# Dpreview.com: High ISO Compared: Sony A7S vs. A7R vs. Canon EOS 5D III



## xps (Jun 22, 2014)

Seen @ Dpreview.com:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4613822764/high-iso-compared-sony-a7s-vs-a7r-vs-canon-eos-5d-iii


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 22, 2014)

[quote author=Rishi Sanyal / DPReview]
Lower resolution and higher sensitivity are certainly not unheard of - the Canon 1DX and Nikon D4S both top out at a relatively modest 16MP...
[/quote]

Ahhh yes, DPR...where they can't even get basic facts correct.


----------



## tayassu (Jun 22, 2014)

The noise levels look promising, although it is not enough difference to the 5DIII to justify the resolution loss.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jun 22, 2014)

tayassu said:


> The noise levels look promising, although it is not enough difference to the 5DIII to justify the resolution loss.



Well, article says that you can take pictures with A7S that you simply cannot with the 5DIII no matter what. So if you need that kind of iso the SONY is the way to go.


----------



## MLfan3 (Jun 22, 2014)

tayassu said:


> The noise levels look promising, although it is not enough difference to the 5DIII to justify the resolution loss.


 it really depends on how and what you shoot. I mostly shoot in extreme lowlight event where I really need ISO6400, f2 to get needed shutter speed(about 1/100), so it am very interested , and have been testing it. but I am sure for most of people , there is no significant enough difference at ISO3200-12800 range to justify the cost of switching system of their camera to Sony for this camera.

I think really clean ISO1600-12800 is much more important to many of us than useless high ISO number thrown into the spec sheet of some Sonys and Nikons. On last Friday It was already out here and I compared it to my 6D, A7R and Df(not mine) at a local shop(last Friday), I developed all RAW files via ACR and 6D ad A7R files were scaled down to 12mp. I expected to see huge difference between them, but honestly I could not see much difference in ISO1600-12800 range(just like DPR results), from ISO12800 and onward the A7s and the Df are actually better than my 6D resampled to 12mp or my A7R resampled to 12mp, but I do not shoot anything like ISO25600 except a couple of test shots at my studio or on a street at night. So it is good imo, but not great, definitely not great enough to justify the low resolution sensor. For video only use maybe it is great, but then the 4K mode requires external recorder, so it is just really difficult to justify the high price of this camera.It is not 2400US camera , it is actually 5000US camera in reality because we'll need the Shogun to record 4k.


----------



## R1-7D (Jun 22, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> [quote author=Rishi Sanyal / DPReview]
> Lower resolution and higher sensitivity are certainly not unheard of - the Canon 1DX and Nikon D4S both top out at a relatively modest 16MP...



Ahhh yes, DPR...where they can't even get basic facts correct. 
[/quote]

No kidding. This isn't the first time they've made some pretty obvious mistakes in their reviews


----------



## drjlo (Jun 22, 2014)

MLfan3 said:


> I think really clean ISO1600-12800 is much more important to many of us than useless high ISO number thrown into the spec sheet of some Sonys and Nikons.



Many would call 12800 unreasonable, too. Personally, if 6400 is clean, that's all I would want or need.

DPR conclusion:

"The Sony A7S enables the use of incredibly high ISOs, including some unavailable to most cameras. When shooting at incredibly low light levels, the A7S will most likely give you significantly better results than any camera that does not natively shoot at these ISOs. There are also some advantages to be had over the higher native ISOs of the cameras we tested: we see the A7S overtake the A7R in normalized shadow noise performance at ISOs above 6400 in our tests. At more moderately high ISOs (6400 and below) as well as in brighter regions of images - where image quality is determined primarily by how much total light is captured - the normalized ISO performance of the A7S will be similar to that of full-frame cameras of its generation."


----------



## dolina (Jun 22, 2014)

Not all that useful for sports or wildlife. Would be useful for fashion?


----------



## pedro (Jun 22, 2014)

Whatever the camera is capable to do, I just like the ongoing evolvement in digital photography and I think, Canon are rollin' with the flow as well. So what today my 5D3 stands for will evolve further. By let's say 2018 I would just like to see a cam with "native" ISO 51200 like my ISO 16000 on my 5D3 by now if well exposed to the right. Well, time will tell.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 22, 2014)

Comparing the 5D3 to the A7s, It looks like a 3/4 to 1/2 stop difference better in the sony. Once the A7s get to 51K ISO, the difference is much more significant.(1-1.5 stop difference.)


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Jun 26, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> [quote author=Rishi Sanyal / DPReview]
> Lower resolution and higher sensitivity are certainly not unheard of - the Canon 1DX and Nikon D4S both top out at a relatively modest 16MP...



Ahhh yes, DPR...where they can't even get basic facts correct. 
[/quote]

Please excuse the egregious error there - as I published at 5 a.m. Sunday morning & didn't get a chance to correct it until later that afternoon (after some sleep). Incidentally, do you have anything to say about the actual _content_?


----------



## Skulker (Jun 27, 2014)

rishi_sanyal said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > [quote author=Rishi Sanyal / DPReview]
> ...



Please excuse the egregious error there - as I published at 5 a.m. Sunday morning & didn't get a chance to correct it until later that afternoon (after some sleep). Incidentally, do you have anything to say about the actual _content_?
[/quote]

what was so pressing that you needed to publish without checking?

have you been through and made your corrections now or are there still errors?


----------

