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

[Dylan777]

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

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

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

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

Meant to ask but it your posts got buried in the noise. Have you guys considered the ColorEdge CG248-4K or even the 30inch version?

Thanks for info.

No, I haven't. I've been using LG Pro line for years and I'm satisfied with the results. I'm currently using LG MB85Z.

 

[3kramd5]

So how is the difference between getting paid or being pissed off make one's opinion and needs more valid than anothers?

It doesn't make one's opinion more valid; I never indicated as much. It arguably makes the needs more significant, however.

Perhaps I need to go back, if you were discussing the validity of opinion I missed it. I entirely agree that a pro isn't necessarily better than an amateur, and that one not need be a professional to recognize quality. I was honing in on "And the pro vs amateur comment is totally irrelevant to the validity of any argument."

 

[Neutral]

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.

Could you please clarify your calculations on numbers of possible tones values?
This does not seem correct to me.
Here some basic math from theory of signal detection:
In general possible number of detected tones has limit of number of quantization levels if signal noise is going to zero.
Each quantizatin level is a decision slot for assigning digital value to the received analog signal at the input of ADC. For 14 bits ADC there are 16384 possible representatin of input analog signal. In theoretically ideal situation (with zero input analog signal noise) there are 16384 possible tonal values that could be assigned to received input analog signal.
Now when we come to real systems with noise (regardless of the noise origin) we have fundamental thing which is called SNR which affects precision of the signal detection - in our case to which tonal slot signal will be assigned. More signal noise more probability that signal will be assigned wrong digital value. Roughly if 99% of the signal energy is within particular decision slot ( in the center of it) then there is possibility that there is 99 percent probability that signal will be assigned correct value and 1% that that will be assigned value from adjucent decision slot. For image sensor this will result in 1% variations in image tonality signal with given noise level and noise distribution pattern. If signal value is on boundary of decision slot with the same conditions as above than there will be 50/50 distribution for output value assignements. This is actually why possible tonal values are less than ADC quantization levels.
This is actual limitation of one dimention signal detector when only signal amplitude modulated with noise is taken into account.
So overall all depends on number of signal detector decision slots and intensity and distribution pattern of the signal noise and actual signal level at the input.
If majority of signal noise power spectrum width becomes wider than width of the decision slot than this is where we would see that number of the possible correct tonal numbers would be reduced.
Also errors in signal values assignmets would be more frequent for lower level signals - this is just signal detector SNR function for two input noise varàibles - read noise and photon noise in our case.
I do not think we need to go more deep into that. These are just basics.

So according to all said above Jrista calculations seem correct to me.
If you can actually prove that this is different and Jrista is not correct somewhere I àm really interested to see that.

 

[Marsu42]

There is no such thing as more DR in the shadows, or more shadow latitude. There is simply more DR, more editing latitude. That's it.

Technically true, but not necessarily accurate in the real world b/c my observation is that raw converters are "tuned" for a certain type of histogram distribution, at least ACR is.

What you're referring to here is the tone curve that is applied to the raw data in order to map that number range into a number space that makes for sensible viewing on our monitors. If you want to see what the image data "looks like" without that tone curve being applied, choose "Linear" in DPP.

I already use "neutral" in ACR, and that doesn't change the fact that Adobe's PV2012 is more "intelligent" than older versions and thus tuned to respond to a certain type of image. If you're giving it data it doesn't quite expect, you have to fumble around more - this is a "known issue" and was a matter of hot debate when Adobe introduced it.

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.

I am :-> ... if you'd have 20ev dr in the 14bit cr2 file, that would be a bad thing(tm) indeed. But all things in moderation, +2-3ev more like dual_iso gives you w/o the workflow hassle would be very welcome.

 

[Dylan777]

Jrista,
I really admire your patience and time spent on explaining to the audience basics of signal processing theory as applied to image processing. I wish I could have same level of patience.

As for a7s compared to 1DX even at iso6400 a7s images look cleaner with better colors and more pleasant for my eyes than images from 1DX and at higher iso difference is more significant.

Based on a7rII description and specs I expect it to be on par or possibly even slightly surpass 1DX high iso performance at least up to iso6400.
I hope that at a7rII could be even on par with a7s up to iso 6400.
Then time to sell both a7r and a7s and replace both with a7rII and wait for a7sII with some crazy specs and hopefully that Canon could do something really impressive for 1DX II ( i wish foveon like sensor with a7s iso performance). I like my 1DX but i was never satisfied with its high iso performace. A7s was real change in this respect.
As for me I do not believe that Canon can compete now on image sensor tech.
As I mentioned several times before they are not semiconductor tech company and can not keep up with the technology evolution race in this field.
Best for them would be to form kind of alliance with one of semiconductor companies for mutial development and manufacturing new sensors. I wish that this could be Aptina so there would be strong competitor to Sony. I think that the current Canon problem is some stubborn and conservative management at some level that do not realize how beneficial this could be for Canon. So at the moment I do not expect any miracles from Canon and it gives me some sad feeling. It is loosing more and more to Sony in every dimension so their ground is slowly shrinking. And some canon new products are just dead babies before really born - e.g. XC10

I would have same plan ONLY the new AF system in A7rII works. It looks like Sony will wait for Canon to release their top models(5D4 & 1Dx II) before bringing out the a7s II. Will be fun to see mirrorless competing with DSLR. At this time, IQ is neck to neck. AF tracking is getting closer for mirrorless.

If the new a7rII and future models able to work A-mount and 3rd party lenses without any issues in tracking, I think Sony will take a bigger bite in photography market.

 

[unfocused]

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

Splitting hairs is what drives this forum. It's like the old saying about politics in academia being so vicious because the stakes are so small.

 

[bdunbar79]

Let's quote from krisbell:

"Unfortunately I do not. Believe it or not I am not a pixel peeper and conducting such technical comparisons would bore me senseless...which makes the improvement in IQ between the two so much more amazing to me."

Really no surprise here. No one can ever produce. No one EVER has any photos readily available that compares the two. Nobody asked for scientific pixel peeping shots. They asked for two real-life examples side by side to demonstrate said improvement in IQ. And as is typical, you have none. Nobody ever does.

But then,

"They are all good quality and that quality is indiscernible at internet sizes but for me the difference comes when viewing images at over approx 50%, and also with the incredible editing latitude the files provide."

Once again, not surprised. Once you do point out photos taken with both, you then state there is no discernible difference in IQ.


Really not surprised at all.

 

[krisbell]

Let's quote from krisbell:

"Unfortunately I do not. Believe it or not I am not a pixel peeper and conducting such technical comparisons would bore me senseless...which makes the improvement in IQ between the two so much more amazing to me."

Really no surprise here. No one can ever produce. No one EVER has any photos readily available that compares the two. Nobody asked for scientific pixel peeping shots. They asked for two real-life examples side by side to demonstrate said improvement in IQ. And as is typical, you have none. Nobody ever does.

But then,

"They are all good quality and that quality is indiscernible at internet sizes but for me the difference comes when viewing images at over approx 50%, and also with the incredible editing latitude the files provide."

Once again, not surprised. Once you do point out photos taken with both, you then state there is no discernible difference in IQ.


Really not surprised at all.

Eh? Sorry it feels as if I have missed a few chapters here. Yes I agree there is no discernable difference at internet sizes - just as there isn't between a 10 year old camera and todays latest and greatest at internet sizes. How does that prove or disprove anything?

And you are quite right, I do not have any examples side by side with the two cameras, with the same lens and the same conditions. I guess that means I am a liar? Or alternatively, I have seen a discernible improvement in quality with the a7r over the 5D3 for what I shoot, and for what I consciously (or sub-consciously) look for in an image. It really is as simple as that. I find the quality of the a7r shots to be much better. So much better in fact, that I feel it somewhat explains the polarised views evident in this thread - the difference matters and/or is very obvious to some, and it is perplexing and frustrating when others feel there is no difference.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Really no surprise here. No one can ever produce.

Reminds me of an old SNL skit commercial spoof on Preparation H for Women. "Why is it better than regular Preparation H? It just is, trust us."

 

[bdunbar79]

So then my conclusion is that in MOST normal shooting situations there is no difference, at all. To anyone.

Sales stats also support that claim.

 

[krisbell]

Here is one link I found on a quick search comparing editing latitude of a7r versus 5D3 - an area in which the a7r is astonishingly better and surely cannot be in dispute? http://www.fredmiranda.com/A7R-review/

And i've sunk to new depths here as I include an absolutely awful comparison of my own from a7r versus 5D3. Both are square crops of 900px. Taken in the exact same conditions though unfortunately different settings and different lenses. The comparison is probably meaningless but it is the best I have so I am putting it out there for ridicule. The canon was with a 100mm macro and the sony with a canon 16-35mm at 34mm. Canon was f9, 1/125 ISO 100. Sony f7.1, 1/320 and ISO 200. My gut feeling from using both lenses very many times with the 5D3 is that my 100mm macro should be sharper, though they are both excellent lenses. Both were handheld, the canon autofocused and Sony manual focused. To my eyes the Sony is nicer. I freely admit this is subjective and proves nothing, I am simply trying to add some substance (no matter how pitiful) to my own practical observations.

 

[neuroanatomist]

And i've sunk to new depths here as I include an absolutely awful comparison of my own from a7r versus 5D3. Both are square crops of 900px. Taken in the exact same conditions though unfortunately different settings and different lenses.

I prefer the apple.

 

[Neutral]

Here is one link I found on a quick search comparing editing latitude of a7r versus 5D3 - an area in which the a7r is astonishingly better and surely cannot be in dispute? http://www.fredmiranda.com/A7R-review/
<...>

I remember this review, it was very impressive at that time.
His site is interesting one.
This review did actually help me decide to buy a7r for my Canon TSE17 some time back.

 

[krisbell]

I prefer the apple.

Lol - I walked into that one all right. There is obviously a very good reason why I dont run a sensor review website!

 

[jrista]

So according to all said above Jrista calculations seem correct to me.
If you can actually prove that this is different and Jrista is not correct somewhere I àm really interested to see that.

There is a difference. I am talking about the dynamic range of the camera, Raptor is talking about the signal to noise ratio of an image. The two are different things. Dynamic range, as I am referring to it, has to do with the analog signal represented by charge in the pixels of the sensor. Until such time as you press the shutter button, the information you are working with in the camera is more finely delineated (i.e. FWC in electrons can be 60k, 90k, 160k...the maximum digitized number can be 2^N, and N is usually 14), and it can be freely moved around.

Every image is different. The SNR of an image, the noise inherent in the signal, and the tonality of each image, is infinitely diverse...we cannot use that to describe the capabilities of a camera. Dynamic range relies only on the hardware traits, and as such it CAN be used to describe the capabilities of a camera. Even when you factor in photon shot noise, however, the increase in dynamic range still means you have an increase in usable tones in an actual image.

I found a formula last night while sitting out in the middle of nowhere imaging Lagoon and Trifid nebulas (yeah, after you get set up, it gets pretty boring.. At least my dark site has 4G access on my smartphone! ) that can be used to approximate the loss in bit depth in an actual signal, assuming you used the entire dynamic range:

TRbits = DRev - log(2 * (SQRT(RN^2 +fwc) - RN))

There is a more complex formula that requires details of an actual image, but for the case of just determining what the tonal range of a pixel that covers the entire dynamic range up to the clipping point, this will give you the number of bits of tonality. I figured I'd use Canon's best high resolution DSLR that has test data, the 6D, since it has a nice large FWC and lower read noise than the 5D III and 1D X. It has 11.5 stops of DR, or "EV bits" as they were described in this formula. Comparing to the A7r:

6D_TRbits = 11.5 - log(2 * (SQRT(26.4^2 + 74256) - 26.4)) = 8.8ev
A7r_TRbits = 13.5 - log(2 * (SQRT(4.3^2 + 49714) - 4.3)) = 10.85ev

In terms of tonality, we would then have 2^evbits, so 2^8.8 for the 6D, 2^10.8 for the A7r. That gives us a tonal range for two images that use the entire dynamic range of each camera of 446 for the 6D, and 1846 for the A7r. That is a difference of 1400 tones. In terms of the ratio difference on usable tones, that is over 4:1...which is in line with the synthetic 8000/2000 ratio of exactly 4:1. It still doesn't matter if you are talking about the discrete steps of differentiable signal allowed by the dynamic range of the camera, or tones in an actual image...the relative difference is the same. A factor of four difference (or slightly more, as it seems), or about two stops. That, too, is in line with the difference in stops of dynamic range: 13.5-11.5 = 2.

For those who say the difference in tonality is small to meaningless:

This image was lifted a total of +5 stops globally, total of +7 stops in the shadows with additional shadow and black sliders work. The top row is just with the lift, the bottom row is with additional work to reduce the Canon banding, and restore some useful contrast to the image. Those highlights there are midtones (they became highlights due to the strong push). Canon's increased read noise has an impact to overall read noise right up into those midtones. The deeper you get, the greater the discrepancy in tonality is. Is the tonality of 7-stop deep shadows as good as your upper midtones? Of course not. But there IS a massive difference in the tonality of these two cameras. Seven stops...this may not be some multi-stop HDR image that put every bit of tonality in the scene at the upper end of the dynamic range for maximum potential...but SEVEN STOPS. To have detail even as good as this, after pushing it seven stops, should at least tell you something about what the difference in dynamic range between Sony cameras and Canon cameras means.

An assertion was made that Sony cameras have problems with highlights...that they clip sooner, and that they lose saturation. First, I have not experienced that myself, even with this image (where I intentionally clipped the highlights by a third stop to force maximal utilization of the DR of both cameras.) Second, assuming there were issues with highlight clipping and falloff...drop exposure a third of a stop, or a full stop. I pushed the above images seven stops...pushing a single stop so you can preserve every scrap of highlight detail, and preserve it with as much color fidelity as possible, is a no brainer here. There is more than enough tonality in the shadows of an Exmor to NEVER have any problems with highlights, ever, and always have better tonality in your shadows than a Canon camera could ever deliver.

And if that STILL isn't enough....just do HDR! You would have been doing HDR with a Canon anyway...

 

[Neutral]

And i've sunk to new depths here as I include an absolutely awful comparison of my own from a7r versus 5D3. Both are square crops of 900px. Taken in the exact same conditions though unfortunately different settings and different lenses.

I prefer the apple.

So what???
Many others prefer both, one or another depending on the mood and time of the day )))
Everyone has his personal likes and dislikes and this is just normal )))

 

[krisbell]

I prefer the apple.

But I disagree, the orange is way better.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I prefer the apple.

But I disagree, the orange is way better.

So you pick the fruit that matches the color of the ring on Sony's lens mount, and I pick the fruit that matches the color of the ring on Canon's lenses. Interesting....

Of course, with your choice there's manual work to be done before you get to the sweet part...

 

[krisbell]

So you pick the fruit that matches the color of the ring on Sony's lens mount, and I pick the fruit that matches the color of the ring on Canon's lenses. Interesting....

Of course, with your choice there's manual work to be done before you get to the sweet part...

But after the added work of making mine usable there are less maggots inside. (stretching analogy to its limits already!)

 

[scyrene]

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.

I've not even been on this forum for more than a couple of years as far as I can remember, and even I'm tired of hearing this. People have been saying it for years, and we're still waiting.