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.
Walter: The effort that Adobe has taken to make this change is obviously a response to thought out comments that mainly pros have made. There are a lot of hair trigger responses by ideologues to every post about Adobe that will not change anything. A quote from the wonderful Maya that could just make life better for each one of us is... "If you don't like something, change it. If you can't change it, change your attitude. Don't complain."
I really believe that if there are genuine flaws in CC software Adobe will listen. Bleating on about the "Cloud" and wanting something for free just is not going to change anything.....can't change it......?
Now the Facebook app that uses your computer microphone to record everything you say and stores it ...that is worrying.....:) Anyone strong enough to give up FB?
@Walter: you are talking just like someone familiar with the marketing 101 handbook for Adobe employees. I can tell that because you are defending the subscription model like you were getting some substantial benefit for doing so. There are downsides to it and ANY independent user would see both: the advantages AND the downsides. For me, the downsides clearly outweigh the advantages. The fact, that for you no disadvantags exist, is indicative of being an Adobe employee. You should at least indicate your motives when posting, so that people can better understand where your arguments are coming from.
"CREATIVE CLOUD LOGIN OFFLINE FOR 24h AND COUNTING"...
Apparently these cloud based services can be shut down or hacked ANYTIME, which could kill your business if you are using this software for a living.
Michael Ma: Adobe is never going to change it back. Don't waste your time people.
Actually, I take that back. You are probably keeping them from raising prices.
Fight on! Don't give up! Tell them again how you're never going to upgrade CS6!
A company will do everything in order to be profitable. If nobody were going to apply to the ridiculous cloud thing, they would offer non-cloud options faster than I can type a comment at dpr.
1. "if you can't change it, change your attitude" - if people had followed that advice, we wouldn't have great things such as human rights, democracy, freedom of speech etc. People have given their lives and fought for these achievents that you and me are taking for granted. There is almost nothing that cannot be changed, and if only many enough people were voting with their wallets, Adobe would change their new policy faster than you can say 'hello'.
2. Nobody wants anything for free! But many people want the freedom to choose when and where they want to upgrade their productivity tools. Many people are willing to pay lot of money for a piece of software that will be sitting on their desktop without the ridiculous need to be always connected to a hilarious cloud that anytime can be shut down or hacked.
It is mindblowing that anyone in ther right mind can defend such a policy!