Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: A7rII less than ideal for long exposures?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    545
    Post Thanks / Like

    A7rII less than ideal for long exposures?

    Guys, I just read this at SAR: "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."
    Link: sonyalpharumors

    This is really disappointing as my landscape photography is often made of long exposures and I like to print big.
    I'm thinking I'll wait a few months before deciding. If true, I won't have any choice left but to wait for the next iteration of the 645Z
    as most likely it will have a bigger sensor. Finally a true cmos MF sensor (my standards) in an affordable MF camera (my standards).

    Suffice to say, the D810 is looking better today. And as a matter of fact, the 5DSr too.

    Regards
    Eduardo

  2. #2
    Senior Member biglouis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,128
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A7rII less than ideal for long exposures?

    That is also a worry to me. Not something I have noticed on either the RX1 I had for a time, or on my A7R.

    I occasionally use a Lee Big Stopper to get creamy cloudscapes at 30 seconds or more.

    I'd really like to see some examples of actual photographs exhibiting the issues mentioned in the SAR post.

    LouisB
    -----
    My new book "Whitechapel in 50 BUildings", Flikr Stream, www.louisberk.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  3. #3
    Senior Member mjm6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    526
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    15

    Re: A7rII less than ideal for long exposures?

    Quote Originally Posted by biglouis View Post
    That is also a worry to me. Not something I have noticed on either the RX1 I had for a time, or on my A7R.

    I occasionally use a Lee Big Stopper to get creamy cloudscapes at 30 seconds or more.

    I'd really like to see some more examples of actual photographs exhibiting the issues mentioned in the SAR post.

    LouisB
    I'm not sure this is a real problem and it should be fairly easily tested to verify with images, so the sky isn't falling just yet.

    However, the issue may be made worse (or the test results actually caused by) the fact that the camera drops down to 12-bit image storage under some circumstances and that definitely does compromise the DR and shadow detail somewhat. If they are shooting in a mode that drops the camera into 12-bits, that could be the source of the issue, but it doesn't happen at 1 second exposures automatically. It happens in bulb mode and a few other modes. Here is a link to some info on that:

    http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1379163

    It also has some tests to show the increased shadow noise.
    a7r, a7rII, FE 16-35, FE 24-70GM, FE 70-200, Loxia 21mm, 35mm, 50mm

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    398
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A7rII less than ideal for long exposures?

    Quote Originally Posted by Uaiomex View Post
    Guys, I just read this at SAR: "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."
    Link: sonyalpharumors

    This is really disappointing as my landscape photography is often made of long exposures and I like to print big.
    I'm thinking I'll wait a few months before deciding. If true, I won't have any choice left but to wait for the next iteration of the 645Z
    as most likely it will have a bigger sensor. Finally a true cmos MF sensor (my standards) in an affordable MF camera (my standards).

    Suffice to say, the D810 is looking better today. And as a matter of fact, the 5DSr too.

    Regards
    Eduardo
    The best camera for long exposures seems to be the Canon 5DSR. More detail on why HERE (talks about the 7D2 but 5DSR has similar sensor tech or even better)
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Marin County, CA
    Posts
    593
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A7rII less than ideal for long exposures?

    I'm not exactly sure how an obscure reference to an unknown "lab" in China merits any concern at this point. Nobody knows if the report is authentic, or how this purported lab went about testing or the criteria it used for its conclusions.

    Real test labs don't operate on third party innuendo. The publish results for peer review and comment.

    I'm not saying this is total fabrication, and it does merit further testing from trusted sources. But we are a million miles away from hitting the panic button.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    398
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A7rII less than ideal for long exposures?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken_R View Post
    The best camera for long exposures seems to be the Canon 5DSR. More detail on why HERE (talks about the 7D2 but 5DSR has similar sensor tech or even better)
    Forgot to add that this is obviously pending testing of the A7RII which has yet to be put through the wringer by top reviewers/testers.

  7. #7
    Senior Member mjm6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    526
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    15

    Re: A7rII less than ideal for long exposures?

    Quote Originally Posted by mjm6 View Post
    I'm not sure this is a real problem and it should be fairly easily tested to verify with images, so the sky isn't falling just yet.

    However, the issue may be made worse (or the test results actually caused by) the fact that the camera drops down to 12-bit image storage under some circumstances and that definitely does compromise the DR and shadow detail somewhat. If they are shooting in a mode that drops the camera into 12-bits, that could be the source of the issue, but it doesn't happen at 1 second exposures automatically. It happens in bulb mode and a few other modes. Here is a link to some info on that:

    http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1379163

    It also has some tests to show the increased shadow noise.
    Actually, it occurred to me that automatic long exposure NR in the camera starts at 1 second. So, if they have long exposure NR turned on, that could be the source of the issue. LE NR will use 12-bit files...
    a7r, a7rII, FE 16-35, FE 24-70GM, FE 70-200, Loxia 21mm, 35mm, 50mm

  8. #8
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: A7rII less than ideal for long exposures?

    Turn crap off please. Lol

    I always turn NR off. I shot up to 42 seconds and nothing weird and I shot same scene faster than 30 still nothing. If your a raw shooter turn this stuff off
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  9. #9
    Senior Member ggibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    743
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A7rII less than ideal for long exposures?

    Easy enough to test--maybe one of the lucky early adopters can chime in here.

    I browsed through flickr and found some close-to-full rez shots from the A7rII with 20-30 sec exposures. No issues with noise that I can see.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Auckland, NZ
    Posts
    231
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A7rII less than ideal for long exposures?

    Certainly hope this is not the case, my 7rII should arrive this week and I only shoot LE panos. Fingers crossed.
    David
    Auckland, NZ.

  11. #11
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,610
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: A7rII less than ideal for long exposures?

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    Turn crap off please. Lol

    I always turn NR off. I shot up to 42 seconds and nothing weird and I shot same scene faster than 30 still nothing. If your a raw shooter turn this stuff off


    Thanks, Guy. That is good news!

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    545
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A7rII less than ideal for long exposures?

    Me neither Dan, that's why I said I rather wait a few months before making a decision. So, I publicly thank all early adopters of all brands that share their experiences. As I live far away from the main trading venues, it's usually smarter for me to wait longer than those who easily can test and return not satisfying products.
    Best
    Eduardo

    Quote Originally Posted by dandrewk View Post
    I'm not exactly sure how an obscure reference to an unknown "lab" in China merits any concern at this point. Nobody knows if the report is authentic, or how this purported lab went about testing or the criteria it used for its conclusions.

    Real test labs don't operate on third party innuendo. The publish results for peer review and comment.

    I'm not saying this is total fabrication, and it does merit further testing from trusted sources. But we are a million miles away from hitting the panic button.

  13. #13
    Senior Member biglouis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,128
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A7rII less than ideal for long exposures?

    The above responses certainly reduce the concern.

    I rarely go over 30 seconds on exposures (the automatic limit) and I never have the NR turned on.

    I always work in RAW.

    Thanks for the responses

    LouisB

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    933
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A7rII less than ideal for long exposures?

    I agree with Guy... Just turn the stuff off like LENR and DRO etc....

    My first night I did two shots off the front porch night shots of the street looking for light flare etc with the new 16-35. The shots were each 30 seconds and though not looking for shadow noise specifically I saw nothing that looked odd or abnormal in that area than any of my other cameras. And I was shooting at 100 ISO on a tripod at f8. Both of these shots were PP and then deleted later using a 27" iMac. If it was a obvious issue even though I was looking for something different and trying other softwares for PP since I shoot a fair amount of night scenic's I'm sure I would of noticed it. I deleted my images but look at Quintens "fun with a7rII" high ISO handheld night shot through a window. I don't see anything abnormal or out of the ordinary with his results with those parameters.

    This sort of imagining witch hunt and over reactions to, most of the time misinformation or user error happen with every new camera launch especially those new cameras with innovative new sensor designs. Then comes the reviewers who read these issues talked at early release and then they get involved to dissect these issues down to the extreme single pixel level. Personally I look at a cameras results as it hits my personal needs and wants. Pixel level discussions are of no value to me. It's still early and today I plan on putting this a7rII to my photo needs and wants test but I can say I have not seen anything as yet sub par in my a7rII's imaging and a good number of exceeding expectation results.

