Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would appreciate some opinions and advice.

I’m thinking of probably buying a Sony a7 ii. But I’m not sure if it would be better for me to buy an a7 ii or an a7R ii.

I have read that although sensors with more resolution would normally mean heavier noise at high ISOs, this would not be the case for the a7R ii in comparison to the a7ii. I have read that both cameras show similar amount of noise at the same ISO values. Is this true, or does the a7R delivers more noisy images than the a7 at the same ISO values? What about their compared latitudes?

Another thing that I am wondering about is if the resulting files would be too heavy to be comfortably edited on my computer. I shoot raw and after developing I save as tiff, and the tiff files I normally edit tend to be in between 75 and 90 MB for the photos I take with a Sony a580 which is 16,2 MP. The sony a7R ii is a 42,2 MP camera, and I should image that the tiff files that one would get from developing its raw files ought to be huge. Are the images from the a7R ii too heavy to manipulate on an average notebook (as the one I have), or none have experienced some difficulty processing and editing them on a standard computer?

Edited by Alejandro
Link to post
Share on other sites

The A7Rii produces more noise per pixel than the A7ii. However, it has a lot more pixels. Because noise is more or less randomly distributed, it cancels out to some degree when downsampling a high MP image to a lower MP count. So yes, the images from an A7Rii will look noisier when viewed at 100% than those from an A7ii, but it is also zoomed in more. When viewed/printed at the same size (or downsampled to 24MP) the noise should be pretty equal between both cameras.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Pieter, you answered one of my questions.
Regarding downsampling the images to 24MP, if that would be one’s plan, wouldn’t it be better to directly just shoot with a 24 MP camera and therefore avoid downsampling? Apart from its negative points, is there any benefit on downsampling an image that I am not being aware of?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no real need to downsample except to save storage space. Like I said: the 42MP image from the A7Rii will not look noisier than a 24MP image from an A7ii when viewed at the same size. So unless you're pixel peeping, there won't be any noticeable additional noise in the A7Rii images. The images from the A7Rii will look slightly more detailed tho when printed to the same size because it has more pixels to sample from.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With an "average" notebook you should have no problem editing the 42.2 Mb raw A7Rii files. I have a Dell laptop

"XPS 15 9560

Memory: 32 GB

Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-7700HQ CPU @ 2.80GHz[Cores 4] [Logical processors 8]

Operating System: Microsoft Windows 10 Home."

I easily process my A7Rii raw and occasional tiff files in Lightroom and in Photoshop. (I usually edit to JPEG rather than TIFF.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thanks again Pieter and thank you SnappyMilt.

Regarding my second question, I managed to download from the web a raw file taken with a Sony a7R ii in order to experiment myself. I had no problems to process/develop the raw file and to export as a 16 bits Tiff. The tiff file I got was 240 MB. Although I could open it with a photo editor (I tried with two different ones) and managed to apply some edits, my computer, and the programs with which I tried, faced some difficulties. They couldn’t quite handle such a huge image file without becoming unbearably slow and collapsing from time to time. I wouldn’t have any problems to edit if exporting to jpg, but then I would have been editing an 8 bits file instead of an 16 bits file.

Edited by Alejandro
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do my raw files with DxO Photolab and tried doing this one with Capture One Express as well. I had no problems with these.
To edit my photos I use Affinity Photo or sometimes ACDSee Ultimate.
Maybe, If I were to choose to buy the A7R ii, what I could do is downsample the tiff files I get from the raw files to a more manageable size. Something as Pieter mentioned that could be done. I think I prefer to keep editing on 16 bits per channel, rather than loose colour depth as when exporting to 8 bits jpg.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Posts

    • Perfectly understandable - American Greenback rules in most countries, not much different in Canada though without the 2 tier exchange rates.  Let us know when you have it and show us what it can do.
    • Here, in my country, our economy has always been very peculiar, unstable, and full of ups and downs. Nowadays, the official rate of exchange for the US dollar is 1 dollar = 103 AR pesos ($). This is also the rate that applies to importers. People in general are allowed to buy 200 dollars per month at this rate if they go to a Bank, but no more. But the unofficial dollar rate (what we call de “Blue dollar”) is 1 dollar = 182 AR $. This is what they give you if you go to a currency exchange house (not a Bank) and sell a dollar that you have. These are the rates for today, the 16th of September. Sony, here in my country, is saying that they are selling at the same prices as in the USA. So, at the official exchange rate, this would be, for the 28-60 lens, something as: 500 x 103 = 51.500 AR $. Sony is here selling the 28-60 for 59.000 AR $. Then, 59.000 AR $ / 182 AR $  = 324 US dollars. Therefore, if I sell 324 US dollars that I had saved, they give me 59.000 AR $ with which I can buy the lens. On the other hand, most people that are selling second hand stuff, are willing to recover part of what they paid for a product when the exchange was different and not favourable for buying imported things. Therefore, second hand stuff is not cheap in relation to new stuff nowadays (for how long, nobody knows). Sony, here, is no longer selling the 28-70 lens (at least, not for the time being). Things have not always been the same, and they might change how knows when, so this might be the right time to buy new Sony stuff (if having some savings). These are the reasons why you can’t find in North America the Sony lens at the same amount of money than me, at this particular moment. I know, difficult to understand, it is madness, and can’t last, but for the time being........ So maybe I should buy the Sony 28-60mm lens and have a native AF lens as you say, specially as they are saying it is a good kit lens. Thanks
    • I am not recommending either of the kit lens, the reviews on the web suggest 28-60 is a good lens how much better than 28-70 can't be seen without someone doing a head to head comparison. If you are buying your first native FE lens on a budget, the 28-60 seem like a good option and the price you have quoted for it, I am not seeing it in North America.  I have the 28-70, it was part of an A7II kit (very lightly used) with 3 oem batteries and an oem charger for basically the price of the body on consignment at a local camera store.  I don't use it much but it's always handy to have a native AF lens to grab for quick snapshots when needed.
    • I have added more images to the clearzoom2 page -https://www.rtfract.com/clearzoom2.html  I have also added more details to my special memory page https://www.rtfract.com/smem.html
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...