mgrum

Lives in United Kingdom United Kingdom
Joined on Jan 14, 2009

Comments

Total: 505, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Serious speed: Sony a9 real world samples gallery (466 comments in total)
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: So a couple of questions:

Is there any way of separating images shot with the electronic shutter from those shot with the mechanical shutter?

Then, why the huge variation in raw file size? Some are 23MB and others are 47MB. Were the 23MB files shot with a lossy compression setting?

@Dr_Jon

Slanted objects can happen when you don't hold the camera straight, here's what that image looks like rotated:

http://www.mattgrum.com/rotated_small.jpg

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 10:00 UTC
On article Serious speed: Sony a9 real world samples gallery (466 comments in total)
In reply to:

MShot: Crazy good IQ with ISO over 10,000. Wouldn't try it for this use case with anything I own.

Calm down and look at the RAWs, they're much better. All we're seeing is the effect of choosing the wrong in camera JPEG settings...

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 09:58 UTC
On article Serious speed: Sony a9 real world samples gallery (466 comments in total)
In reply to:

padam19: This is a perfect example of having too much technology. Some of the shots are mis-focused, no matter how many AF points it has, if it fails to choose the right ones.

The other problem is the motion blur with electronic shutter with very fast movement (look at the hands, for instance). Yes, it is a big improvement over the A7S, but the blur is still there. And if it wasn't intended by the photographer, it shouldn't be there in the first place, good sports photographs never look like that. Noise isn't a patch on the A7S either, probably worse in electronic shutter mode.

So, to counteract this, you may need to stay in the 5fps mode, basically skipping using all the main features this camera was marketed with (20fps and no EVF blackout).

Without S-Log, it is really debatable if this camera is worth its price tag, no way it can replace a 1DX or similar. Great for movie sets, if a bit expensive for that purpose...

Maybe we'll see Canon shooters in orange Sony jackets again in 2018? :)

@AngularJS

"That's the electronic shutter effect, and it's pretty disappointing..."

Actually it could be something as simple as the camera not being held straight - here's what the image could have looked like with the camera rotated 4 degrees:

http://www.mattgrum.com/rotated_small.jpg

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 09:57 UTC
On article Serious speed: Sony a9 real world samples gallery (466 comments in total)
In reply to:

scokill: IQ at higher ISO looks terrible like #2. Not going to have sports shooters lined up for this.

The RAWs look fine, high ISO performance is pretty much determined by sensor size these days, so I think what you're seeing is down to the in camera JPEG settings.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 09:52 UTC
On article Serious speed: Sony a9 real world samples gallery (466 comments in total)
In reply to:

tonywong: Image 8 of 98 shows the horrible horrible effect of the electronic rolling shutter.

That stick is totally bent. Sony needs to fix this immediately.

#notbuyingnow

@Dr_Jon

The trash can image could be the result of not holding the camera straight - there's no reference point in the image that would show this. Here's what it would look like if the camera was rotated 4 degrees anti-clockwise:

http://www.mattgrum.com/rotated_small.jpg

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 09:39 UTC
On article Serious speed: Sony a9 real world samples gallery (466 comments in total)
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: So a couple of questions:

Is there any way of separating images shot with the electronic shutter from those shot with the mechanical shutter?

Then, why the huge variation in raw file size? Some are 23MB and others are 47MB. Were the 23MB files shot with a lossy compression setting?

@HowaboutRAW

Sony's 12-bit files are padded up to 14-bits before encoding so the filesize is identical. The 12-bit mode is a workaround not a feature.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2017 at 20:30 UTC
On article Serious speed: Sony a9 real world samples gallery (466 comments in total)
In reply to:

ovlov: No weather sealing? No problem! Just download Sony's new weather warning app to your camera from the Sony PlayMemories store.

Except that PlayMemories isn't supported on the A9 :D

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2017 at 20:27 UTC
On article Serious speed: Sony a9 real world samples gallery (466 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mach Schnell: When viewed at full resolution, most of these images look pretty soft. If that is the best it can do with Sony's premium 70-200 lens, I would be disappointed.

That could easily be the result of setting the sharpness too low and NR too high - we're looking at in camera JPEGs here not RAW files.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2017 at 20:26 UTC
On article Serious speed: Sony a9 real world samples gallery (466 comments in total)
In reply to:

tonywong: Image 8 of 98 shows the horrible horrible effect of the electronic rolling shutter.

