Mike Sandman: Excellent explanation, but I'd like to understand why HDR wouldn't work here. I've used in in situations where there was a high level of contrast. The result didn't look like over-cooked HDR, and the details were visible in areas as dark at the room to the left.
Isn't HDR for situations exactly like this?
(However, I'm not sure I could have squeezed off the five or six shots for HDR during the brief time when the sun was peeking through the rafters.)
yes but you could HDR with the thumb in and then take one shot for the sun.
I like the idea of the thumb, duh - I never really thought of it. that can work in a lot of case where flare will screw up HDR.
pacnwhobbyist: As with the original A7, from a technical standpoint, I think they're okay. But just like its predecessor, I really find myself unimpressed with these photos thus far on the basis of how color and contrast is presented. They look rather drab and "sickly" in some cases.
I'm not going to broad brush the whole Sony brand saying it has poor color reproduction across the board. The A77 II, for example, produces some very nice images with respect to color and contrast (and by every other metric as well).
I don't know..maybe this is just a subjective thing? Someone else might like the colors, I suppose.
sony compression leaves the RAW files with a maximum of 1772 unique values per channel - versus 14 bit for other RAW files - I doubt sony will have the complete tonal accuracy of others, but would only be present more or less when significant post processing is done to the image.
for all purposes under normal circumstances the sony format is "visually lossless compression" and should be identified as such.
Something sony never does.
johnsmith404: I've been wondering why all those manufacturers like Pentax, Sony and Olympus didn't consider this earlier. Especially Pentax has shown that they can control the IS system very accurately on small scales (simulated AA filter).
It's about time this function becomes an industry standard in cameras with IBIS.
the calculations are pretty intense for this. could be processing capacity in the camera.
Akpinxit: Great IQ , but as before : to get more than average results you must pare it with Zeiss lens .
if the 50mm 1.8 gave you a headache, perhaps pick up a different hobby.
djrocks66: Not sure what you are talking about. I think this image is fine. I have an X-T1 and the 56mm and while I can get a similar shot I don't think it is noticeably better. Maybe my eyes are bad?
did you view it in original size?
tabloid: Tools of the Trade.
A photographer went to a socialite party in New York.As he entered the front door, the host said "I love your pictures….they're wonderful, you must have a fantastic camera".He said nothing until dinner was finished, then he said "That was a wonderful dinner, you must have a terrific stove".
The moral of the story is obvious.So to all the people who are going to 'knock' Dp and every camera that they test….remember, good photography is down to you, and not the camera.
I was thinking one of those Hassy NEX's myself
that looks godawful blown up .. perhaps shadowlifting isn't the be all end all?
atamola: oh my...the number one feature in the A7 II for 90% of potential buyers/switchers/upgraders is the IBIS claiming 4.5 stops... and yet, the geniuses with the camera did not even try to go below the 1/focal length rule
Right so for the most part, according to EXIF on the first shot - this could be done with a normal A7 because OIS was enabled - so kind of really shows not much of anything since the other 3 axis are not really as relevant for this type of shot. correct? minor gains, but really OIS needed to be off to see how well IBIS worked in it's entirety.
Zorak: 1/80s, 200mm, handheld I presume ?Impressive, as is the picture of the man walking at 12800 iso... I don't think my A7 can put off this result, I'm quite surprised... Have they changed anything on the sensor or internal processing, or is it just my eyes?
I'm pretty sure your A7 with the FE 70-200 could handle that first scenario with ease ;)
isn't the lens OIS used over the IBIS in the case of the lens having OIS? so in this case I assume it's the FE70-200 which really doesn't show the camera's IBIS running?
Looking at the EXIF on the first one, seems to indicate that OIS and IBIS are both on. (ImageStabilization ON, Anti-Blur: ON)
but very little good examples of where you would need IBIS in camera body.
granted looks like a massive shadow pull .. but shows that perhaps .. maybe using lighting versus post processing would turn in a much better shot - there's a lot of noise on her face and in the middle grays there.
PhotoNative: Well, I expected much more from Alpha 7 mkII. I dare to say, my Fuji X-T1 brings better JPGs, out of the camera, even on 800ISO and with 27mm pancake lens!
yeah see what you mean, pretty gal.. but it really does murder her skin tone
mpgxsvcd: Noise performance of the Canon 7D mkII is not its biggest issue. Actually the noise performance in low light is quite good. Even the DXO tests show that its low light performance is less than ½ a stop behind its competitors. Take a look at the low light scene near the bottles at ISO 1600-6400 and you will see the 7D mkII noise is handled quite well.
Dynamic range is the issue with the 7D mkII. It is almost 2 stops behind its competitors in dynamic range. The studio scene can’t demonstrate that difference because the scene simply does not have enough dynamic range to exceed what the 7D mkII can display. If the dynamic range of the scene does not exceed the dynamic range capacity of the camera’s sensor you can’t draw any conclusions about dynamic range for that image.
"The differences are very, very noticeable if you're shooting landscapes, or purposefully underexposing to save highlights."
only if you are DR limited and not exceeding the DR that would force you to use alternative measures such as grad filters or bracketing anyways. ie: if your scene has 20 EV, it's best not to try to grab it in one shot without any care to how you are composing and shooting the scene, even with a 14EV camera. (yes just pulling numbers out of my ass to make a point). there are certainly some aspects where having more shadow pulling freedom would certainly be helpful - assuming you shoot under ISO 400.
Jogger: Sony A6000 looks best to me, esp. RAW and fine detail.
well, not really ET2. he's right. the 50mm 1.4 is not sharp to the outer extremes as the 55/1.8 is stopped down to 5.6
and the 50/1.4 has a significant amount of CA at 5.6 which will reduce the appearance of "sharp" as you go more the edges which is easily seen in the photos - which isn't there. that again reduces the appearance of "sharpness".
I mean heck we're comparing a brand new 55mm at 1k USD versus a 400 USD twenty year old prime.
that being said, not sure why dpreview would use the 50/1.4 when there's far better lenses out there for a comparative sample.
the sigma art 50mm could be used I believe across all camera bodies now.
can't say I agree with you in low light.
both the a6000 and the new supposedly miracle of modern sensors the Samsung NX1 certainly don't far as well when there's less light.
HeyItsJoel: Bye bye, Olympus Micro Four-Thirds...
m43's will always have a size advantage when it comes to equivalent kit sizes.
Stubb: Let's see if there's an option for losslessly compressed raw files.
awe that's sad news .. but thanks for clarifying that Jeff. I had hopes with their japan website that they were changing this. especially when you see images such as this:
you have to wonder about some of their marketting materials that specifcally state they record 14 bit raws with no mention of compression - lossy at that.
Jane79: Another old Minolta/Sony lens re-released with the exact same optical formula, a new badge and a higher price. If anything, this is proof of Sony squeezing the last drop of profit from Alpha shooters without making any significant investment.
"@RRccad, reread my response. You seemed to have missed the rest of my post which explains everything."
Not really - i never look at DxO overall scores for lenses because i have no clue how they get that. I looked and shows you details on each lens.slr gear gives it very poor corners, photozone, very poor corners. dxo very poor corners.this is in the details. I suspect you're just using Mpix - which would seem to indicate it's "close" but it's not when you dive into the details in all three sites.
sorry - it needs an update.it's showing it's age on a 24Mp sensor let alone newer 36 to 50's coming out.
VM. at 24mm wide open, only the sony has resolution loss in the corners. canon ranked 1, nikon 2, sony 3. at 35mm nikon ranked 1,canon 2, sony a distant 3. starting to tail off in the corners.50mm canon 1, nikon 2, sony really poor in corners now. 70mm canon 1, nikon 2, sony a real distant third.
the sony is optimized for 24mm and fades quickly.
now that was dxo.
photozone.de recorded even worse corners than did DxO.
slrgear? even worse.
so did all three testing sites have "bad copies"?
on what planet do you think this is even remotely close?
or this on APS-C?
spzphoto: That's really disappointing. $1150 for a 70-300 f4.5-5.6? That doesn't even have OSS or a Zeiss sticker?Come on Sony...
how cute.. pity in real life the 70-300G never matched that level of MTF performance especially at 300mm where you should stop down like most other prosumer grade 70-300's for optimium performance.
it does well at the wider end, but gets progressively worse where you atypically want this lens to perform at it's best.
it's still very capable .. but not much more capable than a Canon EF 70-300 IS USM (non-L)
not only that, but it very quickly jumps to 5.6 versus others in the same category.