email@example.com: Raw: D810 vs A7R2 vs 5DR:I'd pick the Nikon for sharpness, noise, resolution, color.All good. Very subjective.
This guy keeps digging himself in deeper hole the more he posts. Yeah, Leica M Monochrome doesn't have color filter, because it takes black and white pictures. DUH
Despite being told how color works (RGB filter plus the missing color samples are interpolated using a demosaicing algorithm), the guy keeps posting the same stupid thing that colors comes mostly from lenses over and over again.
It's like talking to conspiracy people who believe earth is flat or like people who believe humans never landed on the moon. It's like their brain is immune to logic and science.
Adrian Van, nano coating has nothing to do with color. They are designed to avoid reflections and fare.
"I think you mean most digital cameras work that way, though certainly not all."
By most you obviously mean ALL except Sigma Foveon. Even X-Trans is simply RGB filter arranged differently.
The more you post the more idiotic you sound. Colors have nothing to do with lenses. It's almost entirely software and strength of color filter.
What irony with a name like "HowaboutRAW", the guy says
"colour is about the lens mostly"
Is there a way to ban stupid people?
You guys are all really dumb. Really stupid.. All cameras have bayer color filter array that passes red, green, or blue light -- – the missing color samples are interpolated using a demosaicing algorithm.
Colors you see depend 99% on software algorithm and 1% on bayer filter. It has nothing to do with lens.
In fact, a professional grader working for Hollywood matches colors with no problem regardless of what lenses were used on the camera. The colors have absolutely nothing to do with lenses.
It's funny to watch self appointed experts with names like HowaboutRAW posting utterly stupid things on forums.
""colour is about the lens mostly.""
What an utterly stupid thing to say proving the guy posts a lot but has absolutely no clue about the topic.
cgarrard: Watching Sony since they bought out Konica Minolta has been very interesting. But only in the last 3 years have I seen significant changes in the way they listen to the consumers, implement changes, and improve the products as a result. They are slowly but surely acting more like a smaller camera company than a larger one - and THAT is a good thing.
Someone at Sony got the message, at this point I don't see that it will be much longer for them to make even more changes to cater to professionals and high end enthusiasts alike- so long as they keep the giant SSS Sony on the right path that is.
That's a long winded way of saying- keep improving Sony, your doing the right thing after the initial few frustrating years after you acquired KM.
Looks to me Sony got better when they dumped A-mount along with people like barry fitzgerald, walt knapp, cgarrar, and people running a-mount forums (ahem, who would that be?)
I remember when Sony released RX100 the best title cgarrard could think to announce the launch was this: "Too little too late?"
Things got much better with E-mount, which as I remember, was booed by all these people I mentioned.
Mike_V: One of the very few if only cameras where the JPEG file can easily be bigger than the RAW file.
Not true. Camera jpegs are 13 MB. Raw files are 40+ MB. Not even close
talico: So... When DxOMark rates the sensor, do they take this into account? Does the cooking of the RAW file have any benefit to Sony that make it worth doing? Lower noise? Sony's sensors are supposed to be the best you can buy. Why do they need to do this?
Colors have nothing to do with lenses. You made absurd statement showing you actually posts a lot, even though you have no clue about the topic.
Dxomark scores aren't useless. They tell us something about the sensor.
Please spare us the home cooked anecdotal statements with no evidence.
"And I said nothing about digital cameras, so don't put terms into my comment. It doesn't do your clams a bit of good."
You were responding to someone who was commenting on colors in dpreview studio shots which are taken with digital cameras. Your response that colors on digital cameras have anything to do with lenses goes to show you actually don't know anything about the topic, despite the name "HowaboutRAW "
Please spare us. This thread was started by someone who was talking about dxomark. If you are not responding to that person. what are you doing in this thread anyway?
I would take dxomark over some guy called "HowaboutRAW" who yesterday was telling us color on digital cameras are controlled mostly by lenses (LOL)
There is no proof for your absurd claim.
Richard Butler "The compression curve may be the cause of the slightly lower DR ratings that Sony cameras tend to get, compared with Nikons using similar Sony sensors."
This statement by Richard Butler is pure speculation. A weaker color filter on Nikon is the one of the reason why Nikon cameras score slightly higher DR but usually slighty lower color depth score on dxomark.
