The GetDPI Photography Forum

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!

A7RII first impressions and LOTS of RAW files

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
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 '
Thanks Tim. You have the cameras and could try to confirm or disprove that finding. TIA.
 

algrove

Well-known member
K-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.
 

Viramati

Member
K-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.
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
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
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
The WATE has always worked well on all FE bodies.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Thanks Tim. You have the cameras and could try to confirm or disprove that finding. TIA.
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 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.
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.

Nikon D810 vs Sony a7RII dark-field noise | The Last Word
 

Malina DZ

Member
tashley, thanks for sharing d810 vs a7RII RAW files.
There is noticeable difference in highlights roll-off near blown areas on the iso64 files (DSC0185 & DSC1638) when they have only "+1.0EV" & "-100 Highlights" adjustments in LR.

a7RII_iso64.jpg

compared_iso64.JPG
 

LDJ

New member
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
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
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
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'll agree that few images overall that I've seen have that wow factor though. I assume it has more to do with a large DR and the adjustment that it'll take to "learn" this camera than it is the actual capability of the tool. Give it a month or so.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Wait till I get home from the weekend. I just shot a night shot 88 seconds. Don't have computer but looks very good on screen.


I disagree on the bite. The shots I did the other day pretty much in the rain where so lifeless when shooting and so very very flat. I'm not sure I could tweak them like I did with even a MF back.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
For the record the images are flat because of the high DR. It's seeing into the shadows much more than many other cams. It's great to get that detail but it's up to us to process correct and get some black and contrast back into the files. Most people right now are showing what's coming off the sensor. Good processing taking a back seat right now. I totally get that, it's new everyone wants to see the DR. Also these files have a very nice tonal range again bite usually is associated with contrast, saturation and a harder look. From what I'm seeing the files are smoother.
 

Viramati

Member
I agree with Guy. Personally a 'flat' file is exactly what I am after as it gives me something neutral to work on in PP. So far what I see is very good with lovely colours and very smooth gradation.
 

LDJ

New member
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
 

fmueller

Active member
I'll make the broadly sweeping statement that there is no substitute for sensor size.

I owned the A7r for awhile and am back with the A7R2. Never did own a Nikon D8xx.

There is nothing I have seen from the A7r2 that makes think it is in the same league as my MFDB in terms of raw image quality. They do fulfill vastly different roles though.

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
 

LDJ

New member
There certainly are roles that the Sony is better suited to than an MF system and I perhaps shouldn't have used medium format to illustrate my point in this thread.

What I will say is that, having played with numerous raw files over the last few months in C1 Pro, I personally prefer the files produced by both the Canon 5Ds and the Nikon D810 systems to those that I have seen so far from the A7r II system at low ISOs - notice that I use the term 'system', as I don't believe that sensor performance can be viewed in isolation from the other elements that contribute to the final file output.

Best

Liam
 
Top