p.2 #1 · DxOmark: The Sony A7 III has the best low-light score ever tested
Fred Miranda wrote:
Except for DR, these numbers are meaningless and I doubt the differences are even perceptible in real images when comparing these Sony full frame sensors. However, many like talking about numbers and comparing charts...and these results are not favorable to the pricey A9 even though it's mainly a sports/action body where base ISO does not matter as much.
I think that's just the thing, the A9 is still the best model if action photography is what you are doing. The A7III comes close but is missing some of the key features. *If* I were a sports journalist/etc. I'd still pick the A9, it was always meant for a small target audience as Sony's high end camera.
p.2 #4 · DxOmark: The Sony A7 III has the best low-light score ever tested
Fred Miranda wrote:
How long is it going to take to develop sensors capable of capturing more than 15 stops of DR at base ISO?
Anyone wonders what's going to be the limit in 5 or 10 years?
Based on the white papers from Fuji/Panasonic development of their organic sensor and now Sony's recent patent filing of their own organic sensor, I would imagine we will definitely see DR exceeding the current ceiling in the next 5-10 years.
Even with sensors capable of capturing more than 15 stops though, the other requisite parts of the equation (components) needed in order to meet those new sensor DR ceilings (and rectify choke points) also have to get some significant development in order to allow the capture/processing of more than 15 stops.
With the current pace of technological advancement, I think we are definitely in for a wild ride in the stated time span.
p.2 #5 · DxOmark: The Sony A7 III has the best low-light score ever tested
jim bennett wrote:
I assume this model will have the continuous eye focus, anyone know for sure?
Basic AF/AE algorithm is the same for most alpha models beside their specific sensing array and faster math model chip. All of these will be based on how fast they can cycle their detection data.
p.2 #6 · DxOmark: The Sony A7 III has the best low-light score ever tested
Thanks!
mttran wrote:
Basic AF/AE algorithm is the same for most alpha models beside their specific sensing array and faster math model chip. All of these will be based on how fast they can cycle their detection data.
p.2 #8 · DxOmark: The Sony A7 III has the best low-light score ever tested
thrice wrote:
The A7III has worse DR and worse High ISO than the original A7S, which has been measured as worse than the A7SII so this doesn't make sense.
That doesn't seem to be correct. Photonstophotos (Bill Claff) shows the A7iii to be superior in total. DXO's S/N ratio shows no advantage, too. Dxo stated the low light ability of the A7iii to be the best of all FF cameras tested. So what exactly do you mean here?
p.2 #9 · DxOmark: The Sony A7 III has the best low-light score ever tested
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
Based on the white papers from Fuji/Panasonic development of their organic sensor and now Sony's recent patent filing of their own organic sensor, I would imagine we will definitely see DR exceeding the current ceiling in the next 5-10 years.
Even with sensors capable of capturing more than 15 stops though, the other requisite parts of the equation (components) needed in order to meet those new sensor DR ceilings (and rectify choke points) also have to get some significant development in order to allow the capture/processing of more than 15 stops.
With the current pace of technological advancement, I think we are definitely in for a wild ride in the stated time span....Show more →
Yes, they are testing some new tech right now. It looks like full frame mirrorless will get some competition soon. That's great news since more competition may push companies to advance technology and add new features.
Mar 28, 2018 at 01:59 AM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · DxOmark: The Sony A7 III has the best low-light score ever tested
Uggggghh, why did I have to read that?!?!
I do not need this camera
I do not need this camera
I do not need this camera
Ok, i'm gonna go cut up my credit card now see yaaa
p.2 #11 · DxOmark: The Sony A7 III has the best low-light score ever tested
Fred Miranda wrote:
Sony calls the new A7 III their basic model. Perhaps they want to concentrate their marketing efforts on current models.
