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

[bdunbar79]

I guess if we're going to compare the A7s and 1Dx (have absolutely no idea why) then we could also compare the 1Dx to the: D800, D800E, D810, D600, D610, D750, D4, and A7R. Crank 'em up to ISO 6400 or 12,800. Oh dang, there went the "discernible tones."

 

[StudentOfLight]

Kudos to Sony. On paper this is a very interesting camera. I'm guessing that from it's expanded ISO range it will perform similar to the 6D at high ISO, but like the A7R at low ISO.

P.S. I was just thinking back to around the time of the 5Ds announcement... didn't a certain Mr Burnhill say that low resolution sensors were better for 4K? I guess Sony didn't get that memo.

 

[bdunbar79]

<however, it did not appear that you understood exactly what it was either>

What did I say that made you think I didn't understand what DR is? I understand perfectly well what it is.

 

[StudentOfLight]

<however, it did not appear that you understood exactly what it was either>

What did I say that made you think I didn't understand what DR is? I understand perfectly well what it is.

I understood your point; to speak of Dynamic range without specifying ISO is like speaking about viscosity of a liquid without specifying temperature; the one varies with respect to the other. However, when people speak generally of dynamic range they speak of the maximum capability of the camera, whatever ISO that happens to be at. Whether it is at ISO 200, ISO 100 or even ISO 64.

I have looked at my Lightroom catalog and analysed the ISO ranges I use most often. It turns out that I greatly overestimated how much I really use high ISO. It is a nice to have but in practice I shoot more than 80% of my photography between ISO 100 and 200. The predominantly higher ISOs I tend to use are in the 800-3200 ISO range. Above that is just Astro-nightscape stuff which is more of a hobby. Even with various high ISO timelapse sequences included the high ISO shots make up only a tiny fraction of what I shoot. YMMV

 

[LOALTD]

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.

Seriously, this is huge for me! I installed the Magic Lantern RAW video module and I got HOOKED on making videos. I'm still a rank amateur, but the ridiculously good quality of RAW video really got me making dumb videos at a record pace!



However...I have had to spend a ton of money on fast CF cards and HDD's to store all that sweet video. We're talking 200-300GB...per 5 minute video project. Ouch. Not to mention a ton of time converting and ferrying video data between formats/programs.


Having 4k with a good codec would actually save me some HDD space compared to RAW 1080p...


(this is my justifying the need to buy a new camera to myself...JUST THINK OF ALL THE MONEY I'LL SAVE NOT BUYING HARD DRIVES!)

 

[Sunnystate]

Same sentiment here, my hat off to Jrista!

Always looking for his posts! A true mine of information especially about astro (he should write a book real knowledge and considering opponents- lack of attitude, patience (I would never get immerse in detailed never ending arguments about minor stuff that does not matter at all in the big picture and it is used just to produce a lot of foam to obscure real issues)
He can be a huge asset on any forum but here of course, just to honest in judging things that most are unwilling to open eyes to.

It's not about an incremental updates proposed by Canon here or there, and improved this and that in this or that particular model of Canon camera, not every update has to be groundbreaking, it is about arrogant most likely intended indolence in implementing innovations that is displayed in the past 10 years by Canon- corporation that calls itself leader in the industry.
Even when pressed against the wall by competition still trying to foul customers to accept same 10 years old technology just wrapped in different packages and with improved processing algorithms to make jpegs look better.
Some of you are taking it like a man when showed for a premium up in your "pocket" it's okay if you can live with that but let others do what they like and express them self on the forum.

I myself am still Canon fan and user (no Canon bodies at the moment) even that I really dislike current situation.

Have good day you all.
It feels good to be where you should already and see others struggle to cross the line of stubbornness.

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]

<however, it did not appear that you understood exactly what it was either>

What did I say that made you think I didn't understand what DR is? I understand perfectly well what it is.

Didn't mean to offend. Maybe I misinterpreted something. Apologies.

 

[unfocused]

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...

...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........

I have noticed a pattern that I think is enlightening. Most of the people who don't care much about dynamic range, or mirrorless vs. DSLR or whatever the latest gripe happens to be seem to skew heavily toward people who actually earn a living in photography. (With Neuro being an exception)

On the other hand, it seems like it's mostly hobbyists with huge disposable income who fit into the category of people obsessed with having the latest, greatest and newest technology and get all worked up when Canon doesn't fit their exact desires.

