I must be crazy.

Started Apr 2, 2015 | Discussions thread
Flat view
jalywol Veteran Member • Posts: 9,467
I must be crazy.

I have an A7.  I like it.

I have a 24-70mm.  I like it too.

Every time I go out and shoot with the combo, I am really struck by how good the IQ is when I download my shots at the end of the day.

There's tons of leeway in the image files for PP.

The color depth and tonal gradation are fabulous.

When I attach the LAEA4, I do notice that it's a bit clunky, but then I put the 70-300mm Sony on, and go out and shoot, and VOILA!  AF is good, I can even track things in C-AF if I want, too.  I then come home, download the files, and am struck by how good they are.

I do sometimes think it would be nice to have a 36MP sensor, since then I could do more cropping on the 70-300mm shots when I am using it at the long end for wildlife or birds, but then I think about it a little more, and ask myself if it's worth spending another $2K for those extra pixels.....and the answer is, probably not.

So, what is wrong with me?  After reading the kerfluffle about the A7II review, and the opinion that the D5300 is better at high ISO than the A7II, I had to go look for myself at the text images. Does it truly give output that is better overall than FF?  What is it that the reviewers are seeing vs what I have seen when I have compared FF to APSC and smaller sensors?

Sure enough, the D5300 has less color noise.  But, wait, what about the other components of the image (tonal gradation,  dimensionality of rendering, etc.)?  Were they as good?  I looked at the 3D objects in the studio scene (sponge, feathers, etc), and I'm sorry, but the things that stand out to me as advantages in FF rendering were still jumping out from the screen at me vs these APSC sensors.  When I look at images that contain complex dimensional information, the FF sensors still render it better, with more subtle gradation of color and tone which gives the image overall a more realistic, dimensional appearance.   In my eyes, the slight increase in color noise is far less important than the ability to render this subtle dimensional information correctly in the images, and is what I am most critical of when I am evaluating images produced by any given bit of gear.

I guess what I am saying here is that I am truly puzzled by the apparent disconnect between what I find most important in output and what is actually being used as performance markers during review evaluations.  It seems like everyone is focused on the pixel and not the image, and is looking harder and harder at smaller and smaller evaluative differences to come up with an opinion or a ranking about the gear.  Maybe it's time to figure out something different?


Nikon D5300 Sony a7
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Flat view
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow