Canon 5D3 vs. Sony A7ii

I wonder how the Sony A7Rii will fare....

http://www.digitalcame​raworld.com …d-mark-iii-vs-sony-a7-ii/

What a shocker that the $1000 more expensive professional grade camera is the better performer

I'd love to see how they define their RAW dynamic range as the plot the show near the end really doesn't stand up to the sniff test.

There is an old saying that goes 'figures don't lie but liars can figure'. These comparisons mean nothing. First, we know nothing about the motivations or affiliations that the testing body may have nor do we know if the tests are even being performed competently. More to the point it does't matter which of these two cameras you shoot with. Both are extraordinary pieces of technology. Pick something that you are comfortable with and will help you get the shots you want to get. Forget the tests and reviews. You don't need them to decide if something is good for you or not.

The comparison is based on SOOC JPEGs from the two cameras. Irrelevant given that the target consumer for these two cameras are going to be shooting raw.

It's when you start manipulating raw's in post that the Sony sensors start to pull away from canon in big ways.

I don't shoot thinking 'It's ok, I can salvage it in processing'. That is a lazy and short sighted approach to choosing or judging a body.

Gungnir wrote in post #17812014
I don't shoot thinking 'It's ok, I can salvage it in processing'. That is a lazy and short sighted approach to choosing or judging a body.

Uh post processing is part of the creative process. Raw files are untouched by the camera specially because they are meant to be processed in post. If you're the type of photographer that lets the camera dictate how the final jpeg file is processed then your point is valid. Though there are exceptions the vast majority of 5DIII and a7II shooters, however, shoot in raw and put their own touch and their own interpretation of the image into the processing in post.

Gungnir wrote in post #17812014
I don't shoot thinking 'It's ok, I can salvage it in processing'. That is a lazy and short sighted approach to choosing or judging a body.

And who suggested that? It doesn't matter if you have that thought or not while shooting, to not manipulate your own RAW files (instead of just letting the camera do it) is lazy and short sighted

Gungnir wrote in post #17812014
I don't shoot thinking 'It's ok, I can salvage it in processing'. That is a lazy and short sighted approach to choosing or judging a body.

Not that I would touch the Sony, or any other camera with an EVF. Still shooting in RAW and using techniques like ETTR, which I would still use with the EXMOR sensor, actually requires very precise levels of exposure to get right. Followed by careful, individual frame by frame processing of the RAW file to produce the very best results.

Oh and I wouldn't have a 5DIII or a 1DX either, I would be picking a 7DII and maybe pairing it with a 5DS if I had the money. I need the linear resolution of those bodies, combined with the OVF and the camera body ergonomics, coupled with a good AF system, which go to make up the full package. I have to choose cameras for very specific uses, to match my photographic interests, but of course I want to be able to use them for a whole range of other things too, and as I have a pretty tight budget that would rule out getting multiple specialist bodies.

Alan

mystik610 wrote in post #17812074
Uh post processing is part of the creative process. Raw files are untouched by the camera specially because they are meant to be processed in post. If you're the type of photographer that lets the camera dictate how the final jpeg file is processed then your point is valid. Though there are exceptions the vast majority of 5DIII and a7II shooters, however, shoot in raw and put their own touch and their own interpretation of the image into the processing in post.

I don't think Gungnir was suggesting that post processing is irrelevant. What I read was basically the claim that anyone who shoots seriously should make everything ready and perfect in camera/on set rather than being quick'n'dirty on set and then relying your possibilities and capabilities of your gear and software to correct everything in in post.

Post processing is surely part of the creative process, but never a substitute for mastering your gear on location. That's my philosophy.

OoDee wrote in post #17818229
I don't think Gungnir was suggesting that post processing is irrelevant. What I read was basically the claim that anyone who shoots seriously should make everything ready and perfect in camera/on set rather than being quick'n'dirty on set and then relying your possibilities and capabilities of your gear and software to correct everything in in post.

Post processing is surely part of the creative process, but never a substitute for mastering your gear on location. That's my philosophy.

