Size comparison by Camerasize.
Today Canon started the preorder action on the Canon 5ds which costs $3699 at BHphoto. We will have to wait a couple of months to see both the Canon 5ds and (a bit later) the “rumored” Sony 50MP cam shipping to customers. But in the meantime let’s check out how the Canon 50MP sensor compares to the Sony 36Mp sensor used by the Nikon D810 camera which is the same sensor used by the Sony A7r. Imaging Resource posted the very first comparison of that kind:
So as expected the jump from 36 to 50MP isn’t that big deal.
159 Responses
“So as expected the jump from 36 to 50MP isn’t that big deal.”
Spoken like a true Sony fanboy. No doubt when the 50MP Sony camera comes out you will claim it’s the best ultimate camera ever with the ultimate best image quality and super high resolution (with plenty of referral links of course).
Calm down and preorder your overpriced Canon for ~4k$.
No. It’s not a big difference and stop. No matter if it’s Sony or Canon or Jesus doing the camera 🙂
P.S: Just my two cent on fanboys. I think it’s rather stupid to be fanboy. Critize Sony is the only thing that may lead them to innovate and make things better. There are many things Sony has to learn from Fuji for example. And so on…
“Spoken like a true Sony fanboy” You do realize you are on a Sony site. PS I love Canon, the colors its cameras produce, ect but until they get off there asses and release something new I will continue to look at Sony. 5D Mark iii & 6D, are going on what 3 years now ? – thats forever in the technology driven market.
We already knew the 5DS’s sensor would have less dynamic range. It definitely is resolving more detail within that range though—after all, the 5DS is still below APS-C in terms of pixel density.
Is anybody supprised that the increase to 50mp is virtually useless?
Everybody here already knows this.
How is it useless? Anyone upgrading from 16MP-24MP to 50MP will see a significant increase in resolution.
50mp…so in image made from 25million green, and 12.5 million red and 12.5 million blue pixels.
You might get 50 million “actual” pixels with only very high end Zeiss glass…at exactly f.5 to f.8, center cut, if the sun and moon are in perfect alignment, on a 72 degree day if you are standing on the earth’s equater.
Otherwise, you will get maybe 24mp “actual” pixels under normal shooting with normal consumer lenses.
What is the facination with super high res sensors when most lenses cant resolve most of that image.
Anybody have a 50mp lens out there? Canon or any other?
You haven’t a clue as to what you’re talking about. It’s not even worth arguing with and I tend to argue with nearly everything. Just educate yourself… Use google a bit
Tell us which lens you plan to use on the camera. lol
Loxia and Hasselblad lenses
Then you have the fact that you will loose DR. Great a 50mp sensor with the dynamic range of a 7DII….. Hopefully Canon will smarten up and use a Sony sensor in the Mark VI and 6DII
Canon have a working flash system
The 36MP sensor in the A7R and D810/D800E with no AA filter produces at least mild aliasing in many situations.
A 50MP sensor will give you less aliasing and fewer artifacts plus a nonzero increase in resolution. With every lens. How useless.
This is what canon fanboys said to sony when they made a 36mpix sensor. History repeats itself
As I always miss the opportunity to shut up
Maybe the lens is not good enough. Otherwise there should be some differences.
Haha, look at all these Sony a7r owners that are trying to justify not upgrading by saying 50MP is useless, just because they can’t afford a new camera body. You say the jump from 36MP to 50MP is useless, yet you chose to make the jump from 24MP to 36MP with your a7r. How ironic.
Haha, look at all these Canon Fanboys coming to SAR to see what Sony has to offer in the future. Insecure much?
24mp to 36mp is a bigger jump than 36mp to 50mp.
36mp is enough for the print sizes I do. I would welcome 50mp but it’s not a necessity. Sony are likely going to announce a 50mpix sensor but unlike canon, it’ll be in the shops a month after announcement. Canon like to warn people of their atrocities, a year in advance.
