Sony a7R III added to studio scene comparison

Wow, great questions! Finally someone thinking instead of just trolling.
1) Absolutely! The Sonies aren't protected, in fact most cameras aren't protected. Look here, you can clearly see the interference:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_a7riii&attr13_1=nikon_d850&attr13_2=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr13_3=olympus_em1ii&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=200&attr126_3=2&attr171_3=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.279307649659362&y=-0.7455291340042918
And as you can see it's the Olympus that does best in that regard. I think they make great use of the wireless antenna, they measure the external microwave background and use the antenna to counter and erase (hope it's the correct term, I am no native English ;)) the waves.

(continued in next post - stupid char. limit)

@Lea5 the If only there's a more photography oriented forum with comparable following as the DPReview
I'm pretty sure that the forum has plenty of good photographers. Would be great if the site could shine more spotlight on them from time to time
It seems that many people here would benefit from some regular reminder that IQ is perhaps one of the least important aspects in photography

Lea5,
that's a rare amount of gibberish there. You sound as if Basher and Matsui (fictional characters from Ocean 12) were in a front-end collision with sdaniella. LOL

>> image quality fundamentalists who seem consumed by pixel peeping level quality at the cost of everything else

Where exactly did you see "at the cost of everything else"? I think you are imagining the problem that does not exist outside of your own head and are generally confusing things in your head. I did not see here anybody but you saying what you claim. So it must be just you who are on that line of thinking.

Do not forget that if I say I love good meat (e.g. excellent picture quality) that does not mean that I do not like salads (e.g. artistry not directly related to picture quality). You are just being downright silly here and the only one here who takes sides by refusing to acknowledge separate importance of both.

@Angrymagpie, I'm what you'd call a rare case (is that rare?) of photographer and gear head in equal measures.

I've been a pro (with a very promising career) and I admit to love gear and pixel peeping.

But there's a catch: I make myself very aware to never let the gear head in me win.

What you see on this website (and thus complaining) is when the gear side wins on people.

Either a lot of people here have forgotten what photography is all about in favor of gear obsession, or they've never been a photographer in the first place.

"people here would benefit from some regular reminder that IQ is perhaps one of the least important aspects in photography"

Personally, I do that quite often, talking about the business aspect of pro photography, or inviting people to care less about charts, and to remember even 12 yo cameras are good enough when skill is employed.

Cont.

Know what happens when someone does that here? Either sound of crickets, or it doesn't take long until we get back to the usual DR chart talk.

People want to keep their brick wall tests, DR talk and gear of the year obsession.

Discussing actual photography (or photography market) here rarely leads to anything.

No wonder there's next to zero pros left in DPR forums.

Wanna see a popular post? Buy the most recent camera, mess up your exposure and lift by 5 stops. That's popular.

It's will never be "buy a 10 yo camera, which is good enough, and go out shooting".

miksto, I don't know how to say it, but are you really talking about DPR?

Are you sure we're talking about the same place? Where have you been the last 10 years??

I can't even begin to take your comments seriously, as it's painfully obvious you're defending this place for whatever reasons. Maybe somehow offended by my comments?

If offended or not, it doesn't matter. To be honest, not here to make friends.

What matters is that we all know what this place has become, don't come with nonsense like " I did not read anybody else here having such silly ideas as you have."

You know full well what I'm saying.

Post a thoughtful discussion about photography market, technique, marketing, lighting, or even about gear itself (in more thoughtful ways than usual), you get sound of crickets.

Post a "here's a lens cap on shot, at ISO 100k or shadows lifted by a billion stops", you reach 150 posts in 3, 2, 1...

Please let's not be naive here, this is DPR we're talking about.

@marcio_napoli
Learn to read. I said nothing about the place and your problem and your confusion equally have nothing to do with the place. You will not be happy anywhere if you assume if someone likes to know about cars they are a no good driver or that a good driver should not have interest in horse powers.

You just continue being silly attacking the place and people while your problem has nothing to do with it and is your own internal problem. May be you are the kind of photographer who is no good in technical side but that is wrong to start assuming everybody is like you. You must be too self conceited to think that way.

>> Post a "here's a lens cap on shot, at ISO 100k or shadows lifted by a billion stops", you reach 150 posts in 3, 2, 1...

And what? Ignoring the fact that this ridicule comes only out of you and in this form nobody else is bragging like that but you. Still if you think ignorance on ability to lift shadow is a sign of anything good then you let yourself down.

@marcio_napoli
>> Post a thoughtful discussion about photography market, technique, marketing, lighting, or even about gear itself

You must be totally self conceited if you believe you are the only one to judge what is thoughtful as you seem to presume you know what is. May be yours are not really as thoughtful as you like to think and you are just fooling yourself because it makes you feel better about yourself? Or are you the only one who is right and almost a lost Messiah, unrecognized genius who's judgements are so ahead (or behind) of time that you better keep quiet and un-understood by your contemporaries? Or may be you have a small circle of similarly self-conceited ahead/behind of time geniuses? Any of this touches a cord in your soul and makes you happy about yourself? Or you are just happy from making others look bad as that makes you feel above them?

I'm almost laughing, *almost* because it's not even funny, it's just silly.

Look pal, you say I'm judging? And what exactly are you doing about me, if not judging me on many different levels? Even worse: you judge not knowing a single thing about me.

I've been a pro with a very promising career, I did go the extra mile, I've put the extra effort. I did not buy awesome pro gear just to shoot brick walls and discuss DR on forums.

I'd be glad to link my portfolio here if that helps you chill down.

Did you read the part I'm also a gear head? I have nothing against gear. What I have something against (if you wanna call it that way) is obsession with the best gear to achieve the smallest goals, something that you see happening a lot here.

Everything I said has solid basis. They're not just random free attacks. And know what? Criticism is good, it makes one evolve.

Everyone knows what DPR forums is all about. Don't come with this BS saying I'm acting superior, or similar nonsense.

>> Everything I said has solid basis.

That is an easily verifiable lie. I can immediately see a few points above that are of no solid basis and are instead very shaky and easily dis-proven opinions but I reckon it is not worth my time digging that hole. Nor is it worth yours if you are a pro. Enjoy yourself and be easier thinking you have the only truth.

Chris Tsorotes,
its sounds like you bought a camera back in 2010 and haven't used the site until today.

@Photography Matters

I haven't seen a hint of rumor of an A9r since July on SAR. Where are you hearing this?

9VIII,
you seemed to think this is a sensor problem, that is incorrect.

Sharpness is lens based. Not the best lens in use these days (switched to Sony 85 from Zeiss 55).

I've had moire on my A6000 and A6300s, which have an AA filter.

@RubberDials
It's sharp, sharper than GM and Batis and sharper than 55 1.8 to. A tried all of them and i own fe 85mm 1.8
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-FE-85mm-F18-on-Sony-A7R-II-versus-Sony-FE-85mm-F14-GM-on-Sony-A7R-II-versus-Zeiss-Carl-Zeiss-Batis-85mm-F18-Sony-FE-on-Sony-A7R-II__1818_1035_1680_1035_1536_1035

@I'll take Olaf over your opinion if you don't mind. :)

Did you actually look at Roger's curves? And 10 copies tested on an optical bench beats 1 lens tested on Imatest at god knows what distance by DXOmark.

@Anulu
And yet you felt the need to link to DXOmark... :)

Back in the real world, the MTF curves of ten samples tested on an optical bench trumps your statement about the one lens you own, presented without any evidence.

You won't really find anyone who doesn't think their 85 is the sharpest lens ever created because they tend to shoot portraits with it - which is one of the most undemanding subjects you can shoot if you want to test the sharpness of a lens - large structures of smoothly transitioning tone. You only need good contrast at 10p/mm for that.

