1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

5dsr vs a7r vs a7rii

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by unlo, Aug 5, 2015.

  1. unlo

    unlo Sony ******

    Jan 19, 2014
    Ohio
    Matt
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Aug 6, 2011
    Wow, if that is real... as you say... Incredible.
     
  3. robbie36

    robbie36 TalkEmount Veteran

    486
    Nov 21, 2014
    • Unfortunately the guy rather messed up the test. He used 1/1000th/ f8/iso100 on the A7rii and 1/2500/f8/iso100 on the A7r/5Dsr so not surprisingly the A7rii performed better on the basis that it got over a stop more light than the others. Still even with the test done at the same exposures, the A7rii should perform well here.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. unlo

    unlo Sony ******

    Jan 19, 2014
    Ohio
    Matt
    Didn't catch that @robbie36@robbie36 thanks for pointing that out.
     
  5. storyteller

    storyteller TalkEmount Veteran

    322
    Sep 25, 2011
    Check the updates. The author is saying the stop of difference was a shift in the ambient. So if the amount of ambient light changed the exposure values should of course change as well (or the A7RII would be over exposed). Clearly not the best controlled experiment but I think the conclusions are still valid—if a little overstated. As the author points out it isn't really the relative noise values that are incredible it is the way the A7RII handles noise. It is much less offensive to the eye.
     
  6. MAubrey

    MAubrey TalkEmount Top Veteran

    It's kind of unfair for the 5Ds(r), too, since Canon sensors aren't ISOless. They're not designed to be pushed 5 stops from base. The Canon would have benefited from the exact same aperture and shutter speed using an equivalent ISO rather than a five stop push from ISO100.

    Still, I'm very excited for the A7rII.
     
  7. robbie36

    robbie36 TalkEmount Veteran

    486
    Nov 21, 2014
    I understand what the guy is saying but it doesnt help much. He kindly provided download links for the raw files and they clearly show that the vast majority of the photo has more exposure (in the original raw) of the A7rii than the A7r. (The sky at the top is the exception which presumably affected his exposure settings.) But the problem is that we are comparing the shadow areas where the A7rii clearly received more light. If the light changed a couple of shots between exposures it clearly doesnt make a good comparison.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  8. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Aug 6, 2011
    It did seem too good to be true. Not easy to do this kind of test!
     
  9. tomO2013

    tomO2013 TalkEmount Veteran

    375
    Dec 11, 2014
    Even allowing for a 1 stop advantage in exposure settings .... there is still significantly more than 1 stop in terms of dynamic range, noise, color accuracy etc...

    If we take the authors word for it that the correct exposure was used on both for the ambiet light, then the difference is not 5 stops as the author said, but is still significantly by a couple of stops. That's quite the achievement.

    I also happen to REALLY like the characteristic of the noise from this camera...

    Steve Huff has a nice example on his blog 102,400 jpeg with no noise reduction
    http://i2.wp.com/www.stevehuffphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/DSC00176.jpg
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. robbie36

    robbie36 TalkEmount Veteran

    486
    Nov 21, 2014
    I agree about the noise and noise characteristic.

    Here is a photo from the Lensrental blog taken at 12,800 iso in some pretty awful looking light. Looks very nice to me. This would have been even nicer converted to black and white.

    LAmEGMg.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Tim Parkin

    Tim Parkin New to TalkEmount

    6
    Aug 6, 2015
    Tim Parkin
    Hi Robbie,

    If you check the sky in something other than Lightroom (which doesn't give you the raw data) you'll see that they're pretty similar..

    Here's a couple of links to the rawdigger analysis pages.

    http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1379418/5

    Tim
     
  12. unlo

    unlo Sony ******

    Jan 19, 2014
    Ohio
    Matt
    @Tim Parkin@Tim Parkin What do you mean Lightroom doesn't give you raw data?
     
  13. robbie36

    robbie36 TalkEmount Veteran

    486
    Nov 21, 2014
    Tim I did check the sky and yes the RGB values of the sky are pretty much the same in both photos. However the sky has roughly the same RGB values because you have exposed off the highlights (or ETTR). The problem is that the shadows do not have the same values because the sky was actually brighter in reality with one photo than another (as opposed to brighter in the photo). And as you are using these files to show shadow recovery, you need the shadows to start from the same point.

    And anyway the concept of ETTR at higher isos is meaningless. Just shoot at a lower iso.
     
  14. Tim Parkin

    Tim Parkin New to TalkEmount

    6
    Aug 6, 2015
    Tim Parkin
    It was at base ISO - you really didn't read the article did you..

    again - I exposed off the highlights in the quarry, not the sky.. If you check the rawdigger values you'll see that had I chosen the same exposure it would have clipped all channels in the quarry area - because the light was brighter when we took the Canon series.. That's why I showed both Canon exposured in the ETTR rawdigger screenshot.

    As for the -6 shot, just look at the average values for the canon and sony shots. 1.6% for the Sony green channel and 1.6% for the Canon green channel. surprise.. Also, I've just run a full imatest series for the Canon and the two Sony's if you'll look at the other article. and I've made the test raw files available or analysis. No hidden agenda here - just an experimental methodology that you haven't understood yet.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. robbie36

    robbie36 TalkEmount Veteran

    486
    Nov 21, 2014
    Honestly Tim I have made no real attempt to understand your 'experimental methodology' on the basis that I have absolutely no idea why you are experimenting. As you point out the light was different with the Canon shots while it would make far more sense to compare sensors when the light was the same. (As a general point of principle though you cannot compare shadow recovery from exposing off the highlights.)

    And genuinely, Tim, I didnt read your article. I looked at the data you provided (ie the raw files) that were obviously flawed and drew my conclusions from them.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2015
  16. Tim Parkin

    Tim Parkin New to TalkEmount

    6
    Aug 6, 2015
    Tim Parkin
    In which case you have absolutely no grounds to criticse the results. Yes it would be great if the light was the same, it wasn't - welcome to the real world. Apart from waiting for another day I used my common sense to set the exposure to 6 "relative" stops difference. I have exposures with the same settings. They don't have the same light level.

    https://www.anony.ws/i/2015/08/07/histogram-a7r-a7r2.jpg

    and the cropped area from the quarry look like this comparing the A7Rii and the 5DSr

    https://www.anony.ws/i/2015/08/07/80th-comparison.jpg

    Please don't jump in with conclusions if you don't know the details.
     
  17. Tim Parkin

    Tim Parkin New to TalkEmount

    6
    Aug 6, 2015
    Tim Parkin
    The lightroom histogram is from the demosaiced image including adjustments (and white balance etc)
     
  18. robbie36

    robbie36 TalkEmount Veteran

    486
    Nov 21, 2014
    Well it would be good wouldnt it? Still if you leave nearly an hour between your A7r and A7r2 shots the lighting is bound to change isnt it? That isnt the 'real world' of testing - it is a lunch break.

    Look the facts are that you took shots at different times, at different settings and different light. You are in absolutely no position to criticize me for criticizing your data. But what should be of more concern to you is that your results do not match what other testers - such as Jim Kasson or Bill Claff - are finding. Now I can absolutely promise you that you are being heroically optimistic in believing you are right and they are wrong.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  19. Tim Parkin

    Tim Parkin New to TalkEmount

    6
    Aug 6, 2015
    Tim Parkin
    originally it was "oh you've given the Sony a big advantage because it has more light" and now it's "oh the light changed between shots and they were taken an hour apart" so keep finding more reasons if you like. Once I've explained the hour difference you'll surely find something else.. So here's the rebuttal.

    Firstly - one of the camera had daylight savings set on it. The actual difference in time was 7 minutes.

    Secondly - light varies, welcome to the real world. You compensate for that in an outdoor test otherwise you'll get wrong results. Yes it's not a scientific comparison but it's indicative of real world use. Our readers want to see actual pictures first, not gray scale test charts calculating luminosity dynamic range.

    Thirdly if you look at this article - http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2015/08/sony-a7rii/ - which was published two days before Jim Kasson's and shows similar results. (see the iso dynamic range graph).

    Fourthly - the colour response of the A7R in the shadows is worse than the A7Rii. If you post process them in lightroom quite simply you'll get worse shadows with the A7R. However with careful attention they're pretty damn close for general use. If you look at this picture you'll see that the same exposure in the same light and the same boost in the shadows gives a lot worse results for the A7R.

    The following image shows a studio exposure of a couple of magazines. On the left side is the adjustments made in Lightroom - note the heavy magenta cast on the A7R - it looks worse tan the A7Rii. On the right is the post processed in Photoshop. They now look very close. If you look at my article linked above though you'll see that the A7Rii actually loses fine detail when exposed like this and is noisier than the A7R.

    https://www.anony.ws/i/2015/08/08/a7r-a7r2-ag-comparison-lightroom-photoshop.jpg

    In other words - for the general punter the A7Rii will look better for broad shadow recovery. For the technical post processer the A7R is still the better camera at base ISO.
     
  20. robbie36

    robbie36 TalkEmount Veteran

    486
    Nov 21, 2014
    Tim you are a bit weird and slightly funny I will give you that

    Lets review the facts
    1) You post your data and results
    2) I point out that your data is based on the fact that your A7r2 has twice the exposure (1/1000@f8 v 1/2500 @f8) than the A7r
    3) You say the lighting conditions changed so you changed your settings
    4) I say the lighting conditions obviously changed because your data shows over 50 minutes between shots
    5) you say that it only shows over 50 minutes between shots because you dont have the right time in your camera

    So I am saying your data isnt valid because you dont use 1. the same settings 2. the same time and 3. the same light. And I am supposedly the one who is coming out with excuses?

    Well we can try and forget the first part here. Clearly if you set the cameras up side by side and take the pictures at the same time you end up with equivalent data. But I guess you didnt have the equipment.

    On the second point - people wanting real world results I do agree. In point of fact the only reason I am arguing with you is because I 'genuinely' believe you are making 'false' claims about the 'real world' ability of the A7r2. Be clear, I have absolutely no agenda here. I own the camera, I love the camera but I seriously dont want people to believe its image quality is something it isnt. You can see I have pushed an exposure here 5 stops with exposures taken seconds apart - I have also posted the raw images.

    https://www.talkemount.com/threads/13384/#post-96029

    If you go to the beginning of this thread you will see that people referred to your results as 'incredible' and 'amazing'. The reality is your results are 'incredible' only in terms of being 'unbelievable'. In reality the A7r2 offers a just noticeable incremental increase in image quality over the cameras that preceded it. I know it is an incredibly boring conclusion to come to but unfortunately there is nothing 'incredible' to show.