WOW, that are good news. So, no issues with the Canon TS 17mm?
If you were buying digital now for landscapes, would you recommend this over all other FF cameras? Do you think you can get away from grad ND filters?
Focus peaking will show you exactly how your focus plane moves.
Focus Peaking works nice. However to nail focus the x14 Zoom is better. With the EVF this is easy. For tilt you focus for infinity and then just dial in a little tilt. Just like the theory says, but now it works. Focus peaking will show you exactly how your focus plane moves. Also what happens if you you open/ close aperture. Impossible with any other cam.Thanks for the report; I am glad the camera is performing well, and i am becoming more persuaded that focus peaking would be nice to have in my next camera. But I do not understand that last sentence (underlined above): aren't there a number of other cameras that offer both focus peaking and magnified live view for focusing?
Thanks for the report; I am glad the camera is performing well, and i am becoming more persuaded that focus peaking would be nice to have in my next camera. But I do not understand that last sentence (underlined above): aren't there a number of other cameras that offer both focus peaking and magnified live view for focusing?
Congratulations on your acquisition. Would you mind explaining how focus peaking works with this camera? I have a D800 and now a Pana Lumix m4/3 that has focus peaking with the click of a button. Focusing with the Lumix is so easy.
ACH
You are right. I mean FF.I should have guessed. Yes, the A7 and A7r give us the first look at the combination of new "digitally driven" viewfinder and focusing technologies with the "biggest and best" of DSLR sensors, and the opportunity to compare more directly with the best DSLRs from Canon and Nikon.
I should have guessed. Yes, the A7 and A7r give us the first look at the combination of new "digitally driven" viewfinder and focusing technologies with the "biggest and best" of DSLR sensors, and the opportunity to compare more directly with the best DSLRs from Canon and Nikon.
aren't there a number of other cameras that offer both focus peaking and magnified live view for focusing?
The Leica M has a "digitally driven" viewfinder option and a full-frame sensor. $omewhat le$$ acce$$ible though.By 'new "digitally driven" viewfinder and focusing technologies' I meant the whole package: focus peaking, magnified live view at any part of the image and with aperture fully open to make focus effects easier to see, on-sensor AF using both contrast detection and phase detection, etc.
on-sensor AF using both contrast detection and phase detection, etc.A7r does not have PDAF on sensor though... so only A7 satisfies everything :)
It's sufficient to say the A7 and A7r are the first cameras to offer the feature set of the A7 and A7r ;)Saying that would only be sufficient if one wished to obfuscate on features like autofocus, and on suitability as an alternative to high end DSLRs --- which are important considerations for many people and were clearly on the mind of the OP. Note the reference to "the best of Canon and Nikon DSLRs" in the subject line of my posts and your reply!
They're certainly game-changers and I'm looking forward to further developments in this direction, like an A9r :)
As said, I use B&W as creative mode with, sharpness all the way up. Some use Contrast all the way up, too.
but is color not an essential element of composition?then you can see the original colors w/ your naked eye instead of quite distorted color in viewfinder and use viewfinder just to frame... it is quite subjective.
then you can see the original colors w/ your naked eye instead of quite distorted color in viewfinder and use viewfinder just to frame... it is quite subjective.
But you said, you couldn't focus on an eye. B&W enables you to do that, giving you the best results in critical situations. How would get the eye sharp with the e.g. Canon 50/f1.2, given the parameters I added to the picture, with the eye in the upper right third of the image. The focus points there will not work at that aperture. Only the center double cross focus points. So will you manual focus through the OVF or use Live view?
This camera will mean different things to different people.
If I owned a d800 and shot people or sports then why change?
BC's view picks up relevant aspects to his way of shooting.
Me? I have no interest in how it feels in the hand or AF, or what the menu is like, it will be stuck on a tripod with a 24 and 90 ts-e and a good 50mm I see it as a way of having good DR while not being limited by lens choice if I had a d800.
This is totally dependent on how it will tether though. I don't want raw on card/jpeg only to computer kludges with Lightroom I want a stable sony raw tethering app with a watched folder in to C1.
There is not yet any reliable anecdotal evidence out there re tethering performance though.
This is the first camera (except an Iphone) that I've held that felt like there was zero camera company DNA left in it. Kind of like going from an old Apple desktop computer with a 30" matte screen to a new 27" Imac. They kind of do the same thing, but never feel the same.
This is just my take, but Millenials will love it, guys that were raised on film will always feel like they sold out.
