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

[Dylan777]

On a serious note, I do agree that these developments are a very good thing for all of us. Choice is good!

The lack of a sensor feature, the lack of a particular lens in a lineup, etc., drive choices. People will choose the system(s) that best meet their needs.

agreed. Will see how A-mount lenses + A to e-mount adaptor works with a7rII. One thing for sure, it no longer compact.

But it is mirrorless and mirrorless is the future!

It makes completly sense to carry around adaptors to attach ever possible lens to your mirrorles, somehow you got to use up the size you freed with going mirrorles.

With mirrorless, we can always add size,lenght and weight when needed. Other time, stay compact with shorter FL native lenses. Can't really do that with DSLR when we want smaller and lighter.

I suggest we need take a step back and look at the whole picture of mirrorless - what they have to offer for our photography. Learn and adapt to new things is hard for many.

 

[sanj]

On a serious note, I do agree that these developments are a very good thing for all of us. Choice is good!

The lack of a sensor feature, the lack of a particular lens in a lineup, etc., drive choices. People will choose the system(s) that best meet their needs.

agreed. Will see how A-mount lenses + A to e-mount adaptor works with a7rII. One thing for sure, it no longer compact.

But it is mirrorless and mirrorless is the future!

It makes completly sense to carry around adaptors to attach ever possible lens to your mirrorles, somehow you got to use up the size you freed with going mirrorles.

With mirrorless, we can always add size,lenght and weight when needed. Other time, stay compact with shorter FL native lenses. Can't really do that with DSLR when we want smaller and lighter.

I suggest we need take a step back and look at the whole picture of mirrorless - what they have to offer for our photography. Learn and adapt to new things is hard for many.

I can understand the difficulty in learning and adapting to new things. What I find wrong with me and others is when they flat out refuse to accept or see any merit in new things. Few years ago I hated this trait in me so much that I now take double interest in anything new. Life is so much more fun now.

 

[bdunbar79]

I don't think this has anything to do with new things and adapting.

It has to do with the "Christ is risen" attitude and overzealous reaction the minute Sony or Nikon comes out with a new camera. And I don't know where it started. But nobody brought sales into the picture UNTIL this started. It's the constant "OMG Canon is doomed!" attitude that happens the minute a new camera body comes out from another company. Then when people try to explain, like Neuro has tried countless times that Canon isn't doomed, then he's just a fanboy who can't wake up to reality. That's the type of crap that most of us are actually getting sick of. We go from this "gear doesn't matter" garbage 3 years ago to now it's "all about gear and low ISO DR" garbage. I have never in my life seen such gear-heads salivating and frothing at the mouth when they hear 13 or 14 stops of DR at ISO 100. Who cares? If there's any part of gear that doesn't matter, it would have to start with that spec.

Then of course we come to the MILC is going to replace DSLR garbage that has been going on for years and years. I remember in 2009 everyone saying "just you wait, by the end of the year MILC will overtake DSLR's!". Then in 2010...2011...2012...2013...2014...first half of 2015...

I'm still waiting.

To top it all off, lots of people arguing that Sony has higher DR (note that's the statement, there's noting more to the statement) don't even understand, at all, what they are saying. I'm convinced they don't even know what that means. What does higher DR mean? Since DR has an ISO dependence, that statement doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Of course the D810 has more DR at ISO 100 than the 1Dx. But not at ISO 6400. Not even close. So which is which?

I think that is the crap that we're getting sick of because none of it makes sense. If you want to buy a MILC system from Sony then go for it. But to make completely idiotic and ignorant claims that "OMG Canon is doomed now!" is really pointless, and wrong. It's almost like a cult following.

I realize there are problems with Canon sensors that Sony/Exmor don't have. But good lord it's like any camera with a Sony/Exmor sensor can part water.

 

[privatebydesign]

I don't think this has anything to do with new things and adapting.

It has to do with the "Christ is risen" attitude and overzealous reaction the minute Sony or Nikon comes out with a new camera. And I don't know where it started. But nobody brought sales into the picture UNTIL this started. It's the constant "OMG Canon is doomed!" attitude that happens the minute a new camera body comes out from another company. Then when people try to explain, like Neuro has tried countless times that Canon isn't doomed, then he's just a fanboy who can't wake up to reality. That's the type of crap that most of us are actually getting sick of. We go from this "gear doesn't matter" garbage 3 years ago to now it's "all about gear and low ISO DR" garbage. I have never in my life seen such gear-heads salivating and frothing at the mouth when they hear 13 or 14 stops of DR at ISO 100. Who cares? If there's any part of gear that doesn't matter, it would have to start with that spec.