Canon have already confirmed the 50mpix sensor will be just like the 7d mk 2 except it’ll be larger. The 7d mk 2, like most canon cameras, over-saturates red and severely lacks dynamic range.
Lastly, I can afford whatever camera I like. I just don’t see the need for a full frame DSLR for the work I do. Medium format is better for professional jobs, and mirrorless cameras are better for their size
The differences are mainly due to crappy pre-production level JPEG processing. I am sure Raw should offer better results. Even if only slightly.
You may be right.
I’m sure. Until there are some properly processed RAW comparisons with the ability to check different parts of the images, it’s not going to be possible to come to firm conclusions.
They could also have used the same lens on the Canon that they used on the Nikon, that would have made for a better test…
I just fell off my chair laughing at this! The test couldn’t be worse!
If you want to shoot something to examine the level of detail, the last thing you will shoot is a curved-glass object which is distorting your image, and, as photographers who use lenses, you should know better!
Whats more, IF sony release their 50MP in a mirrorless body, it directly to the Canon 50MP sensor, because of so many other factors being involved, quality of lens, proximity of lens to sensor, etc etc. Which is why you can not compare the Sony 36MP sensor to Nikon’s since they are using DIFFERENT FIRMWARE! It’s like comparing an Leica to Panasonic cameras just because the hardware are made by the same people.
Just click on the images to download the full JPEGs. Compare anywhere you like.
I agree 100%, it seems that Imaging Resource intentionally picked an object that wouldn’t allow for a critical focus point through the curved distorted glass container. And downloading the full size images just makes the evaluation more frustrating. The only obvious conclusion one could draw from this test is the fact that the 50 megapixel sensor is noisier than the 36 megapixel sensor. What’s needed is an image that captures a wide dynamic range and lots of detail, then a real evaluation can be done.
I was just about to post the same thing when I saw your comment. How on earth are you supposed to get resolution info when your detailed subject is in a curved jar made of basic kitchen jar glass. Who in their right mind does that. In my mind, even posting something like what they did completely invalidates them as a serious site about photography. I can’t even imagine a more stupid test.
The 50MP is like a pic enlarge from the lower MP, I have tried it on lightroom with my 7s and 500D, and it doesn’t look that bad. I am sure if it convert from a 24/36MP, they are exactly the same quality to the 50MP.
It will be interesting to see some DXOmark lens tests on this body. My suspicion is that many lenses will struggle to match the sensor resolution, at least across much of the frame width. A 50mp FF sensor has a photosite density approaching that of a 24MP APS-C (it’s about equivalent to 22MP of a 1.5 crop sensor), but the latter will be in the “sweet spot” of an FF lens.
I don’t know if this “lens struggling” thing is a real-life problem. Just look at the olympus 5Dii, simulating a 40 mp sensor by just shifting the its 16 mp sensor. And I expect this lens is NOT designed for 40 mp resolution and still recording quite good images.
Another comarison is the 5Diii vs 5DRS downsampled. The noise levels is quite equal, but the downsampled 5DSR is way sharper. (I assume it was the same lens)
I think with every lens a higher resolution sensor results in sharper images. Even if “bad” lenses will never come close to the sensor resolution.
Olympus Hires mode is a totally different problem, sampling different pictures all taken at 16MP.
the raw image from em5M2 is very soft. DPReview applied +250 sharpening and it’s still no good compared to D810. The camera clearly applied even heavier sharpening for JPG file to get a decent 40MP image. I guess Canon user can also do the same trick for soft lenses.
For sure D810 is better. But it is not that much you can expect. The olympus is quite impressive due to the fact it is just a 17,3x13mm sensor, paired with a lens made for a 16 mp sensor resolution.
I don’t understand what this +250 USM sharpening exactly does at all. But for sure it can not do some magic and fill in pixels that have never been recorded.
It is not magic but known for a long time, see this for example: http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/37814/46987815.pdf?sequence=1. Now IBIS makes it possible to do the shifting in camera. In case I want more resolution I take a larger focal length and stitch four pictures. Nevertheless, a neat idea. A nice analysis is found here and shows that you need to shoot at relatively larger apertures to not loose to much contrast for the fine detail and diffraction: http://philservice.typepad.com/Limits_of_Resolution/Limits_of_Resolution_5_Sensor_Shift.pdf.
That pic from Camerasize reminds me of why I’m looking beyond Canon.
6 x 6 = 36
7 x 7 = 49
7 / 6 = 1,16 = +16%
usually we humans can see (not measure) a difference when it’s around at least 20%.
So the jump is barely visible to our eyes and a 36MP sensor without AA filter (A7r) will still be sharper or the same as a 50MP sensor with AA filter (5DS). The 5DS R should be the 16% better, “if” you have the lenses for it…
“usually we humans can see (not measure) a difference when it’s around at least 20%.”
This is nonsense
It is indeed utter nonsense that completely neglects things that real photographers do, like re-cropping for composition, and/or printing at framing sizes.
what you don’t understand is of course utter nonsense.
You are illiterate
This sort of partisan sour grapes is embarrassing, esp. with these first-round tests, and the similarly-high-megapixelage ~50mpx Sony entrant right around the corner. Is SAR looking for ways to commit to looking like a hypocrite?
The test by Imaging Resource was inconclusive and poorly done, end of story. No hypocrisy here.
The hypocrisy lies in SAR’s jumping on a poorly-done first-round test to proclaim the conclusion that the competitor’s new 50mpx sensor “isn’t a big deal”. To avoid hypocrisy, SAR would necessarily need to do the same when the new Sony ~50mpx sensor debuts: cite a poorly-done first-round test to also proclaim that Sony’s 50mpx sensor is “no big deal”. SAR left itself little room to avoid this situation when it chose/phrased the target of diminution as that of the megapixelage, rather than the Canon sensor fab/body.
i.e. SAR committed itself to unavoidable hypocrisy.
Do you understand now?
I’m sure when Sony releases their 50 megapixel sensor it will receive the same scrutiny and will be compared to both the 36 megapixel sensor and Canon’s 50 megapixel sensor. Don’t take it so personal, it’s just a camera.
You’re correct in terms of, “it’s only a camera,” but I do think we need to provide active resistance to this sort of thinly-veiled partisanship… even here. The absence of feedback against this and the presence of the Internet “echo chamber” effect has basically allowed discourse to degrade in many places. Being invested in both Sony and Canon systems, I do have an interest in trying to keep fanboys of any persuasion from becoming the dominant voices in these places.
When fanboys screech, legitimate discussion becomes impossible and otherwise valid criticism/feedback/insight gets drowned out.
Also, things that make no sense beyond the surface of the framing by a person’s presentation makes me mad. It’s petty politicking and an insult to intelligence. It only feeds the fanboys.
Of course the jump from 36 to 50 is not a big deal, that’s why I love that canon didn’t make that jump when they introduced the 5d mk iii which is the selling camera today 🙂
I used a Canon mk3 the other day. It was disgusting to use, the raw files are horrible. It lacks dynamic range. My Nikon d800e was amazing compared to the mk3. If you need quality just shoot film like me:) All my important work is shot on it. Or use the Sigma DP’s:D
Foveon + Any Sigma Art lens and I’m blown away by the results. I wish Sigma made a fast, flexible SLR with the latest Foveon sensor. An A6000 with Foveon would be also wonderful.
Would be great. I’d love to see a full frame foveon. I personally wouldn’t care if it was slow – like shooting large format:)
but its got to be sharp
Because photography is all about sharp 😀
Yes, that would be fantastic
I agree. I prefer the Fovean sensor in the DP Merrills though. A full frame DP Merrill with about 30 megapixels would be exceptional at lower ISO settings.
I hope you washed your hands after using that MK3.
Yes. Warm water infused with lemon and vinegar!
I think you’re missing an important point SAR. The Canon 50mp sensor wasn’t made to get people to switch from Nikon/Sony to Canon. It was made for people looking for more resolution than their 6D/5D Mark II/5D Mark III offer. 20-22mp vs 50. That is a pretty substantial difference.
I’m not saying that Canon exists in a vacuum and certainly competition matters, but based on the financials and market share data available, Canon isn’t worried about the few gear nuts who brand hop, they’re more worried about satisfying the needs of the folks who are loyal to Canon for whatever reason (as naive as many here might see those people to be).
5DS vs 5DM3 ISO 100
Sony A6000 vs 5DM3 ISO 100
D750 vs A7II ISO 100
Nice… Though I prefer samples with a little more detail myself 😉
That said, what’s interesting with 50mp vs 36 is that the advantages will not be significant. ie, if you look closely at the 36mp sample, you’ll find the edges to lack in definition in contrast to the 50mp sample. Likewise, you’ll also find more detail in central patterns or textures. Though I’d add that most of these studio samples seem to be OOF in contrast to the Sony shot.
what is this topic for? random blabla time again?
I am a huge fan of higher resolution…but here is what I do NOT LIKE about the Caon 5ds r compared to the Nikon d810
The Canon sensor is from 2007..it is a 8 year old sensor vs the 3 year old Sony sensor.
In the original 2010 anouncement of the Canon 120mp sensor Canon also brags about the 50mp sensor they developed in 2007.
Instead of removing the low pass filter…like Nikon did..they add another filter to eliminate the low pass filter effect..resulting in 3 filters to do absolutely nothing simply because Canon was unwilling to modify the camera to work without a filter.
2 stops less dynamic range than the d810.
Elimination of the dual pixel AF
There are a few other issues but those are the most important ones.
Both systems have complete high quality lens selections…that Sony lacks..and the next lens I plan to buy is only available in Canon and Nikon mounts.
At this point I would…if the lens were available yet..buy the Nikon d810 over the Canon 5ds r.
I am still hoping for the higher res Nikon to come out, but based strictly on what is currently available will not buy the Canon.
A few minor (hopefully correct) corrections: the Nikon d800E also has a LowPass-cancelation filter and the 5DSR has a vertical-direction LowPass filter and one that cancels this out – makes two not three filters.
On the Canon there is a third uv filter between the two verticle low pass filters.
On the Nikon I was yalkin about the d810 not the d800.
I am not aware that it has thefilters..please tell me what you know about low pass filters in the d810.
Sorry, don’t know how the d810 handles it, I just assumed that that part hasn’t changed from the d800E.
I checked it out.
Both the d800, d800e and the 5ds r have 3 filters each..2 low pass filters and a uv filter.
The d800e and the 5ds r use the second low pass filter to cancel out the first.
The d810 actually omits both low pass filters…it doeshowefer retain the uv filter.
So the d810 is ddifferent than the d800.
Those extra filters that only the Canon users know how to sucks for.
Sorry I could not resists.
Nothing stopping someone from using Canon glass on Sony mirrorless though.
If you look at the scale on the studio scene, it becomes obvious that the 50mp resolves far more data. That said, I get the sneaky suspicion that many people know better than this, and are using this particular section of the studio scene(crop) so as to invoke reactions rather than to simply admit the obvious. 😉
5DS vs A7r
5DS vs A7r ISO 3200
Is this marginal difference worth all that money?
Take out your medium formats and shoot film;)
Problem is conversion. It’s a PITA.
It’s actually not as bad as people think. Normally when you shoot digital you tend to have hundreds if not thousands of images to sift through. That for me is PITA lol Not that I shoot that many even when I rarely shoot digi but I know many people that do. Sitting in front of a hot screen for hours would do my nut in. Film all day long :)))
Crap photographers shoot ten times as many shots as they have to
Bob, there must be a lot of crap togs out there then.
Said the amateur to the wolf.
Like me
I just got some slide film back using a Minolta 7000 and the 135mm 1.8 Sony zeiss. Worked like a charm. I shoot some MF with a rolleiflex. The issue is cost and hope to process myself- but I do enjoy it.
The Rolleiflex is a lovely camera and very underestimated in my opinion. I understand that processing etc can all add up but you can get a decent scanner for around 1500GBP then you just pay for processing. Imagine how much people spend every two years or so on upgrading their systems. I bet the slide film looks lush. Please share some images if you can 🙂
D810 vs A7r ISO 100
Now Anton Berlin would say the image on the left is 90% better. LOL
Nice try.
Fortunately for us, RAW samples show a far brighter picture 🙂
I’d pick the Nikon all day long. I find the 18% increase in resolution to be practically meaningless. Then again, I’m not a pro with money to burn.
As Canon always done, they’ll market it right and sell a lot of them. People in my country are still going on about the Canon 5D as the best cinema camera. Seriously. Its annoying.
I looked at the ISO 100 shots @ 100% centered on the fabrics, the 5Dsr looks very soft, like it was misfocused, the A7r was sharp, as I would expect
The D810 is at the borderline of useful resolution for me. Much more is s.th. I hardly need. I would take it nevertheless, if possibilities for sRaw (pixel binning or grouping of 4 into 1 to get 12.5MP for everyday use) exists, which avoids the severe restrictions on shutter speed for critical sharpness and avoids huge file sizes if you don’t need the detail. The Canon doesn’t seem to provide this. Why? A Sony with EFCS and the possibility of binning would be much more useful in my opinion. Add IBIS and your shooting envelope increases drastically.
That’s odd, Canon cameras I use all offer sRaw 1 & 2.
You are right, there is s.th. Just found the full specs on their sits
(RAW) 8.688 x 5.792,
(M-RAW) 6.480 x 4.320,
(S-RAW) 4.320 x 2.880
If these indeed work as they should, could be a nice option. Nikon’s sRaw is not working as it should.
Folks these things are only done to convince that Sony is the better Sensor manufactorer at the moment. That tells nothing about the whole system approach and how it handles. Let the market make the choise.
I am part of the market, and I chose Sony.
I have done so since the NEX 7 came to the market.
No regrets.
The point of the comparison is the fact that Canon had more than two years to design and build a sensor with equal or better performance. They have not.
Based on the sample, I’d say it looks like they’v come close. Granted, 12.5 stops of DR falls short of Sony’s 14, though I’m not entirely sure this is as significant as some would like to argue. That said, I think Canon did a pretty bang-up job of squeezing a little more resolution out of this FF sensor in comparison to the D810
” Canon did a pretty bang-up job of squeezing a little more resolution out of this FF sensor in comparison to the D810″
That doesn’t make any sense when you have more resolution. If you were comparing two 50mp cameras, then you can say that one squeezed more resolution than another. As it stands, it is obvious that more pixels add up to more resolution.
They are targeting the 5DS/R at landscape and studio use. For studio use, it’s just fine, you have controlled lighting. For landscape, that DR difference will inevitably make a difference. They just cannot compete.
Sure Canon will be happy to let the market chose, they always get good response from the market. yet i would not give the market any credit for deciding which product I should use. Otherwise why picking a BMW over a VW or a Rolex over a Swatch?
No convincing needed, that fact is self evident. For how long will Canon remain using 500nm process? There was an article at a famous IT/semiconductors journal where one of the designers of the Samsung BSI CMOS was making fun, indirectly, of “some of their rivals still using 12 year old manufacturing processes”. Wonderful lenses, great camera bodies, plagued by inferior sensors. Soon we’ll start seeing Chinese ripoffs of Canon sensors having more DR and less noise than Canon sensors, that’s how bad it is.
