DSLRmagazine posted a double test comparison betwen the A7r and D800 and the A7 vs Leica M.
1) First test: A7r vs D800 (spanish article / google translated article). And until a couple of months ago I would never have expected to read sentences like this one:
The processor Sony seems to work with very efficient algorithms, superb control of noise and minimal loss of detail, much better than Nikon in this respect, increasing the sense of sharpness and overall contrast.
Sony having a better JPEG engine than Nikon…that’s a big news 🙂
You absilutely have to see that image quality comparison table: http://dslrmagazine.com/images/stories/Pruebas/Sony_A7R_vs_Nik_D800/A7R_vs_D800_compo_AAA.jpg
2) Second test: A7 vs Leica M (spanish article / google translated article). Yet again the Sony A7 is the winner.
Here is the image quality comparison table: http://dslrmagazine.com/images/stories/Pruebas/Sony_A7_vs_Leica_M240/Sony_A7_vs_Leica_M240_compo_AAA.jpg
.
Well done Sony, now let’s release more of these FE lenses!
————————
Specs and Store Links in US and Canada:
Dedicated Sony announcement page at Amazon US (Click here).
Sony A7r body at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonystoreUS. TheCameraStore Canada.
Sony A7 body at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonystoreUS. TheCameraStore Canada.
Sony A7 with 28-70mm kit lens at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonystoreUS. TheCameraStore Canada.
Sony RX10 at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonystoreUS.
Zeiss 24-70mm at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonystoreUS.
Zeiss 35mm at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonystoreUS.
Zeiss 55mm at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonystoreUS.
70-200mm A-mount at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonystoreUS.
Sony A-Mount to E-Mount Lens Adapter at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto.
Sony A to E adapter with mirror at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto.
A7/A7r leather case at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonystoreUS.
A7/A7r vertical grip at Amazon, BHphoto, SonystoreUS.
Sony W Series Battery Charger at Amazon, BHphoto.
Sony FA-CS1M Off-Camera Shoe at BHphoto.
Semi-Hard LCD Screen Protector for A7-A7r at Amazon, BHphoto.
Specs and Store Links in Europe:
Sony A7r body at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO, PT, WexUK, WexDE.
Sony A7 body at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO, PT, WexUK, WexDE, Amazon UK, Amazon DE, Amazon FR.
Sony A7 with 28-70mm kit Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO, PT, WexUK, WexDE, Amazon UK, Amazon DE, Amazon FR.
Sony RX10 at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO, PT, WexUK, WexDE.
Zeiss 35mm at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO, PT,
Zeiss 55mm at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO, PT
Zeiss 24-70mm at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, SE, PT
Sony G 28-70mm lens at Sony DE, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO.
Asia:
A7r at Digitalrev.
A7 at Digitalrev, Amazon Cina.
A7 with 28-70mm lens at Digitalrev.
0 Responses
Nikon/Sony test is misleading: it should have been D800E, not plain 800, to be fair. Of course, A7 wins in clarity and resolution. Leica looks better to me though.
Well, I find it an unfair comparision. A7r should be tested against D800E, given the lack of AA filter. Otherwise is quite obvious the a7r will look a bit sharper.
About the JPEG test, I personally don’t care about it since i look at JPEGs as a preview, and i use RAW files.
I’d like to say that Leica colors are usually aimed at skin tones, therefore other colors can look worse. But I don’t know anyone shooting Leica and using the JPEG files. (I find almost odd to put the two words in the same sentence 🙂 )
While it does seem slightly unfair to the Nikon camera, I doubt any previous jpeg algorithm used in Sony cameras would been able to compete at all, even with the Sony being better spec wise. This result shows Sony has made a huge leap forward in their jpeg’s.
Fair in what sense? If we look at the prices, seems more than fair.
We are not looking at prices, but at sensor performance.
