So what is this new "focus hold function" they talk about?
Well, #1 seems to have less or more controlled noise throughout the frame. And I'm sticking with my definition as I see it in other parts of the image
For me iso 3200 is a "good lighting" night. I'm routinely into 6400 and 12800 so if they've manage to improve those files without excessive NR I'm happy.
I see the same amount of noise in both but to me #1 has better sharpness/contrast.
Well the bad news folks is that I agree, #1 look overall less noisy and the noise is more even. And it's the old firmware :-(
I'm sorry, but to me these cameras see in the dark anyway. Have any of you seen ISO 3200 film lately? ;-)
The quality of noise on a +2/3 EV exposure, pushed another two stops, at ISO 3200 isn't really of much use in evaluating performance to me. I'm more interested in what the best they can do with correct exposure might be.
Firmware download has completed. No time to work on installation just at the moment, but I'm ready.
The crops I show aren't, therefore, boosted two stops in LR to correct them, but to bring out the noise for a comparison...
1 Member(s) liked this post
Artificially pushing the gain up to reveal a noise characteristic is interesting, yes, but it's the noise characteristic of a severely bent up dynamic range. While it can be curious and even interesting to work in that characteristic from time to time for aesthetic reasons, I don't really consider it indicative of the sensor output in the 'correct' exposure range it was designed for.
Just a difference of opinion...
Godfrey - GDGPhoto Flickr Stream
Hmmm, like a terrier with trouser leg in his teeth I'll have another go: it certainly isn't 'fair' or indicative of a sensor's performance to push it around like this if you want to see how noisy it is: but I do think that if you want to see whether a sensor has more or less noise with a different firmware version, it is useful. Sort of like making an X-Ray of an oil painting to see if it's a palimpsest! The X-Ray isn't there to show you how beautiful the painting is.
. . . . mind you, I should know better than to try and intervene in a fight between two terriers
However, I still find it interesting, and, just back from a week without I'm teetering on the brink of updating my firmware.
all the best
Just this guy you know
Don't do it Jono, IMHO it makes the ISO performance worse, at least on the A7R.
Of course I look at the files without two stops of push processing (the results being that I think the new FW is noisier) and, given that the original exposure was somewhat but not extremely ETTR, (because extreme ETTR can compress highlights on the A7r even if it doesn't clip them) I count this is as a good exposure and good enough evidence for me!
1 Member(s) liked this post
LOL! I'm a bear, not a terrier. Terriers make a good lunch snack. ];-)
As I said, we will differ on this. I haven't had the time to update my A7 yet, but I'll do some before and after exposures to see what the FW update does...
I'll take the faster re-switch on time over the difference in higher ISO. More real world for me.
I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz