Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-18-2019, 10:52 AM   #91
Pentaxian
Dan Rentea's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 1,041
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
What you do is cherry pick data points. Why are you comparing the A9 to the 5DIV? If we want to compare lets compare cameras that are actually going to target the same users. Compare the Sony A7III and the Canon 5DIV. The Sony A7III has a DR of 14.7 EV and costs under $2,000. The Canon 5DIV has an DR of 13.6 and a cost of $1,000 more than the A7III.

The A9 is designed for speed, AF, and to be used with the electronic shutter most of the time. The A9 competes with the 1DX which it matches or beats in pretty much every measurable category including price.


What about the A7rIII, which camera does that compare to? The 5DSR. How do those compare in terms of cost and performance.?


A7II would compare to the Canon 6DII or the new EOS-RIP.
Ha ha, you really like specs, don't you?

See in the video how A7R III compares to EOS R, just for the fun of the discussion. And I just pointed out that the user manual from A7II said that it has the af sensibility from -1 to +20. Not only that, but even the guy of who's review you posted said that A7 II struggled in low light and that he should have kept his 6D and wait for A7 III. So, it seems that there are a lot of arguments that you like to skip and you just like to throw in some comments with no real back-up, exactly like this afirmation "The A9 competes with the 1DX which it matches or beats in pretty much every measurable category including price". But I will wait for the RP to become available for rent and if you are still think that A7 II is a better camera, I will show you by filming how good the af is in low light and how the dynamic range is so much better in real life.

Until then, put some images taken with A9 and with 1Dx II and let's see where does Sony beats Canon. In fps? Yes. Other than that...it's just smoke for beginners or for the ones in love with comments like that.

1Dx II is also designed for speed and durability. And strangely, it also has a better dynamic range than A9 with it's latest tech.

Here is a file taken with 5D Mark IV. I will take A7 III to a wildlife session and see how good it is in image quality and tracking compared to my 5D. I have some doubts that A7 III has more details in the files, but until I put both of them to real work I don't want to make false assumptions like you do.




Last edited by Dan Rentea; 02-18-2019 at 11:12 AM.
02-18-2019, 12:03 PM   #92
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 6,359
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
Ha ha, you really like specs, don't you?

See in the video how A7R III compares to EOS R, just for the fun of the discussion. And I just pointed out that the user manual from A7II said that it has the af sensibility from -1 to +20. Not only that, but even the guy of who's review you posted said that A7 II struggled in low light and that he should have kept his 6D and wait for A7 III. So, it seems that there are a lot of arguments that you like to skip and you just like to throw in some comments with no real back-up, exactly like this afirmation "The A9 competes with the 1DX which it matches or beats in pretty much every measurable category including price". But I will wait for the RP to become available for rent and if you are still think that A7 II is a better camera, I will show you by filming how good the af is in low light and how the dynamic range is so much better in real life.

1Dx II is also designed for speed and durability. And strangely, it also has a better dynamic range than A9 with it's latest tech
You didn't answer the question. Why are you comparing the A9 to the 5DIV? These are two different cameras for different photographers.

I'm not skipping anything. I'm the one who posted the article you are referring to. I wouldn't have posted it if I was trying to "skip" the points the guy made. You keep trying to twist things around.

The DR of the 1DXII and the A9 is basically the same at base ISO and the Sony has a slight but rather irrelevant advantage over ISO 640 and above.


Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting
02-18-2019, 12:35 PM - 1 Like   #93
Pentaxian
Dan Rentea's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 1,041
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
You didn't answer the question. Why are you comparing the A9 to the 5DIV? These are two different cameras for different photographers.

I'm not skipping anything. I'm the one who posted the article you are referring to. I wouldn't have posted it if I was trying to "skip" the points the guy made. You keep trying to twist things around.

The DR of the 1DXII and the A9 is basically the same at base ISO and the Sony has a slight but rather irrelevant advantage over ISO 640 and above.


Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting
Because you said you have A9. That's why I posted the comparation image where the top of the line camera (Sony A9) has no advantage over an older camera in terms of image quality. And because for weddings your A9 has no advantage over 5D Mark IV except a little better af-c.

And because you keep saying about Canon cameras that have average technology at best but you don't have arguments or images to back up your comments. And because you say that A7 II is a better camera than EOS RP but again, you don't have any arguments except reading specs.