That stick is totally bent. Sony needs to fix this immediately.

#notbuyingnow

You really can't judge a camera by just one image, every camera is going to show some defect now and again - here's a photo taken with a Canon DSLR that shows bad rolling shutter artifacts:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/102926209@N03/33854308165/

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2017 at 20:22 UTC
On article Serious speed: Sony a9 real world samples gallery (466 comments in total)
In reply to:

Boeing skipper: Where are the fine details? Even ISO 1000 looks barely usable.

The NR is probably set a bit too high but those images look perfectly usable to me, for sports journalism. For other things you should be shooting RAW and doing the noise reduction in post processing.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2017 at 18:58 UTC
In reply to:

SantaFeBill: 85mm F/1.2 equivalent to 67mm f/0.9 for DOF, but F/1.2 = F/1.2 for exposure regardless of focal length. Of course, the actual T stop may vary between lenses of the same F-stop.
Sorry to state the obvious, but it does seem to be an on-going confusion. I wish stories would explicitly say 'DOF equivalence'. Would save a lot of posting. <g>

@SantaFeBill:

"Would you set a different shutter speed or F-stop on one camera or the other _simply_ because of the different sensor size?"

Yes I would use a different F-stop (and ISO) because of the different sensor size - otherwise the images would have different depth of field.

Exposure is meaningless because you can have the same exposure on a phone camera image as on a 35mm full frame camera, and the images will look completely different with the phone image having considerably more noise.

If you have the same total light, this isn't the case, which means that this is a much better invariant than exposure when comparing sensor sizes.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2017 at 08:05 UTC
On article Alpha-better: Sony a9 versus a7R II (504 comments in total)
In reply to:

patrocal: First reviews are coming in and Tony Northrup says the a9 is worst than the A7RII in noise at high ISO and less DR which is surprising cause the A9 has less mpx so you would expect better high iso and the A7rii is 2 years old! So unless you need speed and silent shutter and are ready to compromise quality don't see why you would want A9 at almost $2k more.

@patrocal

Per pixel noise is higher with smaller pixels, but not per image noise.

"Tony says silent shutter has no drawbacks other than sysc so it's not that."

He may well say that - it doesn't make it true - I've seen other reports (including images) showing more noise with the electronic shutter:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1486443/41#14015355

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 14:33 UTC
On article Alpha-better: Sony a9 versus a7R II (504 comments in total)
In reply to:

Josh Leavitt: An a9R is almost a certainty at this point. My question is, can Sony make the new sensor capable of electronic shutter flash-sync? If they could somehow configure the stacked BSI CMOS sensor to completely discharge the pixel wells after each exposure (at the cost of continuous FPS of course) in e-shutter mode, then they would have a very compelling product. Even if it kept the 42MP resolution, adding the capability of shooting 3-5 FPS with 1/16000 sec flash sync would open a lot of doors for extended on location shooting.

It’ll likely be a more conventional upgrade though. Dual card slots, weather sealing, new menu, 60MP, bigger battery, etc.

There's no difficulty in doing flash sync with an electronic shutter, the only reason the A9 doesn't is because the sync speed is higher with the physical shutter, so there would be no point using the e-shutter for this (what's the point of being silent when there are flashes going off...)

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 14:26 UTC
In reply to:

ramonjsantiago: "85mm F1.2 is equivalent to 67mm F0.95"
How is that? Maybe its equivalent to to a 67mm F1.2.

@digifan

It's not idocy, it's how lenses work, and it's not new, this has been known about for over 100 years the only thing that's new is the word used to refer to it.

Photographers knew that f/5.6 would give very shallow depth of field on a large format camera, but f/5.6 on a 35mm would not, just like they knew enlarging ISO400 35mm film would give more grain (noise) than printing from ISO400 sheet film.

Also the optical viewfinder is highly misleading when it comes to depth of field with fast lenses, as it shows you a maxmimum of about f/2.5.

As a photographer you should understand optics, either explicitly, or through experience. And equivalence is part of optics.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 13:28 UTC
In reply to:

StephanBG: This had to come up again - you can read the headline and think "ah there go the comments again".

