First major snowstorm of the season in the Twin Cities. It just started ramping up so it was time to put the a7rIV and 24GM to the test out in the storm.
rji2goleez wrote:
First major snowstorm of the season in the Twin Cities. It just started ramping up so it was time to put the a7rIV and 24GM to the test out in the storm.
Don't remind me of what's coming! We've had two small snows so far....man I dread January
rji2goleez wrote:
First major snowstorm of the season in the Twin Cities. It just started ramping up so it was time to put the a7rIV and 24GM to the test out in the storm.
Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!! And I lived in that for my 1st 16 years*!! I'm now a confirmed desertrat.
* Born in St. Paul in 1944; raised in St. Paul Park.. Moved to Phoenix in 1960.
mjoshi wrote:
Is it me or it looks like A7r iv images have more noise compared to other Sony bodies even at lower ISO.
A lot of discussion about this spread over many threads - not only here but elsewhere.
There is noise as in 2003 noise and there is today noise. They are not the same thing.
Resolution and software improvements both in camera and in post processing make the RIV a revolutionary camera.
Here's an image for you - "as shot" through ACR - no fixing the grain or noise, as you say. Then, I cropped in. Is this noise offensive? Remember, what I'm showing here hasn't even been fixed in post-processing and it's at 10,000 ISO.
Here's a thought I want to propose on this topic: I think noise or grain in the latest cameras is a whole new conversation. We keep talking about it as if we are talking about Canon 10D or something - when, in actuality - we are WAY PAST that.
I shot film for 30 years and have shot digital since 1997. I have NEVER seen image capture capabilities like this ever before.
Notice on these images that the room situation is very dark. It doesn't look like it, does it? But when you have to be at 10,000 ISO to shoot up against the wall at 1/160 at f1.8, the room is dark.
Yet, we have very usable quality images. I wouldn't have been able to capture like this before. I would had to have used a flash and much lower ISO.
Some may find ways to be disappointed - but I'm giddy as hell.
You bird and wildlife photographers are incredibly patient resilient people. While the photographs are beautiful and you make it look easy - I know it is NOT easy. Lots of stalking and waiting for hours on end and eyes that can see tiny flickers in the distance that are your elusive photo subjects. Just amazing.
pasblues wrote:
A lot of discussion about this spread over many threads - not only here but elsewhere.
There is noise as in 2003 noise and there is today noise. They are not the same thing.
Resolution and software improvements both in camera and in post processing make the RIV a revolutionary camera.
Here's an image for you - "as shot" through ACR - no fixing the grain or noise, as you say. Then, I cropped in. Is this noise offensive? Remember, what I'm showing here hasn't even been fixed in post-processing and it's at 10,000 ISO.
Here's a thought I want to propose on this topic: I think noise or grain in the latest cameras is a whole new conversation. We keep talking about it as if we are talking about Canon 10D or something - when, in actuality - we are WAY PAST that.
I shot film for 30 years and have shot digital since 1997. I have NEVER seen image capture capabilities like this ever before.
Notice on these images that the room situation is very dark. It doesn't look like it, does it? But when you have to be at 10,000 ISO to shoot up against the wall at 1/160 at f1.8, the room is dark.
Yet, we have very usable quality images. I wouldn't have been able to capture like this before. I would had to have used a flash and much lower ISO.
Some may find ways to be disappointed - but I'm giddy as hell.
What matters the most is that you managed to get job done even with camera not very suitable for high ISO shooting. For 2019, R4 high ISO is way below standards, especially Sony standards.If you say it's still OK you are way too kind . What Sony is trying to tell us with R4 is that if we want better ISO we need A9/A7III or just stick with A7R3. R4 is clearly only about mega pickles at very low ISO. Can't have it all in one camera apparently.
milkod2001 wrote:
What matters the most is that you managed to get job done even with camera not very suitable for high ISO shooting. For 2019, R4 high ISO is way below standards, especially Sony standards.If you say it's still OK you are way too kind . What Sony is trying to tell us with R4 is that if we want better ISO we need A9/A7III or just stick with A7R3. R4 is clearly only about mega pickles at very low ISO. Can't have it all in one camera apparently.
I think you are massively overstating any noise with the R4. At 100% crop, sure, there's quite a bit more noise than other Sony FF cameras....but that is irrelevant, since those other cameras can't obtain that level of detail at that enlargement. For the same output size, the difference in noise is extremely small. Print at 30", and the noise levels will be almost identical between the A7 III and A7R IV, and the R IV will have more detail in that same print.
Reduce to the same output size for screen, and the noise drops accordingly. When you view different resolution cameras at 100%, you're enlarging them to different output sizes. For instance, viewing an A7 III at 100% is equivalent to viewing it enlarged to an approximately 60" print. However, viewing an A7R IV at 100% is equivalent to viewing a 100" print.
The point is, using an A7 III for low light work may yield a very slight edge in noise performance for equalized output, but it's quite small (about a half stop at most), up to around 25,600 (And the R4 print will still have more detail). At 51,200, it might be around 1 stop, but I can count on one hand the amount of times I've needed 51,200 in the past 5 years.
These noise discussions amuse me. After all, many photographers are quite happy to use film simulation styles which add varying degrees of noise.
I remember well in the days of Kodacolor (64 ASA) and Kodachrome (25 ASA) being thrilled to get some rolls of GAF print film rated at 400ASA! Of course, it was terrible but it gave us a flexibility we had not had before.
I went to an exhibition of Sebastiao Salgado a few years ago and his huge prints, magnified from 35mm film, were noisy as hell. But nobody minded.
I feel we see too much striving for technical perfection at the expense of everything else and should just be thankful that we are so well supported by modern technology.
Sometimes, when I was a kid, (in a family with quite a few kids) one or several of us might decide to squabble about something at the dinner table.
My dad often settled such things with a grin and his simple one-liner: "Well, MORE FOR ME."
So, I think, after showing real world examples of unretouched 'as shot' images along with "after" very lightly adjusted images - in a tough low light shooting situation with the RIV and failing to convince a die-hard, charts-and-graph group who refuses to take a plethora of other factors into account (such as paired high quality lenses, software, fine detail resolution pixels) I'll just close with:
pasblues wrote:
Sometimes, when I was a kid, (in a family with quite a few kids) one or several of us might decide to squabble about something at the dinner table.
My dad often settled such things with a grin and his simple one-liner: "Well, MORE FOR ME."
So, I think, after showing real world examples of unretouched 'as shot' images along with "after" very lightly adjusted images - in a tough low light shooting situation with the RIV and failing to convince a die-hard, charts-and-graph group who refuses to take a plethora of other factors into account (such as paired high quality lenses, software, fine detail resolution pixels) I'll just close with:
And anyone who doesn't think the extra resolution matters, here's a full crop of a hawk pupil shot in low-light from about 30' away. You can see the forest and sunrise when you zoom into the pupil, I think that's amazing! http://imagesbyjda.com/WebPics/_JDA9931.jpg
You wildlife mofos just drive me crazy. You make this stuff look easy - when, in fact, you're out there tramping in the muck, patient as hell for long hours. No wonder you demand the very best in gear. I wouldn't put out that much effort and waste it on gear that fell short of the best.
