To me 6400 on the a1 looks similar to 3200 on the a7R IV. That makes me happy.
Hmmm, something weird going on. The shutter speeds on the A1 for the test scene shots are twice as long as A7r III and A7r IV. Like the A7r III is 1/13s for ISO 100, but that changes to 1/6s for A1 on ISO 100. Did they change the intensity of the lights on the studio scene?
Nice catch. Maybe the a1 is super secretly a base iso equivalent of 50.... Who knows what they did though.
Stoffer wrote:
Hmmm, something weird going on. The shutter speeds on the A1 for the test scene shots are twice as long as A7r III and A7r IV. Like the A7r III is 1/13s for ISO 100, but that changes to 1/6s for A1 on ISO 100. Did they change the intensity of the lights on the studio scene?
Stoffer wrote:
Hmmm, something weird going on. The shutter speeds on the A1 for the test scene shots are twice as long as A7r III and A7r IV. Like the A7r III is 1/13s for ISO 100, but that changes to 1/6s for A1 on ISO 100. Did they change the intensity of the lights on the studio scene?
Same lens and aperture f/8.
Lets hope Sony didn't play around with the ISO definition...
I think it has to do with the light. In dpreview studio sample both a1 and a7RIV are 1/30 f5.6, both with the 85 GM. a7RIII is 1/40 but with different lens (85 f1.8).
In their low light sample despite the different lenses all three cameras have the same exposure: 3.2sec f5.6 iso 100.
Therefore I wouldn't be worried about the iso definition.
buffalowolff wrote:
Nice catch. Maybe the a1 is super secretly a base iso equivalent of 50.... Who knows what they did though.
---------------------------------------------
Daran wrote:
Lets hope Sony didn't play around with the ISO definition...
The studio samples from dpreview does not show this discrepancy in shutter speeds and compared to the A7r IV from dpreview the exposures look very close (A1 might need a 0,1+ EV to match A7r IV).
The older A7r III is another matter though compared to the two so maybe the light intensity of these studio shots just change over the years.
I'm impressed with the IQ. This shot from the IR test images. RAW file at ISO 2000 but I brought it up 2 stops so noise on the head would be like a properly exposed ISO 8000 shot.
Just processed in LR from RAW with the prerelease I have.
I couldn't believe how sharp this image was even with all sharpening zeroed out in LR. This is processed with sharpening and NR in LR but I didn't use Topaz DN for it...
Amazing crop capability, the cropped image is really sharp. Looks as though recovering the highlights is a very neat as well. Seems to be a very good sensor and at least as good in low light as the R5.
arbitrage wrote:
I couldn't believe how sharp this image was even with all sharpening zeroed out in LR. This is processed with sharpening and NR in LR but I didn't use Topaz DN for it...
I think the noise level is high. But cleans up pretty well. The red robin pic at ISO 5000 is really bad. May be it's not too different from D500/D850. But I feel it's worse.
Same image, cropped to 12MP and cleaned up using Topaz. Almost 1200mm FOV. This is way too extreme. I wouldn't crop this level unless I get a once in life time pic
Jemini wrote:
I think the noise level is high. But cleans up pretty well. The red robin pic at ISO 5000 is really bad. May be it's not too different from D500/D850. But I feel it's worse.
Zero NR in Edit and PS. Just cropped at 100% view
It is iso 5000 + 0.7 ev, at least that is reported in the caption, so much higher. I think your remark regarding the D500/D850 is wrong.
Jemini wrote:
I think the noise level is high. But cleans up pretty well. The red robin pic at ISO 5000 is really bad. May be it's not too different from D500/D850. But I feel it's worse.
Zero NR in Edit and PS. Just cropped at 100% view
Here is that one compared to something similar I pulled out of my archives....turned off all sharpening and NR in LR.
These were all cropped to ~3500px wide
To my eyes A1 is as good or better but of course not all similar tones so not a fully fair comparison...
