p.48 #1 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Jeff Kott wrote:
If resolution is your only criteria, then you're correct. But there are other quantifiable reasons for FF (i.e., depth of field advantages, more dynamic range, better performance at higher ISO's). There are also advantages that are more difficult to quantify, such as the "full frame look," and the big one for me that I don't have enough of a scientific background to explain. That is that when I look at two photos printed at the same size and one is taken with a larger format sensor, that one tends to look "better" to me.
Those are valid points but in the context of any discussion about a 36MP FF sensor being more demanding to shoot than a 16MP APS-C sensor in terms of technique, resolution is the only criteria that's apropos to the discussion.
p.48 #2 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
snapsy wrote:
Those are valid points but in the context of any discussion about a 36MP FF sensor being more demanding to shoot than a 16MP APS-C sensor, resolution is the only criteria that's apropos to the discussion.
the important point is that a 36mp sensor is more demanding than a 16mp sensor (independent of sensor size). it boggles my mind that people are still surprised to "discover" this. it's also important to note that the output of the 36mp sensor won't be worse than the 16mp sensor due to motion blur for any given print size, it will always be as good or better than the same shot with the 16mp sensor. if you want to maximize the output from the 36mp you have to try a little harder, but how is that surprising at all (or a negative)?
p.48 #4 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
sebboh wrote:
the important point is that a 36mp sensor is more demanding than a 16mp sensor (independent of sensor size). it boggles my mind that people are still surprised to "discover" this. it's also important to note that the output of the 36mp sensor won't be worse than the 16mp sensor due to motion blur for any given print size, it will always be as good or better than the same shot with the 16mp sensor. if you want to maximize the output from the 36mp you have to try a little harder, but how is that surprising at all (or a negative)?
I think we're all saying the same thing but have different ideas on the scale of the significance. To say that a 36MP FF is not more demanding than a 16MP APS-C due to the 36MP FF never looking worse than the 16MP APS-C misses the forest for the trees. By that reasoning a 36MP FF is no more demanding than a 4MP APS-C sensor, if one only needs 4MP prints. Maybe we're just getting into semantics but IMO "more demanding" relates to what it takes to maximize the resolving ability of the particular sensor.
p.48 #8 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
I don't have a problem with it. Like I said, slick. I'd be upset except that if you hadn't posted, I'd have a 0% chance if winning one, vs the very tiny one I do have now.
p.48 #9 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
I did hesitate before posting, but decided that as long as I was the first, it was okay, exactly because of the people who might not otherwise find the link at all. I think that as long as there is an advantage for the reader, the poster is relatively in the clear. It isn't super-clear-cut though. For example, I have always felt annoyed whenever Jorge Torralba posts links leading off to one of his sites, but then, his links are essentially competition to FM, posted right on FM, leeching people off to other sites/forums where he profits from hits, whereas this lottery is no competition to FM.
p.48 #14 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Huff now says the 50 lux ASPH is beautiful on both the A7 and A7R and works as well as on any M body. This starts to smell like hyping again.
Ron's examples showed that it's not great on the A7, the example of The Camera Store looked really weird and Phillip Reeve mentioned that he wouldn't even show his result from the 50 lux because it was so bad.
So it looks like it's pretty much exactly the same sensor as the D800. Not really surprised, after all sensor development is extremely expensive and Sony need to achieve a return on that investment - all the talk of there being 2 years development in tech and noise levels being better is not really understanding how these companies work.
Sure they say it's a new sensor, but that probably just refers to the AA filter or microlenses, just like Canon talk about the "new" sensor every time they roll out the same 18MP APS-C chip from 2009!
On the bright side, at least they didn't make it worse - results from the D800 are still pretty damn good!
edit: given the RX1 didn't score as well as the D600, perhaps due to stronger filters in the CFA, it's possible that there has been a small improvement in noise that is masked by the CFA...
p.48 #16 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
^ - hmmm, Huff is more of a "real world" reviewer, but I think he's usually pretty honest about things. I wonder if he's just been traveling and "working" too much and his judgement is a bit impaired - if you read his posts it doesn't sound like he's had much sleep lately.
p.48 #17 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Matt Grum wrote: edit:
given the RX1 didn't score as well as the D600, perhaps due to stronger filters in the CFA, it's possible that there has been a small improvement in noise that is masked by the CFA...
Or the gapless micro lens design gathers more light?
p.48 #18 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
I don't know which image but I checked a few and the girl on the horse photo had a shutter speed of 1/10 sec at iso 100 so they are not very well shot...
Joseph Marney wrote:
The DPreview images with the 35mm are nasty. Camera shake?
p.48 #19 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
serhan_ wrote:
I don't know which image but I checked a few and the girl on the horse photo had a shutter speed of 1/10 sec at iso 100 so they are not very well shot...
