DxOmark (Click here) tested the new Nikon D810 camera (specs and price here at Amazon). It’s 99,9999% likely the Nikon uses the same Sony A7r sensor but Nikon managed to squeeze out a tiny bit more performance. Therefore the new Full Frame leader is the D810 (at least based on DxO parameters).
The new Sony A99II could use the same 36MP sensor and we will see if Sony can beat the Nikon…
0 Responses
Good show Sony. With sensor ratings that close, the IQ should be indistinguishable under most conditions from the D810. What surprises me is the Canon 5Dmkiii – IQ still down in the territory of the old Sony 16MP aps-c sensor. Canon needs an upgrade in sensor tech. Canon – just buy the Sony sensor already!
yeah the 5D3 is the worst most overpriced camera ever in terms of base ISO IQ and sensor tech.
Well, I would not go that far. The Canon sensor is not as good as the Sony (Nikon) sensor. But I don’t think it is the worst. And other than the sensor (which still isn’t terrible) it is a great camera.
The canon sensor is only about 10% better then the a6000’s. And considering it’s AF is nowhere close to the a6000 and the video is not much better (if at all) I would say Sony’s 600$ aps-c is a much better buy
Actually based on DXO mark scores the cannon sensor scores about 4% higher then the a6000. The a6000 beats it in Color Depth and Dynamic Range, but loses out in Low-light Iso.
Technically it is surely not surprising there is a small quality improvement using the A7R sensor in an SLR. Due to the fact that the A7 uses the sensor for the viewfinder, the sensor is more used and gets warmer because of it. In an SLR, it is generally only used to take the photo so it runs cooler and therefore has less image noise. Sensor heat results in noise. For some astro photography people do, or used to cool sensors to improve noise handling. Of course depends on exact way DXO test the cameras, using the Nikon with live view would negate the argument (but would be an unfair test as it does not replicate how most people use the cameras).
Nice observation about EVF’s, I’d never considered that but it makes perfect sense.
DR at low levels is the only thing that DxO gives better results for the A6000, per pixel quality is better on the 5D – if you bothered to look at the details.
No it also has superior color depth and if you have shot either of the current generation of Sony sensors, full frame or APS-C I am sure you would understand as they are fantastic and between the two quality is largely indistiguishable in decent light and it is only in poor light you see a difference. That said the a6000 performs admirably up to iso 3200 and is close to on par with the last generation cannon 5d mark II.
So you are right that in lower light the canon pulls away but in good light you literally have more latitude and ultimately a picture with more dynamic range and color depth.
It seems pretty clear to me you have not shot an a6000 if you think the 5d AF is in the same camp. They may have similar focusing times but the a6000 face awareness and tracking demolishes the 5d. It also covers the entire frame, etc. The a6000 AF is comparable to the 4Ds. The 5d mark III is not.
Add to that Sony’s Zeiss glass is superior to Canon’s (though there is a much smaller range and Canon does have a few gems) general purpose Glass like 50mm, 85mm, 35mm, and is comparable or better on all zooms and I think you can see my argument. A camera with superior IQ, superior AF, smaller and I can buy it and a pro grade 70-200 for less then the canon…
That said the canon is better built, and some may prefer the OVF, Also if you like big chunky DSLRs with lovely mirror slap and crappy live view then canon is the way to go!
AF nowhere close? lol.
Unless the A99II has an option to flip up the translucent mirror and use sensor only focusing it won’t stand a chance of coming close with the same 36MP sensor.
It depends what you want from a camera, if it is the best high ISO then A-mount has never been the mount for you as even before SLT Sony dSLRs lagged behind Nikon for high ISO.
You are in a long line of people simply stating the obvious…again…
I’m a happy A99 user and I’m not talking high ISO alone, I’m talking overall DxO mark. Anything between the lens and sensor is going to cut down not only on light the sensor sees but also detail and sharpness for the pixel peepers. So like I said unless Sony offers a way to flip up the mirror the A99II won’t come close to the flappy mirror cameras in DxO mark.
Where is you evidence that the SLT reduces detail and sharpness?
Throw the Sigma 35mm on the D600 and A99 in dxomark. 2MP difference. Plus common sense, you put anything between the lens and the sensor, it is going cause loss plain and simple. It might be extremely small amounts not discernible to the eye but dxo’s software will pick it up. To think it doesn’t is truly naive.
in any practical sense , the IQ of the D800E, D810 and the A7R is extremely identical if not the same.
I tested the D810 vs my D800E vs my A7R , they are identical ,almost indistinguishable.
But if you shoot jpeg , the D810 is about a stop better than the A7R.
hey but the size and the price of the A7r wins over any current Nikon 36mp anyday for most of us.. Also important to note, the A7r has much wider lens selection than the Nikon, period.
Oh I almost forgot to mention but the EFC feature of the Nikon D810 can only be used with Mirror lock up, not possibly used in LV or normal handheld shooting mode.
I also thought, that these cameras will be close together in IQ point of view.
I am not owning Nikon, so could you please let me know how you determine jpegs being better?
In overall? Of what I read the Nikon has cleaner outputs, whereas the Sony is more concentrating on detail.
The A7r has a much wider lens selection then the Nikon?!?
Well said! So extremely identical! Like twins I say! But Sony is much better.
Size, price and Zeiss! Winner! (I have stellar HX400V)
When the A7r Mk II comes along with an EFC, it will be on par with the D810.
+1
It needs a more rugged body and lossless compression.
And dual SD cards or CF cards, tbh.
the last damn thing we need is CF cards. Dual cards yes. CF cards with their bendy pins, bulk and outrageous prices are NOT needed.
Better body and lossless compression, yes. No, to CF cards. 🙂
Yeah, they’re big and obnoxious, but they’re faster and more reliable. Also, no stupid lock tab.
During the DxOmark-tests the sensor in A7R is read constantly as it is mirrorless camera. But with non-mirrorless cameras like Nikon 810 sensor is read only during the picture taking. Because of this, the sensor in A7R is always warmer compared to Nikon and thus slightly higher read noise. Probably also the heat dissipation is easier with bigger body. Nothing magical here.
So unfair!
5d mark3 dynamic range is really poor (if the numbers are correct)
Canon sensors are known to have (relatively) high read noise at low ISOs. It shows up if shadow areas are strongly boosted. Whether it is important or not depends on the nature of the photograph. Another, possibly bigger, issue with Canon sensors is that they are reported to be prone to “banding”, which is something difficult to quantify (DxOMARK can’t measure it).
Canon sensors are competitive at High ISO though.
Agree. Maybe it’s true they show up big at Photokina.
Nikon squeezes the most out of their sensors.
Sony squeezes the most out of their customers.
Nikon squeezes the most out of SONY sensors.
You are so right! Nikon even Squuzes oil ou of them!
And how does Sony do with the Custommers? The A7 costs about $1700,– Nikon D610 costs about $1900, Ouch
Nikon uses Sony sensors in most of their DSLRs.
No they don’t Nikon will sell far far more APS models than FF and the APS models do not use Sony sensors
D810 and D610 are the only DSLRs using Sony sensors, the other 5 models (D4s, Df, D3200, D5300, D7100) use Nikon and Toshiba sensors.
Check again. The Nikon D810 is a complete rip off at over 3k. You can now get an A7R for under 1800 easily and choose any lens from any system to scratch that stupid resolution itch.
Have fun with that a7r shutter vibration, lossy compression and all 5 AF lenses available.
I’ll give you the lossy compression- but it’s overstated. The vibration is a non- issue….NON-ISSUE. 5 lenses are already more than most people know what to do with. I know pro’s who for a living use the same 3 lenses over and over again. How many lenses do you want? Are you opening up a camera shop?
Look, it may not be important to you, but there are people who want to switch but want the option of native fast primes and zooms along with small and compact “less fast” lenses. If you are shooting landscape autofocus may not be critical and manual focussing is fine, but not for all.
Furthermore, I hesitate calling the shutter shock a non-issue. There is lot of evidence on the net showing it. However, it strongly depends on lens and lens resolution (Jim Kasson blogged on that) and can be found on DSLRs, too.
Well, it is important to me. I’m waiting on the Zeiss manual lens line up to be unveiled at Photokina before I move over from A mount. But the reality is- it’s not really about the lens selection. For me the A7 series of cameras needs refining before I’m ready to commit.
I see it similarly. My wife is photographing professionally and we discussed about a second FF Nikon body or going with Sony. We decided to wait since for what she needs it is not refined enough. But we know that a D810 will still sell fine in two years from now. We will make the switch if Nikon is not coming up with s.th. similar in the next couple of months since I doubt they will have the 15 lenses Sony is probably supplying for FF E-mount in 2015 (although Canon was very fast with releasing lenses when they started the new mount).
Right, the A7R is only getting 800 used at BH. That’s what my 5D2 commands as well. It has basically no resale value, unfortunately.
No, you missed the 1, there joh. I checked fleaBay and BH and there are no used A7R’s for under $1800, sorry.
I meant BH’s used quotes. They quoted me 800-900usd for a top A7R and 800-900usd for a top 5D2. Of course, BH gouges something fierce.
Question, what do you know about this shading (top left of frame) people have seen with the EFCS activated on certain cameras? It occurs when the shutter is operating north of 1/2000 and is very obvious in say a blue sky. I wondered if it was something unique to Sony especially when people use the old Minolta glass?
Interesting to see if it evident on the D810?
http://www.mhohner.de/newsitem2/efcs
The real problem with the a7r is its autofocus. It is terrible. Absolutely abysmal. It is acceptable for static or slow moving object in good light but as soon as you in low light prepare for a crap shoot. The AF false locks or wont lock, and is very slow and hunts, it wont use the AF asssit beam from flashes and the built in one is hideous oraange, close range and doesnt do anything really, and the EVF gains up too much to be able to manula focus. For weddings or similar events it is a nightmare. Which is why I sold it and bought the a7s. MUCH Better
And this is exactly why I haven’t bought the A7R. I keep reading about people who have sold it to either downgrade to the A7 or move over to the A7S. I can’t believe it, but I guess it must be true. It sucks so bad since I have a lot of alpha zeiss glass and would really like to push them to their limits. So I guess I sit and wait. Man, what a bumber.
The shutter vibration and lossy compression (and piss-poor ergonomics) are real issues for me. But I honestly only need that sweet 55FE to be happy, lens-wise.
I like glossy compression! What do you want? Nikon dull compression?
I was almost buying an A7r, but holding a D810 in hand at our local dealer in Germany and trying the auto-focussing (much faster and more accurate than my D610 and faster than A7r), I find it much more well rounded, if you don’t have a problem with size and weight. Being one of the best cameras available, 3000k is nothing I care about. The choice of good and affordable NATIVE lenses is an other plus for ME. If I were a landscape shooter, I wouldn’t care and go with Sony and Zeiss T 18/3.5, for example.
What he said!
Ah…. not really if you put aside one’s personal preference for the obvious ergonomic differences between a compact mirrorless body and a traditional DSRL one. Sure, adapters open up a big world of lenses but are a kluge and come at a price like AF. I’d also argue the D810 is a more mature body than the a7R. Is it worth the difference? Compare the sales figures of each a few months down the line for the answer.
Now this is a true statement….
Andrea – there is no indicator the Sony Alpha line will be dropping the SLT mirror so there is no possibility that the a99 II would come close to the a7r or d810 if it has the same sensor. The loss of light, etc from the mirror translates to a loss of quality. So, no, Sony will not be scoring higher with that cam.
That said the Alphas have other advantages and even with the light loss they will still beat Canon’s best sensors.
Don’t get tied up with this crap of SLT being inferior.
DxO’s test of the a99 is widely considered to be not true.
Have you ever seen a single well done comparison between the images of the a99/d600/rx1/a7 to say that the “loss of light” is really a loss of quality?
I haven’t and I call bull$hit the rather marginal loss of light.
For sure BS, though I just sold my A99 and now have an A7 and A77II, with SLT in general, I just open up a 1/3 stop no big deal, and I have yet to see a definitive test showing that removing the SLT mirror reduces IQ. When I compared my A99 to the A7, I saw no difference. Again with these high MP cameras, it’s all about the lenses period.
Actually I owned an a99 from the day they came out and owned an d600 and an a7. I can tell you unequivaclly that there is a major difference as soon as the light gets low. I would put the a99’s low light performance on par with a6000. No where near the a7 or d600
Please show us the difference.
I downloaded a set of these 4 (from 1600 to 6400)
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studio-compare?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu#baseDir=%2Freviews_data&cameraDataSubdir=boxshot&indexFileName=boxshotindex.xml&presetsFileName=boxshotpresets.xml&showDescriptions=false&headerTitle=Studio%20scene&headerSubTitle=Standard%20studio%20scene%20comparison&masterCamera=sony_slta99&masterSample=dsc00076.acr&slotsCount=4&slot0Camera=sony_slta99&slot0Sample=dsc00076.acr&slot0DisableCameraSelection=true&slot0DisableSampleSelection=true&slot0LinkWithMaster=true&slot1Camera=sony_dscrx1&slot1Sample=dsc00742.acr&slot2Camera=sony_nex7&slot2Sample=dsc03038.acr&slot3Camera=nikon_d600&slot3Sample=dsc_4524_03.acr&x=-0.32911129568106334&y=1.2089588923795922&extraCameraCount=0
…and I find the difference to be minimal (maybe .3 of a stop is that) and not “major”
Hendrick , DPreview did not have consistent lighting in their old studio tests { they have confirmed this} when exposed at the same shutter speed and aperture in controlled lighting the A99 exposure is darker and noiser. High ISO is irrelevant to me so it wouldn’t sway me either way.
The French site Focus Numerique has the most consistent lighting and exposure vital for reliable comparisons.
http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-1567/reflex-sony-alpha-99-bruit-electronique-12.html
When you look at the darker areas in the images the difference in shadow noise is very clear . And in scenarios that actually demand high ISO { low murky light} this is exacerbated and it becomes more obvious the higher up the ISO scale you go .
The brightness of both images and specifically shadows is very different. Plus there’s the factor T stops.
Exactly! Widely considered! So not true! Quality of D600 sucks because of flipping mirror! Mirror keeps moving (blurring) and is never really flat and adds lots of image distortion! Transparent mirror is so awesome and much better (and smart!)!
Why do all the testing and review and lab sites lie about Sony? They are so not true!
Come close in what sense – this useless high ISO rating?
Just compare this synthetic DxO measures except for the ISO, then the A99 already is close to the A7R.
I am using my A99 for two years now, and I still love it, even more than my A7R. Independently of how “experts” are judging it. I do more love watching my (surely not perfect) images than nit-picking on 100% crops of black ISO25600 lenscap on images for advantages in noise production or snythetic and treshold based benchmarks.
Try to find any camera/lens combination beating the A99/135ZA or A99/85ZA.
Impossible! Coming close maybe but not beating. 🙂
How about that A99? Why do you love it maybe more than using the A7R with adaptor with your zeiss glass.
From ergonomics point of view – with attached vertical grip weigth is more balanced when attaching a big and/or heavy lens (135ZA, 2470ZA and 1635ZA have almost 1kg). And with the original leather hand strap (attached to the left side) its a joy to use it.
The A7R is working perfectly with the ZAs and the LA-EA4. The adapter also adds some speed to the AF operation, however it is still faster on the A99.
Main reason for buying the A7R was the compact size because it is supposed to be my travel gear. That’s speaking against using ZAs via adapter (mainly weight) as well as me being advocate of native mount lenses, and here I am lacking two desired lenses – the upcoming 1635Z and a medium length macro (90-105).
Same reason why I bought the A7r. But now my A99 is collecting dust on the shelf 🙂 I have both the EA4 and the EA3, but primarily use the EA3 with MF (macro and studio shooting). EA4 is good with the Sigma Bigma (50-500) put on the A6000, since there is no way I can MF it – need a 3rd hand for that. In spite of the lens is 4.5-6.3 the EA4 focuses it quite well. Ergonomically the A99 is definitely better for the large / heavy lesnes, but I cannot withstand the 36Mpx goodness.
Nikon D810 with Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 135mm is MUCH better.
Nikon D810 with Nikkor AF-S 85mm f/1.4G is MUCH better.
No Sony camera and no Sony lens is the best in its category.
2 DxO points? Well, my A7r goes into the garbage bin right now, switching to Nikon tomorrow. Just kidding.
Weren’t you the same guy who was cheering when the A7R bested the next best camera by just a point or two?
Not really. I’m not the only Oleg in the world, at least I hope so 🙂 I have 3 Sony bodies and lots of lenses. I do like Nikon for the variety of _native_ quality lenses and very solid bodies, but I’m really spoiled by the Sony EVF – it’s pretty much unbeatable for macro MF focusing w/color peaking, so it doesn’t make any sense to switch for me. I’ll be really happy if the next Sony mirrorless will be just faster, on par or close to the A6000.
That was a joke, man, don’t take it seriously and _personally_. Peace V
I was only trying to point out the silly ways that fanboys act (hypocritical) when incremental improvements are compared amongst whatever technology is being discussed.
i.e. I was only kidding, and trying to take the piss out of your sarcastic, but harmless, fanboy-ish comment. I was trying to keep it light, but your response kind of missed my point entirely.
I see it now. Yes, kinda misunderstood you 🙂
I’ve seen a lot of wars and flame around of DxO “points”, but really, does anybody (read: not a fan-boy) care? Oh, my sensor is 1.79 random meaningless points better than yours, and yours doesn’t render that pixel at the right top corner as good as mine, so let’s fight NOW.
I’m not really sure if I’m a fan-boy or not though… 😉 Need to google an accurate definition / diagnosis…
The antifanboyism is just as tiresome.
So is the feigned moral highground. Let us have our fun in the comment section.
Calling you tiresome is about as fun.
For me the biggest difference is still the availability of lenses, I currently have a D800E and love it, I’ve been watching Sony and excited about what they are doing, but they haven’t motivated me to switch yet and probably won’t until there are more choices in lenses. Excited about the D810.
I also have the 800E but since I picked up an A7r at the beginning of the year, the Nikon has sat in the dry cabinet. I dropped it in to my favourite camera store 2 weeks ago, hoping to get enough money for it, to get an A7s. No buyer so far but I hope someone will want it. Since having the 7r for about 6 months I sold off some of my Nikon glass and bought the first 5 FE lenses. I kept the best Nikon lenses (24 1.4, 85 1.4, 16-35 4.0, 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8) just in case Nikon might come up with something spectacular in the future, and I can use them on the Metabones adapter. The main reason that I changed systems, was for the size / weight advantage which is negated using the Nikon glass on the 7r. As Sony fills in the gaps in the lens line-up, it is looking more and more like I will end up selling off the rest of the big lenses. It’s great to be able to put the body and all my lenses in one medium size sling bag and hit the road. Quality wise I don’t miss the Nikon at all. Ergonomics takes a bit of getting used to, but the thing I like the most is the EVF. For someone who is not a pro, the what you see is what you get view was the deal clincher for me.
I find it the exact opposite I find the ergonomics and inconvenience of having to use adapters etc rather tiresome. The D800e is a solid workhorse and the bottom line is that the A7r gives no IQ gain .
For a full outfit ,the weight/size/bulk advantages are not anywhere near as significant and often grossly exaggerated. The shorter register enables somewhat smaller lenses at wide angle, beyond this the size advantage or mirrorless lenses disappears rapidly and by time you get to the longer telephoto zooms/primes there is no advantage
http://camerasize.com/compact/#488.392,312.294,ha,t
Fast rf wides are not somewhat smaller than slr ones but a lot smaller. Especially if you accept manual focus and lose the af motor too. For tele (which i almost never need) the fe 70 200 is serviceable and still less bulky than the canikon counterparts.
Also bulk for me isnt just relative but has a threshold. After a point photography stops being fun, but awkward and conspicuous. I had 5d 5d2 6d and d700. Used my leica r and contax primes on some of them. True they arent light lenses but no way id go back to the slrs after the a7r. On the 7r they are fun and i take them everywhere. On the slrs they were a burden.
With leitax novoflex etc adapting mounts is really trivial. Non issue.
And the 7r as is doesnt have a nice grip for bigger lenses. I added a 70g grip and now it feels great even with the fast 600-700gram primes.
I specifically stated my preferences on using adapted lenses on my A7r I never claimed it was the only way. Many UWA adapted lenses have serious issues on the A7r.
The 70-200FE is a little disappointing for a brand new offering it is poorer than the Nikon and Canon version , as it happens it is also longer and heaver than the Canon and only a couple of mm shorter than the better still Nikon 70-200mm. Oh the Sony 70-200 is also around £300 more expensive than either the Nikon or Canon
To all intents and purposes those Nikon/Sony differences are insignificant.
They seem to be within the margin of error anyway
unless it had been in Sony’s favor and then we would all be reading about how Sony trounced the competition… I could careless about these types of comparisons myself. I care about whether it can do what I want it to do, not whether it or the nikon can pass a test that I have never fully understood.
According to Nikon rumors Nikon trounced the competition.
Well, in fairness to the person running Nikon Rumors their brief blog entry is pretty measured and accurate. The fanboy spin in the comments – like it does here – runs the gamut from the cheerleading droolers to the cynical trolls and everyone in between.
Exactly! I do not care about what I don’t understand either! You Sir are pro!
Significant Sony is much smaller, the iq is the same ,though.
Yes! Small is always better! My car is tiny, and my apartment and my computer monitor are small too! So cool and amazing! And I have a tiny inflateable boat and am small myself too!
I don’t see it. A7R IQ still looks better to me. Anyway, its so bloody close that ultimately it will be the lens that decides it. You cannot compare the Nikon 50 to the Zeiss 55 1,8…period.
That is unfortunately true. Once you go past the 50mm range (ignoring the OTUS or the Sigma ART lenses), there is nothing to compare with. 🙁
Otus? Art ? Who cares that old tech oversized lenses ? The FE 55 is the better lens if you take all facts like size weight and over all iq in consideration
Fine. Any other focal lengths in that class?
FE 55 is old tech oversized lens too, extremely large and heavy and expensive compared to the stellar Zeiss on my Sony HX400V, which does 24-1200mm, not just 55mm! Who uses a lens with just one focal lens?!? Dinosaur?
Luckily enough other brands make lenses for Nikon and you can get the Superb Sigma an F1.4 lens for a £100 less than the Sony 55mm .Considering the fact that the Nikon 50mm F1.8g costs less than a 1/5th the price of the Sony 55mm you might be surprised with its performance.
The 50mm F1.8g is very good from wide open { corner to corner on FF} and excellent corner to corner by F4 .It matches the 55mm in distortion,vignetting, and Chr. aberration with the better sharpness being the main gain with the 55mm.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-50mm-F18G-on-Nikon-D800E-versus-Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-STAR-55mm-F18___435_814_1252_0
The 55mm is the only excellent FE lens , the 35mm is very good the 24-70 is rather disappointing for its price and the 70-200mm has its pluses and minuses . I own the 55mm and 35mm along with the A7r and enjoy it very much when I want/need to travel a bit lighter but must admit that for most “serious” usage the D800e remains my workhorse messing about with adapters etc is not the fun it is cracked up to be certainly not for work. We are lucky to such a gamut of wonderful cameras to chose from and frankly if you cannot get the results with this kind of gear you are the peoblem.
The sigma is really over priced and oversized compared to the tiny Sony zeiss 55.
The Sigma is an F1.4 lens and it is cheaper { nearly £100 less } here UK EU etc as i mentioned .The Sigma is indeed a bit weighty but as for size compared to other F1.8 50mm lenses the 55 is some 40% longer and if there was an F1.4 version of the same quality I fancy it would be just as long as the Sigma
Sigma
http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/Sigma/Sigma-Nikon-Fit-Lenses/Sigma-50mm-f1.4-DG-HSM-Nikon-Fit-A-Lens
Sony
http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/Sony/Sony-NEX-Lenses/Sony-FE-55mm-f1.8-ZA-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-Lens
Sony always looks better to me too. Always period.
“The new Sony A99II could use the same 36MP sensor and we will see if Sony can beat the Nikon…”
Only if:
1) it rids itself of the mirror
2) Sony stops lossy compression of its RAWs
VERY unlikely.
What model of electron microscope are you using for comparing RAW compression?
Sony uses a lossy 11bit compression on the raws. Nikon is a 14bit no loss. With every loss the IQ suffers a little. When compared at pixel level after processing there is a difference. In the real world if you print at 30″+ you will see the difference. On screen or every day prints you’ll never see it. Fact is there is a difference without the use of an electron microscope.
11-bit?
Sony’s RAW image are either 12-bit or 14-bit depending on the camera body.
Sony A99 absolutely delivers 14-bit RAW images in single shot mode, and no disrespect, but anyone complaining about A99 image quality needs to work on their skill as a photographer. Image quality is not Sony’s problem.
After shooting with Sony A99 since its release, the only issue I’ve found is the flash sync with studio strobes with maxes out at 1/160-1/200 — depending on your transceiver and the flash duration of your strobes. It’s marketed flash sync is 1/250. I hope to god they fix this on the A99II.
I stick with Sony A99 for the extremely high image quality, wide dynamic range, and electronic viewfinder which has completely evolved my workflow as a photographer.
David, YuAreATool, read up:
http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/sony-craw-arw2-posterization-detection
Yes, it is rarely seen in real world – but DxOMark is not real world, and they are able to detect differences in RAW way beyond what is actually visible (for example, DR beyond about 7EV cannot be reproduced on paper and most computer screens, color depth beyond 20 bit also etc). At base ISO, it is all there for possible extreme processing. At the higher ISO though, 1/2EV of light Sony A99 loses is noticeable – barely, but still.
Same here! I (and all pros!) shoot both 14bit RAW and 8bit JPG -> 22bit!
Yes indeed very unlikely. A99II, 36MP, SLT mirror, A77II focusing and maybe 4K video. Though I doubt the video. I think Sony is stuck with it’s lossy compression unless it totally does a redesign of the BIONZ processor
I don’t think RAW compression algorithm has a lot to do with the processor they use.
If a Nikon is better it’s “only 2 points, nobody cares”, but when the A7S is 2 points behind the Nikon DF it “easily beats” the competition. SAR and its comment section is kind of a joke nowadays.
You are the joke, silly Nikon troll, go back home to your beloved Nikon rumors crap.
Yes! DxO and troll go home! Sony is bestest and pro and so stellar! So amazing!
+1…. Good point. That’s why people try to convince themselves and why we love to defend their investment.
What is the difference between “Nikon is 2 points better than Sony” and “Sony is 2 points behind Nikon”?
It seems that your whole post revolves around this difference, but it doesn’t seem as a difference to me.
That’s the point, genius. Same difference, different reaction. When Nikon tops Sony’s average score on DxO, noone cares about the numbers. When a Sony product comes out and scores average (below Nikon), everyone claps.
You really don’t get it, do you?
In both your examples, Nikon scores higher than Sony. So the reactions would be exactly the same, even in the same camp.
Not exactly a surprise considering the D800E was also a tiny bit ahead
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D810-versus-Sony-A7R-versus-Nikon-D800E___963_917_814
how many point does the marginal bit of new the d810 is beat to the a99II if and if when it does make the debut of later on this year? how can anyone not know this already?
Once again we are reminded that Nikon has a second generation flagship camera with the Sony 36mp sensor that far outperforms sony flagship A mount camera.
This sensor has been available for years but not to us.
What will Sony do with thier next generation sensor?
Sony is going to sit on their hands and hope A mount users get the message- if you want to join the party you’re expected to hop the fence. I for one will consider it, but for now I wait. Although, I’m getting tired of waiting and in the meantime built up a whole other system. Photokina folks, if they don’t show up big I’m done with A mount. You have to draw the line somewhere.
Why would anyone forced to abandon the A mount system they have heavily invested in for years ever consider investing in another system by Sony.
If sony trashes A mount most of those customers are gone.
I agree. They won’t any time soon.
Heavily invested a.k.a. used to being stuck with a small selection of gear and not needing new ones. Yes… Sony should continue to put tons of R&D in to satisfying their window shopping needs.
Look at Olympus… they ditched their long-standing 35mm crowd with FT and then their FT crowd with mFT. Oly had much better lenses in 35mm and FT than Minolta or Sony ever did and they weren’t even bought over by someone else. What happened to their investors? Meanwhile Oly is now doing better than ever I’m sure. Sony should do the same and not fight a battle they can’t win. But unlike Oly, Sony has the innovation to pull it off… Oly had to do it all through marketing (and sometimes by misleading their customer in to thinking a 35-100/2 is equivalent to a 70-200/2 on FF so they should pay more than what ppl pay for a C/N 70-200/2.8 IS/VR premium lens, etc.).
You seem to just randomly make s**t up to bash a-mounts. How could you have missed the news over the years that Olympus is a sick financial puppy? Check out, for example, the Wikipedia article on Olympus’ legendary financial scandal. The company has been following corrupt investment and reporting practices going back to the 1980s to cover up dwindling profits. Their camera business you’re trumpeting is so pathetic DPReview reporting on reorganization efforts to stem the camera biz red ink refers to them as primary a medical equipment company: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2330974890/olympus-stems-loses-but-pen-sales-disappoint.
Yeah, Sony should follow Oly off the camera biz cliff. ;^)
Investment…You make it sound like you bought a house…
Canon rumor sites continue to post more new rumors of high resolution new tech sensor in sept.
If Sony A mount cannot beat the new canon sensor I see absolutely no reason for any serious photographer not to switch. The ONLY advantage Sony ever had was sensor tech…every other catagory goes to the competition.
The size alone is more that big enough reason to go sony
You mean small enough reason right? LoL!
“If Sony A mount cannot beat the new canon sensor I see absolutely no reason for any serious photographer not to switch.”
I can think of lots of reasons. A serious investment in glass you like for one. Or the fact that most of these higher end cameras, regardless of make, can in the right hands produce amazing pictures and earn someone a living.
Increasing resolution is important to you, that much is clear. However, going by the numbers, Canon is still the pro’s choice despite their lower pixel count. Are pro’s not serious photographers?
Higher end cameras in he right hands… yes… but not without higher end/serious glass to match. That’s where both C and N have the final advantage that show in the final shots.
‘high resolution new tech sensor in sept.’
they will join the 36 megapixel party *babooom*
That will be too little too late to compete with the new Canon.
Let me understand this correctly:
1. You think that a high number of megapixels is important.
2. For all the time that Sony had full frame models, Canon has been behind on number of full frame megapixels.
3. There is now a rumor that the new Canon will finally have more megapixels than Sony.
And your conclusion from this is that if Sony raises the number of megapixels, it will be too little too late?
Sony hasn’t always been ahead in sensor tech… for stills image quality, yes… but Canon has been doing better than anyone in video and with their Dual Pixel AF. The A7S is making the same noise that a99 tried to make as a serious video tool when it was released… I sense it’s going in the same final direction as the a99 too.
Get the a7r, it is that simple!
Never gonna happen!
Your loss…
Barry shoots birds. Passing on an a7R is a no-brainer, dude.
Can I have some of the weed you’re smoking? Must be top-notch. ;^)
With the existing native lens available………….no thanks !
The FE lens available today is ridiculous. And I won’t consider this camera until there will be a huge collection of native FE lens.
Yeah stick to your iphone until then. It takes better shots, right?
LOL
Yep, it’s the perfect evolution for the small and light, a DLSR breaks my tiny wrists crowd. iPhones shoot great photos and fit in your jeans pocket. Go for it. Don’t look back. ;^)
Flagship products have a longer product cycle. You know this. The Nikon you mention, the D810, has just been released. It’s predecessor the D800/E, was announced February 7th, 2012. The A99 was announced September 12th, 2012. You do the math. This still gives Sony time to announce a high mp A99 successor at Photokina, and be within the same range of Nikon’s update cycle. Personally, I think 2 years is short. Pro gear has often has 3+ year product cycle.
As to why Sony stuck with 24mp 2 years ago, that’s either an exclusivity contract with Nikon, or a choice by Sony to stick with 24mp. Many prefer a lower pixel count, and 24mp was still high compared to it’s contemporaries at the time, and now. I bet there are plenty of A-mount users who welcomed 24mp instead of 36mp.
Of course I could add that Sony already use the 36mp sensor in a camera, just not your preferred A-mount. Which brings me to my point. You talk like Sony have done you a terrible misdeed personally, and A-mount users as a whole. I bet there are plenty of A-mount users who welcomed 24mp instead of 36mp.
Have a great day!
But it all gets to the same issue I share with Barry, it’s pretty frustrating that Sony came out with a ‘flagship’ body that was already playing a weak 2nd fiddle to Nikon who was using, ironically, a Sony 36MP sensor.
Any exclusive deal Sony signed with Nikon at the time was moronic. Why do I say that? Simple. Sony was the only game in town with a 36MP FF sensor. If Nikon walked, that’d leave Sony with a flagship 36MP leaving anything Nikon could cobble together trailing and choking on Sony’s dust. Sony certainly didn’t make the same bonehead decision when it was time to roll out the a7R.
I suspect the a99’s 24MP was a shortcut/cost-cutting measure. Like it borrowing a77 AF bits.
I suggested it was either of two reasons, and I think it was more likely it was Sony’s choice to stick with 24mp myself. Maybe it was a way of testing the market for a high res sensor without risking it themselves, who knows?
You seem to think, along with Barry, that mp count is the most important specification when it comes to sensors. Not everyone feels that way. Both Nikon’s and Canon’s ‘flagship’ cameras have lower pixel counts, and many pro’s seem attracted to the low light monster that is the new A7S. I’ve seen several people beg for the 12mp sensor in an A99II replacement.
I’m not arguing for lower pixel counts myself, but merely pointing out there are a wide range of preferences out there, and serving everyone well is a difficult act for any company. As for Sony, they are the only company that has a camera model with a choice of 12, 24 or 36mp sensors, so I give them more credit than you.
Well, the Sony 36MP sensor has outperformed the 24MP one in the Sony a99 in every camera it’s been put in. Bottom line. Obviously, there’s a diverse photog population with different needs including many happy a99 owners.
The reason for 24 MP was obvious then, and it still is:
Sony made a large effort to take over the professional DSLR video market (and failed, but that is another story). We know that the readout speed of DSLRs is limiting their video abilities. With a given readout speed, more megapixels means more line skipping or slower frame rates. Sony wanted 60p, so slow frame rates was not an option. Even with 24 MP, Sony also had to do line skipping. With a 36 MP sensor it would have been even worse.
And yes, it is too bad for all of us that Sony optimized their camera for video instead of stills, especially when they weren’t able to compete in the professional DSLR video market with this camera anyway. But at least the 24 MP decision made sense on that background.
The “professional DSLR video market”? Funny.
And by the way: Sony gave up on DSLRs quite some time ago.
That’s an interesting theory. One which, if it were true, is covered by the bit where I say “…or a choice by Sony to stick with 24mp”.
Thanks for the input though.
Probably put it in the next generation A7…
“The new Sony A99II could use the same 36MP sensor and we will see if Sony can beat the Nikon…”
Unlikely, unless it’s mirrorless or has a flapping mirror.
Yeah, Admin’s comment reminds me of reading car enthusiast rags where someone will go out and buy a $80,000 brand A sports car over a $40,000 brand B sports car because brand A did the Nürburgring in 2 seconds less. It’s all fanboy chest-thumping over bragging rights that doesn’t add up to a hill of beans in the real world.
Nikon knows how to tweak sensor to looks good on DxO chart.
We are at a point in camera technology that all of this is the equivalent of comparing different paint at the local hardware store. Just pick a color and paint the shit out of that house. It all looks the same.
I guess the new A99 II will get overall score about 93~94
Squeezes a tiny bit more from DxOMark… not necessarily performance.
People need to stop taking dxomark as gospel… if you like following numbers without understanding them or caring about their validity, take up astrology.
Oh my dear… what a stupid post. DxO is not able to produce until this day raw software that can properly render raw files of cameras as old as Alpha 700 – it simply cannot push details from shadows making funny looking greenish images, while Alpha 700 itself produces excellent jpgs in DRO modes… They are not able to render X-trans Fuji sensor… So what more to say, how can they make rankings, what do they measure, having no technology to measure? Some of their measures are simply idiotic, make a comparison of Alpha 350 and Alpha 700 and DxO tells they have similar high ISO quality, while anybody who had these cameras know that Alpha 700 produces great ISO 1600 images, and Alpha 350 is usable only till ISO 400…
Oh my dear… what a stupid post. Two of them from same source!!
Why not be happy as Sony fan? We got 3 models from A7 line. World class cameras. OK so far we lack some glass but Rome wasn’t built in two years ……either
And, A7R is not a competition to Nikon and never will be. Leaving Alpha 900 buyers with no successor, Sony gave up A-mount DSLR market and started to work on cameras that could not ever compete with Nikon as a photographic tool and Canon as a film tool. It’s clear there is an agreement between Sony and Nikon – Sony traded A-mount DSLR market for APS-C EVIL market…
“JIM” … you are very funny guy …
Well, I just sold my A900. I guess I’ll be finding out if this is true- I plan on buying an A7R very soon and trying it out with an adaptor. There is no alpha alternative and I’m sick of waiting for the to-be-overpriced A99II.
The largest difference comes from an ISO 50 setting on the D810 (with less highlight range but thanks to a shift to the shadows, a tad more DR in total), which the A7R lacks.