Great review. Something to keep in mind for real world use, is that the massively improved IBIS of the A7RV means that you can shoot with lower shutter and hence lower ISO and still get sharp photos, compared with the A7Riv or A7R3 which would show not only noise but also more blur at the lower shutter speeds
The great thing about 61MP is the amount of detail/data that is available to feed into modern AI denoise software. It is really good these days. More info you provide the better it removes noise making 12800+ ISO perfectly printable poster size.
I use Topaz and while it does a fantastic job removing noise, I still would just rather capture an image as clean as possible. I can’t see a scenario where I shoot that high, but that’s just me and my style of photography.
@@davidherring I have used Topaz products to clean up noise for quite a while but the color noise I am getting is not even fixable with Photo AI or DeNoise software. So I guess we just put a limit on high ISO till Sony does a firmware fix. Great video, Dave!
Thank you very much for your work and opinion. I did some botanic garden shots with my new A7V in December. Since light was poor and I need a little bit of deapth I used a lot of the pictures with iso higher than 4000. If you are observing the pictures on a 32 inch screen, the pictures are OK. But when you are pixel peeping there is a lot of lost of details (detail is behind the noise). Same with the pictures of the butterflies. Here I had to use shorter time, because of the movement of the animals. For me the quintessence is: butterflies better with a light (flash is prohibitted) and plants better with a tripod and low iso. 60 megapixel with high iso is no way to go (at least for high res pictures). Have always good light. Greetings from Germany
Your analysis and reactions are spot-on (see what I did there?). This comparison is fair and useful. As you mentioned, pixel peeping and actual use are two different things. The way I use high ISO in my (very amateur) use of photography is like I used high ISO film back in the day. I expected graininess in those film-based images and was never disappointed. So a grainy, retro look (and perhaps conversion to monochrome) is how I use images that require the choice between high ISO or no image at all. Thanks for your videos.
The size of the sensor determines the noise. There is no advantage in pixel size as far as noise, but as far as clarity and details, the more pixels, the better. I saw no advantage between any camera for noise. I know some listeners will disagree with me, but the principle in lessening noise is lighting, the aperture of the lens, the ISO, and the shutter speed. Look at Tony Northrup's video for the scientific reasons.
Nice comparison! Been searching dxo, and when it says a7r3 has some of the best low light performances didn't quite believe. Guess I'm sticking with mine for some more years. And getting a second better camera for video performance
what i've noticed when i used both the 3 and 4 is the 3 has brighter pictures and the 4 has darker pictures. But the picture quality comes out so much better on the 4 then the 3 especially with details the 4 blows away the 3. Not that the 3 is bad in any way because it's not it's a very great camera much better then any canon crap but the 4 is without a doubt better then the 3. The only frustrating thing about the 4 is the buffer time and it eats up the battery faster then the 3
Very helpful and clear communication in this video - regarding noise. I too never go beyond 1600 ISO, and I’m considering trading in my A7R3 for a A7R5. You’ve given me a reason to pause. At the very least it’s become clear to me that the A7R4 is not a contender. Thank you!
The R3 really was peak compromise of function and resolution. 61mp is nice, but I’d take smaller and more headroom. That said, the new Lightroom update with AI denoise is really impressive, and this could no longer be an issue.
@@deathward990 eBay. You can still get 1200 quick or wait and someone will eventually pay 14-1500ish. I thought about it before prices continue to drop but I love the Riii too much to part with it
DXOMark still rates the A7R III as the best among the entire Sony photo camera range in terms of sensor quality. The photos that come out of it do look really great.
I returned my Riv because of the horrible low light performance. I will never part with my Riii until it craps out and even then I will probably buy another one.
I have been using my A7III since 2019 for mostly Milkyway Landscape Astrophotography and also as a general travel camera (portraits, landscape etc.) Now I have been thinking about adding a second camera body to my kit, especially for the times when I travel to remote places for Astro. I thought it would be great to have a second body to get more shots/time-lapses in a single Astro night session. Initially, I was thinking about a second A7III (costs 1800 EUR), however, I don't know whether it would make sense to buy a five-year-old camera again, instead shelling out for A7RV (3900 EUR) might step up my game for landscape and also allow for more crop and better prints. (I also shoot windsurfers occasionally, shooting with the 105mm and then being able to crop would be great) The question is; would A7RV give me better astrophotos in terms of ISO and low light performance? or will the low-light performance be a disappointment after A7III? What was your conclusion after trying out Astro on the field? If I shoot at 61MP on RV and downsample it to match the 24MP of A7III, then when comparing them side by side, will I have less noise and more SNR on the 61MP Downsampled version? My Lens Kit: Sony 24mm f1.4 GM Laowa 15mm f2.0 Zero-D Samyang 135mm 2.0 Sony 24-105mm f4 Sony 85mm f1.8 My Portfolio: www.caninelli.com/astrophotography instagram.com/caninelli/
Downsampling helps with noise for sure. If I were a hobbyist and taking photos for myself, I'd stick with the A7III. It's older, but more affordable and a MORE than capable camera, even in 2023. If you're professional, or selling prints, consider the A7RV or IV. Also, the ability to crop in may be worth it to you as well. Your kit looks great! Checked out your IG, and gave you a follow! Thanks for sharing.
great video many thanks, i have the riv and was thinking about upgrading. These kind of videos really provide me the type of tests i need as i am a 'pixel peeper' and this is great stuff
I plan on upgrading to the Sony a7r5 from the r4. And one of the only things I don’t like about the R4 is the noise. And I am a pixel peeper which I shouldn’t be but I still I am and I do not like the noise anywhere over ISO 500. I take mostly portrait and I don’t ever go over it. I also owns the A9 and a7iv and I have no issues of taking portraits of ISO 1000 to 2000 for portrait. So during my weddings in the reception I will be using either of those two cameras and I will use my R4 for the couples and group shots and the beginning of the ceremony. Great video thanks for sharing
Thanks! The smaller pixels packed into the same physical sensor will always yield more noise. One of the trade offs of shooting high mp. That’s why the A9 and 4 don’t look anywhere near as bad as the R4. But the benefits outweigh the noise if you can keep it below 800 or so. Thanks for sharing!
@@davidherring, yeah I use mostly off camera flash and 95% of the time I keep ISO at 100 on my are for and I just use a lot of flash power or high speed sync. I have been weird like that with keeping it at ISO 100 at all costs. But those images the R4 produces is so detailed it just brings a smile to my face every time
You are making the same mistake a lot of people make. Notice you are more zoomed in on the rV and Riv? I course you didn't. Next time you do a comparison, you have to compare them at the same resolution. If you do that you will find the noise to be about the same. It is a myth that high resolution means more noise.
The A7 RIII and the other Sonys do not have greater sensitivity in ISO but rather gain, which means that it is often preferable to take the photo at low ISO and then raise the blacks. There are two base ISOs in the RIII ISO 100 and Iso 640. If you want sensitivity of ISO 800 or 1600 it is better to take the photo at ISO 640 and then raise the shadows when into edition.
For me to reduce Noise for Sony A7RV Sharpness setting:does actually control the amount of Noise. Creative Look setting I set Clarity to 0,and play around with Sharpness and Sharpness Range depend on my subject.
Thanks for your video. I love how you're down to earth. I an not a hardware guy - I'm a results guy, so I'm not at all interested in trying to impress folks with my gear. I have an A7RIV, and I am not a professional. I would also say I'm not a novice. So I've fooled around with different settings and find myself a little disappointed Since I normally shoot in lower light environments, I wanted the A7IV but it wasn't released in time for a project I took on. From time to time I still jump around looking for tips and tricks from smart folks on how to get the very best low-light performance from this monster of a sensor. Have a great day!
Thanks so much Justin! One thing I've had to do when I shoot lower light (@ ISO 1600 or God-forbid, higher), is use Topaz DeNoise before I deliver my photos. It really does make a huge difference. Pretty rare for a low-light shoot for me, but if it's commercial and requires it, I have to use Topaz unfortunately.
So a suggestion. And I think a coupled of other commenters hinted at this below. But most of us who do higher ISO images are going to use de-noise in post. And most of us are shooting raw. So an additional dimension on this topic is how does the image look after some basic processing with Lightroom or Topaz or whatever. There was an interesting video by Tony Northrup a few days ago comparing the a7r4, the a7s3 and even the A1 as well as non-Sony cameras with respect to noise. He included examples before and after noise reduction was applied. And we are not talking massive amounts of or complicated noise reduction. The resolving abilities of the higher pixel cameras actually made a significant difference in the end result. I am never been a fan of Tony but this video was interesting as it pertains to noise in these higher resolution cameras vs the lower resolution cameras like the a7s3.
Thanks for the feedback Dan. I personally never shoot high ISO, but I have used Topaz even at 1600 for client delivery. Northrop does super technical test. Mine was just “an interesting look” at what I could produce.
Hi Dave, thanks for sharing your quick evaluation on high ISO for the A7RV. I have experienced the high ISO color noise on my new camera. I came from the Fujifilm systems and never had a problem with color noise like this. It is very unfortunate because these cameras are not cheap. Hopefully this is something that can be fixed with a firmware update in the future. I shot at our local zoo yesterday. They outdoor photos were excellent but going indoors and working with low light it was less than acceptable. I am hoping there will be a fix coming from Sony soon. So are you saying for indoor light we should stick to a high limit of 1600?
That’s what I do, because I don’t want to have to denoise everything. I can handle up to 1600, but I don’t go above it. Again, that’s a personal preference. Regarding the color noise, yeah, it’s frustrating. I find it much less on the RV, though. Again, I never shoot that high, so it’s not too much of an issue for me.
It stands to reason the 7riii performs best in low light with a pixel size of 4.51 microns, whereas the 7rv has smaller pixels at 3.73 microns, nearly the same size as the a6700.
Interesting video , but had to quit as that background music becomes b....y annoying. Please on other videos switch the music/noise off, I would rather listen to you.
I have made a test with a6000 and a7r3 with lens cap attached iso100 f2.8 1/125 manual focus and a6000 raw opened in windows picture viewer is black and from a7r3 is full grain
Weddings here with A7r5 and r3. I need 1/250s so the iso is what it is (and so the noise). Noise is a problem for us only. It‘s not for the clients. I‘m there for the photos. I‘m not choosing their location nor their lights. If they don‘t want my flashes, they‘re gonna live with noise in their faces.
Itching for the v but idk still. Returned my Riv within the 30 days after shooting a wedding with it and my Riii. It was a service where flash was out of the question. Most shots on the Riv i just hated. Too noisy for my taste. I had both on 1600 at 2.8. Very noticeable difference in performance. I really wish they improved around that Rii/Riii sensor. I need a Riii mark ii lmao. On a side note i tested afterwards using same settings same lens and the Riv definitely made CA worse somehow too. I don't get it. In ideal light i really did love the Riv but i couldn't justify keeping it with what i shoot.
I'm using A7r3, yes the noise is terrible at 3200-6400, but the noise at 10000 , somehow it feels charming, it's like.... free noise effect XD Maybe it's just me
Best noise reduction is DXO PhotoLab Deep Prime or DXO PureRaw. I don't like the new engine from DXO Deep PRIME xD. I just export to DNG raw and edit in another editor.
@@davidherring Its very good but not as good as DXO. DXO can also restore loss of color due to high ISO they are the only program that can do this. Also you can batch noise reduction export to DNG and edit in Lightroom if you want with DXO. Only thing I don't like about DXO they have their own lens profiles and won't support the built in lens profiles. I shoot M43 Olympus and Panasonic they put the lens profile right into the raw file.
Man I apprecia the non scientific disclaimer, but really, I've never seen a less scientific noise test than this. At least you've could have compared the same cropped frame, not in every picture pinch in and out without a reference till you find some grain. What are we supposed to tell this way? Maybe for next comparison video 🤌💪
Can confirm this, D800 after almost 13 years better than all those hype driven new cameras. I compared them all and its disappointing when it comes to raw sensor performance.
Who is shooting at 12,800? How about a parent shooting at a dimly lit high school football game. 70-200 F4 and a 1/1000 shutter will be in excess of 12,800 and let me tell you with denoise they are 100% usable images and look great. You need to open up your mind. This same test is available in DPReviews studio space and the A7R3 is the superior low light camera of the trio.
I photograph weddings inside halls and I do not use any light source, just lighting the place. Do you recommend the ba7riv with aperture of 1.4 and ISO 1000 only? I do not shoot higher than this.
@@davidherring The ISO is just a digital boost of the signals and is as such not part of the exposure. It would be more interesting to keep the same exposure, aperture and shutter speed and then vary the ISO and see what happened. 🙂
I wanted to expose every shot properly, so I kept the aperture the same and did the ISO in steps, which required a variable shutter between ISO settings.
@@larshonningsvsaag5891 I would be interested in this too, but what you described would be more of a measure of the ISO Invariance of each sensor rather than the actual high ISO performance.
Great review. Something to keep in mind for real world use, is that the massively improved IBIS of the A7RV means that you can shoot with lower shutter and hence lower ISO and still get sharp photos, compared with the A7Riv or A7R3 which would show not only noise but also more blur at the lower shutter speeds
For sure. The A7RV is an incredible camera.
Barely, add a fast moving subject to the equation and that benefit goes down the drain
@@AllCarsUnited exactly what me response was going to be.
As a mother of 4 I appreciate you leaving in the part with the kids fighting in the background and you yelling to them 😂
Haha every single day!
My 5-year old A7Riii is holding up well. The added noise is why I didn’t upgrade to the IV. The V is tempting for the autofocus and the new screen
I think the V is a worthy upgrade if you need it. Otherwise, the III is still incredible.
The great thing about 61MP is the amount of detail/data that is available to feed into modern AI denoise software. It is really good these days. More info you provide the better it removes noise making 12800+ ISO perfectly printable poster size.
I use Topaz and while it does a fantastic job removing noise, I still would just rather capture an image as clean as possible. I can’t see a scenario where I shoot that high, but that’s just me and my style of photography.
@@davidherring I have used Topaz products to clean up noise for quite a while but the color noise I am getting is not even fixable with Photo AI or DeNoise software. So I guess we just put a limit on high ISO till Sony does a firmware fix. Great video, Dave!
@@Exercises10 What ISO are you finding yourself topping out at? And which camera?
Thank you very much for your work and opinion. I did some botanic garden shots with my new A7V in December. Since light was poor and I need a little bit of deapth I used a lot of the pictures with iso higher than 4000. If you are observing the pictures on a 32 inch screen, the pictures are OK. But when you are pixel peeping there is a lot of lost of details (detail is behind the noise). Same with the pictures of the butterflies. Here I had to use shorter time, because of the movement of the animals. For me the quintessence is: butterflies better with a light (flash is prohibitted) and plants better with a tripod and low iso. 60 megapixel with high iso is no way to go (at least for high res pictures). Have always good light. Greetings from Germany
Thanks for the comment and the info!
Your analysis and reactions are spot-on (see what I did there?). This comparison is fair and useful. As you mentioned, pixel peeping and actual use are two different things. The way I use high ISO in my (very amateur) use of photography is like I used high ISO film back in the day. I expected graininess in those film-based images and was never disappointed. So a grainy, retro look (and perhaps conversion to monochrome) is how I use images that require the choice between high ISO or no image at all. Thanks for your videos.