    A lot of us have been around Minolta/Sony product for quite awhile. If one looks at Sony's most recent launches since the a7R every new body has been better than the previous one. None of them have been perfect at everything but where is that camera with any manufacturer? If there was a deal breaking issue everyone would be raising the flags by now and it would be what it is. Instead we see early adopters out using these bodies in the genre's they prefer to shoot and I have not heard a deal breaker post other than a return of a camera which appears to be either buyers remorse or a uninformed purchase. Yes, $3200 is a lot of money ,though I got mine after discounts for about what I paid for my a99 when it was released, but sometimes you just have to read the specs and match those to your needs and wants then take the leap of faith after looking at the most recent new product release trends. I can say that so far I have been impressed and no where as yet have I run into a disappointment. I am using mine as mostly a scenic system so my expectations will be different than a sports photographer or someone who shoots small fast BIF photos ( I have a a77II for those ).

    Back to the point if you shoot RAW I agree with Guy ... Always turn the stuff off.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  15. #15
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: A7rII less than ideal for long exposures?

    I got a shot at 3 in the morning for 80 seconds that looks to be excellent . I'll load it up when I get home. No computer with me.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  16. #16
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,874
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A7rII less than ideal for long exposures?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim DE View Post
    I agree with Guy... Just turn the stuff off like LENR and DRO etc....

    My first night I did two shots off the front porch night shots of the street looking for light flare etc with the new 16-35. The shots were each 30 seconds and though not looking for shadow noise specifically I saw nothing that looked odd or abnormal in that area than any of my other cameras. And I was shooting at 100 ISO on a tripod at f8. Both of these shots were PP and then deleted later using a 27" iMac. If it was a obvious issue even though I was looking for something different and trying other softwares for PP since I shoot a fair amount of night scenic's I'm sure I would of noticed it. I deleted my images but look at Quintens "fun with a7rII" high ISO handheld night shot through a window. I don't see anything abnormal or out of the ordinary with his results with those parameters.

    This sort of imagining witch hunt and over reactions to, most of the time misinformation or user error happen with every new camera launch especially those new cameras with innovative new sensor designs. Then comes the reviewers who read these issues talked at early release and then they get involved to dissect these issues down to the extreme single pixel level. Personally I look at a cameras results as it hits my personal needs and wants. Pixel level discussions are of no value to me. It's still early and today I plan on putting this a7rII to my photo needs and wants test but I can say I have not seen anything as yet sub par in my a7rII's imaging and a good number of exceeding expectation results.

    A lot of us have been around Minolta/Sony product for quite awhile. If one looks at Sony's most recent launches since the a7R every new body has been better than the previous one. None of them have been perfect at everything but where is that camera with any manufacturer? If there was a deal breaking issue everyone would be raising the flags by now and it would be what it is. Instead we see early adopters out using these bodies in the genre's they prefer to shoot and I have not heard a deal breaker post other than a return of a camera which appears to be either buyers remorse or a uninformed purchase. Yes, $3200 is a lot of money ,though I got mine after discounts for about what I paid for my a99 when it was released, but sometimes you just have to read the specs and match those to your needs and wants then take the leap of faith after looking at the most recent new product release trends. I can say that so far I have been impressed and no where as yet have I run into a disappointment. I am using mine as mostly a scenic system so my expectations will be different than a sports photographer or someone who shoots small fast BIF photos ( I have a a77II for those ).

    Back to the point if you shoot RAW I agree with Guy ... Always turn the stuff off.
    Thanks for that great observation, I could not agree more !!!!!

  17. #17
    Senior Member pegelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,128
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A7rII less than ideal for long exposures?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim DE View Post
    I agree with Guy... Just turn the stuff off like LENR and DRO etc....

    Back to the point if you shoot RAW I agree with Guy ... Always turn the stuff off.
    I do most of this, I always shoot raw and turn everything OFF.
    The only exception is LE NR (or as it's sometimes called Black Frame subtraction). I leave that on. I tested it (albeit a long time ago with my A700) and could see the detrimental "hot pixels" when exposing > 5 sec and "sensor glow" when exposing > 30 sec and I couldn't find any artifacts or downsides (other then waiting while the camera was exposing the dark frame).

    Are you guys saying that the sensors are now so good that LE NR is no longer needed to suppress hot pixels and (for very long exposures) sensor glow? I'd be happy if that would be the case.
    My Pics
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  18. #18
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: A7rII less than ideal for long exposures?

    I have some hot pixels on screen, waiting to get this in C1.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •