Holger wrote: ketang wrote: RT-- wrote:
DPReview has added the A1 on their studio scene tool.
I wanted to post a direct link with cameras selected but this forum breaks the link.
To me, for high ISO low light stuff it seems to slot right in between the R3 and R4.
I already sold my R3, and the M3 goes next.
Thanks for finding this. I downloaded the ISO 100 low light scene for the A1, A7R3, and A7R4 (strangely the R5 download button links to an MP4 file). I put all three in RawTherapee, added 4.5 stops of EC to look into the shadows, and used the same color checker square for white balance. I took the crops below from the same section where the shadows are dark along with some specular highlights. I re-sized very slightly larger A1 and larger A7R4 files to the A7R3's height:
To my eye, the shadow noise is a bit stronger than the A7R4 and there's a slightly larger gap vs. the A7R3, the last of which also seems to be a bit brighter and therefore maybe more sensitive to light at this setting. There are landscape shooters who will find this sufficient, especially those coming from the A9 series. For me, assuming I did this accurately, it's a bit disappointing as I was hoping they had improved their stack sensor tech enough to equal the A7R3. Technically that may be unrealistic at the moment, but the marketing folks of course pushed the message that it's 15 stops of DR (same as what Sony said for the A7R3 and A7R4). It would have been nice to see a step forward here and not only in the other areas (AF, frame rate, etc.).
Let's of course see what happens when ACR can open the files and in the eventual ISO Invariance tests.
The A1 is still zoomed in a bit more than the other two. I would wait for Dpreview's comparison tool but the performance you show here looks fantastic for a stacked sensor. I think your expectations were unrealistic beforehand. I don't see, too, why you blame the marketing department.
The A7r3 sensor is the reference in opinion right now, but given that a stacked sensor with such a high readout speed is able to be so close is fantastic. If shooting only landscapes, I don't see, however, why one should want to go with the A1 providing features one doesn't need or use? An A7r3 or A7riv would be the better choice in my opinion.
Thanks for the reply. The difference in the position is DPReview seemed to frame the A1 shot a tad higher. I don't think that will account for a larger difference, but noted. I do want to see more tests. I wouldn't say I expected the stacked sensor to perform at the same level, but I hoped it would given it seems to be a new generation for the technology.
As for marketing, well that's not only because the website lists this DR measurement as a key feature under image quality, but also because I heard it repeated from the Sony guys in the preview videos that one of the reasons this is an A1 rather than and A9 III is that shooters won't have to carry both an A9 and A7RIV and instead this can replace both. This was also offered as a justification for the higher price. It can still be a great camera and not have equal DR, but I actually like a number of the camera's other features for landscape use in addition to wanting it for other applications and it would have been nice to see greater parity on this point of comparison.