Pros will know to loom beyond sensor ratings and focus on features. I think some fanatic consumers will look at sensor ratings and maybe using the term "basic" will backfire. For general consumers, the implication is that: 1) you shouldn't look at models below A7 III because they are below "basic" (thus pushing them towards the a7 iii at least); 2) cameras above will be better (A7R3, A9); and 3) the competition from Canon and Nikon that doesn't have features that the A7 III does are performing at a level lower than the "basic" Sony camera. I think that they are trying to shame cameras with less features to push consumers towards AT LEAST the A7 III, and maybe above that.
p.2 #12 · DxOmark: The Sony A7 III has the best low-light score ever tested
mountain_drew wrote:
Pros will know to loom beyond sensor ratings and focus on features. I think some fanatic consumers will look at sensor ratings and maybe using the term "basic" will backfire. For general consumers, the implication is that: 1) you shouldn't look at models below A7 III because they are below "basic" (thus pushing them towards the a7 iii at least); 2) cameras above will be better (A7R3, A9); and 3) the competition from Canon and Nikon that doesn't have features that the A7 III does are performing at a level lower than the "basic" Sony camera. I think that they are trying to shame cameras with less features to push consumers towards AT LEAST the A7 III, and maybe above that....Show more →
p.2 #13 · DxOmark: The Sony A7 III has the best low-light score ever tested
These number are really pretty much the same, lets start from there...
I've seen some side by side video (not stills) between the A7sII and the A7III and although very similar, the S looked better once the ISO started going crazy high.
In the end, being different sensors and different pixel density, results will always vary in real life, even if on paper (and tests) one might be better than the other.
p.2 #14 · DxOmark: The Sony A7 III has the best low-light score ever tested
thrice wrote:
The A7III has worse DR and worse High ISO than the original A7S, which has been measured as worse than the A7SII so this doesn't make sense.
The low light scores are actual ISOs and the point that DXO is happy to say they consider to be the best using THEIR parameters.
IE "We have therefore defined low-light ISO as the highest ISO setting for a camera that allows it to achieve a SNR of 30dB while keeping a good dynamic range of 9 EVs and a color depth of 18bits. A difference in low-light ISO of 25% equals 1/3 EV and is only slightly noticeable. Low-light ISO is an open scale."
If you change your standards for any of those things, then different cameras will rise and fall depending on their scores.
So clearly, the A7iii (JUST) beats the A7s which beats the A7sii as THEY measured it using THEIR scoring method A7sii ISO 2993, A7s ISO 3702 and A7iii now ISO 3730.
The thing is many people use these cameras a long way above ISO 3730 (I know I do) and at ISO's above 12800, it seems the A7iii falls away a bit more steeply (though not THAT much) than the two A7s models. It is more noticeable for dynamic range from the DXO charts than other things.
That was the strength of the A7s for low light high ISO, in that it falls away a lot less steeply at really high ISOs (above 12800 for example) than other FF cameras to date.
Given the A7iii has 24mp VS 12 for the others, that really is remarkable though and it is starting at a higher point for good light while still being very good for low light (and in a "basic" model too).
Geez we are spoilt these days.
The original A7s is still my camera of choice because I don't need 24mp or fast AFC and I do shoot a lot at high ISOs (like 51200 and even 102400).
p.2 #15 · DxOmark: The Sony A7 III has the best low-light score ever tested
I always regard one situation as defining the still not satisfying DR of any camera on the markt to date.
Just take a shot of the moon during the blue hour when it‘s turning into darkness.
What I see with my eyes is, all the details of craters and shadows on the surface of the moon etc.
and there is still so much detail which I can see in the foliage of trees standing just close to me
in the same direction. When taking a picture I still can decide if I like to have a correct exposure of the moon itself ( which gets brighter and brighter while everything gets darker around) -
then there is no detail anymore in the trees, or I overexpose and have the detail there but the moon is much much too bright.
I am sure everyone here has had this exact outcome of a scenery like this in some landscape situation
with a full moon once in a while.
