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

[krisbell]

I guess we're still waiting for you to put your portfolio where your keyboard is... :

What irrelevant nonsense. See earlier comments about not having to be a chef to be a food critic. Can we safely disregard any opinion you may have based on what we think about your online portfolio?

 

[Dylan777]

I guess we're still waiting for you to put your portfolio where your keyboard is... :

What irrelevant nonsense. See earlier comments about not having to be a chef to be a food critic. Can we safely disregard any opinion you may have based on what we think about your online portfolio?

Visited your site - GREAT photos krisbell

 

[krisbell]

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.

So you dont lift your shadows by 7stops? Nothing relevant there, almost no-one does. The fact however that the Sony has so much latitude that you CAN lift them by 7 stop means that a gentle 2 stop lift that many, many people will do will result in almost no degradation in quality at all. The benefits of the 7 stop lift ability that you mock can be enjoyed well before then.

I presume almost everyone on this thread shoots RAW when aiming for the very best image quality. Why is that if not, in large part, for the extra editing headroom it gives you? It certainly doesn't result in higher image quality straight out of the camera compared to a JPG. Would you prefer an image with 0 stop editing latitude?

 

[meywd]

I guess we're still waiting for you to put your portfolio where your keyboard is... :

What irrelevant nonsense. See earlier comments about not having to be a chef to be a food critic. Can we safely disregard any opinion you may have based on what we think about your online portfolio?

This is a forum full of photographers not photo enthusiasts, we don't discuss art, we discuss gear and technique, so you can't compare us to food critics, the right one is that we are chefs, pros or just ones learning how to do scrambled eggs, and what we are comparing is the effectiveness of knives and ovens

 

[Sporgon]

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.

So you dont lift your shadows by 7stops? Nothing relevant there, almost no-one does. The fact however that the Sony has so much latitude that you CAN lift them by 7 stop means that a gentle 2 stop lift that many, many people will do will result in almost no degradation in quality at all. The benefits of the 7 stop lift ability that you mock can be enjoyed well before then.

I presume almost everyone on this thread shoots RAW when aiming for the very best image quality. Why is that if not, in large part, for the extra editing headroom it gives you? It certainly doesn't result in higher image quality straight out of the camera compared to a JPG. Would you prefer an image with 0 stop editing latitude?

Fair point about the lift. Not about the benefit of working in 16 bit.

If you want to habitually lift by two stops or more the Exmor is for you. No doubt about it. But look at what even a two stop lift does to a correctly exposed raw.

The first shot is exposed to preserve the highlights on the Exmor. According to the histogram I have used virtually all the available dynamic range. The second is a straight two stop lift of the raw. When would you want to go as far as this ? The third is the finished picture. Apologies to the sports photographers here, but I was trying to pan at about 200th to get some movement.

Due to the available range of the Canon I never have to lift more than 1.5 stops assuming that the original exposure is optimised, which in landscape you have time to do.

I went to Bramham horse trials with the Exmor to try and get some shots where the Canon would not have coped. Not sure I have succeeded, but I have quite a few to process.

 

[krisbell]

This is a forum full of photographers not photo enthusiasts, we don't discuss art, we discuss gear and technique, so you can't compare us to food critics, the right one is that we are chefs, pros or just ones learning how to do scrambled eggs, and what we are comparing is the effectiveness of knives and ovens

You are quite right, that is a more accurate analogy - but it doesnt make Neuro's statement any more valid.

 

[vscd]

I just smiled while browsing the net...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/2013-12-leica-sony-canon/#rex

 

[krisbell]

Fair point about the lift. Not about the benefit of working in 16 bit.

If you want to habitually lift by two stops or more the Exmor is for you. No doubt about it. But look at what even a two stop lift does to a correctly exposed raw.

The first shot is exposed to preserve the highlights on the Exmor. According to the histogram I have used virtually all the available dynamic range. The second is a straight two stop lift of the raw. When would you want to go as far as this ?

Personally? All the time. Looking at your +2 edit - I can see a number of places in that image where I might prefer the lifted image. Of course I am not doing a blanket lift of the entire image like you seem to be suggesting, I am lifting certain elements where I either want to see more detail, or bring something to the attention of the viewer etc. This seems to be a common misconception with the "who needs any more DR" crowd - us occasional Exmor users are not walking around seeing how poorly we can expose a shot just so we can oooh and aaah in post at how much we can lift it - it simply gives us another tool in our arsenal that we can use selectively in post as and when required to lift/repair/enhance/improve specific parts of an image.

I went to Bramham horse trials with the Exmor to try and get some shots where the Canon would not have coped. Not sure I have succeeded, but I have quite a few to process.

Well this is where my argument ends - at a horse trial I would use my Canon. The advantages I have seen from my a7r are at low ISO settings. There may or may not be advantages at higher ISOs but the lack of quick auto-focus means I have never used my a7r for that purpose so cannot comment. The promised improved focus speed of the a7r II has me very excited, but I'm willing to bet it still wont come close to useable for sports/action/wildlife with a Canon lens.

