Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-19-2017, 07:39 PM   #466
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 37,336
QuoteOriginally posted by Sliver-Surfer Quote
DXOMark "The Sony a9s sensor ranks as one of the best weve tested at base ISO, with consistently good scores for dynamic range and color depth, and exceptional results for noise. At those crucial mid to high ISO sensitivities for action photographers, image quality is also excellent and on par with flagship Nikon and Canon sports DSLRs."
Did you read the comparisons or is this only a report on the sensational headline.\?

06-19-2017, 08:40 PM   #467
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,558
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Did you read the comparisons or is this only a report on the sensational headline.\?
AFK
06-20-2017, 03:40 AM   #468
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 23,662
If you look at DXO Mark's actual report, what you find is that the D5, 1DX MK II and A9 have similar high iso performance (that is from 800 on). The difference is that the A9 has a little better dynamic range in the 100 to 800 iso range. Which is not what the headline says. Scores for the Canon and Nikon are 88 which is close enough that you probably couldn't tell the difference in real life shooting.

I guess the claim to fame is that Sony was able to hit 20 frames per second (in some situations) while keeping this sort of performance. Noting as well that this sort of performance is actually a step back from the performance of older cameras in low iso situations.
06-20-2017, 06:22 AM   #469
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,558
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
If you look at DXO Mark's actual report, what you find is that the D5, 1DX MK II and A9 have similar high iso performance (that is from 800 on). The difference is that the A9 has a little better dynamic range in the 100 to 800 iso range. Which is not what the headline says. Scores for the Canon and Nikon are 88 which is close enough that you probably couldn't tell the difference in real life shooting.

I guess the claim to fame is that Sony was able to hit 20 frames per second (in some situations) while keeping this sort of performance. Noting as well that this sort of performance is actually a step back from the performance of older cameras in low iso situations.
Yes they say it is "ONE of the best" but I think that is due to performance + image quality. There are sensors that will give better IQ but often that better IQ is at the expense of Time.

06-20-2017, 06:27 AM   #470
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 6,615
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
If you look at DXO Mark's actual report, what you find is that the D5, 1DX MK II and A9 have similar high iso performance (that is from 800 on). The difference is that the A9 has a little better dynamic range in the 100 to 800 iso range. Which is not what the headline says. Scores for the Canon and Nikon are 88 which is close enough that you probably couldn't tell the difference in real life shooting.

I guess the claim to fame is that Sony was able to hit 20 frames per second (in some situations) while keeping this sort of performance. Noting as well that this sort of performance is actually a step back from the performance of older cameras in low iso situations.
My guess is DxO is only comparing it to the 1DX and the D5 since those are the cameras that it is designed to compete with. For people interested in freezing action it is an excellent performer. Its not going to give you the quality and resolution of the K-1 for pixel peeping. For printing at A3+ I don't see a huge difference between my K-1 and A7II. I have never ran side by side tests of the same subject shot at the same time, but just looking through them it hard to tell the difference. I don't print on aluminum or glass which might yield more detail and give the K-1 a more obvious advantage. I primarily shoot people and brush out the skin anyway. Most of my prints are going into wedding albums where I will print a few at 12" x 12" (blurb books). Most pages have several smaller pictures on the page. The DR of these printed books is between 7-8.

I think enthusiasts often get too caught up in the numbers. I know a professional wildlife photographer who spends 6 months out of the year guiding in Africa and the rest of his time between Nashville and New York. Last time I saw him he was still shooting with the Canon 1DIV (he loves APS-H). He had 2 bodies and bought 2 more when the 1DX was released because he didn't want FF. His cameras literally stay set at ISO 1600. He shot some snow leopard cubs in great light and still shot them at ISO 1600 at 1/4000 of a second and F/5.6. Personally I think the Canon 1DIV sucks at ISO 1600. The 8x10 prints were awful in my opinion. The detail in the fur was lost and the noise was obvious, but the zoo sold thousands of those prints.
06-20-2017, 06:44 AM   #471
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 37,336
I'd be more impressed if it were top 10. That being said, as Winder points out, for some types of photography, what is captured is more important than absolute IQ. Most of the prints we have sold were taken with a K-5. I'm guessing it's noticeably better than a K-5 for large prints. So, it's all a mater of perspective.

A consensus reached after hours of debate a few years ago, was that you had to have at least 5 points difference on a DxO scale to have a significant difference. IN the K-1 to A9 comparison, the K-1 doesn't quite achieve that. Just as you might never take an image where the speed of the A9 makes a difference to the image you capture, (because you just don't do sports/action photography) you may also never take an image where the 36 MP of the K-1 makes a difference. Comparison shots between the K-5 and K-1 even on a 4k monitor are imperceptible.

