# Sony's New a7RII Camera Delivers World's First Back-Illuminated FF Sensor



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 10, 2015)

```
<em>Sony’s Flagship Mirrorless Camera Features 42.4 MP Back-illuminated CMOS sensor, In-camera 5-axis Image Stabilization, Internal 4K Video Recording, Silent Shooting, Fast Hybrid AF and more</em></p>
<p><strong>NEW YORK, Jun. 10, 2015 – </strong>Sony Electronics, a worldwide leader in digital imaging and the world’s largest image sensor manufacturer, has today introduced their new flagship full-frame mirrorless camera, the α7R II (model ILCE-7RM2).</p>
<p>The new α7R II interchangeable lens camera features the world’s first back-illuminated full-frame Exmor R CMOS sensor1, which realizes high resolution (42.4 MP approx. effective megapixels), high sensitivity (expandable up to ISO 102400)2 and high speed AF response up to 40% faster than the original α7R thanks to 399 focal plane phase detection AF points.</p>
<p>The camera also includes a 5-axis image stabilization system borrowed from the acclaimed α7 II model and can shoot and record 4K video in multiple formats including Super 35mm (without pixel binning) and full-frame format, a world’s first for digital cameras<span class="green">1</span>. Additionally, it has a newly refined XGA OLED Tru-Finder with the world’s highest (0.78x) viewfinder magnification<span class="green">3</span>.</p>
<p>“Sony continues to deliver game-changing imaging products that are changing the way imaging enthusiasts, hobbyists and professionals can see and capture the world,” said Mike Fasulo, President of Sony Electronics.</p>
<p>Kimio Maki, Senior General Manager of Digital imaging Business Group for Sony Corporation, added “By harmonizing high resolution, sensitivity and speed, we’re delivering a high-level full-frame imaging experience unlike anything else in market today, with Sony’s newly developed, world’s first back-illuminated 35mm full frame CMOS sensor.”</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1159878-REG/sony_a7r_mark_ii_digital.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">Preorder the Sony A7R II Camera Body $3198</a> </strong>(You can purchase on June 17, 2015 at 11AM EST)</p>
<p><!--more--></p>
<p><strong>High Resolution, High Sensitivity and High-Speed Response

</strong>The newly developed 42.4 MP back-illuminated CMOS sensor is the most advanced, versatile and highest resolution full-frame image sensor that Sony has ever created, allowing the α7R II to reach new levels of quality, sensitivity and response speed. In the past, many photographers have been forced to choose between high-resolution and high-speed or high resolution and high sensitivity when selecting a camera.  The new α7R II eliminates that sacrifice thanks to its innovative image sensor.</p>
<p>The 42.4 MP sensor combines gapless on-chip lens design and AR (anti-reflective) coating on the surface of the sensor’s glass seal to dramatically improve light collection efficiency, resulting in high sensitivity with low-noise performance and wide dynamic range. This allows the camera to shoot at an impressive ISO range of 100 to 25600 that is expandable to ISO 50 to 102400<span class="green">2</span>.</p>
<p>Additionally, the sensor’s back-illuminated structure, with an expanded circuit scale and copper wiring design, enables faster transmission speed and ensures content can be captured in high resolution without sacrificing sensitivity.  Data can also be output from the sensor at an approximately 3.5x faster rate compared to the original α7R.</p>
<p>An ideal match for Sony’s extensive collection of FE lenses (35mm full-frame compatible E-mount lenses), the new α7R II features a high-speed BIONZ X image processing engine that allows images and video from the camera to be captured with supreme details and low noise.  There is also no optical low pass filter on the camera, ensuring that scenery and landscapes are captured in the highest possible resolution and clarity.</p>
<p>The α7R II has a new highly durable reduced-vibration shutter that realizes 50% less vibration from shutter movements compared to its predecessor, and has a cycle durability of approximately 500,000 shots<span class="green">4</span>.  The camera can also be set to Silent Shooting mode in order to shoot images quietly without any sensor vibration or movement.</p>
<p>The new image sensor features 399 focal-plane phase-detection AF points – the world’s widest AF coverage on a full-frame sensor<span class="green">1</span> – that work together with 25 contrast AF points to achieve focus response that is about 40% faster than the original model. The α7R II utilizes an advanced motion-detection algorithm combined with this Fast Hybrid AF system to achieve up to 5fps continuous shooting with AF tracking.</p>
<p>Additionally, the focal plane phase-detection AF system on the α7R II works well with Sony A-mount lenses when they are mounted on the camera using an LA-EA3 or LA-EA1 mount adapter. This allows users to enjoy the wide AF coverage of 399 focal plane phase-detection AF points, high-speed response and high tracking performance with a wider range of lenses. This marks the first time that the AF system of a mirrorless camera can achieve high performance with lenses originally designed for DSLRs.</p>
<p><strong>5-Axis Image Stabilization Optimized for 42.4 MP

</strong>The new flagship α7R II model is equipped with an innovative 5-axis image stabilization system that has been fine-tuned to support its high-resolution shooting capacity. Similar to the system launched on the acclaimed α7 II model, this advanced form of image stabilization corrects camera shake along five axes during shooting, including angular shake (pitch and yaw) that tends to occur with a telephoto lens, shift shake (X and Y axes) which becomes noticeable as magnification increases, and rotational shake (roll) that often affects video recording. This camera shake compensation system is equivalent to shooting at a shutter speed approximately 4.5 steps faster<span class="green">5</span>.</p>
<p>Additionally, the 5-axis stabilization works cooperatively with Sony α lenses with optical SteadyShot™ (OSS) to provide maximum stabilization and clarity, while also performing admirably via a compatible mount adapter with Sony α A-mount lenses6 without on-board stabilization. Effects of the stabilization can be previewed via live-view on the LCD or OLED viewfinder of the camera.</p>
<p><strong>Unrivaled 4K Movie Shooting Performance

</strong>The impressive video credentials of Sony’s new α7R II camera include the ability to record movies in 4K quality (QFHD 3840×2160) in either Super 35mm crop mode or full-frame mode.</p>
<p>In Super 35mm mode, the camera collects a wealth of information from approximately 1.8x as many pixels as 4K by using full pixel readout without pixel binning and oversamples the information to produce 4K movies with minimal moire and ‘jaggies’.</p>
<p>In full-frame mode, the α7RII utilizes the full width of the 35mm sensor for 4K recording, allowing users to utilize the expanded expressive power of the sensor.  It is the world’s first digital camera to offer this in-camera full-frame format 4K recording capacity<span class="green">1</span>.</p>
<p>The camera utilizes the advanced XAVC S7 codec during video shooting, which records at a high bit rate of 100 Mbps during 4K recording and 50 Mbps during full HD shooting.</p>
<p>Additionally, the α7RII model features a variety of functions to support a professional video workflow including Picture Profile, S-Log2 Gamma and S-Gamut, 120fps high frame rate movie shooting in HD (720p), time code, clean HDMI output and more.</p>
<p><strong>Enhanced Design, Operability and Reliability

</strong>The new full-frame α7RII has an upgraded XGA OLED Tru-Finder™ with a double-sided aspherical lens that delivers the world’s highest viewfinder magnification<span class="green">3</span> of 0.78x for crystal clear image preview and playback across the entire display area. ZEISS® T* Coating is also utilized to reduce unwanted reflections that interfere with the shooting experience.</p>
<p>The camera has an extremely solid, professional feel in-hand thanks to its light, rigid magnesium alloy design, and has a re-designed grip and shutter button compared to its predecessor.  There is also a new mechanism to conveniently lock the mode dial, and an expanded range of customizable functions and buttons to suit the most demanding photographers.</p>
<p>The new α7R II camera is Wi-Fi® and NFC compatible and fully functional with Sony’s PlayMemories Mobile™ application available for Android™ and iOS platforms, as well as Sony’s growing range of PlayMemories Camera Apps™, which add a range of creative capabilities to the camera.  For example, there is more creativity available now for time-lapse photography thanks to a new “Angle Shift add-on” app allows users to easily add pan, tilt and zoom to time-lapse images without any additional shooting equipment or PC software required.  Learn more at <a href="http://www.sony.net/pmca" target="article-8917769536">www.sony.net/pmca</a>.</p>
<p>Sony has also introduced a new LCD monitor model CLM-FHD5, an ideal companion to the α7R II for video shooting.  A compact 5.0 type Full HD (1920x1080p) LCD monitor, the CLM-FHD5 features enlarging and peaking functionality for precise focusing, false color and video level marker for adjusting exposure and S-Log display assist to assist S-Log shooting.</p>
<p><strong>Pricing and Availability

</strong>The Sony α7R II full-frame interchangeable lens camera will be available in August for about $3200 at<a href="http://www.store.sony.com/" target="article-8917769536">www.store.sony.com</a> and a variety of Sony authorized dealers nationwide.</p>
<p>The α7R II is compatible with Sony’s growing lineup of α -mount lenses, which now totals 63 different models including 12 native ‘FE’ full frame lenses.  By early 2016, Sony will add an additional 8 new lenses to its FE full frame lineup, bringing the FE total to 20 lenses and the overall α -mount assortment to 70 different models.</p>
<p>A variety of exclusive stories and exciting new content shot with the flagship α7RII camera and other Sony α products can be found at <a href="http://www.sony.com/alpha" target="article-8917769536">www.sony.com/alpha</a>, Sony’s new community site built to educate, inspire and showcase all fans and customers of the Sony α brand.</p>
<p>The new content will also be posted directly at Sony global sites <a href="https://www.youtube.com/c/ImagingbySony" target="article-8917769536">https://www.youtube.com/c/ImagingbySony</a>and <a href="https://www.sony.net/Product/di_photo_gallery/" target="article-8917769536">https://www.sony.net/Product/di_photo_gallery/</a>.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1159878-REG/sony_a7r_mark_ii_digital.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">Preorder the Sony A7R II Camera Body $3198</a> </strong>(You can purchase on June 17, 2015 at 11AM EST)</p>
```


----------



## msm (Jun 10, 2015)

Yay, my next camera finally got announced!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 10, 2015)

Well that has thrown the cat amongst the pigeons, FF back-illuminated. Canon will have to do something serious now, roll on the 1DX MkII and the 5D MkIV.


----------



## R1-7D (Jun 10, 2015)

What does back illumination do?


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 10, 2015)

R1-7D said:


> What does back illumination do?



By the looks of it, it'll improve high ISO performance, which is important for high resolution sensors.


----------



## PureClassA (Jun 10, 2015)

R1-7D said:


> What does back illumination do?



Sensitivity with less noise. High MP means smaller photosites, means less light gathering, means lesser performance at upper ISOs. Hence the Canon limit of 6400 on the 5DS. Sony found a way around this. Canon did not.

$3200 plus $400 for a metabones EF adapter.... not bad. Looks like a fantastic landscaper and general use (not fast sports or wildlife)


----------



## dolina (Jun 10, 2015)

Thank you Sony! I hope more competition will get Canon to offer bodies (mind you not lenses) superior or at par with Sony products.


----------



## raptor3x (Jun 10, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> $3200 *plus $400 for a metabones EF adapter*.... not bad. Looks like a fantastic landscaper and general use (not fast sports or wildlife)



Maybe if we get lucky then Kipon will start offering a higher quality adapter like the EF to m43 adapter they just released.


----------



## bereninga (Jun 10, 2015)

This is exciting news. I wonder what Canon's next move will be. It seems like Canon is way ahead in the lens game and not the sensor game. Where as Sony is vice versa (for now). Sony does have nice, Zeiss glass, but w/ premium prices vs what you can get for Canon. Sony's Zeiss 50mm 1.8 goes for $1k where as Canon 50mm 1.8 STM goes for $125.


----------



## bgran8 (Jun 10, 2015)

This sounds awesome. I think I'll be getting one and likely selling my 5dii, lenses, and flash. I just wish Sony's native 24-70 was close to Canon's in performance.


----------



## msm (Jun 10, 2015)

bereninga said:


> This is exciting news. I wonder what Canon's next move will be. It seems like Canon is way ahead in the lens game and not the sensor game. Where as Sony is vice versa (for now). Sony does have nice, Zeiss glass, but w/ premium prices vs what you can get for Canon. Sony's Zeiss 50mm 1.8 goes for $1k where as Canon 50mm 1.8 STM goes for $125.



I wouldn't compare the Zony 55/1.8 also known as the baby Otus to the entry level 50 1.8STM.


----------



## NancyP (Jun 10, 2015)

Electronic first curtain shutter! Finally.


----------



## PureClassA (Jun 10, 2015)

Just watched the 4k demo from it (internal 4k). Wow. ISO 3200 looked pretty. I wonder if they locked s-Log2 to 3200 ISO like they did in the A7S. Also love that they built in a super 35 mode for video with zero bining (a la a7s)


----------



## psolberg (Jun 10, 2015)

GO SONY!

Man I can't get enough of this company. Bam! backlit CMOS, Full frame, and to top it off, how do you like 4K video! oh, 399 AF points 8)


----------



## Sunnystate (Jun 10, 2015)




----------



## psolberg (Jun 10, 2015)

Also, basically this is likely the Nikon D820 sensor. The question is, will the Nikon data pipeline and additional optimizations yield superior quality as it was the case of the prior A7R vs D8xx? Mostly Sony's RAWs did not have the depth of the Nikon 14 Bit RAW NEFs. If there is ONE thing I pick on the A7R was the choices sony made in the handling of the data. 

Looking at the base floor ISO of 100, I wonder if Nikon will re-tune it for dynamic range and continue the trend of the 810 towards ISO64, maybe even ISO32


----------



## rfdesigner (Jun 10, 2015)

Back illuminated?.. yes please!!!

I do hope the gates are deep enough (for decent 700~1100nm NIR) if so then I might just take one and pull out the IR filter for astro.

here is what I think of when I see back illuminated:

http://www.andor.com/pdfs/specifications/Apogee_Alta_F230_Specifications.pdf

See the graph on the second page, 100% QE is typically as much as you can get.


----------



## exquisitor (Jun 10, 2015)

I wonder how much actually will bring the backlit sensor in this case. Samsung NX1 high ISO performance is definitely better then others Samsung APS-C cameras, but it still can't outperform Nikon D7200 or Canon 7D II. And this is even with smaller pixel than Sony 7R II has. As it known, the bigger the pixel the smaller the benefit of the BSI.


----------



## e_honda (Jun 10, 2015)

Looks like I'll be skipping out on whatever 5D4 that Canon announces and just get this thing with a metabones adapter.

This thing looks too good to pass up on.


----------



## psolberg (Jun 10, 2015)

I'm no video guru, and I certainly don't think youtube is a great source, but

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jor_WkheaE

WOW.


----------



## Sunnystate (Jun 10, 2015)

House fanbois must be attending some kind of conference on how to attack the new beast... 
Deafening silence!
LOL


----------



## psolberg (Jun 10, 2015)

Sunnystate said:


> House fanbois must be attending some kind of conference on how to attack the new beast...
> Deafening silence!
> LOL



;D Accelerated training on the drawbacks of back side illuminated CMOS 101 just got popular.


----------



## LukasS (Jun 10, 2015)

Sunnystate said:


> House fanbois must be attending some kind of conference on how to attack the new beast...
> Deafening silence!
> LOL


Sorry to disappoint you - couldn't care less for sony , but I'm glad that there are people who are excited about this camera. I still will do my photos with outdated classic 5d .


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 10, 2015)

*Back-Illuminated Sensor From Canon?*


```
<p>There is a lot of excitement today surrounding <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2015/06/sonys-new-%CE%B17r-ii-camera-delivers-innovative-imaging-experience-with-worlds-first-back-illuminated-35mm-full-frame-sensor/" target="_blank">Sony’s announcement of the a7R II camera body</a>. Sony has introduced the first backlit full frame image sensor, which comes in at 42.4mp.</p>
<p>About Sony’s Backlit Sensor:</p>
<blockquote><p>… the sensor’s back-illuminated structure, with an expanded circuit scale and copper wiring design, enables faster transmission speed and ensures content can be captured in high resolution without sacrificing sensitivity.  Data can also be output from the sensor at an approximately 3.5x faster rate compared to the original α7R.</p></blockquote>
<p>Many are already wondering if this is something Canon has been working? The answer is yes, <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/01/patent-large-back-illuminated-sensor/" target="_blank">we’ve seen Canon patents in the past</a> that talk about back-illuminated sensors.</p>
<p>We haven’t heard anything about this sort of technology appearing in an upcoming Canon DSLR. However, we have been told that we will see “big strides” in high ISO performance on the next generation full frame professional cameras, namely the EOS-1D X Mark II and EOS 5D Mark IV.</p>
<p>Kudos to Sony on what appears to be a terrific update to the A7R.</p>
```


----------



## K-amps (Jun 10, 2015)

psolberg said:


> Sunnystate said:
> 
> 
> > House fanbois must be attending some kind of conference on how to attack the new beast...
> ...



;D

The usual... reliable AF tracking/ Keeper rate like everyone wants 100% keeps blazing at 14fps.... I am very happy for Sony. I just hope Canon licenses this sensor for 5d4... or heck even the 1dxII. I love my Canon glass... stuck between a rock and hard place.


----------



## LOALTD (Jun 10, 2015)

I'm actually pretty shocked at how full-featured this camera is! I didn't expect in-body 4k on an "R" model.


What is there left to improve upon for the A7S II?


----------



## K-amps (Jun 10, 2015)

Bring it on Canon !!!


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 10, 2015)

LOALTD said:


> I'm actually pretty shocked at how full-featured this camera is! I didn't expect in-body 4k on an "R" model.
> 
> 
> What is there left to improve upon for the A7S II?



7 digit max ISO. ;D


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 10, 2015)

Sunnystate said:


> House fanbois must be attending some kind of conference on how to attack the new beast...
> Deafening silence!
> LOL



I am generally considered a "fanboi" or Canon apologist, though I don't know why, and I was second to post.


----------



## RobertG. (Jun 10, 2015)

I'm really excited about this new camera. Finally it seems like a really innovative alternative to Canon's trusted and established sensor design. I'm shooting mainly landscapes, travel and portraits, so 5 FPS is more than sufficient and slow autofocus doesn't matter much. I'm still shooting a 5D II, so I guess the A7rII won't perform worse in regards to autofocus with Sony's news FE lenses. I'll sell some of my EF lenses to partially fund this new camera. But the 5D II will stay, at least for a while.


----------



## bgran8 (Jun 10, 2015)

Does anyone know if Sony improved their RAW file handling for this version vs. the A7R?


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 10, 2015)

I wonder if this is the sensor that Pentax will be using in their up coming FF camera at the end of the year. Not that I think it will make any difference to low ISO on FF. I sure hope it's better than the Sony Exmor fitted camera that I took along side the Canon with me to Snowdonia last week. Boy is that sensor over rated. It's certainly no silver bullet.


----------



## ritholtz (Jun 10, 2015)

My Samsung phone has this type of sensor. Samsung calls it ISOSELL sell. Samsung claimed 20% improvement in light gathering ability. Probably this is the tech brings next level of improvements in sensors.


----------



## PureClassA (Jun 10, 2015)

This just makes me want to wait more for the A7S II. I really love the idea of having a native non-binning 4k camera for video that is full frame and not Super 35. Prefer to have my lenses focal length be true on the sensor. And yes CR, 7 digit ISOs. Sony is only 2 stops away now with the a7S. Global shutter would be nice too. This also bodes extremely well for internal 4k on it too with what looks to be a nice codec short of ProRes


----------



## PureClassA (Jun 10, 2015)

And yes, backlit DPAF sensor with 100+ real AF points (not 5000000 phase whatever) that can track and burst at 14+ FPS .... That's what Canon COULD do that no one else can. 1DX2 should be a real gem.


----------



## gsealy (Jun 10, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Just watched the 4k demo from it (internal 4k). Wow. ISO 3200 looked pretty. I wonder if they locked s-Log2 to 3200 ISO like they did in the A7S. Also love that they built in a super 35 mode for video with zero bining (a la a7s)



It also supports clean HDMI out for external recording, presumably to an Atomos. 

Given these specs and the price point I have to give it some serious consideration. The usual problem with low priced 4K cameras has been the low light quality. But now this is a game-changer with this sensor. 

Just saying though, I don't care much for the YT 4K. The 4K demo I saw for this camera looked a heck of a lot better at 720P. I am on a very high speed Internet pipe and the 4K YT setting looks awful.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 10, 2015)

For FF sensors, the back illuminated advantage is a higher frame rate for video, Canon has some patents for this as well, but just studies everything to death.

The camera sounds good on paper, but I'll wait for professional reviews, there are usually some nasty things found when knowledgable photography testers start looking closely.


----------



## brianleighty (Jun 10, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> This just makes me want to wait more for the A7S II. I really love the idea of having a native non-binning 4k camera for video that is full frame and not Super 35. Prefer to have my lenses focal length be true on the sensor. And yes CR, 7 digit ISOs. Sony is only 2 stops away now with the a7S. Global shutter would be nice too. This also bodes extremely well for internal 4k on it too with what looks to be a nice codec short of ProRes



From their press release, it sounds like you have to decide between not-binning or only doing super-35 can't do both full frame and no binning


----------



## LOALTD (Jun 10, 2015)

Just so I don't get my pwecious wittle hopes too high up:


Have we seen it 100% confirmed that the IBIS works with 4k recording?


I'd ASSume it does...but we all know about assuming. There have been some cameras recently that only have image stabilization for 1080p...and only say so in the fine print.


----------



## Frage (Jun 10, 2015)

What is this camera going to do to 5Ds sells?


----------



## hoodlum (Jun 10, 2015)

bgran8 said:


> Does anyone know if Sony improved their RAW file handling for this version vs. the A7R?



Apparently not.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2015/06/10/sony-rx10-ii-rx100-iv-and-a7r-ii-announced-were-blogging-live-from-the-pres

Q: what about lossless compression or un-compressed RAW files for the a7r2?
A: I checked with the product planner for the A7R II - the compression scheme is the same as in the past, no option for uncompressed


----------



## drjlo (Jun 10, 2015)

Frage said:


> What is this camera going to do to 5Ds sells?



Personally, I hope the Sony A7r II announcement absolutely KILLS the Canon sales, which is the ONLY way Canon executives will wake up from their collective clouds and actually do something innovative for once. 

As I own 5D III with a gazillion Canon lenses as well as Sony A7r, I have some thinking to do.. :'(


----------



## Barnett (Jun 10, 2015)

> However, we have been told that we will see “big strides” in high ISO performance...



So does that mean we can forget about Canon catching up on low ISO performance, ie dynamic range?


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 10, 2015)

Hehehe! Just love this sony a7R ii announcement. 
Take this, mirrorslappers ...
Take this, oh so incredibly "innovative" Canon ...
Left in the dust. Sony and ff mirrorless on full throttle. Just love it. Now a few more good FE lenses at reasonable prices without zeiss badge and i am game. Anyways, 5d iii was definitely my last dslr-mirrorslapper. Goodbye Flipping mirrors!


----------



## slclick (Jun 10, 2015)

We need Sony sensors, with Canon Glass and AF in a Leica body (drooling over the Q) with Nikon......um....erm......models?

http://img.xcitefun.net/users/2008/04/2541,xcitefun-nikon-coolpix.jpg


----------



## Monchoon (Jun 10, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Hehehe! Just love this sony a7R ii announcement.
> Take this, mirrorslappers ...
> Take this, oh so incredibly "innovative" Canon ...
> Left in the dust. Sony and ff mirrorless on full throttle. Just love it. Now a few more good FE lenses at reasonable prices without zeiss badge and i am game. Anyways, 5d iii was definitely my last dslr-mirrorslapper. Goodbye Flipping mirrors!



So does that mean you will stop posting here?


----------



## 9VIII (Jun 10, 2015)

Wow, the future is here. McFly may have had a hoverboard, but BSI full frame sensors is good enough.

I'll be picking one up just as soon as they make a high quality 400mm E mount lens and Sigma starts making E mount Art lenses...
(I'm still betting Fuji is going to have a decent mirrorless BIF setup before Sony does.)


----------



## 9VIII (Jun 10, 2015)

I guess the big news here is just that someone has made a full frame BSI sensor. If Sony can do it, hopefully everyone else will too.


----------



## SwnSng (Jun 10, 2015)

I love that Sony keeps innovating and keeps Canon somewhat honest. Imagine how much slower Canon would introduce their market lineup if they were the only show in town?

This camera makes it tempting but I am looking for one body and unless this thing gets Rave reviews of being able to handle Team sports without an issue I will admire it from afar while waiting to see what the 5DMKIV has in store.


----------



## kenny (Jun 10, 2015)

hoodlum said:


> bgran8 said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone know if Sony improved their RAW file handling for this version vs. the A7R?
> ...



Another quote from that page: "Mark Weir told me that the A7R II can focus Canon lenses faster than Canon bodies."

If true, whoa.


----------



## Sportsgal501 (Jun 10, 2015)

I guess that Fuji XT1 I was eyeing this fall just got pushed into choice #2.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 10, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Take this, mirrorslappers ...



Well, it seems the a7RII has the same lossy not-RAW RAW files as the a7R. I wonder if it will be a shutterslapper like its predecessor. 




AvTvM said:


> Take this, oh so incredibly "innovative" Canon ...
> Left in the dust. Sony and ff mirrorless on full throttle.



I'd bet the 5Ds leaves the a7RII in the dust for unit sales. 




AvTvM said:


> Now a few more good FE lenses at reasonable prices without zeiss badge and i am game.



If only, if only...someday, the grass really will be greener. If only...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 11, 2015)

I'm wondering it it has the plastic lens mount that sparked third party sales of a metal lens mount.

So many people believe specification sheets published by PR companies.

Wait for actual tests and results. Then, if its worth it to have 3 month turn-around for repairs, go for it.


----------



## emko (Jun 11, 2015)

benperrin said:


> emko said:
> 
> 
> > its about the same resolution as the 5Ds and yet it can do a lot more, higher ISO,higher DR,4K video,60fps 1080p,120fps 720p, 5ds is just a 7Dii sensor but larger Canon is just milking old tech for these idiots who keep buying it.
> ...



idiots because CANON could add all that and more but because we keep buying what ever they sell us they will keep doing this. Only thing that will stop this is competition that drives Canon to step up because people will start to go to Sony or other companies.

It has better DR,ISO,VIDEO etc just because you don't use higher ISO does not mean Canon should just sell you a product like this when other Companies are making the best Camera possible, Canon right now is a joke clearly trying to make every penny of us before they are forced to do something.


----------



## emko (Jun 11, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'm wondering it it has the plastic lens mount that sparked third party sales of a metal lens mount.
> 
> So many people believe specification sheets published by PR companies.
> 
> Wait for actual tests and results. Then, if its worth it to have 3 month turn-around for repairs, go for it.



hahaha you got to find one thing Canon is good at  probably will be worth the " 3 month turn-around for repair" can't see the point of the 5Ds now this thing beats it in every way plus you can use your Canon glass on it.


----------



## benperrin (Jun 11, 2015)

emko said:


> idiots because CANON could add all that and more but because we keep buying what ever they sell us they will keep doing this. Only thing that will stop this is competition that drives Canon to step up because people will start to go to Sony or other companies.
> 
> It has better DR,ISO,VIDEO etc just because you don't use higher ISO does not mean Canon should just sell you a product like this when other Companies are making the best Camera possible, Canon right now is a joke clearly trying to make every penny of us before they are forced to do something.


Once again what a condescending comment. You are assuming that I am buying a camera that Canon is forcing on me yet I've done the comparisons myself and concluded that the 5dsr is the right camera for me. Just because it doesn't fit your needs doesn't mean it isn't a good fit for others. Canon is NOT a joke right now. They are behind in a couple of areas but are more capable than they've ever been. This logic of needing the latest camera to take good images needs to stop. If you can't take a good picture with a Canon product then the problem is with YOU. If you want to jump to Sony well then good luck to you, they are making some fantastic products.


----------



## zlatko (Jun 11, 2015)

When the "Canon is not innovative" chorus starts up, I sometimes trot out a list of Canon innovations and Canon products that have no competitor. But sometimes I just say: why bother?


----------



## drjlo (Jun 11, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Wait for actual tests and results. Then, if its worth it to have 3 month turn-around for repairs, go for it.



THAT is a very valid point, in addition to how Sony Service charges exorbitantly higher prices than CaNikon for similar repairs. 

What's stopping me, practically-speaking, is how Sony still does not make any wireless triggers for even their own speedlites, much less any RT products, and how they still do not have pro-grade flagship speedlites that dont' overheat (HVL-F60M). Sony, are you listening?


----------



## benperrin (Jun 11, 2015)

zlatko said:


> When the "Canon is not innovative" chorus starts up, I sometimes trot out a list of Canon innovations and Canon products that have no competitor. But sometimes I just say: why bother?


It is the mature response to the problem.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jun 11, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Take this, mirrorslappers ...
> ...



I was waiting for when this guy would show up, with his unwavering CANON IS THE BEST fanboy bla bla bla as usual. "Ya, well...unit sales!!!" is all this guys has these days.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2015)

emko said:


> idiots because CANON could add all that and more but because we keep buying what ever they sell us they will keep doing this. Only thing that will stop this is competition that drives Canon to step up because people will start to go to Sony or other companies.
> 
> It has better DR,ISO,VIDEO etc just because you don't use higher ISO does not mean Canon should just sell you a product like this when other Companies are making the best Camera possible...



Or...what _you_ think is important and how _you_ define best for _yourself_ is different than the majority of ILC buyers. 

Naah, couldn't be. We've already established that you're the expert. 

Expert troll, that is. : : :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2015)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> bla bla bla



That about sums up your post. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Tugela (Jun 11, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> emko said:
> 
> 
> > ...Canon is just milking old tech for these idiots who keep buying it.
> ...



They will keep on using what they have always been using. That doesn't mean what they are using is better, it just means they don't like change.

The situation is like IBM when PC's first arrived on the scene. People bought mainframes because they were "professionals" and didn't see the point of PCs. They thought it was just a fad, toys for the home. They were too conservative, did not want to embrace a new way of doing things. How many people use mainframes now days? Not that many. PCs on the other hand are everywhere. They were successful because they were flexible, accessible and affordable. They could do it all and they could do it anywhere.

That is what is going to happen in photography. Canon and Nikon are the IBMs of the imaging world, and they will go the way of IBM unless they adopt the technology of the future. It might not happen overnight, but it will happen.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2015)

Tugela said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > emko said:
> ...



Still seeing that imaginary upward trend in mirrorless sales, are you? :


----------



## tron (Jun 11, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> LOALTD said:
> 
> 
> > I'm actually pretty shocked at how full-featured this camera is! I didn't expect in-body 4k on an "R" model.
> ...


20 stops DR ;D ;D ;D


----------



## meywd (Jun 11, 2015)

zlatko said:


> When the "Canon is not innovative" chorus starts up, I sometimes trot out a list of Canon innovations and Canon products that have no competitor. But sometimes I just say: why bother?



exactly, the only time a Sony camera was tempting were when the a7R pricing was @ $199 I Thought I would buy a couple, keep one and sell the other for lenses, I was always a fan of Sony's TVs and Walkmans, also the Play Station is amazing, Final Fantasy Rocks, but when it came to smartphones and Cameras they lack, yes sure now they have a good Sensor technology, but give it some time and every camera maker will have the same.


----------



## Krob78 (Jun 11, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


I'm not sure what his point is Neuro. Didn't IBM do like $90,000,000,000 last year? Yeah, I think it was somewhere close to $90 Billion Dollars... Could be wrong but it sounds like to me, he's saying Canon & Nikon are doing pretty good... ???


----------



## meywd (Jun 11, 2015)

Krob78 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...



Until only few years back when Apple started making huge profit on the iPhone, IBM was the #1 technology company, and even now it still is, Apple's profit is from smartphones, which really doesn't count.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2015)

meywd said:


> Krob78 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure what his point is Neuro. Didn't IBM do like $90,000,000,000 last year? Yeah, I think it was somewhere close to $90 Billion Dollars... Could be wrong but it sounds like to me, he's saying Canon & Nikon are doing pretty good... ???
> ...



The moral: never let the facts get in the way of your analogy...


----------



## Krob78 (Jun 11, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > Krob78 said:
> ...


Indeed!


----------



## LOALTD (Jun 11, 2015)

For all the "Canon is doing well"/"selling millions of cameras"/"making billions of dollars" folks:


They actually aren't even doing very well financially.


Canon stock is worth less now than it was 5 years ago.


If you invested $100, 5 years ago, in:


The stock market: you'd have $192
Sony Electronics: you'd have $105
Canon: you'd have $83


If you had invested $100, 1 year ago:
Stock market: $108 
Sony: $186
Canon: $104


Sony stock is up 86% from a year ago, Canon is up 4%, and the stock market as a whole is up 8%.


Not sure why some of y'all consider Canon a financially brilliant, unshakable company. Their stock isn't even worth what it was 5 years ago, and in the past year they haven't even out-performed the market as a whole. Not anything to be proud of. I would never invest in Canon. (and yes, Nikon is even worse, I didn't include them because, unlike Canon and Sony, they are not on the NYSE, making direct comparisons more problematic)


Can we please retire this "Canon has great financials, therefor their products are infallible" logic now?


----------



## jcarapet (Jun 11, 2015)

I am continually impressed with what sony has to offer. The market returns show that. If you continually develop bleeding edge tech innovations and push things forward, people are going to eventually notice. Excluding the Samsung game changer I am waiting to see. 

This is where I wait for my Sony oriented Cousin to get the itch and take this for a test run ;D


----------



## Krob78 (Jun 11, 2015)

LOALTD said:


> For all the "Canon is doing well"/"selling millions of cameras"/"making billions of dollars" folks:
> 
> 
> They actually aren't even doing very well financially.
> ...


Not sure where you got the "financially brilliant, unshakable company" idea from... My comment was about IBM making over $90 billion dollars last year, not anything about Canon. My comment was directed at some troll that made the insidious comparison of Canon & Nikon to IBM as he lamented about how IBM has practically diminished from the Earth now and Canon & Nikon will do the same... Probably not so much... 

That said, I think Sony is making great strides and look forward to seeing what they do with the A7S II...


----------



## benperrin (Jun 11, 2015)

jcarapet said:


> This is where I wait for my Sony oriented Cousin to get the itch and take this for a test run ;D


Oh that's nice to know someone like that. All my friends have canon gear which is kind of annoying because they want to borrow stuff from me and I don't want to borrow anything from them. We all need a friend with different gear I think.


----------



## Aglet (Jun 11, 2015)

benperrin said:


> jcarapet said:
> 
> 
> > This is where I wait for my Sony oriented Cousin to get the itch and take this for a test run ;D
> ...



Friends, with bayonet-fits?..


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 11, 2015)

This is good news for FF mirrorless shooters 

A7rII looks like a general to landscape body. My 2cents: A7sII could become a sport camera with faster fps and much cleaner in higher ISO. 

*I would love to see a7sII with:*
1. same AF system as a7rII(or better)
2. 8-12fps
3. Even clearner in high ISO than current a7s
4. 20-24MP

To attract DSLR shooters, Sony/Zeiss needs to have even more native lenses, especially in ultra wide, 135mm and 200mm range. I don't mind spending more $$$ for higher quality lenses - same or better IQ than FE 55mm. I REALLY can't wait to hand on my Batis 25 and 85.

am I asking too much?


----------



## Woody (Jun 11, 2015)

I was initially excited about the prospects of getting a high performing FF mirrorless camera from Sony, without the typical weight of a DSLR... until I read that the A7RII weighed 625 g (with battery and memory card)... throw in the weight (193 g) of the metabones adapter and the weight advantage is gone instantly... sigh...

Nevertheless, it's great to see the strides that Sony has made in sensor technology and mirrorless AF fronts. Kudos to Sony. One day, when they've got all the equivalent Canon lenses and offer them at reasonable prices, a complete switch is definitely in the cards for me.


----------



## emko (Jun 11, 2015)

it would be like Canon releasing 2 5Ds one with higher DR,ISO,better VIDEO etc, people here would for some reason want the lower ISO,DR lower video quality and resolution. How can people be like this? such fans of a company they blindingly defend it even when the company is clearly ripping you OFF.

If Sony can do all this at cheaper price you people still defend Canons crap its unbelievable, OH 5D2 is sooo amazing it does 1080p video OMG wowow, NOW who cares we don't need video we don't need 4K video you guys act like children. Then Canon releases a damn Camera that can do 4K for 9000$ hahah come on how can you people not see CANON is ripping you guys off so bad.

I want everything that Sony sensor does better IN A CANON is that wrong? why would i want a 5Ds when it cant shoot past 6400iso? if it could do higher ISO like the A7RII i would of bought it even with the lower DR it has.

Watch the next Nikon will use this sensor and then the 5ds will be even a bigger joke.


----------



## benperrin (Jun 11, 2015)

Aglet said:


> benperrin said:
> 
> 
> > jcarapet said:
> ...



Haha. Great call.


----------



## Woody (Jun 11, 2015)

Does the Sony A7RII offer touchscreen?


----------



## benperrin (Jun 11, 2015)

Woody said:


> Does the Sony A7RII offer touchscreen?


No, it's a tilt screen like previous versions.


----------



## Krob78 (Jun 11, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> This is good news for FF mirrorless shooters
> 
> A7rII looks like a general to landscape body. My 2cents: A7sII could become a sport camera with faster fps and much cleaner in higher ISO.
> 
> ...


That's exactly what I'd like to see in an A7s II also Dylan. That would be one heck of a mirrorless camera! I'm waiting...


----------



## Krob78 (Jun 11, 2015)

Woody said:


> I was initially excited about the prospects of getting a high performing FF mirrorless camera from Sony, without the typical weight of a DSLR... until I read that the A7RII weighed 625 g (with battery and memory card)... throw in the weight (193 g) of the metabones adapter and the weight advantage is gone instantly... sigh...
> 
> Nevertheless, it's great to see the strides that Sony has made in sensor technology and mirrorless AF fronts. Kudos to Sony. One day, when they've got all the equivalent Canon lenses and offer them at reasonable prices, a complete switch is definitely in the cards for me.


In the meantime, there's still the metabones adapter...


----------



## benperrin (Jun 11, 2015)

Krob78 said:


> In the meantime, there's still the metabones adapter...


I'm actually quite interested to see what autofocus is like with Canon lenses and the metabones. The AF was the major reason I didn't buy the a7r but not the only reason. It does look like they've tried quite hard with this camera and done a good job.


----------



## Peer (Jun 11, 2015)

LOALTD said:


> I'm actually pretty shocked at how full-featured this camera is! I didn't expect in-body 4k on an "R" model.



Yep, and with peaking and zebras too. 

-- peer


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2015)

emko said:


> it would be like Canon releasing 2 5Ds one with higher DR,ISO,better VIDEO etc, people here would for some reason want the lower ISO,DR lower video quality and resolution. How can people be like this?
> ...even a bigger joke.



Statements like that make you seem like the joke here. 




emko said:


> I want everything that Sony sensor does better IN A CANON is that wrong?



It's not wrong at all. Wish for that in one hand, sh!t in the other. Let us know which fills up first.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 11, 2015)

LOALTD said:


> For all the "Canon is doing well"/"selling millions of cameras"/"making billions of dollars" folks:
> 
> They actually aren't even doing very well financially.
> 
> ...



Since you seem to follow this more closely than I do (I don't own any Canon stock) did your calculation include dividends? Because many of the mutual funds and stocks that I do own have seen flat or declining prices, but that's because they've paid out dividends. If you reinvest those dividends, the actual earnings are much better than the stock prices indicate. So, I'm just curious, does your calculation include the value of dividends reinvested? Just wondering.


----------



## 9VIII (Jun 11, 2015)

Tugela said:


> That is what is going to happen in photography. Canon and Nikon are the IBMs of the imaging world...



Successful enough that the consumer market wasn't even worth serving anymore.

He may be right though, Canon absolutely does not need to make consumer devices.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 11, 2015)

Said it before, will say it again – you can't equate best technology with success. In fact, the track record in most industries is that "best" technology generally loses out to "good enough" technology in the marketplace. (Ask Sony about Betamax or maybe a more appropriate example might be how cell phones have become the dominant picture-taking devices.

It great to see any company innovating. I'm happy when Sony innovates. I'm happy when Nikon innovates. I'm happy when Canon innovates. It moves the standards ahead and I will ultimately benefit. But, I also don't get that excited about individual technology steps. It's not a race where the "best" technology carries some prize. It's the overall product that people buy. 

Given the price of this new camera and the fact that I don't own a single lens that fits it, I can't really give it much more than a "meh." But then again, I have a long list of existing Canon products that I would like to buy first, so by the time I can consider a replacement for my 5DIII, I imagine the 5DIV or even 5DV might be available.


----------



## benperrin (Jun 11, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Said it before, will say it again – you can't equate best technology with success. In fact, the track record in most industries is that "best" technology generally loses out to "good enough" technology in the marketplace. (Ask Sony about Betamax or maybe a more appropriate example might be how cell phones have become the dominant picture-taking devices.
> 
> It great to see any company innovating. I'm happy when Sony innovates. I'm happy when Nikon innovates. I'm happy when Canon innovates. It moves the standards ahead and I will ultimately benefit. But, I also don't get that excited about individual technology steps. It's not a race where the "best" technology carries some prize. It's the overall product that people buy.
> 
> Given the price of this new camera and the fact that I don't own a single lens that fits it, I can't really give it much more than a "meh." But then again, I have a long list of existing Canon products that I would like to buy first, so by the time I can consider a replacement for my 5DIII, I imagine the 5DIV or even 5DV might be available.


+1 well said


----------



## emko (Jun 11, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Said it before, will say it again – you can't equate best technology with success. In fact, the track record in most industries is that "best" technology generally loses out to "good enough" technology in the marketplace. (Ask Sony about Betamax or maybe a more appropriate example might be how cell phones have become the dominant picture-taking devices.
> 
> It great to see any company innovating. I'm happy when Sony innovates. I'm happy when Nikon innovates. I'm happy when Canon innovates. It moves the standards ahead and I will ultimately benefit. But, I also don't get that excited about individual technology steps. It's not a race where the "best" technology carries some prize. It's the overall product that people buy.
> 
> Given the price of this new camera and the fact that I don't own a single lens that fits it, I can't really give it much more than a "meh." But then again, I have a long list of existing Canon products that I would like to buy first, so by the time I can consider a replacement for my 5DIII, I imagine the 5DIV or even 5DV might be available.



you can use a adapter for your Canon glass,someone said that it focus faster then Canon.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 11, 2015)

emko said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > ...Given the price of this new camera and the fact that I don't own a single lens that fits it, I can't really give it much more than a "meh." But then again, I have a long list of existing Canon products that I would like to buy first, so by the time I can consider a replacement for my 5DIII, I imagine the 5DIV or even 5DV might be available.
> ...



I think you've confused me with someone who cares.

I don't. 

But, since you raise it. Will it work with seamlessly with my 600 RTs (as in being able to adjust the strobes through the camera menu while on a shoot)? That's far more important to me. And, while we are on the topic, the last thing I want to do is learn a new set of menus, buttons, etc. If there ever comes a time when I can't take a decent picture because of my camera, I'll consider switching, but I seriously doubt that will ever happen.


----------



## emko (Jun 11, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> emko said:
> 
> 
> > it would be like Canon releasing 2 5Ds one with higher DR,ISO,better VIDEO etc, people here would for some reason want the lower ISO,DR lower video quality and resolution. How can people be like this?
> ...



Yea that's what i expect with 5D4 it will be sh!t, i mean if they had BSI or anything really they would of used it in the 5Ds just shows Canon are either stuck and cant figure out what to do or they are just stealing from people like you, release cameras with high price that are crap compared to the competition is what Canon does best right now.

I can bet you that 5d4 wont be even close to A7Rii or the next Nikon D8XX.

but you can keep defending them while they keep ripping of their customers and their competition keeps innovating 

Canon, want 4K video in a DSLR? well we will make you a special version of the 1DX for $9K so you can have 4K
while almost every other damn DSLR and mirror less are already doing 4K for a fraction of the price at even better IQ.


----------



## emko (Jun 11, 2015)

unfocused said:


> emko said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



the strobes problem is good question but the part about learning new menu/ buttons? come on its not like its made for scientists they make them as user friendly as possible i doubt it would take you more then 10mins to figure it out.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2015)

Apologies to the thread, I'm done feeding the troll. :-X


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 11, 2015)

emko said:


> If Sony can do all this at cheaper price



If Sony can do this all at a cheaper price, why can't they take market share from Canon? Truly, that's the bottom line: the reviews mean nothing, forum posts mean nothing. All that matters is profit and market share. Sony's marketing and sales staff must be EPIC FAIL if they can't take market share with such a superior product. (assuming it lives up to the spec sheet). And let's all hope they ditch the lossy "raw."

I hope Sony does sell a bunch of these to get some action from Canon, but I won't hold my breath: so far Sony, Nikon and others have proven themselves inferior where it really counts: making a profit.


----------



## sheedoe (Jun 11, 2015)

This just might be the next camera for me. I was planning to get the BMD URSA mini 4.6K for video and maybe the 5Ds r next year. This will meet the need for both and I save a ton of money. 

Granted, I would probably get a better image quality with the URSA's 4.6K sensor with 15 stops of DR and great color science, but A7R II's better low light capability, 5 axis stabilization and small form factor will enable me to get better and more creative shots. 

Looking forward to some great reviews.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 11, 2015)

Krob78 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > This is good news for FF mirrorless shooters
> ...



I might be the only one on CR site to have a7rII on pre-order tomorrow 

I might as well get 4K monitor for it


----------



## Hillsilly (Jun 11, 2015)

There's no point having the best technology without also having a plan. The Sony lens range is too flawed for many people (both in focal lengths and reputed image quality), and their recent lens mount changes don't instil confidence. Still, you get the impression that they are getting their act together. It'll be interesting to see where they are in another five year's time.

For those suggesting that you are an idiot for not switching to the brand with coolest camera this week, perhaps you could elaborate on the ideal Sony lens selections for a professional? I'm not seeing much that would excite me. I can't see too many wider aperture lenses. And it looks like they'd rather develop converters for wider angles rather than design lenses? LOL!


----------



## JClark (Jun 11, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> Krob78 said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



I'll be ordering one as it served a specific purpose for me - an ultra-high quality but very portable landscape/fine art body that can utilize my best canon glass. I have and use the current a7r frequently and I'm hopeful that the II should address the shutter shake issue.


----------



## simonxu11 (Jun 11, 2015)

Hands-on preview from DPReview:

*"PDAF will work even with third-party lenses via existing adapters, including in continuous AF tracking mode.

This is potentially a huge deal - especially for Canon users. We've used an a7R II with a Canon 24-70mm lens and a Metabones adapter, and focus is indeed very fast indeed. We'll be looking at this in more depth as soon as we have a production sample camera, but for now, we're highly impressed. Canon should expect some cancelled EOS 5DS orders..."
*

BUT...Canon sells BETTER ;D ;D


----------



## PureClassA (Jun 11, 2015)

Seems like a lot of hefty posturing on here about how some people think the Sony R2 has already just made the 5DSR obsolete. I'm sure the Sony will be a fine camera, but still preferring the Canon system for a number of legitimate reasons doesn't make one a Canon Fanboy who is blinded to all else. It also doesn't mean we think the Sony is trash or inferior. Some folks need to get over the fact that even though Sony is certainly producing better overall sensors, that doesn't mean the Canon cameras are instant second tier, nor does it mean Canon is dying on the vine. Canon may have become slower to bring their patents and innovations to market, but they still make fantastic gear, and certainly beat everyone else on their lens system, which is a huge factor.

I think we will indeed see major strides (regarding DR and IQ) in the stills like 1DX2 and 5D4 just as we recently have in the introduction of the C300 II on the cinema side. I think canon made what seems to be a very good studio camera in the 5DS and 5DSR (mine is scheduled to arrive next week as per Amazon). And it looks like Sony has really great stuff coming as well. They just don't have the lenses I desire, which is (in my opinion) a greater factor than the body.

Let's all just shoot and enjoy the gear we love. There is a camera for YOUR specific needs out there. Be it Canon, Sony, Nikon, Leica, Fuji, etc... go find it and shoot. Stop the bashing.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 11, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Hehehe! Just love this sony a7R ii announcement.
> Take this, mirrorslappers ...
> Take this, oh so incredibly "innovative" Canon ...
> Left in the dust. Sony and ff mirrorless on full throttle. Just love it. Now a few more good FE lenses at reasonable prices without zeiss badge and i am game. Anyways, 5d iii was definitely my last dslr-mirrorslapper. Goodbye Flipping mirrors!



Can I have your mirror slapping 5D III?


----------



## PureClassA (Jun 11, 2015)

Amen. Another point well made. I LOVE the sound of the mirror. I don't understand why some are so hateful of it. There's nothing like the rhythm of 12FPS from a 1DX in a multi second burst. I also love and prefer OVF to EVF. So do a LOT of people. DOesn't mean EVF sucks (granted some genuinely do). It's a preference. That's it. Why the bashing?



CanonFanBoy said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Hehehe! Just love this sony a7R ii announcement.
> ...


----------



## LOALTD (Jun 11, 2015)

unfocused said:


> LOALTD said:
> 
> 
> > For all the "Canon is doing well"/"selling millions of cameras"/"making billions of dollars" folks:
> ...




You are correct! These calculations assume the dividends are automatically reinvested in the stock. I used google finance.


----------



## emko (Jun 11, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> emko said:
> 
> 
> > If Sony can do all this at cheaper price
> ...



so you buy Canon because they sell more? wow , anyways Sony s sensors are selling way more then Canons in fact Sony cant even keep up with demand but who really cares about sales.

Its about the product not how much it sells or makes in profit,so if you want 4K video you will spend 9K just to have a damn CANON logo on your camera? while you can get 4K camera from another company for a fraction of the cost. 

" but I won't hold my breath: so far Sony, Nikon and others have proven themselves inferior where it really counts: making a profit." wow haha i see you buy products because they make more profit ? you really don't live in the real world more people are switching to smaller cameras like the A7R from Canon then are people with small cameras switching to Canon.

keep defending the company that rips you off its your choice


----------



## jrista (Jun 11, 2015)

If the rumors about the A7r II focusing Canon lenses quicky are true, I'm all-in. That would be amazing, especially if it worked with the 600mm f/4 (although I would still be looking for a higher frame rate body...maybe the NX1 will deliver in the end). I'm pretty happy that BSI sensors are hitting APS-C and FF formats now...time to stop wasting die space with obstructions, and get the full value of our sensor area. If this camera delivers low read noise at both low and high ISO settings with high dynamic range across the board...wow. I think I finally found my landscape camera, and possibly my all-arounder.


----------



## emko (Jun 11, 2015)

jrista said:


> If the rumors about the A7r II focusing Canon lenses quicky are true, I'm all-in. That would be amazing, especially if it worked with the 600mm f/4 (although I would still be looking for a higher frame rate body...maybe the NX1 will deliver in the end). I'm pretty happy that BSI sensors are hitting APS-C and FF formats now...time to stop wasting die space with obstructions, and get the full value of our sensor area. If this camera delivers low read noise at both low and high ISO settings with high dynamic range across the board...wow. I think I finally found my landscape camera, and possibly my all-arounder.



yea and i wish this was all in a DSLR maybe Nikon will use this sensor hopefully.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 11, 2015)

JClark said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Krob78 said:
> ...



The only reason that might hold me back from pre-order a7rII is 47MP. I love mirrorless. I'm currently shooting with a7s(12MP). I do not feel it lack of DR. Love the face and eye focus feature.


----------



## jrista (Jun 11, 2015)

emko said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > If the rumors about the A7r II focusing Canon lenses quicky are true, I'm all-in. That would be amazing, especially if it worked with the 600mm f/4 (although I would still be looking for a higher frame rate body...maybe the NX1 will deliver in the end). I'm pretty happy that BSI sensors are hitting APS-C and FF formats now...time to stop wasting die space with obstructions, and get the full value of our sensor area. If this camera delivers low read noise at both low and high ISO settings with high dynamic range across the board...wow. I think I finally found my landscape camera, and possibly my all-arounder.
> ...



I used to really want a D800 or D810 for lanscapes. These days, I'm not so sure I would really want the Nikon DSLR option. I actually really like the adaptability of mirrorless cameras. They are a little small, however for most of the use cases where I'd use an A7r II or A6000, I don't need a huge body. In many cases, a smaller body is better. The appeal of the D810, as nice as that camera's IQ is, has faded...it's just too darn costly to get the camera and a compatible lens or two (for what I would want/need, over six grand.)

The Sony system has some great lenses. Many of their lenses are compact and extremely light, making the cameras very inconspicuous. I've gotten used to the controls and the bodies (the bodies don't really fit my hands, I still prefer Canon's ergonomics in that respect by far). Most of the time, I use the camera on a tripod of some kind, and operation is pretty much hands free with smartphone apps. 

I've used a number of Sony cameras now. There is a lot of concern over the compression algorithm. Fundamentally, I don't like it myself...I think it's a bit of a cheat, and I would much prefer to have the actual RAW data. In some cases, it can cause some problems...the most egregious of which occur on star trails images. In well over 90% of my testing, the compression has not actually manifested in any way that I could actually see. And I'm a digger...I dig as deep into the signals as I can go. Lifting images seven, eight stops, you might finally start to see some purple color noise...I'm honestly not sure if that comes from the compression, or if it is just Sony's read noise or bias signal. Either way, I've never actually encountered any problems with their raw format in practice...so I've stopped worrying about it.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jun 11, 2015)

This is the camera I never thought I would see. Actually, I'm so impressed that I am going to wait for the 5D4 as my last shot from Canon. If it's disappointing, I'm getting this...

This is a big "F off" to Canon from Sony.


----------



## jrista (Jun 11, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Take this, mirrorslappers ...
> ...



The lossy compression does not exhibit as an issue in most practical use. It can exhibit problems in extreme situations...namely, if you shoot star trails, find another camera. Most other situations, I've never seen any problems caused by the compression. It isn't ideal, but neither is it a problem most of the time (isn't that what everyone says about Canon's high read noise? Are we now going to start a double standard...Canon's high read noise is perfectly OK, even though it can exhibit right up into the midtones on an all too frequent basis...but Sony's lossy compression is just completely unacceptable all the time despite the fact that it rarely exhibits artifacts in most images? ???)

As for the shutterslapper:



> The α7R II has a new highly durable reduced-vibration shutter that realizes 50% less vibration from shutter movements compared to its predecessor, and has a cycle durability of approximately 500,000 shots4. The camera can also be set to Silent Shooting mode in order to shoot images quietly without any sensor vibration or movement.





neuroanatomist said:


> I'd bet the 5Ds leaves the a7RII in the dust for unit sales.



Which is an absolutely meaningless factor for those who want things Canon does not offer.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 11, 2015)

*"Unrivaled 4K Movie Shooting Performance
The impressive video credentials of Sony’s new α7R II camera include the ability to record movies in 4K quality (QFHD 3840×2160) in either Super 35mm crop mode or full-frame mode.

In Super 35mm mode, the camera collects a wealth of information from approximately 1.8x as many pixels as 4K by using full pixel readout without pixel binning and oversamples the information to produce 4K movies with minimal moire and ‘jaggies’.

In full-frame mode, the α7RII utilizes the full width of the 35mm sensor for 4K recording, allowing users to utilize the expanded expressive power of the sensor. It is the world’s first digital camera to offer this in-camera full-frame format 4K recording capacity1.

The camera utilizes the advanced XAVC S7 codec during video shooting, which records at a high bit rate of 100 Mbps during 4K recording and 50 Mbps during full HD shooting.