 

[jrista]

I have noticed a pattern that I think is enlightening. Most of the people who don't care much about dynamic range, or mirrorless vs. DSLR or whatever the latest gripe happens to be seem to skew heavily toward people who actually earn a living in photography. (With Neuro being an exception)

On the other hand, it seems like it's mostly hobbyists with huge disposable income who fit into the category of people obsessed with having the latest, greatest and newest technology and get all worked up when Canon doesn't fit their exact desires.

You should make that observation on different forums. I think you would find that the discrepancy is not nearly as skewed as it is here on CN if you include a much more diverse population of photographers.

I think you would find different distributions of professional's opinions on that subject depending on what it is they shoot and how they shoot. I think many professional landscape photographers have overwhelmingly chosen other brands over the last few years. The Sony A7r certainly made waves, and even one of my favorite 4x5 LF holdouts, Jack Brauer, finally bit the bullet and moved to digital after staunchly insisting that 4x5 drum scans were the only way to get top notch landscape IQ. Portrait photographers certainly seem loved the higher resolution and IQ of other brands as well. The D750 made waves in the wedding photographer community. I wouldn't be surprised if sports was still fairly well entrenched in the Canon camp, though, and for good reason.

 

[unfocused]

I have noticed a pattern on this forum that I think is enlightening. Most of the people who don't care much about dynamic range, or mirrorless vs. DSLR or whatever the latest gripe happens to be seem to skew heavily toward people who actually earn a living in photography. (With Neuro being an exception)

On the other hand, it seems like it's mostly hobbyists with huge disposable income who fit into the category of people obsessed with having the latest, greatest and newest technology and get all worked up when Canon doesn't fit their exact desires.

You should make that observation on different forums. I think you would find that the discrepancy is not nearly as skewed as it is here on CN if you include a much more diverse population of photographers. ...

See my corrected quote above. I was referencing this forum only.

I am not trying to cast aspersions, just simply noting that it seems like most of the regular contributors to this forum whom I respect for actually practicing photography professionally seem must less interested in the esoteric arguments that fuel much of the discussion.

 

[emko]

The BSI sensor sounds like it will open doors for improved high ISO image quality, which is definitely a good thing.

Perhaps someone can help me understand here. Didn't the RX line used to have BSI sensors, but with the RX10 II and RX100 IV have now moved to stacked sensors? So, which is better? Is it just that stacked sensors have not made it to full frame yet, or is BSI better and if so why did the RX line change?

Stacked is better. Sony could bring stacked sensor technology to their APS-C and FF lineup, but they're just milking the outdated BSI technology for all it's worth, holding out on their customers, crippling the a7RII with antiquated sensor tech. Innovation fail!!

;D

they aint milking nothing just like BSI they had yield issues on making larger sensors that's why for a while BSI was only used in Phones. I am sure once they figure out how to produce a decent yield with the stacked sensor they will make a FF sensor.

 

[Sporgon]

The amount of misinformation that is bandied around here regarding the Sony sensor is quite staggering. I've just returned from a four day trip to North Wales, shooting in Snowdonia and took a camera fitted with the Mighty Exmor alongside my usual Canon.

For a start the whole "14 stoops of DR" compared to 12 is so misleading. The Exmor sensor clips to white at exactly the same point as the Canon on a like for like exposure. In fact if we are going to be anal about it the Exmor clips a tiny bit earlier. So much for more dynamic range. The best way to think about the two sensors is that the DR is basically identical but you have more shadow latitude in the Exmor. The Canon will fall apart in the shadows before the Exmor, but whether or not you consider the lack of tonality that comes from the big lift acceptable is up to you.

The Exmor evangelists don't talk about the fragility of the highlights do they ? Or how it loses blue saturation faster than the Canon. And f your answer is to under expose to make the highlights more robust, that's your decision; it's not necessarily how I want to work.

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.

My conclusion at present is that if you are working within the acceptable range of the sensor the Canon has the better "IQ" for landscape photography, and I'm someone who is after the new Pentax FF camera when it finally arrives. I hope it doesn't have the 36mp Exmor in it.

 

[Marsu42]

I have noticed a pattern that I think is enlightening. Most of the people who don't care much about dynamic range, or mirrorless vs. DSLR or whatever the latest gripe happens to be seem to skew heavily toward people who actually earn a living in photography. (With Neuro being an exception)

I think you would find different distributions of professional's opinions on that subject depending on what it is they shoot and how they shoot. I think many professional landscape photographers have overwhelmingly chosen other brands over the last few years.

