Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: DxOMark's verdict: the Sony A7R II's sensor is the new Queen (or King)  (Read 24879 times)

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: DxOMark's verdict: the Sony A7R II's sensor is the new Queen (or King)
« Reply #20 on: September 01, 2015, 05:32:19 am »

I never quite understood why folks not interested in the relevance of DxO results bother to comment in threads about DxO results. ;)

The facts that a camera is more than a sensor and that great images are made by people and not cameras have been documented to death.

And it should be clear that even if they are aware/convinced by these 2 facts, some people are still interested in sensor performance. Some for academic reasons, some because they prefer to use a camera delivering the best possible image quality everything else being equal.

Cheers,
Bernard

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: DxOMark's verdict: the Sony A7R II's sensor is the new Queen (or King)
« Reply #21 on: September 01, 2015, 02:19:28 pm »

Now, where are those Nikon and stitching threads...

Even if that were true (and it clearly isn't), proposing credible alternative solutions to photographic challenges would still be more valuable than criticizing the relevance of other people discussing freely available information.

But OK, I'll get a a7rII regardless of it's lowish DxO DR score if that can please you. I am aware that not bowing to the Sony god is risky business these days (already owning 2 Sony cameras must not be good enough). ;)

I'll probably throw away my existing equipment that really isn't up to the task.







Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: September 01, 2015, 10:13:56 pm by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: DxOMark's verdict: the Sony A7R II's sensor is the new Queen (or King)
« Reply #22 on: September 02, 2015, 09:59:29 am »

Nice image.

Cheers,
Bernard

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Re: DxOMark's verdict: the Sony A7R II's sensor is the new Queen (or King)
« Reply #23 on: September 02, 2015, 03:03:40 pm »

Well, I guess that any camera can make great pictures, but some cameras may be more limited than others. Just think interchangeable vs. fixed lens.
I like to say that every camera or system has a "gamut" of photographic tasks that it can do well (or "well enough").  I reject as insincere clich├ęs those claims about the camera being irrelevant in the hands of a good photographer.  Especially when they come from people who use bulky, expensive, high-end 35mm or medium format gear, and so rather clearly believe that this gear can sometimes achieve distinctly better results than a smaller, lighter, cheaper kit.

The question for me is how often the greater "photographic gamut" of a camera like the Sony A7R2 would improve on what my current kit [OMD EM5 etc.] gives me.  My quick reckoning is that the higher resolution would be irrelevant to any photograph of mine that I can think of, but other aspects like DR or AF performance might have improved a small fraction of them.
Logged

Hywel

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 294
    • http://www.restrainedelegance.com
Re: DxOMark's verdict: the Sony A7R II's sensor is the new Queen (or King)
« Reply #24 on: September 03, 2015, 04:34:39 am »

I like to say that every camera or system has a "gamut" of photographic tasks that it can do well (or "well enough"). 

Yeh, that's exactly it. I've got a kit room full of stuff, and the cameras complement each other.

I've got a RED which is fantastic for video, has probably the best dynamic range of any camera I own, and the ergonomics for video are unsurpassed. (eg indicating RAW channel clipping live on screen). I could use it for stills, it even has a mode for tagging still frames as part of a video feed. But it isn't comfortable in that role (eg don't think it can trigger strobes).

I've got a Hasselblad which is great in the studio but which eats a ton of light. I could use it for available light shooting, but it is really outside its gamut.

I've got a GH4 which is great for the mountains. I could use it for my fetish fashion photography, but it doesn't do that as well as the Hasselblad- it is one place where the lack of megapixels and slightly less than stellar skin tone rendition really matters to me.

I have a 7D which is reasonable for available light, but whose shutter is about to fail. (I know the sick shutter sound of old, having burnt out the shutters on several Canons over the years).

I decided to replace the 7D with an A7RII, rather than just replace the shutter, because the strengths of that camera seem to fill in the gaps in my kit lineup. I'm enjoying it so far. I shot an ISO 1000 pic which none of the other cameras in my kit room could have got without serious time to rig light sources (rather than quickly popping out a reflector).

