An interesting Review of a7rII

[Guy Mancuso]

I think he raises some valid points, and I have absolutely no problem with that. I also have no problem with the fact he doesn't "connect" with the camera, I think we all have experienced that with some camera's we have owned.
However the way he is doing it as well as his incomplete knowledge of the camera and its options undermines his credibility.
He talks about how Sony fanboys shouldn't read it because they might not like his conclusions. I think that's a very unprofessional (and childish) thing to say for a professional photographer and reviewer.

Well said and thats what my takeaway was. It was just unprofessional and sounded like he knew very little of the unit itself and the supporting images really do not speak of the cameras abilities either. The word I keep going back to is Integrity , you want to be a review person you have to show integrity . Like something or not thats okay but never talk down to people and never give bad data.

And I said I will stay out of this and I should. But I hope folks understand where I am coming from as a user,a Pro that uses it, a forum owner and someone that truly cares about the industry. It does get frustrating for me but Im fine and getting ready for a gig tomorrow and packing everything up. Lets see if this thing can come home with the goods, I have no doubt it will.

BTW no offense to Ming or any of the other reviewers( I actually like Mings reports normally). Im just being critical

 

[Hulyss Bowman]

1991 Pinatubo explosion​

I should not even post this:banghead:

I think every reviewer who is on the web actually are doing it for money and money only. Thom Hogan seems to be more human than others because he dare to say:

"Thom takes the month of August off from the Internet and email to rejuvenate, to spend some time shooting, and to get rid of some of his snarl".

That said, reviewers we found "serious" in the past are not that serious after all. Ken Rockwell is the king, one king to rule them all. No forum, no waste of time bickering, only one initial argumentation... what else ?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Damnit I never been paid. ROTFLMAO

 

[tashley]

Damnit I never been paid. ROTFLMAO

Me neither, and I stopped because I became a free help desk!

 

[Chris Giles]

I can't be bothered with affiliate links with my ones.

I get a little from offering the raw files out though. Takes the edge off the gear I purchase by about 2%

 

[uhoh7]

For myself, I consider Ming to be one of the very very few photographer/reviewers whose columns I read.
Don't trash Ming because he might have highlighted shortcomings of your camera.

That is what good reviewers are supposed to do.

p.s I f he seems biased towards Nikon..there is a reason. Nikon really are that good, but not without their own shortcomings.

He also says the D800 is a joyless work machine that only goes out on assignment.

Let's be honest: most reviews of this camera have been gushing to say the least. But the occasional "honest take" from somebody who knows cameras and photography very well draws personal attacks.

What's up with the Sony police?

Lot's of people think my M9 is pretty silly, but I don't feel the need to challenge their motivations and character. Usually :grin:

It's pretty easy to come up with a list of why the camera is awesome, and another why it's lacking. That makes it interesting. I'm not excited by it, but I enjoy the enthusiasm of my friends who are over the moon about it. And I enjoy their images

 

[Amin]

85% (roughly) of the reason they look better in C1 is that C1 has, IMHO and for my purposes, less useful sharpening than C1. It seems to have a crude unsharp mask system and in my hands at least, is not as useful for sharpening fine detail - which is really needed with the current state of the art in high mp sensors and very sharp lenses. Another 5% of the benefit is the quite bland profiling, a nice place to start but not to end up.

You lost me here after you said C1 has less useful sharpening than C1. Which one of those was supposed to be LR?

What I can say with 100% certainty for my own satisfaction is that the orange peel effect is there in C1 as well... But orange peel it is, and orange peel it stays, and whatever concoction of pre-cooking and compression is responsible for it, C1 is not a magic wand that makes it disappear other, largely, than through low default sharpening and high default NR.

Please show it to me in a C1 processed crop and let me know the settings you used, because I can only see it in LR.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I just saw it in the sony threads of Joes butterfly and i am not seeing that effect in C1

Joe Im posting your 100 percent crop, I think this the orange peel.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

this is a Batis 85 with extension tubes at 100 percent handheld but more important that effect is not there in C1. The bottom image is a very very aggressive sharpening in C1 ( I WOULD NOT GO THIS HIGH NORMALLY). Im not perfectly in focus but that has no effect on the background.

 

[pegelli]

Let's be honest: most reviews of this camera have been gushing to say the least. But the occasional "honest take" from somebody who knows cameras and photography very well draws personal attacks.

What's up with the Sony police?

Nothing really I think. As I mentioned above it's not what he says on the camera (which most people can buy into) but how he says it, especially the third sentence is just there as click bait to get traffic rather then anything a serious reviewer should get involved with.

- - - Updated - - -

this is a Batis 85 with extension tubes at 100 percent handheld but more important that effect is not there in C1

What ISO are those shots Guy?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Oh they are ISO 800 . Did not realize that till you asked. Not the sharpest with the extension tubes and the Batis 85 but thats me. I just ran outside to shoot it quickly to test the tubes

 

[Guy Mancuso]

We should probably run a test on this orange peel thing to be sure and process the same well shot images in both converters because I really have not seen that orange peel effect. I agree that is ugly. I said this before I am still not sure the ACR engine has this camera right yet. Those are not flame bait comments at all. Like to get to the bottom of this because a lot of reviews and tests are being done through LR and ACR and if its not good right now than those test are invalid.

