Yes, interesting to say the least, Rishi seems to have a "level head" when it comes to clarification of reality.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
DXO declares A7RII the best camera in the world by score (right now)
Allan Olesen
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,391
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 1,586
Where is the contradiction?
Rishi was testing in how low light the cameras could focus fast - as in "PDAF fast instead of CDAF slow".
Northrup was - at least according to your description - testing how fast the cameras could focus.
I see no contradiction.
B
Billy Ray Valentine
Guest
He isn't.
The OP it talking about the camera being the best in the world based on a DxO is a sensor score.
That score does not take in more important things like, can the camera focus, how does it handle, LENS SELECTION, operational speed, etc. etc.
The package makes the best camera, not a sensor...
Last edited:
PVCdroid
Senior Member
I'm curious about this little surprise he's talking about:
"That said, the a7R II has incredible ISO performance, practically matching the a7S, and another little surprise that we'll keep you in suspense about until we're ready to publish the studio scene."
Meself as well, nail biter...
brownie314
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,139
- Reaction score
- 907
DXO did not declare the A7RII the "best camera in the world". They gave it the highest sensor score - which is very different. I am a lover of no brand, I am no fan boy. I do think the A7RII is a ground breaking camera in many ways. But, the A7RII might not be the best choice for a broad range of photography applications. Sony is fantastic at making sensors - they are the best. But they still have a lot to learn about how income earning photographers use camera bodies.
naththo
Leading Member
Like I say over again like Kevin Rudd repeat ask question about climate change. I say over again for Sony is will you add 14 bit raw lossless uncompressed feature to the camera? I won't stop repeat it until Sony definitely do it.
Mikael Risedal
Senior Member
many people has difficulties to distinguish what is discussed
DXO did not declare the A7RII the "best camera in the world". They gave it the highest sensor score - which is very different
Last edited:
brownie314
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,139
- Reaction score
- 907
uh...can't help you there bro.
Absolutic wrote:
"My kit for A7RII consists of Canon 17-40L, 35FE 2.8, 55FE 1.8. I plan to add Sigma 35/1.4 in either A or EF mount with an adapter (1/2 of the price of Zeiss 35/1.4 FE). I also have hope that Metabones (they are working on firmware right now at least that is what they are saying) figure out the way to fix AF with Canon 85 1.8 EF and 135 2.0 EF and my kit for A7RII is then would be complete."
I have tried the 85/1.8 and 135/2.0 on a Metabones EF-M4/3 adapter (as well as about 8 other lenses). I realise that it is not quite the same as the EF-FE adapter. But the lens exclusions seem much the same which seems to indicate that much the same firmware is used.
On the Metabones site these lenses are excluded in relation to the M4/3 adapter as well. I did a quick check over my lens holding.
It was generally very favourable. The only lens that did not work completely was the 100-400/4.5-5.6 zoom which locked the camera up completely and the lens had to be dismounted to release. I tested with two different examples and the results were exactly the same over several attempts.
A briefer look at the 50/1.8 found it not working and then working - the jury is out and I will have to revisit it. The 135/2.0 works fine - it occasionally misses focus and has to have a retry (sometimes more) but it works within acceptable parameters for me.
Stage illumination (back of hall shot - AF used)
Very poor low red spotlit - back of hall AF - an excellent tricky test of focus
So I call the 135/2.0 a success at least for the M4/3 adapter even if Metabones are not so sure.
I can also testify that such more difficult candidates as the 85/1.2 MkI and 180/3.5 macro also work to my satisfaction.
---
Tom Caldwell
"My kit for A7RII consists of Canon 17-40L, 35FE 2.8, 55FE 1.8. I plan to add Sigma 35/1.4 in either A or EF mount with an adapter (1/2 of the price of Zeiss 35/1.4 FE). I also have hope that Metabones (they are working on firmware right now at least that is what they are saying) figure out the way to fix AF with Canon 85 1.8 EF and 135 2.0 EF and my kit for A7RII is then would be complete."
I have tried the 85/1.8 and 135/2.0 on a Metabones EF-M4/3 adapter (as well as about 8 other lenses). I realise that it is not quite the same as the EF-FE adapter. But the lens exclusions seem much the same which seems to indicate that much the same firmware is used.
On the Metabones site these lenses are excluded in relation to the M4/3 adapter as well. I did a quick check over my lens holding.
It was generally very favourable. The only lens that did not work completely was the 100-400/4.5-5.6 zoom which locked the camera up completely and the lens had to be dismounted to release. I tested with two different examples and the results were exactly the same over several attempts.
A briefer look at the 50/1.8 found it not working and then working - the jury is out and I will have to revisit it. The 135/2.0 works fine - it occasionally misses focus and has to have a retry (sometimes more) but it works within acceptable parameters for me.
Stage illumination (back of hall shot - AF used)
Very poor low red spotlit - back of hall AF - an excellent tricky test of focus
So I call the 135/2.0 a success at least for the M4/3 adapter even if Metabones are not so sure.
I can also testify that such more difficult candidates as the 85/1.2 MkI and 180/3.5 macro also work to my satisfaction.
---
Tom Caldwell
So what's up with the 13.9EV dynamic range? One would think that the pricier A7r II would be close to having the same DR as the D810 but instead it has lower DR then the A7r? ...
I've been thinking about the A7r II for landscape/urban landscapes but seeing that the DR is actually lower then the A7r doesn't feel great when the price difference between the A7r and A7r II is about 50%.
I've been thinking about the A7r II for landscape/urban landscapes but seeing that the DR is actually lower then the A7r doesn't feel great when the price difference between the A7r and A7r II is about 50%.
So what's up with the 13.9EV dynamic range?
It's called 'more than adequate' and puts it and the other Sony sensor'd monsters deep into the 'good enough' league. Much better is the full stop extra color/DR performance at mid-high ISO levels, no one matches that.
Sony went for balance - not some dopey numbers race for the max at base ISO title. So high ISO-resolution-video is the game. Look at the graphs instead, see the patterns through the ISO range.
It's called 'more than adequate' and puts it and the other Sony sensor'd monsters deep into the 'good enough' league. Much better is the full stop extra color/DR performance at mid-high ISO levels, no one matches that.
Sony went for balance - not some dopey numbers race for the max at base ISO title. So high ISO-resolution-video is the game. Look at the graphs instead, see the patterns through the ISO range.
I think it's better to use 'more than adequate' and 'good enough' for cameras that are a fifth of the price when we can find quite a few apsc with above 13EV DR. Even the Nikon D7200 gets a crazy 14.6EV for DR.
Last edited:
Allan Olesen
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,391
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 1,586
bclaff
Forum Pro
Not sure about Jim Kasson's numbers. He's definitely a great resource but concentrates on Sony.
I have:
Interactive PDR Chart
and:
Interactive Read Noise in DNs
Both show Nikon D810 base ISO is 64 and PDR at ISO 64 is significantly better than ISO 100.
--
Bill (visit me at http://www.photonstophotos.net )
Absolutic
Veteran Member
Thank u for telling us about ur experience"My kit for A7RII consists of Canon 17-40L, 35FE 2.8, 55FE 1.8. I plan to add Sigma 35/1.4 in either A or EF mount with an adapter (1/2 of the price of Zeiss 35/1.4 FE). I also have hope that Metabones (they are working on firmware right now at least that is what they are saying) figure out the way to fix AF with Canon 85 1.8 EF and 135 2.0 EF and my kit for A7RII is then would be complete."
I have tried the 85/1.8 and 135/2.0 on a Metabones EF-M4/3 adapter (as well as about 8 other lenses). I realise that it is not quite the same as the EF-FE adapter. But the lens exclusions seem much the same which seems to indicate that much the same firmware is used.
On the Metabones site these lenses are excluded in relation to the M4/3 adapter as well. I did a quick check over my lens holding.
It was generally very favourable. The only lens that did not work completely was the 100-400/4.5-5.6 zoom which locked the camera up completely and the lens had to be dismounted to release. I tested with two different examples and the results were exactly the same over several attempts.
A briefer look at the 50/1.8 found it not working and then working - the jury is out and I will have to revisit it. The 135/2.0 works fine - it occasionally misses focus and has to have a retry (sometimes more) but it works within acceptable parameters for me.
Stage illumination (back of hall shot - AF used)
Very poor low red spotlit - back of hall AF - an excellent tricky test of focus
So I call the 135/2.0 a success at least for the M4/3 adapter even if Metabones are not so sure.
I can also testify that such more difficult candidates as the 85/1.2 MkI and 180/3.5 macro also work to my satisfaction.
---
Tom Caldwell
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum