Previous news story    Next news story

Sony Alpha 7R test scene samples added to first impression review

By dpreview staff on Nov 15, 2013 at 02:34 GMT

We've updated our first impressions review of the Sony Alpha 7R with our studio test scene showing image quality for both JPEG and Raw files. The new scene also offers downloadable Raw samples of both daylight and low light scenes. As always, you can compare the A7R to the increasing number of cameras in our test scene.

368
I own it
569
I want it
107
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 28
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

good image quality, not so good usability.
it could be a great platform to test all SLR lenses.
scores should at least be comparable among similar formats.

0 upvotes
Vitruvius
By Vitruvius (5 months ago)

Holy Crap! I am actually really impressed with how well the RX1 does against the others at "only" 24 MP against the two with 33% more resolution. Check out the lock of hair. Wow.

Is that a superior lens resolution issue?

0 upvotes
ijustloveshooting
By ijustloveshooting (5 months ago)

comparing to jpeg, iso 3200 interestingly shows more and better detail than D800 at iso 800...very strange...
check the old man BW photo at the right side...

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
kecajkerugo
By kecajkerugo (5 months ago)

why so strange? could be a better jpeg engine?

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

JPEG means nothing if image quality is the issue.
also people see more "details" which are actually noise.
especially for cameras with no LPF (why we need it).

0 upvotes
Lan
By Lan (5 months ago)

Please can we have the D800E added to the test scene too?

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (5 months ago)

It's one we do intend to add to the test scene.

0 upvotes
Tomee21
By Tomee21 (5 months ago)

Not like if it were so important...but Canon's overall image quality and color rendition still looks more pleasing to my eyes.

2 upvotes
SMPhoto
By SMPhoto (5 months ago)

Really the only way to do an apples to apples comparison would be to download both Raw images, process them the same way, then downsize or upsize them to the same resolution, then compare. At a glance, the lower resolution Canon seems to have greater "sharpness" due the the fact that the same subject area is smaller. It's hard to appreciate the detail difference at different size images.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (5 months ago)

Or you could click on the 'Print' or 'Web' buttons on the top right of the widget, where it takes the Raw files that we've processed the same way, then downsizes them to a common resolution.

7 upvotes
SMPhoto
By SMPhoto (5 months ago)

Yeah, what he said!

1 upvote
Tomee21
By Tomee21 (5 months ago)

Yeah, but I was referring to the color rendition, not details or sharpness. Color is one of the few things not changing during downsizing. Of course, you can modify the colors of your photos greatly in PS, or in raw editors, but that's exactly my problem. I always have to work quite hard with my GH2 to get the colors which are closer to pleasant, but they never look good enough. These FF cameras are close to each other in this term, but the difference is still visible.

0 upvotes
SMPhoto
By SMPhoto (5 months ago)

I understand, I just didn't know whether you were comparing the JPG or RAW versions. Obviously there is a greater difference in JPGs. I have processed RAW 5DII shots of the same subject along side D800 when shooting a wedding with a 2nd photographer that i hire occasionally that shoots Canon. When ran through LR with the same processing settings, I can't tell much difference, certainly not enough that anyone would ever notice they were shot on different cameras.

0 upvotes
Tomee21
By Tomee21 (5 months ago)

I was comparing the RAW versions. Yeah, the difference is always slighter there, but it is there. It sounds odd but I kinda like Canon's strong red and orange channel. Gives a warmer tone to the image.

0 upvotes
Spectro
By Spectro (5 months ago)

Canon color r usually more saturated. Sony sensor has higher color profile more gradent. It is easy to add saturation to raw in editing. Nikon raw is about collecting as much info as u can. Post processing editing is an individual thing. Some like it more natural other like processing more contrast, sat.

0 upvotes
alatchin
By alatchin (5 months ago)

Looks good to me. Release a good 100mm f3.5 macro and I will probably buy one!

2 upvotes
CeleryBeats
By CeleryBeats (5 months ago)

Impressive. Slightly more noise then the D800 so it seems.

Not that it matters ;)

4 upvotes
jpr2
By jpr2 (5 months ago)

I really do MISS two things in the new DPR's comparometer:

- nowhere in the scene there is an object of a relatively large, uniform surface, like it was a flat blue face of the watch, and yet with some very firmly outlined and crisp ciphers of the OLD comparometer - the bottle at the bottom can't replace that blue watch entirely, alas; the new scene is just a wee bit too busy with lots of pretty "talkative" object;

- and the ability to compare OLDER cameras with the new ones (this would be easier to rectify, but are there any such plans?);

5 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (5 months ago)

We hope to add some old cameras but are working furiously to increase the number of contemporary cameras that are included.

Comment edited 15 seconds after posting
1 upvote
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (5 months ago)

As posted in the other thread:
There's something odd going on with the A7R files in the comparison tool.
For example all the daylight RAW shots in the tool, are nosier than the actual files available for download. In the tool it looks to have more noise than the D800, when you download the files from both, they are practically identical. A difference in sharpening applied to the files?

Here's an example:
http://i40.tinypic.com/2pryagl.jpg

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
luigibozi
By luigibozi (5 months ago)

"There's something odd going on with the A7R" on this site. It doesn't appear in "Cameras receiving the most clicks in reviews and specs in the last five days". I know it's a bug, I'm just kidding... Seriously.

2 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (5 months ago)

Just trying to figure out the reliability of the comparison tool in general. I would rather rely on that than having to download RAW files or converted RAW files for every ISO from cameras I want to compare.

4 upvotes
ageha
By ageha (5 months ago)

Are you looking at the files in a browser? Don't do that, some browsers apply filters.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (5 months ago)

The comparison tool only works in a browser and no, I compared the full files in Irfanview. Also, I don't believe it should add filters to file A but not to file B. ;-)

2 upvotes
ageha
By ageha (5 months ago)

lol, that's not what I said, of course the tool doesn't do that. I said "files".

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (5 months ago)

And notice what I said about the files.

2 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (5 months ago)

The crops displayed in the on-site widget are generated directly from the original file (the one available for download).

I've tried overlaying a pair of the images displayed in the tool on top of the original file (the one available for download) and I can't see a difference until I zoom in to 300%.

Having checked with the developer of the comparison tool, the process is to load the original file, crop and save each crop as a 90% quality JPEG - which is visually indistinguishable. There's no sharpening step.

I certainly can't reproduce the sharpness difference you're showing.

2 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (5 months ago)

Consider my comment as retracted, the differences are indeed so minimal that it's not worth investigating.

2 upvotes
Total comments: 28