Iq option é confiável

Assured, that iq option é confiável remarkable, rather amusing



Do you mean ISO levels of 6400 and higher. Because 6400 and lower, normalized performance differences are already negligible. I think he means what he says. 6400 and lower. 12MP ISO 3200 from A7s vs A7R NR and then downscalled to 12MP. I also think A7R will be better because it can easily sacrifice some details in NR process which would be lost anyway from downscalling.

Duly noted Rishi. By lower ISOs I mean the normal range 1600 to 6400 that the noise level is noticeable. I think when you do NR on a higher res image you can do better in terms of the granularity of noise detection that you can t do with a lower resolution. I can sure put it to a test. I just tried this very quickly and don t notice anything too different from what our results already show.

Namely, the A7R still showing a bit more detail even when downsized, but a tad bit more noise in the shadows and I mean marginal. This is with NR sharpening to my taste in Lightroom. If you get around to doing this yourself, do let us know your results. I d be curious. maziarrezaei Ok, I see what you re saying now. I don t see much of a difference. It s a bit of a bummer that the 7S isn t a speed demon as well.

Imagine it being able to CAF at 10fps in low light. Then it could pretty much do anything. I haven t heard too much discussion about what I feel are the most compelling combination of features of this S cam - smaller file sizes, silent operation and massive dynamic range. The high ISO performance is a nice bonus too. Recently I switched from a 5Dlll, routinely using the 12 mp small raw feature for weddings, to a Sony A7r for people, using both Sony glass and Leica lenses. Even with the Leica glass and manual focus the A7r is as fast and intuitive as the 5Dlll at about half the weight.

But the A7r Howitzer-like shutter is so noisy that it began to ruin the fun of shooting it. THIS is perfect for me and could be the ultimate people cam. Small, silent, non-intimidating with crazy DR and reasonable file sizes. There s no need to rip this 12 mp camera for low res or think it s going backwards in any way. Ripping this camera for it s resoulution is like ripping a great putter for not being able to drive a golf ball 350 yards.

Then along came the S. I d call it a bullseye. Man it seems like a lot of work went into this test merely to show that a camera with ultra high ISO options is better than a camera without those options. IF you ever need to shoot at insanely high ISO. Or am I misunderstanding what this is all about, Rishi. I cannot recall ever needing to use an ISO higher than 6400. What the heck are people shooting at ISO 100,000.

What needs are actually met by ISO 400,000. Or do people often shoot soccer football night games at a 1 1500sec. shutter speed. How many people do so. Why not use a tripod or set the camera on something solid in night photography. I m sure a dozen guys will now attack me and say that they need ISO 100,000 daily and that I know nothing about anything. A lot of work went into reaching this conclusion. So the bottom line is that the a7s is average at ISO 6400. At more moderately high ISOs 6400 and below.

A7S will be similar to that of full-frame cameras of its generation. It s not so much the ISO 100,000 setting that s of importance in the year 2014, but how noise free the image is at ISO 25,600 that s important. Here the Nikon Df and D4s best the Sony easily 25600. And the Canon 6D is likely as good as the Sony A7s--but this Canon wasn t used for this test. There are all sorts of reasons for high ISOs.

And realistically shooting at ISO 6400 was unheard of in say the year 2005. It s hard to use a tripod in every situation, for example on the street at night, on the subway, in a small theatrical venue, say a club. So it s not simply about sports at night. No, it s not useful to my current photography, but then having the option would open up entirely new facets of photography to me.

I can t take my Nex7 outside at a quarter moon and so much as hope to get photos of wildlife unless they re asleep. Sure I can use a flash and get 1 chance at a photo, not counting the subsequent photos of animal anuses as they head for the hills, or I can go ultra high ISO and completely silent shutter and take lots. Dimly lit events. No more need to push in PP to salvage a useable shutter speed. No need for an obtrusive flash. Pretending that the option of shooting at extremely high ISO is useless to all only speaks to the ongoing trend of placing technical image quality over content and, if this site s comments are true, evidently over getting an image at all.

Give me a break. Anyone that had this capability on hand will absolutely find a way to use it. Peter Yeah, generally speaking, you got it. Why did we spend time doing this. To visually show what the claim large pixels for High ISO actually meant to the photographer, considering the significant cost in resolution that is paid. Is that not valuable to those considering this camera, no less delivered before most pre-orders have even shipped.

HowaboutRAW Do you have any evidence to back up the claims, such as these, you make. And the Canon 6D is likely as good as the Sony A7s. If so, please show us. I don t share my raws, but the testing I ve done confirms this point, you can play with studio scenes here. The point is that in shadows, at ISO 25600, the Sony has typical Sony cyan and magenta banding--that banding is the big problem. Grain is something else.

And the D4s has a bit less grain at ISO 25600, but most importantly zero magenta and cyan banding and or blotching in deep shadows at that ISO. For the D4s the blotches in the shadows don t really show up until ISO 50,000. The Df is almost as good as the D4s. The A7s is a good high ISO camera, like the Canon 6D, but it s not the king of the hill for readily useable high ISOs.

Above ISO 100,000 I really have no idea, since it s not realistic to shoot there with any of this gear. Plus, you do not know your photography much. You obviously are a simple cam person shoot in none too challenging situations. During the film days, PJs used to talk about the need for speed use ISO 800 film, even push it to 1600 iq option é confiável though grain colour suffers.

For professional shooting lighting levels we go above 6400 all the time. I ve had shots that go to 10,000, 12800, 25,600 requiring extensive manual noise reduction work. Cue concert theatre dance performances. Even with flash, the most skilled photographers use fill flash at the lowest most imperceptible levels for a natural look. You want as much of the ambient light to fill the shot. The A7S allows that.

Need for speed involves understanding that shooting without flash often gives the best, natural results. Even if native 12 megapixels ain t enough, the likes of Genuine Fractals OnOne magic on super clean pixels with huge DR will rock. I shoot night aerials a few times each year and 6400 iso good for that, I have gone to 12800 just to see what it s like.

if I can shoot at night from a helicopter at 6400 iso what is that needs 100,000iso and more. Never mind the noise where did Sony hide the colour, highlight detail and tonal gradation. Try shooting available light indoors in a dark restaurant, theater, subway station, and you ll quickly see why beyond ISO 6400 can be of help. Up in a plane or helicopter do you have to worry about focus and stopping down to get a bit of depth of field.

No, you just need shutter speed to freeze movement and you can leave a lens open. It s entirely different when you re only 5-25 feet from the subject. As evinced by this Seattle night scene, there s not a lot of shadow to peer into from aerial shots at night, another big difference than when shooting indoors, where directed light can cast shadows and you want to be able to shoot what is in the shadows or at least not under direct illumination.

Also as recently as 8 years ago a useable ISO 6400 was unheard of. So no, 100,000 is unrealistic today, but not in 5 years. Now I have my own Sony A7S raws, and indeed at ISO 25,600 cyan and magenta blotches are beginning to show in the shadows. And the grain is more pronounced than with the D4s or the Df. Such as shots of the President of my country at night no flash possible. Still the Sony 25600 raw is very usable, but the blotches in the shadows start to show up in strength at ISO 30,000.

Sony has a lot to be proud of here and the truly silent shutter is amazing. One must use it carefully though, as it s prone to rolling shutter. That shutter option in itself is a really big deal. As for the blotchiness in our own low-light studio comparison at ISO 25,600, the Nikons fare worse in terms of blotchiness than the A7S. Yes, the silent shutter is great. Note that the Nikon Df and the Sony A7S were shot at the same focal plane exposure in the comparison iq option é confiável to above; yet the Df has more of this blotchiness assuming I understand what it is you re referring to.

The D4S does as well, but received 1 3 EV less focal plane exposure, so is perhaps not as directly comparable as the Df A7S comparison. And by the way, the D4S will be added to the night scene ISO comparison soon. For the money the A7r is a well featured DSLM camera Vs. the other so called Pro DSLR cameras. Adding the 100 adapters i have for legacy lenses and my Sony FE lenses; my image quality has been outstanding. True i use tricks, always focus with DMF, always use a polarizer filter to add help too the Contrast AF focusing system.

Throw away the plastic sunshade and get a collapsible 55mm rubber for using Polarizer filter. Shooting great video, I am now wishing that websites upgrade their obsolete submission protocols to take 25 meg files or 1080P video on YOUTUBE or others. Still my ISP cannot handle more than a 10 meg jpeg image, so YOU SEE that the cameras are light years ahead of the web services already.

Regards, Don Eastwestphoto. The A7r isn t a particularly good high ISO lowlight camera--and that s the point of this test. Data transmission bottleneck problems are an old story. Light year is a measure of distance. Having a few more adapters might be helpful. The A7r is all about resolution, but I do wonder how the A7 would have fared in a similar comparison. In some respects it seems the more all rounded package the A7 offers is somehow being lost to the extremes offered by the 7s and 7r.

Question Why is it that the lighted bridge arches in the center mid image section, background, are much darker and therefore more detailed in the Canon shot compared to both Sonys. Everything else in the shots is similarily exposed. Was the Canon shot done later with the arches lighting being dimmed at that time. Just curious. Yes, the lights on the arches turn off at around 1 am.

Or thereabouts. Honestly I can t remember. Ok, thanks for replying. My biggest complaint with the Sony cams is that they are mirrorless. I know the advantages, but the disadvantages outweigh the advantages in my book. Being at the mercy of a monitor to know what is coming through the lens is a not what I would call a great method for shooting. Yes, I use ML so I can get full histograms while shooting using a monitor.