Indeed, and that's why there is a whole science about getting data on people's opinions, and it doesn't involve reading some posts on Internet forums that have an inherent heavy bias. Esp. the "pro" vs. "amateur" comparison doesn't compute:

* Imho you just might be able to discern a pattern amongst enthusiasts with deep pockets and time on their hand to experiment around with gear to improve their results (that is probably limited by ability and/or experience). But on the other hand, there are enough users around shooting with a 50/1.8 happily ever after.

* But for "pros" ... how many full-time pros spend their spare time on a general Internet forum, speculating about [CR1] gear that will never arrive? That's instead of spending an evening out with their friends and family or simply enjoying a good glass of wine and a book instead of spending yet more time in front of a screen? If they see the need to switch gear to improve their results, they'll probably just do so w/o feeling the need to explain themselves to anyone.

 

[Marsu42]

Thanks a lot for actual comparions, Sporgon! Just a few questions:

The Exmor sensor clips to white at exactly the same point as the Canon on a like for like exposure. In fact if we are going to be anal about it the Exmor clips a tiny bit earlier. So much for more dynamic range. The best way to think about the two sensors is that the DR is basically identical but you have more shadow latitude in the Exmor.

I don't understand this (and how the spec numbers can be so different on sensorgen.info): If you ettl on exmor, i.e. make max usage of the higher shadow latitude, this results in more dynamic range? I imagine this is the same as enabling dual_iso in Magic Lantern: The white clipping stays the same, but you get a significant shadow boost and it's up to you to use it.

You seem to indicate that this is how the workflow is, even though you don't like it (same with ML: it's a hassle, but definitely does work):

And f your answer is to under expose to make the highlights more robust, that's your decision; it's not necessarily how I want to work.

My conclusion at present is that if you are working within the acceptable range of the sensor the Canon has the better "IQ" for landscape photography, and I'm someone who is after the new Pentax FF camera when it finally arrives. I hope it doesn't have the 36mp Exmor in it.

Not to contradict you, but it's probably not easy to say something about all exmor-based sensors out there having shot with just one... if someone would say he used the 5d3 and thus knows Canon sensors in general are crappy, I know how the response 'round here would be :->

 

[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.

 

[Sporgon]

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.

 

[bdunbar79]

I did not mean either jrista to seem like you aren't objectively correct. Obviously you are. My first post was simply meant to show my annoyance at the overzealous reactions of how bad Canon is when a new product is released. I don't think you personally are one of them. I think you understand the tech well enough to objectively appreciate that tech. So my post is not aimed at you.

 

[Sporgon]

Thanks a lot for actual comparions, Sporgon! Just a few questions:

The Exmor sensor clips to white at exactly the same point as the Canon on a like for like exposure. In fact if we are going to be anal about it the Exmor clips a tiny bit earlier. So much for more dynamic range. The best way to think about the two sensors is that the DR is basically identical but you have more shadow latitude in the Exmor.

I don't understand this (and how the spec numbers can be so different on sensorgen.info): If you ettl on exmor, i.e. make max usage of the higher shadow latitude, this results in more dynamic range? I imagine this is the same as enabling dual_iso in Magic Lantern: The white clipping stays the same, but you get a significant shadow boost and it's up to you to use it.

All I can tell is that this Exmor camera clipped at exactly the same point for the same exposure, in the field, in practical applications.

I say 'my conclusion at present'. One example but when I used the D800 I found it to behave just the same.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The amount of misinformation that is bandied around here regarding the Sony sensor is quite staggering.

For a start the whole "14 stoops of DR" compared to 12 is so misleading. The Exmor sensor clips to white at exactly the same point as the Canon on a like for like exposure. In fact if we are going to be anal about it the Exmor clips a tiny bit earlier. So much for more dynamic range. The best way to think about the two sensors is that the DR is basically identical but you have more shadow latitude in the Exmor. The Canon will fall apart in the shadows before the Exmor, but whether or not you consider the lack of tonality that comes from the big lift acceptable is up to you.

So you rag about misinformation and then your first few paragraphs appear to be misinformation....
It's not a revelation that white clips at the same point when looking at linear RAW data, these are (regular-type, there was that weird Fuji one once) digital sensors and you get a hard clip there is no differential analog roll-off. And many who go on about DR have talked about the linear capture and hard clip.

And dynamic range can't be defined on one end and left undefined on the other end. It's like you are grasping for straws.

My conclusion at present is that if you are working within the acceptable range of the sensor the Canon has the better "IQ" for landscape photography, and I'm someone who is after the new Pentax FF camera when it finally arrives. I hope it doesn't have the 36mp Exmor in it.

