www.cined.com
8K25p:
You need to be very careful with these comparisons, as I'm not entirely sure they are comparing like with like. The 17.3ms is raw derived data data, and it differs slightly from what optyczne measured as well.
If one drops to H.265 or RAW lite this drops to around 13ms including another frame rates; 30, 50 and 60.
If you look at the screen captures of the underexposed and then pulled frames (-3 stops, -4 stops etc) further down the page, you will see that the dynamic range is a mess compared to the Sony A1/A7rV/A74 etc etc, even though the DR imatest rating is similar.You need to be very careful with these comparisons, as I'm not entirely sure they are comparing like with like. The 17.3ms is raw derived data data, and it differs slightly from what optyczne measured as well.
To be clear, Sony a1ii doesn't even offer internal raw video option or to subsample the video in 4k from the entire width?
"Let's start with the observation that in full-frame mode, the Sony A1 II does not offer any 4K mode using oversampling from full 8K. The Canon R5 Mark II offers such a mode up to and including 30 fps, and in the Nikon Z8, after enabling the appropriate option, it is also possible at 50/60 fps. Of course, such modes consume more energy and cause the body to heat up faster, but they also provide better image quality, and the ability to enable or disable them gives the user a choice. In the Sony, there is no choice and the user must accept a certain amount of aliasing that occurs in all full-frame 4K modes. The total image quality remains acceptable, despite the lack of oversampling, but it is lower than that of the competition offering this option"
Overall, I think the R5ii, considering its size is incredible!
Please don't put those cameras in the same category as the R5ii, they just aren't and especially where video is concerned imo. These extreme underexposure tests really don't prove much at all. One thing I've noticed moving from Sony, a1 btw, is the way Canon handle highlights, I very rarely seem to be under exposing much more than a stop, yet with Sony you feel like you need to be -2 or more in many conditions to avoid clipping. I think more needs to be understood between how Canon and others meter but I am very impressed with the dr and the way it handles in extreme conditions, both low and high iso, specifically talking stills though, really not that interested in video, just chipped in because its interesting how poor Sony is in 4k video on the a1ii, never mind the a1. At a price closer to 50%more than the R5ii you'd expect Sony to have improved with the a1ii, but they really haven't.If you look at the screen captures of the underexposed and then pulled frames (-3 stops, -4 stops etc) further down the page, you will see that the dynamic range is a mess compared to the Sony A1/A7rV/A74 etc etc, even though the DR imatest rating is similar.You need to be very careful with these comparisons, as I'm not entirely sure they are comparing like with like. The 17.3ms is raw derived data data, and it differs slightly from what optyczne measured as well.
To be clear, Sony a1ii doesn't even offer internal raw video option or to subsample the video in 4k from the entire width?
"Let's start with the observation that in full-frame mode, the Sony A1 II does not offer any 4K mode using oversampling from full 8K. The Canon R5 Mark II offers such a mode up to and including 30 fps, and in the Nikon Z8, after enabling the appropriate option, it is also possible at 50/60 fps. Of course, such modes consume more energy and cause the body to heat up faster, but they also provide better image quality, and the ability to enable or disable them gives the user a choice. In the Sony, there is no choice and the user must accept a certain amount of aliasing that occurs in all full-frame 4K modes. The total image quality remains acceptable, despite the lack of oversampling, but it is lower than that of the competition offering this option"
Overall, I think the R5ii, considering its size is incredible!
How often is 4 stops of underexposure relevant to anyone, anywhere when it comes to photography or videography?If you look at the screen captures of the underexposed and then pulled frames (-3 stops, -4 stops etc) further down the page, you will see that the dynamic range is a mess compared to the Sony A1/A7rV/A74 etc etc, even though the DR imatest rating is similar.You need to be very careful with these comparisons, as I'm not entirely sure they are comparing like with like. The 17.3ms is raw derived data data, and it differs slightly from what optyczne measured as well.
To be clear, Sony a1ii doesn't even offer internal raw video option or to subsample the video in 4k from the entire width?