I personally would like to try out a A99 with a 36 mpix Sensor, but unfortunately it was first sold to a competitor and after that put into a toy camera which gets a refresh after only 1 year.
A Canon shooter of over 10 years who’s recently jumped to the a7R, and then to Nikon D810/D610 w/G-series glass, my reasons for the move to Nikon are simple: Better build quality and shutter than the a7R, better glass than Canon L. I’ve never shot sharper images than with the D810 and my Nikon 70-200mm f/4, 16-35mm f/4. 50 mp is impressive, but through Canon’s glass it won’t matter much. And for Sony to stay competitive, they need to make usability improvements. The a7R is a great little camera, but far from professional with its shutter slap issues, terrible ergonomics and glitchy firmware.
You definitely have not looked at new Canon L glass in the last 2-3 years.
I definitely have.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=621&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=618&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=486&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=632&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=674&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=728&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4
Lastly a joke
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=105&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=727&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4
£80 canon vs £1000 zeiss
I posted different types of lenses, from the macro (canon has double the magnification), to wide angle tilt shilts (canon is clearly sharper, less CA etc), to zooms (again, canon is sharper with less CA).
I think you are misunderstood.
You can hate canon all you want but their lenses are superior typically speaking. Plus they’re plastic so your fingers don’t get stuck to them in the snow
I replied to the wrong post
I am such a moron
Whatever…. the Sony Zeiss lenses deliver better performances than the ZE. You should compare with those. Not all zeiss are created equal.
then again you need to compare with real photos, because sharpness alone does not give u a proper photo. there are so many aspects of zeiss quality that generations of professionals has preferred to use them for. One of the put off in L lenses, is the “distinctive lack of character”, to give you a main reason I ditched Canon a while ago.
“Plus they’re plastic so your fingers don’t get stuck to them in the snow”
Please, shut up.
You lower the IQ of the whole forum….
The A7s is over $1000 less and can deliver equal or better results by a competent photographer in a smaller package. Canon, Sony/Zeiss and Nikon have relatively equal glass, all of which will mount on the A7r.
Shoot with both and you’ll see where that extra $1000 goes.
I did, it was spent on a new lens.
I don’t believe you. Show me. And per your first comment, the shutter slap with the a7R is an issue no matter whose hands the camera is in. It’s a serious barrier to the camera’s high resolution for all but full flash/strobe photography, or very long or short exposures. And if you’re telling me you think an a7R can shoot motorsports (for example) every bit as well as an SLR like a Nikon D810 (for example), you’re crazy.
Neither would be ideal for motor sports, the a7r is less ideal.
Why exactly is the D810 not ideal for motorsports?
Exactly! What about when the bikes are standing still?
It has the same AF system as the D4S and so its much better for it than the D800E was…. but at 5 frames per second its not the best choice… of course you could knock it down to DX, add the grip, and get 7 frames per second… and still get nearly 16mpix photos while getting more length from your glass…all good things when shooting sports.
5FPS
6FPS w/battery pack, 7FPS w/battery pack and DX crop. More than fast enough, and higher resolution than the fastest DSLRs.
Nikon web site specs state 5fps.
And we were talking ideal, not doable. It’s still half as fast as sports bodies with the add-on to boost the speed +1fps. So no, 6fps is not ideal for photographing cars traveling at 150+mph. If you’re bothering with aps-c mode, I’d take the much faster a77-2 over that.
I feel like it was fine for me here: http://www.superstreetonline.com/event-coverage/motorsports/1503-2015-redline-time-attack-rd-1-photo-gallery/
“And if you’re telling me you think an a7R can shoot motorsports (for
example) every bit as well as an SLR like a Nikon D810 (for example),
you’re crazy.”
You must be an amateur
Right…. because a pro like you can use the A7R to shoot sports? Prove it.
