Sony full frame A7s launch

Uluru · 04-07-2014, 03:10 AM

I guess if they made it a 12 pixel sensor, they could get 4 million ASA.
But decided to pump up megapixels for no reason whatsoever.
Strange ...

---------- Post added 04-07-2014 at 08:16 PM ----------

Originally posted by richandfleur

...
I'd love to see Pentax enter this if they have a good partnership with Sony for sensors etc. I would be nice to see Pentax feature for video also, more than just people using legacy Pentax glass on someone elses bodies.

Ricoh Imaging will always play a third fiddle. Unique sensors are reserved for Sony. Canon also makes stuff for themselves only. Samsung too. Others get what they can get; take a number, stay in the queue. Or pay extra to jump ahead in the queue.

Last edited by Uluru; 04-07-2014 at 03:17 AM.

**Rondec** · 04-07-2014, 03:37 AM

The 400,000 iso is a gimmick. Won't be usable. I imagine that most folks who get this camera will do so for video, as a D4s is probably a better option if you need brilliant auto focus in low light settings.

vjacesslav · 04-08-2014, 02:57 PM

The most important thing about this camera is DR - Dynamic range...
That Could be real goal for next level of photography

Class A · 04-09-2014, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Apapukas

More cropping vs. better low light

No.

Reducing the number of pixels does not increase low-light performance. The individual pixel quality becomes better with larger pixels, but the overall image quality stays the same.

They made it 12MP because they are reading out the whole sensor for video. No more line skipping. The larger the amount of MP, the more difficult it is to read out each and every single pixel. However, it so worth it do so in order to avoid the problems of line skipping (in particular moiré).

In APS-C crop mode, this sensor even supports 120fps!

Here's a video sample:

You Tube

The "Arbroath Smokies" sample is more impressive.

There is a respective behind the scenes video as well.

Last edited by Class A; 04-09-2014 at 03:48 PM.

osv · 04-09-2014, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by Class A

No.

Reducing the number of pixels does not increase low-light performance. The individual pixel quality becomes better with larger pixels, but the overall image quality stays the same.

posting a five year old technology article to support a claim about the latest technology could be sketchy.

Smeggypants · 04-09-2014, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by Rondec

The 400,000 iso is a gimmick. Won't be usable. I imagine that most folks who get this camera will do so for video, as a D4s is probably a better option if you need brilliant auto focus in low light settings.

how do you know waht someone else determines "useable"

And yes in practical terms 400,000 will be noisy but it raises the nar and lower ISOs will be better than cameras with a lower high ISO limit.

You could say the ISO51200 of the K-5 isn't usable by the same logic, but i the Sony si 2 stops better DR than the K-5 then I think it's a great .

---------- Post added 10-04-14 at 00:08 ----------

Originally posted by Class A

The individual pixel quality becomes better with larger pixels, but the overall image quality stays the same.

Oh dear.

---------- Post added 10-04-14 at 00:13 ----------

Originally posted by carrrlangas

I don´t understand why would an enthusiast or Professional use ISO values that are not achieved by hardware. Most Sensors native range goes from ISO100 to ISO1600 (through hardware amplification), after that it´s all software amplified. If shooting RAW, as most enthusiast and professionals, why would I let the camera do the post processing for higher than native ISO values rather than do it in my workflow as the rest of adjustments?
What I get out of the big numbers is that the Dynamic range will be better at high (native) ISO (as in ISO 400 - 800 - 1600)

Why don't you ask them?

Besides hardware amplification OR software amplification it's STILL amplification. It's likely that hardware amplification above a certain gain value is better quality than the equivalent hardware ( analogue ) amplifiviation.

.... as an enthusiast I can answer you question, and the answer is I don't want to have to mess around exposure compensating to do the ISO gain in post processing when doing it in camera is just as good. Why complicate photography when there is no need?

---------- Post added 10-04-14 at 00:14 ----------

What happened there? All my posts merged into one. how strange. I didn't use any multiple quote feature

**Rondec** · 04-09-2014, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Smeggypants

how do you know waht someone else determines "useable"

And yes in practical terms 400,000 will be noisy but it raises the nar and lower ISOs will be better than cameras with a lower high ISO limit.