But at the end of the day the only real way to see what is coming through that lens, outside of long-exposure photography, is to look through the lens itself with your eye. Unless Sony has recently put in screens that can display full RAW dynamic range, which I m certain they haven t, you are at the mercy of a monitor that cannot even display full sRGB, let alone ProPhotoRGB, and certainly not RAW.

That makes zero sense. Ever seen a professional movie being made. How do you think they achieve accurate exposure with red or Sony or arri cameras. since I actually work in the film digital video arena. And more than that, own an 8500 sq foot sound stage and shoot regularly on RED. Yes, I could say I m intimately familiar with the process. I m talking about still photography where you have the luxury of time dealing with a single frame. If you ve got the luxury of time and a still subject why does it matter either way.

A camera with no viewfinder at all read mirrorless with manual focus assist would be at least as suitable I d say more to those circumstances as an optical viewfinder. But turn that around and take away the luxury of a still subject and ample time and you re SOL if you completely miss exposure early. I use my screen for dialing in my focus. Then shift to optical mirror viewing so I can see all of the light as it is coming through the lens.

I don t like the limitation of the screen s ability. Once screens become wide gamut, it will likely be less of an issue. And when you look through the lens, you are seeing wide open aperture, which doesn t accurately render what the final image will look like. On the mirrorless, the screen is showing you exactly what the final image will look like, with the aperture set as the final image will be. I have not seen any issues with my NEX-6 and color rendition. And with focus peaking and 9x zoom, my manual focus old minolta lenses are fun to use and accurately focused.

My eyes are not getting any younger, and looking through the glass is definitely not all people think it would be when you have focus zoom and peaking available. I am having fun picking up old lenses at garage sales or ebay for pennies on the dollar and getting the matching lens mount adapter. I have a huge selection of nice lenses now, and I ve spent less than 500 on, in total.

Superchalupa brings up a great point about aperture that people like Dester forget to understand. Look we get it Dester, you shoot canon and decided to mention something you don t like about Sony and we all hope viewfinders improve. There will come a day when the resolution and readout speed of a viewfinder is equal to that of the sensor that feeds it. 2014 is a landmark year for photography. The Olympus omd1, panasonic gh4, fuji xt1, and Sony a6000 are all incredibly fast and cheap cameras for what they offer.

and canon is no where to be found yet - we all want them to blazing a trail alongside these companies. Deal with it and cheer on competition that helps all of us. I m not pounding the Canon drum. I m agnostic when it comes iq option é confiável manufacturers. Cameras are purely tools to be used. Obviously the camera aperture is wide open when not pushing aperture preview. But to say your screen is showing you EXACTLY what you are capturing is utter nonsense.

No screen can display what your aperture is capturing. That includes Wide Gamut pro monitors like Eizo. My point is that I like to see what a screen cannot. Let s hope that monitor technology finally catches up to sensor technology. because they are worlds apart right now. You are the perfect example of the ignorant pentaprism-OVF dinosaur. The whole reason why I moved to the A99 A7 paradigm is the same reason the mirrorless brigade moved to theirs.

You dinosaurs spew the nonsense about wanting to see what your eyes lens is seeing. Why do you need to put a heavy cam to your eyes to see what your eyes are seeing. I want to see an immediate exact prediction of what the sensor will GET. That is the paradigm you dinosaurs fail to get. That is why you need to chimp and check your LCD after every shot. Whereas I finally get to enjoy what it was like to shoot film not needing or being able to check the shot, just concentrating on what is coming next during the digital age.

When I put camera VF to eye, I want to see what the SENSOR is seeing. cos you get near-time delayed feedback - AFTER pressing the shutter. Thus you waste shutter counts, waste battery life, iq option é confiável storage space taking unnecessary shots most importantly waste time chimping reviewing your shots on the LCD, missing the next shot. With the EVF, you see instantly the limited DR that a sensor can capture.

Its limited DR is EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT to see. Your eyes infinitely wide DR fools you into taking shots your sensor is incapable of capturing. This was the premise of Ansel Adam s zone system - guestimations in grey scale based on 10 stops. Here s something most don t even know. with EVFs, you know whether a shot in the studio with studio flash is off or spot on INSTANTLY after the shot without taking your eye off the EVF. I d never go back to that century old relic called the periscope-pentaprism-mirror because I understand all that.

I take much fewer shots now but with more keepers. Chew on it and let the thought brew. How does this compare with Nikon DF, D4s, 1Dx, 6D. The Df and D4s are better high ISO lowlight cameras, unless there s something very wrong with the various A7s samples posted here and at Imaging Resource. None can really be used at ISO 100,000. Yep A7S is 1-2-3 stops better than Canon or A7R after ISO51000, but I think this advantage useless. IQ is already so bad, that image is barely usable. For me it would be much important to have 2 stops cleaner image ISO6400 or 12800.

It would extend the usable ISO range. On the contrary, what we have now is comparison of different sorts of crap. Yes, one crap is twice as good as the other, but you know, it is still crap. I am still trying to figure out why cameras need ISO levels above 12800, especially those not targeting professionals who might occasionally need that capability. I suspect it s because the manufacturer wants a competitive edge in the Specs. My camera can shoot at ISO 400,000 and yours cannot.

It is purely marketing. OVF in the digital era is half-baked half-screwed. Lots of non-photographers coming to the market and manufacturer must justify the price size weight difference comparing to the P S. First, in order to push p s sales because of cell-phonesthey pushed the P S ISO up to DSLR s level, although max acceptable ISO is still.

400, now they are pushing DSLR s sensitivities. I find it amazing how narrow minded some people are that are supposed to be working in a creative field. Just because high ISO does not give you any advantage to how you photograph does not make it worthless. Event photographers, street photographers and documentary photographers would all probably love good usable high ISO camera. You might find some of these photographers also have a different opinion of what quality is then you.

I personally find this camera very interesting and look forward to see how it performs in real world examples. Under stadium lighting. Even a rank amateur like myself can appreciate higher iso performance in certain conditions, that s 99 of what i like to do. DxO has previously verified that Sony partially cooks their RAW data for noise reduction purposes so rendered files appear to have less noise and better performance characteristics. quote If reducing noise is so easy, why is it not always applied.

Well, there is a price to pay averaging pixels increases SNR, but introduces some correlation between pixels. This creates a grainy aspect to the image which is often as annoying as noise itself. Moreover, if pixels are blindly averaged, fine details may simply be erased. a similar high ISO benefit could be achieved in post using non-sony sensors, with the exception that the photographer selects which regions and compromises are applied.

as DxOmark hasn t broken out how different RAW files from different sensors are treated, comparisons of this kind appear much like RAW batter to cooked fudge. while fudge tastes great, i m not sure DxO s recipe is absolute. This was on much older Sony sensors, like the A900. DxO tests every camera for signs of raw noise reduction and reports it as an open circle on the SNR DR charts when found.

Based on the charts they did not detect noise reduction on the A7s. Interestingly they did on the Canon 1DX. At ISO 51000 and higher Canon has so much noise than A7S, that no amount of NR would help. Actually at this amount of noise, NR is totally useless. What the previous two said. You can download the RAW files yourself apply NR to see if you can get any real image detail out of the highest ISO shots. See if you can match the A7S in terms of shadow detail retention at ISO 204k 409k.

DxOMark s Full SNR curves show that the pixel-level SNR of the A7S at ISO 409k is higher than that for the 5D Mark III in shadows. At some point brighter tonesthe SNR curves cross, the 5DIII ISO 102k takes over with higher SNR. Naturally, as these brighter tones are photon shot noise limited therefore benefit from the longer exposure at ISO 102k. Now, those are pixel-level SNR curves. Normalization will shift the ISO 102k 5DIII curve to the left, which ll move its crossing point with the A7S 409k curve to the left.

In other words, the 5DIII ISO 102k file will be better at slightly darker tones than what the crossover point currently suggests. But I doubt it ll move that muchso A7S 402k shadows will continue to show a 2 EV advantage. But let me repeat this 2 EV advantage is really only for darker tones at the highest ISOs 204k 409k, judging from my visual tests. The advantage starts to decrease as you go to brighter tones. That s no easy task, so the A7S should be applauded for what it s doing here.

Whether or not this advantage actually makes a significant difference to your type of shooting is another matter entirely, of course. I ll see if I can get my hands on normalized full SNR curves to correlate with the visual analyses presented in this article. You are quoting an article published Tuesday March 10 2009.

How do we know this is at all relevant today. After a quick look at the RAW comparisons of the A7s and the 5D3, I must say it l0oks like we are splitting hairs here. They all look pretty similar to me with the 5D3 perhaps retaining more highlight detail. The thing is that on many shoots I have been more than happy with my 6D s performance at 25000iso.

I am actually just blown over by the quality of the images. I have even made A2 prints of theatre images and the quality is just superb ,but I am sure this quality can also be had from Nikon, Sony etc. I even bought DXO because of the many times I find myself using 25000 iso and after my initial test DXO looks like the king of noise reduction, imo only of course.

We are living in good times. Ok, Ivan, nice to meet one person who often uses ISO 25,000. See my recent post about ultra high ISO. I wonder what you shoot. But can you imagine needing a camera with ISO 400,000. A lot of comments read like Yes A7S makes sense at 6400 ISO but who shoots that. The other cameras beat it soundly at base ISO. But similarly, who needs all the detail of a FF camera at base ISO. You put it on a monitor, even a 4k monitor, that s a lot of crop.

