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

[9VIII]

As for me I do not believe that Canon can compete now on image sensor tech.
As I mentioned several times before they are not semiconductor tech company and can not keep up with the technology evolution race in this field.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, but if it's news to you then I'm so sorry to be the one to break it to you. The irony is thick here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersion_lithography

...immersion lithography tools use highly purified water for this liquid, achieving feature sizes below 45 nanometers.[1] ASML, Canon, and Nikon are currently the only manufacturers of immersion lithography systems.

That information is a bit old, but here's something a little more recent:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/semiconductor/news_events?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e02480e70574

Canon is a supplier of the highest quality computer manufacturing equipment in the world, they just don't use it for their own stuff. I'm guessing that the more precise processes give lower yields and until it's absolutely necessary they're just going to look at it as wasting money.

Edit: A little more digging: http://www.siliconsemiconductor.net/article/74993-Can-Nikon-or-Canon-Ever-Catch-ASML-in-the-Lithography-Market.php

This paints the picture of the market over most of the last decade. Canon isn't doing well but they're still a player in a game with only three competitors.

 

[Sporgon]

You CAN preserve the highlights, and still have better shadow tonality, than with a Canon camera. I mean, we are talking about total tonality of around 2100-2400 tones on a Canon, and anywhere from 7300 to 8100 tones or more on Exmor-based cameras. The entire tonal range of a Canon camera can fit within the shadow quarter of the signal on an Exmor...I mean, think about it: 8000/2000...if you consider the bottom quarter of the signal to be "the shadows", you could fit an entire Canon exposure in the shadows of an Exmor, and have the same tonality. Earlier highlight clipping? Saturation falloff? That's a total misnomer. You have GOBS more tonality in an Exmor signal than a Canon has in it's entirety, and you have as much tonality just in the shadows as a Canon has in it's entirety. There is no such thing as early highlight clipping or blue saturation falloff with an Exmor...

That sounds so impressive.

You'll be able to see that 8000 / 2000 difference here then.

 

[vscd]

In a camera with a 12-bit ADC, the ultimate limit is going to be 2^12. In a camera with a 14-bit ADC, the ultimate limit is going to be 2^14, and 2^16 for a 16-bit ADC.

That's true from information technology side, but not for sensors. The data is not stored linear into the RAW, otherwise you wouldn't get 14.6 Stops of DR (Nikon 7200) into a 14 Bit RAW. There are some excessive reports out there why even a 12 Bit RAW Format is quite good anyway.

One word to Sony from my side...

I got Sonyhardware since decades now. It was the finest Ghettoblaster I had and the walkman was a great invention. After their success "of worlddomination" Sony started to press their standards into the market to keep the pase with patents. The Minidisc was such an example (and CD, VHS...). Some of them succeeded, some not.

As a Sonyfan I bought a Sony TRV-30E back then (a DV Cam I still have) because it has a colour EVF and a quite nice IQ. After that i startetd to get disappointed by Sony slightly... there were just expensive Memorysticks available, the Remote Control only worked with Sony Televisions and the patents for the 4k Chip on the DV cassettes were not free for other brands. So I had to buy the expensive DV-cassettes from Sony, too.

At the same time my HiFi Sony MHC-2700 was one of the finest on the market, but the CD Player got broken. Sadly the whole System was connected witha stupid proprietary Bussystem (like SCSI) and you could not connect anything except of Sonycomponents. This means all parts are useless if the amplifier or receiver gets broken. This was no good sign. I won't bore you how it went further, but the problems got worse and worse and I swore not to buy their products anymore (even not the fantastic bravia).

This may have changed but I doubt it, I don't have the mood or the time to try it out. A burned child, you know . The trust into the (otherwise good) products faed away...

Now I read from lossy RAWfiles, broken bayonetts and no PC sync sockets.

A good sensor is not everything, the system counts in it's whole. The Flashsystem, the support, the lenses and even the bundled Software on your system. If I *ever* come back to Sony the whole ecosystem should have changed, but I doubt it has (seriously). That's one of the mainreasons why the D800 is a hell of a cam and sells like fresh donuts while the same sensor in the Sony A7R is way behind.

