# Sony A7R on DXO - Highest full frame IQ ever



## Ricku (Oct 31, 2013)

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1339351

DxOmark just published the full Sony A7r sensor test. And according to their measuresand ranking system the camera scores the same points as the Nikon D800-D800E (and that for $500 less). And it literally kicks the Canon5DIII in the butt.

*This is what DxO writes about the A7r:*

“Although we can’t provide any commentary on image sharpness at this stage in our tests, the sensor in the Sony Alpha 7R performs exceptionally and is on a par with that found in the D800 models. Given the Sony’s small size, low weight and outstanding sensor performance, it’s one of the most intriguing and compelling new additions in recent times.”







Source: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1339351

Well played Sony! And thanks to the wonderful metabones adapter, I guess we could say that this really is the "Canon body" we have been waiting for.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Oct 31, 2013)

Ok, I'll be the first one to jump in. DxOMark. Ugh. 

While some of their measurements are meaningful to me, the whole 'rescale to 8MP' for most of the measurements of the sensor is just...WTF?! Anyway...good for the bits that are useful.


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 31, 2013)

There's more to a camera than its sensor, check out The Phoblographer's list of complaints about this camera:
http://www.thephoblographer.com/2013/10/30/finding-wrong-sony-a7-a7r-far/

I'd rather than 90% (or whatever percent is appropriate) the IQ 99% of the time vs. technically great stills that are out of focus, missed, underexposed, etc. most of the time.


----------



## J.R. (Oct 31, 2013)

The sensor is great all right. We know that since Nikon has (almost) the same sensor in the D800. 

The question here is, great IQ with what lenses? Only two (rather slow) native lenses to speak of and don't get me started on adapters. Even DxO with its myopic "scores" came out with an ultimate assessment that the IQ even with a great sensor will only be as good as the lens you put in front of the camera. 

Will this go the way of the D800? With a number of compromises made just for a smaller body, I guess it will sell worse. (People who have wanted the extra MP / DR have already switched to Nikon while those on the DR / MP hobby horse can be found trolling in the CR space) 

BTW, I've read that there is no confirmation Sony has microlenses to adjust for the problems with the short flange distance with wide lenses that lead to side to side color problems? Leica does this in its cameras but what about Sony?


----------



## mountain_drew (Oct 31, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> There's more to a camera than its sensor, check out The Phoblographer's list of complaints about this camera:
> http://www.thephoblographer.com/2013/10/30/finding-wrong-sony-a7-a7r-far/
> 
> I'd rather than 90% (or whatever percent is appropriate) the IQ 99% of the time vs. technically great stills that are out of focus, missed, underexposed, etc. most of the time.


Yes, these are points that are weak in the A7r. But the sensor is Canon's weakness and they should try to improve it. It seems really hard from Canon lovers to recognize problems without trying to find faults in competitors. Yes, Canon's great, but they can be greater.


----------



## duydaniel (Oct 31, 2013)

I hope the new Nikon DF will have 36 mp sensor with Expeed 4


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 31, 2013)

mountain_drew said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > There's more to a camera than its sensor, check out The Phoblographer's list of complaints about this camera:
> ...


I hear you, but I think the sensor plays a smaller role in the final image than most people think (where post-processing plays such a huge role). If it didn't why would any (un-sponsored) pro shoot with Canon? If dynamic range and color depth were so critical wouldn't it be obvious which camera was used to shoot a landscape or portrait? When I flip through National Geographic, which is probably the purest in terms of post-processing, I can't tell you if it was a Nikon, Canon, or Hasselblad, and neither can anyone else. At least not by looking at the photos alone.

I think DxOMark is a good resource, particularly for lenses, but just about any current DSLR can give you amazing results suitable for publication or exhibition.


----------



## zlatko (Oct 31, 2013)

Ricku said:


> DxOmark just published the full Sony A7r sensor test. And according to their measuresand ranking system the camera scores the same points as the Nikon D800-D800E (and that for $500 less). And it literally kicks the Canon5DIII in the butt.



I have thousands of images from the D800 and from the 5D3, and there is no butt-kicking happening in either direction. While both do a fine job, for me and my work the disadvantages of the D800 outweigh the advantages.

DxO charts are interesting if you are just buying a sensor. But photographers evaluate photos and usability for their tasks more than sensor charts. The sensor is the least interesting thing about the A7/A7r, which looks to be a very interesting camera otherwise.

The (mostly) anonymous online complaints about Canon's sensors don't stop anyone from making absolutely awesome photos with Canon's sensors in a great variety of circumstances. This is proven day after day by thousands of photographers, including some of the best in the business. When I hear about or meet a photographer whose work I've admired for decades and their main camera today is the 5D3, that tells me a lot more than anonymous complaints on the Internet.


----------



## chilledXpress (Oct 31, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> There's more to a camera than its sensor, check out The Phoblographer's list of complaints about this camera:
> http://www.thephoblographer.com/2013/10/30/finding-wrong-sony-a7-a7r-far/
> 
> I'd rather than 90% (or whatever percent is appropriate) the IQ 99% of the time vs. technically great stills that are out of focus, missed, underexposed, etc. most of the time.



Interesting, when the X100S came out I was at a point where I was looking for a small carry camera with high quality image possibility. At the time the OM-D EM-5 was the strongest competitor I was also interested in. I got to use a couple from our camera club for about a month... It's almost like The Phoblographer's review of the A7r's could be applied to the Oly. In the end I decided that what I needed was good IQ and a smaller package, if I was shooting sports I wouldn't be using a "small carry" camera anyways. The X100S is by no means perfect but it nails focus most of the time although not as fast as the Oly. It didn't really matter if the Oly was faster in the AF department if it was always a little "off" focus.I've been looking at this A7/r since hearing about it... my hope now is that Fuji and Canon have a bit more fire put to their arses and get cracking with FF answers to Sony. Love the Fuji but if they had a faster AF and a FF offering ILC... damn... I'm ready put me in coach!!!


----------



## chilledXpress (Oct 31, 2013)

zlatko said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > DxOmark just published the full Sony A7r sensor test. And according to their measuresand ranking system the camera scores the same points as the Nikon D800-D800E (and that for $500 less). And it literally kicks the Canon5DIII in the butt.
> ...



Indeed, I don't give a shite about absolute perfection in sensors or DR. I run a portrait business... and often speak with other colleagues doing the same. Not once has anyone cared about whether you shoot Canon, Nikon, or whatever. It's always more about how the gear performs in the field and if it's more of a hindrance or asset. Todays offerings from the camera world will more than cover the needs of most in the IQ department... missed focus and poor metering though will be a hindrance any day of the week.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 31, 2013)

I'd like one in EF mount please. :


----------



## iron-t (Oct 31, 2013)

The A7R is very intriguing. Before I moved to Canon DSLRs I was on Micro 4/3 and this looks a lot like shoehorning a double-size sensor with similar pixel density into a similar body. The problems are the same, though: contrast detect autofocus, while potentially extremely accurate and quite fast for static subjects, is abysmal with moving subjects. This is the whole reason for development of on-sensor phase detection, which the A7R does not have.

When Canon rolls out a new hi-res sensor in a traditional (big) DSLR frame with excellent AI Servo, those who jumped on the A7R might be sad. Even though the A7R body is small, its full-frame lenses will be big, cancelling its size advantage. For now, I'm more than happy with a 5D3.


----------



## dolina (Oct 31, 2013)

Looking forward to the successor to the 5D Mark III, 1DX and 7D


----------



## zlatko (Oct 31, 2013)

chilledXpress said:


> Indeed, I don't give a shite about absolute perfection in sensors or DR. I run a portrait business... and often speak with other colleagues doing the same. Not once has anyone cared about whether you shoot Canon, Nikon, or whatever. It's always more about how the gear performs in the field and if it's more of a hindrance or asset. Todays offerings from the camera world will more than cover the needs of most in the IQ department... missed focus and poor metering though will be a hindrance any day of the week.


Well said. IQ is generally very high today and some measured difference at certain ISOs is not that special. Too many other factors come into play when making photographs.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 31, 2013)

zlatko said:


> chilledXpress said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed, I don't give a shite about absolute perfection in sensors or DR. I run a portrait business... and often speak with other colleagues doing the same. Not once has anyone cared about whether you shoot Canon, Nikon, or whatever. It's always more about how the gear performs in the field and if it's more of a hindrance or asset. Todays offerings from the camera world will more than cover the needs of most in the IQ department... missed focus and poor metering though will be a hindrance any day of the week.
> ...


+1
Nobody cares what the dynamic range and IQ is of an out of focus picture....


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 31, 2013)

Doesn't a score of 96 beat a score of 95?


----------



## Ruined (Oct 31, 2013)

If one thinks sensor performance is the primary performance indicator of how good a camera's pictures will look, I shutter to think of the quality of that individual's photos!


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 31, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Doesn't a score of 96 beat a score of 95?


Yes, the question mark is missing - here's DxO's title: Sony Alpha 7R review: Highest ever full-frame image quality?


----------



## Superka (Oct 31, 2013)

DxO charts are really funny. They doesn't tell one of the major thing - color reproduction. Useless charts without this.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 31, 2013)

Drizzt321 said:


> Ok, I'll be the first one to jump in. DxOMark. Ugh.
> 
> While some of their measurements are meaningful to me, the whole 'rescale to 8MP' for most of the measurements of the sensor is just...WTF?! Anyway...good for the bits that are useful.



The rescale is not WTF in the slightest, it doesn't even matter what they rescale it to so long as to the same count for all bodies. It's just normalization. It's the only sensible and fair way to compare across bodies.... but if you think some old 4MP body is cleaner than an 18MP 1DX then go ahead and be my guest and don't bother with any tests that do normalization .


----------



## bchernicoff (Oct 31, 2013)

I am not impressed by the sample images I've seen. I don't know if it's just bad in-camera processing or what. Take a look at this sample picture...click on the Original and look at the blond hairs on the horse as well as the brown hair on the forehead: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/2736804/dsc00045?inalbum=sony-alpha-7r-samples-gallery


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 31, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> There's more to a camera than its sensor, check out The Phoblographer's list of complaints about this camera:
> http://www.thephoblographer.com/2013/10/30/finding-wrong-sony-a7-a7r-far/
> 
> I'd rather than 90% (or whatever percent is appropriate) the IQ 99% of the time vs. technically great stills that are out of focus, missed, underexposed, etc. most of the time.



Yes and that of course makes it more restrictive than if Canon could just put such a sensor in a 5D4 or 1DX2 or whatnot, but it least we now have an option for all the landscape type work where you can just focus by liveview zoomed mode and none of those complaints matter a whit. For a 5D3/1DX this won't replace those cameras but just be in supplement to get the MP and vastly better low ISO DR.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 31, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> mountain_drew said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



That doesn't say anything at all. Of course you can't tell because the images that don't work out they don't publish!

And since there always other shots one can take that need less DR of course you can use a lesser sensor and still produce enough good shots but that doesn't mean that those shooting the lower DR sensors are not having to give up potentially really cool shots here and there all the time.

Anyway, at least for stuff where you can do liveview manual focusing we in the Canon world can now escape Canon's tiresome milking of decade old sensor tech and just nab a Sony and an adapter.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 31, 2013)

chilledXpress said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Ricku said:
> ...



Yeah but did ever think that not everyone is in the studio portrait business where you can control the lighting exactly as you wish???


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 31, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > chilledXpress said:
> ...



-1
what about all the landscape stuff where you can use a tripod and liveview AF? if you are using a T&S lens for them you'd already be doing that anyway

but i guess it is a bad and useless thing to be able to get around the sensor limitations for some scenarios and still be able to use canon glass : if canon isn't printed on it somewhere it's useless trash right? :


----------



## Drizzt321 (Oct 31, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, I'll be the first one to jump in. DxOMark. Ugh.
> ...



Well, I understand the normalization is important for some kinds of comparisons, but from my basic understanding (could be wrong) of how DxO does some of their scoring, things like Noise & Dynamic Range tend to prefer higher MPx sensors because when you down-scale those, with a good algorithm, move in a positive direction. But that isn't necessarily the true measure of the sensor, and while lots of us do shoot and down-scale for the web, many don't and for big prints we use the full resolution image. Now, I'll grant you, it'd be hard to design a good, scientific & repeatable test for many of the things they use the re-scaled images for (hmmm...do they keep using the exact same rescaling code every time? or do they keep using newer algorithms/code in, say, PS?), but surely the really smart people at DxO could come up with some other means that also makes sense.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Oct 31, 2013)

I'm interested to find out how many people in this forum and elsewhere are going to be getting this body specifically to shoot landscape with their Canon glass? 

My second question is, how many of you in here will be taking photos on a regular basis where the extra 2.7 stops of DR will make or break your capture?

Just curious.


----------



## Skulker (Oct 31, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Anyway, at least for stuff where you can do liveview manual focusing we in the Canon world can now escape Canon's tiresome milking of decade old sensor tech and just nab a Sony and an adapter.




If you really feel like that, and I'm sure you do, why don't you do just that? What is it that makes you feel the need to make such comments?

Your comments are so obviously heart felt and it seems to matter so much to you. You seem to believe that Canon are such a poor company to buy from I just can't get my head around why it matters so much to you.


----------



## zlatko (Oct 31, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > zlatko said:
> ...



Every camera in the world has sensor limitations. Knowing and working with sensor limitations is a part photography, no matter what camera you are using. Ansel Adams frequently wrote about sensor limitations.


----------



## Pi (Oct 31, 2013)

Drizzt321 said:


> Ok, I'll be the first one to jump in. DxOMark. Ugh.
> 
> While some of their measurements are meaningful to me, the whole 'rescale to 8MP' for most of the measurements of the sensor is just...WTF?! Anyway...good for the bits that are useful.



This does not mean that they actually resize to 8mp, they just use as a base to report the results. Like choosing mm or feet, etc.


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 1, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn, you're awfully grumpy today. I understand that you want better DR and such, and yes, Canon is behind Sony (and by virtue, Nikon) in sensor tech, but my point is that DxO's measurements would make you believe that the 5DIII and 1DX are absolute garbage when in fact a huge number of commercial shots are produced with them. Even Nikon's main man, Thom Hogan is making a similar point in his latest blog post:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-full-frame-debate.html


----------



## Apop (Nov 1, 2013)

J.R. said:


> The sensor is great all right. We know that since Nikon has (almost) the same sensor in the D800.
> 
> The question here is, great IQ with what lenses? Only two (rather slow) native lenses to speak of and don't get me started on adapters. Even DxO with its myopic "scores" came out with an ultimate assessment that the IQ even with a great sensor will only be as good as the lens you put in front of the camera.
> 
> ...



But with a metabones smart adapter you can best of both worlds , a7r sensor+canon glass (even though AF is gonna be slow).
An a7r ,35 2.8 , metabones adapter, and grip sounds like a pretty nice addition for someone with canon bodies/glass wanting that sensor performance in such a compact housing.

Actually, most of those a7r sales are probably gonna be canon users wanting 36mp in a compact body.
I am wondering who sony is targeting with the a7r, an a7r with 2 lenses seems pretty pricy for a family, especially with all those phones around.


If I was new on the market , I would not invest in sony ( lets say an a7 and couple of those new lenses)
The lenses are smaller, hence slower, but surprisingly I find them rather expensive.
The same goes if you intend to use sony's adapter to use a mount lenses, you do get the a77 AF capabilites (which is build into the adapter), but again quite expensive ( especially 300 2.8 and 500 f4 compared to others).


----------



## MichaelHodges (Nov 1, 2013)

Canon is getting trounced in IQ, period. I can say that without my upper lip quivering or my eyes moistening, because I did not exchange vows with the gear when I ordered it.

There's no question it's getting harder and harder to sit and watch these stunning sensor made available as Canon spins tires.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Nov 1, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> just about any current DSLR can give you amazing results suitable for publication or exhibition.



One can apply this logical fallacy to almost any technical discussion. But what we are talking about here is the specific aspects of the new Sony sensors that apparently makes them superior to the rest.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Nov 1, 2013)

zlatko said:


> The (mostly) anonymous online complaints about Canon's sensors don't stop anyone from making absolutely awesome photos with Canon's sensors in a great variety of circumstances. This is proven day after day by thousands of photographers, including some of the best in the business. When I hear about or meet a photographer whose work I've admired for decades and their main camera today is the 5D3, that tells me a lot more than anonymous complaints on the Internet.



No offense, but this paragraph doesn't really say anything at all.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Nov 1, 2013)

YAWN... it´s basically the same sensor so who had thought otherwise?
i mean it´s not as if this is a suprise. 

david noton is shooting with canon... after the the D800 was released i asked him if he is switching back to nikon. i mean as a professionell landscape shooter you must have the D800 or your nothing.. right?

his answer was short: no.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Nov 1, 2013)

MichaelHodges said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > The (mostly) anonymous online complaints about Canon's sensors don't stop anyone from making absolutely awesome photos with Canon's sensors in a great variety of circumstances. This is proven day after day by thousands of photographers, including some of the best in the business. When I hear about or meet a photographer whose work I've admired for decades and their main camera today is the 5D3, that tells me a lot more than anonymous complaints on the Internet.
> ...



then it is in line with most stuff writen here about DR and sensor performance....


----------



## EchoLocation (Nov 1, 2013)

people can make as many excuses or give as many reasons as they want why these results don't matter.
the fact is, if this score was had by a Canon camera, people here would be doing backflips and high fives for weeks.
end of story.


----------



## Woody (Nov 1, 2013)

I am wondering if we'll ever see DR and other sensor improvements in Canon DSLR sensors. In Canon's latest financial report (Oct 2013), they indicate they are continuing their crusade for cost cutting. As far as I know, the only way to improve their sensor performance is to shift to new silicon processes that require new machines. If they want to cut down on operational costs, they will probably be very reluctant to make this change.

Sigh.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 1, 2013)

Ricku said:


> http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1339351
> 
> DxOmark just published the full Sony A7r sensor test. And according to their measuresand ranking system the camera scores the same points as the Nikon D800-D800E (and that for $500 less). And it literally kicks the Canon5DIII in the butt.
> 
> ...


 
You seem to be confused. DXO does not rate the IQ of the camera, they do not even take a photo or mount a lens for this test. All they did was test the sensor without a lens. 

At least DPR tests the camera, not just a sensor. DXO tests the sensor but gives the camera a rating when the images might be horrible, or it might have some really nasty flaws.


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 1, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> LetTheRightLensIn, you're awfully grumpy today. I understand that you want better DR and such, and yes, Canon is behind Sony (and by virtue, Nikon) in sensor tech, but my point is that DxO's measurements would make you believe that the 5DIII and 1DX are absolute garbage when in fact a huge number of commercial shots are produced with them. Even Nikon's main man, Thom Hogan is making a similar point in his latest blog post:
> http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-full-frame-debate.html



I read the first, what felt like 3000 words of that review. It just seems like he's biased against Nikon full frame sensors, but he seems to be leaving out a lot. I don't feel like wasting my time reading the rest of it.

If this is Nikon's "main man", then something is very very wrong over there. Do they mold their handgrips after him? He must be 6'8'' tall...

And what's up with my earlier post in this thread getting deleted?


----------



## Lawliet (Nov 1, 2013)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> I'm interested to find out how many people in this forum and elsewhere are going to be getting this body specifically to shoot landscape with their Canon glass?



Not exactly landscape, think more fashion, celeb, glamour and such - but perhaps as a low investment backup/plethora of lenses available alternative to the 645+/IQ2. Lets see how well the nice stats and bullet points translate into actual usage...


----------



## Aglet (Nov 1, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Nobody cares what the dynamic range and IQ is of an out of focus picture....



FWIW, OOF image reduces DR. A useful technique to use if your DR-limited camera can't handle the scene, make an artfully OOF abstract of it.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Nov 1, 2013)

I want to be convinced. It has yet to happen. I would love nothing more than to gather enough data to be convinced that I should in fact lay down my hard earned cheese for the new Sony body. 

All I have seen throughout all these threads are people that either have no experience with the Sony sensor, or do via the d800/e but have yet to show samples of anything that exhibits a quality that cannot be had with a dslr from any other company. 

I just had a buddy of mine send me a few raw files out of his d800 that were under exposed ISO 100 shots. I will say, what is immediately noticeable is that I definitely had more latitude in bringing out details from the shadows. Was it enough to make me switch? No. Nice to have? Yes. But that 2.7 stops of additional DR doesn't make a significant enough difference to the overall look of images for me to be able to immediately notice that the image came out of a Nikon as opposed to a canon or any other body. What it would equate to in actual usage for me is that I now have more room for error and I don't have to bracket or do HDR in some situations. Not enough for me to constantly cry on the Internet about how the company I have invested in sucks so badly. 

This is not to say that there are not people out there that could use maximum resolution and DR. But my suspicion is that many of the people in here as well as the average photog doesn't need it as much as they think they do. 

These conversations remind me a lot of listening to a group of overweight cyclists talking about how the set of $2k wheels that shave 4 ounces are so much more awesome than xyz.


----------



## zlatko (Nov 1, 2013)

MichaelHodges said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > The (mostly) anonymous online complaints about Canon's sensors don't stop anyone from making absolutely awesome photos with Canon's sensors in a great variety of circumstances. This is proven day after day by thousands of photographers, including some of the best in the business. When I hear about or meet a photographer whose work I've admired for decades and their main camera today is the 5D3, that tells me a lot more than anonymous complaints on the Internet.
> ...



Then you must not have read it. It counters your claims that:


"Canon is getting trounced in IQ, period."
"There's no question it's getting harder and harder to sit and watch these stunning sensor made available as Canon spins tires."

Many skilled photographers are doing just fine with Canon, including some of the best in photography. They can choose any camera but prefer Canon. When you weigh their commercial, editorial, photojournalistic and artistic photography against the posts of sensor critics, it turns out that the sensor critics aren't saying much at all. 

You see, for sensor critics, dynamic range is _everything_. By their standards, it would have been irrational to choose a film like Ektachrome or Velvia over, say, Kodak Gold 200 with its superior 15 stops of DR. Indeed, sensor critics might have shaken their heads at Steve McCurry for ever shooting anything with Kodachrome with its inferior DR. And they might have wondered why Ansel Adams bothered writing a whole book on how to deal with various sensor limitations when he could just have used the stunning Gold 200 and been done!


----------



## zlatko (Nov 1, 2013)

Lichtgestalt said:


> david noton is shooting with canon... after the the D800 was released i asked him if he is switching back to nikon. i mean as a professionell landscape shooter you must have the D800 or your nothing.. right?
> 
> his answer was short: no.



What?! How is that possible? Doesn't he know about the sensor? Doesn't he listen to the sensor critics?


----------



## J.R. (Nov 1, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn, you're awfully grumpy today. I understand that you want better DR and such, and yes, Canon is behind Sony (and by virtue, Nikon) in sensor tech, but my point is that DxO's measurements would make you believe that the 5DIII and 1DX are absolute garbage when in fact a huge number of commercial shots are produced with them. Even Nikon's main man, Thom Hogan is making a similar point in his latest blog post:
> ...



Thom Hogan is primarily a Nikon shooter and is usually one of the least biased that I have read - note that he does not usually comment on anything regarding Canon cameras which is why probably he is hardly ever mentioned on CR.


----------



## J.R. (Nov 1, 2013)

EchoLocation said:


> people can make as many excuses or give as many reasons as they want why these results don't matter.
> the fact is, if this score was had by a Canon camera, people here would be doing backflips and high fives for weeks.
> end of story.



Of course they would  but then the sensor alone does not make a camera and the sum total of Canon's *system *(even with the inferior sensor) is better than the competition.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 1, 2013)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> I want to be convinced. It has yet to happen. I would love nothing more than to gather enough data to be convinced that I should in fact lay down my hard earned cheese for the new Sony body.
> 
> All I have seen throughout all these threads are people that either have no experience with the Sony sensor, or do via the d800/e but have yet to show samples of anything that exhibits a quality that cannot be had with a dslr from any other company.



My tiny RX1 would kick 5D III A** in still shooting...PERIOD.

How often you hear people talk crap about a product that they haven't touch?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 1, 2013)

J.R. said:


> The sensor is great all right. We know that since Nikon has (almost) the same sensor in the D800.
> 
> The question here is, great IQ with what lenses? Only two (rather slow) native lenses to speak of and don't get me started on adapters. Even DxO with its myopic "scores" came out with an ultimate assessment that the IQ even with a great sensor will only be as good as the lens you put in front of the camera.
> 
> ...


I totally agree ... its always amusing when people come up with comments such as "this totally kicks Canon butt" or whatever just because Sony announced 2 mirrorless full cameras with limited lenses ... hello uninformed folk, Canon has a whole eco system that is far beyond anything Sony has ... and what people forget is that Sony has a long history of abandoning entire product lines for better profits (and yet they still run in losses). If this Sony full frame mirrorless camera is good I might eventually buy it., but not because of some DxO scores but because of real world examples and feedback from people who have used it and maybe renting or borrowing it from someone and determining if it fits my needs


----------



## J.R. (Nov 1, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> JohnDizzo15 said:
> 
> 
> > I want to be convinced. It has yet to happen. I would love nothing more than to gather enough data to be convinced that I should in fact lay down my hard earned cheese for the new Sony body.
> ...



Not everyone has the money or the inclination to buy and shoot with a fixed lens FF. That said, I doubt whether given two comparable images one would be able to tell which image is from which camera.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Nov 1, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > JohnDizzo15 said:
> ...



Exactly my thoughts and point that I was trying to get at. 

Every system has it's pros and cons. I think we can all agree that canon is behind on some level with respect to sensor tech. However, I only wanted to point out the fact that there are lots of people in here making big statements about how bad canon is, or how their IQ is being trounced that probably couldn't identify images taken from one system or the other. The sample image provided by Dylan is a perfect example of that.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Nov 1, 2013)

zlatko said:


> Then you must not have read it. It counters your claims that:
> 
> 
> "Canon is getting trounced in IQ, period."
> "There's no question it's getting harder and harder to sit and watch these stunning sensor made available as Canon spins tires."



It didn't counter anything. What you did was provide platitudes in place of specifics. DXO is providing substantial and meaningful specifics with which to engage in modern sensor discussion.




> Many skilled photographers are doing just fine with Canon, including some of the best in photography. They can choose any camera but prefer Canon. You see, for sensor critics, dynamic range is everything. By their standards, it would have been irrational to choose a film like Ektachrome or Velvia over, say, Kodak Gold 200 with its superior 15 stops of DR. Indeed, sensor critics might have shaken their heads at Steve McCurry for ever shooting anything with Kodachrome with its inferior DR. And they might have wondered why Ansel Adams bothered writing a whole book on how to deal with various sensor limitations when he could just have used the stunning Gold 200 and been done!



Oh boy. Now we're into logical fallacies up the wazooo. None of this has anything to do with the actual context of this thread. 

What is it about DXO that you don't buy into? What can Canon do to catch up in sensor technology?


----------



## J.R. (Nov 1, 2013)

MichaelHodges said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > > Then you must not have read it. It counters your claims that:
> ...



Canon getting trounced in IQ? Even DxO doesn't think so and I'm not sure where you are coming from other than your prejudice - 



> Given the somewhat lowly-looking pixel count of the Canon EOS 5D Mark III the potential sharpness is, surprisingly, one feature where the camera exceeds expectations. Providing the camera is matched to specific lens models, sharpness can even exceed the Nikon D800 under certain circumstances (when that camera is used with lesser capable lenses). This is great news if you’re looking to invest in one or own one already. *If you’re a Canon user and are looking to upgrade, or maybe even switch because of the sensor’s perceived lowly capabilities then this should put your mind at rest*.



You can access the entire article here - 

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Which-lenses-should-you-choose-for-your-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-vs.-Nikon-D800-Competition-is-closer-than-expected


----------



## chilledXpress (Nov 1, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> chilledXpress said:
> 
> 
> > zlatko said:
> ...



I have never taken this thing you call a "Landscape", tell me more my liege, it sounds like some type of sorcery. I'm also confused about the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow and the effect coconuts would have on such a beast.

Love the cherry picking and assumptions... Funny that you think all portraits are taken in a studio with perfect lighting. Let's all jump to conclusions and make assumptions just to prove our points. I can see this thread has caused you pain and you are angry. You deserve the best sensor money can buy, sorry you feel so cheated by Canon... it must be terrrrrrible to live with such inferior gear. You should jump right on this A7r, just check out those numbers or the two next to it.

The fallacy is that there is perfect camera out there, the greener grass. I own Sony, Canon, Nikon, Fuji and Leica products. They all have pluses and minuses. They are tools and everyone makes their own decisions about what they need/want. If the perfect sensor is all that matters to you... then every few months dump your current selection, head to DXO and sign up for the newest one on top of the pile. You can then sit in your room, fondle it, take tons of ISO test shots and analyze the results to your hearts desire. That is until the next latest and greatest trashes your precious.


----------



## traveller (Nov 1, 2013)

I find it hilarious that a DXO Mark report that effectively states the new A7R has the same sensor as the (nearly two year old) D800, has reignited the same tired old tirade that we had back then. If you still haven't made up your mind which system to shoot with, you've expended far to much energy worrying! :


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 1, 2013)

traveller said:


> I find it hilarious that a DXO Mark report that effectively states the new A7R has the same sensor as the (nearly two year old) D800, has reignited the same tired old tirade that we had back then. If you still haven't made up your mind which system to shoot with, you've expended far to much energy worrying! :


Good one


----------



## Apop (Nov 1, 2013)

traveller said:


> I find it hilarious that a DXO Mark report that effectively states the new A7R has the same sensor as the (nearly two year old) D800, has reignited the same tired old tirade that we had back then. If you still haven't made up your mind which system to shoot with, you've expended far to much energy worrying! :



Indeed, but I don't really get the debate...
Unlike with Nikon back then, I doubt people even talk about switching to Sony...
For a canon users this actually is such a great development, those that have been dreaming about a canon high mp body, or a FF mirrorless, this is a chance to get it before christmas, only with a sony badge.

I think for us canon users, if we crave for many MP in small body, I think some reviews on how usable the metabones adapter is would be nice( not speedbooster but just adapter), Thecamerastore tv talks about it for a while, downside bulk and slow af, but it seems to work.

As a current 1dmkiv owner, I am kind of deciding between a 5dIII and a7r for the coming trip
The 5dIII is looking like the one to buy and then sell again after the trip (much less expensive than renting)
It is better at pretty much everything but the MP/size. The big downside to the 5dIII is memory card usage when shooting raw video. It will be a nightmare transfering to laptop every day ( like 200-300gigs minimum ).


A7r seems to have 'ok' video capabilities, but not comparable imo to the 5dIII (even though 1080 60p is nice).
More downsides, is that the metabones adapter is like 650 dollars in my country, which actually makes this package more expensive than a 5dIII... ( a7r+2 batteries,grip and adapter = around 3500$, and you don't even get a lens). Still, using it with a 24-70 for landscapes / 70-200 for frozen wildlife could be a joy.

So rationally the sony is less good and more expensive for what i need a camera for.
Still there is something appealing about that sony, maybe blinded by MP.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 1, 2013)

Apop said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > I find it hilarious that a DXO Mark report that effectively states the new A7R has the same sensor as the (nearly two year old) D800, has reignited the same tired old tirade that we had back then. If you still haven't made up your mind which system to shoot with, you've expended far to much energy worrying! :
> ...


Valid points ... but I don't think you are "blinded by MP", coz there is something about this FF Sony mirror less camera ... as long as Sony is committed to this product line (and does not dump it like some of their products lines) and introduces more smaller sized lenses, they have a winner. What gets me about these mirrorless cameras is the rediculous big lenses that are awkward to hold due to their unbalanced weight factor ... I would like to these companies coming out with more pancake lenses for these mirrorless cameras ... something like the size of EF-M 22mm lens would be awesome, I wouldn't mind buying 6 prime lenses of that size to go with the Sony A7r


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2013)

traveller said:


> I find it hilarious that a DXO Mark report that effectively states the new A7R has the same sensor as the (nearly two year old) D800, has reignited the same tired old tirade that we had back then.



Yet despite all the complaints of Canon standing still on sensor development, no one is blasting Sony for having made effectively zero progress in 2 years. 

Oh well, DRoners gonna DRone... :


----------



## zlatko (Nov 1, 2013)

MichaelHodges said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > > Then you must not have read it. It counters your claims that:
> ...



The facts I'm stating may not be substantial and meaningful to you, but they are to the photographers I'm talking about. They choose Canon and work with Canon because it actually works for them, not because of platitudes. It does the job they need to get done, sometimes in very demanding circumstances. They are not worrying about any need to "catch up in sensor technology". To get specific, I'd have to make a very long list of photographers and link to their work. 

If you find logical fallacies in the film analogy, you are welcome to counter them. But I think they are apt. Today's sensor critics would have ranked Kodak Gold 200 well above films like Kodachrome, Ektachrome and Velvia. Kodak Gold 200's score would dominate the DR rankings, and yet somehow that film was not the first choice of the prominent photographers, magazines and publishers of the film era. The point is that dynamic range, while relevant, was generally not the leading criterion for film selection. That remains true when it comes to camera selection in the digital era.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 1, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > JohnDizzo15 said:
> ...



I wouldn't say that JR 

Raw file from RX1 helps ALOT in PP compared to 5D III. Especially the bad metering shots which I got those quite often ;D

I wouldn't buy A7 *IF* the RX1 performs @ ave level.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 1, 2013)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



This photo was taken inside Chuck e Cheese(lighting is not that good), she was riding on of those "rocking car" moving back and forth. Original raw was quite bad, still, the final photo came out in decent shape. 

Bottom line is bigger & better sensor(sony) will help A LOT in PP. Many of us(canon shooter, including me) have hard time accepting it though.


----------



## J.R. (Nov 1, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



I would say that is a fair assessment. The Sony sensors would give you more latitude in post processing. But then, I say speaking of properly exposed and processed images from the cameras. 

BTW, how did you find the metering in the RX1? The copy I tested seemed to unexpose most of the shots by almost a full stop.


----------



## spinworkxroy (Nov 1, 2013)

I never did believe in DXO..I love my 5D3..but unfortunately, it started getting to big and heavy carrying it around with the 24-70II all the time.
Sad to say. i was hoping Canon would release something as good but lighter..i even bought the EOS M.
The last 6mths, i never touched my 5D3 at all and always went for the EOS M instead.
Over the weekend, i finally made the big move..i sold the 5D3, sold all my lenses, all my flashes and pre-ordered the A7R.
Don't get me wrong, i still think the 5D3 is the best camera in the world, it's just not the camera i need.


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 1, 2013)

spinworkxroy said:


> I never did believe in DXO..I love my 5D3..but unfortunately, it started getting to big and heavy carrying it around with the 24-70II all the time.
> Sad to say. i was hoping Canon would release something as good but lighter..i even bought the EOS M.
> The last 6mths, i never touched my 5D3 at all and always went for the EOS M instead.
> Over the weekend, i finally made the big move..i sold the 5D3, sold all my lenses, all my flashes and pre-ordered the A7R.
> Don't get me wrong, i still think the 5D3 is the best camera in the world, it's just not the camera i need.


Wow, that is a big move and if you're using the EOS M that much, I'm sure it was the right one. The gear you actually use is the best gear you can get.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 1, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



JR,
There should be a display button, you can read all info - shutter, aperture, ISO and camera histogram etc...


----------



## zlatko (Nov 1, 2013)

spinworkxroy said:


> I never did believe in DXO..I love my 5D3..but unfortunately, it started getting to big and heavy carrying it around with the 24-70II all the time.
> Sad to say. i was hoping Canon would release something as good but lighter..i even bought the EOS M.
> The last 6mths, i never touched my 5D3 at all and always went for the EOS M instead.
> Over the weekend, i finally made the big move..i sold the 5D3, sold all my lenses, all my flashes and pre-ordered the A7R.
> Don't get me wrong, i still think the 5D3 is the best camera in the world, it's just not the camera i need.


Your post shows why the A7/A7r is so interesting to a lot of photographers. It offers a solution for photographers looking for big camera image quality in a small camera body. We've never before had a full-frame interchangeable lens camera that is this small. And the fact that it can be used with so many different lenses, both autofocus and manual focus, makes it even more interesting.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 1, 2013)

spinworkxroy said:


> I never did believe in DXO..I love my 5D3..but unfortunately, it started getting to big and heavy carrying it around with the 24-70II all the time.
> Sad to say. i was hoping Canon would release something as good but lighter..i even bought the EOS M.
> The last 6mths, i never touched my 5D3 at all and always went for the EOS M instead.
> Over the weekend, i finally made the big move..i sold the 5D3, sold all my lenses, all my flashes and pre-ordered the A7R.Don't get me wrong, i still think the 5D3 is the best camera in the world, it's just not the camera i need.



If you do still shooting, I doubt this move would harm you. I have 2 young kids, therefore, my 5D III + L lenses will cont. to be used next 4-5yrs.

I carry x100s and my wife uses her RX1 when we take the kids out. Yes, I do love the size of those camera.


----------



## DarkKnightNine (Nov 1, 2013)

YES! I'm sure I will be buying a Sony A7 for its compact size and that appeals to me as a carry around camera vs shooting images with my iPhone or carrying around one of my three full sized DSLRs with several lenses. NOT because I think it will produce better images nor will it ever replace my Canons. I own both the 1DX and the 5D Mark III. Both cameras serve me well and produce image quatlity that still to this day never ceases to amaze me. A few weeks ago I shot a concert in an extremely dark venue and for the first time, I allowed my Canons to shoot at 12,800 ISO. Of course there was noise in the images, but I was still blown away at how comparatively clean they were. Canon sensors have been getting a bad rep for not keeping up with the Joneses, but for those of us who shoot professionally, it has not affected our work not one single bit. Both top of the line Canons produce excellent images even at high ISOs. Yes Sony and Nikon can brag about great new sensor technology, but I can brag about great images. At the end of the day, that's what's most important to me and my clients. Canon sensors may not be the shiny new kids on the block, but they get the job done.


----------



## chilledXpress (Nov 1, 2013)

zlatko said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > zlatko said:
> ...



Zlatko, you should give up trying the logic route... I think the point been made succinctly, working professionals give little thought to DXO scores or absolute perfection in the sensor (note: I said little thought... for those already jumping to conclusions).  Rational consideration always wins when your concerned more with your work than your sensor. It's also worth pointing out, in 3-6 months, your camera will be old news and as such completely worthless trash incapable of even posting cat photos to FB. That's when you come to CR to complain about how you got screwed with garbage you bought from big bad Canon. 

Oh... great site Zlatko, your work is superb and your road to pro is impressive. It's a wonder you got that far with such crappy equipment and rotten inferior sensors :


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 1, 2013)

DarkKnightNine said:


> YES! I'm sure I will be buying a Sony A7 for its compact size and that appeals to me as a carry around camera vs shooting images with my iPhone or carrying around one of my three full sized DSLRs with several lenses. NOT because I think it will produce better images nor will it ever replace my Canons. I own both the 1DX and the 5D Mark III. Both cameras serve me well and produce image quatlity that still to this day never ceases to amaze me. A few weeks ago I shot a concert in an extremely dark venue and for the first time, I allowed my Canons to shoot at 12,800 ISO. Of course there was noise in the images, but I was still blown away at how comparatively clean they were. *Canon sensors have been getting a bad rep for not keeping up with the Joneses*, but for those of us who shoot professionally, it has not affected our work not one single bit. Both top of the line Canons produce excellent images even at high ISOs. Yes Sony and Nikon can brag about great new sensor technology, but I can brag about great images. At the end of the day, that's what's most important to me and my clients. Canon sensors may not be the shiny new kids on the block, but they get the job done.




That's only in the low ISO range that people have any complaint about Canon sensors. High ISO is still Canonland. If you look at specs on Sensorgen, above ISO 800 Canon is generally class leading.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 1, 2013)

Drizzt321 said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Drizzt321 said:
> ...



But it does make sense and doesn't favor the higher MP cameras, all it does is PREVENT the favoring of LOW MP cameras. Now sure if you print 60" from the 22MP and like 6" from the 4MP camera and view the prints from the same distance away their normalized scores won't match what you see, but how the heck is that fair? Try printing the 4MP camera to 60" and then compare both, suddenly the overall noise will almost certainly look worse from the 4MP camera because it used older tech and the 'grain' size of the noise will be larger which looks more objectionable to the eye as well. Or print one to 60" and one to 6" but then view the 60" print from much farther back so it looks like a 6" in terms of coverage of the eyes field of view.

And if you carefully downsample the higher MP with advanced algorithms you could even do better than the simple DxO formula, so, if anything, considering that and considering that smaller grains look better and so on, if anything, they are giving a slight disadvantage to the high MP cameras.

How is it fair to compare them at 100% view when the lower MP camera isn't even capable of showing such a much more highly 'magnified' view as the higher MP camera? With the higher MP you could chose more res or better noise or some intermediate.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 1, 2013)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> I'm interested to find out how many people in this forum and elsewhere are going to be getting this body specifically to shoot landscape with their Canon glass?



Once I get money saved up again (wasn't expecting any chance for more DR with my current lenses at this time since Canon surely wasn't releasing anything of the sort and had no clue the Sony was coming) and if Canon has nothing for better DR by next spring when I start shooting more again (entering winter here now) or at least a development announcement for something not too far off that specifically promises much better DR then yes I will nab this Sony then.



> My second question is, how many of you in here will be taking photos on a regular basis where the extra 2.7 stops of DR will make or break your capture?
> 
> Just curious.



Often enough I could use it that I do want more DR. 

(The only reason I, and many to most of the others who want it, it is because of things that happen in the field, contrary to all the nonsense spouted by fanboys who claim it's just indoor lab nonsense. Not everyone will need more all that often, perhaps some never, but certainly man could make use of it, and I'd be willing to be a lot of money, that many who say it's useless and makes no difference and stupid and so on would suddenly find some more shooting opportunities opening up and find it useful at times themselves. I'd also bet a lot of money that at least some of the naysayers would be trumpeting it from every mountain top if Canon had the lead now and a few of those would probably even say ridiculous stuff like Nikons are useless for taking pictures. Although you don't sound like you fall into that latter category at all, you just seem honestly curious.)


----------



## J.R. (Nov 1, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



In all fairness it was a rather hasty test and I was shooting with the OVF. When I ultimately checked the images later, I felt the were unexposed and had to work on them. 

Who knows... Maybe user error


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 1, 2013)

Skulker said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, at least for stuff where you can do liveview manual focusing we in the Canon world can now escape Canon's tiresome milking of decade old sensor tech and just nab a Sony and an adapter.
> ...



What makes ME feel the need? Why don't you ask the people who I was responding to who were trashing the A7R here? I only responded because they were questioning the need and questioning how the A7R could be useful for anyone. So I told them why it could be.

And if Canon has nothing by spring when I start shooting more again (just about winter now and I don't shoot nearly as much during this time) and when I have money possibly free again (wasn't expecting to need any camera body funds at this moment so none saved up) I will and so will others.



> Your comments are so obviously heart felt and it seems to matter so much to you. You seem to believe that Canon are such a poor company to buy from I just can't get my head around why it matters so much to you.



I call it like I see it. The new Sigma 24-105 samples look awful compared even Canon's very average 24-105 never mind their pretty decent 24-70 f/4 IS and superb 24-70 II. And I said so in the other thread. The 24-105 seems like a much better buy to me and the 24-70 f/4 IS can be had at times for not that much more and on the sale prices also seems like a better buy and the if you don't need IS and have the money the 24-70 II sure seems to deliver much better. 

Now that ML has unlocked the actual hardware abilities of 5D3 video I also go around calling that by far the best on any regular DSLR (the C DSLR video is both better and worse at the same time).

I don't need to justify my Canon body purchase and go to extremes to pretend it's the best in every single regard or believe that unless sometimes is that it is useless or something to feel bad about owning. I could make use of more DR and what is the harm in everyone trying to get the point to Canon and trying to get them to stop milking their old tech? What good does it do for any Canon user for Canon marketing to keep telling engineering to stick with milking old tech?

I don't tell people that if they don't see a need for more DR that they need to learn how to shoot as you so often see the fanboys do to those who say they could use more DR. I don't go around telling them to learn how to use a camera and learn how to expose. Or make up tales about DxO is pure rubbish in all regards. And so on.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 1, 2013)

zlatko said:


> Every camera in the world has sensor limitations. Knowing and working with sensor limitations is a part photography, no matter what camera you are using. Ansel Adams frequently wrote about sensor limitations.



Yes, all true. And so?
We know what they are and shoot around them and have fun doing so.

How does that make the A7R useless for everyone? How does that explain why it's sin to like the idea about having more DR and more shooting options open?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 1, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> LetTheRightLensIn, you're awfully grumpy today. I understand that you want better DR and such, and yes, Canon is behind Sony (and by virtue, Nikon) in sensor tech, but my point is that DxO's measurements would make you believe that the 5DIII and 1DX are absolute garbage when in fact a huge number of commercial shots are produced with them. Even Nikon's main man, Thom Hogan is making a similar point in his latest blog post:
> http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-full-frame-debate.html



Most of us on the wanting more DR side of things, constantly say to not bother with the overall scores since they can't be weighted in a way which would make sense to everyone and to just look at the regular charts.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 1, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1339351
> ...



And what horrible IQ disasters have people found with the D800?
Sure there could be some hidden disaster in the A7R, but there also might not be.
Why is it a sin for a Canon user to be glad he has a way to get more DR for some types of shooting while still getting to use his Canon glass and not have to immediately jump into some whole system switch to Nikon at the moment? Is it a sin for a Canon user to own something non-Canon branded?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 1, 2013)

chilledXpress said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > chilledXpress said:
> ...



Wow talk about jumping to conclusions. And just because you happen to never need more DR then of nobody else possibly could and anyone else who might is just some silly poser chasing after every new release or lab monkey who shoots nothing but test charts and black frames all day long or something. Riiiiight. Whatever dude.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 1, 2013)

traveller said:


> I find it hilarious that a DXO Mark report that effectively states the new A7R has the same sensor as the (nearly two year old) D800, has reignited the same tired old tirade that we had back then. If you still haven't made up your mind which system to shoot with, you've expended far to much energy worrying! :



This is not the same thing. The whole point here is that assuming the adapters work out well and don't tilt the lens alignment too much, you don't have to jump into an commit to a full system switch now if you want more DR. You can keep all your Canon lenses and still shoot a 5D3 for RAW video and general AF hungry stills and, if not for everything, at least get more DR for some landscape work.

But some fanboys seem to think it's some dirty sin to use Canon glass on a body not labelled with the Canon brand and then make up all sorts of excuses about how DxO is a joke, or how the desire for more DR just means the photographer stinks and probably doesn't even know how to set an exposure or is just some silly person who shoots test shots in a lab all day and night.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Nov 1, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> JohnDizzo15 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm interested to find out how many people in this forum and elsewhere are going to be getting this body specifically to shoot landscape with their Canon glass?
> ...



You are absolutely correct in your assumption. I am genuinely curious as I will be the first in line to get one after the initial wave of preorder people get theirs in their hands and produce amazing results.

After having processed some D800 files, I'd say that anyone who is incapable of seeing the utility in DR increase (especially combined with low ISO shooting) is lying to themselves. I recognize that there are and will definitely be people that put the Sony sensor to good use. 

My only issue thus far with some of the statements being made are with the forum members that believe Canon IQ is now somehow trounced by the Sony sensor. Based on what I see in the raw files so far, my feeling is that the average user will primarily benefit from the ability to correct for poor exposure as opposed to regularly crafting the absolute best images possible by exposing properly and utilizing every bit of DR available. 

As far as end results go though, I have yet to see any noticeable number of photos around the web that scream "this was made by the new Sony sensor and there was no way it came out of a Canon body." Because of this, I still don't quite understand the reasoning behind when people say Canon is crap and the IQ is thereby so much worse because of the inferior sensors. The proof really is in the pudding which in this case is IQ of the end product...and I have yet to find anything that is easily distinguished from everything else.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Nov 1, 2013)

For what it's worth, here is a before and after of one of the shots I processed. Definitely impressive and would be useful in many instances.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2013)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> For what it's worth, here is a before and after of one of the shots I processed. Definitely impressive and would be useful in many instances.



Interesting exposure choice for the 'before' image. Did you spot meter off the sky in the upper right corner? Or maybe you had another reason for such a severe underexpose...

Thanks to Mikael and Aglet, we've known for quite some time about how useful SoNykon sensors are when you underexpose by several stops. For me, those instances aren't 'many' they're few and far between.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Nov 1, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> JohnDizzo15 said:
> 
> 
> > For what it's worth, here is a before and after of one of the shots I processed. Definitely impressive and would be useful in many instances.
> ...



That shot was actually sent to me from a buddy of mine. Not quite sure why he decided to expose that way. I specifically asked for poorly exposed ISO 100 RAW files so that I could experience first hand how much flexibility I would have in PP with images from the D800 (and compare it to the 5D3 which is what I shoot).

And I tend to agree with you regarding how often there are instances where I would absolutely need this latitude. Although, I can also think of some situations where it would help a lot. None of that ultimately makes for images that are easily set apart from the ones that I am making with my own equipment though assuming I am exposing properly. Sony sensor = more PP latitude (for me). Doesn't necessarily mean it makes my canon images look like poo though.


----------



## chilledXpress (Nov 1, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Every camera in the world has sensor limitations. Knowing and working with sensor limitations is a part photography, no matter what camera you are using. Ansel Adams frequently wrote about sensor limitations.
> ...



You are angry... Love how you resort to calling others fanboys because they have a different opinion than you on the value of a test. I see the problem, you saved all your hard earned pesos and now feel betrayed by Canon because you can't afford anything else. Some of us have multiple brands and don't have to rely on just Canon. We also can rationally think about pluses and minuses on many levels. You should read the posts a little more when you're not ragging with DR constipation. You like the cherry picking other comments and excel at jumping to conclusion on rage induced dyslexia. No one said the A7r was useless. Take a deep a couple deep breathes and try to relax a little. The initial complaint about the A7r was wonky AF and metering. 

Some of us might like a little more DR or god forbid better AF, or some could care very little about DR... Why are different opinions causing you to convulse. Just because you have a personal axe to grind don't take it out on others. You saw DR and immediately jumped in with your axe to attack all ill-perceived naysayers. 

Take your winter vacation from photography, save up some money, threaten any manufacture not living up to your standards with "If they don't... I'm going" and buy anything else you like, nobody cares what you shoot with.


----------



## Skulker (Nov 1, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> What makes ME feel the need? Why don't you ask the people who I was responding to who were trashing the A7R here? I only responded because they were questioning the need and questioning how the A7R could be useful for anyone. So I told them why it could be.



Thanks for the long explanation. I still can't understand how you end up feeling as you do it all seems illogical to me. But of course I fully respect your feelings.

You asked why I wasn't asking my question of those "slagging" the Sony. Its quite simple. Not many of them have used the Sony. So I'm not all that interested in their comments.

I asked you because you seem so intense about you feelings about Canon. If I felt as you appear to I think I would not be using Canon equipment.

I'm interested in how you get to "were you are" because so many people on here seem so intense and I don't understand why they have such intense views.


----------



## Skulker (Nov 1, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Every camera in the world has sensor limitations. Knowing and working with sensor limitations is a part photography, no matter what camera you are using. Ansel Adams frequently wrote about sensor limitations.
> ...



Did he say the A7R was "useless for everyone?" He said "no matter what camera you are using."

Who said it was a sin to like more DR?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2013)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> I specifically asked for poorly exposed ISO 100 RAW files...



Oh, ok then. So it was a planned failure. I try to avoid those, myself.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Nov 1, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> JohnDizzo15 said:
> 
> 
> > I specifically asked for poorly exposed ISO 100 RAW files...
> ...



LOL. As do I. Not always successful though.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2013)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > JohnDizzo15 said:
> ...



True. In the past 20,000 or so images, there was one that I really wanted to keep that needed to be pushed 4 stops because I messed up the exposure. After some very aggressive NR in the shadows, it made a barely acceptable 4x6" print. Of course, that one image was at ISO 3200 to start, by which point the DR advantage of SoNykon sensors would have evaporated.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 1, 2013)

chilledXpress said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > zlatko said:
> ...



No, I call fanboys people who make up stuff about all DxO tests are garbage if a test shows Canon does worse on something and then praise DxO when it shows Canon does better. I call fanboys on people who trash and insult those who wouldn't mind having something Canon isn't the best at now.



> I see the problem, you saved all your hard earned pesos and now feel betrayed by Canon because you can't afford anything else.



Umm what? That doesn't even make sense. I saved up all my money but now I can't afford anything?? 

I'm betrayed by Canon because I can't afford anything else? Huh?? 

And I've been hoping they'd bump up more DR for years.




> Some of us have multiple brands and don't have to rely on just Canon. We also can rationally think about pluses and minuses on many levels. You should read the posts a little more when you're not ragging with DR constipation. You like the cherry picking other comments and excel at jumping to conclusion on rage induced dyslexia. No one said the A7r was useless. Take a deep a couple deep breathes and try to relax a little. The initial complaint about the A7r was wonky AF and metering.



Yeah and then I simply countered that not everyone cares about the AF or wonky metering on the AF, especially not likely Canon users who'd get one, because you don't need that when you are doing tripod based landscape work but for apparently daring to point out that the A7R might be of some use to Canon users and that those other aspects won't matter for those wanting the A7R just to get more MP and more DR for landscape stuff then how I dare I bother to bring up such a thing.

Why the hell is it OK to to post about ow the A7R misses on that this and the other thing but not OK to say that those things won't matter for some for the particular purpose they need it for?

And who is the one who went to insults? You are the one who started going on about how you are such a serious pro and have no need for more DR and that people who do just need to buy the latest thing so they can take more shots of test charts in some lab.




> Some of us might like a little more DR or god forbid better AF, or some could care very little about DR... Why are different opinions causing you to convulse.



I think you need to look in the mirror.



> Just because you have a personal axe to grind don't take it out on others. You saw DR and immediately jumped in with your axe to attack all ill-perceived naysayers.



Yeah sure. More like opposite.

First I jumped in to explain that DxO using normalization made sense and was not a WTF thing as an earlier poster had suggest and then I jumped in with:

"Yes and that of course makes it more restrictive than if Canon could just put such a sensor in a 5D4 or 1DX2 or whatnot, but it least we now have an option for all the landscape type work where you can just focus by liveview zoomed mode and none of those complaints matter a whit. For a 5D3/1DX this won't replace those cameras but just be in supplement to get the MP and vastly better low ISO DR."

And then I get jumped for saying that.

And what about all those who toss of quick insults about learn how to expose you jokers or learn how to shoot to anyone who dares mention a non canon sensor has more DR. Because in some cases people have merely posted results and not even commented and gotten such nonsense trashings here. It's happened too many times to count.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 2, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Ricku said:
> ...


 
No one said anything about it being a sin. Claiming super IQ due to a test that did not test for IQ seems wrong. Its like claiming a car will have great handling because it has a sports car engine. Sony Cameras do not have a great reputation.

As for the D800, I sold mine after a month, and before the big issue with bad AF points on the left side popped up. DXO claimed wonderful High ISO performance for the sensor, but forgot to mention that the DR was rated a ISO 200, and that the 5D MK III has better DR at the very high ISO settings I was using, 12800 and up. I got some horrible high ISO images with the D800. I took about 5,000 images in the 4-6 weeks I had it, it was a nice camera in bright sunlight, but far from great. That's why resale value of the D800 is so low, buyers like me went for the hype.

Then, there was the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8G. It had so much CA that Lightroom could not correct it.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Nov 2, 2013)

I'm giving Canon a year and a half to catch up in low ISO dynamic range.

The low ISO dynamic range exhibited in the Sony sensors would be a gigantic boost to how I shoot. Most of what I film is nature (I'm writing this from a tent in Glacier National Park, where it's below freezing). The ability to expose for sky in landscapes, and raise shadows in post with minimal noise would allow me to not fuss with GND filters in the field. Also, the absolute worst lighting conditions are when shooting wildlife. Underexposure is common when a large mammal retreats into woods or runs. Same for birds in flight. The shadow lifting capabilities of the fantastic Sony sensors would help with back-lit birds. A hunting golden eagle or sprinting grizzly bear or rutting bighorns really don't care if you're ready or not.

Those shooting in a controlled lighting environment such as arenas, sports fields, portrait sessions, etc may not desire this technological advancement. But for nature shooters, it is a tremendous leap forward.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 2, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Claiming super IQ due to a test that did not test for IQ seems wrong. Its like claiming a car will have great handling because it has a sports car engine. Sony Cameras do not have a great reputation.



So a posting about DxO sensor tests doesn't even hint at talk of image quality???

And it's pretty funny that the guy above me accuses me of jumping into this thread and interjecting DR when the very OP of this thread was all about that and actually NOT all about whether it was the best all around body and so on that everyone else DID inject into the thread.



> As for the D800, I sold mine after a month, and before the big issue with bad AF points on the left side popped up. DXO claimed wonderful High ISO performance for the sensor, but forgot to mention that the DR was rated a ISO 200, and that the 5D MK III has better DR at the very high ISO settings I was using, 12800 and up.



Where did they forget that? Look at their plots of DR and it shows 5D3 with a 1/2 stop advantage there (it is true they don't measure banding and maybe that under-emphases the 5D3 advantage a little at ISO12800+ but it also under-emphases the advantage of the D800 at ISO100 to be fair).

The D800 does perform very well at high ISO1600-6400 maybe even 8000 so saying it does well at high iso is hardly a stretch.

Also note that I'm not suggesting that you learn how to expose, learn how to shoot, learn how to shoot only with 'proper' lighting just because you need ultra high iso quality a lot. Yet how often do those who wouldn't mind having more DR at low ISO get told to learn how to expose, learn how to shoot, learn how to stop shooting in 'garbage' lighting. I'm not saying you have done that, but plenty have and plenty who talked about wanting more DR have been driven from the forums.



> I got some horrible high ISO images with the D800. I took about 5,000 images in the 4-6 weeks I had it, it was a nice camera in bright sunlight, but far from great. That's why resale value of the D800 is so low, buyers like me went for the hype.



It depends what your needs are. Nobody said that if you live at ISO12,800 to rush after the D800.



> Then, there was the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8G. It had so much CA that Lightroom could not correct it.



Yeah it does struggle a bit at the edges at 36MP FF density.
Which is also precisely why this A7R is cool, because if the adapter works well, then you get the D800 sensor plus the Canon 24-70 II and 24 T&S II for now and you can put off a decision about switching to Nikon longer perhaps and perhaps by then Canon gets back in the low ISO game fully for those with high demands there. And it puts more pressure on Canon marketing to move forward again instead of milk, milk, milk. On another forum, someone who works at Canon (although not in their DSLR division but apparently has enough contact to know) said they suddenly called a special meeting right after the A7R and adapter were announced.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 2, 2013)

MichaelHodges said:


> I'm giving Canon a year and a half to catch up in low ISO dynamic range.
> 
> The low ISO dynamic range exhibited in the Sony sensors would be a gigantic boost to how I shoot. Most of what I film is nature (I'm writing this from a tent in Glacier National Park, where it's below freezing). The ability to expose for sky in landscapes, and raise shadows in post with minimal noise would allow me to not fuss with GND filters in the field. Also, the absolute worst lighting conditions are when shooting wildlife. Underexposure is common when a large mammal retreats into woods or runs. Same for birds in flight. The shadow lifting capabilities of the fantastic Sony sensors would help with back-lit birds. A hunting golden eagle or sprinting grizzly bear or rutting bighorns really don't care if you're ready or not.
> 
> Those shooting in a controlled lighting environment such as arenas, sports fields, portrait sessions, etc may not desire this technological advancement. But for nature shooters, it is a tremendous leap forward.



exactly!

the A7R at least lets the landscape side of that work out reasonably well for now (assuming the adapters don't toss out how the lens align with the sensor too badly), although I'm not sure it will pull off the wildlife side of things as often, probably just here and there

(even for sports more DR could help at times and certain more MP could for the extra reach)

for now my plans have switched from looking at the 7D2 for spring to the A7R as priority instead (although a Canon announcement by then could change that) and then once with the A7R I'll be willing to give Canon an extra year to get better ISO100 in a reasonably sized body and won't feel quite as rushed to make a switch (although the A7R isn't ideal, it's enough to hold me out longer)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 2, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> > DXO claimed wonderful High ISO performance for the sensor, but forgot to mention that the DR was rated a ISO 200, and that the 5D MK III has better DR at the very high ISO settings I was using, 12800 and up.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did they forget that?



When they base two of their three Subscores solely on performance at base ISO, and use those Biased Subscores (BS) to determine (via an undisclosed weighting) an overall Biased Score (bigger, smellier BS).


----------



## zlatko (Nov 2, 2013)

Skulker said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > zlatko said:
> ...



Thank you Skulker. Exactly right.


----------



## Pi (Nov 2, 2013)

*4 pictures are worth 4,000 words...*

OK, so we are back to our favorite topic - DR. Here are my one thousand words. 

Default settings in LR, no lens correction, ISO 100:






---------
Corrected image, lens correction on, 69% vignetting correction (it is f/10 anyway):




--------
Center crop:




------
Corner crop:


----------



## sanj (Nov 2, 2013)

chilledXpress said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > zlatko said:
> ...



Easy man! You sound rude and biased.


----------



## zlatko (Nov 2, 2013)

chilledXpress said:


> Zlatko, you should give up trying the logic route... I think the point been made succinctly, working professionals give little thought to DXO scores or absolute perfection in the sensor (note: I said little thought... for those already jumping to conclusions).  Rational consideration always wins when your concerned more with your work than your sensor. It's also worth pointing out, in 3-6 months, your camera will be old news and as such completely worthless trash incapable of even posting cat photos to FB. That's when you come to CR to complain about how you got screwed with garbage you bought from big bad Canon.
> 
> Oh... great site Zlatko, your work is superb and your road to pro is impressive. It's a wonder you got that far with such crappy equipment and rotten inferior sensors :


chilledXpress thank you.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 2, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Claiming super IQ due to a test that did not test for IQ seems wrong. Its like claiming a car will have great handling because it has a sports car engine. Sony Cameras do not have a great reputation.
> ...


 
Did you read the title of the Thread??

"Re: Sony A7R on DXO - Highest full frame IQ ever"

What I was pointing out was that they tested the sensor, not the Camera.
You can jump to the conclusion based on the sensor test that it will be wonderful, and that the lenses will be perfect, and all the other things that go into making a great camera are there, but DXO did not show or demonstrate that.
BTW, My D800 started to degrade above ISO 800, and was pretty poor at 8000. 

Here is a properly exposed image at ISO 6400 with NR This kind of performance from a sensor that DXO claims is the best?? Ignoring the noise, much of the detail is long gone. AF wasn't all that great either.
Great performance at ISO 100 does not mean its great at 800 or 6400 either.
Of course, the apologists say, you can downsize to 8mp and it looks great. That's like closing the aperture of a f/1.2 lens to f/8, and saying how great it does... the same as a cheap $100 lens.









And at ISO 1100, where is all that DR. Lighting is not even across the stage, its something that a high DR sensor should handle. Of course, I can do a lot in PP to help it.






I see people posting nice easy shots in bright light where even a camera phone would look good and using them to say how wonderful it is.

To me, the test of a camera is under difficult conditions, and if it does a exceptional job there, its a great camera.


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 2, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> And what horrible IQ disasters have people found with the D800?
> Sure there could be some hidden disaster in the A7R, but there also might not be.
> Why is it a sin for a Canon user to be glad he has a way to get more DR for some types of shooting while still getting to use his Canon glass and not have to immediately jump into some whole system switch to Nikon at the moment? Is it a sin for a Canon user to own something non-Canon branded?




I for one wholly support everyone sticking their Canon lenses on as many different cameras as they can manage. It's actually kind of surprising that Sony doesn't just make an EF mount version of all their cameras, given that they are primarily an electronics company and should pounce on every opportunity to sell their wares.
(Incidentally, if you look at the status of both companies on Wikipedia, Canon is almost as big as Sony. Making me wonder yet again: Why doesn't Canon make Cell Phones?!)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 2, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > > DXO claimed wonderful High ISO performance for the sensor, but forgot to mention that the DR was rated a ISO 200, and that the 5D MK III has better DR at the very high ISO settings I was using, 12800 and up.
> ...




That is why you look at the individual plots. There is no way the overall score could possibly be weighted to satisfy everyone or even most people. Look at the individual plots and find out what you want to find out.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 2, 2013)

zlatko said:


> Skulker said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Well every time someone says they need more DR you just spout off about how this or that pro manages without it and tell everyone to deal and work around it.


----------



## Pi (Nov 2, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> And at ISO 1100, where is all that DR.



In the scene.



> Lighting is not even across the stage, its something that a high DR sensor should handle. Of course, I can do a lot in PP to help it.



That is where high DR sensors help. In this case, ISO 1100, I am not sure that the DR is really higher.


----------



## zlatko (Nov 2, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Every camera in the world has sensor limitations. Knowing and working with sensor limitations is a part photography, no matter what camera you are using. Ansel Adams frequently wrote about sensor limitations.
> ...



Good to hear that you have fun shooting around sensor limitations. As I wrote, it's part of photography, no matter what camera you are using.

The A7/A7r sounds like it is going to be fabulously useful. I think it's a great concept and I'm eager to give it a try. As I wrote, big camera image quality in a small camera body has great appeal for a lot of photographers.

I like the idea of having more DR. No one said it's a "sin" to like the idea of having more. Photographers can always use more of absolutely *everything* in the image-making process. But DR is just one part of image quality, and not the reason I would buy an A7/A7r or the reason I would not buy a Canon. Even when you do get more DR, it is never limitless. Like horsepower in an engine, there is always the potential for more.

Photographers who feel that shadow-lifting in processing is critical for their photos should already have switched to a brand/sensor that makes that a priority. Boosting shadows in processing has never been *that* critical for me; there are too many other factors that go into making a photo. Of course it helps for some photos, and I find my Canon gear quite good for the amount of adjustment that I typically do.

Anyway, whether one uses Canon, Nikon, Sony or other, we have greater ability to boost shadows today than in the film era. In her book "At Work", Annie Leibovitz comments that digital photos have "almost too much information in them."


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 2, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



Yeah and the thread showed data from a test of the sensor, so that's really playing word games to try to imply that the post wasn't about a FF sensor test.



> You can jump to the conclusion based on the sensor test that it will be wonderful, and that the lenses will be perfect, and all the other things that go into making a great camera are there, but DXO did not show or demonstrate that.



Once again who said it was a complete system test??
I mean so it's OK for people to turn a post about the sensor itself into a full system test but then someone talking about the sensor data itself is jumping in out of the blue???

And it's not even about the D800 it's about the A7R where we might well have the option to use our Canon glass.



> BTW, My D800 started to degrade above ISO 800, and was pretty poor at 8000.



Well I haven't seen it degrade at ISO1000 any more than a 5D3 does.
They both degrade a lot compared to ISO100 over ISO800.



> Great performance at ISO 100 does not mean its great at 800 or 6400 either.



Who said it did?
People haven't been getting on Canon much for high iso, it's low iso they have gotten on them for.



> Of course, the apologists say, you can downsize to 8mp and it looks great. That's like closing the aperture of a f/1.2 lens to f/8, and saying how great it does... the same as a cheap $100 lens.



how about this, a lot of Canon L lenses that are super fast, do perform worse at f/1.2 or f/2 or what not than some cheap ones at f/8. So you think it's fair to then say that the fancy fast L prime stinks because it isn't as crisps corner to corner as some f/4 lens manages at f/4 corner to corner? People compare lenses aperture to aperture.

And as I said earlier if you don't believe in normalization then are you going to agree that some old 6MP camera delivers better SNR than an 18MP 1DX? Really? 

If you don't believe in the process of normalization then you better have serious doubts about 90% of the tests out there that have been carried out in just about any field.




> And at ISO 1100, where is all that DR.



Gone.... just as it is with a 5D2 or 5D3 or whatnot too. A 1DX/6D/D3s/D4 will have a little more and that's about it and even with those they don't have nearly as much at ISO1100 as at ISO100 (although in a certain sense the exmors do since you could simply underexpose an ISO100 shot and get ISO1100 SNR quality and retain all the parts that would get clipped if you shot directly at ISO1100, although the way the shades are packed doesn't make it really work out as usefully of course).






> To me, the test of a camera is under difficult conditions, and if it does a exceptional job there, its a great camera.



So why is it OK to shoot under difficult low light conditions and call a camera great if it does 1/2 to 1 stop better but then not OK to shoot under difficult high dynamic range conditions using low ISO and not call a camera great if does 2-3 stops better?

Why is a camera suddenly, universally called great now just because it performs super well for IQ and AF under dark action conditions and why are those conditions are valid test for greatness and yet very tricky dynamic range conditions where slower shutter speeds and thus lower ISO are able to be used is some silly test for fools he sit in the lab all day?

Sounds like you want it both ways and if sometimes fits where Canon does as well or better than it's cool and then if it's something where they are behind then it's a nonsense scenario.


1. it's not fair to compare it left at 36MP to a camera at say 18MP, you need to normalize

2. nobody said the D800 rules at high ISO DR, the D3s,D4,1DX,6D have the best high ISO DR (although the D3s has so much lower res that I'm not sure it delivers an image that feels better than a typical shot from the others or even from the 5D3), that said, until you get into super high ISO the D800 is reasonably same ball park as the best of the rest

3. a half stop measured plus banding differences is OK to point as a HUGE deficit for the D800 and yet a 2-3 stops plus banding differences are no big deal at ISO100? Why? Because one says Canon and one says Nikon? It's fine to knock the D800 for that but heaven forbid anyone mentions the Canons fall way behind at ISO100 for DR.

4. everyone has said the D800 DR advantage is basically ISO100-800, especially ISO100-400


----------



## zlatko (Nov 2, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Skulker said:
> ...



No. I was countering erroneous claims about Canon getting "trounced in IQ" and "spinning its tires", etc. There are far too many excellent photographers doing excellent work with Canon for that to be true. 

Every photographer deals with certain sensor limitations, no matter what brand they are using. Certain sensors are no doubt better for certain applications, but many have found Canon IQ (including sensors) to be excellent for a wide range of applications.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Nov 2, 2013)

> Every photographer deals with certain sensor limitations, no matter what brand they are using.



Logical fallacy. Again.



> [Certain sensors are no doubt better for certain applications, but many have found Canon IQ (including sensors) to be excellent for a wide range of applications.



Platitude. Again.

The context of this thread is not that "Canon makes the worst sensors", but rather that Canon is getting beat in sensor technology.

I know plenty of great photographers who make great photos with Canon gear. But this has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the Sony sensors, from ISO 100-800 are more advanced than Canon's.


----------



## sanj (Nov 2, 2013)

> I know plenty of great photographers who make great photos with Canon gear. But this has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the Sony sensors, from ISO 100-800 are more advanced than Canon's.



Oh goody. Most of my wildlife work is at 800+ ISO so I am then fine?! Yayyy. And if there are DR issues at ISO 100 during my 'serious' landscape shots, I almost always use tripod and merge different exposure layers so I guess I will get by.

But this does not mean that I do not wish that Canon improves its sensors. I have not done my own tests but Internet is filled with complaints about Canon sensor which makes it obvious to me that there is a issue which needs to be addressed by Canon.


----------



## Alrik89 (Nov 2, 2013)

MichaelHodges said:


> The context of this thread is not that "Canon makes the worst sensors", but rather that Canon is getting beat in sensor technology.
> 
> I know plenty of great photographers who make great photos with Canon gear. But this has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the Sony sensors, from ISO 100-800 are more advanced than Canon's.



So what? Canon will release some new sensors some day and they will be more advanced than Sonys sensors.
And then will Sony release new sensors.
And then Canon...

I think you got the idea. 
Only tech-addicted photographers give a krapp about sensors - their clients don't, except they are tech-addicts as well.


----------



## sanj (Nov 2, 2013)

Alrik89 said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > The context of this thread is not that "Canon makes the worst sensors", but rather that Canon is getting beat in sensor technology.
> ...



All know this. Just that most do not want Canon to lag behind. And who knows what Sony would have by the time Canon comes out with newer sensors. 

Speaking for myself, I want Canon to lead the innovations.


----------



## robbinzo (Nov 2, 2013)

Now, I'm sure somebody will correct me very quickly if I am wrong but...
The A7R does not have an optical low-pass filter. This means it struggles with AF but gets cleaner data from the sensor. Doesn't the low pass filter blur the image slightly?
So yes, you get cleaner images from a sensor without a low pass filter but it also has it's drawbacks - i.e. the AF sucks.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 2, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



It's good that you know that. I know it, too. A lot of people don't. A lot of other sites (e.g., Snapsort) incorporate DxOMark's *BS* into their rankings, with no link or reference to the Measurements. If everyone understood how the BS worked, the title of this thread would have been, "Sony A7R on DXO - Highest full frame ISO 100 IQ ever." But it's not.


----------



## Pi (Nov 2, 2013)

Alrik89 said:


> Only tech-addicted photographers give a krapp about sensors - their clients don't, except they are tech-addicts as well.



I am my own client and I am a tech-addict. 

Hi, I am Pi, and I am a tech-addict...


----------



## Alrik89 (Nov 2, 2013)

The clients give a crap on photographers workflow, only the result matters. If the photogs use an iPhone or a Hasselblad - it doesn't matter, if the result satisfies the client. 

Or have one of you ever been hired for the sensor in your camera?


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 2, 2013)

robbinzo said:


> Now, I'm sure somebody will correct me very quickly if I am wrong but...
> The A7R does not have an optical low-pass filter. This means it struggles with AF but gets cleaner data from the sensor. Doesn't the low pass filter blur the image slightly?
> So yes, you get cleaner images from a sensor without a low pass filter but it also has it's drawbacks - i.e. the AF sucks.



Autofocus and the low pass filter are completely unrelated. Phase Detect autofocus was not put on the A7R to differentiate between the two models, it's pretty much just a marketing decision.
I'm guessing that this is also exactly the same sensor being put in the D800, and for the sake of using the same manufacturing process, and not splitting the lines, they just stuck the chip in without changes to the silicone.


----------



## Pi (Nov 2, 2013)

robbinzo said:


> So yes, you get cleaner images from a sensor without a low pass filter but it also has it's drawbacks - i.e. the AF sucks.



Not sure about the AF, but without the AA filter, you get less cleaner images, with more artifacts in the ideal conditions, and better images in not so ideal ones. But the public likes artifacts, and whatever sells, wins.


----------



## sanj (Nov 2, 2013)

Pi said:


> Alrik89 said:
> 
> 
> > Only tech-addicted photographers give a krapp about sensors - their clients don't, except they are tech-addicts as well.
> ...



Me too.


----------



## scottkinfw (Nov 2, 2013)

Enough vitriol, more discussion.



sanj said:


> chilledXpress said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...


----------



## Skulker (Nov 2, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Sorry Nero, I don't normaly try to correct you. But can I suggest that a better title would have been.

"Sony A7R on DXO - Highest full frame ISO 100 IQ ever apart from one of the cameras its being compared to that gets the same score, oh and the other that gets a higer score."

I'm not sure I'm cut out to be a headline writer. ;D


----------



## MLfan3 (Nov 2, 2013)

9VIII said:


> robbinzo said:
> 
> 
> > Now, I'm sure somebody will correct me very quickly if I am wrong but...
> ...



actually, the Sony Alpha 7R has special micro lens design, and thus, Sony could not put the Phase Detect AF on the sensor, not just a minor marketing decision.

and the D800E sensor is not the same sensor as the one in the 7R.
the Alpha 7R sensor is more advanced new design,and the D800E sensor has Nikon original micro lens design.

anyway, the point here is the 7R sensor has different micro lens design from that of the Alpha 7 sensor and that is why it does not get the PDAF on the sensor.
the real reason Sony needed that odd micro lens design for that particular sensor was that the mount diameter of the E mount was a bit too narrow for FF sensor since it was originally design for APS-C sensor.
just the mount can take FF sensor does not mean it fully optimizes it or even fully utilizes it. alpha 7R has some corner image quality issues with many many lenses I have used with an A7R(I tested the A7R a few times at Sony plaza).
Again, I am quite sure it was not a marketing decision alone but the corner IQ issue was the main reason why Sony used that unique special micro lens design for that specific 36 mp sensor used in the 7R(typical R buyers are more obsessed with corner IQ) even at the big cost of losing fast PDAF.

I think landscape type of D-SLRs are literally killed by that Sony A7R (the sudden 20 percent drop of the D800E resale value tells that), however , event high ISO type of D-SLRs may be able to survive for a few more years(until sony or fuji comes up with serious FF mirrorless system with great AF design).

So it is Nikon that is really ******* after the A7R not Canon.
Personally, I will replace my D800E with this new Sony A7R , but I will keep my EOS6D for lowlight event work.

PS. Sony stock hits hard here in Japan after its announcement of its Q3 financial result, and some of Sony stockholders asking Sony to quit all digital still camera and consumer video camera business.


----------



## zlatko (Nov 2, 2013)

MichaelHodges said:


> > Every photographer deals with certain sensor limitations, no matter what brand they are using.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The title of this thread shows the confusion between DR and IQ. DR is not IQ. Sensor technology and IQ are not measured by DR alone, and especially not at lower ISOs alone.

One can say Canon is getting "beat" in one particular measure of sensor technology if one limits one's perspective to only those settings at which it is getting "beat". 

The number of photographers who choose Canon despite this, and who do great work with Canon despite this, proves how little relevance that one measure of getting "beat" has. Their gear choices and their excellent work prove that Canon is making excellent sensors for the needs of many photographers, including some with very demanding applications. If Canon didn't, those photographers would quickly migrate to other brands and Canon wouldn't be the market leader that it is.


----------



## sdsr (Nov 2, 2013)

MichaelHodges said:


> > [Certain sensors are no doubt better for certain applications, but many have found Canon IQ (including sensors) to be excellent for a wide range of applications.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Right; but it may suggest that for "plenty of great photographers" it doesn't matter and thus that the whole issue is overrated. It seems to bug a lot of people that perfectly legitimate responses to the statement "Sony makes better sensors than Canon" include not only "I wish Canon would catch up" and "I want one" but also "So what?"

(For whatever it's worth, I quite agree that extra DR would be nice in some circumstances, including those you set forth.)


----------



## sdsr (Nov 2, 2013)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> I'm interested to find out how many people in this forum and elsewhere are going to be getting this body specifically to shoot landscape with their Canon glass?




The suggestion that these new Sonys can be used as a stop-gap until Canon comes out with sensors with higher DR etc. is interesting, and it may end up being the best way to use them. It's hardly the obvious market for them, though. Presumably Sony makes them small to compete with M43 and other small cameras, and Sony doubtless hopes that someone like me, who very much likes his/her mirrorless OM-D, will jump at the chance to own a camera that's much the same size but with a bigger, better sensor. The problem is, that's not what it will be like at all. M43 lenses can be so small because the sensor is smallish. We've been told that Leica makes some small FF lenses, but few can afford them, few will want to use manual focus, and as far as I know the longest focal length of any Leica is 135mm. Few Sony or vintage Minolta FF lenses are small (and regardless of size, most good Minolta lenses, being metal, are relatively heavy) and because all prior FF Sony cameras have IBIS, none of the relevant lenses do except some of those made specifically for the new cameras (and none of those look appealing, do they?). So unless you're willing to limit the focal range of your lenses, you'll end up with a small camera body with big, unstabilized lenses, thereby missing much of the point of small cameras - low weight, low bulk, unobtrusiveness, stealth, etc. So far, M43 still seems to be the way to go as far as such considerations go.

And when it comes to the model with the higher MP count, as the test report cited above and many users of the D800 explain, to get full benefit of all that extra resolution you will need either impeccable hand-holding technique (especially since there's no IBIS) or a tripod; and if you need a tripod, there goes an advantage of a small camera body - you would likely be better off with a larger body. I could be wrong, but I suspect a rather large number of those who buy that body will end up with photos that are best not viewed at 100% or cropped much; and if you're not going to do either of those things, how many need a 36mp sensor in the first place?


----------



## sdsr (Nov 3, 2013)

Apop said:


> But with a metabones smart adapter you can best of both worlds , a7r sensor+canon glass (even though AF is gonna be slow).
> An a7r ,35 2.8 , metabones adapter, and grip sounds like a pretty nice addition for someone with canon bodies/glass wanting that sensor performance in such a compact housing.
> 
> Actually, most of those a7r sales are probably gonna be canon users wanting 36mp in a compact body.
> ...



Unless you're going to put a Canon lens on your A7/R that's no bigger than, say, the 100mm f/2, what's the appeal of "such compact housing?" In terms of ergonomics, putting an 85 L, not to mention a 70-200 2.8 L II or heavier, on a small body is surely quite unappealing unless you're using a tripod (in which case the size of the housing hardly matters, does it?). The same goes for the better Sony and Minolta lenses, only with them there's an additional problem - Canon puts IS in lots of its lenses, especially its bigger ones. None of Sony's (or Minolta's) equivalent A mount lenses has IS because Sony Alpha bodies all have IBIS - but these two don't have IBIS.... And you're right - the new Sony lenses are indeed expensive (and, for the most part, don't seem very appealing or useful except to the extent they have IS).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 3, 2013)

MLfan3 said:


> ...the D800E sensor is not the same sensor as the one in the 7R.
> the Alpha 7R sensor is more advanced new design...



Interesting. So, when Sony works for a couple of years and brings out a sensor with the same DxOMark Scores, and puts it in the a7R, it's a 'more advanced new design'. But, when Canon works for a couple of years and brings out a sensor with the same DxOMark scores and a revolutionary phase detect AF using most of the pixels on the sensor, it's the 'same old APS-C sensor being recycled yet again'.


----------



## Pi (Nov 3, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> MLfan3 said:
> 
> 
> > ...the D800E sensor is not the same sensor as the one in the 7R.
> ...



He did not say anything about Canon. Next, he says it is more advanced not in the sense that it is "better" but because it has to deal with some of the problems coming with the more oblique rays hitting the sensor.


----------



## spinworkxroy (Nov 3, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> If you do still shooting, I doubt this move would harm you. I have 2 young kids, therefore, my 5D III + L lenses will cont. to be used next 4-5yrs.
> 
> I carry x100s and my wife uses her RX1 when we take the kids out. Yes, I do love the size of those camera.



Well, i would love the keep the 5D3 and my L lenses but unfortunately i can't afford to keep it and also get the A7R and lenses. It was a big decision i had to make. Keep something that i will seldom use or sell and use the money to change to something i know i will use. And i am expecting my first child soon and even if i still had the 5d..i wouldn't bring it out with the baby stuff..that's just added weight i do not need and the EOS M just isn't going to keep up with any kind of movement..period..i don't even think it'll catch up with grass growing haha.it's that slow. 
But considering 90% of the time i'm shooting portraits, i don't need a fast Af camera, low light camera or anything from a 5D for that matter..i just need a good IQ camera. As for the kids...well, we'll see how the A7r fairs..it won't be as fast as a 5D for sure but at least it'l be something i can bring it with me..better to have a camera on hand than one sitting at home.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Nov 3, 2013)

zlatko said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > > Every photographer deals with certain sensor limitations, no matter what brand they are using.
> ...




You do realize you just said nothing at all, right?





> The number of photographers who choose Canon despite this, and who do great work with Canon despite this, proves how little relevance that one measure of getting "beat" has. Their gear choices and their excellent work prove that Canon is making excellent sensors for the needs of many photographers, including some with very demanding applications. If Canon didn't, those photographers would quickly migrate to other brands and Canon wouldn't be the market leader that it is.



I shot with one of the top photogs in the U.S. yesterday. He uses Canon gear exclusively. He makes amazing photographs. But that has NOTHING to do with the fact that Canon's sensors are lagging behind the competition in DR at ISO 100-800. Numerous, repeated platitudes and logical fallacies do not change this. It might not be a bad idea to research these methods of intellectual dishonesty.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 3, 2013)

MichaelHodges said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > The title of this thread shows the confusion between DR and IQ. DR is not IQ. Sensor technology and IQ are not measured by DR alone, and especially not at lower ISOs alone.
> ...



In fact, zlatko's statement was cogent, logical and accurate. It's your response that said nothing. 

You state that, "Canon's sensors are lagging behind the competition in DR at ISO 100-800." That has been acknowledged countless times here on CR and everywhere else. DR at low ISO is *one* aspect of 'image quality' - are you suggesting it's the only factor? The most important factor...for everyone? 

It might not be a bad idea to research these methods of narrow-minded thinking.


----------



## zlatko (Nov 4, 2013)

MichaelHodges said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > MichaelHodges said:
> ...



Just dismissing, as you are doing, isn't saying anything.



MichaelHodges said:


> I'm giving Canon a year and a half to catch up in low ISO dynamic range.
> 
> The low ISO dynamic range exhibited in the Sony sensors would be a gigantic boost to how I shoot. Most of what I film is nature (I'm writing this from a tent in Glacier National Park, where it's below freezing). The ability to expose for sky in landscapes, and raise shadows in post with minimal noise would allow me to not fuss with GND filters in the field. Also, the absolute worst lighting conditions are when shooting wildlife. Underexposure is common when a large mammal retreats into woods or runs. Same for birds in flight. The shadow lifting capabilities of the fantastic Sony sensors would help with back-lit birds. A hunting golden eagle or sprinting grizzly bear or rutting bighorns really don't care if you're ready or not.
> 
> Those shooting in a controlled lighting environment such as arenas, sports fields, portrait sessions, etc may not desire this technological advancement. But for nature shooters, it is a tremendous leap forward.



I believe this post reveals your key problem with Canon sensors: you underexpose when a large mammal retreats into the woods or runs, or for birds in flight. Adjusting for back-lit subjects and for subjects with very bright or very dark backgrounds have been essential and common tasks for photographers ever since photography was invented. Fortunately, photographers today have a number of ways of adjusting exposure as quickly as these things happen. Whether you use aperture priority, program mode or manual, it just takes a quick twirl of a dial to adjust for these changes. Presumably, a photographer of birds in flight learns not to let the sky influence the exposure to make the birds underexposed. It seems that instead of doing this yourself, you are blaming Canon's sensor for not allowing you to miss the exposure as much as another sensor might. 

Athletes outdoors are lit by the same sun as wildlife. They can run suddenly from sun to shadow and sun again. Indoors, subjects can walk/run into and out of shaft of sunlight from a window or skylight. Even artificially lit indoor events do not have uniform lighting from end to end. As a result, a photographer may need to make exposure adjustments throughout an event.


----------



## Pi (Nov 4, 2013)

zlatko said:


> Fortunately, photographers today have a number of ways of adjusting exposure as quickly as these things happen. Whether you use aperture priority, program mode or manual, it just takes a quick twirl of a dial to adjust for these changes.



Not having enough DR is just that, not having enough DR. No "proper exposure" can compensate for it, when you have too much DR in the scene. And you cannot always "nail" the exposure.


----------



## zlatko (Nov 4, 2013)

Pi said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Fortunately, photographers today have a number of ways of adjusting exposure as quickly as these things happen. Whether you use aperture priority, program mode or manual, it just takes a quick twirl of a dial to adjust for these changes.
> ...



The examples I was addressing where "large mammal retreats into the woods or runs", and back-lit "birds in flight". Allowing the bright sky to fool the exposure meter is a photographer's error. Likewise, not adjusting for sudden changes in light conditions is a photographer's error. The challenge in those examples isn't having enough DR. It is simply for the photographer to make any needed exposure adjustments quickly. No one always nails the exposure, but fortunately today's cameras allow for very quick adjustments — it just takes a twirl of the dial to expose for that bird or mammal. These examples don't show a sensor problem or deficiency. Today's sensors are perfectly adequate for these tasks.


----------



## zlatko (Nov 4, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> In fact, zlatko's statement was cogent, logical and accurate. It's your response that said nothing.


Thank you neuroanatomist.


----------



## Pi (Nov 4, 2013)

zlatko said:


> The examples I was addressing where "large mammal retreats into the woods or runs", and back-lit "birds in flight". Allowing the bright sky to fool the exposure meter is a photographer's error. Likewise, not adjusting for sudden changes in light conditions is a photographer's error. The challenge in those examples isn't having enough DR. It is simply for the photographer to make any needed exposure adjustments quickly. No one always nails the exposure, but fortunately today's cameras allow for very quick adjustments — it just takes a twirl of the dial to expose for that bird or mammal. These examples don't show a sensor problem or deficiency. Today's sensors are perfectly adequate for these tasks.



Errors happen, and those animals are faster than me. I will take a camera which does not penalize me (so much) for my mistakes to one that does any day.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 4, 2013)

zlatko said:


> These examples don't show a sensor problem or deficiency. Today's sensors are perfectly adequate for these tasks.



+1

While it's true that there is sometimes more DR in the scene than the camera can capture, I can honestly say there have been very, very few situations where an extra two stops of DR in the ISO 100-800 range would have done the job. For openers, about 50% of my shots are at higher than ISO 800, where the DR of the 'inferior', 'lagging' sensor in my 1D X delivers _greater_ DR than the D800 or a7R. In the majority of those situations where there are more than 12 stops of DR in a scene that I'm shooting at low ISO (which was the case when I was out shooting architecture last night, actually), there are also more than 14 stops of DR in those scenes (last night, the guy next to me with his D800 was shooting multiple exposures for HDR, just like I was).


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Nov 4, 2013)

I think we should all begin to focus on the things we do agree on so as to avoid rehashing so many of the same topics and arguments time and again:

1. The Sony sensor (D800/e) has the most DR from ISO 100-800.
2. DR levels out and advantage is gone after ISO 800.
3. 5D3 sensor does better in higher ISOs.
4. More DR is useful (and nice to have) but not always/or even often necessary.
5. Each sensor has it's own advantages AS WELL as disadvantages neither of which should be ignored when when assessing IQ or level of advancement in technology.
6. Everyone has differing needs when it comes to photography which most of us in here cannot account for.

Things to avoid since they are so clearly untrue/baseless and continue to cause unnecessary debate due to their antagonistic nature:

1. Any blanket statements such as Nikon image quality "trounces" Canon's.
2. Pre-determining whether something is completely unuseful or not before it is in people's hands. 
3. Making any other inferences about how good or bad the new bodies will be since again, they are not in people's hands yet.


----------



## zlatko (Nov 4, 2013)

Pi said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > The examples I was addressing where "large mammal retreats into the woods or runs", and back-lit "birds in flight". Allowing the bright sky to fool the exposure meter is a photographer's error. Likewise, not adjusting for sudden changes in light conditions is a photographer's error. The challenge in those examples isn't having enough DR. It is simply for the photographer to make any needed exposure adjustments quickly. No one always nails the exposure, but fortunately today's cameras allow for very quick adjustments — it just takes a twirl of the dial to expose for that bird or mammal. These examples don't show a sensor problem or deficiency. Today's sensors are perfectly adequate for these tasks.
> ...



So, if this is so important, presumably you are using Nikon or Sony already? These sensors have been out for a while — no need to wait for the A7/A7r.

For what it's worth, my Nikon-using friends have never mentioned not being penalized so much for mistakes as a reason for choosing Nikon. They typically have other reasons. And they still deal with the same common tasks of adjusting and prioritizing exposure, especially in the situations above.


----------



## Pi (Nov 4, 2013)

zlatko said:


> So, if this is so important, presumably you are using Nikon or Sony already? These sensors have been out for a while — no need to wait for the A7/A7r.



It is important but it is not enough to make me switch. For now. Are you ever going to admit that DR at low ISO is important, for some at least?



> For what it's worth, my Nikon-using friends have never mentioned not being penalized so much for mistakes as a reason for choosing Nikon.



They must be good fiends, protecting your feelings. Nikonians are bragging about DR everyday on dpreview.


----------



## zlatko (Nov 4, 2013)

Pi said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > So, if this is so important, presumably you are using Nikon or Sony already? These sensors have been out for a while — no need to wait for the A7/A7r.
> ...



DR is important at every ISO. No problem with the current DR of Canon sensors. I'm surprised that you're not using Sony or Nikon already, after you stated, "I will take a camera which does not penalize me (so much) for my mistakes to one that does any day." Apparently it is not _that_ important to you.

Actually those Nikon-using friends are very busy photographers and not the type to spend any time bragging on Dpreview. And they are quite honest about what's good and bad about their gear.


----------



## sanj (Nov 4, 2013)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> I think we should all begin to focus on the things we do agree on so as to avoid rehashing so many of the same topics and arguments time and again:
> 
> 1. The Sony sensor (D800/e) has the most DR from ISO 100-800.
> 2. DR levels out and advantage is gone after ISO 800.
> ...



You taking the spice out.


----------



## Pi (Nov 4, 2013)

zlatko said:


> DR is important at every ISO. No problem with the current DR of Canon sensors.



No problem for you, or for everybody? Do you admit that for some it might be a real problem, not just something in their imagination? 

I do not care about high fps, for example. Should I get involved in any discussion about high fps to say: no problem with 3 fps. If you are good photographer, you would be able to nail it even with 3 fps, etc.?


----------



## sanj (Nov 4, 2013)

Pi said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > DR is important at every ISO. No problem with the current DR of Canon sensors.
> ...



Valid argument.


----------



## zlatko (Nov 4, 2013)

Pi said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > DR is important at every ISO. No problem with the current DR of Canon sensors.
> ...


As I wrote, photographers who actually need more DR than Canon offers should already have switched. These Sony sensors have been out for a while. During that time, many photographers have looked at their options and decided to stick with Canon.

Likewise, there is no problem with 3fps (or 6 or 8fps, etc.), but if someone actually needs more then they should buy it. Why would someone buy 3fps and then blame the manufacturer? The same goes for megapixels, etc. Offering less than the maximum mp doesn't mean there is a problem or deficiency. Not every camera has to offer the maximum of every measure of performance for us to say there is "no problem" with it. A manufacturer chooses which measures to prioritize, such as high ISO performance.


----------



## Axilrod (Nov 4, 2013)

zlatko said:


> As I wrote, photographers who actually need more DR than Canon offers should already have switched. These Sony sensors have been out for a while. During that time, many photographers have looked at their options and decided to stick with Canon.
> 
> Likewise, there is no problem with 3fps (or 6 or 8fps, etc.), but if someone actually needs more then they should buy it. Why would someone buy 3fps and then blame the manufacturer? The same goes for megapixels, etc. Offering less than the maximum mp doesn't mean there is a problem or deficiency. Not every camera has to offer the maximum of every measure of performance for us to say there is "no problem" with it. A manufacturer chooses which measures to prioritize, such as high ISO performance.



I don't think Pi really cares what you or anyone else has to say, it seems like he's just obsessed with being "right."


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Nov 4, 2013)

Does anyone know if Nikon's top low light performing sensor outperforms Canon's in low light shooting (DR, noise, etc.)? If Nikon doesn't have anything that currently performs better in lower lighting conditions, have they ever had a sensor that did at any specific point in time?

I would research it myself but I'm on my phone and it just seemed easier to ask you guys. Thanks.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 4, 2013)

Pi said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > So, if this is so important, presumably you are using Nikon or Sony already? These sensors have been out for a while — no need to wait for the A7/A7r.
> ...





Pi said:


> They must be good fiends, protecting your feelings. Nikonians are bragging about DR everyday on dpreview.


Immature people will brag "about DR everyday", but the wise do not use those brags as reference points ... I also shoot with Nikon gear and like so many others have mentioned the DR is great between 100-800 ISO, but it is no big deal to the point of switching from Canon to whatever brand.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 4, 2013)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> I think we should all begin to focus on the things we do agree on so as to avoid rehashing so many of the same topics and arguments time and again:
> 
> 1. The Sony sensor (D800/e) has the most DR from ISO 100-800.
> 2. DR levels out and advantage is gone after ISO 800.
> ...


Nice summary ... but you have upset those who want a never ending debate


----------



## msm (Nov 4, 2013)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> Does anyone know if Nikon's top low light performing sensor outperforms Canon's in low light shooting (DR, noise, etc.)? If Nikon doesn't have anything that currently performs better in lower lighting conditions, have they ever had a sensor that did at any specific point in time?
> 
> I would research it myself but I'm on my phone and it just seemed easier to ask you guys. Thanks.



If you check the measurements at DXO, you will find that Nikon leads on color depth and Canon at DR (at least the 1DX) at ISO 3200+. In the lowlight score DXO ranks the nikons higher as they Canons fall below their color depth criteria, personally I think I prefer the DR though, not sure I can see the difference between 16 and 18bit color depth but the difference between 8 and 9 stop of DR is very noticeable.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Nov 4, 2013)

msm said:


> JohnDizzo15 said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone know if Nikon's top low light performing sensor outperforms Canon's in low light shooting (DR, noise, etc.)? If Nikon doesn't have anything that currently performs better in lower lighting conditions, have they ever had a sensor that did at any specific point in time?
> ...



Thanks for the info.

Reason I ask is I'm curious as to whether the same things that are being criticized about Canon sensors could be used conversely with regard to Nikon sensors in the opposite end (as far as technological development goes)?


----------



## msm (Nov 4, 2013)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > JohnDizzo15 said:
> ...



Seriously doubt that, the low light differences are small and probably because Canon uses a weaker Bayer filter while the base ISO difference is considerable.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Nov 4, 2013)

msm said:


> JohnDizzo15 said:
> 
> 
> > msm said:
> ...



Would I then be correct in assuming that there is basically no discernible/real world difference between the two when comparing high ISO shooting? If that is in fact the case + the significant difference in the low ISO range...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 4, 2013)

Alrik89 said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > The context of this thread is not that "Canon makes the worst sensors", but rather that Canon is getting beat in sensor technology.
> ...



1. I recall a lot of the Canon crowd crowing about Canon sensors for the first few years worth of DSLR releases, including pros too at times and I recall a Getty guy saying he was getting so tired of Nikon sensors being behind that he was seriously eyeing Canon (as he literally eyed my Canon body with envy). And in the cinema world, believe me some pretty damn serious pros talk about stuff like DR all the time and they take it very seriously. I don't recall Nikon users bending over backwards trying to say it was just a tech head thing, they owned it and maybe pointed to less crippled body features from what I recall.

2. To say now that Canon is behind on a certain aspect of sensors that that aspect could only ever matter to tech addicts sounds suspiciously like a fanboy making excuses and tossing cheap insults.

Now maybe you never shoot in scenarios where having more MP or more DR at this point would ever make a difference for you and you never plan to expand your shooting horizons and that is fine enough, but it doesn't mean that is the case for everyone and that it's 100% useless nonsense that matters to absolutely nobody but some tech addicts or those who takes pics of charts and black frame in a lab all day (and I'm curious who exactly these latter people are, because I've never met one myself).

You know you could just as easily have some 100% pure T&S tripod-based landscape shooter start mocking those who bought a 5D3 or 1 series for AF for being silly tech addicts because only tech addict could even need AF like that or AF at all right? I don't think that would make much sense.

You also realize that by far and away most of the people that started asking for more DR only because of limitations they found in the field not in some lab right? Sure you can shoot an infinite number of shots where it doesn't matter, and that is what we do for now, but you can also easily enough find tons of shots where 3 more stops down there would make a difference. It's not the end of the world and of course the overall body can do this and that, as an overall body I'd way take a 5D3 system alone than an A7R alone, in this particular case, for instance, but having access to more DR (and more MP) would be a nice extra to have for quite a few. Nothing wrong with trying to make a big push to wake Canon up so we don't have to wait another decade to get such expanded possibilities open to us too (or to start talk about the A7R which may very soon open them up to Canon lens owners in some cases).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 4, 2013)

robbinzo said:


> Now, I'm sure somebody will correct me very quickly if I am wrong but...
> The A7R does not have an optical low-pass filter. This means it struggles with AF but gets cleaner data from the sensor. Doesn't the low pass filter blur the image slightly?
> So yes, you get cleaner images from a sensor without a low pass filter but it also has it's drawbacks - i.e. the AF sucks.



I didn't think that is the case (well the AF sucking probably is, but the reason for it I don't think is correct). Honestly, I'd have preferred if they had put a really light AA filter in it, since 36MP isn't THAT much for FF and you have to think it will moire more easily and constantly put out at least small amounts of aliasing.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 4, 2013)

Alrik89 said:


> The clients give a crap on photographers workflow, only the result matters. If the photogs use an iPhone or a Hasselblad - it doesn't matter, if the result satisfies the client.
> 
> Or have one of you ever been hired for the sensor in your camera?



1. Actually some people have (and not always for silly reasons either).

2. Yeah in many cases you can go out and find the 1 or 4 or however many shots you might need and make them ones that work with the sensor you have and in some scenarios the Canon sensor may be every bit as good anyway and the client would never know you had to give up this shot or that, but what about if you are shooting for yourself? Maybe you wanted to shoot that forest scenes where the branches were moving all over and mists were rapidly swirling and a bright sun beam broke through and created extreme DR or something?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 4, 2013)

zlatko said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > zlatko said:
> ...



Yes, you often have to do that. The whole AutoISO thing also comes into play here too. There are scenarios where it is impossible, maybe it's running through dabbled sunlight and there is no way to adjust frame to frame, etc. so I could see where the essentially ISO-less nature of the Exmor sensors might be nice. And of course there are the more traditional scenarios maybe part of the animal and scene are hit by a sunbeam and part are not, sometimes keeping it super high key contrast looks best and it doesn't matter at all and sometimes 3 more stops sure could've helped.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 4, 2013)

zlatko said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > zlatko said:
> ...



The backlit birds things might not be, it depends what else is in the scene and how it affects the subject, sometimes you'd have to completely blow out part of the subject or get nasty noise and lack of detail on the rest of the animal or maybe you can manage the animal but not part of the scene. Sometimes it won't matter, since the rest of the scene doesn't matter and stay dark or some blow out on the outline is fine and you manage to get by with the rest or keeping it with dramatic differences looks better, but sometimes not.



> Likewise, not adjusting for sudden changes in light conditions is a photographer's error. The challenge in those examples isn't having enough DR. It is simply for the photographer to make any needed exposure adjustments quickly. No one always nails the exposure, but fortunately today's cameras allow for very quick adjustments — it just takes a twirl of the dial to expose for that bird or mammal. These examples don't show a sensor problem or deficiency. Today's sensors are perfectly adequate for these tasks.



For it just running into evenly lit woods, often you could and then maybe it is on the photographer, although I did mention a different scenario in the prior post though where you could never change the exposures fast enough. And there are times when suddenly come upon something out of nowhere and you were not expecting it to happen and don't have an appropriate C1-C3 set for the condition of these woods since maybe they had been set in preparation for what you had expected to shoot and such. That's always been the breaks, but if you had the option to get around that though, wouldn't that be nice? I mean why not?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 4, 2013)

zlatko said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > zlatko said:
> ...



Nikon has managed to prioritize both low and high ISO though. D800 for low and D4 for high (and the D800 does closer to the 5D3, if maybe not the 6D, at high ISO under tough conditions than the 5D3 does compared to the D800 under very tough low ISO conditions, overall, although in certain ways relating to color under certain circumstances the Canon do worse but that is probably overblown; the Canons are cheating the CFA arrays more though and not telling apart as many colors under natural lighting at any ISO but it's too complex to get into andhasn't been deeply tested and figured out). You say don't buy a fps camera if you need 8fps, problem is Canon does not have ANY model that has very high DR at lower ISOs. And you say then switch, well some have, others maybe have tried to wait for a bit because maybe they prefer the Canon UI, liveview, certain lenses etc. and had been hoping they wouldn't have to eventually switch.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 4, 2013)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> Does anyone know if Nikon's top low light performing sensor outperforms Canon's in low light shooting (DR, noise, etc.)? If Nikon doesn't have anything that currently performs better in lower lighting conditions, have they ever had a sensor that did at any specific point in time?
> 
> I would research it myself but I'm on my phone and it just seemed easier to ask you guys. Thanks.



The D3s was class leading for low light and they were ahead for low light then (with the caveat that the D3s was also lower res than the 5D2 so while it had better SNR and much better DR up there, the 5D2 had smaller 'grain', so for scenes where the DR was not much and large areas of the frame were not near black, maybe the 5D2 could look better in other cases the D3s might have looked noticeably better).

Currently I believe that the 1DX,6D and D4 are best for low light. The D4 does it without cheating the CFA so much though. OTOH the others can produce a bit smaller 'grain'.


----------



## V8Beast (Nov 4, 2013)

I don't understand what the big stink is about. Sony now offers a camera that allows taking advantage of Exmor sensor technology while using Canon glass. Even though I won't be buying an A7R, as a Canon user, shouldn't this be good news? 

If a bunch of Canon users start snatching up A7R bodies, perhaps it will put more pressure on Canon to improve their sensors. Again, as a Canon user, shouldn't this increased competition be good news?


----------



## zlatko (Nov 4, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Alrik89 said:
> 
> 
> > MichaelHodges said:
> ...



You keep putting words in my mouth, arguing with points I didn't make. I don't have time to correct all of this. So just a few examples of how you twist things to make your point:

_"2. To say now that Canon is behind on a certain aspect of sensors that that aspect could only ever matter to tech addicts sounds suspiciously like a fanboy making excuses and tossing cheap insults."_ —— *I didn't say that*. I said DR is adequate for many photographers, including some of the best. If someone finds DR so lacking they should of course switch brands. With a healthy market for used equipment, that's easier to do than ever.

_"... but it doesn't mean that is the case for everyone and that it's 100% useless nonsense that matters to absolutely nobody but some tech addicts or those who takes pics of charts and black frame in a lab all day ..."_ —— *I didn't say that*." Again, if someone finds DR so lacking they should of course switch brands. Many don't switch because DR is fine and they have other priorities. Many prefer Canon because the image quality is amazing for what they do. Of course some switch and that is a valid thing to do.

_"You also realize that by far and away most of the people that started asking for more DR only because of limitations they found in the field not in some lab right?"_ Perhaps, but some of those in the field can't seem to avoid getting underexposed birds against a bright sky — such a basic photographer error. The same for a mammal running into the woods. Having that happen "in the field" doesn't prove or validate a sensor deficiency. This are common photographic situations since the invention of photography, and photographers have addressed them with exposure adjustments rather than blaming them on a sensor "problem".

_"Nothing wrong with trying to make a big push to wake Canon up so we don't have to wait another decade to get such expanded possibilities ..." _ I don't see a big push to "wake" Canon up. Instead I see people complaining about something that they could easily address by changing brands. They claim DR is so important that they would choose a Sony sensor over a Canon sensor "any day", and yet they keep using Canon. So that "any day" apparently hasn't come yet. I'm sure Canon is quite "awake", but they have to deal with diverse priorities and their own timetable for development.

As I wrote above, photographers can always use more of *everything*, including DR. But DR isn't the be all and end all of image quality. (Clearly, if you are still using Canon, then you agree on some level.) Photographers can use more of absolutely everything — higher shutter speeds, longer battery life, wider apertures, lighter cameras, stronger cameras, more waterproof cameras, more flash power, more sensitive sensors, quieter shutters, bigger viewfinders, faster autofocus, more responsive cameras ... anything you can think of. That doesn't mean that all existing cameras have a "problem" or "deficiency".


----------



## zlatko (Nov 4, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> And in the cinema world, believe me some pretty damn serious pros talk about stuff like DR all the time and they take it very seriously.


For the formats used in the cinema world, DR is very important and taken seriously. So it is interesting that Canon has a significant presence in the cinema world, and in the video world generally. For the past few years I've regularly seen videographers using Canon DSLRs and have yet to see one using Nikon or Sony.


----------



## zlatko (Nov 4, 2013)

V8Beast said:


> I don't understand what the big stink is about. Sony now offers a camera that allows taking advantage of Exmor sensor technology while using Canon glass. Even though I won't be buying an A7R, as a Canon user, shouldn't this be good news?
> 
> If a bunch of Canon users start snatching up A7R bodies, perhaps it will put more pressure on Canon to improve their sensors. Again, as a Canon user, shouldn't this increased competition be good news?



I think the A7/A7r is great news. But the body design is what is most interesting about it: full-frame image quality in a very small camera body, & open for use with an incredible variety of lenses. If the sensor attracts someone, that is fine too.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 4, 2013)

zlatko said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > And in the cinema world, believe me some pretty damn serious pros talk about stuff like DR all the time and they take it very seriously.
> ...



+1

Cinematographers are concerned about DR, sure. But just as they don't rely on a camera's autofocus to control where the camera is focused, they don't rely on the image capture medium to control the DR at capture. Rather, they _control_ the DR of the scene by managing the lighting (floods, diffuser 'tents', grad NDs, etc.). 

Canon has Ron Howard, Nikon has.......Ashton Kutcher.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Nov 4, 2013)

Interesting point regarding video. Reminded me that Canon had made the most recent major exhibition of low light capture in video with the fireflies in Japan at 0.01 lux. That in and of itself is a major technological advancement in sensor tech albeit currently intended primarily for HD video capture according to Canon.


----------



## Pi (Nov 5, 2013)

zlatko said:


> Not every camera has to offer the maximum of every measure of performance for us to say there is "no problem" with it.



To be more precise, you are actually saying that not a single Canon has to offer the DR that any other (except Leica maybe) brand does.


----------



## zlatko (Nov 5, 2013)

Pi said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Not every camera has to offer the maximum of every measure of performance for us to say there is "no problem" with it.
> ...


Canon DR is fine. In recent years Salgado chose Canon gear to complete his magnificent 8-year Genesis project. He switched from medium format film to Canon digital. Amazing landscapes, wildlife, etc., all over the world, from Antarctica to the Arctic. He is one of the most renowned photographers in the history of photography and could have chosen any brand or camera, especially if DR were a concern. Again, more DR is certainly welcome, but it's currently at a level that meets the needs of some of the best in the business, in diverse and challenging environments and lighting conditions.

