Jack Flesher
Online
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: Sony A7RVI | |
gdanmitchell wrote:
Jack Flesher wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote:
Jack Flesher wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote:
Douglas L wrote:
snapsy wrote:
Douglas L wrote:
Cliff, I am posting some hummer shots, I was expecting much worse rolling shutter effect on the wings based on the sensor readout speed and some of the review pictures I saw online. I was pleasantly surprised it's quite usable for hummingbird shoots. Based on my own observation, the most visible effect is probably the occasional longer or shorter wing spans than normal.
These are amazing shots. I don't know anything about BIF but from what I've watched on hummers their wings move mostly horizontal during hover. If that's the phase caught for these images I wouldn't except to see much rolling shutter distortion since distortion occurs for movement across vertical rows. Have your observations been different with other cameras?
For reference here's a slow-motion video of a hover (various parts, but first is at 0:54):
Thank you. I have been shooting hummingbirds in my yard for 7 or 8 years if not longer. For that I have been using a variety of Sony cameras, including the A7RIII (before Sony had any fast bodies), A1, A1II. I don't think I ever used the A7RIV or the A7RV for that because the A1 was already out 6 or 7 years ago. I have seen pretty "interesting mutant" hummingbirds taken with cameras with slow sensor readout. James' post above is a perfect illustration.I don’t think pictures taken with A1 A1II look that different, which is a big pleasant surprise to me. I do feel certain shots made by the A7RVI have longer wings.
I know some folks are sick and tired of the sensor readout speed/rolling shutter discussion. Everybody knows the A7RVI (or even the A7RV for that matter) is a fantastic body for landscape and a host of other genres. Nobody is even questioning that. To me, the somewhat uncertain part is for some very niche applications in fast action stuff, if you rarely use the A7RVI for that kind of stuff, carry on. I know if I want to have higher probability of getting "the" shot, I will pick up the A1II. For me, the A7RVI is an all round camera that excels in many many areas and also happens to be very very good at fast actions, just not as good at the A1(II) and A9III in some niche applications.
The point I’ve tried to make here a few times (occasionally with a humorous analogy) is that there are different tools for good reasons.
If one’s main thing is stuff that always requires stopping the action of the highest speed subjects, then you get the camera that does the best job of stopping hte action of the highest speed subjects and live with other (often minor for you, though it depends) downsides such as somewhat less sensor resolution, as long as the camera still works well for you with those other subjects.
If one’s main thing is stuff that benefits from the highest available resolution and other features, then you get the camera that does the best job of providing that and live with (often minor for you, but it depends) downsides such as a bit less ability to handle the most challenging high speed situations, as long as the camera works well for you with those other subjects.
Imagine two cars. One is a pickup truck and the other is a SUV. It would seem nuts to complain that the SUV can’t carry as much lumber as the pickup or that the pickup uses more gas per mile. While there are many things that both can do just fine, if you needs lean one way or the other you choose the one closest to those needs. It doesn’t mean that there’s anything wrong with the other choice — it is just that your needs are different.
Yes but🤷🏼.
I think, especially today with excellent AI interpolation, at a certain point added resolution is all but useless. In the case of the A1ii, it’s native 8640 px wide and at 300ppi makes a native ~29” wide print. The A7Rvi is 9984 px wide for a native 33” print. Use a good AI interpolation and you double to 58” vs 66”. Reduce print resolution to 150 ppi because of the long viewing distance and you double both again for 116” vs 132” — point is either is capable of making a highly detailed print far larger than anyone is likely to ever print.
I would grant that the larger sensor gives a bit more croppability, but in the scheme of things it’s a pretty marginal advantage.
Finally, all of the above assumes the lenses are as good as the sensor, which is not a given.
My point remains.
You are simply saying that for your photography speed is more important than resolution, in which case giving up the higher resolution A7r6 for the somewhat faster A1ii is likely your choice.
My point is that, as you would do, you prefer the speed over the resolution, then you would simply pick the faster camera rather that being concerned that the slower, higher rest camera isn’t as fast.
It’s that old horses for courses” business. No horse is best for all courses. ;-)
Okay, I accept all that. Can you describe a situation in your photography where the extra resolution will make a visible difference to one of your final images? I’m not trying to be argumentative, I want to make sure I understand and am not overlooking a situation(s) where it would possibly be a better choice for me as well 👍
I have sold/licensed prints for commercial use at sizes up to 30’ wide and 11’ tall. I have an in-house Epson P-9000 44” printer. My main (though not my only) photography with my current FF system is landscapes and similar subjects.
I don’t focus on sports photography nor on other subjects requiring absolute fastest burst rates, so the capabilities of the A7r6 are more than sufficient for me. I’ve managed to do my bird photography for over a decade with a much slower cameras. While the A1ii is an impressive tool for those who need that, what it offers over the A7r6 is not really relevant to me.
As to extra resolution (and speaking here as a person who is about to move to Sony), if I already had the A7r5, I would not upgrade to the A7r6 for the small amount of additional resolution.
YMMV.
Okay, think I understand you now. It isn’t about resolution per se, it’s about features on the A1ii you don’t feel you need and so aren’t worth the expense to you; and as such, the added resolution from the A7R6 becomes a bonus. Totally fair point.
For me, I think the added features of the A1ii will come in handier on more occasions than the bit of extra resolution would.
PS comment on billboards. As you know I was connected with PhaseOne for several years. Through that at a meeting in Copenhagen to go over new model designs, I met one of the top Chinese commercial fashion photographers. We met in the lobby of our hotel, both of us with a then new Nikon D800 over our shoulder. He asked me how I liked it, and I admitted I was impressed. He told me he was abandoning Phase medium format for the Nikon. The reason was even though the images weren’t as technically perfect, the clients couldn’t see the differences. He said he’d recently put files from both in front of his top client and they chose based on a look, and they happened to all be from the Nikon. Then he added that he could capture a lot more images a lot faster with the Nikon and so could get a greater quantity of poses, and the Nikon files were more than adequate quality for his billboards. For those not aware, the Nikon D800 was a 24mp camera.
|
