A7s iso 12800

[philip_pj]

Just read the most intelligent review yet on the new Sonys at Michael Reichmann's site, including a neat comparo of the a7s and down-rezzed a7r images.

Sony A7s First Impressions

Key findings: around 2.5 stops is the difference; DR is about the same (which I had expected, being no believer in the larger pixel advantage); it has the 'medium format look'.

Michael is also a user of the a7r and has this to say:

"...those who think that the A7 series has shutter vibration (which I have never seen in 8 months of using an A7r, even with extensive testing)..."

hear, hear.

Highly recommended, lots more on video as well. And a small piece on Sony's 'program' and level of commitment.

 

[philip_pj]

And this is the first I have read of this FE lens lineup in such detail, passing it on from the LL a7s report, sure to find something in here to like. If you don't, you are either an agent provocateur or better check your pulse! I am conservative in buying, but I see at least two for me immediately. Note the Zeiss emphasis on fast lenses - in one instance, very fast.

"The following, according to Sansmirror.com is Sony's lens roadmap from now (mid-2014) through end 2015.

16-35mm f/4 Zeiss OSS (2014) (announced May 1, 2014)
85mm f/1.8 Zeiss OSS (2014)
100mm f/2.8 Macro G (2014)
35mm f/1.4 Zeiss (2014)
24mm f/2 Zeiss (2014)
28-135mm f/4 G OSS (2015) (announced May 1, 2014)
135mm f/2 Zeiss (2015)
21mm f/2.8 Zeiss (2015)
35mm f/2 G OSS (2015)
50mm f/1.2 Zeiss (2015)"

 

[horshack]

Michael is also a user of the a7r and has this to say:

"...those who think that the A7 series has shutter vibration (which I have never seen in 8 months of using an A7r, even with extensive testing)..."

hear, hear.

Doesn't that contradict your own finding here?

 

[philip_pj]

Yes, for that confined use it is an issue: that lens, that tripod, etc. I am sure you can find it if you go looking for the gear and settings; however it is child's play to avoid - on a tripod especially when you are chasing max IQ.

But I don't ever use the a7r that way but rather as a 'hand camera' that is fast to use and suffers no shutter shake whatsoever in my experience used that way..and here I have posted several images of outstanding clarity handheld, as do many others.

So what is its problem? It's very narrow spectrum in my view - on a tripod a fix is a mere aperture setting away, or an ND filter, or a different s/speed, for ultimate results. Mate, I've been doing this with cameras that make the a7r look like it has exemplary behaviour, seriously.

A non problem, but one many people seem to seize on in this most forensically examined camera release for a long time. Why? The answer is on the back of a postage stamp.

 

[philip_pj]

Back to the Lula a7s review, it looks really good to me esp at ISO 100, I was not expecting that. This is not a camera I want to want. But total silence, lens flexibility and really fabulous IQ across the range, within print / crop constraints, this is very attractive for a fair bit of what I and a lot of others do.

So it's easy to see why Sony were casting around on the price to ask. How many buyers will want it primarily for stills?

If you get a cleaner EVF feed that will help composition, and if AF is improved..and the hoped for 85mm f1.8 with OSS might make perfect sense for wedding shooters. Stabilisation and 2.5 stops more ISO is a lot of flexibility.

 

[iiiNelson]

That does it for me. The Sony is off my list. Unless that photo has noise added, it's totally unacceptable for a camera in this class and age. My GH3 is maybe 1-2 stops worse without NR, and improves dramatically with moderate noise reduction. According to DxO, the GH4, which is the alternative upgrade for me, has DR just short of the best 35mm cameras. Add to that f/0.95 and f/1.2 lenses in native mount and in-camera 4K recording with the GH4 plus vastly superior ergonomics, and there's simply no competition.

This saves me a bunch of monies too

I think it depends on your usage. If it comes to video I suspect there will be a smaller advantage of going with the A7s over the GH4. There may still be some advantage of smoother transition with a larger sensor but I don't do video really to make a qualified statement like that.

