Zerg2905: OK, thank you.And now for something completely different*: where is the "crushing" superiority of the Sony sensors (Nikon and Sony cameras), in RAW, ISO 6400, bulb???
* = courtesy of Monty Python.
The noise gap has for sure closed a lot. But that doesn't make a one year old remark on Canon sensors any less true, In the context it was written.
Kudos to Canon for closing the gap. Now if they only let their userbase chose a hi-rez sensor alternative also. Both ni APS-C and FF.
shadowz: The Sony A77 mark2 is almost as good ...while wearing a significantly lower price tag .........
but what do I know .....
Maybe mkII models aren't worthy of that ...?
I'm glad to see the studio scene still intact!I was worried that the lack of A77II comparison photos was due to something had happened with the setup, like a party at the office.
But you know, there is a difference between being able to say "Best in class" and "Best we've ever tested" :)
Anyways, looking forward to a comparison between the two as they are aimed at the same market.
falconeyes: DPR could have done a much better job when reporting this.
Let me fill in the missing facts:
1. 0.005 lux is -9 EV (almost exactly). The scene is pitch black dark indeed.
2. However, to judge the sensor, an EV figure w/o aperture and exposure time is meaningless.
3. According to Sony, it is F1.4, 1/60s exposure. -9 EV then requires ISO 6,000,000 to expose correctly. I.e., the image shown is ISO 6m.
4. That's 3.9 stop beyond e.g., the A7s highest iso level of 410k. But the image quality shown by Sony for a tiny 400x300 pixel image is terrible. While the A7s is still ok at 410k.
Therefore, no conclusion that this chip would be more sensitive than other sensors can be drawn from matrerial provided. Just marketing non info.
And btw, at quantum efficiencies already as high as 65% and read noise as low as 0.4 e- (A7s) rest assured that no miracles are left in this field if you cannot break the laws of nature.
I think the earth is flat. Anyone can see where the world ends, so it must be so.
Sdaniella: I'd rather have ultra-lowlight FF sensor with CLEAN NOISELESS video capability at high ISOs, say from Canon (in 2013 March) which even Sony Alpha 7S lacks (a compromised product, in 2014 April), than a tinier Sony sensor that's noisy in ultra-low light hardly better than its A7S FF sensor
Canon FF CMOS color video sensor, that shoots HD (1080p) in sub-lux 0.010 (less than one-third of moonlight; specifically, no moonlight at all):
Canon develops 35 mm full-frame CMOS sensor for video capture (stars, meteors, etc):http://vimeo.com/61250248
same Canon FF CMOS video sensor capturing bioluminescent fireflies under a moonless night in the forest:http://petapixel.com/2013/09/13/canon-debuts-exciting-prototype-sensor-exceptional-low-light-capability
All Sony can do is show they have a long way to go to to meet Canon users preferences since Canon appears more on-track to deliver what we want, that Sony's A7S is just a rushed compromised half-effort that falls short of delivering good IQ
I must apologize for not immediately appreciating this:"Are you having trouble moving around the image/looking around?"
- Now, that's a comment in good old Phil Askey style!
Thanks for the retro flirt! :)
AV Janus: The end is in sight for high ISO battle.One more nail in the FF coffin.Next up; software DOF control with depth scene info from AF.
That was done in the early 90's. At least on Minoltas. The trick is to accurately guess the intention.
For instance, this fl and this focusing distance indicates head&shoulder portrait. Or landscape. Or macro. Or whatever.
Jogger: Why is colour information so important in automotive applications? Wouldnt they just go monochrome and gain the efficiency of not having the colour filters.
I'd like it to see the difference between a red light and a green light. But then I drive a small car.
To be fair, everyone can always do a better job.
Albino_BlacMan: How long of an exposure do you need at 0.005 lux. Isn't that an imperative piece of information?
I assume some of the better sensors out there can capture some kind of image at that level if you leave the shutter open long enough.
Well, the sensor support 240 fps, so I guess exposure should be less that 1/250 , right???
The examples also shows that Sony/Nikon offer a 36MP sensor that rivals, or beats, the noise on the 5DIII. But if neither cost nor performance is of importance, they are equal.
(YYEEESSS!! I know there is more to the camera, but this was a sensor performance dialogue)
Mike FL: A year ago, "Firefly Footage Captured in 0.01 Lux with Canon’s Amazing Low Light Sensor" as seen from the link below, but we have not see a single Canon being called "King of the darkness" as Nikon DF or Sony A7s does.
