p.16 #1 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
Really, we are questioning the quality of the sensor? So Sony who gave us the D800 sensor will somehow screw it up and deliver an inferior product! The only surprise will be if it's not better than the D800E sensor. IMO it should be a tad sharper as they don't have any AA filter as opposed to Nikon's hack of using yet another filter to cancel the effects of the AA filter rather than remove the AA filter like Sony did.
p.16 #2 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
chez wrote:
I think people looking for a 1Dx performance camera in a mirrorless system, they will have to keep waiting. The 1Dx is a niche product for professional use. The mirrorless cameras are attacking the bottom end market, where the vast majority of camera sales exist. That is smart business.
For my type of photography, mainly landscape, the A7r appears to be ideal. Will have to wait on results of using existing Canon lens with adapter on the camera, but for landscapes, AF and fps don't really matter...it's all about the sensor.
I agree.
We may one day see 1D X class mirrorless cameras, but given that these types of cameras are usually attached to a freakin' huge supertele where the extra weight of the body helps balance, it's probably not as imperative for such a development. I believe it will come, but Canon and Nikon will not compromise performance at all in this segment. So until they could match all the parameters of the 1D X it's not going to happen IMO.
Obviously the the high end market is tiny compared to even the semi-professional segment of the 5D III's and D800s and I think the Sony products will do well in targeting that segment and of course they have already targeted the lower food chain.
I'm still not buying that the mirrorless FF is a godsend idea though. Again I see little point having small cameras when the lenses are basically the same size as FF DSLR equivalents. Take the workhorse 24-70 f/2.8 lens on FF. Would there really be a benefit to hanging this off a A7R which will then be very unbalanced? Interestingly Sony is only releasing a much lighter 24-70 f/4 at this stage.
So for me the real interest is in the sensor alone for most part and the fact unlike the D800E, we can use our own glass rather than invest in a whole new system. The one change I might make is if I can get AF and can change aperture within camera with a Nikon 14-24 on the Sony, I'd sell my 17-40L in a heart beat. My uber landscape line-up would be
Sony A7R
Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
Canon 24 TS-E II
Canon 24-70 f/2.8 mk II
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS mk II
p.16 #3 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Really, we are questioning the quality of the sensor? So Sony who gave us the D800 sensor will somehow screw it up and deliver an inferior product!.
Yup, I heard they are going to decrease the DR at low ISO and introduce only a little bit of banding, so it will be better than a Canon 36MP but not good enough to eat into the D800 sales
OTOH I do like the idea of being able to use Sony film with my Canon glass
p.16 #4 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
I would hope Adobe very quickly adjust their sharpening settings in LR and ACR and change the smallest radius from 0.5pixels to 0.1pixels. I'm guessing at worst the A7R shots will need a lick of sharpening and 0.5 will be too much.
p.16 #5 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
chez wrote:
I think people looking for a 1Dx performance camera in a mirrorless system, they will have to keep waiting. The 1Dx is a niche product for professional use. The mirrorless cameras are attacking the bottom end market, where the vast majority of camera sales exist. That is smart business.
I'd agree for now but I think the future is bright for sensor-based phase detect/contrast-detect AF hybrids. Such a solution would feed a lot more raw information into AF algorithms and the ever-increasing horsepower of imaging processing ASICs means that information can be put to very good use. For instance, how about a "human priority" AF-C tracking mode, that scans the entire imaging plane for the closest human figure and tracks it.
p.16 #6 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
snapsy wrote:
I'd agree for now but I think the future is bright for sensor-based phase detect/contrast-detect AF hybrids. Such a solution would feed a lot more raw information into AF algorithms and the ever-increasing horsepower of imaging processing ASICs means that information can be put to very good use. For instance, how about a "human priority" AF-C tracking mode, that scans the entire imaging plane for the closest human figure and tracks it.
This is exactly what should be coming down the pipeline. If smartphones can do it, cameras can do it better.
How about being able to use a Canon-style AF-point joystick to select who to track in the image? Or to designate something to look out for, like a football/soccerball, a jersey number, your son, or a particular car? Even creating a reference 'list' and being able to switch between them, like quarterback, wide-receiver, etc.?
None of that is really out of reach, as the technology to do so already exists (think auto-tagging used by social media sites).
p.16 #7 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
We may eventually see a different approach with mirror less high speed cameras. No video display will even show the image as fast as the display that lets us look directly at it - by definition, there must always be some delay in a video display. The delay can be made very small, but it will still be there.
