PDA

View Full Version : Taking another bite from the Sony Apple


pdk42
22nd March 2016, 10:51 PM
So - I weakened at The Photography Show and bought an A7Rii. It was a great price and I since I was very impressed with the IQ on the A7R, but found the body feel, shutter and controls lacking, I'd thought I'd give it another go!

First impressions are that it's significantly improved as a photography tool over the original A7R, but still not as smooth to use or feature-filled as the E-M1. IQ is excellent of course, especially as the light drops. But, here's the thing, in good light and when down-sizing to the same resolution it's actually very hard to tell the difference with the E-M1. So, here's a little test for you all - one of these is with the A7Rii and the 35mm f2.8 FE lens and the other is with the E-M1 and the 17mm f1.8 lens. Both are shot at f5.6 and (almost) the same ISO. Which is which?

Image 1:

http://www.famillekaye.com/Image1_small.jpg

Link to full-res file: http://www.famillekaye.com/Image1_test.jpg



Image 2:

http://www.famillekaye.com/Image2_small.jpg

Link to full-res file: http://www.famillekaye.com/Image2_test.jpg

Answers on a post-card!

OM USer
22nd March 2016, 10:56 PM
The second image is sharper to my eyes ... but I won't speculate as to the reasons which could be many and varied.

Olybirder
22nd March 2016, 11:04 PM
When I click on the full-res versions they appear to come up with same file names and look identical but that is probably something that I am doing wrong. :confused:

Ron

Nawty
22nd March 2016, 11:38 PM
When I click on the full-res versions they appear to come up with same file names and look identical but that is probably something that I am doing wrong. :confused:

Ron

Yep, the links are borked somehow but you can amend the link yourself (by changing the 1 to a 2) and in doing so you can see clearly that the second image is much cleaner and with more detail, presumably that's the Sony.

Still, the difference isn't as mahoosive as you might expect...

This exactly shows why I sold my FF gear for m43 - if you have to look at 100% then the difference isn't worth the extra weight and size (for me). That said, don't underestimate the temptation 100% viewing instills, veeeeery tempting...

Greytop
22nd March 2016, 11:46 PM
I agree with you Ron, both of the full resolution images appear to be the same file.
Nigh on impossible to tell which is which from the web sized images which do look to be different, at a guess I would say E-M1 top and A7RII bottom.

Olybirder
22nd March 2016, 11:50 PM
Huw, if you do as Nawty suggests and change the 1 to 2 in the link there is a slight difference between the images, especially in the shadow areas of the arches. It is very subtle though.

Ron

Greytop
22nd March 2016, 11:56 PM
Huw, if you do as Nawty suggests and change the 1 to 2 in the link there is a slight difference between the images, especially in the shadow areas of the arches. It is very subtle though.

Ron

Yep just done that, as Ned says the Sony looks to be the second one. Cleaner file and better definition but resized to the E-M1 file size it's closer than you might expect.

I'd be interested to pit one of my Sigma DP Merrills against the Sony in favourable light, that might be interesting :D

Ross the fiddler
23rd March 2016, 03:02 AM
Yep just done that, as Ned says the Sony looks to be the second one. Cleaner file and better definition but resized to the E-M1 file size it's closer than you might expect.

I'd be interested to pit one of my Sigma DP Merrills against the Sony in favourable light, that might be interesting :D

I felt I could pick it by the first being warmer (E-M1) & the second showing some vignetting (Sony A7Rii), more likely to happen on the 'FF'. :rolleyes:

*chr

Phill D
23rd March 2016, 06:27 AM
I prefer the second image really just from the look and as everyone has said it does look a tiny bit cleaner when looking at 100%. But if I'd seen them on their own I wouldn't know or care. Noise levels seem remarkably similar. I suspect then that the second is the Sony but I'm prepared to be surprised. If this is the difference then I'll stick with my EM1.

