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

[meywd]

Nonsense on two counts.

...ironically, all of Sporgon's samples are starting to imply that it's actually he that doesn't understand how to expose...

That's the true nonsense here. Care to show us your properly exposed portfolio? He shares his, and his images are astounding. All your doing here is making yourself look foolish and petty. Nice job.

COme on man, you know better.

He posts two images with blown highlights and not much shadows at small size and is like look, you can't tell teh difference so DR means nothing. COme on man, you are smarter to know that comparison was ridiculous.

And then he even says OK well supposedly one is supposed to expose less to save highlights and then do processing to shift midpoint and shadows to get better DR but I'm not used to that and all I know is how I expose and when I jsut do whatever they both blow the highlights and the it all looks the same to me.

Here's the full picture. Please note this is a quick stitch straight from small jpegs off the camera. So yea, I think I exposed spot on. Of course I have a much faster bracketed sequence to patch the highlights back in - on both Canon and Exmor.

What did you think I'd done ? Taken a shot of some blown out water ? The salient point is that in this practical situation the Exmor is no better, despite its "8000 tones vs 2000" tones, 14 stops of DR to 12 etc etc. Some of you guys are obsessed with the tech and not seeing the wood for the trees, or how this tech impacts on most practical situations.

You really need to make a workshop on how you do your panos from A to Z.

 

[bdunbar79]

Nonsense on two counts.

...ironically, all of Sporgon's samples are starting to imply that it's actually he that doesn't understand how to expose...

That's the true nonsense here. Care to show us your properly exposed portfolio? He shares his, and his images are astounding. All your doing here is making yourself look foolish and petty. Nice job.

COme on man, you know better.

He posts two images with blown highlights and not much shadows at small size and is like look, you can't tell teh difference so DR means nothing. COme on man, you are smarter to know that comparison was ridiculous.

And then he even says OK well supposedly one is supposed to expose less to save highlights and then do processing to shift midpoint and shadows to get better DR but I'm not used to that and all I know is how I expose and when I jsut do whatever they both blow the highlights and the it all looks the same to me.

Check out his portfolio then come back and tell us again how he doesn't know how to expose.

Full direct sun on white water. Deep shadows. Yeah, a couple stops of DR is going to make a huge difference if you 'expose properly'. :

what is if you 'expose properly?

in a contrast rich scene you can just expose after the highlight so they are intact and not clipped, all information then from the whitest and down in to the shadows are controlled by the dynamic range from the camera, a camera with a larger dynamic range can render the deep shadows with more color information ,less noise and higher resolution

Well, fortunately, in his real-life photo, there are no clipped highlights, no shadow noise, and he has plenty of DR. We don't all push shadows 5 stops. Please explain how an Exmor sensor would have made his photo look any different. Or do you just recite crap you read on the internet?

 

[privatebydesign]

Some of you guys are obsessed with the tech and not seeing the wood for the trees, or how this tech impacts on most practical situations.

That is so so true.

They seem to believe because x system has 40% more something than a different system (choose your favourite metric) the images should be y% 'better', but all gear is so good now that that elusive y% is getting smaller and smaller and impacts few photographers and even fewer shooting situations.

 

[meywd]

Some of you guys are obsessed with the tech and not seeing the wood for the trees, or how this tech impacts on most practical situations.

That is so so true.

They seem to believe because x system has 40% more something than a different system (choose your favourite metric) the images should be y% 'better', but all gear is so good now that that elusive y% is getting smaller and smaller and impacts few photographers and even fewer shooting situations.

tbh I am more excited with the RX10 II 1K FPS video than the more DR or BSI/Stacked sensors, I know that this feature will not be used a lot, but it opens the door to getting 10K FPS in a consumer(cheap) package, which will lead to lots of fun shooting.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Check out his portfolio then come back and tell us again how he doesn't know how to expose.

He wasn't exposing to save highlights in his examples and then apparently complaining that the Sony didn't magically save his highlights and then implying the Sony didn't make any difference. I think you know there is something wrong with that line of thought.

Full direct sun on white water. Deep shadows. Yeah, a couple stops of DR is going to make a huge difference if you 'expose properly'. :

3 stops might let you get just enough out of the shadows to look good and still save bright rocks

there are tons of scenarios shooting in a forest where it's dappled sun and those 2-3 extra steps are exactly what you tend to need to save stuff in that scenario

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Here's the full picture. Please note this is a quick stitch straight from small jpegs off the camera. So yea, I think I exposed spot on. Of course I have a much faster bracketed sequence to patch the highlights back in - on both Canon and Exmor.

What did you think I'd done ? Taken a shot of some blown out water ? The salient point is that in this practical situation the Exmor is no better, despite its "8000 tones vs 2000" tones, 14 stops of DR to 12 etc etc. Some of you guys are obsessed with the tech and not seeing the wood for the trees, or how this tech impacts on most practical situations.

I don't get what this supposed to show? You expose both shots the same way and then show a crop of the bright part. If you wanted to see a difference you'd have either:

1. exposed both as you did and then shown raised shadows in the very darkest parts (far away from what you showed), although since the highlights on the rocks are blown it's possible it was exposed so much that the shadows are still not too bad on the Canon, maybe, maybe not

2. exposed to save the rocks that are blown out and then compared them in the shadow areas in which case the Sony definitely should have looked better (but you apparently didn't want to bother having to expose to save highlights or something and perhaps thought the extra DR of the Sony was to automatically save the highlights, but taht is not how a standard digital camera works, it doesn't matter what the DR is. You need to expose so as to save whatever degree of highlights you wish to save and then the rest falls where it may, maybe the shadows are still fine or maybe they are a disaster, with cameras with more DR you hit the disaster shadows scenario less often)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Well, fortunately, in his real-life photo, there are no clipped highlights, no shadow noise, and he has plenty of DR. We don't all push shadows 5 stops. Please explain how an Exmor sensor would have made his photo look any different. Or do you just recite crap you read on the internet?

???? The Fairy Glen photo has highlights blown all over the place. If they were saved I'd suspect the shadow noise would be to the objectionable level, most likely in that scene, althoguh I can't be sure.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Full direct sun on white water. Deep shadows. Yeah, a couple stops of DR is going to make a huge difference if you 'expose properly'. :

3 stops might let you get just enough out of the shadows to look good and still save bright rocks

there are tons of scenarios shooting in a forest where it's dappled sun and those 2-3 extra steps are exactly what you tend to need to save stuff in that scenario

Dappled sun is not full direct sun on white water. I guess we're still waiting for you to put your portfolio where your keyboard is... :

 

[3kramd5]

Here's the full picture. Please note this is a quick stitch straight from small jpegs off the camera. So yea, I think I exposed spot on. Of course I have a much faster bracketed sequence to patch the highlights back in - on both Canon and Exmor.

What did you think I'd done ? Taken a shot of some blown out water ? The salient point is that in this practical situation the Exmor is no better, despite its "8000 tones vs 2000" tones, 14 stops of DR to 12 etc etc. Some of you guys are obsessed with the tech and not seeing the wood for the trees, or how this tech impacts on most practical situations.

I don't get what this supposed to show? You expose both shots the same way and then show a crop of the bright part. If you wanted to see a difference you'd have either:

1. exposed both as you did and then shown raised shadows in the very darkest parts (far away from what you showed), although since the highlights on the rocks are blown it's possible it was exposed so much that the shadows are still not too bad on the Canon, maybe, maybe not

2. exposed to save the rocks that are blown out and then compared them in the shadow areas in which case the Sony definitely should have looked better (but you apparently didn't want to bother having to expose to save highlights or something and perhaps thought the extra DR of the Sony was to automatically save the highlights, but taht is not how a standard digital camera works, it doesn't matter what the DR is. You need to expose so as to save whatever degree of highlights you wish to save and then the rest falls where it may, maybe the shadows are still fine or maybe they are a disaster, with cameras with more DR you hit the disaster shadows scenario less often)

It shows that for the way he wants his photos to look, it makes little difference. That's really the entire point, and why many of us (myself, an A7R owner included) laugh a little bit at the amount of attention paid to the DR delta between exmor and canon sensors. There are people who want to dig deep, for them it's obviously a big deal. For the typical user, it isn't.

 

[bdunbar79]

Well, fortunately, in his real-life photo, there are no clipped highlights, no shadow noise, and he has plenty of DR. We don't all push shadows 5 stops. Please explain how an Exmor sensor would have made his photo look any different. Or do you just recite crap you read on the internet?

???? The Fairy Glen photo has highlights blown all over the place. If they were saved I'd suspect the shadow noise would be to the objectionable level, most likely in that scene, althoguh I can't be sure.

You're absolutely right. Sorry I peered through all the photos in this thread. But yes I see the highlights.

 

[bdunbar79]

That aside, it still has absolutely nothing to do with my points at least.

 

[JClark]

Full direct sun on white water. Deep shadows. Yeah, a couple stops of DR is going to make a huge difference if you 'expose properly'. :

3 stops might let you get just enough out of the shadows to look good and still save bright rocks

there are tons of scenarios shooting in a forest where it's dappled sun and those 2-3 extra steps are exactly what you tend to need to save stuff in that scenario

Dappled sun is not full direct sun on white water. I guess we're still waiting for you to put your portfolio where your keyboard is... :

We're all waiting for something. Personally, I'm waiting for you to get through two consecutive posts without :.

 

[zlatko]

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

The 7-stop shadow lifted images are baaaaack!

Yes, that's very meaningful if one does 7-stop shadow lifting. Somehow I manage to never have to do 7-stop shadow lifting, but this is still very good to know. Because if I do become a 7-stop shadow lifter, I will definitely want a Sony.

It's like knowing that Brand X raincoats are much better to wear for scuba diving than Brand Y raincoats.

 

[3kramd5]

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

The 7-stop shadow lifted images are baaaaack!

Yes, that's very meaningful if one does 7-stop shadow lifting. Somehow I manage to never have to do 7-stop shadow lifting, but this is still very good to know. Because if I do become a 7-stop shadow lifter, I will definitely want a Sony.

It's like knowing that Brand X raincoats are much better to wear for scuba diving than Brand Y raincoats.

I like DUI, but only because they're local. It's the SCUBA equivalent of CPS

 

[expatinasia]

I like DUI, but only because they're local. It's the SCUBA equivalent of CPS

DUI is illegal in many countries, and quite rightly so.

 

[privatebydesign]

I like DUI, but only because they're local. It's the SCUBA equivalent of CPS

DAN is much better in most locations.

 

[Sporgon]

...
Here's the full picture. Please note this is a quick stitch straight from small jpegs off the camera. So yea, I think I exposed spot on. Of course I have a much faster bracketed sequence to patch the highlights back in - on both Canon and Exmor.
...

Wait a second..

At first you were presenting to parts of a crop to show that there was no difference between Sony & Canon for blown highlights.

Are you now saying that those crops were of JPEG files?

No. The quick stitch is from OOC JPEG. The crops were from raw. When I produce the panoramic the shadows won't be so deep and I'll be using the data from the Canon because it is better. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. Maybe in this case it's because I'm not as used to the Exmor sensor.

You can see that there is enormous EV range, not only from the intense highlight off the water and deep shadow under the rocks in the shade of the gorge, but also the non reflecting sunlit rocks and leaves. To under expose the exmor enough to hold even some of the intense highlights the deep shadow is lost - even on the Exmor.

The crops showed that both sensors blew at the same point and that when the data is left un pushed the 'IQ' in terms of noise etc is basically identical.

Jrista stated that the Exmor has more tonal values in the bottom third of the sensor than the Canon has over the whole range. So that should mean that if you push the data from the Exmor three stops your resulting data should be as good as, or better than, the data from the Canon correctly exposed and not pushed or pulled. But it doesn't work that way in practice.

Now give me a sensor that has more EV range and I'm in. That is a sensor whereby for a given exposure you get a stop or more highlight recording than with either the Canon or Exmor as well as the extra stops and the low light end.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Full direct sun on white water. Deep shadows. Yeah, a couple stops of DR is going to make a huge difference if you 'expose properly'. :

3 stops might let you get just enough out of the shadows to look good and still save bright rocks

there are tons of scenarios shooting in a forest where it's dappled sun and those 2-3 extra steps are exactly what you tend to need to save stuff in that scenario

Dappled sun is not full direct sun on white water. I guess we're still waiting for you to put your portfolio where your keyboard is... :

1. it is irrelevant, i could have the world's best or the world's worst portfolio and it could encompass tons of types of photography just one and it won't make 1+1 have any different answer

2. I don't like to mix it into the mess that are the tech forums. I don't want it really associated with all the nasty bickering and nonsense.

3. a few times I did get fed up and posted a zillions pics anyway despite my better judgement and all the bashers seemed to get really quiet all of a sudden and there were no more responses to the threads

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Dappled sun is not full direct sun on white water.

If you expect to tame specular highlights off of water and turn them into what? dark gray, that eye never even sees them as then yes another 3 stops of DR won't make a difference. But what about all the rocks that are blown out?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Here's the full picture. Please note this is a quick stitch straight from small jpegs off the camera. So yea, I think I exposed spot on. Of course I have a much faster bracketed sequence to patch the highlights back in - on both Canon and Exmor.

What did you think I'd done ? Taken a shot of some blown out water ? The salient point is that in this practical situation the Exmor is no better, despite its "8000 tones vs 2000" tones, 14 stops of DR to 12 etc etc. Some of you guys are obsessed with the tech and not seeing the wood for the trees, or how this tech impacts on most practical situations.

I don't get what this supposed to show? You expose both shots the same way and then show a crop of the bright part. If you wanted to see a difference you'd have either:

1. exposed both as you did and then shown raised shadows in the very darkest parts (far away from what you showed), although since the highlights on the rocks are blown it's possible it was exposed so much that the shadows are still not too bad on the Canon, maybe, maybe not

2. exposed to save the rocks that are blown out and then compared them in the shadow areas in which case the Sony definitely should have looked better (but you apparently didn't want to bother having to expose to save highlights or something and perhaps thought the extra DR of the Sony was to automatically save the highlights, but taht is not how a standard digital camera works, it doesn't matter what the DR is. You need to expose so as to save whatever degree of highlights you wish to save and then the rest falls where it may, maybe the shadows are still fine or maybe they are a disaster, with cameras with more DR you hit the disaster shadows scenario less often)

It shows that for the way he wants his photos to look, it makes little difference. That's really the entire point, and why many of us (myself, an A7R owner included) laugh a little bit at the amount of attention paid to the DR delta between exmor and canon sensors. There are people who want to dig deep, for them it's obviously a big deal. For the typical user, it isn't.

He wants his photos to have large chunks blown out or, alternately, the shadows either always drawn down or full of noise? If so, then fine, but I'm not sure that is how most people would go.