That's a good point regarding eye af. I assume that's a function of having to proceed less data
arbitrage wrote:
I still like the magnified view that APS-C mode brings and very likely the Bird Eye-AF will activate easier/more often when in APS-C mode like it does on the R5. I even noted that in Alex's video that as he cropped in the eye-af grabbed his figure's eye where it didn't in FF. Also since I'm planning to just run V90 SD at first, the APS-C option will make that easier. Of course for my very first A1 test on the swallows in flight it will be FF all the way for the extra FOV.
buffalowolff wrote:
That's a good point regarding eye af. I assume that's a function of having to proceed less data
I also think I read (but could be mistaken) that unlike the past Sony bodies when you are in APS-C mode and using Wide or Zone that the dancing AF points stay close together instead of having the extra spacing between them? I think there are just as many AF points working in APS-C vs FF which would mean that for a given subject at a given distance with a given lens that there would be more AF data going in for a given area that the subject takes up on the sensor. So maybe it is processing the same amount of data but now a higher % of that data is coming from your subject??
arbitrage wrote:
I also think I read (but could be mistaken) that unlike the past Sony bodies when you are in APS-C mode and using Wide or Zone that the dancing AF points stay close together instead of having the extra spacing between them?
arbitrage wrote:
I also think I read (but could be mistaken) that unlike the past Sony bodies when you are in APS-C mode and using Wide or Zone that the dancing AF points stay close together instead of having the extra spacing between them? I think there are just as many AF points working in APS-C vs FF which would mean that for a given subject at a given distance with a given lens that there would be more AF data going in for a given area that the subject takes up on the sensor. So maybe it is processing the same amount of data but now a higher % of that data is coming from your subject??
Right now I need two things to happen: Adobe to come out with a beta DNG converter with support for A1 and dpreview to do their ISO sweep in the Studio shoots. Then I will open a bottle of good Italian Barolo, download the RAW files and inspect the noise characteristics at different ISO values and give the base ISO 100 some torture tests to get some feeling for the DR.
This one has a book case ISO test from RAW files through Imaging Edge and out as TIFF. Claiming to have no NR but the lack of chroma noise tells me that something happened as far as NR at some stage of producing these files shown at the end of the video:
&
buffalowolff wrote:
Your link didn't work for me but here:
Super happy about that but..... I'll probably use crop a whole lot less now that we can get high shutter speeds in FF. For me at least cropping was a way to work around the terrible buffering on the RIV.
arbitrage wrote:
This one has a book case ISO test from RAW files through Imaging Edge and out as TIFF. Claiming to have no NR but the lack of chroma noise tells me that something happened as far as NR at some stage of producing these files shown at the end of the video:
&
Imaging edge has Auto NR set as default. I can't understand why a simple thing can be so complicated. It is one click to set it to off.
Stoffer wrote:
Right now I need two things to happen: Adobe to come out with a beta DNG converter with support for A1 and dpreview to do their ISO sweep in the Studio shoots. Then I will open a bottle of good Italian Barolo, download the RAW files and inspect the noise characteristics at different ISO values and give the base ISO 100 some torture tests to get some feeling for the DR.
I wouldn't pay too much attention on that comparison. Dpreview equalizes brightness and white balance before they post the results. So what you see is not ACR default settings and the comparisons are more or less unreliable unless the file curves are similar. Try it with canon R5 and sony A7RIV. I downloaded the raw files and opened them on ACR. The grey tones are far from similar. Dpreview has equalised them and this means a lot when you compare noise. The file having had reduced brightness benefits from underexposure in terms of noise. The one with increased brightness shows more noise.
Stoffer wrote:
Also looking forward to the DR measurements from Bill Claff.
The noise characteristics for this new sensor is probably the thing I’m most interested in before moving on to the next big step, talking to the wife!
Nils, the A1 has a Sony sensor and Sony has made this kind of sensor a few times before. And quite successfully, I may add. It is not like Sony is a new player in town. How much of a difference would there be between this camera and other Sony cameras? Plus, I would rely more on real-life images more rather than bench test results anyway.
I would go ahead and talk to your wife or at least, start dropping hints here and there in the beginning and more frequently as the availability of this camera draws closer and closer.
arbitrage wrote:
Why is TN so obsessed with the 30FPS number?
...
I think I can answer that one. TN is obsessed on whatever will drive clicks. What he wants is a sensational titles to draw clicks so he will always find "major issues" or "big fails" on high profile releases. He is not a reviewer, he is a professional click baiter. I rarely watch one of his videos without ending up wanting my time back.
Take the title from the video he posted the day before the A1 release for instance: "NO Curved sensors are coming... TOMORROW! Sony's camera LEAKED". He wasted time for the more than 100000 people who clicked it, and he got his precious clicks.
baltmin wrote:
I wouldn't pay too much attention on that comparison. Dpreview equalizes brightness and white balance before they post the results. So what you see is not ACR default settings and the comparisons are more or less unreliable unless the file curves are similar. Try it with canon R5 and sony A7RIV. I downloaded the raw files and opened them on ACR. The grey tones are far from similar. Dpreview has equalised them and this means a lot when you compare noise. The file having had reduced brightness benefits from underexposure in terms of noise. The one with increased brightness shows more noise....Show more →
I don't get your issue with the dpreview approach. If the visual impression of the overall image differs, a visual comparison of the noise within is practically meaningless. E.g. an image rendered darker will appear to have less noise simply because the noise is darker, too.
AGeoJO wrote:
Nils, the A1 has a Sony sensor and Sony has made this kind of sensor a few times before. And quite successfully, I may add. It is not like Sony is a new player in town. How much of a difference would there be between this camera and other Sony cameras? Plus, I would rely more on real-life images more rather than bench test results anyway.
I would go ahead and talk to your wife or at least, start dropping hints here and there in the beginning and more frequently as the availability of this camera draws closer and closer.
Not to mention that the A1 can be argued as being the cheapest camera ever.....how so, you say?....well because once you have an A1 there is no reason to own any other Sony camera....so you can just sell off your current gear and the net cost of an A1 will be next to nothing!! Heck, some may even come out ahead and can buy another lens
A9 vs A1: only argument I can see is the high-ISO at pixel level noise....well when you really need that just downsample your A1 file and you'll be no worse off (probably better actually)
A7SIII vs A1: I thought this one would still favour the SIII for those not wanting 8K...but after watching Undone's video that doesn't seem to be the case
A7RIV vs A1: This one has a case if you want 11MPs more...but that is about it...
arbitrage wrote:
I also think I read (but could be mistaken) that unlike the past Sony bodies when you are in APS-C mode and using Wide or Zone that the dancing AF points stay close together instead of having the extra spacing between them? I think there are just as many AF points working in APS-C vs FF which would mean that for a given subject at a given distance with a given lens that there would be more AF data going in for a given area that the subject takes up on the sensor. So maybe it is processing the same amount of data but now a higher % of that data is coming from your subject??
Sounds plausible, at least I can see how that might work. What I have a harder time wrapping my head around is why that would break simply because a lens isn't a true FF lens that happens to be cropped vs an APSC lens that must be cropped. My current hypotheses is that this uses light from the outer edge of the image circle, which would be completely dark for an APSC lens. Nah, doesn't work either.
.