mgrum

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

Comments

Total: 727, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Burnt to a Crisp: Outstanding! Yet another area where the A7R III shames the D850 into submission!

@davev8

I see much difference:

https://i.imgur.com/ZuamUIj.png

https://i.imgur.com/WM4EEsD.png

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2017 at 13:25 UTC
In reply to:

KristinnK: Bring up the Nikon D850 in the studio scene comparison. It's standard images are as good as the A7R3 pixel shift images. It's almost as good as the 100MP medium format camera. Either the Nikon lens is just much, much sharper than the Sony lens, or Nikon has worked some impressive magic with the Sony sensor.

The D850 really is the best full frame camera right now.

@Richmondthefish, Max Iso

I think it's definitely a lens issue, the Sony 85/1.8 is struggling massively with CA compared to the Nikon 85mm f1.8G (or maybe the Nikon has been corrected).

There's nowhere in the central region of the image where the D850 looks better.

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2017 at 22:00 UTC
In reply to:

dosdan: Look at the CA in the extreme left-bottom corner for the lens used with the III. Not present to the same extent in the other cameras. Check out all 4 corners.

I wonder why DPR didn't use the same lens as with the II which isn't troubled with CA?

Dan

dpreview try and use inexpensive 85mm equivalent lenses on all cameras, but when the A7RII was released Sony didn't have a native 85mm lens so they used the 55mm f/1.8. Now with the A7RIII there is an inexpensive 85mm so they used that instead of the much better 55/1.8.

Why they don't simply use the best lenses available to remove a variable and compare sensors instead I'm afraid I can't tell you.

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2017 at 21:46 UTC
In reply to:

Burnt to a Crisp: Outstanding! Yet another area where the A7R III shames the D850 into submission!

@clickclack

The lens used for the A7RIII shots (Sony 85/1.8) has a lot of lateral CA, so much so that it's affecting the apparent sharpness - the yellow paint tubes are too close to the edge of the frame to be used to reliably compare the sensor performance.

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2017 at 20:23 UTC
In reply to:

Kamox: Am I the only one who sees the K-1 image as better than the one from the Sony?
Either way, really impressive.
Both look more detailed to me than the images coming from the 645Z and the Fuji GFX50 (if you select those camera and compare them side-by-side).
Of course detail is just an aspect of an image, but it's remarkable.

In some areas the K1 does look slightly better to me.

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2017 at 19:25 UTC
In reply to:

tbcass: Well it appears that for landscapes on a tripod this is a great feature.

Grass is unlikely to be a problem, trees and moving water will be. However I have plenty of landscapes where there are no trees or they aren't moving so I can see this feature being valuable. Clouds could be a problem but it's easy to comp in the sky from one of the sub-frames, detail in this area isn't particularly important.

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2017 at 19:24 UTC
In reply to:

Michael1000: Frankly, the D850 looks just as detailed, if not more so, compared to the Sony A7RIII with pixel shift. The Sony has the edge in moire, and has more color in fine lines, such as hair. The D850 has less color fringing (chromatic aberration in the Sony lens?).

@Rishi

Is CA correction on for the other images? There's a huge difference in lateral CA in the corners that can't all be down to the lens.

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2017 at 18:37 UTC
In reply to:

Burnt to a Crisp: Outstanding! Yet another area where the A7R III shames the D850 into submission!

@JACS

Where doest the D850 resolve more? I can't find it:

https://i.imgur.com/bIUNZWp.png

Also if you're aliasing more then you're not resolving more, you're just seeing false detail. The A7RIII pixel shift is clearly better - which is exactly what you'd expect.

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2017 at 18:35 UTC
In reply to:

KristinnK: Bring up the Nikon D850 in the studio scene comparison. It's standard images are as good as the A7R3 pixel shift images. It's almost as good as the 100MP medium format camera. Either the Nikon lens is just much, much sharper than the Sony lens, or Nikon has worked some impressive magic with the Sony sensor.

The D850 really is the best full frame camera right now.

"It's standard images are as good as the A7R3 pixel shift images"

They're not:

https://i.imgur.com/bIUNZWp.png

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2017 at 18:33 UTC
In reply to:

mgrum: There's some strange colour fringing in the A7RIII pixel shift image that I think can only be the result of postprocessing after the 4 images are merged:

https://i.imgur.com/eF2rkVA.png

Ah it's lateral CA that seems to be corrected in the A7RII shot but not the pixel shift shot.

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2017 at 18:29 UTC
In reply to:

photoaddict: Pentax K1 still outperforms Sony in terms of moire... seriously, look at the residual color moire on newspaper print. Even when you look at the resolution lines, you can clearly see that Pentax has virtually no color artifacts/moire all the way while Sony shows some color moire although much less than the standard shot.

Both the A7RIII and K1 are full frame.

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2017 at 18:27 UTC
In reply to:

LessMirrored19: A7r3 : 4
D850 : 0

@Photo_Graphic "Gee, the D850 gets similar results with one frame "

erm, no it doesn't:

https://i.imgur.com/bIUNZWp.png

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2017 at 18:23 UTC

There's some strange colour fringing in the A7RIII pixel shift image that I think can only be the result of postprocessing after the 4 images are merged:

https://i.imgur.com/eF2rkVA.png

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2017 at 16:19 UTC as 226th comment | 2 replies

Can you make the pixel shift file available for download? I'd like to try and write my own converter in advance of actually being able to get hold of an A7RIII...

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2017 at 15:31 UTC as 243rd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

cdembrey: With the about 0.7 crop factor (120mm = 85mm FF) you need to be much closer to the subject than you do with a FF camera to get equivalent FoV.

I'm sorry what? "anyone who argues as you have while losing the battle for as long as you have has maturity issues"

You argued for just as long then finally seemed to admit you were wrong and instead switched to ad-hominem attacks. You then make comments like "hey little boy - "flick" and then accuse me of having "maturity issues". Seriously.

I would bother responding - I will do the mature thing and ignore you from now on.

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2017 at 09:54 UTC
In reply to:

cdembrey: With the about 0.7 crop factor (120mm = 85mm FF) you need to be much closer to the subject than you do with a FF camera to get equivalent FoV.

Ok you are just trolling then. Fine

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 23:36 UTC
In reply to:

cdembrey: With the about 0.7 crop factor (120mm = 85mm FF) you need to be much closer to the subject than you do with a FF camera to get equivalent FoV.

@stevo23 You started by correcting people (when there is no right answer) and then now you're being defensive, contradictory, and finally end by implying I'm childish for pointing this out. Seriously?

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 20:38 UTC
In reply to:

Mateus1: Tiny sensor (without PDAF in 2018) in giant and heavy body that equals FF and offers 25% IQ of it? And to pay for it $1700?

I am not mad.

@Swerky

"An f2 is an f2 wether it’s on full frame or mft. Meaning the lens will gather the same amount of light."

No it will gather less light because the image circle is smaller (even though the exposure is the same). This means you will get more noise.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 08:17 UTC
In reply to:

wlad: Is there a market for cameras the size of a DSLR with a *tiny* m4/3 sensor at all ?
I fail to see the point of such camera. At this size, you might as well pick up an APS-C DSLR, or heck even a full-frame mirrorless for the same price...

Nobody carries a 600mm f/2.8 full frame lens...

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 08:11 UTC
In reply to:

cdembrey: With the about 0.7 crop factor (120mm = 85mm FF) you need to be much closer to the subject than you do with a FF camera to get equivalent FoV.

@stevo23

"use whatever you like"

Right but you're repeatedly implying there is only one way:

".79 to be exact"

"you have to use a root squared formula. It's .79."

The crop factor is used to compare the linear size of sensors, again there is no official definition - the diagonal is commonly used as a convenient approximation but is NOT the ONLY way to express the linear difference between two sensors with different aspect ratios.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2017 at 20:58 UTC
Total: 727, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »