a6600 measures technically better than a7r4 in crop mode!

SimonOL said:

Advent1sam said:

I used to think crop was a viable option on FF cameras, a6600 put paid to that, ergo of a6600 is absolutely fine as is the weight

Click to expand...

LOL That's a statement almost as bizarre as 'I think the chart is accurate... and tells the whole story.' ;-) Since when has any graph told the whole story about anything?

A graph that shows an apsc camera has a hair better SNR than a FF camera in crop mode, a difference so small that's it's unlikely to be visible in the real world, and this means that using that crop mode is not a viable option...

If the graph had shown the A6600 a hair below the FF camera, would that mean the A6600 wasn't a viable option and the A7Riv would be back on your shopping list?

Click to expand...

Who knows, I didn't design the sensor or produce the chart, point being I was expecting the a7r4 in crop to be a lot better than it is, I find it very disappointing in fact that with bsi and the amount of research and investment Sony has poured into FF how far they have got, not very!

Advent1sam said:

Who knows, I didn't design the sensor or produce the chart, point being I was expecting the a7r4 in crop to be a lot better than it is, I find it very disappointing in fact that with bsi and the amount of research and investment Sony has poured into FF how far they have got, not very!

Click to expand...

in those crops the 6600 is only pushing 5EV the rest are pushing 6EV ...

Sam, just look at how soft the A6600 sample is , there`s definitely hidden NR going on there , whether its in the RAWs or in LR I don`t know but its very evident in all the 6100/6600 samples on DP Review at high ISOs .. I noticed it the most on crops you posted on the APS-C forum with the black and white cartoon portion of the test scene , the 6000 was by far the sharpest and the 6600 / M6-II the softest

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

AdamT said:

Adam-T said:

Hmm, I'll take my chances with the a6600, I think the chart is accurate Adam and tells the whole story, the overall improvement is intriguing!

Click to expand...

Very minimal and unlikely noticable in real life .. it`s called "Measurbation" ..

Click to expand...

The results are clear Adam, sorry!

Adam-T said:

I really hate to say it Sam but you`ve actually Downgraded your image quality from the XT100 which had the same sensor with no AA filter ! ... you did gain a vast diff in AF and CPU speed, the XT100 was painful to use but the image quality was probably the pinnacle of APS-C in RAW and it had the Fuji colours in JPG..

Click to expand...

Actually Adam I gained everything I wanted with the a6600, I love the x-t100 and I am sure there'll be an x-t200 but iso200 base was/is a huge issue for night and landscape and just general outdoor in the summer when you can breach 1/4000 at iso200. The other thing was the fps, 6 just wasn't enough sadly and the Fuji lenses, the lack of a 70-300 drove me nuts, that 56 1.2 motor, omg some of the Fuji lenses are trash from an af perspective. But I don't want to make this an x-t100 discussion, its a very good camera, I know, you know. But the a6600 is its equal at an iq level and some, the dr is truly special. The iso50/100 are the cleanest I have ever seen in a camera, no more Fuji iso200! When I factor everything in, the a6600 is a ridiculously good camera then when you factor in its size and weight and that 16-55 2.8 and 70-350, man, what a set lenses, it's everything I ever wanted as my core system, well those and the 10-18 and that 24 1.8.

But, again, this was just a heads up for the measurbators, looking at the iq from ff, I'd definitely be downgrading, for a start I'd need the crop for tele, so a7iii is not even on the agenda, the iq below is overall worse too plus the a7r3 doesn't have enough pixels for crop either, and the a7r4, well it looks a mess, with banding and lots of other noise issues when you look closely, like I say it I won't be upgrading to FF but I will probably add the 200-600, so ff and the one mount does bring some advantages

Advent1sam said:

Who knows, I didn't design the sensor or produce the chart, point being I was expecting the a7r4 in crop to be a lot better than it is, I find it very disappointing in fact that with bsi and the amount of research and investment Sony has poured into FF how far they have got, not very!

Click to expand...

I must admit that I don't spend enough time on here to know where the ISO-invariance comparison tool is ;-)

I'm not sure how useful it is in the real world - I mean, who shoots an image 5-6x underexposed anyway...