Additionally, the α7RII model features a variety of functions to support a professional video workflow including Picture Profile, S-Log2 Gamma and S-Gamut, 120fps high frame rate movie shooting in HD (720p), time code, clean HDMI output and more."*


So basically you likely get much better video than from Canon's new X10 plus MUCH better stills AND unlike the Canon, so ironic, the Sony can actually also take your Canon glass! AND the price will probably be about the same!

Maybe this finally forces Canon to wake up!

Delivers better video than anything can has under probably $15,000 and I'd dare say better stills quality than anything Canon has at any price. Imagine if next year Nikon packs this up in an all-around body and with a cropped RAW to give it some fps and buffer too?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 11, 2015)

Canon has a great stills UI, awesome lenses so it would be nice if they bothered trying more for sensors and bodies again.

I mean what Canon user would not want that? But the same usual suspects in the forums keep applauding whatever they do. Oh low ISO DR doesn't really ever matter so who cares? The 5Ds is meant for slow work so what do you expect for buffer, speed, video, don't be crazy! COme on ability to focus manually while shooting, zebras? THat's $20,000 stuff!!!! Come on 4k???? slog formats? hfps video? clean hdmi out? LOL!

But look, it's not crazy.

D810 gives a cropped RAW so it gets AWESOME buffer performance with decent fps in one mode and then FF and tons of MP in another mode, you get both in one.

The D810 and Sony and other stuff use sensors made on modern fabs so they can make use of patents to give better DR at low ISO.

The new Sony A7R II is like 42MP AND will deliver 4k video with internal 100Mbps recording! and not just jaggy 4k video but in Super35 mode it will deliver not only zero line-skipping but oversampled 4k and slog2 and 120fps 720P and 60fps HD and clean HDMI output....

With Canon it's just "We [our MBAs not our engineers, most likely] see impossible."


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 11, 2015)

jrista said:


> If the rumors about the A7r II focusing Canon lenses quicky are true, I'm all-in.



Wow if that is true than yeah all in! I'll keep my 5D3 for sports and add an a7R II for everything else since it could handle maybe even general shooting and wildlife (maybe other than BIF which I don't do too much anyway and always have the 5D3 for)! (maybe eventually transition to Nikon as can afford it since it's still nicer to have a real DSLR). Exciting times.

Sure I'd wayyyyy rather give my money to Canon and get a proper Canon body, but they seem to not want to bother with new sensors and they treat anything decent for video like $20,000 super pro stuff so what can you do, give the money to someone else.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 11, 2015)

psolberg said:


> Also, basically this is likely the Nikon D820 sensor. The question is, will the Nikon data pipeline and additional optimizations yield superior quality as it was the case of the prior A7R vs D8xx? Mostly Sony's RAWs did not have the depth of the Nikon 14 Bit RAW NEFs. If there is ONE thing I pick on the A7R was the choices sony made in the handling of the data.
> 
> Looking at the base floor ISO of 100, I wonder if Nikon will re-tune it for dynamic range and continue the trend of the 810 towards ISO64, maybe even ISO32



Yeah hopefully they get rid of the silly RAW compression and handle the data path as well as Nikon.


----------



## Chris Jankowski (Jun 11, 2015)

R1-7D said:


> What does back illumination do?



See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-illuminated_sensor

Please note that A7RII has the first FF BSI sensor. Due to high resolution of the sensor the relative improvement from the technology should be higher than in lower resolution sensor. The improvement is in low light sensitivity due to significant increase in the percentage of captured photons. For some designs of sensors for mobile phones this was an increase from 60% to 90%. That and manufacturing yield control were the reasons why this technology first appeared in mobile phones - Apple iPhone 4S with Sony sensor. The manufacturing process is difficult and the larger the sensor the harder it is to get reasonable manufacturing yield. Obviously Sony must have solved the yield problem to be able to release a FF BSI sensor.

As an aside, the newly announced Sony RX100 IV and RX10 MII have much more advanced sensor design again. The 1" sensor used in these cameras is not only BSI, but also stacked *and* has an integrated stacked RAM and has copper metal matrix instead of regular aluminium. This allows for lower heat build up and much faster image reading - that is why they can offer slow motion video at 960 fps in a pocketable camera. Of course, it is only a matter of time before this technolgy gets used in FF sensors. I'd guess 2-3 years.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 11, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> This just makes me want to wait more for the A7S II. I really love the idea of having a native non-binning 4k camera for video that is full frame and not Super 35. Prefer to have my lenses focal length be true on the sensor. And yes CR, 7 digit ISOs. Sony is only 2 stops away now with the a7S. Global shutter would be nice too. This also bodes extremely well for internal 4k on it too with what looks to be a nice codec short of ProRes



I actually kinda like the Super 35mm. Gives a bit more reach for wildlife,sports,macro video and Canon has great ultra wide stuff like 16-35 f/4 IS and so on these days so you can still shoot nice and reasonably wide landscape video stuff. And it's not quite so hard to get more DOF (sometimes FF video it can be a bit tricky).

Although you do lose 2+ stops of SNR, then again since this oversamples so much you won't lose nearly that much SNR.

Anyway exciting times. In another generation or so you'll have your FF non-line skipped video too.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 11, 2015)

hoodlum said:


> bgran8 said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone know if Sony improved their RAW file handling for this version vs. the A7R?
> ...



Man that's crazy. It seems like every company has to do their own ridiculous thing.
It's very puzzling in this case, since what are they protecting? Nothing. It's just plain bizarre. Maybe it lets them save some buffer and get more fps, but why not a slow, low buffer mode? These are often landscape cameras anyway since it's not a real DSLR.


----------



## emko (Jun 11, 2015)

Chris Jankowski said:


> R1-7D said:
> 
> 
> > What does back illumination do?
> ...



the read out is so fast that rolling shutter is almost gone Sony is really pushing innovation right now. Once this hits a FF sensor its going to be insane.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 11, 2015)

drjlo said:


> Frage said:
> 
> 
> > What is this camera going to do to 5Ds sells?
> ...



I think the new X10 is looking in even more danger. This should have better video and, unlike the X10, can actually use Canon lenses (a bit ironic!) and it's small and light too. Of course the form factor is not as friendly for video though, but still, everything about it so much more maxed out. And it takes insanely better stills than the X10. And the price isn't horribly more.

I get a bad feeling the X10 design and the 5Ds design have Canon really locked in with the 5D4. If they want to compete with this other brand stuff the 5D4 would seem to have to make the X10 abd 5Ds be rather niche niche models and they might not be the sort of company to do that.


----------



## jrista (Jun 11, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> hoodlum said:
> 
> 
> > bgran8 said:
> ...



You should try them out. I haven't seen very many photos in which the compression algorithm caused a problem. In relative terms, I have had FAR more problems with midtone banding and color noise with my Canon cameras than I have had problems with the lossy compression in Sony cameras. Indeed, it isn't ideal, and I too would prefer to have true non-lossy RAW. But...in practice...I haven't actually observed any problems with it. The only times I have seen problems is with astrophotography...but even then, not all the time. I know people who regularly use the A7s at very high ISO for high speed, strong signal astrophotography on a regular basis. 

Even with the lossy compression, overall IQ from an A7 series camera for landscape, macro/floral, and similar kinds of photography is well ahead of Canon cameras.


----------



## 9VIII (Jun 11, 2015)

Also note that a BSI sensor should be able to take advantage of larger apertures. Currently f1.2 and wider do not gather more light (shown by Canon increasing ISO behind the scenes when shooting at f1.2, and the incorrect exposure when shooting at f1 using a Speed Booster), theoretically this is caused by interference from the front facing circuitry.
It's going to be _really_ interesting if f1.0 lenses are all of a sudden useful again (not that it affects the Bokeh, just you'll be able to get a proper exposure). I can't wait to see some practical tests with this sensor. If it does work properly at f1.0, then say hello to the new master of Bokeh!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 11, 2015)

Tugela said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > emko said:
> ...



Or heck, even more it was how the IBM PC buyers and Apple buyers used to call Ataris and Amiga toys and said stuff like only a toy computer would have built in graphics and audio coprocessors, autoconfig buses, multi-tasking, separate main and graphics bus, etc. 

Serious, REAL, computer users they said would pay a ton of money to buy an IBM or an Apple and avoid the silly little toys. And they'd sit there doing their REAL computer work with their 2 colors and no multi-tasking (and not even a GUI on the IBM PC side for a good while) and spending an hour manually configuring every piece of HW they added.

Now the same people are bragging on their latest Nvidia graphics card and better than CD audio and 16 million colors and so on and so forth. All the stuff they went on about as being useless stuff than nobody needs and that no REAL computer users would ever need. LOL.

OTOH, it was also Apple and Microsoft that survived and Atari and Amiga that died so it also sadly shows that it's really all about the marketing (and sometimes dirty tricks) and getting the right placement into the right crowd at the righ ttiem and you often can live on the top and be far from the best. :-\

But, OTOOH, what the ones that did survive became, after ages, is closer to what they used to laugh at than what they used to be themselves.

So going by this, Canon will wait and milk and sit and annoy and then in another four years come out with all this stuff finally and with their brand leverage come out on top and put the others out.

Anyway it's getting silly now as the two markets are different and the scenarios not quite the same and Canon actually looks better in what they produce than IBM, Apple and MS did, compared to others.


----------



## 9VIII (Jun 11, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



You must have missed the other responses to that post. IBM is technically still the largest computer company in the world (if you don't count the Iphone as a computer).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 11, 2015)

jrista said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > hoodlum said:
> ...



I think I will.

I prefer a real DSLR and Canon UI, but since they don't seem to want to make what I'd want as an upgrade to a 5D3 and since the AF sounds to be so improved on the new Sony and since it can take the Cnaon lenses that I like and it wouldn't cause the grief of a swap to Nikon and horrible prices supertele are these days (I got my Canon super tele back when they were LOL 'affordable' LOL still, but compared to today.... it's true, now it's yikes beyond yikes).

Still keep the 5D3 for sports or the times the Sony UI or mirrorless whatnot it just too much of a trouble and use the SOny for landscapes and maybe even much to most general shooting too?

And since I'm big on video too, man, man this SOny sounds great.

And since my money isn't totally unlimited at this point, the sony+adpater and using all my current glass and getting my reach for wildlife back again and DR and MP for landscapes and wildlife and the 4k video with apparently nice quality and good usability features, all in one cost effective package. sounding nice.

Anyway there are options now other than having to live solely with Canon.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 11, 2015)

9VIII said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...



In terms of PC market they kinda went away a long time ago, but their PC clones and MS won out and as I said the crummy stuff is actually what won out. Although in the end it's, especially the HW, kinda turned into the stuff that the people who used to trump up the crummy stuff used to mock. Just as the whole fanboy crowd, in another 10 years will be going on about how their 5D8 is so sick with it's insane 4k video and beyond belief DR and so on and so forth. One guy who used to trash talk about banding as being absurd nonsense, now that Canon has fixed banding, bashes anyone who fails to mention that Canon has fixed it and runs around crowing about how this makes the new Canon bodies radically, radically better than the old ones ;D ;D.


----------



## TheJock (Jun 11, 2015)

emko said:


> How can people be like this? such fans of a company they blindingly defend it even when the company is clearly ripping you OFF.
> 
> If Sony can do all this at cheaper price you people still defend Canons crap its unbelievable
> 
> come on how can you people not see CANON is ripping you guys off so bad.


There must be something that all these blind/ignorant/deluded customers/photographers know that you don’t mate!
I follow the Formula 1, I never miss a single practice, qualifying session or race every single year and one thing I notice is when all the photographers are assembled there is a highly noticeable display of “white lenses”, easily 80% of all that are gathered. Please explain why these professional photographers (on a global scale) are all using this inferior Canon crap when there is all this new superior technology around?


----------



## jrista (Jun 11, 2015)

TheJock said:


> emko said:
> 
> 
> > How can people be like this? such fans of a company they blindingly defend it even when the company is clearly ripping you OFF.
> ...



Samsung and Sony both use white for their supertelephoto lenses. For the same reasons that Canon does.


----------



## TheJock (Jun 11, 2015)

Sorry, I should have been clearer, all the white lenses have red rings too!


----------



## jrista (Jun 11, 2015)

dilbert said:


> But at 4K, it can treat each RGBG matrix on the sensor as a single pixel rather than do Bayer matrix..



When it comes to video, rather than treating 2x2 RGGB matrices as superpixels (which is what it's called when you read them to single output pixels rather than interpolating), you get 4:?:? subsampling. You can have 4:1:0, 4:2:0, 4:2:2, or 4:4:4. The latter is also called full color R'G'B', and is usually uncompressed, or otherwise "RAW" video. The others are compressed. With 4:1:0 or 4:2:0 subsampling, there is usually enough loss in color fidelity that you can tell the difference when compared to 4:4:4. With 4:2:2, there is a loss in color information, but generally not enough to actually be able to tell the difference from 4:4:4.

My guess is the resolution choice was made to achieve ideal 4:2:2 subsampling and encoding performance for 4K video.


----------



## krisbell (Jun 11, 2015)

A fantastic and very exciting prospect (on paper)! 

And I shake my head in disbelief at the likes of neuro... still vainly clinging to the mast of a sinking ship while all others have swum to safety...lossy RAW?! have you played with the Sony a7r RAWs? They are absolutely mindblowing in terms of detail and headroom. I still use a Canon 5D3 for wildlife but to me, when it comes to landscape photography, its the equivalent of using a smartphone rather than a DSLR when compared with the a7r . I noticed a far greater jump in quality when I went from 5D3 to a7r than when I jumped from Canon 50D to 5D3.


----------



## expatinasia (Jun 11, 2015)

TheJock said:


> There must be something that all these blind/ignorant/deluded customers/photographers know that you don’t mate!
> I follow the Formula 1, I never miss a single practice, qualifying session or race every single year and one thing I notice is when all the photographers are assembled there is a highly noticeable display of “white lenses”, easily 80% of all that are gathered. Please explain why these professional photographers (on a global scale) are all using this inferior Canon crap when there is all this new superior technology around?



Canon CPS is really quite exceptional. I have no experience of Nikon, but I can tell you that at major international sporting events - such as F1 - Canon is really quite aggressive when it comes to making sure accredited photographers (esp. CPS) have all the latest gear for exactly the reason you mentioned, people notice!

I do not have any stats, but it would not surprise me to see that Canon is the preferred camera manufacturer of more int. sporting events than any other camera producer, and has the largest professional service on site for photographers working the event.

I have always been very impressed with Canon (and CPS) at such events.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jun 11, 2015)

Jrista, so you're serious about your interest in this camera? I think that's the most significant thing from this whole thread.


----------



## TheJock (Jun 11, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> TheJock said:
> 
> 
> > There must be something that all these blind/ignorant/deluded customers/photographers know that you don’t mate!
> ...


The next major event to easily show who’s got the majority is Wimbledon!
Again, I always notice more Canon big whites than the black of Nikon.
https://www.google.ae/search?q=photographers+at+Wimbledon&biw=1680&bih=881&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CCEQsARqFQoTCKi4_MqXh8YCFULpFAod4QIAhw#imgrc=H_QibelXzVgYlM%253A%3Bzfz2SKu_DO6d5M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fmedia4.s-nbcnews.com%252Fj%252Fnewscms%252F2014_27%252F548086%252F140705-petra-kvtova-jsw-1115a_d137a74a226287c3d7358a011b44cdfc.nbcnews-fp-1200-800.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.nbcnews.com%252Fnews%252Fsports%252Fpicture-perfect-kvitova-poses-wimbledon-top-honor-n148751%3B1200%3B800


----------



## meywd (Jun 11, 2015)

This was cleared but it seem some people like to ignore what doesn't fit their thinking, every Canon shooter would love to have the best AF, DR, High ISO performance, Low ISO performance, and whatever a camera might offer, and if Sony offers that then great, if they really found a way to have fast AF with Canon lenses then awesome, but remember that there is no perfect camera, but Ofc no one needs the perfect camera, a one that is close enough under current technology is good.

However, assuming everyone should jump ship is simply stupid, because Canon lenses are just awesome, and no matter what Sony does a lens will perform better on a native body, and for the studio pros the flash system need to be on par as well, but I understand ppl like jrista who want the best performance, astro demands that, and as a technology fan I would love to have it, but unless I have excess money I can't do it, I love my 5D3 and my 70-200, and until Sony makes a single camera that is capable of both high ISO and fast AF and tracking I don't see me getting one, the strange thing is some want better DR but ignore AF, I think even the 1D X can be improved upon, and as much some people want DR some want better AF.


----------



## wockawocka (Jun 11, 2015)

40+ MP
Great DR
Truly silent shooting
Focus peaking
In body stabilization

Answers all the shortcomings of my Canon gear. (But it'll still have it's own problems)

I've the a7ii as is, and shooting a dark church, handheld at 1/60 with the 135L is a sight to behold.

Personally, I have no real brand loyalty and I don't think Nikon are to be worried about, it's Sony, this camera is F______ badass.


----------



## jrista (Jun 11, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> Jrista, so you're serious about your interest in this camera? I think that's the most significant thing from this whole thread.



Absolutely. I held off on the A7r because of a few key things I did not like about it...the heavy shutter, some of the ergos, frame rate. All of that is either fixed or considerably improved with the A7r II. I am also in the process of selling off some of my Canon equipment, my 7D, 100-400mm, 16-35mm, probably my 50mm, an a variety of other photography and astrophotography related things, to fund the purchases of new cameras (definitely a Sony, not sure which one yet, as I still need an astro CCD.) 

I definitely want the A7r II for landscapes. I've never liked the IQ I've gotten from Canon cameras for landscapes. Didn't like it with my 450D, had worse banding with the 7D, and really did not like the shadow performance of the 5D III at all (very blotchy on top of the banding.) This year has been really rough on the weather...big rain storms, hail storms, and even still some snow storms in the mountains (yes, in June ), and I just don't have the will or the time to go out into all of that for landscape photography. So the A7r II will probably wait until such time as I feel I can actually use it on a regular basis. At the same time, I need a more every day, all around camera that I can always have with me, ready to go, for birds and wildlife. 

I simply cannot haul around my 5D III and giant 600mm lens all the time every day. I really wish I could, but I can't. It would all probably end up stolen at one point or another if I did anyway, and that I simply cannot have. The A6000, with its 11fps, would make an excellent every day birding and wildlife camera. It won't deliver the same kind of subject isolation I can get with the 600mm f/4 and a full frame...but, it will deliver photographs that I simply won't get because the 5D III and 600mm aren't at arms reach every single day. I miss opportunities almost every day because I just don't have a camera that I can bring with me everywhere. Canon has NOTHING that is even remotely as compelling as the A6000. Nothing. Nada. There is no class of Canon camera that compares to the A6000, or for that matter the Samsung NX1. The appeal of the A6000 is the E mount...it would be compatible with FE lenses, which makes it more cost effective. I am extremely intrigued by the NX1...but it doesn't quite offer enough to topple the value of the A6000. I'll be picking up an A6000 (or as is more likely, it's successor once it is announced...a6100? a7000?) once some of my other gear sells.

My experiences with the A7r, A7 II, and A6000 have all been great overall. I have absolutely no complaints about IQ. Everyone complains about the lossy RAW...I really encourage those who are interested to give one of these cameras a try, and see if you can ever spot an artifact from them that would actually matter. Even more important, evaluate whether any compression artifacts you do fine are worse than the read noise of a Canon camera. In my experience, there is absolutely no contest. I'll take Sony's lossy compression every single moment of every single day over Canons read noise. No, lossy compression in "raw" isn't ideal, and it isn't really RAW. But...it doesn't seem to matter in practice either. I simply cannot stand Canon read noise any more, I hate it, I despise it, with a passion... It's the nastiest noise on the market, and I can't wait to be done with it (although sadly, I think I'll be stuck with it so long as I have the 600mm f/4, and I have no plans nor desire to offload that lens...it's a thing of wonder, and the area where Canon truly excels. As such, a 5D IV is definitely in my future, if the specs hold up.) 

I absolutely love the IQ from Sony cameras. And for me, that is what it ultimately boils down to...IQ. I just get better IQ with the Alpha series for everything but action photography (and in many cases, with the A6000, even for some action, I'll get excellent results.)

The rumors about the A7r II autfocusing much better with Canon lenses has me particularly intrigued. I did not have great experience with the metabones adapter I used when I rented the A7r last year. It was decent, but AF was slow, as it only used the contrast detection...and the drive was just slow. For landscapes, that did not really matter. The lack of an AA filter was a help with manual focus...when you nailed focus, you KNEW it...everything instantly hit razor sharp and shimmered abit. A micron off perfect focus, and you KNEW it. Interestingly, the lack of an AA filter? Absolutely not a problem. You just have to very slightly defocus...just barely enough to kill off the aliased shimmer...and bam, your lens just became an AA filter, without any meaningful loss in resolution, sharpness, or overall IQ. I guess that's just something you don't realize until you are sitting there doing it...but it's a strong argument for ditching the AA filter. (The only caveat would be with AF...unless you could reliably offset with microfocus adjustment by just the right minuscule amount to ensure autofocus locked just barely off perfect focus to blur high frequencies a bit.)

So yes...very seriously interested in the Sony Alpha line. I've been waiting for the A7r II. I'll take Sony's high DR, BSI 42.4mp any day over Canon's 50.6mp. These days, we have gobs of resolution. It's not about resolution. It's about pure, unadulterated IQ, and the data quality and flexibility to do whatever you want with the data and never have to worry about even a single band of read noise ever appearing, even with insane shadow lifts.


----------



## krisbell (Jun 11, 2015)

meywd said:


> However, assuming everyone should jump ship is simply stupid, because Canon lenses are just awesome, and no matter what Sony does a lens will perform better on a native body



Hi meywd, if that was aimed at me I was only referring to mindless defense of an inferior sensor, sorry I should have made that a little clearer. And I agree Canon lenses are awesome, I own many, but to suggest that lenses will perform better on a native body isnt entirely true. Yes AF may be better, but my Canon 16-35 f4 produces much sharper and more detailed images with a Sony a7r than my 5D3.


----------



## expatinasia (Jun 11, 2015)

TheJock said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > TheJock said:
> ...



Yes, for exactly the reasons I mentioned. Canon not only have the best sport cameras and lenses but they also have CPS (which is outstanding - even for photographers coming from overseas for an event) and sponsor far more events than other manufacturers.


----------



## jrista (Jun 11, 2015)

There is no question that Canon service and support are excellent. Second to none. Not everyone needs CPS, though. We are not all sideline sports photographers with dual 1D X's and a handful of ten thousand dollar lenses. Some of us are, and if you are, you probably won't find a better brand than Canon for what you do. 

But I would wager good money that there are many, many times more landscape photographers out there who could gobble up every stop of dynamic range you throw at them, than there are guys sitting on the sidelines at sporting events with thirty thousand dollars worth of equipment loaned to them by CPS. I would be willing to bet there are many times more wedding photographers who could use the high resolution and silent shutter of an A7r II. I would be willing to bet there are many times more studio photographers, macro photographers, street photographers, who could use the technology and image quality packed into the A7r II...than there are sports photographers who quality for and use Canon CPS and haul around tens of thousands of dollars of top of the line photography gear from one event to another. I would be the majority of the average people in the stands at those same events would get far more out of an A6000 and a 55-210mm zoom than they would from any camera Canon currently offers.

CPS is awesome...but you have to qualify. Particularly in America, the requirements to qualify are very stringent. 

And...if the new breed of Sony alphas do indeed focus well when adapted to Canon lenses.... 8)


----------



## meywd (Jun 11, 2015)

krisbell said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > However, assuming everyone should jump ship is simply stupid, because Canon lenses are just awesome, and no matter what Sony does a lens will perform better on a native body
> ...



No not you, it's targeted at those who state that staying with canon is stupid, I agree that with landscapes and shadows there is room for improvement on the Canon side, I use ML's Dual_ISO, but sometimes you feel the hit on the resolution, so better noise handling would be great, as for sharpness that's relative, it depends on pixel density so it's not easy to compare, for example the photos I saw from the 5Ds/r simply has superb detail, I really drool over one but I need the high ISO performance of the 5D3


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jun 11, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Ive been invested in Canon for 35 years and recently sunk more money into glass. It doesnt make me blinkered though and a number of years ago I bought into the Olympus 4/3rd system mainly for weight saving. Since micro 4/3rds the system is even lighter and the performance markedly improved since Olympus started using Sony sensors. I have the cheapest OM-D camera the M10 but the performance given the sensor size is actually quite good. Will it replace my full-frame Canon camera, heck no but it has its place. 
Professionally we use amongst others Sony F65 / F55 cameras and the thing Sony have the march on is sensors Canon is not even close. Sure the Arri Alexa is the cinematography king but its not 4K and the resolution doesnt match the two Sony cameras thats more about a preferred "look" which is closer to film but thats another story. 
My point is Canon are NOT the image sensor leaders they may not have to be, there glass in most cases is class leading but again under challenge from Sigma and for Pro Landscape photographer, Zeiss. Canon cannot take professiional photographers invested in their glass for granted, Nikon once did and have played second fiddle to Canon ever since, Sony are in the long game and Canon are the targets.


----------



## roby17269 (Jun 11, 2015)

meywd said:


> and for the studio pros the flash system need to be on par as well,



hmmm? most studio pros use pro studio strobes, the likes of Bowens, Profoto and Broncolor (in order on increased cost and quality) or Arri or other continuous lights... and you set them using Sekonic meters or others... for those, as long as you have a way of triggering your strobes (i.e. a standard hot shoe and it is not even a consideration for continuous setups), you're good


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jun 11, 2015)

jrista said:


> Hillsilly said:
> 
> 
> > Jrista, so you're serious about your interest in this camera? I think that's the most significant thing from this whole thread.
> ...


Would completely agree I like the Canon 6D but the banding and low light noise is really frustrating at times in landscape and it is slightly better than the 5D MKIII in this area. Sony are currently pulling away from the pack when it comes to sensors and the investment they are making ensures they will stay that way. The other advantage they have is in selling to Phase One, Hasselblad, Pentax, Olympus, Nikon (as well as Canon on 1" sensors) they are getting thoses companies feedback plus all the other companies in other fields they supply sensors to. 
The alternatives are not that wide if Canon doesnt have the money or want to commite the money more likely to invest to simply supply its own needs. Leica use CMOSIS for design, Towerjazz/ Panasonic fabs, their is Fuji (who is partnering with Panasonic on sensor design), Omnivision (who dont make FF sensors), STMicro Electronics, Aptina (Nikon V series), Samsung and a few others. Sony has 50% of the stills / video camera sensor market, its sensor business grew by 40% in 2014 and is predicted to grow by a further 20% in 2015. 
The professional sports photographers may well dominate with Canon cameras & glass but they alone will not sustain Canon business model.


----------



## expatinasia (Jun 11, 2015)

dilbert said:


> At the Olympics, Canon turn up with lots of "spares" and things to rent for professionals that don't want to lug everything on the plane from home. Maybe there is a similar thing at F1 and other events?
> 
> Canon captured the professional sports photographer market back in the late 80s/early 90s when they went to EOS and developed their new autofocus system. Nikon didn't update their autofocus for a long time (maybe even not until the digital revolution?). This gave Canon a large chunk of people using the lenses professionally and with their big telephotos and AF, they kept people through upgrading and have continued to do so. Just like many people here, the cost of changing brands is high so once you go with one you're pretty much wedded to them. With so many people wedded to them, Canon has been able to underdeliver in terms of camera IQ whilst still keeping healthy sales.
> 
> What will be interesting to see is how Sony impacts or benefits from the "white lens brigade" as it has also chosen to use white as the color for its professional long telezooms.



F1 I do not know as I do not shoot that, but they are very supportive at most of the major int. sporting events so I do not see why it would be any different there. They want big whites on the side lines, and being lugged around by the photographers for all to see. They are also major sponsors at a lot of these events as well. It really is a very impressive (and very useful) service.

What I have noticed at some of the events I shoot, is the age difference of shooters and the gear they use. People that are getting on (like me) tend to use either Canon or Nikon, while some of the younger photographers that seem to be creeping onto the side lines tend to be much more open in what they use and that is where you are more likely to see a camera you may not have once expected to see, like a Sony.

Competition is good for us all, it keeps us all on our toes, Canon included!


----------



## FunkyCamera (Jun 11, 2015)

So the megapixel fight starts up again and Sony brings a 42MP camera to a 50MP camera fight! LOL typical Sony fail. Hilarious how they'll rob so many idiots of their money with their low quality sensors and beer bottle quality lenses.399 AF points? Wow amazing, but unfortunately you only actually need 1. I can't remember when I last needed to focus on hundreds of things in the same photo. High ISO? It will be a snowstorm above 3200! Dynamic range? Sure, let me know when jpg is capable of more than 8 bit! There's a reason why ever pro uses Canon - taking pictures is more important than imaginary stats that are either useless or entirely fabricated.

If you want the best photos, you need a Canon. It's not hard to understand.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jun 11, 2015)

I've just been listening to how the 50mp Canon sensor is actually a 60mp sensor that they've downscaled. That'll give them the ability to release a new camera with a "new" 60mp sensor (maybe the 1DXR?) without having to change sensors. Sony, with their measly 42mp sensor won't know what hit them.


----------



## quod (Jun 11, 2015)

krisbell said:


> And I shake my head in disbelief at the likes of neuro... still vainly clinging to the mast of a sinking ship while all others have swum to safety...


+1 I'm excited about this camera. I love the ruggedness of my 5D3, but in the end, it's about IQ, and not about a "system" or profits or "who has the most [low IQ] megapixels" or all the other goofy arguments that are presented by the fanboys. If Canon can match the IQ, I'd happily buy more of their cameras.


----------



## sanj (Jun 11, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Take this, mirrorslappers ...
> ...



Neuro. Greetings from half way around the world. Consider this an open letter. 

I am shocked by you close minded attitude towards all camera manufacturers except Canon. You are so enamored by Canon that you cannot see any good in anything else. You have pointed me towards the word 'system' and I thank you for that. And you have made me realize that no camera company is perfect. 

When Sony comes out with such a ground breaking technology never seen before you cannot come up with a SINGLE positive thing about it. No praise, no admiration. How can you be so one sided in your thinking??

You take the term 'fan boy' to its heights.


----------



## K-amps (Jun 11, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> I might be the only one on CR site to have a7rII on pre-order tomorrow
> 
> I might as well get 4K monitor for it



I am close to your situation Dylan... Last week, I just got myself a Samsung 970Q monitor... love it, ofcourse had to upgrade my perfectly fine GTX 460 to a 960 to support 4k... but I will hold off on a pre-order.... I want to see real-life results and reviews. I am happy to note you got a new body to replace the one lost plus the 85mm Go get em Tiger!


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 11, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> And it looks like Sony has really great stuff coming as well. They just don't have the lenses I desire, which is (in my opinion) a greater factor than the body.



And that's the point isn't it...we can have the best sensor in the world...and yet it's the glass which dictated how sharp and image, how much light and the contrast which hits that sensor. 
What's the point of a 50+ mp camera if the lenses attached aren't as good? Or a tripod is needed with every shot to maximize the resolution? If we have a blur factor of just two MP then we have effectively halved our optical resolution to 25mp while still retaining the 50mp file size. I would rather sharp 25mp files than slightly blurred 50mp files which have the same optical resolution as the 25mp files. 

I got some amazingly clear and sharp images from my 5DII / 5DIII's which blow up to really big size and still keep their per pixel sharpness. So i wonder what (or if) any improvement can really be made with a 5DSR using my existing lenses. If Canon's lenses (which are reputed to be the largest collection of the sharpest designs) are the best then how does that fare for Nikon or Sony glass which is largely out of date and with a portfolio mostly put together before the dawn of the Digital era? 

For my investment and photographic needs, I've not seen any worthwhile argument to convince me that I need a higher resolution than my current cameras. I've never had a customer say to me...hmmm nice photo...but it needs to be bigger and sharper at 100% please.


----------



## sanj (Jun 11, 2015)

FunkyCamera said:


> So the megapixel fight starts up again and Sony brings a 42MP camera to a 50MP camera fight! LOL typical Sony fail. Hilarious how they'll rob so many idiots of their money with their low quality sensors and beer bottle quality lenses.399 AF points? Wow amazing, but unfortunately you only actually need 1. I can't remember when I last needed to focus on hundreds of things in the same photo. High ISO? It will be a snowstorm above 3200! Dynamic range? Sure, let me know when jpg is capable of more than 8 bit! There's a reason why ever pro uses Canon - taking pictures is more important than imaginary stats that are either useless or entirely fabricated.
> 
> If you want the best photos, you need a Canon. It's not hard to understand.



You really have a sense of humor.


----------



## sanj (Jun 11, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> emko said:
> 
> 
> > ...Canon is just milking old tech for these idiots who keep buying it.
> ...



Like someone else we both know?  Not being mean, just pointing out. I do consider you an expert. A Canon expert.


----------



## psolberg (Jun 11, 2015)

news flash, every technology is coming to canon...someday 
what was the point of this article? don't buy sony?

also what gives? so many said "I don't need more than 22MP. Or 36.6MP is too much or not enough different from 22". Now only 50 is good enough and 42 is "crappy"? PFFF get over it guys. You're worse than a political candidate in the republican party today.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 11, 2015)

sanj said:


> How can you be so one sided in your thinking?? You take the term 'fan boy' to its heights.



Actually dedicated fanboi talk is quite revealing - if there's nothing left to argue in Canon's favor than "you don't need anything else, otherwise people wouldn't buy Canon" that's that.

Meanwhile, I employ you to have some sympathy with the Canon enthusiasts - after years of "high iso matters, that's b/c Sonikon has better low iso" and Sonikon now taking the lead everywhere, that's certainly mean and needs some re-adjustment of fanboi arguments 



Hillsilly said:


> I've just been listening to how the 50mp Canon sensor is actually a 60mp sensor that they've downscaled.



Ugh? Could you link that? I thought upscaling the 7d2 tech would end up just with the 5ds res?



privatebydesign said:


> Well that has thrown the cat amongst the pigeons, FF back-illuminated. Canon will have to do something serious now, roll on the 1DX MkII and the 5D MkIV.



Imho the day of truth might be upon us - either it's just that Canon chose not to put their patents to use yet because they keep making (more) money with the current tech, or they don't see a way to release a competitive sensor against the evil Sonikon empire in specs *and* price. 

Meanwhile, let's be happy the current Canon tech is "good enough" for most situations esp. expanding the dr with ML, so new sensor tech is nice to have, but not that vital as maybe 5 years ago...


----------



## hambergler (Jun 11, 2015)

dilbert said:


> FunkyCamera said:
> 
> 
> > So the megapixel fight starts up again and Sony brings a 42MP camera to a 50MP camera fight! LOL typical Sony fail.
> ...



You do realize his post was facetious right?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2015)

LOALTD said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > LOALTD said:
> ...



I'm sure they're supposed to, but the calculator I used gave the same results as you show for Canon and Sony, but showed both with zero dividends to be reinvested. I wonder if Google's calculator is drawing from the same data source for dividend info (which lacks data for Canon and Sony). That same calculator _does_ show dividends and properly calculates the yield for other stocks (ones which I actually own). 

Canon's average dividend yield over the last 5 years was 4.1%, Sony's was 1.5% and last year for the first time ever Sony canceled their dividend payment. Given that, your numbers apply only in the case where dividends are _not_ reinvested.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jun 11, 2015)

I shoot mostly wildflowers and macro, so this camera is quite intriguing. But no Zeiss macro is available? How much do the adapters impact IQ?


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 11, 2015)

NancyP said:


> Electronic first curtain shutter! Finally.


Does this mean improved sync speeds?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2015)

krisbell said:


> And I shake my head in disbelief at the likes of neuro... still vainly clinging to the mast of a sinking ship while all others have swum to safety...



If you want to jump from a ship where there is no real evidence that the ship is sinking to the 'safety' of floating with a life vest in middle of the ice-cold North Atlantic, that's a personal choice.


----------



## psolberg (Jun 11, 2015)

who gives a crap about stock prices. I'm not buying a camera because a company used to, or still makes money from their legacy business. I bought a samsung galaxy S6 even when apple stock is worth more because it was just a better phone


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2015)

sanj said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > If only, if only...someday, the grass really will be greener. If only...
> ...



Groundbreaking? There are already BSI APS-C sensors, so what is groundbreaking about it? Oh, I see...it's not just an incremental evolution like many on this forum criticize Canon for, it's groundbreaking because Sony did it. I'm far more impressed by the stacked sensors in the new Sony P&S.

Regarding the grass being greener, would you like to describe again the wonderful and pleasant experience you had when you needed Sony to service your camera?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2015)

psolberg said:


> who gives a crap about stock prices.



Canon does. Sony does.


----------



## benperrin (Jun 11, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > Electronic first curtain shutter! Finally.
> ...


1/250th of a second according to dpreveiw


----------



## psolberg (Jun 11, 2015)

sanj said:


> FunkyCamera said:
> 
> 
> > So the megapixel fight starts up again and Sony brings a 42MP camera to a 50MP camera fight! LOL typical Sony fail. Hilarious how they'll rob so many idiots of their money with their low quality sensors and beer bottle quality lenses.399 AF points? Wow amazing, but unfortunately you only actually need 1. I can't remember when I last needed to focus on hundreds of things in the same photo. High ISO? It will be a snowstorm above 3200! Dynamic range? Sure, let me know when jpg is capable of more than 8 bit! There's a reason why ever pro uses Canon - taking pictures is more important than imaginary stats that are either useless or entirely fabricated.
> ...


or canon marketing  36.6MP was too much or not a significant jump, until 42MP was too little or a noticeable drawback. ah fanboys.


----------



## psolberg (Jun 11, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > who gives a crap about stock prices.
> ...



good. I'm not sony. I'm not canon. 8) I don't work for either. those of you that do, go talk about stocks somewhere that matters. I thought this was a photography board and not an investor board?


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 11, 2015)

benperrin said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > NancyP said:
> ...


But it mentions it has a full electronic shutter mode for silent shooting. Does this mean it can sync at any speed? Good bye hassy if this is true.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> And that's the point isn't it...we can have the best sensor in the world...and yet it's the glass which dictated how sharp and image, how much light and the contrast which hits that sensor.



Indeed. While it's true that Canon lenses can be adapted to Sony MILCs, that's likely not a mainstream solution.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2015)

psolberg said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > psolberg said:
> ...



It's the internet, and an open discussion forum. If you find the content irrelevant to you, feel free to not read on it. Also feel free to not further side track the discussion by repeatedly commenting on it.

FWIW, I did not bring it up in this thread, but I did want to correct a factual inaccuracy about what was posted. Are you also opposed to truth as well?

Finally, if you can't imagine how stocks are relevant to a discussion of camera gear, consider a once-popular maker of camera gear and supplies: Kodak.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jun 11, 2015)

Is it really so hard to accept that some photographers like Canon and some photographers like Sony?

Use the camera system you like to use and let other's use the camera system they like to use.

There is no need to insult or degrade photographers who may have a different opinion from your opinion. 

I do not understand how some people here can get so spun up and take things so personally. 

But then if we all acted mature, CR would lose a lot of its entertainment value. LoL


----------



## lourenco (Jun 11, 2015)

I have no plans to buy a 5DSR now given the A7RII will have better ISO performance and dynamic range. I am usually shooting at 400 iso and higher. Never at 100 iso. I wanted someone with higher MP for larger prints. 

I also wanted a 4k video full frame camera with good AF. I was looking at the A7S, but I hated it did not AF quickly. I also did not like it did not offer 4k internal. I don't want to spend $2k on a recorder. I also do not have time to pull focus on a fast moving subjects.

This is two cameras in one for me. It could be a good video and stills camera. 

I also did not want to buy new glass. People are also saying the AF performance with the metabones adapter actually works well with Canon lenses. 

If Sony made a full frame spots camera to compete against the 1DX and 5D3 higher fps, I would think Canon would be worried. I still might need to buy the 5D4 given the fps I need for sports.


----------



## Sunnystate (Jun 11, 2015)

That Neuro fanatic is right in one thing, numbers will tell the true story, we are entering the stage two of Sony success story... 

Just think about incredible success of A7s in the relatively small niche it occupies and add all the appeal it has to the 42 mp incredibly well designed and crafted machine like A7r. 
Trust me another niche (much larger in this case) of photographers are getting ready to pick the best tool there is for the job as we speak, without any primitive childish complexes or prejudices, and individuals like Neuro will be the last to influence they decisions.

Just go for it folks and enjoy the ride! LOL


----------



## Hillsilly (Jun 11, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Ugh? Could you link that? I thought upscaling the 7d2 tech would end up just with the 5ds res?


It's in "Part 2 The Undeniable FACTS of Digital Photography's Future". If you want to fast forward, its at 8m40s. Oh...NSFW.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNMzy5XV-EQ


----------



## krisbell (Jun 11, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon's average dividend yield over the last 5 years was 4.1%, Sony's was 1.5% and last year for the first time ever Sony canceled their dividend payment. Given that, your numbers apply only in the case where dividends are _not_ reinvested.



LOL!!! ha, ha I love how you state that Canon's pathetic stock price growth marginally outperforms Sony's pathetic stock price growth like it is a major point won! So therefore Canon's sensor must be better?! Sorry to be mean but I honestly cannot see how the fantastic specs (again, on paper) of Sony's latest effort can be anything other than praised. Absolutely I still wouldnt dream of ditching my Canon setup for long-range wildlife photography but for landscape work there is absolutely no comparison.


----------



## benperrin (Jun 11, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> But it mentions it has a full electronic shutter mode for silent shooting. Does this mean it can sync at any speed? Good bye hassy if this is true.



I could be wrong but my gut feeling is that it can't sync past 1/250th just yet. If it was able to I think we'd see the marketing department all over that one.


----------



## meywd (Jun 11, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Is it really so hard to accept that some photographers like Canon and some photographers like Sony?
> 
> Use the camera system you like to use and let other's use the camera system they like to use.
> 
> ...



It's the same with Apple vs Samsung bullshit, each has strong points and each has weakness, though Apple has better marketing and customer support, while Samsung products are more feature full and cost less, it's really funny how you can replace Canon with Apple and Sony with Samsung and still have the same arguments. Though on the long run Samsung reputation is suffering.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2015)

krisbell said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Canon's average dividend yield over the last 5 years was 4.1%, Sony's was 1.5% and last year for the first time ever Sony canceled their dividend payment. Given that, your numbers apply only in the case where dividends are _not_ reinvested.
> ...



LOL at your complete misinterpretation of my point. Good job.


----------



## raptor3x (Jun 11, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Ugh? Could you link that? I thought upscaling the 7d2 tech would end up just with the 5ds res?
> ...



Is there any evidence available for anything this guy is saying? He's also claiming that the D810 and D750 use the exact same sensor. I've got to say, I think he's completely full of it.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 11, 2015)

raptor3x said:


> Hillsilly said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



He's probably the same one saying that we only use 10% of our brain  ... w/o further evidence from anywhere, I'd categorize this as Internet bs, but these things are bound to attract attention and links. 

It's true the sensor res is always larger than the output size b/c of the black border for calibration (Magic Lantern makes use of this fact, that's why dual_iso files have more mp than plain cr2 files) - but hardly 60mp->50mp...


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 11, 2015)

benperrin said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > But it mentions it has a full electronic shutter mode for silent shooting. Does this mean it can sync at any speed? Good bye hassy if this is true.
> ...


Good point. But perhaps it's something overlooked and sonys recent debacle with the 199$ a7r, anything is possible now.

I don't remember if the x100 was advertised as a sync speed champion, it was just kinda hidden in the background. It's release day and given a few weeks, Sony could perhaps release more info on this because it would be an even more earth shaking release.


----------



## benperrin (Jun 11, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> Good point. But perhaps it's something overlooked and sonys recent debacle with the 199$ a7r, anything is possible now.
> 
> I don't remember if the x100 was advertised as a sync speed champion, it was just kinda hidden in the background. It's release day and given a few weeks, Sony could perhaps release more info on this because it would be an even more earth shaking release.



I think it will be a good thing for everyone if major manufacturers could enable flash at higher shutter speeds without resorting to hss or similar technologies. I'm certainly hoping that Sony has really hit it out of the park with this camera. If so I'll most likely be buying one a few months after release.


----------



## psolberg (Jun 11, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


yeah keep it on topic buddy. just saying. keep it on topic (read topic).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2015)

psolberg said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > psolberg said:
> ...


Industry news, buddy. Industry news (read topic category). Just saying.


----------



## psolberg (Jun 11, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


new thread. just saying. there is a reason threads were put in place under a section.


----------



## FunkyCamera (Jun 11, 2015)

Sunnystate said:


> That Neuro fanatic is right in one thing


He's right in most things. Sony fanboys just can't see it. As the guy says, if you want the best photographic tools go for Canon. If you want a hunk of junk that will break immediately and take months to repair, go Sony. If you want to take photos in RAW format, get Canon, if you want super overcompressed GIF-quality garbage, get a Sony. He's put the facts out there, it's your fault if you fails to listen.



Sunnystate said:


> Just think about incredible success of A7s in the relatively small niche it occupies



Exactly - tiny tiny niche - of people who like inoperable piles of junk with an outdated 12MP sensor and another lens format with like 3 lenses available none of which even come close to L lens quality. Meanwhile the much larger niche - people who like to take photos - is completely owned by Canon. Haven't you ever seen the Olympics or any other major sporting event? Pros don't use Sony. For good reason.


----------



## psolberg (Jun 11, 2015)

FunkyCamera said:


> Sunnystate said:
> 
> 
> > That Neuro fanatic is right in one thing
> ...



Honestly, Zeiss has proven to match and exceed canon many times. There is nothing special about L glass that other high end makers of lenses cannot achieve. To acknowledge your point, without sounding fanboyish, canon does have a lot of legacy momentum. I don't think it helps them ONE bit when it comes to the mirrorless market because it all counts for nothing. Yes, blackberry had the market when it came to enterprise keyboarded phones...and yet apple came in with its "no market" iphone and swopped in eventually even getting those hardcore blackberry professionals.

So yes, Canon (blackberry) vs Sony (apple) in the NICHE high end Olympics market, canon wins. But that is not this fight. This fight is in the mirrorless compact category for which canon has ZERO lenses and sony whipes the floor with canon, L glass or not. What canon has was designed for film era mirrors and last decade digital. Basically useless unless they plan to deal with clunky adapters or keep their ancient mount intact leading to less than compact, compacts.

You can huff and puff all you want about dominance in sports and what not, but sony is going after a different market down the road: the rebel line, canon's most successful by volume line in addition to the person that is moving up from m4/3. Sony's next step may be the wedding portrait crowd down the road with more Zeiss glass. They are being smart not chasing the 800mm NFL crowd. That is not a big market anyway. Let Nikon/Canon have it the way everybody lets medium format survive with other vendors. Sony is in for volume it seems and olympic games isn't it. Medium format isn't it. Is FF mirrorless it? I don't know, but that is sony's calculation and so far, they have the best lens and camera system for this purpose. While it may not be as diverse as the legacy EF, F, and other last generation lens systems, they are ahead of anybody making the jump.

And yes 3K for a compact is a lot. Once they start hitting 400-800 bucks for something with a full frame sensor and their lenses get even more diverse, canon/nikon better have an answer because so far this is just their flagship. Surely sony smells the blood in the water already and I wouldn't be surprised to see more entry level gear down the road.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 11, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Said it before, will say it again – you can't equate best technology with success. In fact, the track record in most industries is that "best" technology generally loses out to "good enough" technology in the marketplace. (Ask Sony about Betamax or maybe a more appropriate example might be how cell phones have become the dominant picture-taking devices.
> 
> It great to see any company innovating. I'm happy when Sony innovates. I'm happy when Nikon innovates. I'm happy when Canon innovates. It moves the standards ahead and I will ultimately benefit. But, I also don't get that excited about individual technology steps. It's not a race where the "best" technology carries some prize. It's the overall product that people buy.
> 
> Given the price of this new camera and the fact that I don't own a single lens that fits it, I can't really give it much more than a "meh." But then again, I have a long list of existing Canon products that I would like to buy first, so by the time I can consider a replacement for my 5DIII, I imagine the 5DIV or even 5DV might be available.



+1

I always have to laugh when people take sides. What's the point? I own ILC cameras from Canon (multiple 5D3 and 2), Nikon (D7000), and Sony (A7R), and lenses from the first two. I pre-ordered a 5DS at my local shop, but am on the fence about taking delivery and instead getting this new A7RII, even though I don't get along well with my current A7R.

I also laugh at what neuro calls APODFC. It's really kinda funny to watch when people get personally invested in companies.


----------



## gsealy (Jun 11, 2015)

jrista said:


> There is no question that Canon service and support are excellent. Second to none. Not everyone needs CPS, though. We are not all sideline sports photographers with dual 1D X's and a handful of ten thousand dollar lenses. Some of us are, and if you are, you probably won't find a better brand than Canon for what you do.
> 
> But I would wager good money that there are many, many times more landscape photographers out there who could gobble up every stop of dynamic range you throw at them, than there are guys sitting on the sidelines at sporting events with thirty thousand dollars worth of equipment loaned to them by CPS. I would be willing to bet there are many times more wedding photographers who could use the high resolution and silent shutter of an A7r II. I would be willing to bet there are many times more studio photographers, macro photographers, street photographers, who could use the technology and image quality packed into the A7r II...than there are sports photographers who quality for and use Canon CPS and haul around tens of thousands of dollars of top of the line photography gear from one event to another. I would be the majority of the average people in the stands at those same events would get far more out of an A6000 and a 55-210mm zoom than they would from any camera Canon currently offers.
> 
> ...



I definitely agree with your thoughts.

I would just add that sport photography is a little different animal than anything else. The sporting event is going to happen whether the photographer wants it to or not. The photographer only gets paid if he produces. For those reasons the camera has to perform, no if's, and's, or but's. I have seen those guys work in some really nasty weather and there they were firing away with their 1Dx's taking literally thousands of snaps. The thing is Canon has built a reputation in this segment for performance and those sports photographers feel comfortable with the products and have confidence in them. As far as IQ goes, they are happy with really good or excellent. Do they need exceptional? No. Because nobody is going to evaluate the artistic merits of a photo of a pro golfer playing a shot. Nobody is going to have emotional ties to it or pull it out 30 years down the road. The important thing is to capture it in the first place and then get that photo on the Internet as fast as possible. Then they get paid.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2015)

psolberg said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > psolberg said:
> ...


In that case, why don't you reply to the poster who brought stock prices into this discussion?


----------



## JClark (Jun 11, 2015)

FunkyCamera said:


> Sunnystate said:
> 
> 
> > That Neuro fanatic is right in one thing
> ...



Let's not get crazy. If you want the best tools for action photography, you can absolutely make the case for Canon. If you're a landscaper or a studio shooter, other tools make for convincing alternatives. 

Hell, I can make the case that for a jack-of-all-trades system Canon might be the best considering price, excellence with both telephoto and wide angle T/S lenses, and ISO capability - a strong case actually. But you have to acknowledge the caveat that in situations where the extremes of dynamic range and noise matter (or for that matter portability or, at least for another two weeks, MP count  )- and there absolutely are some - Canon gives up ground to a multitude of other platforms.

If those situations are paramount to you, either get a different system or, if you have the money, buy an additional system to supplement your Canon gear. The a7R and RII happen to be great choices because you can adapt the awesome Canon lenses to them while mitigating the Canon shortcomings. In return you give up native strobe support and a great deal of action capability. No system is perfect, but it's silly to deny that some platforms have some advantages over Canon.


----------



## psolberg (Jun 11, 2015)

gsealy said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > There is no question that Canon service and support are excellent. Second to none. Not everyone needs CPS, though. We are not all sideline sports photographers with dual 1D X's and a handful of ten thousand dollar lenses. Some of us are, and if you are, you probably won't find a better brand than Canon for what you do.
> ...



Exactly my thinking. Whenever I see the same old canon-fan argument: But look at all the amazing telephotos in (insert sporting even) it is mostly canon, and the crazy fisheyes, and TS, etc. So what? I see 30 guys at most a year even owing such a thing. I see 3000+ wedding and landscape photogs a year none of which needs any of it, buys any of it, cares about any of it. They just have the basics everybody else does, nikon or canon. Nothing special. Even less for "prosumers". If sony releases a camera with true uncompressed raw, basic set of landscape suitable lenses and wedding/portrait suitable lenses, they don't have to replicate the telephoto canon line or the niche macro, TS, etc. This is where sony should really focus: get the meat of the market that matters first by delivering the lenses and cameras needed. They have done the later. Now the former needs to happen. 

Even if Canon/Nikon stay behind with their beastly lenses and cameras that need a sherpa to carry, along with the Medium format monsters, and sony never makes it there. I doubt most people would even factor that anymore that we factor the complete lack of medium format gear from the big two. It just doesn't matter anymore. This is a disruption. Legacy is just legacy.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 11, 2015)

gsealy said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > There is no question that Canon service and support are excellent. Second to none. Not everyone needs CPS, though. We are not all sideline sports photographers with dual 1D X's and a handful of ten thousand dollar lenses. Some of us are, and if you are, you probably won't find a better brand than Canon for what you do.
> ...



When you consider all the various 'sports photographers' out there I am not so sure that is actually true. There are thousands of actual pro sports photographers as can be seen on any televised event worldwide, but there are many more thousands of lower order sport shooters, the ones covering weekend soccer, high school sports, club matches etc, many of these are shooting for the actual school or club or smaller paper/news site and would be semi pro, photography students or people who can get access, and these people don't have backup 400mm f2.8's, they need fast turnaround.

I'd certainly wager there are many more people earning money from shooting sports than shooting and selling landscapes, not least because sports shots have such a short lifespan, normally a week!

This doesn't include the gear orientated bird shooters, sure they might not need fast turnaround, but there are many thousands of them out there. Heck here in Florida I see way more 600 f4's than 17TS-E's.


----------



## The Flasher (Jun 11, 2015)

kenny said:


> hoodlum said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



" _ And interestingly, Sony tells us there should be a significant improvement with third-party lenses as well, not just first-party glass. In fact, the company is claiming that this is the very first mirrorless camera that can focus using SLR camera lenses just as fast as would the mirror-based camera! _


----------



## unfocused (Jun 11, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> ...new sensor tech is nice to have, but not that vital as maybe 5 years ago...



And, that sums it all up. 

I'm pleased that Sony, Nikon and Canon all continue to innovate. (and they all do, despite the wailing of the anyone-but-Canon Fanbois.) 

But, I made a rational decision to invest in a system for the long haul. It does what I need it to do and my own shortcomings far exceed any shortcomings of the system itself. The technology will improve over time and I will upgrade as I need/want to. I don't have unlimited funds, so as long of the system continues to advance at a pace faster than my bank account, I see no reason to worry about whose technology is five steps ahead in a 5,000 mile march.


----------



## psolberg (Jun 11, 2015)

JClark said:


> FunkyCamera said:
> 
> 
> > Sunnystate said:
> ...



100% with you. Ultimately case in point to add a practical example: canon's new 11-24. Sure nobody else can shot at 11mm. But at f/4 one is already behind the vs shooting a 14-24 f/2.8 nikkor. If your doing landscape in low light levels or outright nightscape and that extra 3mm isn't helping you in any way. Not to mention nikon's astrophotography oriented D810A for which canon has no answer at all ups the game even more. This is a shortcoming which could be addressed with this sony sensor high ISO capabilities. Off course it doesn't mean the canon system sucks. Far from it. I think the 11-24 is an interesting lens in its own merit but it is not going to win everything all the time, and neither will the canon sensors. Even if I don't shoot nightscapes all the time, the nikon/sony system will still deliver insane DR over the canon equivalent. That extra 3mm f/4 doesn't add anything. Surely this is not the only example but that is the basic rationale.

I simply don't look at a lens system as the only metric here. The sensor matters a heck of a lot because that is the part that actually captures data and that is what you'll have to work with later. As long as another system provides a satisfactory replacement, even if not an exact match, or a superior match, all that matters to me are practical gains for my work. I know canon isn't the best at everything. Neither is sony or nikon so if I bought a brand that wins them all, I'd be shooting i-glass...as in i-maginary


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2015)

psolberg said:


> Even if Canon/Nikon stay behind with their beastly lenses and cameras that need a sherpa to carry, along with the Medium format monsters, and sony never makes it there. I doubt most people would even factor that anymore that we factor the complete lack of medium format gear from the big two. It just doesn't matter anymore. *This is a disruption. *Legacy is just legacy.



Is it? This is what MILCs vs. dSLRs looks like:






This is what a _real_ disruption looks like:






Can you spot the difference? :


----------



## psolberg (Jun 11, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > Even if Canon/Nikon stay behind with their beastly lenses and cameras that need a sherpa to carry, along with the Medium format monsters, and sony never makes it there. I doubt most people would even factor that anymore that we factor the complete lack of medium format gear from the big two. It just doesn't matter anymore. *This is a disruption. *Legacy is just legacy.
> ...


the problem with your rationale is that the camera industry is down across the board so you cannot compared things properly as you have two disruptions: mirrorless and smart phones.

Read Thom Hogan's interesting takes on this subject as he does make some much better analysis than your charts there.

Sony's bet is on the disruption that basically anybody but canon/nikon see: DSLRs will continue to become niche and their lens systems will go with it. The smartphone disruption will ALSO hurt mirrorless vendors. In fact EVERYBODY making cameras will feel it. 

The question is not what happens today or just last year. To be honest, EVFs have to advance a bit more, and lens systems have to grow in mirrorless. But that is the trend and it is the disadvantage of DSLRs with their bulky costly designs full of moving parts and film era roots.

Lastly, do not use the past to predict the future. That is foolish. Look at the present: people are buying less cameras and the industry is hurting. Sony bets that when the ashes settle, they will have a completing system for people who want to get more from a smart phone (which is a sony sensor anyway). They think they will want APS-C and Full frame mirrorless with modern optics designed for the new age. Canon Nikon? who knows. Maybe they hope people will go back to buying rebels or whatever. Either way, disruption is taking place, like it or not. Maybe sony is wrong and people will re-embrace DSLRs and their old lens systems. But again, we're at this inflection point where DSLRs will need to prove their relevancy and that hasn't happened before: the film to digital transition was on the capture medium (film vs electronic). The mounts, mirrors, OVFs all stayed the same. This time, everything changes including the mounts.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 11, 2015)

unfocused said:


> I don't have unlimited funds, so as long of the system continues to advance at a pace faster than my bank account, I see no reason to worry about whose technology is five steps ahead in a 5,000 mile march.



Same for me, alas, it might be different for people deciding what system to invest in ... and not everybody around CR is a Canon shooter of decades stocking a zoo of Canon-only gear.

And, to give the local fanbois the maximum amount of concession I can muster, Canon definitely isn't the clear and only choice these days for a lot of applications - including general-purpose shooting which is probably a large segment of the digital camera market. If you take the mid-term perspective into account with what we *know* Canon offers (and not what is rumored to be in their drawers), my advice to newbie purchasers would shift further away from Canon atm unless you want to use something only Magic Lantern can offer.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2015)

psolberg said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > psolberg said:
> ...



It's amusing when someone's words from just minutes ago come back to mock them...



psolberg said:


> yeah keep it on topic buddy. just saying. keep it on topic (read topic).


----------



## psolberg (Jun 11, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



1) Stocks and investment advise and hypothetical returns on canon/sony stocks, which is the topic that was going out of control is what I commented on. My suggestion is you read what I said because I'm not touching stocks, so there is that. 

2) I'm discussion this camera and sony's disruptions in mirrorles to the establishment in reply to a post addressed to me. I could have not replied yes, but I deemed it on topic because many are addressing the strenght of the canon system as a rationale to avoid the sony camera in topic. My point to that is made above and it is very much on topic. At least to a degree that is far more on topic than arguing who would have made more money investing 100 bucks in a stock. That is ridiculously OT.


If you cannot see the difference feel free to argue but I won't reply because that is as useful as the stock investment scenario. 8)


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 11, 2015)

K-amps said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I might be the only one on CR site to have a7rII on pre-order tomorrow
> ...



will put my pre-order in today. It's 9AM westcoast, still can't place pre-order through BH yet ???

My PC is ready for 4K, my monitor is not :-[


----------



## zlatko (Jun 11, 2015)

I don't need to know the stock price to know that I _definitely_ don't want Canon to copy some of Sony's "innovations", like the shutter shake of the original A7R or the mediocre lens mount of the original A7, or the non-ergonomic shutter release position on both of those cameras. That was not the sort of innovation that inspired confidence. But the A7RII looks great — certainly a big step forward. The 4k video sample on Sony's web sit looks fantastic. It's a relief to see that Sony is learning from its past mistakes.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2015)

psolberg said:


> That is ridiculously OT.



As are vague discussions about 'the future of mirrorless and dSLRs'. MILCs aren't disruptive technology, it's just a slight modification of form factor. Lightfield cameras _could_ be a disruptive technology, time will tell. Oh no, what have I done, did I just go further OT? 

Regarding the stock discussion, as I suggested - stop participating or complain to the person who first brought it up.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 11, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have unlimited funds, so as long of the system continues to advance at a pace faster than my bank account, I see no reason to worry about whose technology is five steps ahead in a 5,000 mile march.
> ...



I would disagree about the advice (not that anyone ever asks me), but mostly from this perspective: To me, Canon and Nikon are "safe" recommendations. They've been in business for about a century and have weathered all the ups and downs of the market. The same with the SLR form factor. 

It's a little like the old saying, "No one ever got fired for recommending IBM." No one ever lost a friend for recommending Canon or Nikon. I just have less confidence in the staying power and commitment of the other players.


----------



## psolberg (Jun 11, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > That is ridiculously OT.
> ...



You're not OT at all. You make valid points many are asking about the sony camera. We can agree to disagree on how much disruption "form factor" brings. I care more about this model and future ones:

1) the plus and cons of EVFs and how their evolution will lead to new advances and mix the benefits of LV overlays with OVF convenience. 

2) Legacy EF lenses will require an adapter to work properly which means new lenses, or deal with adapter issues. AF performance of legacy lenses vs Modern lenses designed for hybrid systems. Contrary to your assertion, it isn't just about form factor: PD systems and lenses work hand in hand. You're moving the PD sensor closer to the lens and in a different position which so far has proven problematic for adapter makers dealing with on-sensor PD hybrid systems. I hope this changes because I was not impressed with adapting legacy glass on any mirrorless body so far in regards to AF performance compared to the same lens on a DSLR.

3) AF system shift to 100% on-sensor and no longer constrained to a separate component bounded by the area limits DSLRs have yet to overcome. Sony touts this as a major plus and I agree. AF area coverage for FF DSLR bodies has struggled for years. This is regardless of form factor.

4) Cost and QA issues around high precision of moving parts such as shutter, and mirror no longer play a part which will enable FPS we can only dream on today with moving parts and unsurpassed reliability. This means today you have to spend 6K on a camera that goes more than 10fps full frame because it must have high prevision parts that can do this for years. Mirrorless: way less complex = more affordable and theoretically faster. 

5) practical silent shutters and lack of mirror slap for events where the noise of a DSLR will get you kicked out or at least told to back off.

Keep in mind canon can also go this way. So I suspect that once/if they do, people will hail mirrorless as the second coming of jesus. Just like everybody argued MP didn't matter, until canon shipped the 5DS, suddenly that is ALL that matters. Not saying it is you, but fanboys will be fanboys. So honestly, I know 90% of the haters here will sing praises to a canon branded camera just like this. This is canon rumors after all. The hive of the canon fanatic


----------



## zlatko (Jun 11, 2015)

psolberg said:


> Keep in mind canon can also go this way. So I suspect that once/if they do, people will hail mirrorless as the second coming of jesus. Just like everybody argued MP didn't matter, until canon shipped the 5DS, suddenly that is ALL that matters. Not saying it is you, but fanboys will be fanboys. So honestly, I know 90% of the haters here will sing praises to a canon branded camera just like this. This is canon rumors after all. The hive of the canon fanatic



You're just making stuff up. Classic — and transparent — straw man argument. Who says that MP is "ALL that matters"? No one. No one says that ever. It seems you have to make stuff up to attack some imaginary "fanboys".

Some people have always wanted more MP (and some got more MP via medium format). Those people may now be excited that Canon offers a higher MP option in a DSLR body. That's not the same as saying high MP is "ALL that matters". Not even close.

Many Canon users would like to see Canon build a high end FF mirrorless. Many own and use mirrorless cameras already. But some also realize that current and past mirrorless cameras have had some significant shortcomings (EVF lag, shutter shake, poor ergonomics, too few lens options, etc.). If and when Canon makes a high end mirrorless, I hope it's every bit as good, fast, robust and system-rich as Canon's current high end cameras.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 11, 2015)

I have an on-topic question regarding this camera. Well, two questions:

1. Will the back-illumination only really help at high ISO?

2. Why can't mirrorless camera designers improve AF precision and accuracy to the level of say, the 5D3 or 1Dx?

Thanks.


----------



## psolberg (Jun 11, 2015)

zlatko said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > Keep in mind canon can also go this way. So I suspect that once/if they do, people will hail mirrorless as the second coming of jesus. Just like everybody argued MP didn't matter, until canon shipped the 5DS, suddenly that is ALL that matters. Not saying it is you, but fanboys will be fanboys. So honestly, I know 90% of the haters here will sing praises to a canon branded camera just like this. This is canon rumors after all. The hive of the canon fanatic
> ...



Sadly, the level of fanboysm here is not something I need to make up. But there was a bit of tongue in cheek on my part there  I know some of you are cool headed. I acknowledged as much.


----------



## psolberg (Jun 11, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> I have an on-topic question regarding this camera. Well, two questions:
> 
> 1. Will the back-illumination only really help at high ISO?
> 
> ...



1) The naysayers say...NAY (surprised?). I'll wait for the samples. Nobody has made such sensor. I suspect it will be the cleanest looking high resolution sensor in the market but I'm sure that will be tested to death.

2) with what lens? because if you use it with a 50L vs a 600L or even a vanilla 70-200L, you'll realize the lens matters more than the camera for fast action. I don't think sony is in the market for this game (yet). But their new on sensor wide area 399 point system does send the right signals. I imagine if they wanted to produce a lens with the AF speed of a high end Nikkor or Canon they could. But this is the wrong camera: 5fps, high MP, weird ergonomics on long glass anyway. 

The problem with adapters is that these legacy lenses are designed for DSLR focusing systems and it is not as easy to get them to focus on on-sensor hybrid systems as it first seems. You know this. LV focusing is a joke in today's DSLRs no matter how advanced they are compared to PD viewfinder AF.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 11, 2015)

psolberg said:


> ...the problem with your rationale is that the camera industry is down across the board so you cannot compared things properly as you have two disruptions: mirrorless and smart phones.
> 
> Read Thom Hogan's interesting takes on this subject as he does make some much better analysis than your charts there.



Always good advice. Thom Hogan is one of the more thoughtful and pragmatic bloggers. 



psolberg said:


> ...The question is not what happens today or just last year. To be honest, EVFs have to advance a bit more, and lens systems have to grow in mirrorless. But that is the trend and it is the disadvantage of DSLRs with their bulky costly designs full of moving parts and film era roots.



While this sounds reasonable, I have to wonder if the DSLR design is all that more costly than mirrorless. It's one of those internet statements that mirrorless advocates love to use, because it sound logical. But do we really know what the relative costs might be? 

If you look at the relative cost of DSLRs to mirrorless of comparable quality, it seems DSLRs have the price advantage. My guess is that currently EVFs are more expensive to produce at a quality level that comes close to mirrors. Electronic is not always cheaper than mechanical and it's very possible that the cost of the mirror box will remain less expensive than EVFs, even after the technology improves. So, what many people assume to be inevitable, may not be. 




psolberg said:


> The smartphone disruption will ALSO hurt mirrorless vendors. In fact EVERYBODY making cameras will feel it.
> 
> Sony's bet is on the disruption that basically anybody but canon/nikon see: DSLRs will continue to become niche and their lens systems will go with it...
> 
> ...do not use the past to predict the future. That is foolish. Look at the present: people are buying less cameras and the industry is hurting.



While you shouldn't use the past to predict the future. It's never a good idea to ignore the past either. Especially when it comes to evaluating a company's ability to adapt.

I happen to have lived long enough to remember the SLR boom of the 1960s and 70s, when Pentax was the world's most popular consumer SLR. When the bubble burst, it was Canon and Nikon who were able to continue to prosper. Why? Because they were niche marketers with a strong base. Nikon was stronger, but Canon relentlessly pursued the market eventually overtaking their rival. 

I'm not using the past to predict the future, but I'm not about to close my eyes to their track record either.



psolberg said:


> Sony bets that when the ashes settle, they will have a completing system for people who want to get more from a smart phone (which is a sony sensor anyway).



Or maybe, Sony is just trying to extend the boom a little longer before they abandon the market, because their real interest is in electronics and selling sensors to phone manufacturers. Are they really committed to a mature market that will contract in the coming years? If you are willing to bet your money on that, so be it. But, it seems more people are betting their money on Canon and Nikon and that's not an irrational decision.



psolberg said:


> ...We're at this inflection point where DSLRs will need to prove their relevancy and that hasn't happened before...



Actually it has. Mirrorless is not new. (See Leica). SLRs ended up being the preferred form factor. Will that remain true in the future? Who knows. But, I am willing to bet that if Electronic Viewfinders ultimately replace mirrors, it won't necessarily make a lot of difference to we DLSR niche buyers. Our cameras may look a little different, but probably not all that much and they'll still use all our legacy lenses.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 11, 2015)

psolberg said:


> Sadly, the level of fanboysm here is not something I need to make up.



The only fanboys on here are the ones who come in to _bang on and on and on_ about how good* Sony/Nikon/insert camera brand of choice* are compared to dying, inept, useless Canon...

Those of us who disagree with those fanboys do so _not_ because we're Canon fanboys, but - simply - because Canon does what we need it to do, and generally _really, really_ well, too.

A nuance doubtless lost on you.

So off you go - twist _that_ into something that I didn't actualy write, like you've being doing to everyone else throughout the thread...


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 11, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> I have an on-topic question regarding this camera. Well, two questions:
> 
> 1. Will the back-illumination only really help at high ISO?
> 
> ...



1. I have shot few hundred photos with A6000 with my FE 55mm. For tracking moving subject, keeper rate is really high. Not 1Dx level yet, but I can easily get 8-9 on full burst @ 11fps. The only concern I have is in camera buffer.

2. For portrait, non tracking shooting, I'm much prefer mirrorless(a7s) over my 1Dx. Eye and face focus is dead on. 

My 2cents: FF mirrorless native lenses will play a bigger factor. I will order EF adaptor and Sony A-mount for my a7rII and see how AF works. 

Note: A-mount 135mm is a super lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2015)

unfocused said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > ...the problem with your rationale is that the camera industry is down across the board so you cannot compared things properly as you have two disruptions: mirrorless and smart phones.
> ...



I have to disagree just on the general principle that your post is simply to cogent to fit in here.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 11, 2015)

Oh, I was thinking more along the lines of contrast and phase detection AF in DSLR's vs. mirrorless cameras. Thanks for the responses.


----------



## SwnSng (Jun 11, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Is it really so hard to accept that some photographers like Canon and some photographers like Sony?
> 
> Use the camera system you like to use and let other's use the camera system they like to use.
> 
> ...



It's the classic human condition: make yourself feel better by cutting someone else down. I love the competition and I'm hoping the 5DMKIV answers back in some way.


----------



## psolberg (Jun 11, 2015)

Keith_Reeder said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > Sadly, the level of fanboysm here is not something I need to make up.
> ...



: uh okay? and... I'd add that just because some are critical of canon, does not make the criticism unfair or necessarily sony fanboysm. "A nuance doubtless lost on you".

But I will go on indeed


----------



## bmwzimmer (Jun 11, 2015)

WOW, 16 Pages

Well I'm not going to get too excited about this camera simply because it is not going to improve my photography where any normal person would notice....

I picked up a NX500 because it had a Back Side Illuminated APS-C sensor BUT the ISO is pretty much the same as other modern sensors.

The NX500 has over 200 Contrast Detect AF points and over 150 Cross type sensors BUT the AF performance is terrible compared to my 6D. It's passable but seriously not even close to the lowly 6D's center point. 

The only good thing about the NX500 is its pocketable size when mated with the 30mm f/2 or the excellent pancake lens.


----------



## LOALTD (Jun 11, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...




It doesn't matter to me personally how a company's financials are, I buy what fits my needs best.


But since you wanted to go there... 


Sony stock is up 86% over the past year.


Canon is up 4%.


Stock market as a whole is up 8%.


Pretty poor performance from Canon.


If you take it over 5 years, Canon is down 14%.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 11, 2015)

So where they are many stops behind and where big strides are possible by the laws of physics, still not a peep about improvements and then for SNR for high ISO where unless they went to something that worked perfectly without needing a CFA there isn't really any room by the laws of physics to make giant strides since Canon already does so well there, they talk about making all the improvements. Hmm.

Not complaining if they push SNR a bit higher though. Any bit helps there.


----------



## FunkyCamera (Jun 11, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> I have an on-topic question regarding this camera. Well, two questions:
> 
> 1. Will the back-illumination only really help at high ISO?
> 
> ...


1 - It probably won't help either way. It's already well known that Canon beats Sony at high ISO (outside of pay-per-point dxo scam scores). The only "backside illumination" that matters is the Sony zealots thinking the Sun shines out of Sony's rear end! ;D ;D

2 - Because it's a flawed dead end technology. No serious photographer is going to want to stare at a tiny TV screen stuffed inside a camera instead of seeing the real world through a proper optical viewfinder. Image sensors are just bad at autofocus because they're meant to take pictures, not determine focus. If you want functional and reliable autofocus you need a dedicated autofocus sensor, like a DSLR has.

Mirrorless cameras are so ridiculously bad at autofocus it's funny. Any less light than midday in the sahara desert and you might as well spin the focus ring and hope for the best. It really is that bad.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 11, 2015)

TheJock said:


> emko said:
> 
> 
> > How can people be like this? such fans of a company they blindingly defend it even when the company is clearly ripping you OFF.
> ...



Please explain why when you go to a wedding you don't see tons of 400mm 2.8 and 800mm f/5.6 lenses being used mostly.

I.E. what does your response have to do with anything? They are shooting sports and have certain priorities for that specialty. Plus PJs are in trouble and don't get paid enough to swap all over the place between brands all the time even if something would be better for them and many pics end up in newsprint so DR doesn't matter much there at all. etc. etc.

I might add an A7R II but and I might even use it for most of my shooting, but you won't see me using it for soccer or surfing and such.


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Jun 11, 2015)

Why do people treat camera companies like football teams? LoL

I once had a guy walk up to me out in the woods and ask what camera I was shooting with. I told him I was using a Canon 60D. He rolled his eyes and said "I shoot Nikon, we're not friends" and walked away in disgust. Seriously, this actually happened.  I was kinda standing there in shock for several minutes, half expecting the guy to come back and say he was joking. Never saw him again. It's like we were Crips and Bloods in a tense encounter... in his head.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 11, 2015)

psolberg said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > psolberg said:
> ...



Exactly.

But the Neuro crowd seem to think that so long as a company is tops for sales then whatever they produce is the best in all ways or that if it is not that in anything it trials or cripples and leaves out, can't actually matter to anyone.

I just care about my photography and videography myself. I don't own stock in Nikon, Sony, Samsung, Olympus or Canon. So long as they survive, I don't particularly care.


----------



## psolberg (Jun 11, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> TheJock said:
> 
> 
> > emko said:
> ...



;D hey you never know when that horse jockey wedding gig is going to come around and you'll be glad your sherpa still around holding your canon telephotos


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 11, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> I'd certainly wager there are many more people earning money from shooting sports than shooting and selling landscapes, not least because sports shots have such a short lifespan, normally a week!



Sports is a rough market these days. Heck, even SI doesn't even have their own staff anymore! Many of those pro sports shooters, it's very sad to say, there are plenty who are making not much more than a grad student in the hard sciences tends to get as a stipend (and no that is not much!). And it's gotten kinda cut throat and special deals exclusive lock out scenario in mnay cases too.

Weddings/portraits seems to be the place where people try to survive.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 11, 2015)

FunkyCamera said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I have an on-topic question regarding this camera. Well, two questions:
> ...



I wouldn't say that.

My a7s performs better than my 1dx in higher ISO range. AF is better and faster in almost no-light condition. EVF is better for night time shooting.

I wonder what type mirrorless camera you been shooting with?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2015)

LOALTD said:


> But since you wanted to go there...
> Sony stock is up 86% over the past year.



Yes, when you post a $2B loss, cancel your dividend for the first time ever, your credit rating is reduced to junk status, and most of your profits as an 'electronics company' come from selling insurance, you've pretty much hit rock bottom. If you then refocus efforts to selling sensors for smartphone cameras and the value of your benchmark currency is falling like a stone, an increase is quite reasonable. Nothing to do with ILC cameras, of course.


----------



## jrista (Jun 11, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> FunkyCamera said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



Agreed. Sony surpassed the 1D X in terms of high ISO performance with the A7s a while ago. The A7r performs quite well at high ISO as well. Canon's "win" at high ISO is a tiny fraction of a stop at best, which is meaningless in the real world. If the A7r II performs as well as it sounds like it will at high ISO, it will be a pretty amazing camera. I just hope the improved high ISO performance does not come at a cost to low ISO perofrmance. The A7s traded low ISO nose for ultra high ISO performance (25e- RN at it's lowest ISO.) I would be ok with the A7r II having 5e- RN at ISO 100...I think it would be a real bummer if it ended up with 25e- RN though.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> But the Neuro crowd seem to think that so long as a company is tops for sales then whatever they produce is the best in all ways or that if it is not that in anything it trials or cripples and leaves out, can't actually matter to anyone.



No. But thanks for your contributions to all the misinformation being spouted in this thread.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 11, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> My PC is ready for 4K, my monitor is not :-[



Dude, the 4k+ monitors are awesome. I'd almost make that the #1 priority.
I got a Dell (UHD (8MP), internal programmable high bit LUT, wide gamut, programmable screen uniformity compensation, 24") and wow. Best photo purchase I've made in a long time. It's like getting free, decent-sized 8MP prints and even for stuff like web browsing/programming the text is so much crisper and nice. It's like reading a magazine. Video games look awesome too. 4k video, nice!

And man the new 14MP ones, wow. I'm sure the 14MP Dell will come way down in price in another 6months or so, man.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 11, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> 1. Will the back-illumination only really help at high ISO?



ISO setting is associated to how much amplification you need to apply to get a certain luminance, right (Neuro can likely quote the standard)? 

Light is light. If your pixels are blocked by circuitry, you need more amplification to achieve a given luminance than if they aren't. So, low ISO settings should have less associated noise due to less required gain. It may be approaching diminishing returns with Sony's architecture at low ISO since noise is so low already, though. I suspect Canon would see greater benefits from such an approach.

Consider all the above as an uneducated guess.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 11, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> Oh, I was thinking more along the lines of contrast and phase detection AF in DSLR's vs. mirrorless cameras. Thanks for the responses.



I don't see Pros shooters would walk away from DSLR - 5D and 1D. With bigger lenses, the grip on bigger body is better. I strongly believe Canon will have some good stuffs in up coming 5D and 1Dx line.

Looking at a7rII specs, it looks like Sony still using same battery. This is one of the weak points in current mirrorless system. You can't shoot a sport event with a battery life that can only shoot up to 300-400 photos. It's more for soccer moms or regular dads(me) that want high IQ images in smaller body.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 11, 2015)

Keith_Reeder said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > Sadly, the level of fanboysm here is not something I need to make up.
> ...



Says the dude who bashed and personally trashed (morons, freaks, nerds, geeks stuck in a lab, incompetent photographers who can't expose properly or shoot anything, etc.) anyone who mentioned Canon shadow banding to high hell and back for years.... until Canon finally fixed banding and now goes around about how the new Canons are so amazing and so much better because they fixed banding and that it's really banding that matters and not general read noise (where Canon is still way behind) and who now trashed anyone who dares to forget to mention that the 7D2, 70D, 5Ds and such have fixed banding. ;D


----------



## retroreflection (Jun 11, 2015)

I need contact info for all of you, I've got some groundbreaking stuff to sell. 16 pages in 24 hours, gee whiz.
There should be some major awards on the way for Sony's marketing department.

If BSI, in and of itself, is as groundbreaking as some here think, then there's a Samsung camera that should be the total bee's knees and second coming. I don't think the evidence is quite supportive of that. Wisdom suggests one should wait and see how it actually performs. 

In a spirit of full disclosure, I did pre-order a Fuji XT-1. I consider myself somewhat lucky in what I got, in hindsight. But, is form factor as much of a risk as this (as measured by price vs performance delivered)?


----------



## fragilesi (Jun 11, 2015)

Looks like I made the right decision just to skip to the end and see how things were then 

I'm guessing most of the preceding pages are pretty much the same - on both sides of the argument!

Moving on. This does sound like an impressive release, but as we always say let's just see how it actually performs in reality before we either claim it as a world beater or indeed slate it as just marketing speak. 

I wonder if we should have dual threads for new announcements, the kiddie playpen arguments version and a grown ups version for anyone who actually wants to actually just talk about it sensibly ;D Personally I'd read both of course but the latter would be an interesting novelty to try!


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 11, 2015)

retroreflection said:


> I need contact info for all of you, I've got some groundbreaking stuff to sell. 16 pages in 24 hours, gee whiz.
> There should be some major awards on the way for Sony's marketing department.
> 
> If BSI, in and of itself, is as groundbreaking as some here think, then there's a Samsung camera that should be the total bee's knees and second coming. I don't think the evidence is quite supportive of that. Wisdom suggests one should wait and see how it actually performs.
> ...



I guess you haven't seen 5D3 and 1Dx rumors pages yet


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 11, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > My PC is ready for 4K, my monitor is not  :-[
> ...



I have this one in my BH account. Waiting for A7rII so I can do checkout at one: http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-31MU97-B-4k-ips-led-monitor ;D


----------



## jrista (Jun 11, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Will the back-illumination only really help at high ISO?
> ...



The amount of amplification required is based on how much light you gather and convert to charge. The two primary factors that affect that are quantum efficiency and pixel area. With BSI, pixel area is literally maximized. The entire sensor surface area is sensitive to light with a BSI design...fill factor would be around 99%. So yes, absolutely, BIS will have a meaningful impact to high ISO performance. It had a meaningful impact to high ISO performance with the Samsung NX1, which has scored higher than the 7D II in high ISO tests thanks to it's BSI APS-C sensor. 

The benefit here, when BSI is combined with Sony's already superior sensor technology, is that you can get both excellent low ISO performance as well as excellent high ISO performance, with small pixels, in the same camera. No need to make a tradeoff for one or the other.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 11, 2015)

Thanks, that was a great explanation jrista.


----------



## CaptureWhatYouSee (Jun 11, 2015)

I was instantly excited by the news of the A7RII. I started looking for a native (FE mount) 24-70 2.8. It doesn't exist. Sony said that they will announce more lenses by year end. But, I think there is a technical limitation/difficulty with wide fast zoom lenses on the a7 series due to their desire to keep the body small and hence absolute minimal mount diameter.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 11, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> Thanks, that was a great explanation jrista.



As I read your initial question (perhaps with bias since I was wondering it myself) is does: it also help low ISO?

It seems to me that the answer is yes, and for the same reason it help high ISO. However, given linear (or even non-linear) amplification requirements with an increase in ISO, it stands to reason it will help high ISO *more* than it will help low iso. So if I buy one, I don't expect my base ISO shots to be much cleaner than those from my A7R - indeed perhaps I won't even notice since noise is already so low on the Exmor platform at base ISO (a small percent of a small number is a tiny chance). But I do expect my high ISO shots to be noticeably cleaner.


----------



## psolberg (Jun 11, 2015)

jrista said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



Interesting is also the stacked sensor on the 1 inch models, which sony calls the next step after BSI where the circuitry and the photo sensitive components are completely separate that combined with the on-chip RAM to speed up readout rates and allegedly produces less noise and less rolling shutter than standard BSI CMOS. 

These are just some of the things we have to look forward in full frame. I think those out there that believe current CMOS technology is as good as it is going to get because canon hasn't lead the pack for years are failing to consider that many improvements yet to make it to the full frame format. I recall the same arguments being made years ago about how sensor development would stop... and yet we still don't have enough DR, we still have rolling shutter issues, we still have noise even at low ISOs, we still have bayer artifacts, we still have moire on video or pixel binning problems, and a host other set of issues which are areas to improve both in software and in sensor.

It seems one thing is clear: sony's RD arm isn't satisfied with "good enough CMOS" when it comes to their sensors and I for one applaud them because companies that lead down the road are companies that are always looking to push the edge.


----------



## emko (Jun 11, 2015)

psolberg said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



the example shots they show of rolling shutter is insane it looks like its fixed.

if we get that into a FF sensor and they figure out a global shutter that can sync with flash at any shutter speed there wont be much else to improve


----------



## zlatko (Jun 11, 2015)

CaptureWhatYouSee said:


> I was instantly excited by the news of the A7RII. I started looking for a native (FE mount) 24-70 2.8. It doesn't exist. Sony said that they will announce more lenses by year end. But, I think there is a technical limitation/difficulty with wide fast zoom lenses on the a7 series due to their desire to keep the body small and hence absolute minimal mount diameter.



The A7RII is definitely very exciting. As a camera, it looks fantastic! But you've hit on one of the ways in which Canon is way ahead of Sony and that is system options and specifically key lenses like the 24-70/2.8.


----------



## kphoto99 (Jun 11, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, I was thinking more along the lines of contrast and phase detection AF in DSLR's vs. mirrorless cameras. Thanks for the responses.
> ...


Why is 300 photos not enough for pros, in the film days you got max around 100 before a change was needed. Changing a battery takes less time then that.


----------



## darrellrhodesmiller (Jun 11, 2015)

i shoot both a 5dmk3 and a sony a7r now.. both are great.. but different tools for different jobs.. 

the 5dmk3 is an amazing all around camera.. if you dont know what kind of conditions i'm getting myself into i bring this camera and i know i'll get some good shots. Batteries last for days.. and the interface and controls are very comfortable and well designed (for a DSLR) Focusing is as fast as you can expect from a digital camera. 

the sony a7r (current generation) is a remarkable little camera. it does have a wider dynamic range than the canon. it is 36mp.. controls are usable.. lenses arent bad.. the 50mm f1.8 FE lens is VERY good.. the others are just okay.. (most of the other lenses are F4) focusing is slow but usable. the metabones adapter works very well with canon lenses.. but autofocus is VERY slow.. i typically just use focus peaking. (amazing tool for focusing). Battery life is downright miserable.. 250-300 shots per battery. Which is fine for a landscape photographer with a pocket full of batteries. but if you are doing long exposures its drastically less. 

the a7rII will use the same battery. dpreview says the battery is rated for 290 shots with this camera.. but with an even bigger sensor, image stabilization, and lots of other bells and whistles i wonder how long these small batteries will really last. Focusing should be dramatically improved. Some forums are saying with the metabones IV adapter its almost as fast focusing as a canon dslr with a canon lens.. (i'll believe that when i see it) i think its an amazing camera.. but it'll be a tool like any other tool.. make sure its really the right tool for the photography you do. I wouldnt be selling your canon gear just yet. 

I keep hoping canon will come out with some contender in the mirrorless market.. but ive been hoping for years. EOS-M doesnt count. 

just my thoughts.. a hopeful canon & sony user


----------



## RobertG. (Jun 11, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> emko said:
> 
> 
> > idiots because CANON could add all that and more but because we keep buying what ever they sell us they will keep doing this. Only thing that will stop this is competition that drives Canon to step up because people will start to go to Sony or other companies.
> ...



Just made a little correction.

Some much nonsense, hate and sarcasm and nobody stops him... why? Achievements of the past?


----------



## LOALTD (Jun 11, 2015)

The battery life is really the only real weakness of most mirrorless systems. Although you could carry many spare batteries and still be lighter than a DSLR body.


Have any of the A7 series users here tried the vertical battery grip?


----------



## mkabi (Jun 11, 2015)

kphoto99 said:


> Why is 300 photos not enough for pros, in the film days you got max around 100 before a change was needed. Changing a battery takes less time then that.



I'm not a pros. so this is just guess work.
Pros. nowadays have found out that "moments" happen on a microsecond if not nanosecond type basis.
Many seconds in a day. And if you are missing those "moments" that other pros. are capturing b/c they are not swapping batteries as often... then...

Other than that... this camera is definitely enticing. Wish they put 120fps @ 1080p... that would have put this camera as a definite on my wishlist.


----------



## ecqns (Jun 11, 2015)

jrista said:


> Are we now going to start a double standard...Canon's high read noise is perfectly OK, even though it can exhibit right up into the midtones on an all too frequent basis...but Sony's lossy compression is just completely unacceptable all the time despite the fact that it rarely exhibits artifacts in most images? ???)



This is why I upgraded to a Sony a7r from canon - the canon noise and branding in the shadows and midtones was unacceptable (at 100 iso). I never imagined the tonal depth I can get in the Sony, I've never seen any compression artifacts either. It's truly improved my post production work flow.


----------



## raptor3x (Jun 11, 2015)

jrista said:


> So yes, absolutely, BIS will have a meaningful impact to high ISO performance. It had a meaningful impact to high ISO performance with the Samsung NX1, *which has scored higher than the 7D II in high ISO tests* thanks to it's BSI APS-C sensor.



Are you sure about that? According to DxO the NX1 and 7D2 have nearly identical SNR while the 7D2 wins in DR at high ISO even with less overall sensor area.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 11, 2015)

Wonder where all the "gear doesn't matter" hypocrites are?


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 11, 2015)

jrista said:


> Are we now going to start a double standard...Canon's high read noise is perfectly OK, even though it can exhibit right up into the midtones on an all too frequent basis...but Sony's lossy compression is just completely unacceptable all the time despite the fact that it rarely exhibits artifacts in most images? ??? )



This is a legitimate question. In this case, I think Neuro was poking fun at some of the critiques of Canon (of course, he can speak for himself on these matters). From my perspective, there's a bit of a difference here: the Canon banding problem (to whatever degree it exists) is an artifact of the sensor/readout tech Canon put into their products. Sony's choice of lossy-only compression is a clear and unmistakable choice to deny an easy-to-implement software feature, one that Nikon does implement with the same sensor tech. 

It's legitimate to criticize Canon for failing to put better (and presumably more expensive) sensor tech in their cameras, but it's more legitimate to criticize Sony for failing to put in a better (and nearly free) data format.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 11, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> Wonder where all the "gear doesn't matter" hypocrites are?



Gear matters. Choosing the right gear for what you do matters more.


----------



## Perio (Jun 11, 2015)

I find it also interesting that Sony for the first time (?) implemented its new sensor in Sony's camera's and did not sell it to Nikon first.


----------



## vscd (Jun 11, 2015)

> Wonder where all the "gear doesn't matter" hypocrites are?



They are outside, taking pictures.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 11, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



nice


----------



## mkabi (Jun 11, 2015)

Perio said:


> I find it also interesting that Sony for the first time (?) implemented its new sensor in Sony's camera's and did not sell it to Nikon first.



That's cause Nikon used their sensor better with the D800, no I mean D800E, no they definitely perfected it with the D810. I'm only guessing that they didn't want Nikon to outshine them again (after 3 different bodies). 

Besides, if they just put in IBIS... anyone from either Canon or Nikon can keep their lenses, buy a Sony body and use an adapter to use their existing lenses. Lesson learned from Canon users??? In any case, more users...


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 11, 2015)

vscd said:


> > Wonder where all the "gear doesn't matter" hypocrites are?
> 
> 
> 
> They are outside, taking pictures.



+1

Although as a side note, most of the people I know who say that (not on here) are always the ones with the most expensive, latest and greatest.


----------



## jrista (Jun 11, 2015)

LOALTD said:


> The battery life is really the only real weakness of most mirrorless systems. Although you could carry many spare batteries and still be lighter than a DSLR body.
> 
> 
> Have any of the A7 series users here tried the vertical battery grip?



In my use, I just got in the habit of flipping the power off on the camera. The switch, at least on the models I've used, was right near your thumb, so turning the camera on and off was very easy. I've gone for a whole day with the A7r without having to swap batteries doing that. Now, I wasn't taking repeated burst shots, but for what I use d the camera for, the battery life was quite good.

Even if it was shorter, with the extra battery I carried, extending the life of the camera for a whole dawn-to-dusk period wouldn't have been difficult. To top that off, I always keep an AC inverter in my car, so I can always plug in the charger and keep a battery in that to ensure I have power when I need it.


----------



## vscd (Jun 11, 2015)

> Why is 300 photos not enough for pros, in the film days you got max around 100 before a change was needed. Changing a battery takes less time then that.



That's totally nonsense. You can shoot at least 150 to 160 Rolls (36 Pictures each) on a EOS1n HS before your battery *begins *to fade. Battery life is important and it gets more important on cold locations or on a longer trip. The A7R2 is a wonderful cam but after a second view there is not so much left for me to get totally excited about except of the dynamic range. 

I don't need *any *video on my gear and the lossy RAW will eat a lot of details anyway  I like the actuations, the bigger viewfinder and the Camera in total, but I doubt that my pictures would be improved with it. I learned to master the exposure to the right, I'm not pushing shadows all night long just to prove the abilities of my sensor. I consider it to be my second body, but not my main-tool. The lensrange is a shame against canon and 399 Af Focuspoints? That's marketing, the Canon 70D would have 20 millions on this calculation.


----------



## jrista (Jun 11, 2015)

raptor3x said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > So yes, absolutely, BIS will have a meaningful impact to high ISO performance. It had a meaningful impact to high ISO performance with the Samsung NX1, *which has scored higher than the 7D II in high ISO tests* thanks to it's BSI APS-C sensor.
> ...



Yes, I am sure. The way DXO does their high ISO testing, it is based on a noise level threshold. The NX1 hit that noise threshold at a higher ISO than the 7D II. As for the differences at very high ISO, where APS-C parts border on usability simply due to the total sensor area, the 7D II does pull ahead...however the differences in dynamic range at those high ISO levels are minor. 

That has always been the case with high ISO performance. Beyond somewhere between ISO 800 and 1600, cameras become physics limited. Read noise levels drop to fairly common minimums (somewhere between 1-3 electrons, which is basically meaningless under normal use situations), and SNR becomes a much more significant factor than dynamic range most of the time.

There is also something about the NX1 color balance that I find very intriguing. Most cameras, including Nikon's and Sony's have a slight color cast, usually towards red, when you get to very high ISO settings or dig really, really deep into the signal. The NX1? It has the richest, deepest, and most neutral blacks I think I've ever seen. Noise levels are not as low as some cameras on the market...but the data looks so much better despite that. Plus, the noise characteristic is worlds better than the 7D II, which still suffers from Canon's bias signal patterns. It is very easy to reduce clean, random noise, which the NX1 has, and more difficult to clean up the blotchy, banded bias signal. One option with the 7D II is to create a master bias frame, and subtract it. That can improve things a fair bit...but, it may also clip some information if you are not careful about how you perform the subtraction.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2015)

vscd said:


> ... 399 Af Focuspoints? That's marketing, the Canon 70D would have 20 millions on this calculation.



Now, now...be fair. Only 80% of the 70D's sensor area is DPAF, so it has only 40,000x as many AF points, not 50,000x as many.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 11, 2015)

kphoto99 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



I'm sure there are smaller numbers of people still reading news in papers.

Do you see any pro sport shooters out there shooting film any more? In fact, I know 3 working in PRO baseball Stadium, shooting JPEG. Their photos are instantly transfer through networks. They push that shutter button every single pitch @ 10-12fps.

Many pros don't even want to swap lenses during the game. They don't carry 2-3 bodies for nothing. Every seconds count.


----------



## vscd (Jun 11, 2015)

> Now, now...be fair. Only 80% of the 70D's sensor area is DPAF, so it has only 40,000x as many AF points, not 50,000x as many.



I don't know, I think *all *of them are AF Points but only 80% are used because of the lightbending. The Sony only covers <80% eighter. Anyway... it sounds good on paper but is outspecced by canon since a long time. ;D


----------



## jrista (Jun 12, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > ... 399 Af Focuspoints? That's marketing, the Canon 70D would have 20 millions on this calculation.
> ...



Technically speaking, Canon cameras with DPAF have "a single" AF point. The operation of DPAF is fundamentally different than the kind of focal plane AF that Sony has implemented. The hardware and the firmware are designed to work optimally together in both circumstances...and they work together quite differently. These are basically apples to oranges comparisons. 

Even if we were comparing apples to apples, it's still an inane comparison. Who gives a crap about how many AF points there are. The real question is, how do the systems perform? Do they perform well every time? Do they lock focus quickly? Do they track well? 

I personally don't care if I have 10, 60, 300 or 30,000 AF points. All I care about is whether the camera can acquire focus, lock it in, and maintain it on a regular basis. I don't expect 100% perfection...I just expect a high keeper rate. Sony systems with E-mount lenses have shown in testing that their keeper rates are quite high. I get a keeper rate of around 4 per second with my 5D III, which has a 6fps frame rate. The A6000 delivers around 8-9 per second with a frame rate of 11fps. You are never going to have 100% keepers 100% of the time, but damn, 8-9 keepers per one second burst is really good. Better than I've ever had from any Canon camera I've ever owned or used.

That's what matters. Minute hardware spec differences are moot. It's about how the system, not just the hardware but the firmware as well, performs. Canon's DPAF seems to perform quite well, however it has very limited availability. Sony's multi-point FPPDAF system performs very well with E-mount lenses (and possibly soon here with third-party adapted lenses as well), and it is available in many of their cameras, has been for a while. 

Sony seems very interested in pushing out the best technology they have to every camera in their lineup, from the bottom to the top. Canon seems VERY reserved about putting DPAF in anything, and complains about the cost of implementing it. Those are far more relevant facts about the competing technologies, IMO, than how many literal AF points there are. Canon's reluctance to employ lucrative technology in any of their products, let alone across their product lineup, has long confused me, but if it really does boil down to excessive cost...I would bet good money that cost has to do with their archaic fabrication processes and waste of useful die space.

And that...well, I've argued that point in the past. You all know my stance, no reason to dive into all of that again.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 12, 2015)

jrista said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > vscd said:
> ...



Yes, I know. Maybe a bigger emoticon would help?







It was a bit of fun, pop open a beer or a bottle of wine or whatever else you need to do to relax, and unwind a bit, 'k?


----------



## raptor3x (Jun 12, 2015)

jrista said:


> The NX1 hit that noise threshold at a higher ISO than the 7D II.



That's not actually true, the reason the NX1 has a higher score is because the 7D2 hits the color sensitivity threshold at a lower ISO. The ISO score is composed of the minimum of some threshold value for dynamic range, SNR, and color sensitivity.



jrista said:


> That has always been the case with high ISO performance. Beyond somewhere between ISO 800 and 1600, cameras become physics limited. Read noise levels drop to fairly common minimums (somewhere between 1-3 electrons, which is basically meaningless under normal use situations), and SNR becomes a much more significant factor than dynamic range most of the time.



I should have clarified in the previous post, but the whole point I'm trying to make it that we don't really know how much of a difference the BSI sensor is actually making. I completely agree with you that for high ISO values the camera performance is going to be completely dominated by sensor area and quantum efficiency. The NX1 has a slightly larger sensor, so if BSI was as beneficial as you were suggesting then we would expect to see the NX1 beat the 7D2 in at least SNR by some significant margin. Instead what we see is that SNR ratio is actually higher in the 7D2 at high ISO (my guess is that this is due to a weaker CFA.) Comparing the NX1 to a D7200 or A6000, you'll see that the NX1 is still very slightly behind, or at least not ahead. I think BSI will become much more important as pixel densities continue to increase but I'm not sure how much improvement it will actually provide on a much less dense 42MP FF sensor, although I'd really love to be completely wrong on this one.



jrista said:


> There is also something about the NX1 color balance that I find very intriguing. Most cameras, including Nikon's and Sony's have a slight color cast, usually towards red, when you get to very high ISO settings or dig really, really deep into the signal. The NX1? It has the richest, deepest, and most neutral blacks I think I've ever seen. Noise levels are not as low as some cameras on the market...but the data looks so much better despite that. Plus, the noise characteristic is worlds better than the 7D II, which still suffers from Canon's bias signal patterns. It is very easy to reduce clean, random noise, which the NX1 has, and more difficult to clean up the blotchy, banded bias signal. One option with the 7D II is to create a master bias frame, and subtract it. That can improve things a fair bit...but, it may also clip some information if you are not careful about how you perform the subtraction.



Did you ever get the NX1? I remember the last time we talked you were planning to rent one but I didn't really pay attention after that. I only have the DPReview samples to go by but what I've seen is that the NX1 tends to have a much purer blue cast to the shadows while Canon and Sony sensors have much more of a reddish cast, so we may be seeing the same thing.

As for the blotchy behavior, that's definitely there but I've found it to be less of an issue with non-Adobe raw converters and not completely unique to Canon. My A7R exhibits similar behavior but the spatial frequencies of the blotches are a bit different.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jun 12, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> But the Neuro crowd seem to think that so long as a company is tops for sales then whatever they produce is the best in all ways or that if it is not that in anything it trials or cripples and leaves out, can't actually matter to anyone.



I don't know why you are surprised that Canon users on a Canon forum are enthusiastic about the gear they use, but to be fair to the "Neuro crowd" full frame mirrorless cameras don't have any intrinsic benefits over a DSLR with the exception of the occasional benefit of an EVF. While it can be argued that the Sony sensor is better than the current Canon sensors, that's not a mirrorless vs DSLR thing. The same can be said for the video features. If this new Sony camera was actually a slim DSLR, it would be generating a lot more interest. (And I'm a mirrorless fanboi - I'm just realistic about the shortfalls of my Mirrorless cameras vs DSLRs.)


----------



## jrista (Jun 12, 2015)

raptor3x said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The NX1 hit that noise threshold at a higher ISO than the 7D II.
> ...



Right...and the 7D II loses color sensitivity because of it's higher color noise. It's also got Canon's characteristic heavy red cast (and I honestly don't know what causes that). It all boils down to noise, one way or the other. The NX1 has extremely low color noise, which is probably why it has such rich blacks.

Canon cameras also have the strong bias signal. I have actually learned through my astro processing that much of the larger scale noise and blotch frequencies that you see when you heavily stretch (shadow push) Canon data is actually from the bias signal. There are ways of dealing with that. You probably wouldn't really gain DR (not in the sense of gaining more data deeper in the signal to push), but you can improve Canon's signal characteristics by subtracting the bias signal away. That can remove a lot of ugly junk from deep shadows at low ISO, or at very high ISO (3200 and up). The potential consequence is that you might be throwing away some useful detail...kind of like Nikon's black point clipping.



raptor3x said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > That has always been the case with high ISO performance. Beyond somewhere between ISO 800 and 1600, cameras become physics limited. Read noise levels drop to fairly common minimums (somewhere between 1-3 electrons, which is basically meaningless under normal use situations), and SNR becomes a much more significant factor than dynamic range most of the time.
> ...



I understand. There _are _different kinds of noise. The NX1 seems to have higher random (Gaussian) noise levels...however it has extremely low color noise levels, no banding to speak of. The higher random noise probably hurts it on the SNR front, but it's clean, pure random noise...that is EASY to take care of (and, therefor, easy to greatly improve the SNR of an NX1 RAW, possibly quite considerably, with careful NR techniques). The 7D II may have slightly lower random noise levels, but it's got the same old color noise issues that every Canon camera has. That is what hurts it's color accuracy. I suspect it is because of weaker CFA, but there could be other reasons (Canon's sensor tech is still quite archaic by today's standards). The bias signal has the same banding issues that every Canon camera has. That may not be properly taken into account by DXO's measurements (or anyone;s measurements for that matter)...but it absolutely affects aesthetic.

Just look at high ISO images from the NX1 and compare them to the 7D II. You should see what I am referring to regarding color neutrality and rich blacks. There IS noise there...but it's the overall aesthetic. I'd take the NX1 over the 7D II every time...because of the noise characteristics, as well as the high frame rate. The loss in bit depth at 15fps doesn't bother me...usually photon shot noise will diminish DR below 12 stops at high ISO anyway, so it's not an issue. And 12 stops is more than any Canon camera has ever achieved at native size as well. 



raptor3x said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > There is also something about the NX1 color balance that I find very intriguing. Most cameras, including Nikon's and Sony's have a slight color cast, usually towards red, when you get to very high ISO settings or dig really, really deep into the signal. The NX1? It has the richest, deepest, and most neutral blacks I think I've ever seen. Noise levels are not as low as some cameras on the market...but the data looks so much better despite that. Plus, the noise characteristic is worlds better than the 7D II, which still suffers from Canon's bias signal patterns. It is very easy to reduce clean, random noise, which the NX1 has, and more difficult to clean up the blotchy, banded bias signal. One option with the 7D II is to create a master bias frame, and subtract it. That can improve things a fair bit...but, it may also clip some information if you are not careful about how you perform the subtraction.
> ...



No, have not purchased one yet. I found the A6000, and that's changed my plans. I am actually waiting for the A6100 to hit before I decide between the three. Both brands deliver high frame rate and high IQ in compact, light weight, portable packages. I really LOVE the NX1 concept...but, there is lens compatibility to consider. The A6000 would be compatible with A7r II lenses...I have to consider that. 

Regarding color cast...I have never seen any color cast in the NX1 at all. No blue, no red, no green. It's just dead neutral black. My screen is properly calibrated. I guess I could look on some other screens, but that neutrality in tone, the lack of color cast, is part of Samsung's technology. The ultra short distance between microlens and photodiode nearly eliminates color crosstalk, which is a big source of color noise. The only thing they could do better is actually use their ISOCELL technology, which would completely eliminate all color crosstalk entirely. I'm not sure that would improve things enough to matter, though...as the current NX1 sensor has the purest color I've ever seen (better even than Sony sensors, which still seem to have a faint red cast, or maybe a slight purple cast with Sony cameras.)




raptor3x said:


> As for the blotchy behavior, that's definitely there but I've found it to be less of an issue with non-Adobe raw converters and not completely unique to Canon. My A7R exhibits similar behavior but the spatial frequencies of the blotches are a bit different.



I agree here. I actually try to use VNG demosaicing with Canon data. It seems to handle it MUCH better than AHD, which is used by Lightroom/ACR. I think it may actually be Adobe's actual implementation of AHD even. I was poking around with PixInsight recently...I found it actually does have the option of loading images with AHD, and when I did, while I found a little bit of banding in a couple places in some images, the results were FAR cleaner than Lightroom/ACR has ever produced. 

That is rather sad. So many people use Adobe products, the fact that their implementation of AHD has such a detrimental impact on Canon data is a travesty. That said, read noise is read noise, and the blotch doesn't disappear. It takes on a better characteristic with VNG demosaicing, but the read noise levels are still high, and I've never seen any significant improvement in dynamic range...nothing that would ever allow me to stretch a Canon RAW as much as I can stretch Sony or Nikon RAW. 

I have seen, on a couple occasions, some faint purple blotch with the A7r. However, I had to go beyond 6 stops into the bowels of the signal to actually encounter it. I've pulled data up as much as 8 stops, and that seems to be about the limit before you finally end up buried in Sony's read noise and/or bias signal. (I think the purple blotch is actually in the bias signal.) I don't need to stretch data that much in the vast majority of my work...the only time I ever actually NEED to do that is with astrophotography, but I avoid Sony cameras for that because of the lossy compression. Long term, I won't be using any DSLR for astro...I'll just be moving to a proper cooled CCD, so it will be a moot point anyway.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 12, 2015)

vscd said:


> > Why is 300 photos not enough for pros, in the film days you got max around 100 before a change was needed. Changing a battery takes less time then that.
> 
> 
> 
> That's totally nonsense. You can shoot at least 150 to 160 Rolls (36 Pictures each) on a EOS1n HS before your battery *begins *to fade.



What's the deal anyway with using that which people used to make do with as a bar for what they use now? Seems sorta like a good way to stifle progress.


----------



## benperrin (Jun 12, 2015)

PhotographyFirst said:


> Why do people treat camera companies like football teams? LoL
> 
> I once had a guy walk up to me out in the woods and ask what camera I was shooting with. I told him I was using a Canon 60D. He rolled his eyes and said "I shoot Nikon, we're not friends" and walked away in disgust. Seriously, this actually happened.  I was kinda standing there in shock for several minutes, half expecting the guy to come back and say he was joking. Never saw him again. It's like we were Crips and Bloods in a tense encounter... in his head.


Wow! I've never heard of anything like that happening. I've gone to locations before where other people had been shooting Nikon and they were nothing short of great about it. Usually the talk is about 'are you enjoying this camera, or how does x camera perform'. Never has anyone been anything but nice when talking gear.


----------



## dolina (Jun 12, 2015)

To be understand the a7R II check out this 3rd party analysis of its image sensor http://www.wired.com/2015/06/sonys-new-sensors-exciting-new-cameras


----------



## NancyP (Jun 12, 2015)

Actually, I am more interested in the RX100 as a pocket camera. 

BTW, the sports pros shoot in jpeg because they are beaming their photos to an editor in real time - you will see a flash-sized box (the external wifi unit) on some of the cameras. And yes, a 400 f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8 on two 1DX cameras is a standard rig.


----------



## NancyP (Jun 12, 2015)

Neuro, I don't get your abbreviations re demosaicing: "I actually try to use *VNG* demosaicing with Canon data. It seems to handle it MUCH better than *AHD*, which is used by Lightroom/ACR."


----------



## raptor3x (Jun 12, 2015)

NancyP said:


> Neuro, I don't get your abbreviations re demosaicing: "I actually try to use *VNG* demosaicing with Canon data. It seems to handle it MUCH better than *AHD*, which is used by Lightroom/ACR."



AHD ==> *A*dapted *H*omegeneity-*D*irected

VNG ==>*V*ariable *N*umber of *G*radients

They're just different interpolation algorithms used for demosaicing.


----------



## benperrin (Jun 12, 2015)

I'm thinking the battery performance will be even worse on this new camera which is an issue for me personally if I was to use this camera for wedding photography. I get paranoid that the battery will go flat and usually end up replacing it at about 50% charge. This is really not an issue at all on the 1d series. Also I'm not sure the weight advantage of mirrorless is such a big deal (at least not for me) with the a7rII being 625g and the 5dsr being 930g. Throw in the weight of a metabones adapter and I really don't think weight is a major selling point. Also can someone tell me if the a7rII has dual card slots? I see it has sd and memory stick duo but is that in one slot or 2? I'd prefer 2 sd slots to be honest. But the bad points of the a7rII certainly seem to be few are far between.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 12, 2015)

NancyP said:


> Neuro, I don't get your abbreviations re demosaicing: "I actually try to use *VNG* demosaicing with Canon data. It seems to handle it MUCH better than *AHD*, which is used by Lightroom/ACR."



Well, it was jrista who brought them up, but they're different methods of demosaicing available in some RAW converters (specialized, not 'mainstream', e.g. dcraw). VNG = variable number of gradients, AHD = adaptive homogeneity directed. 

