Actually they ARE really small compared to FF medium format..... and... yes you are entitled to call them miniature.I am 62. I think I'm entitled to call them miniature.:ROTFL:
Best regards Victor
Eduardo
Victor
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!
Actually they ARE really small compared to FF medium format..... and... yes you are entitled to call them miniature.I am 62. I think I'm entitled to call them miniature.:ROTFL:
Best regards Victor
Eduardo
Thanks Tim. You have the cameras and could try to confirm or disprove that finding. TIA.New stuff on ISO and DR: check out the links from this piece at SAR... it relates to a Chinese rental agency's lab tests and seems to show that the A7RII has better DR at higher ISO than the D810 but that the D810 has the best DR of both systems provided it is shot at low ISO. This might indeed imply that the 'native' ISO of the Sony is higher...???
'with the author conceding a “surprising” advantage for a sony camera over the d810 in terms of higher iso dynamic range performance. But also noting that in the low iso performance area so key to landscape photographers, d810 is still king.
Of course the main issue is the long exposure color noise in the shadows which starts to appear at shutter speeds greater than 1 second, really become a problem beyond 10 seconds, and is like an unwelcome dose of LSD beyond 30 seconds. The author demonstrates this by comparing pictures which have been adjusted +ev 5 for exposure and +100 for shadows in the shadow areas with d810, 5dsr, (and later on d800e, a7m2, and canon 6d). This actually could be a significant issue for landscape lovers '
I have tried out my WATE and it would appear that any corner/edge colour cast has all but gone. I never had the the A7r only the A7II and A7s so I can only say that corner smearing at f8 would probably be acceptable as long as you don't really pixel-peak. I would say it is better than Tim's unfortunate FE16-35 that he sent in for service. Compared to my FE16-35 I think that the Sony is definitely sharper in the corners but I really haven't had the camera long enough to give any definitive answer. I think the unfortunate reality is that if you want the best from a Leica wide then you still need the Leica MK-H
When you get your A7RII, I would very much like to read about your experiences using the Leica 16-18-21 Tri-Elmar with it. TIA.
The WATE has always worked well on all FE bodies.I have tried out my WATE and it would appear that any corner/edge colour cast has all but gone. I never had the the A7r only the A7II and A7s so I can only say that corner smearing at f8 would probably be acceptable as long as you don't really pixel-peak. I would say it is better than Tim's unfortunate FE16-35 that he sent in for service. Compared to my FE16-35 I think that the Sony is definitely sharper in the corners but I really haven't had the camera long enough to give any definitive answer. I think the unfortunate reality is that if you want the best from a Leica wide then you still need the Leica M
I think I already have some evidence of that in saying that the II is a bit noisier than I expected and that it breaks apart under clarity boost faster than I expected. The differences are subtle, more evident on a protectively exposed file, but IMHO they are there. HOWEVER... I'm not a metrics tester, don't have a lab, can't prove a thing and am not even sure that I've shot enough frames to hold to the opinion. But when I read the piece I linked to, it sounded right.Thanks Tim. You have the cameras and could try to confirm or disprove that finding. TIA.
Instead of trusting a black-box approach with graph from the Chinese site, I would rather trust what Jim Kasson said. He did publish the method and even the definition of Dynamic Range that he is using in his test. From the look of it, the A7RII has similar signal conversion as the D810 at low ISO. Since first base ISO of the A7RII is 100 (any lower is extrapolated or fake) and the D810's base ISO is 64, we see a little advantage on the D810 side. As they approach ISO 640, the A7RII switches over to a different type of signal conversion, effectively has more DR than the D810. I imagine this signal conversion would be similar to those of the D3/D4 family, good for high ISO but okay for low ISO. I have been using Jim's switch over point of the A7S with great success for astrophotography stuff.I think I already have some evidence of that in saying that the II is a bit noisier than I expected and that it breaks apart under clarity boost faster than I expected. The differences are subtle, more evident on a protectively exposed file, but IMHO they are there. HOWEVER... I'm not a metrics tester, don't have a lab, can't prove a thing and am not even sure that I've shot enough frames to hold to the opinion. But when I read the piece I linked to, it sounded right.
i suspect that you won't see many images that will wow you early on. There's going to be a learning curve to processing techniques with this camera much like was the case when the Leica MM was first released. Most of those images early on looked flat and lifeless.I'm sure my opinion goes against the tide, but I have to say that I'm pretty underwhelmed by what I've seen so far from the A7r II. I've not seen or downloaded one image where I've really thought 'wow' on viewing it: the images just do not appear to have much 'bite' and, although there is obviously a very wide dynamic range, do not appear to have a smooth tonality, particularly when transitioning into extreme highlight areas. Looking at the samples that Tim went to the effort of posting, I have to say that I much prefer the tonality of the D810 files.
I recently put my P45+ system up for sale but over the last few days had reason to take some test images and, having done that, I now can't bring myself to part with the system just yet as the files have such a lovely crispness, clarity and tonality (with a few tweaks to the greens and blues).
I have to say that I'm more impressed with what I've seen from the 5Ds, than the A7r II, both in terms of colour and sharpness. I know that some can't get past the fact that files from Canon cameras do not have the huge dynamic range of Sony and Nikon but, for me, this is not an issue. Canon ergonomics are also fantastic in my opinion.
I haven't actually had a chance to try an A7r II (or the 5Ds) so perhaps my comments are unfair and I'm sure that those who have purchased the A7r II will produce some beautiful imagery.
Best
Liam
Perhaps my use of the term 'bite' is incorrect: by 'bite' I am not referring to the overall contrast levels within the file, but rather the apparent micro-contrast and perception of sharpness that result from the sensor and lens combination, which cannot be replicated or compensated for by additional sharpening/contrast adjustments/clarity/structure in a raw convertor. My subjective opinion from the raw files I have looked at in C1 Pro is that this acuity and micro-contrast is lacking in the A7r II files I have viewed and use of additional sharpening/clarity/structure in C1 Pro do not help.
I am not sure that 'bite', as I mean it, and tonal smoothness are mutually exclusive. Without wishing to start any kind of MF vs 35mm debate - I'm a happy user of both - perhaps this is something that the larger sensor system can give more easily: good pixel level acuity and micro-contrast coupled with smooth tonality (I think the 60mp and 80mp backs are even better than my ageing P45+ in this regard).
Anyway, I don't wish to sound unduly negative about this latest engineering feat by Sony, it's just that there has been so much hype surrounding the release of the A7r II that I am left somewhat underwhelmed on viewing these early images.
Best
Liam