BSI Boss? Sony Alpha 7R II added to studio scene

Proof? Were you filmed? Nah! Besides, many Canon L lenses are waterproofed. Most Zeiss equivalents are not.Several readers have already had A7Rs die on them due to a few raindrops, if you check in the forum: it is not my idea.

But yes I can do likewise if I stick my machine in a plastic cover or have an assistant to hold an umbrella over it, or shelter in a doorway etcetera, but no PJ risks losing his assignment by knowingly risking unwaterproofed machinery, especially electrical machinery by standing in rains, in which the autofocus cannot work anyway!!

I can see you are the kind of guy that doesn't let facts stand in the way of your prejudices.

I can understand that you are embarrassed to respond to my point about all those Canon products that were ditched leaving the "early adopters" in the lurch but the Sony Memory Stick after it's 9 evolutionary versions is still going strong, is it not ?

If you are right, break it gently to Lexar/Sandisk who are still selling them.

You single out one brand for criticism when all hi-tech companies do the same with a mixture winners and losers. In the world of photography, Sony had a tiny market share so innovation, differentiation and kite flying were their only option to grow.

They are no worse than the rest and don't share the murky past of some of their competitors that grew and profited from supplying the weapons of war.

You seem to be the kind of guy that won't respond to any point that counters your prejudice like my mention of Sony's loyal support for the Minolta mount and the Memory Stick.

Debate doesn't work unless you react to the points made whether you like them of not. Only then you can introduce new points like "dataman". My last camera was an Olympus and before that a Mamiya 645 AFD with a digital back ; Rollei is the only brand I love.

Adrian, do you have a link to that discussion about the 12 megapixel images compared to newer sensors? Have seen some other commentary on that elsewhere.

Sorry no link, it was discussed a number of months back when forum members were discussing why the D700 was considered a classic and was holding its price despite the arrival of D610. Superior body contruction of D700 and crisp files were discussed by a few members.
Counter to this point was that more resolution in newer cameras offered better cropping ability for D610 or D810. So if you want more MP, then D810 and D750/D610 is the way to go.
D700 is still a fine camera and files hold up well with great lenses and DXOmark of 2300 iso for low light, just less resolution for landscapers or extreme cropping. The Canon 5D3 has nearly same DXOmark for low light at 2293 iso as D700. Not bad for an older camera.
In my own opinion, I think D810 has sharper files overall than D610 in all kinds of extreme light, from images I have seen online. Comments have been made by some members that D750 have bit crisper images than D610 as I think Nikon made some minor tweaks in D750 default profiles.

I'd say yes, but surprisingly that's currently debatable.

Possibly it might be down to your ingenuity for getting a great shot through a EVF or a OVF.

Thanks for replying. I'm still a bit confused, though. No matter what link I follow, there is an option to view either e-shutter or std shutter (I assume this is short for electronic and standard shutter?). An no matter if I set the A7R II to e or std shutter, the ISO looks bad when I follow the first link, and good when I follow the second.

Are you reading the article surrounding the links? It should provide all the context needed to understand them.

@left eye LOL never heard of this term, but sounds incredibly funny. Gotta steal this one from you :)

well in sony there is DMF no need for a lens that has real time manual focus.

Bloggers are just opinion pieces, dpr has the final say.

Ergonomic is stuff for amateurs and people that have time to waste talking about.
Pros attach a lens to a hammer and slam the picture they want.

To sandy b - I don't own any Sony photographic equipment of any kind, and I'm definitely not a "fanboy" of any brand. If you look at my equipment list you'll see all Nikon stuff. However, I try to be open-minded about equipment from various manufacturers. Perhaps I could have phrased that sentence better. Posting anything on DPR is like throwing bloody meat into shark-infested waters. By "surpassed" I meant in certain specific areas, such as a lighter, smaller camera body.

I believe there is a methodology on the site. I think they choose the highest quality native lens available.

Yeah not suggesting anyone's trying to skew a result. But obviously the lens combination will have an effect, especially in the corners, and if you look down this page, there's very little discussion of lenses at all, it's as if the bodies are presented by themselves. As we know also, lens samples vary drastically, even for pro lenses, from outstanding to garbage.

Awarding Gold, silver etc isn't generalisation?

You work for Dpreview so you should be able to see how.

Sorry, I may have misinterpreted the tone of your earlier comment. Indeed it is all personal and subjective in that regard and there's no quantitative means to back what feels right for you, me or the next person. Never mind what I said.

The A7rII and D750 create rather similar results, although I'd have picked ISO25k instead of 51k, because the A7r cannot do 51k plus the A7rII does some additional in-camera processing of the data before it gets written to the RAW file (for all ISOs >ISO25k, Jim Kasson has shown this).

Secondly, the true test for high ISOs are situations where the light isn't perfect studio light, and there you still see that A7rII and D750 play on about the same level, but both start to show this nasty blue/purple high ISO shadow discoloring beyond ISO6400. At ISO25k it is obvious, with the D750 even showing a somewhat better handling (not big difference, though), whereas the A7s seems to be rather unimpressed by the conditions.

This gives the A7rII roughly a stop increase over the D810 in high ISO (D810 shows problems at ISO6400 already), but they are all trailing the A7s.

Slaginfected:

Except I've tried all 4, the A7S, A7RII, D810, and D750, in the same deep shadows over a black background with difficult lighting, and the D750 avoids the magenta blotches until well over ISO 12,800. And so of course does the A7S.

Then it's close, but my guess is that the D810 is also a stronger high ISO body than the A7RII.

There's a lot to like about the A7RII, but in 2015 it's not a particularly strong high ISO body. And perhaps Sony should have skipped the internal 4K thing.

I just used the DPReview tool with RAW settings, and there I see a blueish cast on both A7rII and D750 from ISO12800 on. This is a clear indication that the sensor exhausted its shadow "recovery" capabilities and the read noise is running into the visible parts of the image. Change of RAW converter and/or color profile can lower the impact of the color cast, but it wont change the fact that you are running at the limits of what the sensor can do.

The thing about the A7rII is the fact it can hold the colors together up until about ISO6400, whereas every other 36MPix sensor shows a visible color cast at that ISO already (including the D810). This brings the A7rII to the level of the current crop of 24MPix sensors.

For the resolution, the A7rII delivers the best ISO performance currently available, and in my opinion it goes with the 24MP'ers, which were always about the tradeoff between resolution and ISO capabilities to cover the broadest range of use cases. That's a big feat w/42MPix.

Slaginfected:

Okay, I'm going by my own raws, the DPR studio scene isn't the greatest place to test this.

Hadn't particularly noted any colour cast in my D810 6400ISO samples' shadows. But I'll look again on my hard drive.

"For the resolution", yes the A7RII is good. But I don't think it better than the D810 for high ISOs, and I'm basing my conclusions on real use of both. (Update: I checked my 12800 and 6400 ISO raws from both, and they are nearly the same for noise and colour blotching.)

The A7 has the advantage of being able to use the Zeiss Batis line, and AF, those are less expensive than the Oti.

Eric,

My tests are mostly more useful for this kind of thing.

But no I won't share my raws.

Got some more D810 raws today.

"Got some more D810 raws today"
That's a nice camera, and it's clear Nikon gets a bit more from the sensor. I handled one last week, and it's very large. I found the OVF even less interesting than I remembered. I'm not an early adopter, and the A7 I just picked up used, will work well while Sony works on the non-destructive raw implementation.

Angular JS are you kidding me? LoL just wanted to say it cause everyone thinks Angular JS is kidding.

You guys are all really dumb. Really stupid.. All cameras have bayer color filter array that passes red, green, or blue light -- – the missing color samples are interpolated using a demosaicing algorithm.

Colors you see depend 99% on software algorithm and 1% on bayer filter. It has nothing to do with lens.

In fact, a professional grader working for Hollywood matches colors with no problem regardless of what lenses were used on the camera. The colors have absolutely nothing to do with lenses.

It's funny to watch self appointed experts with names like HowaboutRAW posting utterly stupid things on forums.

""colour is about the lens mostly.""

What an utterly stupid thing to say proving the guy posts a lot but has absolutely no clue about the topic.

"I think you mean most digital cameras work that way, though certainly not all."

By most you obviously mean ALL except Sigma Foveon. Even X-Trans is simply RGB filter arranged differently.

The more you post the more idiotic you sound. Colors have nothing to do with lenses. It's almost entirely software and strength of color filter.

What irony with a name like "HowaboutRAW", the guy says

"colour is about the lens mostly"

Is there a way to ban stupid people?

Adrian Van, nano coating has nothing to do with color. They are designed to avoid reflections and fare.

http://nikon.com/about/technology/life/imaging/nano/index.htm

I will give it a read. Thanks for link.

ET2:

Leica M Monochrome cameras don't work that way either.

You mean most colour digital cameras work that way.

Also technically Sigma is not the only company to have shipped a Foveon based digital camera. Albeit Sigma now owns Foveon and is the only company using Foveon sensors currently.

Again, instead of trying out inaccurate insults on me, you should instead try a good lens, say the Batis 85, and then try to pretend lenses have nothing to do with colour. The insults you toss say more about you than me.

As for the idea that lens coatings have nothing to do with colour: Are you joking, or do you know something in particular about Nikon coatings? Because as general rule it's not at all true.

This guy keeps digging himself in deeper hole the more he posts. Yeah, Leica M Monochrome doesn't have color filter, because it takes black and white pictures. DUH

Despite being told how color works (RGB filter plus the missing color samples are interpolated using a demosaicing algorithm), the guy keeps posting the same stupid thing that colors comes mostly from lenses over and over again.

It's like talking to conspiracy people who believe earth is flat or like people who believe humans never landed on the moon. It's like their brain is immune to logic and science.

"And you neglected the fact that B+W cameras exist. You explicitly wrote:"

I neglected black and white cameras because we are talking about colors. DUH. Is this guy really this stupid in real life or is he simply trolling?

No, lenses don't have impact on color. Colors are almost completely the function of RGB color filter combined with interpolation by software algorithm.

HowaboutRAW, you are an idiot. You said "colour is about the lens mostly." The most idiotic statement ever posted by someone on these forums.

"good lenses improve the quality of the light in the image."

What an idiotic bunch of pseudoscience. Good lenses are sharp. Good lenses have less chromatic aberration. Good lenses have less flare.