BC
This is just my take, but Millenials will love it, guys that were raised on film will always feel like they sold out.
BC
If you really need to position the eye of a subject in the corner of the frame, which I have not done in a single photograph I can remember, then focus and recompose would work on most cameras, no?
With shallow DOF this will just about guarantee missed focus. Even Canon recommends against focus and recompose. What they recommend instead is either manual focus or change composition i.e., the camera's focus points dictate composition. Unacceptable IMHO.Another case is where there is not time to recompose, as with moving subjects. However, I admit to also using the strategy of loose framing with a camera of "excessive" pixel count and then cropping.
however, I don't know but in my mind, next to my favourite camera of all time, the time has come for FF cameras to be the 'correct' size again.
These two cameras might not be canikon dslr killers today but I think they show the gap is closing rapidly. Some tweaks like phase detect af on the 36mp sensor version, some better battery life and flash system would get even closer. The real issue remains the lens line which is limited and size is still an issue.
Indeed. I have got a bit fed up with 35mm format cameras being 645 format in size, at least with the D800 it is MFish in resolution. I dislike needing to own a second camera almost soley because a dslr is too imposing and therefore inappropriate in many situations.
I had the chance to use a a7r last weekend and tried the focus peaking function to set manual focus on the eyes of my daughter in a backlit situation.
It may be not have used it properly, but the peaking kept highlight the edges of her face on the bright background and hardly ever highlighted the eyes where I wanted to set the focus, at least not for more than a split second which made manual focusing impossible.
The lens mounted was the new Zeiss 35mm f2.8.
What is the experience of owners on this?
Cheers,
Bernard
I wonder. Mine arrives tomorrow. Seeing it here:(http://m7.i.pbase.com/g9/94/892094/2/153584417.sdMZVlGu.jpg)
however, I don't know but in my mind, next to my favourite camera of all time, the time has come for FF cameras to be the 'correct' size again.
If you look at your photo, what photographer wouldn't rather have the Canon?
Great price, great performance, zero romance. ... Bottom line, it's really an amazing camera, even if it has the soul of a smartphone and I don't doubt for a minute it is the future of all cameras.
The downside. It's a Sony and who knows what they'll do. If it sells well Sony is just strange enough to change it to an all E mount or drop some function if it starts to move into their video camera territory.
I'm totally pre-sold on the A7r and Zeiss zoom ... the same size as the Oly E-M1 plus 12-40 zoom (and about the same weight).Indeed, the A7R with 24-70/4 is about the same weight as the E-M1 with 12-40 f/2.8. This is the sort of thing that make me skeptical about matching smaller formats with bulky, expensive zooms of constant low minimum f-stop like f/2.8 (let alone f/2 or f/1.8): for about the same size and weight, you could use a somewhat larger format and cover the same FOV range with a longer lens of about f/2.8-4 or constant f/4, so that the greater sensor speed balances out the lower lens speed, and lens designs like f/4 seems easier and can offer options of wider zoom range and such. That is why I wish Olympus and Panasonic would get back to designs like the Olympus Four Thirds pair of f/2.8-3.5 4x zooms and the f/2.8-4 12-60 with its 5x zoom range, instead of all these f/2.8 zooms of more limited range and higher prices. If I wanted to get more speed and less of my image in focus from an expensive zoom lens, I would probably use an "APS-C" format system instead of 4/3", like a Fujifilm X body with 18-55/2.8-4, less expensive and slightly lighter than the Olympus 12-40 (though the wider coverage of the 12-40 could justify some of that).
let's see
about a year ago Sony came out with the RX-1
since then I cannot count how many cameras they have introduced, but it's a LOT. Probably more than any manufacturer.
R&D money must be flowing like cheap champagne around there
when do you think they'll get around to talking to each other...?
If I wanted to get more speed and less of my image in focus from an expensive zoom lens, I would probably use an "APS-C" format system instead of 4/3", like a Fujifilm X body with 18-55/2.8-4, less expensive and slightly lighter than the Olympus 12-40 (though the wider coverage of the 12-40 could justify some of that).why 'd you want to aggravate yourself with subpar Fuji AF /even w/ all those firmware patches/ vs m43 one ;) , if is AF zoom... you are not getting it to focus manually, are you ?
though the wider coverage of the 12-40 could justify some of that5mm wider... that's A LOT.
Leica, small bodies, small lenses.
Big price.
why 'd you want to aggravate yourself with subpar Fuji AF ...To clarify: I am not actually choosing the Fujifilm X system (at least for now); I just used the example of that f/2.8-4 lens for its speed/size/cost trade-off.
why 'd you want to aggravate yourself with subpar Fuji AF /even w/ all those firmware patches/ vs m43 one ;) , if is AF zoom... you are not getting it to focus manually, are you ?
Fuji AF works really well for me. I am really sorry it doesn't work for you.that's an elegant way to acknowledge that I was correct, thank you.
that's an elegant way to acknowledge that I was correct, thank you.
about a year ago Sony came out with the RX-1... since then I cannot count how many cameras they have introduced, but it's a LOT. Probably more than any manufacturer.
"We’re creating a market, which is vital in this industry, otherwise the market will be squeezed. If a customer doesn’t see anything new, they won’t be motivated to buy additional cameras. For Sony to improve our brand image within the camera industry we need to use technology. We need to change the world.
...
In terms of interchangeable lens cameras, the biggest companies of course are Canon and Nikon, they have the legacy support, so in order to attract customers we have to give them a good reason to come to Sony. So we’re trying to make cameras which are desirable in addition to maybe a Canon or Nikon system. And in order for us to do that we have to create unique cameras that Canon and Nikon don’t offer (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9689111831/every-six-months-i-want-to-do-something-new-kimio-maki-of-sony?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&utm_medium=text&ref=title_0_27)."
And need I mention the complete lack of touch controls on any Sony camera. ... Talk about miss the obvious.
Including P&S and the weird smart phone thingies dpreview lists 20 (http://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/cameras?subcategoryId=cameras) in 2013.
For Nikon dpreview lists 21. For Canon 17.
Cooter wrote:
"I've thought long and hard about buying a Leica S2 to go with my Contax lenses and offer more hand held use to medium format, but how do you spend $15,000 on the first gen Leica S, when this thing is sitting there?"
Yeah. This about sums up my attitude towards Leica. There is always something offered at 1:5 or even 1:10 the price that is 98% as good. M8 - X100. M9 - XPro-1. S2 - Nikon D800, 645D and this Sony. In all cases Leica wins out under certain conditions, even if by a hair, and the ergos are always better with the Leica, but it burns my Scotish heart to pay up to 10x as much because it feels better in my hand and the viewfinder is better. Oh yeah, and the Japanese products don't do too many strange things that kill your file.
There are no A mount touch screen cameras
but was thinking about cameras aimed at more the P&S
And of course Barry notes the one I love best, the QX series. Fire that guy...
too many new mid-high end models and few lenses relatively speaking I guess. Two distinct types
Leica is there own worst enemy.
Beautiful cameras, great lenses, (mostly), crazy expensive and always a glitch. Slow tethering with the S2, slightly better with the S, non tethering with the M.
Everybody that works professionally has to show an image to a client and though I wish tethering never existed, it is the standard of professional production and yes I would tether an M.
I'd love an S2 or S, but it's a limited device even if the file is 20% deeper, because I can fake a 20% deeper file.
Now Leica isn't alone at this. Olympus hobbles themselves with video and tethering, Fuji doesn't tether and takes a while for lenses and their autofocus is limited and the one small mirrorless camera with great autofocus and usability (the gh3) has a less than equal still file.
Even the A7(r) which I do think changes things, is suppose to tether, but nobody says exactly how or when and it's not a usb3 camera it's a usb 2.
This must take forever to tether on the A7R with 30 something mpx.
I know that Leica may be bling proof given their name, but I find it hard to believe that the Sonys and Fujis haven't had an impact on their sales.
Some things I don't understand.
IMO
BC
PS wouldn't one of those eyefi cards help, maybe?
Leica is there own worst enemy.
Beautiful cameras, great lenses, (mostly), crazy expensive and always a glitch. Slow tethering with the S2, slightly better with the S, non tethering with the M.
Everybody that works professionally has to show an image to a client and though I wish tethering never existed, it is the standard of professional production and yes I would tether an M.
I'd love an S2 or S, but it's a limited device even if the file is 20% deeper, because I can fake a 20% deeper file.
Now Leica isn't alone at this. Olympus hobbles themselves with video and tethering, Fuji doesn't tether and takes a while for lenses and their autofocus is limited and the one small mirrorless camera with great autofocus and usability (the gh3) has a less than equal still file.
Even the A7(r) which I do think changes things, is suppose to tether, but nobody says exactly how or when and it's not a usb3 camera it's a usb 2.