HowaboutRAW, not true. A6000 is rated higher than K-3 (same 24 MP sensor) by dxomark, and A5000 is rated higher than pentax KS1 (same 20 MP sensor).
There is is no proof for your absurd claim.
talico, this article isn't about raw noise reduction. It's about compressed raw which reduces the file size and is useful for faster fps with less heating and other benefits of smaller files.
Comazzi: Sony Alpha 7R II tested with a $ 1000 lens and Canon 5DS R tested with a $ 350 lens ? What ?
vscd, there is tiny amount of difference in extreme corner. Center looks the same. Nothing that will change anything for DP studio shots.
Kinematic Digit: As I'm developing some grading and colour correction profiles for the A7 series of cameras, I'm running into the limits of stage 2 raw compression (stripe). It's not something I worry about too much, but this confirms what I've observed as I've been building SLOG profiles.
It's an annoying attribute, and reminds me of the pattern noise you see in Canon files but it also gives limits to what I can do from a profile building aspect.
Bottom line though is there is no free lunch. One either learns to manage or work with the limitations, or complain and whine about it. I've decided to go with working with it.
Although it would be great for Sony to give us an option to turn things off, it will likely mean rebuilding all my profiles for the new system if they do.
It would have not made any difference to jpeg and video even if the source was 14-bit uncompressed. That's because jpeg and video, which are highly compressed 8-bit, are limited by their own bitrate and compression which is far greater limitation than any limitation introduced by the source. You will not improve the quality of jpeg and XAVC even if the camera had 14-bit uncompressed raw. It's totally irrelevant to video and jpegs.
No, it has absolutely nothing to do with video, just like it has absolutely nothing to do with jpegs. Both video and jpegs are 8-bit on all cameras and that 8 bit would have far lower DR than anything introduced by raw compression. Not to mention jpegs and xavc are far more compressed than the raw compression this article is talking about.
"building SLOG profiles."
Are you talking about video? This article has no relevance to video, which is 8-bit XAVC and has nothing at all to do with raw.
Daniel4: It's a pity that nothing in this 1" sensor is actually 1". It's a lie that must stop.
Why you guys have obsession with the is argument only for 1 inch?
Canon S90 was called 1/1.7-inch sensor even though it wasn't really 1/1.7-inch in actual size.
Cheaper P&S and superzoom used to have 1/2.3-inch sensor even though it wasn't really 1/2.3-inch in actual size.
IPhone 6 plus has 1/3-inch sensor even though it isn't really 1/3-inch in actual size.
4/3 sensor in (m4/3) isn't really 4/3-inch
For some reason, someone shows up and whines about this terminology only for 1". Weird. They never cared about it before that.
Operator: So lets make my very personal conclusion:
Proso) better resolution (if you print very very big) - but not better as a 5Ds R
Conso) premium price tag - $2k (D750) vs. $3,2k (A7r II)o) worst in term of noise compared to the D750o) no native 2.8 zoom lenseso) with f/4 zoom lenses way weaker AF system in LowLighto) much much worse battery lifeo) crippled RAW formato) native f/4 zoom lenses much more expensive as in the CaNikon world (for example the 70-200mm) or less performant (no native 24-105 or 24-120)
Unratedo) a bit lighter (if any - only the body not the system) at the price of a smaller body and therefor not so well usability in the fieldo) better EVF in the dark for static subjects at the price with a longer black out time - so not that good for tracking subjectso) better option for adapting of old glass - if that makes sense on a high res sensor?Hhhmm ok Amazon sales guys - make perfect sense now why Canon and Nikon don't make a full frame mirrorless.
No, it not worse. It looks about the same, and that statement is confirmed even by others like DPR reviewers (Rishi)
D810 is the worst.
Your link doesn't prove what you are claiming. It does however show D810 is the worst.
A7RII can maintain noise level with much lower resolution D750 but has higher resolution sensor than D10 which fails miserably.
Thanks for confirmation it's the best sensor.
"worst in term of noise compared to the D750"
That's a lie http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=sony_a7rii&attr13_1=nikon_d750&attr13_2=canon_eos5dsr&attr13_3=nikon_d810&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=12800&attr16_1=12800&attr16_2=12800&attr16_3=12800&attr171_0=off&normalization=print&widget=1&x=-0.09652567975830816&y=-1.0161742338891393