Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Michael Tapes Sony review  (Read 28351 times)

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Michael Tapes Sony review
« Reply #20 on: September 22, 2015, 08:54:09 am »

Shadow pushing from base ISO make sense to me, but you could have made this picture easily with a lesser DR camera by simply bracketing even at slightly higher ISO. A small photo like this could be done even if there were noise in the shadows. A tripod would be a good investment :)
Bracketing wouldn't be possible if this scenario also involved people moving on the stairs and a tripod would not have helped either (and is heavy to lug around). There's probably a lot of situations where a high DR is not needed or can be overcome by other techniques but that doesn't mean it's never needed. Therefore I think it's useful to know which cameras can handle higher DR under what circumstances.
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

hubell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1135
Re: Michael Tapes Sony review
« Reply #21 on: September 22, 2015, 09:20:59 am »

Very instructive test. Whatever one may think about the real world significance of ISO 6400 files being pushed by 5 stops, the comparison of ISO 6400 files without any push is surely instructive and has real world significance. On my monitor, the Canon 5DSR file at 6400 appears significantly noisier and looks smeared to me compared to the Sony A7RII and Nikon files. The Canon file looks like a veil was pulled over the image, seriously degrading fine detail in an attempt to control noise. Even at base ISO of 100, the Sony and Nikon files have less noise in the shadows than the Canon 5DSR. A 5 stop push at ISO 100 may be extreme, but I would expect that even a 2-3 stop push would also show the Canon file deteriorating much more significantly than the Sony and Nikon files.

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Michael Tapes Sony review
« Reply #22 on: September 22, 2015, 09:31:16 am »

Bracketing wouldn't be possible if this scenario also involved people moving on the stairs and a tripod would not have helped either (and is heavy to lug around). There's probably a lot of situations where a high DR is not needed or can be overcome by other techniques but that doesn't mean it's never needed. Therefore I think it's useful to know which cameras can handle higher DR under what circumstances.

Bracketing surely would be possible in this scenario even with people on the stairs. But as I said: Pushing shadows from base ISO or close to makes sense as there is a lot of DR to push from and especially for ISO less sensors (which we all know is the Sony Exmor sensors and not Canon). Pushing shadows from ISO 6400 which was what I critisized, does not make sense to me since there is much more limited DR to push from and most cameras are not that great anyway without pushing at these ISO's although socalled "usable". But please enlighten me on why you would want to push 5 stops from ISO 6400 which is equivalent to ISO 204800?

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Michael Tapes Sony review
« Reply #23 on: September 22, 2015, 09:44:57 am »

Bracketing surely would be possible in this scenario even with people on the stairs.
Not without a lot more PP then with a single exposure.
Pushing shadows from ISO 6400 which was what I critisized, does not make sense to me since there is much more limited DR to push from and most cameras are not that great anyway without pushing at these ISO's although socalled "usable". But please enlighten me on why you would want to push 5 stops from ISO 6400 which is equivalent to ISO 204800?
The test involved seeing the effect of the right exposure per stop until pushing 5 stops. You only find your boundaries if you go to and beyond the extremes. Everybody has to decide for themselves where to make the cut based on their IQ requirements, some will say don't push at all while others might be happy with 3 or 4 stops for their use. I certainly don't want to speak for every photographer out there, but I do know that finding that boundary for your own use is a good thing to do.
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Michael Tapes Sony review
« Reply #24 on: September 22, 2015, 10:05:12 am »

Not without a lot more PP then with a single exposure. The test involved seeing the effect of the right exposure per stop until pushing 5 stops. You only find your boundaries if you go to and beyond the extremes. Everybody has to decide for themselves where to make the cut based on their IQ requirements, some will say don't push at all while others might be happy with 3 or 4 stops for their use. I certainly don't want to speak for every photographer out there, but I do know that finding that boundary for your own use is a good thing to do.

Lightroom HDR merge works wonders. In principle I do not disagree with your view on everybody finding the limits for the IQ requirements. I guess I find this DR discussion and Michael Tapes findings a little long in the tooth and trivial and maybe I should have just ignored it. If is relevant for some thats fine.

