abase21 wrote:
..I think we should not expect too much on ISO performance - if you compare images taken with the A7R4 (JPGs) - for me it is the same level, the A1 is not better. But we will see closer in a few weeks...
I expect The A1 to be half stop better than the RIV. This is what the pixel pitch indicates, as the 42mp A7rIII is almost 1 stop better than the IV when you compare them full size.
If A1 exceeds this rather conservative prediction, I would be more than happy.
arbitrage wrote:
Yeah it looks pretty bad for 1250 with a 50% crop and in full sun. You can download a number of RAW files from the two different DPReview galleries to get a little better idea. They open in Sony's free View/Edit software.
I didn't think about that. Just did. It's definitely way better than above example. I think they are slightly better than D500 for studio shots. In my experience the studio samples are always better than real life.
saxguy wrote:
How do your R5 files look at the same ISO? As someone who shoots in low light, noise at higher ISO is something I'm relatively intolerant of. With my Q2 and SL2 I had to keep things under 3200. My SL2-S can go to 25k+ without issue - it just can't focus on moving subjects, so...
I still vacillate between the R5 and the a1 as an all-in-one solution. I'll be using the camera as an all arounder - event, portrait, fashion, wildlife, architecture, etc. I won't need the 8K capability although I will do some video. I do like the lens choices I have a bit more with Sony, though. ...Show more →
I'm fairly happy with the R5's high ISO at least compared to other high MP cameras I've owned like D850 and A7RIV. It is tough to say how it looks compared to the A1 just based on the few samples we've seen from the A1.
I think once DPReview adds the A1 to their studio test scene comparison it will be easier to get an idea how it does. At least there it will be the same scene, ability to compare at pixel level or down-sampled and they have the lighter and darker scenes to look at.
In this video he shows some comparisons to the RIV:
&
arbitrage wrote:
I'm fairly happy with the R5's high ISO at least compared to other high MP cameras I've owned like D850 and A7RIV. It is tough to say how it looks compared to the A1 just based on the few samples we've seen from the A1.
I think once DPReview adds the A1 to their studio test scene comparison it will be easier to get an idea how it does. At least there it will be the same scene, ability to compare at pixel level or down-sampled and they have the lighter and darker scenes to look at.
In this video he shows some comparisons to the RIV:
&...Show more →
Base ISO at 64? I think someone is used to shoot with Nikon, probably D850....
arbitrage wrote:
I'm fairly happy with the R5's high ISO at least compared to other high MP cameras I've owned like D850 and A7RIV. It is tough to say how it looks compared to the A1 just based on the few samples we've seen from the A1.
I think once DPReview adds the A1 to their studio test scene comparison it will be easier to get an idea how it does. At least there it will be the same scene, ability to compare at pixel level or down-sampled and they have the lighter and darker scenes to look at.
In this video he shows some comparisons to the RIV:
&...Show more →
Focussed on different parts of the flower. Unless raw is used and shots are normalized like in the DPreview scene, it doesn't make much sense to speculate.
Holger wrote:
Focussed on different parts of the flower. Unless raw is used and shots are normalized like in the DPreview scene, it doesn't make much sense to speculate.
The R5 looks better to me at all ISOs over the A7RIV in that comparison even when using the "Comp" feature so they are equal magnification. The color noise is more splotchy and thicker splotches on the A7RIV file. Overall sharpness of the fine print looks about equal with slight edge to the RIV.
arbitrage wrote:
The R5 looks better to me at all ISOs over the A7RIV in that comparison even when using the "Comp" feature so they are equal magnification. The color noise is more splotchy and thicker splotches on the A7RIV file. Overall sharpness of the fine print looks about equal with slight edge to the RIV.
I disagree completely. The R5 shows more noise for me in the darker shadows. If I look at the dark hair of the lady to the left in the night scene, the money below and go to 12800 or 25600 iso, there clearly more noise in the R5 scene.
The R6 looks clearly better, though.
Holger wrote:
I disagree completely. The R5 shows more noise for me in the darker shadows. If I look at the dark hair of the lady to the left in the night scene, the money below and go to 12800 or 25600 iso, there clearly more noise in the R5 scene.
It's difficult to tell from these crops, as dpreview adjusts brightness. If you download the original raw files and compare them, brightness, curves and colours are completely different between the 2 cameras. The actual difference in noise is in my opinion a lot smaller than the crops show.
arbitrage wrote:
Jordan uploaded his Calgary images from his test of the A1. Of note is a series of ISO tests from 1600 to 40000. You can download the RAW files and open in Sony software to get an idea of what they look like.
baltmin wrote:
It's difficult to tell from these crops, as dpreview adjusts brightness. If you download the original raw files and compare them, brightness, curves and colours are completely different between the 2 cameras. The actual difference in noise is in my opinion a lot smaller than the crops show.
They both look quite good given the number of MP. But I don't have anything against better performance, of course.
What I didn't read so far is at what iso the dual gain is activated. More important than pure iso performance to me is how the A1 reacts to pushing shadows and brightness.
Unless something has changed: Canon was always behind in sensor tech. First to Nikon and then to Sony. Also Canon was all about feature rationing so even if they could build an A1 competitor they would be unlikely to make such a versatile camera.
SoundHound wrote:
Unless something has changed: Canon was always behind in sensor tech. First to Nikon and then to Sony. Also Canon was all about feature rationing so even if they could build an A1 competitor they would be unlikely to make such a versatile camera.
Of course something changed: Sony mirror-less happened.
osv2 wrote:
not sure if it's been mentioned already, but the official sony japan a1 page may have more detailed info than what we have seen so far??
"The heat dissipation effect of Sony's original internal structure is about 5 times that of the conventional model (α7R IV).
Graphite material with excellent thermal conductivity, which is also used for smartphones, is processed into Sony's original "Σ (sigma) shape" and incorporated into the camera shake correction unit. Due to this epoch-making structure, the heat generation from the image sensor, which is the main factor of the temperature rise inside the main body, is about (α7R IV) compared to the conventional one without hindering the smooth operation of the image sensor unit during camera shake correction. We have succeeded in obtaining a heat dissipation effect of 5 times (*).
* Sony internal measurement conditions. When the automatic power off temperature is [high]"
