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!
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.Oh my god ... WHO needs such a HORRIBLE video ... same with 204.800 and 102.400
Perhaps people waiting for 10.485.760 ISO ...
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.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.
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.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.
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!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
:worthless: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!
Now your thinking just like me. It's exactly perfect for a lot of work.: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
No vertical grip kept me far away from it otherwise great cam. Little pricey thoughMarc, 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)
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!Now your thinking just like me. It's exactly perfect for a lot of work.
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.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.
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.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 ...
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.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)