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Michael Tapes Sony review
« Reply #25 on: September 22, 2015, 11:18:50 am »

Thanks for sharing these test results.

I would say they simply confirm what we have known for years.

They also confirm that there is little reason for GAS as a D810 owner. I am more and more tempted to save money for a larger camera with measurably better IQ instead of jumping on the smaller one today. ;)

It is jusr a bit of a pity the Pentax 645Z was not part of the test though.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: September 22, 2015, 05:22:32 pm by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
Re: Michael Tapes Sony review
« Reply #26 on: September 22, 2015, 11:51:36 am »

Bernard,

I've done a similar (though less rigourous) comparison between the A7RII and the Pentax Z and it's my sense that the Z has a slight edge.

I'm traveling in Italy at the moment, but I may try and depicted Michael's T's tests when I get home.

M

Logged

Michael Tapes

  • Contributor
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
Re: Michael Tapes Sony review
« Reply #27 on: September 22, 2015, 12:03:54 pm »

Hi Folks,

Thanks for taking the time to watch my video and sending your comments and feedback. All is taken in and appreciated. Please allow me to take this opportunity to put the video into a fuller context. Not in any special order or significance.

  • I am not a fanboy for any camera or camera system. I simply want to take the best pictures that I can, and also I unabashedly love to experiment with and try lots of cameras. Some might say I like to play. Not unlike many others here at LuLa :>)
  • This presentation came about because I was doing some comparisons for myself as I investigated the Canon 5Dsr and Sony A7r2 and shared them with friends and associates. Michael R and Kevin R were 2 of those. Michael invited me to create a presentation for LuLa and Kevin helped to sort out the details. I love to do this kind of testing and welcomed what I see as an opportunity to share my results and observations, and I emphasize my  results and observations since that is what they are, mine. If they are useful to others, great. If not, OK as well. Obviously Michael and Kevin thought that their readers would be interested.
  • I had planned a written introduction, and had some other information in the video that would have placed it into better context, but at 20 minutes, I decided to get right to the point and try to keep to it. Maybe an error on my part. Some ask, why not a written review? .....the answer is simple. I find writing technical pieces very painful, while making videos, is hard and tedious, but fun and satisfying for me. My goal in life is to have as much fun as possible without hurting anyone, so for me, it has to be videos :>)
  • I have a love/hate relationship with the Sony. While I gush about the dynamic range and IQ in general I think it is a poorly designed camera in terms of the HUI. In general I do not like handling the camera. Whether that is because I am simply used to the Canon UI or if it simply does not mesh with my preferences and hands, only time will tell. At one point I thought that i would sell my Canon 5DsR, since the Sony has "better" IQ, but I continue to be drawn to the much better "shootability" of the Canon (for me, YMMV). For now, they are both useful tools for me, so I am keeping both of them.
  • In terms of the actually testing. I agree and stated that it is not scientific, but please do not assume that what you see is the total sum of my research. For example, I extensively used RawDigger to correlate my visual tests, and decided not to present the RawDigger data to keep the presentation more simple (20 mins already!) and geared to as wide an audience as possible. I made very deliberate decisions as to what and how I would present the data, and it might not be perfect for all, but the feedback from a pre-publication viewing audience of friends and associates led me to my final presentation format and content. I trust that it will be useful or of interest to at least some of you :>)
  • I am an active photographer, mostly concentrating on Bird Photography these days, but I enjoy and partake in whatever interests me at the moment. Here are 3 recent shots, one each on the A7r2 (Stacked Macro with Sony 90mm), 1Dx (Bird in Flight with 1Dx and Canon 400mm DO II), 5DsR (Bird portrait with Canon 600mm f4 II).
  • When shooting Birds in Flight (BIF), high shutter speeds is a requirement, and that leads to high ISOs. That is one of many reasons why high ISO testing is of interest to me. Also, exposure during BIF is predominantly done manually (there is good reason) which can lead to gross errors if one does not track the changing light carefully. For example a cloud can sneak in on me when my mind is somewhere else, and I miss the exposure change and end up with a grossly underexposed picture. That is one of the reasons to test for the ability to bring up shadow detail from underexposed RAW files. I try to learn the full capabilities of the tools at hand (our cameras and lenses) so that i can best use them in my photographic pursuits.
  • I have much data and observations in hand already, and more to gather. I hope to present 2 or 3 additional videos to share my further observations about the Sony and the associated cameras of interest to me. If it is of interest to you as well, then please watch for them on LuLa.

