Angrymagpie: Steve Huff claims the optical performance of the 35/1.4 easily surpasses the FE55/1.8. He did not specify this beyond "rich rendering" in his preview, but do you guys think we might soon be able to get a 35 AF lens that's both faster and visibly sharper than the FE55/1.8?
@ AngrymagpieYou are totally right that "rendering" is a very non-scientific and generally poor parameter to be used when trying to quantify the quality of a lens. Nonetheless, last time I watched steve Huff's site (where he reviewed the A7II) there were a few pictures taken with the Leica Noctilux which just blew me off my chair. They were neither partiuclarly sharp or anything but they had some "magic". In know, I know, "magic" is an even poorer word than "rendering", but I guess that we are talking here about very complex perceptional phenomena that somehow contribute to either like a picture or to be emotionally untouched by it. Or this is all just placebo )
I am sceptical because of two reasons:
In rangefinder cameras the VF is optical. Some people do really prefer to have direct optical view. This camera however is supposed to have an electronic rangefinder, which may turn off some potential customers.
Secondly, a FF sensor with a DR of 11 stops is quite mediocre as per today's standards.
So, the only truly compelling strength of this camera might be an affordable price that's not only much cheaper than LEICA but that also would compete with today's entry level FF cameras such as the A7 (mark I), which sells for a grand.
Anyways, competition is always a great thing, so let's sit back and see what this new gem will actually bring to the table.
Guys, this is an awesome video!!! Very well done and produced. It was a pleasure to watch. Please go on posting more of these real world video reviews!
I really cannot understand why some people are bashing Canon. The picture quality of samples that I have seen (especially that one portrait) is just awesome. This camera absolutely seems to deliver when it comes to high-end studio work, where you have the right lighting and proper tripod etc.Apparently, the Canon 5ds/5dr are cameras for exactely that purpose: great rendering and top resolution for studio works.
If it can be used as well for handheld street shooting at night? I dunno, albeit I dare to doubt it.
Anyways, the strength of the 5Ds/r seems indeed to be studio works where it might replace much more expensive medium format cameras. What's wrong about that? People who want to shoot street candids handheld at night may prefer the 6D or a Sony A7s. And those who need the highest possible resolution at controlled lighting conditions will certainly have a second look at these new Canon babies.
ottonis: First of all: terrific job with that comprehensive and sophisticated review, DPR! Hats off!
I have one question, though:
When using the studio comparison tool it appears to me that the D750 is on par or even slightly better than Sony A7s in low-light up until ISO 6400 -12800. THis is a huge feat, IMO, considering the A7s has been specifically designed to provide top-notch low-light sensitivity, low noise floor and high-ISO IQ.
I don't know how to read out the exif data, so someone may help me out: have the aperture and shutter speed been the same across the D750 and A7s for this particular studio comparison?
Thanks in advance and keep up the great job, guys!That being said:
@ Steen Bay: thx a lot! very helpful.
First of all: terrific job with that comprehensive and sophisticated review, DPR! Hats off!
Yes, C + N do have by far the largest market share, and this means that much more people are awaiting to see reviews for "their" camera brands compared with e.g. Pentax or Sony of Fuji. DPR is putting a hell of effort in their sophisticated reviews and it is just logical to direct most of their (limited!) resources to the largest possible audience, which definitely IS C + N users.
I am sure, if DPR had 10 additional high-profile reviewers, they would most certainly put that A77ii review as fast as any other review.
Everlast66: So DPR managed to make 2 reviews of the 3 month old Canon7D II, with the second review written specifically for the .02 firmware update,but still have not bothered to review the 7 months old Sony A77 II. Even the 2.0 firmware update of the A77 II didn't seem to be important enough.
No wonder Canon and Nikon have the biggest market share if Sony, Pentax and other smaller manufacturers are getting treatment like this.
phazelag: When I get bothered by the rude comments sometimes on a thread, all I have to do is come to one of these posts to realize the editors and writers take way more abuse any of us ever take. Its insane the lack of respect, thanks, or perspective.
Very true. The amount of disrespect and negativity is just mind-staggerIng. Dpreview makes reviews that are among the most comprehensive, most scrutinizing and best written digital camera reviews available. When they point to some technical or functional weaknesses, people cry foul and bias, Same thing when a review is positive, then it's again biased in favor of a company. When they post sample pictures, people moan about alleged lack of "inspirational art".
Most people don't even realize they are visiting one of the best technical digital photography Review sites worldwide. And man people have yet to realize that Dpreview focuses on technical and functional aspects of digital cameras.
I have to say the quality of posts in public forums has massively degraded within the last decade, and I believe IT has something to do with everybody and the cat now being connected with the interwebs, which was completely different 10-15y ago, wen only those truly interested and skilled in a certain domain were actually actively using the Internet.
rabbitzilla: I don't want IBIS. I want lenses, lot of them.
@rabbitzilla"I don't want IBIS". Hahaha! I have been waiting for that one! Oh man, Sony should apologize to its customers and to the world because of innovating the market and because of being the first manufacturer in the world to implement IBIS on a FF mirrorless camera. How shameful!
ipecaca: I bet all photographs are BW because color representation and noise are unacceptable.
@ipecacaEven cameraphones have an acceptable noise profile and color rendition when shooting in good light/daylight, which was apparently the case here.
ottonis: First of all, thanks for sharing these interesting and nice photos. I like them!
Secondly, the eyes and mind behind a camera are what makes 90% of a picture; the camera gear itself accounts for certain limitations, such as operational speed (e.g. slow AF may let you miss some shots, and the DoF is naturally very large with small sensor cameras). That being said, it is absolutely possible to make stunning pictures with modern cameraphones, within the boundaries of those above mentioned limitations. Some of my best pictures I have taken with a Nokia N8 cameraphone; not because its better gear than e.g. a dedicated DSLR/MILC but because its a camera you literally ALWAYS carry with you.