There is so much more in a product than 2 stops of DR! I consider it as second cam but I would never rely solely on Sony again, sorry.

 

[jrista]

In a camera with a 12-bit ADC, the ultimate limit is going to be 2^12. In a camera with a 14-bit ADC, the ultimate limit is going to be 2^14, and 2^16 for a 16-bit ADC.

That's true from information technology side, but not for sensors. The data is not stored linear into the RAW, otherwise you wouldn't get 14.6 Stops of DR (Nikon 7200) into a 14 Bit RAW. There are some excessive reports out there why even a 12 Bit RAW Format is quite good anyway.

The data absolutely is linear in the RAW file. The 14.6 stops, or 14.8 stops of the D810, is the result of comparing downsampled images. Actually, it isn't even as legitimate as that...DXO mathematically extrapolates what the dynamic range might be IF you had downsampled using a very simple algorithm. The 14.6 stops or 14.8 stops of the D7200 and D810 are not even measurements! They are computed assumptions based on the logarithmic extrapolation of what dynamic range is likely to be when the images are normalized to a consistent target.

Look at the screen DR numbers:

D7200: 13.79 stops
D810: 13.67
D750: 13.73

Print DR is neither an actual measurement, nor a representation of the information stored in the actual RAW file. It is a fine and dandy number that can be used for comparisons, but it is otherwise quite misleading. The Screen DR is an actual measurement taken from RAW files, and to date no camera that has ever "scored" over 14 stops of DR has ever actually measured as having more than 14.0 stops in the actual data.

The data is most certainly linear in the RAW file. There is no non-linear compression as in the case of JPEG (which has both a gamma curve applied, as well as gamut compression during conversion to sRGB.) RAW is raw, as it came off the sensor, without any modifications. That's the entire point.

 

[Maiaibing]

what I don't see is photos taken by non-Canon cameras (well, 35mm format anyway) which make me say wow, that is obviously not taken with a Canon camera.

Believe me - these pictures will start showing up in numbers very, very soon.

The deal is high iso quality on a large FF sensor.

This makes a huge difference in what you can do as it extends your effective shooting hours and options - just like fast primes do. It simply gives you more flexibility with more light options to play with during a longer time of the day. I really wanted a high MPIX Canon but the low iso of the new 5Ds was a clear deal breaker for me.

One example: During late fall the SONY will potentially give me 1 1/2 hours more shooting time in the early morning when the deer are most active (compared to 5DII). That's twice the "good" morning hours I get now. I imagine any dedicated nature shooter - always needing more light and more pixels to fight the low morning light and the subject distance - will want this camera in their bag if they have the money to spend (and expectations are confirmed).

I would also love to bring the SONY on my next safari - alas it will not be available for that. If you ever tried a Safari you would know how many amazing scenes cannot be captured by current Canon cameras due to either high iso restrictions or lack of pixels - or both. Especially in the late evening/early morning hours when most of the real action is on. Down South I'd say you get at least 1/2 hour extra time at each end of the day - a full extra hour of the best animal action. And because the "good" hours are shorter than in the North its relatively a huge difference the SONY brings to the table.

Of course the new SONY is not the answer to all our needs or everyones. And there will continue to be a strong demand for even more pixels and even better high iso in the future. But its an unrivaled option for some of us compared to anything Canon offers today.

Hope to see Canon there one day soon!

 

[Neutral]

As for me I do not believe that Canon can compete now on image sensor tech.
As I mentioned several times before they are not semiconductor tech company and can not keep up with the technology evolution race in this field.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, but if it's news to you then I'm so sorry to be the one to break it to you. The irony is thick here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersion_lithography

...immersion lithography tools use highly purified water for this liquid, achieving feature sizes below 45 nanometers.[1] ASML, Canon, and Nikon are currently the only manufacturers of immersion lithography systems.

That information is a bit old, but here's something a little more recent:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/semiconductor/news_events?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e02480e70574

Canon is a supplier of the highest quality computer manufacturing equipment in the world, they just don't use it for their own stuff. I'm guessing that the more precise processes give lower yields and until it's absolutely necessary they're just going to look at it as wasting money.

Edit: A little more digging: http://www.siliconsemiconductor.net/article/74993-Can-Nikon-or-Canon-Ever-Catch-ASML-in-the-Lithography-Market.php

This paints the picture of the market over most of the last decade. Canon isn't doing well but they're still a player in a game with only three competitors.

I am afraid you are a bit confused about that and more I was talking about something which is completely different.
Lithography is just one component of the chips manufacturing process. Basically (in very simple words possible) this is technology to make lines and dots on the surface of the chip for further chemical processing of the chip surface. The thinner lines and smaller dots - more elements could be created on the square mm of the chip surface.
At the end main component of the lithography system is optical subystem which allows light to focus to the very small spot.
As you probaly aware we already have 14nm technology producing 14nm chips so 45nm is at least 5 years back technology.
Also as Canon is one of the best manufactures of optical system they have all the strength to develop and produce such lithography systems. The same applies for Nikon.
At the end these are optical systems.

But non of them are semiconductor companies developing and producing semiconductor components in massive volumes (like Intel, AMD, Samsung, TMS and Sony in imaging sensor area). This business requies billions and billions of investments and extreemly high productiion volumes to get revenues which would eventually cover that expenses and have enough left for R&D to keep up with the race which is accelerating every year.
Canon is not anywhere close there and best way for them to defend and keep their ground in photography business is to work together with one of the semicondutor giants to keep up with the race in sensor technology. Othewise in the long run they could become kind of another Sigma or Tamron.

Some other considerations related to some othe posts:
Camera body is part of the photography system but with the evolution happening here it becomes more like consumable part - like some parts in your car.
It is becoming more electronic component rather than mechanical one so it could be expected that this would eventually end up being upgraded every 1 year like smartphones these days.
And this is not bad, actually this is very good as second hand one year old bodies could become available faster to those who can not afford to have the new best and latest. No need to wait 4-5 years for system upgrade cycle like we have from canon.
Everybody will benefit from the faster rate of technology evolution.
What is happening now is just part of general evouluton process and companies which would ignore that could become outsiders at some time. We already seen that many times.
But those who wake up not too late could become leaders again. Microsoft with there Microsoft Surface is one of the examples of that but this has some explanation - technology was not up recently to the level to produce such things like that. But with the strong will and push - this is happening.

 

[neuroanatomist]

what I don't see is photos taken by non-Canon cameras (well, 35mm format anyway) which make me say wow, that is obviously not taken with a Canon camera.

Believe me - these pictures will start showing up in numbers very, very soon.

Lol. Yes, we'll start seeing them in droves very very soon after we start seeing all those pictures where the extra couple of stops of low ISO DR make a manifestly obvious difference. :

 

[Neutral]

what I don't see is photos taken by non-Canon cameras (well, 35mm format anyway) which make me say wow, that is obviously not taken with a Canon camera.

Believe me - these pictures will start showing up in numbers very, very soon.

Lol. Yes, we'll start seeing them in droves very very soon after we start seeing all those pictures where the extra couple of stops of low ISO DR make a manifestly obvious difference. :

This is quite a bit of fun to watch all that but at some point this starts resembling broken grammophon playing the same piece of tune over and over again without any hope that tune will move further any time soon )))
The is also some saying in many languges that one who has strongest LOL probably has his LOL for the last time )))

I do not see any reason for people to argue about that now - time will eventually show who is right and who is wrong as was many times before.
But Canon is definetly starting loosing ground and I am sure that a7rII will really affect Canon dslr sales in this price range but no doubt as well that Canon will be selling its cameras in volumes due to many reasons mentioned many times here. Too many people are locked to Canon with other Canon costly system components (I would better say "trapped").
But for new buyer from new generations coming into picture this is not the case.

Things are changing very rapidly now and we will see results in 1-2 years from now. And regardless of how loudly someone LOL this LOL will not stop or slow down this process.
Amen.

 

[Maiaibing]

Believe me - these pictures will start showing up in numbers very, very soon.

Lol. Yes, we'll start seeing them in droves very very soon after we start seeing all those pictures where the extra couple of stops of low ISO DR make a manifestly obvious difference. :

There is a difference between how much shadow noise you have to deal with and simply not being able to shoot at all because subject movement makes a certain shutter speed indispensable.

Maybe you should try going out in the early morning or late night to shoot animals or people and see for yourself. You can also try flicking through Safari pictures on the net and see how many blurred morning/evening shots there are out there that people still treat as keepers because of the action.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Things are changing very rapidly now and we will see results in 1-2 years from now.

That's seriously funny! Many people here on CR (perhaps even you?) made that same statement 3 years ago when the D800 came out, then 2 years ago when the a7R came out. Where are those 'results' exactly? Oh, and MILCs should have killed dSLRs already. Still chuckling about that one, too. :

 

[bholliman]

You CAN preserve the highlights, and still have better shadow tonality, than with a Canon camera. I mean, we are talking about total tonality of around 2100-2400 tones on a Canon, and anywhere from 7300 to 8100 tones or more on Exmor-based cameras. The entire tonal range of a Canon camera can fit within the shadow quarter of the signal on an Exmor...I mean, think about it: 8000/2000...if you consider the bottom quarter of the signal to be "the shadows", you could fit an entire Canon exposure in the shadows of an Exmor, and have the same tonality. Earlier highlight clipping? Saturation falloff? That's a total misnomer. You have GOBS more tonality in an Exmor signal than a Canon has in it's entirety, and you have as much tonality just in the shadows as a Canon has in it's entirety. There is no such thing as early highlight clipping or blue saturation falloff with an Exmor...

That sounds so impressive.

You'll be able to see that 8000 / 2000 difference here then.

Night and day difference! : (sarcasm...)

I don't understand the technical arguments regarding DR and tonality, and really don't care to. I do want to take good to excellent pictures.

Despite all the claims regarding the superiority of the Exmor sensor for the past couple of years, I have yet to see any real world examples of where this sensor yields superior images. I've seen examples of badly underexposed images where shadow detail could be recovered, but realistically, those types of pictures are going to be deleted anyway. Maybe I've missed it, but from my perspective I can't see any real difference in IQ between images from Canon cameras and Sony/Nikon cameras for the kind of things I shoot (landscape, family, sports and wildlife). You can make excellent images with almost all of the photography equipment available today. Debate about subtle to imperceptible differences in IQ is just splitting hairs in my opinion.

 

[expatinasia]

And pros do bring stuff up. On the sidelines I'd hear them bring up AF or this or that now and then.

It is true that some are a bit jaded and it's all a job for them, the pay isn't always high and they are fine with just using whatever gets a result that keeps them in the job. For some things like newsprint, just a little bit of image quality can go quite a long way. Some of them are not all that technical and don't even know as much about what this or that HW can do than many amateurs in some regards. So sometimes the excited amateur is more apt to care about certain things, especially once you get past AF and speed. (Although I should point out I once shot next to a Getty shooter who was getting so disgusted with Nikon sensors, this was obviously years ago, that he was very seriously considering switching sides and he was asking all sorts of questions about Canon sensors and more.)

This made me smile, as it is so very true. This may shock many here, but one of the most common discussions I have with the Canon users I see frequently along side me on the pitch is what AF tracking settings they are on. I only do this when I know them well, but I often find they are curious too. Funny thing is, I have never met two with identical options, there are just so many on the 1D X (that frankly it can get confusing). I love the 1D X and we all know it is the best sport camera there is, but try and sift through all those tracking options and test them out and wow you will need a headache pill!

When I see my Nikon friends, and I have a few that we watch each others gear for if one of us needs to run off to the toilet etc., then we just talk about whether we are happy with what we have. It would take something quite big for either of us to change and we all know it.

I have never ever had a discussion that gets as in-depth as some do here. I learn a lot from CR but it also often confuses me.

I often get sun burned or get soaked sat in rain, thunder and lightening but love shooting sports more than anything, and I am very lucky to have been accredited at some of the events I have. At some events I hardly get any sleep, it depends whether it is one match or a major int. tournament, but it is all good. I know I have the best equipment. Sure, Nikon may introduce something to market in December that may blast the 1D X out of the water, would I change? No. I know that Canon will have something to beat it. That may take a few months or maybe a year, but I doubt my clients will care, and neither do I.

That does not mean I am blinkered, but I am invested. Can use the 1D X buttons with my eyes closed and know what I like and want. If someone comes out and beats it and Canon does not respond within 12 months and I feel I am losing clients for my pics maybe I will reconsider.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Maybe you should try going out in the early morning or late night to shoot animals or people and see for yourself.

What a wonderful, insightful suggestion. Because you know, I've never done that...never, ever. : : :

 

[Neutral]

Things are changing very rapidly now and we will see results in 1-2 years from now.

That's seriously funny! Many people here on CR (perhaps even you?) made that same statement 3 years ago when the D800 came out, then 2 years ago when the a7R came out. Where are those 'results' exactly? Oh, and MILCs should have killed dSLRs already. Still chuckling about that one, too. :

Not maybe me )))
And my statemet was different, for some reason you always trying to distort what are other people saying.
I never ever mentioned anything about d800 or that d800 or a7r will kill canon sales, please do not make statements not supported by facts, not good for you at all))

To be clear I only mentioned that I bought a7r to be as compact digital back for my Canon TSE17 and I was never dissapointed. It is MUCH more convinient and easy to use TSE17 on a7r compared to 1DX. At that time a7r was kind of prototype camera to demonstrate what it is possible in small body so I considered it as compact digital back only.
Then turn came for A7S as I was never satisfied with 1DX low light iso perfomance. And that was a real good surprise for me about image quality provided by a7s in any conditons despite low px count. And now with a7s and zeiss 35mm f1.4 za I can do good quality hand held night shots which was almost not possible with 1DX before. I really enjoy this combo.

What I was telling is that now Sony is starting gaining critical mass to be able to push away other vendors (with all the new lenses , growing brand recognition and now with really amazing new a7rII). This change will not happen immediately and we will see to what extent in about 1-2 years from now. Also we do not know yet how Sony will surprise us with a7sII and a9.

If Canon will not wake up they might loose some noticable piece of market share . And please note that I not telling they will be doomed, only that that Sony will byte some market share from them. How much - we will eventually see .

As for me I do not care actually.
I am not fan of any brand, at any point of time I still can afford to use what is the best and more convinient for me and I do not care what others would say about that. Why I can afford that is because my primary job is complex systems design and systems integration for many decades and ability to see industry trends and technology prospectives and select right approach to the new systems development (so that system will not become obsolete before it goes in productin mode) is extreemly important in that process and this is what I am paid for. I think this could explain background for my posts and my attitude to what is happening.

 

[raptor3x]

You CAN preserve the highlights, and still have better shadow tonality, than with a Canon camera. I mean, we are talking about total tonality of around 2100-2400 tones on a Canon, and anywhere from 7300 to 8100 tones or more on Exmor-based cameras. The entire tonal range of a Canon camera can fit within the shadow quarter of the signal on an Exmor...I mean, think about it: 8000/2000...if you consider the bottom quarter of the signal to be "the shadows", you could fit an entire Canon exposure in the shadows of an Exmor, and have the same tonality. Earlier highlight clipping? Saturation falloff? That's a total misnomer. You have GOBS more tonality in an Exmor signal than a Canon has in it's entirety, and you have as much tonality just in the shadows as a Canon has in it's entirety. There is no such thing as early highlight clipping or blue saturation falloff with an Exmor...

That sounds so impressive.

You'll be able to see that 8000 / 2000 difference here then.

Just to reiterate, because you may not have caught it, jrista was confusing dynamic range with tonal range. You can't just take 2^(# stop DR) and say that's the number of tones the camera can represent. Dynamic range represents the ratio between the lowest and highest tone that can be represented, but the actual number of tones that can be represented within that range is dependent on the quantization of the signal into discrete levels, which is in turn dependent on the standard deviation of the signal as a function of intensity. Just as an example, no current 35mm camera is anywhere close to being able to represent 8000 levels of grey in a single shot. The D810 would be closest with up to 910 tonal levels at ISO 64. To compare that with the 1DX, the 1DX has up to 648 tonal level at ISO 100 (the D810 has 792 at ISO 100). Comparing the 1DX and A7S at ISO 12800, the 1DX has a potential of 77 tones while the A7S has up to 84 tones; certainly an improvement but not the revolution jrista implies (at least not in terms of tonality). The real strength of the A7S is how amazingly well it preserves color and detail at high ISO, much better than the 1DX once you get above ISO 25600.

 

[krisbell]

Whether you like or need DR, I still cant see how there is any argument that more DR is better - surely its just how much better more DR is to you. I may shoot all my landscape shots at ISO 100 but I can still accept having better high ISO noise is good news, even if irrelevant for me. If your shots do not require high DR or you cant see the difference then great, but you cant try to pretend that having the ability of more DR is not a good thing - or worse, and like Sporgon is claiming, that it doesnt exist!

FWIW I found the jump in image quality at base ISOs to be larger when I went from a 5D3 to an a7r, than when I jumped from an APSC 50D to the FF 5D3 - I expected it to be better but was absolutely blown away by just how much better. I still use my 5D3 as my go-to camera for wildlife, flash and general photography as I can only manually focus my Canon lenses on the a7r.

And the pro vs amateur comment is totally irrelevant to the validity of any argument. I know many totally awful pro photographers and some unbelievably talented amateurs, not that it makes a blind bit of difference to what is being discussed. Do you have to be a cook to be a food critic, or an artist to know what good art is? etc etc

Having calmed down from my initial euphoria regarding the a7r II I now do not think it will replace my Canon for most uses, mostly because I do not believe it will focus Canon lenses at anything like a usable speed despite some early claims on the internet that it was almost as fast as native Canons. Sony themselves report only a 40% increase in focusing speed over the a7r. My a7r pretty much always fails to achieve any sort of focus at all, even with the latest metabones adaptor, so 40% quicker than nothing is still nothing...unfortunately.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Whether you like or need DR, I still cant see how there is any argument that more DR is better...

That's good, because no one is arguing that more DR is a bad thing.

 

[3kramd5]

And the pro vs amateur comment is totally irrelevant to the validity of any argument. I know many totally awful pro photographers and some unbelievably talented amateurs, not that it makes a blind bit of difference to what is being discussed. Do you have to be a cook to be a food critic, or an artist to know what good art is? etc etc

Nonsense; pro vs amateur is entirely pertinent. You assume (per your perfectly valid following sentences) the argument as being about quality of the user. It isn't, it's about the needs of the user. A pro relies on gear for livelihood. The gear has to function. Maybe that means it needs to shoot in the rain or lock focus in pitch black whilst triggering slave strobes around corners. The use cases differ, but the fundamental difference between pro and amateur is the first can't get paid if the gear doesn't satisfy the need, while the amateur is merely pissed off

 

[bholliman]

Whether you like or need DR, I still cant see how there is any argument that more DR is better - surely its just how much better more DR is to you. I may shoot all my landscape shots at ISO 100 but I can still accept having better high ISO noise is good news, even if irrelevant for me. If your shots do not require high DR or you cant see the difference then great, but you cant try to pretend that having the ability of more DR is not a good thing - or worse, and like Sporgon is claiming, that it doesnt exist!

FWIW I found the jump in image quality at base ISOs to be larger when I went from a 5D3 to an a7r, than when I jumped from an APSC 50D to the FF 5D3 - I expected it to be better but was absolutely blown away by just how much better. I still use my 5D3 as my go-to camera for wildlife, flash and general photography as I can only manually focus my Canon lenses on the a7r.

Kris, can you post some examples of the same shot with the a7r and 5D3 that demonstrate the IQ jump?