We do not know how long will take for a sensor from lab to production, but It is nice to see Sony also joins the game to speed up the process/lab_trial as result of competition.
When the time comes, I will very happy to buy a Pentax Q system equipped with (at least) 10MP sensor from Sony or Canon with low-light performance on par (may be better) than current Sony A7s and/or Nikon DF...
Can not wait...
Combine that Canon sensor with Canons statement about surveillance cameras and addressing that market.
mahonj: a: No-one drives around at night with their lights off - they drive around with them on.Thus, you do not need this capability for automotive applications.
b: The image quality at +72db of gain is fairly awful - but what would you expect with +72 db gain in an image.
c: I think the news is the ability to do +72db if gain at all, or to get usefully clean images with (say) +36 db gain.
As far as I can see, this is about 2x as sensitive as normal sensors.
Which is something, but not driving cars around at night with the lights off.
"As far as I can see" pretty much sums it up.
What if you instead had said: "What kind of possibilities does this sensor open?"
Then you could have learnt about seeing outside the light beam, and much other stuff. Tomorrows cars will be driven by computers, (well some are already.) And they need a lot of visual infomation to do that safely.
ChiTown1200: My A7 that was purchased right at the release time most certainly has a lot of wiggle in the mount with the 24-70 lens on it. I double checked all the fasteners on the camera and lens, nothing loose. It doesn't seem to effect the excellent images this combo makes, but it is kind of annoying. I very well might buy this product, just for piece of mind of fixing a problem that's not really a problem.
I other words, buying this is the same psuedo logic that states that this is a bad design to start with.
Stephen Scharf: I was really surprised to find that the flanges on the OEM E-mount that couple to the lens flanges are made of plastic. Sony engineers should have done an FMEA on that one with respect to possible failure modes.
And they haven't?
rwbaron: Appears to be a really poor design by Sony especially on a camera in this price range. What were they thinking?
How is it poor and how does this stuff change that?
Great!, Keep it!Now use these as subjects for testing DSLR & MLC AF systems.
Eleson: Interesting dpr-talk on user interface. Aren't we all very conservative in terms of the look and feel? - Due to conservative users. Some of the cameras that have tried to change the approach have been more or less slaughtered and dismissed as cameras for non-photographers. No photog's in their right minds would invent the Sony QX series!
It reminds me of when japanese motorcycles was introduced in europe. It was by many not looked upon as real bikes as they didn't leak oil, you didn't need to know that much about servicing a bike. But it turned out that the new riders was more interested in riding that servicing.
Many iPhone shooters want better pictures, but couldn't care less about f-stop, (t-stop), and totally strange shutter speed options, and something called ISO (the gain setting of an OP-amp ??? plz ...) . Oh, and sensor sizes.- Some actually think that a 1" sensor is 1" in atleast one direction!
Today, it's a lot like only F1 drivers and servicemen review cars...
"Answering Q's for a blog site, I found that the same posts continuously came in- they expected the best results, by just making their purchase!"
Maybe that says something, or alot, about the user interface and the steep learning curve?
Or at least ask the question: With another interface, how many questions would never had to be asked? As a hardcore photographer, of course you need all the control and understanding you can get. But does that warrant giving the same UI to the iPhone generation? Miore analogies: How many phone uers would have suggested the iPhone before it was launched?
Make no mistake, I also shy away from alternative interfaces. But is it a matter of habit? Or are they genuinely worse? After 100 years of cars, many have moved away from shuffling gear wheels with a stick, and now also have accepted to remove the handbrake stick. So I think that user interface can evolve.
I guess without knowing the techie stuff, things in terms of:Less noisy indoors.Generally sharper images.Sharper moving subjects.Faster AF.Focus on the right subject.I.e the outcome of all tech details.
Try explaining minimum shutter speed as 1/fl@ISO100 , and then say "And then you just have to adapt that to your ISO400 that you use..." Oh, if you have IS you get 3 stops more... Wtf is a stop??? And why would I want three of them ???
My take on the painter analogy :) : Do you need to know the technical structure of the oil based color, or is it enough if you know how color changes when it dries?
Interesting dpr-talk on user interface. Aren't we all very conservative in terms of the look and feel? - Due to conservative users. Some of the cameras that have tried to change the approach have been more or less slaughtered and dismissed as cameras for non-photographers. No photog's in their right minds would invent the Sony QX series!