p.40 #3 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
mickr7an wrote:
You are certainly entitled to your opinion – but you are simply wrong.
You know Canon could have helped themselves a little by not putting an OLPF on the 5D III sensor, or at least a very weak one. Canon are also the only ones not offering as sensor without an OLPF.
p.40 #4 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
mickr7an wrote:
Robin You've confused being entitled to an opinion with having a valid opinion. As a professional that works with large and very large high quality prints that people view close up (i.e. not billboards) there is a huge and obvious difference between the quality of 22 and 36 megapixels in detail and sharpness. You are certainly entitled to your opinion – but you are simply wrong.
There is a difference, but calling it "huge" is overstating it.
p.40 #5 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
jj_glos wrote:
There is a difference, but calling it "huge" is overstating it.
As a former partner in an photography gallery, I can tell you that a difference in resolution can be the difference between the artist's work being hung in a gallery or not, particularly with landscape prints.I
p.40 #6 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
artd wrote:
As a former partner in an photography gallery, I can tell you that a difference in resolution can be the difference between the artist's work being hung in a gallery or not, particularly with landscape prints.I
Yes an extreme example should always be used to prove a point
p.40 #7 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
All my photography activity is selling prints in art galleries. And there is no discussion, 36mp from a sensor like the Sony one is a big step over 5DIII.
Now I totally understand that not everybody need this. Not everybody print their work. Not everybody print large. And not everybody hangs these prints in art gallery. But yes, we exist as customers for such sensors !
p.40 #8 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
jj_glos wrote:
Yes an extreme example should always be used to prove a point
The discussion is over landscape photos, which are often printed large and hung in galleries and homes etc...
I don't see an extreme point of view being presented here. Even in my home the largest photos hanging on my wall are landscape photos (and I am not a landscape photographer), and I sure wish they would have been taken with a sensor with more MP. The A7r represents a big advantage in this regard. Why do you think a thread about a Sony release has stayed on the front page of a Canon board for so long....because Canon has not provided what landscape shooters want, and Sony now is.
p.40 #9 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
We might not see much differences between noisy sensors in comparison (5Dc vs 5D2 or any canon of this matter) but a lot when comparing the noisy one with a cleaner one in any resolution. Just take canon 22MP and sony 24MP EXMOR for an example, the lesser noise and better details of EXMOR sensor will support bigger print.
p.40 #10 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
jj_glos wrote:
Yes an extreme example should always be used to prove a point
I don't understand how that is an "extreme" example?
And the only point to be proven is that everything is relative. A difference may be slight to one person, but it can be much more important in someone else's context. What would make your opinion of what constitutes a "huge difference" more valid?
p.40 #11 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
jj_glos wrote:
There is a difference, but calling it "huge" is overstating it.
The 5D finally pulled a lot of detail-oriented film photographers to digital. It also became the standard camera for digital landscape photographers. It makes sense that a lot of Canon users are interested in the state of the art in 35mm resolution. Canon hasn't held that position for a few years now, and that is a big deal for many people.
The MKIII made the 5 series a great all around camera. But many Canon users aren't looking for a single great all-around camera.
p.40 #12 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
artd wrote:
I don't understand how that is an "extreme" example?
And the only point to be proven is that everything is relative. A difference may be slight to one person, but it can be much more important in someone else's context. What would make your opinion of what constitutes a "huge difference" more valid?
Just that the amount of photographers that meet that requirement is a tiny percentage of the the overall market. I do concede however in terms of the interest in this thread in specifically using Canon glass with the A7r sensor that the percentage of these photographers printing high quality large prints is much higher
p.40 #13 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
jj_glos wrote:
Just that the amount of photographers that meet that requirement is a tiny percentage of the the overall market. I do concede however in terms of the interest in this thread in specifically using Canon glass with the A7r sensor that the percentage of these photographers printing high quality large prints is much higher
The 1DX is in the same boat. Very niche exclusive market for such a camera.
p.40 #15 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
If we extrapolate, all the various photography markets are niche markets. Fine art photographers. Sports photographers. Architecture photographers. Photojournalists. Wedding photographers. Studio photographers. Videographers. Hobbyists. Family snap shooters. And so on. These are all distinct niches within the photography world. Each one has its needs and priorities. Sometimes those needs overlap, sometimes not so much. And sometimes an individual photographer might occupy two or more of these niches.
So again, everything is relative. What may be a huge difference (positive or negative) to one niche may be inconsequential to another. The problem comes when someone thinks something isn’t important or significant to them and their type of photography, and so it is insignificant to everyone. And then we spend time going back and forth to correct misinformation.
When someone makes a blanket statement like “You won’t see a difference unless you’re pixel peeing” that may be true in their case, but extrapolated to a broader group that’s simply false. The battery issue is another illustration. At first some thought Sony’s engineers were incompetent because the A7r is only rated at 340 shots, way less than their DSLRs. But then it was pointed out that is just the state of the art of mirrorless cameras. To some people it’s inconsequential, but to others it might be very important and the discussion helps inform their thinking about whether a mirrorless camera of any kind is right for them and their uses.
And that’s the great thing about forums like this. Over the course of these threads, we are collectively building a picture of what the pros and cons are of different cameras, lenses, techniques, and so on as they apply to our respective niches. That becomes a wonderful resource to new and developing photographers, and offers new perspectives to old photographers as well.
p.40 #18 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
galenapass wrote:
The discussion is over landscape photos, which are often printed large and hung in galleries and homes etc...
I don't see an extreme point of view being presented here. Even in my home the largest photos hanging on my wall are landscape photos (and I am not a landscape photographer), and I sure wish they would have been taken with a sensor with more MP. The A7r represents a big advantage in this regard. Why do you think a thread about a Sony release has stayed on the front page of a Canon board for so long....because Canon has not provided what landscape shooters want, and Sony now is. ...Show more →
It's pretty simple math. Ultimately we'd like to be able to print at 300dpi. Let's say you make a 30 x 20" print, you are going to need 9000 x 6000 or 54MP. So even the A7R won't get us there. Hence we are looking at native 24 x 16" @ 300dpi from 36MP, which is what my Epson 3880 A2 printer can do. Of course we can interpolate and the stretch from 24 x 16 to 30 x 20 is not that much for the A7R but would be much tougher for the 5D III.
p.40 #19 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
jcolwell wrote:
The 1DX is a niche camera. An excellent, niche camera.
It's such shame they didn't make the 1D X a 24MP, sans AA filter. I'd have gladly traded 1-2fps and say ISO 204K and 102K. Would have probably stolen a few 5D III sales and made it less of a niche camera, and more useful in the studio and for landscape, not that's it's 18MP aren't excellent quality, just not enough of them.
