O iq option paga mesmo
Canon EOS 5D III. Both the A7 and A7R bodies, as well as the native FE lenses Sony has recently introduced, are remarkably small and lightweight - especially when you consider the quality of images they re capable of producing. The A7S is Sony s newest entry in its full-frame mirrorless lineup. But where the R in A7R stood for resolutionthe S in the 12MP A7S stands for sensitivity. Furthermore, with its full-sensor readout and 4K video capabilities, the A7S is as much a camera for video as it is a camera for stills.
And let s face it there are very few videographers and photographers who wouldn t be thrilled by a camera offering higher sensitivity and impressive, low noise, high ISO performance. Now, this purported increase in sensitivity comes at a cost in the face of cameras with ever-increasing megapixels, the A7S comes in at a rather paltry 12MP. Lower resolution and higher sensitivity are certainly not unheard of - the Canon 1DX and Nikon D4S both top out at relatively modest resolutions of 18 MP and 16MP, respectively though this is partly done in the name of speed.
But is the resolution of a bygone era Canon EOS 5D anyone. a worthy tradeoff for the still image and video quality enhancements. Sony certainly seems to think so. We just got our hands on an A7S, and have been busy putting it up against its competitors to see what advantages it offers and, quite frankly, to see if the claims regarding its low light performance are accurate.
Particularly, some of us here have been curious as to whether not the increased ISO performance is significant enough to warrant the resolution tradeoff when the A7S is put up against its older sibling - the A7R. Leaving aside video considerations such as simplifying full sensor readout for now, lower resolution sensors can increase pixel-level performance because bigger pixels capture more lightbut it s typically total light gathering area across the entire sensor that is a major determinant of ISO performance, all else being equal.
So, to see whether the A7S offers anything beyond the pixel-level benefit its lower resolution would lead you to expect, the higher resolution image is normalized to the resolution of the lower resolution camera. Ultimately, for the A7S to make sense to stills as well as video shooters, Sony s engineers need to have exploited some of the other advantages that well-designed larger pixels can potentially bring 1.
The Shootout. We put the A7S up against the higher resolution A7R to see if the A7S offered any significant high ISO advantages over the A7R when the output of the A7R was downsized to that of the A7S. Furthermore, we pitted the A7S against a professional DSLR not too far outside the price range of the A7S. And so, we bring you this real-world comparison between the Sony A7S, Sony A7R, and Canon EOS 5D Mark III.
We waited until midnight to ensure minimal changes in ambient light during the course of our shoot summer days are long in Seattle. We shot a night scene that included a range of tones from deep shadows to bright highlights to get a comprehensive idea of noise performance of these cameras at various ISOs. In order to level the playing field for all three the cameras we did a few things. Used the same lens Canon 24-70 f 4L IS for all cameras.
A Metabones Smart Adapter III was used to fit the Canon lens on to the Sony bodies. Aperture and shutter speed were matched across all cameras for any particular ISO setting. RAW files were converted in ACR 8. 5 to give relatively consistent rendering across cameras. This was done by manually selecting white balance per camera, and adjusting Shadow Tint as necessary at higher ISOs in order to avoid magenta-tinted blacks. Sharpening and noise reduction were left to ACR defaults Sharpening 25 Luminance NR 0 Color NR 25.
Do note, however, that 1 nobody in their right mind would boost high ISO JPEGs in this manner it s preferable to digitally boost Raws over JPEGsand 2 when we did boost the high ISO Raw files in ACR, significant noise resulted. Since the A7R and 5D Mark III don t offer ISO sensitivity settings above 25,600 and 102,400, respectively, these higher ISO shots were simulated by maxing out the ISO on each respective camera, adjusting shutter speed, and then digitally boosting exposure in ACR to aid comparisons against the higher ISOs of compared cameras.
This itself speaks to the value of the higher ISO modes on the A7S if you need them, that isbut also indicates that a more careful balancing act of noise reduction, sharpening, and exposure boosting would be more appropriate to obtain the simulated higher ISO values than by simple digital exposure boosting. Without further ado, let s get to the comparisons. Below and on the next page you ll find a variant of our typical studio scene widget.