With FF dying in the future we also will see an end to this equivalence mumbo jumbo, invented by FF zealots and those who profit from them to show how they have the largest.

And I'm so f* fed up with people with 5 years old FF cameras - with abysmal noise performance to todays standards even compared to APSC - use this mumbo jumbo.

If you use it, go the whole distance and factor your noisy FF sensor in there for "light gathering". And make every Canon lens 1 stop "slower" compared to Sony FF lenses b/c you Canon FF shooters have s* sensors.

@Alan53

If you don't care about equivalence that's fine, but that's different from denying that it exists, or deriding those who actually want to know what they're getting for their money.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 11:02 UTC
In reply to:

ramonjsantiago: "85mm F1.2 is equivalent to 67mm F0.95"
How is that? Maybe its equivalent to to a 67mm F1.2.

Consider the speedbooster.

Mounting a speedbooster changes the actual focal length and the actual aperture of the lens. So put a 0.7x speedbooster on a 65mm f/1.4 lens and it becomes a 45mm f/1 lens, that is simply a fact.

What the speedbooster is doing is taking an image and concentrating it down, which makes it both smaller and brighter. But it's the same image, just concentrated.

That's what equivalence is about, take two equivalent lenses, say a 65mm f/1.4 and a completely different 45mm f/1, you get the same image with both, the same light, but one is concentrated down. Since noise is to do with the number of photons both images have the same noise in theory.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 09:40 UTC
In reply to:

SantaFeBill: 85mm F/1.2 equivalent to 67mm f/0.9 for DOF, but F/1.2 = F/1.2 for exposure regardless of focal length. Of course, the actual T stop may vary between lenses of the same F-stop.
Sorry to state the obvious, but it does seem to be an on-going confusion. I wish stories would explicitly say 'DOF equivalence'. Would save a lot of posting. <g>

"F/1.2 = F/1.2 for exposure regardless of focal length"

True, but exposure is a meaningless measurement when comparing sensor sizes. The total light hitting the sensor is what matters.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 09:08 UTC
In reply to:

Mike99999: If people would correctly use F-stop for aperture (and its equivalence) and T-stop for light gathering, then there wouldn't be a need for the equivalency police.

The Olympus 25/1.2 has a max. T-stop of T/1.8.
The Sony 100/2.8 STF has a max. T-stop of T/5.6

There's no point in using aperture equivalences for light gathering. It is just senseless. The aperture equivelences (as posted by DPR) are useful for the resulting image one can achieve - just like the equivalent focal length.

T-stops are very close to F-stops for modern lenses, you've basically cherry picked the one very special lens where the two measurements significantly diverge to try and prove your point.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 09:04 UTC
In reply to:

StephanBG: This had to come up again - you can read the headline and think "ah there go the comments again".

With FF dying in the future we also will see an end to this equivalence mumbo jumbo, invented by FF zealots and those who profit from them to show how they have the largest.

And I'm so f* fed up with people with 5 years old FF cameras - with abysmal noise performance to todays standards even compared to APSC - use this mumbo jumbo.

If you use it, go the whole distance and factor your noisy FF sensor in there for "light gathering". And make every Canon lens 1 stop "slower" compared to Sony FF lenses b/c you Canon FF shooters have s* sensors.

It's not mumbo jumbo, it's how lenses work. Entrance pupil diameter ultimately determines both DOF and light gathering, this follows directly from the thin lens equation. The f-stop is irrelevant except for performing exposure calculations within the same format.

Nor was equivalence "invented" by FF photographers, there are references to it dating back as far as 1906 [von Rohr, Moritz. 1906. Die optischen Instrumente]

"I'm so f* fed up with people with 5 years old FF cameras - with abysmal noise performance to todays standards even compared to APSC"

5-year old FF cameras have very good noise performance in low light, for example the Canon 5D mkIII beats the very recent Nikon D5600 above ISO800. There's literally nothing in your post that isn't completely incorrect.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 09:01 UTC
In reply to:

vscd: Now **THIS** is getting interesting... f1.4 for this medium-crop-format is something I would like to see perfoming...

It seems likely the 65 f/1.4 is their 50mm f/0.95 scaled up. In which case the look should be very similar to what you can already get with the speedmaster 50mm f/0.95

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 08:45 UTC
Total: 505, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »