[ElJamoquio]

Everyone screams that you're wrong beforehand, but nobody admits you were right afterward.

Here's the fourth time!

Still far more than I expected. I didn't think they were going to improve the fundamental sensor; the last time we saw an improvement in noise was 2010!

Kudos to Sony, look forward to seeing the tech on other sensors...

[DSims]

Here's the fourth time!

I still have no idea where you posted this; some other mysterious thread?

[ElJamoquio]

I still have no idea where you posted this; some other mysterious thread?

Click on it. It will take you to the mysterious hidden thread.

[DSims]

Click on it. It will take you to the mysterious hidden thread.

You mean that tiny little red rectangle with what I always assumed was quotation marks or something? I always thought those encapsulating quotation bubbles were static and wouldn't contain anything active - especially the way they're darkened with shrunken italicized text!



I think I saw that thread when it was first posted, but I don't consider DxO measurements to be nearly as significant as the actual photos DPR posted yesterday. Although I respect that some of the DxO measurements are useful, the "pudding" proves more.

[Fogel70]

Wow - it even met my most optimistic hopes - approx. 3 stops improvement in high ISO performance compared to the A7R! Nearly 1.5 stops better than the Nikon D4s!

I don't see that amount of improvement. Up to ISO 25k there is not very big difference in noice between A7s, A7r, Nikon Df and Canon 5DIII. A7r is worst with about 1 stop worse noise performance.
Image comparison: Digital Photography Review

On ISO 100k and and above there seems to be some type of NR processing on RAW data on A7r, so at these ISOs it clearly pulls ahead.

[DSims]

I don't see that amount of improvement. Up to ISO 25k there is not very big difference in noice between A7s, A7r, Nikon Df and Canon 5DIII. A7r is worst with about 1 stop worse noise performance.
Image comparison: Digital Photography Review

On ISO 100k and and above there seems to be some type of NR processing on RAW data on A7r, so at these ISOs it clearly pulls ahead.

First of all, do you agree it beats every other consumer camera in existence? We can then dispute the margin of victory.

[Fogel70]

First of all, do you agree it beats every other consumer camera in existence? We can then dispute the margin of victory.

Is this some sort of competition?
IMO there are many better cameras than A7r, but A7s looks to have the lowest noise on out of camera extreme high ISO jpgs.
But with similar NR processing on RAW data from other camera, the end result might not be very different.

[DSims]

Is this some sort of competition?

Yes, of course! Why do you think Sony engineers put all that effort in - to say their new "flagship" (according to price) A7 is the third best FF on the market? They don't just want bragging rights, they want to advance the capabilities of photographers and not only make sales, but also be proud of what they've provided for the world.

but A7s looks to have the lowest noise on out of camera extreme high ISO jpgs.

Perhaps it looked slightly better to me last night than it does today - I'll have to look again. But I'm still convinced it's enough difference to make it worth choosing over the D4s even if they were to cost the same price! Considering the price and the "added" video capabilities it's all the more impressive!

Perhaps Pentax will create something with similar capabilities. I've long advocated the idea that they must have more than one FF model in the works right now, and I think this would be a very attractive option. In fact, until this very moment I'd written off the idea of a true "Pro-level" non-645 camera from Pentax, but they could do it, and this sensor could be the foundation!

[Rondec]

It sounds like you didn't actually print, but even if you did it's irrelevant because most photos aren't destined for print.


3200 isn't high ISO anymore -

I'm not even sure what his point was!



We seem to bypass one of the most important points here - 3 stops better high ISO performance means 3 stops higher shutter speed, which means less motion blur. It's nearly impossible to recover from motion blur (and what little you can do creates horrible artifacts most of the time). You can't fix motion blur by "downsampling" in order to get what appears to be equivalent noise. And don't forget, direct JPEG output is still critical in many applications.

My point was just that you need to "normalize" the images. Pushing the "Print" button on DP Review rather than the "Full" button compares images at the same viewing size. Comparing pixel level noise makes no sense at all when comparing a 36 megapixel camera to a bunch of less megapixel cameras. Looking at images up to 51K, it was really hard for me to tell the difference with regard to noise. DXO Mark actually bears this out, showing SNR to be basically the same between these cameras.

I just don't know where 3 stops of better high iso performance comes from. None of the numbers indicate more than a stop improvement with current Nikon full frames -- and only then at isos above 50k.

[DSims]

My point was just that you need to "normalize" the images. Pushing the "Print" button on DP Review rather than the "Full" button compares images at the same viewing size. Comparing pixel level noise makes no sense at all when comparing a 36 megapixel camera to a bunch of less megapixel cameras. Looking at images up to 51K, it was really hard for me to tell the difference with regard to noise. DXO Mark actually bears this out, showing SNR to be basically the same between these cameras.

I just don't know where 3 stops of better high iso performance comes from. None of the numbers indicate more than a stop improvement with current Nikon full frames -- and only then at isos above 50k.

As I've stated before pixel-level makes perfect sense because there's no fixing motion blur later. Many applications don't require 36MP, so it's just more work for you (to downscale) and you still get a lesser result in the end.

The 3 stops is in comparison to the A7R (although it may actually be as little as 2 if I look more closely again), which others were insisting would be identical in performance!


EDIT: I just looked again - even "normalized" for print the A7S holds around a 1.5 stop advantage over the A7R and about a stop over the Nikon D4s. Just compare in RAW at ISO 51200 and 102400 (naturally the A7R is stuck at 25600).

[ElJamoquio]

If one-pixel blur is a problem at 36MP, then 12MP of perfection isn't going to be good enough for your application.

---------- Post added 06-21-14 at 07:59 PM ----------

The A7S has no improvement in SNR at base ISO.

The A7S has ~1/3rd stop of improvement in SNR at ~800 ISO.

It widens to ~1/2 stop at ~6400.


If you don't believe me, check out DXO's ratings. They rate the A7S to ISO3702 and the A7R to 2746. 3704/2746 = 1.348.

[DSims]

My point was just that you need to "normalize" the images. Pushing the "Print" button on DP Review rather than the "Full" button compares images at the same viewing size. Comparing pixel level noise makes no sense at all when comparing a 36 megapixel camera to a bunch of less megapixel cameras. Looking at images up to 51K, it was really hard for me to tell the difference with regard to noise. DXO Mark actually bears this out, showing SNR to be basically the same between these cameras.

I just don't know where 3 stops of better high iso performance comes from. None of the numbers indicate more than a stop improvement with current Nikon full frames -- and only then at isos above 50k.

The A7S has no improvement in SNR at base ISO.

The A7S has ~1/3rd stop of improvement in SNR at ~800 ISO.

It widens to ~1/2 stop at ~6400.


If you don't believe me, check out DXO's ratings. They rate the A7S to ISO3702 and the A7R to 2746. 3704/2746 = 1.348.

Wrong spec; you need to be looking at DR in the DxO measurements. The numbers correspond almost exactly to the observable noise in the DPR studio scene comparator.


Also, I think I overstated the importance of per-pixel noise. There are situations where it's the most important, but I agree that most of the time the noise at equivalent resolutions is more important. In either case the ability to get faster shutter speeds (which is inherently at the time of shooting, quite obviously) can be critical.

[bwana]

Hi who is thinking of getting the A7s for wildlife,nature work?? if the low light capabilities are what they say,then the perfect tool for animals who prefer the darkness & landscapes just after sunsets
any comments or suggestions welcome..I know its just hypothetical til next month when released,but to me it seems perfect. Like the D700 on steroids or something

A couple of comments regarding the A7 series:

1) For wildlife I would consider the A7R for its higher resolution; allows more crop room and has good sensitivity. I have one and love it for wide-field astrophotography, nightscapes, landscapes and wildlife (but see #3).
See: A7R New Mexico album (Every picture in this album was taken with the A7R)

2) The above said, the A7S is probably the best option for darker locales but remember the resolution... I have an A7S on pre-order for astrophotography & nightscape photography.

3) None of the A7's have great autofocus with adapted lenses but focus peaking can make up for this if you're fairly proficient with manual lenses. I use a Sigma 150-500mm (Canon EF mount) w/ a Metabones III adapter on the A7R with reasonable success but normally use it w/ manual focus and focus peaking. I'm faster in this mode than is the autofocus! I also use the Sigma zoom on a Canon 60D which does have very fast autofocus.
See: A7R & 60D Ya Ha Tinda album

4) I like both the A7S and A7R (and the Canon 60D) but for different reasons and types of photography. In a lot of cases it is simply a personal choice as to which will serve the purpose best.

I can't comment on recent Pentax offerings. My latest Pentax is a 1970's era Spotmatic (35mm film).

bwa

[Vince_Lux]

I bought the Pentax Q for extreme telephoto and extreme macro, with mitigate success, but then the photographer might be the issue. Still working on that.
The question that came up was where do I have issues, well clearly the Pentax Q is for clear daylight only.
My prosumer DSLR goes a lot further on high ISO (I find most at ISO1600 usable), but does what an APS-C can do (at this moment, still waiting to be surprised with A7S like APS-C sensors).
To go up on ISO performance we would indeed be taking flagship Canon, Nikon or Sony cameras. DXO Mark has clear results, but I also believe that is not all:

Is this some sort of competition?
IMO there are many better cameras than A7r, but A7s looks to have the lowest noise on out of camera extreme high ISO jpgs.
But with similar NR processing on RAW data from other camera, the end result might not be very different.

There is clearly a competition and if the Sony A7s would not have scored 3702 ISO, I would not be looking at it.
For comparison: if it matters to have a D610 iso a D700 Nikon for ISO performance then it matters to have the A7s compared to anything else.

It all depends on what you want to do.

Clearly there are AF considerations in wildlife, but there will always be compromises.
I'm looking for taking pictures in light situations where AF does not work since the contrast is too low, when taking pictures at ISO 25k (I really do that) I'm on manual focus, and I'm never going for fast action (well I do, but I do not expect it to work).
jpg does not matter to me, it will not deliver the result I can get with raw and this is more true when you go to Post Processing (PP).
Less pixels has some influence, but I would rather have a usable A6 (actually A3 is possible) size then a not usable A0. 12mpix is plenty, in the past I used to shoot at 8, which gave a fine results for my purpose, albeit limiting some more.

Now I do believe that DXO Mark uses the sensor data when they can, that is without processing. Even raw files are processed in some way.
So what is the result of the out of camera file is already unclear + what will be the result after PP even more. Some noise is easier to work work away then other.

The sad thing about this conclusion is that it is personal, it depends on shooting style, on PP style and what you want to do with the picture at the end.

So the A7s is not a wildlife shooters dream, mostly they will use a high fps, high ISO performance and super multiple axis tracking AF DSLR which supports all features of the top telephoto lenses. The Sony A7s does not do that. However someone on a budget might be able to complement their system with a Alfa 7S for extreme low light performance.

P.S.: Budget for a minimum high spec wildlife set-up is around 17K€ for me. Second hand manual, DIY gets close to that for 4k€, so I do see some potential for alternative wildlife set-ups with the Sony A7S.

[Digitalis]

People gloating about test resolution figures when the topic is wildlife photography? In the field you are lucky if you can achieve optimal IQ. As lenses get longer atmospheric conditions can interfere, you have to use faster shutter speeds to counter camera shake and even then there may still be subject motion. Clean ISO 3200 means nothing if you are shooting in crappy light. It is one thing to wave around test charts and claim that this or that camera is the best at whatever ISO - doing this completely ignores the operational, ergonomic and practical aspects of what makes a good wildlife field camera*.

*Personally I think mirror less cameras have a considerable amount of development to go through before they can match traditional DSLRs in terms of AF speed FPS, battery life, build quality and most importantly - lens selection, there aren't any lenses over 300mm designed specifically to take advantage of the short back focus -you have to use the the big heavy Sony 500mm F/4.0G which has no IS and is designed for an SLR. I use a Nikon D4s with a Nikkor 400mm f/2.8G VR, using a Nikkor 2X teleconverter I can get images that would be practically impossible to obtain with any sony mirrorless camera.

enjoy looking at High iso test charts, I'll be out getting photos.


Nikon D4s Nikkor 400mm f/2.8G ED VR 2X Nikkor teleconverter - ISO 800 @ f/9.5 1/500th

i've heard that the shutter is loud. Would that spook the animals?

I have done wildlife photography with a Pentax 67 and that has a loud shutter and profoundly audible mirror slap, never had an issue with wildlife.