A7RV too noisy for me

[Paul JN]

For people considering the A7Rv it should be pointed out that you don't NEED to have DXO or any other special tool for noise reduction for this camera. I do have DXO but I have yet to need it and I shoot low light event photography. Mostly I export for web so the noise is removed by downsampling on export. The noise is hidden by the high resolution and only becomes apparent if an image needs heavy cropping.

I think I would only use DXO if

1. It was a high ISO (above 6400) image AND
2. it needed heavy cropping or it was to be exported for large print

Above ISO 6400 (or pushed shadows) I might use a small amount of noise reduction in LR.

I shoot RAW (thanks Fro) yet it's worth pointing out that a full size jpeg (41MB) faired better than a medium RAW (51MB) in my recent high ISO test. In my opinion, compressed RAW (65MB) gives the best compromise between file size and image quality. The 90MB lossless compressed RAWS and 130MB full RAWS only give slight improvements to images under stress.

 

[Newton Bryce]

Edit 2: Also of importance here:

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/noise-reduction-with-nonlinear-tools-and-downsampling/ - higher-resolution cameras are superior if PDR is similar.

Year after year, there continue to be posts that insist this is not true. Amazing.

Actually, not many are viewing their images at this magnification.

What would be interesting is the perceived color and sharpness for the final work. At the end, the feel and look when viewing the work is what matters.

 

[Emile15]

How unfair can you get!

 

[ProDude]

For people considering the A7Rv it should be pointed out that you don't NEED to have DXO or any other special tool for noise reduction for this camera. I do have DXO but I have yet to need it and I shoot low light event photography. Mostly I export for web so the noise is removed by downsampling on export. The noise is hidden by the high resolution and only becomes apparent if an image needs heavy cropping.

I think I would only use DXO if

1. It was a high ISO (above 6400) image AND
2. it needed heavy cropping or it was to be exported for large print

Above ISO 6400 (or pushed shadows) I might use a small amount of noise reduction in LR.

I shoot RAW (thanks Fro) yet it's worth pointing out that a full size jpeg (41MB) faired better than a medium RAW (51MB) in my recent high ISO test. In my opinion, compressed RAW (65MB) gives the best compromise between file size and image quality. The 90MB lossless compressed RAWS and 130MB full RAWS only give slight improvements to images under stress.

Indeed most folks don't seem to realize that if you take the FULL image taken on the likes of a A7RV, and open it on a typical screen (say 27"-38") and bring the image down to being completely viewable on screen, the noise I've found even at ISO12,800 is pretty much a NON issue. At ISO6400 and below it's not there. I find expanding the image to levels above 60-70% will then reveal some moderate noise which is easily removed. As usual the internet folks love to blow this way out of proportion. Needless to say in a print up to and beyond a 13x19 there is also NO noise to be seen and the detail is unreal good

--
Name the gear and I've probably owned it and used it.

 

[pollup]

Edit 2: Also of importance here:

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/noise-reduction-with-nonlinear-tools-and-downsampling/ - higher-resolution cameras are superior if PDR is similar.

Year after year, there continue to be posts that insist this is not true. Amazing.

Actually, not many are viewing their images at this magnification.

What would be interesting is the perceived color and sharpness for the final work. At the end, the feel and look when viewing the work is what matters.

Read the blog page again ... it addresses exactly what you're asking.

=> the color is better and the sharpness is better, from the higher MP camera.

The magnification was only used to show that those are indeed better (or not) but in this case, they're clearly better from the high MP camera.

Higher MP gives you after downsampling to the same resolution as a lower MP camera:

- lower noise

- fewer demosaicing artifacts (resulting in better colors)

- better sharpness

(all those compared to the lower MP camera)

 

[lattesweden]

Edit 2: Also of importance here:

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/noise-reduction-with-nonlinear-tools-and-downsampling/ - higher-resolution cameras are superior if PDR is similar.

Year after year, there continue to be posts that insist this is not true. Amazing.

Actually, not many are viewing their images at this magnification.

What would be interesting is the perceived color and sharpness for the final work. At the end, the feel and look when viewing the work is what matters.

Read the blog page again ... it addresses exactly what you're asking.

=> the color is better and the sharpness is better, from the higher MP camera.

The magnification was only used to show that those are indeed better (or not) but in this case, they're clearly better from the high MP camera.

Higher MP gives you after downsampling to the same resolution as a lower MP camera:

- lower noise

- fewer demosaicing artifacts (resulting in better colors)

- better sharpness

(all those compared to the lower MP camera)

Hm, good points, this could explain why the A7SIII sensor is 48 Mpix internally and downsampled (if I have gotten the correct sensor info).

 

[BigDaveE]

I recently sold my canon R6 and replaced it with the Sony A7R5.

the R6 def had lower levels of noise at higher iso. Even allowing for the 20mpx vs 60mpx pixel peeping

Also the type of noise is more consistent on the R6….less colour blotching etc when pixel peeping. The R6 was great for low light street photography.

having said that the A7R5 is better in almost every other area. So I am pleased I moved to Sony. My friend has a Canon R5, this is very close to the R6 for noise levels based on his photos I have seen.

you can review the noise levels of the R5 vs A7R5 cameras on dpreview.

many others have commented on noise reduction software. I have tried them all and the one that worked best for me was On1. This and dxo were very close but on1 gives better control and allows you to dial it back. Topaz seems to be optimised for bird photos…(being sarcastic as nearly all demos of that software feature birds) but can leave weird artefacts in complex scenes. On1 is very processor intensive on my windows laptop…very slow.

I feel that using on1 with the a7r5 I can get comparable noise levels to my R6.

good luck with your next purchase.

 

[Jacques Cornell]

I recently sold my canon R6 and replaced it with the Sony A7R5.

the R6 def had lower levels of noise at higher iso. Even allowing for the 20mpx vs 60mpx pixel peeping

Also the type of noise is more consistent on the R6….less colour blotching etc when pixel peeping. The R6 was great for low light street photography.

having said that the A7R5 is better in almost every other area. So I am pleased I moved to Sony. My friend has a Canon R5, this is very close to the R6 for noise levels based on his photos I have seen.

you can review the noise levels of the R5 vs A7R5 cameras on dpreview.

many others have commented on noise reduction software. I have tried them all and the one that worked best for me was On1. This and dxo were very close but on1 gives better control and allows you to dial it back.

When you cite DxO, are you referring to PhotoLab or PureRAW? With PhotoLab, you can "dial it back", and there are other controls, as well. With DxO PureRAW, you have fewer (no?) options.

Topaz seems to be optimised for bird photos…(being sarcastic as nearly all demos of that software feature birds) but can leave weird artefacts in complex scenes. On1 is very processor intensive on my windows laptop…very slow.

I feel that using on1 with the a7r5 I can get comparable noise levels to my R6.

good luck with your next purchase.

 

[dwalme]

DXO Photolab should fix that with the Prime noise reduction. It is really good on 61 Mpix A7RV images.
If I shall complain a little then it is that it at the moment don't handle the S&M RAW variants only the full size ones.

Lets hope DXO comes along and updates that down the road.

I don't think they ever will.

IIRC Sony does the same thing as Canon with their smaller raw files. They demosaic them first and then downsize them.

So you no longer have a RAW file that DxO can work with.