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

[neuroanatomist]

3. A large number of photographers already have Canon lenses from earlier and are reluctant to make a whole system change for economic or other reasons.

Certainly. As I have often said, Canon is the market leader because their products best meet the needs of the majority of photographers. Full compatibility with existing equipment is one such need.

 

[quod]

One great function I am looking forward to is the manual focus functionality of the A7RII. It was a massive disappointment when Canon (again) left out support for precision focusing screens on the 5DSR. I have a bunch of Zeiss lenses, which I´ll have to use live view with the 5DSR, which I hate. When I get the A7RII, I can use focus peaking, but more importantly I can use area magnification in the OVF. And by using the A7RII, I suddenly have image stabilisation on all the Zeiss lenses. The downside is of course a crappy UI and poor ergonomics, compared to the Canons and the need for an adaptor. But it is worth a try.

I am also looking forward to using Zeiss glass on the A7RII. As much as I like my Canon lenses, Zeiss delivers more microcontrast and mirrorless technology like focus peaking and auto-magnification of focus areas is very well-suited to manual focusing.

 

[Marsu42]

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?

Software is freaky good nowadays at sorting out ghosting.

Agreed it's not even an issue. I very rarely have to use de ghosting because of the way I blend the files. Arguing around the movement issue shows these guys are on the back foot.

I have to give it to you: Your self-confidence leaves me in awe and nearly speech/writeless.

You're actually stating that *you* with *your* type of photography rarely have to de-ghost means that *other* people experiencing a different situation are on "the back foot"? I don't even want to argue about that, but I have to state that with this lack of thought the whole debate is worthless as it's simply about knowing you're right and try to prove/tell it to the world. But that's probably the way an Internet forum works, even though it could - in theory - be about productive exchange of experiences and widening one's horizon.

 

[privatebydesign]

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?

Software is freaky good nowadays at sorting out ghosting.

Agreed it's not even an issue. I very rarely have to use de ghosting because of the way I blend the files. Arguing around the movement issue shows these guys are on the back foot.

I have to give it to you: Your self-confidence leaves me in awe and nearly speech/writeless.

You're actually stating that *you* with *your* type of photography rarely have to de-ghost means that *other* people experiencing a different situation are on "the back foot"? I don't even want to argue about that, but I have to state that with this lack of thought the whole debate is worthless as it's simply about knowing you're right and try to prove/tell it to the world. But that's probably the way an Internet forum works, even though it could - in theory - be about productive exchange of experiences and widening one's horizon.

I didn't take that comment to mean that. I saw it that there are generally only small areas that actually fall outside the DR range in an image that needs blending, throw in the very recent improvements in post processing and unless you are very current in software and technique you are 'on the back foot'.

Learning processing takes me way more time than learning cameras! For instance I am using 7year old cameras, the images from them are not outgunned to any noticeable degree by the latest and greatest (for what I shoot and I am a generalist), but the software is changing so fast, my 14 month old LR and PS is totally outclassed by todays LR and PS. The files I have worked before can be reworked to give me more benefits than getting a new body.

I blend a lot, I started with that awful Photomatix, moved to Enfuse, then to 32 bit in PS, now I can do the same job better and faster in LR. I have learnt the same thing four times in five years.

There are a few here who respect my processing abilities, yet I am constantly learning, I was 'on the back foot' until a couple of weeks ago with regards blending and stitching, today I am just a bit behind. With regards other aspects of post processing I am a newbie.

 

[msm]

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?

Software is freaky good nowadays at sorting out ghosting.

Agreed it's not even an issue. I very rarely have to use de ghosting because of the way I blend the files. Arguing around the movement issue shows these guys are on the back foot.

I have to give it to you: Your self-confidence leaves me in awe and nearly speech/writeless.

You're actually stating that *you* with *your* type of photography rarely have to de-ghost means that *other* people experiencing a different situation are on "the back foot"? I don't even want to argue about that, but I have to state that with this lack of thought the whole debate is worthless as it's simply about knowing you're right and try to prove/tell it to the world. But that's probably the way an Internet forum works, even though it could - in theory - be about productive exchange of experiences and widening one's horizon.

I will have to second that, I asked a honest question when the thread seemed to take a turn to the better but this reply was not constructive at all. In fact it contains grave errors demonstrating a lack of understanding of the concept of DR that one might think being a little more humble might be an idea. I'll thank PBDs for being more constructive and I'm giving CC a try.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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

Yeah he does have great stuff. I remember his stuff from way back.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

I don't get this example either. You post a scene that is not particularly high DR and where the mid-tone happens to automatically fall naturally in line with a typical tone response curve and where the dark parts are only just slightly too dark when savings highlights as desired and then you apply a broad across the image range shadow lift for no particular reason and then complain that the shot looks weird and then conclude that there is no point to the fact that Exmor lets one lift shadows a couple stops since nobody would ever do that. I don't get it.

It's like saying if I follow the 25MPH speed limit I can drive a Yugo to the store 1/2 mile away just as fast as I can in an F1 car and without all the extra gas expense and heat and noise and therefore Lewis Hamilton is silly for not driving a Yugo to go racing instead of an F1 car. Nothing about the comparison or logic of it makes any sense.

 

[Sporgon]

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?

Software is freaky good nowadays at sorting out ghosting.

Agreed it's not even an issue. I very rarely have to use de ghosting because of the way I blend the files. Arguing around the movement issue shows these guys are on the back foot.

I have to give it to you: Your self-confidence leaves me in awe and nearly speech/writeless.