Maybe this would be more meaningful:



Neither of these comparisons tell anything like 'the full story', only that output from one camera can be judged to be better or worse depending on the parameters you choose to impose.

The standout feature of these, to my eye at least as a largely impartial observer with no want or need to own either of the cameras in question, is that the output from the A6600 does appear to have either an AA filter (already dismissed earlier in the thread) or some kind of noise reduction employed.

In any case, you are clearly very happy with your A6600, which is great! I'm confused why you would feel the need to make such comparisons and also why you seem to be suggesting that developments in sensor tech within the same company are somehow divided between FF and crop sensors in isolation?

AdamT said:

Adam-T said:

Who knows, I didn't design the sensor or produce the chart, point being I was expecting the a7r4 in crop to be a lot better than it is, I find it very disappointing in fact that with bsi and the amount of research and investment Sony has poured into FF how far they have got, not very!

Click to expand...

in those crops the 6600 is only pushing 5EV the rest are pushing 6EV ...

Click to expand...

That was on purpose, to demonstrate the 1 stop advantage of FF, unfortunately it doesn't exist, also if you move to the next tab, the iso200 for 5ev then it really can't compete either, which ever way you look at it, I'd choose the a6600 over the a7r4 ever day of the week for sensor performance, in crop the noise will be even worse on the a7r4 and that's what ptp chart says too so in effect the dpr tests and the ptp measurements are very much in tune with each other!

Adam-T said:

Sam, just look at how soft the A6600 sample is ,

Click to expand...

I'm not seeing any softness Adam, just clean sharp images that are very impressive, I'd have to download lots more raw and analyse the settings dpr are using to draw any full conclusion, but from the ones I have, there's nothing to worry about,

Adam-T said:

there`s definitely hidden NR going on there , whether its in the RAWs or in LR I don`t know but its very evident in all the 6100/6600 samples on DP Review at high ISOs .. I noticed it the most on crops you posted on the APS-C forum with the black and white cartoon portion of the test scene , the 6000 was by far the sharpest and the 6600 / M6-II the softest

Click to expand...

Adam, I wouldn't use an a6000, it's far to long in the tooth now, the a6600 is the real deal, Sony pulled off some real hokus pocus with the a6600, a7r3/4 would definitely be a downgrade imo if you needed tele the crop mode is no substitute for a proper crop camera. For landscape I don't know now, hand on heart I'd prefer the better invariance of the a6600 and the more compact 10-18/16-55/70-350 set-up and for action, well a6600 might be better there too, I ain't seeing a lot pluses for ff, only negatives?

SimonOL said:

Advent1sam said:

Who knows, I didn't design the sensor or produce the chart, point being I was expecting the a7r4 in crop to be a lot better than it is, I find it very disappointing in fact that with bsi and the amount of research and investment Sony has poured into FF how far they have got, not very!

Click to expand...

I must admit that I don't spend enough time on here to know where the ISO-invariance comparison tool is ;-)

I'm not sure how useful it is in the real world - I mean, who shoots an image 5-6x underexposed anyway...

Maybe this would be more meaningful:

Neither of these comparisons tell anything like 'the full story', only that output from one camera can be judged to be better or worse depending on the parameters you choose to impose.

The standout feature of these, to my eye at least as a largely impartial observer with no want or need to own either of the cameras in question, is that the output from the A6600 does appear to have either an AA filter (already dismissed earlier in the thread) or some kind of noise reduction employed.

In any case, you are clearly very happy with your A6600, which is great! I'm confused why you would feel the need to make such comparisons and also why you seem to be suggesting that developments in sensor tech within the same company are somehow divided between FF and crop sensors in isolation?

Click to expand...

At one stage I would of seen ff as a serious option to be able to switch easily between ff and crop, aka a7r4, I was on the fence with the a7r3 at one stage thinking, ok, 18mp is it a big deal, in actual fact it is and it's not enough when 24 is on offer! But I think there is probably lots of people thinking they get the same performance in crop as aps-c, obviously you don't, even worse, the ff variants aren't looking so much better in ff either any more, at a technical level.

I thought a few people would be interested in the results, the rest, as they say is up to you regarding which road/path you travel, but at least you have a bit more information up your sleeve before you decide one way or another

Advent1sam said:

That was on purpose, to demonstrate the 1 stop advantage of FF, unfortunately it doesn't exist

Click to expand...

It`s not going to at pixel level is it - Sheesh Sam, the pixel pitch is much the same, it`s good that it matches it and the R3 DOES maybe even gain a bit - if 19Mp ain`t enough and you`ll never use the full 42 for anything then fair enough stick with APS-C but I`m not seeing the 6600/6100 being better than the rest of the A6ks based on the same sensor

Advent1sam said:

I'm not seeing any softness Adam,

Click to expand...

it`s there in those samples plain as daylight , first seen in the 6100 vs 6300 comparison

Advent1sam said:

Adam, I wouldn't use an a6000, it's far to long in the tooth now, the a6600 is the real deal

Click to expand...

it`s hideously overpriced for what is basically a £700 A6400 with a big battery and a lame IBIS system - the 6000 is way more than good enough for a general use RAW APS-C mirrorless ., unless you`re a BIF or Sports fanatic and desperately need the tracking and then the 6400 is the sweet spot there ..

Sorry Sam but not seeing all the 6600 love here, it`s probably the worst value A6K model since the original shelf price of the 6100 ..

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

AdamT said:

Adam-T said:

That was on purpose, to demonstrate the 1 stop advantage of FF, unfortunately it doesn't exist

Click to expand...

It`s not going to at pixel level is it - Sheesh Sam, the pixel pitch is much the same, it`s good that it matches it and the R3 DOES maybe even gain a bit - if 19Mp ain`t enough and you`ll never use the full 42 for anything then fair enough stick with APS-C but I`m not seeing the 6600/6100 being better than the rest of the A6ks based on the same sensor

Adam-T said:

I'm not seeing any softness Adam,

Click to expand...

it`s there in those samples plain as daylight , first seen in the 6100 vs 6300 comparison

Adam-T said:

Adam, I wouldn't use an a6000, it's far to long in the tooth now, the a6600 is the real deal

Click to expand...

it`s hideously overpriced for what is basically a £700 A6400 with a big battery and a lame IBIS system - the 6000 is way more than good enough for a general use RAW APS-C mirrorless ., unless you`re a BIF or Sports fanatic and desperately need the tracking and then the 6400 is the sweet spot there ..

Sorry Sam but not seeing all the 6600 love here, it`s probably the worst value A6K model since the original shelf price of the 6100 ..

Click to expand...

Adam, it has the best image quality of any aps-c camera ever made, it has the best battery on any mirrorless camera, the grip is simply incredible, the ibis is as good as anything I have encountered up to an em1 ii, which is better by at least 1 stop, but 3 or 4 on the a6600 is usual with a prime and the 16-55 2.8. The dr is off the scale for an aps-c sensor, there is nothing better, ever, and the af and tracking is better than a d500 or very close to, I am not sure what you expect for £1,350.00 but when I look around there is nothing that's even close in iq, furthermore the 16-55 is an unbelievable lens as is the 70-350. These cameras are not bargain basement, they are serious bits of kit, if you think the a7r3 is a better deal I get that, but the a6600 is a very fine camera, it measure technically very well and test images back it up.

I am just pointing out the crop benefits, don't expect miracles with an a7r4 in crop, my assessment is the a6600 is a better option and it doesn't cost £3,300 either on that scale the a6600 and 16-55 is the bargain of the century

Advent1sam said:

At one stage I would of seen ff as a serious option to be able to switch easily between ff and crop, aka a7r4, I was on the fence with the a7r3 at one stage thinking, ok, 18mp is it a big deal, in actual fact it is and it's not enough when 24 is on offer! But I think there is probably lots of people thinking they get the same performance in crop as aps-c, obviously you don't, even worse, the ff variants aren't looking so much better in ff either any more, at a technical level.

I thought a few people would be interested in the results, the rest, as they say is up to you regarding which road/path you travel, but at least you have a bit more information up your sleeve before you decide one way or another

Click to expand...

You are clearly a very happy aps-c user - nothing wrong with that; I was myself at one time and will still quite happily use my ancient and outdated NEX-7 on occasion ;-)

I don't believe many people would buy a FF camera to primarily shoot in crop mode - that just wouldn't make much sense - but the FF cameras do have some advantages, the glaringly obvious one being the ability to shoot in FF ;-) This does offer additional dynamic range, maybe not the theoretical 1-stop but it still has the edge. That's not enough for you and that's fair enough.

My personal reasons for using FF aren't typical - the fact I spend more time in the adapted lens forum should give you a clue! We all have our own ideas about what is good enough and which path we decide to go down...

I still don't think that it's reasonable to suggest that using the latest A7R cameras in crop mode isn't a viable option as I'm pretty sure it would be for the vast majority - it may not be for you but most FF camera buyers wouldn't be considering crop-mode performance as they're primary usage scenario.

SimonOL said:

Advent1sam said:

At one stage I would of seen ff as a serious option to be able to switch easily between ff and crop, aka a7r4, I was on the fence with the a7r3 at one stage thinking, ok, 18mp is it a big deal, in actual fact it is and it's not enough when 24 is on offer! But I think there is probably lots of people thinking they get the same performance in crop as aps-c, obviously you don't, even worse, the ff variants aren't looking so much better in ff either any more, at a technical level.

I thought a few people would be interested in the results, the rest, as they say is up to you regarding which road/path you travel, but at least you have a bit more information up your sleeve before you decide one way or another

Click to expand...

You are clearly a very happy aps-c user - nothing wrong with that; I was myself at one time and will still quite happily use my ancient and outdated NEX-7 on occasion ;-)

I don't believe many people would buy a FF camera to primarily shoot in crop mode - that just wouldn't make much sense - but the FF cameras do have some advantages, the glaringly obvious one being the ability to shoot in FF ;-) This does offer additional dynamic range, maybe not the theoretical 1-stop but it still has the edge. That's not enough for you and that's fair enough.

Click to expand...

Over itself, which is as apples-to-apples as you can get, it's basically exactly a one stop advantage for full frame on the A7R4.

SimonOL said:

My personal reasons for using FF aren't typical - the fact I spend more time in the adapted lens forum should give you a clue! We all have our own ideas about what is good enough and which path we decide to go down...

Click to expand...

+1

SimonOL said:

I still don't think that it's reasonable to suggest that using the latest A7R cameras in crop mode isn't a viable option as I'm pretty sure it would be for the vast majority - it may not be for you but most FF camera buyers wouldn't be considering crop-mode performance as they're primary usage scenario.

Click to expand...

Even if the 6600 is a hair higher in DR than the A7R4 cropped, the R4 still gets 3 more MP. I would expect the 6600 IBIS to be better, with its smaller, lighter, sensor, though.

Splitting hairs. Both do a great job. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. Some will prefer the ergonomics of one over the other. Some with choose to use both for different reasons. Its all good.

lovehifi said:

Splitting hairs. Both do a great job. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. Some will prefer the ergonomics of one over the other. Some with choose to use both for different reasons. Its all good.

Click to expand...

That sums it up nicely

SimonOL said:

lovehifi said:

Splitting hairs. Both do a great job. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. Some will prefer the ergonomics of one over the other. Some with choose to use both for different reasons. Its all good.

Click to expand...

That sums it up nicely

Click to expand...

Definitely does, I didn't come with the info to start a war, just to provide some insight and another perspective, I hope some will find it interesting and can refer here, if they can find it lol, in the future when making a decision on the best path forward

Advent1sam said:

Adam, it has the best image quality of any aps-c camera ever made,

Click to expand...

In RAW , yup, along with the 6100 , 6400 , prob the 6300, 6500 and XT100 (ISO200 base excepting)

Advent1sam said:

it has the best battery on any mirrorless camera

Click to expand...