As others have pointed out, if the point of the reviewer is to demonstrate that Sony’s 36mp sensor performs better in Sony’s cameras (or jpegs) than in Nikon’s, they should have compared both sensors without AA filter. Same sensor, same conditions (lack of AA filter), then you can compare the jpeg enjine properly…
But , jpeg performance is a result of how much money have been put into research and development of jpeg software, i.e price has a lot to do with it.
What would be the point of that? Especially given the number of variables, filtering, compression etc.
We know it’s about performance and not price, else why feature images. Anybody can see that, some people just pretend otherwise, else the review would have been about three sentences long.
And some people don’t seem to be able to read.
Misleading if for this particular comparison (OOC Jpegs…) the D800E would make much of a difference: but it doesn’t.
I see, good to know.
The links to the DSLR magazine seems not the be working. Could you please check them or is it only me?
+1
JPG? Is there anyone with an A7 that uses JPG? I don’t. Using RAW all the time..
I do, cause not all the shots I take need to be taken in RAW, but this only applies to the files coming out from A7/r and possibly the new A5000 as it comes with Bionz X, I never shoot JPEG with my NEX 7 as I find the compression is horrendous.
+1…JPG is for reference. However, the color of JPG is quite hard to render by RAW processing software. That’s weird.
If you set your WB correctly, then taking a shot with JPEG is your best indication of what the lighting looked like as-shot.
Also a good idea to shoot a few JPEGs with correct WB if you don’t trust Adobe RAW camera standard (does anyone?)
I noticed with the RX10 that Sony has an excellent processor this time…very nice jpegs!
Of course serious photographers use JPEG’s only for non-demanding holiday shots, but still, while people seem to take the quality of the JPEG output into account at the final judgment, this is a interesting test.
In the mean time: you can’t use RAW to send an image to a printer or a printing service. What format do you RAW-shooters use? I reckon you’ll use TIFF, won’t you? (Asking this because I saw a befriended photographer using JPEG in this stage).
Process the Raw, output to tif/psd, further post in PS then output to jpg, keeping the final tif as a master file. Jpg is almost always the final output but its better to work with the larger files that haven’t undergone any compression until you reach the final stage. Easier to send clients jpg’s rather than tif’s
People should pay attention to your comment here. This is exactly the correct workflow to use. We have been using this system here at our NYC post prod company for years. Well said.
I’m not yet a photographer but I’m a graphic designer and I can tell you I use TIF most of the time for printing
Define what a “serious” photographer is.
There are plenty of working photographers that shoot jpeg, they have deadlines and don’t have the luxury of sitting in front of a computer sorting out RAW images. They need a good jpeg engine and Sony haven’t provided it until perhaps now.
Exactly. You can be sure that most of this kind of pictures : http://photos.denverpost.com/2013/11/27/photos-2013-pictures-of-the-year-from-agence-france-presse/ wasn’t postprocessed.
(i’m pretty sure that “serious” photographer means tech geeks that spend to much time on commenting new cameras on internet)
How, in your expert opinion, would you be able to tell one way or the other?
For two simple reason : time & money. You have to send the picture fast. Sending quickly dozen of gigabyte when you are on the field is rather difficult in a develloped country. And in worth situation (war / natural disaster / etc ..) it’s impossible. The most used way is a computer with satellite connection and it’s too slow (and super expensive).
I’m betting most of those photos were in fact processed (if not by the photographer, then by the agency’s photo prep department)
Every single one of those images would be processed , I have my doubts that any image that hits the pages of a media magazine or website has not been edited.
+1
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/41235980
(Not my pictures at all) but good examples of what he a77 can do.
Also!, Somewhere you can find him saying that he seldom send pictures in with sizes over 2MB ( may have been an even lower figure), it just annoyes publishers.
And, yes, it is jpegs!
Out of curiosity – does anyone integrate DXO into their workflow? I stick everything through it before importing the tiffs into Lightroom. Adds maybe 30 seconds per image if I use a preset but the results are well worth it. Also makes higher iso on the a77 much more acceptable.