Do you have a point to make about how the a7R is as good a motorsports camera (or sports, for that matter) than a fast DSLR, or are you going to just continue with defensiveness and wild assumptions?
The shutter slap is eliminated with the battery grip, no problems whatsoever, but as usual the internet echo chamber creates its own myths.I agree with the rest, the A7R is not a AF machines. Wonderful camera for landscape, architectural, product photography. If you need AF or robustness you’ll be better served elsewhere, such as a D810, or a D750, or even a Canon with their +10 years old obsolete sensors.
I shot an a7R with the battery grip for months, and can promise you that it did NOT overcome the shutter slap issue. I saw it in nearly every image where ambient and fill-flash were used, and in some pure ambient-lit images as well.
It’s a great camera, on paper. Wireless functionality is great but glitchy and prone to crashing. Its small, mirrorless package is great for carrying around and mounting on tripods/rigs, but gives poor ergonomics, and even the system’s firmware I found much, much slower than any Canon/Nikon SLR I’ve shot with. The digital viewfinder is cool, even if a bit limiting, and the manual-focus assist is awesome. Other than those two features, why settle for a camera that performs well only in certain situations when the Nikon D810 performs well in nearly all?
I understand your points. Curiously i haven’t had any issues with vibrations, at least not yet. I only use it for landscape and night time photography. In one situation i usually try to use anything above 1/250th, in the other i use a tripod, sometimes i use a tripod for landscapes as well, so perhaps that is the reason i haven’t had vibration issues. Using shutter speeds that are not affected by it.
The D810 is impressive. What do you use for your (ultra) wide angle needs on the Nikon?
I have a 16-35mm f/4 that I really like. It’s sharp and contrasty, but distorts pretty heavily. The correction algorithms in-camera and Lightroom do a pretty good job of knocking it out.
I love my nikon playback mode. When I press OK, the camera zooms right away into the center. The sony camera would have taken a sec to load the image. 1000$ less for weaker camera flashy focus peaking EVF stuff camera software for sure.
Canon glass is far superior
Bollocks, there are plenty of crappy Canon lenses, even L lenses.
The 24mm f1.4L I, or even the model II. Most of the non L lenses are ridiculous with some exceptions. They have excellent long telephotos, their 70-200mm f2.8L and f4.0L (both the IS) is excellent as well, The new 16-35mm is my favourite UWA zoom so far, but to claim Canon glass in general is far superior is delusional at best.
I’ve owned the 70-200 2.8L and 4.0L and found them both to be lackluster compared to the newest Nikon 70-200 f/4. But the Canon 400mm f/2.8 is flawless, from what I can tell. Beautiful lens.
Good to know, i’m considering a D810 and the Nikon 70-200mm f4 is in that list.
Oh my. The Sony camera forum needing a Nikon camera to illustrate Sony superiority.
Imaging resource chose the comparison camera, but the results would have been identical either way. Suffice to say the new Sony sensor will likely beat the Canon by slight margin in terms of dynamic range and color depth.
D810 vs A7r ISO 100
https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1866/5470/original.jpg
i would expect the existing Sony sensor to beat the Canon sensor by a significant margin, and the upcoming Sony sensor to trounce it and bury it. Credit where credit is due, Sony has great sensors, and Canon management is hell bent in making sure Canon sensors remain the laughing stock of the industry with their circa 2005 technology. A lost decade in CMOS manufacturing, it’s truly remarkable. Either they’re in a dire financial situation, or they have their collective heads buried so deep up their asses they wouldn’t find their way out with a GPS and a bazooka.
When Sony launched the A7R, most people said it had the same sensor as D800 (back then there was no D810). Sony reps were quick to correct us in the launch event and told us that both A7R and D800 sensor were made by Sony, but they were using different sensor.
So the premise that the admin says that the A7R has the same sensor as D810 is false.
EDIT: I hope when Sony releases their 50mpx FF sensor, Admin says it isn’t a big deal.
What’s the difference between the two sensors?
