5DS R, D810, A7RII image quality

Forums › Digital Imaging › 5DS R, D810, A7RII image quality

Fred99

8913 posts

Uber Geek

# 184021 6-Nov-2015 18:55

With image quality in studio shots using the same lens - most people can't tell the difference.

1 | 2

13554 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1422682 7-Nov-2015 07:18

I'm not sure why that should be a great surprise!

Fred99

8913 posts

Uber Geek

# 1423259 8-Nov-2015 19:14

Geektastic: I'm not sure why that should be a great surprise!

I could see the difference. My pick for best was the D810. It captured shadow detail / tonality better, even with what I assume was an ex-camera jpeg without post-processing.

Batman

Mad Scientist
21225 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1423324 8-Nov-2015 21:23

Geektastic: I'm not sure why that should be a great surprise!

Agreed

Involuntary autocorrect in operation on mobile device. Apologies in advance.

Batman

Mad Scientist
21225 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1423325 8-Nov-2015 21:23

Fred99:
Geektastic: I'm not sure why that should be a great surprise!

I could see the difference. My pick for best was the D810. It captured shadow detail / tonality better, even with what I assume was an ex-camera jpeg without post-processing.

And also agreed!

Involuntary autocorrect in operation on mobile device. Apologies in advance.

Geektastic

13554 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1423369 8-Nov-2015 22:38

There are differences but I think it's fair to say that they are almost negligible in terms of actually affecting the 'good image/bad image' perception for most people. All three of them offer technology that is probably far in excess of what most users actually need - you do not need such tools to photograph cats and your kids!

I own a D810 and it is a fine tool. A bit slow on high speed sometimes, I wish both card slots were of the same type and personally I would have binned the pop up flash but aside from that, very nice.

RileyB

247 posts

Master Geek

# 1423649 9-Nov-2015 13:00

Would agree I would be unlikely to spot the difference without going 1:1

I'd go Canon just on the basis of having the best lens and flashes, and being the only brand to make an 70-200 2.8

Batman

Mad Scientist
21225 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1423729 9-Nov-2015 14:16

RileyB: Would agree I would be unlikely to spot the difference without going 1:1

I'd go Canon just on the basis of having the best lens and flashes, and being the only brand to make an 70-200 2.8

The Nikon RAW shadow recovery is beyond belief (ok ok it's a Sony sensor).
But Canon makes better portrait lenses.
I'm pretty sure Nikon has a 70-200 VR 2.8 RileyB.

Involuntary autocorrect in operation on mobile device. Apologies in advance.

RileyB

247 posts

Master Geek

# 1423750 9-Nov-2015 14:25

No they have an 70-135mm 2.8 and call it an 70-200 :P

Batman

Mad Scientist
21225 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1423759 9-Nov-2015 14:39

Ah. Got you. Yes I have the Canon 70-240 2.8 - the sharpest most accurate most contrasty lens I have ever come across. But I want the 200 2.0 IS .... ANyone selling one?

Involuntary autocorrect in operation on mobile device. Apologies in advance.

Batman

Mad Scientist
21225 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1423761 9-Nov-2015 14:42

But low ISO sensor noise ... there is no competition - Nikon (Sony).
CRAZY High ISO sensor noise .... well .. who cares ;p

Involuntary autocorrect in operation on mobile device. Apologies in advance.

RileyB

247 posts

Master Geek

# 1423762 9-Nov-2015 14:42

I don't know how it's possible, but the 70-200 f4 and 200-400f4 are supposed to be even sharper (and most most 300mm+ primes)

Batman

Mad Scientist
21225 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1423763 9-Nov-2015 14:45

They are as sharp. I don't know how it can be sharper, maybe the 250MP sensor will reveal that.
Actually they can. Maybe their corner sharpness is superior. Usually Internet sharpness is center sharpness.
100-400 is a bit no man's land for me, unfortunately, sharp as it is.

Involuntary autocorrect in operation on mobile device. Apologies in advance.

RileyB

247 posts

Master Geek

# 1423766 9-Nov-2015 14:48

From what I've heard the 100-400 ii is supposed to be damn good, but not on par with the 70-200's and such. I ended up going with 400 5.6 as don't see the point in a zoom lens that I'll only ever use at 400mm :P

Batman

Mad Scientist
21225 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1423770 9-Nov-2015 14:55

joker97: But low ISO sensor noise ... there is no competition - Nikon (Sony).
CRAZY High ISO sensor noise .... well .. who cares ;p

Forgot one more thing.
Not just the freely available and mandatory noise of the 5D3 from ISO100, the mandatory AA filter on the 5D3 blurs the image for free. The D810 image detail is astounding.

Oops I see we are actually up to date and comparing the 5DS/R ... ok image detail to Canon. For now.
I'm sure nikon has a 60MP round the corner. But they will need sharper lenses first ...

~~So - I'm out of this game. I cannot win.~~

Involuntary autocorrect in operation on mobile device. Apologies in advance.

Batman

Mad Scientist
21225 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1423773 9-Nov-2015 14:56

RileyB: From what I've heard the 100-400 ii is supposed to be damn good, but not on par with the 70-200's and such. I ended up going with 400 5.6 as don't see the point in a zoom lens that I'll only ever use at 400mm :P

When there is nothing else to make sharp (look out for an 85L Mk III) maybe they'll make a 400-600 F4-5.6. That would be nice. LOL

Involuntary autocorrect in operation on mobile device. Apologies in advance.

1 | 2