Start proving something rather than just posting comments with no arguments. Post some of your images in which Sony A7 III or A9 have better image quality than 5D Mark IV or 1Dx II. Because you keep posting some other people reviews and nothing from your side. I posted just for fun a Youtube video where A7R III is not blowing EOS R as it should have if you read specs and internet reviews. So, you see, people can demonstrate anything on internet. I just want to see arguments by your side for each comment in which you say Sony is better, Sony does better and so on.

Again, I have more images to show you taken with Sony but as long as you don't show anything to prove your point, I'm not going to search images on my hard drives.

Last edited by Dan Rentea; 02-18-2019 at 12:54 PM.
02-18-2019, 12:51 PM   #94
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 6,359
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
Because you said you have A9. That's why I posted the comparation image where the top of the line camera (Sony A9) has no advantage over an older camera in terms of image quality.
What I own has nothing to do with how cameras compare.


What you posted was OOC JPEGs taken with two different cameras, at different settings, and with different lenses. One with a flash and one without a flash. I don't even know what the JPEG setting were for NR, sharpening, or saturation. Firmware versions? Other than the person in the picture being the same person, there is nothing of value in comparing those two images. Its obvious the Canon image has more NR applied, but other than that, not much to tell.

02-18-2019, 12:56 PM   #95
Pentaxian
Dan Rentea's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 1,041
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
What I own has nothing to do with how cameras compare.


What you posted was OOC JPEGs taken with two different cameras, at different settings, and with different lenses. One with a flash and one without a flash. I don't even know what the JPEG setting were for NR, sharpening, or saturation. Firmware versions? Other than the person in the picture being the same person, there is nothing of value in comparing those two images. Its obvious the Canon image has more NR applied, but other than that, not much to tell.
Are you willing to lose your A9 if I prove you that the 5D image has no noise reduction applied?

And please stop telling me how cameras compare on specs. Show me how they compare in real life.
02-18-2019, 01:11 PM   #96
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 6,359
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
Are you willing to lose your A9 if I prove you that the 5D image has no noise reduction applied?

And please stop telling me how cameras compare on specs. Show me how they compare in real life.
Its an OOC JPEG. They all have NR applied in camera. Even the Sony has some level of NR applied by default to the OOC JPEGs. Of course I'm assuming those are OOC JPEGs because they are to poor of quality to have been processed from RAW files.
02-18-2019, 01:24 PM   #97
Pentaxian
Dan Rentea's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 1,041
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
Its an OOC JPEG. They all have NR applied in camera. Even the Sony has some level of NR applied by default to the OOC JPEGs. Of course I'm assuming those are OOC JPEGs because they are to poor of quality to have been processed from RAW files.
Those are both RAW files just converted in Lightroom in JPEG. The 5D image was resized to 24mp to match the A9 resolution.

Asumptions, guessing, verdicts based on specs... Please feel free to quote me when you will have:

- your files taken in real life shooting condition in which we can see how A7 III is better than 5D Mark IV, EOS R, EOS RP
- your files where A9 is better than 1Dx Mark II in image quality

I'm not asking for af tests because those takes too much time, patience and a photographer that has enough experience in shooting with both systems.

Until then, with all the respect I have for you and for all the forum members, I'm not buying anything you said in this topic.
02-18-2019, 03:29 PM   #98
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 6,359
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote

Until then, with all the respect I have for you and for all the forum members, I'm not buying anything you said in this topic.
Perfect. That means you will finally stop responding to my posts.

02-18-2019, 09:17 PM   #99
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,752
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
Its an OOC JPEG. They all have NR applied in camera. Even the Sony has some level of NR applied by default to the OOC JPEGs. Of course I'm assuming those are OOC JPEGs because they are too poor of quality to have been processed from RAW files.
How are you measuring quality??

Sometimes the difference between photos is more a result of taste than of technology or PP effort.
Raw or JPEG - PentaxForums.com
02-18-2019, 09:45 PM   #100
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 6,359
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
How are you measuring quality??

Sometimes the difference between photos is more a result of taste than of technology or PP effort.
Raw or JPEG - PentaxForums.com
Just looking at them on the screen. The lack of detail in the Canon shot made me assume that in camera NR had been applied since its pretty heavy. It might be just that the Canon has a heavier AA filter and detail is being lost. The color is obviously a matter of taste, but the color/WB appears to be off as well. I'm viewing on a 38" color calibrated ultra-wide, so I'm looking at rather large images. They probably look a lot better on an iPad or something small with a high pixel density. The Sony A9 image also looks really bad for ISO 1000. You can still see detail in the curtains and the face which is lost in the Canon version, but it still looks like an OOC JPEG.