You doesn't even know what am i shooting... :D
I'm felt to need link dxo, because to show you, not just i'm saying fe85 is sharp :)
But you are trully ridicolous, if you think i will take your opinion and mft charts over my REAL experience, and Real mean using them in the real world, for photography, for work... real doesn't mean looking charts and websites on the internet as you do :D
Take my advice : Rent those lenses take up your ass, leave your internet at home, and take pictures ! Don't let be fool you by websites, because pictures born in the real world :)
Anyway the mentioned lenses are all stellar, all of them ! The differences are negligible, but this test shoot is clearly oof, as many other folks already mentioned on this forum, maybe this happened again :)
https://www.dpreview.com/news/8576711309/now-we-know-sony-a9-is-sharper-than-we-thought
And sorry for my bad english, it's not my primary

@Anulu
So, if experts like Dpreview reviewers are, one more time, fooled by manual focusing on a SONY body, maybe the error is somewhat in the SONY device and not the reviewers, isnt'it ?
Why do they managed to 'nail' it with Nikon, Canon, FUji, Olympus, Pentax, Hasselblad, Leica, Panasonic, etc... but SONY ?

@Jetfly

Have you ever heard of IS + IBIS? Yes, they can combine. ;)

Funny, since I used Nikon for years, and switched to Sony to alleviate issues I was having with them (which reviewers are just now starting to notice). No, it hasn't changed my skills, but it has allowed me to have full confidence in the camera, and to continue shooting where I would otherwise be chimping. And feel free to check my account registration date. :)

@Mais78

That's how Adobe chose to profile the camera. And as we've learned, Adobe sucks at profiling. Not Sony trying to hide noise.

@stevo23

The adapters add another level of inconsistency. They can tilt the focal plane depending on tolerances, and add slight misfocus to the top or bottom of the scene. Then again, it seems like even that would be better than using the overly soft and colorful Sony 85/1.8...

I don't. I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I expected to see a better image quality from the D850 than the A7R III.

Ah got it, sorry.

No worries!

Not on mine and I'm viewing it on a 5K screen. The rii is clearly sharper.

Its also been noted that 2 different lenses were used.. which probably is responsible for the differences.

Still we should see the same camera in the top spot. ;-)

>> A7RIII is clearly sharper on my screen than the A7RII with RAW selected

Odd. I was also checking with RAW and the old is way sharper WITHOUT pixel shift. With pixel shift it is just on a par. I have a 4K monitor.

>> Still we should see the same camera in the top spot. ;-)

Looks like Nikon gets it.
Still I am surprised the new Sony is worse than the old Sony. Something is fishy.

Hm had to check again. You're right A7Rii looks sharper, must have mixed that up somehow. Probably not 100% in focus.

@ISO12800 even the "old" Canon 5D Mark III holds up well. No big difference to newer sensors...

I think you are right.
I was blaming the lens, but after another look, the differences in sharpness are too much, surely.

It's so strange to see so many pro users here that ignore all of this...
Someone says the 85mm lens is full of CA, but they should know when the CA comes out too...
...misfocusing

85/1.8 produces 'awful lot' of CA according to DPR.

https://www.dpreview.com/samples/4348798595/sony-fe-85mm-f1-8-sample-gallery

@dbm305: You are possibly right, but I don't think it unreasonable for viewers to expect a studio test scene with lots of fine detail examples to show relative sharpness between different cameras.
As it is, the A7Rii is outperforming the Mkiii for rendered detail - Is it the lens? or something else like an AA filter, processing, IBIS - the list goes on.
A lot of us would like to know whether there is a problem, or as you suggest, the studio test scene is worthless for assessing detail.

Not so sure it was misfocused, the pixel shift features yields very sharp details.

They definetely had to test it with the 55mm lens.
CA could vary also because if you choose a 85mm you have to place the camera further than on 55mm, and this change the angle the studio lights reflect on the lens.
But again, I am pretty sure we have a misfocus problem
To the ones who states 85mm has a very bad CA... are you really sure it is normal at f5.6? :)

About the Pixel Shift shot, the camera could have been refocused for that shot, Sony Imaging Edge Software could have corrected CA, etc...

AND

I don't see electronic first-curtain shutter feature enabled on R III, as it was on R II