Cheers, Hywel
Logged

BAB

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 516
Re: DxOMark's verdict: the Sony A7R II's sensor is the new Queen (or King)
« Reply #25 on: September 08, 2015, 12:50:40 am »

My 4 meg old canon 1d images looked more real to me than the ar7ii images do why is that? And I could shoot it at 8fps. That was in 2001 I think?
Logged
I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kic

dchew

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1020
    • Dave Chew Photography
Re: DxOMark's verdict: the Sony A7R II's sensor is the new Queen (or King)
« Reply #26 on: September 08, 2015, 06:10:54 am »

My 4 meg old canon 1d images looked more real to me than the ar7ii images do why is that? And I could shoot it at 8fps. That was in 2001 I think?

Perhaps simply because in your case "more real" means "more like film?" I didn't switch from film until 2006, and really struggled because I couldn't get the 20D to look "more real."

Dave

Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: DxOMark's verdict: the Sony A7R II's sensor is the new Queen (or King)
« Reply #27 on: September 08, 2015, 06:20:29 am »

My 4 meg old canon 1d images looked more real to me than the ar7ii images do why is that? And I could shoot it at 8fps. That was in 2001 I think?

Prossibly because of the limited DR of the 1D sensor combined with what I anticipate may be your focus - I guess inherited from slide days - on a sub-set of scenes manageable by a limited DR device vs a less selective approach by a7rII users (resulting from their confidence that wider DR scenes can be managed)?

It takes a lot more work to give a realistic look to an image containing a wider DR, because it requires a form of implicit tone mapping (typically implemented by the shadow/highlight tool of the raw converter).

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: September 08, 2015, 06:24:33 am by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8915
Re: DxOMark's verdict: the Sony A7R II's sensor is the new Queen (or King)
« Reply #28 on: September 08, 2015, 06:28:56 am »

It takes a lot more work to give a realistic look to an image containing a wider DR, because it requires a form of implicit tone mapping (typically implemented by the shadow/highlight tool of the raw converter).

I agree with Bernard's observation, and it may also have to do with the 'look' that a particular Rawconverter / profile assigns to the image. Lightroom / ACR for example by default compresses highlights a lot. That will change the appearance of an image, but it may not be immediately obvious unless one compares it with a re-adjusted version of the same image.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: DxOMark's verdict: the Sony A7R II's sensor is the new Queen (or King)
« Reply #29 on: September 08, 2015, 06:32:36 am »

It takes a lot more work to give a realistic look to an image containing a wider DR, because it requires a form of implicit tone mapping (typically implemented by the shadow/highlight tool of the raw converter).
Is not the photographers search for "magic light" also usually a search for moderate DR?

One might ask if we search for low DR scenes because they are inherently prettier, or because we (perhaps unconsicously) know that our tools cannot do high DR scenes justice.

-h
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: DxOMark's verdict: the Sony A7R II's sensor is the new Queen (or King)
« Reply #30 on: September 08, 2015, 06:52:03 am »

Is not the photographers search for "magic light" also usually a search for moderate DR?

One might ask if we search for low DR scenes because they are inherently prettier, or because we (perhaps unconsicously) know that our tools cannot do high DR scenes justice.

I understand and agree to a large extend, but I would still say that it depends. For instance, I like these 2 images I captured recently, yet they are very different from a DR standpoint and need also very different processing.





Cheers,
Bernard

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600

Is not the photographers search for "magic light" also usually a search for moderate DR?

One might ask if we search for low DR scenes because they are inherently prettier, or because we (perhaps unconsicously) know that our tools cannot do high DR scenes justice.
Maybe in part the latter, but with the tools in questions being the prints.  Photographic prints are limited to a reflectivity ratio of under 100:1 (the blackest substance used in printing reflects more than 1% of incident light), or about six to seven stops, so:

- if the goal "straight prints" on paper of normal contrast response, then keeping the Subject Brightness Range [SBR] within a roughly seven stop range makes sense, and

- even if one is willing to do some contrast manipulation in the printing, if the goal is a print that avoids an appearance of unnatural compression of luminance levels compared to what the photographer saw, again keeping the SBR not much beyond seven stops make sense.


P. S. I say "Subject Brightness Range" because that is the established photographic term when describing the scene being photographed -- it is unfortunate that the engineering term "Dynamic Range" now sometimes gets used for this, along with being used with several other related but different meanings.  Not as bad as the half-dozen meanings of "ISO", but still confusing!
« Last Edit: September 08, 2015, 03:35:10 pm by BJL »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up