There are a few ways to deal with this issue.
For types of photography in which it really isn't a problem, current video displays can work pretty well for many subjects. My experience with my Fujifulm X-E1 has convinced me that a) the video is fine and perhaps even advantageous for certain kinds of subjects, and b) it is not good enough for other kinds of subjects. But if your shooting is mostly of things that aren't moving super fast, it is fine.
There are two causes for the delay. One is simply the time it takes to capture and then display a frame of video. This takes at least some time, though speeding it up can help. Newer cameras with faster processors can no doubt acquire and display a video image with much less delay. A second issue is the frame rate of the video display. This adds another delay point into the signal chain, since the display can't show the next frame until it is time for it to do so, and at slower frame rates this delay is more noticeable. Some newer cameras are using much higher numbers of frames per second.
Since there will always be some delay in video systems, eventually it might be necessary to use a different strategy, one that is already in use for video recording some very transient and high speed events. Here the camera is essentially always on and recording, though it only caches perhaps the prior 30 seconds or so of images. When the operate presses the "shutter" (or "record" button), this doesn't actually start the recording - instead is simply tells the camera to stop emptying the images out of the memory. With a system like this on a still camera, you could actually have frames from some period of time before you first pressed the shutter button... sort of a "negative shutter delay" situation.
As these things evolve, we are likely to see quite a bit of rethinking of how cameras operate and even of what a camera is...
Dan
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I agree.
We may one day see 1D X class mirrorless cameras, but given that these types of cameras are usually attached to a freakin' huge supertele where the extra weight of the body helps balance, it's probably not as imperative for such a development. I believe it will come, but Canon and Nikon will not compromise performance at all in this segment. So until they could match all the parameters of the 1D X it's not going to happen IMO.
Obviously the the high end market is tiny compared to even the semi-professional segment of the 5D III's and D800s and I think the Sony products will do well in targeting that segment and of course they have already targeted the lower food chain.
I'm still not buying that the mirrorless FF is a godsend idea though. Again I see little point having small cameras when the lenses are basically the same size as FF DSLR equivalents. Take the workhorse 24-70 f/2.8 lens on FF. Would there really be a benefit to hanging this off a A7R which will then be very unbalanced? Interestingly Sony is only releasing a much lighter 24-70 f/4 at this stage.
So for me the real interest is in the sensor alone for most part and the fact unlike the D800E, we can use our own glass rather than invest in a whole new system. The one change I might make is if I can get AF and can change aperture within camera with a Nikon 14-24 on the Sony, I'd sell my 17-40L in a heart beat. My uber landscape line-up would be
Sony A7R
Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
Canon 24 TS-E II
Canon 24-70 f/2.8 mk II
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS mk II...Show more →
p.16 #8 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Really, we are questioning the quality of the sensor? So Sony who gave us the D800 sensor will somehow screw it up and deliver an inferior product! The only surprise will be if it's not better than the D800E sensor. IMO it should be a tad sharper as they don't have any AA filter as opposed to Nikon's hack of using yet another filter to cancel the effects of the AA filter rather than remove the AA filter like Sony did.
Well, they are rather good in screwing own sensors up. In certain sense. If you try to find best implementation of Sony sensors for general public, its either Nikon or Pentax. Never Sony.
Why? They prefer different things. Like colors for example. And sometimes unfortunately bit thick AA filter. Apparently not the case of A7r.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I would hope Adobe very quickly adjust their sharpening settings in LR and ACR and change the smallest radius from 0.5pixels to 0.1pixels. I'm guessing at worst the A7R shots will need a lick of sharpening and 0.5 will be too much.
When you are using Sony camera, its most of the time better to avoid LR/ACR. Apart from that, we already have quite a bit of AA-less cameras and Adobe still didnt change that.
Yea and 0.1 is low even for AA-less camera. Around 0.2 is usually bare minimum. Then it depends on how you will downsize (if its for web). For printing, even 0.5 might be not enough.
Only positive thing about LR is ergonomics and rather decent denoising. But everything else is superior elsewhere. If I get A7r my use of LR will be as always, purely for organization and finishing touches for TIFF files.
p.16 #9 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
If it's not Canikon, performing basic fixes to white balance, de-noise and then working with TIFF's in LR is a usable workflow setup, but man those TIFFs are huge, and you'd want to keep the original RAWs as well- so that's what, 120MB-170MB/shot at full quality, compared to the <30MB I get from my 6D?
p.16 #10 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
Mescalamba wrote:
Well, they are rather good in screwing own sensors up. In certain sense. If you try to find best implementation of Sony sensors for general public, its either Nikon or Pentax. Never Sony.
