Sony Kicks Butt

Started by rdonson, June 11, 2015, 08:55:35 am

HansKoot

"Its better to create something that others criticize than to create nothing and criticize others" (Ricky Gervais)

MoreOrLess

August 05, 2015, 03:44:47 am #101 Last Edit: August 05, 2015, 03:47:19 am by MoreOrLess
Comparing Sony and Nikon lenses doesn't seem like a problem since both can be tested with the same sensors. "Overall scores" for lenses on DxO seem meaningless to me as they make some highly questionable subjective calls on how the score is reached and use that dodgy "P-Mpix" rating that nobody knows how its worked out.  The useful info is in the detailed performance of resolution, light dropoff, etc I would say.

jjj

Where Sony does not kick butt is after sales service it sadly transpires.
I've started a new thread here on Sony UK's dismal repair service..

I won't be buying any more of their kit that's for sure.
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

Ray

Now that the Sony A7RII has started to become available, I notice that a lot of users are reporting poor performance with a number of Canon lens models when using the latest Metabones IV adapter.

This is a deal-breaker for me. Although I now use Nikon equipment, I kept all my Canon lenses in the hope that Canon would eventually produce a camera like a 5DSR but with an improved dynamic range that could compete with that of Nikon.

The DR of the 5DSR is clearly no match with the DR of the A7RII, but I would rather sacrifice a couple of stops of DR than sacrifice the compatibility of most of my Canon lenses. I was hoping the A7RII would be a better option than the 5DSR, but for my situation it now looks as though it won't be.  :(

Tony Jay

I have much the same interest in how the Metabones IV adaptor plays with the A7R II, and the same concerns, but I would wait a little longer before completely dismissing the combination as it pertains to using Canon lenses.

Tony Jay

pegelli

pieter, aka pegelli

Ray

The general situation seems far too messy and complicated for me, regarding lens compatibility. If it were a simple case of a particular Canon lens either working or not working with a particular adapter, then fine. One would know exactly what to expect.

Unfortunately, there seem to be various degrees of compatibility or functionality. One might think a particular lens autofocuses very satisfactorily with the A7RII and a particular adapter, then one later discovers it doesn't lock on Continuous AF, which could be frustrating in certain circumstances.

Or, one thinks a particular zoom lens autofocuses brilliantly, but finds that is not the case towards the maximum focal length where autofocusing is poor, or one finds that in dim lighting conditions, autofocusing is useless.

pegelli

Agree there's some irregular hit and miss in using Canon lenses via a Metabones adapter on Sony bodies.
I think neither Canon nor Sony will do anything to fix that problem for us  ;)
I expect Metabones to continue developing firmware to address AF issues with Canon lenses
In the meantime IS works (and so does MF)  8)

Yes, the glass is half full, but it's damn good wine so there's still a lot to enjoy  :)
pieter, aka pegelli

howgus

August 26, 2015, 02:00:01 pm #108 Last Edit: August 26, 2015, 02:03:08 pm by howgus
Ok.  My turn to rant.  

I received my copy of the A7rII a week ago, replacing my A7r.  Incredible camera, much more than I expected even tho I had been drooling over the specs for 2 mos.  The IQ in low light blew me away.  Color and DR still make my head shake.

An ex pro photog friend's jaw dropped (literally) with a shot with the 55 1.8 at ISO 3200 inside a dim room with Steadyshot at 1/15.

What I want to talk about here is RAW format.  I shoot exclusively in RAW, as most here probably do.  I've been following the discussions ever since I bought my first Sony, a NEX-7.  

The theme I hear most of the time is 'one can't possibly see the difference even at large print sizes', unless you're an astro photographer.   I cant argue with that statement because I have never seen a direct comparison of images from the Sony camera taken with a lossless RAW format vs. the current format.  Staring all day at a print from the lossy format will probably never yield what the difference might be.  Looking for a bird in a photograph that you knew didn't have a bird in it is not what we should be looking for. It's possible a valid (to me) comparison could be done with the 36MP sensor by comparing Nikon and Sony derived images, but the vibration of the A7r shutter (and perhaps the Nikon as well) might compromise that result.

The analogous situation in the acoustic world is comparing equipment using an A-B comparison.  Without that method it is almost impossible to discern the effects of subtle changes.  Once they are perceived they are often no longer subtle.  And yes, it can take away one's enjoyment of a great product, but such is progress.

jjj

As people were debating Sony's compressed raw files a bit further back in this thread, Ming Thein's review of the new Sony and this article he links to on DPReview regarding Sony's lossy raw files may be of interest.
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

telyt

Quote from: howgus on August 26, 2015, 02:00:01 pm
The theme I hear most of the time is 'one can't possibly see the difference even at large print sizes', unless you're an astro photographer.   I cant argue with that statement because I have never seen a direct comparison of images from the Sony camera taken with a lossless RAW format vs. the current format.


I haven't done any A-B comparisons either but I have to wonder if artifacts would have appeared in either of these photos (not made with a Sony camera):




telyt

Quote from: Isaac on September 05, 2015, 12:02:12 pm
I welcome another opportunity to admire your photos, but what exactly would lead you to wonder "if artifacts would have appeared in either of these photos (not made with a Sony camera)" ?


The bright points of light against a black background

ErikKaffehr

Hi,

My guess is that it would be possible. On the other hand I am not aware of similar artefacts on similar subjects. I have an A7r now, and I will post info on any artefacts I have seen.

But, so long I have just see a few cases of moiré...

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: wildlightphoto on September 05, 2015, 01:55:43 pm
The bright points of light against a black background
Erik Kaffehr

pegelli

Quote from: wildlightphoto on September 04, 2015, 09:47:36 pm
I haven't done any A-B comparisons either but I have to wonder if artifacts would have appeared in either of these photos (not made with a Sony camera):
I think the artifacts might have been there theoretically, but since you're almost presenting them as silhouettes with hardly any (or no) pushing of the shadows I really doubt they would be visible, even in a large print. Great photo's by the way  :)
pieter, aka pegelli

howgus

I was thinking more along the lines of comparing two photos from a distance, not looking for artifacts, but comparing subjective IQ.  Especially in a situation where the theoretical issues may appear:  after pushing shadows fairly heavily.   

jjj

Quote from: wildlightphoto on September 04, 2015, 09:47:36 pm
I haven't done any A-B comparisons either but I have to wonder if artifacts would have appeared in either of these photos (not made with a Sony camera):
Lovely photos btw.
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

pegelli

Quote from: howgus on September 15, 2015, 03:56:46 pm
I was thinking more along the lines of comparing two photos from a distance, not looking for artifacts, but comparing subjective IQ.  Especially in a situation where the theoretical issues may appear:  after pushing shadows fairly heavily.
If you push shadows heavily you can find artifacts, but if they show up in a print needs to be tested.

Btw, there's now a way to "repair" part of the damage, see here in this thread on Dyxum. Also the firmware to make uncompressed raws is in the make for getting the whole problem out of this world.
pieter, aka pegelli