A7s!

[Ben Rubinstein]

Huh? It's about 3 seconds to apply a '10' of noise reduction to all images and as I said I do it anyway on high iso, and/or another 3 seconds to downrez to 12 megapixels. Per batch not per image. How many clicks does it take to make 12 megapixels work as 36 megapixels worth of resolution?

 

[Steve P.]

I hear you, Ben. Truly I do, but there's always one or two clicks or slides to incorporate here and there. If it's not downrezzing it's flat field plug ins or cornerfix or this that or the other. It's not too long before it all just becomes a bit of a bollix! Too much for me, man.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

I think you're not being fair in your comparison. When you are already in ACR you click on the bottom and choose your output resolution prior to output. That is all there is to it. It's just the same couple of clicks for anything from 1 to thousands of files. Added to that it's only necessary for, IMO, two iso's (6400 and 12800) while you don't bother with the rest and get 36 megapixels worth of resolution.

Cornerfix is lens and aperture specific. So is flat field. I don't think you can compare them to simply filtering a folder by iso and outputting at a certain resolution.

What I'm saying is that the sacrifice to go from 36 or 24 megapixels to 12 for the noise gain alone is not worth it when with a couple of clicks you can achieve close to the same results for less money and far greater versatility the rest of the time.

 

[Steve P.]

Less money, you say? I feel I might be in need of a rethink!

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Here is a quick screenshot video (sorry about the awful quality) showing how fast it is to do. Far as I know the A7r is cheaper than the A7s?

 

[Rawfa]

Some delicious RAW files for download Sony A7S: primeras muestras | Quesabesde
They ARE ridiculously clean even at very high iso.
I did some noise removal on the ios 51200 shot of the old lady and I'm amazed at how well it looks. The iso 8000 of the girl inside the church is soo clean.
Darn it! I was about to settle for an A7 body! Why?! WHY?!!!

 

[Steve P.]

Far as I know the A7r is cheaper than the A7s?

Thanks for the screenshot, Ben. Yes the A7r is cheaper, hence my comment about a rethink!

 

[Rawfa]

SORRY, guys! BIG mistake here. These shots are iso 2500! So what I meant is that the A7S's iso 12800 look like the A7's iso 2500 shots. This is actually huge! I've downsized a couple of iso 6400 A7 shots that I have and they don't come close to the A7s's at iso 8000.

Sorry, I must be going dyslexic. I forgot to type "look" But yes, I mean that the iso 12800 results from the A7S look like the results I get with iso 6400 with the A7 in low light.

I would really love seeing a direct comparison between A7S photos vs downsized A7 photos. It´s the difference between me spending us$1200 or us$2500 on second camera for the A7 I already own!

Here are some samples from my A7 and a Canon FD 50mm 1.4. I had high hopes to have much cleaner iso 6400 with the A7S in similar conditions...and much better iso 12800 (which for me is useless for professional work with the A7).

 

[camping]

Hi Ashwin,
Great news on the use of M lenses. Which ones are you using? The pictures look quite wide angle.
Thanks,

Paul

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Here is the A7r downrezzed to 12 megapixels, iso 2000. Albeit good light. Can't see any noise at all. Ziltch.

Here is of me, iso 12800 shot in candle light (power cut during a forest fire) downrezzed to 12 megapixels.

I think I can say in that last one that downrezzing a 12800 file can at least match (I'd say beat) what your A7 seems to be doing at iso 2500.

 

[pasuay]

High ISO test with LEICA SUMMILUX-M 35mm f1.4 ASPH


High Resolution here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/studiokanu/14426976189/

 

[kuujinbo]

Here's another example, this one taken in very low light - inside a car at 9:45 pm. The side lighting is from a single flood light at a drive-in theater located ~20 meters away (very rough estimate). This time only adjusted WB (zero sharpening / NR / exposure):

ISO 12,800


This is what I meant (earlier post) about letting the camera do the work in A mode and selecting ISO. The actual lighting inside the car was somewhere between 1-2 stops less. And if it matters, this is with a 60 year old lens shot wide open at ~50cm - 50/1.4 Nikkor LTM. The other samples (again, earlier post) were from a 30 year old lens - 28 Elmarit III.

The thing I'm happy with is that there's little to no loss of fine detail at these ISO levels.

 

[jonoslack]

Here is a question directed to all the pro wedding photographers out there. Is 12mp enough for printing large wedding photos?

Well, I haven't used the A7s, but I think one wants to take care here.

