Cameracraft magazine – Taking your practical photography further

Tag: comparison

  • Sony A7RII versus Nikon D850 – noise

    There’s a lot of noise about the Nikon D850 right now but few direct comparisons. One problem I have with some early reports is that new D850 owners are most likely to be existing D810 or perhaps D750 or D5 owners. Any comparisons are therefore being made with earlier Nikon sensors.

    Recently a Nikon ambassador whom I respect greatly placed some .NEF raw files into a Dropbox for fellow professionals to examine. Since this article effectively criticises Nikon, I will not reproduce anything recognisable. I naturally grabbed the files and processed them with my usual care in Adobe Camera Raw. This includes making adjustments to the Sharpness and Noise Reduction settings depending on the ISO used. My standard with Sony, Nikon and most other files is to reduce the radius for sharpening to the minimum (0.5) leaving the basic settings of 25 for sharpness and 25 for detail untouched, with no masking. I also don’t touch the Colour Noise controls at all, and usually only adjust the first Luminance control leaving Luminance Contrast and Luminance Detail at default. This first Luminance control tends to set to zero for ISO 100 (or the minimum for a given camera), 10 to 15 around 400 to 800, 25 at 1000 to 2000, 30 to 35 at 2500 to 4000, 50 at 6400 and never above this level.

    In practice these settings make raw files from the Sony A7RII (and presumably A99II, which I do not own) fully useful to ISO 3200 regardless of conditions and intent. Blue skies do not have grain, shadows are smooth and clean, detail is fine, skin tones are not marred by noise. ISO 6400 is slightly grainy but only to the degree we used to expect from ISO 800 in cameras of the first CMOS period (2007-2008, the A700 and A900).

    So, given the glowing reports on the new Nikon sensor, I was expecting to see something at least matching the A7RII. There’s not a huge difference between 45 megapixels (Nikon) and the earlier 42 megapixel Sony BSI CMOS. I have already seen that the Canon 51 megapixel sensor in the 5DS/R offers no benefit at all, just a steep fall-off in shadow detail and loss of dynamic range combined with more noise.

    Here, then, is a 100% section from a raw .NEF at ISO 1000 on the D850, with the Adobe Camera Raw settings I would expect to turn in a clean result. It has been saved at JPEG 12 but WordPress’s image engine causes some quality loss:

    The NR was set as described above, to Luminance 25.

    Then I looked back through my files to locate some ISO 1000 raws from the A7RII and try to find something with broadly comparable tone (surprisingly difficult!). Here is the result, with exactly the same process and settings:

    You will note that the grainy noise is much finer. Both are taken from regions away from the image centre where the camera’s firmware will be adding some gain to combat sensor-created vignetting. On-axis areas are slightly less noisy in both cameras. This may also depend on the lens. You probably think this looks noisy for the A7RII, and this light colour and exposure level does indeed tend to increase noise.

    Here is another A7RII ISO 1000 clip in better light, brighter subject matter, closer to the frame centre – this is more typical of the noise level you should see (or not see) in Sony 42 megapixel images:

    I’ver chosen blurred neutral areas beyond the point of critical focus because these emphasise noise. If the same settings are used with sharply focused detail, with strong colours or contrast and textures, you simply won’t see noise at all at ISO 1000 and NR 25.

    I will also say that while the Nikon community seemed impressed by the sharpness of sample images, I was not. I have to reconsider my critical opinions of Sony’s lenses. I have been judging zooms against Carl Zeiss and Voigtländer primes, and used to seeing a level of detail in images at 100% which I guess regular DSLR users simply don’t expect. Part of this is down to the quality of the A7RII sensor, part down to the lenses, and a whole lot is down to the zero-error focusing of the mirrorless system. I am part of another community, where most photographers use Canon or Nikon and prefer to have fast zooms and primes (the usual 16-35mm f/2.8 or 14-24mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 kit). In this group, many are having their cameras and lenses custom matched and reporting improvements in sharpness which transform their autofocus work.

    Those who use Sony, Fujifilm, Olympus or Panasonic mirrorless systems don’t tend to make any comment as they have been getting critically sharp focus ever since they made the switch from DSLRs.

    Conclusion? My A7RII is now two years old. It’s a 2015 model which is certainly not surpassed by 2017 rivals at least in the ‘core competence’ of its sensor. Other Sony models may offer different levels of special features, like the blistering shooting speed and focus tracking of the A9, but the A7RII continues to do its job as a great all-rounder and this quick comparison shows why.

    – David KIlpatrick

    To support Photoclubalpha, buy through our Affiliate links… or subscribe to David’s premium-quality photographic bi-monthly Cameracraft which includes regular Sony-related editorial, with system expert Gary Friedman as Associate Editor – see www.iconpublications.com

  • David and Goliath? Nikon D4 dwarfs NEX-7!

    Side by side on my light table (which collapses with a ‘pop’ when sixteen tons of Nikon is placed on it), and the NEX-7 is given the foreground role to avoid any accusations of using perspective to make it look tiddly.

    I’m writing some reviews of the Nikon and other new professional DSLRs for the British Journal, so I won’t say anything about the Nikon’s rather wonderful 16 megapixel full frame sensor or its stunning low light performance. I hope when Nikon read my reports they’ll decide to send me to photograph in the Arctic Circle in December – there would be plenty of light for this beast.

    This picture won’t be going to the BJP. I like it because these are equivalents. The Nikon’s 28-300mm VR is admittedly f/5.6 at the long end (and a vast amount better than any Sigma or Tamron 28-300mm or 18-200mm yet made). But otherwise, these are zooms with the same range of angle, both stabilised, both very quiet in both focusing and IS action, both very well-made.

    And the cameras are both a real pleasure to use and produce 100% professional results. The difference is that if I stick the NEX-7 combo under my coat, I do not look like a shoplifter or terrorist with a concealed weapon of mass-perturbation.

    Watch out for our NEX-7 review soon. I’m not hurrying and it may be a month or more.

    – David Kilpatrick

  • Minolta 70-210mm f4 versus Canon 70-200mm f4 L IS

    The Canon 5D MkIII arrived, but I will not be reporting on that here – it is with me for a British Journal review, and that will take a little time and will also be exclusive to the BJP in print and on iPad App. So no sneak preview anywhere else!

    However, with the camera came a 70-200mm f4 Canon L IS lens. This month I picked up a very cheap 70-210mm f4 Minolta AF – the ‘beercan’ original from 1985 which has a broken lens hood, the wrong lens cap (why the hood got broken) and a slightly rough focusing travel that tends to get locked into a near or far range without having a limiter.

    So, since the loaner 70-200mm from Canon was in an equally well-used state, and the question keeps being asked whether the old Minolta is a match for it, I thought I would A-B the two lenses with the Canon on the new 5D MkIII and the beercan on the Alpha 900.

    I call this comparison ‘can o’beer versus a yard of L’ for reasons the product size comparison should make clear:

    Of course a lot of this is the Canon lens hood (anyone with a flair for geometry will spot that the narrower, shorter Minolta hood is nearly as effective, just draw a diagonal from front left to rear right of the hood to see why). And the Canon has IS built in, as well as a focus range limiter. During operation the Canon was rather noisy, making a constant whispering sound from the IS even though the USM focusing was silent. The Minolta of course zips and clunks into focus, but is otherwise silent, and the A900 in-body stabilisation did not make anything like the same level of operating noise as the in-lens IS.

    Although there is no doubt the Minolta lens is less sensitive to AF commands (if that’s the best way to put it) actual targeting a new focus point and locking on seems every bit as fast. It’s nowhere near as good as the Canon at continuous AF subject tracking, but the Canon was nowhere near as good as the Minolta/Alpha combo at user-targeted aim and focus operations. The Canon spent a lot of time being out of focus and then rapidly refocusing, with my moving targets (backyard hens, if you have them you’ll know what perfect focus test subjects they provide). The Minolta spent time staying focused and not responding much.

    Reviewing the results, I can only say the Alpha/beercan combo had a better success rate. Nearly all the shots were critically sharp where a good few Canon shots either didn’t get enough IS to combat shake, or maybe the IS was actually taking the edge off sharpness. This applied particularly at closer distances, where the Minolta (210mm, front group focus  and 1.1m focus distance) seemed much better than the Canon (200mm, internal focus and 1.2m minimum).

    For this article, I have made 2000 pixel wide reductions from my test images. These are within the 2MB limit at high quality for images within the site. Subscribers to photoclubalpha can also access hi-res full sized images (over 70MB in total, so beware) through an additional page link provided at the end of this report.

    The tree and twigs test

    Our big old holly tree provides a suitably evil subject for any lens with chromatic fringe or purple fringe issues. I shot everything raw; no lens profiles were used, the conversion was done using Adobe Camera Raw 6.7Beta. Like Lightroom 4, this offers automatic analysis of CA even without requiring lens profiles. In fact, adjustable CA is entirely disabled – gone. I can tell you it works amazingly well. Lenses which have been very difficult to clean up are fixed. It isn’t even one-click – just set ‘Remove CA’ as a default, and that is it, for all lenses, for ever.

    I used the tree for hand-held (with stabilisation) ISO 100 tests at f/4, f/5.6 and f/8.

    I thought the beercan would be bad for fringes and CA. On the Alpha 900, it simply wasn’t. The full aperture image was surprisingly clean. The Canon lens on the MkIII actually showed more colour fringing. Both cleaned up in ACR 6.7b. As for sharpness, it seemed to me to be a draw. I picked a 3D target to avoid slight front of back focus differences influencing the result.

    Above – Canon at 70mm and f/4 – click image to open 2000 pixel wide version

    Above – Minolta at 70mm and f/4 (same applies, to all these example)

    Above – Canon at f/5.6

    Above – Minolta at f/5.6

    Above – Canon at f/8 (for the f/8 images, the ACR conversion was cut by -0.30 EV exposure, as I felt both cameras had predictably overexposed a little, but the wider apertures were left this way as it emphasises any CA – since f/8 is an optimum aperture with cameras of this resolution, I aimed for the best straight conversions)

    Above – Minolta at f/8.

    Long end tests, moving and static, medium to close

    A range of different subjects ended up being shot on both cameras in the garden. I was, at the same time, shooting various tests on Fuji X10 and Pentax Optio WG-2. If that Pentax could shoot raw files it would be a real winner because the lens is lovely! When you start poking small cameras one or two cm away from small flowers, you realise how limiting the larger format and longer lenses can be.

    But the small cameras could not catch a single decent snap of hens scratching around as I worked. They move too fast and just the focus lag along, let alone the shutter lag, stops even the best compact or pocket digitals from being useful.

    Here’s a Canon shot. I took half a dozen similar shots with both cameras, slightly varying in distance and with two different hens, at f/5.6 and also some at f/8, all at maximum focal length. It would be hard to say the Canon was better as the success rate was lower. It seemed to focus faster but not as accurately, with both cameras set just to use the centre sensor (as the overall frame compositions tell you).

    This is 50% of original pixel scale. Click the image for a 1200 pixel square, 100% clip view.

    Here’s an Alpha 900 shot with the  Minolta at the same settings, ISO 320 RAW, exactly the same ACR 6.7b parameters used (25, 0.5, 25, 0 Sharpening; 20, 25, 0, 25, 50 L and C NR; strong contrast curve; black point 0; Adobe Standard colour calibration; CA Correction enabled with Defringe Highlights but no Lens Profile; both with exposure dropped by -0.3EV, no other change to defaults).

    Again, if you click this 50% view you get a 1200 pixel square clip. Remember, no web or print sharpening is applied. The red hen is a little lower in contrast but so is the Minolta lens, I think, and so is the Alpha 900 default rendering – the 5D MkIII either has less dynamic range, or processes with a steeper curve to the raw. Or Adobe simply applies more contrast to the Canon raw ‘under the hood’.

    These pictures are at 1/320th for the Canon, 1/200th for the Alpha – anything less than 1/200th and hens move their heads so fast you don’t stand a chance of a sharp image. Aperture priority auto.

    Close-up ability

    I find the small difference between 1.1m and 210mm, and 1.2m and 200mm, significant. This is a recurring theme for me. Around 1m, differences of 10 or 20cm either way in minimum focus distance are critical. They can make the difference between working at arm’s length, within reach, or out of reach. My perfect close-up situation allows me to reach a hand out and adjust a subject, so I really like lenses which focus down to 60cm or so. I also like to be able to place my lens against glass, or right up to wires, to get shots through windows and barriers. A classic example would be a small animal in a wire zoo cage. If your lens won’t focus closer than say 1.5m, often you can’t place it up to the wire and therefore you can’t get the shot and blur the wire out. But if the lens focuses down to say 0.9m you can. So for me, any gain at all in minimum focus distance is good. I’m not keen on the way Sony’s SAM versions of once-screw-drive lenses generally lose a bit of close focus range.

    Here are the results of the Canon and the Minolta at their closest focus-confirmed setting. I used ISO 320, and f/11, hand-held with stabilisation.

    Again, if you click this image you will get a 2000 pixels high version. The Canon colour – or maybe the Auto White Balance – is better than the Alpha shot which follows. It may be down to lens colour transmission, as the 1985 Minolta glass is yellower than the Canon. I measured the transmission using a Kenko Color Meter (the new version of the classic Minolta Colormeter IIIF). The Minolta is roughly 5Y+5G and would need a 5B+5M filter pack to match the Canon lens transmission.

    Here’s the Minolta lens shot, closer because of the 1.1m focus and 210mm focal length:

    Again, clicking on the image will get you to a 2000 pixel high size.

    These close-ups had me really thinking. I had to go back and check the settings. I can assure you the pix really are from a distance of 10cm apart – I did not move, I just squatted back a bit with the Canon; the lenses were at 200mm and 210mm; the apertures were both f/11, both cameras were at ISO 320, both gave the same 1/160th exposure. Yet just study the bokeh (differential focus) of the Minolta images. Look at the thickness of the blurred dry plant stem crossing upper right in the background. Look at the green leaf behind the hyacinth. Study the larger version for the focus point in each case (it’s comparable). The beercan just seems so much better able to separate out the subject from the background, without losing depth of field within the flower. Yet if you look through the two lenses from the back element end, wide open, the Canon appears to have a huge aperture by comparison – a really wide exit pupil.

    Does it all prove anything?

    So, what do I conclude? Well, I know from many years of using the 70-210mm that it can benefit from an even deeper hood, maybe on the scale of the Canon. It’s not a contrasty lens, and it can get some serious internal reflection – big flare patches, even veiling the entire frame. And on some earlier cameras even APS-C size, my earlier examples of this lens had been prone to very strong purple fringes. But I have never had an unsharp example and some of our best, sharpest digital shots have come from the classic 70-210mm beercan.

    I’ve already been finding just what a transformation Adobe’s Camera Raw 6.7 beta (release candidate) makes with its auto analysis of the image to apply CA removal. Distortion and vignetting just aren’t significant issues with tele zooms of this type, so full lens profiles are hardly needed (and they are very difficult to make, you need a working distance most studios or homes do not contain).

    Using this rather beaten-up example makes me think that it would be good, again, to find a mint condition little used one. It is a lens with interesting properties; it is a true zoom, and a constant aperture, which means that if you lock the focus down and shoot video you can zoom without losing sharpness (many modern ‘zooms’ are varifocal not parfocal, and shift focus as you zoom) and without any aperture jumps (only constant aperture lenses offer you this).

    Most of all, comparing this lens with the relatively expensive and much larger Canon it’s clear that the performance is either equal, or better. Take into account advances in coatings, and the effects of age on any lens, and I would have to think a new version of exactly this same Minolta lens would be stunningly sharp and ideal within the Alpha system. It would be a perfect companion for the 16-50mm, or 24-70mm, on APS-C or full frame.

    Full size images for subscribers only

    If you are a registered subscriber to photoclubalpha, you can go to our download page for this article, and get the full size (JPEG quality 10, sRGB) images for all the shots here except the chicken pix which are already available clipped as 100% views. It is very interesting to study the twigs at the extremes of the 70mm shots from both lenses, look at the level of colour-fringe induced tinting to out of focus details, and affirm that the legendary status of the ‘beercan’ may indeed be deserved.

    And, as a final point, though I am sure the Canon will win me over in low light situations and many other ways, these tests certainly proved that the Alpha 900 has not been made obsolete by almost four years of progress.

    – David Kilpatrick

     

  • Crop or cram? Pixel density versus the big view…

    The Alpha 900 offers an unrivalled view through its 100% prism finder. The extra brightness, as well as the size and clarity, make most subjects far easier to photograph well. For some users, however, the full frame camera brings a disadvantage in terms of reach and resolution. You need lenses 50% longer (and thus twice the size, and four times the cost!) to fill the frame with the same distant sports and wildlife subjects. I don’t need to remind anyone how popular these two subjects are with amateurs, and sometimes, how important to professionals.
    (more…)

  • Sony 70-400mm vs Minolta 400mm f/4.5

    Gustav Kiburg has done an extensive test between these two lenses, posted in a Dyxum.com forum thread:
    http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/comparision-test-sony-70-400-vsminolta-400mm-f4_topic46212.html
    It’s well worth checking out.
    – DK

  • Sony Alpha 900 and Nikon D3X raw file noise comparison

    Like Mike Johnston writing in The On-Line Photographer, I’m aware that any attempt to line up one or more cameras and show comparison images or make judgements is on to a loser from the start. And any webmaster who puts an external link in the first half dozen words of a new post is losing the plot too! But here, for what it’s worth, is the first line-up of results processed using the same software from A900 and D3X uncompressed raw files converted without sharpening or noise reduction.

    (more…)

  • Studio comparison A900, 5DMkII, D3X

    This set of full size shots was taken with the still life left set up, because the Nikon and Canon cameras were not here at the same time. It compares the A900, 5DMkII and D3X using the converters supplied by the makers – Image Data Converter SR2, Digital Photo Professional, and Capture NX2. Each small image in the article can be clicked to open a Level 10 quality full size JPEG – beware, the largest is over 13MB of data.

    (more…)