Again, I really appreciate Michael and Kevin giving me this opportunity, and I thank you all again for taking the time to watch and comment.

Respectfully,

Michael Tapes
« Last Edit: September 22, 2015, 12:09:29 pm by Michael Tapes »
Logged
Michael Tapes
Designer: WhiBal, LensAlig

uscholdm

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
Re: Michael Tapes Sony review
« Reply #28 on: September 22, 2015, 12:05:28 pm »

I agree with many of the other comments, this review answered an uninteresting question for most photographers most of the time: how well can your camera recover from extreme under- or over-exposure.  The obvious conclusions that the author failed to highlight are:
1. The supposedly game-changing camera is no better than some existing models
-  for almost every conceivable normal usage scenario of a camera,
-  for extreme underexposure at normal ISO up to 1600 or so.

2. The one case where the Sony is clearly superior is for 4 or more stops underexposure as ISO greater than 3200 or so.  The only time that might matter is if you are taking photos in more or less complete darkness, or if you need to do single-image HDR in extremely contrasty scenes.

To call this camera a game-changer is absurd.
Logged

TeeKay

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 33
Re: Michael Tapes Sony review
« Reply #29 on: September 22, 2015, 12:11:13 pm »

It is not a good idea to use Lightroom for comparisons, not even regarding "real world" results.

Lightroom uses various "under the hood" corrections and manipulations depending on the camera model. Important parameters like the black point, the default tone curve (which is not linear), the meaning of "zero" for sliders, etc. could depend on the camera model and/or camera profile chosen.

While Lightroom is popular and hence results could be regarded as what many users would experience, a test that only uses default (or equal settings) does not tell you what the potential of a sensor is, i.e., which noise levels would be visible if the optimal Lightroom profile and setting choices were made for that sensor.

I'd say that when it comes to sensor performance, DxOMark is a good source and if one really wants to do one's one test then a level playing field should be created by using a converter like dcraw that does not customise results based on the camera model.

Also, when it comes to "dynamic range", it does not make sense to distinguish between "highlight headroom" and "shadow detail". Dynamic range is expressed through a single number. Two sensors with the same dynamic range (at a given ISO value) may show differences regarding how highlights are rolled-off or shadow details are visible but these differences are then are caused by different post-processing parameters (typically different default tonal curves).

BTW, DxOMark is generally in agreement with Michael's findings; below ISO 150, the D810 has higher dynamic range, but at higher ISO values, the A7RII is better.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2015, 12:48:30 pm by TeeKay »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Michael Tapes Sony review
« Reply #30 on: September 22, 2015, 12:18:05 pm »

Hi Michael,

Thanks for your efforts and sharing!

Sorry to see that you get a lot of FLAK. Personally, I feel that sharing information and experience is always a good thing.

Best regards
Erik

Hi Folks,

Thanks for taking the time to watch my video and sending your comments and feedback. All is taken in and appreciated. Please allow me to take this opportunity to put the video into a fuller context. Not in any special order or significance.

  • I am not a fanboy for any camera or camera system. I simply want to take the best pictures that I can, and also I unabashedly love to experiment with and try lots of cameras. Some might say I like to play. Not unlike many others here at LuLa :>)
  • This presentation came about because I was doing some comparisons for myself as I investigated the Canon 5Dsr and Sony A7r2 and shared them with friends and associates. Michael R and Kevin R were 2 of those. Michael invited me to create a presentation for LuLa and Kevin helped to sort out the details. I love to do this kind of testing and welcomed what I see as an opportunity to share my results and observations, and I emphasize my  results and observations since that is what they are, mine. If they are useful to others, great. If not, OK as well. Obviously Michael and Kevin thought that their readers would be interested.
  • I had planned a written introduction, and had some other information in the video that would have placed it into better context, but at 20 minutes, I decided to get right to the point and try to keep to it. Maybe an error on my part. Some ask, why not a written review? .....the answer is simple. I find writing technical pieces very painful, while making videos, is hard and tedious, but fun and satisfying for me. My goal in life is to have as much fun as possible without hurting anyone, so for me, it has to be videos :>)
  • I have a love/hate relationship with the Sony. While I gush about the dynamic range and IQ in general I think it is a poorly designed camera in terms of the HUI. In general I do not like handling the camera. Whether that is because I am simply used to the Canon UI or if it simply does not mesh with my preferences and hands, only time will tell. At one point I thought that i would sell my Canon 5DsR, since the Sony has "better" IQ, but I continue to be drawn to the much better "shootability" of the Canon (for me, YMMV). For now, they are both useful tools for me, so I am keeping both of them.
  • In terms of the actually testing. I agree and stated that it is not scientific, but please do not assume that what you see is the total sum of my research. For example, I extensively used RawDigger to correlate my visual tests, and decided not to present the RawDigger data to keep the presentation more simple (20 mins already!) and geared to as wide an audience as possible. I made very deliberate decisions as to what and how I would present the data, and it might not be perfect for all, but the feedback from a pre-publication viewing audience of friends and associates led me to my final presentation format and content. I trust that it will be useful or of interest to at least some of you :>)
  • I am an active photographer, mostly concentrating on Bird Photography these days, but I enjoy and partake in whatever interests me at the moment. Here are 3 recent shots, one each on the A7r2 (Stacked Macro with Sony 90mm), 1Dx (Bird in Flight with 1Dx and Canon 400mm DO II), 5DsR (Bird portrait with Canon 600mm f4 II).
  • When shooting Birds in Flight (BIF), high shutter speeds is a requirement, and that leads to high ISOs. That is one of many reasons why high ISO testing is of interest to me. Also, exposure during BIF is predominantly done manually (there is good reason) which can lead to gross errors if one does not track the changing light carefully. For example a cloud can sneak in on me when my mind is somewhere else, and I miss the exposure change and end up with a grossly underexposed picture. That is one of the reasons to test for the ability to bring up shadow detail from underexposed RAW files. I try to learn the full capabilities of the tools at hand (our cameras and lenses) so that i can best use them in my photographic pursuits.
  • I have much data and observations in hand already, and more to gather. I hope to present 2 or 3 additional videos to share my further observations about the Sony and the associated cameras of interest to me. If it is of interest to you as well, then please watch for them on LuLa.

Again, I really appreciate Michael and Kevin giving me this opportunity, and I thank you all again for taking the time to watch and comment.

Respectfully,

Michael Tapes
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Michael Tapes Sony review
« Reply #31 on: September 22, 2015, 12:27:52 pm »

Hi Michael,

Thanks for your efforts and sharing!

Sorry to see that you get a lot of FLAK. Personally, I feel that sharing information and experience is always a good thing.

Best regards
Erik
+1, indeed thanks a lot.



Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Michael Tapes Sony review
« Reply #32 on: September 22, 2015, 12:56:28 pm »

high shutter speeds is a requirement, and that leads to high ISOs.
yet a raw shooter shall compare not @ equal nominal ISOs, but at "best" nominal ISOs (which might be different for each camera) for the equal exposure on different cameras... why did you think that nominal  ISO6400 is best for A7R2 to take on nominal ISO6400 of other cameras ?
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Michael Tapes Sony review
« Reply #33 on: September 22, 2015, 01:30:45 pm »

yet a raw shooter shall compare not @ equal nominal ISOs, but at "best" nominal ISOs (which might be different for each camera) for the equal exposure on different cameras... why did you think that nominal  ISO6400 is best for A7R2 to take on nominal ISO6400 of other cameras ?