Thirdly, I really don't know what to make of all the negative comments posted below. Some people seem to have lost all their politeness. For example, people complaining about the title and pics not representing entire Thailand but a small part of it - come on guys, really?? Really???
@mgillespieYes, that's true. I remember Nokia having been caught with their pants down, when they advertised their new optical image stabilization system in one of their Lumia phones (I think it was the 920) and it turned out they indeed used a DSLR rig.Nonetheless, even if posting those pics of monkeys from Thailand has been an advertisement stint for Nokia, it does not take away the message that modern cameraphones are capable of some serious photography. While I think that Nokia has set some benchmarks for cameraphones, any other modern smartphone can take pretty good pictures, if used in the right way (e.g. iPhone, the Sony smartphones, Samsung Galaxy etc). I still think that fixed wide angle lens systems (such as virtually ALL smartphones) are NOT exactely the best choice for wildlife photography, but nonetheless, the pics posted here were not bad at all in my opinion.
continued:That all being said, I wish the photos posted here were of higher resolution, considering the Nokia 1020 provides 5MP worth of pics (with pixel binning) alongside the full 38-something MP pics (max resolution).
The B&W conversion is a matter of taste. The way it was performed in these pictures may not be liked by everyone, but it was the photographer's preferred way to convey the characteristic impression of scenery he saw with his eyes.
Some people have complained about the composition / fraiming. You have to consider that these pics have been done with fixed wide angle lens camera! So yeah, try to get close enough to fast moving or nervous monkeys with a wide-angle lens and then try to stage everything in order to get a great composition. It's almost impossible. That's why wildlife photography is dominated by lenses with long focal lengths. Considering these HUGE limitations, I find the composition of the pictures actually very good!
First of all, thanks for sharing these interesting and nice photos. I like them!
The results of this testing clearly reveal that the A7s' strengths are in (low) read noise that comes into effect particularly in shadow areas of the image.That being said, I wonder whether the TRUE advantage of the A7s sensor might be in allowing to significantly underexpose images and to boost shadows in postprocessing to much better effect than would be possible with other cameras. The benefits of this would be: you could use much higher shutter speeds, particularly when you want or need to avoid motion blur (moving objects inavailable light) or when you use non-stabilized lenses and want to avoid camera shake blur.
In other words, could it be that the A7s may provide much more leeway for boosting underexposed image areas in PP and this being the *true* (albeit not yet systematically explored) advantage of the A7s over its A7 siblings or other FF cameras?
Any opinions / comments on that?
ottonis: Question to DPReview:First of all, thanks a lot for this beautifully designed and very well conducted shootout. It is extremely useful for all those pondering with a camera for low-light / hi-ISO use.That being said, I would like to ask about your test procedure (not sure if someone already asekd):In the introduction you say: "2.Aperture and shutter speed were matched across all cameras for any particular ISO setting"Does that mean that all three cameras were set to identical aperture and shutter speed settings at any given ISO step?
Thanks in advance!David
@RishiThanks a lot for explaining, much appreciated.
Question to DPReview:First of all, thanks a lot for this beautifully designed and very well conducted shootout. It is extremely useful for all those pondering with a camera for low-light / hi-ISO use.That being said, I would like to ask about your test procedure (not sure if someone already asekd):In the introduction you say: "2.Aperture and shutter speed were matched across all cameras for any particular ISO setting"Does that mean that all three cameras were set to identical aperture and shutter speed settings at any given ISO step?
ottonis: I find it funny that some people actually compare the A7s with professional grade cameras such as D4s or 1Dx and then conclude that "A7s sucks".
The point is: Sony never positioned the A7s against D4s or 1Dx. Sony positioned the A7s as a special FF interchangable lens camera, capable of super high quality video under low-light conditions. The A7s is optimized for video (Sony needs some beating here for implementing 4k video only as an external option).The A7s is apparently neither optimized for landscapes stills (12 MP of resolution being a limitation here) nor for sports /action stills shooting (low fps and probably same AF as in the A7r).Many of us have seen (or wanted to see) the A7s as the ultimate low-light monster for stills photography, and while it certainly can catch up with the best of the best in low-light performance, it is still NOT a camera really optimized for stills photography.
... cont. from post above: Therefore, I tend to see the A7s as an ultra-luxury interchangable lens version of the RX10. The RX10 was made with great video shooting in mind and while it can be used for stills photography, most people NOT interested in video will pick the much more compact and thus more versatile RX100 mkIII over the RX10.
That being said: Like the RX10, the A7s can probably be used for some great stills photography, too. And while it has not been developed for neither fast action shooting nor for super detailed landsacpe shooting, some people will be more than happy to make use of its class-leading low-light capabilities. We definitely need some more tests and thoroughly performed reviews but I can imagine myself attaching some affordable great legacy lenses onto a A7s and doing great available-light / low-light shooting at weddings, in churches, museums and parties.
I find it funny that some people actually compare the A7s with professional grade cameras such as D4s or 1Dx and then conclude that "A7s sucks".
Where the A7s excels is shadow noise and black noise. The other thing that impresses me is how little difference there is between ISO 3200 --> 6400 --> 12.800. While other Sony cameras such as the A7 or the A6000 show a very notable increase of noise in that ISO range, the A7s seems to keep noise increase under control. THis means that when shooting in low light, ISO 12.800 is not much worse than ISO 3200, which is huge and gives lots of leeway with shutter time and aperture control under low-light conditions.