Nick8: "So in your opinion your sensors are currently the best on the market?Yes. "I could not continue reading after that...
@Samuel Dilworth I opened the link, it shows the 6D with less noise at high ISO, which proves nothing as the A7s sensor is better still. Lenses ultimately limit DR, yes, but the limit is at least 2 stops ahead of where Sony is now (and thus 5 stops ahead of Canon).
Your last point, clearly you can produce great results with limited equipment, that's a completely unrelated nobody is suggesting otherwise, my point is simply thus:
When your sensors aren't leading in even a single area, and are quite far behind in some, claiming to "make the best senors" is a bare. Faced. Lie.
jimrpdx: It continues to stun me that FF 36×24 and E-mount are in the same sentence, while the A-mount is shunned like a sick dog. That's impressive, as I thought Sony could no longer stun me with anything...
@Just a Photographer
Show me a blind test with the fastest FF lens wide open verses the fastest m43rds lens wide open (matching FOV as closely as possible) and I will tell you which is the FF image. Two stops difference in depth of field is not hardly noticeable.
You're also talking about 4 x the light gathering area, which is not a "small fraction", when it comes to low light performance.
If Leica hadn't started using it in 1924 we would have ended up with a similar format anyhow. There are no large format DSLR/mirrorless cameras, only a handful of 645. If you want FF, buy FF :)
If you're not interested in quality then maybe it's not worth the hassle. Fortunately there are enough people who are for there to be a market for FF mirrorless cameras.
Treeshade: Sony: "Before we introduced the A7S we didn’t know who would buy it."
Nikon: "So maybe if there is enough demand we may be able to provide another type of mirrorless camera with larger sensors."
@Plastek except that it's the other way round, DSLR sales are falling, mirrorless remaining stable, Sony also earning a lot from their sensor business (a chunk of which comes from Nikon).
Highest resolution in 135 format: Sony, highest resolution in APS-C format: tie, but Canon lagging, greatest dynamic range: Sony, highest continuous shooting speed: Aptina, highest sensitivity: Sony.
They may be good, but there's not even a single area where Canon sensors offer the best performance available, so how they can claim to make the "best" sensors around is totally beyond me.
Bananasplit: He believes that Canon sensors are at the level of Sony sensors, lol!
That's not what he says at all, he says unambiguously that Canon sensors are the best on the market, when everyone else can see they are behind in almost every area!
There are ways to answer the question without playing ignorant and pretending simply to not know about the gulf in dynamic range at low ISO, or worse suggest that it's only some measurements that show a difference when it's plain for all to see. That level of cynicism doesn't impress me.
HowaboutRAW: Cool, now about the compressed raws on the various Sony A7 camera bodies.
You said the lossy compression: "makes the color look washed out", which is clearly false.
It might be *your* best guess because you don't have all the facts, but that doesn't make it true.
What you're saying is like listening to an mp3 with the swearing bleeped out and saying "that must be a result of the MP3 compression, as it's not like that on the CD" despite it being impossible based on how the compression works.
There are other factors that could contribute to differences in colour between Nikon and Sony RAW files **BIG HINT**: different colour filter array!
Each manufacturer has a different philosophy with regards to colour, Sony have always aimed for accuracy, Canon use a weaker CFA for better sensitivity that's better under fluorescent lights. Fuji produce a film like response which is more pleasing but less accurate. But with a bit of profiling you can get the results you want out of nearly any sensor these days, with or without lossy compression.
mike kobal: those Otus lenses would make so much more sense on mirrorless cameras with high def EVF, manual focusing one of these properly through the OVF - even on the best DSLR's - is going to be quite frustratingnot a problem for the lucky ones who actually can afford to buy one of these, they can surely afford to hire the best focus puller in the world ;) and a second shooter using an af lens as back up, just in case :)))
Sangster "practical professional photographer can just buy the top of the line Canikon 85mm offerings."