Why make this resolution trade-off at all. Have a play with it further instructions after the widgetthen view some of our specific thoughts on the comparison on the next page. By default we ve set the widget below to compare the A7S vs A7R, but you can compare either camera to the Canon EOS 5D Mark III as well. And, as always, all files are available for download if you would like to tinker yourself.
The widget above and on the next page is a variant of our typical studio scene widget. At the top is a drop down menu that allows you to select Normalized 12 MP or Native Resolution. Native Resolution indicates that images retain the maximum resolution the camera is capable of, whereas for the normalized analysis, images were downsized to 12 MP using the bicubic resampling method. As usual, we also have the FullPrintand Web buttons at the top right of the widget.
Full will maintain whatever you ve selected in the top, center drop-down menu 12 MP for the normalized analysis, and full sensor resolution for the native resolution analysis. Remember that although the widget above starts with the Sony A7S pitted against the A7R, you can also compare the Canon 5D Mark III against either camera by selecting it in either drop-down menu.
Print will downsize all images to 8 MP, while Web downsizes all images to 5 MP. 1 For example, lowering cumulative sensor read noise, increasing effective sensor efficiency, and other factors that - to prevent this article sprawling - we won t elaborate upon further here. 1 Introduction Shootout 2 Our Thoughts Summary. Canon looks better up to 25000 iso, blacker blacks and whites not blown out.
Would be a more interesting test with the same lens ie. use an adaptor. I downloaded both the 5D3 and A7R high ISO raw files and post processed identically with DxO default standard plus prime noise reduction. First I compared the photos overall. Not much difference, maybe a slight difference in color cast with the Canon on the yellow side and Sony toward blue.
Then I pixel peeped, taking 4x6 crops bounded by the edges of the saucer at the top of the space needle. Both were noisy at this high level of magnification. At extreme closeup the Canon had a slightly larger noise grain structure while the Sony had more obvious purple violet color halos. I don t think that any of these microscopic differences are important limitations for the art of photography. Of courses, the lenses were different as well.
cent percent agreed buddy. not much difference in these two cameras on IQ front. chose the one that feel right to your hands and heart. For my eye, IMHO ISO nothing much of a different but the color is much more to observe, I prefer 5D Mark III color than 2 model from Sony e. The Multi Arch with Lights. But its good we have a lot of choices though.
Any chance that we can see DPP process for both Canon and Sony Raw sample option too. good to see readers are getting to the point where they are not arguing over negligible differences. Why is Sony s top camera compared to Canons number two. The 1D X is vastly better than the 5D III in most respects, particularly at high ISO. So why is not the 1D X included in the comparison.
Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway. Perhaps it is due to the price point of each camera. Why compare a 5,300 dollar range body to a 2000 to 3000 range. Doesn t make sense. Quite impressive but I would never be willing to give up all that resolution for better performance at iso s I would hardly ever, maybe never, use. I, on the other hand, would be quite the reverse. So it s good that Sony offer us choices for our tools. Firstly, really love the Widget you designed for comparison.
nice piece of work. Secondly, this only further substantiated my very positive feelings about the A7 lineup. To solomonshv. don t worry about the glass. Sony is on the warpath to offer a plethora of fast glass in the upcoming year. first, kudos to Sony. they are producing top end cameras in my opinion for most of us, in these compact fullframe ILCs. However, fullframe fast glass and in small sizes is still a challenge for Sony, for now and near future.
Is there any chance that Sony will release mirorless cameras with stabilization in the body. I would then consider upgrading my Alpha 55. Using the Widget. now we got 2 a7 II and a7r II. now we got 3 a7 II, a7r II and a7s II. i would get the A7s in a heart beat if it weren t for the lack of glassware. i looked into the lens adapters to use my canon lenses and maybe buy a few nikon lenses, like the 85mm 1. 4G with the FF Sony cameras, but the ridiculously slow focusing with those adapters scares me away from moving to Sony mirrorless cameras.
