Sony α7s - Game changing for Low Light shooters

TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
edited April 2014 in Other Manufacturers
Sony α7s 12MP full frame mirrorless camera
High ISO setting of 409,600.
SLog-2 Gamma - 1,300% wider increase in Dynamic range
Improved Fast Intelligent AF performance in light as low as EV-4


So I have been watching this closely since the rumor mill started last week and this looks like on it's face value, a videographers dream, and a low light shooters slice of heaven in your hand. 12mp is a bit on the lower side but not bad at all if you can get clean images out without having Noise Reduction software robbing resolution. I'm going to wait for the tests, but I think I have my "ram around" camera picked out.

If not anything, you have to say Sony is listening to a large growing segment of photographers and are answering them.
D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
Tagged:
«1

Comments

  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    a videographers dream, and a low light shooters slice of heaven


    I am missing something ?
    there seems to be a lack f 1.4 primes
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,221Member
    edited April 2014
    That is not the native ISO range, the native range is ISO 100-102,400.

    Sony is just dumping yet another camera onto the market, without enough native glass. Meh.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 2,135Member
    Did they recycle the D3s sensor by any chance?
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    That is not the native ISO range, the native range is ISO 100-102,400...
    As we all know and have experienced, as the extended rises, so does the "usable" ISO and quality of the files at all ISOs.
    Did they recycle the D3s sensor by any chance?
    No, It is a completely new fully developed sensor for High ISO shooting.
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • PapermanPaperman Posts: 469Member
    edited April 2014
    Just curious - what (video ) imaging devices are 4k ?
    Post edited by Paperman on
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,221Member
    @Paperman Interms of still cameras? The GH4 is the only other one, but it can shoot 4K without an external recording device. There have been several high quality 4k video cameras on the market for a while, but they are rather expensive.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member
    In addition the GH4, Canon's EOS-1DC also shoots 4K.

    There are many smartphones which can record 4K, including the Samsung Galaxy Note 3, the LG G Pro 2 and the Sony Xperia Z2. The upcoming Samsung Galaxy S5 will also shoot 4K.

    There are 4K consumer camcorders such as the Sony AX100.

    (The AX100 is around $2000, which means the new A7S will probably be around $2500-$3000, plus the required external recorder is another $2000 so you're looking at $5000 for a functional A7S 4K setup w/o any lenses.)

    The GoPro Hero3+ Black ($399) also shoots 4K (at 15 fps).

    As PB_PM mentioned there are many 4K video cameras. The BMC Production 4K is perhaps the least expensive at around $3000.
  • PapermanPaperman Posts: 469Member
    Sorry guys, I was asking about the devices that would show/play 4k videos.... Have 4k TVs started ( or broadcasting ). Any 4k resolution PCs ?
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,221Member
    In addition the GH4, Canon's EOS-1DC also shoots 4K.
    Ah yes. I always forget about the 1DC, most likely because I don't consider it a consumer friendly option. :D
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member
    @Paperman

    There are a number of 4K TV's in the market, including fairly inexpensive large screens ($1000 for 50" models) from companies like Vizio and the new Polaroid. A few Chinese companies like Seiki are marketing even cheaper options ($499 for 40" class) while more established brands like Samsung, LG and Sony are selling 50" models starting at $2500 (and well above).

    In 2013, the market forecast was for around 500,000 to 750,000 4K TVs to be sold world wide. The industry ended up selling almost 1.9 million 4K TVs, with 1 million units sold in Q4 alone. 2014 forecast: 13 million units.

    For monitors, Dell makes a number of 4K monitors including a 28" TN at $629. Photographers might be interested in Dell's 24" 4K wide-gamut (99% AdobeRGB, 100% sRGB) selling for $1299.

    For content, Japan will be first to broadcast 4K this summer (via satellite). They are actually already planning for 8K terrestrial broadcasts. Netflix started 4K streaming just today, while YouTube has had 4K selections for a couple of years now. Comcast will have 4K set-top boxes later this year.

    So 4K is a done deal and 8K is coming in ~ a decade. Hence all the interest in 4K cameras like the A7S and GH4.

    @PB_PM

    You're 100% right, at $9,999 (discounted) the EOS 1DC isn't really a "consumer" option, but it's still a much cheaper 4K option than the EOS Cinema C500 ($19,999). :D
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    Sorry guys, I was asking about the devices that would show/play 4k videos.... Have 4k TVs started ( or broadcasting ). Any 4k resolution PCs ?

    Hardware does exist (in PCs for a very long time), the issue is the content doesn't exist and won't in mass for 5 years. Just recall, the first 1080 tvs where released in 2005 and first Blu-ray movies where available in 2006. It took a couple of years for any real content to be available and even then, most of it was "up-converted" to 720 and then again to 1080. In the US, most all Cable TV is still 720p/1080i and not the full 1080p. Hell we still have some channels in my area that have not made the move to 720. (I still don't understand that.)
    If you are shooting professional media content (TV, Movie, etc.) then 4k is certainly something to look at. For the rest of us, it really isn't a big deal. Fun to see though.



    I'm surprised that no one has commented on it for still photography or only being 12mp.


    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • WesleyWesley Posts: 67Member
    edited April 2014

    I'm surprised that no one has commented on it for still photography or only being 12mp.
    OH MY GOD IT'S THE D700S!!!
    Post edited by Wesley on
    D700: 24-70 2.8, 85 1.8G
    D3100: 18-55
    A7II: 16-35 F4, 55 1.8, 70-200 F4
  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member

    OH MY GOD IT'S THE D700S!!!
    Not at 2.5 fps it isn't. :D

  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    OH MY GOD IT'S THE D700S!!!
    From what I have been reading it will have the low light ability double of a D3s or D4 - in that regard it is the a D700s - S = steroids.

    Sony's cameras will never be sports rigs for sure.
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,221Member
    Sony's cameras are also known for having terrible RAW files, the lag well behind Nikon's. Maybe Sony needed a sensor twice as good as the D4's's just to keep up?
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • MikeGunterMikeGunter Posts: 543Member
    Hi all,

    @PB_PM - if the image files are as good as claimed - and that's a tall order - it will be twice as good.

    It specs out as a remarkable camera. I'll let it come out for review to see how it really performs.

    My best,

    Mike
  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member
    I think as a pure stills camera, it comes down to the price / performance ratio. The A7S is jam-packed with video features which Sony will charge a solid premium for -- and so if one doesn't shoot a lot of video, is it worth paying that premium?

    E.g., the regular A7 is $1700 and chances are the A7S will be closer to $2500, body only. At that price range a Nikon stills shooter looking for high-ISO might be better off getting the DF for ~ $200 more and get F-mount compatibility.

    The other question is what kind of AA filter will be on the A7S? We've seen from Canon that some of their video-oriented SLRs have overly strong AA filters for stills. As Mike says, hard to say how the A7S will perform without hands on reviews.
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    Some are stating the a7s will be closer to $4,400+ with kit lens. I have a hard time believing that will be the case. Maybe with the external video unit that is needed for 4k video. My guess it will be about the same as the a7r or even the DF just because they can charge that much. The Video industry has more $$ to throw at these than still photographers so it may just turn into a "boutique" body for them.

    I've came to the conclusion 12mp is at the bottom edge for resolution from shooting my X100 and D300 along side my D800. I do think 14-20mp is the sweet spot.
    Sony's cameras are also known for having terrible RAW files, the lag well behind Nikon's. Maybe Sony needed a sensor twice as good as the D4's's just to keep up?
    That has changed quite a bit in the last couple of years from what I have read. They are not as refined as Nikon or Canon's (as they add their own "look" to the files) but better than the others. I don't particularly like their Jpeg output at all. The raw files really do seem to be "raw" and just neutral and flat. The RX1 files I have played with do have the same latitude (but take more work) as Nikon's from what I experienced.

    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,221Member
    edited April 2014
    Thom Hogan seems to disagree, about the Sony RAW files and considering how many cameras he has used, I tend to take his word for it. Thom thinks that the A7r's RAW files are no where near as good as the D800E, but I do not recall the exact details he mentioned. I'll have to look it up.

    Edit: He specifically mentions artifacting in RAW and JPEG files, but only with the A7r.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,221Member
    Too bad the video is only 720p. Looks like a fair bit of artifacting above ISO3200, but that could be due to the low resolution file.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member
    The video is 1080p, but that's still only ~ 2 megapixels. It would be interesting to see full resolution high-ISO still samples.

    Sony also has a 4K video demo elsewhere on YouTube (but not low light).

  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,221Member
    edited April 2014
    Must be the imbedded player then, I had to click through to youtube directly to get 1080p.

    Edit: Looks okay, I think usability tops out around 25600. Very impressive though! My guess is that you could get even better performance downsampling from 4k to 1080p.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
Sign In or Register to comment.