I know I have it in the R3 (it debuted in the A9)

Advent1sam said:

, the grip is simply incredible

Click to expand...

Tolerable I`d say . it`s no EM1

Advent1sam said:

, the ibis is as good as anything I have encountered up to an em1 ii,

Click to expand...

It`s supposed to be the same as the 6500 which I found to be little effective on trial , reminded me of the stabilizer in the RX100 Mk6 - good handholding technique was more effective than the IBIS

Advent1sam said:

The dr is off the scale for an aps-c sensor

Click to expand...

same as the 6100, 6400 (so I guess 6300 and 6500), a bit better than a D7200 or A6000 (half a stop over the A6000)

Advent1sam said:

, there is nothing better, ever, and the af and tracking is better than a d500 or very close to

Click to expand...

again same as 6100 and 6400

Advent1sam said:

, I am not sure what you expect for £1,350.00

Click to expand...

a lot more than that given the 6400 is £720
My issue with the 6600 is PRICE . and the 6400 is the same camera minus the larger battery and IBIS

I`m glad you`re happy with it Sam , enjoy it

SimonOL said:

Advent1sam said:

I used to think crop was a viable option on FF cameras, a6600 put paid to that, ergo of a6600 is absolutely fine as is the weight

Click to expand...

LOL That's a statement almost as bizarre as 'I think the chart is accurate... and tells the whole story.' ;-) Since when has any graph told the whole story about anything?

A graph that shows an apsc camera has a hair better SNR than a FF camera in crop mode, a difference so small that's it's unlikely to be visible in the real world, and this means that using that crop mode is not a viable option...

If the graph had shown the A6600 a hair below the FF camera, would that mean the A6600 wasn't a viable option and the A7Riv would be back on your shopping list?

Click to expand...

Advent1sam spends pretty much all his time and effort in these forums finding or designing 'proof' that his APS-C choice is as good as or even better than full frame, and that higher pixel density is a conspiracy. It's certainly odd behavior, but he is consistent if nothing else.

Advent1sam said:

SimonOL said:

Advent1sam said:

Who knows, I didn't design the sensor or produce the chart, point being I was expecting the a7r4 in crop to be a lot better than it is, I find it very disappointing in fact that with bsi and the amount of research and investment Sony has poured into FF how far they have got, not very!

Click to expand...

I must admit that I don't spend enough time on here to know where the ISO-invariance comparison tool is ;-)

I'm not sure how useful it is in the real world - I mean, who shoots an image 5-6x underexposed anyway...

Maybe this would be more meaningful:

Neither of these comparisons tell anything like 'the full story', only that output from one camera can be judged to be better or worse depending on the parameters you choose to impose.

The standout feature of these, to my eye at least as a largely impartial observer with no want or need to own either of the cameras in question, is that the output from the A6600 does appear to have either an AA filter (already dismissed earlier in the thread) or some kind of noise reduction employed.

In any case, you are clearly very happy with your A6600, which is great! I'm confused why you would feel the need to make such comparisons and also why you seem to be suggesting that developments in sensor tech within the same company are somehow divided between FF and crop sensors in isolation?

Click to expand...

At one stage I would of have seen ff as a serious option to be able to switch easily between ff and crop, aka a7r4, I was on the fence with the a7r3 at one stage thinking, ok, 18mp is it a big deal, in actual fact it is and it's not enough when 24 is on offer! But I think there is probably lots of people thinking they get the same performance in crop as aps-c, obviously you don't, even worse, the ff variants aren't looking so much better in ff either any more, at a technical level.

I thought a few people would be interested in the results, the rest, as they say is up to you regarding which road/path you travel, but at least you have a bit more information up your sleeve before you decide one way or another

Click to expand...

Sam, please stop using the word 'of' instead of 'have' it makes me cringe every time I see it!

Horacecoker said:

Advent1sam said:

SimonOL said:

Advent1sam said:

Who knows, I didn't design the sensor or produce the chart, point being I was expecting the a7r4 in crop to be a lot better than it is, I find it very disappointing in fact that with bsi and the amount of research and investment Sony has poured into FF how far they have got, not very!