The sensitivity of the A7s is a great feature for flexibility when needed, but is it comparable to the others in more normal use. I appreciate the study and comparison of the 3 cameras in the extreme lighting conditions. I m confused by why DXOMark gives A7S a lower Dynamic Range score than A7R. Is the performance at normal light levels worth talking about. Does A7S have worse DR than A7R at low iso but maintain more even DR at high iso. If file size and functionality not concerns, is there any reason to prefer A7S to A7R at iso under 6400.
Yes, the A7S has noticeably less DR than the A7R at base ISO. Especially when you normalize downsize the A7R to 12MP resolution. I suppose noticeably will depend on your application, but if you shoot sunrise sunset landscapes, you may very well notice it. The A7S is still a couple of stops better at base ISO DR than a Canon DSLR, but at least a stop worse than A7R, D800, etc. It does, however, maintain higher DR at higher ISOs. As to your last question, I d say the biggest reasons I can think of to consider the A7S over the A7R would be.
Video features Lack of shutter shock, which hurts sharpness of A7R files at long focal lengths e. with the 70-200 FE at certain shutter speeds Completely electronic shutter makes for very nice silent shooting; the A7R has an extremely loud shutter well, two shutter sounds when you take a photo. Although, the fully electronic shutter on the A7S comes at an additional DR cost - b c of extra noise in the shadows when enabled.
Why was the A7 omitted. Some of the A7S photos are over exposed. If the A7S photos are overexposedthen so are all the o iq option paga mesmo ones as focal plane exposures were matched. would have looked EVEN better properly exposed. Hence it doesn t make any difference for the comparative purpose intended. Particularly on those big tripod like things in the distance. Why is it people keep talking about the poor dynamic range of Canon s outdated sensors and are unable to use their eyes enough to see the DR of the 5D Mk3, particularly in terms of the highlights, is smoking the Sony.
Those lights were turned off by the city of Seattle by the time I got to the 5D Mark III. The 5D Mark III has demonstrably lower low ISO DR than either Sony camera, though differences even out at higher ISOs. The A7S has higher ISO performance and higher DR than either camera at higher ISOs. Perhaps an article is in order that correlates DxO data with visual, real-world results to dispel this lingering belief that somehow entirely valid measurements can be disproved simply by using your own eyes.
Then it s not much of a comparison image is it. It happens to be the first part of the image that got magnified on my computer, I also note that other highlight areas lighted windows do not show demonstrably better DR in the highlight areas either. At least not on this sample. They are actually much of a muchness. Even the Seattle Tower light areas have a little more detail on the 5D.
You guys shot the images. It is a comparison. It s just not a comparison of what you want it to be. This test was not designed as a DR test. It was designed as a noise test. The 5D III cannot magically have more highlight detail b c of more DR. If it has any more highlight detail over the A7S, it ll likely be b c of a small increase in sensor efficiency on the A7S that makes the A7S overexpose a bit more easily since matched focal plane exposures were used.
Please don t misuse the contents of this article for a purpose it wasn t designed for, and then say it s not much of a comparison. It s not a DR comparison, it s a noise comparison between cameras receiving equivalent amounts of light at different ISOs. Seriously, there s no extra highlight detail in the 5DIII shots. If you see any other windows that show more detail, it s likely because the lights were shut off. It s not how you do a DR test in any way.
So please don t use it to make any judgement on DR. Rishi Sanyal You make good points. Pity they seem lost on the guy who wants to see what isn t there. It s not that there is MORE highlight detail, apart from that tower, which is a methodology issue. As evidenced by most of the windows and dark areas, I said there was no less shadow or highlight detail. Which you would expect with the differences in dynamic range so many bellyache about. The first function of cameras is to shoot photographs.
Not test charts. So, again, this is not a DR test. No one bellyaches about huge differences in dynamic range between these cameras at high ISOs, and there was no shadow push at low ISOs so, once again, I have no idea why you re talking about some attribute this particular test shows absolutely nothing about. You trying to talk about DR from this test is akin to drawing conclusions about the maximum speed of a car from a steering test.