You can see an example of those (and others) here:

http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~par24/rawhistogram/40D_Demosaicing/40D_DemosaicingArtifacts.html


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 12, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



That depends. Early on it was all jpgs, but later on some very definitely did shoot RAW on the sidelines.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 12, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> I don't know why you are surprised that Canon users on a Canon forum are enthusiastic about the gear they use, but to be fair to the "Neuro crowd" full frame mirrorless cameras don't have any intrinsic benefits over a DSLR with the exception of the occasional benefit of an EVF. While it can be argued that the Sony sensor is better than the current Canon sensors, that's not a mirrorless vs DSLR thing. The same can be said for the video features. If this new Sony camera was actually a slim DSLR, it would be generating a lot more interest. (And I'm a mirrorless fanboi - I'm just realistic about the shortfalls of my Mirrorless cameras vs DSLRs.)



I'm a LONG time Canon user myself.

The Neuro crowd goes way beyond enthusiasm.

And if you actually use and care about Canon, you'd think you'd rather people went totally over the top about things, actually, than not, since it might maybe put on pressure than then makes the next model bring everyone, you too, more.

I never said mirroress had any intrinsic benefit. I prefer DSLR myself actually.


----------



## expatinasia (Jun 12, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Exactly. I've never heard of a pro sports photographer shooting raw at an event as they (nor the people that get them) do not have the time to do the raw conversion. It needs to be baked and ready to crop/print straight away. Bigger files = longer to transfer, longer to load to work with and so on.



Not all on the side lines are shooting for the wires. Some will be shooting for print magazines or such like where time is not such an issue. Some will also have an editor or colleague in the media centre and someone comes around occasionally and collects the CF cards so there are quite a few that shoot in RAW (or at least a mix of RAW and jpeg), it just depends on who you are working with, your company and the event you are at.

But this A7RII is not made for sports anyway. 

I still find the tech interesting, but for me it is the RX100 IV which I am very eager to try out and see what the new stacked sensor tech in that can do, as well as it its 16 fps and other cool features, all of which can fit easily inside my pocket without pulling my trousers down!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 12, 2015)

vscd said:


> > Why is 300 photos not enough for pros, in the film days you got max around 100 before a change was needed. Changing a battery takes less time then that.
> 
> 
> 
> That's totally nonsense. You can shoot at least 150 to 160 Rolls (36 Pictures each) on a EOS1n HS before your battery *begins *to fade. Battery life is important and it gets more important on cold locations or on a longer trip. The A7R2 is a wonderful cam but after a second view there is not so much left for me to get totally excited about except of the dynamic range.



??? He meant that you got a max of 100 shots before needing to change a roll of film. And changing a roll of film does take a lot longer than popping a battery in and out. So things were worse back then than with even a feeble Sony battery. (granted people tend to like to progress not merely do better than 10-20 years ago)


----------



## jrista (Jun 12, 2015)

NancyP said:


> Neuro, I don't get your abbreviations re demosaicing: "I actually try to use *VNG* demosaicing with Canon data. It seems to handle it MUCH better than *AHD*, which is used by Lightroom/ACR."



That was me that said that. VNG and AHD are demosaicing algorithms. The former is Variable Number of Gradients, the latter is Adaptive Homogeneity-Directed. There are also others, such as simple bilinear, PPG (pattern pixel grouping) and a few more. There are actually a variety of variants of these algorithms, so even though a program may use AHD, they are not all the same. 

PixInsight uses DCRAW, and it actually has the four-color option for both AHD and VNG. Without the four color option, AHD can experience significant mazing, which is a different problem than your standard banding. VNG in brighter areas may show some pixelation without the four-color option, but that is highly preferable to mazing. VNG, at least in my experience, has never given me a banded image unless the SNR was extremely low. AHD will often exhibit banding, but with four-color, banding seems to be less of an issue. 

Blotch is an interesting thing. That is really a form of low frequency noise...rather than high frequency, which is per-pixel or nearly so (nearly so because of the interpolation...in a non-demosaiced raw, the highest frequency of noise IS per-pixel noise). There can be a wide range of lower frequency forms of noise, including blotchiness, banding, and just non-gaussian distributions of random noise. I've found that a lot of blotch comes from the bias signals of cameras. This becomes fairly apparent when you run a superbias algorithm on a high quality master bias (several hundred frames). The bias may also be a source of glows and very large patterns that exhibit with heavy shadow pushing or high ISO (on Canon cameras, usually around ISO 3200 and up.) Removal of the bias signal can improve signal quality in a Canon camera...however it will also result in some signal clipping unless other measures are taken (say a pedestal offset.)

Anyway...VNG just seems to be a demosaicing algorithm that handles Canon data better. Sadly, the most used RAW editor on the planet uses, as far as I can tell, one of the worst implementations of AHD around. Adobe's AHD does seem to result in clean, crisp edges, but it makes the read-noise and bias-signal ridden shadows of Canon RAW files in an even worse state. Use of VNG will usually result in less or no banding, which gives you much more pleasant noise. Some people may be more willing to push shadows more when banding is not present...and, random noise cleans up better than banding...so you can clean up shadows more than you could otherwise. It is not, however, a magic bullet for improving Canon's dynamic range...VNG does not change the amount of read noise, only the characteristic with which it is rendered.


----------



## that1guyy (Jun 12, 2015)

LOALTD said:


> For all the "Canon is doing well"/"selling millions of cameras"/"making billions of dollars" folks:
> 
> 
> They actually aren't even doing very well financially.
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 12, 2015)

that1guyy said:


> Ahh facts and logic. What a breath of fresh air here. Neuroanatomist and similar people automatically defend Canon whenever there is a post about a competitor. They are ignorant children when it comes to business.



Fact: Canon has been the dSLR market leader for >11 years. 
Logic: Their business decisions concerning dSLRs have been pretty good. 

I dare say I know a fair bit about business, certainly more than those who've claimed for years that Canon is ******* if they don't deliver more low ISO DR. :


----------



## sdsr (Jun 12, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> ....full frame mirrorless cameras don't have any intrinsic benefits over a DSLR with the exception of the occasional benefit of an EVF.



These considerations may not matter to many (which perhaps is why the mirrorless market remains small), but I like never having to even think about afma and being able to mount just about any lens with an adapter, regardless of who made it; and for me the benefits of EVFs - especially easier control of exposure, and the magnification and focus peaking that make manual focusing so much easier, all while looking through the viewfinder - are more than occasional; I use them constantly (I tend to prefer manual focusing).


----------



## dolina (Jun 12, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> that1guyy said:
> 
> 
> > Ahh facts and logic. What a breath of fresh air here. Neuroanatomist and similar people automatically defend Canon whenever there is a post about a competitor. They are ignorant children when it comes to business.
> ...


And he has the gear list to prove it too! 

Kidding aside Canon's doing a good job despite the challenges from Android and iPhones.

They are diversifying to hedge against further loses from sales of their dedicated stills camera market.

In the same way that Sony did being in the image sensor business.


----------



## sdsr (Jun 12, 2015)

chrysoberyl said:


> I shoot mostly wildflowers and macro, so this camera is quite intriguing. But no Zeiss macro is available? How much do the adapters impact IQ?



The imminent Sony 90mm macro is supposedly impressive, though I can't remember to what extent, if any, Zeiss is involved. I do close-up rather than what I tend to think of as true macro, but for that, at any rate, my Canon 100L makes stunning images on my a7r via a Metabones adaptor, as do (via cheap passive adaptors) my manual Nikon 55mm 2.8 and Rokunar 90mm 2.5 (and a wide range of other lenses, for that matter). You'll find lots of similar comments online. (The main complaint about adaptors so far seems confined to certain wide-angle lenses, especially Leica M-mount, where the issue seems to be an unappealing purple color cast towards the corners.)

Talking of adaptors, if it's really the case AF with Canon lenses on this new Sony body is comparable to on Canon bodies (faster? really?), that would be quite a leap, given the extremely slow AF performance on the current a7r!


----------



## jrista (Jun 12, 2015)

sdsr said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > I shoot mostly wildflowers and macro, so this camera is quite intriguing. But no Zeiss macro is available? How much do the adapters impact IQ?
> ...



It sounds like Sony has optimized their CDAF algorithms, as well as bumped up their PDAF point count to 399. I am not sure how many adapters can actually make use of the PDAF points in the sensor, but from what I've read, the CDAF timing is 0.09 seconds. If they can actually oscillate a focus group fast enough to achieve focus in 0.09 seconds, regardless of brand (and in the past, forms of CDAF were the only real options when adapting third party lenses), then I do indeed believe they could focus any third party lens very quickly.


----------



## emko (Jun 12, 2015)

i seen the 5Ds and i thought nice 50MP but the ISO 6400 limit is crap, so i was waiting for the 5D4 with lower MP but at least better ISO and maybe better DR. Now this A7rII comes out with 42mp,high iso,DR,4K video,1080p 60fps etc why on earth would i pay 3700$ when i can pay 3200 and get a better product?

I have no idea what the 5D4 can do that will stop me from buying a A7rII but seeing as the 5Ds would have been the best camera to put BSI into i doubt Canon will do anything new on the 5D4 so it looks like A7rII will beat this camera to.

when the 5ds came many of you said there is no point in the Pentax medium format now because 5ds does everything it does but cheaper, but when its another company that has better product and cheaper too nope Canon is still the best because the COMPANY makes more PROFIT.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 12, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> that1guyy said:
> 
> 
> > Ahh facts and logic. What a breath of fresh air here. Neuroanatomist and similar people automatically defend Canon whenever there is a post about a competitor. They are ignorant children when it comes to business.
> ...



Fact: head of Canon said the Sony RX100 decision was silly and would never sell. Then after it sells like crazy they try to copy it and just some months later Sony drops an even never more advanced version already.

Fact: Canon also lost a lot of camera video market share even though they basically got the whole thing going

so their conservatism has already hurt, clearly, in some ways and the CEO and top planners are not all-seeing

Fact: You can't take pictures with market share. You don't take better pics, have better creativity, art, etc. based on market share of what you use.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 12, 2015)

emko said:


> when the 5ds came many of you said there is no point in the Pentax medium format now because 5ds does everything it does but cheaper, but when its another company that has better product and cheaper too nope Canon is still the best because the COMPANY makes more PROFIT.



You people.

Canon enthusiasts can call themselves lucky some valiant and patriotic few trawl all threads, defending the brand against the backstabbing of the Sonikon troll crowd. Let me explain something to you, Mr. "I want to have the better product for less money", it's not about YOU!

The truth is that all companies are just leapfrogging in turns and keep releasing great products ... and it's not just about the sensor, but the whole SYSTEM. Here's how, using the latest two hot topics on CR:

* Sony releases a bsi sensor, gaining more iso capabilty at higher res. But is it a tech never seen before? No, even Canon has been working on it! Do professionals need it right now to shoot beautiful pictures? No, it's the photog's skills that matter! Did Ansel Adams need it? No! Can it be important if Canon keeps selling volume? No!

* Canon optimizes their 1987 50/1.8 once again based on the proven classic design, and is rumored to keep working on a 50/1.4 update to be released during the next decade. This enables Canon shooters to take tack-sharp images at f5.6 and sports superior low-light capability wide open, making any so-called "high iso sensor progress" moot. 

Who are you to tell what is better? Why not be just happy our brand is prosperous? Ignore the 3rd party manufacturers forums, stay clear from sites tainted by non-Canon news and enjoy the clarity of truth demonstrated by CR's very own fanboi regulars. 'Nuff said


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jun 12, 2015)

DO you people work for Canon. Are you pro-corporate and anti-technology. How can people be happy that the company with the most money is lazy and greedy when it comes to advancements in their products. Some of you are real sheep. I have seen things like Nvidia. They overprice things and don't innovate much because they are on top. At the end nothing will ever change as long as people behave like sheep for these corporations. I thought the point of technology was to get better and make lives(work) easier. I shoot in all types of environments and I do video. I would love to have a camera with more DR for club and outdoor shooting with strobes and a small camera for 4k video B-Roll that i can sit on a tripod and crop. The Canon XC10 is pretty crappy because they won't let it have an ILC feature and the 1DC is too much and pretty old now and lacking features of other video cameras in that price range.


----------



## fragilesi (Jun 12, 2015)

RayValdez360 said:


> DO you people work for Canon. Are you pro-corporate and anti-technology. How can people be happy that the company with the most money is lazy and greedy when it comes to advancements in their products. Some of you are real sheep. I have seen things like Nvidia. They overprice things and don't innovate much because they are on top. At the end nothing will ever change as long as people behave like sheep for these corporations. I thought the point of technology was to get better and make lives(work) easier. I shoot in all types of environments and I do video. I would love to have a camera with more DR for club and outdoor shooting with strobes and a small camera for 4k video B-Roll that i can sit on a tripod and crop. The Canon XC10 is pretty crappy because they won't let it have an ILC feature and the 1DC is too much and pretty old now and lacking features of other video cameras in that price range.



Come on can we at least try and keep this adult. There is some excellent discussion on here and we don't need this. If something else is so much better for you then just go and buy it. I love my Canon camera, my Canon lenses, they have driven me forwards. I haven't tried this new Sony, one thing we ALL have in common, but the marketing speak certainly makes it sound very interesting. Let's see how it performs.

One thing that does confuse me is the lens discussion which goes . . . Canon lenses are better, yes but with adaptors we could use Canon lenses effectively with the Sony camera. The Sony camera is better to use for x,y and z therefore Sony are the only ones being innovative or making progress. Seems to me that Canon are making the better lenses in terms of bang for buck and ultimate quality and most are agreeing that. So, how come Canon aren't given credit by people like your good self for that innovation, quality and achievement? If Canon had put all that R&D and production capability into bodies instead we'd possibly have two sets of bodies everyone would be raving about technically but bemoaning the lack of affordable quality lenses with decent AF performance to attach to them . . .

Being the best at *everything* across such a broad range while maintaining the backwards compatibility that Canon do could never make any kind of business sense. They would be foolish to even attempt it. 

*And of course all that assumes that the Sony lives up to the claims . . . sometimes products do, sometimes they don't.


----------



## krisbell (Jun 12, 2015)

fragilesi said:


> Come on can we at least try and keep this adult. There is some excellent discussion on here and we don't need this. If something else is so much better for you then just go and buy it. I love my Canon camera, my Canon lenses, they have driven me forwards. I haven't tried this new Sony, one thing we ALL have in common, but the marketing speak certainly makes it sound very interesting. Let's see how it performs.
> 
> One thing that does confuse me is the lens discussion which goes . . . Canon lenses are better, yes but with adaptors we could use Canon lenses effectively with the Sony camera. The Sony camera is better to use for x,y and z therefore Sony are the only ones being innovative or making progress. Seems to me that Canon are making the better lenses in terms of bang for buck and ultimate quality and most are agreeing that. So, how come Canon aren't given credit by people like your good self for that innovation, quality and achievement? If Canon had put all that R&D and production capability into bodies instead we'd possibly have two sets of bodies everyone would be raving about technically but bemoaning the lack of affordable quality lenses with decent AF performance to attach to them . . .
> 
> ...



...now why did you have to go and ruin a perfectly entertaining thread with sensible, mature and balanced reasoning!? Don't worry, I'll salvage it and get it back on topic right now by stating that Sony is the best thing that happened to photography since ever, Canon is as good as gone and Neuro smells bad


----------



## emko (Jun 12, 2015)

fragilesi said:


> RayValdez360 said:
> 
> 
> > DO you people work for Canon. Are you pro-corporate and anti-technology. How can people be happy that the company with the most money is lazy and greedy when it comes to advancements in their products. Some of you are real sheep. I have seen things like Nvidia. They overprice things and don't innovate much because they are on top. At the end nothing will ever change as long as people behave like sheep for these corporations. I thought the point of technology was to get better and make lives(work) easier. I shoot in all types of environments and I do video. I would love to have a camera with more DR for club and outdoor shooting with strobes and a small camera for 4k video B-Roll that i can sit on a tripod and crop. The Canon XC10 is pretty crappy because they won't let it have an ILC feature and the 1DC is too much and pretty old now and lacking features of other video cameras in that price range.
> ...



umm no one says Canon lens are bad everyone agrees they are great just the Camera is lacking compared to the competition right now, and the fact you can use your Canon lenses on a amazing camera like the A7rII is awesome. I just don't see why anyone would get a 5Ds over this camera its better in every way except that it has 8MP less. Battery life is a issue but since the people said the 5Ds is for landscape and studio i doubt its a big deal especially when it has better ISO,DR,VIDEO etc with ability to use Canon glass for 700$ less.

I just bought a Canon 11-24 F4 a very nice lens just wish the Canon was doing what Sony is doing right now with their cameras.

Canon i am sure will match the tech when they release a 5D5 but that's like 5-6 years from now


----------



## suburbia (Jun 12, 2015)

emko said:


> someone said



;D


----------



## emko (Jun 12, 2015)

suburbia said:


> emko said:
> 
> 
> > someone said
> ...



yes everyone calls the 5Ds a landscape/studio camera because its ISO is crap yet the A7rII does both high MP and high ISO,DR,VIDEO etc i want a high MP and high ISO this was the only reason i didn't get the 5Ds i was waiting to see what the 5D4 would be like but then this news came out and i am ready to pre order when i can.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 12, 2015)

slclick said:


> We need Sony sensors, with Canon Glass and AF in a Leica body (drooling over the Q) with Nikon......um....erm......models?
> 
> http://img.xcitefun.net/users/2008/04/2541,xcitefun-nikon-coolpix.jpg


  I thought the whole thing with mirrorless was going smaller ???


----------



## 9VIII (Jun 12, 2015)

emko said:


> i seen the 5Ds and i thought nice 50MP but the ISO 6400 limit is crap, so i was waiting for the 5D4 with lower MP but at least better ISO and maybe better DR. Now this A7rII comes out with 42mp,high iso,DR,4K video,1080p 60fps etc why on earth would i pay 3700$ when i can pay 3200 and get a better product?
> 
> I have no idea what the 5D4 can do that will stop me from buying a A7rII but seeing as the 5Ds would have been the best camera to put BSI into i doubt Canon will do anything new on the 5D4 so it looks like A7rII will beat this camera to.
> 
> when the 5ds came many of you said there is no point in the Pentax medium format now because 5ds does everything it does but cheaper, but when its another company that has better product and cheaper too nope Canon is still the best because the COMPANY makes more PROFIT.



http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-5ds-sr/5

I think people are reading way too much into the high ISO limitations on the 5Ds. When I compare it to the D810 at ISO 12800 the noise pattern looks the same or better in some cases, and definitely pulls through more detail.
It could also be argued that shooting higher than ISO 12800 is a waste of time anyway. Once your dynamic range drops below 8 stops you're no longer filling the basic range of a JPEG image, the only cameras that can do that are the A7S and the 1DX (It's also surprising how many cameras can't even keep 8 stops at ISO 12800, e.g. the D810 and A7R). 
http://www.sensorgen.info


----------



## suburbia (Jun 12, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > ...new sensor tech is nice to have, but not that vital as maybe 5 years ago...
> ...



Perfect post. New technology that directly or indirectly impacts photography is obviously interesting especially when it reaches product stage. I was hoping to hear more about this backlit technology (that bizarrely everyone suddenly is idolising as if we all knew about it before) and its future practical possibilities and likely spread of use (who really needs short-lived technical gimmicks and hacks). 

But it always just descends into this utterly distasteful materialistic obsession and mud-slinging hysteria over a desperation to (imagine) upgrading. This happens nearly every model that comes out from multiple manufacturers (no names mentioned but it seems to be the same people and suspiciously new accounts that spring from nowhere)! 

As if everyone can or even should be on the edge of their seats waiting to throw honest money at whatever model upgrade happens to appear that month or even year. It is all very morally dubious let alone considering how long the art/hobby/creative form of photography has been around and the basics of its technology I imagined we would be above all that.


----------



## bholliman (Jun 12, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Said it before, will say it again – you can't equate best technology with success. In fact, the track record in most industries is that "best" technology generally loses out to "good enough" technology in the marketplace. (Ask Sony about Betamax or maybe a more appropriate example might be how cell phones have become the dominant picture-taking devices.
> 
> It great to see any company innovating. I'm happy when Sony innovates. I'm happy when Nikon innovates. I'm happy when Canon innovates. It moves the standards ahead and I will ultimately benefit. But, I also don't get that excited about individual technology steps. It's not a race where the "best" technology carries some prize. It's the overall product that people buy.
> 
> Given the price of this new camera and the fact that I don't own a single lens that fits it, I can't really give it much more than a "meh." But then again, I have a long list of existing Canon products that I would like to buy first, so by the time I can consider a replacement for my 5DIII, I imagine the 5DIV or even 5DV might be available.



+1

I'm always glad to see technology improvements regardless of who they are coming from. It raises the bar for the photography equipment I'll use at some point in the future. The BSI sensor sounds like it will open doors for improved high ISO image quality, which is definitely a good thing. 

That said, I'm happy with my Canon gear, I'm still not using it to anywhere near its potential. The a7rII, 5Ds, D820 or any new body announced are just steps forward. I'm certainly not going to change systems for one new body announcement. There is much more to a "system" than just the camera sensor and Canon, Nikon and others will continue to march out new products so the latest and greatest product today will be yesterday's news in 6 months or a year.


----------



## expatinasia (Jun 12, 2015)

bholliman said:


> The BSI sensor sounds like it will open doors for improved high ISO image quality, which is definitely a good thing.



Perhaps someone can help me understand here. Didn't the RX line used to have BSI sensors, but with the RX10 II and RX100 IV have now moved to stacked sensors? So, which is better? Is it just that stacked sensors have not made it to full frame yet, or is BSI better and if so why did the RX line change?


----------



## fragilesi (Jun 12, 2015)

krisbell said:


> ...now why did you have to go and ruin a perfectly entertaining thread with sensible, mature and balanced reasoning!? Don't worry, I'll salvage it and get it back on topic right now by stating that Sony is the best thing that happened to photography since ever, Canon is as good as gone and Neuro smells bad



Sorry, thanks for stopping me and getting things back on track again


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 12, 2015)

Hogwash. Sony could stick their FF BSI EXMORtastic sensor inside a camera body made from recycled Cheerios box cutouts with an aluminum foil pinhole lens and a keychain penlight flash and it would _still_ outperform any Canon body/lens/Speedlite combo ever made. Period. 

Wake up and smell the photons, people...it's *all* about the sensor. 

;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 12, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > The BSI sensor sounds like it will open doors for improved high ISO image quality, which is definitely a good thing.
> ...



Stacked is better. Sony _could_ bring stacked sensor technology to their APS-C and FF lineup, but they're just milking the outdated BSI technology for all it's worth, holding out on their customers, crippling the a7RII with antiquated sensor tech. Innovation fail!!

;D


----------



## benperrin (Jun 12, 2015)

suburbia said:


> But it always just descends into this utterly distasteful materialistic obsession and mud-slinging hysteria over a desperation to (imagine) upgrading. This happens nearly every model that comes out from multiple manufacturers (no names mentioned but it seems to be the same people and suspiciously new accounts that spring from nowhere)!



I think people just want to feel justified in their decision to purchase new equipment. People think that because they think a certain way that others should also think that way as well. But we all have different needs and wants and should all celebrate when new tech comes our way. At the end of the day this new tech doesn't make ourselves or our current gear any less useful.


----------



## fragilesi (Jun 12, 2015)

emko said:


> umm no one says Canon lens are bad everyone agrees they are great just the Camera is lacking compared to the competition right now, and the fact you can use your Canon lenses on a amazing camera like the A7rII is awesome.



Ummm, that's exactly what I was saying (apart from the "amazing" praise heaped on a camera yet to be tried) . . . The problem is that people somehow equate that to Canon not being innovative when clearly they are miles ahead in some areas. The field is simply too broad to sustain the R&D and keep upgrading production facilities to be best across such a vast range and make money.



> I just don't see why anyone would get a 5Ds over this camera its better in every way except that it has 8MP less. Battery life is a issue but since the people said the 5Ds is for landscape and studio i doubt its a big deal especially when it has better ISO,DR,VIDEO etc with ability to use Canon glass for 700$ less.



So you don't see why someone would get a camera that almost none of us customers have tried over one that pretty much no-one has tried? Odd how people (on both sides) will take a marketing announcement as gospel when it suits them but brush over respected reviewers when they do not . . .



> I just bought a Canon 11-24 F4 a very nice lens just wish the Canon was doing what Sony is doing right now with their cameras.



Or maybe that Sony was doing with its lenses what Canon is with theirs?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 12, 2015)

On a serious note, I do agree that these developments are a very good thing for all of us. Choice is good!

The lack of a sensor feature, the lack of a particular lens in a lineup, etc., drive choices. People will choose the system(s) that best meet their needs.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jun 12, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Stacked is better. Sony _could_ bring stacked sensor technology to their APS-C and FF lineup, but they're just milking the outdated BSI technology for all it's worth, holding out on their customers, crippling the a7RII with antiquated sensor tech. Innovation fail!!
> 
> ;D



Just wait a few months when the Fuji's organic sensors starts hitting the streets. Then we'll some real innovation.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 12, 2015)

And then everyone will rave about how Fuji's sensor is so much superior to the Sony crap right now and Sony better get their act together. Yes, it'll be great!


----------



## weixing (Jun 12, 2015)

Hi,


Hillsilly said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Stacked is better. Sony _could_ bring stacked sensor technology to their APS-C and FF lineup, but they're just milking the outdated BSI technology for all it's worth, holding out on their customers, crippling the a7RII with antiquated sensor tech. Innovation fail!!
> ...


 So does the sensors "grow" as time goes by?? You buy a APS-C sensor camera and after a few years, it became a FF sensor camera... if so, it's a real innovation and I might get one... ha ha ha 

Have a nice day.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 12, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly. I've never heard of a pro sports photographer shooting raw at an event as they (nor the people that get them) do not have the time to do the raw conversion. It needs to be baked and ready to crop/print straight away. Bigger files = longer to transfer, longer to load to work with and so on.
> ...



It is nitpicking, but absolutely true. When I'm not shooting for the main page or website gallery, but rather good prints to be used on bigger websites, such as the NCAA or Big Ten websites, or publications for the universities, then I have plenty of time to shoot RAW and edit. I don't like to because I shoot every game the same, but I do it anyway because I want those to look best. For regular games where I have to have a picture for the main page with the story and an associated photo gallery, then it is easier and faster to shoot jpg because then it's just a matter of sorting.

Plenty of times SID's will come around and collect my CF cards but that time interval is set up before the games. In those cases jpg too.

I'm not shooting in big enough events like the SI shooters were where they shoot RAW, someone comes and gets the card, and edits the RAW files. I know they do that at big pro events and know people who do it that way. 

Digital gave a lot of flexibility I suppose.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jun 12, 2015)

weixing said:


> So does the sensors "grow" as time goes by?? You buy a APS-C sensor camera and after a few years, it became a FF sensor camera... if so, it's a real innovation and I might get one... ha ha ha
> 
> Have a nice day.


LOL. Still, I've heard many FF users proclaim to medium format users that it's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog. I don't know why FF users are so sensitive about the size of their sensor.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jun 12, 2015)

Almost too good to be true. 40 MPIX, all lenses stabilized, can use Canon lenses, humongous high iso, 4k, wifi, iphone/pad integration. The list just goes on. 

My upgrade path seems clear now. Got a really cheap 6D body today (to supplement and eventually replace my aging 5DII's). SONY next stop if reviews confirm this fantastic leap forward also when it comes to continuing to use my fav Canon lenses. 

Of course Canon may perform a miracle with the 5DIV - however I am betting against this now. I will have to see to believe it. Fortunately my fav lenses will still be around if it happens.

Times are good for us buyers!


----------



## Eldar (Jun 12, 2015)

My supplier over here is not able to take my order yet, but I decided to get one and compare it to the 5DSR myself. With an adaptor I can use all my Canon and Zeiss lenses. Some of the issues I had with the A7R seems to have been addressed, so it became too tempting. 

Hopefully Canon jumped in their chair when they saw the specification and will act on it. With the number (and quality) of new lenses coming out and the ability to use almost any lens with an adaptor, even the system faithfuls may consider this one.


----------



## aj1575 (Jun 12, 2015)

The timing of the announcement was definitly great; just at the time when the 5Ds hits the shelf.

I think the A7 will do great over at DXOmark. I'm looking forward to the comparison at DPreview, which is closer to the real world. There I was not overwhelmed by the performace of the "old" A7 variants. There is definitly a measurable difference between the sensors; my big question is always, how much of this translates into values that Count inreal world shooting.

Anyway, new tech is good, and gives us the possibility to choose whatever we want.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 12, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> On a serious note, I do agree that these developments are a very good thing for all of us. Choice is good!
> 
> The lack of a sensor feature, the lack of a particular lens in a lineup, etc., drive choices. People will choose the system(s) that best meet their needs.



agreed. Will see how A-mount lenses + A to e-mount adaptor works with a7rII. One thing for sure, it no longer compact.


----------



## aj1575 (Jun 12, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > On a serious note, I do agree that these developments are a very good thing for all of us. Choice is good!
> ...



But it is mirrorless and mirrorless is the future!

It makes completly sense to carry around adaptors to attach ever possible lens to your mirrorles, somehow you got to use up the size you freed with going mirrorles.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 12, 2015)

aj1575 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



With mirrorless, we can always add size,lenght and weight when needed. Other time, stay compact with shorter FL native lenses. Can't really do that with DSLR when we want smaller and lighter.

I suggest we need take a step back and look at the whole picture of mirrorless - what they have to offer for our photography. Learn and adapt to new things is hard for many.


----------



## sanj (Jun 12, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> aj1575 said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



I can understand the difficulty in learning and adapting to new things. What I find wrong with me and others is when they flat out refuse to accept or see any merit in new things. Few years ago I hated this trait in me so much that I now take double interest in anything new. Life is so much more fun now.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 12, 2015)

I don't think this has anything to do with new things and adapting. 

It has to do with the "Christ is risen" attitude and overzealous reaction the minute Sony or Nikon comes out with a new camera. And I don't know where it started. But nobody brought sales into the picture UNTIL this started. It's the constant "OMG Canon is *******!" attitude that happens the minute a new camera body comes out from another company. Then when people try to explain, like Neuro has tried countless times that Canon isn't *******, then he's just a fanboy who can't wake up to reality. That's the type of crap that most of us are actually getting sick of. We go from this "gear doesn't matter" garbage 3 years ago to now it's "all about gear and low ISO DR" garbage. I have never in my life seen such gear-heads salivating and frothing at the mouth when they hear 13 or 14 stops of DR at ISO 100. Who cares? If there's any part of gear that doesn't matter, it would have to start with that spec. 

Then of course we come to the MILC is going to replace DSLR garbage that has been going on for years and years. I remember in 2009 everyone saying "just you wait, by the end of the year MILC will overtake DSLR's!". Then in 2010...2011...2012...2013...2014...first half of 2015...

I'm still waiting.

To top it all off, lots of people arguing that Sony has higher DR (note that's the statement, there's noting more to the statement) don't even understand, at all, what they are saying. I'm convinced they don't even know what that means. What does higher DR mean? Since DR has an ISO dependence, that statement doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Of course the D810 has more DR at ISO 100 than the 1Dx. But not at ISO 6400. Not even close. So which is which?

I think that is the crap that we're getting sick of because none of it makes sense. If you want to buy a MILC system from Sony then go for it. But to make completely idiotic and ignorant claims that "OMG Canon is ******* now!" is really pointless, and wrong. It's almost like a cult following.

I realize there are problems with Canon sensors that Sony/Exmor don't have. But good lord it's like any camera with a Sony/Exmor sensor can part water.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 12, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> I don't think this has anything to do with new things and adapting.
> 
> It has to do with the "Christ is risen" attitude and overzealous reaction the minute Sony or Nikon comes out with a new camera. And I don't know where it started. But nobody brought sales into the picture UNTIL this started.  It's the constant "OMG Canon is *******!" attitude that happens the minute a new camera body comes out from another company. Then when people try to explain, like Neuro has tried countless times that Canon isn't *******, then he's just a fanboy who can't wake up to reality. That's the type of crap that most of us are actually getting sick of. We go from this "gear doesn't matter" garbage 3 years ago to now it's "all about gear and low ISO DR" garbage. I have never in my life seen such gear-heads salivating and frothing at the mouth when they hear 13 or 14 stops of DR at ISO 100. Who cares? If there's any part of gear that doesn't matter, it would have to start with that spec.
> 
> ...



That is exactly why I am hardly here anymore now. Sure many might consider that a good thing though........


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 12, 2015)

I don't consider it a good thing. I enjoy your technical knowledge. I guess better for you though


----------



## msm (Jun 12, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> I don't think this has anything to do with new things and adapting.
> 
> It has to do with the "Christ is risen" attitude and overzealous reaction the minute Sony or Nikon comes out with a new camera. ...



Hehe, well it is harder to get exited by Canon you know. The 5Ds is like oh wow, now they try to sell me another 5DIII with double the amount of pixels at a 50% price premium. My old 5DIII has collected dust the last 2 years for a reason, and it was not the megapixel count.

Compared to the A7RII:
- 42 megapixel and good dynamic range (most likely significantly better than Canon at least).
- 4K video with SLOG and full sensor readout option. Always wanted to try to make some videos but the output from my Canons just put me off. What is called 1080P HD looks like upscaled 480P on the 5DIII unless I use ML which just requires to much time and processing for me to bother.
- Silent shutter, now I can take pictures discreetely without a sound, or take pictures of distant mountains or the moon at 600mm with 42mpix completely free of shutter or mirror shake.
- IBIS, now I can shoot with the Zeiss Otus hand held and stabilized with focus peaking and focus loupe through the evf.

In addition:
- BSI sensor should be able to collect more light, particularly with fast primes, and may also work better with rangefinder lenses. Testing will show.

So I am sorry but I have to admit I find the A7RII far more exiting. Canon will have to try harder if they are going to exite me, much harder. Even if they are the current market leader, which I don't think will continue forever if they can't come up with something more interesting at some point.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 12, 2015)

msm said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think this has anything to do with new things and adapting.
> ...



You don't have to apologize. That was a very sensible post, with valid points.


----------



## tron (Jun 12, 2015)

While waiting for Canon doom's day I will be enjoying my new 300 2.8 and 11-24 lenses ;D


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 12, 2015)

msm said:


> So I am sorry but I have to admit I find the A7RII far more exiting. Canon will have to try harder if they are going to exite me, much harder. Even if they are the current market leader, which I don't think will continue forever if they can't come up with something more interesting at some point.



I don't think Canon is trying to excite anyone, and in this case that's what I do like about them.

I want to be excited by photography content, but my camera gear should "just work" and my current midrange 6d and L gear does just that excluding the dodgy af system. Arguably, "just works" becomes more important in a pro environment then with enthusiasts wanting to experiment around with features.

Imho we see too few side-by-side comparisons of real world photography, i.e. the same scenes taken by good ol' Canon and latestest and greatestest Sonikon...



msm said:


> Compared to the A7RII:



... However, these are very valid points. My 6d shutter is "silent enough" for me, but imho it's getting harder and harder that Sonikon keeps adding features that aren't just "nice to have", but make a real world impact for some (or, not to offend anyone around here, even a lot of) customers.


----------



## jrista (Jun 12, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> That's the type of crap that most of us are actually getting sick of. We go from this "gear doesn't matter" garbage 3 years ago to now it's "all about gear and low ISO DR" garbage. I have never in my life seen such gear-heads salivating and frothing at the mouth when they hear 13 or 14 stops of DR at ISO 100. Who cares? If there's any part of gear that doesn't matter, it would have to start with that spec.
> 
> To top it all off, lots of people arguing that Sony has higher DR (note that's the statement, there's noting more to the statement) don't even understand, at all, what they are saying. I'm convinced they don't even know what that means. What does higher DR mean? Since DR has an ISO dependence, that statement doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Of course the D810 has more DR at ISO 100 than the 1Dx. But not at ISO 6400. Not even close. So which is which?



First, you can ignore everyone who bugs you. I do mean "literally" ignore, there is actually a feature on these forums for that. If people saying such things bugs you that much...just ignore them. If listening to all the doomsayers diminishes the quality of your time here that much...there is a very easy solution to that. Why not take it? ???

Second...you should know that it stopped being about just low ISO performance a while ago now. It isn't just bout low ISO. Sony trounced everything with amazing high ISO performance with the A7s last year. Canon 1D X has 8.8 stops at ISO 12800, Sony A7s has 8.8 stops at ISO 51200.

I don't know about everyone else, however I know exactly what dynamic range is, I know exactly how dynamic range has evolved at various ISO settings, and I know exactly why the BSI design of the A7r II is valuable for HIGH ISO dynamic range. I know exactly why I want more dynamic range, and why I want Canon to deliver similar performance in their own cameras. You make the following statement:



bdunbar79 said:


> I'm convinced they don't even know what that means. What does higher DR mean? Since DR has an ISO dependence, that statement doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Of course the D810 has more DR at ISO 100 than the 1Dx. But not at ISO 6400. Not even close. So which is which?



I don't mean to be rude, honestly. However...do _you_ understand what higher dynamic range means? Dynamic range is a pretty simple concept. It is the ratio between the maximum signal (full well capacity) and the read noise floor. That is all it is, mathematically. There are implications to be made from that, however. Dynamic range is an indication of how much noise you will likely have in an image, and it describes the fineness of tonality you can have in an image. It actually doesn't matter if your talking highlights, midtones, or shadows...so long as you make effective use of the dynamic range the camera has to offer. That is because of the nature of noise. You don't just have noise in the shadows. You have noise _in the signal_. You have photon shot noise in the signal you get from the photons themselves, and you have read noise. 

This puts a limit on your overall tonality. With high read noise, your tonality is diminished...across the board. The 1D X, with 38.5e- RN at ISO 100, has a maximum tonality (differentiable tones) of 2340 (90101/38.5). That is barely more than 11 stops, or 2^11 (which is 2048). The A7s, on the other hand, has a maximum tonality of 7103 (155557/21.9). That is closer to 13 stops (2^13 = 8192). The increase in differentiable tones in the A7s is what people like me find valuable. That improvement does not just exist in the shadows. It exists throughout the entire signal. It exists in the highlights as much as it exists in the shadows...more importantly, it exists in the midtones, where I think it is actually most valuable. 

To reiterate: 1DX @ ISO 12800: 8.8 stops; Sony A7s @ ISO 51200: 8.8 stops. The A7r II is not going to topple the A7s for high ISO performance. However it has a very high fill factor thanks to it's BSI design. It should ultimately have dynamic range in the same realm as the 1D X (~8.5-9 stops at ISO 12800)...despite having considerably smaller pixels. It should also have the very high low ISO dynamic range if Sony has maintained the low ISO read noise. 

In terms of tonality, the 1D X has 461 discernible tones at ISO 12800. The A7s also has 461 discernible tones, however at ISO 51200. At ISO 12800, the A7s has 805 discernible tones. That means cleaner, more colorful results.

What do I mean by discernible tones? This is why everything were talking about here boils down to noise. When you have a regular deviation in your signal, which results in a random offset in the level (tone) of a pixel relative to it's neighbors, that is noise. For one tone to be regularly discernible from the next, the difference in tone must be higher than the standard deviation of noise. If your deviation is 200e-, then each discernible tone must differ by at least 200e-. Anything less, and statistically speaking, you wouldn't know whether you were just seeing tonal differences due to noise, or actually seeing a real tonal difference. On the flip side, if your deviation is 20e-, then you have ten times as much discernible tonality.

Again, don't know about everyone else. In my case, I shoot things both at low ISO (landscapes, macro, etc.) at lower ISO, and I shoot things at high ISO (birds, wildlife). I can always use more dynamic range. More dynamic range means smoother tonality. That means cleaner images, smoother gradients, better color. I don't just want that at low ISO...I can easily use more dynamic range at high ISO as well. 

The competition is also no longer limited to just sensors. Sony has put out a few high end AF systems recently. At the very least, they have become neck and neck competitive with Canon and Nikon AF systems. The A6000 AF system is pretty amazing. The NX1 AF system has the potential to be just as, if not more, amazing thanks to the hardware programmability...and over time, that AF system could be tweaked and tuned to trounce everything. Canon has DPAF...it too is pretty amazing technology, but it seems to be very expensive to produce, and as such it has very, very limited deployability. (My guess is that is due to the fabrication process...Canon's 500nm process could easily be holding them back here.) There are also rumors about the Sony A9 series, which is supposed to be 1D X class stuff. High end, high resolution, high performance, weather sealed, ruggedized, etc. That is a whole 'nother front of competition.

If you prefer Canon, more power to you. However, there really _is_ something to all this "dynamic range stuff"...it is not just about low ISO performance. It is not just about shadow pushing. It is not just about one thing. More dynamic range applies across the entire range of ISO. We can all use less noise in our images...it doesn't really matter if you are a high ISO action shooter or a low ISO landscape shooter. Less noise is less noise...that means better IQ, top to bottom. It means more discernible tones, cleaner images, better color. Canon seems limited to competing on that front at only high ISO. The truly intriguing thing about the A7r II...it competes at both ends of the spectrum there...and it delivers a whole bunch of other interesting technologies...399 point FPPDAF, 5-axis sensor stabilization, totally silent shooting (thus, shutterless?...ES only?), high readout rate despite the pixel count, WiFi and NCF. 

I love my Canon glass. I would really like to pair it with a Canon camera that delivers the same kind of across the board high end functionality that the A7r II offers. I really hope the 5D IV is that camera...but, I also can't get my hopes up about it, because Canon has been in a rut for years, and either they don't know how to dig themselves out of it, or simply are not interested in doing so. It seems Canon is still in a mode of catering to the masses, despite the fact that the masses are, in droves, turning to other options. That leaves the primary long term ILC market the professionals, semi-professionals, and hard core enthusiasts...the people who actually care about IQ. (A point I think is important in the current market. It isn't just a bunch of mindless button pushers were talking about, as far as people who both understand what DR is and want more of it.) Either way...you have to at least give Sony credit for creating something like the A7r II, with such broad lens compatibility (assuming the high performance AF rumors actually pan out.) That is quite a feat...and, it has the potential to give people like me, who do want the best IQ they can get their hands on, the option to keep using our existing Canon lens kits without losing AF performance.


----------



## Tugela (Jun 12, 2015)

Canon, on hearing Sony's latest news:


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 12, 2015)

You don't bug me. I enjoy your technical explanations. But I certainly expected better from you than this:

"I don't mean to be rude, honestly. However...do you understand what higher dynamic range means?"

I don't care about the A7s vs. the 1Dx at high ISO. I don't go above 6400 (not that it matters). The AF system of the A7s sucks compared to the 1Dx and it also has less resolution. But anyway, if we do the ISO 6400 thing, the 1Dx has 9.7 stops and the A7s 9.9 stops. That comparison doesn't really mean anything to ME. I don't notice 0.2 stops of DR but at ISO 6400 I'm sure as heck going to notice 12 vs. 18 MP's after I crop and do NR. Maybe there's a better example?

Lastly, I know for YOU it's not about low ISO DR. But haven't you read the other posts on here? Clearly that is the #1 feature for the majority of complainers.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 12, 2015)

<Either way...you have to at least give Sony credit for creating something like the A7r II, with such broad lens compatibility (assuming the high performance AF rumors actually pan out.) That is quite a feat...and, it has the potential to give people like me, who do want the best IQ they can get their hands on, the option to keep using our existing Canon lens kits without losing AF performance.>

Nobody's disputing that jrista. It's just the extrapolation that Canon is *******, Canon sucks, Canon is going to lose all market share to Sony (and whoever else), Canon doesn't have enough MP's, oh now they have enough MP's but not enough low ISO DR and that's too many MP's because now the sensor will be too noisy, etc. etc.

And not just once, it's over and over and over and over and over and over again. It's just become so over the top and gear-centric, it's really bad.

I'm stopping there.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 12, 2015)

tron said:


> While waiting for Canon doom's day I will be enjoying my new 300 2.8 and 11-24 lenses ;D


Not a friendly combo in term of size and weight, but always give a WOW factor - 1Dx + 200f2 IS


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 12, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think this has anything to do with new things and adapting.
> ...



You not telling the true - too busy playing with your 11-24


----------



## msm (Jun 12, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



Meant to ask but it your posts got buried in the noise. Have you guys considered the ColorEdge CG248-4K or even the 30inch version?


----------



## Proscribo (Jun 12, 2015)

msm said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...


God damnit! Even the bloody CANON rumors forum has too low DR (high shadow noise)!


----------



## vscd (Jun 12, 2015)

> I suggest we need take a step back and look at the whole picture of mirrorless - what they have to offer for our photography. Learn and adapt to new things is hard for many.



Mirrorless is there since more than half a century, it's called range finder and a lot of really known pros adopted to leica for it's purpose. It has it's advantages and it's disadvantages.

The only thing that's new about digital mirrorless is the stupid nagging on DSLRs after living in coexistence for many years.

For me the DSLRs are still the better concept because you can't beat an OVF, but that's just my opinion. If I need an EVF I turn on liveview. And having a lightweight cam is really fantastic but the *size *is no point for me, maybe I have bigger hands but the toysize of a A7 is not my target. the best size I've ever had in my hand is a EOS5 with vertical Grip. 

Hint: It's like a small 1Dx, but really *thin* (regardless of the EOS-Mount and the mirror). So Canon should just get the sensor far back to the old focal pane location.


----------



## Neutral (Jun 12, 2015)

Jrista, 
I really admire your patience and time spent on explaining to the audience basics of signal processing theory as applied to image processing. I wish I could have same level of patience.

As for a7s compared to 1DX even at iso6400 a7s images look cleaner with better colors and more pleasant for my eyes than images from 1DX and at higher iso difference is more significant.

Based on a7rII description and specs I expect it to be on par or possibly even slightly surpass 1DX high iso performance at least up to iso6400. 
I hope that at a7rII could be even on par with a7s up to iso 6400.
Then time to sell both a7r and a7s and replace both with a7rII and wait for a7sII with some crazy specs and hopefully that Canon could do something really impressive for 1DX II ( i wish foveon like sensor with a7s iso performance). I like my 1DX but i was never satisfied with its high iso performace. A7s was real change in this respect. 
As for me I do not believe that Canon can compete now on image sensor tech. 
As I mentioned several times before they are not semiconductor tech company and can not keep up with the technology evolution race in this field.
Best for them would be to form kind of alliance with one of semiconductor companies for mutial development and manufacturing new sensors. I wish that this could be Aptina so there would be strong competitor to Sony. I think that the current Canon problem is some stubborn and conservative management at some level that do not realize how beneficial this could be for Canon. So at the moment I do not expect any miracles from Canon and it gives me some sad feeling. It is loosing more and more to Sony in every dimension so their ground is slowly shrinking. And some canon new products are just dead babies before really born - e.g. XC10



jrista said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > That's the type of crap that most of us are actually getting sick of. We go from this "gear doesn't matter" garbage 3 years ago to now it's "all about gear and low ISO DR" garbage. I have never in my life seen such gear-heads salivating and frothing at the mouth when they hear 13 or 14 stops of DR at ISO 100. Who cares? If there's any part of gear that doesn't matter, it would have to start with that spec.
> ...


----------



## jrista (Jun 12, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> You don't bug me. I enjoy your technical explanations. But I certainly expected better from you than this:
> 
> "I don't mean to be rude, honestly. However...do you understand what higher dynamic range means?"



I'm not sure what you mean better from me than that. You made an assertion that people don't understand what dynamic range is...however, it did not appear that you understood exactly what it was either. Again, honestly not meant to be rude...just an observation. Not everyone understands the relationship between noise and the tonality of an image either. Hopefully more people will now...maybe that will reduce the amount of inane comments people make about DR in the future. I dunno...but the information is out there now. I was honestly trying to be cordial about this...seems to you took it the wrong way. Apologies.



bdunbar79 said:


> I don't care about the A7s vs. the 1Dx at high ISO. I don't go above 6400 (not that it matters). The AF system of the A7s sucks compared to the 1Dx and it also has less resolution. But anyway, if we do the ISO 6400 thing, the 1Dx has 9.7 stops and the A7s 9.9 stops. That comparison doesn't really mean anything to ME. I don't notice 0.2 stops of DR but at ISO 6400 I'm sure as heck going to notice 12 vs. 18 MP's after I crop and do NR. Maybe there's a better example?



Well, one better example is very likely to be the A7r II vs. the 1D X. I expect the r II will have similar high ISO performance as the 1D X...with significantly better resolution. Of course, then the discrepancy is frame rate. 

You can always find a discrepancy. There are no dead on apples to apples comparisons that can be made. That said, the competition is delivering better and better IQ on every single front with each generation of camera. On top of that, every generation also seems to resolve big complaints with the prior. As far as I can tell, every single complaint I had about the A7r has been addressed....AF performance with adapted lenses, the heavy shutter, image stabilization, ergonomics (the larger grip will be very nice). I'm sure I'll have complaints about the A7r II, but I also have high confidence now that each one will be addressed with the A7r III. The AF performance of the A7s II? I have no doubts it will at least get the A7r II focusing features. If it too gets a BSI sensor, it's ISO 6400 performance should improve, and widen the gap with the 1D X. 

So, sure, YOU don't care about ISO's above 6400. Just keep watching, though. Sony is a juggernaught...and they seem to have designs to take over the world. They have the technology, they respond to customer concerns, and they are moving at a very rapid pace. It won't be long before there are few things to complain about. I would not be surprised if the A7s II is also much higher resolution, and tops the 1D X at ISO 6400, with a higher frame rate, and with excellent AF performance with third party lenses. There is also the A9 to look for...that is supposed to be Sony's professional high end model, with full weather sealing, higher resolution and/or faster frame rates (sports grade frame rates...and with Sony's readout technology, I'd be looking for 14, 15, 16fps or around there, maybe faster with an ES), better IQ, etc. Maybe the 1D X II will remain competitive, I don't know. If it does, great! Personally I've become rather skeptical, but I do hope that Canon will keep raising the bar with their own products.

Iteration after iteration, the gap between Canon and Sony at the very least, is going to grow. It has grown, is growing, and will grow. At some point, I believe the primary benefit of Canon will be their customer support. The glass argument won't apply, if you can use Canon class on a Sony Alpha with high performance focusing. Who knows how, over the long term, Sony's customer service will pan out. It may always be average....it may also rise to a level competitive with Canon's. (I am hoping that will ultimately be the case once the A9 series hits.) Honestly can't say...but neither can I write off the possibility. All I see is a company that, much like Canon in the past, has responded to customer complaints, and is delivering better products with fewer problems, improved quality, including image quality, on all fronts generation to generation of their cameras. I think that is awesome. And for die hard Canon fans, that should only mean good things...maybe it will eventually put enough pressure on Canon to improve all of their products, improve their customer service, and raise the bar for their own loyal customers. 

I honestly don't see any downside, for either camp, here...assuming Canon does at some point respond with some of the great technology we know they have. (And that is where my primary issue with Canon comes into play...I've watched and waited for a very long time... I had some hopes for the 5Ds, but I just don't see a significant improvement there. It's better than older Canon products, but IQ wise...it's just kind of, eh. (To me, anyway.) I've just watched and waited and watched and waited...and even Canon's coolest technology DPAF, has been relegated to a very few select products. Maeda made a statement about how expensive it is to implement...which takes me right back to the whole archaic fab process. Canon is really lagging behind on the technology front, and I personally am less and less impressed. That's kind of frustrating, especially when you had such high hopes in the past. And worst of all...I WAITED. I passed up options from other brands for a couple of years...because I was waiting. I regret that. I have missed out on quite a few photography opportunities because I was waiting for Canon to deliver a compelling mirrorless product. I have waited for Canon to deliver a landscape camera with high DR, and I've hardly done any landscape photography in two years. I just came to the conclusion that waiting for Canon to deliver what I want and need is hurting my work...it's caused me to miss opportunities and skip some kinds of photography because I personally am just not getting what I need and want. Really regret that. So, no more regrets. There are other options that DO give me what I need and want...and, I really want people in general to know that they don't have to keep waiting either if they want something Canon hasn't delivered yet.)



bdunbar79 said:


> Lastly, I know for YOU it's not about low ISO DR. But haven't you read the other posts on here? Clearly that is the #1 feature for the majority of complainers.



Honestly, I probably read about 1/10th of the posts in the threads I read. I scan through, see something interesting, respond. Then I move on. I don't spent a lot of time on these forums anymore these days. People are too touchy, too concerned with meaningless minutia (A7r II has 399 AF ponts? Oh yeah? Well DPAF has 40,000 AF points! HAHA! Take that!... UGH.) Dynamic range has meaningful, measurable, and visible impact to image quality, and dynamic range can be improved not just at low ISO, but also at high ISO. Ok, so the current A7s doesn't meet your needs....all I am saying is...just keep an eye out. The A7s II, or the A9 whatever, could very well give you 10, 11 stops of DR at ISO 6400, if it uses the kind of technology that will allow for it. More quantum efficiency, larger pixels, and/or increased light sensitive photodiode area (i.e. as allowed by BSI technology) can all improve dynamic range across the entire ISO range. There is one company really pushing the envelope when it comes to dynamic range...and it isn't just a low ISO thing. If you still prefer Canon, that's fine...I just wanted you, and everyone else, to know what having more dynamic range implies.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 12, 2015)

I guess if we're going to compare the A7s and 1Dx (have absolutely no idea why) then we could also compare the 1Dx to the: D800, D800E, D810, D600, D610, D750, D4, and A7R. Crank 'em up to ISO 6400 or 12,800. Oh dang, there went the "discernible tones."


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 12, 2015)

Kudos to Sony. On paper this is a very interesting camera. I'm guessing that from it's expanded ISO range it will perform similar to the 6D at high ISO, but like the A7R at low ISO. 

P.S. I was just thinking back to around the time of the 5Ds announcement... didn't a certain Mr Burnhill say that low resolution sensors were better for 4K? I guess Sony didn't get that memo.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 12, 2015)

<however, it did not appear that you understood exactly what it was either>

What did I say that made you think I didn't understand what DR is? I understand perfectly well what it is.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 12, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> <however, it did not appear that you understood exactly what it was either>
> 
> What did I say that made you think I didn't understand what DR is? I understand perfectly well what it is.


I understood your point; to speak of Dynamic range without specifying ISO is like speaking about viscosity of a liquid without specifying temperature; the one varies with respect to the other. However, when people speak generally of dynamic range they speak of the maximum capability of the camera, whatever ISO that happens to be at. Whether it is at ISO 200, ISO 100 or even ISO 64.

I have looked at my Lightroom catalog and analysed the ISO ranges I use most often. It turns out that I greatly overestimated how much I really use high ISO. It is a nice to have but in practice I shoot more than 80% of my photography between ISO 100 and 200. The predominantly higher ISOs I tend to use are in the 800-3200 ISO range. Above that is just Astro-nightscape stuff which is more of a hobby. Even with various high ISO timelapse sequences included the high ISO shots make up only a tiny fraction of what I shoot. YMMV


----------



## LOALTD (Jun 12, 2015)

msm said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think this has anything to do with new things and adapting.
> ...




Seriously, this is huge for me! I installed the Magic Lantern RAW video module and I got HOOKED on making videos. I'm still a rank amateur, but the ridiculously good quality of RAW video really got me making dumb videos at a record pace!



However...I have had to spend a ton of money on fast CF cards and HDD's to store all that sweet video. We're talking 200-300GB...per 5 minute video project. Ouch. Not to mention a ton of time converting and ferrying video data between formats/programs.


Having 4k with a good codec would actually save me some HDD space compared to RAW 1080p...


(this is my justifying the need to buy a new camera to myself...JUST THINK OF ALL THE MONEY I'LL SAVE NOT BUYING HARD DRIVES!)


----------



## Sunnystate (Jun 12, 2015)

Same sentiment here, my hat off to Jrista! 

Always looking for his posts! A true mine of information especially about astro (he should write a book  real knowledge and considering opponents- lack of attitude, patience (I would never get immerse in detailed never ending arguments about minor stuff that does not matter at all in the big picture and it is used just to produce a lot of foam to obscure real issues) 
He can be a huge asset on any forum but here of course, just to honest in judging things that most are unwilling to open eyes to.

It's not about an incremental updates proposed by Canon here or there, and improved this and that in this or that particular model of Canon camera, not every update has to be groundbreaking, it is about arrogant most likely intended indolence in implementing innovations that is displayed in the past 10 years by Canon- corporation that calls itself leader in the industry. 
Even when pressed against the wall by competition still trying to foul customers to accept same 10 years old technology just wrapped in different packages and with improved processing algorithms to make jpegs look better.
Some of you are taking it like a man when showed for a premium up in your "pocket" it's okay if you can live with that but let others do what they like and express them self on the forum. 

I myself am still Canon fan and user (no Canon bodies at the moment) even that I really dislike current situation.

Have good day you all.
It feels good to be where you should already and see others struggle to cross the line of stubbornness.



Neutral said:


> Jrista,
> I really admire your patience and time spent on explaining to the audience basics of signal processing theory as applied to image processing. I wish I could have same level of patience.
> 
> As for a7s compared to 1DX even at iso6400 a7s images look cleaner with better colors and more pleasant for my eyes than images from 1DX and at higher iso difference is more significant.
> ...


----------



## jrista (Jun 12, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> <however, it did not appear that you understood exactly what it was either>
> 
> What did I say that made you think I didn't understand what DR is? I understand perfectly well what it is.



Didn't mean to offend. Maybe I misinterpreted something. Apologies.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 12, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think this has anything to do with new things and adapting.
> ...



I have noticed a pattern that I think is enlightening. Most of the people who don't care much about dynamic range, or mirrorless vs. DSLR or whatever the latest gripe happens to be seem to skew heavily toward people who actually earn a living in photography. (With Neuro being an exception)

On the other hand, it seems like it's mostly hobbyists with huge disposable income who fit into the category of people obsessed with having the latest, greatest and newest technology and get all worked up when Canon doesn't fit their exact desires.


----------



## jrista (Jun 12, 2015)

unfocused said:


> I have noticed a pattern that I think is enlightening. Most of the people who don't care much about dynamic range, or mirrorless vs. DSLR or whatever the latest gripe happens to be seem to skew heavily toward people who actually earn a living in photography. (With Neuro being an exception)
> 
> On the other hand, it seems like it's mostly hobbyists with huge disposable income who fit into the category of people obsessed with having the latest, greatest and newest technology and get all worked up when Canon doesn't fit their exact desires.



You should make that observation on different forums. I think you would find that the discrepancy is not nearly as skewed as it is here on CN if you include a much more diverse population of photographers.  

I think you would find different distributions of professional's opinions on that subject depending on what it is they shoot and how they shoot. I think many professional landscape photographers have overwhelmingly chosen other brands over the last few years. The Sony A7r certainly made waves, and even one of my favorite 4x5 LF holdouts, Jack Brauer, finally bit the bullet and moved to digital after staunchly insisting that 4x5 drum scans were the only way to get top notch landscape IQ. Portrait photographers certainly seem loved the higher resolution and IQ of other brands as well. The D750 made waves in the wedding photographer community. I wouldn't be surprised if sports was still fairly well entrenched in the Canon camp, though, and for good reason.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 12, 2015)

jrista said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I have noticed a pattern on this forum that I think is enlightening. Most of the people who don't care much about dynamic range, or mirrorless vs. DSLR or whatever the latest gripe happens to be seem to skew heavily toward people who actually earn a living in photography. (With Neuro being an exception)
> ...



See my corrected quote above. I was referencing this forum only.

I am not trying to cast aspersions, just simply noting that it seems like most of the regular contributors to this forum whom I respect for actually practicing photography professionally seem must less interested in the esoteric arguments that fuel much of the discussion.


----------



## emko (Jun 12, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > bholliman said:
> ...



they aint milking nothing just like BSI they had yield issues on making larger sensors that's why for a while BSI was only used in Phones. I am sure once they figure out how to produce a decent yield with the stacked sensor they will make a FF sensor.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 12, 2015)

The amount of misinformation that is bandied around here regarding the Sony sensor is quite staggering. I've just returned from a four day trip to North Wales, shooting in Snowdonia and took a camera fitted with the Mighty Exmor alongside my usual Canon. 

For a start the whole "14 stoops of DR" compared to 12 is so misleading. The Exmor sensor clips to white at _exactly the same point _as the Canon on a like for like exposure. In fact if we are going to be anal about it the Exmor clips a tiny bit earlier. So much for more dynamic range. The best way to think about the two sensors is that the DR is basically identical but you have more shadow latitude in the Exmor. The Canon will fall apart in the shadows before the Exmor, but whether or not you consider the lack of tonality that comes from the big lift acceptable is up to you. 

The Exmor evangelists don't talk about the fragility of the highlights do they ? Or how it loses blue saturation faster than the Canon. And f your answer is to under expose to make the highlights more robust, that's your decision; it's not necessarily how I want to work. 

Here are two 100% crops from the Fairy Glen in Snowdonia. Which one is from the mighty Exmor ? It didn't have a cat in hell's chance of holding the highlights coming from the water never mind how much I under exposed. 

Of course due to the noise that 'can be seen even in the bokeh or unlifted shadows' you will be able to tell straight away which is the Canon. These shots are the same exposure and converted with no adjustments applied. 

My conclusion at present is that if you are working within the acceptable range of the sensor the Canon has the better "IQ" for landscape photography, and I'm someone who is after the new Pentax FF camera when it finally arrives. I hope it doesn't have the 36mp Exmor in it.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 12, 2015)

jrista said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I have noticed a pattern that I think is enlightening. Most of the people who don't care much about dynamic range, or mirrorless vs. DSLR or whatever the latest gripe happens to be seem to skew heavily toward people who actually earn a living in photography. (With Neuro being an exception)
> ...



Indeed, and that's why there is a whole science about getting data on people's opinions, and it doesn't involve reading some posts on Internet forums that have an inherent heavy bias. Esp. the "pro" vs. "amateur" comparison doesn't compute:

* Imho you just might be able to discern a pattern amongst enthusiasts with deep pockets and time on their hand to experiment around with gear to improve their results (that is probably limited by ability and/or experience). But on the other hand, there are enough users around shooting with a 50/1.8 happily ever after.

* But for "pros" ... how many full-time pros spend their spare time on a general Internet forum, speculating about [CR1] gear that will never arrive? That's instead of spending an evening out with their friends and family or simply enjoying a good glass of wine and a book instead of spending yet more time in front of a screen? If they see the need to switch gear to improve their results, they'll probably just do so w/o feeling the need to explain themselves to anyone.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 12, 2015)

Thanks a lot for actual comparions, Sporgon! Just a few questions:



Sporgon said:


> The Exmor sensor clips to white at _exactly the same point _as the Canon on a like for like exposure. In fact if we are going to be anal about it the Exmor clips a tiny bit earlier. So much for more dynamic range. The best way to think about the two sensors is that the DR is basically identical but you have more shadow latitude in the Exmor.



I don't understand this (and how the spec numbers can be so different on sensorgen.info): If you ettl on exmor, i.e. make max usage of the higher shadow latitude, this results in more dynamic range? I imagine this is the same as enabling dual_iso in Magic Lantern: The white clipping stays the same, but you get a significant shadow boost and it's up to you to use it.

You seem to indicate that this is how the workflow is, even though you don't like it (same with ML: it's a hassle, but definitely does work):



Sporgon said:


> And f your answer is to under expose to make the highlights more robust, that's your decision; it's not necessarily how I want to work.





Sporgon said:


> My conclusion at present is that if you are working within the acceptable range of the sensor the Canon has the better "IQ" for landscape photography, and I'm someone who is after the new Pentax FF camera when it finally arrives. I hope it doesn't have the 36mp Exmor in it.



Not to contradict you, but it's probably not easy to say something about all exmor-based sensors out there having shot with just one... if someone would say he used the 5d3 and thus knows Canon sensors in general are crappy, I know how the response 'round here would be :->


----------



## fragilesi (Jun 12, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Here are two 100% crops from the Fairy Glen in Snowdonia. Which one is from the mighty Exmor ? It didn't have a cat in hell's chance of holding the highlights coming from the water never mind how much I under exposed.
> 
> Of course due to the noise that 'can be seen even in the bokeh or unlifted shadows' you will be able to tell straight away which is the Canon. These shots are the same exposure and converted with no adjustments applied.



I'm definitely no expert so please bear that in mind! 

Was the light situation really the same for both photos? I'm having a hard time not being convinced that there isn't a significant difference in the conditions.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 12, 2015)

fragilesi said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Here are two 100% crops from the Fairy Glen in Snowdonia. Which one is from the mighty Exmor ? It didn't have a cat in hell's chance of holding the highlights coming from the water never mind how much I under exposed.
> ...



The light was not exactly the same as they were taken about five minutes apart. My intention wasn't to do any back to back testing, I want to produce pictures, not 'test'. However the light intensity is the same. The point is, the Canon is 'so bad' and has 'IQ that sucks' and 'you can see the noise all the time' compared with the Exmor it should be obvious which is shot on which.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 12, 2015)

I did not mean either jrista to seem like you aren't objectively correct. Obviously you are. My first post was simply meant to show my annoyance at the overzealous reactions of how bad Canon is when a new product is released. I don't think you personally are one of them. I think you understand the tech well enough to objectively appreciate that tech. So my post is not aimed at you.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 12, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Thanks a lot for actual comparions, Sporgon! Just a few questions:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 12, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> The amount of misinformation that is bandied around here regarding the Sony sensor is quite staggering.
> 
> For a start the whole "14 stoops of DR" compared to 12 is so misleading. The Exmor sensor clips to white at _exactly the same point _as the Canon on a like for like exposure. In fact if we are going to be anal about it the Exmor clips a tiny bit earlier. So much for more dynamic range. The best way to think about the two sensors is that the DR is basically identical but you have more shadow latitude in the Exmor. The Canon will fall apart in the shadows before the Exmor, but whether or not you consider the lack of tonality that comes from the big lift acceptable is up to you.



So you rag about misinformation and then your first few paragraphs appear to be misinformation....
It's not a revelation that white clips at the same point when looking at linear RAW data, these are (regular-type, there was that weird Fuji one once) digital sensors and you get a hard clip there is no differential analog roll-off. And many who go on about DR have talked about the linear capture and hard clip.

And dynamic range can't be defined on one end and left undefined on the other end. It's like you are grasping for straws.



> My conclusion at present is that if you are working within the acceptable range of the sensor the Canon has the better "IQ" for landscape photography, and I'm someone who is after the new Pentax FF camera when it finally arrives. I hope it doesn't have the 36mp Exmor in it.



If you are working within the acceptable range of a Honda Accord it present a nicer driving experience than an F1 car. A lot more comfy, easy to use. If you race them at Spa, however....

It's also ironic, that after all the talk about "learn how to shoot, learn how to expose [sometimes with a personal insult tossed in for good measure] that have been tossed at the DR crowd, you are just like well I didn't feel like learning how to properly expose this so I just clicked away and then present the result as something better than misinformation.


----------



## jrista (Jun 12, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> For a start the whole "14 stoops of DR" compared to 12 is so misleading. The Exmor sensor clips to white at _exactly the same point _as the Canon on a like for like exposure. In fact if we are going to be anal about it the Exmor clips a tiny bit earlier. So much for more dynamic range. The best way to think about the two sensors is that the DR is basically identical but you have more shadow latitude in the Exmor. The Canon will fall apart in the shadows before the Exmor, but whether or not you consider the lack of tonality that comes from the big lift acceptable is up to you.
> 
> The Exmor evangelists don't talk about the fragility of the highlights do they ? Or how it loses blue saturation faster than the Canon. And f your answer is to under expose to make the highlights more robust, that's your decision; it's not necessarily how I want to work.



This is so fundamentally wrong I don't even know how to respond to it. There is no such thing as more DR in the shadows, or more shadow latitude. There is simply more DR, more editing latitude. That's it. No, Sony users don't worry about highlights because they don't have to ETTR so heavily to preserve as much signal as possible, like Canon users do. There is no such thing as highlights clipping sooner. And even if there is a loss in saturation in any color channel when you push the limits... It doesn't matter...ETTR _less_, to the point where they don't, and lift the shadows a little more. That's the entire point. That IS the benefit of more DR.

It's *dynamic* range...you can move the signal around within that range. When you have MORE RANGE, you have more freedom in terms of where you shift the signal. ETTR is significantly less important with an Exmor than it is with a Canon. With Canon, you have to push it right to the limit, and even when you do, you still might not be able to recover all your shadow detail. On an Exmor, you *can* ETTR less, or not at all, preserve all that highlight detail, or even put most of it right smack in the middle of the linear response range of the sensor, and still have significantly more shadow detail. With a Sony, you have as much tonality in shadows lifted several stops as you do with a Canon in unlifted lower midtones. You lose absolutely nothing when you have more dynamic range. Preserving the highlights is entirely the point. 

You CAN preserve the highlights, and still have better shadow tonality, than with a Canon camera. I mean, we are talking about total tonality of around 2100-2400 tones on a Canon, and anywhere from 7300 to 8100 tones or more on Exmor-based cameras. The entire tonal range of a Canon camera can fit within the shadow quarter of the signal on an Exmor...I mean, think about it: 8000/2000...if you consider the bottom quarter of the signal to be "the shadows", you could fit an entire Canon exposure in the shadows of an Exmor, and have the same tonality. Earlier highlight clipping? Saturation falloff? That's a total misnomer. You have GOBS more tonality in an Exmor signal than a Canon has in it's entirety, and you have as much tonality just in the shadows as a Canon has in it's entirety. There is no such thing as early highlight clipping or blue saturation falloff with an Exmor...

The dynamic range of a camera CANNOT be decoupled from it's noise. Dynamic range _is_ a reference to noise: MaximumSignal/CameraReadNoise. <-- That IS dynamic range, right there. Canon cameras have more read noise. Therefor, the dynamic range of a Canon is plain and simply NOT the same as a Sony. This statement:



> The best way to think about the two sensors is that the DR is basically identical but you have more shadow latitude in the Exmor.



Absolutely, completely, fundamentally, and factually incorrect. It demonstrates a grave misunderstanding about what dynamic range is...and the very reason I force myself to post here, as distasteful as it often is to do so.

You make the assertion that the tonality of the shadows with Exmor is, well, terrible. You make the assertion that you don't like to shoot that way. That's all well and good, however it is also your loss. Your preconceptions are limiting you here, and your assertions are going to mislead people as to what the facts actually are, and what is actually possible when you have two more stops of DR than Canon currently offers.

This is a fairly simple fact: Any camera using an Exmor sensor, and has around 13-14 stops of DR, _has as much tonality in the shadows_ (defined here in this context as the bottom quarter of the signal, just for clarity)..._as an *entire* Canon signal_. You can easily preserve the quality of the highlights in a Sony camera, or a Nikon camera, or anything else that uses an Exmor, and have GOBS of tonality on the shadows to offset any reduction in exposure to protect those highlights. We aren't talking about stops worth of shadow recovery here either. At worst, to protect highlights, we are probably talking about a third of a stop.


----------



## emko (Jun 13, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> The amount of misinformation that is bandied around here regarding the Sony sensor is quite staggering. I've just returned from a four day trip to North Wales, shooting in Snowdonia and took a camera fitted with the Mighty Exmor alongside my usual Canon.
> 
> For a start the whole "14 stoops of DR" compared to 12 is so misleading. The Exmor sensor clips to white at _exactly the same point _as the Canon on a like for like exposure. In fact if we are going to be anal about it the Exmor clips a tiny bit earlier. So much for more dynamic range. The best way to think about the two sensors is that the DR is basically identical but you have more shadow latitude in the Exmor. The Canon will fall apart in the shadows before the Exmor, but whether or not you consider the lack of tonality that comes from the big lift acceptable is up to you.
> 
> ...



umm? one has over exposed area and the other does not but it also has a area that is soo? it looks like the light source changed or was blocked.


----------



## jrista (Jun 13, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> I did not mean either jrista to seem like you aren't objectively correct. Obviously you are. My first post was simply meant to show my annoyance at the overzealous reactions of how bad Canon is when a new product is released. I don't think you personally are one of them. I think you understand the tech well enough to objectively appreciate that tech. So my post is not aimed at you.



8)


----------



## kphoto99 (Jun 13, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Here are two 100% crops from the Fairy Glen in Snowdonia. Which one is from the mighty Exmor ? It didn't have a cat in hell's chance of holding the highlights coming from the water never mind how much I under exposed.



My guess is that the top one is Canon. Also a much better lens on the first one.


----------



## raptor3x (Jun 13, 2015)

jrista said:


> This puts a limit on your overall tonality. With high read noise, your tonality is diminished...across the board. The 1D X, with 38.5e- RN at ISO 100, has a maximum tonality (differentiable tones) of 2340 (90101/38.5). That is barely more than 11 stops, or 2^11 (which is 2048). The A7s, on the other hand, has a maximum tonality of 7103 (155557/21.9). That is closer to 13 stops (2^13 = 8192). The increase in differentiable tones in the A7s is what people like me find valuable. That improvement does not just exist in the shadows. It exists throughout the entire signal. It exists in the highlights as much as it exists in the shadows...more importantly, it exists in the midtones, where I think it is actually most valuable.



You're confusing dynamic range with tonal range. They're related, but tonal range (how many levels of grey can be represented) needs to take into account the quantization of noise into discrete levels. The difference in tonal range is nowhere near as large as you're suggesting.


----------



## jrista (Jun 13, 2015)

raptor3x said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > This puts a limit on your overall tonality. With high read noise, your tonality is diminished...across the board. The 1D X, with 38.5e- RN at ISO 100, has a maximum tonality (differentiable tones) of 2340 (90101/38.5). That is barely more than 11 stops, or 2^11 (which is 2048). The A7s, on the other hand, has a maximum tonality of 7103 (155557/21.9). That is closer to 13 stops (2^13 = 8192). The increase in differentiable tones in the A7s is what people like me find valuable. That improvement does not just exist in the shadows. It exists throughout the entire signal. It exists in the highlights as much as it exists in the shadows...more importantly, it exists in the midtones, where I think it is actually most valuable.
> ...



I'm talking about the maximum number of tones that are allowed by the dynamic range of the camera. In an actual signal, you also have photon shot noise, and I'd say the photon shot noise in the signal is going to affect the actual tonal counts in any given image much more than quantization noise. Dynamic range is the space within which the signal fits on the hardware...but it isn't the same AS the signal. 

Actual image signals are going to be more similar, for sure...but that wasn't my point. Sporgon implied that Sony cameras have problems with highlights. Because of the increased dynamic range, that is totally false. You can easily shift highlights down by a third of a stop, a half stop, a full stop if you prefer, drop those highlights squarely in the linear response range of the sensor, and lift the shadows a stop, half stop, or third stop to compensate...and poof, any potential issue with highlights in a Sony camera (or Nikon or any other camera that uses an Exmor) is gone. A one stop lift with Exmor shadow data is a no brainer...and even in the actual image signal with all of it's photon shot noise, there is plenty of tonality.

Also, regarding the quantization of the signal. Current consumer grade cameras use 14-bit ADC units. That allows a tonal range of 2^14, which is above the maximum potential allowed by the read noise levels of any of these cameras.


----------



## meywd (Jun 13, 2015)

jrista said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



I am way over my head here, but I think what Sporgon meant with the highlight issue is that they don't actually have the DR they claim to have, I understand what you say, that if you can lift the shadows then its because you have more DR in the image, but you also said that they have better DR because they have less noise (or at least that's an explanation of how they did it)



jrista said:


> The dynamic range of a camera CANNOT be decoupled from it's noise. Dynamic range is a reference to noise: MaximumSignal/CameraReadNoise. <-- That IS dynamic range, right there. Canon cameras have more read noise. Therefor, the dynamic range of a Canon is plain and simply NOT the same as a Sony.



So maybe they have less DR, but have lower read noise, which means the shadows are in a better condition, but the highlights are sacrificed, now I am not disputing the end result, that you can lift shadows, or that the image produced contains - at least virtually - a higher DR.


----------



## jrista (Jun 13, 2015)

meywd said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > raptor3x said:
> ...



I'm not sure what that means: "- at least virtually - a higher DR." 

Exmor has more dynamic range. Dynamic range is a hardware thing. It's a matter of the maximum charge capacity of each pixel in the sensor, vs. the minimum amount of noise the system produces. If you do that thing everyone hates, stick the camera body cap on the camera, and snap a dark frame, you will have a recording of how much noise the system has. Pop that body cap off, and take a number of successive brightly exposed images until you find the exposure where your highlights just start to clip, and you have found the maximum charge capacity.

Now, before that bright image is read out, there is a quantity of electric charge held in each pixel. That charge is your full well capacity. Divide that charge by the average amount of charge in each pixel from your dark frame...and that is dynamic range. That's all it is. It's not a complicated concept. It's a hardware concept, but it's not complicated. 

Now, lets say you take a photo of an 18% gray card. You properly illuminate the card, set your camera to AWB, use ISO 100, fill the frame with it, and expose. The signal in each pixel (the charge in each pixel, the electron count) is going to fall somewhere in the middle of the dynamic range of the camera...about half-way between the read noise level and the point at which you found the signal started to clip. The SIGNAL of the image has a signal to noise ratio. The image _is_ a signal...technically speaking, it does not have dynamic range...it just has an SNR. Like every signal, that signal has it's own noise, on top of the read noise of the system. The SNR is determined by dividing the strength of the signal, by the square root of itself....plus any additional noise in the system. This is an important distinction between dynamic range, and SNR. SNR's are a signal, and the signal itself has noise. 

Dynamic range is a hardware trait...its the space within which you can move that signal around. You can expose longer, increase the strength of the signal. That shifts the amount of charge in each pixel towards the clipping point. You can expose shorter, reduce the strength of that signal. That shifts the amount of charge in each pixel toward the read noise. When your read noise is high, you run into it sooner than when it is low. When it is low...you have more room within which to shift the signal around.

If two cameras have the same charge capacity per pixel...let's say 100,000e-. One has 40e- at ISO 100, the other has 4e- at ISO 100. Now, with both cameras, when we take a number of bright exposures to find where the signal clips...they will both clip at the same point. The exposures for barely clipped images should be identical. The cameras differ because of the difference in read noise. The camera with 40e- has 11.32 stops of dynamic range. The camera with 4e- has 14.65 stops of dynamic range. 

Alright, here is a real-world example. The Sony A7s has a maximum signal strength at ISO 100 of 155557e-, and read noise of 21.9e-. The 1D X has a maximum signal strength at ISO 100 of 90101e-, and read noise of 38.5. Without even doing the math, it should be obvious that the A7s has more room for signal, plain and simple. A "highlight" pixel in the A7s is going to have more charge than a highlight pixel in the 1D X. The lowest amount of charge in a shadow pixel is going to be lower in the A7s than the lowest amount of charge in a shadow pixel in the 1D X. The A7s has more dynamic range. Plain and simple. There is more room there to move the signal around than in the 1D X.

There is a discrepancy in pixel size here, but we could normalize that. With the same size pixels, the FWC of the A7s would be 104961-, and the relative read noise would be 14.8e-. At this point, the A7s would have pixels the same size as the 1D X, and the same image size. Again, the A7s has more dynamic range. That is obvious from the still larger maximum charge and the still lower read noise. More room to move your signal around in before you actually push the shutter button. You need to preserve more highlight detail? No problem. You have the room to do that, and still have shadows just as good as you can get with the Canon.

Exmor does not sacrifice highlights to improve the shadows. That's not what dynamic range is. Dynamic range is a range...it's a space. It's the container within which the signal of an image fits, and room within which to move that signal around, and make it do what you want it to do.


----------



## meywd (Jun 13, 2015)

jrista said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



By virtually I mean that the read noise is lower, now both sensors record the same data but the lower read noise allows it be more usable, so the DR of capturing the signal is the same, but the total hardware\system DR is lower in the Canon due to the higher read noise.

now I don't know which camera/sensor he used, but may the one he used had a lower maximum signal strength than the Canon, and a lower read noise.


----------



## jrista (Jun 13, 2015)

meywd said:


> By virtually I mean that the read noise is lower, now both sensors record the same data but the lower read noise allows it be more usable, so the DR of capturing the signal is the same, but the total hardware\system DR is lower in the Canon due to the higher read noise.



Ah. Sorry...it seemed like you were saying the DR of the Sony was lower...I didn't understand that.  



meywd said:


> now I don't know which camera/sensor he used, but may the one he used had a lower maximum signal strength than the Canon, and a lower read noise.



Yeah...not sure exactly how the differences in FWC are going to affect tonality. I mean, from a charge perspective, a camera that can accumulate more charge is going to have a stronger signal...and that is a good thing. That's a really tough thing to nail down. Actual final image tonality is going to depend on each image. There are...well, effectively infinite images that can be made with any given camera. 

I was speaking more to the _limits _of tonality.

In a camera with a 12-bit ADC, the ultimate limit is going to be 2^12. In a camera with a 14-bit ADC, the ultimate limit is going to be 2^14, and 2^16 for a 16-bit ADC. Quantization noise plays a role when it comes to digitizing the signal...there will always be some amount of quantization noise, but how much diminishes as the difference between the bit depth of the ADC, and the effective bit depth of the signal, increases (i.e. when a quantization error occurs, if your effective signal bit depth is 11, and your ADC bit depth is 16, the quantization error is a tiny fraction of any given step in tonality as limited by noise).

Actual tonality of an image is going to have to account for photon shot noise. That is going to differ from image to image, and even differ from one area of an image to another. There isn't any nailing that down...you can't describe the capabilities of a camera that way.

Dynamic range is how we describe the capabilities in a meaningful, comparable way. More DR is more DR...and since it's the space within which you can fit the signal, more DR means you can protect highlights more if you need to, and not lose on the other end. A lot of people seem to think it's only about the shadows. Actually, it's about both the shadows and the highlights...always has been.  We just talk about shadow lifting, because once we have avoided clipping...well, that's where the rest of the recoverable signal is...in the shadows.


----------



## meywd (Jun 13, 2015)

jrista said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > By virtually I mean that the read noise is lower, now both sensors record the same data but the lower read noise allows it be more usable, so the DR of capturing the signal is the same, but the total hardware\system DR is lower in the Canon due to the higher read noise.
> ...



Also maybe the problem with the highlight is optical and not related to the sensor, or in how the sensor is collecting color data, anyway back to your comparison of the 1D X and the a7S, you say the a7S has a read noise of 21.9e- and when you equate the pixel size the read noise becomes 14.8e-, wouldn't the read noise be higher with a smaller pixel?


----------



## jrista (Jun 13, 2015)

meywd said:


> Also maybe the problem with the highlight is optical and not related to the sensor, or in how the sensor is collecting color data, anyway back to your comparison of the 1D X and the a7S, you say the a7S has a read noise of 21.9e- and when you equate the pixel size the read noise becomes 14.8e-, wouldn't the read noise be higher with a smaller pixel?



Well, how much read noise there is really depends on how the system works. It could be higher, it could be lower, that is largely determined by ADC and other electronics, operating frequency, etc. I was just trying to compare on a normalized area basis...so if you took an area of an A7s pixel that was the same as a 1D X pixel, without assuming anything else about the readout system, the amount of noise added during readout of the full pixel relative to the smaller area would be 14.8e-. In Canon's cameras, smaller pixels actually seem to be associated with less read noise. Even in the presence of higher readout frequency, which can increase read noise (i.e. the 7D II has 12.9e- RN and a higher readout frequency than the 7D with 8.3e- RN...both are still considerably less than the readout noise of a 5D III or 1D X). So, I think the comparison is fair, and the relative reduction in RN for comparison purposes is valid given the context.

As for highlights, every sensor has a natural response curve. There is often a small non-linear range at the bottom, where the read noise is (so it usually doesn't matter)...there is usually a very linear range, there is the falloff range, and there is the "rebound" range. The rebound range occurs in some designs, usually CCDs, due to how continued photon incidence and the excess charge from them is bled off. The signal will hit it's maximum, then rebound a bit back down as excess charge is removed by antiblooming technology or something similar. The actual dynamic range of a given camera is usually from the zero charge point to somewhere below the point where the signal starts to go non-linear, and definitely below the lowest rebound point. 

Depending on exactly how a manufacturer decides to use the literal signal range of their sensor, and where to cut off the white point, depends on the camera. I have never found any details like that...at least, not for commercial ILC cameras. For the most part, in testing, these cameras generally seem to put the white point somewhere near the top of the linear range. It may be that the A7r does have a little bit of non-linearity in the signal as it grows towards the white point. I wouldn't be surprised, actually...there have been patents filed about purposely doing that, and actually purposely attenuating the highlight range even, as it allows the hihglights to "roll off", rather than just hard clip. I honestly don't know if Sony is doing that. Personally, I have not seen such issues when testing myself. At least, nothing particularly more egregious than what I've seen with my Canon cameras. Every camera, when you get right up near the clipping point, is going to start breaking down. It's rare that all three channels clip at the same time...so you will usually see a loss in color fidelity as one channel out of the three starts to clip, then two. That is usually where you start to see false color or just simple gray in specular highlights...it's just due to the unnatural incongruent clipping of the channels as they run into the white point. I would say it's pretty normal, and I'd expect every RGB camera do encounter some point in the highlights where that occurs.

The way I use these cameras, I find myself running into highlight problems a lot more with my 5D III. I trained myself to ETTR pretty heavily with Canon bodies and preserve as much shadow detail as possible, and now it's just habit. I often get into trouble with my whites and highlights as they all bunch up right near the clipping point, and often one or two channels will indeed clip. Every time I photograph a bufflehead or goldeneye, I tend to clip the highlights in the first couple sets of frames, before I finally remember to tame my ETTR. With Alpha cameras, I started out with the A7r trying to preserve the highlights...and I just don't ETTR as much. It simply isn't as necessary. I have never felt the need, so I haven't run into problems with unnatural highlight tonality.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 13, 2015)

jrista said:


> There is no such thing as more DR in the shadows, or more shadow latitude. There is simply more DR, more editing latitude. That's it.



Technically true, but not necessarily accurate in the real world b/c my observation is that raw converters are "tuned" for a certain type of histogram distribution, at least ACR is.

That's why for example my 60d has more highlight "latitude" that can be "recovered" from raw files, but it doesn't show up by default but is used for a highlight rolloff that has the unwanted side-effect of earlier clipping. Same with shadows, at least using ML's dual_iso (I don't own an exmor cam): You really need to aggressively "develop" the raw files to expand the "shadows" from the left edge of the histogram with tone curves.



jrista said:


> Sony users don't worry about highlights because they don't have to ETTR so heavily to preserve as much signal as possible, like Canon users do.



There's another benefit to this, as I'm not tired to state even though it is contradictory to "a good photog always exposes properly" mantra: More dr lets you expose more lazily w/o the fear of clipping. When not using dual_iso in midday, I often have to take two shots b/c at least my 6d metering is so dodgy it doesn't ettr reliably with +ec.

I freely admit it: I don't find the fun in photography in trying to expose "properly" and be proud of myself if the histogram is filled left to right. I'd rather have some safety space left and concentrate on other matters, esp. when shooting wildlife. Yes, bash away, "8 stops of dr is enough for a capable photog" crowd 



jrista said:


> The dynamic range of a camera CANNOT be decoupled from it's noise.



True again, but at least Canon has achieved a "nicer" noise pattern with recent cams that responds better to nr algorithsm ... so the dr-noise reletionship has to be viewed after complete postprocessing as this is how our eye and non-tech brain sees the data.

Btw thanks for all your explanations jrista, it's really remarkable how many people bash "more dr" by really weird theories and you're really working hard to contradict them :->


----------



## jd7 (Jun 13, 2015)

unfocused said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



I can't help but feel there is some truth in what Unfocused is saying here - and that it may apply even beyond the boundaries of CR.

I feel like the "Canon is *******" club approach cameras as consumer tech gadgets - I suspect they have been accustomed to upgrading their computer and their mobile phone every year or two, and their camera too in the "early days" of digital photography, as new tech coming out every year or two really did make a significant practical difference to the gadget. If they haven't had something new for a year or two, their instinct is to be bored and/or sure it must be obsolete. New tech is good simply because it's new tech. The thing is, I don't feel like that sort of dramatic improvement in practical usefulness has been occurring with camera/sensor tech over the last few years, or is happening now. I read references to Canon being boring/uninteresting, but what I don't see is photos taken by non-Canon cameras (well, 35mm format anyway) which make me say wow, that is obviously not taken with a Canon camera. And at the end of the day, it's the photographs produced rather than the tech used, surely?? A camera is a just a tool for photography, and ultimately I do not care if the sensor in my camera used on-die ADC or BSI or whatever, and I don't fundamentally care whether it has a mirror (although as I prefer an OVF to an EVF - at least at this point in the evolution of EVFs - in a sense perhaps I do), etc. Really, I just want a camera which allows me to make photographs I like, and which I enjoy shooting with. (And yes, of course, what makes a camera enjoyable for me to shoot with isn't necessarily what makes a camera enjoyable for anyone else.)

I am sure someone will say - but the IQ from an Exmor sensor is just better!! Well, it has more DR, at least at low ISO and perhaps more recently at high ISO too. That's good (although it's not the only factor in determining IQ). But even if we start with the premise the IQ from an Exmor is inherently "better", look around at photos taken with Canon equipment. Perhaps start by looking around CR, at the shots taken by EML58 and Eldar and others in the 1DX thread, at Sporgon's landscapes, or Pookie's portraits, or the shots posted by Macgyver and many others. If Canon cameras are really so far behind - in terms of the practical results they produce - why don't I see lots of photos around the place which put all of those to shame? Even if Exmor IQ is better, it doesn't seem to regularly translate to substantially better IQ than what the competition provides. Another case in point - the Samsung BSI sensor in the NX1 seems to be good, but I haven't heard of everyone in the APS-C camera segment deserting other manufacturers despite their "old tech" non-BSI sensors.

I do see a benefit in having higher DR than what Canon currently offers, but unlike the "Canon is *******" club I don't see the current competition offering such substantial practical benefit to my photography that I feel desperate to move away from Canon gear.

To be clear:

I am always interested to know about new tech - for curiosity's sake if nothing else. All else being equal I am happy to take any technical advances on offer. I appreciate the lengths that some people have gone to in many posts to actually demonstrate what some of the tech out there can do, eg jrista's thread some time back with RAWs taken with an Exmor sensor to show the latitude to lift shadows, rather than just make bald and extreme assertions. I'm sure the day will come when I have a camera which allows me that sort of latitude to lift shadows, and I'm sure I will not be unhappy to have it!

I am sure there are people out there for whom the difference in DR really does make a difference to the photograph they do. I'm sure jrista is right to suggest some pros (as well as non-pros) have changed to SoNikon sensors for that reason. And if the increased DR is going to provide a practical benefit for your photography, go for it if you can!

I am sure there are people who will argue that even if you can achieve comparable results with a Canon sensor by use of filters / reflectors / lighting / multiple exposures and blending / etc, using a SoNikon just makes it easier and that's valuable to them. I can accept there are probably situations in which that is correct, but I'm not sure how often those situations arise - at least for me (YMMV). And anyway, ultimately all photography equipment has limits and trade-offs, so it's a case of understanding the limits and trade-offs inherent in your equipment, and knowing techniques to work around them as best you can.

I look forward to seeing what the A7R II can do, what others may offer, and the next round of Canon cameras. I will be interested to see what IQ advances are being brought to the table by the different manufacturers.

Hhhmmm, that turned into more of a rant than I'd planned. And perhaps when we get to see images from the a7R II I'll end up deciding it does offer a substantial practical photographic benefit. I will be interested to see!


----------



## meywd (Jun 13, 2015)

Thanks for all the explanation jrista, I think I understood that,


----------



## unfocused (Jun 13, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Yes, I wasn't clear. I was only talking about this particular forum and the participants on it. I waste enough time on this forum. I don't care to read or get involved in others, so I can only speak about this one. 

I've been following this forum for many years and have a pretty good idea which contributors earn a living at photography and which don't.

My observation was that most of the contributors who do earn a living from photography seem to be less concerned and get less worked up about the topics that seem to spark such intense feelings among a small minority of forum participants. I've also seen incredibly talented professional photographers driven off this forum by childish, trollish remarks from self-appointed experts. In fact, I consider that one of the most unfortunate things that occurs on this forum -- that professionals who get interested in participating and have much to contribute get fed up and bow out because they can't cut through the noise of obvious idiots.

Honestly, I tend to agree as well with your suggestion about individuals with deep pockets and time on their hands. 

I suppose it is my own bias showing, but because I have actually seen the work of contributors like Sporgon and read the advice/recommendations of people like "Private" (and at times have entered into vigorous debates with same) I have a tendency to lend greater weight to their opinions than I do to certain other contributors. 

In some respects, I guess it comes down to whether you consider photography to be a science or an art. I know it is both, but I find the "art" side much more interesting.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 13, 2015)

meywd said:


> So maybe they have less DR, but have lower read noise, which means the shadows are in a better condition, but the highlights are sacrificed, now I am not disputing the end result, that you can lift shadows, or that the image produced contains - at least virtually - a higher DR.



No, he has you confused. The highlights are not sacrificed. These are digital sensors and they are linear. The difference in DR comes about all from read noise. The Exmor (and some others now too) have less late stage read noise and thus more DR at low to mid-ISO.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 13, 2015)

meywd said:


> By virtually I mean that the read noise is lower, now both sensors record the same data but the lower read noise allows it be more usable, so the DR of capturing the signal is the same, but the total hardware\system DR is lower in the Canon due to the higher read noise.
> 
> now I don't know which camera/sensor he used, but may the one he used had a lower maximum signal strength than the Canon, and a lower read noise.



Well that is sort of true. The initial capture stage of the Canon sensor is at least as good so it has the DR there, but by the time the signal is in a form the camera can process it's been damaged. But since it's always damaged and the Canon sensor doesn't contain the part on the sensor itself that could send it out so it doesn't have to be damaged later on makes the fact that the base sensor detector is at least as good.

But I don't think it makes sense to call it virtual DR. It's simply the DR it delivers.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 13, 2015)

jd7 said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



I think it's because they see things that could help things they do more than it's just specs and latest thing excitement (although I'm sure there is some of that too for some).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 13, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



I haven't found the defend all things Canon side to have portfolios any better than the other side. I've even seem some of the ones going on about how the 'DRoners' need to step out of lab, learn how to shoot, etc. end having a portfolio with like 20 shots of OOF and weirdly exposed shots of cats in their backyard and someone they were ragging on, some pretty fine shots taken around the world in all sorts of scenarios. Whatever the case, it's all kind of irrelevant anyway. It'd be like going into a photo discussion forum and saying that you don't give someone's landscape shots any weight if they can't tell you this or that technical info.


And pros do bring stuff up. On the sidelines I'd hear them bring up AF or this or that now and then.

It is true that some are a bit jaded and it's all a job for them, the pay isn't always high and they are fine with just using whatever gets a result that keeps them in the job. For some things like newsprint, just a little bit of image quality can go quite a long way. Some of them are not all that technical and don't even know as much about what this or that HW can do than many amateurs in some regards. So sometimes the excited amateur is more apt to care about certain things, especially once you get past AF and speed. (Although I should point out I once shot next to a Getty shooter who was getting so disgusted with Nikon sensors, this was obviously years ago, that he was very seriously considering switching sides and he was asking all sorts of questions about Canon sensors and more.)


----------



## jrista (Jun 13, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > There is no such thing as more DR in the shadows, or more shadow latitude. There is simply more DR, more editing latitude. That's it.
> ...



What you are seeing here has nothing to do with dynamic range, and everything to do with gamma and picture style curves applied during demosaicing. This is a "camera profile" consequence...not a factor of dynamic range. True, it does change from raw editor to raw editor...but that is because you are working with a non-linear digital signal. 

Open any raw image in a linear editor, like PixInsight, and you might gain a new understanding.  



Marsu42 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Sony users don't worry about highlights because they don't have to ETTR so heavily to preserve as much signal as possible, like Canon users do.
> ...



My histograms do not always fill every column from left to right. I wouldn't call such a histogram a "proper" histogram, either. Again dynamic range isn't about proper exposure. It's about capability...the ability to have the power to capture difficult scenes when you need to. 



Marsu42 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The dynamic range of a camera CANNOT be decoupled from it's noise.
> ...



I agree, Canon has made strides in their noise characteristic, or maybe we could call it noise quality. I also believe, having used a variety of demosaicing algorithms now, that not all banding is actually baked into the signal itself...some of it is derived or added due to how the data is demosaiced. Maybe someday Adobe will refactor their deosaicing algorithm and that problem will go away.


----------



## 9VIII (Jun 13, 2015)

Neutral said:


> As for me I do not believe that Canon can compete now on image sensor tech.
> As I mentioned several times before they are not semiconductor tech company and can not keep up with the technology evolution race in this field.



I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, but if it's news to you then I'm so sorry to be the one to break it to you. The irony is thick here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersion_lithography


> ...immersion lithography tools use highly purified water for this liquid, achieving feature sizes below 45 nanometers.[1] ASML, Canon, and Nikon are currently the only manufacturers of immersion lithography systems.



That information is a bit old, but here's something a little more recent:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/semiconductor/news_events?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e02480e70574

Canon is a supplier of the highest quality computer manufacturing equipment in the world, they just don't use it for their own stuff. I'm guessing that the more precise processes give lower yields and until it's absolutely necessary they're just going to look at it as wasting money.

Edit: A little more digging: http://www.siliconsemiconductor.net/article/74993-Can-Nikon-or-Canon-Ever-Catch-ASML-in-the-Lithography-Market.php

This paints the picture of the market over most of the last decade. Canon isn't doing well but they're still a player in a game with only three competitors.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 13, 2015)

jrista said:


> You CAN preserve the highlights, and still have better shadow tonality, than with a Canon camera. I mean, we are talking about total tonality of around 2100-2400 tones on a Canon, and anywhere from 7300 to 8100 tones or more on Exmor-based cameras. The entire tonal range of a Canon camera can fit within the shadow quarter of the signal on an Exmor...I mean, think about it: 8000/2000...if you consider the bottom quarter of the signal to be "the shadows", you could fit an entire Canon exposure in the shadows of an Exmor, and have the same tonality. Earlier highlight clipping? Saturation falloff? That's a total misnomer. You have GOBS more tonality in an Exmor signal than a Canon has in it's entirety, and you have as much tonality just in the shadows as a Canon has in it's entirety. There is no such thing as early highlight clipping or blue saturation falloff with an Exmor...



That sounds so impressive.

You'll be able to see that 8000 / 2000 difference here then.


----------



## vscd (Jun 13, 2015)

> In a camera with a 12-bit ADC, the ultimate limit is going to be 2^12. In a camera with a 14-bit ADC, the ultimate limit is going to be 2^14, and 2^16 for a 16-bit ADC.



That's true from information technology side, but not for sensors. The data is not stored linear into the RAW, otherwise you wouldn't get 14.6 Stops of DR (Nikon 7200) into a 14 Bit RAW. There are some excessive reports out there why even a 12 Bit RAW Format is quite good anyway.

*One word to Sony from my side...*

I got Sonyhardware since decades now. It was the finest Ghettoblaster I had and the walkman was a great invention. After their success "of worlddomination" Sony started to press their standards into the market to keep the pase with patents. The Minidisc was such an example (and CD, VHS...). Some of them succeeded, some not.

As a Sonyfan I bought a Sony TRV-30E back then (a DV Cam I still have) because it has a colour EVF and a quite nice IQ. After that i startetd to get disappointed by Sony slightly... there were just expensive Memorysticks available, the Remote Control only worked with Sony Televisions and the patents for the 4k Chip on the DV cassettes were not free for other brands. So I had to buy the expensive DV-cassettes from Sony, too.

At the same time my HiFi Sony MHC-2700 was one of the finest on the market, but the CD Player got broken. Sadly the whole System was connected witha stupid proprietary Bussystem (like SCSI) and you could not connect anything except of Sonycomponents. This means all parts are useless if the amplifier or receiver gets broken. This was no good sign. I won't bore you how it went further, but the problems got worse and worse and I swore not to buy their products anymore (even not the fantastic bravia). 

This may have changed but I doubt it, I don't have the mood or the time to try it out. A burned child, you know . The trust into the (otherwise good) products faed away... 

Now I read from lossy RAWfiles, broken bayonetts and no PC sync sockets. 

A good sensor is not everything, the system counts in it's whole. The Flashsystem, the support, the lenses and even the bundled Software on your system. If I *ever* come back to Sony the whole ecosystem should have changed, but I doubt it has (seriously). That's one of the mainreasons why the D800 is a hell of a cam and sells like fresh donuts while the same sensor in the Sony A7R is way behind. 

There is so much more in a product than 2 stops of DR! I consider it as second cam but I would never rely solely on Sony again, sorry.


----------



## jrista (Jun 13, 2015)

vscd said:


> > In a camera with a 12-bit ADC, the ultimate limit is going to be 2^12. In a camera with a 14-bit ADC, the ultimate limit is going to be 2^14, and 2^16 for a 16-bit ADC.
> 
> 
> 
> That's true from information technology side, but not for sensors. The data is not stored linear into the RAW, otherwise you wouldn't get 14.6 Stops of DR (Nikon 7200) into a 14 Bit RAW. There are some excessive reports out there why even a 12 Bit RAW Format is quite good anyway.



The data absolutely is linear in the RAW file. The 14.6 stops, or 14.8 stops of the D810, is the result of comparing downsampled images. Actually, it isn't even as legitimate as that...DXO mathematically extrapolates what the dynamic range might be IF you had downsampled using a very simple algorithm. The 14.6 stops or 14.8 stops of the D7200 and D810 are not even measurements! They are computed assumptions based on the logarithmic extrapolation of what dynamic range is likely to be when the images are normalized to a consistent target.

Look at the screen DR numbers:

D7200: 13.79 stops
D810: 13.67
D750: 13.73

Print DR is neither an actual measurement, nor a representation of the information stored in the actual RAW file. It is a fine and dandy number that can be used for comparisons, but it is otherwise quite misleading. The Screen DR is an actual measurement taken from RAW files, and to date no camera that has ever "scored" over 14 stops of DR has ever actually measured as having more than 14.0 stops in the actual data.

The data is most certainly linear in the RAW file. There is no non-linear compression as in the case of JPEG (which has both a gamma curve applied, as well as gamut compression during conversion to sRGB.) RAW is raw, as it came off the sensor, without any modifications. That's the entire point.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jun 13, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> what I don't see is photos taken by non-Canon cameras (well, 35mm format anyway) which make me say wow, that is obviously not taken with a Canon camera.



Believe me - these pictures will start showing up in numbers very, very soon.

The deal is high iso quality on a large FF sensor. 

This makes a huge difference in what you can do as it extends your effective shooting hours and options - just like fast primes do. It simply gives you more flexibility with more light options to play with during a longer time of the day. I really wanted a high MPIX Canon but the low iso of the new 5Ds was a clear deal breaker for me.

One example: During late fall the SONY will potentially give me 1 1/2 hours more shooting time in the early morning when the deer are most active (compared to 5DII). That's twice the "good" morning hours I get now. I imagine any dedicated nature shooter - always needing more light and more pixels to fight the low morning light and the subject distance - will want this camera in their bag if they have the money to spend (and expectations are confirmed). 

I would also love to bring the SONY on my next safari - alas it will not be available for that. If you ever tried a Safari you would know how many amazing scenes cannot be captured by current Canon cameras due to either high iso restrictions or lack of pixels - or both. Especially in the late evening/early morning hours when most of the real action is on. Down South I'd say you get at least 1/2 hour extra time at each end of the day - a full extra hour of the best animal action. And because the "good" hours are shorter than in the North its relatively a huge difference the SONY brings to the table.

Of course the new SONY is not the answer to all our needs or everyones. And there will continue to be a strong demand for even more pixels and even better high iso in the future. But its an unrivaled option for some of us compared to anything Canon offers today.

Hope to see Canon there one day soon!


----------



## Neutral (Jun 13, 2015)

9VIII said:


> Neutral said:
> 
> 
> > As for me I do not believe that Canon can compete now on image sensor tech.
> ...



I am afraid you are a bit confused about that and more I was talking about something which is completely different.
Lithography is just one component of the chips manufacturing process. Basically (in very simple words possible) this is technology to make lines and dots on the surface of the chip for further chemical processing of the chip surface. The thinner lines and smaller dots - more elements could be created on the square mm of the chip surface.
At the end main component of the lithography system is optical subystem which allows light to focus to the very small spot. 
As you probaly aware we already have 14nm technology producing 14nm chips so 45nm is at least 5 years back technology.
Also as Canon is one of the best manufactures of optical system they have all the strength to develop and produce such lithography systems. The same applies for Nikon.
At the end these are optical systems.

But non of them are semiconductor companies developing and producing semiconductor components in massive volumes (like Intel, AMD, Samsung, TMS and Sony in imaging sensor area). This business requies billions and billions of investments and extreemly high productiion volumes to get revenues which would eventually cover that expenses and have enough left for R&D to keep up with the race which is accelerating every year. 
Canon is not anywhere close there and best way for them to defend and keep their ground in photography business is to work together with one of the semicondutor giants to keep up with the race in sensor technology. Othewise in the long run they could become kind of another Sigma or Tamron.

Some other considerations related to some othe posts:
Camera body is part of the photography system but with the evolution happening here it becomes more like consumable part - like some parts in your car.
It is becoming more electronic component rather than mechanical one so it could be expected that this would eventually end up being upgraded every 1 year like smartphones these days.
And this is not bad, actually this is very good as second hand one year old bodies could become available faster to those who can not afford to have the new best and latest. No need to wait 4-5 years for system upgrade cycle like we have from canon. 
Everybody will benefit from the faster rate of technology evolution.
What is happening now is just part of general evouluton process and companies which would ignore that could become outsiders at some time. We already seen that many times.
But those who wake up not too late could become leaders again. Microsoft with there Microsoft Surface is one of the examples of that but this has some explanation - technology was not up recently to the level to produce such things like that. But with the strong will and push - this is happening.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 13, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > what I don't see is photos taken by non-Canon cameras (well, 35mm format anyway) which make me say wow, that is obviously not taken with a Canon camera.
> ...



Lol. Yes, we'll start seeing them in droves very very soon after we start seeing all those pictures where the extra couple of stops of low ISO DR make a manifestly obvious difference. :


----------



## Neutral (Jun 13, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



This is quite a bit of fun to watch all that but at some point this starts resembling broken grammophon playing the same piece of tune over and over again without any hope that tune will move further any time soon )))
The is also some saying in many languges that one who has strongest LOL probably has his LOL for the last time )))

I do not see any reason for people to argue about that now - time will eventually show who is right and who is wrong as was many times before.
But Canon is definetly starting loosing ground and I am sure that a7rII will really affect Canon dslr sales in this price range but no doubt as well that Canon will be selling its cameras in volumes due to many reasons mentioned many times here. Too many people are locked to Canon with other Canon costly system components (I would better say "trapped").
But for new buyer from new generations coming into picture this is not the case.

Things are changing very rapidly now and we will see results in 1-2 years from now. And regardless of how loudly someone LOL this LOL will not stop or slow down this process. 
Amen.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jun 13, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > Believe me - these pictures will start showing up in numbers very, very soon.
> ...



There is a difference between how much shadow noise you have to deal with and simply not being able to shoot at all because subject movement makes a certain shutter speed indispensable. 

Maybe you should try going out in the early morning or late night to shoot animals or people and see for yourself. You can also try flicking through Safari pictures on the net and see how many blurred morning/evening shots there are out there that people still treat as keepers because of the action.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 13, 2015)

Neutral said:


> Things are changing very rapidly now and we will see results in 1-2 years from now.



That's seriously funny! Many people here on CR (perhaps even you?) made that same statement 3 years ago when the D800 came out, then 2 years ago when the a7R came out. Where are those 'results' exactly? Oh, and MILCs should have killed dSLRs already. Still chuckling about that one, too. :


----------



## bholliman (Jun 13, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > You CAN preserve the highlights, and still have better shadow tonality, than with a Canon camera. I mean, we are talking about total tonality of around 2100-2400 tones on a Canon, and anywhere from 7300 to 8100 tones or more on Exmor-based cameras. The entire tonal range of a Canon camera can fit within the shadow quarter of the signal on an Exmor...I mean, think about it: 8000/2000...if you consider the bottom quarter of the signal to be "the shadows", you could fit an entire Canon exposure in the shadows of an Exmor, and have the same tonality. Earlier highlight clipping? Saturation falloff? That's a total misnomer. You have GOBS more tonality in an Exmor signal than a Canon has in it's entirety, and you have as much tonality just in the shadows as a Canon has in it's entirety. There is no such thing as early highlight clipping or blue saturation falloff with an Exmor...
> ...



Night and day difference! : (sarcasm...)

I don't understand the technical arguments regarding DR and tonality, and really don't care to. I do want to take good to excellent pictures. 

Despite all the claims regarding the superiority of the Exmor sensor for the past couple of years, I have yet to see any real world examples of where this sensor yields superior images. I've seen examples of badly underexposed images where shadow detail could be recovered, but realistically, those types of pictures are going to be deleted anyway. Maybe I've missed it, but from my perspective I can't see any real difference in IQ between images from Canon cameras and Sony/Nikon cameras for the kind of things I shoot (landscape, family, sports and wildlife). You can make excellent images with almost all of the photography equipment available today. Debate about subtle to imperceptible differences in IQ is just splitting hairs in my opinion.


----------



## expatinasia (Jun 13, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> And pros do bring stuff up. On the sidelines I'd hear them bring up AF or this or that now and then.
> 
> It is true that some are a bit jaded and it's all a job for them, the pay isn't always high and they are fine with just using whatever gets a result that keeps them in the job. For some things like newsprint, just a little bit of image quality can go quite a long way. Some of them are not all that technical and don't even know as much about what this or that HW can do than many amateurs in some regards. So sometimes the excited amateur is more apt to care about certain things, especially once you get past AF and speed. (Although I should point out I once shot next to a Getty shooter who was getting so disgusted with Nikon sensors, this was obviously years ago, that he was very seriously considering switching sides and he was asking all sorts of questions about Canon sensors and more.)



This made me smile, as it is so very true. This may shock many here, but one of the most common discussions I have with the Canon users I see frequently along side me on the pitch is what AF tracking settings they are on. I only do this when I know them well, but I often find they are curious too. Funny thing is, I have never met two with identical options, there are just so many on the 1D X (that frankly it can get confusing). I love the 1D X and we all know it is the best sport camera there is, but try and sift through all those tracking options and test them out and wow you will need a headache pill!

When I see my Nikon friends, and I have a few that we watch each others gear for if one of us needs to run off to the toilet etc., then we just talk about whether we are happy with what we have. It would take something quite big for either of us to change and we all know it.

I have never ever had a discussion that gets as in-depth as some do here. I learn a lot from CR but it also often confuses me.

I often get sun burned or get soaked sat in rain, thunder and lightening but love shooting sports more than anything, and I am very lucky to have been accredited at some of the events I have. At some events I hardly get any sleep, it depends whether it is one match or a major int. tournament, but it is all good. I know I have the best equipment. Sure, Nikon may introduce something to market in December that may blast the 1D X out of the water, would I change? No. I know that Canon will have something to beat it. That may take a few months or maybe a year, but I doubt my clients will care, and neither do I.

That does not mean I am blinkered, but I am invested. Can use the 1D X buttons with my eyes closed and know what I like and want. If someone comes out and beats it and Canon does not respond within 12 months and I feel I am losing clients for my pics maybe I will reconsider.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 13, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> Maybe you should try going out in the early morning or late night to shoot animals or people and see for yourself.



