On the video above Epicmind compares the A7rII vs the Phase One IQ160. Watch it to hear who wins.
And Nasim Mansurov from Photographylife posted his detailed A7rII review:
After having a pleasant shooting experience with the camera, I wondered how good Sony’s new BSI sensor would look when compared to both the D810 and the 5DS R. To my surprise (and as you can see from the previous pages of this review), the Sony A7R II demonstrated superb performance at handling noise at high ISOs, easily surpassing both cameras. In my past evaluations, Sony full-frame cameras always fell short when put head-to-head against Nikon DSLRs, so I did not expect the A7R II to do better either. But looks like the BSI CMOS sensor that Sony decided to utilize on the A7R II was the right choice, as the performance speaks for itself. Not only does it deliver exceptionally good ISO performance, but it also does it with more megapixels than the D810 and a far better dynamic range performance than the Canon 5DS R.
A7rII store list:
In USA: at Amazon, BHphoto, Adorama, SonyStore US, FocusCamera, Uniquephoto.
In Europe at Amazon DE, Amazon UK, Wex UK and ParkCameras.
In Asia at Digitalrev, CameraPro.
43 Responses
Surely the first rule of shooting from a tripod for sharpness is that you use a remote release or there’s a grave danger of introducing blur due to vibration.
Not if you’re using the touch shutter app…
3s delay suffices, not?
2 sec delay is just as effective as remote, assuming you are on a steady, locked down tripod that does not continue to bounce after touching camera
God, some people will find anything to complain about. Both looked tack sharp after he adjusted the iris on the Sony, and there are plenty of other things (noise, DR, highlight/shadow recovery) that aren’t affected by subtle vibration blur at all. Yeah, if this was an uber-scientific test your comment might be more relevant – but then he wouldn’t be using a 4-year-old camera back for comparison anyway. These kinds of tests take time, are provided for free, and are very valuable for a lot of people. At least give a thanks if you’re going to be an armchair critic.
I agree that the use of a remote trigger for both cameras would have been a better test method, however the images didn’t exhibit any noticeable camera shake in either case so the test results were not likely impacted by the lack of using the remote trigger method. This was a somewhat informal test but it does accurately demonstrate what could be expected in normal use.
It was just a general reference to technique. It might well be some can get away without a remote release (or a timer delay), but I really would not recommend it.
I wasn’t suggesting that the photos themselves exhibited any blur, just that it seemed a bit odd.
Normally you trigger from within the tethering software. No need for a dedicated remote release.
That’s just a remote release by another name. It doesn’t matter if it’s done by cable, wireless, phone app. The point is to just avoid touching the camera.
Do you really think that this applies to a shot whose main light source is a strobe with a fire duration of probably less than 1/1000 of a second?
Edit: sorry, I just saw that the same argument was already posted by Guy Mancuso.
Nope, sorry. And the top ten rules of professional photography have little to do with photography FYI.
The test results are what was expected, the Phase One achieves higher resolution by virtue of the higher megapixel count and the Sony achieves better shadow retention and noise characteristics by virtue of the more modern sensor design. The takeaway from all this is the Sony can be used as a much cheaper alternative to the Phase One system and still achieve acceptable results.
The color depth test is crucial to compare sensors. The bigest complaint on the sony cameras is the skintones rendition, many people say that sony color science have much to avance to compete with the old brands.
Try comparing an image of a colorchecker target before and after calibration between a Sony and Canon or Nikon and see how wrong your misguided assumption is.
First I’m hearing of this- Sony has always received high praise for color rendition, especially in skin tones, especially compared to canikon
Well, concerning the A7 series I find them so so out of the box, the Sony Jpeg profiles give warmish, yellowish (in my opinion: quite unpleasant) skin tones, even Adobe LR standard profile is less than optimal. However with a self made Colorchecker passport profile I got excellent skin tones out of my A7rII. In my opinon visible better than the mentioned profiles.
I always find Canon skin tones to be quite strong, Nikon much less convincing (regardless of camera), the best however being Fuji since quite a long time. With my X-T1 I have yet to see a picture with bad skin tones.
But with the Colorchecker profiles I can very well live with Sony’s results.
And in this test example the Sony color rendition was very close to the Phase One which is considered a studio standard.
Not exactly – some people say they prefer Canon’s jpeg rendition. That’s a matter of taste, but unless you’re stuck with it or DPP it’s also no concern.
