Um, what's so great about the A7 except that it's smaller than this Canon?
It has washed out colour in raw, and a very very audible mechanical shutter. And with its 24MPs, it has about the high ISO performance of this 50MP Canon. It's good for video though.
And I like using EVFs in lowlight shooting, but the A7S is better for that than the A7.
I'm not providing my raws to you, or others, that shouldn't be a surprise.
That mgrum's files back my point up suggest a problem with your logic and thinking.
jackpro: Looks like there is a bit more detail at max iso over nikon 5500 not too bad
People shoot Nikons and Canons at max ISO?
I assume the antecedent of "them" is my raws shot with various Sonys, Nikons and Pentaxes. They very well exist as data points on various hard drives, so I guess that means I "have" them.
No you didn't think, you didn't like to be challenged. And are taking an easy out.
steelhead3: Why do the cheap Canon's sensors outclass their much more expensive cameras?
Sony supplies sensors for say the G16/S120, or G7X.
Top Dog Imaging: --much time devoted to a mediocre camera. I guess Canon has a lot of brand recognition, and Amazon has a lot of inventory.
Really, you think only D810s matter, or 5Ds?
I'm not sharing my raws, a point which will not change no matter how much you try to bully said raws out of me, and where I see it, I will continue to signify the Sony colour problem.
"fabricator", based on what evidence? (I guess I do know how to weld, but that's not what you mean.)
you can look for mgrum's files and testing, the problem is easy enough to see, in both the jpegs and tiffs.
I claimed to have hundreds of files from many recent Sonys, and have very similar shots taken with Nikons under the same lights, all true, but so far that's the extent of my testing. However nearly whenever I see a raw from a recent Sony, I say "want is up with this colour?"
You've misused "defunct" in addition to "debunked".
That doesn't make sense, and contracts the already supplied files and testing.
Now, you really can't claim to know that I don't have files, all you can do is point out that I've not shared them--that's different than "no files".
Why don't you enjoy the gear you have, instead of insisting it has to do everything really well.
In many ways the A7 is an excellent camera, and you sure look to have some nice lenses--just going by your gear list here.
jrkliny: I am truly uncertain how to interpret this new data. When I look at the comparisons it seems that a Nikon 7200 can be pushed about +5 stops without excessive noise. The T6 sensor can be pushed about +3 stops. A couple of extra stops is clearly an improvement, but I am not sure how valuable this will be in normal use.
You have a point about Pentax lens selection, but Pentax has a few very good lenses, and for fewer dollars than Canon.
The K3 shoots DNG, which gets around many of the "software" problems.
To get the body build quality of the K3 from Canon, you'd need purchase 7DII.
The K3 has an excellent Sony sensor.
There you go again misusing the word "debunked", if you'd just stuck with "I don't believe the claim", you'd be in a much stronger position.
I've had, and have, my chance, and my raws and mgrum's files back my point up. Now more testing is still needed.
You don't know about time. Oh, wait, word.
With time and fewer words, Sony may fix this.
arndsan: if we get this trouble covered, ...what about a Leica M review?
Here's the DPR hands on with the M9:
And here a few years later B. Britton with the M9-P:
What be time?
Sony has provided the proof--for some years now.
Nothing "wild" about being able to see colour change subtly detraction. Irony: Nikon, with optically weaker lenses, can do a better job than most current Sonys with excellent lenses, and that's likely because of the 14 bit raws.
Bob 1: At ~$175, or less, whats not to like? I've seen worse image quality in cameras costing 2X this amount! When I shot film, I could easily spend more than $175 for 35mm film, development and printing just on a week-end vacation :)
Perfect camera for my wife and grandchildren. Also, I like the technology of the BSI sensor... http://www.adorama.com/alc/0012961/article/FAQ-Whats-a-Backside-Illuminated-Sensor
Rght, 2009 for a Sony camera.
But BSI CCDs for astro-imaging existed years before that. Sony made some of them.
You're free not to believe me, but I'm not sharing raws.
I don't have to provide them--and I certainly wouldn't to the likes of you as a a policy.
mgrum's tiffs well proved the point, but those are a reworking of Canon 14 bit raws.
It's not simply about color accuracy.
Which pretty much explains why I've responded.
I'm not sharing my raws. I've already said that.
I don't claim to have shot thousands of raws with each of those bodies, and I've done nothing outdoors. But I've shot hundreds of raw samples with several of those bodies. And dozens with other bodies on the list.
Hundreds, like dozens, is more than a few. You really don't have a leg to stand on with the claims about raws I've shot. I remind you that first you denied that I have the raws.
I'm plenty familiar with the bodies in question, and that means I know they don't have a setting to improve color in raw.
First you say I have delusions of grandeur, now it's I feel inferior.
Suggestion: Don't project your dual nature and claim it as mine.
Max number count of what? Meaning: What thing is being counted? (I guess I can find this software and try it myself.)
I don't have a 50D to try, since it's an older model.