
When pushing the barely exposed shadows of underexposed images, one basically gets to deal with read-noise patterns (often non-random), sensor calibration patterns (usually non-random in linear gamma), Photon shot-noise (Poisson random distribution), and read-noise (Gaussian random distribution). The non-random parts can usually be addressed successfully by software without affecting image detail (e.g. (master) dark frame subtraction). The random parts require a trade-off between detail (photons are 'noisy') and truly random noise which could be reduced by filtering based on absence of dominant spatial frequencies, a statistical approach.
All that noise makes it also much harder to demosaic the (Bayer) CFA pattern into consistent color. That's why the shadows go Red Magenta-ish when noise starts to dominate. BTW, that's something a proper Noise reduction software (e.g. Topaz Denoise) can deal with, but it requires some image specific guidance if we want to avoid the overall desaturation that I see in e.g. Lightroom noise reduction.
These software corrections/improvements can be processing intensive and take quite some time to perform due to the vast amount of calculations needed, but they can be very effective. We can learn a lot from the people who (by definition) have to routinely work on photon starved images, astronomers. Proper dark frame subtraction would already solve the biggest problems, but requires a kind of per camera database of images to synthesize ''Master Darkframes" at various exposure times and ISOs, and maybe temperature. A Rawconverter like RawTherapee already offers a basic approach that can average multiple darkframes into a more robust master darkframe for subtraction in linear gamma space.
So that would involve a huge amount of work on its own to properly address in a camera comparison. People like Jim Kasson and Jack Hogan (e.g. e.g. here (http://www.strollswithmydog.com/determining-sensor-iq-metrics-rn-fwc-prnu-dr-gain-2/)) already put a lot of effort in analyzing the noise behavior of several cameras, including the A7R II (e.g. here (http://blog.kasson.com/?p=11163)). And it turns out to be a bit of a can of worms at times.
Again, it already helps a lot if the camera/sensor behaves well in the noise department, but when we start using photon starved images, all cameras can need varying amounts of help. It would be easier (if practical) to bracket, and preferably use more photons to begin with (lower ISO, ETTR, stacking), etc.).
Nothing beats a properly exposed shot, so photographers should not grow lazy and just depend on their cameras to solve things (and then blame the camera). An image requires photons, it's up to the photographer to provide as many of them (in the right places) as he can, given the circumstances and shooting conditions.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Here's a real world example from a shoot yesterday in Florence.
Posted for fun with no implications. I just thought it might be worthwhile to remember why it is that we fuss over technical arcana.
Sony A7R II with 16-35mm f/4 @ ISO 100
(https://luminous-landscape.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/DSC1362-2.jpg)
(https://luminous-landscape.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/hist01.jpg)
(https://luminous-landscape.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/DSC1362.jpg)
Shadows opened about 4 stops. There was a lot more, but I wanted to retain the mystery.
I also tried a bracket, but an HDR version just didn't look as honest.
(https://luminous-landscape.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/crop.jpg)
Michael
Nice shot and I like it. Maybe even slightly shadows pushing would make it stand out even better.
Why would an HDR merge in Lightroom of bracketed shots not give the same possibility? To me should give exactly the same ability to adjust like you want and even give more flexibility than a single RAW (even though not needed perhaps in this case).
-
Why would an HDR merge in Lightroom of bracketed shots not give the same possibility? To me should give exactly the same ability to adjust like you want and even give more flexibility than a single RAW ...
Just perhaps, Hans, 'cos some of us photograph creatures that move .. both human and animal.
Boosting shadow detail is one thing, HDR - which is really only practical in landscape photography - quite another.
-
Just perhaps, Hans, 'cos some of us photograph creatures that move .. both human and animal.
Boosting shadow detail is one thing, HDR - which is really only practical in landscape photography - quite another.
Please note the context of the question. I assume the painting did not have moving elements, but maybe I'm wrong? :)
-
Please note the context of the question.
Oh but I did, and I also noted the context of both the test and this thread which is about pushing those shadows! ;D
-
Oh but I did, and I also noted the context of both the test and this thread which is about pushing those shadows! ;D
I asked a specific question to Michael.
-
I asked a specific question to Michael.
I also wondered a bit about Michael's remark about the HDR from LR, not looking as good as a pushed version. But since I'm not a subscriber to LR CC, I cannot test that myself. My experience with other HDR tonemapping software, suggests that very realistically tonemapped results are certainly possible based on HDRI source files, some even better than the real thing because they overcome the physical limitations that we work around with our eyes/brain by constantly accommodating for the average brightness differences in a narrow angle of view.
