|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
03-26-2021, 03:41 AM
|
| |
Don't get me wrong. I understand very well what you were saying because I use a cheap Samsung smartphone that doesn't have a good camera for photography. My wife on the other hand takes quite nice images with her phone and when the latest phone broke after she dropped it, I wanted to buy her a small and light camera with a light lens. I found something at 750$ second hand, with 6 month of warranty. She refused because a smartphone does a better job for her than a camera with a lens. The funny thing is that I was pleasently surpised when I saw the quality of the latest Samsung phone in both photos and video. :)
What I wanted to say it's that it seems that more and more people are willing to pay 1000$ on a phone rather than spending 1000$ on 2 items (a phone + a camera with a lens) because a cheap entry level camera with a kit lens won't produce better images for the ones not really interested in photography as photographers are. Me or you have pro cameras and we expect different results from our gear and we know that a 1000$ or a 2000$ phone won't get near a pro camera in terms of image quality and that's why a smartphone isn't that appealing for us when comes to photography or video. It's not the case with people who are interested in social media, in sharing images with vibrant colors on Instagram, etc.
Speaking of phones, they do seem to pay more and more attention to photography as we can see in this link. Xiaomi?s Mi Mix smartphone will be the first in the world to use a liquid lens: Digital Photography Review |
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
03-26-2021, 02:12 AM
|
| |
Yeah, but if you add another 400$ for a compact camera or for a bridge or a second hand mirrorless/DSLR, you end up spending 700$+ and you would need to carry the camera with you on each vacation. Additionally, you would need to edit the images from cameras while on mobile phones you just apply some filters and the images are good to go on social media. Not to mention video which looks quite good on smarphones compared to cheap DSLRs or mirrorless cameras. That's why lots and lots of people tend to pay 700-1000$ for a smartphone and use it as a portable computer, as a portable gaming device, as a portable music player and as a photography/videography gear. These days it's more practical in my opinion a smartphone at 1000$ than a smartphone at 300$ and a compact/bridge/DSLR/mirrorless camera at 400-600$ with the kit lens.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
03-17-2021, 04:04 AM
|
| |
In my opinion you can use for indoor shooting 2 small softboxes which will give you more control of the light rather than umbrellas, especially if the space is small. This kind of softbox (see the link below) has also the Bowens mount flash bracket included and it's foldable. Having the bracket means that you can use later any Bowens mount modifier you want. It's a sturdy bracket and I use it even with 120cm deep octa.
Godox S-Type Bowens Mount Flash Bracket with Softbox Kit
When comes to flashes, my suggestion is to look for Godox flashes, mostly because they have a very reliable radio system and lots of flashes to choose from, all of them having transmitter and receiver built in. They are cheap also considering what they offer...
An alternative for flashes when comes to indoor shootings would be to use normal bulb lights inside the softboxes by using such cable. The advantage is that it's cheaper than buying flashes, you don't have to use a radio trigger or an optical trigger and you can see the light on the model face and how it will look like each time you adjust the position of the softbox. You can stick 1-2 bulb lights inside a softbox and you can have decent power to work with. It's how I learned to control light when I first started to add artificial light to my shootings.
For outdoor portrait photography, it doesn't worth "killing" a small flash that doesn't have enough power... The optical triggering outdoor may also be less reliable... If you really want to use a small flash outdoor, use an ND filter on the lens in order to avoid using HSS on the flash. Or, a better solution would be reflector. :)
When comes to lenses, I find suitable a 50mm lens for indoor small "studio" shootings (35mm in your case given that you shoot with APS-C) or an 85mm lens for outdoor (50-60mm in your case for K-3) or even for indoor if the space allows. The reason I suggest these 2 focal lenghts is that it allows you to have a proper distance between you and the model (not too far and not to close). I love the look of an 100mm or of an 135mm lens for portraits, but on city streets may cause some inconveniences...
I wouldn't worry too much about optical performance of the lenses when shooting indoor with flashes because you won't shoot at fast aperture and you will benefit from the quality of artificial light. Outdoor it depends... chromatic aberrations and how fast a lens focus can have an impact. I remember for example that when I was shooting Pentax I opted for DA 70mm f2.4 instead of FA 77mm f1.8 because the later had slower af and more chromatic aberrations. :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax KP
03-11-2021, 09:05 AM
|
| |
I used and use electronic shutter in the following situations:
1. Dentistry - during implant surgery, the dentist and his assistant do their work and it's a little disturbing for both the doctor and the patient to hear click click click for 1-2 hours. :)
2. Educational projects - There is a company I collaborate with who has a project that involve highschool students and theaters. Basically the teenagers have to create a story and present it on theater stage as a play in front of lots of people and actors. In exchange they benefit of free entries to actual theaters play. Given that most of the acting is quite static, I can use electeonic shutter at low shutter speeds to avoid banding without disturbing the public.
3. I use it on wildlife also if the birds are static.
I haven't seen differences in terms of image quality between electronic and mechanical shutter. I can take 2 shots with both electronic and mechanical shutter if you or anyone else want to pixel peep to see if there are visible differences in quality.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
03-11-2021, 01:36 AM
|
| |
Again, clickbait. :) It's the same as "Pentax is in the stone age" remark that I see on other forums.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
03-11-2021, 01:20 AM
|
| |
Sure, but even my K-5 II got some drops of water inside the top LCD when used in bad weather. I learned my lesson and since then I have a rain cover in my backpack. :) Also, it is possible that the bottom in the new Sony models to have some protection but we don't know until someone will make a video in this regard. What I wanted to point out is that the word "junk" is a bold statement which in my opinion doesn't have any kind of arguments other than a personal opinion of someone who most certain doesn't have experience with Sony cameras. As with every manufacturer, we see pro photographers using their Sony, Pentax, Fuji, Oly, Canon, Nikon, Panasonic cameras in quite challenging conditions. That's why I can't agree with such bold statements when comes to gear in general, being Sony, Pentax, Nikon, Canon, etc... It's clickbait rather than reality. :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
03-10-2021, 11:11 PM
|
| |
Lens rental said about A7R III that and I quote "So What Did We Learn Today?
Sony spoke truly. Except for the bottom this camera has thorough and extensive weather sealing, as good as any camera I’ve seen." If they said this about an older model like A7R III, then their findings seems to contradict you and they do have arguments and images to back up their findings. :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
03-10-2021, 04:13 PM
|
| |
Why would Nikon invest in Pentax as long as they have their own user base with lots of DSLR lenses available? The cost to replace D850 and D500 with new models would be a lot less than investing in a new company to produce DSLRs... :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
03-10-2021, 03:41 PM
|
| |
Almost no one if you ask me. Sony lenses aside, there are native Sigma and Tamron lenses for Sony users. And they came in f1.4 or f1.8 for the ones with or without budget.
---------- Post added 03-10-21 at 10:46 PM ----------
True, but junk is quite a bold statement and I'm not sure if our colleague is familiar with the junk cameras... It's easy to give verdicts based on info found online, but it's hard to sustain them without having some direct experience... :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
03-10-2021, 03:35 PM
|
| |
Sony "junk" and Pentax standards have something very important in common: the Sony "junk" sensors found in Pentax cameras. :)
I don't know about you, but Sony "junk" cameras are behind such images (see below), which in my opinion are beautiful "junk" images to look at. :)
That being said, a partnership sounds good to me with a right investor to help Ricoh growing the interest in Pentax system. Maybe someone who knows even a little digital marketing may help...
https://www.mariansterea.ro/index |
|
Forum: General Photography
03-09-2021, 01:46 PM
|
| |
Ah, I forgot about the magic of the ignore button that will make topics cleaner. It's not worth talking to you... Have a nice life!
---------- Post added 03-09-21 at 09:14 PM ----------
I tried the Fuji GFX 50s. Impressive image quality, but I don't need it. :) Stock photography it's not about resolution because it's completely different than the fine art market. For stock you need to shoot what's in demand, new normal lifestyle for example. Most companies or people who bought the highest licence available on Getty for example and paid 400$ for an image of mine didn't needed the maximum resolution of the image. I talk to a few top contributors and they use even A7 III with 24mp.
Another reason it's that mf is slow and at corporate events I don't want to go back to working hard to get the shot, as I did with older cameras. My clients recieve my images at 4096px resolution, so 50mp won't bring me anything other than headaches when I have to edit the big files. :)
Also, I started to take some video classes because there is a good stock opportunity and given that the videos should be short (8 to 60 seconds), R5 is tempting because its video specs will be more than enough for the next 4-5 years.
That being said, R6 is more tempting for me for photography but I'm waiting to become available for rent, both of them, so that I can test them for a week or so. :)
A medium format camera will be overkill and there is nothing tempting for me in those cameras, except image quality which would be very important if I was shooting fine art or studio or landscapes and I would sell large prints. But, I shoot a lot of corporate events, a lot of people lifestyle for stock agencies, portraits and wildlife when I have time to go out. :)
Later edit: I don't depend on photography for living. I have my own training company, I also do a lot of crypto trading. Stock photography with corporate events are just passive income that combined helps me to pay for my gear, to go to 2-4 sport events each year in different countries, to rent some gear and to go to wildlife shootings which is an expensive hobby. :D
|
|
Forum: General Photography
03-09-2021, 01:32 PM
|
| |
You're so trapped in your own comments that it's amazing how you can't see (or refuze to see) what I said. It is proven since ever that each time a camera is released, after a while people think about features they would like to see in the successor. It doesn't even matter if is K1, KP or K-3 II. This is not an assumption. You make it sound wrong if people wants more than 8 or 10 fps or video or other stuff that Ricoh added in K-3 III. People want these features, otherwise Ricoh won't add them and won't have to release new cameras just because you can deal with K-3 II and K-3 III doesn't suit you.
When people are asking if there will be a future for DSLR, according to what you said in the latest comments no one needs a better camera than what Ricoh has now. I mean, why should people buy a K-3 III if af, OVF, 4k and fps aren't features worth upgrading?
|
|
Forum: General Photography
03-09-2021, 11:57 AM
|
| |
I was thinking more about upgrading from K-3 II to K-3 III for example than upgrading from smatphone to DSLR. :) Smatphones already "killed" most of the compact cameras and if I look at a friend of mine who sold his Nikon D5300 with the kit lens because his new smartphone offer him enough image quality for what he needs (Instagram and Facebook), it seems that micro 4/3 cameras and also some of the entry level APS-C cameras with kit lenses are in the target of smartphones, at least for the ones who don't buy other lenses than the kit lens. :)
To be fair, if I wasn't shooting for stock, my EOS R would stay at home when traveling because my wife's latest Samsung phone is more capable than I thought it will be for the intended use of the images: social media.
---------- Post added 03-09-21 at 07:08 PM ----------
"I'm certain that after K-3 Mark III will be released and one or 2 years will pass, a demand for better af and more fps will arise on this forum." As you see in my comment, I wasn't pointed you. Pentax is not only about you. K-3 II came and people bought it, myself included, as an upgrade from K-5 II. Pentax K-3 III is about to come and people will buy it as an upgrade from K-3 II. Considering that K-3 III is the upgrade of the K-3 II, we can say that some will buy the latest and the greatest of Ricoh as an upgrade from what it is now the latest and the greatest of Ricoh, which is K-3 II. It's wrong? I don't think so. The same will happen once K-3 Mark IV will be released... people will buy it for maybe 16fps and 80 cross type af points.
If the specs of the new Pentax doesn't suit you and you are happy with 8fps, that's great for you. That doesn't mean that there won't be a lot of people benefiting of the 12fps and faster af. We will see how many like me there are once the K-3 will start shipping and post feedback about fps and af.
Ah, if we talk about ultimate IQ, then the lenses should have a big role here. I would like to talk about IQ with people who shoot with K1 and the new 50mm or 85mm f1.4. Because with this kind of lenses I know for sure that K1 can deliver the ultimate IQ you mentioned.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
03-09-2021, 10:52 AM
|
| |
As long as you buy a product, you increase the chance of survival of the manufacturer. There is no one who can tell you what to choose among the current offerings. This is a decision you have to make yourself. Lots of people buy cameras due to youtube reviewers and forum discussions and lots of them blame their gear after, as someone pointed out very well, instead of enjoying the gear they bought. :) The race when comes to specs will never end. It's important to upgrade only when you understand what the new camera will do to improve your shooting experience. I'm certain that after K-3 Mark III will be released and one or 2 years will pass, a demand for better af and more fps will arise on this forum. It's like that with every manufacturer, and it's called evolution. :)
|
|
Forum: General Photography
03-09-2021, 10:45 AM
|
| |
A medium format camera is useless for 99,9% of photographers mostly for price and because it can't cover a few areas as soccer games where moms and dads go with a DSLR or mirrorless. The limited selection of lenses is another aspect... Camera brands are used in discussions because not all DSLRs or mirrorless are equal so I can't say all mirrorless are better than DSLRs because as I said a few comments above, D500 in my opinion is still the best APS-C to date for sport and action. And that's why Canon, Sony and Nikon pop up in these discussions. Another reason is that Fuji and Olympus don't have full frame cameras and that's why we don't see them in the discussions where full frame cameras are involved. It will create even more confusion to people who don't understand the differences in the two formats, 4 if we add medium format and micro 4/3.
It's not image quality which makes a difference when someone is buying a new camera. It's the features... K-3 Mark III will probably have a huge advantage over KP or K-3 Mark II when comes to action due to joystick, improved af, af coverage and fps. If you agree with this, you probably can understand that such features makes mirrorless more attractive to some because of the 20fps, improved af, much larger af coverage...
|
|
Forum: General Photography
03-09-2021, 09:53 AM
|
| |
Which is exactly the point of this thread and the discussion about DSLRs and mirrorless... In the title of this topic the OP asked if there is a future for DSLRs and among other responses you just promoted a mirrorless as the best tool for a landscape shooter. :) You gave the best answer possible... it has a medium format sensor, a body of a DSLR size and a tilting screen. As you found advantages in this mirrorless medium format camera, others find small advantages in the mirrorless full frame cameras which for them makes a difference, big or small, it doesn't even matter.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
03-09-2021, 09:08 AM
|
| |
It's hard to offer a proper comment when comments are edited and changes the overall comment. :) But I try to respond to the later edits. I speak from my own perspective because I'm lucky enough to use lots of cameras. Image quality is not so much of interest to me because I'm happy even with older full frame cameras in terms of image quality. I'm interested in what technology does to make my shooting experience better. So far, eye af, the image seen in EVF before pressing the shutter and the silent shutter have been the things that brings me advantages compared to DSLRs. And the lack of front/back focusing it's also a plus. :)
First of all, no camera will make me a better photographer. :) I'm upgrading my camera only when I find one that helps me get the job faster and easier. :) Eye af helps me even in static portraiture because I don't need or have to focus and recompose or to select each time I change my composition the closest focus point to the leading eye. This saves me a lot of time in post also because I don't have to crop my images. :)
There are a lot of people who blame their gear and I don't understand why as long as they paid for it. There are also lots of people who exploit the small advantages of new cameras and technologies. Even if we remove the mirrorless from equation, we can see interest in new technologies on Pentax for example. Some will argue that K-3 Mark III isn't needed because K-3 Mark II or KP are enough, yet I'm sure that many will benefit of the 12fps for example or of the bigger OVF. :)
Anything that makes them releasing new cameras it's good for me. I don't care who will remain in the market 10 years from now as long as there will be 2 manufacturers to choose from, being Pentax and Fuji or Sony and Olympus for example. :)
---------- Post added 03-09-21 at 04:08 PM ----------
A tool is a tool. When comes to APS-C, I would pick any time of the day a D500 for action. But, I don't need a crop camera because these new full frame cameras cover the APS-C also given the trend of higher and higher mp. And another reason I don't need a crop camera is related to lenses. Best tele lenses are dedicated to full frame and if I pay the money for full frame lenses, I find some extra cash to buy a full frame camera that will be a 3 to 5 year investment. :)
There is a market for everything. As long as the demands cover the expenses, companies that offer niche products (even if I consider DSLRs far away of becoming a niche in the next 4-6 years, minimum) can be financially sustainable. :)
|
|
Forum: General Photography
03-09-2021, 07:39 AM
|
| |
I have used 5D Mark IV as my main camera, until I tested it side by side with EOS R and I sold the 5D because EOS R has an advantage when comes to shooting at fast aperture, at events. EOS R has a slight disadvantage compared to 5D Mark IV when comes to tracking, but mostly due to a lag in the EVF that it's visible when comes to shooting subjects that move erratic (birds in flight to be more specific) or when it comes to sports player that move erratic (soccer player for example). It has no problem with athletes or with cars for example. :)
I used the R6 3 weeks ago for a few shots and I used it again a few days ago and I would say it's around 30% better than 5D Mark IV when comes to tracking at fast apertures. Compared to D500 and D850, cameras that I'm familiar with, I think R6 has a 15% edge in overall tracking performance, but that's just my first impression. A more detailed feedback I can offer if the pandemic will allow me and my friends to go on a 2 days wildlife trip to Danube delta.
D500 is the best DSLR APS-C available today and I think that it doesn't have a mirrorless APS-C that can beat it. D850... I said it in this forum more than a dozen time that in my opinion is the most balanced DSLR ever made. But in terms of tracking in my opinion is behind a little both R5 and A7R IV. The sensor resolution doesn't help on a DSLR when comes to tracking... :)
|
|
Forum: General Photography
03-09-2021, 06:56 AM
|
| |
5D Mark IV has a great Af for a DSLR, not far behind D850 which is it's direct competitor. Eye Af aside, the main advantage when comes to Af is that R6 has 100% Af coverage and it has advanced subject recognition system that will make your Af to stick better on a moving subject. Then, it has eye Af which makes shooting at fast aperture (f1.2. f1.4, f1.8) a much more easy (and fast) task. On top of that it has 12fps with mechanical shutter and 20fps with the electronic shutter, while 5D Mark IV has 7fps. The difference may not count for the ones who don't shoot action or for the ones shooting at f4-f5.6, but it counts especially for the ones shooting action or for the ones shooting at fast apertures at events for example where focusing and recomposing it's almost impossible at f1.4 or f1.8 when a person is not standing still or when you don't have the time to change the focus points. :)
---------- Post added 03-09-21 at 02:01 PM ----------
Let's not confuse or misread what I wrote please because it will lead to a debate that isn't necessary. :) I said that the Af on R6 is night and day compared to 6D Mark II, which is not the premium DSLR line, it's the entry level line. And I also spoke about Canon cameras, not about Nikon DSLRs vs. Nikon mirrorless because Nikon seems to need a little more time to work on their mirrorless cameras. :)
|
|
Forum: General Photography
03-09-2021, 04:08 AM
|
| |
I see it differently. For me the mirrorless Af is better because I get the 1Dx Mark III performance at 2500$ which is the price of R6. Therefore, I don't need to pay extra 4000$ if I'm interested in Af and fps. R6 is the equivalent of 6D Mark II when comes to DSLRs and the difference in speed and Af is night and day between 6D Mark II and R6. That's the advantages I'm interested in and the ones I look for. Same when comes to 5D Mark IV and R5. It's quite a big upgrade the R5 in every single aspect.
