Sony A7r versus the Nikon D810

[erobicheaux]

In response to a comparison of Maxberlin88's claim that the Sony A7r has 19.4% less resolving ability than the Nikon D810 https://sonyvnikon.wordpress.com/2015/03/16/nikon-d810-v-sony-a7r-with-zeiss-otus-85mm/ I ran my own comparisons using a Nikon D810 with the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 versus the Sony A7r with the Sony/Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 and found that these two systems are comparable. No advantage to either which is saying a lot for the Sony/Zeiss Sonar 55mm f/1.8. http://www.erpimages.com/naturesetude.com/?p=1201

[Golem]

So is maxberlin88 also maxthedog ? 

  

I notice this phrase in the "objective test" explanation: 

  

On the best lenses  made today, the Sony cheats you out of

approximately 1/5th of the world class resolution you’re paying for.  

  

That sort of provocative trolling is not the language of objective testing.

It's more than enuf notice that a report is untrustworthy. Acoarst, OTOH,

that sort of provocative trolling language is pure maxthedog.

 

Soooo ..... running yet another test as a counterargument equals getting

suckered by a troll. Deleting your test report and ignoring trolls in not an

unreasonable move. Consider it.

  

`

[Max the Dog]

Earl, 

 

Yours is a purely subjective test.  The tests I've run are quantitative. 

 

Additionally, you are comparing two different systems.  A proper test would be with the exact same lens on both cameras.  This isolates the test to the sensor if all other facts are equal.

 

Next you need to isolate the Sony from shutter shock, this alone surely negates your argument that these two systems are equal. (even subjectively!)  (meaning you're biased*)  http://blog.kasson.com/?p=5279 

 

You say tripod for all shots but what tripod?  What head ?    Again - too many variables to come to a conclusion. 

 

It would be very hard - next to impossible - to come up with 2 nearly equal results with two apples to apples tests 

 

https://sonyvnikon.wordpress.com/2015/03/16/nikon-d810-v-sony-a7r-with-zeiss-otus-85mm/

 

https://sonyvnikon.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/zeiss-apo-sonnar-135mm-imatest-on-sony-a7r-and-nikon-d810/

 

For your (and other's edification) I will run the Sony A7r with the FE55 and Otus 55 against the Nikon 810 and Otus 55 using Imatest and my protocol. 

 

As before - I would expect the same lens/ different camera difference to be about 20% and the FE55 to have a greater difference (lesser resolution). 

 

One last thing, to eliminate the focusing problems you had, I use HDMI output to a 4k monitor to ensure critical focus. 

 

Although nothing focuses more accurately than the long throw of the Otus, the FE55 can be focused to a high precision by trial and error before hitting the shutter. 

 

*I doubt you could find another neutral party on the planet that would agree or believe (or could show) that these 2 systems are even close to equal. 

 

Read 'Sony Fanboy'   - I had the same narrative and psychology up until the moment I did that first side by side - apples to apples comparison. 

 

https://sonyvnikon.wordpress.com/2015/03/25/why-sony-fanboys-fail-to-see-the-light-and-14-bit-color/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In response to a comparison of Maxberlin88's claim that the Sony A7r has 19.4% less resolving ability than the Nikon D810 https://sonyvnikon.wordpress.com/2015/03/16/nikon-d810-v-sony-a7r-with-zeiss-otus-85mm/ I ran my own comparisons using a Nikon D810 with the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 versus the Sony A7r with the Sony/Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 and found that these two systems are comparable. No advantage to either which is saying a lot for the Sony/Zeiss Sonar 55mm f/1.8. http://www.erpimages.com/naturesetude.com/?p=1201

[Max the Dog]

Golem, I have more faith in Earl as he as at least trying to see what the differences are and he's applying some degree of science to his analysis. 

 

Your approach is to bury your head in the sand and ask others to delete their analysis.   That's a coward's way.    

 

 

 

So is maxberlin88 also maxthedog ? 

  

I notice this phrase in the "objective test" explanation: 

  

On the best lenses  made today, the Sony cheats you out of

approximately 1/5th of the world class resolution you’re paying for.  

  

That sort of provocative trolling is not the language of objective testing.

It's more than enuf notice that a report is untrustworthy. Acoarst, OTOH,

that sort of provocative trolling language is pure maxthedog.

 

Soooo ..... running yet another test as a counterargument equals getting

suckered by a troll. Deleting your test report and ignoring trolls in not an

unreasonable move. Consider it.

  

`

[Golem]

My only objection to Earl's project is

that it's offered as defense/rebuttal

of an "insult" to Sonydom. Yes, he is

"brave" and defends his brand. While

I'm recommending that he make the

 "cowardly" move and fail to defend

the "honour" of his brand.  

   

----------------------------------------------  

  

I love this line soooo much I gotta

repeat it yet again right here: 

 

On the best lenses made today,

the Sony cheats you out of

approximately 1/5th of the world

class resolution you’re paying for. 

 

An elaborate counter-argument to a

troll is a fools errand. You can call it

"head-in-the-sand". Anyone who just

USES stuff regardless of "objective

test results" has their head in sand,

or is it sand in their head, right ?

  

If maxberlin88 is not maxthedog then

it's at least a remarkable coincidence,

demonstrating that the universe does

have weird a sense of humor.  

   

On the best lenses made today,

the Sony cheats you out of

approximately 1/5th of the world

class resolution you’re paying for. 

 `

 

I'm convinced and converted and am

now a believer. If my photos .... No ! If

EVERYBODY's photos, had 20% more

resolution this would be a way different

game, and a different world ! Creativity

will be liberated from the iron chains of

last year's state of the art technology !  

And no one will feel cheated ever again.

I just looove a happy ending, don't you ?

 

  

` 

[Max the Dog]

Dude I am Max "the dog" Berlin.   Never hid that.  Never stated differently/.   Also Katsu

[Snowfun]

You state that "(Y)ours is a purely subjective test" yet then claim that he is "applying some degree of science"....

Where did you study science?

Have you published your results in a peer reviewed journal? If not then I would suggest that your argument has no evidence base - neither the method nor results (far less any useful conclusion) have been scientifically verified. Read Daubert if you have any legitimate interest in this.

I realise - but fail to understand - that upsetting genuine users of the fora is your reason to be here but I would remind you that:

1. We are already aware that Canon, Nikon, Leica and others also make some super cameras - some of us own several, other have chosen to use one for a variety of reasons.

2. We are interested in optimising the photographs we can get from our Sony cameras - that is why we are here. Exchanging ideas, opinions and advice can be useful, constructive and a positive experience.

3. Repeating the same D810 vs. Sony narrative is as tedious as it is pointless. Please desist. Either enjoy this forum for what it is or take your obvious enthusiasm for pixel peeping (don't claim it is "science") elsewhere.

 

I note that you have a blog - good honest title - so anyone who is interested knows where to find your conparative (sic) testing. I suspect traffic levels are low...

[englishmajor]

I am not taking sides, but it seems to me you're both having difficulties with the english (I realise the irony in not capitalising something; I think words look prettier this way) language and it is causing communication issues.

 

Max the Dog, the antonym of "subjective" is "objective" and not "quantitative". I think you meant to say "objective" but please correct me if I am wrong. I'm not picking on your english for the sake of it, I believe this word changes your argument drastically if it is the case. If you measure something in an "objective" manner, you are measuring it without bias or opinion, "quantitative" relates to the quantity rather than the quality.

 

"Where did you study science?"

 

This question makes no sense. Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

 

If you are asking him where did he study his science degree or science qualification (that's entirely different) in a rhetorical manner, then we are to infer that you would take his word as gospel if he is an authoritative figure; therefore, we'd infer an appeal to authority fallacy.

 

"Have you published your results in a peer reviewed journal? If not then I would suggest that your argument has no evidence base"

 

If I make the claim that the moon is spherical, if I travel to the moon, publish my results regarding the moon, and give evidence to suggest the moon is spherical, it does not require you or anyone else to travel to the moon for the statement to be correct. Therefore your response is fallacious; argumentum ad populum.

 

"Read Daubert if you have any legitimate interest in this."

 

I already have (if you're talking about the daubert standard), and it's important for legal cases where evidence must be verified; it is a complete red herring for this discussion (which I think you already know, but I believe you are simply dropping names to sound important).

 

"I realise - but fail to understand - that upsetting genuine users of the fora is your reason to be here but I would remind you that"

 

Again, it's fallacious; ad hominem; conjecture.

 

1) Red herring.

2) Fictitious; conjecture; you cannot speak for all of us. If you claim all swans are white, I only need to find one black swan to prove you wrong. I'm not here for the reasons you stated.

3) You've already demonstrated you don't know what the word "science" means; furthermore, he did not make this thread. 

 

"I suspect traffic levels are low"

 

How amusing that you should talk about popularity again.

 

In regards to the actual topic... erobicheaux's pseudo-scientific ways of examining cameras and lenses are just that--pseudo. The analysis is poor and introduces far too many variables. I fail to see why anyone uploads jpegs too. They are not high quality enough.

 

"My only objection to Earl's project is

that it's offered as defense/rebuttal

of an "insult" to Sonydom"

 

Max's project is offered as a defence to sony's insult at its customers. My only problem with it is that he is wasting his time. A lot of "photographers" are not really great artists, but they like to pretend to be. These artists like to pretend to know nothing about math or scientific ways of measuring things. When you do that, you forget the blindingly obvious; the sony compression system is lossy; you cannot simply lose data and keep the same quality. It is very easy to understand.

 

I believe people like that treat their camera as a lover, they don't want to see their lover insulted. They won't insult it but when a hotter model comes along, they'll buy it and tell everyone it's better. If cameras are so perfect, why do people upgrade? If something is already perfect; changing model can only mean you go from perfection to imperfection. You cannot improve on perfection; unless you are to accept the camera is not perfect; in which case, why do you have such a problem with what has been said by max? To conclude; pengun will reply with an idiotic response trying to look like an internet warrior, someone else will reply with something fallacious, and at best, someone will post terrible photos to impress us all.  Max is wasting his time, that is for sure.

 

My argument is simple. I have some loose change I can spend on cameras (about 20k), I also have lots of friends who have a similar amount of cash. Sony's not getting it until they fix the issues. That's a loss of 200k because of one person. That's not much for a big company like sony, but it's something

[Max the Dog]

I love the simplicity of your conclusion.  It's mine as well (except I am trying to affect 100s or 1000s of decision makers)

 

"My argument is simple. I have some loose change I can spend on cameras (about 20k), I also have lots of friends who have a similar amount of cash. Sony's not getting it until they fix the issues. That's a loss of 200k because of one person. That's not much for a big company like Sony, but it's something"

 

Last but not least - readership is in the 3000 range and I notice spikes for every new article for a few days or so.    I think some of these people are getting it, some are concerned and some are in denial. 

 

For the lovers out there -   https://sonyvnikon.wordpress.com/2015/03/25/why-sony-fanboys-fail-to-see-the-light-and-14-bit-color/ 

[erobicheaux]

Thanks for your comments Max. First of all, I find it hard to understand how these comparisons are “purely subjective?” The images are what they are and I would be only too happy to provide the raw files. I just took pictures with the two camera’s of the same subject with the same lighting and posted the image of each. Secondly, I didn’t think you read all of my post because there was a comparison between the Sony A7r and the Nikon D810 both with the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 at 200% and 400%. Last, I didn’t have focusing issues with the Imatest target, I could not print a target with the refined edge that Imatest needed. Your comment about using a monitor is interesting. In reading the immodest manual, I had the impression that one needed to use a target of at least 60″x40″ and better at 74″x44″ for sensors the size of these cameras, i.e. about 140 pixels per inch. Unless you have a “really large monitor” it would be my impression that there are too many pixels confined to a monitor target, but then I am new to working with Imatest. I think I will be getting a 74″x44″ target from them.

[Max the Dog]

"Quantitative" was used because the discussion is focused on resolution numbers (Imatest) and not this leaf looks sharper than that leaf style testing. 

 

I am not required to use an antonym but the term most descriptive of the difference between his testing and mine. 

[Max the Dog]

You don't need to waste your money on an Imatest target. 

 

I'll send you directions by email on what to do instead. 