If your purpose is stills and your goal is to print your work then I have no doubt you will see the advantages in the transitions with any modern FF sensor over Micro 4/3. I would judge this camera solely on web sized JPEG's or even test/sample shots. I'm sure there's simply a lot more to this camera.

I have no doubt that the lowlight abilities are superior to the other A7 cameras and honestly they're superior in IQ to anything Micro 4/3 that I've tried when it comes to still photography. This isn't a knock on Micro 4/3 but praise for the A7 line of cameras. No there aren't as many FE lenses yet but you can adapt just about anything to them. Try both for yourself when they're available or check Flickr or other photo sites where you can quickly see some of the better shots on the internet.

 

[philip_pj]

DxO results are out. See here:

Sony A7S versus Nikon D4s versus Sony A7R - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark

DxO writes:

'Sony’s A7 and A7R models have not unexpectedly generated a lot of interest with enthusiasts, and the new addition to the range looks equally intriguing, if perhaps for different reasons.

While it’s true the short register and low pixel density makes this model potentially more suitable with rangefinder type (non-retrofocus) wide-angle lenses, there’s little doubt it will appeal to those who value extreme low light performance over high pixel density. And then there’s the additional attraction of video, with 4K as an option (albeit with a third-party recorder).

Even the price doesn’t look too bad against the Nikon Df, which is not only more expensive but can’t quite match the Sony’s low light capabilities and shuns video capture completely.'

So Sony clearly took aim at the 'low light king' (even if self-styled) D4s and beats everywhere it in signal strength, esp at low ISO (where it matches the a7r); and in DR it opens up a gap over the D4s (and DF) from ISO 6400 until it retains 1-1.5 stops over them deep down into the dark. That's one strong sensor.

Summary data for high (numeric) ISO - a7s: 3702; D4s: 3074; a7r: 2746.

Add in Sony's EVF focus aids, reportedly better AF and cleaner EVF - choose your weapons! And video...

 

[Amin]

Interestingly it doesn't significantly beat the A7R in any DXOmark categories except high ISO DR.

 

[horshack]

Interestingly it doesn't significantly beat the A7R in any DXOmark categories except high ISO DR.

Sensors hit a plateau in quantum efficiency some time ago. There was (and still is) room for improvement in read noise/DR and by this measure the A7s represents a significant advance over current sensors. The improvements in High ISO DR translate into a significant improvement in usable High ISO images since DR relates to shadow noise and many High ISO scenes have a lot of dark tones in them.

 

[turtle]

I think Sony should be applauded for pushing the envelope with this camera. Sure, it does not really appeal to me (I have the A7R and A7 and would rather have the pixels), but what a range we now have within the same body. I can see some going for A7S and A7R as well as A7S and A7 combos.

There will be a lot more to come from this line and its subsequent marks, I am sure. I have no reservation whatsoever about buying in.

PS 12 MP is enough for perfect A3+ prints, so even double spreads in wedding albums should be no issue at all.

 

[Rawfa]

Steve Huff posted some mad high iso samples that make more optimistic:

The Sony A7s: 1st Look…Testing the limits. | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

 

[jfirneno]

Steve Huff posted some mad high iso samples that make more optimistic:

The Sony A7s: 1st Look…Testing the limits. | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

Rafael:

I'm also very excited to see how this new camera performs. I think that anyone who has followed Sony's advanced digital camera releases for more than 3 or 4 years can recognize a pattern in how the perception of the camera changes over the pre-release period. First the rumor sites speculate on the most extreme possibilities (cameras that can shoot in the dark, effortless low light AF, low low price). Then information slowly dribbles out from SONY and other sources. Alternating waves of mania and depresion as rumors and counter-rumors confuse and anger those impatiently waiting for hard facts. Finally the select few sites get to test a commercial ( or close to commercial) firmware version of the camera. The results fall somewhere in between great and terrible. Now those still interested in the camera wait endlessly for their pre-orders to be fulfilled. During this period, the early adopters start getting their cameras and a whole new round of reviews appear. Having ample time and being of an expansive nature, the early adopters will find many things not to their liking. This will lead to many pre-orders being cancelled (and also re-pre-ordered by the very unsure). Finally the camera will be in general distribution and while very good it will fail to be the "greatest camera ever made." By this point SONY will have already started release of their next camera. This will anger the people who just bought the earlier camera and the whole thing begins again.

My point is once you've seen a couple of iterations of this it becomes less exciting (but also less annoying). I officially expect the A7S to be a much better low-light camera but not the last word in low light photography. It will also turn out to have several new problems that no one anticipated (and several older ones that no one believed Sony would still continue to allow). Whether it's sufficiently better than the A7R (and A7) is of course a very subjective and personal calculation. I'm hoping it will be because I've been waiting for that camera with ISO "in the hundreds of thousands" for several years.

Regards,
John

 

[philip_pj]

Hear hear, John.

I just had a look at the IR samples released yesterday - the techos around the place generally are not overly impressed, then again they have their agendas and see the whole business as their arena for some reason: the good/evil debate about RAW 'cooking', surreptitiously applied NR - Sony seems to be Boris Badenov to many such people, tying the maiden of their preferred practice to the railway lines ahead of the approaching locomotive, lol. A Sony loco of course ;-)

It's too early obviously - so there is the usual degree of feverish projecting, as has become the norm for all new Sony FF cameras. The IR test - from what I gather - uses jpegs with the Nikon DF downsized to 12Mp in a comparo to the a7s, shot at f22 and 1/8000s.

Now, I feel I can for once speak for all here, and say I am never going to do that, should I even live to 1000 years. Detail scrutiny at f22, presumably with different lenses? There are already 5-6 variables in this 'study', unadjusted for.

[I am already a bit down on the slrgear site of these otherwise good guys for doing lens analyses (the Sigma 50 ART is great!) using cameras of widely differing pixel counts, as though lens performance does not change with the jump from 20Mp to 36Mp. I wish.]

Time will tell - it always does...

Forget 4K video, 400K ISO’s the big news! Find out if the Sony A7S is the camera 4 you in our First Shots

I'd like to take them along to buy a new camera with their money after this one too:

"A comparison of similarly-priced full frame cameras...Sony a7s ($2500) vs Nikon DF ($3000)"

What is $500 between friends? I also want to see a test of video from these two ultra different cameras...oh, and shutter noise and shutter shock, let's not forget them.

It's all a bit of fun. But the bottom line is: photographers want to see the end product please, using a normal workflow, normal subjects the camera was designed for, normal everything. MMV

 

[Amin]

Sensors hit a plateau in quantum efficiency some time ago. There was (and still is) room for improvement in read noise/DR and by this measure the A7s represents a significant advance over current sensors.

It is interesting that the A7S lags behind the A7R bay a full stop in low ISO DR, which for modern sensors is also largely dependent on read noise.

On a separate note, QE continues to vary more than a little amongst modern sensors: http://www.sensorgen.info/

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Why do reviewers even post ISO 400,000 photos of bookshelves and other subjects in broad daylight? If ISO values at that level is ever needed, it will be in more or less complete darkness and more often than not, the little lighting there is will be tricky with colour temperatures that is totally off the scale. It's like testing a family car on a race track; fun sometimes, but not very useful if real life useability is what is needed.

In spite of my rather trollish posts about this camera, I would really like it to succeed. I would even like to own one if it serves my needs better than the alternatives. Judging from Steve Huff's samples, which are the most relevant ones so far, it's kind of good, but in no way the revolution that the hype made it out to be. Will it enable me to take photos that I can't take with a GH4? Or with an old D700 even? I see an impressive list of non-existing lenses further up this thread. Rumours, rumours, rumours and not accompanied by size or price. I would love to own a Zeiss 50/1.2 for 35mm of course, but where would I sleep after I sold my apartment to finance it?

For those of us who shoot video, 4K is the new 36MP. This camera doesn't have it. Not unless I add a box that isn't available yet, will cost as much as the camera and that I have to carry around, connected to the camera with a cable while I'm shooting. That sounds like 1990's digital photography to me.