The axial colour (longitudinal CA) of the Canon 85 f/1.2L is pretty atrocious. That lens is not a bargain Otus alternative.
These are medium format quality lenses, at medium format prices, aimed at, wait for it, medium format photographers (who may wish to shoot 135 for speed / convenience / dynamic range)
The D600/D610 sensor produced by Sony for Nikon has different dyes in the CFA and a different filter stack to the sensor in the A7, which is almost certainly the cause of the colour being "washed out" compared to the D610 output.
Yes the Sony RAWS are smaller, yes that's because of lossy compression that you can't currently disable. But that in no way means the difference in saturation *must* be due to compression. In fact it's not possible for it to influence colour on an image level (the artifacts you get are localized to a horizontal line of 32 pixels wide surrounding a very high contrast edge, and even then will only show up if you push the shadows hard).
You can take it from someone who knows exactly what the compression does and does not do, or you can carry on making assertions with no evidence, it's up to you.
What you're seeing is obviously something else, the lossy compression does nothing that could affect colour saturation, I've read the source code, and coded a test implementation of Sony's compression, so I know a little bit about it.
There's some useful info here:
The Nikon Df doesn't use a Sony sensor so there are bound to be differences.
It's not "easy to see" not does it really affect colour. What you get is a high degree of posterisation when you have a vertical edge with an extreme luminance gradient.
You are only likely to see it if you're shooting star trails or really push the shadows in a high DR scene.
Ruy Penalva: Avoid. I bought a Mark IV to my a7s, and AF does not function at all. Horrible and amateur support if we can call that of support. A guy named Alex try to deceive you as being an specialist. No way to access adapter function (green & advanced). Pricey.
Ruy, there's some useful information to be found on the Metabones website support section, specifically:
It explains how to switch between Green and advanced mode, you do it by pressing a button on the adapter, there's no message on the camera LCD!
Randomly I was in Vianden a few weeks ago and instantly recognised it from the thumbnail!
Summit_pg: GoPro > that thing ;)
Sadly the ability of a Nokia phone to survive atmospheric re-entry was a feature they scrapped when moving into the smartphone era.
The Name is Bond: Big Dynamic range? That's the only reason I didn't go Canon.
Lan Dual ISO mode gives extended dynamic range, at the expense of halving your vertical resolution and introducing other artifacts and difficulties.
I don't know what the "normal mode" that you refer to is, but unless you mean "ISO 800" then I'm afraid the sensor in the D800 and A7 completely blows away the 5D mkIII in terms of dynamic range.
Disclaimer: I own both.
Something "big" to get your camera ready for, that'll be the 24-70mm f/2.8L with image stabilization then!
Why am I suddenly reminded of the opening scene of "The Terminator"? ;)
mgrum: The bottom line that everyone always misses when the whole equivalence thing comes up is this:
*** It all depends on what lenses are actually available ***
A 24mm f/1.4 full frame lens is equivalent to a 12mm f/0.7 lens for micro four thirds. But no-one makes one so there is no equivalent to the 24mm in the real world. Likewise Hasselblad's claims of medium format offering shallower depth of field due to the larger sensor is nonsense, as the required lenses simply don't exist.
My point was just that when deciding between formats you **have to** take lens availability into account. Equivalence says that any system gives the same depth of field if you keep the entrance pupil the same size... but in real life it's not that simple, and due to lens availability there are genuine differences in the depth of field and light gathering abilities of different formats.
@Kipplemaster no camera with phase detect AF will be able to focus an f11 lens, hence the lack of such lenses for DSLRs. Also the optical viewfinder would be pretty dark.
Mirrorless full frame would work better but I still think it would be hard to sell an f/11 lens.
@BorisK1 I'm well aware of the speedbooster, the micro 43rds version would convert the lens into a 17mm f/1.0 (it's 0.71x and only 1 stop)
What about the M-mount 21mm f/1.8 Voiglander lens, you would need a 10.5mm f/0.9 in m43rds, and there's no space for a focal reducer.