You could say the ISO51200 of the K-5 isn't usable by the same logic, but i the Sony si 2 stops better DR than the K-5 then I think it's a great .

---------- Post added 10-04-14 at 00:08 ----------

Oh dear.

---------- Post added 10-04-14 at 00:13 ----------

Why don't you ask them?

Besides hardware amplification OR software amplification it's STILL amplification. It's likely that hardware amplification above a certain gain value is better quality than the equivalent hardware ( analogue ) amplifiviation.

.... as an enthusiast I can answer you question, and the answer is I don't want to have to mess around exposure compensating to do the ISO gain in post processing when doing it in camera is just as good. Why complicate photography when there is no need?

If the Sony is 2 stops better DR than the K5, than that would still make 200,000 iso really crappy and unusable. I don't use over iso 6400 on K5 and I would expect it to be a stop to stop and a half better. Obviously if you aren't printing/viewing very large, you can shoot whatever you want.

FYI -- if you post multiple posts without someone else posting in reply in (I think) a 15 minute window, the forum auto-merges them all together.

Class A · 04-09-2014, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by osv

posting a five year old technology article to support a claim about the latest technology could be sketchy.

Physics/Logic does not change.

Not even after five years.

carrrlangas · 04-09-2014, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by Smeggypants

Why don't you ask them?

Besides hardware amplification OR software amplification it's STILL amplification. It's likely that hardware amplification above a certain gain value is better quality than the equivalent hardware ( analogue ) amplifiviation.

.... as an enthusiast I can answer you question, and the answer is I don't want to have to mess around exposure compensating to do the ISO gain in post processing when doing it in camera is just as good. Why complicate photography when there is no need?

Your phrase is confusing. Software amplification won´t be as good as what you can do in your PC/Mac PP. And why would you need to use exposure compensation? Just limit the ISO range.

JimmyDranox · 04-09-2014, 11:54 PM

Five years ago, a sensor Quantum Efficiency was around or under 50%. Now, sensors with 77% QE are on the market. And progresses are also in signal to noise ratio. And to say that a better pixel performance doesn't mean better picture is something that defies logic IMHO.

**Rondec** · 04-10-2014, 03:12 AM

Originally posted by JimmyDranox

Five years ago, a sensor Quantum Efficiency was around or under 50%. Now, sensors with 77% QE are on the market. And progresses are also in signal to noise ratio. And to say that a better pixel performance doesn't mean better picture is something that defies logic IMHO.

Pixel performance isn't very important -- you have to normalize the results. Obviously if you compare a 12 megapixel full frame to a 36 megapixel full frame sensor, per pixel noise will be higher on the 36 megapixel sensor. But the question is if you print the same size -- 8 by 10 or whatever, do you see a difference. The reality is that you probably won't, although your 12 megapixel sensor will max out relatively quickly on detail.

The one are where having larger pixels should help is in giving larger dynamic range at low iso, as the photon wells should be bigger. But the D600 and D800 are pretty equivalent in dynamic range, even at low iso.

JimmyDranox · 04-10-2014, 04:24 AM

A little smile, to clear the sky

New Outbreak of Full Frame Fever Spotted | New Camera News

jogiba · 04-10-2014, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Den Lennie just updated his A7s post by including an amaizng A7s High ISO test (Click here and scroll down to see the video). The screenshot on top shows you the noise at crazy 409,600 ISO. This is really a complete DARK(!) room with no light. And the video you will see that actually up to 102,400 ISO noise is acceptable!

Amazing Sony A7s Low Light test video! | sonyalpharumors
Sony Alpha 7s - Hands on Review by Den Lennie - F-Stop Academy

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

richandfleur · 04-10-2014, 06:00 PM

wow.

Honestly Sony are making tremendous progress at the moment.
I can only hope that Pentax will get their hands on these sensors for their own use soon.