I don't like the ergonomics of this thing, and that might be an important reason for my somewhat negative attitude. But even when I try to forget about that, and about the lacking lenses etc., I keep asking myself which of my photos would have been better by using this camera. The A7s might not be The Emperor's new Clothing, but I do feel that the Emperor should have asked his tailor to make something a bit more useful. Need and taste do vary though, and my ugly, little GH3 doesn't always fit like a glove either, even if I try hard to give that impression

 

[jfirneno]

Philip wrote, "Sony seems to be Boris Badenov to many such people, tying the maiden of their preferred practice to the railway lines ahead of the approaching locomotive, lol. A Sony loco of course ;-)"

Philip, that just made my day. Boris and Natasha were my favorite characters on that show with the "moose and squirrel." Like all other Sony users I have an inherent love/hate relationship with my gear. But I'm finally learning how to avoid the new camera roller coaster effect.

Jorgen wrote, "I don't like the ergonomics of this thing, and that might be an important reason for my somewhat negative attitude. But even when I try to forget about that, and about the lacking lenses etc., I keep asking myself which of my photos would have been better by using this camera. The A7s might not be The Emperor's new Clothing, but I do feel that the Emperor should have asked his tailor to make something a bit more useful. Need and taste do vary though, and my ugly, little GH3 doesn't always fit like a glove either, even if I try hard to give that impression."

Jorgen:
You're quite right that the ergonomics (and several other things) are far from optimized. We are always in a position of wanting what Sony offers but not the package it's in. The trick is to wait six months after the camera comes out and then see if you still want it. And of course by then the next generation is already on the rumor site. But one of these days they will get it right. Or maybe Samsung will.

Regards,
John

PS. Jorgen, the reason for ISO 400,000 is to allow me to take pictures in the total darkness of my Takumar SMC lens and prove that the radioactive thorium actually glows in the dark.

 

[horshack]

It is interesting that the A7S lags behind the A7R bay a full stop in low ISO DR, which for modern sensors is also largely dependent on read noise.

It's a function of pixel size. I describe the low vs high ISO DR split here.

On a separate note, QE continues to vary more than a little amongst modern sensors: Sensorgen - digital camera sensor data

QE in terms of resulting shot noise varies by less than 1/4 stop across modern FF sensors.

 

[Rawfa]

DPreview just added the A7s to their high iso comparison tool. The difference between the A7s and the A7/A7r is very evident at high iso, specially when shooting raw. While I don't expect miracles once more substantial reviews show up, it is becoming more clear that the A7s's acceptable high iso limit WILL be vastly superior to that of the A7/A7r (which for me is 6400). I don't think anyone is realistically expecting to be able to shoot at ISO 400,000, but professionally usable iso 12800 is already a very big deal, not to mention 25600.

 

[jfirneno]

DPreview just added the A7s to their high iso comparison tool. The difference between the A7s and the A7/A7r is very evident at high iso, specially when shooting raw. While I don't expect miracles once more substantial reviews show up, it is becoming more clear that the A7s's acceptable high iso limit WILL be vastly superior to that of the A7/A7r (which for me is 6400). I don't think anyone is realistically expecting to be able to shoot at ISO 400,000, but professionally usable iso 12800 is already very big deal, not to mention 25600.

Rafael:

You are exactly correct. If ISO 6400 becomes completely usable without painstaking noise removal then suddenly indoor work without flash becomes easy and worthwhile. Also more accurate low light AF makes Sony a more realistic alternative to Nikon and Canon. For all my joking around I'm very hopeful that the A7S will be the breakthrough for indoor Sony shooters. We'll be close to parity with the DSLRs out there.

Regards,
John

 

[iiiNelson]

Why do reviewers even post ISO 400,000 photos of bookshelves and other subjects in broad daylight? If ISO values at that level is ever needed, it will be in more or less complete darkness and more often than not, the little lighting there is will be tricky with colour temperatures that is totally off the scale. It's like testing a family car on a race track; fun sometimes, but not very useful if real life useability is what is needed.

Probably for the same reason Sony and other companies post ISO 25,600, 51,200, 102,400, or 204,800 ISO capability all over their boxes and in the specs when in reality they only provide useable ISO3200, 6400, and in a few cases 12,800. It's just bragging rights and marketing. Few people ask if they should because they can. It's no different than the megapixel wars 5 years ago.