Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: shadowblade on October 25, 2017, 02:02:52 am
-
https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-sony-will-announce-new-a7riii-today/ (https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-sony-will-announce-new-a7riii-today/)
No indication regarding sensor performance or frame rate yet, but it will have dual slots.
Also a 400/2.8 is due to be announced at the same time.
-
https://www.dpreview.com/news/3426999280/sony-a7r-iii-promises-faster-bursts-better-focusing-and-longer-battery-life
No increase of resolution contrary to the rumors spread by some here. ;)
I hope we can now agree that there is going to be an a9r that will be more expensive and offer a higher resolution?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://www.dpreview.com/news/3426999280/sony-a7r-iii-promises-faster-bursts-better-focusing-and-longer-battery-life
No increase of resolution contrary to the rumors spread by some here. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
There'll be a high-resolution version. It just isn't clear what the name will be (and it never has been). The A9 could just as easily have been released as the A7s3 - after all, the A7r3 also has the dual slots, battery and AF system of the A9.
The A7r3 is, quite clearly, a direct competitor to the D850. Similar (slightly less) resolution, and similar (slightly faster) frame rate. No focus stacking, but it has pixel shift. It's no longer a resolution-focused, non-action camera, but a general-purpose, action-capable body which leaves room at one end for the speed-focused, low-resolution A9, and at the other end for a high-resolution, slow-shooting body.
It will live or die by its AF performance. The coverage is certainly good (68% coverage by area means PDAF points reach 82.5% of the way to the edge on average, which covers all the points you'd actually want to focus on) and accuracy is almost guaranteed, but the main question is speed and tracking ability.
If it focuses and tracks well (matching the D850, and in the same ballpark as the A9/1Dx/D5), it would be a great wildlife and field sports camera, particularly combined with upcoming superteles (maybe that's why the 400 f/2.8 was announced at the same time). If it doesn't, it'll just be another camera theoretically capable of a fast frame rate, but with no good way to use it.
A fast-focusing A7r3 would make a great companion to whatever high-resolution body Sony decides to release.
I'd be much more interested in a 500 f/4 or 200-400 f/4 than the 400 f/2.8, but, if Sony can design one and make it focus well (and 400 f/2.8 is a classic for field sports), then you can just as easily do it with the other two.
Where is Canon in all of this? Performance-wise, the 5D4 is a pygmy compared to the D850, and likely to this one too.
-
Photos and specs on the home page. More coming.
-
Where is Canon in all of this?
Who?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I wonder what the 15 stops of dynamic range actually translates into in real world usage? How about it compare to the D850 at ISO64 or the 33x44 medium formats, such as the GFX?
-
I wonder what the 15 stops of dynamic range actually translates into in real world usage? How about it compare to the D850 at ISO64 or the 33x44 medium formats, such as the GFX?
I think that's 15-16 stops on completely still subjects, due to the pixel shift mode. But that's not usually applicable, since most things aren't completely still. Even slight movement of leaves or ripples can introduce artifacts.
I'd prefer if pixel shift were implemented such that, instead of taking a full exposure at each position, it moved many times between the four positions, averaging out any subject movement as motion blur rather than as artifact. Or even as an option to move half a pixel in each direction, to quadruple the effective resolution and sensor area.
You can manually increase the dynamic range without using pixel shift anyway, by taking multiple exposures and averaging them. This reduces the shot noise component and increases the overall SNR. By doing so, you can reveal details in deep shadows that would ordinarily be hidden by the photon shot noise. Read noise remains the same, but is a relatively small component in Exmor sensors.
-
The new Pixel shift is interesting. As a former Pentax K1 user I can appreciate the advantages. I am curious if Sony allows hand held use of the pixel shift mode or if you need to stay on a tripod.
The other issue will be conversion support. LR never got the K1 pixel shift good at all, they made one pass and that pass was terrible. No motion in subject matter could be accommodated, where as Iridient Developer, Silkypix, and rawtherape all can handle slight motion and do a good job on the files, however I don't prefer any of their workflows. C1, never attempted to support the pixel shift on the K1, (wonder if they will now make an attempt on the Sony since they have their separate version dedicated for Sony).
The end results are very good for the K1, however Sony seems to be doing a different method as from reading the early reviews, they seem to be going for a larger output file, unlike Pentax. This is more along the lines of how Olympus does their shifting. Pentax pixel shift produced a very clean image, which also had more detail, needing less sharpening, but the output size was the same as a single image in actual resolution.
It will be interesting to see the early reviews on this feature.
Paul Caldwell
-
Looking very good to me.
If the touch screen AF is half-way decent when shooting video that's already worth the price to me. Makes a huge difference for use on a hand-held gimbal.
I'd been holding out for a Canon dual-pixel AF in a small body with 4K, but looks like they're just plain not going to do that any time soon.
The 42 megapixel sensor in my A7RII is already pretty much at the sweet spot for me, so if they've upgraded all the readout and back end with what they've learned from the A9, it really sounds like the best all-rounder for my shooting scenarios.
Good work, Sony.
Canon- time to stop crippling your cameras. I have lots of Canon lenses but the only Canon body I now regularly use is a bottom-end consumer dSLR modded to remove the IR filter. The lenses see more use on my RED and Sony.
Hywel
-
The new Pixel shift is interesting. As a former Pentax K1 user I can appreciate the advantages. I am curious if Sony allows hand held use of the pixel shift mode or if you need to stay on a tripod.
Not sure about the quality, but I read that it takes between half a second between pictures to reset the sensor for this mode (which is curious, since it is able of faster frame rate), so I will say it is more prone of movement thant the other implementation of Olympus or Pentax, although we will have to wait for independent tests.
Also, it requieres an external software to build the RAW file that it is going to be provided by Sony. So the workflow it is a more tedious if you want to use Lightroom, Capture ONE...
-
The new Pixel shift is interesting. As a former Pentax K1 user I can appreciate the advantages. I am curious if Sony allows hand held use of the pixel shift mode or if you need to stay on a tripod.
The other issue will be conversion support. LR never got the K1 pixel shift good at all, they made one pass and that pass was terrible. No motion in subject matter could be accommodated, where as Iridient Developer, Silkypix, and rawtherape all can handle slight motion and do a good job on the files, however I don't prefer any of their workflows. C1, never attempted to support the pixel shift on the K1, (wonder if they will now make an attempt on the Sony since they have their separate version dedicated for Sony).
The end results are very good for the K1, however Sony seems to be doing a different method as from reading the early reviews, they seem to be going for a larger output file, unlike Pentax. This is more along the lines of how Olympus does their shifting. Pentax pixel shift produced a very clean image, which also had more detail, needing less sharpening, but the output size was the same as a single image in actual resolution.
It will be interesting to see the early reviews on this feature.
Paul Caldwell
Makes sense that Sony's pixel shift matches what Olympus is doing since Sony owns a chunk of Olympus.
-
Who?
Cheers,
Bernard
They have been busy introducing great lenses, lately some unique TSE ones. As is tradition for them, they take more time to respond. But respond they will, with the Tokyo Olympics around the corner in 2020. Their pro camera release cycle is more on the order of 5 years, whereas Sony needs to be more agressive to capture the market.
No doubt they are being agressive, and closing the gap in lenses. No more excuses of "they don't have sports lenses".
-
Hi,
I think it is a good upgrade of the A7r II, it keeps its strong points, very good 42 megapixels sensor, and tackles all the "problems" A7r II, basically AF speed, speed in general, bettery, double cards... etc... (don't worry, someone will find something to complain...). Of course without reaching the level of framerate of more expensive A9...
If the higher megapixel mosnters happens, I suppose it will be next year as an A9r.
I'm not waiting for that... now my time is to watch second forum markets for a nice A7r II to upgrade my A7 II :)
-
Also, it requieres an external software to build the RAW file that it is going to be provided by Sony. So the workflow it is a more tedious if you want to use Lightroom, Capture ONE...
Makes one wonder about the Sony limited version of Capture One ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Do you guys have any experience with pixel shift technology in landscape photography ? what about long exposure nightscapes ? scratching my head between this A7R3 or waiting for a potential higher A9R...
-
The new Pixel shift is interesting. As a former Pentax K1 user I can appreciate the advantages. I am curious if Sony allows hand held use of the pixel shift mode or if you need to stay on a tripod.
The other issue will be conversion support. LR never got the K1 pixel shift good at all, they made one pass and that pass was terrible. No motion in subject matter could be accommodated, where as Iridient Developer, Silkypix, and rawtherape all can handle slight motion and do a good job on the files, however I don't prefer any of their workflows. C1, never attempted to support the pixel shift on the K1, (wonder if they will now make an attempt on the Sony since they have their separate version dedicated for Sony).
The end results are very good for the K1, however Sony seems to be doing a different method as from reading the early reviews, they seem to be going for a larger output file, unlike Pentax. This is more along the lines of how Olympus does their shifting. Pentax pixel shift produced a very clean image, which also had more detail, needing less sharpening, but the output size was the same as a single image in actual resolution.
It will be interesting to see the early reviews on this feature.
Paul Caldwell
From DPReview. I'd say it is pretty useless
New to the a7R III is a multi-shot resolution mode that, much like the system in recent Pentax DSLRs, shoots four images and moves the sensor between each shot, so that each pixel position in the final image is captured with a red, a blue and two green pixels. This cancels out the side-effects of the Bayer color filter array, meaning that full color information is captured for every pixel. This has a noise benefit both from capturing multiple shots of the same scene, which helps average out the noise, while also reducing the additional softness and noise that usually comes from the demosaicing process.
However, unlike the system Pentax uses or the earlier, 8-shot process used by Olympus, the a7R III cannot assemble the final images in-camera. Instead four Raw files must be processed using a freely downloadable image processing application for PCs that Sony will offer. The camera must also wait either 0.5, 1, or 2 seconds between shots for the sensor to settle, which is likely to exacerbate the problems of subject movement between the first and last shot.
-
From DPReview. I'd say it is pretty useless
New to the a7R III is a multi-shot resolution mode that, much like the system in recent Pentax DSLRs, shoots four images and moves the sensor between each shot, so that each pixel position in the final image is captured with a red, a blue and two green pixels. This cancels out the side-effects of the Bayer color filter array, meaning that full color information is captured for every pixel. This has a noise benefit both from capturing multiple shots of the same scene, which helps average out the noise, while also reducing the additional softness and noise that usually comes from the demosaicing process.
However, unlike the system Pentax uses or the earlier, 8-shot process used by Olympus, the a7R III cannot assemble the final images in-camera. Instead four Raw files must be processed using a freely downloadable image processing application for PCs that Sony will offer. The camera must also wait either 0.5, 1, or 2 seconds between shots for the sensor to settle, which is likely to exacerbate the problems of subject movement between the first and last shot.
Probably only interesting for people doing studio photos of static subjects or art reproductions...
-
Specs are now out and the A7RIII and D850 have many similarities in the areas important to me, resolution, handling, and did I say resolution for fine detail. A bit of time will be needed to see if the D850 "autofocus stacking" feature, quite wonderful at least according to Lloyd Chambers, is more or less important than the "pixel shift" 169MP, feature of the Sony. I've pre-ordered the D850 but currently have only three manual focus lenses (PC-E 24,45,85) should it arrive any time soon. The A7RII sorely tempted me a year or so ago when I rented it to compare to my Fuji X T-2. I kept the X T-2 since for my relatively small prints, the differences were not worth the expense of a brand shift. I suspect the D850 and A7RIII will bring up the same issues.
I am a firm believer in mirrorless cameras though. This has caused me to question the wisdom of investing in the Nikon system... again. The sweet spot of a lightweight body (the Sony qualifies as does the X T-2) and the smaller lenses that go with a smaller (APS-C) sensor have made for an impressively small and lightweight package for hiking. For close to the car and indoor studio work, the weight issue evaporates in favor of the image quality argument. It will be fascinating to see how these issues work out in the workplace and in the marketplace. I'll likely bide my time. Perhaps by then the Nikon full frame mirrorless camera will have appeared. What's a gear freak to do?
-
Who?
Cheers,
Bernard
Where is Canon? Still banging the out many thousands of dollars of paid work, day in and day out, using that outdated 5Ds. Some of us don’t need to chase.....
-
Where is Canon? Still banging the out many thousands of dollars of paid work, day in and day out, using that outdated 5Ds. Some of us don’t need to chase.....
There is little doubt that great pictures can be taken by talented photographers with Canon equipment.
Just like great pictures can still be taken with film cameras today.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If the higher megapixel mosnters happens, I suppose it will be next year as an A9r.
I don't get Sony's camera naming conventions.
The A7r3 uses the A9's battery, dual card slots, EVF, AF system, processor, etc. It runs on a similar data bandwidth to the A9. It even uses the stronger lens mount from the A9 (look at photos of the A7r3 and A9 lens mount and compare them with those of the A7r2). If anything, it's a slower-shooting, higher-resolution A9, not an A7r2 successor.
Alternatively, the A9 could have been the A7s3.
To leave room for a slow-shooting, high-resolution model (say, 70MP/5fps), I would have suggested either:
A9 becomes A7s3
A7r3 becomes A7m3 (skip the A7m and A7m2 designations, to keep all cameras of the same generation the same)
High-resolution model becomes A7r3
Or:
A9 remains A9 (or becomes A9s)
A7r3 becomes A9m
High-resolution body becomes A9r
This would leave the A7/A7s/A7r designation for lower-line models with poorer frame rates, AF and construction, using the same sensor as the A9 models.