Grumpy Hec
23rd March 2016, 07:11 AM
My vote is in line with the majority view. The second may have a 1/3 or more exposure which changes perception somewhat but it does feel marginally cleaner somehow. The difference is small and as has already been said it is not worth the extra physicality involved.

Thanks for this experiment Paul and I look forward to the "right answer" which could prove us all wrongs of course.

Hec

Harold Gough
23rd March 2016, 07:59 AM
The second one seems to be sharper in upper left sail detail.

Harold

pdk42
23rd March 2016, 08:31 AM
Just corrected the links - apologies; too much cutting and pasting!

Yes indeed - the second image is the Sony.

MargaretR
23rd March 2016, 09:52 AM
Congrats on the new acquisition! I decided to give it another year, and see if an A7R iii brought down the price of the mk ii :D

I'd be interested to see the same experiment done for a low-light shot - is there more of a difference? My only real grumble with the EM-1 is 'noisy' images in low light; I suspect full frame alone would improve that.

Harold Gough
23rd March 2016, 10:15 AM
I have just going again with my A7R. A delay in the post left me without a charger and no battery power for the camera.

I now have a Nissin Air RC TTL flash system up and running (two Di700As and the Commander unit). I am disappointed to find that my very best macro lens, the Printing Nikkor 150mm vignettes significantly but the results still look worthwhile. The other macro lenses fill the frame.

When the weather improves I hope to get out and about with my OM 24mm and Pentax 15mm shift lenses, the latter probably only usefully shiftable on m4/3 but a useful prime. The issue of shutter shake for daylight exposure remains to be resolved.

Harold

pdk42
23rd March 2016, 11:31 AM
I now have a Nissin Air RC TTL flash system up and running (two Di700As and the Commander unit). I am disappointed to find that my very best macro lens, the Printing Nikkor 150mm vignettes significantly but the results still look worthwhile. The other macro lenses fill the frame.

The pixel density of u43 is higher than any FF system available today so in terms of pixels on the subject, it seems to me that u43 is probably a better tool for macro. Certainly with the 60mm Olympus macro lens combined with the IBIS, I have no complaints about macro performance on the E-M1.


The issue of shutter shake for daylight exposure remains to be resolved.



The mark ii fixes that since it has EFCS.

Harold Gough
23rd March 2016, 11:50 AM
The pixel density of u43 is higher than any FF system available today so in terms of pixels on the subject, it seems to me that u43 is probably a better tool for macro. Certainly with the 60mm Olympus macro lens combined with the IBIS, I have no complaints about macro performance on the E-M1.


I find the EM-1 excellent for macro and the crop factor helps greatly for DOF. I prefer a 105mm lens for most macro, for working distance. I have a Leica 60mm which I may use for glasshouse butterflies, where I can find myself too close with the 105mm.

I am just seeing what the A7R does with flash and various lenses, partly so that I have some reference for the daylight shots which are to come. I am more likely to use it for moderate close-up than for true macro. The flash may see action for interiors with my wide-angle lenses, some bounce work required there!

I certainly don't see myself investing in new lenses for A7R use.

Harold

pdk42
23rd March 2016, 06:59 PM
Congrats on the new acquisition! I decided to give it another year, and see if an A7R iii brought down the price of the mk ii :D

I'd be interested to see the same experiment done for a low-light shot - is there more of a difference? My only real grumble with the EM-1 is 'noisy' images in low light; I suspect full frame alone would improve that.

Hi Margaret,

Well, that's when things start to head downhill for the E-M1 (perhaps not too surprisingly). Here's two shots, both raw and processed in LR 6:

ISO: 6400 for both
LR processing on both: +100 shadows, -100 highlights, 40 luminance NR. (I wanted to push things!)
LR processing for Sony ONLY: +0.7EV. This was to make it fair - the Oly image was lighter even though ISO & exp were the same.
E-M1: 17mm f1.8. 1/30 f5.6
A7Rii: 35mm f3.5 FE. 1/8 f11 (so same DOF as Oly shot)

E-M1:
http://www.famillekaye.com/EM130001_1024.jpg
Hi-res here (http://www.famillekaye.com/EM130001_4600.jpg)

A7Rii:
http://www.famillekaye.com/DSC00129_1024.jpg
Hi-res here (http://www.famillekaye.com/DSC00129_4600.jpg)

The difference is visible in the small images above (1024 pixels longest edge) but when viewed on the large images (4600 pixels), there is a huge difference in both noise and detail. For web-posted images, it'll likely matter little, if at all, but I think on a print it would be quite noticable. Pixel peekers will recoil in horror!! For those that don't want to download the hi-res images, here's a quick screen shot of the same area from both:

http://www.famillekaye.com/diff.jpg

I pulled the highlights back to see what detail I could get out of the lights top right. The Sony shows texture which is lost in the E-M1 - so a higher DR too with the Sony. Again, not unsurprising since DR drops as ISO rises. At base ISO there isn't an awful lot to choose between the two in DR terms, although you can push the shadows a lot more on the A7Rii which means that in practice it wins there too.

Despite all these IQ advantages though, the Olympus is still the better camera to use and of course the lenses are much more compact. For a lot of uses, the Olympus is more than good enough. When you only need to climb 10 foot, a 12 foot ladder is ample. The 30 foot ladder won't get the job done any better, but it'll be heavier and bigger. I think that analogy works very well for the differences between the E-M1 and the A7Rii. The Oly's the 12 foot ladder and the Sony's the 30 foot ladder!

Greytop
23rd March 2016, 07:15 PM
How does the IBIS compare between the two Paul?

Walti
23rd March 2016, 07:24 PM
How does the IBIS compare between the two Paul?

and the C-AF?

pdk42
23rd March 2016, 07:26 PM
How does the IBIS compare between the two Paul?
I took some shots in a church at between 1/15 and 1/30 sec. All the Oly shots were sharp but the Sony managed only about 60-70% sharp. On that basis I can confidently say that the Oly IBIS is better, but to what extent I don't know. I'll also add that battery life on the Sony isn't great - notably worse than the E-M1, and that's saying something!

Invicta
23rd March 2016, 07:37 PM
The luminance noise on the first original windmill photo is worse than the second. As the Sony is 42.4 megapixels I would have thought the signal to noise ratio was about the same as the Oly. Any thoughts why the first is so much more noisy? What ISO was it taken at?

Ricoh
23rd March 2016, 07:50 PM
I'm interested to see how this one develops, ie whether it's a 'keeper' or not.

Harold Gough
23rd March 2016, 09:20 PM
II'll also add that battery life on the Sony isn't great - notably worse than the E-M1, and that's saying something!

I was getting that impression, although I was unsure of the starting charged state of the two which came with the camera.

Of course I don't normally use AF. However, with the A7R, there is that portcullis of a shutter to lift after each exposure!

Harold

pdk42
23rd March 2016, 09:58 PM
The luminance noise on the first original windmill photo is worse than the second. As the Sony is 42.4 megapixels I would have thought the signal to noise ratio was about the same as the Oly. Any thoughts why the first is so much more noisy? What ISO was it taken at?

I think it's because I've downsized the Sony image to match the size of the Oly image. That'll cause a reduction in noise.

pdk42
23rd March 2016, 10:04 PM
and the C-AF?

I'm an S-AF guy so it's not on my priority list. Quick tests suggest that's it's about the same as the E-M1. That is - sort of naff!

Harold Gough
24th March 2016, 07:09 AM
This may be of some indirect interest.

I have been trying my high magnification macro lens (reversed Schneider HM 40 enlarger lens) and newly-acquired Nissin TTL flash, to see how the A7R captures macro detail. These were with f16, firstly with no TC, then (higher magnification) with a x2 TC to mimic the EM-1 crop effect.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/05/1274105.jpg


http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/07/1274107.jpg


http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/22/1274522.jpg

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/25/1274525.jpg