low light help
- Thread starter Campy
- Start date
i've never used the a7s, but i used the Nikon DF before and am quite satisfied with it...the shutter sound especially, something I appreciate it more after making the switch from the DF to A7R (i assume A7S is equally as loud as A7R)
Image quality/low noise wise, cant complain much about the DF, it was once the king of low light and frankly, I never find myself going to the extremes before, 6400 was the highest i ever went...
video quality wise...well...:bsmilie::bsmilie::bsmilie:
mind sharing what are your usage for?
Image quality/low noise wise, cant complain much about the DF, it was once the king of low light and frankly, I never find myself going to the extremes before, 6400 was the highest i ever went...
video quality wise...well...:bsmilie::bsmilie::bsmilie:
mind sharing what are your usage for?
Whats the question?
You have a DF so can do low light well already ??
Your asking on lenses or bodies ??
Don't think there are very significant real world difference between A7S and DF in terms of high ISO noise. However I think the bigger factor if it was me is that there are more options for primes for DF, unless you don't mind using adapters and maybe manual focus then again not much difference hehe
Looks very similar to me.
http://www.soundimageplus.com/sound...sony-a7s-compared-to-nikon-df-iso-performance
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sony...ny-A7S-versus-Nikon-Df-New-low-light-champion
I'd look at other features for differentiation.
http://www.soundimageplus.com/sound...sony-a7s-compared-to-nikon-df-iso-performance
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sony...ny-A7S-versus-Nikon-Df-New-low-light-champion
I'd look at other features for differentiation.
If you're a RAW shooter, then the DXOmark review Kadinsky posted should be relevant. The overall ISO scores indicate maybe around 1/6 stop difference (hardly anything) and the only significant variable appears to be better high ISO DR above ISO 6400.
Having not used either cameras its hard to comment but I tend to agree with Kadinsky - other variables should determine your purchase.
Having not used either cameras its hard to comment but I tend to agree with Kadinsky - other variables should determine your purchase.
I have to disagree, in my opinion if you by those cameras you have to shoot at least at 3200iso, otherwise the original a7r or a d810 is a better option.. And if you take a look at the chart the a7s is at least 1 stop and in same cases 2 full stop better then the df that is a lot!
Thanks for the clarification. Yes, DR at very high ISO does favour A7s significantly. I think I did point that out in my earlier post.
However other parameters for high ISO image quality seem pretty close.
However other parameters for high ISO image quality seem pretty close.
Yes you did, but what I wanted to point out is that the score is misleading, for example if you compare the original a7r with the a7s u will find that the ISO score shows roughly 1/3 of stop between the two, obviously that's not the case, the ISO score as dxo state in the info, is the highest ISO value possible till the camera retains 18bit color and and 30db snr.. Those are pretty high standard, it means that this kind of cameras are useless, since according to that score the maximum for the a7s should be 3700 ISO.. When instead (as you point out) especially considering my experience, the dr charts reflects more what is actually is in real world usage... That is a7r at ISO 12800.. Completely useless.. A7s still kind of clean and usable...
Thanks again for further clarification as I wasn't very sure exactly what you meant in your original comment.
I fully agree that the final scores can be misleading but can be useful as a quick guide. The graphs tell you a lot more about the sensor characteristics.
I fully agree that the final scores can be misleading but can be useful as a quick guide. The graphs tell you a lot more about the sensor characteristics.
do you really need to use 12800 ISO indoors? That must be pretty dark indoor condition. Seriously at these ISO levels, the difference are no longer that big in terms of IQ.
There are other factors to think about, to increase your shutter speed, you can look at using larger apertures, or vibration reduction (Sony's SS and Nikon's VR), deciding at what exposures to shoot, considerations on how your PP process is done.
If I am in your shoes, the factors to consider basically comes down to 1) choice of lenses, and 2) DSLR vs mirrorless debate.
There are other factors to think about, to increase your shutter speed, you can look at using larger apertures, or vibration reduction (Sony's SS and Nikon's VR), deciding at what exposures to shoot, considerations on how your PP process is done.
If I am in your shoes, the factors to consider basically comes down to 1) choice of lenses, and 2) DSLR vs mirrorless debate.
Last edited:
Df is a camera made around manual focus/retro button/dial control ethos imo. So if you live in Singapore maybe advantage goes to Sony...for sure if you will want old Nikkor MF.
Either choice is a good camera and personally I could be happy with either one (caveat is I would have to Kolari mod the Sony but that is because I like old school manual focus).
It is all up to what look you're after and how you want to go about getting that look. Both systems are first rate.
Out of curiosity what do you have currently? (I looked at profile - Nikonian...please refer to last sentence in this post)
PS. Might as well throw this out there. High ISO capability is not a magic silver bullet despite what everyone on the internet thinks. My opinion. The tripod/flash is the answer to that and it is ancient tech.
It is a tough consideration for sure...time for holding both in your hands and using them...then decide.
Either choice is a good camera and personally I could be happy with either one (caveat is I would have to Kolari mod the Sony but that is because I like old school manual focus).
It is all up to what look you're after and how you want to go about getting that look. Both systems are first rate.
Out of curiosity what do you have currently? (I looked at profile - Nikonian...please refer to last sentence in this post)
PS. Might as well throw this out there. High ISO capability is not a magic silver bullet despite what everyone on the internet thinks. My opinion. The tripod/flash is the answer to that and it is ancient tech.
It is a tough consideration for sure...time for holding both in your hands and using them...then decide.
Last edited:
Image quality wise, I doubt they have much differences. But feature wise, I think Sony give you more. In my case, I would go for the Sony, solely because of all the things they packed in the camera, especially the video mode. I do take a couple of video now and then. Of course you would need to ask yourself if all those functions in the Sony is useful to you or not though.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/nikon/df/vs/sony/a7s/
Attached is a link of some of the features Sony and Nikon done better than the other. It is not 100% accurate but give you a rough idea of what to looked up for.
Finally, I would suggest that TS go to the shop and hold both cameras to have a feel of what he/she is getting into if the purchase was made.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/nikon/df/vs/sony/a7s/
Attached is a link of some of the features Sony and Nikon done better than the other. It is not 100% accurate but give you a rough idea of what to looked up for.
Finally, I would suggest that TS go to the shop and hold both cameras to have a feel of what he/she is getting into if the purchase was made.
Last edited:
Similar threads