What a wonderful, insightful suggestion. Because you know, I've never done that...never, ever. : : :


----------



## Neutral (Jun 13, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Neutral said:
> 
> 
> > Things are changing very rapidly now and we will see results in 1-2 years from now.
> ...



Not maybe me ))) 
And my statemet was different, for some reason you always trying to distort what are other people saying. 
I never ever mentioned anything about d800 or that d800 or a7r will kill canon sales, please do not make statements not supported by facts, not good for you at all)) 

To be clear I only mentioned that I bought a7r to be as compact digital back for my Canon TSE17 and I was never dissapointed. It is MUCH more convinient and easy to use TSE17 on a7r compared to 1DX. At that time a7r was kind of prototype camera to demonstrate what it is possible in small body so I considered it as compact digital back only.
Then turn came for A7S as I was never satisfied with 1DX low light iso perfomance. And that was a real good surprise for me about image quality provided by a7s in any conditons despite low px count. And now with a7s and zeiss 35mm f1.4 za I can do good quality hand held night shots which was almost not possible with 1DX before. I really enjoy this combo.

What I was telling is that now Sony is starting gaining critical mass to be able to push away other vendors (with all the new lenses , growing brand recognition and now with really amazing new a7rII). This change will not happen immediately and we will see to what extent in about 1-2 years from now. Also we do not know yet how Sony will surprise us with a7sII and a9.

If Canon will not wake up they might loose some noticable piece of market share . And please note that I not telling they will be *******, only that that Sony will byte some market share from them. How much - we will eventually see . 

As for me I do not care actually.
I am not fan of any brand, at any point of time I still can afford to use what is the best and more convinient for me and I do not care what others would say about that. Why I can afford that is because my primary job is complex systems design and systems integration for many decades and ability to see industry trends and technology prospectives and select right approach to the new systems development (so that system will not become obsolete before it goes in productin mode) is extreemly important in that process and this is what I am paid for. I think this could explain background for my posts and my attitude to what is happening.


----------



## raptor3x (Jun 13, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > You CAN preserve the highlights, and still have better shadow tonality, than with a Canon camera. I mean, we are talking about total tonality of around 2100-2400 tones on a Canon, and anywhere from 7300 to 8100 tones or more on Exmor-based cameras. The entire tonal range of a Canon camera can fit within the shadow quarter of the signal on an Exmor...I mean, think about it: 8000/2000...if you consider the bottom quarter of the signal to be "the shadows", you could fit an entire Canon exposure in the shadows of an Exmor, and have the same tonality. Earlier highlight clipping? Saturation falloff? That's a total misnomer. You have GOBS more tonality in an Exmor signal than a Canon has in it's entirety, and you have as much tonality just in the shadows as a Canon has in it's entirety. There is no such thing as early highlight clipping or blue saturation falloff with an Exmor...
> ...



Just to reiterate, because you may not have caught it, jrista was confusing dynamic range with tonal range. You can't just take 2^(# stop DR) and say that's the number of tones the camera can represent. Dynamic range represents the ratio between the lowest and highest tone that can be represented, but the actual number of tones that can be represented within that range is dependent on the quantization of the signal into discrete levels, which is in turn dependent on the standard deviation of the signal as a function of intensity. Just as an example, no current 35mm camera is anywhere close to being able to represent 8000 levels of grey in a single shot. The D810 would be closest with up to 910 tonal levels at ISO 64. To compare that with the 1DX, the 1DX has up to 648 tonal level at ISO 100 (the D810 has 792 at ISO 100). Comparing the 1DX and A7S at ISO 12800, the 1DX has a potential of 77 tones while the A7S has up to 84 tones; certainly an improvement but not the revolution jrista implies (at least not in terms of tonality). The real strength of the A7S is how amazingly well it preserves color and detail at high ISO, much better than the 1DX once you get above ISO 25600.


----------



## krisbell (Jun 13, 2015)

Whether you like or need DR, I still cant see how there is any argument that more DR is better - surely its just how much better more DR is _to you_. I may shoot all my landscape shots at ISO 100 but I can still accept having better high ISO noise is good news, even if irrelevant for me. If your shots do not require high DR or you cant see the difference then great, but you cant try to pretend that having the ability of more DR is not a good thing - or worse, and like Sporgon is claiming, that it doesnt exist! 

FWIW I found the jump in image quality at base ISOs to be larger when I went from a 5D3 to an a7r, than when I jumped from an APSC 50D to the FF 5D3 - I expected it to be better but was absolutely blown away by just how much better. I still use my 5D3 as my go-to camera for wildlife, flash and general photography as I can only manually focus my Canon lenses on the a7r. 

And the pro vs amateur comment is totally irrelevant to the validity of any argument. I know many totally awful pro photographers and some unbelievably talented amateurs, not that it makes a blind bit of difference to what is being discussed. Do you have to be a cook to be a food critic, or an artist to know what good art is? etc etc

Having calmed down from my initial euphoria regarding the a7r II I now do not think it will replace my Canon for most uses, mostly because I do not believe it will focus Canon lenses at anything like a usable speed despite some early claims on the internet that it was almost as fast as native Canons. Sony themselves report only a 40% increase in focusing speed over the a7r. My a7r pretty much always fails to achieve any sort of focus at all, even with the latest metabones adaptor, so 40% quicker than nothing is still nothing...unfortunately.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 13, 2015)

krisbell said:


> Whether you like or need DR, I still cant see how there is any argument that more DR is better...



That's good, because no one is arguing that more DR is a bad thing.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 13, 2015)

krisbell said:


> And the pro vs amateur comment is totally irrelevant to the validity of any argument. I know many totally awful pro photographers and some unbelievably talented amateurs, not that it makes a blind bit of difference to what is being discussed. Do you have to be a cook to be a food critic, or an artist to know what good art is? etc etc



Nonsense; pro vs amateur is entirely pertinent. You assume (per your perfectly valid following sentences) the argument as being about quality of the user. It isn't, it's about the needs of the user. A pro relies on gear for livelihood. The gear has to function. Maybe that means it needs to shoot in the rain or lock focus in pitch black whilst triggering slave strobes around corners. The use cases differ, but the fundamental difference between pro and amateur is the first can't get paid if the gear doesn't satisfy the need, while the amateur is merely pissed off


----------



## bholliman (Jun 13, 2015)

krisbell said:


> Whether you like or need DR, I still cant see how there is any argument that more DR is better - surely its just how much better more DR is _to you_. I may shoot all my landscape shots at ISO 100 but I can still accept having better high ISO noise is good news, even if irrelevant for me. If your shots do not require high DR or you cant see the difference then great, but you cant try to pretend that having the ability of more DR is not a good thing - or worse, and like Sporgon is claiming, that it doesnt exist!
> 
> FWIW I found the jump in image quality at base ISOs to be larger when I went from a 5D3 to an a7r, than when I jumped from an APSC 50D to the FF 5D3 - I expected it to be better but was absolutely blown away by just how much better. I still use my 5D3 as my go-to camera for wildlife, flash and general photography as I can only manually focus my Canon lenses on the a7r.



Kris, can you post some examples of the same shot with the a7r and 5D3 that demonstrate the IQ jump? 

I'm curious. I've seen these big IQ improvement claims, but never seen any side-by-side shots of the same (properly exposed) scene with different cameras. Ideally the comparison would use the same lens. I'm certainly not disputing your statement, you have shot with both the 5D3 and a7r and I have not.


----------



## krisbell (Jun 13, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> krisbell said:
> 
> 
> > And the pro vs amateur comment is totally irrelevant to the validity of any argument. I know many totally awful pro photographers and some unbelievably talented amateurs, not that it makes a blind bit of difference to what is being discussed. Do you have to be a cook to be a food critic, or an artist to know what good art is? etc etc
> ...



So how is the difference between getting paid or being pissed off make one's opinion and needs more valid than anothers? And for some amateurs it goes way beyond 'merely pissed off'. In fact, I might argue the amateur is way more invested in an image than a pro. I get 2 weeks holiday a year to go off and take pictures and I spend plenty of cash on my holiday in order to get to places where I want to take pictures. If my gear is not up to the job and fails me in those 2 weeks I would be a lot more than "merely pissed off". If a pro misses a game or a pitch because of equipment malfunction then I doubt he will lose too much sleep over it. Either way, both pro and amateur will have financial and personal loss from that failure...and I still dont see how it makes one persons perspective more or less valid than anothers.



bholliman said:


> Kris, can you post some examples of the same shot with the a7r and 5D3 that demonstrate the IQ jump?
> 
> I'm curious. I've seen these big IQ improvement claims, but never seen any side-by-side shots of the same (properly exposed) scene with different cameras. Ideally the comparison would use the same lens. I'm certainly not disputing your statement, you have shot with both the 5D3 and a7r and I have not.



Unfortunately I do not. Believe it or not I am not a pixel peeper and conducting such technical comparisons would bore me senseless...which makes the improvement in IQ between the two so much more amazing to me. I have seen a few examples online of the two systems compared side by side in outdoor scenarios with the same lens so there are examples out there. If you are genuinely curious then go out and rent/buy one. Some seem to not be able to notice a difference, but to me the difference is so noticeable that I cant help but feel those people are lying to themselves.

If you browse my Flickr stream all the recent landscape shots are with an a7r and all the animal shots are with a Canon. They are all good quality and that quality is indiscernible at internet sizes but for me the difference comes when viewing images at over approx 50%, and also with the incredible editing latitude the files provide. I screwed up recently when taking a cityscape scene with my a7r and drastically underexposed the image. For a laugh I played with it in RAW and could not believe that I could lift it by about 7stops and it still had fantastic quality. Conversely a day later I took a picture with my Canon 5D3 at ISO 100 and couldnt believe the noise and banding BEFORE I started manipulating it in RAW (this image I posted in a separate thread). I cant afford a 600mm f4 so if I want to add blur to the background of an image to isolate the animal I often run into posterisation issues with canon images, but so far have not done so with a7r files. Yes I agree in an ideal world pushing exposure in post should be kept to a minimum, but I'm human and sometimes I make mistakes, sometimes I do not want to focus AND exposure stack a landscape scene, and sometimes I do want to make a strong edit in post for whatever reason (correct a mistake, creative etc), and the a7r gets me much closer to this than my 5D3.

Everyone who has participated in this thread is interested in quality, even those who post ridiculous "all the photographers are out there taking pictures rather than commenting on a post" comments. Good light, technique, composition and subject of course make up the bulk of what makes a picture great, but for discerning professionals and fussy amateurs alike, whether for financial, emotional or whatever gain, we all want to take the best image possible, even if the gear element only accounts for 1% of what makes an image great. In my personal experience for landscape work an a7r gets you much better results than a 5D3. I cant comment on any other Sony or any other Canon than this (perhaps a 50D if I stretch my memory).


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 13, 2015)

msm said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Thanks for info. 

No, I haven't. I've been using LG Pro line for years and I'm satisfied with the results. I'm currently using LG MB85Z.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 13, 2015)

krisbell said:


> So how is the difference between getting paid or being pissed off make one's opinion and needs more valid than anothers?




It doesn't make one's opinion more valid; I never indicated as much. It arguably makes the needs more significant, however.

Perhaps I need to go back, if you were discussing the validity of opinion I missed it. I entirely agree that a pro isn't necessarily better than an amateur, and that one not need be a professional to recognize quality. I was honing in on "*And the pro vs amateur comment is totally irrelevant to the validity of any argument*."


----------



## Neutral (Jun 13, 2015)

raptor3x said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Could you please clarify your calculations on numbers of possible tones values?
This does not seem correct to me.
Here some basic math from theory of signal detection:
In general possible number of detected tones has limit of number of quantization levels if signal noise is going to zero.
Each quantizatin level is a decision slot for assigning digital value to the received analog signal at the input of ADC. For 14 bits ADC there are 16384 possible representatin of input analog signal. In theoretically ideal situation (with zero input analog signal noise) there are 16384 possible tonal values that could be assigned to received input analog signal.
Now when we come to real systems with noise (regardless of the noise origin) we have fundamental thing which is called SNR which affects precision of the signal detection - in our case to which tonal slot signal will be assigned. More signal noise more probability that signal will be assigned wrong digital value. Roughly if 99% of the signal energy is within particular decision slot ( in the center of it) then there is possibility that there is 99 percent probability that signal will be assigned correct value and 1% that that will be assigned value from adjucent decision slot. For image sensor this will result in 1% variations in image tonality signal with given noise level and noise distribution pattern. If signal value is on boundary of decision slot with the same conditions as above than there will be 50/50 distribution for output value assignements. This is actually why possible tonal values are less than ADC quantization levels.
This is actual limitation of one dimention signal detector when only signal amplitude modulated with noise is taken into account.
So overall all depends on number of signal detector decision slots and intensity and distribution pattern of the signal noise and actual signal level at the input.
If majority of signal noise power spectrum width becomes wider than width of the decision slot than this is where we would see that number of the possible correct tonal numbers would be reduced. 
Also errors in signal values assignmets would be more frequent for lower level signals - this is just signal detector SNR function for two input noise varàibles - read noise and photon noise in our case.
I do not think we need to go more deep into that. These are just basics.

So according to all said above Jrista calculations seem correct to me.
If you can actually prove that this is different and Jrista is not correct somewhere I àm really interested to see that.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 13, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



I already use "neutral" in ACR, and that doesn't change the fact that Adobe's PV2012 is more "intelligent" than older versions and thus tuned to respond to a certain type of image. If you're giving it data it doesn't quite expect, you have to fumble around more - this is a "known issue" and was a matter of hot debate when Adobe introduced it.



neuroanatomist said:


> krisbell said:
> 
> 
> > Whether you like or need DR, I still cant see how there is any argument that more DR is better...
> ...



I am :-> ... if you'd have 20ev dr in the 14bit cr2 file, that would be a bad thing(tm) indeed. But all things in moderation, +2-3ev more like dual_iso gives you w/o the workflow hassle would be very welcome.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 13, 2015)

Neutral said:


> Jrista,
> I really admire your patience and time spent on explaining to the audience basics of signal processing theory as applied to image processing. I wish I could have same level of patience.
> 
> As for a7s compared to 1DX even at iso6400 a7s images look cleaner with better colors and more pleasant for my eyes than images from 1DX and at higher iso difference is more significant.
> ...



I would have same plan ONLY the new AF system in A7rII works. It looks like Sony will wait for Canon to release their top models(5D4 & 1Dx II) before bringing out the a7s II. Will be fun to see mirrorless competing with DSLR. At this time, IQ is neck to neck. AF tracking is getting closer for mirrorless.

If the new a7rII and future models able to work A-mount and 3rd party lenses without any issues in tracking, I think Sony will take a bigger bite in photography market.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 13, 2015)

bholliman said:


> Despite all the claims regarding the superiority of the Exmor sensor for the past couple of years, I have yet to see any real world examples of where this sensor yields superior images...
> ...Maybe I've missed it, but from my perspective I can't see any real difference in IQ between images from Canon cameras and Sony/Nikon cameras for the kind of things I shoot (landscape, family, sports and wildlife). You can make excellent images with almost all of the photography equipment available today. Debate about subtle to imperceptible differences in IQ is just splitting hairs in my opinion.



Splitting hairs is what drives this forum. It's like the old saying about politics in academia being so vicious because the stakes are so small.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 13, 2015)

Let's quote from krisbell:

"Unfortunately I do not. Believe it or not I am not a pixel peeper and conducting such technical comparisons would bore me senseless...which makes the improvement in IQ between the two so much more amazing to me."

Really no surprise here. No one can ever produce. No one EVER has any photos readily available that compares the two. Nobody asked for scientific pixel peeping shots. They asked for two real-life examples side by side to demonstrate said improvement in IQ. And as is typical, you have none. Nobody ever does.

But then,

"They are all good quality and that quality is indiscernible at internet sizes but for me the difference comes when viewing images at over approx 50%, and also with the incredible editing latitude the files provide."

Once again, not surprised. Once you do point out photos taken with both, you then state there is no discernible difference in IQ.


Really not surprised at all.


----------



## krisbell (Jun 13, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> Let's quote from krisbell:
> 
> "Unfortunately I do not. Believe it or not I am not a pixel peeper and conducting such technical comparisons would bore me senseless...which makes the improvement in IQ between the two so much more amazing to me."
> 
> ...



Eh? Sorry it feels as if I have missed a few chapters here. Yes I agree there is no discernable difference _at internet sizes_ - just as there isn't between a 10 year old camera and todays latest and greatest at internet sizes. How does that prove or disprove anything?

And you are quite right, I do not have any examples side by side with the two cameras, with the same lens and the same conditions. I guess that means I am a liar? Or alternatively, I have seen a discernible improvement in quality with the a7r over the 5D3 for what I shoot, and for what I consciously (or sub-consciously) look for in an image. It really is as simple as that. I find the quality of the a7r shots to be much better. So much better in fact, that I feel it somewhat explains the polarised views evident in this thread - the difference matters and/or is very obvious to some, and it is perplexing and frustrating when others feel there is no difference.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 13, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> Really no surprise here. No one can ever produce.



Reminds me of an old SNL skit commercial spoof on Preparation H for Women. "Why is it better than regular Preparation H? It just is, trust us."


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 13, 2015)

So then my conclusion is that in MOST normal shooting situations there is no difference, at all. To anyone.

Sales stats also support that claim.


----------



## krisbell (Jun 13, 2015)

Here is one link I found on a quick search comparing editing latitude of a7r versus 5D3 - an area in which the a7r is astonishingly better and surely cannot be in dispute? http://www.fredmiranda.com/A7R-review/ 

And i've sunk to new depths here as I include an absolutely awful comparison of my own from a7r versus 5D3. Both are square crops of 900px. Taken in the exact same conditions though unfortunately different settings and different lenses. The comparison is probably meaningless but it is the best I have so I am putting it out there for ridicule. The canon was with a 100mm macro and the sony with a canon 16-35mm at 34mm. Canon was f9, 1/125 ISO 100. Sony f7.1, 1/320 and ISO 200. My gut feeling from using both lenses very many times with the 5D3 is that my 100mm macro should be sharper, though they are both excellent lenses. Both were handheld, the canon autofocused and Sony manual focused. To my eyes the Sony is nicer. I freely admit this is subjective and proves nothing, I am simply trying to add some substance (no matter how pitiful) to my own practical observations.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 13, 2015)

krisbell said:


> And i've sunk to new depths here as I include an absolutely awful comparison of my own from a7r versus 5D3. Both are square crops of 900px. Taken in the exact same conditions though unfortunately different settings and different lenses.









I prefer the apple.


----------



## Neutral (Jun 13, 2015)

krisbell said:


> Here is one link I found on a quick search comparing editing latitude of a7r versus 5D3 - an area in which the a7r is astonishingly better and surely cannot be in dispute? http://www.fredmiranda.com/A7R-review/
> <...>


I remember this review, it was very impressive at that time.
His site is interesting one.
This review did actually help me decide to buy a7r for my Canon TSE17 some time back.


----------



## krisbell (Jun 13, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> I prefer the apple.



Lol - I walked into that one all right. There is obviously a very good reason why I dont run a sensor review website!


----------



## jrista (Jun 13, 2015)

Neutral said:


> So according to all said above Jrista calculations seem correct to me.
> If you can actually prove that this is different and Jrista is not correct somewhere I àm really interested to see that.



There is a difference. I am talking about the dynamic range of the camera, Raptor is talking about the signal to noise ratio of an image. The two are different things. Dynamic range, as I am referring to it, has to do with the analog signal represented by charge in the pixels of the sensor. Until such time as you press the shutter button, the information you are working with in the camera is more finely delineated (i.e. FWC in electrons can be 60k, 90k, 160k...the maximum digitized number can be 2^N, and N is usually 14), and it can be freely moved around.

Every image is different. The SNR of an image, the noise inherent in the signal, and the tonality of each image, is infinitely diverse...we cannot use that to describe the capabilities of a camera. Dynamic range relies only on the hardware traits, and as such it CAN be used to describe the capabilities of a camera. Even when you factor in photon shot noise, however, the increase in dynamic range still means you have an increase in usable tones in an actual image. 

I found a formula last night while sitting out in the middle of nowhere imaging Lagoon and Trifid nebulas (yeah, after you get set up, it gets pretty boring..  At least my dark site has 4G access on my smartphone! ) that can be used to approximate the loss in bit depth in an actual signal, assuming you used the entire dynamic range:

TRbits = DRev - log(2 * (SQRT(RN^2 +fwc) - RN))

There is a more complex formula that requires details of an actual image, but for the case of just determining what the tonal range of a pixel that covers the entire dynamic range up to the clipping point, this will give you the number of bits of tonality. I figured I'd use Canon's best high resolution DSLR that has test data, the 6D, since it has a nice large FWC and lower read noise than the 5D III and 1D X. It has 11.5 stops of DR, or "EV bits" as they were described in this formula. Comparing to the A7r:

6D_TRbits = 11.5 - log(2 * (SQRT(26.4^2 + 74256) - 26.4)) = 8.8ev
A7r_TRbits = 13.5 - log(2 * (SQRT(4.3^2 + 49714) - 4.3)) = 10.85ev

In terms of tonality, we would then have 2^evbits, so 2^8.8 for the 6D, 2^10.8 for the A7r. That gives us a tonal range for two images that use the entire dynamic range of each camera of 446 for the 6D, and 1846 for the A7r. That is a difference of 1400 tones. In terms of the ratio difference on usable tones, that is over 4:1...which is in line with the synthetic 8000/2000 ratio of exactly 4:1. It still doesn't matter if you are talking about the discrete steps of differentiable signal allowed by the dynamic range of the camera, or tones in an actual image...the _relative difference_ is the same. A factor of four difference (or slightly more, as it seems), or about two stops. That, too, is in line with the difference in stops of dynamic range: 13.5-11.5 = 2.

For those who say the difference in tonality is small to meaningless:






This image was lifted a total of +5 stops globally, total of +7 stops in the shadows with additional shadow and black sliders work. The top row is just with the lift, the bottom row is with additional work to reduce the Canon banding, and restore some useful contrast to the image. Those highlights there are midtones (they became highlights due to the strong push). Canon's increased read noise has an impact to overall read noise right up into those midtones. The deeper you get, the greater the discrepancy in tonality is. Is the tonality of 7-stop deep shadows as good as your upper midtones? Of course not. But there IS a massive difference in the tonality of these two cameras. Seven stops...this may not be some multi-stop HDR image that put every bit of tonality in the scene at the upper end of the dynamic range for maximum potential...but SEVEN STOPS. To have detail even as good as this, after pushing it seven stops, should at least tell you something about what the difference in dynamic range between Sony cameras and Canon cameras means.

An assertion was made that Sony cameras have problems with highlights...that they clip sooner, and that they lose saturation. First, I have not experienced that myself, even with this image (where I intentionally clipped the highlights by a third stop to force maximal utilization of the DR of both cameras.) Second, assuming there were issues with highlight clipping and falloff...drop exposure a third of a stop, or a full stop. I pushed the above images seven stops...pushing a single stop so you can preserve every scrap of highlight detail, and preserve it with as much color fidelity as possible, is a no brainer here. There is more than enough tonality in the shadows of an Exmor to NEVER have any problems with highlights, ever, and always have better tonality in your shadows than a Canon camera could ever deliver. 

And if that STILL isn't enough....just do HDR! You would have been doing HDR with a Canon anyway...


----------



## Neutral (Jun 13, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> krisbell said:
> 
> 
> > And i've sunk to new depths here as I include an absolutely awful comparison of my own from a7r versus 5D3. Both are square crops of 900px. Taken in the exact same conditions though unfortunately different settings and different lenses.
> ...



So what???
Many others prefer both, one or another depending on the mood and time of the day )))
Everyone has his personal likes and dislikes and this is just normal )))


----------



## krisbell (Jun 13, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> I prefer the apple.



But I disagree, the orange is way better.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 13, 2015)

krisbell said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I prefer the apple.
> ...



So you pick the fruit that matches the color of the ring on Sony's lens mount, and I pick the fruit that matches the color of the ring on Canon's lenses. Interesting.... 

Of course, with your choice there's manual work to be done before you get to the sweet part...


----------



## krisbell (Jun 13, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> So you pick the fruit that matches the color of the ring on Sony's lens mount, and I pick the fruit that matches the color of the ring on Canon's lenses. Interesting....
> 
> Of course, with your choice there's manual work to be done before you get to the sweet part...



But after the added work of making mine usable there are less maggots inside. (stretching analogy to its limits already!)


----------



## scyrene (Jun 13, 2015)

Neutral said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Maiaibing said:
> ...



I've not even been on this forum for more than a couple of years as far as I can remember, and even I'm tired of hearing this. People have been saying it for years, and we're still waiting.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 13, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, I was thinking more along the lines of contrast and phase detection AF in DSLR's vs. mirrorless cameras. Thanks for the responses.
> ...



17 pages in and you're the first person to bring up form factor! I won't be mounting a small mirrorless body on a supertele for handheld shots (which is essentially all my shots with that lens), as the ergonomics just don't work. Battery life is also massively important. I'm sure people will counter with 'just carry extra batteries' but I'd rather have 1 battery that does 2000 shots than 4 that do 500 each.



Maiaibing said:


> This makes a huge difference in what you can do as it extends your effective shooting hours and options - just like fast primes do. It simply gives you more flexibility with more light options to play with during a longer time of the day. I really wanted a high MPIX Canon but the low iso of the new 5Ds was a clear deal breaker for me.
> 
> One example: During late fall the SONY will potentially give me 1 1/2 hours more shooting time in the early morning when the deer are most active (compared to 5DII). That's twice the "good" morning hours I get now. I imagine any dedicated nature shooter - always needing more light and more pixels to fight the low morning light and the subject distance - will want this camera in their bag if they have the money to spend (and expectations are confirmed).
> 
> I would also love to bring the SONY on my next safari - alas it will not be available for that. If you ever tried a Safari you would know how many amazing scenes cannot be captured by current Canon cameras due to either high iso restrictions or lack of pixels - or both. Especially in the late evening/early morning hours when most of the real action is on. Down South I'd say you get at least 1/2 hour extra time at each end of the day - a full extra hour of the best animal action. And because the "good" hours are shorter than in the North its relatively a huge difference the SONY brings to the table.



Not convinced. Of course if money was no object (and total gear weight), I'd have one of these. And a Pentax 645z etc. But this body won't work terribly well on a supertelephoto lens imho - especially handheld. Okay, if 'wildlife' is big game, and you sit with a tripod, it may well be worth considering. But for birds, I doubt it very much. We need ergonomic solutions.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 13, 2015)

darrellrhodesmiller said:


> i shoot both a 5dmk3 and a sony a7r now.. both are great.. but different tools for different jobs..
> 
> the 5dmk3 is an amazing all around camera.. if you dont know what kind of conditions i'm getting myself into i bring this camera and i know i'll get some good shots. Batteries last for days.. and the interface and controls are very comfortable and well designed (for a DSLR) Focusing is as fast as you can expect from a digital camera.
> 
> ...



A refreshing view, thanks for adding it!


----------



## scyrene (Jun 13, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> I don't think this has anything to do with new things and adapting.
> 
> It has to do with the "Christ is risen" attitude and overzealous reaction the minute Sony or Nikon comes out with a new camera. And I don't know where it started. But nobody brought sales into the picture UNTIL this started. *It's the constant "OMG Canon is *******!" attitude that happens the minute a new camera body comes out from another company. Then when people try to explain, like Neuro has tried countless times that Canon isn't *******, then he's just a fanboy who can't wake up to reality. That's the type of crap that most of us are actually getting sick of.* We go from this "gear doesn't matter" garbage 3 years ago to now it's "all about gear and low ISO DR" garbage. I have never in my life seen such gear-heads salivating and frothing at the mouth when they hear 13 or 14 stops of DR at ISO 100. Who cares? If there's any part of gear that doesn't matter, it would have to start with that spec.
> 
> ...



Precisely this. The misrepresentation of Neuro's position in particular is unfair.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 13, 2015)

jrista said:


> LOALTD said:
> 
> 
> > The battery life is really the only real weakness of most mirrorless systems. Although you could carry many spare batteries and still be lighter than a DSLR body.
> ...



I used to do that with the 300D  Always wondered though, does it take extra power to turn on and off than to leave it on standby?


----------



## scyrene (Jun 13, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > And pros do bring stuff up. On the sidelines I'd hear them bring up AF or this or that now and then.
> ...



Another refreshingly honest response.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jun 13, 2015)

scyrene said:


> But this body won't work terribly well on a supertelephoto lens imho - especially handheld. Okay, if 'wildlife' if big game, and you sit with a tripod, it may well be worth considering. But for birds, I doubt it very much. We need ergonomic solutions.



I am much more optimistic about hand held handling. I never had any problems using the rebels with my super telephoto lenses (do not shoot birds except occasionally on safari). I do not see why handling the SONY should be worse. 

Handling is of course user specific so YMMV. However, for me it would have to be really bad to give up 2 extra stops and almost 2x MPIX.

Time will tell.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 13, 2015)

LOALTD said:


> The battery life is really the only real weakness of most mirrorless systems. Although you could carry many spare batteries and still be lighter than a DSLR body.
> 
> 
> Have any of the A7 series users here tried the vertical battery grip?



Yes. I bought a used Sony VG-C1EM for my Sony A7s. The ergonomics is awkward. You will hate it.


----------



## jrista (Jun 13, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > But this body won't work terribly well on a supertelephoto lens imho - especially handheld. Okay, if 'wildlife' if big game, and you sit with a tripod, it may well be worth considering. But for birds, I doubt it very much. We need ergonomic solutions.
> ...



A lot of bird photography is done on a tripod as well. In fact, most of my bird photography is done with a tripod. The form of photography I do that most requires hand-held use of a giant lens is BIF...and yes, the large size and ergonomics of the 5D III definitely help in that situation. However with shorebirds, waders, perched songbirds...all of that is done with the lens mounted to the tripod...the camera is just a little control box on the back that lets me focus and expose.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 13, 2015)

jrista said:


> I also believe, having used a variety of demosaicing algorithms now, that not all banding is actually baked into the signal itself...



The typical banding is baked in. Use a RAW examiner program that lets you look at the raw RAW before any demosaic and you can see banding like crazy in say 5D2 shadows and barely any on say 7D2 shadows.

Stuff like 7D mazing is due to heavily split greens on the CFA and you need to use very special demosaic and processing to avoid it. The beta 7D ACR and even the first DPP release from Canon had nasty mazing from 7D images. A month or so later it got fixed up (at the cost of a tiny trace loss of micro-contrast).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 13, 2015)

vscd said:


> The data is not stored linear into the RAW, otherwise you wouldn't get 14.6 Stops of DR (Nikon 7200) into a 14 Bit RAW.



The DR isn't actually 14.6 stops in the RAW. THe camera only gets 14.6 stops normalized to 8MP.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 13, 2015)

bholliman said:


> I've seen examples of badly underexposed images where shadow detail could be recovered, but realistically, those types of pictures are going to be deleted anyway.



Nonsense on two counts.

First, as has only been said 1000000x times, it's not really about underexposing or not getting exposure right or not understanding exposure (ironically, all of Sporgon's samples are starting to imply that it's actually he that doesn't understand how to expose), but sometimes mistakes are made and instead of having to delete the file, maybe you can actually get a perfectly fine image out of it. Not a bad thing is it?

Second, shots were you need more DR would not all be deleted if taken with a camera that has enough DR.

And yes, you take a billion images without issue on a 5D3. But you could also easily find scenarios where an Exmor sensor would let you take some shots that would start getting a bit too nasty with the 5D3. WHy not have the extra freedom to be able to shoot to fine quality under an expanded range of scenarios?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 13, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> krisbell said:
> 
> 
> > Whether you like or need DR, I still cant see how there is any argument that more DR is better...
> ...



Although many bend over backwards to imply that it's a meaningless thing in nearly every situation.
And there is one guy on DPR who in league with mod was going on and on and on about how more DR makes a sensor worse and that he prays Canon doesn't ruin their sensors by ever adding more DR (and he gets a lot of +1 and likes there too).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 13, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Nonsense on two counts.
> 
> ...ironically, all of Sporgon's samples are starting to imply that it's actually he that doesn't understand how to expose...



That's the true nonsense here. Care to show us your properly exposed portfolio? He shares his, and his images are astounding. All your doing here is making yourself look foolish and petty. Nice job.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 13, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> Let's quote from krisbell:
> 
> "Unfortunately I do not. Believe it or not I am not a pixel peeper and conducting such technical comparisons would bore me senseless...which makes the improvement in IQ between the two so much more amazing to me."
> 
> ...



Most people don't around wasting time and money and weight lugging two systems around all the time and taking dual shots with each system. They take what will work best for the scenario and use and don't waste precious changing light. It takes a lot of effort and time to do the test properly too.

Many people are so backed up they don't even have time to process all their good shots yet, much less create dual sets of portfolios just to demonstrate to a few naysayers what they already know and experience.

Shots that didn't work out, you never see, since they get deleted. So you just see whatever worked from whatever the camera is.

That said, people actually have posted some 'real world' shots at times of scenarios to show issues, but those posts are always ignore and forgotten by the naysayers.

And the careful, scientific demos that demonstrate what you can run into real world are tossed as lab nonsense even they it's not at all. It's very easy to extrapolate to the real world and issues you may have had.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 13, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> So then my conclusion is that in MOST normal shooting situations there is no difference, at all. To anyone.
> 
> Sales stats also support that claim.



poor conclusions

and some of us did post examples before and you all ignore them


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 13, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Nonsense on two counts.
> ...



COme on man, you know better.

He posts two images with blown highlights and not much shadows at small size and is like look, you can't tell teh difference so DR means nothing. COme on man, you are smarter to know that comparison was ridiculous.

And then he even says OK well supposedly one is supposed to expose less to save highlights and then do processing to shift midpoint and shadows to get better DR but I'm not used to that and all I know is how I expose and when I jsut do whatever they both blow the highlights and the it all looks the same to me.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 13, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > So then my conclusion is that in MOST normal shooting situations there is no difference, at all. To anyone.
> ...



I've seen nothing but garbage pushed 5 to 7 stops. I just want to see two NORMAL photos side by side, so I can pick the Sony photo and the Canon photo. It should be obvious.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 13, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Check out his portfolio then come back and tell us again how he doesn't know how to expose. 

Full direct sun on white water. Deep shadows. Yeah, a couple stops of DR is going to make a huge difference if you 'expose properly'. :


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 13, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> krisbell said:
> 
> 
> > And i've sunk to new depths here as I include an absolutely awful comparison of my own from a7r versus 5D3. Both are square crops of 900px. Taken in the exact same conditions though unfortunately different settings and different lenses.
> ...


I'm torn... Orange is my favorite color but look at the quality of that apple.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 13, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Here's the full picture. Please note this is a quick stitch straight from small jpegs off the camera. So yea, I think I exposed spot on. Of course I have a much faster bracketed sequence to patch the highlights back in - on both Canon and Exmor. 

What did you think I'd done ? Taken a shot of some blown out water ? The salient point is that in this practical situation the Exmor is no better, despite its "8000 tones vs 2000" tones, 14 stops of DR to 12 etc etc. Some of you guys are obsessed with the tech and not seeing the wood for the trees, or how this tech impacts on most practical situations.


----------



## meywd (Jun 13, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



You really need to make a workshop on how you do your panos from A to Z.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 13, 2015)

Messi said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Well, fortunately, in his real-life photo, there are no clipped highlights, no shadow noise, and he has plenty of DR. We don't all push shadows 5 stops. Please explain how an Exmor sensor would have made his photo look any different. Or do you just recite crap you read on the internet?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 13, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Some of you guys are obsessed with the tech and not seeing the wood for the trees, or how this tech impacts on most practical situations.



That is so so true. 

They seem to believe because x system has 40% more something than a different system (choose your favourite metric) the images should be y% 'better', but all gear is so good now that that elusive y% is getting smaller and smaller and impacts few photographers and even fewer shooting situations.


----------



## meywd (Jun 13, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Some of you guys are obsessed with the tech and not seeing the wood for the trees, or how this tech impacts on most practical situations.
> ...



tbh I am more excited with the RX10 II 1K FPS video than the more DR or BSI/Stacked sensors, I know that this feature will not be used a lot, but it opens the door to getting 10K FPS in a consumer(cheap) package, which will lead to lots of fun shooting.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 13, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Check out his portfolio then come back and tell us again how he doesn't know how to expose.



He wasn't exposing to save highlights in his examples and then apparently complaining that the Sony didn't magically save his highlights and then implying the Sony didn't make any difference. I think you know there is something wrong with that line of thought.



> Full direct sun on white water. Deep shadows. Yeah, a couple stops of DR is going to make a huge difference if you 'expose properly'. :



3 stops might let you get just enough out of the shadows to look good and still save bright rocks

there are tons of scenarios shooting in a forest where it's dappled sun and those 2-3 extra steps are exactly what you tend to need to save stuff in that scenario


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 13, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Here's the full picture. Please note this is a quick stitch straight from small jpegs off the camera. So yea, I think I exposed spot on. Of course I have a much faster bracketed sequence to patch the highlights back in - on both Canon and Exmor.
> 
> What did you think I'd done ? Taken a shot of some blown out water ? The salient point is that in this practical situation the Exmor is no better, despite its "8000 tones vs 2000" tones, 14 stops of DR to 12 etc etc. Some of you guys are obsessed with the tech and not seeing the wood for the trees, or how this tech impacts on most practical situations.



I don't get what this supposed to show? You expose both shots the same way and then show a crop of the bright part. If you wanted to see a difference you'd have either:

1. exposed both as you did and then shown raised shadows in the very darkest parts (far away from what you showed), although since the highlights on the rocks are blown it's possible it was exposed so much that the shadows are still not too bad on the Canon, maybe, maybe not

2. exposed to save the rocks that are blown out and then compared them in the shadow areas in which case the Sony definitely should have looked better (but you apparently didn't want to bother having to expose to save highlights or something and perhaps thought the extra DR of the Sony was to automatically save the highlights, but taht is not how a standard digital camera works, it doesn't matter what the DR is. You need to expose so as to save whatever degree of highlights you wish to save and then the rest falls where it may, maybe the shadows are still fine or maybe they are a disaster, with cameras with more DR you hit the disaster shadows scenario less often)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 13, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> Well, fortunately, in his real-life photo, there are no clipped highlights, no shadow noise, and he has plenty of DR. We don't all push shadows 5 stops. Please explain how an Exmor sensor would have made his photo look any different. Or do you just recite crap you read on the internet?



???? The Fairy Glen photo has highlights blown all over the place. If they were saved I'd suspect the shadow noise would be to the objectionable level, most likely in that scene, althoguh I can't be sure.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 13, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> > Full direct sun on white water. Deep shadows. Yeah, a couple stops of DR is going to make a huge difference if you 'expose properly'. :
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dappled sun is not full direct sun on white water. I guess we're still waiting for you to put your portfolio where your keyboard is... :


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 14, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the full picture. Please note this is a quick stitch straight from small jpegs off the camera. So yea, I think I exposed spot on. Of course I have a much faster bracketed sequence to patch the highlights back in - on both Canon and Exmor.
> ...



It shows that for the way he wants his photos to look, it makes little difference. That's really the entire point, and why many of us (myself, an A7R owner included) laugh a little bit at the amount of attention paid to the DR delta between exmor and canon sensors. There are people who want to dig deep, for them it's obviously a big deal. For the typical user, it isn't.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 14, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, fortunately, in his real-life photo, there are no clipped highlights, no shadow noise, and he has plenty of DR. We don't all push shadows 5 stops. Please explain how an Exmor sensor would have made his photo look any different. Or do you just recite crap you read on the internet?
> ...



You're absolutely right. Sorry I peered through all the photos in this thread. But yes I see the highlights.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 14, 2015)

That aside, it still has absolutely nothing to do with my points at least.


----------



## JClark (Jun 14, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > > Full direct sun on white water. Deep shadows. Yeah, a couple stops of DR is going to make a huge difference if you 'expose properly'. :
> ...



We're all waiting for something. Personally, I'm waiting for you to get through two consecutive posts without :.


----------



## zlatko (Jun 14, 2015)

jrista said:


> This image was lifted a total of +5 stops globally, total of +7 stops in the shadows with additional shadow and black sliders work. The top row is just with the lift, the bottom row is with additional work to reduce the Canon banding, and restore some useful contrast to the image. Those highlights there are midtones (they became highlights due to the strong push). Canon's increased read noise has an impact to overall read noise right up into those midtones. The deeper you get, the greater the discrepancy in tonality is. Is the tonality of 7-stop deep shadows as good as your upper midtones? Of course not. But there IS a massive difference in the tonality of these two cameras. Seven stops...this may not be some multi-stop HDR image that put every bit of tonality in the scene at the upper end of the dynamic range for maximum potential...but SEVEN STOPS. To have detail even as good as this, after pushing it seven stops, should at least tell you something about what the difference in dynamic range between Sony cameras and Canon cameras means.



The 7-stop shadow lifted images are baaaaack!

Yes, that's very meaningful if one does 7-stop shadow lifting. Somehow I manage to never have to do 7-stop shadow lifting, but this is still very good to know. Because if I do become a 7-stop shadow lifter, I will definitely want a Sony.

It's like knowing that Brand X raincoats are much better to wear for scuba diving than Brand Y raincoats.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 14, 2015)

zlatko said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > This image was lifted a total of +5 stops globally, total of +7 stops in the shadows with additional shadow and black sliders work. The top row is just with the lift, the bottom row is with additional work to reduce the Canon banding, and restore some useful contrast to the image. Those highlights there are midtones (they became highlights due to the strong push). Canon's increased read noise has an impact to overall read noise right up into those midtones. The deeper you get, the greater the discrepancy in tonality is. Is the tonality of 7-stop deep shadows as good as your upper midtones? Of course not. But there IS a massive difference in the tonality of these two cameras. Seven stops...this may not be some multi-stop HDR image that put every bit of tonality in the scene at the upper end of the dynamic range for maximum potential...but SEVEN STOPS. To have detail even as good as this, after pushing it seven stops, should at least tell you something about what the difference in dynamic range between Sony cameras and Canon cameras means.
> ...



I like DUI, but only because they're local. It's the SCUBA equivalent of CPS


----------



## expatinasia (Jun 14, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> I like DUI, but only because they're local. It's the SCUBA equivalent of CPS



DUI is illegal in many countries, and quite rightly so.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 14, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> I like DUI, but only because they're local. It's the SCUBA equivalent of CPS



DAN is much better in most locations.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 14, 2015)

dilbert said:


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



No. The quick stitch is from OOC JPEG. The crops were from raw. When I produce the panoramic the shadows won't be so deep and I'll be using the data from the Canon because it is better. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. Maybe in this case it's because I'm not as used to the Exmor sensor. 

You can see that there is enormous EV range, not only from the intense highlight off the water and deep shadow under the rocks in the shade of the gorge, but also the non reflecting sunlit rocks and leaves. To under expose the exmor enough to hold even some of the intense highlights the deep shadow is lost - even on the Exmor.

The crops showed that both sensors blew at the same point and that when the data is left un pushed the 'IQ' in terms of noise etc is basically identical. 

Jrista stated that the Exmor has more tonal values in the bottom third of the sensor than the Canon has over the whole range. So that should mean that if you push the data from the Exmor three stops your resulting data should be as good as, or better than, the data from the Canon correctly exposed and not pushed or pulled. But it doesn't work that way in practice.

Now give me a sensor that has more EV range and I'm in. That is a sensor whereby for a given exposure you get a stop or more highlight recording than with either the Canon or Exmor as well as the extra stops and the low light end.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 14, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > > Full direct sun on white water. Deep shadows. Yeah, a couple stops of DR is going to make a huge difference if you 'expose properly'. :
> ...



1. it is irrelevant, i could have the world's best or the world's worst portfolio and it could encompass tons of types of photography just one and it won't make 1+1 have any different answer

2. I don't like to mix it into the mess that are the tech forums. I don't want it really associated with all the nasty bickering and nonsense.

3. a few times I did get fed up and posted a zillions pics anyway despite my better judgement and all the bashers seemed to get really quiet all of a sudden and there were no more responses to the threads


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 14, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dappled sun is not full direct sun on white water.



If you expect to tame specular highlights off of water and turn them into what? dark gray, that eye never even sees them as then yes another 3 stops of DR won't make a difference. But what about all the rocks that are blown out?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 14, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



He wants his photos to have large chunks blown out or, alternately, the shadows either always drawn down or full of noise? If so, then fine, but I'm not sure that is how most people would go.


----------



## krisbell (Jun 14, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> I guess we're still waiting for you to put your portfolio where your keyboard is... :



What irrelevant nonsense. See earlier comments about not having to be a chef to be a food critic. Can we safely disregard any opinion you may have based on what we think about your online portfolio?


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 14, 2015)

krisbell said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I guess we're still waiting for you to put your portfolio where your keyboard is... :
> ...



Visited your site - GREAT photos krisbell


----------



## krisbell (Jun 14, 2015)

zlatko said:


> The 7-stop shadow lifted images are baaaaack!
> 
> Yes, that's very meaningful if one does 7-stop shadow lifting. Somehow I manage to never have to do 7-stop shadow lifting, but this is still very good to know. Because if I do become a 7-stop shadow lifter, I will definitely want a Sony.
> 
> It's like knowing that Brand X raincoats are much better to wear for scuba diving than Brand Y raincoats.



So you dont lift your shadows by 7stops? Nothing relevant there, almost no-one does. The fact however that the Sony has so much latitude that you CAN lift them by 7 stop means that a gentle 2 stop lift that many, many people will do will result in almost no degradation in quality at all. The benefits of the 7 stop lift ability that you mock can be enjoyed well before then. 

I presume almost everyone on this thread shoots RAW when aiming for the very best image quality. Why is that if not, in large part, for the extra editing headroom it gives you? It certainly doesn't result in higher image quality straight out of the camera compared to a JPG. Would you prefer an image with 0 stop editing latitude?


----------



## meywd (Jun 14, 2015)

krisbell said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I guess we're still waiting for you to put your portfolio where your keyboard is... :
> ...



This is a forum full of photographers not photo enthusiasts, we don't discuss art, we discuss gear and technique, so you can't compare us to food critics, the right one is that we are chefs, pros or just ones learning how to do scrambled eggs, and what we are comparing is the effectiveness of knives and ovens


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 14, 2015)

krisbell said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > The 7-stop shadow lifted images are baaaaack!
> ...



Fair point about the lift. Not about the benefit of working in 16 bit.

If you want to habitually lift by two stops or more the Exmor is for you. No doubt about it. But look at what even a two stop lift does to a correctly exposed raw.

The first shot is exposed to preserve the highlights on the Exmor. According to the histogram I have used virtually all the available dynamic range. The second is a straight two stop lift of the raw. When would you want to go as far as this ? The third is the finished picture. Apologies to the sports photographers here, but I was trying to pan at about 200th to get some movement. 

Due to the available range of the Canon I never have to lift more than 1.5 stops assuming that the original exposure is optimised, which in landscape you have time to do.

I went to Bramham horse trials with the Exmor to try and get some shots where the Canon would not have coped. Not sure I have succeeded, but I have quite a few to process.


----------



## krisbell (Jun 14, 2015)

meywd said:


> This is a forum full of photographers not photo enthusiasts, we don't discuss art, we discuss gear and technique, so you can't compare us to food critics, the right one is that we are chefs, pros or just ones learning how to do scrambled eggs, and what we are comparing is the effectiveness of knives and ovens



You are quite right, that is a more accurate analogy - but it doesnt make Neuro's statement any more valid.


----------



## vscd (Jun 14, 2015)

I just smiled while browsing the net...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/2013-12-leica-sony-canon/#rex


----------



## krisbell (Jun 14, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Fair point about the lift. Not about the benefit of working in 16 bit.
> 
> If you want to habitually lift by two stops or more the Exmor is for you. No doubt about it. But look at what even a two stop lift does to a correctly exposed raw.
> 
> The first shot is exposed to preserve the highlights on the Exmor. According to the histogram I have used virtually all the available dynamic range. The second is a straight two stop lift of the raw. When would you want to go as far as this ?



Personally? All the time. Looking at your +2 edit - I can see a number of places in that image where I might prefer the lifted image. Of course I am not doing a blanket lift of the entire image like you seem to be suggesting, I am lifting certain elements where I either want to see more detail, or bring something to the attention of the viewer etc. This seems to be a common misconception with the "who needs any more DR" crowd - us occasional Exmor users are not walking around seeing how poorly we can expose a shot just so we can oooh and aaah in post at how much we can lift it - it simply gives us another tool in our arsenal that we can use _selectively_ in post as and when required to lift/repair/enhance/improve specific parts of an image.



Sporgon said:


> I went to Bramham horse trials with the Exmor to try and get some shots where the Canon would not have coped. Not sure I have succeeded, but I have quite a few to process.



Well this is where my argument ends - at a horse trial I would use my Canon. The advantages I have seen from my a7r are at low ISO settings. There may or may not be advantages at higher ISOs but the lack of quick auto-focus means I have never used my a7r for that purpose so cannot comment. The promised improved focus speed of the a7r II has me very excited, but I'm willing to bet it still wont come close to useable for sports/action/wildlife with a Canon lens.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 14, 2015)

jrista said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



Fair enough. I can't get my head round it personally - though I know many do. I prefer the flexibility of using myself as the tripod, but maybe I'm weird


----------



## scyrene (Jun 14, 2015)

meywd said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



I find the high fps video most exciting too!


----------



## meywd (Jun 14, 2015)

krisbell said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > This is a forum full of photographers not photo enthusiasts, we don't discuss art, we discuss gear and technique, so you can't compare us to food critics, the right one is that we are chefs, pros or just ones learning how to do scrambled eggs, and what we are comparing is the effectiveness of knives and ovens
> ...



Well..what many are saying is that you need this tool to produce this result in this situation, but others say that is not true, and if you want to prove we want a real world example, now if this was about cooking will you believe a known big restaurant chef or the guy who talks about cooking but you don't know his working history or if he ever cooked, now what I am getting at is credibility, jrista and sporgon are both with high credibility because they have shown that they know what it takes to make great photos.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 14, 2015)

krisbell said:


> Personally? All the time. Looking at your +2 edit - I can see a number of places in that image where I might prefer the lifted image. Of course I am not doing a blanket lift of the entire image like you seem to be suggesting, I am lifting certain elements where I either want to see more detail, or bring something to the attention of the viewer etc. This seems to be a common misconception with the "who needs any more DR" crowd - us occasional Exmor users are not walking around seeing how poorly we can expose a shot just so we can oooh and aaah in post at how much we can lift it - it simply gives us another tool in our arsenal that we can use _selectively_ in post as and when required to lift/repair/enhance/improve specific parts of an image.



No, I'm not suggesting you would do a unilateral 2 stop lift, my example was to show how much a two stop lift is in relation to the five stop lift suggestions of others. I've incorporated one top lifts into the third image. 



krisbell said:


> Well this is where my argument ends - at a horse trial I would use my Canon. The advantages I have seen from my a7r are at low ISO settings. There may or may not be advantages at higher ISOs but the lack of quick auto-focus means I have never used my a7r for that purpose so cannot comment. The promised improved focus speed of the a7r II has me very excited, but I'm willing to bet it still wont come close to useable for sports/action/wildlife with a Canon lens.



Agreed, but so far on my Exmor adventure I'm finding that any DR benefit might be more applicable to sport than landscape, as in landscape you have time to do something abut it, in sport, not. Rather ironic considering the fact that CR is plagued with "Exmor for landscape" comments. Incidentally I was shooting at 100 ISO the whole time.


----------



## fragilesi (Jun 14, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> fragilesi said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Okay, no problem, just wanted to be sure of what I was seeing.


----------



## msm (Jun 14, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> ...
> Agreed, but so far on my Exmor adventure I'm finding that any DR benefit might be more applicable to sport than landscape, as in landscape you have time to do something abut it, in sport, not. Rather ironic considering the fact that CR is plagued with "Exmor for landscape" comments. Incidentally I was shooting at 100 ISO the whole time.



As long as the scene is completely static I'll agree with you, the only benefit you may get from a Exmor is that you may be able to get away with one exposure.

I often find that there are movements in the scene or rapidly changing light . How you deal with dark trees moving in the wind against bright skies? Reflections in waves in water?

Another example which was posted in another thread was long exposures during rapidly changing light conditions where the poster was unable to take more than 1 exposure before the light changed.

In cases like this, I still find that it is easier to blend exposures when they have larger editing latitude and that the end results are better in problem areas of the scene.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 14, 2015)

krisbell said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I guess we're still waiting for you to put your portfolio where your keyboard is... :
> ...



No, you don't have to be a chef to be a food critic. But if your Uncle Bob from Deluth, who can't boil an egg and has eaten at McDonalds his whole life, goes to a top Japanese restaurant in Manhattan, he's not a food critic – he's a guy with an opinion. Maybe you'd trust his opinion that the sushi was terrible, but I certainly wouldn't.


----------



## fragilesi (Jun 14, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> krisbell said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I would, I hate sushi ;D


----------



## canonvoir (Jun 14, 2015)

I just purchased an a7ii and quite a few native lenses. I am really impressed with the image quality of the Sony. So much so, I have not used my 5Diii since making the purchase. It also helps I like to hike and the weight reduction was a nice bonus. 

This sports season I will still be using my 1DX but I will carry a Sony with a 55mm as well to see how it does for end zone and after game photos. 

I will be picking up the a7rii and may even sell off my 5Diii. I hate to say it, but I believe I have purchased my last Canon body. Image quality is too impressive for me to look over. The biggest drawback is battery life. If they could double the battery life (not a big deal until you decide to do a really long time lapse and admittedly a battery grip for time lapse would solve this), it would be a no brainier for all of those minus sports pros.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 14, 2015)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > krisbell said:
> ...



Yes, that certainly explains all the CR praise for the a7RII before anyone has even used the camera.


----------



## candc (Jun 14, 2015)

dilbert said:


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



i think 2-3 stops additional dr would be really beneficial to wildlife shooters. blown out highlights on white feathered birds is always a problem. underexposing by a stop or so seems to do the trick but if its a black and white bird like a pelican or eagle then you will have problems getting clean detail in the dark feathers.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 14, 2015)

fragilesi said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > krisbell said:
> ...


I know your response is humor, but I think his point is valid: a person's history gives a sense of what they're capable of doing. For example, modern painters are often criticized for doing work that could have been done by a young child, and critics are faulted for inferring deeper meaning. Then you look at the artist's history of immaculate, precise portraiture, and you know that it's reasonable to believe every brushstroke was intentional. (whether you like it or not is a different question)

History does inform the present in all kinds of ways.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 14, 2015)

canonvoir said:


> I just purchased an a7ii and quite a few native lenses. I am really impressed with the image quality of the Sony. So much so, I have not used my 5Diii since making the purchase. It also helps I like to hike and the weight reduction was a nice bonus.
> 
> This sports season I will still be using my 1DX but I will carry a Sony with a 55mm as well to see how it does for end zone and after game photos.
> 
> I will be picking up the a7rii and may even sell off my 5Diii. I hate to say it, but I believe I have purchased my last Canon body. Image quality is too impressive for me to look over. The biggest drawback is battery life. If they could double the battery life (not a big deal until you decide to do a really long time lapse and admittedly a battery grip for time lapse would solve this), it would be a no brainier for all of those minus sports pros.


This is a reasonable personal statement. Thank you for not crossing the Swedish Line to imply that those who have not reached the same conclusion are ______.

Question: are you seeing any drawbacks with the mirrorless design? Focus speed/accuracy? Since you have a 1DX I presume you'll use the Sony mostly for slow-/non-moving subjects, right?


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 14, 2015)

candc said:


> i think 2-3 stops additional dr would be really beneficial to wildlife shooters.



_(Edit: I used candc's comment as a starting point, it was not directed at candc personally.)_

I think we all agree that more DR is good; the greater the increase, the greater the good, but that has never been the question. The question, as always, is which gear is going to serve all your needs the best at the price you can afford? If you have enough money to buy multiple kits then please do so, and I wouldn't mind hearing reports of their relative performance. What's annoying is the drumbeat of statements that reduce to: "_Brand X is better for my shooting needs than Canon, so if you don't also prefer Brand X then you're either incompetent or a Canon fanboi._" 

If you want to tell us how Brand X did for your particular type of shooting please do so. But STOP telling us to be outraged that Canon's performance doesn't measure up. There are lots of things in this world to be outraged about, and Canon sensors are not among them.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 14, 2015)

msm said:


> I often find that there are movements in the scene or rapidly changing light . How you deal with dark trees moving in the wind against bright skies? Reflections in waves in water?



Not entering into the sensor and DR debate, it really is more fun watching it, but........

Software is freaky good nowadays at sorting out ghosting. I just took a three image HDR shot of a flag pole with a flag blowing in the wind. Lightroom HDR sorted it out without any input from me, sure at the pixel level it could use a few seconds with the healing brush, but I was amazed at how much better anti ghosting has become.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 14, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > i think 2-3 stops additional dr would be really beneficial to wildlife shooters.
> ...



+1000

Sadly, I'm sure people here will continue to believe that their own needs represent those of the majority, and continue in failing to understand the business realities of the camera industry (or intentionally misinterpret them).


----------



## msm (Jun 14, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > I often find that there are movements in the scene or rapidly changing light . How you deal with dark trees moving in the wind against bright skies? Reflections in waves in water?
> ...



Deghosting takes all information in the problem area from 1 frame leaving you with the DR you camera can provide in 1 exposure in that area which may leave part of the image noisy or blurry if one chooses to use NR. But yeah the healing brush may of course help.


----------



## zlatko (Jun 14, 2015)

krisbell said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > The 7-stop shadow lifted images are baaaaack!
> ...



I like editing headroom. Canon has met my needs for editing headroom for years now. A 2-stop lift is no problem. Sony promoters always show the extreme 4, 5, 6 or 7 stop lift, not the more common 1 or 2 stop lift. A 10 or 20 stop lift would be really amazing too. Would it make me buy a camera? Probably not.

My point is that in the rush to portray Canon as lagging, some people are hyper-focused on this one extreme ability of Sony sensors, while overlooking the fact that Canon has met the needs of a wide range of photographers and in many ways offers a superior system. Showing off a 7-stop shadow lift is like showing off a dog that can walk on two legs. Um, like, wow.

While (mostly) anonymous engineers nitpick about 7-stop shadow lifting online, photographers at the top of their game are using Canon to produce great work everyday, staking their reputations and income on work produced with Canon — including Canon sensors. They have skin in the game, and they know what does and doesn't meet their needs.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 14, 2015)

msm said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > msm said:
> ...



Obviously, but the de-ghosted area, however large or small, would need DR in excess of the camera sensor to cause any kind of a potential issue, but even then you can layer in a different exposure from your bracket.

You sound like somebody who theorises over the 'issues' rather than actually applies the talked about solutions. Auto de-ghosting used to be mediocre to bad, now it isn't.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 14, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Auto de-ghosting used to be mediocre to bad, now it isn't.



True, but that's only looking at the results - but how much more time does it take to bracket, merge and check that deghosting worked properly (it's not like the software always gets it right, after all there's no way of telling if you want a ghost removed or opaque). 

I've recently shot some panos of a group of horses dozing in the woods, i.e. they're in the shadows and behind 'em is sunlight. That's 15ev of dynamic range with dual_iso. Single frame is fine, but with pano merging you have to check for every tail waggling, every eye blinking and every head moving. Double or triple that possibility of deghosting errors by adding bracketing, i.e. having a pano consisting not only of ~10 exposures but 20 or 30? Nah, I'd rather have more sensor dr thank you very much and save the hdr merging step


----------



## msm (Jun 14, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> You sound like somebody who theorises over the 'issues' rather than actually applies the talked about solutions. Auto de-ghosting used to be mediocre to bad, now it isn't.



Maybe it sounds like that you to you but this is actually an issue I have encountered relatively frequently in practical shooting lately, back lit scenes with trees against bright sky and with my A7r this is much less of an issue. I am still using CS6 and mainly use manual blending not HDR so I guess software may be better than what I have seen but I still don't see how they can solve this limitation.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 14, 2015)

msm said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > You sound like somebody who theorises over the 'issues' rather than actually applies the talked about solutions. Auto de-ghosting used to be mediocre to bad, now it isn't.
> ...



Try the free PS and LR trials. I am shocked at the improvements, best $7.99 a month I have ever spent.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 14, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Auto de-ghosting used to be mediocre to bad, now it isn't.
> ...



I am not proclaiming auto blending as a DR panacea, I am pointing out that there have been substantial improvements in the algorithms recently and where previously auto ghosting was a bit of a joke useful only for web sized images and the like, now it isn't, it can be close to pixel perfect in some very challenging situations. I didn't use it for years because I couldn't get the results I needed, I just signed up for Adobe CC and the improvements are major. Again not a substitute for actual sensor DR, but a tool that has genuine uses now.

As for the additional time it takes, come on, it takes no time to take the additional shots (well less than 2 seconds) and the processing is auto and in the background! Sure inspection might take time, but no more than dust spotting and other assorted, but normal, miscellaneous editing tasks.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 14, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Well in fairness CR is fundamentally a hardware and technology forum. We are most of us gear heads. The A7R2 spec sheet calls out an s-ton of technology, so much praise isn't exactly unexpected. I think Sony should be lauded for the effort to cram as much as they can into an A7-sized box even if when reality hits it's not the bees knees.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 14, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > True, but that's only looking at the results - but how much more time does it take to bracket, merge and check that deghosting worked properly (it's not like the software always gets it right, after all there's no way of telling if you want a ghost removed or opaque).
> ...



I understood that, but just wanted to double-check everybody else does b/c bracketing seems to be promoted as the "fix-it for all" dr issues by some, i.e. the "good photogs only need 8 stops" theory.



privatebydesign said:


> As for the additional time it takes, come on, it takes no time to take the additional shots (well less than 2 seconds) and the processing is auto and in the background! Sure inspection might take time, but no more than dust spotting and other assorted, but normal, miscellaneous editing tasks.



Depends on your equipment and the amount of shots. I've got a low-end laptop, and processing double the amount of data is significant (sorry if you have trouble understanding this, yo all dual-1dx shooters out there). Before the dual_iso days when I did some indoor documentary shots, I used to 2x bracket the whole day or otherwise the windows to the outside would clip... that *is* annoying even though the results are just fine.

As for movement/bracketing, the inspection and eventual manual de-ghosting is significant too (depending on the amount of micro-movement, of course) ... plus the uncertainty that you've got it right. I always spot some bad deghosting on old shots like horses with three eyes or 5 legs, have to go harrrrrrgnnnn and do a whole post round-trip again. I'm really happy that's only for panos and not for regular high-dr scenes.

Edit: Remember that I've only got the low-fps 6d, so the amount of movement possible between frames is larger than on other camera bodies.


----------



## Monchoon (Jun 14, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Where do you get PS and LR for $7.99 per month


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 14, 2015)

Monchoon said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > msm said:
> ...



I got it from CPW as one of their short duration deals.

http://www.canonpricewatch.com/blog/2015/05/20-off-adobe-creative-cloud-photography-plan-7-99month/


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 14, 2015)

emko said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > emko said:
> ...


That would be a very creative misinterpretation of what I said. A camera is more than just a bare sensor. Let me walk you through it step-by-step: 

If Canon sells more than Sony, for example, that comes from two possibilities (or a combination of them)

1. Canon is a better overall product (including build, durability, service/support, AF, ergonomics, lens and accessory selection, etc)

2. Canon has superior marketing.

The Sony fanbois are claiming that #1 is outright false, that Sony cameras are superior for nearly all uses.

That leaves only #2. Since Canon greatly outsells Sony, that would mean that Canon marketing is much MUCH better, almost supernaturally better than Sony. Alternately, it could mean Sony's marketing is catastrophically poor (i.e. "epic fail"), because only a catastrophically poor marketing staff could fail to make a sales winner from such a superior product.




> Its about the product not how much it sells or makes in profit,so if you want 4K video you will spend 9K just to have a damn CANON logo on your camera? while you can get 4K camera from another company for a fraction of the cost.


Again, a very creative misinterpretation on your part. Canon doesn't ask me how to build their cameras. If they did, I'd probably tell them to put that nice new Sony sensor in the 5D4 (unless they've got something better ready). Canon decides what Canon sells, and I get to decide what to buy. I have Canon kit, and I don't have money to sell it off and replace it with another brand. If you'd like to give me the money to buy a full new Sony kit I won't turn you down.

Canon isn't ripping off anyone. "Ripping off" means stealing, either by theft or deceit. If "ripping off" counts as simply giving less value, then just about all car companies except Honda and Toyota are ripping everyone off. I mean, who would waste good money on a Mercedes? And what fool fanboi would buy a car that won't run for 20 years and 200,000 miles? 

Please get some perspective: I know what I'm doing. More importantly, YOU don't know why I make my decisions, so please stop telling me I need the same thing you do.


----------



## msm (Jun 14, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> If Canon sells more than Sony, for example, that comes from two possibilities (or a combination of them)
> 
> 1. Canon is a better overall product (including build, durability, service/support, AF, ergonomics, lens and accessory selection, etc)
> 
> ...



There are more possibilites than that, for instance:

3. A large number of photographers already have Canon lenses from earlier and are reluctant to make a whole system change for economic or other reasons.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 14, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > I often find that there are movements in the scene or rapidly changing light . How you deal with dark trees moving in the wind against bright skies? Reflections in waves in water?
> ...



Agreed it's not even an issue. I very rarely have to use de ghosting because of the way I blend the files. Arguing around the movement issue shows these guys are on the back foot. 

The whole point is that if 11 stops with optimal exposure doesn't cover everything it deals with nearly everything. The data needed to be added from bracketed files is always small anyway. 

My argument with the Exmor characteristics is this: to maximise the extra 'DR' of the Exmor you have to underexpose. For a given exposure it offers nothing more in highlight than the Canon. Because the 11 stops of the Canon is already a lot, if the scene needs more and you are having to under expose in order to use the extra range of the Exmor, you put your shadows into no go area. In other words the trade off for a little more highlight is a lot of movement down the shadow scale. And in my opinion and experience so far, the 8000 vs 2000 tone garbage doesn't make up for it, at least not in practice. 

Also I'm finding that if I shoot a scene into the sky and hold the DR at maximum, the resulting picture is very flat and when I put some tonal curve back into it I lose what I was supposed to have gained anyway. If I don't I end up with a picture where the subject looks like it has been lit by flash, that is has more luminosity than the main light source. 
Now I'm not arguing that having the data to fall back on isn't in itself a good thing. It's just that in the way I shoot I'm struggling to see a real 'IQ' lift to the images.


----------



## Eldar (Jun 14, 2015)

One great function I am looking forward to is the manual focus functionality of the A7RII. It was a massive disappointment when Canon (again) left out support for precision focusing screens on the 5DSR. I have a bunch of Zeiss lenses, which I´ll have to use live view with the 5DSR, which I hate. When I get the A7RII, I can use focus peaking, but more importantly I can use area magnification in the EVF. And by using the A7RII, I suddenly have image stabilisation on all the Zeiss lenses. The downside is of course a crappy UI and poor ergonomics, compared to the Canons and the need for an adaptor. But it is worth a try.

No, me buying an A7RII does not mean that I will drop Canon, because I will still use my 1DX for birds and wildlife and I will also use my 5DIII and 5DSR (when I get it) for all my L-glass and when I need weather sealing. And I will most likely buy the 1DX-II when it arrives. But it might be that I´ll get to terms with the Sony ergonomics and UI and may start buying Zeiss glass for the Sony, instead of L-glass for my Canons ...


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 14, 2015)

msm said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon sells more than Sony, for example, that comes from two possibilities (or a combination of them)
> ...


OK, that's reasonable. So what's wrong with that?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 14, 2015)

msm said:


> 3. A large number of photographers already have Canon lenses from earlier and are reluctant to make a whole system change for economic or other reasons.



Certainly. As I have often said, Canon is the market leader because their products best meet the needs of the majority of photographers. Full compatibility with existing equipment is one such need.


----------



## quod (Jun 14, 2015)

Eldar said:


> One great function I am looking forward to is the manual focus functionality of the A7RII. It was a massive disappointment when Canon (again) left out support for precision focusing screens on the 5DSR. I have a bunch of Zeiss lenses, which I´ll have to use live view with the 5DSR, which I hate. When I get the A7RII, I can use focus peaking, but more importantly I can use area magnification in the OVF. And by using the A7RII, I suddenly have image stabilisation on all the Zeiss lenses. The downside is of course a crappy UI and poor ergonomics, compared to the Canons and the need for an adaptor. But it is worth a try.


I am also looking forward to using Zeiss glass on the A7RII. As much as I like my Canon lenses, Zeiss delivers more microcontrast and mirrorless technology like focus peaking and auto-magnification of focus areas is very well-suited to manual focusing.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 14, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > msm said:
> ...



I have to give it to you: Your self-confidence leaves me in awe and nearly speech/writeless.

You're actually stating that *you* with *your* type of photography rarely have to de-ghost means that *other* people experiencing a different situation are on "the back foot"? I don't even want to argue about that, but I have to state that with this lack of thought the whole debate is worthless as it's simply about knowing you're right and try to prove/tell it to the world. But that's probably the way an Internet forum works, even though it could - in theory - be about productive exchange of experiences and widening one's horizon.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 14, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I didn't take that comment to mean that. I saw it that there are generally only small areas that actually fall outside the DR range in an image that needs blending, throw in the very recent improvements in post processing and unless you are very current in software and technique you are 'on the back foot'.

Learning processing takes me way more time than learning cameras! For instance I am using 7year old cameras, the images from them are not outgunned to any noticeable degree by the latest and greatest (for what I shoot and I am a generalist), but the software is changing so fast, my 14 month old LR and PS is totally outclassed by todays LR and PS. The files I have worked before can be reworked to give me more benefits than getting a new body.

I blend a lot, I started with that awful Photomatix, moved to Enfuse, then to 32 bit in PS, now I can do the same job better and faster in LR. I have learnt the same thing four times in five years.

There are a few here who respect my processing abilities, yet I am constantly learning, I was 'on the back foot' until a couple of weeks ago with regards blending and stitching, today I am just a bit behind. With regards other aspects of post processing I am a newbie.


----------



## msm (Jun 14, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I will have to second that, I asked a honest question when the thread seemed to take a turn to the better but this reply was not constructive at all. In fact it contains grave errors demonstrating a lack of understanding of the concept of DR that one might think being a little more humble might be an idea. I'll thank PBDs for being more constructive and I'm giving CC a try.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 14, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> krisbell said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Yeah he does have great stuff. I remember his stuff from way back.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 14, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> If you want to habitually lift by two stops or more the Exmor is for you. No doubt about it. But look at what even a two stop lift does to a correctly exposed raw.
> 
> The first shot is exposed to preserve the highlights on the Exmor. According to the histogram I have used virtually all the available dynamic range. The second is a straight two stop lift of the raw. When would you want to go as far as this ? The third is the finished picture. Apologies to the sports photographers here, but I was trying to pan at about 200th to get some movement.
> 
> ...



I don't get this example either. You post a scene that is not particularly high DR and where the mid-tone happens to automatically fall naturally in line with a typical tone response curve and where the dark parts are only just slightly too dark when savings highlights as desired and then you apply a broad across the image range shadow lift for no particular reason and then complain that the shot looks weird and then conclude that there is no point to the fact that Exmor lets one lift shadows a couple stops since nobody would ever do that. I don't get it.

It's like saying if I follow the 25MPH speed limit I can drive a Yugo to the store 1/2 mile away just as fast as I can in an F1 car and without all the extra gas expense and heat and noise and therefore Lewis Hamilton is silly for not driving a Yugo to go racing instead of an F1 car. Nothing about the comparison or logic of it makes any sense.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 14, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Exactly. Some people want to take things as personal insults.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 14, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> krisbell said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



But the scenario here is more like whether the food has been contaminated or not, not whether it's done by a master chef.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 14, 2015)

candc said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



The reason people don't bring it up in the sports and wildlife context as much is that you already get raked over the coals for bringing it up for landscape enough as it is and since the competition doesn't have a 7D2-type body out we at least give them that bone and don't bother bringing up how it could help in other scenarios at times too all that often.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 14, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> I think we all agree that more DR is good; the greater the increase, the greater the good, but that has never been the question.



If only that were true. I mean we just spent the last 4 pages arguing over whether it makes any difference or not with Sporgon trying to imply it's all a useless crock or something and then there is the one guy who insists more DR actually makes a sensor much worse.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 14, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> I have to give it to you: Your self-confidence leaves me in awe and nearly speech/writeless.
> 
> You're actually stating that *you* with *your* type of photography rarely have to de-ghost means that *other* people experiencing a different situation are on "the back foot"?



I guess those of *us* who aren't apalled at the poor IQ that Canon cameras deliver for *our* photography are also on the back foot?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 14, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> You sound like somebody who theorises over the 'issues' rather than actually applies the talked about solutions. Auto de-ghosting used to be mediocre to bad, now it isn't.



I still see plenty of weird stuff.
And multi-shot is slower to process, more fully tripod reliant and slower in the field too.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 14, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to habitually lift by two stops or more the Exmor is for you. No doubt about it. But look at what even a two stop lift does to a correctly exposed raw.
> ...



But it's shot on the great Exmor who's IQ at low ISO leaves Canon in the dust ! 

Are you saying that you now agree that if the EV range is within the range of the sensor there is no difference between the 'IQ' of the Exmor and Canon at low ISO ? 

A simple question. Yes or No ?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 14, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Exactly. Some people want to take things as personal insults.



Can you really blame them considering just last page "Zlatko: While (mostly) anonymous engineers nitpick about 7-stop shadow lifting online, photographers at the top of their game are using Canon to produce great work" which itself is even mild compared to all the "stupid DxO charts, who cares, learn how to shoot geek", "only incompetent, artless fools....." etc.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 14, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > You sound like somebody who theorises over the 'issues' rather than actually applies the talked about solutions. Auto de-ghosting used to be mediocre to bad, now it isn't.
> ...



Now that is a comment 'from the back foot', it is so behind the times it is archaic.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 14, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



When did anyone say that Exmor is some magic sensor that makes any photo better in any condition????

My answer, only for the 1000th time already is yes.

If it's a modest DR scene when has anybody said there will be any sort of difference to get all bothered about?


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 14, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> When did anyone say that Exmor is some magic sensor that makes any photo better in any condition????
> 
> My answer, only for the 1000th time already is yes.
> 
> If it's a modest DR scene when has anybody said there will be any sort of difference to get all bothered about?



Hurrah ! We have found some common ground ! 

This could be the start of a wonderful new relationship 

Regarding your last sentence, well there have been a few I'm afraid, and made some asinine comments on the subject.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 14, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> When did anyone say that Exmor is some magic sensor that makes any photo better in any condition????



Yeah, that seems about as silly as someone stating that Canon sensors deliver poor, sub-par, unacceptable IQ. Oh, wait...someone _did_ actually state that. :


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 14, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> When did anyone say that Exmor is some magic sensor that makes any photo better in any condition????



I've not seen anyone use those words, but there is a belief among some that IQ is a hardware (sensor) property, and those would have to answer Sporgon's question "no, there is a difference."


----------



## zlatko (Jun 14, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly. Some people want to take things as personal insults.
> ...



No insult is intended. Some engineers are keenly interested in things like signal noise reduction and some perceive Canon as lacking in this area. But the lack of radical (7-stop) underexposure recovery hasn't stopped some of the best photographers in the world from choosing and using Canon to make great work. That's a fact. The point about anonymity is that it lets anyone be a ferocious critic, without disclosing their credentials, biases or motivation. It's like the famous New Yorker cartoon caption that said, "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog".


----------



## dolina (Jun 14, 2015)

Given enough incentive Canon could always outsource to Sony again their CMOS sensor requirements.

Sony CMOS sensors are good enough for Apple, Hassleblad, Phase One and Pentax so I cannot see it not be good enough for Canon.

For those who may not be aware Canon's Powershot G7 X uses the same BSI sensor used on the RX100 III.

People are so religious with gear. It's just gear man... the image is what counts!


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 15, 2015)

dolina said:


> Given enough incentive Canon could always outsource to Sony again their CMOS sensor requirements.
> 
> Sony CMOS sensors are good enough for Apple, Hassleblad, Phase One and Pentax so I cannot see it not be good enough for Canon.
> 
> ...


+1....Regardless big/heavy or small/light. Pick the system(s) that fit our needs.

My admiring photographer. Most of her amazing photos are 50 and 85mm: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]N06/

Instead of buying gear, I'm thinking to take some PP classes in near future


----------



## jd7 (Jun 15, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > candc said:
> ...



+1

Being able to do a 7 stop lift of shadows is good technology demonstration, but not necessarily a good example of something which will provide a practical advantage. So the issue then is, in what circumstances does the extra DR available in a single Exmor exposure provide a significant benefit to the final image, and how significant is that benefit in those circumstances? Every now and then a CR thread starts to discuss those things ...


----------



## jd7 (Jun 15, 2015)

I have a genuine question for anyone with experience with both Canon and Exmor sensors. And to an extent it picks up Sporgon's comment that maybe an Exmor sensor would provide more advantage for a sports shooter than a landscape shooter. 

If I took, say, a portrait shot at midday in bright sun, would the Exmor sensor allow me to produce a significantly better image from a single exposure? What I'm thinking about is if you underexpose the image as a whole to protect highlights such as sun reflecting of shiny skin, and I then lifted the shadows and mid tones, would the skin texture survive? Would the result be noticeably different from what a Canon would produce?

I realise there are things you can do to shoot a portrait in midday sun - use of reflectors, diffusers, flashes/strobes - but I am curious to know whether the Exmor sensor would provide a significant benefit in that scenario.


----------



## meywd (Jun 15, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > Given enough incentive Canon could always outsource to Sony again their CMOS sensor requirements.
> ...



+1 I only started photography recently (2 years) and when I wanted to choose my first camera, I choose the Canon over the Nikon for one reason only, which was my fascination with the 5D line since the original 5D, of course all I could afford was the T3i which was great at the time, however when I got the 5D III it was really on another level, many will say that you can capture a great image with any modern camera, and that is true, but its also misleading, you can capture the greatest image, if it falls within the capabilities of the camera, and the 5D III is the camera that makes most images fall within the range you can do, its an amazing all-around camera, of course its not as good as the 1D X, and maybe the a7RII, which now after 3 years is raising to challenge it, but the thing is, the a7/a7R/a7S are not all-around cameras, neither has the ability to replace the 5D III on all fronts, still if the a7R II meets your needs more the 5D III then you should go and get it, if Fuji/Olympus/Sony/Nikon meet your needs more than Canon cameras then you should get them, but the 5D III will stay for me the better option, even in the smallest things like the UI/Grip/Size/Controls, and its clear I am not alone in this, which is why a brand like Canon will not die easily, yes if Sony continues to try to be ahead and stay ahead for years to come, then Canon will be affected, however in the worst case scenario, they will become a lens maker like Sigma and Zeiss, but I really don't see that happening.


----------



## jd7 (Jun 15, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> True, but that's only looking at the results - but how much more time does it take to bracket, merge and check that deghosting worked properly (it's not like the software always gets it right, after all there's no way of telling if you want a ghost removed or opaque).
> 
> I've recently shot some panos of a group of horses dozing in the woods, i.e. they're in the shadows and behind 'em is sunlight. That's 15ev of dynamic range with dual_iso. Single frame is fine, but with pano merging you have to check for every tail waggling, every eye blinking and every head moving. Double or triple that possibility of deghosting errors by adding bracketing, i.e. having a pano consisting not only of ~10 exposures but 20 or 30? Nah, I'd rather have more sensor dr thank you very much and save the hdr merging step



Hi Marsu - and msm

Could a technique like this one be of any use to use in terms of dealing with things moving in your photo?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSpyvMdRSlY

Apologies if you are already familiar with this sort of thing, but I am new to the world of exposure merging and thought it was interesting when I stumbled across it recently. I'm still experimenting with it to see if I like the results in practice.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jun 15, 2015)

jd7 said:


> If I took, say, a portrait shot at midday in bright sun, would the Exmor sensor allow me to produce a significantly better image from a single exposure? What I'm thinking about is if you underexpose the image as a whole to protect highlights such as sun reflecting of shiny skin, and I then lifted the shadows and mid tones, would the skin texture survive? Would the result be noticeably different from what a Canon would produce?


Underexpose an image by how much?

If one or two stops, the results are similar between Canon and EXMOR.
If 4 or 5 stops, EXMOR will show less noise after lifting the deep shadows.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 15, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > When did anyone say that Exmor is some magic sensor that makes any photo better in any condition????
> ...



I think they said that when under certain conditions compared to current options from elsewhere.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 15, 2015)

zlatko said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



I will say it again, you can take tons of awesome shots with Canon, beyond tons, but that still doesn't mean that if they updated their sensors there would not be more scenarios in which you could either manage at all or manage much more easily imaging under. Some don't care about that latter at all, some wouldn't mind if the opportunities got expanded.

As for the last bit, one could also say it makes it easier for them to tell it like it is and not have to worry about stepping on toes.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 15, 2015)

jd7 said:


> I have a genuine question for anyone with experience with both Canon and Exmor sensors. And to an extent it picks up Sporgon's comment that maybe an Exmor sensor would provide more advantage for a sports shooter than a landscape shooter.
> 
> If I took, say, a portrait shot at midday in bright sun, would the Exmor sensor allow me to produce a significantly better image from a single exposure? What I'm thinking about is if you underexpose the image as a whole to protect highlights such as sun reflecting of shiny skin, and I then lifted the shadows and mid tones, would the skin texture survive? Would the result be noticeably different from what a Canon would produce?
> 
> I realise there are things you can do to shoot a portrait in midday sun - use of reflectors, diffusers, flashes/strobes - but I am curious to know whether the Exmor sensor would provide a significant benefit in that scenario.



sometimes yes and sometimes no

and

sometimes a reflector helps add a certain glow (including of tone) that would be a pain to try to PP in later and saves work

i've done little model/portrait work myself


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 15, 2015)

jd7 said:


> I have a genuine question for anyone with experience with both Canon and Exmor sensors. And to an extent it picks up Sporgon's comment that maybe an Exmor sensor would provide more advantage for a sports shooter than a landscape shooter.
> 
> If I took, say, a portrait shot at midday in bright sun, would the Exmor sensor allow me to produce a significantly better image from a single exposure? What I'm thinking about is if you underexpose the image as a whole to protect highlights such as sun reflecting of shiny skin, and I then lifted the shadows and mid tones, would the skin texture survive? Would the result be noticeably different from what a Canon would produce?
> 
> I realise there are things you can do to shoot a portrait in midday sun - use of reflectors, diffusers, flashes/strobes - but I am curious to know whether the Exmor sensor would provide a significant benefit in that scenario.



In my experience, the answer is generally no (5D2/5D3/A7R). If I'm shooting in midday sun and have to protect highlights such as a cloudy skyline, I use artificial lights or modifiers. The couple of shadow stops can't give me natural skin tones after a significant lift (at least not with my post processing skill set).

I typically use my A7R for resolution. I have a 5DS in order through a local shop, but may purchase an A7R2 instead for high res requirements.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 15, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > I have a genuine question for anyone with experience with both Canon and Exmor sensors. And to an extent it picks up Sporgon's comment that maybe an Exmor sensor would provide more advantage for a sports shooter than a landscape shooter.
> ...



That is the point/problem/issue I have with large lifts, the tonality is not good enough much of the time.

My experience is from I only own Canon, but I print for other photographers who own just about everything.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 15, 2015)

Thirty-seven pages rehashing the same old arguments that have been covered over and over in other threads. 

Please God, let there be a new lens, flash or camera rumor to give people something else to talk about (not that it will make much difference anyway.)


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 15, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Thirty-seven pages rehashing the same old arguments that have been covered over and over in other threads.
> 
> Please God, let there be a new lens, flash or camera rumor to give people something else to talk about (not that it will make much difference anyway.)



Heh, this is more than a new camera rumor; it's an announcement of an actual camera. All roads lead to DR.


----------



## deleteme (Jun 15, 2015)

jd7 said:


> I have a genuine question for anyone with experience with both Canon and Exmor sensors. And to an extent it picks up Sporgon's comment that maybe an Exmor sensor would provide more advantage for a sports shooter than a landscape shooter.
> 
> If I took, say, a portrait shot at midday in bright sun, would the Exmor sensor allow me to produce a significantly better image from a single exposure? What I'm thinking about is if you underexpose the image as a whole to protect highlights such as sun reflecting of shiny skin, and I then lifted the shadows and mid tones, would the skin texture survive? Would the result be noticeably different from what a Canon would produce?
> 
> I realise there are things you can do to shoot a portrait in midday sun - use of reflectors, diffusers, flashes/strobes - but I am curious to know whether the Exmor sensor would provide a significant benefit in that scenario.



In my experience, no.
If one has to lift shadows a lot, the results can be usable but they won't be pretty. 
This is exactly why the DR arguments are a waste of time. The notion that huge DR will save you if you are unprepared and make a crappy exposure or you are just unlucky or cannot plan for an important shoot is just silly. No matter what camera you have, massive underexposure will look rotten no matter what.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 15, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> If 4 or 5 stops, EXMOR will show less noise after lifting the deep shadows.



Unless you do the shadow heavy lifting in DPP.

I'm not a fan of the software, but it opens up Canon shadows in a way that would pass for the "magic" Sonys...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 15, 2015)

dilbert said:


> It likely says something about what's on the mind of readers...



It _definitely_ says all we need to know about the disruptive intent of the Sony/DR trolls...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 15, 2015)

dolina said:


> _Given enough incentive _Canon could always outsource to Sony again their CMOS sensor requirements.



The important bit is emphasised. It's just not as big a deal as the trolls insist on making of it...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 15, 2015)

candc said:


> i think 2-3 stops additional dr would be really beneficial to wildlife shooters.



I'm a wildlfe photogrpaher - and I can _easily_ get way more than 2-3 stops out of the shadows from my Canon kit.

Hint: don't assume that Lr/ACR are the only games in town when it comes to Raw conversion...


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 15, 2015)

jd7 said:


> I have a genuine question for anyone with experience with both Canon and Exmor sensors. And to an extent it picks up Sporgon's comment that maybe an Exmor sensor would provide more advantage for a sports shooter than a landscape shooter.
> 
> If I took, say, a portrait shot at midday in bright sun, would the Exmor sensor allow me to produce a significantly better image from a single exposure? What I'm thinking about is if you underexpose the image as a whole to protect highlights such as sun reflecting of shiny skin, and I then lifted the shadows and mid tones, would the skin texture survive? Would the result be noticeably different from what a Canon would produce?
> 
> I realise there are things you can do to shoot a portrait in midday sun - use of reflectors, diffusers, flashes/strobes - but I am curious to know whether the Exmor sensor would provide a significant benefit in that scenario.



I'm quite early in my Exmor adventure, but so far I'd agree with what others have said. The answer's no, especially in the way you worded your question - 'highlights reflecting'. To see a difference you'd have to force the situation into the Exmor's advantage, that is place your subject in front of the sun so they are in full mid day shadow, expose for the sun, then push the shadows four stops. In this situation you would get a better result than from the Canon but whether or not you'd find it acceptable compared with exposing / lighting it properly is another thing altogether. 

This is the annoying thing; whenever we see 'comparisons' they are always artificially contrived situations where the Exmor can show an advantage. I'm specifically not doing this, I genuinely want to see if there is a real benefit for me. So far my conclusions are that there is not. In fact I just don't see this "extra 2.5 stops of DR", I think it's largely theoretical like the 8000 vs 2000 tones. 

I don't understand this "Exmor has more tones in the bottom third of the sensor than Canon has in the whole range" thing, quoted by jrista. I am just not seeing any evidence of that - at all. If it is technically true it doesn't have any influence on the actual picture.


----------



## drjlo (Jun 15, 2015)

Keith_Reeder said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > If 4 or 5 stops, EXMOR will show less noise after lifting the deep shadows.
> ...



DPP does some great things for Canon RAW compared to others. I wish DPP could take third party LR/Photoshop plug-ins, which would make it far more useful. It's such a hassle and time-waster to export to PS from DPP.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 15, 2015)

Keith_Reeder said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > If 4 or 5 stops, EXMOR will show less noise after lifting the deep shadows.
> ...



DPP makes a mush of shadows, it hides stuff under smear


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 15, 2015)

Normalnorm said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > I have a genuine question for anyone with experience with both Canon and Exmor sensors. And to an extent it picks up Sporgon's comment that maybe an Exmor sensor would provide more advantage for a sports shooter than a landscape shooter.
> ...



not entirely true
and why do people keep calling it underexposure! If you expose as you need to save highlights you have exposed properly, not underexposed.


----------



## anthonyd (Jun 15, 2015)

Normalnorm said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > I have a genuine question for anyone with experience with both Canon and Exmor sensors. And to an extent it picks up Sporgon's comment that maybe an Exmor sensor would provide more advantage for a sports shooter than a landscape shooter.
> ...



You are wrong in the belief that lack of modifiers or not choosing the golden hour for portraiture is the result of bad planning.

I am currently in Greece and tried to take my kids to the Acropolis to take some shots with the Parthenon as the background. Unfortunately, light modifiers are not allowed on the Acropolis and it closes at 7:30 when the sunset is after 8:30 this time of the year. So I went twice, once to pick a spot that produces a good fg/bg ratio and shows the monument at a nice angle and once just before they closed having also chosen the day to be mildly cloudy.

I don't think there was anything else for me to plan, and I can tell you that I wish I had a couple of more stops of DR to work with (or maybe it's my pp skills to blame)


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 15, 2015)

anthonyd said:


> Normalnorm said:
> 
> 
> > jd7 said:
> ...



I would have thought that the Canon would cope with this easily, but you do have to watch the Canon default contrast curves. If ever I think I'm pushing to the limit of EV range I always set a 'neutral' picture style with contrast, saturation and sharpening set right down. This gives a better indication on the rear LCD of what you can expect in raw. Even then you will get over exposure blinkies when it hasn't actually blown in raw.

Some goes if shooting in JPEG, use neutral or faithful and set the contrast down. 

One thing that I would critisize Canon for it that the default contrast curves are far too harsh for my liking, and can lead people to think they have much less EV range than they actually have. It sounds to me, from what you have said, that this has happened to you.


----------



## jd7 (Jun 15, 2015)

Thanks to all who responded to my query about trying to shoot a portrait in the midday sun with an Exmor v Canon sensor. Perhaps one day I'll get hold of a SoNikon and have a chance to try it out for myself. It doesn't sound like I can expect to see much real difference in that scenario though.


----------



## zlatko (Jun 15, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Amazing how Canon meets the needs of some of the best photographers in the world, but not some anonymous sensor critics.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 15, 2015)

zlatko said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Keith_Reeder said:
> ...



A less considerate person might suggest that the problem isn't with the sensors, it's with the photographers. But it would be uncharitable of me to say that.


----------



## Tugela (Jun 15, 2015)

zlatko said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Keith_Reeder said:
> ...



They buy Canon cameras (the pros) because those particular models are built like tanks and because they are invested in the system. That is the main reason, they are not passing commentary on the relative strengths of the sensors.

Amateurs have different criteria, you can't use what the pros are doing as a yardstick to determine what amateurs should/would do.

Put it this way: If a pro was to personally buy a P&S or a superzoom, where massive build quality and system investment are irrelevant, do you think they are going to choose a Canon? That will be the most telling indicator.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 15, 2015)

Tugela said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Tank like build is clearly critical to the studio/fashion crowd. :

If the sensors in Canon cameras precluded them from getting the results their clients demand, they'd switch. That doesn't seem to be happening.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 15, 2015)

Tugela said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Please read Zlatko's statement again. He did not say anything about pros. He said "some of the *best* photographers in the world."

That's not the same thing. They may or may not be pros, but the defining criteria he references is the quality of their work.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 15, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> fragilesi said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



It's entirely irrelevant for what is under discussion.

Anyway, I clicked a few buttons to quickly clone a few galleries into this, it's super sports biased since I didn't want to waste any time on something of no relevance, just click click and done, but for a very limited time this temp quick multi-clone gallery of a few things online at the moment:



(a bunch of it is in wide gamut format and so on too so it won't look right at all on mobile or with certain browsers without color management, etc. just a quick hack job)

Once again, I don't get what this has to do with anything, HW specs are HW specs and someone's gallery doesn't change the truth about sensor performance or whether something has 4k or not or anything else in this tech forum.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 15, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



That's an optimistic view. True trolls (and I don't think there are many here, to be fair) cannot be satisfied by anything. Their desire is to stir up trouble.


----------



## that1guyy (Jun 15, 2015)

This might be useful for some of you. 

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/canon-lens-owners-look-at-that-first-a7rii-autofocus-test-video-with-canon-mount-lens/


----------



## fragilesi (Jun 15, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> I know your response is humor, but I think his point is valid: a person's history gives a sense of what they're capable of doing. For example, modern painters are often criticized for doing work that could have been done by a young child, and critics are faulted for inferring deeper meaning. Then you look at the artist's history of immaculate, precise portraiture, and you know that it's reasonable to believe every brushstroke was intentional. (whether you like it or not is a different question)
> 
> History does inform the present in all kinds of ways.



All true, but on the other hand that same fantastic artist may give very poor advice about someone wanting to paint landscapes . . .


----------



## krisbell (Jun 15, 2015)

that1guyy said:


> This might be useful for some of you.
> 
> http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/canon-lens-owners-look-at-that-first-a7rii-autofocus-test-video-with-canon-mount-lens/



Thanks for sharing this. Autofocus seems much improved but still not blistering. Shutter sound also seems much improved. Looks promising so far.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 15, 2015)

that1guyy said:


> This might be useful for some of you.
> 
> http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/canon-lens-owners-look-at-that-first-a7rii-autofocus-test-video-with-canon-mount-lens/



Interesting.
AF:
Looks terrible for sports and action and macro as figured.

Looks questionable for have to count on it quick moments. It might nail many, but also miss a bit more than you'd like it looks like.

But looks plenty fine for landscape and any sort of basic everyday shooting which is pretty nice (and I'd bet it actually makes it easier to tell whether that shot is really focused where you want it to be or a mistake too)!

So it seems like it would be great to use it for most things and then just use the Canon for sports/serious action/critical can't miss have to get THE moment stuff/macros.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 15, 2015)

Taking a quick peek at the Sony compression (and such a quick peek that my conclusions could be wrong):

The compressed RAWs on the Sony do seem a little bit of a shame though. When any row of 32 pixels doesn't have any extreme jumps of shade within it you might go lossless, but if you get some parts like pitch black and some bright just about clipped white then it seems it's forced to create posterization since it has to span near 14bits with a small bit offset apparently. 

OTOH though, keep in mind that it appears to really be a shame only compared to MF and Nikon.

Most Canon's can't do at the 1:1 level more than 10-11 bits, which the Sony does uncompressed anyway.

The 6D and a few maybe do 11.5 bits but the compression probably wouldn't be worse than 0.5 bits anyway so I'm not sure the lossy RAW would really tend to make it ever worse than the Canons, although in certain parts of the image it might reduce it the tonality to similar to barely better instead of the fully better that it could be.

It sounds like it probably could make it a little worse on certain parts of images than the Nikons, with a bit posterization and so on, but I'm not sure it would necessarily ever be worse than what the Canons can do and in many regions you'll get the full tonality bonus and you should also get at least two stops more DR at low ISO I'd think even in the tricky spots.

Anyway take that with a bit of a grain of salt. Depending upon finer details of how it gets carried out and whether my quick glance picked up all correctly the answer might change a bit.

Soccer time.


----------



## Tugela (Jun 15, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> that1guyy said:
> 
> 
> > This might be useful for some of you.
> ...



Why macros? The good stuff there is usually done manually and most mirrorless cameras kick ass in that department.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 15, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> that1guyy said:
> 
> 
> > This might be useful for some of you.
> ...



1. Keep in mind, the first video, looks like he was shooting in single mode(not tracking). He was shooting through glass window.

2. 2nd Video - it could be min AF issue.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 15, 2015)

Tugela said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > that1guyy said:
> ...



I guess should put it down as mixed for macros, both better and worse.

The Canon USM macros actually have very quick macro AF and the 7 series has macro hyper AI servo mode and the 5D3 and 1DX can do similar if you set all settings to maximum twitch and speed. I routinely use AF to nail 1:1: on a moth's or fly's eye. It's pretty reliable and more fun for me to do it that way. And when you have scenarios where the creatures is on a leaf blowing back and forth in random fashion using MF can be nearly impossible and the Canon ultra AI Servo can often manage it. Of course there are some cases where MF works better than even the advanced Canon macro AF and the EVF probably makes that stuff easier than with the Canon, although it depends upon the shutter lag, only if these don't have long and/or erratic lag.

If you use other brands for Macro or non-Canon macro lenses on Canon the AF might not work out so well, but the Canon USM macros make all the talk about how "nobody should ever use AF for macro" hideously outdated.

(Also, from a personal, practical issue, my macro flash gear and all is made for Canon and I wouldn't want to have to buy new stuff for Sony. Not made of money.)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 16, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > that1guyy said:
> ...



true, I'm still a bit doubtful you'd want to use it for serious sports/action/must nail the AF on something right away or miss the moment stuff though

but for anythng else, it looks promising

(and it could have certain pluses too)


----------



## unfocused (Jun 16, 2015)

that1guyy said:


> This might be useful for some of you.
> 
> http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/canon-lens-owners-look-at-that-first-a7rii-autofocus-test-video-with-canon-mount-lens/



Hmm...I don't think I hear dynamic range mentioned once in these reviews. They seemed focused on autofocus, adapters for Canon lenses, frame rate and shutter volume. On all of these specs, it seemed as though the reviewers were basically saying that it is almost as good as a DSLR. Funny how no one seemed to care to mention this sensor that is supposed to be the king-of-super-awesomeness-that-makes-all-other-cameras-worthless-in-comparison.

Maybe that's not such an important criteria for the majority of customers?


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 16, 2015)

unfocused said:


> that1guyy said:
> 
> 
> > This might be useful for some of you.
> ...


Maybe they Not allow to release IQ on pre production units. Saw few video clips the sd slot was sealed.


----------



## that1guyy (Jun 16, 2015)

unfocused said:


> that1guyy said:
> 
> 
> > This might be useful for some of you.
> ...




It's a pre-production camera and as such, they are not allowed to talk about image quality and things like dynamic range most likely. I'm sure they will tweak the AF some more by production and future firmware updates will improve it more. Hopefully the native ISO won't increase like it did with the A7 ii. 800 is good. 

Probably in a month or so when the final camera is ready, they'll send it out to some professional reviewers and we can get some useful testing.


----------



## drjlo (Jun 16, 2015)

that1guyy said:


> This might be useful for some of you.
> 
> http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/canon-lens-owners-look-at-that-first-a7rii-autofocus-test-video-with-canon-mount-lens/



AF does seem faster than on A7r, but honestly, after the initial novelty of using Canon lenses on A7r with adapter wore off, I truly hate, hate carrying relatively gargantuan Canon lenses + adapter on something as small as A7r. 

A7r (and II) appeal to many due to its "portable" nature, and these days I find myself just using the Native Sony/Zeiss FE55 mm and FE35mm lenses on it whenever I grab the Sony.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 16, 2015)

unfocused said:


> that1guyy said:
> 
> 
> > This might be useful for some of you.
> ...



Or maybe because it's Exmor so people have a pretty good idea what to expect regarding the DR??
While people had no idea what to expect regarding AF??

And of course, you can't test DR with a test camera in hand at an expo, but you can test AF.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 16, 2015)

unfocused said:


> that1guyy said:
> 
> 
> > This might be useful for some of you.
> ...



We already know it's not such an important criteria for the majority of customers via market share stats and DSLR sales stats.


----------



## Aglet (Jun 16, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > that1guyy said:
> ...


That's likely true with a large percentage of those "sales numbers" being the sort who only tend to get off the "green box" by accident.


----------



## Aglet (Jun 16, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tank like build is clearly critical to the studio/fashion crowd. :
> If the sensors in Canon cameras precluded them from getting the results their clients demand, they'd switch. That doesn't seem to be happening.



Studio-fashion crowd works with something called lighting and subject areas that require no tonal compression so Canon can handle that with aplomb with a little partial/spot metering.


----------



## Aglet (Jun 16, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Thirty-seven pages rehashing the same old arguments that have been covered over and over in other threads.
> 
> Please God, let there be a new lens, flash or camera rumor to give people something else to talk about (not that it will make much difference anyway.)



HEHE! It's just another intervention for unabashed canon boosterism.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 16, 2015)

Aglet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Tank like build is clearly critical to the studio/fashion crowd. :
> ...



May I ask which type of photography is canon so woefully incapable of that all practitioners have abandoned ship for greener pastures?


----------



## krisbell (Jun 16, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Taking a quick peek at the Sony compression (and such a quick peek that my conclusions could be wrong):
> 
> The compressed RAWs on the Sony do seem a little bit of a shame though. When any row of 32 pixels doesn't have any extreme jumps of shade within it you might go lossless, but if you get some parts like pitch black and some bright just about clipped white then it seems it's forced to create posterization since it has to span near 14bits with a small bit offset apparently.
> 
> ...



Where are you getting this from? I didnt think any official RAW files were available for a7r II yet? I have seen somewhere that compression will be the same as it was with the a7r, but that Sony have accepted it is something that could potentially be changed with a firmware update, and that they are aware it is something that has been asked for.


----------



## Larsskv (Jun 16, 2015)

that1guyy said:


> This might be useful for some of you.
> 
> http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/canon-lens-owners-look-at-that-first-a7rii-autofocus-test-video-with-canon-mount-lens/



It seems quite obvious, that A7RII isn't a DSLR killer. It's autofokus seems mostly ok when the shot is "almost" in focus, but it still seems quite unreliable to me, and that would annoy me a lot. Further, I suspect the AF to perform far worse on longer lenses, where the out of focus areas has less contrast, and are more blurry.


----------



## krisbell (Jun 16, 2015)

Larsskv said:


> It seems quite obvious, that A7RII isn't a DSLR killer. It's autofokus seems mostly ok when the shot is "almost" in focus, but it still seems quite unreliable to me, and that would annoy me a lot. Further, I suspect the AF to perform far worse on longer lenses, where the out of focus areas has less contrast, and are more blurry.



The focusing in the links was with non-native lenses. In terms of image quality, unless it is a marked step down from the a7r, it will be up there with the very best DSLRs - though I accept that doesnt make it a DSLR killer.


----------



## Larsskv (Jun 16, 2015)

krisbell said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > It seems quite obvious, that A7RII isn't a DSLR killer. It's autofokus seems mostly ok when the shot is "almost" in focus, but it still seems quite unreliable to me, and that would annoy me a lot. Further, I suspect the AF to perform far worse on longer lenses, where the out of focus areas has less contrast, and are more blurry.
> ...



It was Rishi at DPRev who claimed that the A7RII would autofocus on par (or really close) with Canon DSLRs with Canon lenses, and that doesn't seem to be the case. Now, I have had an eye on Rishi for a while, and I find him to be a Sony fanboy. He will often disagree if anybody states anything in favor of Canon DSLRs, and he will just as often get defensive if anyone says any negative about Sony. Further, in a weekly round up article at DPRev last week, they praised the A7RII, and other Sony Products, and ended the article with a video of a guy smashing his Canon DSLR with a golf club...


----------



## krisbell (Jun 16, 2015)

Larsskv said:


> It was Rishi at DPRev who claimed that the A7RII would autofocus on par (or really close) with Canon DSLRs with Canon lenses, and that doesn't seem to be the case.



Yep I never believed that claim - Sony themselves have said it is only a 40% improvement over the a7r. Unfortunately 40% improvement over practically no autofocus is still not nearly good enough for me for general purpose photography.


----------



## Larsskv (Jun 16, 2015)

krisbell said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > It was Rishi at DPRev who claimed that the A7RII would autofocus on par (or really close) with Canon DSLRs with Canon lenses, and that doesn't seem to be the case.
> ...



I guess it is no way to dispute that the A7-series are closing the gap between mirrorless and DSRL's quite quickly. 

However, I do find it odd that Sony isn't working harder to keep the bodies and lenses smaller and lighter. The difference between a 6D and a small, light and large aperture lens, and an A7 with a comparable lens, isn't that big of a deal.

I can not see myself trade the mirror in a DSLR in return for the A7-series size advantage.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 16, 2015)

Aglet said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



That's quite an a$$sumption. And as is typical, with absolutely no evidence at all.


----------



## Luds34 (Jun 16, 2015)

Larsskv said:


> krisbell said:
> 
> 
> > Larsskv said:
> ...



+1

And with the rumored 6D2 going even a bit smaller, more compact? Full frame lenses are just going to require enough glass that the size advantage of mirrorless kind of disappears. But I've said before, seems to be a big advantage with the smaller sensors.


----------



## krisbell (Jun 16, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



It is no bigger an assumption, with no less evidence, than your comment. Even if it was an important criteria for all customers, it doesnt make it the ONLY criteria, or the MOST IMPORTANT criteria. Even if Canon sales growth outstripped Sony sales growth it may be as a result of sales in segments of the market that are far removed from the high-end DSLR crowd, or that people are invested in the Canon system (lenses) despite preferring a different brand camera-maker, or it may take many years before people who have decided to switch to a different manufacturer actually make a purchase that gets reflected in sales numbers. I'm not suggesting any of the above is true, only that you are also making a big assumption with no evidence.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 16, 2015)

Aglet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Tank like build is clearly critical to the studio/fashion crowd. :
> ...



Clearly they don't have any studio or fashion crowds in Canada! I never met a studio shooter not shooting in manual, and most use a light meter. As for fashion, runways often present horrible contrast and again, M mode would be the best use for known lighting and very different subject reflectance values, why work the EC dial when you can forget it and work the composition and fight with the other shooters in the mosh pit of a 'press section'.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 16, 2015)

krisbell said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > It seems quite obvious, that A7RII isn't a DSLR killer. It's autofokus seems mostly ok when the shot is "almost" in focus, but it still seems quite unreliable to me, and that would annoy me a lot. Further, I suspect the AF to perform far worse on longer lenses, where the out of focus areas has less contrast, and are more blurry.
> ...



Besides, the confirmation light doesn't mean focus is accurate, or has been achieved in the place one actually wants. User experience and respected testers will be the only judges of the AF capabilities.


----------



## Larsskv (Jun 16, 2015)

Luds34 said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > krisbell said:
> ...



Well, about that, Leica has made smaller lenses for "full frame", for almost a century already.. That is why I expect smaller and lighter lenses for the A7-series.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 16, 2015)

For years now, Nikon and Sony have produced sensors with more DR at low ISO than Canon. For years now, DxOmark have weighted their scores to low ISO DR and have consistently scored those sensors higher than Canon. For years now, Canon has beaten Nikon in DSLR sales and for awhile that gap actually widened. 

It is certainly reasonable to conclude that low ISO DR is NOT an important, or not one of the most important factors, to the MAJORITY of customers. Unless you are insinuating that a customer would say "That aspect is very important to me, but I'm not going to make my purchasing decision upon it." There is obviously some other factor or set of factors that is more important, that SoNikon lacks. 

That's my only point. I'm talking about the sensor aspect of low ISO DR. No impact on sales that I've seen. Maybe I didn't make it clear at first that that was the only criteria I was considering. And I would hate to think that SoNikon is ONLY better at low ISO DR.

I'm using sales stats and data to make MY claim. He is using nothing but nonsense and bitterness.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 16, 2015)

Larsskv said:


> krisbell said:
> 
> 
> > Larsskv said:
> ...



Just seems like the phone analogy to me, but speeded up. First they were huge, then they got ever smaller, then they got so small functionality was lost, then size got bigger and bigger because that is what people want.

Cameras, people don't want the hassle of carrying a larger camera, but they don't, in general, like to fiddle with small buttons and dials on bodies too small to hold comfortably in their hands. As for the lenses, if you start with a 135 format sensor you need larger glass to get the corners sharp at apertures people buying multi thousand dollar systems want. All mirrorless actually gains you as a benefit for lens design is a shorter flange distance, this helps the design of some moderate wider lenses as they don't have to be retrofocal, a pretty small advantage really.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 16, 2015)

Get out your block of salt for this link: a7RII: insiders information from top Sony engineers.




> Is the Dynamic Range better and noise level lower than that of the a7R?
> 
> ➡ Yes! No formal test was done (it’s coming), but they confirmed that they were very impressed by the quality of the system
> 
> ...


----------



## unfocused (Jun 16, 2015)

Larsskv said:


> ...Leica has made smaller lenses for "full frame", for almost a century already.. That is why I expect smaller and lighter lenses for the A7-series.



How much smaller and lighter is the Leica M-series 200mm f2.8?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 16, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



I think it is a fairly safe assumption given that over 90% of DSLR buyers never buy another lens other than the one or two that came with their kit. 

I forget the figure but it has been discussed before, from Canon sales figures either 93 or 97% of people don't enlarge their DSLR system, so I think it is fair to say many probably never get past the green box, my mother-in-law never has and she has owned a series of Rebels for many years. Indeed over the last seven years she has bought more DSLR's than I have, not lenses though! 

But people protesting the DR 'failure' of Canon really are overstating it, clearly whilst Sony has made sales but Canon still vastly out strips them, so it is logical to assume that people do not perceive the DR differences as important enough and yes, you might lump most of those into a 'green square' lack of knowledge crowd, but what about the likes of Gregory Heisler, Joey L, Jasmine Star, Annie Leibovitz, Jared Platt, Arron Nace, Mike Kelly, Peter Hurley, Brooke Sheldon, Joe Buissink etc etc etc, who are all well respected pros and they all choose to shoot Canon (and as far as I know none are sponsored by Canon), are they all bumbling idiots who don't know what they are looking at, or who only shooting in contrived and fully managed contrast situations?

The difference in DR capabilities is not important enough to the entire cross section of Canon purchasers, not just the 'people who don't know any better', anybody that says differently is demonstrably wrong.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 16, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > ...I do find it odd that Sony isn't working harder to keep the bodies and lenses smaller and lighter. The difference between a 6D and a small, light and large aperture lens, and an A7 with a comparable lens, isn't that big of a deal.
> ...



That's one reason why I'm skeptical of the "mirrorless will take over the world" crowd. Any size advantage is lost once you get past about 100mm in lenses. If you are traveling and want to have a telephoto along, you are much better off with a DLSR. Lightest, smallest option may be the SL-1 and a Tamron super-zoom. 

The real sensor advancements have been in improving smaller sensors, so it seems like the full-frame mirrorless are likely to remain a tiny niche market. I think the jury is still out on EVFs. If they improve significantly and the cost eventually drops below that of a mirror box, we may see DSLRs shift to D-EVFs, but I don't see that happening anytime soon and when, and if, it happens, it will only happen is the cameras retain the current lens mounts.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 16, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



That I can live with. You backed up your assertion with stats and data


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 16, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> The difference in DR capabilities is not important enough to the entire cross section of Canon purchasers, not just the 'people who don't know any better', anybody that says differently is demonstrably wrong.



Moreover, the difference in DR capabilities is not important enough to the entire cross section of *dSLR* purchasers.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 16, 2015)

krisbell said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Taking a quick peek at the Sony compression (and such a quick peek that my conclusions could be wrong):
> ...