Good lenses have absolutely zero to do with color

Even if your statement about color cast with Sigma lens is true, it could be easily corrected by software. Probably you had white balance issue with that particular lens.

ET2:

You keep quoting something from days ago, which had a different context and I corrected back then.

You don't appear to know much about camera lenses. You'd have to be blind to no see the better colour.

Lenses are not simply sharp or not sharp, those who make that claim are expressing their significant ignorance about lenses.

To effect a change in your lens ignorance level get a Batis 85mm to try out.

And no better colour can't be added in post production with software.

HowaboutRAW, stop posting the same lie over and over again. Lenses have absolutely nothing to do with color.

Notice how the guy keeps repeating the same thing about Nikon and Canon without ever posting any evidence that colors are mostly controled by lenses as he claimed yesterday.

Nikon is doing research on what? Post proof, dude, not empty statements.

ET2:

And that's why I said "along the lines".

The point in AV's link is not simply about chromatic aberration.

You may want to actually read the above comment, instead of just assuming.

Again, getting beyond anecdote: Get a Batis 85mm lens. Better colour from good lenses is real easy to see. And in B+W images it becomes about better light.

HowaboutRAW, you have not posted any proof for your claims just empty words and hallow claims.

Colors are really easy to manipulate -- as they are just software interpretation from RGB filer. It is not some deep secret voodoo magic and secret sauce in lenses that generate colors. You are an idiot. It's simply RGB filer (only three wavelengths) and the rest is software interpolation. A Hollywood colorist is able to match two shots taken with various different cameras and different lenses. No problem.

You said, "colour is about the lens mostly."

What an idiotic statement.

ET2:

The proof comes from using say a Batis 85 on your gear.

Colour is not as easy to manipulate as you think. Only those who know little about it say things like that.

You've again mischaracterized my statement, and I explained what I thought was obvious days ago.

As for the science, I'll leave you to figure out what's missing in the colour/light results produced by so many lenses. I will suggest you that you'll need to stop thinking things are entirely known and worked out by the terminology that you can quote readily.

Hollywood shoots with good lenses for a reason, and it's not only sharpness.

I suggest again that you try an optically excellent lens.

Yelling that you're correct doesn't make it so, and reality backs me up.

Once again, all empty claims and anecdotal statements without shred of evidence.

Scientific fact is that colors are the result of RGB filter (only three wavelengths) and the rest is software interpolation. This is an actual fact on how colors are generated.

HowaboutRAW, who just a few days ago told us "colour is about the lens mostly" claims there is a magical sauce (that he can't explain how it works or where it comes from and can't prove it) inside the lens that generates colors.

No shortage of stupid people.

ET2:

How are they empty claims? I've used/owned, tried and rented better lenses.

I see no evidence you have, you may have but I suspect not.

Science isn't exactly what you think, just by way of color example, there's the Foveon sensor and the placement of the blue layer.

And you've mischaracterized my statement and are pretending that's all I said on the subject. You keep digging yourself into a deeper hole with this kind of behavior.

There's no magical sauce, just a better understanding of light, I more than suspect Sigma's acquisition of Foveon allowed Sigma lens engineers to figure some of this out, and that's why SigmaArts do so much better.

After all the other camera company to use a Foveon sensor was Polaroid and they definitely knew more about color, Mr Land himself was real clear on this.

Try a Batis 85 if you want to be treated as knowing much about color photography.

"How are they empty claims? I've used/owned, tried and rented better lenses."

That's not based on a fact or science. It's anecdotal statements. Well, since you says so it must become true that colors are made by lenses. Yeah, sure.

"colour is about the lens mostly"

No, it's not dummy. Scientific fact is that colors are the result of RGB filter (only three wavelengths) and the rest is software interpolation. It's as simple as that. There is no magical sauce in the lens that creates colors. That exists only in your gullible brain.

ET2:

My claims are based on fact, but no I won't share raws/files with you.

You keep digging yourself into a hole by pretending that quotation is all I said on color. I doesn't improve a weak case this midsection.

You clearly don't know much about color, and I've even given you contradictions that you could research if you cared to learn anything.

But no, that's not you.

You may want to consider what those wave lengths are purported to do.

The guy who just a few days ago said, ""colour is about the lens mostly"" is telling people they don't know anything colors.

According to him, colors are really really made by magic sauce inside lens. How that magic sauce works, what's the scientific engineering logic behind it, he doesn't know. Just trust this guy. Colors are really made by magic sauce inside the lense.

No shortage of stupid pseudo science on the internet.

ET2:

Why do you keep going with that quotation, it doesn't make your point, sure I said, and then very quickly amended it.

I have experience with better lenses, I suspect you don't.

You're not in a great position to make claims.

Regarding logic: get back to me when you understand that 1+1=2 is basically a tautology, there is a proof, but that itself requires other givens, which can easily fall apart.

This is the thing you are calling science and logic. Engineering is really only approximation, which can be highly accurate and useful.

Better lenses makes for better light, and in color photography that translates into better color.

I've given you sources to look into, I've recommended hardware you could try. Stop pretending you've actually understood those references.

Do some work.