Sony reps didn’t give details but they were really serious when they told us those were different sensors to the point I had word from a meeting they had within Sony that they asked who gave word that the a7R sensor was the same as D800 when it wasn’t. Don’t know if that was just a marketing stuff or real deal.
Sure! but what ever the difference between the 2 sensors may be, in practical usage the difference is absolutely negligible.
I heard that from Sony reps regarding the d800 when the a7r was released, although it may be the d810 received the slightly newer a7r sensor.
They all have the same base sensor… Sony tweaked the on sensor micro lenses on the D810 for Nikon from the D800…. and of course the A7R has a different micro lens setup as the flange distance is so radically different…So yes…but no…but actually yes…
That Pentax 645Z really kicks ass….
I think it’s pointless to say that A7r is better or has better price / performance ratio . 50MP is 50MP and 36MP is 36MP. A7r is a different beast than 5Ds.
I don’t think it’s a pointless comparison. Regardless of the tool, the usability of the product and the results it delivers is what really matters. Both of these tools are designed for essentially the same function so a valid comparison can be made. It’s not an “apples to oranges” type of thing. They are two cameras with different resolutions. It’s worthwhile to know if one offers any significant advantages over the other.
hmmmm funny…because then, people would be comparing a7R with a7S, but they don’t because most people say it’s an apple to orange comparison.
Ok – so by this reasoning we can only compare two identical items. Interesting.
Did I say we shouldn’t compare different cameras? All I said is that people often say they shouldn’t compare 12mpx (a7s) with 36mpx (a7r) because they are meant for different tasks within photography, and now it’s okay to compare 36mpx with 50mpx. I’m all in for comparisons.
To make a long story short, there are so many photography applications that both cameras are suitable for. You can use either one for fashion, architecture or advertising, just to give 3 examples in the professional field. So comparing them has its merit.
Canon will eventually wise up and use a Sony sensor. They cannot keep up with Sony in this department. Canon has to have their head in the sand to think they are keeping up with nikon or Sony. Canon makes really good cameras but I can’t even say their sensor tech is behind as much as they are not even on the right track. Their dynamic range in their new cameras won’t even match the 99.
We can see from the arguments here that the differences are marginal and I’m sure the Sony 50mp sensor will give a similar result.
As I have said several times, it will likely be ‘better’, but not ‘easily’ beat the Canon because such an idea is a nonsense.
I’ve always had to use unsharp mask on canon photos. Canon dslr likes to output smoother pictures compared to Nikon. Personally I prefer Nikon’s processing.
The jar of course doesn’t have optical glass so it destroys small details. Haven’t you tried to shoot thru window glass?
Get a flat object that sure has small details — texts, fabrics, integrated circuits…
If Sony really wants to beat Canon 78 mp bsi would be good.
At the industry printing standard of 300 dpi this would allow up to 24″ x 36″ prints.
That is the typical size I use for my current working prints.
Show us your work.
I had to do new comments because browser would not let me reply with pictures..I also had to show details seperately because at the resolution required by the browser no detail is vissible.
Actual work is substantially more detailed than even the details
These are paiuntings..that is my final product..photographs are exclusively for refferrence and I am not currently showing or selling the photos.
This is your website?
http://greatlocalart.com/artist/barry/
That is some of my work that they feature, but it is not my own website.
http://Www.simiemaryles.com is a gallery in Provincetown that sells some of my current work and I have a page on her site.
My site is http://www.animalsbybarry.com
I have not updated it in over 3 years so they are not my most recent work and, the text…especially show dates. .is hopelessly out of date.
The browser requoires me to scale down to under 2mb
The paintings are my finished work..photographs are my refferrence materiel only.
Unfortunately the scaled down versions have no detail..here are a few details.
The browser is also only letting me put pictures in new comments not in replies as I would like to do.
this is almost like how Canon’s 1080p looks like an upscaled 720p. LOL.