Sure, given the huge number of lenses available for DSLRs, we may see a few more years DSLRs around us, especially due to the huge second hand market and the very cheap prices that comes with it. A Nikon D850 with around 40000 shutter clicks can be found in my country for 2100$ and a 5D Mark IV with 30000 shutter clicks for 1800$. DSLR lenses are also at the lowest prices I ever saw on the second hand market. The technology seems to move towards mirrorless and given the amount of money Canon and Nikon already invested in mirrorless, they will push as hard as they can the mirrorless trend. Once Canon and Nikon will launch their mirrorless flagship sports cameras and some of their sport and wildlife exotic lenses, I don't think they will release anything else for DSLRs... The good news is that the adapter work so good with my DSLR lenses that I don't have to worry about this aspect until my lenses will need a replacement. With the DSLR lenses I have, I'm good for the next 2-3 years. I usually upgrade my lenses after 4-5 years due to extensive use. :)
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
03-05-2021, 11:29 AM
|
| |
There was no distraction, just straight answer to the subject. You said the K3 or KP can't be beaten in terms of size and weight with lenses attached. I proved that with just 2 lenses you cover 17mm to 180mm at 2.8. And replacing the zoom lenses with small prime lenses as you did, it's the same result. I also proved that a full frame with lenses that cover 17mm to 180mm at constant f2.8 can be lighter than K1, mostly due to support of the Tamron lenses. And not just by a hair lighter, but with 2000 grams lighter. And 45$ cheaper than K1 with its f2.8 trinity lenses. So, when you had no answer to this, you chose to forget it and concentrate on the other subject that I will cover again below.
Yet, every time I post images from real life situations as arguments, you post lab results from DXO or Imaging Resources.
First of all, my example wasn't to prove that a high mp camera is better than a low resolution camera at high ISO when comes to full size images. My example was posted for the exact opposite reason, to prove that a great high ISO camera like Canon R6 from my example (with Low-Light ISO score of 3394 on DXO) has no advantage over a higher mp camera that has less capable ISO which is EOS R (with Low-Light ISO score of 2742 ISO) if I resize the image of EOS R from 30mp to 20mp to match the R6 resolution. That's why I told to Parry in my first comment that I wouldn't worry about A7R IV high ISO images, because even if it won't be in real life as good at high ISO as other low mp cameras or as good as DXO or any other lab test say it is, he will always gain 1-2 stops in terms of noise by resizing images.
If you have images taken side by side from A7R IV and lower resolution cameras like K1 or D810 for example, taken in real life conditions, we can take a look and draw some conclusions. I was able to provide an example with a just released camera with 20mp that has a much better performance than a 30mp EOS R camera, at high ISO.
When comes to resized images from high resolution cameras, even 8 points won't make a difference. Pixel peeping a resized image from 50mp to 16mp side by side with a 16mp image from a 20mp camera won't reveal a real advantage of the lower resolution camera even if the difference is bigger than 8 points when comes to high ISO performance. I realized this when I tested 5DsR side by side with 6D and 5D Mark IV. If I can find the images (I know I posted one in this forum) I will post them.
I chose the camera which we discussed in this thread from the beginning, which is A7R IV. I wasn't searching for a specific camera to make a point and since I don't look at DXO or lab tests in general, I didn't knew if A7R IV has or hasn't a good high ISO performance. And as I said, I don't care how bad it is at high ISO as long as I can gain a stop or 2 by resizing the images from 61mp to 16mp.
You're confusing the lack of experience in interpreting results of lab tests with the lack of interest in lab tests. :) Once I understood the lab tests, I also understood that they are a lot less useful than the CIPA measurements when comes to batteries life for example. :)
Look at my example because the difference is bigger. R6 has a high ISO score of 3394 while EOS R has a 2742 score. The difference in mp is 20mp vs 30mp. I think my image proves exactly what I said, that even if the higher mp camera has worse image quality at high ISO, resizing both images to 12 or 16mp will take away the R6 advantage. And bare in mind that the EOS R image was taken at 12800 ISO while R6 image was taken at 3200 ISO.
If I'm so wrong and you are so right, you can always provide me a 12800 ISO image taken by you in real life conditions with A7R IV and an image taken with K1 at 3600 ISO so we can resize both images to 16mp and see if K1 has an advantage over A7R IV with 2 stops in terms of ISO between the 2 images, as it was in my image I posted as example. :) It's that simple if you really want to make a point.
Given the very difficult light conditions from the church in my example (warm light bulbs, cold light bulbs, dark walls, yellow paintings, window lights, dark clothes, etc.) what I can say from my example is that EOS R did exceptionally well in terms of high ISO and color reproduction given the 2 stops difference in terms of ISO and it's even more obvious once both images were resized. And as I said, I wouldn't have any kind of problem to provide that image taken at ISO 12800 to a client once it's resized to 4000px on the long edge. So, in my opinion it's far away of being an unacceptable image, as you implied. Not to mention that I also can apply some noise reduction on it if I don't want to resize it and it would still be usable at full size resolution.
As far as I'm concerned, K1 can be according to DXO and according to real life shooting conditions 2 stops better than A7R IV at high ISO. I said and I repeat, as long as A7R IV will match the noise performance once both images are resized to 16mp, then the one who's shooting with A7R IV has less to worry about, which is exactly what I said in my first comment and I quote myself "I wouldn't worry at all about noise. The advantage of a high resolution sensor is that if you resize the image from 61mp to 20mp you "gain" close to 2 stops in terms of noise.". As you can see, I already had in mind the idea that A7R IV has or may have worse high ISO performance compared to a lower resolution camera when I made this affirmation.
I strongly suggest you to stop offending people you know nothing about. You don't know who I hang out with and therefore I expect apologies here. You can contradict me on a subject without offending me or my friends by telling they don't have a clue about photography.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
03-05-2021, 02:43 AM
|
| |
If I take the DXO test as the absolute and incontestable truth, then I would care even less about the noise on A7R IV because according to DXO, A7R IV has a better noise performance than Pentax K1, with extra 25 more mp on Sony camera.
DXO results for Pentax K1:
Portrait (Color Depth): 25.4 bits
Landscape (Dynamic Range): 14.6 Evs
Sports (Low-Light ISO): 3280 ISO
Overall Score: 96
DXO results for Sony A7R IV:
Portrait (Color Depth): 26 bits
Landscape (Dynamic Range): 14.8 Evs
Sports (Low-Light ISO): 3344 ISO
Overall Score: 99
I already posted the total price of K1 II with the trinity of lenses vs. Sony A7R IV with the Tamron new trinity of lenses and Sony was 45$ cheaper and 2070g lighter while having basically 2 cameras in one: a 61mp full frame and a 26mp APS-C camera which according to DXO will take better high ISO images than K1.
But, there are many reasons I don't look at DXO or lab tests and the most important one is the fact that I'm interested in what a camera can do in real life situations, in the day by day shooting conditions where I normally use the camera. DXO tests in controlled environment, with camera on a tripod, means absolutely nothing to me. A few weeks ago I was the godfather at a christening. I gave my camera to my nephew and the ISO was set to Auto ISO with the upper limit of 12800 ISO. The official photographer had Canon R6 which among other things is very good at high ISO. I saw the differences when we received the full resolution images compared to my EOS R in terms of noise performance at same ISO. That being said, resized both of the images taken with R6 and EOS R to 2048px on the long edge for normal view on social media or websites, the difference in terms of noise was gone, which is why I said that resizing an image helps when comes to overall noise.
Here is an example with me being photographed by my almost 12 years old nephew and by the official photographer. The image taken by my nephew was at ISO 12800 because he had exposure compensation on +1 also and I was a little against the direction of the light. I also cropped the head from both images at 100% so that you can see there is a noticeable difference in terms of noise if the files are seen at full size resolution and zoomed in.
I would have no problem sending the 12800 ISO image from this example to a client, resized from 6700px which is the normal file size of EOS R to 4096px (4k resolution) because at 4k resolution the clients won't tell the difference between my image taken at 12800 ISO and the image taken by the official photographer at 3200 ISO, unless they pixel peep each and every image. I wouldn't trade my EOS R with its DXO Sports (Low-Light ISO) score of 2742 ISO for R6 with its (Low-Light ISO) score of 3394 ISO because resizing my files from 30mp to 20mp close the gap between the two cameras in terms of noise. I would trade my EOS R for R6 for other reasons, eye af being the most important of them. :)
The noise on the head can be better viewed by clicking the Download the original image button. The zooming button on the link messes up the images.
 |
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
03-04-2021, 11:01 PM
|
| |
Normhead, this tips regarding noice and how to reduce it by resizing the images I got at various meetings with pro wildlife and even wedding photographers, a few of them being ambassadors of some camera brands they were using at that time. They do this since D800 came out, they were doing it with 5DsR and they now doing it with their new high mp cameras. I do it since I got 5D Mark IV and resizing the files from 30mp to 20mp I gained an aditional half a stop in terms of noise compares to 6D files. It's such a common and used "technique" that I'm actually surprised you don't know about it.
In practice, there are not many who will use more than a few times 6400 ISO on cameras like 5DsR, which was released for studio photographers and it wasn't optimized for high ISO at that time (6 years ago), so it's a less chance to get major artifacts at this ISO. For those few occasions when you shoot at ISO 6400, you have the resize option to make the image look with less noise. Since you promote Imaging Resource as your trusty source when comes to cameras and lenses, you can see in their article that even at ISO 6400 you can get a nice big print from A7R IV. I quote from Imaging Resource "ISO 6400 prints begin to show some detail loss, particularly in our fabric swatches, but detail elsewhere in our test image, particularly higher contrast areas, are still pleasing and sharp. Noise is definitely noticeable in the shadow areas. Again, the A7R IV can print a size better at this ISO than the former model, allowing for a very good 16 x 20 inch print. A 20 x 30 might be possible with careful image editing and processing."
If a 16 x 20 inch print look very good at 6400 ISO, then a resized image from the same camera will look even better in terms of noise once it's resized from 61mp to 20mp for viewing it on screen.
If you want to make a point with ISO 16000 or even more where some artifacts may become a problem, go ahead. I don't care much about artifacts at ISO 16000 or more because I wouldn't buy a Sony A7R IV to shoot at such ISO. And I don't shoot things so that in post I have to push more than 2 stops the shadows because I'm careful with the exposure as much as I can and seeing the image in viewfinder before pressing the shutter also helped in this regard. I would resize instead a ISO 6400 image from 61mp to 30mp to gain a stop in terms of noise if I would have to send the images to a client. Because Normhead, I send images to clients, not test charts, and if this method helped all the pro photographers who shared this tip to me, it sure helps me also. :)
Here is the link of the Imaging Resource article.
Sony A7R IV Review - Image Quality
Also, at comments no. 68 and 84 I pointed out how light and small a full frame can be with only 3 lenses that can cover the focal lenghts from 17mm to 180mm, at a fast f2.8 aperture. Or how light and small an APS-C can be with only 2 f2.8 lenses (Tamron 17-70mm and Tamron 70-180mm). And guess what, the full frame combo is 2000 grams easier than K1 with equivalent lenses and it's even 40$ cheaper. That's the power of third party support that makes Sony more appealing than Canon and Nikon mirrorless for the ones on a budget or for the ones who want a light combo with high performance.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
03-04-2021, 09:48 AM
|
| |
I wouldn't worry at all about noise. The advantage of a high resolution sensor is that if you resize the image from 61mp to 20mp you "gain" close to 2 stops in terms of noise. :)
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
03-04-2021, 05:38 AM
|
| |
Yes, I would probably wait a little to see the official announcement of A7 IV before buying any Sony camera. It should be a very interesting camera knowing the specs and performance of A7R IV, A7S III and A1.
|