You print it out, that s a lot of wall space. The A7S is fractionally less wall space and fractionally less cropping. That s not much of a sacrifice for the added sensitivity. If I have all the light in the world and reach for an A7S instead of an A7R, how much practical difference does it make. I say little to none.

In bad light, it makes a big difference. You guys have it backwards. Not simply at ISO above 6400 but ONLY in shadows. A device for detecting a black cat in a dark room. That s a pretty silly argument. Canon has the clear advantage up to ISO 1600, it is about a draw from 1600 to 25600 with Sony having a VERY slight advantage strictly defined by noise but Canon having clearly superior all around image quality due to highlight performance, with Sony finally pulling ahead of Canon over 25600.

25600 is pretty well up there. So Canon s superiority goes well beyond base ISO and it s only in the realm where both look terrible that Sony has an advantage. So you re saying when they re both great, one is better than the other but when they re both bad, neither is useful. Good Enough more than describes low ISO performance on all of these cameras. It s getting to the point where people want more quality than their eyes can see. I don t need good sound reproduction at 40,000 hz, I can t hear it.

I don t need more detail in a shot than I can see on a 4k screen. What I m saying is ISO 25600 is not base ISO or low ISO. It s very high, Canon has a noticable advantage up to that level, 99 of images will be made in that range, and neither camera offers image quality over ISO 25600 to make venturing higher worthwhile. I can t help but feel that this is completely irrelevant for 99 of still photographers.

Things like a 2 3 stop noise advantage at iso 102,400. Photography is about light, remember. Who cares how these cameras perform when there is none. I feel the opposite. Who cares how the camera performs at base ISO. My cell phone does pretty well in broad daylight. FF exceeded my image requirements at base ISO since it s digital inception. All I want is more sensitivity and versatility. I assume you are a sports photographer who must shoot football games at night in dark stadiums at very fast shutter speeds, mosc.

I am still trying to figure out who else needs ISO 100,000. mosc Shooting at high iso is not the only reason why photographers use FF cameras. Cell phone cameras. I wouldn t want to see my wedding photographer shooting the wedding with his iPhone or Lumia 1020 D. I think this test is a good start to show where the high-ISO advantage of the D7s should be expected dark tones at exposures for very high ISO. But, there may also be some sensitivity difference at all ISO settings for very large aperture lenses.

This is because it is easier to make large pixels accept extreme ray angles than small pixels. So, I would like to see this test also conducted at f 1. 4 to see if there is a noticeable sensitivity difference for bright tones at that f-stop. The results of this testing clearly reveal that the A7s strengths are in low read noise that comes into effect particularly in shadow areas of the image. That being said, I wonder whether the TRUE advantage of the A7s sensor might be in allowing to significantly underexpose images and to boost shadows in postprocessing to much better effect than would be possible with other cameras.

The benefits of this would be you could use much higher shutter speeds, particularly when you want or need to avoid motion blur moving objects inavailable light or when you use non-stabilized lenses and want to avoid camera shake blur. In other words, could it be that the A7s may provide much more leeway for boosting underexposed image areas in PP and this being the true albeit not yet systematically explored advantage of the A7s over its A7 siblings or other FF cameras.

Any opinions comments on that. It would really shine if it could do 1080p video at 120 fps, you could use fast shutter speed with wide apperture. Interesting concept and well thought out. significantly underexpose images and to boost shadows in postprocessing to much better effect than would be possible with other cameras. Yeah, makes sense to me. Interesting, by 25,600 ISO, detail is being clearly obliterated by the Canon and the 7R. The 7S still holds fine detail.

But then who really shoots at that ISO and keeps the results. A very small percentage that s who. think astrophotography and concert photogs. 99 of us would be better off with the A7 A7R. This is not for everybody. This is for a specific target audience. Eg if you want to shoot a video in half moon without external light.

Or you are doing concert photography. A7S is a niche camera. Again number of pixel has very nominal effect on the final output noise level. Hopefully this will stop everyone complaining about more megapixels. this camera is simply no better than the 36mp sony or the 23mp canon sensor for the same size output. Yeah it is better as a high ISO above 6400 camera than either the A7 or A7r.

The 5D and D610 and A99 too. saying it twice does not make it so. If you feel that is the case, when the canon a7R is normalized to 12mp, which very much gives an advantage to the a7S, good bless you. And I didn t say it twice. Take it up with the webmaster. Downsampling does NOT remove noise, it s a near total myth. If I had money, I might buy one, but I d be more inclined to buy a D4s or Df--they re both better high ISO cameras.

I m still glad to see Sony releasing this camera. Hope they do an A99 II with this sensor. HAR, I never said downsampling reduces noise. It actually reduces detail. to my eyes, at iso 25600, comparing the 7s to downside 7R is see no difference in noise. now, would be very interesting to print both at 300 dpi at 12x18. I bet you the A7R image would have more detail for same noise, or less noise for same detail, once processed from raw.

The problem remains that the A7r makes for a noisy blotchy mess at ISO 25600, and downsampling won t fix that. This noise and magenta and cyan blotching will most certainly mess up detail. Better to stick with the better high ISO sensor to begin with. Not sure how you re defining remove noisebut downsampling increases SNR. So, relative to signal, it does decrease noise. It s a myth, try it with any setting in Photoshop. It may be what the math claims but when the results are that bad, and they are, then the math is suspect.

S N ratio enhancement claims My guess would be that the program counting signal is confused. This is often the case with this kind of engineering estimation. The problem with the downsampling idea is that somehow downsampling would have to be able to readily identify noisy pixels in the process. If removing noise were that easy, then NR would be real easy in the camera.

And as you know it s not. Now what sort of works, tossing about 90 percent of the data from a noisy image shot with many pixels may be a bit better than shooting with fewer pixels, but then you re left with a tiny thumbnail--that s pretty blurred. Really, please try downsampling in detail, it doesn t work. Perhaps something will radically improve in the understanding of this engineering in say 10 years--then maybe this will work. number of pixel has very nominal effect on the final output noise.

Assuming same sensor size, more pixels smaller pixel. Each pixel generates read noise, thus more pixels per area more noise per area. Read noise is not bothersome when the signal is strong enough for shot noise to overwhelm read noise. But for a weak signal, read noise can be very significant. High ISO means that the signal is weak. It is simple physics that sensors with smaller pixels will generate more noise at high ISO with other variables being more-or-less equal.

Plus there are a few other potential sensitivity advantages of larger pixels. For example, larger pixels are less obstructed by circuit elements and may thus produce slightly superior QE than smaller pix. Yeah, spot on. Except that sometimes sensor designers will be able to decrease read noise per pixel in the higher resolution camera, in which case read noise per area does not necessarily have to be higher.

All you have to do is decrease per-pixel read noise by sqrt n for a n times higher resolution sensor to make read noise per area the same. In which case normalized comparisons will show little to no noise differences between the lower res higher res camera. Therefore, in practice, lower resolution cameras don t always offer the advantages they re meant to. Although in this case, the A7S does - but only at very very high ISOs. You d be hard pressed to see normalized differences between the A7S and A7R up to ISO 12,800 - have a look yourself in the widget.

Above that ISO - shadows see a significant benefit with the A7S lower aggregate read noise 3x less of read events and potentially lower resulting quantization error due to the higher conversion gain. Also, re your point about potentially higher QE - this advantage is sometimes not as fully realized as it might otherwise be had gapless microlenses not been invented to help the potential light loss due to increased inter-pixel spacing. As for the A7S - my preliminary results so please don t quote me indicate an approx.

8 higher signal in the Raw file over iq option é confiável A7R same lens, aperture, shutter speed, ISO, lab lighting. That s about a 1 9 EV advantage just in terms of light gathering ability. It s nice, but certainly not anything groundbreaking. my bet would be the noise optimizations are what really help. HowaboutRAW It s not a myth; one needs to go no further than our own studio scene to see this.

Have a look at this particular comparison of low resolution cameras on the left vs. high resolution cameras on the right at ISO 6400. Although the low resolution cameras have lower noise at native resolutionsthe leveling field evens out as soon as you click the Print to normalize the comparisons by downsampling all cameras to the same 8 MP resolution. It can t get any clearer than that. Continuing to argue against what the visual results clearly show the math dictates is just misleading our readers.

Are there limits to this. And I have results that prove the fail, more than once. For example the ISO 256000 raws from the A7r and A7s with the former downsampled. And that A7r is doing an okay job, but the A7r result is noiser--just as one would expect from the full sized image. What makes you think I ve never tried this. I don t click print to downsample, I downsample in Photoshop.

You can t make the A7 D610 shoot higher ISOs like the D4 by downsampling. Now there is some possibility that print is introducing some other factor, and that, as a solution to the claims of NR, I m open to. For example printing to paper, beyond 300ppi, does help with noise reduction. I checked again. Using the A7r and A7s ISO 25600 raws from the Seattle sky at night from the DPR test. With the raws down-loaded, I extracted them to 8 bit tiffs with the same NR settings in ACR 8.

Then I downsampled the A7r tiff so its pixel dimensions were the same and, I believe 4240 across. 5, within PhotoShop CS6. Result The A7r tiff had a bit more grain, and much much more cyan and magenta blotching than the A7s tiff. Let PhotoShop use the first resampling algorithm. I believe there are 6 to pick from. How many times do I have to repeat the test. Downsampling does not have some magic way of sorting signal from noise and holding on to signal. Now for that ISO, the A7r did surprisingly well for grain, not for blotching though.

Er, thank you - because that was the entire point of this article. You claimed downsampling does not reduce noise. That s completely incorrect, which can be shown time and again simply by hitting the Print button which down-samples the image to 8MP in our studio scene. This article was looking at any tangible gains w the A7S over the A7R - in normalized comparisons - due to the larger pixels of the A7S and or any other optimizations to the sensor signal processing.

Downsampling reduces noise, but in this case not enough - at the higher ISOs - to match the performance of the A7S. Again, that was the entire point of this article, presumably one of the reasons behind Sony making the A7S to begin with video considerations aside. We even talked about reasons for why the normalization might not be enough. the A7S might have the following going for it lower aggregate read noise of 3x fewer pixels, potential QE increases, possibly decreased quantization error due to higher conversion gains, etc.

But as for reasons why the A7R can t keep with the A7S at higher ISOs, it s definitely not that downsampling does NOT reduce noise. That s just incorrect, and a misleading statement. It s that downsamping normalizing does not reduce noise enough to provide the same level of performance as the A7S for very, very low signals. The conclusion was that differences exist - at higher ISOs - where simple normalization does not reduce noise enough to bring the SNR of the higher resolution sensor up to that of the lower resolution sensor.

Likely because of one or more of the reasons in the previous paragraph. Yes of course downsampling does reduce noise, it reduces the rest of the picture too. The cyan and magenta blotches get smaller, by pixel count. What downsampling doesn t do is reduce noise as an overall fraction of the total pixels. Or Downsampling can t select signal over noise and toss out the noise. Otherwise NR would be really easy.

That some of the downsampling options in Photoshop smear out noise differently, yes. And sometimes that can be helpful. and yet you said Downsampling does NOT remove noise, it s a near total myth. Which is why I engaged in this discussion clarification. As for Downsampling can t select signal over noise and toss out the noise. I m not sure why you re complicating things so much.

See the equations for normalization here. Noise is random deviation, which is somewhat subdued upon averaging pixels when downsizing. Therefore, there s a tangible SNR increase. The principle is similar to averaging n exposures the SNR goes up sqrt n as you either 1 average n images, or 2 downsample n -fold downsample an image to n -times less total resolution.

The camera is mainly designed for video, competing with GH4, 5D III etc. Then why the very quiet shutter. Loud shutters are a real draw back to the A7 and A7R. There are obvious reasons to use this as still camera. Does the 5D III shoot 4K video. 5D III doesn t shoot 4K video. 5D III can shoot raw video. You can frame grab from 4K video, equals quiet shutter anyway. Raw to an external recorder, right. That s recording to a 1050x or faster CF card internally.

Let s make it clear. shooting 4K videomost of which isn t actually 4K but UHD but I digress superior video. There are so many factors involved including file compression, color compression, artifacting, motion estimation in compression, shutter roll, etc. In fact, I d pick a 1080p or 2K camera with a universal sensor shooting RAW over a 4K camera with decent compressed image. I am frequently hitting ISO 6400 and still wish for higher IQ at those and higher levels, I would prefer higher IQ at ISO 100 though, thats more important to me, but hand holding at higher ISO s is nice to have.

The results are impressive. all the cameras have decent high ISO performance. For my purposes I would take the A7R with it s higher resolution and greater dynamic range at lower ISO s. For me, I have pretty much zero need for any ISO over 6400, and in actual use rarely use anything above 3200. I kind of look at stratospheric ISO ratings much the same as stupidly high fps ratings.

unless you have a very specific need it s a completely useless rating. 90 of the people who say they need 10fps don t. same things goes for these crazy high ISO ratings. choice is good and Sony gives you three options with the A7 lineup. Conclusions 1 noise per sensor is equal enough on all 3. 2 the A7r gives you more resolution without sacrificing low light quality.

And the A7r can t be used above ISO 8,000 without trouble. So you re limiting your lowlight options with that 36MP body. 3 the A7r provides the most bang for your buck for image quality. You re not comprehending the noise-per-sensor thing. The A7r is no worse than the A7s for stills. thats what I have been saying, and seeing. but there, both are crappy, a7s a little less so. is there difference in shadow noise once normalized at iso 200K, yeah, maybe.

It looks like an error has occurred. Thanks for adding this comparison, next to the standard comparisons. I hope DPReview will add more of these kind of comparisons. It really helps to get grips on the value of technological advance for your photography or when selecting a new camera. Total 157, showing 1 50 First Previous 1 2 3 4 Next Last. Yep, we re doing it. Lensrentals most-rented gear of 2017 contains a few interesting surprises. Among them Sony has out-rented Nikon for the first time ever, and a Sony battery somehow took the 6 spot overall.

The Canon EOS 6D Mark II is a better camera than its predecessor, but how much better. Should you buy one. In the fifth and final part of his series of articles on aerial photography, Erez Marom recaps some of his most formative experiences. Mount a Canon EOS 5D Mark III to a heavy duty, custom-built drone and you can capture some incredible footage. Opening Science. Breaking boundaries. Empowering researchers. PLOS is a nonprofit, Open Access publisher empowering researchers to accelerate progress in science and medicine by leading a transformation in research communication.

Every career stage. Every country. Every area of science. Hundreds of thousands of researchers choose PLOS to share and discuss their work. Together, we collaborate to make science, and the process of publishing science, fair, equitable, and accessible for the whole community. Molecular Biology Ecology Immunology. Microbiology Neuroscience Cancer treatment and research.

Arunima Malik and an international team of researchers recently assessed how the Coronavirus pandemic has caused worldwide consumption losses amounting to more. The Black Lives Matter movement in the US and elsewhere has rightly brought about a much-needed reexamination of deeply rooted issues around. PLOS publishes a suite of influential Open Access journals across all areas of science and medicine. We encourage you to consider the scope of each journal before submission, as journals are editorially independent and specialized in their publication criteria and breadth of content.

Open opportunities for your community to see, cite, share, and build on your research. Rigorously reported, peer reviewed and immediately available without restrictions, promoting the widest readership and impact possible. Ready, set, share your preprint. PLOS ONE PLOS Biology PLOS Computational Biology PLOS Genetics PLOS Medicine PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases PLOS Pathogens.

All PLOS journals offer authors the opportunity to increase the transparency of the evaluation process by publishing their peer review history. We have everything you need to amplify your reviews, increase the visibility of your work through PLOS, and join the movement to advance Open Science. Ready to submit your manuscript to PLOS. Find everything you need to choose the journal that s right for you as well as information about publication fees, metrics, and other FAQs here.

We have everything you need to write your first review, increase the visibility of your work through PLOS, and join the movement to advance Open Science. PLOS gives you more control over how and when your work becomes available. Transform your research with PLOS. Submit your manuscript. PLOS is a nonprofit 501 c 3 corporation, C2354500, and is based in San Francisco, California, US.

Authors of most PLOS journals can now opt-in at submission to have PLOS post their manuscript as a preprint to bioRxiv. Windows 7 support officially ended on January 14, 2020. How to get Windows 10 for free. When Windows 10 first arrived in 2015, a free upgrade was as simple as clicking on the Get Windows 10 notification prompt.

Things are a bit different now. That means there s no more technical support, security updates, or bug-squashing. Windows 8 will encounter the same fate in a few years. In other words, Windows 7 is now unsafe to use, making this an excellent time to switch to Windows 10. Unfortunately, the original free upgrade period for the two older versions officially ended in mid-2016.

No need to worry, though there are still ways to get Windows 10 for free without paying for a new license or breaking any rules. Product keys and digital licenses. You need a valid product key or a digital license to get the free upgrade. The workaround to get Windows 10 for free with Assistive Technologies ended in December 2017. It s either printed and included in the packaging, emailed to you, or stored in the cloud, which is usually the case for system builders.

A product key is supplied when you purchase an operating system from Microsoft or any retailer. For a long time, these manufacturers printed product keys on labels stuck on PCs or printed and inserted them into product packaging. A digital license ties an installed Windows platform to a key embedded in prebuilt systems from Acer, Dell, HP, and so on.

Microsoft s product keys typically only work once, but hackers sometimes find workarounds so that the same key can be used on multiple PCs. That led Microsoft and manufacturers to introduce digital licenses in Windows 8 as an anti-piracy measure, so end users aren t installing the platform on additional machines. However, Microsoft also moved Windows 7 over to this method. This license is locked to your Microsoft account.

1 keys on your PC. If you legitimately purchased and no longer use these older versions, Microsoft s Windows 10 activation servers will accept Windows 7 and Windows 8. However, if you re upgrading from Windows 7 and you can t find the key, you can try signing in to your Microsoft account and checking past downloads to see if your product key is held there. Sites like Amazon also keep a record of purchased downloads, but these don t usually include the product key itself, though it may help narrow down where it could be.

It will then pull the valid Windows 8 8. In all other cases, you ll need to supply an authentic, genuine product key during the setup process, or you can do it later by visiting Settings Update Security Activation. 1 license key from your prebuilt system s motherboard and move on. If you don t have a valid Windows 7 license key, you ll need to follow our other guide How to Upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10. Step 1 Download the Windows 10 Media Creation tool.

Despite officially ending the free update promotion in mid-2016, Microsoft quietly keeps this option available so all Windows PC owners can run the latest version. Finally, you can download Windows 10 and perform a clean install. Again, you must have a valid digital license or product key to get a free upgrade, or else you will be required to pay for a new Windows 10 Home product key. Your first step in acquiring a free Windows 10 upgrade is to visit Microsoft s download Windows 10 webpage.



11.02.2020 : 14:54 Nilrajas:
Dottavio Jaylan Knighton, insert highlight tape here. Michaels Mark Pope.