TakenWild
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Thanks for posting this, Mark. I知 very curious by what you have said here. I have owned the A7R 1,2 and 3, but haven稚 upgraded to the 4. I currently own the R3 and R2 as a backup camera. I知 curious are you comparing the R2 in uncompressed raw and on single shot mode? I知 pretty sure any continuous modes on the R2 have some compression.
Mark Metternich wrote:
Hi Marshall. Sorry for the delay here.
First a disclaimer: I am not willing to get into an argument on this thread, so if those folks disagree or would like to debate with me on these issues, I will not participate here. Maybe they can start a thread elsewhere and I would pipe in. I always have an open line via PM or email if people want to discuss things further.
I do not enjoy being the bearer of sometimes unpleasant news, but after tons of real world testing and processing countless hundreds of files for top end gallery prints (my full time job when I am not leading workshops, selling my work or creating educational materials...) from the Sony Mark 1, 2, 3 and the 4, given the cutting edge processes of making top quality enlargements of all sizes, including HUGE (and everything Robert B Park and I teach on our "The Ultimate Mastering Fine Art Printmaking Workshop") the Sony A7R3 files beat the quality of the Sony A7R4 noticeably. I can take the exact same shot from the Sony A7R3 (and the 4) and size them both to any substantial enlargement size and get a better file/high resolution print out of the 3. IMO Sony simply overshot megapixels. Yes, the files are larger, but not once has the Sony A7R4 impressed me over the 3. Even the pixel stitch.
Please don't get me wrong. Im not saying a great enlargements can not be made with the 4! I have had to do countless top end gallery prints from those files over the years (I work with whatever my clients shoot with). But when put to the test in a variety of shooting conditions and different types of lenses, I have never seen the A7R4 beat the 3. The gallery photographers I have worked with who had the 4, ended up selling them for better gear.
In fact it might be notable that the Sony A7R2 is a clear step down in quality from the Sony A7R3, and I just tested it against the Sony A7R4 a couple weeks ago (using two types of zoom lenses) and the A7R2 (yes the 2) is nearly indistinguishable from the Sony A7R4 (with the A7R2 ever so slightly beating the 4) for finished enlargements.
Now, if we coupled the sharpest lens in the entire world for the Sony A7R4, and we shot at the absolute sharpest f/stop (which almost no one does) and we shot at the lowest ISO, on tripod and all, then yes in some cases we would be getting a little over the 42.4 megapixels of real quality detail of the the A7R3. I would guess maybe around 47-50MP. But not a sheer 60 of quality pixels. We have found that the real world upper quality threshold for 99.0+% photos with good lenses and a variety of shooting conditions is generally around 40-47. Again, unless one uses the very sharpest lens in the world for the camera and at the sharpest f/stop only, then people are not really accessing that type of quality detail...
After doing this testing full time, and much more importantly, taking hundreds of these files (from almost all the camera and lens combinations you could imagine) to large and even huge, top class gallery prints pushed to the extreme of quality detail, I would easily rate the Panasonic Lumix 1SR at the top for 35mm in terms of unbelievable potential for enlargement (for a lot of reasons).
Next I would rate the Nikon D850 side by side the Sony A7R3. The Sony A7R3 sensor has rated in the top 5 sensors in the world for a while now (above the 4). IMO, the key is the 3 did not overstep the MP threshold of our current body of lens technology.
Lastly, testing that is not faulty has to include taking each of the files up to a variety of substantial enlargement sizes (including very big - like 45", 50", 60", 70", 80" 90"...) and then each file needs to be individually worked ideally to its best position of quality. This is almost never how the tests are done!
As an example, the Sony A7R4 can handle noticeably less sharpening protocols without artifacts. The 4 artifacts easier and has higher noise (which limits sizing sharpening protocol compared to the 3). The Sony A7R3, on the other hand, handles noticeably better the current cutting edge methods for enlarging and optimizing prints.
Again, to be clear and try not offend people with the Sony A7R4, great images can be made from both. Great enlargements can be made from both with the right skill sets. But, personally, I would shoot with the Sony A7R3 over the 4 any day of the week.
Lastly, in our workshops we show real world tests and the files. People can see for themselves the results in the prints.
Cheers!
...Show more →
|
. I hope you and your wife are doing great. BTW, the Sony A7R3 kicks the 2's tail! 