You're actually stating that *you* with *your* type of photography rarely have to de-ghost means that *other* people experiencing a different situation are on "the back foot"? I don't even want to argue about that, but I have to state that with this lack of thought the whole debate is worthless as it's simply about knowing you're right and try to prove/tell it to the world. But that's probably the way an Internet forum works, even though it could - in theory - be about productive exchange of experiences and widening one's horizon.

I didn't take that comment to mean that. I saw it that there are generally only small areas that actually fall outside the DR range in an image that needs blending, throw in the very recent improvements in post processing and unless you are very current in software and technique you are 'on the back foot'.

Exactly. Some people want to take things as personal insults.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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 the scenario here is more like whether the food has been contaminated or not, not whether it's done by a master chef.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

...
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.

The reason people don't bring it up in the sports and wildlife context as much is that you already get raked over the coals for bringing it up for landscape enough as it is and since the competition doesn't have a 7D2-type body out we at least give them that bone and don't bother bringing up how it could help in other scenarios at times too all that often.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I think we all agree that more DR is good; the greater the increase, the greater the good, but that has never been the question.

If only that were true. I mean we just spent the last 4 pages arguing over whether it makes any difference or not with Sporgon trying to imply it's all a useless crock or something and then there is the one guy who insists more DR actually makes a sensor much worse.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I have to give it to you: Your self-confidence leaves me in awe and nearly speech/writeless.

You're actually stating that *you* with *your* type of photography rarely have to de-ghost means that *other* people experiencing a different situation are on "the back foot"?

I guess those of *us* who aren't apalled at the poor IQ that Canon cameras deliver for *our* photography are also on the back foot?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

You sound like somebody who theorises over the 'issues' rather than actually applies the talked about solutions. Auto de-ghosting used to be mediocre to bad, now it isn't.

I still see plenty of weird stuff.
And multi-shot is slower to process, more fully tripod reliant and slower in the field too.

 

[Sporgon]

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.

I don't get this example either. You post a scene that is not particularly high DR and where the mid-tone happens to automatically fall naturally in line with a typical tone response curve and where the dark parts are only just slightly too dark when savings highlights as desired and then you apply a broad across the image range shadow lift for no particular reason and then complain that the shot looks weird and then conclude that there is no point to the fact that Exmor lets one lift shadows a couple stops since nobody would ever do that. I don't get it.

It's like saying if I follow the 25MPH speed limit I can drive a Yugo to the store 1/2 mile away just as fast as I can in an F1 car and without all the extra gas expense and heat and noise and therefore Lewis Hamilton is silly for not driving a Yugo to go racing instead of an F1 car. Nothing about the comparison or logic of it makes any sense.

But it's shot on the great Exmor who's IQ at low ISO leaves Canon in the dust !

Are you saying that you now agree that if the EV range is within the range of the sensor there is no difference between the 'IQ' of the Exmor and Canon at low ISO ?

A simple question. Yes or No ?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Exactly. Some people want to take things as personal insults.

Can you really blame them considering just last page "Zlatko: While (mostly) anonymous engineers nitpick about 7-stop shadow lifting online, photographers at the top of their game are using Canon to produce great work" which itself is even mild compared to all the "stupid DxO charts, who cares, learn how to shoot geek", "only incompetent, artless fools....." etc.

 

[privatebydesign]

You sound like somebody who theorises over the 'issues' rather than actually applies the talked about solutions. Auto de-ghosting used to be mediocre to bad, now it isn't.

I still see plenty of weird stuff.
And multi-shot is slower to process, more fully tripod reliant and slower in the field too.

Now that is a comment 'from the back foot', it is so behind the times it is archaic.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

I don't get this example either. You post a scene that is not particularly high DR and where the mid-tone happens to automatically fall naturally in line with a typical tone response curve and where the dark parts are only just slightly too dark when savings highlights as desired and then you apply a broad across the image range shadow lift for no particular reason and then complain that the shot looks weird and then conclude that there is no point to the fact that Exmor lets one lift shadows a couple stops since nobody would ever do that. I don't get it.

It's like saying if I follow the 25MPH speed limit I can drive a Yugo to the store 1/2 mile away just as fast as I can in an F1 car and without all the extra gas expense and heat and noise and therefore Lewis Hamilton is silly for not driving a Yugo to go racing instead of an F1 car. Nothing about the comparison or logic of it makes any sense.

But it's shot on the great Exmor who's IQ at low ISO leaves Canon in the dust !

Are you saying that you now agree that if the EV range is within the range of the sensor there is no difference between the 'IQ' of the Exmor and Canon at low ISO ?

A simple question. Yes or No ?

When did anyone say that Exmor is some magic sensor that makes any photo better in any condition????

My answer, only for the 1000th time already is yes.

If it's a modest DR scene when has anybody said there will be any sort of difference to get all bothered about?

 

[Sporgon]

When did anyone say that Exmor is some magic sensor that makes any photo better in any condition????

My answer, only for the 1000th time already is yes.

If it's a modest DR scene when has anybody said there will be any sort of difference to get all bothered about?

Hurrah ! We have found some common ground !

This could be the start of a wonderful new relationship

Regarding your last sentence, well there have been a few I'm afraid, and made some asinine comments on the subject.

 

[neuroanatomist]

When did anyone say that Exmor is some magic sensor that makes any photo better in any condition????

Yeah, that seems about as silly as someone stating that Canon sensors deliver poor, sub-par, unacceptable IQ. Oh, wait...someone did actually state that. :

 

[3kramd5]

When did anyone say that Exmor is some magic sensor that makes any photo better in any condition????

I've not seen anyone use those words, but there is a belief among some that IQ is a hardware (sensor) property, and those would have to answer Sporgon's question "no, there is a difference."