DXO declares A7RII the best camera in the world by score (right now)

philip pj said:

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.

Click to expand...

TommieH said:

philip pj said:

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.

Click to expand...

I wonder who buys something that is "adequote" for a specific usecase though. As i wrote, but people seem to ignore, i mainly shoot landscapes and urban landscapes making ISO's beyond 200 99,999% of times irrelevant.

As it seems now the A7r might be the wiser choice even though it would be great to have EFCS and the higher MP count. I expected the A7r II to at least match the d810's DR at base ISO.

Click to expand...

TommieH said:

philip pj said:

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.

Click to expand...

I wonder who buys something that is "adequote" for a specific usecase though. As i wrote, but people seem to ignore, i mainly shoot landscapes and urban landscapes making ISO's beyond 200 99,999% of times irrelevant.

--
Tommie

Click to expand...

Lawmanz said:

TommieH said:

philip pj said:

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.

Click to expand...

I wonder who buys something that is "adequote" for a specific usecase though. As i wrote, but people seem to ignore, i mainly shoot landscapes and urban landscapes making ISO's beyond 200 99,999% of times irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

bclaff said:

Promit said:

The higher DR is only at ISO 64 on the Nikon, which doesn't exist in the A7R II. (It appears in the menus but is faked - the RAW is exposed at 100.) Oddly Kasson and Photons to Photos' numbers don't seem to agree that Nikon gains all that extra DR at ISO 64, so I don't know who's correct.

Click to expand...

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 )

Click to expand...

Absolutic said:

riknash said:

pixelpushing said:

Absolutic said:

I wonder what Tony Northrup, who swears by DXO numbers, would say now, as he suggested in his video review that A7RII is noisier than D810.

Click to expand...

If he rejects the paradigm of downsampling the higher MP camera to compare to the lower (as in this case, DxO resamples to 8MP if I remember right), he could stick to his initial evaluation based on per pixel view.

Click to expand...

Tony briefly discusses DxO score result

He needs to examine his testing methodology or perhaps something is different with his copy of the camera?

Click to expand...

I saw Northrup's video from last night where he says he retested D810 and A7RII and he got results completely opposite of Rishi's. This time he used fast lenses not F4 (I think he used 55FE on Sony and 50? on Nikon) and said D810 clearly autofocused faster. So whatever he is doing he is getting opposite of Rishi's result.

Click to expand...

bclaff said:

Promit said:

The higher DR is only at ISO 64 on the Nikon, which doesn't exist in the A7R II. (It appears in the menus but is faked - the RAW is exposed at 100.) Oddly Kasson and Photons to Photos' numbers don't seem to agree that Nikon gains all that extra DR at ISO 64, so I don't know who's correct.

Click to expand...

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 )

Click to expand...

PVCdroid said:

PVCdroid said:

Promit said:

The higher DR is only at ISO 64 on the Nikon, which doesn't exist in the A7R II. (It appears in the menus but is faked - the RAW is exposed at 100.) Oddly Kasson and Photons to Photos' numbers don't seem to agree that Nikon gains all that extra DR at ISO 64, so I don't know who's correct.

Click to expand...

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 )

Click to expand...

It's Not SIGNIFICANTLY better and you know it. You're trying to make it appear so in charts but it isn't. With the sensitivity and color improvement I view the R2 as the overall winner and so does DXO. In the meantime have fun taking those insignificantly better DR shots with live view on the D810.

Click to expand...

TommieH said:

rdeleonp said:

TommieH said:

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%.

--
Tommie

Click to expand...

From ISO 100 onwards, the A7RII has higher DR than the D810:

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon D810,Sony ILCE-7RII

Click to expand...

So you decided to answer my post without actually reading it? If you would have read it you would see that i mostly shoot landscapes and urban landscapes. What that basically mean is that i nearly always shoot at lowest base ISO; in this case being ISO 100.

--
Tommie

Click to expand...