tschopp
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Is the Sony a7R IV the best value full-frame camera on the market? | |
lsquare wrote:
Thank you so much for taking the time to try to answer my questions!
Has anyone done any in-depth analysis on the IV and the V to see if Sony has made any improvement to the sensor? All the marketing and reviews say it's the same.
I remember when I first started with digital camera back in 2004, I was told not to worry about file sizes and shoot at the highest quality possible. Storage is cheap and is only getting cheaper. Storage has never been an issue for me until I started thinking about the IV. I have no idea why Sony never bother to add a lossless compressed 14-bit RAW option to the IV. Hardware and software innovation is convincing me to shoot at ISO32000 even if the shot is extremely noisy. Better to have a photo than not? I suppose, with time, the ISO32000 file from today will be usable at some point in the future? No one can possibly tell me that software won't be getting any better. What do you think?
I basically want the most amount of features for the money. It seems like the IV and even the a7CR might fit the bill. Regardless of whether I go with Canon, Nikon, or Sony, I intend to get a 24-200/240mm lens. The price of the CR is not bad, but how does it complement the 24-240mm lens in terms of weight and balance?
I don't shoot stars, but it doesn't hurt to ask as I don't want to box myself in and say I'll never shoot it. I really do shoot whatever has my interest. I only mentioned my preferred subjects since that's what everyone typically asks. This is just a hobby for me. Having said that, I'm guessing Sony still hasn't resolutely solved the star eating issue? It's only on the V and maybe CR where Sony is taking a crack at solving it? Is it absolutely a problem with the IV?
Is shutter shock an issue at all on the IV, CR, and the V when using the mechanical shutter rather than EFCS?
With regards to the CR, do you know if the weather resistance/sealing is as good as the IV and the V?
Is the e-shutter's dynamic range any worse than EFCS or the mechanical shutter?
Since you mentioned lens correction profile, I guess I'll just keep them as uncompressed 14-bit RAW. I'll just buy more hard drives.  ...Show more →
It's important to keep in mind this sensor is ISO invariant. So there can be disadvantages to shooting the same scene at ISO 32,000 vs ISO 8,000. Increasing the ISO does not reduce the noise like it used to in older sensors. The only thing you are doing is reducing the posible dynamic range of the image that is captured. If you have any highlight clipping at a higher ISO this will be a worse image than an "underexposed" image with no clipping shot at a lower ISO. If both images have no clipping, then it will provide the same image. ie the iso does not matter, it is invariant.
Of course the signal to noise ratio of the image will depend on how much light was captured. So if you can capture more light, you should do so. There are 2 stops between ISO 32,000 and 8,000. So for me when a shot starts approaching ISO 8,000 or 10,000 with a proper exposure that is really an indication I need more light. I do this automatically by setting the Auto Iso range from 100 to 10,000. Then when the scene gets dark and reaches that limit the Auto Iso SS starts to slow the shutter to capture more light. Basically I will control aperture and shutter speed up to Iso 10,000, but if it is darker I want the camera to start slowing the shutter to make sure I have captured enough light to make an image that will satisfy me.
The other thing you must understand about ISO is that as you increase it you will loose dynamic range. Basically you start with a 14 bit number from the sensor and with each stop you increase ISO you throw away a bit (they should be blank unless you clipped highlights). See the photons to photos graph below. This doesn't mean you should insist on shooting ISO 100 to preserve dynamic range. proper tradeoff in setting is needed.
The old CPU is not powerful enough for lossless compression. That being said I rarely used 14 bit on the a7Riv. In all cases except for astro photography I could not see a difference. Now on the Rv I mostly shoot 14bit lossless, but will shift to 12 bit for sports to get 10 fps. I do shoot with lens vignette corrections off, at least at 12 bit I have found if you need to lift shaddows strongly it can cause some artifacts. I correct for vignette in post.
For lenses look at the below website, the 24-240 is considered a bad lens. If you want a superzoom look at the tamron 28-200.
https://sonyalpha.blog/
The star-eater bug/feature is not a big deal. You can shoot plenty of good looking astrophotography without even noticing it. Biggest problems will be finding good dark skies and deciding if you want to try to get rid of the swam of starlink you will see.
Shuttershock: This is mirrorless not DSLR, so there is no giant mirror slamming around just a paper thin shutter. If you are shooting at faster than 1/250 the second curtain will start before the entire sensor starts collecting an image so I don't see a benefit for EFCS in those cases. For long exposure landscape the shutter movement could be quick compared to the exposure and unimportant. Just like a long exposure of a city makes the people disappear, vibration from a shutter on a long image is unimportant. I do get movement in the camera from me pressing the shutter button, that is large compared to the movement of the shutter moving the camera. I like to put in a low speed drive mode to get some images that don't have motion from me pressing the button (it is just held down already for shot 2). On a tripod it's all too firm for a shutter to move anything. This is why I am not at all concerned with shuttershock and shoot most everything full mechanical. I just don't see the effects of it.
Dynamic range is only determined by the file type and ISO, not shutter setting.
|
