Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: A7R photos posted  (Read 7743 times)

RobbieV

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 281
    • My work.
Logged

uaiomex

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1211
    • http://www.eduardocervantes.com
Re: A7R photos posted
« Reply #1 on: October 24, 2013, 11:15:27 pm »

Oh dear, I'm totally sold. Thanks a lot for the report.
Eduardo
« Last Edit: October 24, 2013, 11:17:09 pm by uaiomex »
Logged

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
Re: A7R photos posted
« Reply #2 on: October 25, 2013, 09:45:06 am »

The JPG sharpening is a little intense, no?  At least for human subjects.  I know it can turned down, and that RAW will give full control.

Color is nice.
Logged

DanielStone

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 664
Re: A7R photos posted
« Reply #3 on: October 25, 2013, 11:36:03 am »

The JPG sharpening is a little intense, no?  At least for human subjects.  I know it can turned down, and that RAW will give full control.

Color is nice.

My thoughts exactly. Way too much sharpening IMO. TBH, my first thought was "boy she needs a shave!" ;)

Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: A7R photos posted
« Reply #4 on: October 25, 2013, 12:22:58 pm »

Hi,

According to the photographers he used +1 sharpening in camera JPEG.

The camera has a new raw format so no real raw-converter supports it (yet).

Best regards
Erik


My thoughts exactly. Way too much sharpening IMO. TBH, my first thought was "boy she needs a shave!" ;)


Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7406
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Re: A7R photos posted
« Reply #5 on: October 29, 2013, 05:51:45 am »

Well, the purpose of these images is clearly to show the potential of the new Sony sensor, coupled with the new Zeiss 35mm lens. The message is: detail galore!

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8915
Re: A7R photos posted
« Reply #6 on: October 29, 2013, 07:29:49 am »

The camera has a new raw format so no real raw-converter supports it (yet).

Hi Erik,

According to Brian Smith, the A7R Raws are supported by Capture One Pro 7. Whether that's the official support for this camera model or a generic support for Nex7 Raws remains to be seen. I have not seen an announcement by PhaseOne that the Alpha A7R is formally supported, so things may improve even further than Brian reports.

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. I've just tried opening an A7r Raw in Capture One Pro 7.1.5, but it wouldn't show in the Import dialog, so I'm currently puzzled how Brian Smith did it.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2013, 09:05:09 am by BartvanderWolf »
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Wolfman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 314
    • www.bernardwolf.com
Re: A7R photos posted
« Reply #7 on: October 29, 2013, 02:02:20 pm »

The latest version of Irident Developer now supports the A7r

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1520
Re: A7R photos posted
« Reply #8 on: October 30, 2013, 08:33:34 am »

There are samples on DP review from a press junket in different iso's of the a7r.

Anything past 200 iso is really painterly and has strange artifacting, actually more than an olympus em-5 which is strange considering the difference in formats.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/2736806/dsc00055?inalbum=sony-alpha-7r-samples-gallery

I hear from a contact that the A7 series will tether and supposedly autofocus in video (how well I don't know), which had me interested, but these samples are really strange and gives me pause.

check out the high rez download.

IMO

BC
Logged

akclimber

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 106
Re: A7R photos posted
« Reply #9 on: October 30, 2013, 06:16:43 pm »

Thanks for the heads up.  I agree, the high ISO samples look "plasticy."  But these are OOC jpgs, yes?  Probably with some sort of default NR turned on.  We need to see some high ISO ARW file conversions.  I've great interest in the A7r and would hope it performs at least as well as my D800e at high ISOs.  We'll see, I guess.

Also, don't know if you've seen this interesting info re: video from A7, A7r and RX10:

http://www.eoshd.com/content/11380/new-sony-a7-a7r-rx10-exclusive-hands-look-video-quality

CHeers!
Logged

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1520
Re: A7R photos posted
« Reply #10 on: October 30, 2013, 10:17:47 pm »

Thanks for the heads up.  I agree, the high ISO samples look "plasticy."  But these are OOC jpgs, yes?  Probably with some sort of default NR turned on.  We need to see some high ISO ARW file conversions.  I've great interest in the A7r and would hope it performs at least as well as my D800e at high ISOs.  We'll see, I guess.

Also, don't know if you've seen this interesting info re: video from A7, A7r and RX10:

http://www.eoshd.com/content/11380/new-sony-a7-a7r-rx10-exclusive-hands-look-video-quality

CHeers!

Thanks for the video link.

It's ok, but if it's not up to 5dIII standards, then it's not close to the gh3's I use as small cams with the REDs.

The Gh3 has very little moire, the Sony's I own the fs100 is a moire machine, so is the 5d2 when it comes to video.

Spoke to a friend that has tested both A series Sony cameras and the A7 track focuses better in stills and video, the A7R doesn't, though my GH3's for video track focusing is very good, not perfect, but with thought and the right settings very, good and the face detection is crazy good.

In regards to the still quality, I guess those samples were out of the camera jpegs, but honestly I expected much more from a full frame 36mpx camera at 640 and 800 iso.  The Olympus Em-5 I use with stills has as much real world detail in those same situations at the same iso with jpegs, with raw it gets much better and easier to control and remove that painterly look.  

I guess I expected more, both in stills and video for the Sony A7 and A7r and I really had hoped this was a superb camera, but if the samples in video and stills are accurate, I'm not gaining anything other than cost going from the gh3s and the em-5 to the Sonys.

Not to direct compare because the Full Frame Faithful are never going to believe a mft 43 camera is as good as this Sony, even if the results prove it, but I've shot the gh3's next to my RED ones and Scarlet in video, the olympus em-5 next to my canon 1dx and there is not a lot of huge difference in both respects.  Obviously the reds for video at 4k and 444 and huge bit rates is better, just like the 1dx has better still tracking focus than the Olympus, but side by side, they all are very usable in the real world, and it takes a really pixel peeping trained eye to tell the difference.

One thing the mft 43 series cameras have going for them are great lenses.  The olympus primes are beautifully sharp, the pana zooms useful for still and video and in video have a nice roll off and don't breath like a lot of full frame still lenses.    

But regardless of what any of us see, or use or report, people are going to buy, what they want to buy.

I know right now for stills if I was going to buy a small camera, regardless of lens investment, I'd go with the olympus em-1 rather than the Sony, but to be fair I haven't tested the Sony yet.

Right now I'm holding off because panasonic is suppose to have to new cameras in the works a gh4 4k video cam with high bit rate, xlr, etc. etc. and a super gh5 still camera and since I've had such great luck with all my 43 cameras (and great use) I think I'll hold off, though the olympus em1 sure is pretty and everybody hopes the new nikon fm digital will have a big viewfinder, but it's gotta go a long way to get as big as the em1.

IMO

BC


« Last Edit: October 30, 2013, 10:28:47 pm by bcooter »
Logged

Mjollnir

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 547
Re: A7R photos posted
« Reply #11 on: November 09, 2013, 10:22:15 am »

Thanks for the video link.

It's ok, but if it's not up to 5dIII standards, then it's not close to the gh3's I use as small cams with the REDs.

The Gh3 has very little moire, the Sony's I own the fs100 is a moire machine, so is the 5d2 when it comes to video.

Spoke to a friend that has tested both A series Sony cameras and the A7 track focuses better in stills and video, the A7R doesn't, though my GH3's for video track focusing is very good, not perfect, but with thought and the right settings very, good and the face detection is crazy good.

In regards to the still quality, I guess those samples were out of the camera jpegs, but honestly I expected much more from a full frame 36mpx camera at 640 and 800 iso.  The Olympus Em-5 I use with stills has as much real world detail in those same situations at the same iso with jpegs, with raw it gets much better and easier to control and remove that painterly look.  

I guess I expected more, both in stills and video for the Sony A7 and A7r and I really had hoped this was a superb camera, but if the samples in video and stills are accurate, I'm not gaining anything other than cost going from the gh3s and the em-5 to the Sonys.

Not to direct compare because the Full Frame Faithful are never going to believe a mft 43 camera is as good as this Sony, even if the results prove it, but I've shot the gh3's next to my RED ones and Scarlet in video, the olympus em-5 next to my canon 1dx and there is not a lot of huge difference in both respects.  Obviously the reds for video at 4k and 444 and huge bit rates is better, just like the 1dx has better still tracking focus than the Olympus, but side by side, they all are very usable in the real world, and it takes a really pixel peeping trained eye to tell the difference.

One thing the mft 43 series cameras have going for them are great lenses.  The olympus primes are beautifully sharp, the pana zooms useful for still and video and in video have a nice roll off and don't breath like a lot of full frame still lenses.    

But regardless of what any of us see, or use or report, people are going to buy, what they want to buy.

I know right now for stills if I was going to buy a small camera, regardless of lens investment, I'd go with the olympus em-1 rather than the Sony, but to be fair I haven't tested the Sony yet.

Right now I'm holding off because panasonic is suppose to have to new cameras in the works a gh4 4k video cam with high bit rate, xlr, etc. etc. and a super gh5 still camera and since I've had such great luck with all my 43 cameras (and great use) I think I'll hold off, though the olympus em1 sure is pretty and everybody hopes the new nikon fm digital will have a big viewfinder, but it's gotta go a long way to get as big as the em1.

IMO

BC


Erp!  Where/when did you hear about a super GH5 for stills?

I ask because I'm about to pull the trigger on a GH3.

Thanks
Logged

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1520
Re: A7R photos posted
« Reply #12 on: November 09, 2013, 11:00:16 am »

Erp!  Where/when did you hear about a super GH5 for stills?

I ask because I'm about to pull the trigger on a GH3.

Thanks

http://www.43rumors.com/ft4-full-panasonic-gh-4k-camera-specs/

If this comes out it probably will be on the shelf mid 2014, so buying a gh3 now if you want/need it isn't a bad deal.  At least the lenses should fit and the gh3 is discounted right now, so even if you sold it later you wouldn't be out much.

I guess.

BC
« Last Edit: November 09, 2013, 11:05:25 am by bcooter »
Logged

JV

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1013
Re: A7R photos posted
« Reply #13 on: November 09, 2013, 12:59:05 pm »

Not to direct compare because the Full Frame Faithful are never going to believe a mft 43 camera is as good as this Sony, even if the results prove it

It is interesting how increasingly the formats stop meaning anything in digital...

I shoot a Fuji, good image quality, wonderful optics, great high ISO performance, raw developers like Iridient Developer keep on improving and getting more detail out of the files, etc

A Leica S2 is probably better in perfect conditions but the body alone costs $22K, only ISO 100 and 200 are really good and each additional lens costs $7-8K...
Logged

Glenn NK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 313
Re: A7R photos posted
« Reply #14 on: November 09, 2013, 02:54:33 pm »

I read a comment on Naturescapes this morning by a knowledgeable photographer - he had heard reports that lenses wider than 35 mm on the A7r were producing odd colouration towards the outer edges.

Anyone else hear about this?

Glenn
Logged
Economics:  the study of achieving infinite growth with finite resources

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: A7R photos posted
« Reply #15 on: November 09, 2013, 03:21:24 pm »

It is interesting how increasingly the formats stop meaning anything in digital...

I shoot a Fuji, good image quality, wonderful optics, great high ISO performance, raw developers like Iridient Developer keep on improving and getting more detail out of the files, etc

A Leica S2 is probably better in perfect conditions but the body alone costs $22K, only ISO 100 and 200 are really good and each additional lens costs $7-8K...

Yeah, with digital I don't even think about sensor size except when taking the occasional poke at "full frame" (can't stand that term) here & elsewhere. The Pentax is my big tripod camera, the Fuji X-E1 & Epson R-D1 are my ersatz Leicas, the Pana GX7 is my go-everywhere AF camera, the Oly E-M1 is my SLR-style AF camera and the Oly E-M5 is (or rather soon will be) my infrared camera. This is more stuff than I need, of course, but at least by categorizing it I can sorta justify it. I do the same thing with guitars.   :D

I like Iridient with the X-E1, but I have to say that Fuji's JPEGs are just fine for everything other than printing. I shoot RAW only, then convert to JPEG in camera when desired. The in-camera processing is quite flexible. Same thing with the Pentax but with even greater flexibility.

I wish I could be confident in Sony's willingness to commit to a system & continue building it over a long-ish period of time. I wish Nikon offered at least the option of a split-image/microprism screen with their Df. If either were the case I'd strongly consider adding a 35mm system to my digital stable. In a year or two anyway.

-Dave-
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: A7R photos posted
« Reply #16 on: November 09, 2013, 03:56:16 pm »

Hi,

It depends on the lens. SLR lenses -> no problems, rangefinder lenses -> lot of problems.

Best regards
Erik

I read a comment on Naturescapes this morning by a knowledgeable photographer - he had heard reports that lenses wider than 35 mm on the A7r were producing odd colouration towards the outer edges.

Anyone else hear about this?

Glenn
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1520
Re: A7R photos posted
« Reply #17 on: November 09, 2013, 10:09:50 pm »

Yeah, with digital I don't even think about sensor size except when taking the occasional poke at "full frame" (can't stand that term) here & elsewhere.

-Dave-

Dave,

To me the only thing that matters in sensor size from super 35, 43, to full 35mm still frame is the lens selections.

The smaller the sensor the faster the lens needs to be which sometimes negates the reason for a small camera.   43 has a lot of fast primes, but their zooms are 2.8 and 2 should be minimum.

But I agree, once I'm working I really do forget about the sensor size.  Format dimensions I remember and like 43 for vertical.

IMO

BC
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up