p.180 #2 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
I'm with Fred in terms of the cRAW opinion. I haven't seen any compression artifacts in my shooting and it should only tend to show up in somewhat extreme circumstances (although I realize for certain types of photography it might have more of an impact.) It would be nice if they added an uncompressed RAW option in a firmware update. But in my opinion this "issue" should be far away from making or breaking this camera. Thom is welcome to his own, but as others have noted it would have been nice to show an example based on his experience.
I trust that Fred has put the camera through its paces, and obviously I trust what I've seen in my own shooting. The lack of EFCS is a bummer, but not something I can't workaround. It's pretty hard to make a perfect camera, we don't have too many do we? I think a7R (and a7) seem to be a pretty amazing first release.
For my work, I'd rather have the a7R with cRAW and lack of EFCS then shoot my 5D II. (I haven't shot my 5D II since before I bought the a7R in December.) Neither of them would be great for shooting sports for example, but it would be hard to pan them both on that right?
-Tim
snapsy wrote:
It's not just that he didn't post a photo example but that he couldn't refer to a single image he's taken with the camera in the months that he's had it which demonstrated the issue. At what point does Sony's choice of compression become a silly mistake vs a clever algorithm if its negative side effects are exceedingly rare?
p.180 #3 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
snapsy wrote:
It's not just that he didn't post a photo example but that he couldn't refer to a single image he's taken with the camera in the months that he's had it which demonstrated the issue. At what point does Sony's choice of compression become a silly mistake vs a clever algorithm if its negative side effects are exceedingly rare?
Whatever buddy, if you love the A7r, buy one. I did not, would not, and won't recommend it, in that I agree with Thom.
p.180 #4 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
carstenw wrote:
Whatever buddy, if you love the A7r, buy one. I did not, would not, and won't recommend it, in that I agree with Thom.
That's what I did. Bought one recently, and I am very happy with it especially with its sensor performance. It is simply incredible, I wouldn't have thought that it could be so different and better compared to my 5D MkII. Having said this, I have no use for fast fps, fast AF, or high ISO. If this is needed, I would not recommend the A7R. It depends what kind of photos you prefer to take and also if you want to make use of third party MF lenses. If you are a Nikon user and already have the D800(E), then the A7(R) also doesn't make a lot of sense to have in addition. But for Canon users it is a different story. I personally perfectly fit to the target group of this A7R camera. It is certainly a keeper for me!
p.180 #5 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
retrofocus wrote:
That's what I did. Bought one recently, and I am very happy with it especially with its sensor performance. It is simply incredible, I wouldn't have thought that it could be so different and better compared to my 5D MkII. Having said this, I have no use for fast fps, fast AF, or high ISO. If this is needed, I would not recommend the A7R. It depends what kind of photos you prefer to take and also if you want to make use of third party MF lenses. If you are a Nikon user and already have the D800(E), then the A7(R) also doesn't make a lot of sense to have in addition. But for Canon users it is a different story. I personally perfectly fit to the target group of this A7R camera. It is certainly a keeper for me!...Show more →
Thats why I got it, to be able to use the TSE lenses on the A7r. The 5DIII may be going on the chopping block in couple of weeks.
p.180 #7 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
carstenw wrote:
Yep, that is exactly right, it may make many people happy, but there are enough potential niggles that a straight recommendation is questionable.
There are certainly lots of reasons to not recommend the A7r - IMO it's a rather specialized camera that's best suited for landscape and street shooting only - but the compression algorithm is not one of them.
p.180 #8 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
carstenw wrote:
Yep, that is exactly right, it may make many people happy, but there are enough potential niggles that a straight recommendation is questionable.
Yes I 100% agree.
People these days have become ##cking stupid and lazy. I don't know are the ones reviewing stuff and giving general ratings/recommendations more stupid OR the ones reading those reviews concentrating to one number/end conclusion. Anyone with brains should understand that any general recommendation may not apply to themselves on their usage. Reviews should be read concentrating to the details, not to conclusions, and evaluating "how this and that affects to my usage"-method, and make your own conclusions.
snapsy wrote:
There are certainly lots of reasons to not recommend the A7r - IMO it's a rather specialized camera that's best suited for landscape and street shooting only - but the compression algorithm is not one of them.
Not sure about your categorization, but in my mind star trail photography is "subcategory" of landscape photography. Due to compression artifacts I would not recommend A7 or A7r due to RAW compression algorithm for star trails or astrophotography (with devide compensating for the earth movement).
p.180 #9 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
I don't see how the A7r would be a good street camera at all. Slow AF, and even pre-focused, bloody loud shutter. Not at all what you want. An RX1 would be so much better.
p.180 #11 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
carstenw wrote:
I don't see how the A7r would be a good street camera at all. Slow AF, and even pre-focused, bloody loud shutter. Not at all what you want. An RX1 would be so much better.
Many consider the M9 to be a good street shooter. The A7r provides a significantly better sensor esp for low light, focus peaking, magnified focus, compatibility with nearly every lens every made...at a much lower price. RX1 is a good solution too if 35mm is a good fit.
p.180 #12 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
carstenw wrote:
I don't see how the A7r would be a good street camera at all. Slow AF, and even pre-focused, bloody loud shutter. Not at all what you want. An RX1 would be so much better.
The shutter is the only thing I don't like about these cameras for street. Very loud and slow feeling (when not using the EFC of the A7). I use my RX1 a lot for street and I love it's discreteness, but it's AF is slower than both the A7 and A7R + it lacks the tiltable LCD, a great feature for street.
p.180 #13 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
carstenw wrote:
He doesn't need to post evidence to have an opinion, and make a review. He linked to another site, for those interested in reading more, but his reviews are invariably text only, with only photos of the equipment. His point was simply that to put in such a capable sensor, and then to make not one, but a few silly mistakes in the processing and integration just doesn't make any sense. If you read his review again, you will see that he generally liked the cameras, but stops short of recommending the A7r, with which I agree. Someone might enjoy it, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, they would have to test it themselves....Show more →
Carsten
With all due respect, if any credible reviewer uses other's data it needs not only to be referenced, but also come with a disclaimer if it has not been applied by the reviewer.
In Thom's somewhat ambivalent comments on the A7r he left me with the feeling (since no reference to his own analysis was made) that he accepted it blindly.
Further, the review seems to imply little work was done with A7r's RAW images.
I am not a reviewer, I don't have the time nor all of the equipment needed to do so. However, when a claim, positive or negative, is made about equipment which I use or plan to use I do take the time and attempt to thoroughly understand how that will effect my working with it. As stated in my earlier comment I have taken his review serious enough to check on a few of the items of which I'm in disagreement and to the best of my abilities and access to equipment I cannot verify his claims.
Regarding your earlier comment about my statement on Nikon's D800E, my rebuttal will be somewhat defensive
Nikon's use of the sensor is three years old and Sony has made improvements since then. These changes still require time to prove if they are indeed of benefit. However DXO's tests seem to show that it is.
Cheers
p.180 #14 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
philip_pj wrote:
Not often to say this about a post covering many issues, but agree 100%, miklar. I have never seen so much interest in a camera that is not worthy of their interest.
As the DxO data make clear, you give up data quality using higher ISO than necessary - Sony's modern sensors are extremely linear, and the advantages of base ISO are clear to anyone with real world experience of these cameras. On the a7r (once above extended ISO 50) every ISO step up numerically costs you data quality - no exceptions.
p.180 #15 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Even I like the A7R a lot, I find it less useful for street photography due to its fairly loud shutter. Star trail photography is something I have never done so far either. I agree that the A7R targets a niche in photography - mostly for landscape/scenery photography (maybe less useful for star trails, I don't know this since I never tried) and fine arts. To me it is a camera I was waiting for since a long time - I am no longer locked in to use lenses of one single mount with this camera. Even some older lenses which I own might be out-resolved by this superb sensor, but I now enjoy using them like I did many years ago on my film cameras. IMO the A7R combines excellent electronics with excellent glass. I have the feeling that I won't need a new Canon DSLR soon.
p.180 #18 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
miklar wrote:
Carsten
With all due respect, if any credible reviewer uses other's data it needs not only to be referenced, but also come with a disclaimer if it has not been applied by the reviewer.
In Thom's somewhat ambivalent comments on the A7r he left me with the feeling (since no reference to his own analysis was made) that he accepted it blindly.
Further, the review seems to imply little work was done with A7r's RAW images.
Okay, well, to me it sounded like he had worked with it to figure it all out, but didn't have anything in particular he wanted to post, and anyway, he was posting a review of the cameras, not a technical examination.
Regarding your earlier comment about my statement on Nikon's D800E, my rebuttal will be somewhat defensive
Nikon's use of the sensor is three years old and Sony has made improvements since then. These changes still require time to prove if they are indeed of benefit. However DXO's tests seem to show that it is.
DXO's sensor test show that the D800E beat the A7r on 3 of 4 criteria, and tied it on the last... I think this probably has a lot to do with why Nikon hasn't released anything new. On top of this, Nikon can't be enjoying the fact that their sensor partner is a camera competitor, so they are probably working overtime on some other strategy for the future.
