Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Dynamic range of the two sensors: It's difficult to guess the DR from the 8 bit jpgs after the ACR adjustments 'to my taste'. According the latest DXO measurement, the A7RII has only a very small DR advantage compared to the IQ180 (13.9 vs. 13.6 at same print size, at pixel level the difference is a bit more).
IMO, 80 MP are mostly relevant for very large print sizes, but if a user considers +/- 40 MP resolution to be sufficient, the current 36/ 42/ 50 MP offerings in 135 format can achieve with the best lenses a picture quality which is visually equivalent to 37.5/ 40/ 50 MP crop-MF sensor systems.
The problem with the A7RII is the drastic drop of dynamic range in long exposure / extensive use of live view. You might end up finding it to have less dynamic range than the IQ180 in certain scenarios. DxOMark might gave a result based on a cool sensor or a pre-heated sensor - it's hard to guess. For best dynamic range it is still recommended to choose the Sony sensors based on the IMX094 technology, e.g. D810, IQ350 etc.Dynamic range of the two sensors: It's difficult to guess the DR from the 8 bit jpgs after the ACR adjustments 'to my taste'. According the latest DXO measurement, the A7RII has only a very small DR advantage compared to the IQ180 (13.9 vs. 13.6 at same print size, at pixel level the difference is a bit more).
IMO, 80 MP are mostly relevant for very large print sizes, but if a user considers +/- 40 MP resolution to be sufficient, the current 36/ 42/ 50 MP offerings in 135 format can achieve with the best lenses a picture quality which is visually equivalent to 37.5/ 40/ 50 MP crop-MF sensor systems.
The problem with the A7RII is the drastic drop of dynamic range in long exposure / extensive use of live view. You might end up finding it to have less dynamic range than the IQ180 in certain scenarios. DxOMark might gave a result based on a cool sensor or a pre-heated sensor - it's hard to guess. For best dynamic range it is still recommended to choose the Sony sensors based on the IMX094 technology, e.g. D810, IQ350 etc.
DPR studio test.The problem with the A7RII is the drastic drop of dynamic range in long exposure / extensive use of live view. You might end up finding it to have less dynamic range than the IQ180 in certain scenarios. DxOMark might gave a result based on a cool sensor or a pre-heated sensor - it's hard to guess. For best dynamic range it is still recommended to choose the Sony sensors based on the IMX094 technology, e.g. D810, IQ350 etc.
bad test the IQ180 image is softer than Sony A7R
I dont believe in test from a website anyway, they always bias.
The problem with the A7RII is the drastic drop of dynamic range in long exposure / extensive use of live view. You might end up finding it to have less dynamic range than the IQ180 in certain scenarios. DxOMark might gave a result based on a cool sensor or a pre-heated sensor - it's hard to guess. For best dynamic range it is still recommended to choose the Sony sensors based on the IMX094 technology, e.g. D810, IQ350 etc.
says who ? and even when this is partly true who cares ? long exposure is maybe for less than 0,0001 percent really important. we never had a tool with this performance and as cheap as the sony a7rII in hands before . but everything gets out of proportion, i don't expect kobe beef in an mac burger and i don´t expect the sony to be the ultimate and last camera....
the images are about 42 MPApologies if I have totally missed something here but I don't understand the file size of the Sony A7R II image. When I open the raw in photoshop, it is giving me a 120.7mb file.
Is that standard for the Sony A7RII? I thought due to Sony's lossy compression it was much smaller?
I mean flat/shift stitch for an angle of view of 11mm-equivalent in 35mm format. You can do that with the Canon 17mm TSE + A7R-II, but IQ180 would give you less pixel count than A7R-II does. Also, due to the lack of dynamic range with the IQ180, you ought to take more number of exposures from the IQ180 due to bracketing.If you're in a situation where you can stitch with the Sony, then you can also stitch with the IQ.
It's simply not a valid argument.
Riiight. So you're limiting the scenario where one doesn't want to capture the full 11mm FoV equivalent in 35mm format shot in a single frame.I mean flat/shift stitch for an angle of view of 11mm-equivalent in 35mm format. You can do that with the Canon 17mm TSE + A7R-II, but IQ180 would give you less pixel count than A7R-II does. Also, due to the lack of dynamic range with the IQ180, you ought to take more number of exposures from the IQ180 due to bracketing.
I enquired about this here on LuLa and apparently a difference can exist, even if only marginal, depending on certain factors. Refer here for a visual example. For what it's worth, this was my conclusion....if you can shift-stitch, you can nodal stitch. And contrary to misconceived opinion, the latter can deliver identical results to the former. It's simply a matter of how you choose to project the resulting image.