Alternatively, keep the 'r' designation and introduce a new designation (e.g. 'A9x') for the slow-shooting, high-resolution version, now that the 'r' series has become a moderate-fast camera with no resolution increase.
-
Hi,
I think it is a good upgrade of the A7r II, it keeps its strong points, very good 42 megapixels sensor, and tackles all the "problems" A7r II, basically AF speed, speed in general, bettery, double cards... etc... (don't worry, someone will find something to complain...). Of course without reaching the level of framerate of more expensive A9...
It doesn't reach the frame rate, but note that it has a very similar data bandwidth (42MP at 10fps being in the same ballpark as 24MP at 20fps).
It's basically a slower-shooting, higher-resolution A9, rather than a slow-shooting, no-frills 'sensor in a box' like the A7r and A7r2.
AF performance will be the critical thing (does it focus like an A9 or an A7?), but, on paper, the A7r3 looks to be the D850-equvalent to the A9's D5-equivalent, rather than a simple A7r2 successor.
-
… four Raw files must be processed using a freely downloadable image processing application for PCs that Sony will offer.
There will be no MacOS version of the software? Puts it off my list immediately.
-
Where is Canon? Still banging the out many thousands of dollars of paid work, day in and day out, using that outdated 5Ds. Some of us don’t need to chase.....
It’s the well-heeled amateurs who most need—or desire—the latest and greatest, and that’s a good thing, because they subsidise working photographers who often use equipment until it fails, or move it on to back-up status before it fails. :)
-
There is little doubt that great pictures can be taken by talented photographers with Canon equipment.
Just like great pictures can still be taken with film cameras today.
Cheers,
Bernard
Film? :-*
-
The Sony A7R III interests me in a way the A7R2 did not. In fact, I sold my A7R2 last night. I don’t care about the higher ISOs or frames per second that can be shot. And I am fine with the 42 Mpx size. Having now worked with the Nikon D850 (which I love), I can see that even the somewhat increased size (47 Mpx) begins to further tax my computers (and Photoshop), which itself is very fast. I don’t need greater pixels than around 50 Mpx. What I do need (if it works well) is the Pixel-Shift feature that will give me better resolution for that 42 Mpx frame. That I need.
I already have the Voigtlander 65mm Macro for the Sony A7R3, and many non-native lenses that I will see how they adapt. What I might want to pick up are one or two native Sony lenses that are as close to APO as possible. Those of you who use the A7R2 a lot, what are the pristine lenses for that camera that will work well on the A7R3? Thanks in advance.
-
There will be no MacOS version of the software? Puts it off my list immediately.
VMWare?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
"There will be no MacOS version of the software? Puts it off my list immediately.
VMWare?
Cheers,
Bernard"
That is a shame, especially if the pixel-shifting works really well. Around my area, there are tons of low-prices PCs that could be picked up just to run that software.
What lenses for the A7RII/III that approach APO quality?
-
The Sony A7R III interests me in a way the A7R2 did not. In fact, I sold my A7R2 last night. I don’t care about the higher ISOs or frames per second that can be shot. And I am fine with the 42 Mpx size. Having now worked with the Nikon D850 (which I love), I can see that even the somewhat increased size (47 Mpx) begins to further tax my computers (and Photoshop), which itself is very fast. I don’t need greater pixels than around 50 Mpx. What I do need (if it works well) is the Pixel-Shift feature that will give me better resolution for that 42 Mpx frame. That I need.
I'm not sold on pixel shift for anything other than commercial and technical photography. When it works, the results are great, but, when there's any movement at all, the colour artifacts are awful (much worse than simple motion blur).
Certainly, it will be very useful for document and art reproduction, microscopy, architecture and real estate photography, studio-based product photography (probably using continuous lights - flash may not be compatible) and other scenes with no moving elements (not even slightly moving) at all. But, outside of those applications, completely nonmoving scenes, where both the camera and the scene can be completely nonmoving (that also rules out drones, or anything taken from a platform that could shake or vibrate a bit, even some bridges and tall buildings) are few and far between.
Perhaps its main use in general photography will be as a blended layer, in a similar vein to blending exposures with different focus, exposure or polarisation settings. You could take an extra pixel-shifted frame and benefit from it anywhere in the scene that's not affected by movement, while blending in parts from the single exposure to cover the moving areas. But this is contingent on third-party RAW converters being able to utilise pixel shift - if you have to process the pixel-shift RAW on Sony's proprietary converter, while processing the normal RAWs in C1, DxO Optics or your other usual RAW converter, it may be very difficult to get the two images to match up correctly for blending (unless you'd particularly enjoy using Sony's Image Data Converter for all your RAW processing).
I already have the Voigtlander 65mm Macro for the Sony A7R3, and many non-native lenses that I will see how they adapt. What I might want to pick up are one or two native Sony lenses that are as close to APO as possible. Those of you who use the A7R2 a lot, what are the pristine lenses for that camera that will work well on the A7R3? Thanks in advance.
You can put just about any lens onto an E-mount body. Not sure what you're using the camera for, but, if you don't care about autofocus, you have lots of options.
With regards to native lenses, the 12-24 is as sharp or sharper than anything out there, with only the Canon 11-24 coming close. The 16-35 f/2.8 is the equal of the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L III (possibly slightly sharper in the peripheries and slightly softer in the centre) and as sharp as most of the primes within the wider half of that range, but with the added versatility of a zoom. The 24-70 is as good as the Canon and Nikon equivalents (the Canon having an extremely sharp centre but falling off towards the edges, the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 VR being less sharp than the Canon and Sony in the centre, but sharper than the Canon in the corners at 24mm, and sharper than both in the corners at 70mm). The 100-400 is as good as it gets sharpness-wise among its equivalents, probably even edging out the Canon 100-400.
For landscape photography, it's had to go past the versatility and sharpness of these zooms. The 12-24, 24-70 and 100-400 have you almost covered from 12-400mm, with a gap in the 70-100mm range which can be covered by an 85mm lens or by stitching (the angle of view at those focal lengths make stitching geometrically easy compared to wider angles). Add in a dedicated portrait lens if you like to shoot those, or a dedicated macro lens (although the 100-400 does a very credible job with a magnification of 0.35x, with the added bonus of being able to blur the background to oblivion even when shooting at f/16 for greater DOF on the subject).
I'd avoid the 70-200 f/2.8, though. It's probably fine for shooting events or for video, but, for critical sharpness, it just doesn't stack up to the latest Nikon, or even the ageing Canon.
-
I do only close-up nature stills on a tripod, so the Pixel-shift is exactly what I need, if it works well. In general, I don't like zoom lenses, which shadowblade pointed out, so probably not going there. If there are any prime lenses native for the Sony A7RII/III, that are APO or close, those are the ones I would like to hear about. I am all set up to use the A7RIII on the Cambo Actus with all kinds of Large Format lenses.
