A7rIV vs A7rV noise levels?

[ilumo]

Hi all. To prevent muddying the other a7rV thread this question-

i have read in various places that the r5 DR is slightly better than the r4s. But then I see in dpreviews image comparison that the r5 high iso actually looks a bit noisier. Am I seeing things or is that the case? And that higher DR is not equal to high iso noise control ?

Just wondering as I had the r4 before and just ordered the r5. The geek side of me is teching out.

 

[No account anymore]

One thing that caught me out with the A7R5 is I was processing with Lightroom as I hadn't upgraded to the new version of Capture One. I was coming from an A7RIV and then a GFX100s and the new A7RV seemed quite noisy. Turns out the default noise reduction in Capture One made quite a big difference compared to Lightroom and once I opened the A7RV files in CO23, the noise seemed basically the same as my previous A7RIV. Obviously the GFX100s was slightly better than both.

Judging a camera or a raw converter from default settings is never a good idea, since there is no standardized starting point. Also, raw converters have lots of profiles available that you can choose from as a starting point.

 

[Architeuthis]

Hi all. To prevent muddying the other a7rV thread this question-

i have read in various places that the r5 DR is slightly better than the r4s. But then I see in dpreviews image comparison that the r5 high iso actually looks a bit noisier. Am I seeing things or is that the case? And that higher DR is not equal to high iso noise control ?

Just wondering as I had the r4 before and just ordered the r5. The geek side of me is teching out.

The difference is small in real life, but can clearly be detected at the "pixel peep" level in the DPreview test charts.

In the recent DPReview review of A7RV Richard Butler states "...The difference is so small that we can't completely rule out differences in Raw converter profiling or some tiny impact from using the lossless compressed Raw mode. ...". So maybe this increase in noise can be attributed to the "losless" compression. On the other hand, also BClaffs analysis shows slightly more noise but slightly better DR for RV over RIV - so maybe it is the Raw converter profiling that is slightly different...

Wolfgang

 

[Craig Gillette]

Quite a few years, perhaps 20, as I recall it was discussing the Fuji A602 review results, the A602 users had found it performed noticeably better on something other than it's "defaults." Dpreview would not redo the sample/test photos as their procedure was to use the camera maker's defaults. While that may not result in the best images, it placed a consistent process point. The effort to work though all of the various possible "settings" find "the best" for every test subject would be overwhelming. While they, IIRC, noted the potential for users to get better results - as is often the case moving off from defaults, they suggested (not in a combative sort of way) perhaps Fuji or other makers might want to be more selective in setting "defaults" to get better images. And while the Dpreview community might be able to find better approaches, often the greater population users might never leave defaults.

 

[All Bushs Fault]

Hi all. To prevent muddying the other a7rV thread this question-

i have read in various places that the r5 DR is slightly better than the r4s. But then I see in dpreviews image comparison that the r5 high iso actually looks a bit noisier.

Such small variations from the same sensor might well be a result from the process of making these test photos (variation in exposure, light level, etc.) or sample variation.

Am I seeing things or is that the case? And that higher DR is not equal to high iso noise control ?

We often see what we want to see. How would such minor differences, igf they are real and more noticeable than sample variations) affect your real world photograpy?

• How often do you expose optimised, and then use data close to the noise floor?
• How much would a 0.3 stop or less noise difference affect images that are NOT directly compared to identical images taken with a different camera?
• And, would a 0.3 stop difference matter? Would it be noticeable?

If you shoot challenging subjects, I would rather go for the best autofocus instead of having those almost sharp frames. This would do much more for your real world results that the DR and/or noise level difference between these cameras.

Just wondering as I had the r4 before and just ordered the r5. The geek side of me is teching out.

If you answer the questions above, my guess is that your inner tech geek won't freak out.

I actually shoot a lot of 800-1600 iso shots. A lot of indoor event and portrait photography in non ideal lighting. So high iso performance in general is important but I agree that .2 stops is probably not noticeable. I came from canon so the banding was infinitely worse than the “grain” noise of the Sonys.
definitely not freaking out. Just curious.

I don't see much in the Studio Comparison between the two cameras although I am sure my sensitivity to color noise is not as refined as others. However, I did notice that DPR used lossless compression in the a7R V shot. 74 MB vs 117 MB.

 

[Old Pirate]

but I owned and shot the 7riv for 3 years and then traded for an a7rv. While I got perfectly usable images at times in dark areas using ISO above 20k with the 7riv there were other times it simply failed at low light images.

So far the rV has, in my use, done a better job in low light on a consistent basis than the riv did in terms of noise.

My other camera is an A1, and the main difference other than frame rate is I can shoot silently inside with the A1 and get no banding while I have to use the mechanical shutter on the A5 to shoot inside or with flash.

All and all, I am very happy with the rV.

I haven't used it yet with the 200-600 to see how it captures birds in flight, but with the 70-200 gm ii and a 1.4tc it is much faster in focusing than the 7riv was and the color straight out of the camera to Lightroom Camera Standard is much more accurate than the 7riv was. I do think that is because the AWB is more accurate in the rv than the riv.

Don't misunderstand me. I took some really good photos with the A7riv especially of people and landscapes. I do feel that getting that type of image is easier with the 7rv with the same user.

 

[No account anymore]

but I owned and shot the 7riv for 3 years and then traded for an a7rv. While I got perfectly usable images at times in dark areas using ISO above 20k with the 7riv there were other times it simply failed at low light images.

So far the rV has, in my use, done a better job in low light on a consistent basis than the riv did in terms of noise.

Is this just a feeling, or have you compared side by side with tests that can be repeated?

 

[Old Pirate]

I have not done "tests", but my personal catalog of saved images is over 40k and via Lightroom I can look at all images taken at say 20,000 ISO and above from every camera I have ever owned and I can see my results side by side.

Sometimes, simple experience is a great teacher. My experience gives me more confidence in the 7rv than the riv where high ISO will be needed.

I've also learned to expose to the left when concerned about high ISO and I get better results when I do.

I never offered anything labeled "definitive". I simply added what I have experienced when using both cameras and why I personally preferred one over the other. That, in my opinion, is the best advice I can give anyone whether we are talking about cameras or corn flakes.

 

[No account anymore]

Sometimes, simple experience is a great teacher. My experience gives me more confidence in the 7rv than the riv where high ISO will be needed.

Likely no here, from available measurements.

I've also learned to expose to the left when concerned about high ISO and I get better results when I do.

"To the right" is the rule, and common sense. Increased exposure leads to less noise, reduced exposure always results in more noise.

I never offered anything labeled "definitive". I simply added what I have experienced when using both cameras and why I personally preferred one over the other.

Then it is a feeling. That's ok, but not enough to guide others, I would say.

 

[Craig Gillette]

My understanding is the sensors are the same? I could be wrong. I don't recall Sony pointing out a new or improved sensor. My impression is they should be close enough to the same that there are other differences that are perhaps more important to an individual trying to choose.

Hi all. To prevent muddying the other a7rV thread this question-

i have read in various places that the r5 DR is slightly better than the r4s. But then I see in dpreviews image comparison that the r5 high iso actually looks a bit noisier. Am I seeing things or is that the case? And that higher DR is not equal to high iso noise control ?

I checked Photons to Photos and there is a difference in DR between the two, as reported there. I picked the comparison photos here at one iso and they looked different. A slight different position, maybe a litlle difference in the lighting, etc. Just different. Now that was looking at just a tiny part of the full image, not from downloading the file and converting/displaying it, etc. Only one iso, etc.

Those certainly aren't all the available sources and there's a good chance that some might come along and drift the thread by complaining about the various test methodologies and results.

Just wondering as I had the r4 before and just ordered the r5. The geek side of me is teching out.

But there are a lot of variables that string together with this. The individual sensor and camera circuitry could be a tad different. components have tolerances, they may stack to the same side of things, or to the other, or a mix. The photos here, I think are a single set from a single camera at one time. PtoP, I believe gathers input from a number of testers, etc. I happened to go to the aps-c range, too, then also selected several Sony aps-c cameras, and while all were close, overlapping some, there was a bit of a spread. The A1 showed more DR, yet on it's aps-c side, it was so close to the others as to be hidden under other dots.

So, while we might experience our own results/impressions, some discount that or insist on everyone doing objective testing. Yet, then some will likely complain about our methods, or sample size limits

 

[No account anymore]

I checked Photons to Photos and there is a difference in DR between the two, as reported there. I picked the comparison photos here at one iso and they looked different. A slight different position, maybe a litlle difference in the lighting, etc. Just different.

Not that digital noise is distributed randomly, and the raw converter settings might affect how noise is represented (sharpness, noise level, and other settings that affects tonal curve, contrast, etc.)

If you look at Dpreview compare tool, note the highly visible difference in contrast between cameras, also from the same maker.

The real world question is: What can you expect from a fully processed raw file?