They re completely orthogonal. Fanboyism simply blinds you to the truth and all the facts in the world won t change your mind. GaryJP, it hurts to see your favorite brand smoked by a Sony doesn t it. It would if I had a favourite brand. For the rest, grow up. I am a beginner here but this is what I noticed for the comparison b w canon 5dm3 and A7S. The yellow colors are somewhere the red colors are more richer in case of Canon 5dm3.
Also, some of the places A7S seems overexposed. where as 5dm3 managed it quite well. Thank you Rishu Sanyal I did notice the difference in highlights on the archs and wondered why the Sony highlights looked blown out while Canon showed details yet when I looked at other highlights, they all seemed to match. Now you ve said the city turned the lights off before you went to Canon.
That made perfect sense. Again, great job. Fantastic article and widget. There may be an A7S in my future. Yes but at ISO 100k the Sony kills it. I am impressed. With the Sony A 7 S, one can still recognize objects where the others show nothing than mud. A breakthrough. And I mean, who shoots below 100k ISO anymore. Compare it to serious high ISO cameras, not the A7r or the Canon 5DIII. you re funny. tell me what are the serious high iso camera, if A7R and 5D3 are not.
Right, neither is the A7R nor the 5DIII is a serious high ISO body. They re decent, but it s like claiming the Nikon D800 is a serious high ISO body. So plenty serious. Besides the obvious Sony A7S, there is the Canon 6D. Then there are the elephants in the room--all much bigger deals at high ISOs than the Canon 5DIII or the A7R. I suggest you get raws with deep shadows from all and extract those raws. At 25600 the A7r is similar for example slightly more noise but better detail, noise reduction should set them on par until that ISO.
Would I sell pictures apart from web sized shots above ISO 12800 or 25600. Nikon D4s is considered the high ISO leader, why not include that in the test. Probably because the D4s is very expensive. The Canon 1Dx is also not included. And the 1Dx is a significantly better high ISO camera than the Canon 5DIII. The real questions are why not the Nikon Df and the Canon 6D. The A7r does not do particularly good detail at ISO 25600. That point is real easy to verify.
I ve seen comparisons with the D4s RAW elsewhere. The Sony is noticeably better. No, the Sony A7S is not a better high ISO body than the D4s, nor is the A7r better. Above ISO 25,600 the A7S has typical cyan Sony and magenta banding in shadows. And I ve shot my own raws with all of them. The A7S has about the high ISO performance of the Canon 6D, so very good, not extraordinary in year 2014 terms. The A7R can t match the high ISO performance of the Nikon D800, not a particularly great high ISO body.
What ISO are you speaking of. Well on the default setting of Dpreview 25600 the 5D wins. Detail in highlights and retains colour and better tonal gradation. I was intending to get the Sony thinking it a step up for low light but Sony look to have thrown heavier software at the problem on first look. Even at 6400iso the same can be seen, weak colour, no highlight detail and poor gradation, I was hoping for better from the Sony I think I ll stick with the 1Dx for low light.
Download the 25600 ISO raws, and extract with luminance set to zero, then look at boom crane in night sky at right. The A7S is a better high ISO camera than the 5DIII. With the Sony A7s there s less grain, and details blurry in the Canon s raw are clearer in the Sony s raws. Why don t you try the above test. Anyhow the Canon 6D is also a better high ISO body than the 5DIII.
And the 5DIII is considered by no one to be Canon s best high ISO camera--that s the 1DX. While the Sony A7s is likely Sony s best high ISO camera. He is right - the Sony really is the best when you download the file s. The 5DIII has bit more cyan and magenta banding at that ISO than the Sony. The best at all iso settings. They are extended settings only available through a menu.
Canon makes it clear that the highest 2 ISO settings are different. I believe this means that they are amplifying the extra 2x or 4x by software after digitisation, effectively moving up from bits 0. It seems impossible to obtain confirmation of this but it is very important to me as an astrophotographer. If it is as I described then the highest 2 ISO settings are doing nothing useful for me. I cannot reduce my exposure times in the expectation that I will still get more useful data.
Equally importantly for your comparison are Sony doing the same thing but not making it clear. Is anyone here able to confirm or refute my suppositions. Hi grelf, I am curious too about the expandable ISO in the A7. I suspect sony is moving bits from 0-13 more likely to 9-15 when at 25600. Until then, from my own perception so far Nex5 was best at iso 3200. Thus, I hope that A7r coul be good for Astro.
Just considering the missing AA filter and better yet, cropping instead of using a Barlow on small objects. I also suspect that using bias files short dark exposure file containing ADC read noise will greatly reduce the a7s advantage over a7r. I use a canon 6D with a Baader filter and somehow, I suspect that a7r crop 6D Barlow, if you are not shooting Andromeda or bigger objects.
Ah yes, I like sony more than other cameras for astro stuff but am no fanboy, Interested only o iq option paga mesmo results. Coming from the old analogue school i do not see the need of these high iso values. Even noise is not obvious at Iso 1600 for the A99 and not problematic until you set an Iso above 6400, I am just happy using the camera s highest and workable performance setting iso 1600. When higher shutter speeds are needed to shoot a performance like ballet or dance at low light and you would like to retain some DOF or sharpness by not opening the lens fullyevery improvements in high iso noise are welcome.
The A99 is not a serious high ISO camera. It s quiet, and some of those better SonyZeiss lenses help, but it s not in the same league as this A7s or say the Canon 6D--and then there are even better high ISO bodies. When full compairison between A99 and A 7 a7r A7s. The A99 has basically the same sensor as the A7, but with a semi-transparent mirror occluding light hitting the sensor a bit.
The Canon 6D would be more apt here than the 5DIII. Ditto what some have already pointed out. The difference will be huge in video. Someday somebody will make a consumer grade full frame 1080P video cam with exactly 1920 x 1080 pixels on the sensor. Or 4K video with only 4,096 x 2,160 pixels on the sensor. On a 2nd thought, I think I will just stay happy with 3200-6400 on the a7r after reading this article and analyzing the tests.
Until then, this is the closest you can get. I can imagine bringing both the A7R and A7S for work or travel. The former for daytime outdoor shoots and the latter for indoor night time shoots and video. What a combo. It ll be like the old days when different film bodies were loaded with different speed film. No one ever will make FF sensor for just fullHD. maybe 5 years ago this was bright idea, not anymore. For 4k there are several different resolutions and 12MP is very close.
I will be very much surprised if someone will make lower MP camera but this is possible. In good light, Foveon might work with exact 1920x1080 for FullHD, but Bayer-sensors don t have the full resolution their pixel count may indicate since the values for all R, G and B are obtained by interpolation from neigboring pixels, so their resolution should be higher, ideally 2x.
It s at video that it really shines. Fact that this also makes stills this good is a great bonus to the Sony name. One thing to keep in mind is that inside A7s is sensor meant for Video cameras, not still photography. That said, I am Sony fan boy and ditched canon for them because they tickle my gadget itch more than anyone else. Sony is at their best when they let their engineers run rampant and create all kind of thing.
from Betamax and Walkman to this day they always improved and innovated even if some standards lost their advantages really quickly like MemoryStick which speed got overtaken withing 12 months. But at the same time I feel like they are innovating themselves into corner and with so many new and innovative camera s and sensors including announced curved ones thy can t keep up with lenses. Especially compared to Caninkon competition. Also, their lenses, by economy of scale, tend to be more expensive while not being quite as good.
after 5 yrs of Nikon, 15 yrs of Canon, my Sony A99 simply knocked Canikon out of the park. Its not just any one thing - something the fanboys don t get. Its not just the image-stabilised full frame sensor that gives me extra 3-4. 5 stops on EVERY lens. Its not just the Carl Zeiss lenses. Its not just the total lack of mirror vibration so there is no blurring at handheld shots below 1 60th seconds.
Its not just the lower noise so I can do theatre work better. Its not just the electronic 1st curtain and shutter release response time which is faster than the EOS 1DX. Its not just the Sony sensor tech that is found in cameras like Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, Phase One medium format. Its not just Sony sensor tech that is in Samsung LG Sony Oppo smartphone. Heck, its not even the EVF, which means I no longer need to chimp on.