I want my Pentax DSLR body, to have the smarts of these Sony's!

jogiba · 04-11-2014, 07:24 AM

Youtu.be

The Nikon D4s does not come close to this.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
From Full-Frame Sony... to Pentax... to Full-Frame Canon	Mr_Canuck	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	42	01-21-2014 12:50 AM
FULL FRAME PENTAX....by Sony?	Sperdynamite	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	127	11-02-2013 12:08 PM
Sony Mirrorless Full Frame coming	Winder	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	9	12-21-2012 11:05 PM
Sony full frame VG900 camcorder hands-on !	jogiba	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	22	09-23-2012 09:42 AM
Full Frame Sony NEX imminent?	falconeye	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	46	08-22-2012 01:38 AM

04-07-2014, 03:10 AM	#16
Uluru Banned Join Date: May 2010 Location: Back to my Walkabout Creek Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,535	I guess if they made it a 12 pixel sensor, they could get 4 million ASA. But decided to pump up megapixels for no reason whatsoever. Strange ... ---------- Post added 04-07-2014 at 08:16 PM ---------- Originally posted by richandfleur ... I'd love to see Pentax enter this if they have a good partnership with Sony for sensors etc. I would be nice to see Pentax feature for video also, more than just people using legacy Pentax glass on someone elses bodies. Ricoh Imaging will always play a third fiddle. Unique sensors are reserved for Sony. Canon also makes stuff for themselves only. Samsung too. Others get what they can get; take a number, stay in the queue. Or pay extra to jump ahead in the queue. Last edited by Uluru; 04-07-2014 at 03:17 AM.

04-07-2014, 03:37 AM	#17
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,662	The 400,000 iso is a gimmick. Won't be usable. I imagine that most folks who get this camera will do so for video, as a D4s is probably a better option if you need brilliant auto focus in low light settings.

04-08-2014, 02:57 PM	#18
vjacesslav Marketplace Reseller Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Košice, Czechoslovakia, Europe Union Photos: Gallery Posts: 366	The most important thing about this camera is DR - Dynamic range... That Could be real goal for next level of photography

04-09-2014, 04:05 PM	#20
osv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: So Cal Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,080	Originally posted by Class A No. Reducing the number of pixels does not increase low-light performance. The individual pixel quality becomes better with larger pixels, but the overall image quality stays the same. posting a five year old technology article to support a claim about the latest technology could be sketchy.

04-09-2014, 04:07 PM	#21
Smeggypants Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,536	Originally posted by Rondec The 400,000 iso is a gimmick. Won't be usable. I imagine that most folks who get this camera will do so for video, as a D4s is probably a better option if you need brilliant auto focus in low light settings. how do you know waht someone else determines "useable" And yes in practical terms 400,000 will be noisy but it raises the nar and lower ISOs will be better than cameras with a lower high ISO limit. You could say the ISO51200 of the K-5 isn't usable by the same logic, but i the Sony si 2 stops better DR than the K-5 then I think it's a great . ---------- Post added 10-04-14 at 00:08 ---------- Originally posted by Class A The individual pixel quality becomes better with larger pixels, but the overall image quality stays the same. Oh dear. ---------- Post added 10-04-14 at 00:13 ---------- Originally posted by carrrlangas I don´t understand why would an enthusiast or Professional use ISO values that are not achieved by hardware. Most Sensors native range goes from ISO100 to ISO1600 (through hardware amplification), after that it´s all software amplified. If shooting RAW, as most enthusiast and professionals, why would I let the camera do the post processing for higher than native ISO values rather than do it in my workflow as the rest of adjustments? What I get out of the big numbers is that the Dynamic range will be better at high (native) ISO (as in ISO 400 - 800 - 1600) Why don't you ask them? Besides hardware amplification OR software amplification it's STILL amplification. It's likely that hardware amplification above a certain gain value is better quality than the equivalent hardware ( analogue ) amplifiviation. .... as an enthusiast I can answer you question, and the answer is I don't want to have to mess around exposure compensating to do the ISO gain in post processing when doing it in camera is just as good. Why complicate photography when there is no need? ---------- Post added 10-04-14 at 00:14 ---------- What happened there? All my posts merged into one. how strange. I didn't use any multiple quote feature

04-09-2014, 04:17 PM	#22
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,662	Originally posted by Smeggypants how do you know waht someone else determines "useable" And yes in practical terms 400,000 will be noisy but it raises the nar and lower ISOs will be better than cameras with a lower high ISO limit. You could say the ISO51200 of the K-5 isn't usable by the same logic, but i the Sony si 2 stops better DR than the K-5 then I think it's a great . ---------- Post added 10-04-14 at 00:08 ---------- Oh dear. ---------- Post added 10-04-14 at 00:13 ---------- Why don't you ask them? Besides hardware amplification OR software amplification it's STILL amplification. It's likely that hardware amplification above a certain gain value is better quality than the equivalent hardware ( analogue ) amplifiviation. .... as an enthusiast I can answer you question, and the answer is I don't want to have to mess around exposure compensating to do the ISO gain in post processing when doing it in camera is just as good. Why complicate photography when there is no need? If the Sony is 2 stops better DR than the K5, than that would still make 200,000 iso really crappy and unusable. I don't use over iso 6400 on K5 and I would expect it to be a stop to stop and a half better. Obviously if you aren't printing/viewing very large, you can shoot whatever you want. FYI -- if you post multiple posts without someone else posting in reply in (I think) a 15 minute window, the forum auto-merges them all together.

04-09-2014, 06:31 PM	#23
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by osv posting a five year old technology article to support a claim about the latest technology could be sketchy. Physics/Logic does not change. Not even after five years.

04-09-2014, 09:51 PM	#24
carrrlangas Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Joensuu (Finland) Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,761	Originally posted by Smeggypants Why don't you ask them? Besides hardware amplification OR software amplification it's STILL amplification. It's likely that hardware amplification above a certain gain value is better quality than the equivalent hardware ( analogue ) amplifiviation. .... as an enthusiast I can answer you question, and the answer is I don't want to have to mess around exposure compensating to do the ISO gain in post processing when doing it in camera is just as good. Why complicate photography when there is no need? Your phrase is confusing. Software amplification won´t be as good as what you can do in your PC/Mac PP. And why would you need to use exposure compensation? Just limit the ISO range.

04-09-2014, 11:54 PM	#25
JimmyDranox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Ploiesti, Romania Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,632	Five years ago, a sensor Quantum Efficiency was around or under 50%. Now, sensors with 77% QE are on the market. And progresses are also in signal to noise ratio. And to say that a better pixel performance doesn't mean better picture is something that defies logic IMHO.

04-10-2014, 03:12 AM	#26
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,662	Originally posted by JimmyDranox Five years ago, a sensor Quantum Efficiency was around or under 50%. Now, sensors with 77% QE are on the market. And progresses are also in signal to noise ratio. And to say that a better pixel performance doesn't mean better picture is something that defies logic IMHO. Pixel performance isn't very important -- you have to normalize the results. Obviously if you compare a 12 megapixel full frame to a 36 megapixel full frame sensor, per pixel noise will be higher on the 36 megapixel sensor. But the question is if you print the same size -- 8 by 10 or whatever, do you see a difference. The reality is that you probably won't, although your 12 megapixel sensor will max out relatively quickly on detail. The one are where having larger pixels should help is in giving larger dynamic range at low iso, as the photon wells should be bigger. But the D600 and D800 are pretty equivalent in dynamic range, even at low iso.

04-10-2014, 04:24 AM	#27
JimmyDranox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Ploiesti, Romania Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,632	A little smile, to clear the sky New Outbreak of Full Frame Fever Spotted \| New Camera News

04-10-2014, 06:00 PM	#29
richandfleur Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: Palmerston North, New Zealand Photos: Albums Posts: 1,788	wow. Honestly Sony are making tremendous progress at the moment. I can only hope that Pentax will get their hands on these sensors for their own use soon. I want my Pentax DSLR body, to have the smarts of these Sony's!