 

 

Thanks for your comments Max. First of all, I find it hard to understand how these comparisons are “purely subjective?” The images are what they are and I would be only too happy to provide the raw files. I just took pictures with the two camera’s of the same subject with the same lighting and posted the image of each. Secondly, I didn’t think you read all of my post because there was a comparison between the Sony A7r and the Nikon D810 both with the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 at 200% and 400%. Last, I didn’t have focusing issues with the Imatest target, I could not print a target with the refined edge that Imatest needed. Your comment about using a monitor is interesting. In reading the immodest manual, I had the impression that one needed to use a target of at least 60″x40″ and better at 74″x44″ for sensors the size of these cameras, i.e. about 140 pixels per inch. Unless you have a “really large monitor” it would be my impression that there are too many pixels confined to a monitor target, but then I am new to working with Imatest. I think I will be getting a 74″x44″ target from them.

[Max the Dog]

The raw files won't help me either way.  

 

 

My apologies if I missed or over looked the apples to apples test (it was buried in the others and I see it now)

 

Thanks for your comments Max. First of all, I find it hard to understand how these comparisons are “purely subjective?” The images are what they are and I would be only too happy to provide the raw files. I just took pictures with the two camera’s of the same subject with the same lighting and posted the image of each. Secondly, I didn’t think you read all of my post because there was a comparison between the Sony A7r and the Nikon D810 both with the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 at 200% and 400%. Last, I didn’t have focusing issues with the Imatest target, I could not print a target with the refined edge that Imatest needed. Your comment about using a monitor is interesting. In reading the immodest manual, I had the impression that one needed to use a target of at least 60″x40″ and better at 74″x44″ for sensors the size of these cameras, i.e. about 140 pixels per inch. Unless you have a “really large monitor” it would be my impression that there are too many pixels confined to a monitor target, but then I am new to working with Imatest. I think I will be getting a 74″x44″ target from them.

[alleyehave]

I'm convinced this Max guy has absolutely no life.

 

Earl, 

 

Yours is a purely subjective test.  The tests I've run are quantitative. 

 

Additionally, you are comparing two different systems.  A proper test would be with the exact same lens on both cameras.  This isolates the test to the sensor if all other facts are equal.

 

Next you need to isolate the Sony from shutter shock, this alone surely negates your argument that these two systems are equal. (even subjectively!)  (meaning you're biased*)  http://blog.kasson.com/?p=5279 

 

You say tripod for all shots but what tripod?  What head ?    Again - too many variables to come to a conclusion. 

 

It would be very hard - next to impossible - to come up with 2 nearly equal results with two apples to apples tests 

 

https://sonyvnikon.wordpress.com/2015/03/16/nikon-d810-v-sony-a7r-with-zeiss-otus-85mm/

 

https://sonyvnikon.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/zeiss-apo-sonnar-135mm-imatest-on-sony-a7r-and-nikon-d810/

 

For your (and other's edification) I will run the Sony A7r with the FE55 and Otus 55 against the Nikon 810 and Otus 55 using Imatest and my protocol. 

 

As before - I would expect the same lens/ different camera difference to be about 20% and the FE55 to have a greater difference (lesser resolution). 

 

One last thing, to eliminate the focusing problems you had, I use HDMI output to a 4k monitor to ensure critical focus. 

 

Although nothing focuses more accurately than the long throw of the Otus, the FE55 can be focused to a high precision by trial and error before hitting the shutter. 

 

*I doubt you could find another neutral party on the planet that would agree or believe (or could show) that these 2 systems are even close to equal. 

 

Read 'Sony Fanboy'   - I had the same narrative and psychology up until the moment I did that first side by side - apples to apples comparison. 

 

https://sonyvnikon.wordpress.com/2015/03/25/why-sony-fanboys-fail-to-see-the-light-and-14-bit-color/

[erobicheaux]

I must admit that I am rather confused on what Max is using for his scientific tests. On the web site I linked to he shows Imatest results supporting the claim that the D810 is sharper than the A7r and then above he says don't waist your money on it? Does he use it or not? In his post above, he says he is using a 4k monitor as a target for Imatest. I talked to Imatest this morning and they confirmed that they require a target of 74" x 44" for sensors greater than 25 mpx for valid results. I would be really surprised if Max had a monitor that big otherwise I it would be kind to say that his results are suspect. 

[Max the Dog]

You're starting to become annoying.  I was trying to help you save money before wasting your money on the target.  That's off the table now. 

 

Imatest is a solid program and much more scientific than your 'this leaf that leaf' comparison.  I've done 1000s of tests over the last 3 years on Imatest.  You have yet to do one.

 

I did not say I use a 4k target.  I use a 4k monitor to achieve critical focus.  Camera>HDMI>4k  

 

Some of this may be due to ESL for you and that's understandable - my European languages are limited to 30-50 words and phrases in most of the major languages. 

 

At the heart of it you have a strong bias towards confirming what you want to believe - that a Sony A7r somehow resolves better than a D810.  It simply isn't true and you're the first on the planet to believe so. 

 

(besides being objective you failed to isolate the A7rs shutter shock which on its own cuts resolution dramatically - not to mention Sony's sensor glass astigmatism. 

 

For the same psychological reasons I also believed the same for close to a year however was open minded enough to see the light once I did a single comparison between the 2 cameras.

 

https://sonyvnikon.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/hello-world/ 

 

I don't think you've done the same yet. 

 

 

 

I must admit that I am rather confused on what Max is using for his scientific tests. On the web site I linked to he shows Imatest results supporting the claim that the D810 is sharper than the A7r and then above he says don't waist your money on it? Does he use it or not? In his post above, he says he is using a 4k monitor as a target for Imatest. I talked to Imatest this morning and they confirmed that they require a target of 74" x 44" for sensors greater than 25 mpx for valid results. I would be really surprised if Max had a monitor that big otherwise I it would be kind to say that his results are suspect. 

[Max the Dog]

Results are in - Nikon 810 with Otus 55 resolves 24% better than A7r and FE55. 

 

https://sonyvnikon.wordpress.com/2015/05/27/a-reader-challenges-the-data/ 

[Guest all8]

I think you should only consider the Manual Focus figures from the A7r in your calculation, since you have clearly shown that the AF system is not achieving optimal results. The reasons why do not matter for a scientific comparison of sensor/lens performance where the subject matter is a test chart.

 

Also, it might (or might not) be better to make the comparison based on LW/PH values rather than PH values. At least in the case of the Nikon the PH value exceeds the number of pixels on the sensor in either dimension and so must not be an effective measure of resolution. Right?

 

 

You should also do the test for RAW files processed with another application (other than Capture One) to be 100% certain that the Post Processing is not a factor. It is fairly probable that Capture One processes RAW files for different cameras with different internal parameters and this might impact the generated files used in these tests. This is to further strengthen your results scientifically by proving that RAW processing is not a factor (or is a factor as we can't know until the test is done).

 

I wonder what the overshoot of the Nikon (14%) against the Sony (5.5%) is indicating. Could it be that the Nikon RAW file is sharpened somehow in Post Processing and this is creating an artificially sharp image? I refer again to the PH value of the Nikon exceeding the resolution of the sensor in both dimensions.

 

All very interesting ... IMHO both are sharp enough.

[Max the Dog]

I would agree with the comment 'both are sharp enough'.    The FE55 is one of the reasons I've kept the A7r to date.    There is a leveling (of all lenses) that takes place as they approach 4.0 and up to diffraction. 

 

I could turn off all import and export sharpening in C1 and see what the difference is.  As I have always been suspect when Imatest returns a higher number than the 'sharpened' number.  At the same time both had the same process done to them and my sense of it is that Sony may do some in camera cooking and corrections where Nikon does not. 

 

Overshoot -  Overshoot and undershoot. Percentage of step amplitude. Shown if appropriate. Average pixel levels in dark and light areas, and light/dark ratio. Clipping can occur if they are too close to 0 or 255 

 

Neither file is clipping - I haven't experimented with normalizing 'overshoot' levels through EV but I try to let the files remain as un-adulterated as they come out of the camera. 

[Max the Dog]

I do know that Imatest results are higher on C1 than on LR.  There was a marked jump when I began using C1. 

[erobicheaux]

Well, Max I am sorry that I have somehow said something that you did not like. I really am trying to be polite. Unfortunately, you have not specified you test regime, the size of the target used and how it was created. I do have a target coming from Imatest that is appropriate for these tests and I will be curious to see what results I obtain from a valid target. 

 

So let me be clear, the only thing that I have question is your claim that the D810 is approximately 20% sharper (removes 20% better than the A7r). This is categorically not correct and I would maintain that, while not quantitative, my mythology is more accurate and less prone error or bias than yours. Let me explain. I have a NEC Multisync PA 271 which is a 27" 2560x1440 pixels monitor. It has ppi of approximately 109 pixels per inch. Both the Nikon D810 and Sony A7r have a sensor that are 7360 x 4920 pixels. When viewing these files at a 1:1 ratio in Lightroom, Photoshop, Capture One, etc, I am viewing the file at 109 ppi. Imatest requires an image of at least 140 pixels per inch for a valid result. All of the images I posted on my web site were at 2:1 (with one exception), which means that the viewing ppi was approximately 54.5, over twice the detail of a suggested Imatest shot. At one point I presented the comparison of the A7r and D810 both with the Zeiss Otus at 4:1, or at approximately 27ppi. Now the human eye is able to resolve from 30 line pairs to 90 line pairs from about 2 ft (depending on size of the iris). Using an average of 60lp's, the human eye resolves about 175 lp's per inch or more or less 175 ppi. Now one thing the human eye does a good job at and which is the primary function of the central vision is picking out edges. It is up to the peripheral to fill in the edges. I would agree that it is hard for the eye to determine differences between elements that do not have defined edges, potentially like a leaf, however, all of the images I posted as comparisons had defined edges. Human observation is a valid scientific methodology that has been used over the centuries. 

 

So lets be real, when viewing an image at 1:1, 109 pixels per inch, a 20% variance, or 20 pixels is huge and if valid, the average human would be easily discerned this variation. At a 2:1 magnification or at 54 pixels per inch, it would be overwhelming. At 4:1, or at 27 pixels per inch, this would be a blow out. None of this occurred which leads me to conclude there is a material error in your test regime or that there is an issue with the camera you are using. My images and those produced by others do not validate the results you claim. 

[erobicheaux]

One more comment: In your post "A Reader Challenges the Data," your comment regarding the purple fringing using the Sony A7r with the FE 55mm f/1.8, makes me want to ask if your A7r is up-to-date with its firmware. Sony, like Leica have issues with the closeness of the sensor to the lens and both build a database of their lenses that reside within the firmware that makes adjustments for these types of issues. It's rather cleaver in that one does not have to rely on Image Align as Sony has taken care of these issues within its firmware. Also, some type of fringing and moire is the trade off for having a body w/o a low pass filter. 

[Max the Dog]

Now running 1.2 - will retest in next few days   

 

You also have some quantitative support for your subjective view - Jim Kasson published some results today. 

 

https://sonyvnikon.wordpress.com/2015/05/29/a-quantatative-test-done-by-a-guru-shows-a7r-sharper-than-d810/

[Max the Dog]

New tests just completed - they agree with my earlier findings.   My slant edge tests are on the horizontal plane.  Looks to be about 20%

 

http://blog.kasson.com/?p=10472#comment-193960 

 

 

Now running 1.2 - will retest in next few days   

 

You also have some quantitative support for your subjective view - Jim Kasson published some results today. 

 

https://sonyvnikon.wordpress.com/2015/05/29/a-quantatative-test-done-by-a-guru-shows-a7r-sharper-than-d810/

[erobicheaux]

Received the Imatest target on Friday and among other stuff was not really able to get it set up and run some test until today. There is a fair amount of work to this process as well as a lot of fine tuning. I find it so easy to get skewed results. However, let me just say that Max is all wet. There is NO way that there is a 20% variance between the Nikon D810 and the Sony A7r. After running a bunch of shots, I feel the best comparable result is this one using the Sigma Arts 35mm f/1.4 on both the D810 and the A7r. The D810 came in at 5240 and the A7r came in at 4973, for a 5% advantage to the D810. Both were at ISO 64, f/6.3 and about 1/5. The advantage goes to the D810 as i the lens is designed for the Nikon and I used a Novoflex adapter for the A7r, one which I had to guess on the f/stop. Focusing is critical as the distance to the target was about 64" and the Nikon has the advantage here as well as it is easier to close focus as Live View allows a finer view than Sony's. All in all, both are amazingly sharp given that the best the D810 could do in Max's Zeiss Otus 85mm test was 4734. I will be running a bunch more test shots and making sure I have a good feel for the results before posting anything more. So, the A7r, may have some issue which I hope Sony addresses in the up and coming Mark II version but one of them is not the lack of sharpness.