Now certain people jump onto this bandwagon as an counterclaim to everybody else’s lower noise(with the whole DR being a direct consequence of this – it’s defined as signal to noise ratio). Fallaciously, as color is reconstructed from the brightness levels the sensor records – and making those measurements less accurate does not increase the accuracy of anything derived from them.
If you are talking about OOC JPEGs maybe…
Folks he is using studio strobes and it will stop any type of vibration from either camera. I owned the IQ 160 and I ran tests against a Nikon D800e a couple years ago. His tests are actually better on the noise and DR side with the Sony than the D800e but I can confirm for a fact that it is so very close outside the higher resolution of the IQ 160. I owned 5 Phase backs over the years. I am not surprised by this for even a millisecond . I knew this a couple tears ago and never posted the results. I sold all my MF gear.
Just for the record if any vibration between the two cameras the Phase body with its huge mirror would be the culprit on vibration but using studio strobes you would never see it as it stops any motion. The flash duration on what he was using was pretty high as it looked like he was using about half power which also increases flash duration. My guess that flash duration was at least 1/2000 if not faster.
I’m a 40 year working Pro and I know flash very well. This gentlemans test is done just fine. I use C1 also.
This is SO WRONG !
You can only compare noise if you zoom on the two pictures to see the exact same portion of the image at the exact same size. This guy here is zooming into the PhaseOne image, so he’s also just zooming into the noise !
If he compared the image of the A7RII with the image of the A7 or even a lesser camera, he would end up saying the lesser pixel camera is the better. This is misunderstanding and ignorance of how to test a camera.
Saying that, the noise in the A7RII might be as good or better to the PhaseOne, but he didn’t proceed the right way to seriously assess that.
What you are saying is true but as a shooter of both, even when you do that, the IQ160 is noisier when pushing the shadows hard as he did in that example. But he shouldn’t have been surprised by the result. The IQ160 is too noisy for most commercial work by ISO 400 where the a7R II isn’t even breathing hard. If he had used an IQ250 (50mp CMOS), the IQ would have won though.
Did you really just say the noise performance of the IQ160 is too high at ISO400 for commercial work??? What is this world coming to
Wow, he even knows about the rumors.
Am I the only one that gets so impatient with the meaningless rambling and slow pacing of most youtube videos? I find myself just skipping through and trying to get to the point. The 18 minute video could have delivered his point in 5 minutes.
Hell no you are not the only one. Especially with these amateurish tech-review videos. Spending two minutes talking about what he will talk about in this video. I dont know where they get this shit from. But making your point shorty and effective requires skill.
You’re not alone.
Let us not forget the boring and goofy intro music that every YouTube poster thinks is essential.
Right.
Producing video properly is really much more difficult than typing and most simply fail. I dont even bother with the youtube links and much prefer written content. Even a poorly worded blog post takes much less time to eye through and fish out any potentially interesting bits..
Someone should do a test of the a7r2 vs the iPhone 4s
Thanks for sharing.
Nasim Mansurov is doing a great job, as usual, reviewing this camera.
Concerning the Epic Mind Studio video, too much gesticulation at start and too slow process for a comparison that could be packed in 3 minutes instead of 18, by focusing on key points and conclusion… I fall asleep and couldn’t finish it…
Is there any news on the a9 front?
The comparizon is flawed, f16 on 35mm format is not optimal, f5,6 or 8 would give much more true results: best quality for many FF lenses. Although depth of field would possibly be different
For such a closed up photo the DOF would have been few millimeters.
The photo taken at f16 actually is very close representation of what you would do if you were taking such small items picture for real, which is f16/f22.
Good tests should represent what you do as close as possible as a real usage of the camera/lens combination and not at their the sweetest spot.
He should have taken another shot of a full length mannequin and there you would shoot it at f5.6/8, yet it would have understandably been a pain to do both tests.
I get your point, the author of the video actually explained it (I read it later): he compared the situation he does everyday professionally, product photo, focus stacking. Greater DOF means less work, time is money. Makes perfect sense.
But this kind of comparison, when he compares the detail, textures is unfair for smaller sensor camera. F16 – no problem for medium format, visibly worse effects on so called full frame. Not tragic for sure: f22 usually downhills dramatically because of diffraction. Optimal test would be comparing flattish scene, 5 meters from the camera, DOF and apperture wouldn’t matter
Comparing flattish scene, that would be the perfect test for brick walls and charts lovers or eventually the real life application would be reproduction of flat objects like art work for a museum. Not very representative of what 90% of the photographers do every day around the world.