This must take forever to tether on the A7R with 30 something mpx.
I know that Leica may be bling proof given their name, but I find it hard to believe that the Sonys and Fujis haven't had an impact on their sales.
Some things I don't understand.
IMO
BC
Hi,
I don't know if professional studio photographers are Leica's main market. I am not that sure that Leica is that expensive, it may just be an example of small scale production in Europe being expensive. Japanese firms operating on a larger scale like Sigma can invest a lot in rational production, so economics of scale comes into play. I would also expect Leica to have tighter tolerances than say Sigma.
The M-series is very different from the S-series. M-series firmware was developed by Jenoptik while the S-series was developed at Leica according to the Leica factory visit video here on LuLa.
Diglloyd reports a lot on Leica, and it seems that he had quite a few problems with different lenses, so I guess that Leica may have a few problems in the Quality Assurance department.
Best regards
Erik
I would think anyone is Leica's market, at least anyone that buys their products
You buy an M that doesn't tether. (actually it did for the first ten minutes of the m8)., you don't buy that camera again and their metrics show nobody that buys leica tethers, so they don't worry about it.
Anyway, everytime I plug anything into my macs a window appears and says camera not found, so obviously it's looking for some type of protocol.
With the em-5 I've used the wi-fi, too flaky even with shutter snitch, too slow. In testing it works fine, real world not.
If you work with others you have to show the image. Period. It's expected, it's just standard. You may not do it every job, but you will have to do it and if your camera system doesn't allow it, you'll change systems.
Save with video. If you don't use secondary monitors then your not shooting for money.
Anyway, the best way to approach this is to make a user pay for it. Software or hardware. Why not put ethernet in a right angle grip and if you want it you just buy it?
IMO
BC
The dynamic range is amazing. You push a totally dark image all the way up, and there is no color bending. It stays absolutely clean. Impossible on the 5DIII which will then always give you color artifacts.
Has anyone noticed that the DR of the A7r at ISO 200 is not as good as that of the D800E?
At ISO 100 they are pretty close, the D800E being only 0.26 EV better. But at ISO 200, the D800E is 0.71 EV better, which is quite significant at almost 3/4ths of a stop.
Well, six stops of DR (Fuji Astia...more or less) is significant compared to five stops (most other transparency films). Yet, that didn't stop Velvia from being far more popular than Astia. ;) What are we dealing with here? Twelve stops vs. 12.75 or thereabouts? Not insignificant but not something to get exercised about either (IMO). Post work is likely to render that amount of difference moot.
-Dave-
Has anyone noticed that the DR of the A7r at ISO 200 is not as good as that of the D800E?... and at all higher ISO speed settings, the difference goes away.
At ISO 100 they are pretty close, the D800E being only 0.26 EV better. But at ISO 200, the D800E is 0.71 EV better ...
Well, six stops of DR (Fuji Astia...more or less) is significant compared to five stops (most other transparency films). Yet, that didn't stop Velvia from being far more popular than Astia. ;) What are we dealing with here? Twelve stops vs. 12.75 or thereabouts? Not insignificant but not something to get exercised about either (IMO). Post work is likely to render that amount of difference moot.
-Dave-
"... and at all higher ISO speed settings, the difference goes away."Looking at the data at http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7R-versus-Nikon-D800E___917_814 I do not think that is the reason. The sensors seem to have the same base ISO speed of 73 (probably because they are essentially the same sensor, just used a bit differently) and the readings are all at the "mainline" ISO settings of 100, 200, 400 ...
Not a pixel peeping scientist but I wonder if that's because of different native iso's and how the doubling of ISO can be less noisy than an intermediate setting like using 160-320-640 etc on the 5dIII?
... and at all higher ISO speed settings, the difference goes away.
A single measurement like that which falls outside the trend of all other measurements (and what we might expect based on the evidence that the two cameras use essentially the same sensor) and comes from measurements on a single sample of each camera, should be treated with skepticism. It might be real (weird Sony firmware?), but it is also quite likely to be due to measurement error or sample variation.
Also, if this 0.7 notch worries anyone, it can be avoided by setting the A7R to ISO 100 while still choosing exposure levels as if one were at ISO 200. (Ray, you are aware of this approach, are you not?)
For any current CMOS sensor, 1.5 stops at the top may be victim to a shoulder, and therefore not give clean color, 2 stops at the bottom can be throwaway (banding etc), 1 stop is lost to channel mismatch due to unbalanced light. What remains?