Then of course we come to the MILC is going to replace DSLR garbage that has been going on for years and years. I remember in 2009 everyone saying "just you wait, by the end of the year MILC will overtake DSLR's!". Then in 2010...2011...2012...2013...2014...first half of 2015...

I'm still waiting.

To top it all off, lots of people arguing that Sony has higher DR (note that's the statement, there's noting more to the statement) don't even understand, at all, what they are saying. I'm convinced they don't even know what that means. What does higher DR mean? Since DR has an ISO dependence, that statement doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Of course the D810 has more DR at ISO 100 than the 1Dx. But not at ISO 6400. Not even close. So which is which?

I think that is the crap that we're getting sick of because none of it makes sense. If you want to buy a MILC system from Sony then go for it. But to make completely idiotic and ignorant claims that "OMG Canon is doomed now!" is really pointless, and wrong. It's almost like a cult following.

I realize there are problems with Canon sensors that Sony/Exmor don't have. But good lord it's like any camera with a Sony/Exmor sensor can part water.

That is exactly why I am hardly here anymore now. Sure many might consider that a good thing though........

 

[bdunbar79]

I don't consider it a good thing. I enjoy your technical knowledge. I guess better for you though

 

[msm]

I don't think this has anything to do with new things and adapting.

It has to do with the "Christ is risen" attitude and overzealous reaction the minute Sony or Nikon comes out with a new camera. ...

Hehe, well it is harder to get exited by Canon you know. The 5Ds is like oh wow, now they try to sell me another 5DIII with double the amount of pixels at a 50% price premium. My old 5DIII has collected dust the last 2 years for a reason, and it was not the megapixel count.

Compared to the A7RII:
- 42 megapixel and good dynamic range (most likely significantly better than Canon at least).
- 4K video with SLOG and full sensor readout option. Always wanted to try to make some videos but the output from my Canons just put me off. What is called 1080P HD looks like upscaled 480P on the 5DIII unless I use ML which just requires to much time and processing for me to bother.
- Silent shutter, now I can take pictures discreetely without a sound, or take pictures of distant mountains or the moon at 600mm with 42mpix completely free of shutter or mirror shake.
- IBIS, now I can shoot with the Zeiss Otus hand held and stabilized with focus peaking and focus loupe through the evf.

In addition:
- BSI sensor should be able to collect more light, particularly with fast primes, and may also work better with rangefinder lenses. Testing will show.

So I am sorry but I have to admit I find the A7RII far more exiting. Canon will have to try harder if they are going to exite me, much harder. Even if they are the current market leader, which I don't think will continue forever if they can't come up with something more interesting at some point.

 

[bdunbar79]

I don't think this has anything to do with new things and adapting.

It has to do with the "Christ is risen" attitude and overzealous reaction the minute Sony or Nikon comes out with a new camera. ...

Hehe, well it is harder to get exited by Canon you know. The 5Ds is like oh wow, now they try to sell me another 5DIII with double the amount of pixels at a 50% price premium. My old 5DIII has collected dust the last 2 years for a reason, and it was not the megapixel count.

Compared to the A7RII:
- 42 megapixel and good dynamic range (most likely significantly better than Canon at least).
- 4K video with SLOG and full sensor readout option. Always wanted to try to make some videos but the output from my Canons just put me off. What is called 1080P HD looks like upscaled 480P on the 5DIII unless I use ML which just requires to much time and processing for me to bother.
- Silent shutter, now I can take pictures discreetely without a sound, or take pictures of distant mountains or the moon at 600mm with 42mpix completely free of shutter or mirror shake.
- IBIS, now I can shoot with the Zeiss Otus hand held and stabilized with focus peaking and focus loupe through the evf.

In addition:
- BSI sensor should be able to collect more light, particularly with fast primes, and may also work better with rangefinder lenses. Testing will show.

So I am sorry but I have to admit I find the A7RII far more exiting. Canon will have to try harder if they are going to exite me, much harder. Even if they are the current market leader, which I don't think will continue forever if they can't come up with something more interesting at some point.

You don't have to apologize. That was a very sensible post, with valid points.

 

[tron]

While waiting for Canon doom's day I will be enjoying my new 300 2.8 and 11-24 lenses ;D

 

[Marsu42]

So I am sorry but I have to admit I find the A7RII far more exiting. Canon will have to try harder if they are going to exite me, much harder. Even if they are the current market leader, which I don't think will continue forever if they can't come up with something more interesting at some point.

I don't think Canon is trying to excite anyone, and in this case that's what I do like about them.

I want to be excited by photography content, but my camera gear should "just work" and my current midrange 6d and L gear does just that excluding the dodgy af system. Arguably, "just works" becomes more important in a pro environment then with enthusiasts wanting to experiment around with features.

Imho we see too few side-by-side comparisons of real world photography, i.e. the same scenes taken by good ol' Canon and latestest and greatestest Sonikon...

Compared to the A7RII:

... However, these are very valid points. My 6d shutter is "silent enough" for me, but imho it's getting harder and harder that Sonikon keeps adding features that aren't just "nice to have", but make a real world impact for some (or, not to offend anyone around here, even a lot of) customers.

 

[jrista]

That's the type of crap that most of us are actually getting sick of. We go from this "gear doesn't matter" garbage 3 years ago to now it's "all about gear and low ISO DR" garbage. I have never in my life seen such gear-heads salivating and frothing at the mouth when they hear 13 or 14 stops of DR at ISO 100. Who cares? If there's any part of gear that doesn't matter, it would have to start with that spec.

To top it all off, lots of people arguing that Sony has higher DR (note that's the statement, there's noting more to the statement) don't even understand, at all, what they are saying. I'm convinced they don't even know what that means. What does higher DR mean? Since DR has an ISO dependence, that statement doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Of course the D810 has more DR at ISO 100 than the 1Dx. But not at ISO 6400. Not even close. So which is which?

First, you can ignore everyone who bugs you. I do mean "literally" ignore, there is actually a feature on these forums for that. If people saying such things bugs you that much...just ignore them. If listening to all the doomsayers diminishes the quality of your time here that much...there is a very easy solution to that. Why not take it? ???

Second...you should know that it stopped being about just low ISO performance a while ago now. It isn't just bout low ISO. Sony trounced everything with amazing high ISO performance with the A7s last year. Canon 1D X has 8.8 stops at ISO 12800, Sony A7s has 8.8 stops at ISO 51200.

I don't know about everyone else, however I know exactly what dynamic range is, I know exactly how dynamic range has evolved at various ISO settings, and I know exactly why the BSI design of the A7r II is valuable for HIGH ISO dynamic range. I know exactly why I want more dynamic range, and why I want Canon to deliver similar performance in their own cameras. You make the following statement:

I'm convinced they don't even know what that means. What does higher DR mean? Since DR has an ISO dependence, that statement doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Of course the D810 has more DR at ISO 100 than the 1Dx. But not at ISO 6400. Not even close. So which is which?

I don't mean to be rude, honestly. However...do you understand what higher dynamic range means? Dynamic range is a pretty simple concept. It is the ratio between the maximum signal (full well capacity) and the read noise floor. That is all it is, mathematically. There are implications to be made from that, however. Dynamic range is an indication of how much noise you will likely have in an image, and it describes the fineness of tonality you can have in an image. It actually doesn't matter if your talking highlights, midtones, or shadows...so long as you make effective use of the dynamic range the camera has to offer. That is because of the nature of noise. You don't just have noise in the shadows. You have noise in the signal. You have photon shot noise in the signal you get from the photons themselves, and you have read noise.

This puts a limit on your overall tonality. With high read noise, your tonality is diminished...across the board. The 1D X, with 38.5e- RN at ISO 100, has a maximum tonality (differentiable tones) of 2340 (90101/38.5). That is barely more than 11 stops, or 2^11 (which is 2048). The A7s, on the other hand, has a maximum tonality of 7103 (155557/21.9). That is closer to 13 stops (2^13 = 8192). The increase in differentiable tones in the A7s is what people like me find valuable. That improvement does not just exist in the shadows. It exists throughout the entire signal. It exists in the highlights as much as it exists in the shadows...more importantly, it exists in the midtones, where I think it is actually most valuable.

To reiterate: 1DX @ ISO 12800: 8.8 stops; Sony A7s @ ISO 51200: 8.8 stops. The A7r II is not going to topple the A7s for high ISO performance. However it has a very high fill factor thanks to it's BSI design. It should ultimately have dynamic range in the same realm as the 1D X (~8.5-9 stops at ISO 12800)...despite having considerably smaller pixels. It should also have the very high low ISO dynamic range if Sony has maintained the low ISO read noise.

In terms of tonality, the 1D X has 461 discernible tones at ISO 12800. The A7s also has 461 discernible tones, however at ISO 51200. At ISO 12800, the A7s has 805 discernible tones. That means cleaner, more colorful results.

What do I mean by discernible tones? This is why everything were talking about here boils down to noise. When you have a regular deviation in your signal, which results in a random offset in the level (tone) of a pixel relative to it's neighbors, that is noise. For one tone to be regularly discernible from the next, the difference in tone must be higher than the standard deviation of noise. If your deviation is 200e-, then each discernible tone must differ by at least 200e-. Anything less, and statistically speaking, you wouldn't know whether you were just seeing tonal differences due to noise, or actually seeing a real tonal difference. On the flip side, if your deviation is 20e-, then you have ten times as much discernible tonality.

Again, don't know about everyone else. In my case, I shoot things both at low ISO (landscapes, macro, etc.) at lower ISO, and I shoot things at high ISO (birds, wildlife). I can always use more dynamic range. More dynamic range means smoother tonality. That means cleaner images, smoother gradients, better color. I don't just want that at low ISO...I can easily use more dynamic range at high ISO as well.

The competition is also no longer limited to just sensors. Sony has put out a few high end AF systems recently. At the very least, they have become neck and neck competitive with Canon and Nikon AF systems. The A6000 AF system is pretty amazing. The NX1 AF system has the potential to be just as, if not more, amazing thanks to the hardware programmability...and over time, that AF system could be tweaked and tuned to trounce everything. Canon has DPAF...it too is pretty amazing technology, but it seems to be very expensive to produce, and as such it has very, very limited deployability. (My guess is that is due to the fabrication process...Canon's 500nm process could easily be holding them back here.) There are also rumors about the Sony A9 series, which is supposed to be 1D X class stuff. High end, high resolution, high performance, weather sealed, ruggedized, etc. That is a whole 'nother front of competition.

If you prefer Canon, more power to you. However, there really is something to all this "dynamic range stuff"...it is not just about low ISO performance. It is not just about shadow pushing. It is not just about one thing. More dynamic range applies across the entire range of ISO. We can all use less noise in our images...it doesn't really matter if you are a high ISO action shooter or a low ISO landscape shooter. Less noise is less noise...that means better IQ, top to bottom. It means more discernible tones, cleaner images, better color. Canon seems limited to competing on that front at only high ISO. The truly intriguing thing about the A7r II...it competes at both ends of the spectrum there...and it delivers a whole bunch of other interesting technologies...399 point FPPDAF, 5-axis sensor stabilization, totally silent shooting (thus, shutterless?...ES only?), high readout rate despite the pixel count, WiFi and NCF.

I love my Canon glass. I would really like to pair it with a Canon camera that delivers the same kind of across the board high end functionality that the A7r II offers. I really hope the 5D IV is that camera...but, I also can't get my hopes up about it, because Canon has been in a rut for years, and either they don't know how to dig themselves out of it, or simply are not interested in doing so. It seems Canon is still in a mode of catering to the masses, despite the fact that the masses are, in droves, turning to other options. That leaves the primary long term ILC market the professionals, semi-professionals, and hard core enthusiasts...the people who actually care about IQ. (A point I think is important in the current market. It isn't just a bunch of mindless button pushers were talking about, as far as people who both understand what DR is and want more of it.) Either way...you have to at least give Sony credit for creating something like the A7r II, with such broad lens compatibility (assuming the high performance AF rumors actually pan out.) That is quite a feat...and, it has the potential to give people like me, who do want the best IQ they can get their hands on, the option to keep using our existing Canon lens kits without losing AF performance.

 

[Tugela]

Canon, on hearing Sony's latest news:

 

[bdunbar79]

You don't bug me. I enjoy your technical explanations. But I certainly expected better from you than this:

"I don't mean to be rude, honestly. However...do you understand what higher dynamic range means?"

I don't care about the A7s vs. the 1Dx at high ISO. I don't go above 6400 (not that it matters). The AF system of the A7s sucks compared to the 1Dx and it also has less resolution. But anyway, if we do the ISO 6400 thing, the 1Dx has 9.7 stops and the A7s 9.9 stops. That comparison doesn't really mean anything to ME. I don't notice 0.2 stops of DR but at ISO 6400 I'm sure as heck going to notice 12 vs. 18 MP's after I crop and do NR. Maybe there's a better example?