But since he's traveling, maybe he just didn't get the opportunity yet to do a better HDR tonemapping job.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I don't really pay attention to tests, I just open hundreds of RAW files and use my own eyes.
I can also say that with the right lens and technique, the Canon 5DsR is an amazing camera. The files impress me more than anything from Sony, despite having "obsolete" technology.
I will say that sticking with Nikon might be the best choice. The Zeiss ZF lenses can be used on Nikon, Canon, and Sony. :)
-
I also wondered a bit about Michael's remark about the HDR from LR, not looking as good as a pushed version. But since I'm not a subscriber to LR CC, I cannot test that myself. My experience with other HDR tonemapping software, suggests that very realistically tonemapped results are certainly possible based on HDRI source files, some even better than the real thing because they overcome the physical limitations that we work around with our eyes/brain by constantly accommodating for the average brightness differences in a narrow angle of view.
But since he's traveling, maybe he just didn't get the opportunity yet to do a better HDR tonemapping job.
Cheers,
Bart
I was certainly not trying to put Michael on the spot. Rather if there was some reason that I was not aware of, I'd like to understand why he wrote this. I have had very good results with the HDR function in Lightroom and especially since it generates a DNG file it is very editable whatever look I prefer. Of course, HDR merging has it's limitations as we all know and I did not want to go into that discussion once again (as in the response from Amolitor) :)
And maybe Michael was on the road and did not thorougly try the HDR merge which is fine too. We all know how it is to be on the road, I guess :)
-
I also wondered a bit about Michael's remark about the HDR from LR, not looking as good as a pushed version. But since I'm not a subscriber to LR CC, I cannot test that myself. My experience with other HDR tonemapping software, suggests that very realistically tonemapped results are certainly possible based on HDRI source files, some even better than the real thing because they overcome the physical limitations that we work around with our eyes/brain by constantly accommodating for the average brightness differences in a narrow angle of view.
But since he's traveling, maybe he just didn't get the opportunity yet to do a better HDR tonemapping job.
Cheers,
Bart
Maybe he just wanted to press one button one time and be done with it?
-
Maybe he just wanted to press one button one time and be done with it?
This is getting silly. Michael mentioned that he also did bracketing and that's what the discussion is about.
-
This is getting silly. Michael mentioned that he also did bracketing and that's what the discussion is about.
I agree, it's probably due to what's called 'projection' (of one's own mindset).
Shadows opened about 4 stops. There was a lot more, but I wanted to retain the mystery.
I also tried a bracket, but an HDR version just didn't look as honest.
It's the latter part that is intriguing, but maybe for a separate thread. Human vision plays a lot of tricks on us, but many photographers would also like to be able and approach 'realism', before they decide to deliberately change perception of that reality to their liking (creative intent). I recall Kevin Raber mentioning he was evaluating HDR expose, maybe a nice occasion to pick that up where he left it, and there is some new development going on with my personal favorite, SNS-HDR.
It's nice to have options.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Why do some photographers wish to complicate things unnecessarily ?
In Michael's test you've got 2 options: either open up the shadows or use HDR, one is a single button adjustment the other, unless there's a good reason for it, probably overkill.
Now at a guess, Michaels throwaway line ' I also tried a bracket, but an HDR version just didn't look as honest. ' I take to mean that the tonal relationship of the HDR shot, in his opinion, didn't look as realistic, convincing, genuine , lifelike ( take your pick). No doubt it would have with accurate and detailed tone-mapping but that would have entailed extra post processing and to what avail, if the single button alternative produced excellent, not to say preferable results ?
Some of us have a penchant for HDR, others less so - to each his own. But the point made, and made well, is that shadow recovery has a very practical and visible benefit.
-
Why do some photographers wish to complicate things unnecessarily ?
In Michael's test you've got 2 options: either open up the shadows or use HDR, one is a single button adjustment the other, unless there's a good reason for it, probably overkill.
Now at a guess, Michaels throwaway line ' I also tried a bracket, but an HDR version just didn't look as honest. ' I take to mean that the tonal relationship of the HDR shot, in his opinion, didn't look as realistic, convincing, genuine , lifelike ( take your pick). No doubt it would have with accurate and detailed tone-mapping but that would have entailed extra post processing and to what avail, if the single button alternative produced excellent, not to say preferable results ?
Some of us have a penchant for HDR, others less so - to each his own. But the point made, and made well, is that shadow recovery has a very practical and visible benefit.
This is pretty amazing. The question for Michael was not about shadow pushing at all. It was also not about "real" HDR as seen with most standalone HDR programs. It was about HDR merged in Lightroom (assuming that Michael merged in Lightroom) which is essentally a super RAW file which (in my experience) can be processed to look exactly like one of the RAW files going into the HDR merge except for (potential) noise in shadows and (potential) highlight clipping if the single RAW file had any of this. As mentioned a number of times before I'm not arguing against high dynamic range at all and in fact I'm shooting with the best on the planet at the moment: D810. I'm only asking why Michael made this statement and I look forward to see Michael answer this question ;)
-
Why do some photographers wish to complicate things unnecessarily ?
Hi Manoli,
That's not what's going on. Using equipment+technique to achieve superior results is.
Now at a guess, Michaels throwaway line ' I also tried a bracket, but an HDR version just didn't look as honest. ' I take to mean that the tonal relationship of the HDR shot, in his opinion, didn't look as realistic, convincing, genuine , lifelike ( take your pick). No doubt it would have with accurate and detailed tone-mapping but that would have entailed extra post processing and to what avail, if the single button alternative produced excellent, not to say preferable results ?
You seem to assume that better HDR tonemapping would not achieve superior results. That remains to be seen, especially for more extreme scenarios.
Obviously, being able to salvage underexposed image content is very useful. But it will never beat the quality of better exposure (more photons), if practical (which it sometimes isn't, and sometimes is).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Let's also keep in mind that Sony is going to upgrade the firmware to lossless raw compression in the near future. It may make a difference in extreme underexposure performance. I've also found that in the present releases, Capture One seems to do a better job than LR of image processing on the Sony files. I had an issue with high contrast highlights posterizing on one shot last week in LR. I opened it in C1, and the highlights were perfectly rendered. I hope Adobe deals with that quickly.
There is no Canon or Sony issue for me. The Sony bodies are a great addition to my Canon system!
-
That's not what's going on. Using equipment+technique to achieve superior results is.
Hi Bart,
I couldn't agree more - especially with the technique part where practicable and feasible. That is the point I was making to Hans (who seems to be taking this very personally).
You seem to assume that better HDR tonemapping would not achieve superior results.
And no, I don't assume that, nor did I intimate that. I'm not a landscape photographer, Hans is. HDR is of limited practicality when I'm shooting 'live' subjects as compared to exposing for highlights and recovering shadows - for me.
But it will never beat the quality of better exposure (more photons), if practical (which it sometimes isn't, and sometimes is).
We agree!
Best,
M
-
btw, it is worth remembering that on digital cameras, ISO levels outside of the native range are an effective underexposure pushed up. So if native ISO ends at 6400, 25600 is 6400 under exposed by two stops and then pushed in software to make it up. Thus a 3 stop pull of shadows at 25600 is the same as pulling shadows by 5 stops at 6400.
-
Hi Bart,
I couldn't agree more - especially with the technique part where practicable and feasible. That is the point I was making to Hans (who seems to be taking this very personally).
And no, I don't assume that, nor did I intimate that. I'm not a landscape photographer, Hans is. HDR is of limited practicality when I'm shooting 'live' subjects as compared to exposing for highlights and recovering shadows - for me.
We agree!
Best,
M
I was not taking this personal in any way. Why should this be personal? I was asking Michael a question, that was all. There was no need to repeat what was already discussed. Yes, I shoot landscapes, but that's not only what I shoot and I very well aware of limitations to different techniques. Shooting BIF would need a very different technique than landscapes and I have done that. I would never bracket and blend to HDR for such shots.
-
Hi,
My take is that HDR is very workable many times. With a sensor having great DR, HDR is many times avoidable. In my shooting with Sony cameras I have seldom found HDR beneficial, but now that we have a decent quality HDR implementation in LightRoom I use it quite often. In either case, utilising sensor DR or combining several shots into HDR the resulting high dynamic range image needs to be mapped into the device space of our viewing environment. Within a set of conditions, LightRoom is doing a good job on that.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Manoli,
That's not what's going on. Using equipment+technique to achieve superior results is.
You seem to assume that better HDR tonemapping would not achieve superior results. That remains to be seen, especially for more extreme scenarios.
Obviously, being able to salvage underexposed image content is very useful. But it will never beat the quality of better exposure (more photons), if practical (which it sometimes isn't, and sometimes is).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Well, some of the criticism of this review seems a little off target to me. First of all, it is not intended as a full comparison of these cameras, just a comparison of DR.
+1 this is explicitly part 1 of a series. Looking forward to seeing the rest, thanks.
-
Also I am looking forward when Sony brings out the true 14bit uncompressed and hope Michael will retest as I expect the Sony to be even better!
I know Michael personalty and is a class act as well are his products! Looking for Part 2 and Part 3 (with new FW & 14 Bit uncompressed)
Thanks Michael for your hard work!
Christopher
-
Here's a real world example from a shoot yesterday in Florence.
Posted for fun with no implications. I just thought it might be worthwhile to remember why it is that we fuss over technical arcana.
Sony A7R II with 16-35mm f/4 @ ISO 100
How well did the EVF deal with the scene?
-
There are some errors in the test due to Adobe raw converters
first of all Adobe has problems with the black point and high iso and regarding d810 and the sony camera
my results are presented here by links , Adobe raw converter and profiles are twisting the results in lower levels, and high iso=low signal and estimating black points
My conclusion are, the reddish results are not corresponding with the S/N from Sony and Nikon, get rid of the reddish due a new grey black point the results will be different, or use a different raw converter . I can be called newbie here but not at dpreview.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56521457
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56521572
-
Hi,
My experience with HDR in LR is a very positive one, but I seldom resort to it because my cameras have a good DR. The nice thing with HDR in LR that it can be tone mapped using LR's tools. It is the best HDR tool I ever used.
Best regards
Erik
I also wondered a bit about Michael's remark about the HDR from LR, not looking as good as a pushed version. But since I'm not a subscriber to LR CC, I cannot test that myself. My experience with other HDR tonemapping software, suggests that very realistically tonemapped results are certainly possible based on HDRI source files, some even better than the real thing because they overcome the physical limitations that we work around with our eyes/brain by constantly accommodating for the average brightness differences in a narrow angle of view.
But since he's traveling, maybe he just didn't get the opportunity yet to do a better HDR tonemapping job.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
My experience with HDR in LR is a very positive one, but I seldom resort to it because my cameras have a good DR. The nice thing with HDR in LR that it can be tone mapped using LR's tools. It is the best HDR tool I ever used.
Best regards
Erik
Absolutely and it made lesser DR cameras a lot more useful in extreme situations. So actually the best thing that happened since LR 4 where we got the new tone mapping controls which was also a revelation IMHO. I still have to see the faults in it for landscapes and other situations where there is obstacles like moving elements that can't be handled well with the deghosting option. Landscapes are good targets for this. Seascapes a bit less so with waves crashing. See you soon :)
-
Michael, can you post a printed summary of the results? Slow internet in rural North Dakota makes looking at video impossible or very difficult at times. Waiting three to four hours for a 12 minute video to play with all the start/stop/buffering is not worth it.
-
There are some errors in the test due to Adobe raw converters
first of all Adobe has problems with the black point and high iso and regarding d810 and the sony camera
my results are presented here by links , Adobe raw converter and profiles are twisting the results in lower levels, and high iso=low signal and estimating black points
My conclusion are, the reddish results are not corresponding with the S/N from Sony and Nikon, get rid of the reddish due a new grey black point the results will be different, or use a different raw converter . I can be called newbie here but not at dpreview.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56521457
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56521572
Since my own (very limited by eye) comparison I don't trust Adobe raw converter a lot anymore too, certainly in difficult exposure situations. I agree with you it at least needs a closer look as this test was performed at the limits of the raw converter as well. See my previous post about this (actually with strong blue cast on an adobe DNG ) http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102371.0 .
-
Interesting and well executed test IMO. It would be interesting to see if uncompressed RAW from the a7rII change the results significantly.
-
Interesting and well executed test IMO. It would be interesting to see if uncompressed RAW from the a7rII change the results significantly.
Hi,
The expected differences are probably limited to high contrast edge and line detail, not overall visual noise.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Same thing here in Tulum, Mexico. This afternoon I tried to watch Michael Levin's Koyo video and couldn't. Perhaps later tonight I'll have more speed.
Thank you very much.
Eduardo
Michael, can you post a printed summary of the results? Slow internet in rural North Dakota makes looking at video impossible or very difficult at times. Waiting three to four hours for a 12 minute video to play with all the start/stop/buffering is not worth it.
-
Here's an interesting piece for this group to chew on and argue about....
http://www.strollswithmydog.com/information-transfer-non-iso-invariant-case/