Click to expand...

I must admit that I don't spend enough time on here to know where the ISO-invariance comparison tool is ;-)

I'm not sure how useful it is in the real world - I mean, who shoots an image 5-6x underexposed anyway...

Maybe this would be more meaningful:

Neither of these comparisons tell anything like 'the full story', only that output from one camera can be judged to be better or worse depending on the parameters you choose to impose.

The standout feature of these, to my eye at least as a largely impartial observer with no want or need to own either of the cameras in question, is that the output from the A6600 does appear to have either an AA filter (already dismissed earlier in the thread) or some kind of noise reduction employed.

In any case, you are clearly very happy with your A6600, which is great! I'm confused why you would feel the need to make such comparisons and also why you seem to be suggesting that developments in sensor tech within the same company are somehow divided between FF and crop sensors in isolation?

Click to expand...

At one stage I would of have seen ff as a serious option to be able to switch easily between ff and crop, aka a7r4, I was on the fence with the a7r3 at one stage thinking, ok, 18mp is it a big deal, in actual fact it is and it's not enough when 24 is on offer! But I think there is probably lots of people thinking they get the same performance in crop as aps-c, obviously you don't, even worse, the ff variants aren't looking so much better in ff either any more, at a technical level.

I thought a few people would be interested in the results, the rest, as they say is up to you regarding which road/path you travel, but at least you have a bit more information up your sleeve before you decide one way or another

Click to expand...

Sam, please stop using the word 'of' instead of 'have' it makes me cringe every time I see it!

Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing it out, I would of never known

Advent1sam said:

Horacecoker said:

Advent1sam said:

SimonOL said:

Advent1sam said:

Who knows, I didn't design the sensor or produce the chart, point being I was expecting the a7r4 in crop to be a lot better than it is, I find it very disappointing in fact that with bsi and the amount of research and investment Sony has poured into FF how far they have got, not very!

Click to expand...

I must admit that I don't spend enough time on here to know where the ISO-invariance comparison tool is ;-)

I'm not sure how useful it is in the real world - I mean, who shoots an image 5-6x underexposed anyway...

Maybe this would be more meaningful:

Neither of these comparisons tell anything like 'the full story', only that output from one camera can be judged to be better or worse depending on the parameters you choose to impose.

The standout feature of these, to my eye at least as a largely impartial observer with no want or need to own either of the cameras in question, is that the output from the A6600 does appear to have either an AA filter (already dismissed earlier in the thread) or some kind of noise reduction employed.

In any case, you are clearly very happy with your A6600, which is great! I'm confused why you would feel the need to make such comparisons and also why you seem to be suggesting that developments in sensor tech within the same company are somehow divided between FF and crop sensors in isolation?

Click to expand...

At one stage I would of have seen ff as a serious option to be able to switch easily between ff and crop, aka a7r4, I was on the fence with the a7r3 at one stage thinking, ok, 18mp is it a big deal, in actual fact it is and it's not enough when 24 is on offer! But I think there is probably lots of people thinking they get the same performance in crop as aps-c, obviously you don't, even worse, the ff variants aren't looking so much better in ff either any more, at a technical level.

I thought a few people would be interested in the results, the rest, as they say is up to you regarding which road/path you travel, but at least you have a bit more information up your sleeve before you decide one way or another

Click to expand...

Sam, please stop using the word 'of' instead of 'have' it makes me cringe every time I see it!

Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing it out, I would of never known

Click to expand...

LOL :-D

Advent1sam said:

Nope, absolutely no evidence of an aa filter by measurement!

https://www.strollswithmydog.com/resolution-model-digital-cameras-aa/

Click to expand...

Thanks, that is interesting.

QuietOC said:

Advent1sam said:

Nope, absolutely no evidence of an aa filter by measurement!

https://www.strollswithmydog.com/resolution-model-digital-cameras-aa/

Click to expand...

Thanks, that is interesting.

Click to expand...

Well that is cool. Glad to know that. If there is it isn't doing much because my a6600 raws are very detailed and sharp. Just like my A7RIV.