Has anyone done a good comparison of the A7rIV vs medium format digital?
Sure, the super high end medium format wins,
but how about the 60 megapickle or less medium format sensors ?
How much of a difference is there?
Stephen
Sure, the super high end medium format wins,
but how about the 60 megapickle or less medium format sensors ?
How much of a difference is there?
Stephen
RichC
Well-known
I've a Sony A7R IVa, my friend a Fujifilm GFX100S. Granted his has a 40 MP advantage, but two things jump out at me when comparing the two: the Fuji has subtler tonal graduations, rolling off into highlights and shadows more gracefully, and more muted, film-like colours (less intense, if that makes sense). I think the larger sensor plays a large part in the former, but a lesser role in the latter (there is more subtlety to the Fuji colours, and I see more variation in tone and colours).
However, doubtless how the two cameras internally process the images and how raw converters process the images contribute to the differences between the images. I suspect Fuji deliberately made the colours less vibrant.
Side by side, I prefer the Fuji images. But the difference isn't huge, and I wouldn't say the Sony is worse. More of a taste thing. Some people like contrasty colours, others like gentler, more muted colours. Colours can be easily altered in postproduction anyway. And, unless printing at over a metre wide, the difference in tonality will be way less noticeable.
The GFX50S I'd imagine would be closer to the Sony in tonality. So much so I would never buy it, as a postproduction recipe would easily make the images for all practical purposes identical.
The GFX100S with both a larger sensor and more megapixels would clearly have advantages of resolution and tonality - so if I needed to print really massive or have more "finished" images out of the camera, there are arguments for the GFX100S.
Personally, I'm very happy with the A7R IVa images, and the Sony's huge flexibility and features as a tool beat the Fuji hands down, and ditto for ergonomics including size and weight. Other medium format cameras are either rather long in the tooth now (e.g. Pentax), or even more limited in features, or both. In Capture One (my raw converter of choice), I tend to increase the tonal range and reduce the intensity of colours of Sony images (and I do the same for other full-frame sensor cameras like my old Nikon D800E) as I prefer subtlety (my favourite film is Portra, even for landscapes).
However, doubtless how the two cameras internally process the images and how raw converters process the images contribute to the differences between the images. I suspect Fuji deliberately made the colours less vibrant.
Side by side, I prefer the Fuji images. But the difference isn't huge, and I wouldn't say the Sony is worse. More of a taste thing. Some people like contrasty colours, others like gentler, more muted colours. Colours can be easily altered in postproduction anyway. And, unless printing at over a metre wide, the difference in tonality will be way less noticeable.
The GFX50S I'd imagine would be closer to the Sony in tonality. So much so I would never buy it, as a postproduction recipe would easily make the images for all practical purposes identical.
The GFX100S with both a larger sensor and more megapixels would clearly have advantages of resolution and tonality - so if I needed to print really massive or have more "finished" images out of the camera, there are arguments for the GFX100S.
Personally, I'm very happy with the A7R IVa images, and the Sony's huge flexibility and features as a tool beat the Fuji hands down, and ditto for ergonomics including size and weight. Other medium format cameras are either rather long in the tooth now (e.g. Pentax), or even more limited in features, or both. In Capture One (my raw converter of choice), I tend to increase the tonal range and reduce the intensity of colours of Sony images (and I do the same for other full-frame sensor cameras like my old Nikon D800E) as I prefer subtlety (my favourite film is Portra, even for landscapes).
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Where is some odd believe what somehow digital is somehow different from film.
While MPs count has absolutely nothing to do with the sensor size.
I would prefer new incarnation of 12MP Canon 5D to any mega MPs Sonikons ugly colors from Z and A7 sensors.
While MPs count has absolutely nothing to do with the sensor size.
I would prefer new incarnation of 12MP Canon 5D to any mega MPs Sonikons ugly colors from Z and A7 sensors.
Michael Markey
Mentor
Sometimes colour isn`t the only arbiter when it comes to choosing a camera .
mapgraphs
Established
I'd agree about the tonal gradations coming out of a Sony body.
I've seen it described as highlight roll-off. It is baked in. In comparison to my Z 7 or M-240 I would say my Sony A7ii has a less subtle color ramp, similar to what I've seen with other Sony bodies. It's a subtle distinction, perhaps more noticeable with higher ISO but something that does get commented on from time to time. The output of the GFX (50/100) seems to be in the more subtle gradation/roll-off camp.
The difference is probably not something most would notice however once seen, impossible to unsee... There was some discussion about this on FM. The scene tool on DPR lets you compare and does show the difference somewhat. Use jpg in the tool if you want to compare as the RAW conversions leave something to be desired. I'd describe Sony output as something hot, most noticeable in hard light, depending on the lens of course.
Michael Markey
Mentor
I`ve noticed that with the two Sony bodies which I`ve had (A7s /A7R2).
Currently using an SL2s.
I like the output (although it can be too muted at times for my taste ) but AF just doesn`t cut it for fast action so thinking of picking up a Sony 4 .
Its then that I notice the difference between the two approaches and hesitate .
RichC
Well-known
The difference between the Sony A7R series (and also Canon and Nikon full-frame cameras, whose image qualities are similar to be fair - it's not a "Sony problem") and medium-format digital can be reduced in post-production to the extent that prints look similar. Even so, the tonal quality of medium-format digital remains superior, and the images are more "involving" to look at to my eye. However, the difference is hair splitting to a degree - the difference between great and superb, say!
Do I prefer medium-format digital images to full-frame ones? Yes. Would I give up the convenience, features and ease of use of my Sony A7R IVa for that increase in quality? No. Would a typical viewer of one of my Sony images printed very large (say 3.5 ft or 1 m) think it lacked in comparison to a similarly sized medium-format print? Unlikely.
Do I prefer medium-format digital images to full-frame ones? Yes. Would I give up the convenience, features and ease of use of my Sony A7R IVa for that increase in quality? No. Would a typical viewer of one of my Sony images printed very large (say 3.5 ft or 1 m) think it lacked in comparison to a similarly sized medium-format print? Unlikely.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Not for me. I don’t like Sonikon A7Z colorimetrics and I rarely see good colours from it.
JeffNYC
Well-known
I really like the tweak in the color science for .jpg in the Sony A7IV.. less greens...... more natural skin tones...
willie_901
Mentor
In terms of the signal-to-noise ratios for their un-rendered, raw-file data, there is not much difference.
These data do not asssess sensor-assembly design features can affect sensor MTF50 performance. Nor do they reflect how differences in raw-file demosaicking algorithms or post-production, raw file image rendering parameters might impact perceived image quality.
The GFX 50S open symbol data points above a 1200 camera ISO setting, indicate the GFX 50S uses raw-file, digital-number, multiplication instead of electronic gain to increase rendered image brightness.
The upside down triangle data points reveal the 645Z and 7RM4 implement raw-file mathematical, noise reduction above camera ISO settings of 2500 and 12800, respectively.
Below are data (also from unrendered raw file analysis) that predict rendered shadow-region, perceived, image quality.
If one optimizes sensor exposure (shutter time and aperture) for the bright regions, the shadow regions have the lowest signal-to-noise ratios. When the shadow regions are selectively brightened during post-production rendering, these data determine their perceived noise levels.
The step-wise increase in PDR at camera ISO settings 200 and 300 for the Leica and SONY respectively, show how dual PIN-diode, dual conversion-gain technology offsets any disadvantage in total maximum signal level due to their lower sensor surface areas.