| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/24/2014 09:07:47 AM · #1 |
| High ISO Compared: Sony A7S vs. A7R vs. Canon EOS 5D III Interesting review. |
|
|
|
06/24/2014 11:58:57 AM · #2 |
|
|
|
06/24/2014 12:09:27 PM · #3 |
interesting but is it really important?
i guess since i rarely ever shoot about ISO 1600 and even then its just for fun. how many people have the need to shoot at these extreme ISOs? |
|
|
|
06/24/2014 12:28:06 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Mike:
interesting but is it really important?
i guess since i rarely ever shoot about ISO 1600 and even then its just for fun. how many people have the need to shoot at these extreme ISOs? |
Personally I think it's important...I am often in the 1600 to 3200 or above range! If you ever shoot theatre, or tripod-less landscapes after golden hour, or casual indoor shots...how can you avoid it? I have a 50mm F1.4 but that's not the best focal range. My RX100 is F1.8 when wide which is good, but I still have had to shoot many shots in the 3200-6400 range, like at a wedding party the other night (just a guest).
I was out with my D600 on a photo walk last night with my 28-300...late golden hour...definitely 3200 territory. |
|
|
|
06/24/2014 12:42:32 PM · #5 |
ok, i can see even up to 6400
but 102,400 or even 204,800? its great the camera can go that high but is it even practical? |
|
|
|
06/24/2014 01:01:20 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Mike:
ok, i can see even up to 6400
but 102,400 or even 204,800? its great the camera can go that high but is it even practical? |
For photojournalism it can be quite important. Otherwise I share some of your feelings - not great improvement for files up to 6400 ISO. I'd like to see much better peformances in the 3200-6400 ISO range. |
|
|
|
06/24/2014 01:25:48 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Originally posted by Mike:
ok, i can see even up to 6400
but 102,400 or even 204,800? its great the camera can go that high but is it even practical? |
For photojournalism it can be quite important. Otherwise I share some of your feelings - not great improvement for files up to 6400 ISO. I'd like to see much better peformances in the 3200-6400 ISO range. |
The issue I see is this.
What journalist is going to use any of those three cameras? |
|
|
|
06/24/2014 01:28:50 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Originally posted by Mike:
ok, i can see even up to 6400
but 102,400 or even 204,800? its great the camera can go that high but is it even practical? |
For photojournalism it can be quite important. Otherwise I share some of your feelings - not great improvement for files up to 6400 ISO. I'd like to see much better peformances in the 3200-6400 ISO range. |
The issue I see is this.
What journalist is going to use any of those three cameras? |
Why not? |
|
|
|
06/24/2014 01:54:01 PM · #9 |
More importantly, and more practically, these cameras give the expert operator an 'edge'. Essentially, you can do things with the S model that you just cannot do with any other (non military, or at least terribly expensive) camera.
Like what? Like taking pictures in the dark. Like taking video in the dark.
Yeah, it's just a little bit better than the previous best - still, it is better, and if you're looking for that particular edge, the S model makes sense.
However, speaking as the owner of a 5D classic, I'm really quite pleased with the image quality that it produces, even nine years after it was released. Sure, there are some improvements in the best modern cameras, but they really are modest, and to my eye, smooth gradients, like a cloudless sky, look better out of my 5D than anything else I own.
Here, take a look at the measurements tab of this comparison of the a7S, the 5D original, and a crop body 30D from the late portion of the 5D's lifespan.
Note that the difference between the 5D and the 30D is about the same as the difference between the a7S and the 5D. Yeah, it's a difference, but it's anything but radical. Interestingly the a7S is about the same as the D800 in most performance measurements, which is stellar by all measures, but it doesn't look to be significantly better than the D800, except for low-light high ISO video, where it probably holds an edge.
I think this comparison posted by the OP would have been more interesting if they had included a camera with a *good* sensor like the D800 instead of that 5D MkIII, since it's sadly obvious that my beloved Canon has fallen somewhat behind in terms of sensor performance. Oh well, they're promising a 'radically different' technology in the 7D II over at Canon Rumors, maybe that'll be something really impressive.
Message edited by author 2014-06-24 13:57:42. |
|
|
|
06/24/2014 05:05:18 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Originally posted by Mike:
ok, i can see even up to 6400
but 102,400 or even 204,800? its great the camera can go that high but is it even practical? |
For photojournalism it can be quite important. Otherwise I share some of your feelings - not great improvement for files up to 6400 ISO. I'd like to see much better peformances in the 3200-6400 ISO range. |
The issue I see is this.
What journalist is going to use any of those three cameras? |
Why not? |
In general none of those cameras are built to take the work load a working Professional Photojournalist will put on a camera. The conditions and demands are much greater than those are reliably built for. Are there some that might use them? Sure. But I'd bet 90% or higher journalists use a flagship camera from Nikon or Canon.
Matt |
|
|
|
06/24/2014 06:32:24 PM · #11 |
and wake me when Sony makes these Canon mount...
|
|
|
|
06/24/2014 07:25:02 PM · #12 |
If anything it highlights the noise problems that mirrorless cameras are going to deal with due to the smaller sensor. We're comparing the current state of the art noise-reducing technology with technology that is at least two years old and it barely wins.
What will we expect when the Mark IV comes out? Unless the smart guys at Sony are somehow way smarter than the smart guys at Canon, we're gonna see a lot of improvement in the Canon noise-reduction technology.
Message edited by author 2014-06-24 19:26:15. |
|
|
|
06/25/2014 12:31:51 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If anything it highlights the noise problems that mirrorless cameras are going to deal with due to the smaller sensor. We're comparing the current state of the art noise-reducing technology with technology that is at least two years old and it barely wins.
What will we expect when the Mark IV comes out? Unless the smart guys at Sony are somehow way smarter than the smart guys at Canon, we're gonna see a lot of improvement in the Canon noise-reduction technology. |
Who says mirrorless necessarily has a smaller sensor?
The Sony A7 / A7R and A7S have full frame sensors.
The Sony A7R has the same sensor as the D800.
(And mirrorless cameras can use Canon or Nikon lenses...though with native Zeiss, and adapters for Leica etc., not sure that's really important.)
Personally, I believe mirrorless is the future. It's a blood thirsty business. ;)
Message edited by author 2014-06-25 00:34:59. |
|
|
|
06/25/2014 01:59:44 AM · #14 |
You are right Neil. I forgot there are full frame versions now that are quite spendy if I recall.
It might be. I'm not necessarily an early adopter. :) |
|
|
|
06/25/2014 10:05:56 AM · #15 |
I'm with Neil, Mirrorless is the future. Nikon and Canon keep pushing out slightly newer versions of the same stuff, while the mirrorless guys are catching up quickly, and Sony in particular is coming out with some really innovative products..
I went to a street fair last weekend, and nobody was shooting with DSLR's. Lots of phones, and a healthy number of mirrorless, but no DSLR's anywhere. |
|
|
|
06/25/2014 10:20:39 AM · #16 |
| non-optical viewfinders suck |
|
|
|
06/25/2014 11:11:31 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
non-optical viewfinders suck |
They do... for the moment. That will change, and probably sooner than later. The slower AF is also, and again temporarily, an issue. Once those hurdles are cleared, why would I still want the mechanical nightmare that is the reflex mirror system?
FWIW, I just bought another DSLR, and I really don't see mirrorless getting to the point where it is my only system for at least 5 years.
The DPReview test is revealing. the Sony cams have excellent sensors, and very good read-out and processing pipelines. Testing against only the 5DIII is a little unfair, they could have tested against the 6D as well. The 6D does out-pace the 5DIII at high ISO, and even the 6D is 18 months old.
|
|
|
|
06/25/2014 11:27:26 AM · #18 |
I don't ever see the electronic viewfinder/mirrorless camera system replacing DSLR cameras for my area of photography. Besides the fact that the size of these cameras looks ridiculous hanging off a 400MM F2.8 or 600MM F4
Matt |
|
|
|
06/25/2014 11:29:55 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by MattO:
I don't ever see the electronic viewfinder/mirrorless camera system replacing DSLR cameras for my area of photography. Besides the fact that the size of these cameras looks ridiculous hanging off a 400MM F2.8 or 600MM F4
Matt |
Heh... Oh come on Matt, it just makes the lens look even bigger! ;) |
|
|
|
06/25/2014 11:32:32 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by MattO:
I don't ever see the electronic viewfinder/mirrorless camera system replacing DSLR cameras for my area of photography. Besides the fact that the size of these cameras looks ridiculous hanging off a 400MM F2.8 or 600MM F4
Matt |
Heh... Oh come on Matt, it just makes the lens look even bigger! ;) |
Sort of like shaving to get that "optical inch"? :D
|
|
|
|
06/25/2014 11:36:45 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by MattO:
I don't ever see the electronic viewfinder/mirrorless camera system replacing DSLR cameras for my area of photography. Besides the fact that the size of these cameras looks ridiculous hanging off a 400MM F2.8 or 600MM F4
Matt |
Heh... Oh come on Matt, it just makes the lens look even bigger! ;) |
Sort of like shaving to get that "optical inch"? :D |
ROFL... Quite exactly the idea sir. :D |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/06/2025 02:14:05 PM EDT.
