IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

[Ken_R]

Thanks for posting. Yea, that 135mm is stunning! As good as the A7RII file can get The IQ180 file looks amazing.

 

[chrismuc]

Dynamic range of the two sensors: It's difficult to guess the DR from the 8 bit jpgs after the ACR adjustments 'to my taste'. According the latest DXO measurement, the A7RII has only a very small DR advantage compared to the IQ180 (13.9 vs. 13.6 at same print size, at pixel level the difference is a bit more).
IMO, 80 MP are mostly relevant for very large print sizes, but if a user considers +/- 40 MP resolution to be sufficient, the current 36/ 42/ 50 MP offerings in 135 format can achieve with the best lenses a picture quality which is visually equivalent to 37.5/ 40/ 50 MP crop-MF sensor systems.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I have just spent a few days with my Sony A7rII. My take is that it may be that the A7rII may match or surpass my MFD kit, consisting of a P45+ and Hasselblad V-series lenses.

For the "Blad" I have 40/4 CF (not the IF version), 60/3.5 Distagon, 100/3.5 Planar, 120/4 Planar and the 180/4 Sonnar. I also had some other lenses, like the Distagon 50/4, the Planar 80 and the Sonnar 150/4., but I cleaned up my assortment of lenses for practical reasons.

Regarding the lenses, the 90/2.8 macro is crazy sharp, at least at the center of the image and at close distances. May need to find out a bit more. My standard lenses, the 24-70/2.8 and the 70-400/4-5.6 do a very decent job on the A7rII. The 24-70/2.8 outperforms my Canon 24/3.5 TSE by a wide margin, except in the extreme corners.

From what I have seen this far, I would say that the Sony A7rII delivers on resolution and it is a device that can make great images, with the right person behind the camera.

Regarding low end MFD, the competitive landscape just got a bit more challenging. But, if you need 80 MP worth of resolution, MFD is still the way to go.

Best regards
Erik

Dynamic range of the two sensors: It's difficult to guess the DR from the 8 bit jpgs after the ACR adjustments 'to my taste'. According the latest DXO measurement, the A7RII has only a very small DR advantage compared to the IQ180 (13.9 vs. 13.6 at same print size, at pixel level the difference is a bit more).
IMO, 80 MP are mostly relevant for very large print sizes, but if a user considers +/- 40 MP resolution to be sufficient, the current 36/ 42/ 50 MP offerings in 135 format can achieve with the best lenses a picture quality which is visually equivalent to 37.5/ 40/ 50 MP crop-MF sensor systems.

 

[voidshatter]

Dynamic range of the two sensors: It's difficult to guess the DR from the 8 bit jpgs after the ACR adjustments 'to my taste'. According the latest DXO measurement, the A7RII has only a very small DR advantage compared to the IQ180 (13.9 vs. 13.6 at same print size, at pixel level the difference is a bit more).
IMO, 80 MP are mostly relevant for very large print sizes, but if a user considers +/- 40 MP resolution to be sufficient, the current 36/ 42/ 50 MP offerings in 135 format can achieve with the best lenses a picture quality which is visually equivalent to 37.5/ 40/ 50 MP crop-MF sensor systems.

The problem with the A7RII is the drastic drop of dynamic range in long exposure / extensive use of live view. You might end up finding it to have less dynamic range than the IQ180 in certain scenarios. DxOMark might gave a result based on a cool sensor or a pre-heated sensor - it's hard to guess. For best dynamic range it is still recommended to choose the Sony sensors based on the IMX094 technology, e.g. D810, IQ350 etc.

 

[Dan Santoso]

Have anyone actually do a test where you push and pull extremely? 14 stop on paper will have different result in real world I think...

I will have access to A72R, the new pentax and IQ180 next month, i may do a test.

The problem with the A7RII is the drastic drop of dynamic range in long exposure / extensive use of live view. You might end up finding it to have less dynamic range than the IQ180 in certain scenarios. DxOMark might gave a result based on a cool sensor or a pre-heated sensor - it's hard to guess. For best dynamic range it is still recommended to choose the Sony sensors based on the IMX094 technology, e.g. D810, IQ350 etc.

 

[jagsiva]

The problem with the A7RII is the drastic drop of dynamic range in long exposure / extensive use of live view. You might end up finding it to have less dynamic range than the IQ180 in certain scenarios. DxOMark might gave a result based on a cool sensor or a pre-heated sensor - it's hard to guess. For best dynamic range it is still recommended to choose the Sony sensors based on the IMX094 technology, e.g. D810, IQ350 etc.

DPR studio test.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ima...=1&x=-0.8513586956521738&y=0.9150943130630632

 

[Dan Santoso]

bad test the IQ180 image is softer than Sony A7R

I dont believe in test from a website anyway, they always bias.

DPR studio test.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ima...=1&x=-0.8513586956521738&y=0.9150943130630632

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I would say that test sites have far less bias than camera owners.

Best regards
Erik

bad test the IQ180 image is softer than Sony A7R

I dont believe in test from a website anyway, they always bias.

 

[CSP]

The problem with the A7RII is the drastic drop of dynamic range in long exposure / extensive use of live view. You might end up finding it to have less dynamic range than the IQ180 in certain scenarios. DxOMark might gave a result based on a cool sensor or a pre-heated sensor - it's hard to guess. For best dynamic range it is still recommended to choose the Sony sensors based on the IMX094 technology, e.g. D810, IQ350 etc.

says who ? and even when this is partly true who cares ? long exposure is maybe for less than 0,0001 percent really important. we never had a tool with this performance and as cheap as the sony a7rII in hands before . but everything gets out of proportion, i don't expect kobe beef in an mac burger and i don´t expect the sony to be the ultimate and last camera....

 

[Uaiomex]

I care.

says who ? and even when this is partly true who cares ? long exposure is maybe for less than 0,0001 percent really important. we never had a tool with this performance and as cheap as the sony a7rII in hands before . but everything gets out of proportion, i don't expect kobe beef in an mac burger and i don´t expect the sony to be the ultimate and last camera....

 

[joelorbita]

Apologies if I have totally missed something here but I don't understand the file size of the Sony A7R II image. When I open the raw in photoshop, it is giving me a 120.7mb file.

Is that standard for the Sony A7RII? I thought due to Sony's lossy compression it was much smaller?

 

[chrismuc]

Apologies if I have totally missed something here but I don't understand the file size of the Sony A7R II image. When I open the raw in photoshop, it is giving me a 120.7mb file.

Is that standard for the Sony A7RII? I thought due to Sony's lossy compression it was much smaller?

the images are about 42 MP
Photoshop shows the size like uncompressed tiff = 42.000.000 pixels x 8 bit / 8 = byte x 3 color channels = roughly 120.000.000 byte = 120 MB

 

[voidshatter]

If you're in a situation where you can stitch with the Sony, then you can also stitch with the IQ.

It's simply not a valid argument.

I mean flat/shift stitch for an angle of view of 11mm-equivalent in 35mm format. You can do that with the Canon 17mm TSE + A7R-II, but IQ180 would give you less pixel count than A7R-II does. Also, due to the lack of dynamic range with the IQ180, you ought to take more number of exposures from the IQ180 due to bracketing.

 

[gerald.d]

I mean flat/shift stitch for an angle of view of 11mm-equivalent in 35mm format. You can do that with the Canon 17mm TSE + A7R-II, but IQ180 would give you less pixel count than A7R-II does. Also, due to the lack of dynamic range with the IQ180, you ought to take more number of exposures from the IQ180 due to bracketing.

Riiight. So you're limiting the scenario where one doesn't want to capture the full 11mm FoV equivalent in 35mm format shot in a single frame.

But for some bizarre reason, rather than create that image in a single shot with the 17TSE on an 80MP MF back (or indeed, the 11-24 on the Sony), you choose to instead slap the lens on the Sony, along with a custom tripod ring mount off the lens rather than the camera, and then shift stitch 4 (possibly more?) shots to get the extra pixel count by using a smaller sensor with a higher pixel density.

And it's perfectly ok to take this approach to get more pixels, but you're criticizing the MF option because - possibly, in extreme circumstances - you might have to bracket that shot.

I've got that right, yes?

That's the scenario you're proposing?

(Just want to clarify that before then introducing the option of nodal-point stitching, because I can show you over 2500 examples of that done pretty much perfectly that deliver images ranging from 100MP up to 6GP. Because if you can shift-stitch, you can nodal stitch. And contrary to misconceived opinion, the latter can deliver identical results to the former. It's simply a matter of how you choose to project the resulting image.

But please don't address this point before clarifying the earlier one.)

 

[jerome_m]

Why do you resurrect a two months old thread?

 

[AreBee]

Gerald,

...if you can shift-stitch, you can nodal stitch. And contrary to misconceived opinion, the latter can deliver identical results to the former. It's simply a matter of how you choose to project the resulting image.

I enquired about this here on LuLa and apparently a difference can exist, even if only marginal, depending on certain factors. Refer here for a visual example. For what it's worth, this was my conclusion.