I'm getting from the talk that the compression is the same as on the other SONYs and then how someone said the compression was carried out on those SONYs.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 16, 2015)

krisbell said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > It was Rishi at DPRev who claimed that the A7RII would autofocus on par (or really close) with Canon DSLRs with Canon lenses, and that doesn't seem to be the case.
> ...



I think they said a 40% improvement for native lenses but much bigger for non-native (not that that has to say much since it was poor before).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 16, 2015)

Larsskv said:


> krisbell said:
> 
> 
> > Larsskv said:
> ...



To many in Canon-land it's nothing to do with the size, but it's the only way to use Canon glass and get high low ISO DR. And now the only cost effective way to get 4k with Canon glass in addition.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 16, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> For years now, Nikon and Sony have produced sensors with more DR at low ISO than Canon. For years now, DxOmark have weighted their scores to low ISO DR and have consistently scored those sensors higher than Canon. For years now, Canon has beaten Nikon in DSLR sales and for awhile that gap actually widened.
> 
> It is certainly reasonable to conclude that low ISO DR is NOT an important, or not one of the most important factors, to the MAJORITY of customers.



False assumption. Some love the Canon lenses and some were wary of switching only to have Canon sudden;y catch up, etc. But at some point, eventually, some start giving up or at least going for mixed solutions where instead of adding a new Canon body to replace their old one they add a Sony to their old Canon.

Many who are thirsting for more DR are only just now starting to do that.

And also, in the end who cares? Nobody takes a picture with sales figures.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 16, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > krisbell said:
> ...



In before Marsu.

Personally, I purchased an A7R for resolution without medium format.

I ordered a 5DS to replace the A7R since I much prefer the canon ergo/infrastructure, *but* am mulling an A7R2 *instead*.

The resolution delta isn't particularly significant, but the electronic shutter and the high-sensitivity afforded by BSI are intriguing differentiators (if it isn't ponderous to use, the A7R2 may easily be a better all around camera). In my experience, the DR delta hasn't proven significant. I can not say whether that's because I tend to wait for (IMO) good light or outright modify it, or whether its due to the lossy compression, or whether it's because of a deficient post-processing skillset, or because of how I meter, or some other variable.


----------



## Larsskv (Jun 16, 2015)

unfocused said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Larsskv said:
> ...



I guess this sums up why I am so happy with my DSLRs, and just don´t understand the A7/FF-mirrorless crowd. The only point I see remaining with the A7 series, for Canon shooters, is the possibility to use Canon glass on an EXMOR sensor, and that reason does not apply to me.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 16, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > For years now, Nikon and Sony have produced sensors with more DR at low ISO than Canon. For years now, DxOmark have weighted their scores to low ISO DR and have consistently scored those sensors higher than Canon. For years now, Canon has beaten Nikon in DSLR sales and for awhile that gap actually widened.
> ...



Not really. If low ISO DR were the absolute most important aspect to the majority of photographers then the company with the best low ISO DR would win the majority of customers. And that's not even close to happening. At least we agree that the majority of people don't care about low ISO DR.

It's funny how you say "Many who are thirsting for more DR are only just now starting to do that." Do you know that for fact or is that just a false assumption used to refute my false assumption? Nikon/Sony DSLR sales aren't growing nor is mirrorless.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 16, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> But at some point, eventually, some start giving up or at least going for mixed solutions where instead of adding a new Canon body to replace their old one they add a Sony to their old Canon.
> 
> Many who are thirsting for more DR are only just now starting to do that.



But at some point, eventually, some start giving up or at least going for mixed solutions where instead of adding a new Sony body to replace their old one they add a Canon to their old Sony.

Many who are thirsting for better native lens selection, better ergonomics, or better service are only just now starting to do that. 

I'm sure both are correct...but how many are 'some' and 'many'?


----------



## Eldar (Jun 16, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > But at some point, eventually, some start giving up or at least going for mixed solutions where instead of adding a new Canon body to replace their old one they add a Sony to their old Canon.
> ...


And how interesting is this debate? ... Puuhhh ...


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 16, 2015)

Eldar said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



I'm currently shooting 50% mirrorless 50% DSLR, love both. 

Edit: For short term, I don't plan to own 2nd Canon body yet. Might replace my a7s with a7rII if I get decent high ISO.


----------



## jocau (Jun 17, 2015)

Apparently they're also working on the lossy compression RAW file issue.



> *DE:* Oh, interesting. I would have though it would be, just... it would be faster, I didn't realize it would improve your noise levels as well.
> 
> This next question is more of a request maybe, but we've had a lot of questions asking about raw format. And...
> 
> ...


----------



## Aglet (Jun 17, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



WTH?!? I posted an edit to that, last night, specifically for you. I suspected you'd feel goaded into replying, pretty much as you have, and that wasn't my intent.

the edit-addendum went along the lines of:
Giving Canon credit for having some of the best marketing out there, especially towards novices, and likening it to big tobacco by getting new users hooked into "the system." It's a very good marketing plan. They certainly succeeded, back when, by both saturated marketing and better product. They still have marketing, certainly have momentum from past efforts, and their easy-to-use, and technically acceptable, if not stellar IQ, products maintain that momentum which so many seem to have.
I don't have brand momentum, I use what's best for me, whether that's camera system or computer platform.


----------



## Aglet (Jun 17, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> For years now, Nikon and Sony have produced sensors with more DR at low ISO than Canon. For years now, DxOmark have weighted their scores to low ISO DR and have consistently scored those sensors higher than Canon. For years now, Canon has beaten Nikon in DSLR sales and for awhile that gap actually widened.
> 
> It is certainly reasonable to conclude that low ISO DR is NOT an important, or not one of the most important factors, to the MAJORITY of customers. Unless you are insinuating that a customer would say "That aspect is very important to me, but I'm not going to make my purchasing decision upon it." There is obviously some other factor or set of factors that is more important, that SoNikon lacks.
> 
> ...



Of course not. The Exmor sensors also provide (usually) better color (tighter CFAs) and lower overall noise at a wide range of ISO settings, all of which contribute benefits when your final output shows pixel level information.


----------



## Aglet (Jun 17, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Many who are thirsting for better native lens selection, better ergonomics, or better service are only just now starting to do that.



Really, are Canon's products SO bad that service performance needs to be a major concern?
I've had probably nearly 100 individual Canon items of significant value, and, ironically, the only one ever needing service was an old ZR60 camcorder whch had a faulty (SONY!) sensor in it and was fixed under a silent extended warranty.

I don't buy my gear based on repair performance, it's too marginal a criterion.

EDIT: FWIW, of the hundred+ non-canon pieces of gear I've gone thru, none needed any real service either. Altho I DID send a Nikon D5100 thru the system a few times to see if they could effect a fix for the slightly tilted viewfinder vs sensor flaw. And an early Fuji ST1 went in for the minor light leak fix.


----------



## meywd (Jun 17, 2015)

Aglet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Many who are thirsting for better native lens selection, better ergonomics, or better service are only just now starting to do that.
> ...



Do you not factor the after sales service when buying a car? I understand that their products fail less, but that is also a part of the consideration.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 17, 2015)

Aglet said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



Ok, my bad. I don't do well on internet discussions. Can't tell seriousness, moods, sarcasm, any of that. Maybe I should just stop typing and read instead.


----------



## Aglet (Jun 17, 2015)

meywd said:


> Do you not factor the after sales service when buying a car? I understand that their products fail less, but that is also a part of the consideration.



Nope! I do all my own repair work after warranty. Again, I pick the product that works for me, reported reliability can factor into the initial purchase decision in some cases but it's not like I'm buying a Yugo!


----------



## meywd (Jun 17, 2015)

Aglet said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > Do you not factor the after sales service when buying a car? I understand that their products fail less, but that is also a part of the consideration.
> ...



true, though a Sony these days is not all that better...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 17, 2015)

Aglet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Many who are thirsting for better native lens selection, better ergonomics, or better service are only just now starting to do that.
> ...



It all depends on individual needs. Service/repair turnaround time isn't a factor in my camera buying decisions, either. But for equipment I depend on at work, it certainly is a major factor.


----------



## Aglet (Jun 17, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> Ok, my bad. I don't do well on internet discussions. Can't tell seriousness, moods, sarcasm, any of that. Maybe I should just stop typing and read instead.



Jeez, system just did it AGAIN!
I posted a reply and it didn't stick.

so, once again, 

HAHA! no worries. Altho I think my line still stands it's better with it's supporting argument and, well, whatever else I wrote, It sounded better in the 1st version that didn't stick.
I think I'm logging out and clearing caches and stuff, something's acting funny on my browser. ???


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 17, 2015)

Aglet said:


> I think I'm logging out and clearing caches and stuff, something's acting funny on my browser. ???



If you have a Sony computer, it could be a hardware problem. Hope you can fix it yourself.


----------



## sdsr (Jun 17, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> .... At least we agree that the majority of people don't care about low ISO DR.
> 
> It's funny how you say "Many who are thirsting for more DR are only just now starting to do that." Do you know that for fact or is that just a false assumption used to refute my false assumption? Nikon/Sony DSLR sales aren't growing nor is mirrorless.



I'm sure it is the case that most people don't care about low ISO DR, though putting it that way is a bit misleading: I suspect it's also the case that most camera buyers (including most mirrorless buyers) don't even know what low ISO DR is - so their not caring about it (or, in neuro's terms, not needing it) is rather different from and perhaps less interesting, say, than your not caring about/needing it. 

As for sales not growing, don't the latest figures show that there has been an increase in both dslr and mirrorless sales during the past few months and that they have been doing so in such a way that mirrorless cameras lag behind as much as ever?

(My perspective on this debate is more than a little perverse and iconoclastic, I expect: right now, I most enjoy using old manual lenses made by a wide array of manufacturers; the easiest way to do that is via adaptors on mirrorless cameras with EVFs; FF sensors are better than smaller sensors; to date, the only FF mirrorless cameras are Sony; thus, I like the a7 line - though of course I'm also pleased that their image quality is first rate. I also own a couple of Canon dslrs, though I guess I may reconsider that if the a7rII really does provide high-speed AF for Canon lenses via Metabones.)


----------



## sdsr (Jun 17, 2015)

Larsskv said:


> Well, about that, Leica has made smaller lenses for "full frame", for almost a century already.. That is why I expect smaller and lighter lenses for the A7-series.



The same is true for Pentax and Olympus too, even with fast apertures (at least up to c. 135mm) - though of course none of these are AF, and none have IS. (Even Nikon, occasionally, for that matter - their excellent E series 100mm f/2.8 is ridiculously small and light.)


----------



## EdB (Jun 17, 2015)

43 pages that can be summed up in one sentence. Canon makes better cameras and Sony makes better sensors.


----------



## benperrin (Jun 17, 2015)

EdB said:


> 43 pages that can be summed up in one sentence. Canon makes better cameras and Sony makes better sensors.


I think it's more like there are different cameras out there and some will suit different peoples needs more than others. Pick the one that is good for you and go out and make some art.


----------



## Aglet (Jun 17, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > I think I'm logging out and clearing caches and stuff, something's acting funny on my browser. ???
> ...



Don't let the irony come back and bite you, but I mostly use Macs, like your platform of choice?..
and... I was a certified Apple Service Provider in the past.  
So, ya.


----------



## Aglet (Jun 17, 2015)

dilbert said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



I'm totally old-school-generation but I find a good EVF is way better than a OVF for certain kinds of work.
And the Fuji XT1 EVF system gains-up decently in very low light, can provide better MF clues than OVF in many cases unless using other focus tricks to make the OVF useful. What little opportunities I had to compare the 2, it worked alongside my D800s in obscured moonlight with similar success, viewfinder use only.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jun 17, 2015)

unfocused said:


> ...
> That's one reason why I'm skeptical of the "mirrorless will take over the world" crowd. Any size advantage is lost once you get past about 100mm in lenses. If you are traveling and want to have a telephoto along, you are much better off with a DLSR. Lightest, smallest option may be the SL-1 and a Tamron super-zoom.



Sure, unless you are interested in image quality. My travel kit is a Fuji X100, an X-E1 and a 14, 35 and 60mm lens (or sometimes a 55-230mm). It takes up a small fraction of my carry-on luggage. I feel that the image quality from the Fuji cameras is better than Canon crop sensors. But that's probably largely to do with have no AA filter on the X-E1 and the quality of the Fuji lenses. To get anything similar in the Canon (or Tamron) line, you're talking FF camera with bigger lenses. And all of a sudden, you're considering which camera bag is going to be small enough to use as a carry on bag... Unless I was going to photograph a sporting event, Canon can't really compete.

You're right about the bigger lenses, though. Fuji have a 90mm coming out soon, which isn't small. Their 120mm macro looks pretty big. And their 120-400mm is even bigger. (But at the same time, they've also got even smaller lenses than what I use). I see the bigger lenses as more about locking people in to the system than providing any weight benefit. Right now, many people own Fuji cameras as a secondary system. But as Fuji fills out their lens line-up, more and more people will switch entirely. You'll see the same thing happening with Sony, too.


----------



## M_S (Jun 17, 2015)

Looks like the one complaint I had with this camera has been at least notified, perhaps and hopefully fixed:
http://www.cameraegg.org/interview-from-sony-uncompressed-raw-is-coming-to-a7rii-via-firmware-update/

and the original article:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2015/06/16/sony-qa-the-must-have-sensor-tech-of-the-future

Now I am seriously thinking with what to replace my 5D Mark 3, it will be more and more likely that it will be a Sony. Perhaps Canon has the guts to announce something by August, then I decide.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jun 17, 2015)

dilbert said:


> There are several things wrong here.
> First, as you know, removing the AA filter is bad.
> Second, as you should know, that smaller camera with the smaller sensor, well, high ISO isn't going to work well at all well with that ...


No, no, no. It's all good. I've done my research. No AA filter on a Canon sensor is bad because of the standard Bayer filter. No AA filter on a Fuji is good because we have an x-trans sensor which actively destroys moire. 

Also, according to Wikipedia, my Fuji sensor has a random pattern of colours. Rather than noise, it produces more of a film like grain at higher ISO, which gives your photos more character and presence. Essentially - The higher the ISO I use, the better my photos look. (In fact, and this is serious, I won a competition two weeks ago. The photo was of a piece of farm equipment, and there was a lot of noticeable "grain" in the darker areas. The judges were very impressed and wanted to know what type of film I used.....oh, hang on....that photo might have been taken with a 1DsMkii that had grain added in Silver Efex Pro. Anyway, the point is that people love grain, and that's what my Fuji has.)


----------



## BRunner (Jun 17, 2015)

After reading interview on imaging-resource.com I wouldn't expect much from AF accuracy and speed in worse than ideal light conditions with adapted Canon lenses. It's simple physics, the phase detection pixels are just too small and noisy in comparison to SLRs dedicated PDAF chips. Here are some important quotes from the interview regarding this subject:



> ...in terms of autofocus, we are using a hybrid focus, so first we use the phase-detection focus to get close to the object. Then near the object, we start to use contrast AF to get a clear peak...





> This answered a question I'd always had about on-chip phase-detect focusing, in that the image sensor pixels are quite small, and have to be read out quickly (meaning must have a short exposure time), to have a responsive AF system. The phase-detect pixels are also shaded, to "see" only light rays coming from one side or the other, so they're only getting half as much light as normal image-forming ones. Under low-light conditions, both factors result in a small focus signal with lots of noise on it. Contrast-detect AF is more capable under those conditions, because it's looking across a larger number of pixels to develop it's goodness-of-focus signal.



Test with Canon 2.8/24-70 L II:


> Sony's Mark Weir noted that this was the first time a full-frame mirrorless camera could focus traditional SLR lenses as fast as SLRs could. He noted that in this mode, the A7R Mark II was using only phase-detect AF, vs the two-stage hybrid approach Maki-san mentioned earlier.





> I did find that the camera could sometimes get a little confused when the subject was far out of focus, sometimes initially moving in the wrong direction, but when the subject was out of focus by an amount more typical of real-world situations, it was remarkably fast.


Clearly consequence of small phase-detect structures, dedicated chip with big structures can detect correct direction in significantly further OOF position.

Compare to dedicated AF chips (images and quotes from the-digital-picture.com):

Canon 7D AF chip:






Canon 1DX AF chip:







> When looking at the diagonal f/2.8 sensors, it's apparent that they are much more widely spaced than the f/5.6 sensors - almost to the edges of the chip. This accounts for the longer baseline that results in greater accuracy than the f/5.6 sensors.



I'm curious, if Canon can combine the dual-pixel AF pixels into bigger virtual structures on 70D and 7DII, to overcome some of the limitations of dedicated on-sensor PDAF pixels.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 17, 2015)

M_S said:


> Looks like the one complaint I had with this camera has been at least notified, perhaps and hopefully fixed:
> http://www.cameraegg.org/interview-from-sony-uncompressed-raw-is-coming-to-a7rii-via-firmware-update/



Sure, if you read the title of the article.

[quote author=cameraegg]Uncompressed RAW is Coming to a7RII via Firmware Update ![/quote]

But if you read what the guy from Sony actually said...

[quote author=Sony]But I cannot give you a guarantee when we’re going to fix or not fix.[/quote]

I guess people hear what they want...


----------



## M_S (Jun 17, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> M_S said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like the one complaint I had with this camera has been at least notified, perhaps and hopefully fixed:
> ...



But if you read what the guy from Sony actually said...

[quote author=Sony]But I cannot give you a guarantee when we’re going to fix or not fix.[/quote]

I guess people hear what they want...
[/quote]


Lets see:
[quote author=Sony]
KM: Sony RAW is compressed, not uncompressed. But if we're getting a lot of requests for it, we should make such a kind of no-compression raw. Of course we recognize that. But I cannot give you a guarantee when we're going to fix or not fix.

DE: Right. When you're going to address that, yeah.

KM: Sure, sure. And so we recognize the customer's requirement, and actually we are working on it.

DE: So it's something that you're aware of. I'm sure that the image processing pipeline is optimized for the way that it is now, but it seems to me that, while it might involve some trading off some performance, that it could just be a firmware change. Could it? Would you be able to provide uncompressed raw as a firmware update, or would it require new hardware?

KM: Right, yes. So... not hardware.

DE: It is firmware. OK, good! I think people would be willing to accept a slower transfer time or lower frame rate in an uncompressed mode. Some people really, really want that.[/quote]

I give you credit that he first didn't say yes or no and when it will come. Afterwards he stated however: "We are working on it" and that it can be fixed via firmware. So what's it gonna be, bottle half full or empty?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 17, 2015)

M_S said:


> I give you credit that he first didn't say yes or no and when it will come. Afterwards he stated however: "We are working on it" and that it can be fixed via firmware. So what's it gonna be, bottle half full or empty?



The sun is working on becoming a red giant and destroying the Earth. It'll take 4-5 billion years, but it's being worked on. You have been warned. 

Keeping in mind Sony's support track record, if uncompressed RAW is critical to you I'm not sure it's wise to just assume it will be delivered.


----------



## RobPan (Jun 17, 2015)

M_S said:


> Now I am seriously thinking with what to replace my 5D Mark 3, it will be more and more likely that it will be a Sony. Perhaps Canon has the guts to announce something by August, then I decide.



I totally agree,as my 5D3 was stolen last February. Fortunately I was well insured. I want to have a replacement before the end of the year, and it might well be the a7r II if Canon will not come up with the 5D4. But high ISO is very important for me, so perhaps it will be better to wait a bit...? On the other had I can not wait until January. In the meantime I am using my wife's G10. But not in low light. Kind regards.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 17, 2015)

dilbert said:


> If the A7rII autofocus is good enough then you might expect Canon to go on full assault on Internet forums to keep people loyal to the brand.





Forgive me, I don't have a deep seeded history in internet forums, but is there precedent upon which to expect that Canon would start officially posting? Seems unlikely.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 17, 2015)

dilbert said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



It isn't.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 17, 2015)

dilbert said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Hey Dilbert, don't forget your tinfoil hat ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 17, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



Hey bdunbar, next time they bring us all to HQ in Tokyo for the periodic meeting of the CIDAT (Canon Internet Disinformation Assault Team), let's go out for sake after, mmmmkay?


----------



## bgran8 (Jun 17, 2015)

Just placed my order on B&H at 11:02. I hope I'm in the first batch.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 17, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



8)


----------



## Tugela (Jun 17, 2015)

dilbert said:


> M_S said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



By then Sony will be moving the next improvements through to the consumer while Canon continues to struggle to catch up to the previous generation of technology.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 17, 2015)

Tugela said:


> By then Sony will be moving the next improvements through to the consumer while Canon continues to struggle to catch up to the previous generation of technology.



All those people who love to take pictures with bare silicon sensors will be thrilled...just thrilled.


----------



## Tugela (Jun 17, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > I think I'm logging out and clearing caches and stuff, something's acting funny on my browser. ???
> ...



If you have a Canon computer it is probably still using one of the original Pentiums


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 17, 2015)

And a much, much smaller consumer base vs. Canon.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 17, 2015)

bgran8 said:


> Just placed my order on B&H at 11:02. I hope I'm in the first batch.



bah, I was in meetings. Just ordered now.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 17, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



I wonder what the salary range is? Would be nice to make some extra cash trolling forums


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 17, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > By then Sony will be moving the next improvements through to the consumer while Canon continues to struggle to catch up to the previous generation of technology.
> ...



Well it's easier to take a photo with a piece of silicon than with a sales number....


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 17, 2015)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Social media, yes, blowhard forums like this where any valuable advice is drowned in tidal waves of irrelevant tantrums and bickering by unimaginative, anonymous, misguided, over opinionated and under experienced wannabe experts, no.

Just watch the webinar from B&H on the 5DS/R release with a true master, Gregory Heisler, to understand how much DR, or the lack of it, is an issue to actual master photographers and it makes almost any participation here as pointless as King Canute commanding the tide to stop, actually Canute made a very good point, maybe somebody did here once.


----------



## sdsr (Jun 18, 2015)

At this point in the thread, the best thing to add may be this:

http://www.theonion.com/article/us-consumers-announce-plan-get-one-those-50681


----------



## fragilesi (Jun 18, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Social media, yes, blowhard forums like this where any valuable advice is drowned in tidal waves of irrelevant tantrums and bickering by unimaginative, anonymous, misguided, over opinionated and under experienced wannabe experts, no.
> 
> Just watch the webinar from B&H on the 5DS/R release with a true master, Gregory Heisler, to understand how much DR, or the lack of it, is an issue to actual master photographers and it makes almost any participation here as pointless as King Canute commanding the tide to stop, actually Canute made a very good point, maybe somebody did here once.



Hard to believe otherwise though at times. Lots of low post count people turning up whose sole interest seems to be bigging up Sony etc. In one case claiming to be cancelling a previously unmentioned 5ds order in favour of this model . . . there must be some kind of element of that going on.


----------



## canonvoir (Jun 19, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> canonvoir said:
> 
> 
> > I just purchased an a7ii and quite a few native lenses. I am really impressed with the image quality of the Sony. So much so, I have not used my 5Diii since making the purchase. It also helps I like to hike and the weight reduction was a nice bonus.
> ...



Sorry you feel I crossed some line. I was simply stating my experience. 

At the moment, I am photographing anything but sports. I have been testing the a6000 out at softball games and I am not sure why Sony claims the worlds fastest AF because it is not. The low light ISO performance on the a6000 is on par with the 7D. AF in low light is not that good at all. 

As far as the a7ii goes. I have been photographing slower subjects but that is what I do anytime I am not on a field or court. I feel that that a7ii is good enough to use in an end zone but I understand that I am going to have a lot of throw a lot away due to AF. I believe the a7rii will solve this problem. I'll post back this season and let you know. 

I really have not run into anything I would call a drawback. I call them compromises since nothing is perfect. Compared to my 1DX and 5Diii AF is good on the Sony but it is not in the 1DX class. In fact, let's just not compare the 1DX and Sony because the 1DX is the worlds best sports camera.

Compared to the 5Diii in good light, I would consider the AF "ok" to the 5Diii. The AF acquires great but it is not going to keep up when a player is running right at me full speed during a 5 fps burst. Also, 5 fps is a compromise. I could nitpick the Sony with how you update the firmware, no custom menu, you have to carry at least one extra battery if you are going to use this camera all day and take 400 shots. I am seeing 400 shots or so per battery. 

I find the Sony lenses to be of better quality minus the 70-200 f/4 which is an under performer IMHO (exclude the newer update Canon glass which I have not had a chance to use, i.e. 16-35 f/4 and 24-70ii 2.8). I find the Sony FE 16-35 f/4 to be a FANTASTIC lens. Much better than my 16-35 f/2.8. 

I have no faith in the weather resistance of the Sony camera. Build quality is good and after using the Sony for a month, the 5Diii feels like a boulder in my hands. The EVF could use some improvement (though I am not complaining and have come to enjoy it) and the a7rii looks to improve the EVF. Really, there are very few compromises with the a7ii. I expected to be sorely disappointed since I also own the Canon EOS M and have met disappoint with mirrorless before. 

When I shot my first long exposure I just about fainted. The quality of the image you get from the Sony is significantly better than the 5Diii. I do sell images that are printed beyond a 60" diagonal so I feel I can speak to this with a lot of confidence. Image quality at low ISO's, 800 and below, are leaps and bounds ahead of my 5Diii. 

I will have the a7rii with the 55mm 1.8 around my neck this football season for end zone work when my 300 2.8 becomes useless. I am optimistic I will see some success with this setup. End zones tend to be a bit slower than normal play. I only carry my 5Diii as a second body to College/Pro sports because of weight and lets face it, it is high school sports. The light weight a7 series is going to enable me to have a tag along.


----------



## LOALTD (Jun 19, 2015)

Tugela said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...




Hey, now, I'm a working professional and I use a 486 for all my coding. Real coders talk about coding, not the machine they code on. Only rank amateurs would care about having a Mac Pro. Real coders can code with any machine! ;D


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 19, 2015)

When I was discussing the Exmor 'IQ' compared with the Canon a few pages back I showed the two raw sections from the centre of the picture and later the whole pano as a reference, but made up from OOC jpegs. ( I shoot raw + v small jpeg to do 'quick stitched' on location). 

This picture has pretty extreme EV range from direct sunlight off water to deep shadow within shadow in the bottom of the gorge. It was shot at mid day. 

I've been enjoying using the exmor, but this picture really sums up my issues with its so called '14 stops of DR'. 

Neither camera could cope with the direct specular highlights off the water. If I tried to under expose enough to hold most of them on the exmor the shadow data was lost anyway. 

This is shot on the 6D with 40mm pancake, 100 ISO, f11 @ 1/15. I've used one two stop lower bracket to patch the highlights; I'd have had to do this with the exmor too. The shadow in the foreground has been lifted about 0.5 to 1 stop and the 6D has eaten this up, resulting in perfect data. 

In this situation the Canon produced the better data, IMO. True I am not that experienced in the exmor, but I am persevering with it. Also with the camera I am using the raw data is being cooked, probably more so than with the D800 I tried. Do you like those blacks in the exmor ? That's over processing that we as the user are not being given control of. To me it looks unnatural.


----------



## raptor3x (Jun 19, 2015)

Neutral said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Sorry for the delay, I was away all week. You're both missing that the width of the quantization for non-overlapping levels is limited by the STD of the signal as a function of signal level. You have to actually perform the integration, or more realistically the summation, over the entire signal range to get the number of tonal ranges. You don't need to take my word for it though, DxO does the exact same thing; that's actually where I took the numbers from.


----------



## raptor3x (Jun 19, 2015)

dilbert said:


> canonvoir said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



It would but that lens is incredibly sensitive to adapter tolerances so I doubt Roger would ever do it.


----------



## raptor3x (Jun 19, 2015)

jrista said:


> I found a formula last night while sitting out in the middle of nowhere imaging Lagoon and Trifid nebulas (yeah, after you get set up, it gets pretty boring..  At least my dark site has 4G access on my smartphone! ) that can be used to approximate the loss in bit depth in an actual signal, assuming you used the entire dynamic range:
> 
> TRbits = DRev - log(2 * (SQRT(RN^2 +fwc) - RN))



I seriously question this formula as it's not at all informed by the STD of the signal as a function of signal level. I'm not sure where you got it from but there has to be some assumption built in about how the STD varies and I think you'll find it's overly optimistic. The numbers I quoted are from DxO, which come from integrating over the entire signal to get the number of tones.

Also, in your example I wouldn't dispute at all that an image from a Sony sensor will have a much larger number of tones in the shadows than a Canon image; I agree with you 100% on that. But there really aren't that many tones available in the shadows to begin with and you won't see the same behavior in the midtones or highlights.

EDIT: Btw, the units of your equation aren't consistent, something's not right there.


----------



## krisbell (Jun 19, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> When I was discussing the Exmor 'IQ' compared with the Canon a few pages back I showed the two raw sections from the centre of the picture and later the whole pano as a reference, but made up from OOC jpegs. ( I shoot raw + v small jpeg to do 'quick stitched' on location).
> 
> This picture has pretty extreme EV range from direct sunlight off water to deep shadow within shadow in the bottom of the gorge. It was shot at mid day.
> 
> In this situation the Canon produced the better data, IMO. True I am not that experienced in the exmor, but I am persevering with it. Also with the camera I am using the raw data is being cooked, probably more so than with the D800 I tried. Do you like those blacks in the exmor ? That's over processing that we as the user are not being given control of. To me it looks unnatural.



Sporgon - you clearly know exactly what you are doing, which is why your take on the Exmor surprises me, as it is so different from my own. In your Fairy Glen example do you have an image shot at ISO100 from the Sony where you have exposed to preserve the highlights?


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 19, 2015)

krisbell said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > When I was discussing the Exmor 'IQ' compared with the Canon a few pages back I showed the two raw sections from the centre of the picture and later the whole pano as a reference, but made up from OOC jpegs. ( I shoot raw + v small jpeg to do 'quick stitched' on location).
> ...



Unfortunately I don't because I deleted as I went along due to having just one small SD card for the camera. ( I end up shooting a massive amount of frames with not only the stitching but bracketing to. (One of the reasons the thought of a 5Ds makes me go pale). I only got it just before I set off on this trip. However I was getting blinking low lights on three stops under. In the actual picture I used two stops under because I needed some of the most intense water highlights blown or it looked wrong. I see where you are coming from in that if I was two stops under from the exposure I used I'd have been able to lift the low lights on the Exmor, and yes, at that I would have still had usable data. The first image is a one stop under ( from what I ended up using) on the exmor, and then the second is a three stop lift of that in raw. 



However I can see how people might prefer it, but in no way can you say that at low ISO the exmor data is better than the Canon - unless you lift deep shadow by three stops or more. 

Great portfolio of pictures by the way.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 19, 2015)

raptor3x said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > canonvoir said:
> ...


----------



## raptor3x (Jun 20, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Unfortunately no link, this is based on my own experience with using the 16-35 f/4 IS on an A7R. I went through a bunch of adapters and kept finding that the while the lens was extremely sharp in the corners on the 5D3, it was much much softer in the corners on the A7R. In the end, the issue ended up being that the adapters I was using were a bit too short (I suspect to avoid infinity focusing issue while allowing sloppy manufacturing tolerances) and this was causing trouble with the floating element design of the 16-35. I was able to significantly improve the quality by shimming the lens mount with pieces of foil, but in the end I realized I was using the lens almost exclusively on the A7R so ended up just swapping it out for the Sony FE 16-35.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 20, 2015)

raptor3x said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > raptor3x said:
> ...



Roger at Lens Rentals has tested the use of glassless adapters, and his conclusions were exactly what yours were. For lenses that are being used on the same sized sensor as the conversion, ie FF-FF, the center didn't do too badly but the corners lost lots of resolution.

Basically the squareness of the lens mount is so critical nowadays that the 'simple' engineering used for adapters just isn't up to the task.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 20, 2015)

raptor3x said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > raptor3x said:
> ...



Thanks for your thoughts. I haven't noticed anything egregious with my a7r and 16-35/4L, but I haven't used them much. When the mkII gets here I'll have to pay more attention.


----------



## raptor3x (Jun 20, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> Thanks for your thoughts. I haven't noticed anything egregious with my a7r and 16-35/4L, but I haven't used them much. When the mkII gets here I'll have to pay more attention.



If don't know if you're using a Metabones adapter, but if so then you're probably less likely to run into issues. The Comm-Lite adapters I was playing with tended to be slightly shorter than necessary to get the right flange distance which isn't normally a problem but can apparently cause severe corner issues with certain types of floating element focusing groups. The only complaints I've heard about Metabones adapter have to do with slight tilt.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 20, 2015)

raptor3x said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for your thoughts. I haven't noticed anything egregious with my a7r and 16-35/4L, but I haven't used them much. When the mkII gets here I'll have to pay more attention.
> ...



I use the mk4 metabones adapter.


----------



## Aglet (Jun 20, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> >However what I don't like is that the raw data is cooked: the whites are too white, the
> >blacks too black. The blue was far to intense and is still inaccurate, the woman's jersey
> >was a more powdery pastel blue, very different to the guy's blue coat that he has tied
> >around his waist.



I'm not sure what body you've been shooting with (Sony?) but you could profile it for more accurate color response.
yes, those 2 blues are rendered quite similarly and not like how you've described.
There's good tonal info on the dog and the guy's vest tho flat overcast light like that means a low DR scene once again, except for the bright areas along horizon line where there may not have been much to keep. This looks like a totally Canon-able shot and the exmor would show little advantage other than a cleaner dog and black vest w-o color blotches or plaid FPN. A 6D, or even my old 60D, could have comfortably handled that scene.



> >When you really force the issue and lift deep shadow where the Canon
> >hasn't seen information, the exmor is actually adding to the information, and creating
> >detail that isn't there. It is not 'honest' data like the Canon raw, it's giving unwanted
> >interfering.



I'm really not sure what you're telling us here. Those of us familiar with with using exmor files aren't finding fake information, we just have an option to decide how much of the deep shadow reality we might want to render into the final result.



> >However I can see how people might prefer it, but in no way can you say that at low ISO the
> >exmor data is better than the Canon - unless you lift deep shadow by three stops or more.



You produce large prints so you realize that there's more tonal compression happening in the printing process to squeeze that electronic file DR into the smaller DR of printed media, there's not just the shadow lift you might do to create a certain on-screen look while editing. Having that clean info available down low means you can maintain more fidelity not only in the editing push but also in the final hardcopy output which applies some extra push too.
I'll always prefer having that optional range available and that's why I use ABC gear for challenging DR scenes where files may have to get tortured a bit in post to create what I want for final output. I'm not always a fan of crushed black used to cover up sensor shortcomings or to replicate a DR limitation some cameras are set to use as a default rendering. I want final output the way _I_ want it, not necessarily how an OEM tone-curve delivers it. Exmor/ABC provides that option for me better than anything else at the moment.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 20, 2015)

dilbert said:


> _What Does It Mean in the Real World?
> 
> Like a lot of laboratory testing, probably not a lot. Adapters couldn't all stink or people wouldn't use them. Like a lot of tests, you can detect a very real difference in the lab that doesn't make much difference at all in the real world._



...a concept that applies to things other than adapters.


----------



## Proscribo (Jun 20, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > _What Does It Mean in the Real World?
> ...


Wait.. what do you mean? Something like.. DR? Nooo... no way.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 20, 2015)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Of course it needn't be a zero sum game. Someone buying a Sony body and Canon lenses benefits both companies.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 20, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Hillsilly said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Some people are afraid of change. Some people only care about novelty. Most people are somewhere in between. It's sensible to be cautious with new technologies. It's hard to know in advance what will ultimately take off, work better, and become the new normal.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 20, 2015)

fragilesi said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Social media, yes, blowhard forums like this where any valuable advice is drowned in tidal waves of irrelevant tantrums and bickering by unimaginative, anonymous, misguided, over opinionated and under experienced wannabe experts, no.
> ...



Wasn't there an empirical study done a while back that indicated most scathing reviews by people who don't own a product aren't instigated by the producers, but by individual brand loyalists who take it upon themselves to defend/attack online?


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 20, 2015)

canonvoir said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > canonvoir said:
> ...



Please re-read: I wrote that you had "not" crossed a line. That was sincere, not sarcastic.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 20, 2015)

Aglet said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > >However what I don't like is that the raw data is cooked: the whites are too white, the
> ...



You are absolutely right, I shouldn't have or be making comments about how the camera is handling the data vs the Canon. I'm not in a position to do that given that my only intention is to find out how the 'extra two stops of dr' help me. 

And so far it's "two stops, what two stops ?"


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 20, 2015)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



I posted the link in response to a user that was evidencing the exact same results. From that you could draw a few conclusions:-
1/ The poster is wrong or lying.
2/ Something else could be causing the exact same IQ issues.
3/ The predicted results are actually visible for some combinations of some gear.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 20, 2015)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Ahhhh, that explains why noisy Canon sensors lacking DR can't produce good images. At least in the hands of some. 

Why haven't you switched to Sony yet?


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 20, 2015)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Eh ? So how's it your business to keep telling us our Canon cameras are crap ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 20, 2015)

dilbert said:


> What camera I own/use when is none of yours or anyone else's business.



In that case, you should probably stop babbling about it publicly. 




dilbert said:


> If Canon are going to be so complacent and consider us to be caged animals that they've already caught then I've got news for them because whilst I haven't seriously considered switching brands before, I am now.
> 
> In 12 months time either the Canon DSLR that I own will have substantially better IQ or I won't be using Canon any more.





dilbert said:


> > 4. Would not buy a 5DS
> > 5. Next camera might be a Sony.
> 
> 
> ...





dilbert said:


> And to round this out, I'll re-iterate that whilst my first 5 cameras I bought were all Canon, the next one wasn't and it is looking likely that the one after that won't be either.



:


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 20, 2015)

Dilbert, Neuro,

This public hate-on you two have for each other demeans both of you. Walk away! Take the high road!


----------



## zlatko (Jun 20, 2015)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Really? You've racked up nearly 4,000 public posts commenting about Canon gear on a Canon gear forum ... and don't wish to share that bit of gear info? It's just _THAT_ private?


----------



## benperrin (Jun 21, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Sounds like you suffer from this:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-purchase_rationalization


Actually Dilbert it sounds like YOU suffer from post purchase rationalisation. You are the one trying to convince everyone to buy Sony. Plenty of people here are perfectly happy with their gear.


----------



## jrista (Jun 21, 2015)

I think there is more than plenty of post purchase rationalization to go around on these forums. There is no point in trying to convince anyone to buy different gear. People clearly have their preferences and their reasons for having them. These brand wars persist because no one can let an argument go...

I walked away from this thread...what, days ago...I thought it was about done and dead back then...seems these threads never die. Buy what you want. If your happy with brand lockin, great. If you want something Canon doesn't offer, know there are plenty of great options elsewhere. Bodies come and go, not a lot of harm adding a highly compatible body like the A7r II to your kit for a time until Canon gets around to delivering what you need.

Beyond that...I really agree with Don:



Don Haines said:


> Dilbert, Neuro,
> 
> This public hate-on you two have for each other demeans both of you. Walk away! Take the high road!


----------



## Neutral (Jun 21, 2015)

raptor3x said:


> Neutral said:
> 
> 
> > raptor3x said:
> ...



It is nice to have some interesting and useful discussions.

What you were mentioning and what is illustrated in DXO tonal range chart is basically the same what I was talking about signal detection in presence of noise and having ADC to assigning digital values (combination of analog and digital circuits). 
Exactly this relates to the part where I was talking about signal detection decision slot width and width of the signal spectrum containing most of the signal energy (analog tone strip width). Signal detection decision slot width is basically ADC quantization step for ideal (theoretical) signal without noise and for real signal with noise the other limitation is tonal strip width which is STD dependent. Both together puts limit at number of possible tonal values at both ends of dynamic range at the output of ADC.
And DXO tonal range charts bring us to something interesting which might not be actually very obvious.
Even I was not paying attention to this earlier.

Before going there in more details I need to clarify some things related to relations between signal levels , SNR and STD as I feel that this is kind of confusion for most of the people here.
What is important here is what I mentioned before - signal detection decision slot size/width (ADC quantization step) and width of the pure sin(x) signal spectrum with added noise (basically width of the tonal strip before ADC). 
Here some simple as possible explanations, by simple steps - simple math and outcomes of that:
1. As a starting point:
STD of ideal signal (e.g. F(x)= A * sin(x) ) without noise is always zero regardless of the signal amplitude. Changes of signal amplitude A do not change STD - it is always zero.
Also number of possible different values between value M and value N is always infinity even if difference between M and N is decreasing to zero (N-M->0). 
2. Signal-to-noise ratio is inversely proportional to the relative standard deviation of the signal amplitude 
3. STD for signal with the fixed noise level is decreasing if you increase pure signal level and keep noise level at constant value. 
What this actually means is that more SNR results in less STD and more narrow is spectrum strip containing 99% of the signal energy.
4. STD for given SNR is constant if you are increasing value of the (signal+noise) not changing SNR - actually doing amplification of the real signal with noise - amplification does not change SNR and as result STD is also not changing. Outcome of this is that noise spectrum width is increasing with the increased level of amplifications. In other words tonal strip width is increasing with amplification and it takes width of more and more signal detection decisions slots.
5. If you decreasing SNR for given pure signal level (adding more noise to the fixed signal) this results in increasing STD of the signal mix with noise . Result of this is that noise spectrum width (or tonal strip) becomes wider. This width eats up more and more ADC signal detection decision slots. 
Result of this is that number of distinguishable tonal strips across system dynamic range (before ADC) is also decreasing.
Results for sensor - less tonal values.
6. Worst case scenario when you amplifying signal while decreasing SNR - this results in both increase of STD and non liner but rather exponential increase of noise amplitude spectrum width. 
So for sensor this results in even less possible tonal strips across system DR range before ADC and even less values after ADC conversion.
This is actually what is happening when increasing camera ISO settings to compensate for lower input light entering camera - doing more amplification for the signal with less and less SNR to cover full ANC input DR .

All above is illustrates of what we see on the DXO tonal chart and basically this give something which I find interesting for overall systems understanding and understanding better their physical limits.
It seems that the reason why tonal numbers are so close for sensors with different DR and different sensor read noise is the noise factor which is independent from the sensor. 
This is actually seems to be photon noise which is reducing tonal range differences between different systems.
Photon noise is basically photons 4D jitter (time+ x,y,z variations). 
Result of this that is for given integrating time (exposure ) there will be variations of the signal levels of the optical detector .

It seems that for sensors with low read noise photon noise starts adding more to the overall system noise compared to the read noise. It looks from DXO chart that photon noise is about the same order as read noise for existing Canon sensors (may be somewhat smaller) and more than read noise of best Exmor sensors and as result tonal strip width is bigger than ADC quantization step
As result overall noise (read noise +photon noise) amplitude spectrum width (which is basically visual representation of STD) is very close for all existing systems so we see that that number of possible tonal values (tonal strips) is close for different systems even when system has MF with 16bit ADC compared to DSLR with 14 bit ADC (e.g. look at medium format - e.g. IQ180 chart compared to 1Dx ) 

Seems that there are not two many ways to have some improvements in this area:
1. Have lower possible in camera native ISO (ability to have longer light (photon noise) integration time and longer read noise integration time)
2. Have higher photocell well capacity (increasing DR by increasing max number of photos received before reaching saturation point). Here is where BSI sensor could be useful. Also still reducing read noise.
3. Both 1 &2 above would reduce tonal strip width and as result increase tonal range at low ISOs
4. Exposure blending - this is basically results in increasing normalized SNR (by reducing STD) - this works across whole ISO range.

All that is not very exiting , may be DXO measurements are not correct somewhere ?
Maybe I am missing something ?


----------



## Monchoon (Jun 21, 2015)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



You actually own a camera?


----------



## Neutral (Jun 21, 2015)

Neutral said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > Neutral said:
> ...



Found interesting article related to the discussed above:

Shot noise limits the camera resolution:
http://www.stanfordcomputeroptics.com/technology/dynamic-range/photon-noise.html
Here they are talking about tonal ranges that could be resolved:
"May be its hard to believe but in fact more bits in the A/D conversion can actually not increase the resolution of the data. There is only one chance to increase the resolution: go for higher intensity levels, i.e. longer time integration of the signal to reach higher signal to noise ratios"


----------



## raptor3x (Jun 21, 2015)

Neutral said:


> Found interesting article related to the discussed above:
> 
> Shot noise limits the camera resolution:
> http://www.stanfordcomputeroptics.com/technology/dynamic-range/photon-noise.html
> ...



You seem to be pretty familiar with signal processing, much more so than I am, =). I'm not an EE, but I just happen to be somewhat familiar with this issue as I ran into it about 10 years ago when doing my undergraduate dissertation where I thought we were going to get a certain number of tonal values from a 10-bit CCD camera we were using, basically based on the logic jrista is using, but was resolving a much lower number of tonal levels in the actual experiment.


----------



## psolberg (Jun 22, 2015)

from EOSHD, which I always consider a good source on the video side of things:
http://www.eoshd.com/2015/06/interesting-insights-into-the-new-sony-a7r-ii-and-rx-sensor-technology/


> That 15MP by the way is a 1:1 full pixel readout from the Super 35mm crop window of the full frame sensor. No line skipping or binning at all.
> 
> The 8K sensor mode does 2×2 binning to produce full frame 4K video. Sony say in the interview that the reason 42MP was chosen and not 50MP like on the Canon 5D S was to make for a more balanced system. 8K scales to 4K better than 8.5K and also gives better low light performance. The difference between 8K and 8.5K is minimal when it comes to resolution in stills. Sony made the right decision, Canon the wrong one


This makes sense now why they picked 42. plus the referenced interview seems clear Sony selected 42MP very carefully to deliver what should be superb 4K image quality, at least in the popular super 35 format.



> KM: Yeah, 45 or 50, it's very clear for people. But actually, the engineers said "if you prefer 50, you have to lose sensitivity." And also, that number doesn't fit 4K movie at all.
> [Ed. Note: That is, the pixel counts don't line up well with 4K movie pixel dimensions, to provide optimal results when downsampling.]





> So we could identify the imaging sensor [characteristics]; the story came from the sensitivity, 4K-suitability. From that the number of pixels was decided. We also looked at what is the best way to create such a sensor and reversed it to get lots of light and change the [metallization] material to get faster. That's the kind of process we went through.



It seems that with Sony, the engineering team won. With canon, the marketing team won. I can't wait to see them add lossless compression 14bit RAW support, or even 12 bit lossless. Then again, that is probably what the Nikon D820 is going to do so it won't be long before we can see what the most advanced full frame sensor in the world can do.

I guess the 5Ds can be basically written off as a catchup attempt in the MP race by just blowing the old ancient sensor in full frame format, and the 5D mark 4 could be canon's real move into a versatile full frame camera that can do video to 2015 standards. Can't wait to see both the 5DMk4 and the D820.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 22, 2015)

psolberg said:


> from EOSHD, which I always consider a good source on the video side of things:
> http://www.eoshd.com/2015/06/interesting-insights-into-the-new-sony-a7r-ii-and-rx-sensor-technology/
> 
> 
> ...



How do you figure? Canon clearly wasn't engineering for 4k, nor did they produce a "clear" marketing number like 45 or 50; it's 50.6.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 22, 2015)

Well, you know. Everyone buying the 5Ds/r is doing it for video.


----------



## Rahul (Jun 23, 2015)

jrista said:


> Bodies come and go, not a lot of harm adding a highly compatible body like the A7r II to your kit for a time until Canon gets around to delivering what you need.



+1

To me adding an A7RII to my kit will be an addition to my existing kit and not a wholesale change in the system. That being said, the A7RII will be used for very specific shooting anyway and is unlikely to be my main camera.


----------



## fragilesi (Jun 23, 2015)

dilbert said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > psolberg said:
> ...



_Interesting_ perspective. I'd really like to see psolberg answer though, it seems such a strange statement to make.


----------



## Rahul (Jun 23, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> Well, you know. Everyone buying the 5Ds/r is doing it for video.



True, and then there are some who need the 50MP stills camera but are NOT buying the 5Ds/r because it doesn't make coffee and also lacks a nuclear strike launch button.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 23, 2015)

Rahul said:


> ... lacks a nuclear strike launch button.



FINALLY someone suggests a viable, more useful replacement for the direct print button.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 23, 2015)

Rahul said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, you know. Everyone buying the 5Ds/r is doing it for video.
> ...



I'd much rather have a Dynamic Range dial. That way you can set shutter speed, aperture, ISO, and dynamic range. Maybe even interchangeable sensor options for when I post to Facebook only use the Canon sensor and for all other serious, professional work, the Exmor sensor.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 23, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> Rahul said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



You meet better looking women when you have an exmor sensor too.


----------



## Rahul (Jun 23, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Rahul said:
> ...



I guess you have experience on that front, having tested the exmor sensor cameras lately 

I guess I'll give the exmor a pass. "Wife kills husband over an outrageous sensor" headline doesn't sound too good.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 23, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Rahul said:
> ...



Babe: "Hey there honey, what sensor ya got?"

Me: "Canon"

Babe: (walks away disgusted)


----------



## Rahul (Jun 23, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> Rahul said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



-1 

I don't think interchangeable sensors are needed (why increase the cost?). Just dial back 2 stops of DR at the deep end of the exmor sensor and, Presto! You have an image off a Canon sensor. Which is which, people will struggle to tell after you've been through PP with them.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 23, 2015)

dilbert said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > psolberg said:
> ...



Had canon released 42.4MP the would have been able to say "the most megapixels in a DSLR" too. 

Maybe marketing won at Canon, but drawing the conclusion that Canon Marketing trumped Canon Engineering while Sony Engineering trumped Sony Marketing because the product Canon Engineering produced differs from the product Sony Engineering produced is silly. Even if they had the same design parameters (4K video), it's silly to assume that different solutions means different management direction.


----------



## Oneand0 (Jun 24, 2015)

Sony did it!!! Did it again! Should I wait a little longer to see if Canon can catch up now......NAHHH ;D


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 24, 2015)

Oneand0 said:


> Sony did it!!! Did it again! Should I wait a little longer to see if Canon can catch up now......NAHHH ;D



Did what, exactly? They have a new sensor that seems to be pretty nice, but how well does the whole package work? Is it worth selling all my Canon kit at a loss to buy? Eh, probably not.

Competition is good, though, and I hope Sony makes a lot a happy customers. It'll be a while before I become one of them.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 24, 2015)

Oneand0 said:


> Sony did it!!! Did it again! Should I wait a little longer to see if Canon can catch up now......NAHHH ;D



I would first work on moving out of my parents' basement and letting go of the Tyco train set...THEN buy a camera and lens.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 24, 2015)

Ok, on a more serious note: I've had enough pros and cons. Who's getting one??


----------



## Oneand0 (Jun 24, 2015)

On a serious note, I use my 6D for landscape and use my 7DII for video (manual focus on both). Sony A7r II is a dream come true for me. I'm very pleased and very happy with the shots I have in the link below as a hobbyist photographer, using my 7D, 6D and 7DII. Great experience with Canon, but the technology I have been waiting for finally arrived in the A7r II (not speaking for anyone else). I can read that a lot of Canon people have spoken for themselves on this forum and made the same conclusion over and over again. I also agree with people who are sticking with Canon because they don't want, or feel they don't need the newer technology Sony has come up with because they listen to their customers. I'll go the other way now and improve what I do with a better sensor and 4K video, capturing scenes that mean a lot to me. I have rented an a7s and feel comfortable to know that style is a fit for me.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 24, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> Ok, on a more serious note: I've had enough pros and cons. Who's getting one??


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 24, 2015)

Oneand0 said:


> I also agree with people who are sticking with Canon because they don't want, or feel they don't need the newer technology Sony has come up with because they listen to their customers.



So the implication is that Canon _doesn't_ listen to their customers? Unlikely.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 24, 2015)

Oneand0 said:


> newer technology Sony has come up with because they listen to their customers.


There are different customer groups with different needs. Sony listens to some, Canon to others. So far Canon has more customers. That doesn't mean there's no room for improvement on the Canon side (there certainly is); however, it's completely unjustified to imply that Canon doesn't listen to a large customer base.


----------



## Rahul (Jun 24, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> Oneand0 said:
> 
> 
> > newer technology Sony has come up with because they listen to their customers.
> ...



In the myopic CR forum space, the fact that Canon doesn't cater to the demands of particular posters by giving them the camera they want MUST mean that Canon doesn't listen to the the customers  

The fact that most "such" posters are more gearheads first and photographers second be damned.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 24, 2015)

dilbert said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



dilbert, you are so uneducated it is equal parts annoying and comical.

This was well covered by the camera media back in 2010.

120MP at 9.5 frames per second. http://www.canon.com/news/2010/aug24e.html


----------



## scyrene (Jun 24, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> Ok, on a more serious note: I've had enough pros and cons. Who's getting one??



Nope. Unless I come into some money! My next camera will probably be the 5Ds, and maybe that new Sony midrange zoom with the high fps video.


----------



## raptor3x (Jun 24, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



Just because they can manufacture an engineering prototype doesn't necessarily mean that they would be able to bring that to market. I find myself wondering how much of Canon's crippling of their cameras (no 4K yet in consumer DSLRs, not counting 1DC; no raw stills in the XC10) comes from internal strife between the video and stills divisions.


----------



## LOALTD (Jun 24, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> Ok, on a more serious note: I've had enough pros and cons. Who's getting one??




Still holding out for the A7S II over here.


Hoping for:
Non-compressed RAW
Tweaked IBIS: I've heard the current system isn't all that great for video use, and not anywhere near as smooth as the IBIS in Olympus bodies.


I'd also rather have uber-ISO over high-megapixel for the type of stuff I like to shoot: nightscapes, alpine climbing, drunk people at bars, etc.


----------



## vscd (Jun 26, 2015)

...just wait for a new Canon-Sensorgeneration (ok, takes some more time than wished by now). If the DR will be equal or way beyond, what remains on Sony? Right. Nothing


----------



## fragilesi (Jun 26, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Sony have been quite explicit about why: they started with the requirements for 4K video and worked from that. That's engineering driven decision making rather than thinking "what's the best we can do?" or "what can we get if we upsize our APS-C (54MP)", etc which would be more marketing driven (will we have more or less megapixels than someone else?)



Hands up who wouldn't vote for "what's the best we can do?" . . .


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 26, 2015)

fragilesi said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Sony have been quite explicit about why: they started with the requirements for 4K video and worked from that. That's engineering driven decision making rather than thinking "what's the best we can do?" or "what can we get if we upsize our APS-C (54MP)", etc which would be more marketing driven (will we have more or less megapixels than someone else?)
> ...



Old engineering saying:

"Better is the enemy of good enough."


----------



## kanehi (Jun 28, 2015)

Doesn't Samsung has this type of sensor already?


----------



## rs (Jun 28, 2015)

kanehi said:


> Doesn't Samsung has this type of sensor already?


Samsung do make BSI sensors, as do many others. What is unique about this BSI sensor from Sony is it is FF.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 28, 2015)

rs said:


> kanehi said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't Samsung has this type of sensor already?
> ...


If you scale the Samsung NX1 (APS-C) sensor to full frame then it would be 64MP.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 28, 2015)

dilbert said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Has don't explained why a camera that records 4k internally and 42MP stills only has USB2? 

Zomg crippled


----------



## that1guyy (Jun 28, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



Can you explain why usb 2 will be inferior on this camera to USB 3? I understand that USB3 is faster but what benefits do you think you will get?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 28, 2015)

that1guyy said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Faster transfer from UHS-I max read speed (about double USB2 bandwidth). 4k clips could be massive. Also, the camera supports charging via USB, and could charge faster over USB3 than USB2.

Mainly I just get a kick out of mimicking the folks who label as crippled any and everything which is less than state of the art. I have no doubt that had the 5DS/R shipped with USB2, people would have added that spec to the "crippled" pile.


----------