First of all, 12mp is fine for a wedding book - even a big one. period.

but you need to be careful. I did two weddings close together (5 years ago? whatever). The first was with the D700 - still considered one of the best low light cameras. The second was with the Sony A900 - still considered one of the worst. In each case the target was a book. In practical use, although when viewing at 100% on screen the D700 was much better, the book for the A900 looked much better because of the extra resolution and the 'effective' downsizing from 24mp.

What I'm trying to say is that you do lose with less resolution - and there are much better 24mp cameras now. If someone said to me - shoot a wedding with a A7 or an A7s, I know what I'd do, I'd use the A7 - I haven't checked, but I suspect that the loss in high ISO is more than made up for by the increase in dynamic range and resolution. . . . . . .

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Guess i will way in here as sexy as the A7s looks to be in the very high ISO range for some of us we may never have the NEED to go over ISO 3200 which with some good raw processing you can get nice results from any of the Sony cams. This camera is a very specific type of beast and sure the very low light stuff if you shoot a lot of it than very appealing but as a still shooter you take a big hit on resolution. For me it may work for 2 gigs a year, maybe nothing else but if your a night shooter it certainly will have advantages. IMHO the end of the day without getting to involved in the tech side of the house i look at this cam as a two stop benefit over the current A7 series. That to me is a fair estimate and we are also talking about noise mostly here and we all have very different views on what is and what is NOT acceptable. Personally I would rather have 24mpx for everyday usage but for the 2 gigs I do a year ( runway stuff than sell on Line) this is almost perfect at 12mpx but it does not have the focus tracking I need like the A77II and heck even the A6000. To me this is a third cam in the bag kind of camera but for others that maybe different. I think far too much goes into this big high ISO debate that in reality only a few REALLY need.

Okay the sarcastic side of me is did anyone every hear of lighting. LOL It just had to be said.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

let me add one more thing if I was a wedding shooter I am not sure i would put my reputation on the line with 12mpx. I have been here before with the M8 and clients going far far past what was printable and that is downright embarrassing and can be deadly to a Pro.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Don't know Guy, I didn't go over 12 megapixels till after I'd retired from wedding photography. Most wedding shooters I know today are still using the D700 or D3. We/they put their reputation on the line hundreds of times over the past few years with 'just' 12 megapixels.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I know I'm just a pig I think. lol

I am just nervous about it since i been beat up on this before. Really big client too, fortunately they still use me today but I was throughly embarrassed and sold my M8 immediately

 

[ZoranC]

I would really love seeing a direct comparison between A7S photos vs downsized A7 photos. It´s the difference between me spending us$1200 or us$2500 on second camera for the A7 I already own!

Here are some samples from my A7 and a Canon FD 50mm 1.4. I had high hopes to have much cleaner iso 6400 with the A7S in similar conditions...and much better iso 12800 (which for me is useless for professional work with the A7).

Rawfa, if it was me (please forgive me if I overlooked some detail important to you that you might have posted) I would:

1. Sell A7 and buy A7S.
2. Spend money I got from A7 sale on lighting.

Here is why:

a) I feel 12 MP vs. 24 MP will not make a difference in how clients like printed book if one is thinking solely in terms of dots per printed inch but overall better performance of A7S across ISO range might in the end result in perception of better image quality.

b) Even if A7S shots end up not looking any better than A7 ones when downsized I think I heard A7S focuses much much better in low light.

c) No matter how good some sensor is at high ISO shots taken by it will never look as good as ones taken with lower ISO and extra light.

Or you can just keep the A7 for now, get that lighting that you would need anyway, and see is A7 cutting it now that you can use lower ISOs thanks to more light. You can always sell A7 and get A7S later.

 

[philip_pj]

For event photographers 12Mp is very good, the subjects are not likely to feature in huge prints often. Most who know their way around Sony files can pick them up at high ISO and the regularly quoted figure for the a7r is a ceiling of 6400, and it's really good below 4000. The a7r looks very decent at 6400 being the point, and not much mainstream photography is not covered with an f2 lens.

If you want (or need) versatility the still medium size pixels of the a7r accommodate you better - much better in fact, for crops and tonal gradation. There is a good strong case for the a7s but I feel it will sell on greater 'tactile utility' - silent shutter, better EVF display, faster writing, more assured focusing. And of course dual stills/video use.

Had it been 16Mp, more buyers would go for it, no need to pause.
And looking at Ashwin's images a little up, the truism that low Mp cameras need better lenses looks to hold true, making the a7s a little more expensive than it appears for top results.

 

[Jim Tardio]

I dunno...the more I consider it the more I think it's better just to get the A7 and save $1000.00. You have to ask yourself how often you're going to shoot at these super high ISOs.