justruss wrote:
I think you're reading this incorrectly, or at least predicting the future incorrectly.
My understanding is that the RS sensor will allow for more resolution scaling without reducing DR... or maaaaybe better DR scaling without reducing resolution. So it will more or less follow the pattern from the A7r -> A7r2 (but a bigger resolution jump possible). If Sony continues down the A7s/A7r split route, we might get an A7r3 that has similar DR to the current model, but with an 60-80mp sensor, and an A7s with a 24-36mp sensor with maybe a stop better DR than the current model.
What I don't expect-- if we see this in the next 24 months-- is to get an 80-100mp model, in 135-format size, usingTHIS tech to expand DR by much. That's pie in the sky-- or a handful of generations down the line, or some other technology-- stuff.
All of this at base ISO, of course. I expect that Sony may push it's high ISO DR more towards the potential shown in its base ISO... just like they did with the A7s and A7r2......Show more →
This first BSI sensor was based on the 3th generation which lack of some key features from the 4th (A7R) generation upgrade. Even with the lesser configuration, this 5th (A7Rii) generation BSI structure still work really well compared to A7R without the help of deeper pixel well. I believe that is what the article said. Wait until after this version getting the retrofits of A7R plus some side works as indicated by the article, we then see the new RS 6th generation to have the best low lights sensitivity thus much wider DR. At that time, we might see another 1/2 to 1.5 stops (or maybe more) wider on top of the whole A7Rii (low and high) iso range.
The part of 100MP is the joke for myself to stay out of MKii upgrade
Taking the RX100 series as an example, since it has the Exmor (I), Exmor R (I/II), and Exmor RS (IV) - it doesn't seem from the RX100 IV reviews that DR is much better than even the original RX100. It seemed like the main benefit of the newer design was faster sensor read-out.
A7R II looks nicer to my on the first one, grain seems somehow tighter and more natural and a bit more pleasing, similar for the second shot but closer and on the last one they look kinda the same to me.
So it probably measures close to the same, but maybe looks just a tiny tad better in real world due to more MP giving tighter, smoother feel to grain even after downsampling. If the lower one was upscaled to the same size the difference would probably be a bit greater for the A7R II's favor.
Probably nothing to get too excited over either way.
killersnowman wrote:
The only difference i see is on the bottom of the chair. There is a lot of green at the bottom of the a7r2 image while the a7r looks pretty neutral
Edit: meant to say green not magenta
The A7R tends to have a purple bias when recovering shadows. There seem to be a difference between the two cameras in regards to color depth.
Just to confirm, both cameras were set to "Daytime" WB and kept "As Shot" in LR.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The A7R tends to have a purple bias when recovering shadows. There seem to be a difference between the two cameras in regards to color depth.
Just to confirm, both cameras were set to "Daytime" WB and kept "As Shot" in LR.
Fred, your are spot on... no surprise.
There is a slight drop in DR at lower ISOs and a slight gain at higher ISOs.
I look forward to your high ISO images so we can see if the high ISO DR improvement is visible.
-Brian
If you call 1/5 EV is a slight drop, but then I wouldn't consider 2/3 EV is a slight gain. I think we are reaching to the very best of what a digital camera can do at base ISO. What Sony can improve from now on is the DR at higher ISO. As fine as the D810 is, it's one full stop DR behind the A7RII at high ISO.
So all these tests being done are with Lightroom and not any other program like C1 which Sony and Phase created a partnership. To be honest I would not touch LR with a 10 ft poll. I have it on my system but never use it. To me C1 is a far better raw processing software for Sony files. I'm not going to get into it over who is better or not. Not worth the argument but I'm not going to trust results coming off that program exclusively. Where's the balance on post. Are you absolutely certain LR is squeezing ever drop of IQ out of those raws. There is no answer to that question, no one has any idea you are. Not saying C1 does but your relying on one program for the answers , does that sound very scientific.
Just throwing this out there to make you all think about it.
hiepphotog wrote:
If you call 1/5 EV is a slight drop, but then I wouldn't consider 2/3 EV is a slight gain. I think we are reaching to the very best of what a digital camera can do at base ISO. What Sony can improve from now on is the DR at higher ISO. As fine as the D810 is, it's one full stop DR behind the A7RII at high ISO.
You are correct. At base the differences are slight. At higher ISOs 1/2 - 1 stop difference is noticeable for sure.
whumber wrote:
I'd be surprised if we see any real improvements in usable dynamic range until we start seeing sensors that have lower native ISO like the D810.
I believe the D810 uses the same Sony sensor as in the A7R... Their processor is different.
bwana999 wrote:
I believe the D810 uses the same Sony sensor as in the A7R... Their processor is different.
bwa
Does anyone think Sony should offer a lower base ISO gathering more light similar to what Nikon implemented on the D810?
The DR difference is marginal but it would be a welcome addition to Sony cameras. The advantage would be slight better DR at base ISO but slight worse at higher ISOs.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Does anyone think Sony should offer a lower base ISO gathering more light similar to what Nikon implemented on the D810?
The DR difference is marginal but it would be a welcome addition to Sony cameras. The advantage would be slight better DR at base ISO but slight worse at higher ISOs.
I would like to see that Fred. Have a low base ISO like 50 than take some off the top. In general ISO 6400 is maybe 98 percent of the time you would not go past. I know I would not on a client gig ever. Maybe I'm old school in thinking I don't know but I would be pulling out lights way before this. Lol
I hear people saying there at ISO 25000 and I'm thinking to myself are they shooting in a box. I don't get it myself with these extreme high ISO. That's just me though. The nice think about really low ISO which I had 35 in one of my backs was I did not need such a heavy ND filter so you can see a little better. Of course live view helps a great deal no question. I would like it for water stuff.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Does anyone think Sony should offer a lower base ISO gathering more light similar to what Nikon implemented on the D810?
The DR difference is marginal but it would be a welcome addition to Sony cameras. The advantage would be slight better DR at base ISO but slight worse at higher ISOs.
That would be me for sure. Don't care about high ISO performance. But ISO < 25, 25, 50, 65, 100......would be a big benefit for me, especially for long exposures during daylight (I am not a night shooter). Use ISO 50 all the time on my IR-converted 5D MkII with 10-stop ND filter.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Does anyone think Sony should offer a lower base ISO gathering more light similar to what Nikon implemented on the D810?
The DR difference is marginal but it would be a welcome addition to Sony cameras. The advantage would be slight better DR at base ISO but slight worse at higher ISOs.
retrofocus wrote:
That would be me for sure. Don't care about high ISO performance. But ISO < 25, 25, 50, 65, 100......would be a big benefit for me, especially for long exposures during daylight (I am not a night shooter).
Sign me up for that list and hopefully the next RS version shall give us all.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Does anyone think Sony should offer a lower base ISO gathering more light similar to what Nikon implemented on the D810?
The DR difference is marginal but it would be a welcome addition to Sony cameras. The advantage would be slight better DR at base ISO but slight worse at higher ISOs.