More mumbo jumbo pseudo science combined with anecdotal claims. Just trust this clown, because he said it's true, even though he has no engineering and scientific explanation on how a magical sauce is inserted inside the lens that creates color, but just trust this guy. He has seen it himself, just as he has seen the UFOs. It's there.

ET2:

The blue layer in a Foveon sensor is mumbo jumbo?

Polaroid didn't know anything about color, are you joking?

I'm not going to give you the science, and I won't claim to have it entirely worked out, but a good Zeiss sure does color better than a good Nikon.

Plenty of people have seen UFOs, I'm not one.

While you're at it look up "tautology".

Notice the guy doesn't even understand Foveon sensor. It's same RGB concept but a pixel is stacked on fact that red wavelength penetrates deeper than green that penetrates deeper thn blue.

Now what does this have anything to do with a lens? Absolutely nothing.

The guy is absolute idiot and note not once he was able to explain the secret sauce inside the lens that creates color. There is no such thing inside the lens

ET2:

You're missing the point about the Foveon sensor, and have invented the "point" you posit I'm making.

You're almost there in your summary, which is in fact an accurate description of the sensor layers. But you're missing something very big.

I suggest you use actually better lenses.

You have provided zero evidence that lens creates colors.

"colour is about the lens mostly"

Np, it isn't. Colors have nothing to do with lenses.

ER2:

Didn't say creates sure adds to.

You've again truncated as statement that I made about lenses and colour.

Also, what you think is the "established science of colour" is contradicted by your own accurate summary of how the Foveon sensor works. However no, it is unlikely that you'll figure out how a lens can effect color if you work through the problem in the science from that approach.

Really reexamine Foveon, you're missing something there, it's big.

Lenses don't add anything to the colors. Colors are generated by the sensor and software, and it's same for both Foveon and Bayer.

You have not posted a shred of logical reasoning on how it's even possible that lenses adds colors to photos. That's absolutely nonsensical statement. You are an idiot

HowaboutRAW, you are an idiot, will remain an idiot. There is no cure for stupid people.

There is nothing in the lens that creates or adds anything to color. That's a dumb idiotic statement, and you haven't given a shred of engineering and scientific reason that would justify that stupid claim.

Here is how color cameras work.

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cameras-photography/digital/digital-camera4.htm

Notice lenses have absolutely nothing to do with color. Lenses can be sharp, contrasty, with less flair and less chromatic aberrations, but there is absolutely nothing inside a lens that creates or adds to color.

ET2:

More unsupported assertions by you about lenses and color. Assertions that are contradicted by reality.

You got the Foveon sensor right, but there's a big problem there, I suggest you look into it.

Your link doesn't prove anything about lenses, it says how a sensor divides up RGB, which I don't dispute.

But better lenses sure make it easier for the sensor (or film) to read something as red of a level, blue of a level, or green of a level. And just good lenses get this confused.

That's also a fairly trivial link you posted.

Hint your summary of the Foveon sensor completely contradicts "official color science".

"More unsupported assertions by you about lenses and color. "

You need to take a basic class in logic. The one who makes a positive claim must prove it. You are the one who is claiming that there is secret unknown sauce inside a lens that creates or adds to color. I asked you to post a scientific explanation evidence for that claim. Where is that secret sauce located? What does it do? How does it it create color? You have not provided a shred of evidence except anecdotal stories.

Thus you are an idiot.

Lenses do not create colors. There is nothing inside a lens to separate colors of light. That is a function of sensor (color filter for bayer) plus software.

There is no hardware or secret sauce inside a lens that even understands color

ET2:

And raws from cameras used with very good lenses prove my point well--ideally 14 bit, or greater, raws if shooting digital.

As does your Foveon summary.

Also logic doesn't say the one who makes the claim must prove the claims.

You mean that logic says claims need to be provable if challenged.

There's difference.

Figure out where "the secret is"; you're on the right track. That prism link you provided, mostly about a subset of video cameras, suggests an approach.

"There is nothing inside a lens to separate colors of light." No, that's where you're wrong, but I'll let you figure out the why, it is actually difficult to figure out.

However good lenses back up you being wrong, I repeat: Use one.

"And raws from cameras used with very good lenses prove my point well"

No, that doesn't prove a point. That's anecdotal claim. People claim to see aliens too. I am not interested in anecdotal evidence.

You need to post scientific explanation of your secret sauce that you claim is inside a lens that creates color.

Why has no one in this word has heard of that secret magically sauce that you claim exists? What engineers created that secret sauce if there is no explanation or patent? Nothing? It can't obviously be Canon and Nikon engineers as their sites say nothing about color creating ability of the lens.

You are a dummy. Real dummy.

ET2:

Sorry you're confused on this, the claim doesn't prove my point, the raws do.

I'm not posting an explanation, your Foveon summary did me a good deal of help.

It's not a patent. That would be the technology that lends itself to better dealing with color which gets patented, not the underlying science.

Canikon lenses are weak in this regard. Olympus and Fuji have been stronger for color for decades. And then there are others--like Leica, Schneider, Zeiss, etc.

First, of all you have not shown any raws that actually prove your point. You are a liar. And proof has to be valid, not contrast difference or white balance issue that can easily be corrected (I am pretty sure that's what people usually see and imagine their more expensive lens has better colors, even though it's actual scientific/engineering fact that there is nothing inside a lens, absolutely nothing, that creates or adds to color. No where does Olympus and others say they have a secret sauce inside the lens that that has anything to do with color

That's made up by stupid people like you.

ET2:

And I certainly wasn't going to share any raws of my own with the likes of you.

You can find raws that generally demonstrate what better lenses do for colour.

No, I've not lied. You've confused a definition there. You don't want to be told something, that's different.

WB? Contrast? Are you joking, or do you really know nothing about color? No it isn't tint either.

Here's a hint: Adobe is certainly aware of some of these problems for not great lenses, and offers a bit of fix, but it's not one of those features you listed. It's a big reason to use Photoshop, but it still can't make even the best Nikon as good for color as the best Zeiss, Leica, Olympus. Irony: Minolta film scanner software has this feature too.

Again, your Foveon summary begins to make the point, but you'll have to do a bit more work to understand why what you posted is correct but indeed disagrees with what you keep labeling as established science.

In other words, you have absolutely zero evidence for your faith.

It's your religious belief that lens creates or adds colors to images, even though Olympus, Fuji, Leica, Schneider, Zeiss, none of these companies say anything like that. Their engineers don't have any secret sauce inside the lense, but it's just your home made faith based on anecdotal evidence that their is a secret sauce that no one, not even these companies engineers, know it.

You are really the dumbest poster posting on these forums.

ET:

Well there’s the evidence you can find from raws shot with good lenses.

There’s the evidence from your statement about how the Foveon sensor works.

There’s no special sauces, there are principles you’d follow if you care.

I’m not sure that it’s true that those lens manufactures say nothing about subtler light differences being distinguished by their better lenses. Such a statement could be in the marketing literature, perhaps “microcontrast”, that’s a favorite. But I’m not going to bother to read that literature. I prefer shooting and getting better results than reading such claims.

You appear to prefer arguing that “such things can’t possibly exist, because colour is well understood” in place of actually trying better lenses.

There is no evidence in raw files that shows lenses produce or add to color.

There is nothing inside a lens that creates or adds color. If there was, optical engineers would know about it, and would improve it, and there would be new patents and articles and discoveries. Nothing. Nada. Just silly stupid people on the internet.

ET2:

That first paragraph is simply an unsupported claim, you do actually need to download raws, or shoot them.

There most certainly are lens effects on color, I suggest again that you use a Batis 85mm, instead of just thinking that your assertion is enough evidence.

Some optical engineers do know about this issue, it's not a surprise that the Germans figured it out first.

No, the one who makes a positive assertion must prove it. You are the one claiming there is secret magic sauce. You provided zero proof. There is no evidence in raw files that shows lenses produce or add to color.

"Some optical engineers do know about this issue"

Post evidence. Post proof.

There is nothing inside a lens that creates or adds color. If there was, optical engineers would know about it, and would improve it, and there would be new patents and articles and discoveries. Nothing. Nada. Just silly stupid people on the internet.

ET2:

You keep using words like "must", I don't must do anything.

You can find raws shot with good Zeisses, or Leicas.

The proof about the lenses is the results. Again your Foveon summary has bit of the proof within.

Your assertions about what a lens can do, don't agree with results from good, bad or middling lenses. So you're still incorrect in those assertions.

Some optical engineers do know about and use this fact, and figure out improved methods of applying this fact over decades.

With all this asserting you've been doing you could be re-reading how a Foveon sensor works and reading again on colour.

Your assertions aren't going to convince anyone with decent colour vision.

"You keep using words like "must", I don't must do anything."

Of course, you won't post proof because there is no proof. It was all hot empty air by an internet troll, like yourself

"Some optical engineers do know about and use this fact,"

Post proof. Post proof. Post proof.

There is nothing inside a lens that creates or adds color. If there was, optical engineers would know about it, and would improve it, and there would be new patents and articles and discoveries. Nothing. Nada. Just silly stupid people on the internet.

ET2:

The proof is in the raws, or colour or B+W negatives, you can find those yourself.

I'm not going to tell you the secrets that these engineers use for optically better lenses, and frankly I'm not informed on these engineering secrets, what I do know is they use different principles. And those you'll have to find out yourself.

These secrets are very unlikely to show up in a patent.

I've told you this before, it's not simply about technology. Even the Foveon point you posted, which is correct, is not simply about tech.

You summarized a very different concept of light there. And that's one I'd not claim to have worked out, but it sure suggests something.

The problem with your assertions is that I've used these lenses. And others have too, and the results easy to see.

You read a bit like those who for years said there's no difference in the nutrition from organically raised food, "science" says it's all the same. Then it became there are slight differences. Then...

You have not posted any proof, dude. Just claiming there is proof out there even though you don't have it isn't proof.

"I'm not going to tell you the secrets that these engineers use for optically better lense"

LOL. What a moronic idiot. Now he knows the engineering secret sauce in the lens, even though from the quality of his posts he couldn't find his own ass with both hands. But he has proclaimed himself to be an optical engineer now with secret sauce.

But of course he won 't tell us about it.

"The problem with your assertions is that I've used these lenses."