Edited to add: As this thread is about Sony's new A7/A7r, this interview with Sony's Kimio Maki, Senior General Manager at Division 2 of Sony's Digital Imaging Business Group, may be of interest:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9689111831/every-six-months-i-want-to-do-something-new-kimio-maki-of-sony

Some interesting quotes from the interview:

"Within the DSLR market you have the entry-level, smaller cheaper cameras like the Nikon D3200, and at the top there are high-end models like the Nikon D4 and Canon EOS 1D X. Until now, there was no ‘top end’ for mirrorless cameras - now that’s the A7R."

"... I do think about countermeasures from other manufacturers - so for example I think about whether Canon will create a product to compete with us. I’m interested in whether they will do this, because enhancing the market together is important. But that’s not a worry. What worries me is the market - what will happen if customers start to lose interest. If they just say ‘I don’t want a camera, a smartphone is good enough for me’. I don’t think it will happen, but it’s a concern."


----------



## J.R. (Nov 5, 2013)

Is it just me or does anyone else also thinks that we've entered a vicious circle here?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 5, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Is it just me or does anyone else also thinks that we've entered a vicious circle here?



I'll repeat what I posted on p.4 of this thread: DRoners gonna DRone...


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 6, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Is it just me or does anyone else also thinks that we've entered a vicious circle here?


+1 ... but all these DR / Canon vs Nikon vs Sony posts are pretty much the same old same old ... but I still cannot resist participating sometimes ;D


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon has Ron Howard, Nikon has.......Ashton Kutcher.


Even Ashton dumped Nikon ... he is now "Product Engineer" for Lenovo :
Ashton Beta Tests Lenovo Yoga Tablet


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 6, 2013)

V8Beast said:


> I don't understand what the big stink is about. Sony now offers a camera that allows taking advantage of Exmor sensor technology while using Canon glass. Even though I won't be buying an A7R, as a Canon user, shouldn't this be good news?
> 
> If a bunch of Canon users start snatching up A7R bodies, perhaps it will put more pressure on Canon to improve their sensors. Again, as a Canon user, shouldn't this increased competition be good news?



+1

Who exactly does this hurt? How does it hurt any Canon user? If Canon gets moved to give you more in the next body how is that bad for you??? Do all the naysayers and extreme defenders own a ton of Canon stock? How could it be anything be absolutely neutral at worst and very good news for ALL Canon users?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 6, 2013)

zlatko said:


> You keep putting words in my mouth, arguing with points I didn't make. I don't have time to correct all of this. So just a few examples of how you twist things to make your point:
> 
> _"2. To say now that Canon is behind on a certain aspect of sensors that that aspect could only ever matter to tech addicts sounds suspiciously like a fanboy making excuses and tossing cheap insults."_ —— *I didn't say that*. I said DR is adequate for many photographers, including some of the best. If someone finds DR so lacking they should of course switch brands. With a healthy market for used equipment, that's easier to do than ever.



Hah, you do realize I was responding to.... Alrik? And right in my very message was quoted: "Only tech-addicted photographers give a krapp about sensors - their clients don't, except they are tech-addicts as well."

And then you blast me for twisting your words and making stuff up?

I wasn't twisting your words since I wasn't even responding to you in that post . Second, the very thing about tech-addicted addicts was a direct quote right there for you to see.







> _"You also realize that by far and away most of the people that started asking for more DR only because of limitations they found in the field not in some lab right?"_ Perhaps, but some of those in the field can't seem to avoid getting underexposed birds against a bright sky — such a basic photographer error. The same for a mammal running into the woods. Having that happen "in the field" doesn't prove or validate a sensor deficiency. This are common photographic situations since the invention of photography, and photographers have addressed them with exposure adjustments rather than blaming them on a sensor "problem".



1. you are picking one little scenario and acting like that is everything and has nothing to do with the claims of the others that only people who never get out to shoot outside of a lab care

2. if the bird is super backlit sometimes the only way to expose it well it to blow out the sky and other stuff, which may or may not matter, if it does then....

3. as I said, if you had a camera that could make something out of a shot where you didn't have time to adjust, something out of the blue popped up and it was a one second chance with no time to set, why not want a camera that for the first time in the photographic era could rescue such a shot?

4. what if it is running in and out sun beams in the woods and you wanted to get both directly lit and shaded shots and be free to pick from all frames, no way to flip dials fast enough, not the end of the world, not the most common scenario, but why not desire a sensor where you could get around that much more easily?

those are mostly side issues though



> _"Nothing wrong with trying to make a big push to wake Canon up so we don't have to wait another decade to get such expanded possibilities ..." _ I don't see a big push to "wake" Canon up. Instead I see people complaining about something that they could easily address by changing brands. They claim DR is so important that they would choose a Sony sensor over a Canon sensor "any day", and yet they keep using Canon. So that "any day" apparently hasn't come yet. I'm sure Canon is quite "awake", but they have to deal with diverse priorities and their own timetable for development.



why shouldn't we want them to up the time table? how the heck does it do anything positive for you for them to keep milking away the old sensor line? so why defending their sacred honor to the ends of the earth? they sure don't do that for you, they try to get away with absolutely the least they can for the most money they can.



> As I wrote above, photographers can always use more of *everything*, including DR. But DR isn't the be all and end all of image quality. (Clearly, if you are still using Canon, then you agree on some level.) Photographers can use more of absolutely everything — higher shutter speeds, longer battery life, wider apertures, lighter cameras, stronger cameras, more waterproof cameras, more flash power, more sensitive sensors, quieter shutters, bigger viewfinders, faster autofocus, more responsive cameras ... anything you can think of. That doesn't mean that all existing cameras have a "problem" or "deficiency".



Well it does mean the Canon have a deficiency in DR. And the title of this thread was talking about sensors not overall systems.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 6, 2013)

zlatko said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > And in the cinema world, believe me some pretty damn serious pros talk about stuff like DR all the time and they take it very seriously.
> ...



The big directors are not using a Canon DSLR as the A camera on a major picture.
(Black Swan used a funky mix of lower end cameras 16mm instead of 35mm, 7D for subway stuff, etc., but that was by design and not typical.)

And if you looked at those video reviews where they got some together to talk over digital video cameras you could clearly tell that many cared about DR.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 6, 2013)

zlatko said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand what the big stink is about. Sony now offers a camera that allows taking advantage of Exmor sensor technology while using Canon glass. Even though I won't be buying an A7R, as a Canon user, shouldn't this be good news?
> ...



Maybe, but I think there are more, certainly in Canon-land who find the sensor the big deal, not the body size. Once you hook up the big adapter how it is small compared to a 5D3? And with big lenses it's huge compared to a P&S. At least with native lenses, and smaller picked lenses, it might come out a bit lighter and smaller than a 5D3, but I don't know that many 5D3 users would sell off their stuff to use an A7R natively alone.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Is it just me or does anyone else also thinks that we've entered a vicious circle here?
> ...



That's rich. This was a freaking thread about an amazing sensor and then YOU all come in and start complaing that some people are excited by the sensor. If you don't give about this sensor then stay out of this thread and stop droning about how DR is no big deal.

Since this one can also take Canon lenses and people now have an easy option to put their money where their mouth is instead of going on about it in forums you think you'd be praising the release of this camera to the heavens instead of trying to minimize everything about it.


----------



## zlatko (Nov 6, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > _"Nothing wrong with trying to make a big push to wake Canon up so we don't have to wait another decade to get such expanded possibilities ..." _ I don't see a big push to "wake" Canon up. Instead I see people complaining about something that they could easily address by changing brands. They claim DR is so important that they would choose a Sony sensor over a Canon sensor "any day", and yet they keep using Canon. So that "any day" apparently hasn't come yet. I'm sure Canon is quite "awake", but they have to deal with diverse priorities and their own timetable for development.
> ...



You're showing two misconceptions here. The first misconception is that bashing Canon on a rumors forum somehow pushes the company to "wake up" or "up the time table" for new products. It doesn't. Their investment in sensor research, development and production is huge and isn't going to be moved even slightly by anonymous complaints on a rumor site. 

The second misconception is that "they try to get away with absolutely the least they can for the most money they can." Well, Canon has a huge product line to disprove that notion. It simply wouldn't exist in anything near its current form if they were trying to get away with absolutely the least for the most money. They offer such a diverse line of products, some with 2nd or 3rd generation refinements, and some of them unmatched by any other manufacturer. Their products (like the 1DX, 5D3, 600EX-RT and new wide angle primes) have shown outstanding responsiveness to the needs of many photographers, fulfilling many wishlists for improvements over predecessor models. These creations don't just happen at the flick of a switch, but rather require very substantial investment, planning, effort, testing and risk. A company trying to "get away with absolutely the least they can for the most money they can" would have no where near the acceptance in the professional market that Canon does, nor would it be preferred by some of the best and most demanding people in photography. 

And this raises a question. If you really feel that Canon tries "to get away with absolutely the least they can for the most money they can", why in the world would you stick with Canon??? I mean if they do that, and provide deficient sensors, *when* do you decide to switch? How productive is it to just keep bashing Canon on a rumors forum? When do you decide that some other company is more properly aligned with your interests?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 7, 2013)

zlatko said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > zlatko said:
> ...



Sure they do, did you not hear the speech one of their reps gave at a show some years back? See how they played games with something as critical as MFA and removed it from the 60D so they could offer it as a 'new' feature again in the 70D (one of their reps got caught admitted they removed it so the future 70D could have a extra selling point), look at how they dribble out something as trivial to implement as AutoISO over a decade and did you see some of the user surveys they sent out where they were all but stating they were trying to figure out how locked in by lenses people felt and how much they could get away with dribbling out slowly.

Because even if a company is acting a bit too far IMO like that now doesn't mean they have to continue doing so or that they don't make good lneses and have a friendly UI.


----------



## Pi (Nov 7, 2013)

zlatko said:


> How productive is it to just keep bashing Canon on a rumors forum?



I wonder how productive is to defend it? Where do I sign up?


----------



## caruser (Nov 7, 2013)

zlatko said:


> And this raises a question. If you really feel that Canon tries "to get away with absolutely the least they can for the most money they can", why in the world would you stick with Canon???


I'm not really the target of this, because I'm mostly happy with Canon, but let me say that in capitalism every corporation has to get away with the least they can for the most money they can because otherwise they could be sued by their shareholders. Unlike the customers, which can't sue them for not implementing easily done features. However Nikon, Sony and Canon are all corporations, so for me there's no big difference. I'm sure Nikon users are waiting for some feature that Canon products have just like we Canon shooters would like for example the zoomed histogram that even the entry-level Nikons sport. Anyhow, back to shooting with my quite nice 1DX, I've mostly stopped caring about it having less MP or DR than a D800, and even though I would prefer more MP, DR and less AA, I'm really like my Canon glass, the 135L, the 50L, etc


----------



## sanj (Nov 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Still photographers use the same methods to control DR as cinematographers. Of course.


----------



## zlatko (Nov 7, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



You're looking for faults in everything they do, and finding it in the lack of ONE feature on a low-end model, the comments of some rep years ago, the wording of some user surveys, etc. It seems that everywhere you look, you perceive some ill motivation toward customers. With this eagerness to find faults, I predict that you'll never, ever be satisfied. And despite all of these perceived faults, with which you paint a picture of a rather bad company, you still can't get motivated to switch brands!?


----------



## J.R. (Nov 7, 2013)

zlatko said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > zlatko said:
> ...



Almost every company does stupid stuff at various points of time. Look at Nikon who have screwed the buyers as well as dealers when they replaced the D600 with the D610.

I guess it may be time for someone to chime in with the "Canon screwed the FD lens users by changing to EF mount" rant ...


----------



## Skulker (Nov 7, 2013)

Pi said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > How productive is it to just keep bashing Canon on a rumors forum?
> ...



Well zlatko, some people seem to just like to do that.

Pi, I generaly find being reasonable is the most productive way to behave. Not many will be very impressed if you flip flop from one extreme to the other. Reality is not often extreme.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 7, 2013)

zlatko said:


> You're looking for faults in everything they do, and finding it in the lack of ONE feature on a low-end model, the comments of some rep years ago, the wording of some user surveys, etc. It seems that everywhere you look, you perceive some ill motivation toward customers. With this eagerness to find faults, I predict that you'll never, ever be satisfied. And despite all of these perceived faults, with which you paint a picture of a rather bad company, you still can't get motivated to switch brands!?



There is good stuff about Canon too. I'd rather not have to switch. And as you say it takes time to get stuff like more DR out there, if people wait to complain about it until they are ready to switch next week, it's way too late. Maybe with all this stink and DxO reports and all they take note and the next 5D4/2D/1DsX or whatever round improves this stuff.

Anyway the point of this thread is simply that the Sony sensor in the A7R tests out VERY well AND it takes Canon lenses and it seems it works out well:

"The Alpha 7R has no problem with the Canon 24mm and 17mm TSE. The image remains sharp right into the corners and vignetting is the same as the EOS 5D a little at full adjustment."

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pf.nl%2F19555%2Fhands-on-sony-alpha-7r-metabones-adapter-eos-lenzen%2F


Wow that sounds pretty awesome to me. And NOT something to get all upset and defensive about as you all seemed to jump in here and become. In another forum, one guy was calling Canon users thinking of using Canon lenses on it traitors and accused them of making a deal with the Devil, I'm sure you will agree that at least that person is a fanboy.

It is interesting that they found it pretty sharp even at the edges so the recent Canon glass was designed for these higher MP cams.

Obviously it would be much nicer to have it all in one body and not have to have the high MP, high DR FF in a second (otherwise somewhat limited) body, but so far Canon refuses to invest in new sensor plants and they don't make that so we go with what we can. At least we have the ability now to not have to instantly full hog switch systems and we can use all the Canon lenses that we love and use this tie us over just a bit longer to give Canon just a bit more time to do something. So we now appear to have a good option to get high MP, high DR, low ISO shots within the overall Canon system in a sense, even the body itself isn't Canon branded.

I now plan to spend my money on this rather than a 7D2 next spring (barring some announcement for Canon that sounds better than this A7R option).

If the next big round from Canon has nothing for more DR and such then I will have to think about swapping sides unless the A7R is enough to let me give them just one more shot past that (although I'd probably have to keep my 5D3 and a lens or two for movies, which would be a drag and thus also why I hope Canon changes sensor fabs).


----------



## Pi (Nov 8, 2013)

Skulker said:


> Pi, I generaly find being reasonable is the most productive way to behave. Not many will be very impressed if you flip flop from one extreme to the other. Reality is not often extreme.


Huh?


----------



## stringfellow1946 (Nov 8, 2013)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> I think we should all begin to focus on the things we do agree on so as to avoid rehashing so many of the same topics and arguments time and again:
> 
> 1. The Sony sensor (D800/e) has the most DR from ISO 100-800.
> 2. DR levels out and advantage is gone after ISO 800.
> ...



+1, At long last the voice of common sense.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 29, 2013)

Watch from 0.50 to 1.10 mins and from 15.25 mins ;D
Sony A7 vs. A7R Hands-on Review


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Dec 8, 2013)

Does any one know how to change focus points on Sony a7, (like how we choose from the 61 AF points on Canon 5D MK III)?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Dec 8, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Does any one know how to change focus points on Sony a7, (like how we choose from the 61 AF points on Canon 5D MK III)?


OK, I figured out how to do it ... a bit long winded, but it works. In doing so I found that the sides of the images are horribly soft ... I guess it might be the weakness of the kit lens ... but the center is stunningly sharp.
For those who are like me searching how to change focus points:
Hit "Fn" button, choose "Focus Area" and select "Flexible Spot M" ... then you can use the Control Wheel on the back of the camera to select the focus point.


----------