How much superior is our own capability, the vision of our eyes and the way our brain is able to produce an image showing all these details, which no camera can catch in a single shot, unless we use
a very capable software to produce a resembling image there, using the sliders quite a bit!
p.2 #17 · DxOmark: The Sony A7 III has the best low-light score ever tested
Fred Miranda wrote:
How long is it going to take to develop sensors capable of capturing more than 15 stops of DR at base ISO?
Anyone wonders what's going to be the limit in 5 or 10 years?
Not much higher, I'm guessing. If you mean "pure" non computationally generated DR. Auto stacking and things like that will do it in a semi pure way.
Best current sensors are within half to one stop of the limit of quantum efficiency.
After that it's breakthroughs in basic science that invalidate current theory!
Still, auto stacking (if you have say 1/1000 sec exposures, you ought be able eventually to take say eight of them in 1/100 sec and auto stack in camera for a three stop gain.) will help, and that just requires faster processors. But you will be pushing tripod country sooner as the light goes down. I/60 second exposures would require about half a second all up. But I guess just think of a certain kind of auto stacking as USO 25 mode...
But like pixel shift, it'll be problematic if there's wind or movement, at least at the longer shutter speeds.
That only indicates how close the cameras are for their ISOs to what they should be using a standard (IE 1600 on one is going to record as 1600 on the other using the same aperture and shutter speed with the same lens). I wish all cameras were the same.
It doesn't say anything about how good they are at any ISO.
The 6dii sports score is ISO 2862 (which is pretty good) but the A7iii is better.
As for DR, the A7iii at ISO 1600 has greater DR than the 6dii at ANY ISO and is a stop ahead from 1600 and up and around 2.5 stops better at ISO 100.
Bear in mind the PDR as used by Bill Claff at photons to photos will be different again.
Noise shows as being close all the way (just favouring the Sony).
p.2 #20 · DxOmark: The Sony A7 III has the best low-light score ever tested
notherenow wrote:
The low light scores are actual ISOs and the point that DXO is happy to say they consider to be the best using THEIR parameters.
IE "We have therefore defined low-light ISO as the highest ISO setting for a camera that allows it to achieve a SNR of 30dB while keeping a good dynamic range of 9 EVs and a color depth of 18bits. A difference in low-light ISO of 25% equals 1/3 EV and is only slightly noticeable. Low-light ISO is an open scale."
If you change your standards for any of those things, then different cameras will rise and fall depending on their scores.
So clearly, the A7iii (JUST) beats the A7s which beats the A7sii as THEY measured it using THEIR scoring method A7sii ISO 2993, A7s ISO 3702 and A7iii now ISO 3730.
The thing is many people use these cameras a long way above ISO 3730 (I know I do) and at ISO's above 12800, it seems the A7iii falls away a bit more steeply (though not THAT much) than the two A7s models. It is more noticeable for dynamic range from the DXO charts than other things.
That was the strength of the A7s for low light high ISO, in that it falls away a lot less steeply at really high ISOs (above 12800 for example) than other FF cameras to date.
Given the A7iii has 24mp VS 12 for the others, that really is remarkable though and it is starting at a higher point for good light while still being very good for low light (and in a "basic" model too).
Geez we are spoilt these days.
The original A7s is still my camera of choice because I don't need 24mp or fast AFC and I do shoot a lot at high ISOs (like 51200 and even 102400)....Show more →
If I compare at iso 25600 (something I would try to avoid at weddings), the A7iii is at least as good as the A7s when compared at equal output size (copy paste the links):
www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=sony_a7iii&attr13_1=sony_a7riii&attr13_2=sony_a7s&attr13_3=sony_a7sii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=25600&attr16_1=25600&attr16_2=25600&attr16_3=25600&attr126_1=1&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=-0.16381140133144947&y=-0.7069593640332104
At iso 51k I find it even better than the A7s and A7sii:
www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=sony_a7iii&attr13_1=sony_a7riii&attr13_2=sony_a7s&attr13_3=sony_a7sii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=51200&attr16_1=51200&attr16_2=51200&attr16_3=51200&attr126_1=1&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=-0.16381140133144947&y=-0.7069593640332104