-
I do only close-up nature stills on a tripod, so the Pixel-shift is exactly what I need, if it works well. In general, I don't like zoom lenses, which shadowblade pointed out, so probably not going there. If there are any prime lenses native for the Sony A7RII/III, that are APO or close, those are the ones I would like to hear about. I am all set up to use the A7RIII on the Cambo Actus with all kinds of Large Format lenses.
The Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8, supposedly. Although it only has a maximum magnification of 0.18x, which probably doesn't work so well for close-ups.
How would you use pixel shift in nature close-ups? Even a slight breeze or a bit of vibration would make subjects move a pixel or two.
-
Michael,
According to Brian Smith, celebrity photographer and Sony Artisan, Sony/Zeiss 55mm f1.8 is "virtually on par with the performance of Zeiss Otus 55mm f1.4."
Which tripod and head combination do you use with Cambo Actus for your close-up photography?
Thanks.
Richard
-
The Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8, supposedly. Although it only has a maximum magnification of 0.18x, which probably doesn't work so well for close-ups.
How would you use pixel shift in nature close-ups? Even a slight breeze or a bit of vibration would make subjects move a pixel or two.
You wait for those few mornings when it is calm and work fast.
Richard asked:" Which tripod and head combination do you use with Cambo Actus for your close-up photography?"
I use RRS (Series 3 tripod) most of the time with an Arca-Swiss Cube 1 geared head.
-
Thank you, Michael.
-
There is little doubt that great pictures can be taken by talented photographers with Canon equipment.
Just like great pictures can still be taken with film cameras today.
Cheers,
Bernard
Apparently, there must be numerous photographers (talent not withstanding) that use Canon cameras. Canon still largely dominates the market, apparently frustrating many (or only a few?) other photographers. All in spite of Canon being perceived a "boring", "retrograde", "about to die" company.
Go figure.
-
Apparently, there must be numerous photographers (talent not withstanding) that use Canon cameras. Canon still largely dominates the market, apparently frustrating many (or only a few?) other photographers. All in spite of Canon being perceived a "boring", "retrograde", "about to die" company.
Go figure.
I still see lineups at McDonalds as well. Must be making great food as many still eat there. Go figure.
-
Apparently, there must be numerous photographers (talent not withstanding) that use Canon cameras. Canon still largely dominates the market, apparently frustrating many (or only a few?) other photographers. All in spite of Canon being perceived a "boring", "retrograde", "about to die" company.
Canon does produce reliable tools that perform well and have helped millions of photographers take great pictures.
But their lack of innovation isn't just boring, it slows down progress across brands. The a7rIII would be 60mp if Canon moved faster.
And it is indeed infuriating to see smart marketing continuously compensate technical shortcomings because the continued commercial success of Canon is probably blinding them into thinking they are doing a great job and don't need to do more.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don't get Sony's camera naming conventions.
The A7r3 uses the A9's battery, dual card slots, EVF, AF system, processor, etc. It runs on a similar data bandwidth to the A9. It even uses the stronger lens mount from the A9 (look at photos of the A7r3 and A9 lens mount and compare them with those of the A7r2). If anything, it's a slower-shooting, higher-resolution A9, not an A7r2 successor.
Alternatively, the A9 could have been the A7s3.
To leave room for a slow-shooting, high-resolution model (say, 70MP/5fps), I would have suggested either:
A9 becomes A7s3
A7r3 becomes A7m3 (skip the A7m and A7m2 designations, to keep all cameras of the same generation the same)
High-resolution model becomes A7r3
Or:
A9 remains A9 (or becomes A9s)
A7r3 becomes A9m
High-resolution body becomes A9r
This would leave the A7/A7s/A7r designation for lower-line models with poorer frame rates, AF and construction, using the same sensor as the A9 models.
Alternatively, keep the 'r' designation and introduce a new designation (e.g. 'A9x') for the slow-shooting, high-resolution version, now that the 'r' series has become a moderate-fast camera with no resolution increase.
I suspect if Sony had an ultra high resolution sensor ready to launch in the near future we would have seen it in this camera where it could potentially make maximum impact on the market.
I'm guessing Nikon will be quite happy that Sony hasn't really been able to offer a headline feature to best the D850 here or undercut them in price significantly.
-
I suspect if Sony had an ultra high resolution sensor ready to launch in the near future we would have seen it in this camera where it could potentially make maximum impact on the market.
I'm guessing Nikon will be quite happy that Sony hasn't really been able to offer a headline feature to best the D850 here or undercut them in price significantly.
That's exactly why they've launched these products when they did.
Part of it is defensive - limiting the impact of a rival's release. Part of it is offensive - expanding market share. And part of it is profit-grabbing - maximising sales. All three aspects have to be done in balance.
Sony has all the necessary components and designs available to make any of a number of cameras - fast/low-resolution, medium speed/medium resolution, slow/high-resolution, all with similar features in other respects (AF, construction, etc.). It's just a matter of finalising and releasing each one at the optimal time. But they can only release each one once. Each camera design is like a round of ammunition in Sony's arsenal - an expendable resource that must be saved for the most opportune moment. If they released everything at once, it would likely be of limited effect, and leave their magazines empty until R&D can replenish them.
It made sense to release the A9 first. It came out a year after the D5 and 1Dx2, and well before the next generation is due. Sony couldn't have released the A9 at the same time as the D5/1Dx2, since it wouldn't have been anywhere near ready. So the A9's release was a pure offensive move, designed to win market share and earn Sony a foothold in the fast action market. Prior to its release, Sony didn't have a demonstrated capability to make a fast-focusing, fast-tracking camera suitable for shooting sports. No-one knew whether the A9 would be able to match the AF of Canon/Nikon sports cameras, or existed more at the level of the 5D3/5D4 general-purpose cameras. It had to demonstrate that capability to the public somehow. Any of the possible combinations - fast/low-resolution, medium/medium resolution or slow/high-resolution - could have demonstrated this, but the fast/low-resolution body made the most sense to release. For one, it had the lowest opportunity cost - the A9 doesn't really compete with the A7r2 for user base, since they serve almost opposite ends of the photographer spectrum, so self-cannibalisation would have been less of an issue. Secondly, it expanded the Sony lineup into, and made Sony a viable (if niche at this point, given the lens selection) competitor in a new area of photography, where they had previous lacked any presence. Thirdly, it made much more sense to release the fast/low-resolution body earlier in the product cycle of the 1Dx2/D5, when neither Nikon nor Canon would be ready with an update that would thoroughly trounce the A9. And, finally, from a profit-grabbing point of view, it made more sense to release key features in dribs and drabs rather than all at once. In this case, fast AF was the key feature (dual slots, better mount and bigger battery are all nice, but would probably not have sold a new body by themselves without the AF). It was not available in the A7r2 - in order to get better AF, users would have to buy the A9. But the A9 doesn't offer 42MP (20fps is nice to have, but it's a relatively niche feature that, for most applications, isn't as generally useful as 10fps/42MP). For many buyers, 24MP is enough, though. By doing what they did, they forced anyone who didn't want to wait for a fast-focusing Sony to buy the A9, while still leaving room for repeat sales in the future from either a fast-focusing, high-resolution model (with users buying the A9 first for the AF, then selling it and buying the A7r3 or A9r when it came out and was more suited to their needs) or a budget model with the same AF but slower frame rate (A7Mk3, possibly). This wouldn't have been the case if they had released one of the higher-resolution bodies first, nor would it have been the case if they had released an A7Mk3 first.
I suspect that Sony's recent release of the A7r3 was a defensive move, to limit the impact of the D850 by introducing an equally-capable competitor. Whether it was planned way ahead, or only in the last few months, likely depends on how much Sony Camera knew about the capabilities of the D850 - they may have known something about the sensor, but possibly not the rest of the camera. Certainly, if the D850 had not been released or was much less capable, I would have expected the A7Mk3 (24MP like the A9, but slower-shooting and possibly with weaker AF) to come out before the A7r3 (basically a medium-speed, medium-resolution version of the A9). But a 24MP/7fps 'budget' camera would have left the D850 go unchecked and allowed Nikon to run riot amongst the biggest category of high-spending user (those who need some speed, but not necessarily 20fps, but would also like some resolution to go with it), with no Sony body able to match both the resolution and the AF of the Nikon (let alone the frame rate). In fact, it was rumoured until very recently that the budget model would be what Sony would release next - perhaps it was a last-minute change of plans (presuming that any of the designs are ready to go the moment management decide it's time, with a few months needed to switch around production lines, etc.).
Most likely Sony hasn't released the high-resolution/slow-shooting version yet not because it doesn't have one, but because it doesn't need to, and because more profit can be made by releasing it in six months' time. They could have released it instead of the A7r3, but, not only would it have been less profitable to do so (a significant number of people will buy a 42MP/10fps body now as well as a 70MP/5fps body later, either selling or keeping the older body; it is likely that fewer would do the reverse, assuming AF capability is the same) but a 70MP/5fps body also wouldn't provide the same defensive barrier against the D850. It would have left Sony with a fast-shooting, low resolution action body and a slow-shooting, high-resolution body, but left the entire middle ground to Nikon.
I suspect we will see the high-resolution/slow-shooting body in 6-9 months time, after all the early-adopter/impatient buyer A7r3 sales have been made - just in time to meet Canon's 5Ds2 (possibly pre-empting it, and, if Canon hasn't stepped up with the capabilities, rendering it a flop).
And no doubt Sony is working on the next generation already, to meet the Canon/Nikon mirrorless challenge. The current generation - A9, A7r3, whatever the high-resolution/slow-shooting one is called and the A7Mk3 - are all ready, to be put into action when the time is right. R&D is almost certainly focusing on the next generation now, in time for the Tokyo Olympics.
-
That said, it wouldn't surprise me if the A7r3 had a relatively short product cycle (like the original A7r), being replaced not long after the high-resolution/low fps and the budget models (A7 mk 3) are released.
The A7r3, despite its major improvements over the A7r2 and its greater functionality than the A9 for anything that doesn't call for ridiculous frame rates, seems to be almost a stop-gap measure, released in response to the D850. It recycles an older sensor that, despite its IQ, lacks the stacked sensor design for fast readout needed for certain aspects of AF and viewfinder performance. I don't know how much this will impact on PDAF performance compared to the A9 (since I believe Sony uses a separate layer in front of the photosites for that), but, regardless, it may have an impact on other aspects of performance. It's almost as if Sony had everything ready for the new body but the sensor, and was forced into releasing a product ar this time with an older sensor, rather than waiting six months or a year for a newer one. I could see the A7r3 being replaced in 12-18 months by a stacked sensor design in the 42-54MP, 8-10fps range with further AF and EVF improvements (in addition to the A9 and a high-resolution/low-speed body).
Regardless, the A7r3 will live or die by its AF and action performance vs both the D850 and the A9. I think camera companies may be starting to wake up to the fact that it's not just those shooting at 20fps who need fast, accurate AF and tracking. Many applications only call for modest frame rates and could use higher resolutions than available with the high-speed bodies, yet call for AF that tracks just as quickly and accurately as the high-speed bodies. Low frame rate does not mean non-action. And Canon/Nikon used to give it to us, with the 1Ds3 and D3x having AF systems identical to those of their high speed/low resolution contemporaries. Starting with the D850, it may just be starting to come back now.
-
Considering the design life cycle there is no doubt that Sony planned the a7rIII long before Nikon released the D850.
Odds are it is simply the result of their strategy for the a7 series of camera that will remain their mid-range as opposed to the higher end a9r.
There is therefore no reason to think you’ll be able to buy a higher res body any time soon without paying the 5,000 US$ the a9r is likely to cost. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Considering the design life cycle there is no doubt that Sony planned the a7rIII long before Nikon released the D850.
Odds are it is simply the result of their strategy for the a7 series of camera that will remain their mid-range as opposed to the higher end a9r.
There is therefore no reason to think you’ll be able to buy a higher res body any time soon without paying the 5,000 US$ the a9r is likely to cost. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
I really don't care about the cost - more that the product is available. In any case, starting from Sony's underdog position with regards to market share vis-a-vis Canon, there's no way they could make it cost more than the 5Ds replacement and have a commercially-viable product (5Dsr's launch price was USD3900), so that more-or-less sets an upper bound on price.
The design life cycle consists of a number of different units and many different prototypes, most of which can be made ready for production with a few months' notice. It's a continuous process of refinement, improvement and experimentation, with many different prototypes in circulation at any one time, not a case of 'We'll start designing the A7r4 now, and it'll be ready in 24 month's time'. No doubt Sony would have had a number of different A7- and A9-type bodies, all with different sensors in them, to test different aspects of performance. When the time comes, they just pick the most suitable prototype, or most suitable parts from various prototypes ('most suitable' for any number of reasons), decide what to call it and move it towards production. It's the same way most hardware R&D works - the engineering team continually puts out the patents and prototypes, most of which never go to market, then, when management needs a new product, they go to the R&D team's library of prototypes (or prototype components, in the case of modular components) and take the one most suited to the role and put it into production ('most suited' whether in terms of performance, manufacturing cost, manufacturing capacity or just about any other criteria).
I suspect the D850 caught Sony off-guard - not so much with regards to its sensor, but with regards to its overall performance. They had to get something to market relatively quickly. A suitable body and suitable off-sensor electronics were ready, but the next-generation sensor was most likely not (most likely with regards to production methods or production capacity, rather than sensor design). So they just picked the most suitable prototype they could get ready for mass production in the limited time available, while the R&D team continued working on refining sensors, electronics and manufacturing capabilities for future releases. Much easier to use a sensor they're already producing, and probably have many of stored and ready to use, than to quickly start producing a new one.
