Noise Performance on A7s

P

paulcurtis

Veteran
So far i'm not impressed with the noise performance of the A7s that i've seen. For something with such huge pixels it seems very noisy. I have some RAW files from it that i can compare to my ancient Nex5N. These are both ISO 6400, which should be a workable ISO on the A7s. It's obvious which is which, but is it just me or does this seem a little *too* noisy for a mere 12mpix camera? Because if i denoised the Nex5N and down sampled it then it would be a damn sight cleaner than the A7s version.

I'm assuming the camera this came from is production, these were raw files uploaded to dpreview a few days back.

Is it just me?
Paul


Screen Shot 2014-06-18 at 08.40.22.jpg
Screen Shot 2014-06-18 at 08.40.17.jpg
 
For stills, looking at the samples from theluminouslandscape, I'd say it's about two-thirds-of-a-stop better than a downsampled a7r. So, better, but not hugely better.
 
Ironically...all the sample videos out there are beginning to change my mind about this little cam. Supposed to work the other way. At first the specs were really attractive. Low light it great...but there seems to be some other valid concerns about the other aspects of its video quality.
 
ReelWorksMedia said:
Ironically...all the sample videos out there are beginning to change my mind about this little cam. Supposed to work the other way. At first the specs were really attractive. Low light it great...but there seems to be some other valid concerns about the other aspects of its video quality.
Click to expand...

You're going to let "photo" guys change your mind? Did Den Lennie pulled som "trickery" in his samples? Are you happy with what he shot which got you excited about this cam in the first place? I think it's a wonderful camera for the price. Even if it's 13 stops and not 15, it is still better than all the dslr out there and don't forget, you're talking red scarlet/epic x dynamic range territory for a fraction of the price.
 
None of that means anything to me. Low light ability is great. But don't you loose it's DR effectiveness when you start to up the ISO? Meaning the more you go up the less DR you get? Also, it's not like we are dealing with a RAW video shooting camera. It's 8bit and will display the same issues as any other 8bit camera (as seen above). If this shot RAW video...then all of it's strengths could be very useful.

Now I'm starting to wonder why we have not seen a lot of video samples. (just a thought)
 
strancali said:
You're going to let "photo" guys change your mind? Did Den Lennie pulled som "trickery" in his samples? Are you happy with what he shot which got you excited about this cam in the first place? I think it's a wonderful camera for the price. Even if it's 13 stops and not 15, it is still better than all the dslr out there and don't forget, you're talking red scarlet/epic x dynamic range territory for a fraction of the price.
Click to expand...

+1
 
I was concerned about there not being very many video samples out there, but then started to think about it more and it's not too worrisome (yet). Sony has stated they have a clear release date for reviews/samples (June 20). They tend to be pretty rigid on such things and I suspect that the lack of examples is just discipline within their marketing department and testers/partners. Maybe it's the wrong approach but it's the approach they are taking and sticking with. Better to explode onto the scene than dribs and drabs.
 
Also at the end of the day, I think way too much is made of specs - especially before a camera is released. As film-makers/video producers/camera shooters all we should care about is the quality of the image (and the quality of the workflow associated with getting that image) from any given camera. Let's asses the video quality from this camera when we can, and decide to buy or not buy (or rent) it based on how that image looks, makes us feel when we see it, and how it compares to other options that are available to us. For me all I care about is if, within the price range that's available to me, is this better/easier/more versatile than what I currently use? If so, I'll buy it, if not, then I'll stick with what I'm doing, which no client has ever complained about.
 
I think the video side will be pretty good, but until we can see original files then you simply cannot judge the quality on vimeotube.

I just think the hyperbole of marketing is in full effect, with people claiming magical properties whereas i just don't think there is a massive difference in noise. I would say that the higher ISO degrade slower than previous cameras. There are lots of full sized samples out there now, mostly JPG though, but they show noise and banding (which i assume/hope is JPEG based)

I want this primarily as a stills camera but i'm caught between an A7 and A7s, one is half the price though but has potential issues with some of the lenses i own and has a really noisy shutter. But i can justify getting it if i sell the FS100.

cheers
Paul
 
I will never sell my FS100 for anything like the A7s.
Trade a workhorse for a one trick pony?

The A7s might be a nice addition for lowlight situations if the codec implementation and the HD resolution/quality is good enough.
What else should it be? Where's the sound going in, how is it getting enough power...
A lot of issues at least for me. The A7s can never be an A-cam.
 
Erik Wittbusch said:
I will never sell my FS100 for anything like the A7s.
Trade a workhorse for a one trick pony?

The A7s might be a nice addition for lowlight situations if the codec implementation and the HD resolution/quality is good enough.
What else should it be? Where's the sound going in, how is it getting enough power...
A lot of issues at least for me. The A7s can never be an A-cam.
Click to expand...

The FS100 is a B cam for us, the 700+O7Q is our main one and so getting Slog2 and the potential of 4K in a small compact form factor is quite tempting. We've not used the 100 in quite a while, it's just sitting there depreciating...

cheers
Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top