These cameras are good enough, only the most skillful are going to make use of whatever the crowning feature of the camera is. For 99% of the forum shooters, they aren't going to see a difference. Except that with an A9 they are going to get very sick of going through images looking for that perfect image. I already do at 8 FPS, and at 8 FPS I also already get 6 frames of identical images shooting wildlife, where it is impossible to choose on anything but "close your eyes and stick your finger on it." If I get 6 like that on the K-3, I'd have 15 on the A9. There is a cost to that speed. In that case the speed is totally un-necessary, I probably could have the same image with a view camera and having 15 images all the same instead of one is of absolutely no benefit.

That being said, it's only a matter of time before someone says they bought one to get action pictures of their kids in the basement.

The only issues I can see, after the nit picking between this and every other top of the line camera are the price and lack of glass. If you can afford it, can can live with 4-5.6 telephoto, there's nothing wrong with it.

Any of the better photographers on the forum would find a use for that 20 FPS at some point and be happy they had it. It's only a question of if they want to pay that kind of price for a feature that may be of very little use to them. ANd still being happy with the IQ of my K-5, I'm doubting anyone would seriously notice a difference in IQ, except for the extremely anal pixel peepers, and we do have a few of those on the forum.

After days following this thread, I think that's my final conclusion.

It's been a slice, thanks to all.

Last edited by normhead; 06-20-2017 at 07:40 AM.
06-20-2017, 10:25 AM   #472
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 23,662
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
My guess is DxO is only comparing it to the 1DX and the D5 since those are the cameras that it is designed to compete with. For people interested in freezing action it is an excellent performer. Its not going to give you the quality and resolution of the K-1 for pixel peeping. For printing at A3+ I don't see a huge difference between my K-1 and A7II. I have never ran side by side tests of the same subject shot at the same time, but just looking through them it hard to tell the difference. I don't print on aluminum or glass which might yield more detail and give the K-1 a more obvious advantage. I primarily shoot people and brush out the skin anyway. Most of my prints are going into wedding albums where I will print a few at 12" x 12" (blurb books). Most pages have several smaller pictures on the page. The DR of these printed books is between 7-8.

I think enthusiasts often get too caught up in the numbers. I know a professional wildlife photographer who spends 6 months out of the year guiding in Africa and the rest of his time between Nashville and New York. Last time I saw him he was still shooting with the Canon 1DIV (he loves APS-H). He had 2 bodies and bought 2 more when the 1DX was released because he didn't want FF. His cameras literally stay set at ISO 1600. He shot some snow leopard cubs in great light and still shot them at ISO 1600 at 1/4000 of a second and F/5.6. Personally I think the Canon 1DIV sucks at ISO 1600. The 8x10 prints were awful in my opinion. The detail in the fur was lost and the noise was obvious, but the zoo sold thousands of those prints.
It isn't an attention grabbing headline, but something like "A9 matches performance of older cameras while having a high frame rate" would be more accurate.

The reality is that DXO Mark doesn't rate any of their cameras based on video, resolution (print button normalizes everything at 8 megapixels), or frame rates, so if they are including those things in their headline then it certainly is beyond the scope of their "review."

I wish there were more improvements in dynamic range or high iso performance. The idea that the only way forward is to increase frame rate or resolution while keeping those other things the same leaves me a bit cold.

06-20-2017, 11:26 AM   #473
Pentaxian
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Newrfoundland
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,666
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I wish there were more improvements in dynamic range or high iso performance. The idea that the only way forward is to increase frame rate or resolution while keeping those other things the same leaves me a bit cold.
Based on the a9 marketing rollout, I get the feeling Sony is going to adhere to their existing mantra by introducing a type-r and -s series off the same system. At which point, we'd likely see something closer to a 60mp sensor following the same characteristics as the a7r II

Or... I could be way off and Sony will just refresh their existing a7r II series to cater to their existing consumer pricing strategy, whereas the a9 series will be reserved for the upper-end segment.

Whatever the case, I think it's going to be interesting to see what Sony will deliver in terms of their low light and resolution systems this round.
06-20-2017, 12:49 PM   #474
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 6,615
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I wish there were more improvements in dynamic range or high iso performance. The idea that the only way forward is to increase frame rate or resolution while keeping those other things the same leaves me a bit cold.
Fuji and Panasonic have been working on organic sensor technology for several years. The main advantage of the technology is the significant improvement in DR compared to traditional CMOS. Apparently the technology is power hungry and hot so it is only being used in industrial applications where they can run liquid cooling (last I heard). Fujifilm Announces Organic Sensor Tech Update with Panasonic
06-22-2017, 10:56 AM   #475
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 37,336
QuoteOriginally posted by JohnBee Quote
Not enough initial testing. Testers like Kenspo delayed the release of the 70-200 for almost a year with a problem they reported while using the lens. Thorough testing before release alleviates those kinds of problems.
06-22-2017, 10:57 AM   #476
Pentaxian
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Newrfoundland
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,666
Apparently, DPReview has recently learned that the Sony a9 is better than they first anticipated (or measured)

And so now, apparently, the Sony a9 is touted as being "as sharp" as the a7r II
QuoteQuote:
Our initial testing showed equivalent sharpness between the 55 and 85mm F1.8 lenses on even a high-resolution a7R II (see below).

Sony a9(left) vs a7r II(right)

No clue what this means in terms of detail retention personally, but the choice of wording here seems rather confusing.
With that said, and with regard to the so-called latest findings, and assuming that I've understanding correctly, if a 24mp sensor can match an otherwise older 42mp sensor, then I'd say the outlook for the high resolution version of this particular sensor will be nothing short of spectacular.

Whatever the case, this camera release seems to be turning into quite the saga
06-22-2017, 10:59 AM   #477
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 37,336
QuoteOriginally posted by JohnBee Quote
Apparently, DPReview has recently learned that the Sony a9 is better than they first anticipated (or measured)

And so now, apparently, the Sony a9 is touted as being "as sharp" as the a7r II



Sony a9(left) vs a7r II(right)

No clue what this means in terms of detail retention personally, but the choice of wording here seems rather confusing.
Whatever the case, this camera release seems to be turning into quite the saga
If you look at the stats, Canon has always had sensors that produced more resolution in lw/ph for less MPs than Sony sensors. Maybe this is the one where Sony catches up.
06-22-2017, 04:53 PM   #478
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 6,615
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by JohnBee Quote
Apparently, DPReview has recently learned that the Sony a9 is better than they first anticipated (or measured)

And so now, apparently, the Sony a9 is touted as being "as sharp" as the a7r II



Sony a9(left) vs a7r II(right)

No clue what this means in terms of detail retention personally, but the choice of wording here seems rather confusing.
With that said, and with regard to the so-called latest findings, and assuming that I've understanding correctly, if a 24mp sensor can match an otherwise older 42mp sensor, then I'd say the outlook for the high resolution version of this particular sensor will be nothing short of spectacular.

Whatever the case, this camera release seems to be turning into quite the saga
I find it hard to believe that a 24MP sensor with and AA filter is capturing as much detail as a 42MP without and AA filter. Sounds like the lens might be the limitation. I own the 55mm FE and it is very very sharp if you have a good copy.
06-22-2017, 07:35 PM   #479
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,913
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
Sounds like the lens might be the limitation.
No surprises there with DPR. DPR have been all over the place with the lenses they use for their studio test scene, particularly for Pentax, with varying results for sharpness, colour rendition, plane of focus etc.

Their K-3 samples were shot with a FA 50 f2.8 Macro, and the result is sharp and bright. Then they switched to using a different lens (the DA*55) for the K-3II, and the image looks softer and the colours and brightness changed too. Subsequent studio test images for the K-70 & K-P were also shot with the DA*55. And to muddy the waters even further, for the K-1, DPR decided to use the FA 77 to shoot the studio test image.

They should stick to using one lens for their studio tests (across platforms), as Imaging Resource does. They use the Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro wherever possible.
06-22-2017, 09:36 PM   #480
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: mid nth coast,nsw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,608
DiaPeReview, got it wrong again?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
a7r, accuracy, af, camera, cameras, canon, dr, ev, fps, image, landscape, market, minolta, mp, nikon, pentax, pm, press, price, professionals, quality, sensor, shooter, shooters, sony, sony a9, technology, users, video, wrt
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sony A9 $6799 surfar Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 9 04-02-2017 01:51 AM
Sony A9 to be a DSLR-Like Camera with Unlimited RAW Burst: Report Sliver-Surfer Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 8 04-07-2016 07:13 PM
D FA 24-70mm F2.8 ED SDM WR Officially Announced Adam Pentax News and Rumors 557 02-25-2016 04:39 AM
New Sony A7II and A9 with IBIS Clavius Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 206 12-12-2014 05:37 PM
Sony A7 and A7r Officially Announced (Full frame supporting K-mount adapter!) Adam Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 152 04-23-2014 01:48 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:59 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top