beavertown: Dynamic range compare to entry level APS-C D5500 is awful.
The point I was exploring was that the Nikons do seem to have quite a bit more read noise at lower ISOs, so lowering the ISO and underexposing will add significant noise to the non-highlights.The D750 at ISO 6400 has half the read noise it has at ISO 200, which isn't quite ISO invariant.
Yes, although that does start to look less natural after a while so is both an art and a skill - well hopefully anyway ;-)
At low ISO it really does need a suitable subject to use 14 DXO stops, I do 2 stop shadow raises a fair bit but the number of times I'd want 3-4 stops is very limiting. YMMV of course.
The Nikons not being all that invariant is interesting though, as losing more than a stop is a lot when 8ish stops might be all that's available.
Not that the low-ISO Nikon DR isn't a good thing, as I've already said, I'm just not so sure about the ISO invariance stacking up so well unless you might have surprise highlights (if they aren't a surprise you should perhaps be shooting at lower ISO in the first place).
I think I'm going with the r BTW, as the sharpness advantage seems tangible and while I hate (!) moire I've seen it on s shots too. It looks like 2-3 weeks wait though - it seems Canon significantly underestimated demand in the U.K.
Note I'm just debating this out of interest, not arguing at all as I think ISO invariance is a good thing. However the D750 read noise comes out (per sensorgen) at 4.7 at 200, 4.3 at 400 and 3.4 at 800. I'm thinking you'd still like the 6D's 2.0 at 6400 (D750 is 2.4 at 6400 BTW, which is its minima). The D810 is very similar (but I went with the D750 as the pixel count is closer to the Canons). A 7DmkII has 2.2 electrons read noise at 6400, that would seem encouraging for the 5Ds.
I get that, though it's a pain reviewing the images and you don't have anything to show that much DR on. Plus you can play that game a little bit with the 7DmkII provided you start a bit up the ISO scale (I think it has the same read noise at ISO 1000 as a 5300 at 100). Not that playing ISO invariant games doesn't have a small niche place of course. BTW is there a Nikon sensor that doesn't knock at least a third off its read noise going from 100 to 6400? It's not that invariant (e.g D810 5.5->2.6 so more than twice the DR at 6400 over 100 as the signal's the same).
(Extra bit as I was thinking about this.) A Canon 6D has 2.0 Electrons Read noise at 6400, a D750 5.5 at Base ISO, you sure you'd want to use the Nikon that way at (effective) 6400 vs the Canon? Pretty much all the Canons shot at 6400 will give you more than twice the DR of a Nikon at ISO 100 (Canon Read Noises being in the 2s and Nikons in the 5s). Not that the Nikon base-ISO DR isn't great BTW.
MartinB77: Regarding Sensor-Tech, Canon is way behind Sony - period.
But I can rmember a time where every other competitor built their CCD sensors and everyone said Canon's CMOS technology is a dead end. Well, Canon proved them lies.
As for me as consumer, I just sit back and wait what's next. Meanwhile my 550D takes good enough pictures for me as at the time I've bought it. Maybe Canon could catch up - hello 80D. If not - hello Nikon/Pentax (i would consider Sony if they could manage it not to lossy compress the RAW files).
As an aside Canon's sensors are as good as anybody's, their issue is they digitise the signals off-sensor which limits the DR you can get at low ISO due to adding some noise. (For example the 6D sensor has 15.5 stops of DR, but you only get to use 12 and a bit due to the extra noise.) At high ISO the off-sensor stuff falls away and they are generally the same at the Sony's, Aptinas and Toshibas (probably better for pattern noise in the latest ones).
photohp: So much chromatic aberration on the 5DR. What lens are they using? It is clear that the sensor has exceeded the capabilities of the lens.
It's moire not aberration, down to the lack of an AA filter or a weak AA filter. There's not much you can do about with a Bayer sensor as you only get info on one colour at each pixel so you have to guess the rest.
photominion: I just clicked the article for the comments I admit..
It is one of dprs main attractions... (Sorry guys.)
Lassoni: Remember how 1DC got a massive price drop couple of months back or something? That must've tore the pants of existing owners, seeing value of camera drop by thousands in one night. And how sony is coming with a a7r2 that can do pretty much the same thing, but for much cheaper? Oh god, canon is doing bad.
It's an old camera and a specific video camera, it's natural the price should drop (it was announced in April 2012). Anyone expecting camera body prices to hold up over time really hasn't been paying attention (50+ year old Leicas excepted). Lenses can hold their price. Most cameras are at 60-ish% of the starting price after 18 months. The A7r was £1700 Feb 2014 and £1300 by Dec; the A7 went from £1300 to £800 (note these are all long before their replacements were announced).Quite why you feel Canon should be worried that an EoL camera which they have presumably had most of the sales they were going to get from in the previous two years should be able to compete, or not, with a camera that's not even on sale yet seems strange.
King of Song: It appears this sensor may be better than I had expected? If it could only match the A7 II R's DR and low light performance then I would have to reconsider whether or not to sell all my Canon gear?
But at this point superior resolution alone, is not enough to trump all of the advantages of the mirrorless new Sony. Of course Canon still has the huge system of lenses. But, how many lenses in the Canon system can do justice to this sensor? Not many I suspect?
Samuel - I just bought a 16-35 f4 and it's very sharp away from the extreme corners, but I think the 10-22 (which I traded in, not shooting APS any more) is actually relatively better in the corners. No use on a 5Ds though. I may regret selling it though.
smallLebowski: Wow - compared to A7R - there's 1,5 or even 2 stops ISO difference in favor of Sony A7R. And A7RII is 1 stop better than A7R. So it's up to 3 stops advantage for A7RII over 5Ds/r. If in DR this 5Ds sensor performs as poorly - then it's a Dead on Arrival.
But are you aware of any camera that will give 10 stops of DR at ISO 6400, let alone above, so even if you can shoot above that the DR is falling all the time.
I would assume that at ISO 800 and up it will have better DR than a D5500 based on DXO's results for similar cameras. Low ISO DR is REALLY handy if you need 3+ stop shadow pulls, but few people do, high ISO DR is always useful as that's where the DR finally drops below what you can actually reproduce.
Example - if you want 10 stops of DR you can shoot a D5500 to ISO 1600 and above that you have to combine multiple images shot at different exposures. A 6D can do 10 stops to ISO 4000. A 7DmkII is identical to a D5500 at 1600 (and above).
Is there an ETA for the A7rII yet, I'd like to see that too?
Also is it possible to have a specific aliasing test that will be worse at assorted frequencies (i.e. varies across it's area)? Currently you can eventually find areas where camera A looks worse than Camera B and v.v. but it's not really meaningful.
BTW I found an area where the 5Ds has more moire than the 5Dsr - is there a prize? ;-)
Oh and many thanks, I think I'll get the r after all.
Would have been interesting to see the 85/1.2 too, while the edges aren't the sharpest the centre is pretty amazing even wide open (and the centre is better than the 85/1.8 at all apertures, Photozone have it sharper at f2 than the 1.8 at any aperture).
Marksphoto: Looks exciting if you already got olympus lenses. Canon shooters have to wait for innovations patiently.
On the other hand I could buy this device and put it on the shelf, I don't know if I would ever use it after the excitement has settled in...
You'd be just as happy to buy the Canon SLT, slap a pancake lens on it and carry it on a belt holster. You'd get a bigger sensor and your hands are free and money left for a nice bottle of Hennesy. That's if we don't even begin to touch the surface of how clumsy the idea of a separate device like this in a workflow maybe.
Strictly you really want Panasonic lenses with OIS, not Olympus lenses, as they left the IBIS out...
Dr_Jon: Here:http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2015/06/16/sony-qa-the-must-have-sensor-tech-of-the-futureIt was stated that they don't do CDAF when using adapted DSLR lenses, did you get anything more on that? (I can see why they might not, as Ultra/Hyper/...-sonic lenses aren't great at doing loads of tiny AF steps.)The actual quote is:"I wondered aloud whether focusing with SLR lenses employed a contrast-detect cycle, to which Sony's Mark Weir replied that the A7R Mark II was using only phase-detect AF, vs the two-stage hybrid approach Maki-san mentioned earlier."
Actually while I'm asking did you get to test the AF with a non-WA lens, as all the videos I've seen used AF-friendly Wide-Angles?
Here:http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2015/06/16/sony-qa-the-must-have-sensor-tech-of-the-futureIt was stated that they don't do CDAF when using adapted DSLR lenses, did you get anything more on that? (I can see why they might not, as Ultra/Hyper/...-sonic lenses aren't great at doing loads of tiny AF steps.)The actual quote is:"I wondered aloud whether focusing with SLR lenses employed a contrast-detect cycle, to which Sony's Mark Weir replied that the A7R Mark II was using only phase-detect AF, vs the two-stage hybrid approach Maki-san mentioned earlier."
mpgxsvcd: I was disappointed that they haven't figured out how to fix the RAW compression issue. That will be a tough thing for them to overcome when the other manufactures have that advantage over them.
That being said their camera has so many more advantages that some people might be able to work around the RAW compression difference.
I think this is misstated - what people are asking for is lossless compressed raw, rather than lossy compressed raw, which loses some information. I don't think anybody much has an issue with the raw files being compressed.
Operator: At least dpreview is honest enough to mark the article as "Featured Story". Sony must pay a lot for this advertisement.
But, makes perfect sense - in the moment they lose money with the mirrorless cameras. Let's see if A7r II will be a success (personally don't think so) ...
I find him to be smart and knowledgeable, plus usually he can dig up interesting stuff in Company's accounts and save me looking - although I really did go through 84 pages of Sony numbers for my previous post...
Imaging products and Solutions 2015 sales (year to 31 Mar) 720M YenDevices (which is a heck of a lot of stuff in addition to sensors) 956M Yen.Not a side-show I think (from Page 84 of the 2015 accounts.)
Quote:"Thom Hogan • a month agoActually, so far it has hit Nikon less than three of the others you mention. Nikon maintained market share and profitability. Indeed, the CAMERA business is providing profits to make up for losses and investments elsewhere in the company.
Sony is an interesting case. It appears that they really did a number in reworking their Imaging group (which now includes both the camera business you're thinking of and the professional video stuff). But as I noted when I reported on Sony earlier, the pro video stuff is providing most of the profit in that group. Sony's still cameras are running on thin margins, and even that seems somewhat masked by pushing some expenses out of the group. Also, note that where Nikon is declining in unit volume, Sony is absolutely hemorrhaging. They're predicting far bigger declines next year than Nikon."
I assume the declines he mentions are overall, so including compacts.