I like the jpegs, too. You just need to turn down noise reduction. High ISO than still has a bit of “water color” feel to it if you pixel peep, but you dont shoot jpegs to pixel peep. no one will notice at web or normal print resolution. i prefer that approach to the color noising jpegs my 5d3 produces.
I shoot RAW only but I’m still happy to hear that the new engine has improved as it also means that the quality of the LCD/EVF image has improved.
I make extensive use of the jpeg settings according to the shooting situation.
For instance having contrast -3 in high DR scenes gives you much better control over your composition. At other times I have sharpness -3 to avoid peaking from activating on things that are not in focus yet. Shooting a BW image in color first will give you a better idea about how WB will influence your final output, etc.
Obviously such tricks would be a rather bad idea if you shot jpeg only but this way you get the best of both worlds.
1. I never use jpg – always RAW
2. Sony jpg engine better than Nikon – no surprise as Nikon jpg engine sits at the lower end. Canon, Olympus, Fujifilm are the leaders in jpg engine.
3. It is RAW that tells us about the quality of a cameras processing engine.
4. As A7R is a two years later than D800 version, I certainly hope IQ has improved a little. If not Sony has done job.
When will Sony create a camera SYSTEM? I like Sony cameras a lot (A99, Nex-7, A7R), but just a camera makes no system.
(The RX cameras are really excellent!)
Sony do have a system. Their system consists of a wide range of incompatible camera models and accessories with ever changing and confusing model names, specifications, lens and flash mounts.
Makes perfect sense.
Haha. That is too true. 🙂
But all called the same thing so you know they’re compatible. The small print – 50‰ of bodies are compatible with all the lenses (if you buy an adapter), flashes are totally compatible if you have the right hot shoe etc…
All Alpha mount lenses work perfectly with any current alpha mount camera (including APS crop sensors), all the way back to Minolta in the 1980s.
Pretty good record IMO: none of this ‘cheaper entry level cameras wont autofocus with this lens’ or ‘that lens is 20 years old, stabilisation no longer works’.
yeah, pretty amazing. All minolta AF lenses will work with all sony/minolta/konicaminolta AF bodies (apart from the vectis stuff).
they’re not alone though, Canon did the same thing (just the peculiar EF-S and EF-M mounts to spoil it).
I’d say that’s a good way to get to professional users. Consistency. It’s boring but it works. It’s sad that Minolta failed to capitalize on this and that Sony haven’t proven their dedication to this yet.
But to be honest I am slightly more impressed with Nikon and Pentax for keeping ancient mounts alive even if cheaper models have been handicapped.
I tend to use jpeg. I know the quality would improve with RAW but that’s pointless if I forget to go back from RAW to jpeg for those family moments. That did happen. I certainly don’t want to process every pic I take. Plus jpeg quality is quite good enough. And that’s the point of it. when jpeg quality is good enough there is no need to use RAW other than for special occasions (like those one-in-a-lifetime shoots or when you get paid for both shooting and editing).
I got my A7 yesterday and I don’t really see much of a difference in jpegs even going back to my A700. I use bounce flash and old prime lenses very often so i don’t know if that has something to do with it. I stopped shooting jpeg long ago unless I am selling something on ebay. I just wanted to see this new improvement. I love the A7 so far but if the my fuji was not so slow I would have kept it and waited to buy the A7
I tried X-E2 at a show recently and liked it a lot! Pretty much what I need overall. Great improvement in AF too.
If you use fast lenses and flash most of the time, then I assume you use low ISOs. The deficiencies in JPEG engines tend to become really apparent at higher ISOs. If I hit ISO 800 or above on my NEX-6, the JPEGs start to take on a waxwork appearance.
I guess that must be it then. I would rather blast a flash at 1/1 power and have the lowest ISO if I can. It is beyond rare that I ever went over 400 ISO when I was shooting jpeg.
good joke 😀 http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A7r/Sony_A7r_vs_Nikon_D800e_noise.shtml
The biggest real reason why most prefer shooting RAW is precisely because JPEG engines tend to suck. And even with this in mind, there’s still a place for JPEG.
You are 100% right and that is why you have the option to shoot both at the same time. I am all for the raw everything but I have taken some nice pictures after selling something on ebay then forgetting to change the settings back to raw.
The biggest reason to shoot RAW is to deal with 14-bit conversions instead of 8-bit ones (more gradients to play with), WB settings and customer NR and sharpening.
A big step forward for Sony, JPEG is important for my casual shoot.
At least it’s getting better. I wonder how if we’ll see a move toward more people using JPEG’s in the next few years as they improve.
The JPEG files(extra fine)from my A7R looks very good to me. i tried to process the RAW files on Lightroom 5.3. A lot of time it complained “not enough memory, file not exported”.
I consulted Adobe help hotline. Finally they told me, it needs 64-bit machine to process A7R’s RAW files. I tried DxO Optics Pro 9, it confirms that files bigger than 25 MB need to be processed on 64-bit machine.
So before i upgrade my computer to 64-bit machine, i just shoot JPEG.
I’ve 2 slots, and greatly developed system. Very soon firmware for D800/e will be updated, let us see, then. Even very good camera without lenses is a toy. Give us a real system, than compare.
No firmware can update hardware. Wow, two slots! Do you really need two 256GB memory cards? Im not sure what you mean by ‘no lenses’ and ‘toy’. You do have a greatly developed system. The D800 is a behemoth. 1000 grams (without a lens) of pure workout power, ha, ha! I’ll take the lightweight A7R over that dumbbell any day. Anyway, my experience is that the A7R RAW images are slightly sharper, but the difference is not that big. If you don’t print really big, it will be hard to see for most people.
Hm, two slots, but two different kinds of slots. I find that rather awkward. I only use one type of memory card. The smallest and cheapest type.
These results are no surprise if am I right in thinking that the A7r is the model which Sony produced with just stills photography in mind and which they made without compromising anything to pander to the people who want to take movies but refuse to buy a dedicated movie camera.
It’s about time Sony also made a decent sized camera (A65/77 size)and made it for stills only with no movie compromises so that those of us with big hands can handle it comfortably and those of us who want to use BIG lenses can do so comfortably.
JPEG used to be Sony’s greatest weakness. So this news is big. Better than Nikon is just a bonus.
Yep, Sony’s JPEGs have been close to terrible before now. I’m fully satisfied to shoot in XFine JPEG on the A7 – they’re 20MB files so aren’t very much compressed from RAW actually.
20mb , really? I only get about 10mb
Try some landscape shots or stuff with lots of detail. The highest I’ve seen went up to 24MB. Bokeh heavy shots can be 10MB or less.
I really like the new Sony jpeg engine. While I rarely (almost never) shoot jpeg it’s nice to have the option.
Why shoot in the lossy JPG format with an amazing camera like the A7R anyway? It’s like having a super fast Porsche with a build in speed limiter. You let the camera decide everything for you and in the process it throws away most of the data, leaving you with an inflexible processed and compressed residue. I don’t understand why people whine about a JPG engine at all. I didn’t whine about processing my film and I certainly don’t mind processing my digital photos. The camera is just a tool and it can’t see a photograph the way I see it in my mind.
When will we get an update with the jpeg engine for A99?
I doubt we’ll see an update. Its seems they’re trying to herd us to the next big thing.
Sorry, but I really have to stir the pot on this one.
Of course Sony kicked the crap out of the Nikon, its their (Sony) sensor in both the D800, and A7r. Sony’s has had a couple of extra years to work on it.
Maybe Nikon could licence Sony’s JPEG engine too.
In fact shouldn’t is really be called the Alpha 800. What else in the camera is made by Sony.