Why? They prefer different things. Like colors for example. And sometimes unfortunately bit thick AA filter. Apparently not the case of A7r.
Yeah, it's has been a worry that Sony could not even do noise as well as Nikon could, but I assume that came down to internal electronics rather than the sensor. But I'd be surprised if with a camera as important as the A7's they did not benchmark them against D600/D800E rigorously. It'd be a bad look if the sensors are outclassed by the Nikon versions.
I agree 0.1 is generally too small, but I think we should have the option. Some macro shots of critters have extremely fine hairs etc and for these shots I'd say using 0.1-0.2 with high amount would be useful on a 36MP shot. In Focalblade I use variable radius sharpening and often use 0.2-0.5 range even for 5D III. When I use USM, I use 0.2-0.3 and threshold 2-6 and can still see improvements if I set the amount in the 75-150% range
p.16 #11 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
gdanmitchell wrote:
There are two causes for the delay. One is simply the time it takes to capture and then display a frame of video. This takes at least some time, though speeding it up can help. Newer cameras with faster processors can no doubt acquire and display a video image with much less delay. A second issue is the frame rate of the video display. This adds another delay point into the signal chain, since the display can't show the next frame until it is time for it to do so, and at slower frame rates this delay is more noticeable. Some newer cameras are using much higher numbers of frames per second.
Since there will always be some delay in video systems, eventually it might be necessary to use a different strategy, one that is already in use for video recording some very transient and high speed events. Here the camera is essentially always on and recording, though it only caches perhaps the prior 30 seconds or so of images. When the operate presses the "shutter" (or "record" button), this doesn't actually start the recording - instead is simply tells the camera to stop emptying the images out of the memory. With a system like this on a still camera, you could actually have frames from some period of time before you first pressed the shutter button... sort of a "negative shutter delay" situation.
As these things evolve, we are likely to see quite a bit of rethinking of how cameras operate and even of what a camera is...
p.16 #12 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
bwana999 wrote:
I think you forgot the largest delay... the human behind the camera! The always on feature is of great assistance in eliminating this.
bwa
If you can make a camera positively recognize certain subjects and accurately track them, then you could make it record the image.
Even better would be for the camera to buffer 4k RAW video, recording stills of key shots, like following a football through the air and making full-size stills of the release from the quarterback, a few in flight, the catch, and the tackle, for example.
Hell, with PCIe SSDs getting so darn fast (1.2GB/s), you could have a large full-RAW buffer that writes off to larger memory cards over time. Making the SSD removable or upgradeable would also be fairly straightforward, given the PCIe SSD form factor.
p.16 #13 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
johnctharp wrote:
If you can make a camera positively recognize certain subjects and accurately track them, then you could make it record the image.
Even better would be for the camera to buffer 4k RAW video, recording stills of key shots, like following a football through the air and making full-size stills of the release from the quarterback, a few in flight, the catch, and the tackle, for example.
Hell, with PCIe SSDs getting so darn fast (1.2GB/s), you could have a large full-RAW buffer that writes off to larger memory cards over time. Making the SSD removable or upgradeable would also be fairly straightforward, given the PCIe SSD form factor....Show more →
I'll take a camera that doesn't do that, thanks.
Automation and gimmicks are only good if they are useful and reliable. Even with current tech, cameras and electronics can be 'too smart'. Less experienced users sometimes like the assistance, but experts are often looking for less interference.
p.16 #15 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
jctriguy wrote:
I'll take a camera that doesn't do that, thanks.
Automation and gimmicks are only good if they are useful and reliable. Even with current tech, cameras and electronics can be 'too smart'. Less experienced users sometimes like the assistance, but experts are often looking for less interference.
If a camera can reliably make a decision in a 5ms window, I'd bet that you wouldn't be able to live without it after using it...
And that's the point. Processing is where current photography is most limited- in every direction- and it's the one thing that the entire electronics industry is rabidly pursuing.
Sensors are better than we really need, but they won't stop improving either; and they do need competent controllers to be of any real use.
p.16 #16 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
johnctharp wrote:
If a camera can reliably make a decision in a 5ms window, I'd bet that you wouldn't be able to live without it after using it...
And that's the point. Processing is where current photography is most limited- in every direction- and it's the one thing that the entire electronics industry is rabidly pursuing.