If you are working within the acceptable range of a Honda Accord it present a nicer driving experience than an F1 car. A lot more comfy, easy to use. If you race them at Spa, however....

It's also ironic, that after all the talk about "learn how to shoot, learn how to expose [sometimes with a personal insult tossed in for good measure] that have been tossed at the DR crowd, you are just like well I didn't feel like learning how to properly expose this so I just clicked away and then present the result as something better than misinformation.

 

[jrista]

For a start the whole "14 stoops of DR" compared to 12 is so misleading. The Exmor sensor clips to white at exactly the same point as the Canon on a like for like exposure. In fact if we are going to be anal about it the Exmor clips a tiny bit earlier. So much for more dynamic range. The best way to think about the two sensors is that the DR is basically identical but you have more shadow latitude in the Exmor. The Canon will fall apart in the shadows before the Exmor, but whether or not you consider the lack of tonality that comes from the big lift acceptable is up to you.

The Exmor evangelists don't talk about the fragility of the highlights do they ? Or how it loses blue saturation faster than the Canon. And f your answer is to under expose to make the highlights more robust, that's your decision; it's not necessarily how I want to work.

This is so fundamentally wrong I don't even know how to respond to it. There is no such thing as more DR in the shadows, or more shadow latitude. There is simply more DR, more editing latitude. That's it. No, Sony users don't worry about highlights because they don't have to ETTR so heavily to preserve as much signal as possible, like Canon users do. There is no such thing as highlights clipping sooner. And even if there is a loss in saturation in any color channel when you push the limits... It doesn't matter...ETTR less, to the point where they don't, and lift the shadows a little more. That's the entire point. That IS the benefit of more DR.

It's dynamic range...you can move the signal around within that range. When you have MORE RANGE, you have more freedom in terms of where you shift the signal. ETTR is significantly less important with an Exmor than it is with a Canon. With Canon, you have to push it right to the limit, and even when you do, you still might not be able to recover all your shadow detail. On an Exmor, you can ETTR less, or not at all, preserve all that highlight detail, or even put most of it right smack in the middle of the linear response range of the sensor, and still have significantly more shadow detail. With a Sony, you have as much tonality in shadows lifted several stops as you do with a Canon in unlifted lower midtones. You lose absolutely nothing when you have more dynamic range. Preserving the highlights is entirely the point.

You CAN preserve the highlights, and still have better shadow tonality, than with a Canon camera. I mean, we are talking about total tonality of around 2100-2400 tones on a Canon, and anywhere from 7300 to 8100 tones or more on Exmor-based cameras. The entire tonal range of a Canon camera can fit within the shadow quarter of the signal on an Exmor...I mean, think about it: 8000/2000...if you consider the bottom quarter of the signal to be "the shadows", you could fit an entire Canon exposure in the shadows of an Exmor, and have the same tonality. Earlier highlight clipping? Saturation falloff? That's a total misnomer. You have GOBS more tonality in an Exmor signal than a Canon has in it's entirety, and you have as much tonality just in the shadows as a Canon has in it's entirety. There is no such thing as early highlight clipping or blue saturation falloff with an Exmor...

The dynamic range of a camera CANNOT be decoupled from it's noise. Dynamic range is a reference to noise: MaximumSignal/CameraReadNoise. <-- That IS dynamic range, right there. Canon cameras have more read noise. Therefor, the dynamic range of a Canon is plain and simply NOT the same as a Sony. This statement:

The best way to think about the two sensors is that the DR is basically identical but you have more shadow latitude in the Exmor.

Absolutely, completely, fundamentally, and factually incorrect. It demonstrates a grave misunderstanding about what dynamic range is...and the very reason I force myself to post here, as distasteful as it often is to do so.

You make the assertion that the tonality of the shadows with Exmor is, well, terrible. You make the assertion that you don't like to shoot that way. That's all well and good, however it is also your loss. Your preconceptions are limiting you here, and your assertions are going to mislead people as to what the facts actually are, and what is actually possible when you have two more stops of DR than Canon currently offers.

This is a fairly simple fact: Any camera using an Exmor sensor, and has around 13-14 stops of DR, has as much tonality in the shadows (defined here in this context as the bottom quarter of the signal, just for clarity)...as an entire Canon signal. You can easily preserve the quality of the highlights in a Sony camera, or a Nikon camera, or anything else that uses an Exmor, and have GOBS of tonality on the shadows to offset any reduction in exposure to protect those highlights. We aren't talking about stops worth of shadow recovery here either. At worst, to protect highlights, we are probably talking about a third of a stop.