The focusing and tracking look great but I don't see anything other than record shots for the stills, there's no fine detail there and they look like some NR is being applied.
You can thank Youtube resolution and compression for that!!
twodees wrote:
The focusing and tracking look great but I don't see anything other than record shots for the stills, there's no fine detail there and they look like some NR is being applied.
twodees wrote:
The focusing and tracking look great but I don't see anything other than record shots for the stills, there's no fine detail there and they look like some NR is being applied.
You are evaluating details and NR of stills off of a 1440 wide jpeg sequence further compressed by YT?
This is ISO 12,800 and underexposed so we are talking 25,600 or greater if it was properly exposed or lifted in post.
That said I do not love all the magenta and green pattering throughout the background but who knows what processing was done to these files before assembling into a slideshow? But probably that background is 2 stops under so more like 51,200 noise/splotching....ie beyond native ISO.
"focusing and tracking look great" is I think all we can take away from this. Even then we can't really tell if all the shots are critically focused once you would load the RAWs at 1:1.
Imagemaster wrote:
It is nothing new, and the same thing has been happening for the last 17 years I have been a member here. It happens with every new camera that comes out. First, the endless rumors and comments about what the new model should and/or will have. Then when it comes out, all the crap photos posted along with some great ones. And even the great ones seldom look any better than those from the previous model. Then there are the new owners that complain about problems with the new model because they have not read the owner's manual, or can't understand it. As always there will the many complaints about what features were not put on the new model.
Just like all previous years, there will be many images posted that on your monitor look not one iota better than those taken by earlier models. And there will be the images accompanied by claims that the new 50mp files look better than the 30mp ones from the previous model, when most viewers looking at them see no noticeable difference.
There will also be the 50mp images that those posters seem to think show that 50mp FF images look better than those taken with older and lower MP DSLR's, when the examples they post show no such thing, and you wonder why that person posted such garbage examples.
Bottom line: Same old routine every year, and same summary from me: You have to separate the wheat from the chaff. ...Show more →
What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
Yeah if you pause it you can see that they either did some really awful things in post (doubt it) or that youtube compression is exacerbating the already ridiculously high ISO, you can see the artifacts all around the owl. I do see the magenta, but who knows how the blue tone of light and the brown background, plus high ISO plus youtube play into this..... these type of shooting scenario are really for paparazzi or ID shots, not to hang on the wall :-)
arbitrage wrote:
You are evaluating details and NR of stills off of a 1440 wide jpeg sequence further compressed by YT?
This is ISO 12,800 and underexposed so we are talking 25,600 or greater if it was properly exposed or lifted in post.
That said I do not love all the magenta and green pattering throughout the background but who knows what processing was done to these files before assembling into a slideshow? But probably that background is 2 stops under so more like 51,200 noise/splotching....ie beyond native ISO.
"focusing and tracking look great" is I think all we can take away from this. Even then we can't really tell if all the shots are critically focused once you would load the RAWs at 1:1....Show more →
buffalowolff wrote:
Yeah if you pause it you can see that they either did some really awful things in post (doubt it) or that youtube compression is exacerbating the already ridiculously high ISO, you can see the artifacts all around the owl. I do see the magenta, but who knows how the blue tone of light and the brown background, plus high ISO plus youtube play into this..... these type of shooting scenario are really for paparazzi or ID shots, not to hang on the wall :-)
"you can see the artifacts all around the owl": Those artifacts are completely normal when you encode video or even JPEGs at a very low bitrate.
That's why you should never judge IQ from a YT video, except if they go into pixel peeping and if that video is 4k or 8k, which is not the case here.
I sort of recall Mark Smith had the A1, although not as early as the other YT characters got theirs, I am wondering when he will have his review on YT.
Jemini wrote:
The French review posted above (I think) mentioned 1.5 seconds. R5 is startup in 0.76 second.
How about wake-up time from sleep? Should we still set Power Save Start Time to Off to get quick response?
I think we probably still have to do that based on some of the reviews.
The R5 is fast to wake from power off. But the R5 has no way to keep the EVF awake for more than 6s so it is a constant issue with that camera when raising it to shoot some fleeting moment.
Well... maybe not one of my most qualified observations
Fingers crossed it starts getting into the hands of those in NA asap as there will then be a lot more reactions and experiences on the table which I can compare to my own from the last few days.
arbitrage wrote:
I think we probably still have to do that based on some of the reviews.
The R5 is fast to wake from power off. But the R5 has no way to keep the EVF awake for more than 6s so it is a constant issue with that camera when raising it to shoot some fleeting moment.
Ahh, I see. That's even worse. At least Sony has a way at the expense of battery. I'm getting used to it with A9.
Jemini wrote:
The French review posted above (I think) mentioned 1.5 seconds. R5 is startup in 0.76 second.
How about wake-up time from sleep? Should we still set Power Save Start Time to Off to get quick response?
I think that to be lens dependent. Additionally you will never be able to give such an accurate measure as the french review above mentioned (to 1/100s).
I just did a few stop watch tests with the 35 GM. I got results between 0.8 - 1.2s, so 0.9 s- 1s is realistic on average (I switched the camera on and immediately pressed the shutter button and monitored the time when I finally heard the shutter sound).
With the Sigma 35/1.2 it takes longer. But 1.5 s as stated in the French review seems to be too long. However, I am in Airplane mode, do only have one display setting in EVF or LCD mode, no in camera processing options like DRO, shading compensation etc.
Wakeup from sleep is difficult to measure accurately, but quicker. For me it is quick enough, I don't know about BIF people.
I would need to film myself with the camera and later asses the time accurately from the video feed.
randomguy wrote:
It wakes up in about half the time of the original A9, don't have A9 II so can't compare with that.
So in around a second and half? Sounds right. A9 power up and AF points shows up in 3 seconds. Sometimes little longer and some times little faster. On the average 3 seconds I'd say.
That's not bad considering how long it will take us to lift the camera and bring to eye.
Holger wrote:
I think that to be lens dependent. Additionally you will never be able to give such an accurate measure as the french review above mentioned (to 1/100s).
I just did a few stop watch tests with the 35 GM. I got results between 0.8 - 1.2s, so 0.9 s- 1s is realistic on average (I switched the camera on and immediately pressed the shutter button and monitored the time when I finally heard the shutter sound).
With the Sigma 35/1.2 it takes longer. But 1.5 s as stated in the French review seems to be too long. However, I am in Airplane mode, do only have one display setting in EVF or LCD mode, no in camera processing options like DRO, shading compensation etc.
Wakeup from sleep is difficult to measure accurately, but quicker. For me it is quick enough, I don't know about BIF people.
I would need to film myself with the camera and later asses the time accurately from the video feed.
Thanks for the detailed reply. I agree it's almost impossible to measure accurately and probably doesn't matter. If the camera start focusing in 1 second, it's not bad. I think just being flagship they should've done a better job..
AF tracking is what I want to know from more people. How much better it's compared to A9/A9II (assuming they are same).
