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

[Sporgon]

I have a genuine question for anyone with experience with both Canon and Exmor sensors. And to an extent it picks up Sporgon's comment that maybe an Exmor sensor would provide more advantage for a sports shooter than a landscape shooter.

If I took, say, a portrait shot at midday in bright sun, would the Exmor sensor allow me to produce a significantly better image from a single exposure? What I'm thinking about is if you underexpose the image as a whole to protect highlights such as sun reflecting of shiny skin, and I then lifted the shadows and mid tones, would the skin texture survive? Would the result be noticeably different from what a Canon would produce?

I realise there are things you can do to shoot a portrait in midday sun - use of reflectors, diffusers, flashes/strobes - but I am curious to know whether the Exmor sensor would provide a significant benefit in that scenario.

I'm quite early in my Exmor adventure, but so far I'd agree with what others have said. The answer's no, especially in the way you worded your question - 'highlights reflecting'. To see a difference you'd have to force the situation into the Exmor's advantage, that is place your subject in front of the sun so they are in full mid day shadow, expose for the sun, then push the shadows four stops. In this situation you would get a better result than from the Canon but whether or not you'd find it acceptable compared with exposing / lighting it properly is another thing altogether.

This is the annoying thing; whenever we see 'comparisons' they are always artificially contrived situations where the Exmor can show an advantage. I'm specifically not doing this, I genuinely want to see if there is a real benefit for me. So far my conclusions are that there is not. In fact I just don't see this "extra 2.5 stops of DR", I think it's largely theoretical like the 8000 vs 2000 tones.

I don't understand this "Exmor has more tones in the bottom third of the sensor than Canon has in the whole range" thing, quoted by jrista. I am just not seeing any evidence of that - at all. If it is technically true it doesn't have any influence on the actual picture.

 

[drjlo]

If 4 or 5 stops, EXMOR will show less noise after lifting the deep shadows.

Unless you do the shadow heavy lifting in DPP.

I'm not a fan of the software, but it opens up Canon shadows in a way that would pass for the "magic" Sonys...

DPP does some great things for Canon RAW compared to others. I wish DPP could take third party LR/Photoshop plug-ins, which would make it far more useful. It's such a hassle and time-waster to export to PS from DPP.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

If 4 or 5 stops, EXMOR will show less noise after lifting the deep shadows.

Unless you do the shadow heavy lifting in DPP.

I'm not a fan of the software, but it opens up Canon shadows in a way that would pass for the "magic" Sonys...

DPP makes a mush of shadows, it hides stuff under smear

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I have a genuine question for anyone with experience with both Canon and Exmor sensors. And to an extent it picks up Sporgon's comment that maybe an Exmor sensor would provide more advantage for a sports shooter than a landscape shooter.

If I took, say, a portrait shot at midday in bright sun, would the Exmor sensor allow me to produce a significantly better image from a single exposure? What I'm thinking about is if you underexpose the image as a whole to protect highlights such as sun reflecting of shiny skin, and I then lifted the shadows and mid tones, would the skin texture survive? Would the result be noticeably different from what a Canon would produce?

I realise there are things you can do to shoot a portrait in midday sun - use of reflectors, diffusers, flashes/strobes - but I am curious to know whether the Exmor sensor would provide a significant benefit in that scenario.

In my experience, no.
If one has to lift shadows a lot, the results can be usable but they won't be pretty.
This is exactly why the DR arguments are a waste of time. The notion that huge DR will save you if you are unprepared and make a crappy exposure or you are just unlucky or cannot plan for an important shoot is just silly. No matter what camera you have, massive underexposure will look rotten no matter what.

not entirely true
and why do people keep calling it underexposure! If you expose as you need to save highlights you have exposed properly, not underexposed.

 

[anthonyd]

I have a genuine question for anyone with experience with both Canon and Exmor sensors. And to an extent it picks up Sporgon's comment that maybe an Exmor sensor would provide more advantage for a sports shooter than a landscape shooter.

If I took, say, a portrait shot at midday in bright sun, would the Exmor sensor allow me to produce a significantly better image from a single exposure? What I'm thinking about is if you underexpose the image as a whole to protect highlights such as sun reflecting of shiny skin, and I then lifted the shadows and mid tones, would the skin texture survive? Would the result be noticeably different from what a Canon would produce?

I realise there are things you can do to shoot a portrait in midday sun - use of reflectors, diffusers, flashes/strobes - but I am curious to know whether the Exmor sensor would provide a significant benefit in that scenario.

In my experience, no.
If one has to lift shadows a lot, the results can be usable but they won't be pretty.
This is exactly why the DR arguments are a waste of time. The notion that huge DR will save you if you are unprepared and make a crappy exposure or you are just unlucky or cannot plan for an important shoot is just silly. No matter what camera you have, massive underexposure will look rotten no matter what.

You are wrong in the belief that lack of modifiers or not choosing the golden hour for portraiture is the result of bad planning.

I am currently in Greece and tried to take my kids to the Acropolis to take some shots with the Parthenon as the background. Unfortunately, light modifiers are not allowed on the Acropolis and it closes at 7:30 when the sunset is after 8:30 this time of the year. So I went twice, once to pick a spot that produces a good fg/bg ratio and shows the monument at a nice angle and once just before they closed having also chosen the day to be mildly cloudy.

I don't think there was anything else for me to plan, and I can tell you that I wish I had a couple of more stops of DR to work with (or maybe it's my pp skills to blame)

 

[Sporgon]

I have a genuine question for anyone with experience with both Canon and Exmor sensors. And to an extent it picks up Sporgon's comment that maybe an Exmor sensor would provide more advantage for a sports shooter than a landscape shooter.

If I took, say, a portrait shot at midday in bright sun, would the Exmor sensor allow me to produce a significantly better image from a single exposure? What I'm thinking about is if you underexpose the image as a whole to protect highlights such as sun reflecting of shiny skin, and I then lifted the shadows and mid tones, would the skin texture survive? Would the result be noticeably different from what a Canon would produce?

I realise there are things you can do to shoot a portrait in midday sun - use of reflectors, diffusers, flashes/strobes - but I am curious to know whether the Exmor sensor would provide a significant benefit in that scenario.

In my experience, no.
If one has to lift shadows a lot, the results can be usable but they won't be pretty.
This is exactly why the DR arguments are a waste of time. The notion that huge DR will save you if you are unprepared and make a crappy exposure or you are just unlucky or cannot plan for an important shoot is just silly. No matter what camera you have, massive underexposure will look rotten no matter what.

You are wrong in the belief that lack of modifiers or not choosing the golden hour for portraiture is the result of bad planning.

I am currently in Greece and tried to take my kids to the Acropolis to take some shots with the Parthenon as the background. Unfortunately, light modifiers are not allowed on the Acropolis and it closes at 7:30 when the sunset is after 8:30 this time of the year. So I went twice, once to pick a spot that produces a good fg/bg ratio and shows the monument at a nice angle and once just before they closed having also chosen the day to be mildly cloudy.

I don't think there was anything else for me to plan, and I can tell you that I wish I had a couple of more stops of DR to work with (or maybe it's my pp skills to blame)

I would have thought that the Canon would cope with this easily, but you do have to watch the Canon default contrast curves. If ever I think I'm pushing to the limit of EV range I always set a 'neutral' picture style with contrast, saturation and sharpening set right down. This gives a better indication on the rear LCD of what you can expect in raw. Even then you will get over exposure blinkies when it hasn't actually blown in raw.

Some goes if shooting in JPEG, use neutral or faithful and set the contrast down.

One thing that I would critisize Canon for it that the default contrast curves are far too harsh for my liking, and can lead people to think they have much less EV range than they actually have. It sounds to me, from what you have said, that this has happened to you.

 

[jd7]

Thanks to all who responded to my query about trying to shoot a portrait in the midday sun with an Exmor v Canon sensor. Perhaps one day I'll get hold of a SoNikon and have a chance to try it out for myself. It doesn't sound like I can expect to see much real difference in that scenario though.

 

[zlatko]

It likely says something about what's on the mind of readers...

It definitely says all we need to know about the disruptive intent of the Sony/DR trolls...

Well if Canon gave us better products then there would be fewer trolls

Amazing how Canon meets the needs of some of the best photographers in the world, but not some anonymous sensor critics.

 

[unfocused]

It likely says something about what's on the mind of readers...

It definitely says all we need to know about the disruptive intent of the Sony/DR trolls...

Well if Canon gave us better products then there would be fewer trolls

Amazing how Canon meets the needs of some of the best photographers in the world, but not some anonymous sensor critics.

A less considerate person might suggest that the problem isn't with the sensors, it's with the photographers. But it would be uncharitable of me to say that.

 

[Tugela]

It likely says something about what's on the mind of readers...

It definitely says all we need to know about the disruptive intent of the Sony/DR trolls...

Well if Canon gave us better products then there would be fewer trolls

Amazing how Canon meets the needs of some of the best photographers in the world, but not some anonymous sensor critics.

They buy Canon cameras (the pros) because those particular models are built like tanks and because they are invested in the system. That is the main reason, they are not passing commentary on the relative strengths of the sensors.

Amateurs have different criteria, you can't use what the pros are doing as a yardstick to determine what amateurs should/would do.

Put it this way: If a pro was to personally buy a P&S or a superzoom, where massive build quality and system investment are irrelevant, do you think they are going to choose a Canon? That will be the most telling indicator.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It likely says something about what's on the mind of readers...

It definitely says all we need to know about the disruptive intent of the Sony/DR trolls...

Well if Canon gave us better products then there would be fewer trolls

Amazing how Canon meets the needs of some of the best photographers in the world, but not some anonymous sensor critics.

They buy Canon cameras (the pros) because those particular models are built like tanks and because they are invested in the system. That is the main reason, they are not passing commentary on the relative strengths of the sensors.

Tank like build is clearly critical to the studio/fashion crowd. :

If the sensors in Canon cameras precluded them from getting the results their clients demand, they'd switch. That doesn't seem to be happening.