More anecdotal statement proving absolutely nothing.
There is nothing inside a lens that creates or adds color. If there was, optical engineers would know about it, and would improve it, and there would be new patents and articles and discoveries. Nothing. Nada. Just silly stupid people on the internet.

Et2:

I'm not claiming to have posted proof, what I said is that raws shot with better lenses prove my point well.

As I said, I don't know the engineering, you're confused on this point. I can guess at some of the principles the engineers pay attention to.

Saying there is noting inside a lens that contributes to better colour is only an assertion.

And indeed some optical engineers know what to look for, though most wouldn't.

You're not used the hardware, you've not looked into Foveon beyond the summary. But you claim to know.

That's not a strong position to be in. Try to wrap your head around the Foveon problem for colour.

"I'm not claiming to have posted proof, what I said is that raws shot with better lenses prove my point well."

No, they don't. There is no evidence in the raw files that show color quality differences with different lenses. You are a liar.

Coloris byproduct of sensor (or color filter) and software, There is nothing inside a lens that has any kind of property to create or add colors.

Nothing. Nada. Zero.

"And indeed some optical engineers know what to look for, "

You have not posted a single evidence for that claim. You are lying shamelessly again and making up stuff.

There is nothing inside a lens that creates or adds color. If there was, optical engineers would know about it, and would improve it, and there would be new patents and articles and discoveries. Nothing of that sort exists.

ET2,

I don't know what raw files you've looked at, but you'll need to look at ones shot with a variety of lenses under very similar lighting with close to the same camera settings.

Perhaps you can share the raws you've downloaded.

I'm not a "liar", you're confused about the meaning of that word.

"Colour is a by product..." just repeating yourself doesn't make it true. Etc

Again your accurate Foveon summary presents a big problem for Newton's colour theory as understood by official science in the year 2015.

I have looked at raw files for years, and found no proof that lens creates or add to colors. You are claiming there is such proof, you have posted zero evidence for that claim.

You are making a positive assertion, so you must prove it. You can't prove a negative. Take a basic class in logic.

"Again your accurate Foveon summary presents a big problem for Newton's colour theory as understood by official science in the year 2015."

Look at this completely incoherent babbling. The guy is a clown.

There is nothing inside a lens that creates or adds color. If there was, optical engineers would know about it, and would improve it, and there would be new patents and articles and discoveries.

ET2,

Doesn't matter how many years you've looked at raw files, you need to have looked at raw files shot with Zeisses.

I don't "must" do anything.

You may want to look at Foveon again, there's a big thing in there, you keep missing it. And it definitely involves colour.

Foveon is a sensor, and not a lens. You keep repeating the word "Foveon " like an idiot, over and over again, but it doesn't prove the lens create or adds to color. There is nothing inside a lens that creates or adds color. If there was, optical engineers would know about it, and would improve it, and there would be new patents and articles and discoveries. No such thing exists.

That's because color has nothing to do with lens. It's sensor or color filter plus software that makes color.

ET2:

And it's okay in my book that you think blue a lower frequency than red.

Some will object though. Since "science" says the reverse. And you like citing "science".

But really you need some good raws shot with Zeisses and then say Nikons under the same light.

Zeiss, Leica, Oly, and now Samsung optical engineers definitely know some aspects of these better principles. Nikon looks to finally be catching on with its latest lenses.

Some of these tests have been available for at least 150 years.

"And it's okay in my book that you think blue a lower frequency than red."

Something I never said. And what does that have to do with lens creating colors? Absolutely nothing.

"But really you need some good raws shot with Zeisses and then say Nikons under the same light."

More empty anecdotal statements.

color has nothing to do with lens. It's sensor or color filter plus software that makes color.

ET2:

You may want to read what you posted about the Foveon sensor--meaning read exactly what you wrote.

What you posted contradicts significant and "established science". Yet what you wrote regarding the Foveon is accurate.

Never said that the Foveon point would tell you how to design a better better lens, but it sure suggests some tests.

The color on Foveon sensor has absolutely nothing to do with lenses. Foveon creatures RGB color output by combining the output of stacked diodes. What does that have do with lenses? Absolutely nothing.

There is nothing inside a lens that creates or adds color. If there was, optical engineers would know about it, and would improve it, and there would be new patents and articles and discoveries.

ET2:

You need to figure out what you're missing.

You need to start by using better lenses.

There is the tiny possibility that you don't have very good colour vision, and that may be why we're talking past each other.

But most can see the effects, that's improvements to colour, of better lenses.

You need to pay attention to the Foveon since is so well contradicts the "established science of colour" that clearly there are things totally unknown about color by the public, which would includes you.

I happen to know a bit more, so clearly does Adobe, and whoever designed the Minolta film scanner software. How all of this applies to lens design is not something I'll claim to have exactly worked out. But I'm sure some lens designers start from this better understanding.

The "discoveries" have been around for more than 100 years. There was the Nikon DPR interview, where the Nikon guy specifically says we don't really know what happens inside the lens' glass. New lenses get patented.

You have never posted a single evidence or even logical argument to back up your claim.

Just empty claims based on anecdotal evidence. Had you taken a basic class in logic , you would have known anecdotal evidence don't prove crap.

Where is that link to Nikon guy where he says anything about colors producing ability of lens? No where. Yet again empty idiotic statement, but not a shred of proof.

There is nothing inside a lens that creates or adds color. If there was, optical engineers would know about it, and would improve it, and there would be new patents and articles and discoveries.

ET2:

Sure I've used logic, but I've not shared raws.

I don't have to "prove" anything, and since it's easy enough to see the effect, proof isn't required here.

The Nikon guy was talking about light inside the lens and computer modeling for new lenses, it was here at DPR within the last 12 months. And light will affect the colour output from a sensor.

Some optical engineers do understand this point.

I've pointed out that the discovers are more than 100 years old. The Nikon interview certainly qualifies as a kind of article. And as I already said new lenses get patented. PhotoShop vX is patented.

You seem a bit confused and are just repeating counter claims in place of actually trying the better gear.

I am fine with my Nikon gear but I think a key point to consider is that now that Sigma are making their Art lenses for Sony also, there will be some excellent, very sharp primes available straight away. And if Sigma release a 24-70mm F2.0 Art on all three formats, that will take some beating.

While I think mirrorless is the future, I don't think Nikon, Canon and Sony (yes, Sony) should drop the SLR form factor to pursue a new type of body and lenses. Heck, I'm quite sure that if Canon and Nikon went mirrorless with EVF and OSPDAF, they would still sell plenty of equipment with the current hardware.

A bigger body provides more space for heat sinking, better/faster shutter mechanisms and/or bigger, more controls. Some lenses from Sony E-mount (SEL70200G, SEL35F14Z, SEL24240, SEL90M28G) are even bigger than SLR counterparts anyways. Where Sony FE cameras shines are when using small lenses, that's it. But if the competition came up with Mirrorless cameras in SLR form factor and used the same sensor from Sony, what else could Sony have in their favor aside from smaller bodies (which are defeated by big lenses adapted or not anyways)?

However. If you're like me, owning 10 to 12 high end lenses, but acquired over the last 15 to 20 years... Unless you're Donald Trump, the barrier to switching, given that manufacturers have been leapfrogging in digital for 15 years, is stunningly high. Going to an all Canon setup (Sony doesn't have anywhere near the equivalent aperture/focal length choices) would cost me four months of my day job income - ENTIRE income. That's the issue... if I could earn it back, no problem. If I can earn anyway, why would I switch? Totally admire Sony's actions, but they're fighting gravity.

Some of us switched because of the advantages mirror-less offers, that have nothing to do with size. The fact that an A7 is substantially lighter than a D750 is nice, but had no bearing on my interest.

skookum8, canon and nikon are big companies, and you can't know what internal projects they work on. They could drop some new amazing camera tomorrow or not at all.

On the other topics you were talking ... yes, there is a some development, however keep in mind that today DSLRs work also as mirror-less cameras in live view mode. That is they "CAN BE" mirror-less, it's just that canon and nilkon AF performance in live view mode is way too poor to be usable for action. For landscape photography a lot of photographers use live view (err... mirror-less kind of mode, if you like) since it was first available on DSLRS - and that would be before mirror-less cameras with interchangeable lenses appeared.

Probably it's just a matter of time till the marketing will decide it's time to move in that direction - at first they will replace entry level DSLRs, and in the end DSLR's will only remain available for certain niches where they make sense.

badi, I hope you're right, just that their current mirrorless efforts haven't inspired confidence that they can or want to. But definitely would be great to see something this fall. I do feel that the D750 could have been launched instead of the D600 so yes, they may be holding back.

well... i'm kind of 99% sure that i'm right: canon and nikon CAN do (they have experienced engineers and the new challenges are not out of this world) ...

But they have other marketing strategies that we might like, so there is a big possibility that those who wait "professional level" mirror-less models for them, to have to wait a looong time :)

Well, you are no photographer. Only a fool would dump Nikon over the Sony. And for what mirrorless? Are we not here for IQ? I see no IQ advantage in mirrorless. But go ahead, sell it. Who whoever buys will likely do more with it than you ever could. You can take that not to the Post Office but directly to the bank!

I'd use an NX1 and shoot 4K.

If we go small sensor than Panasonic GH4 with new firmware

"I'd use an NX1 and shoot 4K."

So you'd put the NX1 up against these FF cameras for the stills part too? Otherwise what you said is nothing to do with this.

No, that was with ref to smaller sensor GH4 and 4k only. At more than twice the price of NX1, A7RII certainly have the right to be king of BSI sensor.
Here is a video that compare 3 camera for video, I think NX1 does a better job at AF
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FB2t05JQmLY

Anyway if you are shooting for news and need to have your photography delivered as fast as you can, you usually shoot JPEG at your target resolution (or anything near that, for example for a front page or a double page), and you end up with smaller JPEG files that do the job perfectly and will be sent as fast as possible, even by a smartphone.

And I agree with @Der Steppenwolf, we don't have all the sam requirements, or we might have different requirements at any time and could not afford to have different dslr, nor could we learn to use many different cameras at their full potential.

17.9 at base ISO, up to 40.5 at 6400, rising exponentially thereafter.

Are we looking at the same camera?

The point about flexibility in a single body is extremely valid, but doesn't make the files any less unwieldy unless you cripple the rez.

