The GetDPI Photography Forum

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!

A7s!

nostatic

New member
I suspect summer. The "fire pit" shot is often what I'm shooting (dark clubs, sometimes with hot spots on stage that blow out most any camera). So while I loved the 36mp resolution, 12mp and iso gazillion really is a better fit for my needs.
 

peterb

Member
The video is totally amazing when you think about it (ISO 409,600???? Crikey!!!!) but to the typical YouTube viewer the video looks like a slightly grainy (but not too bad) fire on a beach at dusk.

Without some sort of visual cue (like a crescent moon, someone reading a newspaper by penlight or bats gathering for a singalong) there's no way anyone has any idea (let alone appreciate) of what has been achieved.

What an amazing camera for no-light buffs. (Or making night time videos of people in the buff!)
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Oh my god ... WHO needs such a HORRIBLE video ... same with 204.800 and 102.400
Perhaps people waiting for 10.485.760 ISO ...

For most, the point is not shooting 400K ISO video, but clean 51,200 is interesting and no other camera offers that, particularly not at this size.
 

hcubell

Well-known member
Why do the highlights (i.e., the campfire) not blow out completely as the ISO is increased? The dynamic range in the scene has to be huge.
 

Hosermage

Active member
I don't wish to take pictures or video in total darkness and have it look like day time, they should look dark if it IS dark, but as long as the sensor can see in darkness it can continue to autofocus correctly and that's why that video is revealing!

EDIT: further thoughts... what if on top of the regular enlarged view as focus aid, you can also increase exposures to help manual focus in the dark?
 
Last edited:

Rawfa

Active member
For most, the point is not shooting 400K ISO video, but clean 51,200 is interesting and no other camera offers that, particularly not at this size.
Exactly my point. I shot a wedding with the A7 and when people hit the dance floor there was VERY VERY little light. There was a lot of iso 6200 shots that were just not acceptable. Sure, I don't need iso 400k, but if I had perfectly clean iso 12800 it would have been awesome. I cannot begin to imagine what I would have done with usable iso 51200.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Exactly my point. I shot a wedding with the A7 and when people hit the dance floor there was VERY VERY little light. There was a lot of iso 6200 shots that were just not acceptable. Sure, I don't need iso 400k, but if I had perfectly clean iso 12800 it would have been awesome. I cannot begin to imagine what I would have done with usable iso 51200.
I'll believe it when I see it. By that, I mean … see it in a real life situation, not some controlled environment. My guess right now is that a perfectly clean ISO 12,800 is a pipe dream … but I would LOVE to be wrong.

Through out the development of digital, the quest for high ISO capture has been the Holy Grail, and while it has advanced, in every case the compromises in color, tonal separation, DR, (and in some cases the structure of the noise), has been nothing short of disappointing despite claims to the contrary. Okay for arty stuff where there is a suspension of disbelief, but not acceptable in far too many other situations.

I remain skeptical, but open to being wrong … and being willing to celebrate that wrongness publicly when proven so :)

- Marc
 

neelin

Member
> compromises in color, tonal separation, DR, (and in some cases the structure of the noise), has been nothing short of disappointing despite claims to the contrary.

The technical term is probably: Parlour tricks.
 

Chuck Jones

Subscriber Member
I'll believe it when I see it. By that, I mean … see it in a real life situation, not some controlled environment. My guess right now is that a perfectly clean ISO 12,800 is a pipe dream … but I would LOVE to be wrong.

Through out the development of digital, the quest for high ISO capture has been the Holy Grail, and while it has advanced, in every case the compromises in color, tonal separation, DR, (and in some cases the structure of the noise), has been nothing short of disappointing despite claims to the contrary. Okay for arty stuff where there is a suspension of disbelief, but not acceptable in far too many other situations.

I remain skeptical, but open to being wrong … and being willing to celebrate that wrongness publicly when proven so :)

- Marc
Marc, believe it. Clean 12,800 is a done deal with the "S". Clean 25,600 is also likely in reach with the final firmware. You won't believe how clean it is until you try it for yourself. This camera shoots in light I can't even see in!
 

D&A

Well-known member
Marc, I couldn't agree more with your assessment of high ISO performance vs. some of the characterizations I read elsewhere.There is a difference between usable vs. acceptable which of course greatly depends on intended use of the files.

It's interesting to note, that the often lambasted Nikon Df actually is very competitive when compared to the A7s, aside from not having video. It's high ISO performance is near the top of the class with exceptionally good color and DR and very competant AF/ tracking systems.

Yes different tools but where the Df ' s lowly 16mp was often criticized, the A7s' s 12 mp resolution is now widely accepted. This last point I do find a bit perplexing.

Dave (D&A)
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Marc, believe it. Clean 12,800 is a done deal with the "S". Clean 25,600 is also likely in reach with the final firmware. You won't believe how clean it is until you try it for yourself. This camera shoots in light I can't even see in!
:worthless:

I'm going into this with:bugeyes:

12 meg doesn't bother me if that kind of clean ISO is possible. I've had plenty of cameras that were 10 to 16 meg that worked just fine for a good deal of images. The A7R can do the rest.

- marc
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
:worthless:

I'm going into this with:bugeyes:

12 meg doesn't bother me if that kind of clean ISO is possible. I've had plenty of cameras that were 10 to 16 meg that worked just fine for a good deal of images. The A7R can do the rest.