In any case, the A7r3 hardly represents a 'mid-range' body, any more than the D850. The contest between it and the D850 pretty much comes down to AF - image quality, speed and other features are more-or-less comparable (3MP more on the D850, 1-2fps more on the A7r3, focus stacking on the D850, pixel shift on the A7r3, base ISO 64 on the D850, half a stop better high ISO on the A7r3). Any higher-resolution body is likely to be much slower - say, 70MP/5fps - with data bandwidth being the main bottleneck. The 'Sony being caught off-guard' bit is not with regards to the sensor being 42MP rather than 50-60MP, but with regards to it being the same 42MP sensor as the A7r2, without incorporating any of the sensor refinements of the past 28 months that would improve non-IQ aspects of performance - chief among them, stacked sensor technology. More than likely, they've already got a high-resolution sensor ready (at least design-wise - maybe not in terms of capacity for mass production). But that would make for a slow-shooting camera, not something to compete with the D850. They may not have had an updated 40-50MP sensor ready, that could shoot at the speed needed to compete. No-one expected the D850 to be a 9fps action camera.
-
Maybe Sony's production lines are maxed out, and they're just running the A7RII sensor's fab or clearing out stock?
Also, the stabilisation system, the sensor frame, glass etc are all calibrated to the existing A7R2 device, and it's easy, fast and cheap to just put the whole inside in a new firmware wrapper, add some features and ship. They did exactly the same with the A7SII.
Edmund
I really don't care about the cost - more that the product is available. In any case, starting from Sony's underdog position with regards to market share vis-a-vis Canon, there's no way they could make it cost more than the 5Ds replacement and have a commercially-viable product (5Dsr's launch price was USD3900), so that more-or-less sets an upper bound on price.
The design life cycle consists of a number of different units and many different prototypes, most of which can be made ready for production with a few months' notice. It's a continuous process of refinement, improvement and experimentation, with many different prototypes in circulation at any one time, not a case of 'We'll start designing the A7r4 now, and it'll be ready in 24 month's time'. No doubt Sony would have had a number of different A7- and A9-type bodies, all with different sensors in them, to test different aspects of performance. When the time comes, they just pick the most suitable prototype, or most suitable parts from various prototypes ('most suitable' for any number of reasons), decide what to call it and move it towards production. It's the same way most hardware R&D works - the engineering team continually puts out the patents and prototypes, most of which never go to market, then, when management needs a new product, they go to the R&D team's library of prototypes (or prototype components, in the case of modular components) and take the one most suited to the role and put it into production ('most suited' whether in terms of performance, manufacturing cost, manufacturing capacity or just about any other criteria).
I suspect the D850 caught Sony off-guard - not so much with regards to its sensor, but with regards to its overall performance. They had to get something to market relatively quickly. A suitable body and suitable off-sensor electronics were ready, but the next-generation sensor was most likely not (most likely with regards to production methods or production capacity, rather than sensor design). So they just picked the most suitable prototype they could get ready for mass production in the limited time available, while the R&D team continued working on refining sensors, electronics and manufacturing capabilities for future releases. Much easier to use a sensor they're already producing, and probably have many of stored and ready to use, than to quickly start producing a new one.
In any case, the A7r3 hardly represents a 'mid-range' body, any more than the D850. The contest between it and the D850 pretty much comes down to AF - image quality, speed and other features are more-or-less comparable (3MP more on the D850, 1-2fps more on the A7r3, focus stacking on the D850, pixel shift on the A7r3, base ISO 64 on the D850, half a stop better high ISO on the A7r3). Any higher-resolution body is likely to be much slower - say, 70MP/5fps - with data bandwidth being the main bottleneck. The 'Sony being caught off-guard' bit is not with regards to the sensor being 42MP rather than 50-60MP, but with regards to it being the same 42MP sensor as the A7r2, without incorporating any of the sensor refinements of the past 28 months that would improve non-IQ aspects of performance - chief among them, stacked sensor technology. More than likely, they've already got a high-resolution sensor ready (at least design-wise - maybe not in terms of capacity for mass production). But that would make for a slow-shooting camera, not something to compete with the D850. They may not have had an updated 40-50MP sensor ready, that could shoot at the speed needed to compete. No-one expected the D850 to be a 9fps action camera.
-
Maybe Sony's production lines are maxed out, and they're just running the A7RII sensor's fab or clearing out stock?
Also, the stabilisation system, the sensor frame, glass etc are all calibrated to the existing A7R2 device, and it's easy, fast and cheap to just put the whole inside in a new firmware wrapper, add some features and ship. They did exactly the same with the A7SII.
Edmund
Production lines capable of making stacked sensors, maybe. But probably not sensor production lines in general. Sensors are made in large batches, then kept im storage until needed. They do not continuously roll off the production line, like cars, for the entire production life of the camera they go into. Most likely, they had a large batch of A7r2 sensors ready to be used up, while a suitable successor, with the resolution needed to achieve the desired frame rate, is either not ready for production (no doubt Sony has 24MP and high-resolution sensors ready, but possibly not something in rhe 40-50MP range, which can actually achieve 10fps) or is unable to be produced at present, with the plants capable of making stacked sensors busy producing other things.
-
https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-a7riii-vs-nikon-d850-raw-comparison-tonychelsea-northrup/ (https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-a7riii-vs-nikon-d850-raw-comparison-tonychelsea-northrup/)
No improvement in base ISO DR reported here. As expected, really - the sensor's the same, so there's no real improvement that can be made, apart from reducing the read noise a bit. And the A7r2's read noise is already minimal.
Sony claimed a 1-2 stop improvement at base ISO, but I suspect that refers to shots taken using pixel shift mode. Four exposures would improve the shot noise component by two stops, for an overall improvement of 1-2 stops (since read noise would remain the same). But you could get that DR improvement without pixel shift, anyway, simply by taking multiple shots and averaging them. And it comes without the possibility of motion artifact other than normal motion blur.
-
Maybe Sony's production lines are maxed out, and they're just running the A7RII sensor's fab or clearing out stock?
Also, the stabilisation system, the sensor frame, glass etc are all calibrated to the existing A7R2 device, and it's easy, fast and cheap to just put the whole inside in a new firmware wrapper, add some features and ship. They did exactly the same with the A7SII.
Edmund
Hi,
As other people said here, I think this camera was long planned, more of a response to the D850 I see it more as a natural evolution of the A7r II, they kept what is really nice of the camera... a really good 42 sensor and they fixed all the things everybody was criticizing: dual cars slots, faster AF, longer battery life, better studio workflow, etc... and for the same original price as the A7r II and only after two years of the A7r II in the market, other manufacturers have long lifecycle in their camera systems...