 

[uhoh7]

Nothing really I think. As I mentioned above it's not what he says on the camera (which most people can buy into) but how he says it, especially the third sentence is just there as click bait to get traffic rather then anything a serious reviewer should get involved with.

ah:
"Fanboys should stop reading now. There are uncomfortable truths contained within this post"

:lecture:

I agree that's a silly sentence, "Fanboy" is as insulting as "Chowderhead",
but jeez you can see why he makes the disclaimer.

Boys just love to fight over their cameras, I guess. And I must plead guilty to the crime myself, on occasion.

 

[vjbelle]

Whenever I use ACR for a quick conversion I have to be very careful about the 'detail' setting - which I have a preset of '5'. Sometimes I just zero it out because at its default setting it can really be brutal on a file. I really like using Bridge as my browser and although I can force a C1 file development it automatically resorts to ACR which at times is just fine. My preset for sharpening in ACR is 100, 0.5, 5 with no masking.

Victor

 

[Guy Mancuso]

ah:
"Fanboys should stop reading now. There are uncomfortable truths contained within this post"

:lecture:

I agree that's a silly sentence, "Fanboy" is as insulting as "Chowderhead",
but jeez you can see why he makes the disclaimer.

Boys just love to fight over their cameras, I guess. And I must plead guilty to the crime myself, on occasion.

I think I know that guy that said chowderhead. LOL

No question I can be a *** . Proudly admit it. At least Im funny at it. LOL

 

[pegelli]

We should probably run a test on this orange peel thing to be sure and process the same well shot images in both converters because I really have not seen that orange peel effect. I agree that is ugly. I said this before I am still not sure the ACR engine has this camera right yet. Those are not flame bait comments at all. Like to get to the bottom of this because a lot of reviews and tests are being done through LR and ACR and if its not good right now than those test are invalid.

This weekend I shot some iso 6400 and iso 12.800 files on a borrowed A7Rii and with my default LR settings didn't get any noticable orange peel. However when you up clarity, sharpening and detail it's very easily created. So I'm all for some more rigorous testing at different iso's, but another very important aspect of those tests is to report the LR slider settings with it, so we know what we're looking at.

 

[tashley]

You lost me here after you said C1 has less useful sharpening than C1. Which one of those was supposed to be LR?




Please show it to me in a C1 processed crop and let me know the settings you used, because I can only see it in LR.

Thank you for pointing out my typo Amin, I have now corrected it in the original post. I meant that C1's sharpening is not IMHO as useful as LR.

No need to provide you with evidence*, since you have the gear yourself and as you will note, I was pointing out that exporting the file from C1 with no sharpening or NR or any adjustments at all, as a 16bit ProPhoto TIFF, then importing that to LR and giving it what I consider correct sharpening** will show the OP. As I said, the reason you don't see it in C1 is mostly that C1 uses low sharpening and high NR as default. It's default processing is highly flattering to the sony files.

*which I suspect you wouldn't accept the validity of. And that's fine. I know what I think is appropriate sharpening and you know what you think is appropriate. Our needs, output and final audience are probably very different, so one size will not fit us both.

**For a file from an AA free camera such as the D810 or the ArRII I favour 60/0.7/70/20 with no NR at low ISO. Some might regard that as aggressive but it works extremely well with the less fragile files from the D810 and was always good from the D800E too. I also often add +1 clarity, depending on the import profile and the local area contrast and structure of the image.

 

[uhoh7]

I think I know that guy that said chowderhead. LOL

No question I can be a *** . Proudly admit it. At least Im funny at it. LOL

Haha me too

We are passionate about the stuff.

The disagreements and the controversy, in the end, pushes us all to learn.

 

[Amin]

No need to provide you with evidence*... *which I suspect you wouldn't accept the validity of.

I think you're underestimating me. I haven't come across compression artifacts in my own photos, but I can easily recognize and am more than happy to accept the validity of the many examples which others have demonstrated in their files. Just yesterday someone on this forum linked to an example which helped me learn more about this issue. I'd be genuinely interested to see the orange peeling that you are seeing in files which have undergone demosaicing in C1. Just because I haven't seen it doesn't mean I won't accept it. But if it's too much trouble or you'd rather not, no worries.

 

[tashley]

I think you're underestimating me. I haven't come across compression artifacts in my own photos, but I can easily recognize and am more than happy to accept the validity of the many examples which others have demonstrated in their files. Just yesterday someone on this forum linked to an example which helped me learn more about this issue. I'd be genuinely interested to see the orange peeling that you are seeing in files which have undergone demosaicing in C1. Just because I haven't seen it doesn't mean I won't accept it. But if it's too much trouble or you'd rather not, no worries.

That's not the issue Amin, and I would I am quite certain be wrong to underestimate you!

I think what I am saying is that you have all the equipment and all the software and if you're not seeing it with settings that matter to you, then it really doesn't matter to you.

But if you want to find it, then I can tell you this: I see it in many, many 'normal' files processed my way (in either LR or in C1>tif export>finish in LR) but if you want to find it at its most obvious, try a file (ISO 100 is fine) with some OOF transitions, sharpen my way, and take a look. If you don't see it, all's fine and dandy and if you do see it, then my processing recipe is not for you! Some people see it, some people don't and I am sure it depends on how they handle sharpening, NR and clarity.

One thing I still don't get though: (nearly) everyone (including I believe yourself, if I correctly recall) has chimed in with their preference for files that are less pre-cooked and have lossless compression. But if you're not seeing the evidence of either these in any of your files, why do you care?