Sincerely, for how “flawed” the comparison between the 2 cameras on such condition of the test on the video it may be, it is still more representative of what a real life usage it will be. even at wider aperture and longer distance from the subject, the lager sensor and higher mp count sensor will still retain more detail, than the Sony. Yet i’m still surprised how close the a7r2 is to a large sensor on term of details.
Thanks for your reply Alex. We talk about the same thing, but whilst I am able to understand your points, you still exaggerate yours.
You’re wrong, close up arrangement from the video is – using your words – actually “not very representative of what 90% of the photographers do every day around the world”. It’s a niche. I’m not sure if you do your own photos, from 5 meters (more representative what “not chart lovers” and “coach experts” shoot everyday) you’d get reasonable DOF to compare something more reasonable than a brick wall. It’s interesting that you used this example 😉 Please take some of your lenses and read what is DOF of 50 or 85mm lens focused on 5m. Plenty enough.
I do landscape and close up photography but also shoot test charts occasionally when some of the results are not satisfactory. Modern AF lenses get damaged much easier than old, bulletproof manual ones. Many had issues with missalined Sony lenses.
Knowing your tools is the key to succes. F16 starts to be critical for this and many other FF lens, it’s not critical for medium format as far as I know – I don’t use it though. You use it when DOF is the priority and absolute image quality is of secondary importance, which you would know …
I liked the video , I’m impressed with A7RII too. I agree with the author (original YT video), he also understands that results would be better on more reasonable aperture (5,6 – 11, possibly even 4 in the center)
I also checked samples assuming that excelent Sony 90mm macro might perform better on high f stops. But no, f16 is visibly more hazy even than f11 – as to be expected from any random FF lens. So the test is not absolute, just tailored for this particular close-up studio situation. Which is fine as long we don’t call it unbiaseed, objective test. Also I wouldn’t call it sweetest spot – anything between 5,6 – 11 would give slightly better results I think.
Sure, but that would apply for the Phase one as well. Because even those Schneider lenses retain more details between f5,6 to f11 than f16 and above. So I’m pretty positive that the difference would be still be about the same. Yet, impressive performance from the a7r2, which on portrait/fashion/advertising photography would probably trump the Phase one on 90% of the captures, due to fastest and more accurate AF and lesser shutter lag, mirror slap etc….
There are so many things wrong with this test I don’t know where to start. The Sony image of the watch is about 30% smaller than the phase 1 image to start with, he should have brought the phase I back to match the 35mm crop. He also shot an F16 which is okay for the phase $40,000 sensor but brings in refraction on the Sony A7R2, F11 would’ve been much more appropriate for this test. The Sony image needed some more sharpening but I also question whether he had image stabilization turned off or not. The Sony was underexposed by half a stop which also degraded the image slightly. Please do this over properly!
Yep came here to say exactly this…:)
Despite the length of the video that was a bit too slow, the test was fair. I mean f16/22 is the most reasonable aperture for such close up of small items in studio and strobes.
The sony was surprisingly close in resolution and on other aspects of image quality had actually an edge over the Phase 160. Which if I am not wrong, is still sold by Phase at over 20k, the combination camera body, lens and back may be close to 30k and it is on their current catalogue.
Having used 60 and 50mp backs over the last few years, I was not expecting the Sony a7r2 to be at such a good level on image quality.
Here we can easily state that Sony extra millions spent of research and development, trumps Phase 1 extra megapixels.
Epicmind compares the A7rII vs the Phase One IQ160 that was just with studio flash lighting, but had not compare both through from a constant lighting.
In the flash light shoot some flaws can be covered up.
Like Nikon d800 is affected, because the beating vibration came from the shutter blades (mirror was locked), especially some exposure speed 1/250 – 1/60s , Sony A7r is also so.
Nowadays, Sony A7r II and Nikon d810 provide selectable of the electronic 1st shutter curtain mode (a hybrid shutter running mode), it can avoid of being affected from the shutter blade vibration.
However, Nikon is just its d810 got the electronic 1st shutter curtain mode up to now, in more Nikon models are still unavailable.
Canon launched of the first camera with the electronic 1st shutter curtain mode was the EOS 40d in 2007.
Thereafter, gradually all the EOS bodies came with the electronic 1st shutter curtain mode, including many entry-level models.