Also I think with this camera Sony is really trying to start getting money back from the investment in the FE line... still using same sensor (only them are using it on the A7r II, A99, R1X II... ), so they save money on the design of the sensor... they are bringing a lot of thins from the A9: dual slot, battery, etc...
I think Sony will continue to be aggressive... they want to grow a lot... but not as they were at the beginning of A7 line, at least for cameras (in lenses looks like they are still pushing a lot of releases per year... although I will love they released a roadmap like Fuji...)
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
Has anyon seen any real test of the multishot yet?
-
Has anyon seen any real test of the multishot yet?
Software to mount the images into a single RAW is not yet available, until them, nobody will be able to check them out.
-
DPReview is backing up the Sony claims of the increase DR for the new camera with respect the A7r II: https://www.dpreview.com/news/4302149407/sony-a7r-iii-dynamic-range-improved-nearly-matches-chart-topping-nikon-d850
-
DPReview is backing up the Sony claims of the increase DR for the new camera with respect the A7r II: https://www.dpreview.com/news/4302149407/sony-a7r-iii-dynamic-range-improved-nearly-matches-chart-topping-nikon-d850
Improved by 0.43 stops to 13.63 at the pixel level: the 15 stop claim seems to be based on the DXO down-sampled to 8MP measure.
-
Hi,
As other people said here, I think this camera was long planned, more of a response to the D850 I see it more as a natural evolution of the A7r II, they kept what is really nice of the camera... a really good 42 sensor and they fixed all the things everybody was criticizing: dual cars slots, faster AF, longer battery life, better studio workflow, etc... and for the same original price as the A7r II and only after two years of the A7r II in the market, other manufacturers have long lifecycle in their camera systems...
Also I think with this camera Sony is really trying to start getting money back from the investment in the FE line... still using same sensor (only them are using it on the A7r II, A99, R1X II... ), so they save money on the design of the sensor... they are bringing a lot of thins from the A9: dual slot, battery, etc...
I think Sony will continue to be aggressive... they want to grow a lot... but not as they were at the beginning of A7 line, at least for cameras (in lenses looks like they are still pushing a lot of releases per year... although I will love they released a roadmap like Fuji...)
http://dgpfotografia.com
Yeah I could well see this being the case, the amount of development Sony have put into the FE line in recent years has I would imagine greatly limited its profitability and this camera does look much more like the mature releases from Canon and Nikon to me.
I'm not sure I see the logic of an A9r personally, I mean the recent history of the industry seems clearly to show that high resolution FF bodies are best not as flaships but as mid range pro bodies. The D3x clearly beat the 5D mk2 for image quality yet was nowhere in the market, the 1Ds mk3 never amounted to much either.
I think it makes sense personally as the market for extreme resolution is mostly a market aimed either at amateurs(especially landscape shooters) or pro's on a moderate budget with the higher end ones using MF. These days that's surely going to be even more true with MF going CMOS and coming down in price, as resolution pushes past 50 MP I suspect we'll see the advantage of the larger format become clearer in lens performance, Sony selling a smaller sensor size at a similar price would not be smart IMHO.
Indeed I suspect both Nikon and Sony were weary of the threat from above so looked to maximise there advantage over MF when it came to issues like FPS and AF producing better all round cameras.
-
I hope we can now agree that there is going to be an a9r that will be more expensive and offer a higher resolution?
Cheers,
Bernard
Absolutely, positively, no. Show me the D5r, the 1Dr.
Sent from my HTC_0P6B using Tapatalk
-
It never was a 1Dr it was a 1Ds. So I’m sure as well there will be a 9r with 60-70mp next year.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Are there still no tests for the multishot (pixel shift) of the A7r3 ?
As I understood it the process needs postprocessing of pc with a Sony program.
Is this program still awaiting?
-
I’m wondering too. Since the first day the camera was announced I ask myself how to integrate a processed file in a nondestructive workflow. Little information about the viewer, capture and editing software Imaging Edge (which OS, cameras are supported?) until today.
You can find some information in the Help Guide (page 211 and page 381) like the limitations or locked settings while recording the RAW images using Imaging Edge or a Wireless Remote Commander.
Also interesting is the fact that 'The flash-syncing speed is 1/13 second'.
André
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
andremuehling.de
-
Interesting! But have they shown the resulting pictures with multishot yet, or is this just a dream ;D
-
This is still the only picture (https://www.sony.com/electronics/interchangeable-lens-cameras/ilce-7rm3#resolution) I've seen until now. In the video under the picture you can see another one.
For me the Pixel Shift Multi Shooting is the only important feature of a successor of the A7RII.
André
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
andremuehling.de
-
This is still the only picture (https://www.sony.com/electronics/interchangeable-lens-cameras/ilce-7rm3#resolution) I've seen until now. In the video under the picture you can see another one.
For me the Pixel Shift Multi Shooting is the only important feature of a successor of the A7RII.
André
I agree on that really. Just waiting for the ms testing. Wondering if it will compete with mf resolution
with this multishot used on macro-shots and still life.? We will soon see I guess
-
I'm interested to see how it works with the 24-105.
It's the ideal focal length for hiking and for the sensor size it's not that heavy. For me it needs to be sharper, edge to edge, compared with the Nikon 24-120 f4 and have a decent weather sealing (can tolerated some light drizzle for a minute or two). Sensor is practically as good as any Nikon and the usability should be good enough for landscape.
-
Are there still no tests for the multishot (pixel shift) of the A7r3 ?
As I understood it the process needs postprocessing of pc with a Sony program.
Is this program still awaiting?
The program and the camera, oficial release day it is November 30th, I don’t think we will see the program until them...
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
Has anyon seen any real test of the multishot yet?
DPReview just published an analysis of it: https://www.dpreview.com/news/5645755619/sony-a7r-iii-pixel-shift-lifts-a-veil-off-your-landscapes
-
::) That is very impressive ::)
close or even better than Phase ones Lamborghini ::)
If Phase one donˋt come up with a multishot they will be
beaten with Sonys next camera. Sony 4.000 us$ Phase one 40.000$ ??
-
Why there are so strong CA's in the corners of studio comparison? A7r3 looks less sharp there than r2 which has clean color.
Maybe lens? Raw processing?
The moire or lack of moire in color wheels is great.
-
I think the software is still in the fist stage. Should be resolved easy.
-
Why there are so strong CA's in the corners of studio comparison? A7r3 looks less sharp there than r2 which has clean color.
Maybe lens? Raw processing?
The moire or lack of moire in color wheels is great.
Hi,
They are using different lens for the test, with the A7r II the FE 55mm and with the A7r III the FE 85mm 1.8, so I will not use those image to compare the sharpeness of the system... since the lens will be a key factor, pixel-shift or not. Not sure if the CA is due to the moire or the Sony software, I don't remember the FE 85mm 1.8 in the reviews to be very problematic with CA so maybe the software...