 

[scyrene]

But this body won't work terribly well on a supertelephoto lens imho - especially handheld. Okay, if 'wildlife' if big game, and you sit with a tripod, it may well be worth considering. But for birds, I doubt it very much. We need ergonomic solutions.

I am much more optimistic about hand held handling. I never had any problems using the rebels with my super telephoto lenses (do not shoot birds except occasionally on safari). I do not see why handling the SONY should be worse.

Handling is of course user specific so YMMV. However, for me it would have to be really bad to give up 2 extra stops and almost 2x MPIX.

Time will tell.

A lot of bird photography is done on a tripod as well. In fact, most of my bird photography is done with a tripod. The form of photography I do that most requires hand-held use of a giant lens is BIF...and yes, the large size and ergonomics of the 5D III definitely help in that situation. However with shorebirds, waders, perched songbirds...all of that is done with the lens mounted to the tripod...the camera is just a little control box on the back that lets me focus and expose.

Fair enough. I can't get my head round it personally - though I know many do. I prefer the flexibility of using myself as the tripod, but maybe I'm weird

 

[scyrene]

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.

I find the high fps video most exciting too!

 

[meywd]

This is a forum full of photographers not photo enthusiasts, we don't discuss art, we discuss gear and technique, so you can't compare us to food critics, the right one is that we are chefs, pros or just ones learning how to do scrambled eggs, and what we are comparing is the effectiveness of knives and ovens

You are quite right, that is a more accurate analogy - but it doesnt make Neuro's statement any more valid.

Well..what many are saying is that you need this tool to produce this result in this situation, but others say that is not true, and if you want to prove we want a real world example, now if this was about cooking will you believe a known big restaurant chef or the guy who talks about cooking but you don't know his working history or if he ever cooked, now what I am getting at is credibility, jrista and sporgon are both with high credibility because they have shown that they know what it takes to make great photos.

 

[Sporgon]

Personally? All the time. Looking at your +2 edit - I can see a number of places in that image where I might prefer the lifted image. Of course I am not doing a blanket lift of the entire image like you seem to be suggesting, I am lifting certain elements where I either want to see more detail, or bring something to the attention of the viewer etc. This seems to be a common misconception with the "who needs any more DR" crowd - us occasional Exmor users are not walking around seeing how poorly we can expose a shot just so we can oooh and aaah in post at how much we can lift it - it simply gives us another tool in our arsenal that we can use selectively in post as and when required to lift/repair/enhance/improve specific parts of an image.

No, I'm not suggesting you would do a unilateral 2 stop lift, my example was to show how much a two stop lift is in relation to the five stop lift suggestions of others. I've incorporated one top lifts into the third image.

Well this is where my argument ends - at a horse trial I would use my Canon. The advantages I have seen from my a7r are at low ISO settings. There may or may not be advantages at higher ISOs but the lack of quick auto-focus means I have never used my a7r for that purpose so cannot comment. The promised improved focus speed of the a7r II has me very excited, but I'm willing to bet it still wont come close to useable for sports/action/wildlife with a Canon lens.

Agreed, but so far on my Exmor adventure I'm finding that any DR benefit might be more applicable to sport than landscape, as in landscape you have time to do something abut it, in sport, not. Rather ironic considering the fact that CR is plagued with "Exmor for landscape" comments. Incidentally I was shooting at 100 ISO the whole time.

 

[fragilesi]

Here are two 100% crops from the Fairy Glen in Snowdonia. Which one is from the mighty Exmor ? It didn't have a cat in hell's chance of holding the highlights coming from the water never mind how much I under exposed.

Of course due to the noise that 'can be seen even in the bokeh or unlifted shadows' you will be able to tell straight away which is the Canon. These shots are the same exposure and converted with no adjustments applied.

I'm definitely no expert so please bear that in mind!

Was the light situation really the same for both photos? I'm having a hard time not being convinced that there isn't a significant difference in the conditions.

The light was not exactly the same as they were taken about five minutes apart. My intention wasn't to do any back to back testing, I want to produce pictures, not 'test'. However the light intensity is the same. The point is, the Canon is 'so bad' and has 'IQ that sucks' and 'you can see the noise all the time' compared with the Exmor it should be obvious which is shot on which.

Okay, no problem, just wanted to be sure of what I was seeing.

 

[msm]

...
Agreed, but so far on my Exmor adventure I'm finding that any DR benefit might be more applicable to sport than landscape, as in landscape you have time to do something abut it, in sport, not. Rather ironic considering the fact that CR is plagued with "Exmor for landscape" comments. Incidentally I was shooting at 100 ISO the whole time.

As long as the scene is completely static I'll agree with you, the only benefit you may get from a Exmor is that you may be able to get away with one exposure.

I often find that there are movements in the scene or rapidly changing light . How you deal with dark trees moving in the wind against bright skies? Reflections in waves in water?