Thanks Bert! Appreciate you!
The size of the sensor determines the noise. There is no advantage in pixel size as far as noise, but as far as clarity and details, the more pixels, the better. I saw no advantage between any camera for noise. I know some listeners will disagree with me, but the principle in lessening noise is lighting, the aperture of the lens, the ISO, and the shutter speed. Look at Tony Northrup's video for the scientific reasons.
Exactly this.
Nice comparison! Been searching dxo, and when it says a7r3 has some of the best low light performances didn't quite believe. Guess I'm sticking with mine for some more years. And getting a second better camera for video performance
I did the A7RIII + A7SIII combo for a while. Great kit!
I'm not sure about the second native iso on the 61mp cameras but the second native on the Riii is 640. Iso 640 on the Riii is less noisy than 400.
For video the dual ISO 640 / 12800 is such an amazing feature. Love dual ISO!
Oops, meant to add on the Sony A7SIII haha
Sending love from AZ. Thanks for this mini lesson and comparison. It's crazy to me how similar our paths are. Until next time!!
Heck yeah man! Hope you guys are well!
what i've noticed when i used both the 3 and 4 is the 3 has brighter pictures and the 4 has darker pictures. But the picture quality comes out so much better on the 4 then the 3 especially with details the 4 blows away the 3. Not that the 3 is bad in any way because it's not it's a very great camera much better then any canon crap but the 4 is without a doubt better then the 3. The only frustrating thing about the 4 is the buffer time and it eats up the battery faster then the 3
They’re both great cameras for sure!
I shoot on events often at 12800 with my R III and i love the performance of it. A litle denoise and adding some details in the edit - great photos!
Nice!
@@sKyyyFir3 adding?
Thank you Dave for this comparison. Super helpful. Keep creating these please.
Thanks man! Every week!
Process any high iso of these cameras with the DXO pureraw....,you can test it on trial mode and use it as a lightroom plugin. You Will be amazed!
Thanks for sharing!
Yes, I use it as a plug in, it is totally incredible (A7RIII)
Very helpful and clear communication in this video - regarding noise. I too never go beyond 1600 ISO, and I’m considering trading in my A7R3 for a A7R5. You’ve given me a reason to pause. At the very least it’s become clear to me that the A7R4 is not a contender. Thank you!
The R3 really was peak compromise of function and resolution. 61mp is nice, but I’d take smaller and more headroom. That said, the new Lightroom update with AI denoise is really impressive, and this could no longer be an issue.
How much did your A7R3 trade in gone for ? I tried trading in no one was offering post 700$
@@deathward990 eBay. You can still get 1200 quick or wait and someone will eventually pay 14-1500ish. I thought about it before prices continue to drop but I love the Riii too much to part with it
DXOMark still rates the A7R III as the best among the entire Sony photo camera range in terms of sensor quality. The photos that come out of it do look really great.
I’ll have mine forever!
I returned my Riv because of the horrible low light performance. I will never part with my Riii until it craps out and even then I will probably buy another one.
I have been using my A7III since 2019 for mostly Milkyway Landscape Astrophotography and also as a general travel camera (portraits, landscape etc.) Now I have been thinking about adding a second camera body to my kit, especially for the times when I travel to remote places for Astro. I thought it would be great to have a second body to get more shots/time-lapses in a single Astro night session.
Initially, I was thinking about a second A7III (costs 1800 EUR), however, I don't know whether it would make sense to buy a five-year-old camera again, instead shelling out for A7RV (3900 EUR) might step up my game for landscape and also allow for more crop and better prints. (I also shoot windsurfers occasionally, shooting with the 105mm and then being able to crop would be great)
The question is; would A7RV give me better astrophotos in terms of ISO and low light performance? or will the low-light performance be a disappointment after A7III? What was your conclusion after trying out Astro on the field?