For me what it is a bit missleading is the initial example of DPReview, Sony already said that it takes around two seconds to take a picture using Pixel Shift, so I think outside reproduction work or still photography studio work, this feature will be very restricted, a small breeze moving leafs or grass will ruing the photo with strange artifacts...
Regards,
David
-
But strangely if you see the person in the window, he is close to sharp. How can that be with long exposures and even 4 of them?
Some of the persons show art effects, but some not much at all.
-
But strangely if you see the person in the window he is sharp. How can that be with long exposures and even 4 of them?
If you look around there's another person who was moving, resulting in strong artifacts.
-
Yes, I saw that too. The slow workers are the best ;)
-
Doesn't seem to be CA, seems to be horribly misaligned. Notice that the colorshift is similar on all sides of the frame.
What I don't really get is why this is suddenly earthshattering technology? It has already been shown to work well by other brands, and quite frankly, from the DPReview samples, the Pentax seems to provide the most pleasing results so far.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if what they do is simply demosaic 4 raw files and then combine them.
The horizontal red-green shift is a result of a likely misalignment, but the meandering colorshift would be typical for demosaicing.
Note it seems that only the Pentax result currently shows what can be achieved with this technology and thus its corresponding advantages.
-
I think this is just some start-problems with the software. Very soon we will see.
I expect the multishot Sony to be the best we have so far. Another thing:
We know from Sinar multishot that this demands the very best lenses.
Sony ms with an Otus lens would be more correct.
-
Imaging Edge is downloadable.
Imaging Edge (https://support.d-imaging.sony.co.jp/app/imagingedge/en/?rasv)
André
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
andremuehling.de
-
I have been with Sony all week. Did a number of tests and have results to share. No worthwhile internet here. I'm driving home from AZ over the next few days. I'll explain what I know and my experience with Pixel shift on my return.
-
Why there are so strong CA's in the corners of studio comparison? A7r3 looks less sharp there than r2 which has clean color.
Maybe lens? Raw processing?
The moire or lack of moire in color wheels is great.
Not quite, unless you have a solid or non moving subject. The same issues appear to apply to Sony's solution, (which IMO is much less attractive than Pentax or Olympus). However that is up to the user.
The single biggest drawback to any pixel shift solution, is that none of the software can account for very much movement between the frames. In landscape work, this is very important, as even cloud movement can create aliasing, and leaves with much wind, all bets are off. And of course you are still required to use a tripod which may or may not be a big issue.
P1 has plenty of room left with 100MP as you can do a lot with a single 100MP file.
I used the K1 for over a year, loved the camera and the files. Pixel shift made me a believer, but the lack of both good raw conversion from either Adobe or Phase One (C1), pushes you out to the 3rd party solutions, none of which have the toolsets I am looking for.
From looking at the first attempts on the Sony, I am seeing the same issues as Pentax. So hopefully Sony can push forward a better software conversion. But if the Sony software that has to be run only outputs as a jpg or tif, again you have lost a lot of file leverage. The best solution will be to see Adobe or C1 or both have some internal process that can take the 4 raw files, and convert them to a single raw (similar to how Pentax does this in camera).
But still you have the same problems as always, i.e. movement. And folks, if you think that the Electronic shutter solutions from Phase or Fuji have problems, try shooting a pixel shift on a windy day even a slight breeze will cause aliasing that is mostly not correctable even with the solutions not from Adobe. The ES handles this type of movement much better at least from what I have seen.
There is no doubt however that when the conditions allowed it the Pixel shift output from Pentax was superior to anything I have seen from a 35mm DSLR, both in resolution and noise. The files are considerably cleaner, at all ISO ranges.
So I wish Sony the best with their solution, but I don't see P1 getting to worried about it, they have other problems to contend with in MF currently.
Paul Caldwell
-
There is no doubt however that when the conditions allowed it the Pixel shift output from Pentax was superior to anything I have seen from a 35mm DSLR, both in resolution and noise. The files are considerably cleaner, at all ISO ranges.
Paul Caldwell
I too experimented, first with the Pentax K3 and later with the Pentax K1. As a close-up still photographer, I liked what I saw with the pixel-shift implemented in the Pentax cameras, but I did not like my lens choices. I went to considerable trouble (and expense) to find non-Pentax lenses like the Voigtlander 90mm APO and the Voigtlander 125mm APL-Lanthar so that I could be more sure as to what I was seeing. I really liked the pixel-shift, but ultimately (for me) the K1 was not worth the trouble I had to go to and was very unfriendly with my Otus lenses, etc.
If the Sony A7r3 (or its software) only produces a JPp, I won't keep that camera either. If it produces a TIF, I will have to see. What I need is a raw file to play with. Are you or anyone stating that on the A7R3 we won't get a raw file? Where can I read this, if stated.
-
No I am not stating that the Sony software produces only a non raw file. I don't know what it produces. However knowing Sony, I will be surprised if it does produce a raw file, pleasantry. And if it is a raw file, you still may the same issues with Adobe or C1 that the K1 files did.
I have no idea. Staying away from it, wasted enough money on the K1 and that path.
Paul Caldwell
-
Staying away from it, wasted enough money on the K1 and that path.
Paul Caldwell
Ditto. I could not agree more. I am still selling off pieces of Pentax-related equipment. I have a nice Voigtlander 90mm APO lens in Pentax moun t if anyone is looking for one.
-
https://m.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a7r-mark-iii-review/8
Great review of the a7rIII!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://www.dpreview.com/news/3426999280/sony-a7r-iii-promises-faster-bursts-better-focusing-and-longer-battery-life
No increase of resolution contrary to the rumors spread by some here. ;)
I hope we can now agree that there is going to be an a9r that will be more expensive and offer a higher resolution?
Cheers,
Bernard
Well, yes, but I bet you didn’t realise it was going to be a Canon? :)
Still waiting for that Sony.....
-
Well, yes, but I bet you didn’t realise it was going to be a Canon? :)
Still waiting for that Sony.....
Isn't the a7rIV 60mp? I would personnally agree that the gap btwn 45 and 60mp is too tiny to be noticeable, but many seem to disagree.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... I would personally agree that the gap btwn 45 and 60mp is too tiny to be noticeable, but many seem to disagree.
I have both models and can see a difference at 100% magnification, but it's really small.
I my view, what makes the largest difference in actual print sharpness, if any is needed (e.g., for enlargement of just a part of the frame), is the use of Topaz's AI Gigapixel software. It takes a bit of learning to use the software to best advantage (for example, cut back - like in half - the default sharpening in the PS raw converter to eliminate halos), but it's a piece of software that I think is worth the price.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
Isn't the a7rIV 60mp? I would personnally agree that the gap btwn 45 and 60mp is too tiny to be noticeable, but many seem to disagree.
Cheers,
Bernard
Well when you said A9r I assumed that meant an A9 (high FPS) with high resolution.