- marc
Now your thinking just like me. It's exactly perfect for a lot of work.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Marc, I couldn't agree more with your assessment of high ISO performance vs. some of the characterizations I read elsewhere.There is a difference between usable vs. acceptable which of course greatly depends on intended use of the files.

It's interesting to note, that the often lambasted Nikon Df actually is very competitive when compared to the A7s, aside from not having video. It's high ISO performance is near the top of the class with exceptionally good color and DR and very competant AF/ tracking systems.

Yes different tools but where the Df ' s lowly 16mp was often criticized, the A7s' s 12 mp resolution is now widely accepted. This last point I do find a bit perplexing.

Dave (D&A)
No vertical grip kept me far away from it otherwise great cam. Little pricey though
 

D&A

Well-known member
Now your thinking just like me. It's exactly perfect for a lot of work.
Lol. Although I know little about practicing law, imagine if we were in a court of law and a prosecutor decided to challenge you (under oath of course) your statement above that "for a lot of work ,12 mp is exactly perfect". He might dredge up your recent comment on a previous thread regarding your choice of the 36 mp A7r over the 24 mp A7 of saying "Go big or go home"....LOL. I can hear him saying "Ok Mr. Mancuso, please tell the court, which way is it...go home with less than 36 mp or is 12 mp perfect for a lot of work?" LOL!

Of course you know I'm just pulling your leg Guy (probably because I don't want to be kicked :). )

As for your thoughts about a grip for the Df, I too thought the same thing but with a particular aftermarket 1/2 case for that camera that extends the existing grip where ones fingers rest and also allows access to battery and card without its removal, only lack of a vertical shutter button remains desirable at times.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Actually Dave your right I did say that for sure but I was more referring to just one body but two bodies this is a nice combo. For PR stuff 12 is enough in a lot of cases but I still need and want a 36 or better. Heck I'm itching for more . Lol

But this A7s will solve a big issue and I do not like noise at all. So if I can get ISO 3200 clean for stills than it really gives me the 2 stops of speed or aperture that I could use. The A7 is too much like the A7r in noise dept. So having the A7s and A7r I would be lacking very little and I still have my eye on maybe a 36 Slt body if one came around. One reason I bought most of my glass in A mounts 4 of them. 14,35,85 and 135 are all A mounts. Just in case I make a swing than I'm covered on both mounts.
 

ZoranC

New member
While great noise performance at higher ISOs brought by fat pixels is first thing that grabs people's attention I am much more interested what benefit, if any, I would get from files at base ISO. If I could dream give me 16-bit depth lossless RAW with great dynamic range, tonality ...
 

D&A

Well-known member
Actually Dave your right I did say that for sure but I was more referring to just one body but two bodies this is a nice combo. For PR stuff 12 is enough in a lot of cases but I still need and want a 36 or better. Heck I'm itching for more . Lol

But this A7s will solve a big issue and I do not like noise at all. So if I can get ISO 3200 clean for stills than it really gives me the 2 stops of speed or aperture that I could use. The A7 is too much like the A7r in noise dept. So having the A7s and A7r I would be lacking very little and I still have my eye on maybe a 36 Slt body if one came around. One reason I bought most of my glass in A mounts 4 of them. 14,35,85 and 135 are all A mounts. Just in case I make a swing than I'm covered on both mounts.
Yes with two bodies, your strategy makes perfect sense. Like yourself, I too have an aversion to noise in higher ISO files, which I often have little choice but to use. Cleaning up even moderate amounts of noise in hundreds of files from a single shoot, isn't my cup of tea.

I think of noise like cauliflower, I have don't like dealing with either. LOL!

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

D&A

Well-known member
While great noise performance at higher ISOs brought by fat pixels is first thing that grabs people's attention I am much more interested what benefit, if any, I would get from files at base ISO. If I could dream give me 16-bit depth lossless RAW with great dynamic range, tonality ...
I have a shooting aquantance who feels the same way. He loves to use the best high ISO performing fat pixels cameras and exclusively use them for low light tripod supported shots solely at base ISO.

Dave (D&A)
 

nostatic

New member
Marc, I couldn't agree more with your assessment of high ISO performance vs. some of the characterizations I read elsewhere.There is a difference between usable vs. acceptable which of course greatly depends on intended use of the files.

It's interesting to note, that the often lambasted Nikon Df actually is very competitive when compared to the A7s, aside from not having video. It's high ISO performance is near the top of the class with exceptionally good color and DR and very competant AF/ tracking systems.

Yes different tools but where the Df ' s lowly 16mp was often criticized, the A7s' s 12 mp resolution is now widely accepted. This last point I do find a bit perplexing.

Dave (D&A)
Perplexion cured. The Df is a still camera, and in this day and age, 12mp is a tough sell - it isn't really doing anything that a previous camera couldn't do well (other than all the manual controls). The A7s does stills and video, both at ridiculously high iso. Hence the acceptance.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
The DF was and is really intended as a throw back to yesteryear of a film camera. Nice market segment and a lot of folks would like that feel of it. Issue is technology wise no real advantage over current models in other brands including there own. Price does hurt it if you ask me. For 2700 dollars there are a lot of very competent cameras is 24 and higher MPX with more functionality. But having said all that people will buy it for what it is and it does give you that nostalgia feel. I get that and its great for those after such things. I actually might of stayed in Nikon if it had a vertical grip as i was happy with the D800e pretty much except for live view stuff but my next choice for the PR cam was like the D7000 which did not excite me at all. The DF could have been it but with no vertical grip it left me out.

At least for me this is how I felt. YMMV
 
Top