I'm curious. I've seen these big IQ improvement claims, but never seen any side-by-side shots of the same (properly exposed) scene with different cameras. Ideally the comparison would use the same lens. I'm certainly not disputing your statement, you have shot with both the 5D3 and a7r and I have not.

 

[krisbell]

And the pro vs amateur comment is totally irrelevant to the validity of any argument. I know many totally awful pro photographers and some unbelievably talented amateurs, not that it makes a blind bit of difference to what is being discussed. Do you have to be a cook to be a food critic, or an artist to know what good art is? etc etc

Nonsense; pro vs amateur is entirely pertinent. You assume (per your perfectly valid following sentences) the argument as being about quality of the user. It isn't, it's about the needs of the user. A pro relies on gear for livelihood. The gear has to function. Maybe that means it needs to shoot in the rain or lock focus in pitch black whilst triggering slave strobes around corners. The use cases differ, but the fundamental difference between pro and amateur is the first can't get paid if the gear doesn't satisfy the need, while the amateur is merely pissed off

So how is the difference between getting paid or being pissed off make one's opinion and needs more valid than anothers? And for some amateurs it goes way beyond 'merely pissed off'. In fact, I might argue the amateur is way more invested in an image than a pro. I get 2 weeks holiday a year to go off and take pictures and I spend plenty of cash on my holiday in order to get to places where I want to take pictures. If my gear is not up to the job and fails me in those 2 weeks I would be a lot more than "merely pissed off". If a pro misses a game or a pitch because of equipment malfunction then I doubt he will lose too much sleep over it. Either way, both pro and amateur will have financial and personal loss from that failure...and I still dont see how it makes one persons perspective more or less valid than anothers.

Kris, can you post some examples of the same shot with the a7r and 5D3 that demonstrate the IQ jump?

I'm curious. I've seen these big IQ improvement claims, but never seen any side-by-side shots of the same (properly exposed) scene with different cameras. Ideally the comparison would use the same lens. I'm certainly not disputing your statement, you have shot with both the 5D3 and a7r and I have not.

Unfortunately I do not. Believe it or not I am not a pixel peeper and conducting such technical comparisons would bore me senseless...which makes the improvement in IQ between the two so much more amazing to me. I have seen a few examples online of the two systems compared side by side in outdoor scenarios with the same lens so there are examples out there. If you are genuinely curious then go out and rent/buy one. Some seem to not be able to notice a difference, but to me the difference is so noticeable that I cant help but feel those people are lying to themselves.

If you browse my Flickr stream all the recent landscape shots are with an a7r and all the animal shots are with a Canon. They are all good quality and that quality is indiscernible at internet sizes but for me the difference comes when viewing images at over approx 50%, and also with the incredible editing latitude the files provide. I screwed up recently when taking a cityscape scene with my a7r and drastically underexposed the image. For a laugh I played with it in RAW and could not believe that I could lift it by about 7stops and it still had fantastic quality. Conversely a day later I took a picture with my Canon 5D3 at ISO 100 and couldnt believe the noise and banding BEFORE I started manipulating it in RAW (this image I posted in a separate thread). I cant afford a 600mm f4 so if I want to add blur to the background of an image to isolate the animal I often run into posterisation issues with canon images, but so far have not done so with a7r files. Yes I agree in an ideal world pushing exposure in post should be kept to a minimum, but I'm human and sometimes I make mistakes, sometimes I do not want to focus AND exposure stack a landscape scene, and sometimes I do want to make a strong edit in post for whatever reason (correct a mistake, creative etc), and the a7r gets me much closer to this than my 5D3.

Everyone who has participated in this thread is interested in quality, even those who post ridiculous "all the photographers are out there taking pictures rather than commenting on a post" comments. Good light, technique, composition and subject of course make up the bulk of what makes a picture great, but for discerning professionals and fussy amateurs alike, whether for financial, emotional or whatever gain, we all want to take the best image possible, even if the gear element only accounts for 1% of what makes an image great. In my personal experience for landscape work an a7r gets you much better results than a 5D3. I cant comment on any other Sony or any other Canon than this (perhaps a 50D if I stretch my memory).