Hi,

While I agree that optimal ISO may vary somewhat between cameras, I don't think that that's fair criticism. Had Michael used different ISOs between camera's he'd had gotten a lot more comments, not just questions but harsh comments, DPreview style.

Besides, the review already took a lot of work collecting the shots and comparing them at equal ISO settings, it would have taken much longer to do all possible cross-references and then only present a few. I know there are shortcuts possible, but that requires a lot of prior testing and custom software to avoid a lot of manual work. Maybe useful if someone was paying for it ...

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

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Michael Tapes Sony review
« Reply #34 on: September 22, 2015, 01:31:16 pm »

yet a raw shooter shall compare not @ equal nominal ISOs, but at "best" nominal ISOs (which might be different for each camera) for the equal exposure on different cameras... why did you think that nominal  ISO6400 is best for A7R2 to take on nominal ISO6400 of other cameras ?
For these situations isn't the practical question "which camera gives the best result with a given amount of light, shutter speed and aperture". I don't think it's relevant if some camera's can do that optimal base iso and others not.
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Michael Tapes Sony review
« Reply #35 on: September 22, 2015, 01:39:28 pm »

For these situations isn't the practical question "which camera gives the best result with a given amount of light, shutter speed and aperture". I don't think it's relevant if some camera's can do that optimal base iso and others not.
I am sorry - if you use raw then you establish for yourself the best gain you dial in ... if you are seriously using the camera yourself and if you concern about the performance of your own camera in situations where you have to deal with underexposure... so the reasonable person aiming to write a review owes to readers to do the homework... and that goes to the technical (as in technology) editorship of LuLa btw... any technical article has to be scrutinized, otherwise it is a kindergarten.
Logged

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Michael Tapes Sony review
« Reply #36 on: September 22, 2015, 01:43:01 pm »

Had Michael used different ISOs between camera's he'd had gotten a lot more comments, not just questions but harsh comments, DPreview style.

right - but at least there will be some educational value for some people (like those out there who still think that ISO is a part of exposure itself)... this is the forum, the purpose of the forum is to have discussions and hopefully share the knowledge... not ISO6400 vs ISO6400.
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Michael Tapes Sony review
« Reply #37 on: September 22, 2015, 01:46:13 pm »

For these situations isn't the practical question "which camera gives the best result with a given amount of light, shutter speed and aperture". I don't think it's relevant if some camera's can do that optimal base iso and others not.

Hi Pieter,

I think that it depends ..., as usual. We already (should) know that most cameras have a somewhat optimal trade-off between DR, ISO, and S/N ratio, at approximately ISO 800-1600. People like Jim Kasson have posted results about that for various cameras. For faster shutter speeds, one can just underexpose at that ISO and push in postprocessing. For higher DR and S/N ratio, one drops the ISO and exposes with more Photons. It's as simple as that, the best one can do is not make mistakes during testing and predictably arrive at that same conclusion every time.

But that's not what the Part 1 test was about. As Michael explained, he often is confronted with rapidly changing exposure situations and the need for higher shutterspeeds, and the risk of underexposure (or highlight clipping) is a part of reality. That's one of the reasons he tested what he presented.

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: September 22, 2015, 01:52:04 pm by BartvanderWolf »
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Michael Tapes Sony review
« Reply #38 on: September 22, 2015, 01:49:30 pm »

But that's not what the Part 1 test was about. As Micheal explained, he often is confronted with rapidly changing exposure situations and the need for higher shutterspeeds, and the risk of underexposure (or highlight clipping) is a part of reality. That's one of the reasons he tested what he presented.

right. that's why he presented ISO100 and ISO6400, w/o care to argue why ISO6400 worth to be considered in underexposure situation vs for example suggested by certain researchers ISO640 for Sony for example ? this is __SLOPPY__ ! stop defending the guy.
Logged

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Michael Tapes Sony review
« Reply #39 on: September 22, 2015, 01:54:31 pm »

Thanks Bart, that made it a lot clearer.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2015, 02:06:00 pm by pegelli »
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up