Sony A7S

Discussion in 'Other Systems' started by stripedrex, Apr 4, 2014.

  1. stripedrex

    stripedrex Do or do not. There is no try.

    374
    Jun 8, 2012
    Long Island, NY
    Alex
    Wow, if the rumors are true this might be a decent hit on Panasonic's launch of the GH4. Looks like it'll have the same body as the A7 but with 4K video and potentially that new autofocus system the Sony A6000 has (which is what I wished the e-m1 did). Personally I'm finding more and more I wished I had just a bit more ISO performance. I had a short stint with an A7R and autofocus was my biggest gripe for use as a family shooter but I have to say if this does what the A6000 does AND have 4k this is huge news.

    Rumor link here:
    http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-sony-a7s-will-shoot-4k-video/
     
  2. taz98spin

    taz98spin Mu-43 Top Veteran

    843
    May 13, 2011
    NYC
    Huge news indeed!
    I've been waiting for the next FE A9 (as the rumors from Japan called it a few weeks ago), so I am interested in this news.

    But how much will it cost is a bigger question.
     
  3. stripedrex

    stripedrex Do or do not. There is no try.

    374
    Jun 8, 2012
    Long Island, NY
    Alex
  4. Jay86

    Jay86 Mu-43 Veteran

    477
    Dec 26, 2012
    Damn this is good stuff. If they can make the AF and overall operation of the camera a lot smoother it will be a hit. I have to admit if I wanted a FF camera it would probably be one of the Sony's.
     
  5. Armanius

    Armanius Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 23, 2010
    Houston
    Muttley
    12 mp sensor? Same sensor as the Nikon D700?
     
  6. krugorg

    krugorg Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jul 18, 2011
    Minnesota USA
    Supposed to be an "all new" sensor. Would the D700 sensor handle 4K, or is that more of a processor thing?
     
  7. stripedrex

    stripedrex Do or do not. There is no try.

    374
    Jun 8, 2012
    Long Island, NY
    Alex
    Like the Nikon D3s and D4s I think this is for speed. Very high fps and larger buffer for Sports shooting. Which is why the A6000 autofocus is so important. Personally I kind of what an A7RS =p for resolution and speed even if it's a toggle =p.
     
  8. Halaking

    Halaking Mu-43 Top Veteran

    667
    Dec 17, 2012
    Los Angeles
    Morris
    12MP also good for low light like D4.
     
  9. tomO2013

    tomO2013 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    799
    Oct 28, 2013
    I know that I am going to draw some heat potentially for my opinions on this one... but...
    While I applaud Sony for going the route of better quality at high ISO with the A7s for my style of shooting I don't often need to go above 6400 and if and when I do, generally speaking i'd bring a flash with me. It's not like the existing ISO3200 and 6400 look terrible on the a7 and a7r. In fact I think both cameras do a great job at the higher ISO's. While I've shot with a D700 before and gotten lovely files from it and I'm aware that many photographers are still producing amazing fine art prints from their D700's, I would have preferred to see Sony invest their R&D budgets on harnessing the additional pixel resolution of the A7/A7r via some type of stabilization or making more image stabilized lenses available. Another camera while innovative from a niche perspective, is not what they need IMHO right now - but I'm open to changing my mind on this one. I just cannot make up my definite mind right now - flip flopping back and forth on whether it is a great idea or not.
    While most people do know that 12mp is plenty to get great looking prints, unfortunately we live in a world where the big marketing spinners by the big two have pushed this bigger is better and more is better mentality. I wonder if sales will be impacted by both the apparent high price VS low megapixel count - or will people be able to see the late night shooting potential (never mind 4k) of the camera...?
     
  10. bartjeej

    bartjeej Mu-43 Regular

    50
    Oct 9, 2012
    I don't believe the "lower mp count is better high iso" thing; if you downsize the higher mp file, it should give the same results (perhaps marginally less if the circuitry takes up a bigger part of the surface area, but not enough to make a huge difference), so all a higher mp count does is give you more options. Lower mp's make sense in terms of dynamic range and speed, and perhaps video, but that's pretty much it.
     
  11. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    Not unless Sony is licensing it from Nikon. The D3/D700 sensor is a Nikon design, and it is not fabbed by Sony either.
     
  12. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    Larry
    Sensor photosite density is directly proportional to noise. So for a given sensor size lower density gives better noise performance.
     
  13. RDM

    RDM Mu-43 All-Pro

    I am interested in how this camera performs as a still shooter.
    Some other sites are even suggesting that this sensor would perform better for still shots taken with legacy glass too.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. tomO2013

    tomO2013 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    799
    Oct 28, 2013
    There is a big caveat to this - "within the same sensor generation and same sensor technological process".
    The photosite (being bigger) makes it 'easier' to deliver a better signal to noise ratio and as a general rule of thumb is a fairly accurate way to expect that within a senor generation a larger sensor developed upon the same technology as a smaller pixel pitch sensor will deliver a cleaner image.
    A bigger pixel does not necessarily translate into a theoretical wider dynamic range at lower ISO's, but should give a cleaner SNR and reduced loss of dynamic range at higher ISO's. The efficiency of absorption per pixel is much more important than the actual sensor size or pixel pitch itself for chip designers i.e. it wouldn't matter if the pixel pitch was much smaller if that individual pixel could deliver a cleaner SnR.
    From a cost of fabrication perspective, I would imagine that chip designers would prefer to see people move to smaller sensor cameras that provide the same image performance as larger chips (ignoring the DOF differences) - it would allow them to produce more sensors per wafer and reduce bill of materials.
    As we have already seen, even within the same sensor generation, different sensors have different noise and dynamic range performances with similar sensor pixel pitch e.g. Canon sensors typically have a narrower dynamic range relative to Sony sensors with similar pixel pitch. :)

     
  15. tomO2013

    tomO2013 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    799
    Oct 28, 2013
    It *should* in theory.
    The problem with the D800 / A7r sensor is that it places huge demands on glass to really pull the full resolution advantages that they provide. I remember reading that Ming Thein was saying that with perfect technique he believes he could possibly hand hold 24mp of resolution before camera shake (without IBIS or OIS) would mean that he wasn't maximizing the available resolution. He also made mention that downsampling didn't really make the image look much 'sharper' or in focus, but it would help with noise though.
    From the D800E / A7r perspective, the sensor can out-resolve many legacy glass that is available - sure the glass will work fine with the camera but you may find that images look less sharp than if they had been taken on a tripod with a lower resolution camera. They are phenomenal sensors that would make many medium format shooters think twice about shooting medium format, just they demand good glass and good technique to really see their advantages.
    A lower resolution A7s may end up being a better general purpose reportage camera producing better looking images for normal print sizes with older lenses.
    Regarding 'light bleed' issues, quite a few people prefer to use the A7 to the A7r if they are using legacy M-mount glass as the microlenses are better optimised for wide angle glass. The A7s *should* at least as good as the A7 in this regard.


     
  16. orfeo

    orfeo Mu-43 Top Veteran

    673
    Sep 27, 2013
    FR
    None matters because A7S cost three times the GH4 if you want to record 4K, because it just cannot record 4K internal like the GH4.
     
  17. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, CA
    I keep a Nikon D3 12mp camera around just because those big fat pixels give lots of leeway for shooting. It doesn't stress the glass and allows for sloppy technique. You're basically dealing with something around 5mp if it were an APS-C sensor. It should be good for old MF lenses. The A7S with 2014 sensor tech should probably blow my D3 2007 sensor out of the water! For detail, DR and color...my Nikon D800 is king! :wink:

    Saying that, people complain that the current 16mp M43 sensor lacks in high ISO, DR, blah blah, etc., but if you take into account the fact if that chip was full frame, it'd be something like the equivalent of 50mp! To me that's amazing and the M43 glass is capable of rendering all that detail and color amazes me.
     
  18. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    Larry
    Yes cross generation performance comparisons are usually not terribly meaningful. Also unless you cross the noise threshold for a given implementation, ie are at a high enough ISO - ie energy state on the sensor, truly it doesn't matter a whole lot. Ie 16MP is 16MP. And, you are right in general, from a cost and packaging point of view assuming equivalent yield rates, smaller is better.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. RDM

    RDM Mu-43 All-Pro

    Yes, it is true that one would have to buy the accessories to record 4k video like the GH4, making the A7s very expensive.
    Now as a person interested in this camera for still photography, I wonder what the price point is of the body alone.
     
  20. bartjeej

    bartjeej Mu-43 Regular

    50
    Oct 9, 2012
    Sorry to be reviving an old thread, but this is true only at the pixel level - not at the overall image level. if you split up one pixel into two, the total amount of photons collected by those two pixels will be the same as it was with the one pixel (assuming the "walls" between the photon collecting "buckets" shrink proportionally). So if you downsize the image from the high-density sensor to the same amount of pixels as the low-density sensor, you have the same number of photons divided over the same number of pixels, which should give the same amount of noise. However, the high-density sensor also gives you the option to NOT downsize, which will give you more detail at the cost of more noise. So all a higher-density sensor does is give you more options.