I don't know anout you but in my collection ISO 6400 and more make EXTREMELY low procentage of shots. If you shoot at ISO 6400 and more all the time then that is a different story. But then I have to ask what the hell are you shooting ? And why don't you get some fast primes ?
It looks like you are deliberately choosing worst case scenario to make your point !
And NO, not 17.9 "at base ISO" look at the god damn real world gallery provided right here !
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3704287553/sony-alpha-7r-ii-real-world-samples
ISO 800 shot is 17.9 megabytes. You are a sad person that needs to twist the facts and outright lie just to try and make his point !

When selecting RAW iso JPG, I don't see the artifacts anymore. So it looks more like a JPG engine, noise reduction or other compression issue to me ...

The 6D is almost the same as the A7S, the high ISO king, right up to ISO 51,200, ... very little difference between them (in RAW). Only at ISO 102,400 is the A7s noticeably better.

HowaboutRAW: you may be right about the D4S, but between the 6D and the A7s there is very little difference in the Studio shot comparison up to ISO 51,200. The Studio shot comparison gives no option to see the A7s with the silent mode engaged.

zlatko:

The D750 is also a better high ISO body than the 6D.

The Df and A7S are about equal. The A7S suffers from cyan and magenta blotches at lower ISOs than the Df--it's probably a heat thing.

I have my own raws, from all those I mention, and the A7S adds a lot of noise in silent mode.

Troj:

It's only a tiny bit better than the A7RII, and then the Sony gives you more pixels to play with for blurring purposes.

Noise levels at 12800 iso look similar in D810A and Sony a7RII in Rishi's link above. Type in 6400 iso and the D810A looks sightly better to my eyes (smoother raw over Sony), but that is splitting hairs. Nearly the same.

Thanks - yes, I think it's 320. Could Nikon also be doing whatever Sony's doing with the Aptina dual conversion gain patent, but for the whole ISO range and for each sensor separately - basically, the d810 would have received amplifiers dedicated to maximise dynamic range, while the D810A would have received amplifiers dedicated to improve noise characteristics ? This patent for example seems to imply that there is a trade-off between the two : http://www.google.com/patents/US20040251394
And Bill Claff measured the maximum dynamic range of the d810A as being lower.
Perhaps I'm just totally confused though.

Aside from the $3200 A7RII, the EOS M adapter outperforms all the other A7 adapters with EF lenses WRT AF. Also keep in mind a lot of EF lenses don't even work with these EF-NEX AF adapters. Pretty much any pre-2007 lens is a crapshoot at best. EOS M adapter has issues too (battery drain, weak low light AF performance), but they are common to the A7. And the AF has been improved significantly with the M3.

A <$1000 FF EOS-M with an EVF, available battery grip and decent ergos would do very, very, very well.

@ttran88 your A6000 can do AF-C with EF lenses faster than an EOS M?

They will both have crap native lens selection compared to EF though. This comment thread is about MILC performance with EF lenses, and on that front Sony falls short. We can dream and speculate about what might possibly be in the future, but right now, for EF lenses, EF-M >>>>> E mount. Good luck getting a decent priced long tele or pretty much anything delivering the value of the STM line. Cameras are more than test results in a lab, they need lenses to generate value.

Crap native lenses compared to EF? Yeah if you enjoy putting cheap lenses in front of your high end camera.

Lol, EF mount doesn't have high end lenses? And at least their cheap lenses are sharp and of good uniform quality. FE 24-70/4 quality issues are unacceptable. And even the good FE lenses are for the most part overpriced. Only good value FE lens is the 28/2 which has mega distortion issues. Sony is a sensor company first and a tech company second. Cameras need good lens systems to shine.

Actually my experience with Canon lenses is they work well on my A7s and A7.
With the A7s, while AF IS slow and AFS only, some of them are still very useable and even things like face detect and eye AF works.
The A7s still focuses with my Canon 135 f2 l long after it has
given up on most Canon cameras.
Manual focus Canon EF mount lenses work better for me on FF E mount cameras.
I am also looking forward to seeing how well the coming adapter that can use AFC with Canon lenses will work (now overdue by a day or two).
As for price/quality....the 55 1.8 is worth every cent (and that would have been the case if I HAD paid the launch price.
I paid more for three Canon lenses than for the 55 1.8
The cheap FE kit lens is also very good (for a it lens).

AF-C adapter? Who is making it? (Genuinely curious)

55 1.8 is one of the few bargains in the lineup. Still a $1200 lens though.

I paid much less than $900 for my 55 1.8 new at the end of last year/ beginning of this year and that was in Australian dollars so about $700 or so US (probably a bit less even).
The adapter is from DEO and is called the Saker Falcon.
The teaser page has it coming in August (so now a day or two late).
I don't know if it is using a mirror like the LA-EA4 adapter but with an EF mount and newer tech or if it is like the Kipon M4/3 adapter (fast AF without glass but has a few other issues yet).

Operator take Canon's F2.8 zoom and mount them on the A7RII or mount some Zeiss A mount zooms. But not everyone shoots with zooms. And even if you don't buy one there's someone else still waiting for their pre order. 6D sounds like the best canon has too offer from these comments.

But why not test with the same Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 Planar lens ?

deleted

Yes.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=397&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=6&LensComp=106&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4