If I shoot at 61MP on RV and downsample it to match the 24MP of A7III, then when comparing them side by side, will I have less noise and more SNR on the 61MP Downsampled version?
My Lens Kit:
Sony 24mm f1.4 GM
Laowa 15mm f2.0 Zero-D
Samyang 135mm 2.0
Sony 24-105mm f4
Sony 85mm f1.8
My Portfolio:
www.caninelli.com/astrophotography
instagram.com/caninelli/
Downsampling helps with noise for sure. If I were a hobbyist and taking photos for myself, I'd stick with the A7III. It's older, but more affordable and a MORE than capable camera, even in 2023. If you're professional, or selling prints, consider the A7RV or IV. Also, the ability to crop in may be worth it to you as well.
Your kit looks great! Checked out your IG, and gave you a follow! Thanks for sharing.
Maybe a used a7iv. 33mp will have less noise than the R series. Not positive about this but it seems rational idk
great video many thanks, i have the riv and was thinking about upgrading. These kind of videos really provide me the type of tests i need as i am a 'pixel peeper' and this is great stuff
Thanks! Glad the video was helpful!
I plan on upgrading to the Sony a7r5 from the r4. And one of the only things I don’t like about the R4 is the noise. And I am a pixel peeper which I shouldn’t be but I still I am and I do not like the noise anywhere over ISO 500. I take mostly portrait and I don’t ever go over it. I also owns the A9 and a7iv and I have no issues of taking portraits of ISO 1000 to 2000 for portrait. So during my weddings in the reception I will be using either of those two cameras and I will use my R4 for the couples and group shots and the beginning of the ceremony. Great video thanks for sharing
Thanks! The smaller pixels packed into the same physical sensor will always yield more noise. One of the trade offs of shooting high mp. That’s why the A9 and 4 don’t look anywhere near as bad as the R4. But the benefits outweigh the noise if you can keep it below 800 or so. Thanks for sharing!
@@davidherring, yeah I use mostly off camera flash and 95% of the time I keep ISO at 100 on my are for and I just use a lot of flash power or high speed sync. I have been weird like that with keeping it at ISO 100 at all costs. But those images the R4 produces is so detailed it just brings a smile to my face every time
You are making the same mistake a lot of people make. Notice you are more zoomed in on the rV and Riv? I course you didn't. Next time you do a comparison, you have to compare them at the same resolution. If you do that you will find the noise to be about the same. It is a myth that high resolution means more noise.
Thanks for sharing!
The A7 RIII and the other Sonys do not have greater sensitivity in ISO but rather gain, which means that it is often preferable to take the photo at low ISO and then raise the blacks. There are two base ISOs in the RIII ISO 100 and Iso 640. If you want sensitivity of ISO 800 or 1600 it is better to take the photo at ISO 640 and then raise the shadows when into edition.
Thanks for sharing!
It was the same with the Nex 7 vs the Nex 5n. A physical limitation when cramming megapixels onto a sensor.
Yeah definitely a trade off
For me to reduce Noise for Sony A7RV
Sharpness setting:does actually control the amount of Noise.
Creative Look setting I set Clarity to 0,and play around with Sharpness and Sharpness Range depend on my subject.
Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for your video. I love how you're down to earth. I an not a hardware guy - I'm a results guy, so I'm not at all interested in trying to impress folks with my gear. I have an A7RIV, and I am not a professional. I would also say I'm not a novice. So I've fooled around with different settings and find myself a little disappointed Since I normally shoot in lower light environments, I wanted the A7IV but it wasn't released in time for a project I took on. From time to time I still jump around looking for tips and tricks from smart folks on how to get the very best low-light performance from this monster of a sensor. Have a great day!
Thanks so much Justin! One thing I've had to do when I shoot lower light (@ ISO 1600 or God-forbid, higher), is use Topaz DeNoise before I deliver my photos. It really does make a huge difference. Pretty rare for a low-light shoot for me, but if it's commercial and requires it, I have to use Topaz unfortunately.
Hi David. I appreciate this test. This is super helpful. Are these the raw images, or JPG's?
RAW my friend!
@@davidherring Thank you! That's interesting that the A7RIV and the A7RV were so different. I thought with the same sensor they should look identical.
My a7RIII doesn’t have the bells and whistles compared to the RIV and RV but I’m not missing out not owning them. The sensor is 💪
The A7RIII is my fav Sony.
So a suggestion. And I think a coupled of other commenters hinted at this below. But most of us who do higher ISO images are going to use de-noise in post. And most of us are shooting raw. So an additional dimension on this topic is how does the image look after some basic processing with Lightroom or Topaz or whatever. There was an interesting video by Tony Northrup a few days ago comparing the a7r4, the a7s3 and even the A1 as well as non-Sony cameras with respect to noise. He included examples before and after noise reduction was applied. And we are not talking massive amounts of or complicated noise reduction. The resolving abilities of the higher pixel cameras actually made a significant difference in the end result. I am never been a fan of Tony but this video was interesting as it pertains to noise in these higher resolution cameras vs the lower resolution cameras like the a7s3.
Thanks for the feedback Dan. I personally never shoot high ISO, but I have used Topaz even at 1600 for client delivery. Northrop does super technical test. Mine was just “an interesting look” at what I could produce.
Hi Dave, thanks for sharing your quick evaluation on high ISO for the A7RV. I have experienced the high ISO color noise on my new camera. I came from the Fujifilm systems and never had a problem with color noise like this. It is very unfortunate because these cameras are not cheap. Hopefully this is something that can be fixed with a firmware update in the future. I shot at our local zoo yesterday. They outdoor photos were excellent but going indoors and working with low light it was less than acceptable. I am hoping there will be a fix coming from Sony soon. So are you saying for indoor light we should stick to a high limit of 1600?
That’s what I do, because I don’t want to have to denoise everything. I can handle up to 1600, but I don’t go above it. Again, that’s a personal preference. Regarding the color noise, yeah, it’s frustrating. I find it much less on the RV, though. Again, I never shoot that high, so it’s not too much of an issue for me.
It stands to reason the 7riii performs best in low light with a pixel size of 4.51 microns, whereas the 7rv has smaller pixels at 3.73 microns, nearly the same size as the a6700.
Thanks for sharing!
Still rockin the r iii
Same haha
Need to get one for my assistant, she keeps breaking them! :/
She keeps breaking Sony A7RV’s? 😂
Interesting video , but had to quit as that background music becomes b....y annoying. Please on other videos switch the music/noise off, I would rather listen to you.
Thanks for the feedback!
So agree! Background music (noise) is completely unnecessary!
The music is honestly not that bad..
Typically, all stupid RUclipsrs do this shit.
I have made a test with a6000 and a7r3 with lens cap attached iso100 f2.8 1/125 manual focus and a6000 raw opened in windows picture viewer is black and from a7r3 is full grain
Thanks for sharing!
@@davidherring Sorry it was my mistake i openedraw files in windows viewer
Weddings here with A7r5 and r3. I need 1/250s so the iso is what it is (and so the noise). Noise is a problem for us only. It‘s not for the clients. I‘m there for the photos. I‘m not choosing their location nor their lights. If they don‘t want my flashes, they‘re gonna live with noise in their faces.
Too much noise and you loose sharpness and contrast. I think it’s really a case-by-case situation. Thanks for your comment!
Itching for the v but idk still. Returned my Riv within the 30 days after shooting a wedding with it and my Riii. It was a service where flash was out of the question. Most shots on the Riv i just hated. Too noisy for my taste. I had both on 1600 at 2.8. Very noticeable difference in performance. I really wish they improved around that Rii/Riii sensor. I need a Riii mark ii lmao. On a side note i tested afterwards using same settings same lens and the Riv definitely made CA worse somehow too. I don't get it. In ideal light i really did love the Riv but i couldn't justify keeping it with what i shoot.
The RIII is really perfect. I love mine and will never get rid of it
@@davidherring I'll keep mine till it craps out. Might get another after that
Can you do side by side comparisons instead next time. Thank you
Thanks for the feedback!
I'm using A7r3, yes the noise is terrible at 3200-6400, but the noise at 10000 , somehow it feels charming, it's like.... free noise effect XD Maybe it's just me
Thanks for sharing! I’ve never pushed that high haha.
Best noise reduction is DXO PhotoLab Deep Prime or DXO PureRaw. I don't like the new engine from DXO Deep PRIME xD. I just export to DNG raw and edit in another editor.
I think the new Lightroom AI denoise is phenomenal.
@@davidherring Its very good but not as good as DXO. DXO can also restore loss of color due to high ISO they are the only program that can do this. Also you can batch noise reduction export to DNG and edit in Lightroom if you want with DXO.
Only thing I don't like about DXO they have their own lens profiles and won't support the built in lens profiles. I shoot M43 Olympus and Panasonic they put the lens profile right into the raw file.
I didn’t know that! Thanks for sharing!
I shoot 12,800 on the RIII alot for sports!
That's great. I don't use it above 1600 haha
Hello, im wondering if it is possible to share the raw files :)
I no longer have them, sorry!
Man I apprecia the non scientific disclaimer, but really, I've never seen a less scientific noise test than this. At least you've could have compared the same cropped frame, not in every picture pinch in and out without a reference till you find some grain. What are we supposed to tell this way? Maybe for next comparison video 🤌💪
This video is well over a year old, but thanks for the comment.
@@davidherring that's the magic of RUclips, videos are eternal
@ph_anto 👍
They all SUCK! My old Nikon D810 had ZERO noise compared to any of these new cameras! :(
Ok
Yours Nikon D810 has the same sensor as the Sony A7R
Can confirm this, D800 after almost 13 years better than all those hype driven new cameras. I compared them all and its disappointing when it comes to raw sensor performance.
only reason i go above 1600 iso is bird photography, in heavy overcast conditions im normally at 3-8k ISO! this is on my A7RIII
I never go above it either, and I think the A7RIII is much better with noise than the newer cameras.
Who is shooting at 12,800? How about a parent shooting at a dimly lit high school football game. 70-200 F4 and a 1/1000 shutter will be in excess of 12,800 and let me tell you with denoise they are 100% usable images and look great. You need to open up your mind. This same test is available in DPReviews studio space and the A7R3 is the superior low light camera of the trio.
The point I was making is that if I felt the need to shoot (often) at 12800, I would get the A74, not an R camera.
@@davidherring But Tony Northrup concluded that the R series is just as good if not better for low light
@@lawfirm3611 and he concluded this by showing every photo out of focus. It was completely unusable in drawing conclusions unfortunately
I photograph weddings inside halls and I do not use any light source, just lighting the place. Do you recommend the ba7riv with aperture of 1.4 and ISO 1000 only? I do not shoot higher than this.
I never shoot about ISO1600 on my prior A7RIV or my current A7RV.
What shutter speed did you use?
Varied depending on the ISO setting, but consistent across the cameras.
@@davidherring The ISO is just a digital boost of the signals and is as such not part of the exposure. It would be more interesting to keep the same exposure, aperture and shutter speed and then vary the ISO and see what happened. 🙂
I wanted to expose every shot properly, so I kept the aperture the same and did the ISO in steps, which required a variable shutter between ISO settings.
@@larshonningsvsaag5891 I would be interested in this too, but what you described would be more of a measure of the ISO Invariance of each sensor rather than the actual high ISO performance.
Muchas gracias , muy interesante
You're very welcome!
Sorry, but your "click" track is very distracting
This was one of my earliest videos and over a year old. Thanks for the feedback.
Yeah, this is why I prefer A7M4 for location photo 😁
Totally understand that.