Lastly, I know for YOU it's not about low ISO DR. But haven't you read the other posts on here? Clearly that is the #1 feature for the majority of complainers.

 

[bdunbar79]

<Either way...you have to at least give Sony credit for creating something like the A7r II, with such broad lens compatibility (assuming the high performance AF rumors actually pan out.) That is quite a feat...and, it has the potential to give people like me, who do want the best IQ they can get their hands on, the option to keep using our existing Canon lens kits without losing AF performance.>

Nobody's disputing that jrista. It's just the extrapolation that Canon is doomed, Canon sucks, Canon is going to lose all market share to Sony (and whoever else), Canon doesn't have enough MP's, oh now they have enough MP's but not enough low ISO DR and that's too many MP's because now the sensor will be too noisy, etc. etc.

And not just once, it's over and over and over and over and over and over again. It's just become so over the top and gear-centric, it's really bad.

I'm stopping there.

 

[Dylan777]

While waiting for Canon doom's day I will be enjoying my new 300 2.8 and 11-24 lenses ;D

Not a friendly combo in term of size and weight, but always give a WOW factor - 1Dx + 200f2 IS

 

[Dylan777]

I don't think this has anything to do with new things and adapting.

It has to do with the "Christ is risen" attitude and overzealous reaction the minute Sony or Nikon comes out with a new camera. And I don't know where it started. But nobody brought sales into the picture UNTIL this started. It's the constant "OMG Canon is doomed!" attitude that happens the minute a new camera body comes out from another company. Then when people try to explain, like Neuro has tried countless times that Canon isn't doomed, then he's just a fanboy who can't wake up to reality. That's the type of crap that most of us are actually getting sick of. We go from this "gear doesn't matter" garbage 3 years ago to now it's "all about gear and low ISO DR" garbage. I have never in my life seen such gear-heads salivating and frothing at the mouth when they hear 13 or 14 stops of DR at ISO 100. Who cares? If there's any part of gear that doesn't matter, it would have to start with that spec.

Then of course we come to the MILC is going to replace DSLR garbage that has been going on for years and years. I remember in 2009 everyone saying "just you wait, by the end of the year MILC will overtake DSLR's!". Then in 2010...2011...2012...2013...2014...first half of 2015...

I'm still waiting.

To top it all off, lots of people arguing that Sony has higher DR (note that's the statement, there's noting more to the statement) don't even understand, at all, what they are saying. I'm convinced they don't even know what that means. What does higher DR mean? Since DR has an ISO dependence, that statement doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Of course the D810 has more DR at ISO 100 than the 1Dx. But not at ISO 6400. Not even close. So which is which?

I think that is the crap that we're getting sick of because none of it makes sense. If you want to buy a MILC system from Sony then go for it. But to make completely idiotic and ignorant claims that "OMG Canon is doomed now!" is really pointless, and wrong. It's almost like a cult following.

I realize there are problems with Canon sensors that Sony/Exmor don't have. But good lord it's like any camera with a Sony/Exmor sensor can part water.

That is exactly why I am hardly here anymore now. Sure many might consider that a good thing though........

You not telling the true - too busy playing with your 11-24

 

[msm]

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?

 

[Proscribo]

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?

God damnit! Even the bloody CANON rumors forum has too low DR (high shadow noise)!

 

[vscd]

I suggest we need take a step back and look at the whole picture of mirrorless - what they have to offer for our photography. Learn and adapt to new things is hard for many.

Mirrorless is there since more than half a century, it's called range finder and a lot of really known pros adopted to leica for it's purpose. It has it's advantages and it's disadvantages.

The only thing that's new about digital mirrorless is the stupid nagging on DSLRs after living in coexistence for many years.

For me the DSLRs are still the better concept because you can't beat an OVF, but that's just my opinion. If I need an EVF I turn on liveview. And having a lightweight cam is really fantastic but the size is no point for me, maybe I have bigger hands but the toysize of a A7 is not my target. the best size I've ever had in my hand is a EOS5 with vertical Grip.

Hint: It's like a small 1Dx, but really thin (regardless of the EOS-Mount and the mirror). So Canon should just get the sensor far back to the old focal pane location.

 

[Neutral]

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

That's the type of crap that most of us are actually getting sick of. We go from this "gear doesn't matter" garbage 3 years ago to now it's "all about gear and low ISO DR" garbage. I have never in my life seen such gear-heads salivating and frothing at the mouth when they hear 13 or 14 stops of DR at ISO 100. Who cares? If there's any part of gear that doesn't matter, it would have to start with that spec.

To top it all off, lots of people arguing that Sony has higher DR (note that's the statement, there's noting more to the statement) don't even understand, at all, what they are saying. I'm convinced they don't even know what that means. What does higher DR mean? Since DR has an ISO dependence, that statement doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Of course the D810 has more DR at ISO 100 than the 1Dx. But not at ISO 6400. Not even close. So which is which?

First, you can ignore everyone who bugs you. I do mean "literally" ignore, there is actually a feature on these forums for that. If people saying such things bugs you that much...just ignore them. If listening to all the doomsayers diminishes the quality of your time here that much...there is a very easy solution to that. Why not take it? ???

Second...you should know that it stopped being about just low ISO performance a while ago now. It isn't just bout low ISO. Sony trounced everything with amazing high ISO performance with the A7s last year. Canon 1D X has 8.8 stops at ISO 12800, Sony A7s has 8.8 stops at ISO 51200.

I don't know about everyone else, however I know exactly what dynamic range is, I know exactly how dynamic range has evolved at various ISO settings, and I know exactly why the BSI design of the A7r II is valuable for HIGH ISO dynamic range. I know exactly why I want more dynamic range, and why I want Canon to deliver similar performance in their own cameras. You make the following statement:

I'm convinced they don't even know what that means. What does higher DR mean? Since DR has an ISO dependence, that statement doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Of course the D810 has more DR at ISO 100 than the 1Dx. But not at ISO 6400. Not even close. So which is which?

I don't mean to be rude, honestly. However...do you understand what higher dynamic range means? Dynamic range is a pretty simple concept. It is the ratio between the maximum signal (full well capacity) and the read noise floor. That is all it is, mathematically. There are implications to be made from that, however. Dynamic range is an indication of how much noise you will likely have in an image, and it describes the fineness of tonality you can have in an image. It actually doesn't matter if your talking highlights, midtones, or shadows...so long as you make effective use of the dynamic range the camera has to offer. That is because of the nature of noise. You don't just have noise in the shadows. You have noise in the signal. You have photon shot noise in the signal you get from the photons themselves, and you have read noise.

This puts a limit on your overall tonality. With high read noise, your tonality is diminished...across the board. The 1D X, with 38.5e- RN at ISO 100, has a maximum tonality (differentiable tones) of 2340 (90101/38.5). That is barely more than 11 stops, or 2^11 (which is 2048). The A7s, on the other hand, has a maximum tonality of 7103 (155557/21.9). That is closer to 13 stops (2^13 = 8192). The increase in differentiable tones in the A7s is what people like me find valuable. That improvement does not just exist in the shadows. It exists throughout the entire signal. It exists in the highlights as much as it exists in the shadows...more importantly, it exists in the midtones, where I think it is actually most valuable.

To reiterate: 1DX @ ISO 12800: 8.8 stops; Sony A7s @ ISO 51200: 8.8 stops. The A7r II is not going to topple the A7s for high ISO performance. However it has a very high fill factor thanks to it's BSI design. It should ultimately have dynamic range in the same realm as the 1D X (~8.5-9 stops at ISO 12800)...despite having considerably smaller pixels. It should also have the very high low ISO dynamic range if Sony has maintained the low ISO read noise.

In terms of tonality, the 1D X has 461 discernible tones at ISO 12800. The A7s also has 461 discernible tones, however at ISO 51200. At ISO 12800, the A7s has 805 discernible tones. That means cleaner, more colorful results.

What do I mean by discernible tones? This is why everything were talking about here boils down to noise. When you have a regular deviation in your signal, which results in a random offset in the level (tone) of a pixel relative to it's neighbors, that is noise. For one tone to be regularly discernible from the next, the difference in tone must be higher than the standard deviation of noise. If your deviation is 200e-, then each discernible tone must differ by at least 200e-. Anything less, and statistically speaking, you wouldn't know whether you were just seeing tonal differences due to noise, or actually seeing a real tonal difference. On the flip side, if your deviation is 20e-, then you have ten times as much discernible tonality.

Again, don't know about everyone else. In my case, I shoot things both at low ISO (landscapes, macro, etc.) at lower ISO, and I shoot things at high ISO (birds, wildlife). I can always use more dynamic range. More dynamic range means smoother tonality. That means cleaner images, smoother gradients, better color. I don't just want that at low ISO...I can easily use more dynamic range at high ISO as well.

The competition is also no longer limited to just sensors. Sony has put out a few high end AF systems recently. At the very least, they have become neck and neck competitive with Canon and Nikon AF systems. The A6000 AF system is pretty amazing. The NX1 AF system has the potential to be just as, if not more, amazing thanks to the hardware programmability...and over time, that AF system could be tweaked and tuned to trounce everything. Canon has DPAF...it too is pretty amazing technology, but it seems to be very expensive to produce, and as such it has very, very limited deployability. (My guess is that is due to the fabrication process...Canon's 500nm process could easily be holding them back here.) There are also rumors about the Sony A9 series, which is supposed to be 1D X class stuff. High end, high resolution, high performance, weather sealed, ruggedized, etc. That is a whole 'nother front of competition.

If you prefer Canon, more power to you. However, there really is something to all this "dynamic range stuff"...it is not just about low ISO performance. It is not just about shadow pushing. It is not just about one thing. More dynamic range applies across the entire range of ISO. We can all use less noise in our images...it doesn't really matter if you are a high ISO action shooter or a low ISO landscape shooter. Less noise is less noise...that means better IQ, top to bottom. It means more discernible tones, cleaner images, better color. Canon seems limited to competing on that front at only high ISO. The truly intriguing thing about the A7r II...it competes at both ends of the spectrum there...and it delivers a whole bunch of other interesting technologies...399 point FPPDAF, 5-axis sensor stabilization, totally silent shooting (thus, shutterless?...ES only?), high readout rate despite the pixel count, WiFi and NCF.

I love my Canon glass. I would really like to pair it with a Canon camera that delivers the same kind of across the board high end functionality that the A7r II offers. I really hope the 5D IV is that camera...but, I also can't get my hopes up about it, because Canon has been in a rut for years, and either they don't know how to dig themselves out of it, or simply are not interested in doing so. It seems Canon is still in a mode of catering to the masses, despite the fact that the masses are, in droves, turning to other options. That leaves the primary long term ILC market the professionals, semi-professionals, and hard core enthusiasts...the people who actually care about IQ. (A point I think is important in the current market. It isn't just a bunch of mindless button pushers were talking about, as far as people who both understand what DR is and want more of it.) Either way...you have to at least give Sony credit for creating something like the A7r II, with such broad lens compatibility (assuming the high performance AF rumors actually pan out.) That is quite a feat...and, it has the potential to give people like me, who do want the best IQ they can get their hands on, the option to keep using our existing Canon lens kits without losing AF performance.

 

[jrista]

You don't bug me. I enjoy your technical explanations. But I certainly expected better from you than this:

"I don't mean to be rude, honestly. However...do you understand what higher dynamic range means?"

I'm not sure what you mean better from me than that. You made an assertion that people don't understand what dynamic range is...however, it did not appear that you understood exactly what it was either. Again, honestly not meant to be rude...just an observation. Not everyone understands the relationship between noise and the tonality of an image either. Hopefully more people will now...maybe that will reduce the amount of inane comments people make about DR in the future. I dunno...but the information is out there now. I was honestly trying to be cordial about this...seems to you took it the wrong way. Apologies.

I don't care about the A7s vs. the 1Dx at high ISO. I don't go above 6400 (not that it matters). The AF system of the A7s sucks compared to the 1Dx and it also has less resolution. But anyway, if we do the ISO 6400 thing, the 1Dx has 9.7 stops and the A7s 9.9 stops. That comparison doesn't really mean anything to ME. I don't notice 0.2 stops of DR but at ISO 6400 I'm sure as heck going to notice 12 vs. 18 MP's after I crop and do NR. Maybe there's a better example?

Well, one better example is very likely to be the A7r II vs. the 1D X. I expect the r II will have similar high ISO performance as the 1D X...with significantly better resolution. Of course, then the discrepancy is frame rate.

You can always find a discrepancy. There are no dead on apples to apples comparisons that can be made. That said, the competition is delivering better and better IQ on every single front with each generation of camera. On top of that, every generation also seems to resolve big complaints with the prior. As far as I can tell, every single complaint I had about the A7r has been addressed....AF performance with adapted lenses, the heavy shutter, image stabilization, ergonomics (the larger grip will be very nice). I'm sure I'll have complaints about the A7r II, but I also have high confidence now that each one will be addressed with the A7r III. The AF performance of the A7s II? I have no doubts it will at least get the A7r II focusing features. If it too gets a BSI sensor, it's ISO 6400 performance should improve, and widen the gap with the 1D X.

So, sure, YOU don't care about ISO's above 6400. Just keep watching, though. Sony is a juggernaught...and they seem to have designs to take over the world. They have the technology, they respond to customer concerns, and they are moving at a very rapid pace. It won't be long before there are few things to complain about. I would not be surprised if the A7s II is also much higher resolution, and tops the 1D X at ISO 6400, with a higher frame rate, and with excellent AF performance with third party lenses. There is also the A9 to look for...that is supposed to be Sony's professional high end model, with full weather sealing, higher resolution and/or faster frame rates (sports grade frame rates...and with Sony's readout technology, I'd be looking for 14, 15, 16fps or around there, maybe faster with an ES), better IQ, etc. Maybe the 1D X II will remain competitive, I don't know. If it does, great! Personally I've become rather skeptical, but I do hope that Canon will keep raising the bar with their own products.

Iteration after iteration, the gap between Canon and Sony at the very least, is going to grow. It has grown, is growing, and will grow. At some point, I believe the primary benefit of Canon will be their customer support. The glass argument won't apply, if you can use Canon class on a Sony Alpha with high performance focusing. Who knows how, over the long term, Sony's customer service will pan out. It may always be average....it may also rise to a level competitive with Canon's. (I am hoping that will ultimately be the case once the A9 series hits.) Honestly can't say...but neither can I write off the possibility. All I see is a company that, much like Canon in the past, has responded to customer complaints, and is delivering better products with fewer problems, improved quality, including image quality, on all fronts generation to generation of their cameras. I think that is awesome. And for die hard Canon fans, that should only mean good things...maybe it will eventually put enough pressure on Canon to improve all of their products, improve their customer service, and raise the bar for their own loyal customers.

I honestly don't see any downside, for either camp, here...assuming Canon does at some point respond with some of the great technology we know they have. (And that is where my primary issue with Canon comes into play...I've watched and waited for a very long time... I had some hopes for the 5Ds, but I just don't see a significant improvement there. It's better than older Canon products, but IQ wise...it's just kind of, eh. (To me, anyway.) I've just watched and waited and watched and waited...and even Canon's coolest technology DPAF, has been relegated to a very few select products. Maeda made a statement about how expensive it is to implement...which takes me right back to the whole archaic fab process. Canon is really lagging behind on the technology front, and I personally am less and less impressed. That's kind of frustrating, especially when you had such high hopes in the past. And worst of all...I WAITED. I passed up options from other brands for a couple of years...because I was waiting. I regret that. I have missed out on quite a few photography opportunities because I was waiting for Canon to deliver a compelling mirrorless product. I have waited for Canon to deliver a landscape camera with high DR, and I've hardly done any landscape photography in two years. I just came to the conclusion that waiting for Canon to deliver what I want and need is hurting my work...it's caused me to miss opportunities and skip some kinds of photography because I personally am just not getting what I need and want. Really regret that. So, no more regrets. There are other options that DO give me what I need and want...and, I really want people in general to know that they don't have to keep waiting either if they want something Canon hasn't delivered yet.)

Lastly, I know for YOU it's not about low ISO DR. But haven't you read the other posts on here? Clearly that is the #1 feature for the majority of complainers.

Honestly, I probably read about 1/10th of the posts in the threads I read. I scan through, see something interesting, respond. Then I move on. I don't spent a lot of time on these forums anymore these days. People are too touchy, too concerned with meaningless minutia (A7r II has 399 AF ponts? Oh yeah? Well DPAF has 40,000 AF points! HAHA! Take that!... UGH.) Dynamic range has meaningful, measurable, and visible impact to image quality, and dynamic range can be improved not just at low ISO, but also at high ISO. Ok, so the current A7s doesn't meet your needs....all I am saying is...just keep an eye out. The A7s II, or the A9 whatever, could very well give you 10, 11 stops of DR at ISO 6400, if it uses the kind of technology that will allow for it. More quantum efficiency, larger pixels, and/or increased light sensitive photodiode area (i.e. as allowed by BSI technology) can all improve dynamic range across the entire ISO range. There is one company really pushing the envelope when it comes to dynamic range...and it isn't just a low ISO thing. If you still prefer Canon, that's fine...I just wanted you, and everyone else, to know what having more dynamic range implies.