The lack of detail in the Canon image also made me thing about this video I had seen a while back. He also notes that Canon is either losing detail or its being smoothed away. He is comparing the A7III to the 5DIII.


02-19-2019, 03:14 AM   #101
Pentaxian
Dan Rentea's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 1,041
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
Just looking at them on the screen. The lack of detail in the Canon shot made me assume that in camera NR had been applied since its pretty heavy. It might be just that the Canon has a heavier AA filter and detail is being lost. The color is obviously a matter of taste, but the color/WB appears to be off as well.
I assume you know the difference between shooting with flashes and without flashes in restaurants with lights that have different temperature and how the WB is influenced by flashes, right? And I assume also that you know the difference in detalis of an image taken at ISO 2500 without flash compared to an image taken at ISO 1000 with flashes.


QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
I'm viewing on a 38" color calibrated ultra-wide, so I'm looking at rather large images. They probably look a lot better on an iPad or something small with a high pixel density.
This is the funniest discussion ever.

The image I posted on this topic has a resolution of 1400x805px. At a 15" laptop monitor you will see the image almost as big as the screen. If you look at the same image on a 24" monitor, the only difference that you will see is the negative space around the actually image. See below how the image looks on a 24" monitor on top and how it looks on a 15" monitor (the image from the bottom). Do you want me to show you how it looks also on a 32" color calibrated Asus PA328Q monitor? It looks the same, with the only exeption being even more negative space around the actual image.




QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
The Sony A9 image also looks really bad for ISO 1000.
It doesn't look bad at all. Looks quite good at full resolution.

QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
You can still see detail in the curtains and the face which is lost in the Canon version, but it still looks like an OOC JPEG.
Do you actually think that a professsional photographer hired to shoot a wedding where I'm the godfather would have shot JPEG insted of RAW with a Sony A9 and 3 flashes? And again, you forgot that I shot at f2.8 and ISO 2500 and he shot at f3.5 with a G Master lens and 3 flashes? What would you expect, to have the same details in the Canon shot?


QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
The lack of detail in the Canon image also made me thing about this video I had seen a while back. He also notes that Canon is either losing detail or its being smoothed away. He is comparing the A7III to the 5DIII.

Skin Tones in Portraits: Canon vs Sony and How to Correct - YouTube
And I showed you a video where Sony doesn't do as good as Canon, but again:

1. I told you to look at the video with a grain of salt
2. I asked you to show some of your files where A9 or A7 III is better than EOS RP or 5D Mark IV or 1Dx II

But since you insist in proving nothing, here is another image taken with 5D Mark IV vs A9 at a real wedding. Your latest tech from A9 has no real advantage over the "average at best" technology when comes to image quality. And A7 III wouldn't have had any advantage also. These are real situations, where 2 photographers (one hired to take pictures and one as a guest/godfather at a wedding) took some similar shots without trying to compete with each other. And guess what, side by side I think the Canon image looks better in this comparation from below when I look at details on both images on a 32" monitor, knowing also the settings from each image.


Last edited by Dan Rentea; 02-19-2019 at 04:19 AM.
02-19-2019, 09:24 AM   #102
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 6,359
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
Didn't you just say you were going to stop responding to my posts. I had hoped you were a man of your word.
02-19-2019, 10:16 AM   #103
Pentaxian
Dan Rentea's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 1,041
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
Didn't you just say you were going to stop responding to my posts. I had hoped you were a man of your word.
If you stop adding comments like the one that I was responding to a few hours back, I really don't have a reason to comment. But if you add comments like the funny one with the big high resolution monitor and if you only add Youtube videos, then I must show you that you don't have real arguments for any of your comments. And I can do that with my own photos or with Youtube videos also. Because there are tons of reviews where Sony cameras are not the best, but on Youtube is normal to find lots of videos to back-up your comments if you don't have your own images as arguments.

I really hope that you are not a marketing victim. In terms of image quality between cameras that are in the same class there aren't differences as visible as you think.

For example, I said on many occasions that I didn't left Pentax because of image quality, but because of the weak system at the time when K-3 II was released and because of the poor representation of Pentax in Romania. From the things I was interested in Pentax, lots of them are not a problem today.

1. Flash system seems to be solved with Cactus, Godox and Yongnuo that started to add Pentax compatibility
2. Lenses - with the trinity of modern lenses and with the 85mm and 70-200mm f4 on the way, my problems with lenses are solved
3. Lack of a full frame as an upgrade from K-3 II - Pentax released K1 and K1 II and solved this problem also.

If the next Pentax full frame camera will improve the af by 25-30% and if it will solve also the clearing buffer problem, then as a photographer with some experience it will be very difficult to recommand Sony or Canon or Nikon given the price of Pentax cameras and lenses. I mean, Sony with all the technology and investments still can't beat Pentax or Nikon or Canon DSLRs when comes to image quality. Or maybe it does, but it seems that only on DXO tests or on Youtube videos. And they can't beat Pentax, Canon or Nikon not even with the 3th generation when comes to build quality, menus, grip and handling. And they didn't managed to find a solution not to get the sensor full of dust when you change lenses.

There is one thing that I'm afraid of when comes to Sony. They are close to do something very bad with this AI technology. They may take away all the fun when comes to shooting by giving to their cameras too much control. If the photographer will just be the person that will press the shutter button, then I really do hope that DSLR will be available at least 20 years from now.

Last edited by Dan Rentea; 02-19-2019 at 10:59 AM.
02-19-2019, 11:37 AM - 1 Like   #104
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,788
These sort of conversations don't really get us anywhere.

I'd say that form most photographers basically any recent vintage camera will be adequate, both from a noise, dynamic range and auto focus standpoint. Canon sensors are better than they used to be. Sony sensors tend to have more dynamic range in the 100-200 iso range and once you get over that are actually extremely similar in performance to Sony sensors. The A9's big claim to fame is its read out speed which allows for extremely fast frame rates.

As always, the important thing really isn't specs, it is the photographer and to a lesser extent the lens, that make the difference. I imagine a good photographer with either of the Canon MILCs will be able to generate good images.
02-19-2019, 11:49 AM   #105
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,264
Well, all cameras are designed with and end in mind. The sensor, the resolution, the frame rate ain't everything. 1D and D4/5 series were clearly designed for professional use in many aspects: the price is such that the component select may get more attention, body designed for enduring heavy use and harsh conditions. Sony have nice electronics specs, but I highly doubt they are built to take what the Canons can take. Even today, the 1D and D5 series are still the top of what can be had for ruggedness, and the imaging capabilities are fantastic, but they are big to carry around to the hobby photographer. I have a lot of 1Ds used by pros in sport venues, but I haven't seen them in touristic places where I saw a lot more small cameras. I am still amazed by the image quality of the Pentax K1 in pixel shift mode when pixel shift is application, the K1 isn't as impressive for shooting sports . Looks like the camera best in all categories is a unicorn that no camera managed to produce yet.

---------- Post added 19-02-19 at 20:05 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I imagine a good photographer with either of the Canon MILCs will be able to generate good images.
That's for sure. But what happens after people have spend thousands of dollar/euro into their Brand A camera, they never like to be told that what they purchased isn't as good as...brand B. Swap A and B , it feels the same.

---------- Post added 19-02-19 at 20:10 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
And guess what, side by side I think the Canon image looks better in this comparation from below when I look at details on both images on a 32" monitor, knowing also the settings from each image.
The lady looks like she forces herself to smile, it's much more visible than the noise difference between the two images. Imagine she would have a genuine smile on the noisiest sensor, the photograph would still look better than the image with no smile and no noise.
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!
algorithm, body, camera, cameras, canon, canon full frame, cost, ef, firmware, frame mirrorless, glass, image, images, k1, level, light, lot, m50, market, mirrorless, noise, pentax, people, photographer, pixel, price, prices, series, shift, sony
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Some questions about buying sony full frame + adapters + pentax full frame lens jhlxxx Pentax Full Frame 8 06-14-2017 05:13 PM
Canon and Nikon mirrorless full frame for Photokina? Rumour philbaum Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 10 08-16-2016 09:54 AM
From Full-Frame Sony... to Pentax... to Full-Frame Canon Mr_Canuck Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 42 01-21-2014 12:50 AM
Full frame or no full frame.... Deedee Pentax K-3 14 10-08-2013 05:39 AM
Full Frame Full Frame vanchaz2002 Pentax DSLR Discussion 30 12-11-2008 07:09 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:48 AM. | 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