Another example which was posted in another thread was long exposures during rapidly changing light conditions where the poster was unable to take more than 1 exposure before the light changed.

In cases like this, I still find that it is easier to blend exposures when they have larger editing latitude and that the end results are better in problem areas of the scene.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I guess we're still waiting for you to put your portfolio where your keyboard is... :

What irrelevant nonsense. See earlier comments about not having to be a chef to be a food critic. Can we safely disregard any opinion you may have based on what we think about your online portfolio?

No, you don't have to be a chef to be a food critic. But if your Uncle Bob from Deluth, who can't boil an egg and has eaten at McDonalds his whole life, goes to a top Japanese restaurant in Manhattan, he's not a food critic – he's a guy with an opinion. Maybe you'd trust his opinion that the sushi was terrible, but I certainly wouldn't.

 

[fragilesi]

I guess we're still waiting for you to put your portfolio where your keyboard is... :

What irrelevant nonsense. See earlier comments about not having to be a chef to be a food critic. Can we safely disregard any opinion you may have based on what we think about your online portfolio?

No, you don't have to be a chef to be a food critic. But if your Uncle Bob from Deluth, who can't boil an egg and has eaten at McDonalds his whole life, goes to a top Japanese restaurant in Manhattan, he's not a food critic – he's a guy with an opinion. Maybe you'd trust his opinion that the sushi was terrible, but I certainly wouldn't.

I would, I hate sushi ;D

 

[canonvoir]

I just purchased an a7ii and quite a few native lenses. I am really impressed with the image quality of the Sony. So much so, I have not used my 5Diii since making the purchase. It also helps I like to hike and the weight reduction was a nice bonus.

This sports season I will still be using my 1DX but I will carry a Sony with a 55mm as well to see how it does for end zone and after game photos.

I will be picking up the a7rii and may even sell off my 5Diii. I hate to say it, but I believe I have purchased my last Canon body. Image quality is too impressive for me to look over. The biggest drawback is battery life. If they could double the battery life (not a big deal until you decide to do a really long time lapse and admittedly a battery grip for time lapse would solve this), it would be a no brainier for all of those minus sports pros.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I guess we're still waiting for you to put your portfolio where your keyboard is... :

What irrelevant nonsense. See earlier comments about not having to be a chef to be a food critic. Can we safely disregard any opinion you may have based on what we think about your online portfolio?

No, you don't have to be a chef to be a food critic. But if your Uncle Bob from Deluth, who can't boil an egg and has eaten at McDonalds his whole life, goes to a top Japanese restaurant in Manhattan, he's not a food critic – he's a guy with an opinion. Maybe you'd trust his opinion that the sushi was terrible, but I certainly wouldn't.

But at least he wouldn't be particularly concerned about what the name of the restaurant was unlike others who would turn up at a 4 star restaurant and proclaim that every dish was exquisite (even if it was under cooked tripe) - just because of the name of the restaurant. That's an opinion (or even review) that's worth even less than Uncle Bob's.

Yes, that certainly explains all the CR praise for the a7RII before anyone has even used the camera.

 

[candc]

...
Agreed, but so far on my Exmor adventure I'm finding that any DR benefit might be more applicable to sport than landscape, as in landscape you have time to do something abut it, in sport, not. Rather ironic considering the fact that CR is plagued with "Exmor for landscape" comments. Incidentally I was shooting at 100 ISO the whole time.

You can't always do something about exposing the image to capture the scene.

I think what you're saying is that it isn't just landscape photography that will benefit from increased DR.

Why it is only landscape shooter that "complain" is that is that the people who shoot action (sports/birds) have been in raptures over AF improvements and have just ignored the fact that IQ hasn't really changed/improved.

i think 2-3 stops additional dr would be really beneficial to wildlife shooters. blown out highlights on white feathered birds is always a problem. underexposing by a stop or so seems to do the trick but if its a black and white bird like a pelican or eagle then you will have problems getting clean detail in the dark feathers.

 

[Orangutan]

I guess we're still waiting for you to put your portfolio where your keyboard is... :

What irrelevant nonsense. See earlier comments about not having to be a chef to be a food critic. Can we safely disregard any opinion you may have based on what we think about your online portfolio?

No, you don't have to be a chef to be a food critic. But if your Uncle Bob from Deluth, who can't boil an egg and has eaten at McDonalds his whole life, goes to a top Japanese restaurant in Manhattan, he's not a food critic – he's a guy with an opinion. Maybe you'd trust his opinion that the sushi was terrible, but I certainly wouldn't.

I would, I hate sushi ;D

I know your response is humor, but I think his point is valid: a person's history gives a sense of what they're capable of doing. For example, modern painters are often criticized for doing work that could have been done by a young child, and critics are faulted for inferring deeper meaning. Then you look at the artist's history of immaculate, precise portraiture, and you know that it's reasonable to believe every brushstroke was intentional. (whether you like it or not is a different question)

History does inform the present in all kinds of ways.