Edmund
Seems to me that folks who're seriously concerned about maximizing DR and minimizing noise with the Sonys will figure out empirically how far they can push exposure TTR, at base ISO and when gained up, without compromising highlights. Then we'll see how they stack up against other similarly maximized cameras. This oughtta expose any firmware/data compression issues Sony may want/need to address.
As someone just standing back & watching this saga unfold, I've gotta say it's been fun so far. :)
-Dave-
After years of hiking around villages built into the sides of mountains and resembling a human mule train loaded with gargantuan stuff, ...
I'd really like to know Sony's roadmap for this series. With Panasonic it's widely known they will produce a robust 4k camera early next year.
At the press screening (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fotosidan.se%2Fcldoc%2Fsony-a7-och-a7r-tva-fullformatare.htm) told Yoshiyuki Nogama to a video-oriented SLR with A-mount is going on. It will compete with the Canon EOS 5D Mark III will have Ultra HD (4K). We guess that it is a further development of the Sony A99. Sony boss also told that Sony later comes with a really fast camera for action photography.
"In earlier days I could climb thousands of feet, on or off trails, carrying a backpack load of fifty or sixty pounds, with the ease and abandon of a mountain goat. I now realize how wonderful those days were and what reserves of strength and endurance we had when only twenty or thirty years old! I wish I had kept up my full physical activities when I was forty and older, but I became more sedate as the years passed, spending more time in the darkroom and at the typewriter."
page 15, Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs, Ansel Adams.
For what it's worth I've found if you set up the olympus for no noise reduction and cut the contrast, cut the sharpness (which I believe is set to over sharp) cut the saturation and keep the iso at even numbers, high iso is much cleaner and the file is much more workable.
Yes! For the JPEGs I use the Muted profile too. The E-M5 already applies a healthy dose of USM to the RAW data...no need for any more IMO until you downsample for screen or prepare to print. The E-M1 is gentler in this regard.
When I look at all my new camera bags containing all my new gear (in my defense, first new gear since early 2008) I feel like I've eaten too many coney dogs at my favorite diner. :-\ Time to get off my arse and do some working out.
-Dave-
Edmund,
If we're comparing the A7r with the D800E at ISO 200, then what remains is at least 2/3rds of a stop of cleaner shadows in the D800E image. In circumstances where you need to throw away 2 stops at the bottom, using the A7r, you need to throw away only 1.29 stops with the D800E. I've noticed no banding from the D800E in the deep shadows.
There's no doubt that a weight saving of around 400 gm, comparing a D800E body with an A7r body with metabones adapter attached, is worth something when holding the camera in hand, or walking with camera strapped around one's neck.
However, a weight saving of 400 gm in relation to the total weight of all the photographic gear one might be carrying whilst trekking in the countryside, including lenses, spare batteries, charger, and tripod etc, might be trivial.
I would rather get that saving of 400 gm by losing a bit of fat from around my tummy. That would be far cheaper than buying a new camera, and better for my health too. ;D
Don't know but it is not the 400gms alone....it is the overall massive bulk that I want to get rid of, when I move away from a big, bulky DSLR. You seem to prefer the bulk and that's perfectly fine. Till the A7R came along, I personally had no option but to carry the bulk around, since a large FF sensor was not available in such a petite body.....now things are different.
Yeah, we could nitpick all day long about a half stop gain here or a fraction of an ISO there, but the bulk and the weight are just undeniable when it comes to carting along a traditional mirror-box equipped body.
Of course I don't prefer unnecessary bulk and weight. I'm not silly. ;) If I didn't already use a couple of Nikon bodies and a few Nikkor lenses, I'd probably consider the A7r, with Metabones adapter to suit my Canon lenses, a worthwhile upgrade.
Even if the camera wasn't lighter and less bulky, .........
There's no doubt that a weight saving of around 400 gm, comparing a D800E body with an A7r body with metabones adapter attached, is worth something when holding the camera in hand, or walking with camera strapped around one's neck.
However, a weight saving of 400 gm in relation to the total weight of all the photographic gear one might be carrying whilst trekking in the countryside, including lenses, spare batteries, charger, and tripod etc, might be trivial.
I would rather get that saving of 400 gm by losing a bit of fat from around my tummy. That would be far cheaper than buying a new camera, and better for my health too. ;D
Have you actually held an A7R with the new 35mm sony/ Zeiss lens in your hands?That usage, with a small wide to normal prime lens, is where the savings in body size and weight make most sense, which is why the recent "big-sensor compacts" tend to have such lenses. But
... [the A7R] will go to places that a D800 and a bunch of lenses would never go.as soon as you go from that one lens kit to a bunch of lenses including ones offering significant telephoto reach, the body weight reduction becomes far less important. That is, I suspect, the gear scenario that Ray is thinking of.
On this forum I think every third post is either a comment about noise in shadows or if a camera sells.
The most beautiful iconic photographs in the world had noise. (See Fabian Baron's art direction on a google lookup) and who the hell cares what cameras sells to who?
Not only does the A7r appear to have lower DR than the D800 at ISO 200 (which in itself is not necessarily a deal-breaker),
Of course I don't prefer unnecessary bulk and weight. I'm not silly. ;) If I didn't already use a couple of Nikon bodies and a few Nikkor lenses, I'd probably consider the A7r, with Metabones adapter to suit my Canon lenses, a worthwhile upgrade.
Even if the camera wasn't lighter and less bulky, the higher resolution and better DR at low ISOs would make it a worthwhile upgrade to replace any current Canon DSLR, provided the adapter provides full functionality.
However, in my situation, the only advantage I can see is a 400 gm reduction in weight which is offset by the disadvantage of an electronic viewfinder (I don't like them), and a lower DR at the frequently used ISO of 200. I also doubt that there's an adapter that provides full functionality with Nikkor lenses, but I could be wrong.
Lloyd Chambers doesn't find such behavior in his ISO series. He writes the A7r is on par with the D800. ISO 100 and 200 are hard to distinguish. He calls it a state of the art performance.
I'm not a subscriber to Lloyd's site. Could you be a bit clearer. Do you mean that Lloyd has compared the DR of the A7r with that of the D800 at ISO 200 and found no difference? There should be no noticeable image quality differences between the two cameras at all other ISOs.
At all ISOs, including ISO 200, the Color Sensitivity, SNR at 18%, and Tonal Range should be approximately the same for both cameras. It's the DR at ISO 200 which is the anomaly.
… I would think there would be a difference throughout ( not least due to 13-bit v true 14-bit). Whether or not we would 'see' that difference in print is another question ..Once amplified above about ISO 200 or 400, the noise floor of the sensor signal has been raised comfortably above the noise floor of the 13-bit ADC, so I would expect little or no difference at higher ISO speeds. At least this is so if the higher ISO speeds are implemented with sufficient analog gain before ADC rather than just bit shifting. I think that this is what testing indicates, but if I am wrong, I am sure that someone like Iliah can correct me.
If you consider what Iliah says in this thread, http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=84842.msg687161#msg687161 , I would think there would be a difference throughout ( not least due to 13-bit v true 14-bit). Whether or not we would 'see' that difference in print is another question ..
I kept many of my old manual focus lenses as I may be reasonably ruthless in discarding cameras that I no longer need, I am a mug for keeping my glass. And what have I got - a rather large collection of primes including a 200 / 4 and a 300 / 4 plus a 28 - 85 and a 50 - 135 zoom. No extremely heavy or long zooms that marketing departments would have you believe that you not only need but that you aren't complete as a person let alone a photographer without.
I'm not a subscriber to Lloyd's site. Could you be a bit clearer. Do you mean that Lloyd has compared the DR of the A7r with that of the D800 at ISO 200 and found no difference? There should be no noticeable image quality differences between the two cameras at all other ISOs.
At all ISOs, including ISO 200, the Color Sensitivity, SNR at 18%, and Tonal Range should be approximately the same for both cameras. It's the DR at ISO 200 which is the anomaly.
I quote:
"As in the blue crop, ISO 200 is hard to distinguish from ISO 100. Which in practice is highly useful for that extra shutter speed. And it might well be that the Sony 8-bit compression makes ISO 200 truly as good as ISO 100 anyway (low level noise compressed away).
Most striking perhaps is the absence of any significant pattern or streaking noise even at ISO 25600 and even when the individual color channels are examined (including the red channel). In this regard the A7R *blows away* all Canon sensors of any resolution, and appears to be no less good than the Nikon D800E. In context, this is a true state of the art performance and speaks highly of sensor quality in the real world."
By the way...
If the DR of ISO 200 was smaller than at ISO 100 shouldn't the RAW Histogram in RAW Digger reflect that?
Best regards
Jan
Question for people using the A7r, do you notice jagged edges in your EVF, for example when viewing text or branches against a light background? I do, and I wonder if it's normal or a fault of my camera.