Sensors are better than we really need, but they won't stop improving either; and they do need competent controllers to be of any real use.
Maybe if you want to replace sports photogs with a network of automated imaging devices that can scan and capture every moment during a game. But how does the normal user benefit? Will johnnies mom be able to get a better photo of him on the football field? Even now, we have overrides in the AF tracking system to tweak the settings so the camera doesn't follow the wrong subject. We are a long way from a camera making those decisions on the fly and getting it close to 100% of the time.
p.16 #17 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I'm still not buying that the mirrorless FF is a godsend idea though. Again I see little point having small cameras when the lenses are basically the same size as FF DSLR equivalents. Take the workhorse 24-70 f/2.8 lens on FF. Would there really be a benefit to hanging this off a A7R which will then be very unbalanced? Interestingly Sony is only releasing a much lighter 24-70 f/4 at this stage.
But, that line of thinking is sort of one dimensional. It assumes that you always want a big lens on the camera
Right now, when I'm in "workhose" mode I pack up my FF DSLR. When I want something compact, I take my APS-C mirrorless. With an A7r, I can now in theory use one body to suit either purpose, and all that changes is my lens selection, and the possible addition of a vertical grip (which Sony is also making for these cameras) if I want to add some heft to balance the body. So I can go big. At the other end I have the option to go small, even to the point of using smaller APS-C e-mount lenses, and just crop as necessary.
Packing gear into a single bag becomes easier, too. I'm betting that swapping out an A7r for a 5DII will let me take and extra lens in my hiking bag.
Basically, you have a flexible body that let's you choose to have a bigger or smaller system depending on your need at a particular moment.. That's the real advantage of mirrorless FF as far as I see it.
p.16 #18 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
jctriguy wrote:
Maybe if you want to replace sports photogs with a network of automated imaging devices that can scan and capture every moment during a game. But how does the normal user benefit? Will johnnies mom be able to get a better photo of him on the football field? Even now, we have overrides in the AF tracking system to tweak the settings so the camera doesn't follow the wrong subject. We are a long way from a camera making those decisions on the fly and getting it close to 100% of the time.
You'd still have to set up the shot- it's not going to 'think' for you (yet), and would rely on you to set up proper 'subject profiles', i.e., a few shots of whatever you want it to track, and you'd still have to tell it when to start and stop shooting. You'd also still need to set limits on things like shutter speed, aperture, ISO, and exposure compensation, but each of these parameters could also be assisted better by better processing.
So here's another use case- vary shutter speed, ISO, and aperture based on subject location and motion.
The faster the subject moves relative to the camera, which accounts for your movement as well, the higher the shutter speed goes and the higher the ISO setting is selected, up to a point.
The closer the subject comes, the narrower the aperture, and the further away the subject goes, the wider the aperture available.
Given that you'd have the entire sensor measuring subject focus, you could have the camera's limits set up to isolate various subjects, from say just the football, to a player, to the whole team on the field.
The result wouldn't be the elimination of the sports photog (or any other type of pro photographer), it'd be the increase in both the quality and quantity of great photography produced from skilled professionals.
p.16 #19 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
artd wrote:
But, that line of thinking is sort of one dimensional. It assumes that you always want a big lens on the camera
When I'm out doing sports, wildlife and birding, which is mostly what I use my 1D X for, then yes indeed I'll always want my big lens on a camera, no doubt about it.
Being used to hand-holding a 1DX + 500 f/4 sort makes you immune to discussions bemoaning how a 24-70 f/2.8 is too heavy to cart around especially on a brick like the 1D X. While superteles are still in the 3-4kg range it won't make a big deal if a 1D X class camera can be made much smaller much of the time
Now of course I'd like smaller lighter camera, which is why I also have 5D III and smaller and lighter again would be nice especially for hiking, but I'm not too fussed. I hiked a week in NZ with 2 cameras, and 4 lenses and it didn't bother me too much.
See even with a an A&r, I'd still want 3 lenses with me for a hike including UWA zoom, 24-70, 70-200, so saving 400-500g on the body isn't a big deal in the great scheme of things and the native Sony FE glass isn't smaller lighter or cheaper.
If I really want to travel light I'll take a m4/3 camera and 2 lenses and all that weighs less than my 5D III alone. FF mirrorless isn't really the answer for small lightweight kits IMO. The real benefit is if you are using FF mirrorless with say a smaller pancake and a slower zoom like the 24-70 f/4.