Better high ISO on A99 then on Canikon full frames. STL costs sensor something like 1 3 to 1 2 EV of light and that s exactly why STLs have slightly worse high ISO performance. It s compromise make focus panel constantly illuminated. Anyway I am Sony fan but you outperformed me by a long mile. Or you were sarcastic. my LCD display cos I know the exact exposure colour tone temperature before I shoot. Its ironic how these are also precisely the reasons that allow mirrorless camera users to take better pictures than many traditional pentaprism OVF relics.
The LCD is permanently closed inwards only opened when I need to shoot at the waist level or ground level. Try looking at the great work found on m4 3, NEX, Fuji, Alpha forums interest groups on a photographic technique level, not pixel peeping level. Ridiculous statement to say mirror less users take better pictures imo. Handling of smaller mirror less has pros and cons.
The mirror may introduce slap easy to avoid with lock upbut the A7r and OMDs for example show that shutter vibration is an issue. I m furthermore not so sure whether an EVF is that important. I use both mirror less and DSLR and with a little bit of experience you know which setting to take to not clip highlights, for example. For beginners it is nice, of course. It may be he future, but I don t have a problem with both. I m no fan of anything except innovation and technical excellence.
Problem with you fans is that you don t get it cos you are too busy being a fan. Of course the technical quality of the A99 shots are higher when I have up to 4. 5 stops in-body image stabilisation advantage over any Canikon at focal lengths up to 70mm with any lens. It is a MASSIVE GAME CHANGER. Even if you are half blind you can see the difference of 3-4 stops can t you. I can take 1 8th s shots handheld with my Zeiss f2. 8 16-35mm, 24-70mm lenses at ISO 800. Other photogs would have to shoot at 1 30th s ISO 3200 while suffering the full effects of mirror vibration blurring mirror slap noise during a theatre performance.
Who do you think gets the job the published picture. You seem to be THE expert then. I wonder how people made those great photos using 1Dx and D3 D4 S then when shooting sports. The A99 is a fine camera for many of the reasons you cite, but it would be a lot more interesting if version 2 had this 12MP sensor. Seems to be impossible when using DSLRs or non-SLTs. Preternatural wow, and you call others ignorant with no understanding o iq option paga mesmo photography. Well, thank you very much for explaining my job to me.
I must have missed so much not having your insight for the last 12 years I ve been a professional wildlife photographer. Gee, why am I using bulkier, heavier, more expensive conventional Canon DSLRs. Well, I ll tell you why because the files ultimately outperform anything I ve seen from Sony co, hands down. And I ll tell you another secret Sony is just not an option in pro nature wildlife -- to my knowledge, there s not even a single colleague using Sony.
1 8th s shot on theatre performance, they are all on a seat. You mean the actors on the stage were seated, right. As far as I could see, A7S and the other higher res cameras perform equally in sane ISO levels. There is one area missing in this test. One can argue that if an X amount of noise reduction is applied to all images, and then they are normalized down to 12MP we can achieve better results with 5DII A7R.
I m speaking of ISO levels of 6400 and lower. That s why the images are all provided for you to do so yourself. -- 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 o iq option paga mesmo 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 even 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 linked 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 to 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.
Coments:30.01.2020 : 09:17 Gardagis:
O não se aplicam aos trabalhadores móveis.
27.01.2020 : 16:38 Jubar:
It s nearly impossible to quantify what perfect vision is. A more interesting question is, Perfect for what.
04.02.2020 : 12:03 Arat:
Evolutionary biologists have never known what to make of viruses, arguing over their origins for decades. An illustration of what a Klosneuvirus might look like. But a newly discovered group of giant viruses, called Klosneuviruses, could be a missing link that helps to settle the debate вЂ or o iq option paga mesmo even more discord.
02.02.2020 : 10:43 Fem:
The Best Quality Electric Sit-Stand Desk Lifetime Warranty, Free Shipping.
03.02.2020 : 06:34 Kajicage:
November 2, 2011 at 8 31 am.