 

[unfocused]

It likely says something about what's on the mind of readers...

It definitely says all we need to know about the disruptive intent of the Sony/DR trolls...

Well if Canon gave us better products then there would be fewer trolls

Amazing how Canon meets the needs of some of the best photographers in the world, but not some anonymous sensor critics.

They buy Canon cameras (the pros) because those particular models are built like tanks and because they are invested in the system. That is the main reason, they are not passing commentary on the relative strengths of the sensors...

Please read Zlatko's statement again. He did not say anything about pros. He said "some of the best photographers in the world."

That's not the same thing. They may or may not be pros, but the defining criteria he references is the quality of their work.

 

[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.

I would, I hate sushi ;D

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

History does inform the present in all kinds of ways.

It's entirely irrelevant for what is under discussion.

Anyway, I clicked a few buttons to quickly clone a few galleries into this, it's super sports biased since I didn't want to waste any time on something of no relevance, just click click and done, but for a very limited time this temp quick multi-clone gallery of a few things online at the moment:



(a bunch of it is in wide gamut format and so on too so it won't look right at all on mobile or with certain browsers without color management, etc. just a quick hack job)

Once again, I don't get what this has to do with anything, HW specs are HW specs and someone's gallery doesn't change the truth about sensor performance or whether something has 4k or not or anything else in this tech forum.

 

[scyrene]

It likely says something about what's on the mind of readers...

It definitely says all we need to know about the disruptive intent of the Sony/DR trolls...

Well if Canon gave us better products then there would be fewer trolls

That's an optimistic view. True trolls (and I don't think there are many here, to be fair) cannot be satisfied by anything. Their desire is to stir up trouble.

 

[that1guyy]

This might be useful for some of you.

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/canon-lens-owners-look-at-that-first-a7rii-autofocus-test-video-with-canon-mount-lens/

 

[fragilesi]

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

History does inform the present in all kinds of ways.

All true, but on the other hand that same fantastic artist may give very poor advice about someone wanting to paint landscapes . . .

 

[krisbell]

This might be useful for some of you.

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/canon-lens-owners-look-at-that-first-a7rii-autofocus-test-video-with-canon-mount-lens/

Thanks for sharing this. Autofocus seems much improved but still not blistering. Shutter sound also seems much improved. Looks promising so far.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

This might be useful for some of you.

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/canon-lens-owners-look-at-that-first-a7rii-autofocus-test-video-with-canon-mount-lens/

Interesting.
AF:
Looks terrible for sports and action and macro as figured.

Looks questionable for have to count on it quick moments. It might nail many, but also miss a bit more than you'd like it looks like.

But looks plenty fine for landscape and any sort of basic everyday shooting which is pretty nice (and I'd bet it actually makes it easier to tell whether that shot is really focused where you want it to be or a mistake too)!

So it seems like it would be great to use it for most things and then just use the Canon for sports/serious action/critical can't miss have to get THE moment stuff/macros.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Taking a quick peek at the Sony compression (and such a quick peek that my conclusions could be wrong):

The compressed RAWs on the Sony do seem a little bit of a shame though. When any row of 32 pixels doesn't have any extreme jumps of shade within it you might go lossless, but if you get some parts like pitch black and some bright just about clipped white then it seems it's forced to create posterization since it has to span near 14bits with a small bit offset apparently.

OTOH though, keep in mind that it appears to really be a shame only compared to MF and Nikon.

Most Canon's can't do at the 1:1 level more than 10-11 bits, which the Sony does uncompressed anyway.

The 6D and a few maybe do 11.5 bits but the compression probably wouldn't be worse than 0.5 bits anyway so I'm not sure the lossy RAW would really tend to make it ever worse than the Canons, although in certain parts of the image it might reduce it the tonality to similar to barely better instead of the fully better that it could be.

It sounds like it probably could make it a little worse on certain parts of images than the Nikons, with a bit posterization and so on, but I'm not sure it would necessarily ever be worse than what the Canons can do and in many regions you'll get the full tonality bonus and you should also get at least two stops more DR at low ISO I'd think even in the tricky spots.

Anyway take that with a bit of a grain of salt. Depending upon finer details of how it gets carried out and whether my quick glance picked up all correctly the answer might change a bit.

Soccer time.

 

[Tugela]

This might be useful for some of you.

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/canon-lens-owners-look-at-that-first-a7rii-autofocus-test-video-with-canon-mount-lens/

Interesting.
AF:
Looks terrible for sports and action and macro as figured.

Looks questionable for have to count on it quick moments. It might nail many, but also miss a bit more than you'd like it looks like.

But looks plenty fine for landscape and any sort of basic everyday shooting which is pretty nice (and I'd bet it actually makes it easier to tell whether that shot is really focused where you want it to be or a mistake too)!

So it seems like it would be great to use it for most things and then just use the Canon for sports/serious action/critical can't miss have to get THE moment stuff/macros.

Why macros? The good stuff there is usually done manually and most mirrorless cameras kick ass in that department.