"Let's start with the observation that in full-frame mode, the Sony A1 II does not offer any 4K mode using oversampling from full 8K. The Canon R5 Mark II offers such a mode up to and including 30 fps, and in the Nikon Z8, after enabling the appropriate option, it is also possible at 50/60 fps. Of course, such modes consume more energy and cause the body to heat up faster, but they also provide better image quality, and the ability to enable or disable them gives the user a choice. In the Sony, there is no choice and the user must accept a certain amount of aliasing that occurs in all full-frame 4K modes. The total image quality remains acceptable, despite the lack of oversampling, but it is lower than that of the competition offering this option"
Overall, I think the R5ii, considering its size is incredible!
When it's used as a method of measurement and demonstration of some engineering capabilities.How often is 4 stops of underexposure relevant to anyone, anywhere when it comes to photography or videography?If you look at the screen captures of the underexposed and then pulled frames (-3 stops, -4 stops etc) further down the page, you will see that the dynamic range is a mess compared to the Sony A1/A7rV/A74 etc etc, even though the DR imatest rating is similar.You need to be very careful with these comparisons, as I'm not entirely sure they are comparing like with like. The 17.3ms is raw derived data data, and it differs slightly from what optyczne measured as well.
To be clear, Sony a1ii doesn't even offer internal raw video option or to subsample the video in 4k from the entire width?
"Let's start with the observation that in full-frame mode, the Sony A1 II does not offer any 4K mode using oversampling from full 8K. The Canon R5 Mark II offers such a mode up to and including 30 fps, and in the Nikon Z8, after enabling the appropriate option, it is also possible at 50/60 fps. Of course, such modes consume more energy and cause the body to heat up faster, but they also provide better image quality, and the ability to enable or disable them gives the user a choice. In the Sony, there is no choice and the user must accept a certain amount of aliasing that occurs in all full-frame 4K modes. The total image quality remains acceptable, despite the lack of oversampling, but it is lower than that of the competition offering this option"
Overall, I think the R5ii, considering its size is incredible!
I'm surprised that the stacked sensor performs worse than the original R5... Isn't the stacked sensor supposed to be faster?
Unfortunately, with the R5 II - there is so much shadow noise, even when you are not underexposed at all. Have you been shooting the log? Just shooting indoors on a sunny day yields super noisy video files, where my Sony‘s are perfectly clean. It looks like a difference of at least three stops as to the amount of noise. This is with all cameras shooting log.How often is 4 stops of underexposure relevant to anyone, anywhere when it comes to photography or videography?If you look at the screen captures of the underexposed and then pulled frames (-3 stops, -4 stops etc) further down the page, you will see that the dynamic range is a mess compared to the Sony A1/A7rV/A74 etc etc, even though the DR imatest rating is similar.You need to be very careful with these comparisons, as I'm not entirely sure they are comparing like with like. The 17.3ms is raw derived data data, and it differs slightly from what optyczne measured as well.
To be clear, Sony a1ii doesn't even offer internal raw video option or to subsample the video in 4k from the entire width?
"Let's start with the observation that in full-frame mode, the Sony A1 II does not offer any 4K mode using oversampling from full 8K. The Canon R5 Mark II offers such a mode up to and including 30 fps, and in the Nikon Z8, after enabling the appropriate option, it is also possible at 50/60 fps. Of course, such modes consume more energy and cause the body to heat up faster, but they also provide better image quality, and the ability to enable or disable them gives the user a choice. In the Sony, there is no choice and the user must accept a certain amount of aliasing that occurs in all full-frame 4K modes. The total image quality remains acceptable, despite the lack of oversampling, but it is lower than that of the competition offering this option"
Overall, I think the R5ii, considering its size is incredible!
Yes, for modes where the sensor is the bottleneck in the whole imaging pipeline. That may not be the case in all modes, which is perhaps why different readout speeds are observed depending on what mode we are shooting in
It is faster depending on how we compress the data. Switch to RAW lite and that figure is less than half.
