# Sony A7s testing continues at DPreview - more samples



## Aglet (Oct 29, 2014)

really pushing some samples, various video curves and still-grabs... This is quite a nice toy.

www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a7s/sony-a7s-shooters-report-part-ii.htm

is it popcorn time again? 

If I weren't actively avoiding getting into Sony mount at this time, this, and the A6000, are rather tempting.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 29, 2014)

Outside of moving subjects... I still don't understand why people just don't use HDR... with HDR... the image should still look better than pushing the blacks and the shadows... right? 

It seems like an argument against a technique more than performance...


----------



## MichaelHodges (Oct 29, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> with HDR... the image should still look better than pushing the blacks and the shadows... right?



Nope.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 29, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > with HDR... the image should still look better than pushing the blacks and the shadows... right?
> ...



I absolutely disagree. 

Pushed and pulled, but particularly pushed, areas of an image will never be able to stand up to HDR/tone mapped/luminosity masked multiple images, not until we get 20 bit sensors that is. It goes to the very core of the difference between how our eyes automatically put a 'gamma' curve onto what we see and the necessity for a gamma curve to be applied to a linear captured digital image. The shadow tonality is stretched out already, stretch it out even more and you just end up with blocky colour tinted crap. Sure it is way more impressive than Canon's noisy blocky tinted crap, but it is still crap.


----------



## jrista (Oct 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...




This I agree with. If you have a still scene and blend, you can get deep shadows that are as clean as bright midtones when using HDR. 


However, sometimes you don't need 20 stops...you just need 13 or 14 stops, and just need to lift a little...and don't want banded or blotched noise showing up when you do. That doesn't invalidate the value of using HDR...it's just an in-between area where having cleaner read noise is valuable, and simpler than doing HDR to get excellent results.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Oct 29, 2014)

HDR just looks tacky,IMHO, even carefully done.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 29, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> HDR just looks tacky,IMHO, even carefully done.



I think jdramirez was referring to creating a higher dynamic range picture through bracket and blend rather than 'HDR'. I agree with you, HDR programs can make the picture look cartoon-like; pretty awful to my eye. 

Exposing correctly for the highlights and shadows is vastly superior to pushing data, and blending is very easy to do nowadays: handheld is no problem as cameras shoot faster and programs can auto align. Generally someone is going to get much better results by upgrading their computer / software rather than 'upgrading' to the latest high DR camera.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 29, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> HDR just looks tacky,IMHO, even carefully done.



Hdr is like whiskey... when done right, it is really good. When done haphazardly, you crash your car into a tree.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 29, 2014)

One of the reasons I prefer exposure stacking over HDR is that, for me, it looks more natural than HDR


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 29, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> HDR just looks tacky,IMHO, even carefully done.



That is only because you don't believe the ones that are not tacky are HDR, remember, HDR is an all encompassing term that just means any method of increasing the dynamic range over the capturing mediums innate capabilities.

Just because you don't think it is an HDR shot, in any of its forms, doesn't mean it isn't.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 29, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > MichaelHodges said:
> ...



HDR does not simply mean HDR programs!

You can use tone mapping, go to 32bit, use luminosity masks on multiple exposure etc etc these are all HDR techniques.

I guarantee you couldn't pick a well masked multiple image out from a selection of single images. 

You can do exactly what you want with your A+B=C scenario, just not automatically, there are tons of techniques, tutorials, videos, and even luminosity mask actions so you don't even need to know what you are doing!

You just have to look past your blinkers and realise people have passed you by, they are not crying about camera limitations, they are making images you don't and you can't even see how they can be done, meanwhile they are traveling the world doing it!


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 29, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> One of the reasons I prefer exposure stacking over HDR is that, for me, it looks more natural than HDR



Exposure stacking is HDR.


----------



## tron (Oct 29, 2014)

How about adding in the specific comparison a 5D3 with ML?


----------



## msm (Oct 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> ...
> 
> You just have to look past your blinkers and realise people have passed you by, they are not crying about camera limitations, they are making images you don't and you can't even see how they can be done, meanwhile they are traveling the world doing it!



Agree 100%. It is not the camera, it is the person using it.


----------



## bwana (Oct 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > One of the reasons I prefer exposure stacking over HDR is that, for me, it looks more natural than HDR
> ...


+1


----------



## jrista (Oct 30, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > One of the reasons I prefer exposure stacking over HDR is that, for me, it looks more natural than HDR
> ...




I think he means stacking multiple identical exposures, which technically speaking does not actually require something like a 32-bit float "HDR" file or anything like that. Exposure stacking, when you have still scenes, can reduce random noise (although it will reinforce non-random noise, which is bad), and improve dynamic range. If you stack a bunch of 16-bit TIFF files converted from 14-bit RAWs, you can gain more dynamic range, for sure, but in general I wouldn't normally call that "HDR"...you don't get a minimum of 20 stops of DR like you usually do with a true blend to 32-bit float.


----------

