A7Rii crushes Canon 5Dsr in stills

[DBounce]

From the article:

“We can obviously see a considerable difference here and so straight out of lightroom the A7Rii is nothing short of incredible. Let me remind you, this is +5 exposure and +100 shadow recovery!”

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/first-a7rii-vs-5dsr-comparison-sony-outperforms-the-canon-and-is-nothing-short-of-incredible/

[Sekhar]

From the article:

“We can obviously see a considerable difference here and so straight out of lightroom the A7Rii is nothing short of incredible. Let me remind you, this is +5 exposure and +100 shadow recovery!”

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/first-a7rii-vs-5dsr-comparison-sony-outperforms-the-canon-and-is-nothing-short-of-incredible/

Uh oh, you just declared war on the Canon crowd. Say what we may about Canon and video, people thought they had at least the stills corner secure.

[Zach Ashcraft]

I owned the 5D3, A7r, D750, and D810. All 3 of those cameras crush the 5D3 in stills, and likely the 5Dsr. No surprise to me that the A7rii is no contest

[Mattias Burling]

Ahh man, and got my first 5d today. Now I must trash it 

 

[jcs]

Canon has perhaps only one very significant advantage over the the A7RII- color science. Sony does OK with natural light and full spectrum indoor lights (though Canon & Nikon are better), however they really have trouble with LED and fluorescent lights (spikey color spectrums). Looking forward to seeing A7SRII studio portrait stills to show what it can do with the best indoor lighting available with skintones.

While we can make the A7S look decent for video, the 5D3 is still the go to stills camera for people and skintones (and less work for video when shooting H.264 (though a bit soft compared to the A7S). 5D3 RAW smokes the A7S in every way except resolution (not by much), slomo, and lowlight (DR difference isn't a big deal- it's easier to deal with 14-bit linear RAW and highlight recovery vs. 8-bit Slog2)). When Sony starts working on and promoting their 'new updated color science' we'll take another look at Sony cameras for stills and video.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

The ability to push the exposure up is not the only element of high image quality, there are at least 10 I mention here. http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/7864-what-makes-a-high-quality-image-the-technical-aspect-of-image-quality-in-camera-systems/

yet, somehow shadow dynamic range is the most important element in image quality now for everybody for some reason just when Canon started lagging behind in that particular side. In fact, having a higher shadow DR alone is now sufficient for ''smoking'' all the others.
 
It's strange really why this element became so important in that specific time. Shadow DR is more important than all the other 9 elements, more important than ergonomics even, it's everything. 

Anyway Yes Sony and Nikon sensors are much better for correcting 5+ stops of under exposure in stills in Raw mode (that doesn't apply even slightly to video modes). Every one who reads camera boards knows that. 
 

[Damphousse]

What is this BS?!

Did anyone even bother to follow the links back to the original "article"?  Here is part of the original article's author's methodology...

We exposed such that the brightest area of non-sky was exposed to the right (using rawdigger to check) and then stopped down 6 stops and took our ‘under’ exposure.

http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2015/08/sony-a7rii-compared-with-sony-a7r-and-canon-5dsr/

What?!

I mean just look at the pictures.  He blew out the sky in the two Sony shots and retain information in the sky in the Canon shot and then went and compared shadows.  Umm... why not mentioned the blown skies in the Sony pictures?  What a pile of BS.  Just do a proper test and get back to us with proper results.

[Valentino Luggen]

http://www.valentino-photography.com/comparison-medium-format-hasselblad-vs-canon-5dsr/
ACR does not a good job on the 5dsr files as you can see in my comparison.

[Marco Tecno]

big bsi sensors seem to be very good in pulling exposures from raw. nx1 is also great at that.

but they seem to suffer of blown highlights quite a bit.

 

henc better to expose for highlights (unless the main subject is much, much darker) and then pull the exposure in post.

[David Bowgett]

The ability to push the exposure up is not the only element of high image quality, there are at least 10 I mention here. http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/7864-what-makes-a-high-quality-image-the-technical-aspect-of-image-quality-in-camera-systems/

yet, somehow shadow dynamic range is the most important element in image quality now for everybody for some reason just when Canon started lagging behind in that particular side. In fact, having a higher shadow DR alone is now sufficient for ''smoking'' all the others.
 
It's strange really why this element became so important in that specific time. Shadow DR is more important than all the other 9 elements, more important than ergonomics even, it's everything. 
 

I don't think dynamic range is the be all and end all of things, but being able to push the shadow detail (perhaps along with overall exposure) does make for a more convenient workflow than having to mess around with multiple exposures or gradual ND filters.

Canon probably wouldn't pick up so much heat over this if not for just how bad their cameras perform in this regard. It's one thing for Sony and Samsung's sensors to be outperforming them; it's another thing entirely when even the various m4/3rds sensors do much better.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Canon probably wouldn't pick up so much heat over this if not for just how bad their cameras perform in this regard.

If you want to compare two cameras accurately compare them in every single one of these elements:

-Resolution/sharpness (on par 5DIII and D750 and A7II) and highest in the market with 5DsR

-Low light performance

-Colour science

-Codec/format compression

-Colour accuracy 

-Jpeg engine 

-Highlight DR 

-Highlight roll off 

-Noise pattern/grain 

-Artefacts (aliasing/moire/banding)

-Lenses quality/diversity 

-Shadow dynamic range 

These are what you need to test just to evaluate image quality, but if you need to comprehensively evaluate them, you need to test:

-Size,

-weight,

-ergonomics,

-button amount and placement,

-build quality,

-hits/falls tolerance,

-weather resistance,

-Autofocus system speed and sophistication/customization,

-speed of buffer and UI,

-Shutter lag

-Shutter Slap

-Stability

-User interface experience,

-Viewfinders,

-Number of media slots,

-media type it self,

-connectivity for tethered shooting/studio (speed and software),

-Battery life

-flash/speed light systems available,

-Lens mount and lenses available, their resolution, IS, CA, distortion, fringing performace 

-Price of the camera, lenses, flashes, batteries, 

-Features that make shooting easier/harder and technology

I can go on.

AND if you want to evaluate their video performance, you completely re-do all the IQ tests I mentioned above but in video mode (and add rolling shutter and codec and Gammas) 

Yet somehow a shadow DR test is the only needed comparison on all camera review sites, the one element in sensor performance Sony wins, and then say it smokes Canon and call it a day, just based on shadow DR.

It's really strange because it's only ONE aspect of the TEN that define Image quality, actually not one, a half, as it doesn't translate to video performance, 

Yet it's lately the only half-an-element that matters, everything else on the list is irrelevant and not tested/mentioned. 

All I am asking for, is proper complete camera reviews/comparisons that give the community the correct information to make the right purchase

I don't think anyone could disagree with that!

 

 

[timparkin]

What is this BS?!

Did anyone even bother to follow the links back to the original "article"?  Here is part of the original article's author's methodology...

http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2015/08/sony-a7rii-compared-with-sony-a7r-and-canon-5dsr/

What?!

I mean just look at the pictures.  He blew out the sky in the two Sony shots and retain information in the sky in the Canon shot and then went and compared shadows.  Umm... why not mentioned the blown skies in the Sony pictures?  What a pile of BS.  Just do a proper test and get back to us with proper results.

If you check the raw files using rawdigger rather than just using Lightroom (which will be affected by white balance etc) then you'll be able to see. The links to the rawdigger screenshots are in the post. 

I don't think dynamic range is the be all and end all of things, but being able to push the shadow detail (perhaps along with overall exposure) does make for a more convenient workflow than having to mess around with multiple exposures or gradual ND filters.

Canon probably wouldn't pick up so much heat over this if not for just how bad their cameras perform in this regard. It's one thing for Sony and Samsung's sensors to be outperforming them; it's another thing entirely when even the various m4/3rds sensors do much better.

It's not the be all and end all which is why I have a Canon 5DSr as well and if you people had read my review of that they would see what I think of it.. 

[Damphousse]

If you check the raw files using rawdigger rather than just using Lightroom (which will be affected by white balance etc) then you'll be able to see. The links to the rawdigger screenshots are in the post. 

The highlights in the Sony images are blown.  That's a fail in my book.  I could get nice shadow detail if I blew the sky out on all my pictures/video.  But then my work would look like a lot of stuff you see on the web... crap.  BMPCC, shoot raw, expose to the right, and for goodness' sake don't blow out the sky... unless you do it for an artistic reason.  Properly exposed film keeps the highlights.  Video blows them constantly.

 

 

[timparkin]

The highlights in the Sony images are blown.  That's a fail in my book.  I could get nice shadow detail if I blew the sky out on all my pictures/video.  But then my work would look like a lot of stuff you see on the web... crap.  BMPCC, shoot raw, expose to the right, and for goodness' sake don't blow out the sky... unless you do it for an artistic reason.  Properly exposed film keeps the highlights.  Video blows them constantly.

 

 

sigh - read the article again. Download rawdigger. Check the values in the quarry face, not the sky (this is where the ETTR was done) - the sony file is touching clipping on one green pixel, none of the other channels are clipping. The Canon file is 98% to clipping on one green channel. That's about a 1/10 of a stop difference. Please, please read the article and if you'd like to ask a question fine but don't jump to conclusions (e.g. that the sky was the ETTR point, that the difference between clipping and no clipping is significant (it could be a single unit which is .01 of a percent). 

 

[docmoore]

sigh - read the article again. Download rawdigger. Check the values in the quarry face, not the sky (this is where the ETTR was done) - the sony file is touching clipping on one green pixel, none of the other channels are clipping. The Canon file is 98% to clipping on one green channel. That's about a 1/10 of a stop difference. Please, please read the article and if you'd like to ask a question fine but don't jump to conclusions (e.g. that the sky was the ETTR point, that the difference between clipping and no clipping is significant (it could be a single unit which is .01 of a percent). 

 

Tim,

 

Landscape still and video are worlds apart .... jump to conclusions is what seems to be the standard here. Otherwise one's cherished viewpoint might be at risk.

We all want Red Weapon for a tuppence ... and will not be satisfied with much less.

Personally a CCD from the Leica S006 that would allow 4K at 60P would be fine with me.

Tough crowd ... but welcome from another rather new member.

 

Bob

[Damphousse]

Landscape still and video are worlds apart .... jump to conclusions is what seems to be the standard here.

I agree.  Better to wait for dynamic range assessments from more traditional sources... like Andrew.  I've never seen a dynamic range test like the one I tracked down researching this thread.  Would have been nice for the OP to post the pictures with blown highlights and state the fact the A7RII used a different exposure but I guess that wouldn't have been as fun.  I've found two other lengthy threads on the interwebs expressing the same consternation regarding the methodology of this test.

[Shield3]

Canon has perhaps only one very significant advantage over the the A7RII- color science. Sony does OK with natural light and full spectrum indoor lights (though Canon & Nikon are better), however they really have trouble with LED and fluorescent lights (spikey color spectrums). Looking forward to seeing A7SRII studio portrait stills to show what it can do with the best indoor lighting available with skintones.

While we can make the A7S look decent for video, the 5D3 is still the go to stills camera for people and skintones (and less work for video when shooting H.264 (though a bit soft compared to the A7S). 5D3 RAW smokes the A7S in every way except resolution (not by much), slomo, and lowlight (DR difference isn't a big deal- it's easier to deal with 14-bit linear RAW and highlight recovery vs. 8-bit Slog2)). When Sony starts working on and promoting their 'new updated color science' we'll take another look at Sony cameras for stills and video.

Only one?  So the vast amount of lens selection, customer support / CPS, PDAF Autofocus speed, Professional sports shooting, tilt/shift lenses, reliability aren't significant?  This is a "stills" thread, mind you.  When I see rows and rows of Sony mirrorless at MLB/NFL/NBA sidelines then I'll be a true believer.  Now shooting things that don't move?  Sony wins easily.

The ability to push the exposure up is not the only element of high image quality, there are at least 10 I mention here. http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/7864-what-makes-a-high-quality-image-the-technical-aspect-of-image-quality-in-camera-systems/

yet, somehow shadow dynamic range is the most important element in image quality now for everybody for some reason just when Canon started lagging behind in that particular side. In fact, having a higher shadow DR alone is now sufficient for ''smoking'' all the others.
 

 

If you really want to see the Canon get smoked, record 4k on the a7rII for a while - it may get hot enough to truly "smoke" the Canon.  Oh wait, it'll shut off first and you'll have to tell your subject / talent to "hold please" while your camera cools off.  Pass.

[timparkin]

I agree.  Better to wait for dynamic range assessments from more traditional sources... like Andrew.  I've never seen a dynamic range test like the one I tracked down researching this thread.  Would have been nice for the OP to post the pictures with blown highlights and state the fact the A7RII used a different exposure but I guess that wouldn't have been as fun.  I've found two other lengthy threads on the interwebs expressing the same consternation regarding the methodology of this test.

and yet you still didn't read the article where the exposure difference was explained... 

If you have a look at the rawdigger comparisons you'll be able to see that had I chosen the same exposure level for the 'base' exposure (the ETTR) the areas of the quarry would have add full clipping in all channels. And if you check the average values of the cliff face as a %ge of the clipping levels you'll see that the Canon and Sony files are fairly similar. 

[hmcindie]

But is this anything new? I mean the D800 can do pretty much the same thing vs Canons and that thing has been out for years.

But which one has better DR, the D800 or the A7Rii?

[Andrew Reid]

What is the point of the Sony beating the Canon for dynamic range if they both look shit when you dig that far down? Nobody does that in the real world. It is showing some technical aspect of the sensor and nothing more.

Also the dynamic range of the A7R II only seems to extend that far in the green channel. May as well be black and white. Where's the colour information gone?