Of course, but I wasn't implying that doing work in post doesn't mean you shouldn't get the exposure right in the field. Anyone who knows anything about post processing knows that the work done is post is to enhance the underlying baseline exposure, not a substitute for getting the exposure correct in the field as no amount of post processing can fix a bad file. Post processing is part of the creative process, but the amount of creative latitude you have with a file is dependent on two things:

1. How well you shot the baseline exposure
2. The capabilities of the camera/sensor and lens.

The importance of number one is a given is a matter of technique and basically understood to be most important. The challenge is that even if you get the baseline exposure as good as you can get it in the field, a SOOC raw is very flat and rarely creates the image you saw with your eyes and interpreted in your mind....so work in post is required to create the image as you envisioned it visually and metnally. It's very easy, however, to push up against the technical capabilities of the sensor when you start pushing the files in post, particularly if you were contending with challenging lighting conditions when you took the shot. The benefit of a sensor with greater technical capabilities is that it gives the photographer more latitude to create the photographs that they've envisioned, and there's a lot of value to that.

Isn't the A7ii targeted at the D7200/7Dii market? Wouldn't that make for a better comparison piece?

I can't see it competing with the 7D2 which is ALL about AF and speed. It would lose on all counts other than DR and pixels, despite costing more.

I sort of feel the same way vs. 5D3.
Sure it has a better sensor, but when you want to get down to some form of action oriented shooting, you'd better chose the 5D3.

So whether any comparison is "fair" or not, I tend to feel asking that question is usually pointless.
But I do feel this is a bit apples to oranges as both cameras excel in different aspects. Neither is better for everything.

Two people with different needs will look at these two cameras (or most any two) and will come away having decided 180 degree which is better for what they shoot.

mickeyb105 wrote in post #17820111
Isn't the A7ii targeted at the D7200/7Dii market? Wouldn't that make for a better comparison piece?

IDK how you figure that... if anything I'd say the a6000 is loosely targeted at that market.

mystik610 wrote in post #17818335
Of course, but I wasn't implying that doing work in post doesn't mean you shouldn't get the exposure right in the field. Anyone who knows anything about post processing knows that the work done is post is to enhance the underlying baseline exposure, not a substitute for getting the exposure correct in the field as no amount of post processing can fix a bad file. Post processing is part of the creative process, but the amount of creative latitude you have with a file is dependent on two things:

1. How well you shot the baseline exposure
2. The capabilities of the camera/sensor and lens.

The importance of number one is a given is a matter of technique and basically understood to be most important. The challenge is that even if you get the baseline exposure as good as you can get it in the field, a SOOC raw is very flat and rarely creates the image you saw with your eyes and interpreted in your mind....so work in post is required to create the image as you envisioned it visually and metnally. It's very easy, however, to push up against the technical capabilities of the sensor when you start pushing the files in post, particularly if you were contending with challenging lighting conditions when you took the shot. The benefit of a sensor with greater technical capabilities is that it gives the photographer more latitude to create the photographs that they've envisioned, and there's a lot of value to that.

I agree. Though I'd say that great majority of photographs (being the end results of on an location shoot + post process) are something that can be created with the most mediocre cameras, assuming that you set your exposure properly on the set. It is far more often that I see and hear photographers skipping the necessary effort during shoot and ending up trusting the capability to make things right in post process. I will claim that the cases where everything is perfectly planned and executed on set AND where a 5D3-like sensor (for example) would still be insufficient, are a great great minority. So I'll claim that the advantage of greater DR presents itself far more often in situations where the on set exposure has been poorly executed and the photographer has been forced to fall back on the extra leeway of their finest and up-to-date gear. And I admit, my own lack of skills and experience make me do that too, far too many times.

So while I agree with your two-fold analysis, I'd say the two factors are far from being equally important. For me everything starts from and falls back on proper exposure made in camera. And for me post processing is most often about finessing and polishing the raw material into an end result. I've shot equally great shots with many different cameras (e.g. 7D, 5DIII, RX100III, a6000 and the A7rii). While the A7rii has an unmatched DR in comparison to the rest of my current and previous cameras, the photos I've shot with it are by no means categorically better - because I usually rarely need to take the DR to its extremes.

I find that gear comparisons like this often put way too much emphasis on technology itself, leaving its practical impact on execution out the equation.