Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ASA32

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. No, that is not what you said nor implied. You did pontificate naive nonsense which I have thoroughly addressed. It is pointless to engage in straw man arguments. You can't change the parameters of the discussion just because you were proved wrong and won't own up to it. As far as your new opinion about market demand, again I would have to disagree with you. Sony has shown that full frame has been their priority up to now. I'm sure when they can get around to it they will release a high MP APS-C body, hopefully in the near future and I'm sure it will sell extremely well. Time will tell.
  2. You quoted a statement I made claiming it was untrue. I gave you the reference to prove it was true. Facts are pesky things. Since then you have been dancing around trying to change the argument. We can agree that this dialog is going nowhere. The title of my post asks a question you are unable to answer. I really don't need to hear that what I am hoping for in a future sensor is useless nor do I need you to tell me how far away I should stand when I view art. I have already shown you how you can down rez your camera and throw away your mega pixels. Time for you to move along.
  3. This is simply not true. There is some increase in performance from the R1 to the R2, the R2 and R3 are practically identical (same sensor), the R4 actually shows slightly increased noise at high ISO (check attached comparison from DXO mark). Please back up your claims with references as I can not find any source showing an actual improvement in ISO-performance over the years in the R-series. Pieter, You asked that I back up my statement with references and I have. Hard data from your preferred testing website DXO that proves my statement and shows that you are the one that was wrong. Your inability to accept that fact is beyond me. Of course you could've used your eyeballs to confirm the same.
  4. Use the comparison tool from DXO: Look at the Sports (low light ISO) score - A7R = 2746 vs A7R4 = 3344 Sports & action score: Low-Light ISO Unlike the two previous scenarios in which light is either generous (studio) or the camera can be mounted on a tripod (landscape), photojournalists and action photographers often struggle with low available light and fast motion in the scene. When shooting sports or action events, the photographer’s primary objective is to freeze motion, giving priority to short exposure times. To compensate for the lack of exposure, photographers have to increase the ISO setting, which results in a decreased signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). How far can ISO be increased while maintaining decent image quality? The DxOMark low-light ISO metric will give you this information. The SNR indicates how much noise is present in an image compared to the actual image information (signal). The higher the SNR value, the better the image quality, as detail is not drowned out by noise. The SNR is given in dB, which is a logarithmic scale: an increase of 6 dB corresponds to doubling the SNR, which in turn equates to half the noise for the same signal. A SNR value of 30dB means excellent image quality. We have therefore defined low-light ISO as the highest ISO setting for a camera that allows it to achieve a SNR of 30dB while keeping a good dynamic range of 9 EVs and a color depth of 18bits. A difference in low-light ISO of 25% equals 1/3 EV and is only slightly noticeable. Low-light ISO is an open scale.
  5. Not a lot of difference between the R3 and R4 besides the added MP and the resulting detail. An ISO range of a camera doesn't show how noisy its sensor is. There is a big difference in the last 6 years from the R1 to the R4. Sony increased the resolution while simultaneously decreasing the noise at high ISO. This was once thought of as a trade off. I want that new tech in the APS-C sensor. I always shoot in raw but looking at the a6000 menu there is an option when shooting JPEGs to down rez to 12MP and 6MP. Perhaps they could also do something like that with raw images? Since SD cards are big and cheap and HD space per gig also very cheap I can't understand why anyone would want to throw away data, but to each his own. I think for all photographers there are those instances where you are at a special time and place and you would like to have the utmost in rez to capture the scene. That is why I want to have that extra detail and sharpness. Its also nice to be able to crop and print large. Not that it solves all my wants but for now I would settle for IBIS pixel shift since all that is needed is a software update.
  6. Pieter, You are correct, my pixel density math was wrong. Thanks for pointing that out. Maybe we are near the limit of pixel density right now but my guess is that after 6 years of Sony staying at 24MP mark, there is room for improvement. And that is by looking at how Sony has evolved the A7R line sensors which gives me hope that they can still squeeze more resolution into the APS-C sensors. A question for you: If you believe your prime lenses could resolve way more detail, why wouldn't you want a camera of the same size and weight that could capture that? I have always wanted the best quality I could get out of any system. In the past that usually required either a larger format camera, lots more money spent on glass or using very slow ISO's. With the newer A7R4 sensor they have managed to increase both resolution and ISO speed at the same time. For me the only downside seems to be bigger files which is fine by me as hard drives per gig are as cheap as they have ever been.
  7. Pieter, You answer your own question why: " absolute best image quality despite bigger file size and more noise on pixel level." Given my experience with 35mm, med and large format I know what increased resolution looks like even with much smaller prints of 8x10 and 11x14. In this case its certainly not marketing crap. Its a real world improvement. If you are using the kit zoom then perhaps there is not much more to resolve but again I'm using quality prime lenses and I know that in my case a newer sensor with increased MP would be capable of resolving more detail into the image file. If you were talking about cell phone cameras which have tiny sensors, vastly inferior glass, digital zoom etc. then I agree there is not much achieved by adding more MP's. This is a different case entirely and is simple math. The A7R started as a 36MP camera, the next iteration was 42.4MP. The latest is 61 effective MP's. If you use the same pixel density of what they already have that would translate to a 40.6 MP APS-C sensor. I want the current technology in my camera. Photos are not always viewed from what you think is the optimal viewing distance. There is a misconception out there that MP needed are tied to end print size needed and that high MP's are only used for billboard sizes or to crop. That is the BS salesman jargon! People with experience use their eyeballs and can clearly see the difference of higher MP sensors and quality glass. When I was referring to the A7x I meant the R line as well. Two other reasons I like the smaller Sony's are they are much less assuming than bigger cameras. You can more easily blend in with any other Joe tourist and not be noticed while shooting. Also you inherently get much better depth of field at equivalent focal lengths (same field of view). Great for quick street stuff and many landscapes scenes. Having shot many years with manual focus I don't need to have faster AF tracking. What is currently available is great. The high ISO capability and dynamic range of today's digital cameras are already way beyond what film could ever do, I don't need more of that. Long ago I learned how to hold my camera steady so I don't need IBIS (unless it offered pixel shift) which people don't understand does not freeze your subject. You guys have the rez you want and have plenty of bells and whistles already so you should be happy. Simply for what I do, I want more resolution in the same form factor.
  8. Been using and loving the Sony a6000 for 6 years now. I've been waiting to upgrade for a long time now. The problem for me is Sony has not updated the a6xxx sensors past the original 24 megapixels. I know the new cameras have better ISO performance but basically the image detail has remained the same over the last 6 years. Contrast this to their other line of cameras, especially the A7x line that has seen several new sensors that offer much improved detail over the originals. I love the small form factor of the APS-C line. For a lot of the stuff I do, traveling, hiking, skiing, street photography etc. I don't want or need a bigger camera, I just need more rez. I would like the new bells and whistles and better auto focus the new a6xxx models offer but I don't really need them. I have many prime lenses I use with my a6000 and love the quality I'm getting out of this small and portable kit. I will definitely not upgrade until Sony offers a new sensor with something like a 36MPX sensor. Anyone know why this is not a priority and why people are paying more than double for basically a newer a6xxx with the same old sensor? Please Sony. Give us the more resolution already! Frustrated.
  • Create New...