Almost two years ago I wrote about the Sony A7. Quite a bit has changed since then in my photography world. I sold all of my Olympus micro four thirds cameras and lenses, because once I got used to the results from the full-frame Sony sensor I stopped using the Olympus gear altogether. Mind you, I still hold Olympus in very high regard and wish that their marvelous digital lenses could be used with larger sensors – but it is not possible to work around the laws of physics, so this is not to be. The laws of physics also state that the detail, dynamic range and low-light performance that are possible with a full-frame sensor will never be within the reach of a four-thirds sensor. Even if these facts are self-evident from a purely theoretical point of view, it is quite another thing to appreciate the differences by working on raw images from the two sensor series. They are not even close.
The A7 is still my “go to” camera for everyday use. It has been very reliable, and any concern that I may have had when I first got it about its build quality and durability are now largely forgotten. About a year ago, using some of the proceeds from selling my Olympus gear (as well as a Sony A6000 that I was not really using), I bought an A7r. It is an A7 on steroids, which I tend to reserve for extended photographic journeys. To the obvious fact that it has more resolution than the A7 I would like to add that, contrary to some opinions that you may come across, this additional resolution works very well with legacy manual focus lenses. It may also be slightly less noisy than the A7, but the difference in this respect is probably meaningless in most cases. I find that I can use many raw processing settings – sharpening, noise reduction, color profiles – interchangeably between both cameras.
Much more recently, within the last month, I got an A7s to complete the Sony full-frame trifecta. All my Sony cameras lack the “II” or “III” designation. This is by choice. Because my reasons to forgo in-body image stabilization (IBIS) were part of my decision to go for an A7s I will briefly mention those reasons here. In the first place, my doctrine is to keep mechanical and electronic devices as simple as possible. A sensor-shift mechanism is one more thing that can break down. Second, how much usability does IBIS add? The consensus about the A7II is about two stops, and that was more or less my experience with Olympus IBIS as well. Much of my landscape photography is from a tripod anyway, so this gain is irrelevant in that case. And for those situations in which I do not use a tripod, such as when trying to photograph cats in dark environments, or old towns after sunset, or walking around in deep shade, two stops do not make or break a photo. The A7s, on the other hand, opens up enormous possibilities for hand held photography with available light, that are not within the reach of the A7II.
Before pulling the trigger on the A7s I spent quite a few hours online trying to learn about it. I found that many before me have wondered whether the A7s or the A7II is a better choice for low-light photography. The question usually centers around which one gives you more additional usable hand-held stops, but this is only part of the equation, and only relevant if you are shooting stationary objects. A more relevant question is, I think, which one allows you to use higher shutter speeds, so as to avoid, for example, blurred cats against perfectly still backgrounds (substitute you favorite moving target – I only have patience for cats). So the question, also often asked, becomes: what is the highest “usable” ISO of the Sony A7s? And then there is the issue of its lower intrinsic resolution, which is again a consequence of the laws of physics. A better signal to noise ratio requires larger pixels. The sensitivity and resolution questions get melded in comparisons of the A7s against its higher megapixel siblings in which images from the A7 or A7r are downsized to 12 megapixels so as to compare the cameras at equivalent “effective” resolutions. It is not uncommon to read in these comparisons the opinion that, up to relatively high ISO values (say, ISO 3200 or so), there is no real advantage to the A7s, and that significantly higher ISO values in the A7s yield images that are too noisy to be usable. In other words, if you were to heed this advice, you don’t need an A7s. Although I found these discussions confusing, I was glad to find out that some of their authors made A7s raw files available for download. I downloaded a few, processed them with Capture One using my regular procedure, and decided that the conclusions arrived at by other users were not correct. I decided that I still had enough funds available from my Olympus sell-off to buy an A7s, and I am really happy that I did.
Following is a collection of Sony A7s images with some added commentary and technical information. All the images were shot in raw format using vintage manual focus lenses, and have a minimum of processing, including cropping, to make them visually more appealing. I have applied some noise reduction, which becomes more aggressive with increasing ISO, but in general I have chosen to leave some noise rather than smear the detail. It may be just my impression, but the luminance noise generated by the Sony A7s is more pleasant than that of any other camera that I have used, and tends to resemble film grain. There are no comparisons of the same subject shot with different ISO settings (I find them boring) although, because all photos come from only two weekend strolls, there is necessarily some repetition of subjects. I have not attempted to compare the A7s with the A7 or A7r, largely because I have no patience for such comparisons but also because it would be like comparing apples to oranges – there are no better or worse here, just different cameras for different purposes (which is what Sony engineers had in mind). All raw processing was done in Capture One 11 and saved as high quality jpgs at 1920 pixels on the long edge. The images are resized to 720 pixels on the longest side, but if you click on them you can see the actual files that I uploaded (1920 pixels on the longest side, which of course still is not full resolution). The photos are arranged in order of increasing ISO values, and, except for one case (ISO 10000) there is only one photo at each ISO setting .
At base ISO there is of course no discernible noise, and a few of the attributes of the A7s, that will persist to very high ISO values, become apparent. First, the superb and impressively accurate color rendition, which does justice to the old Rokkor glass (this is a first generation 85mm Rokkor, from 1968 or thereabouts). Second, the very smooth tonal gradation, very film-like. Because this photo of Engels (one of my seven cats) was shot with the f/1.7 lens fully open, the detail rendition that the sensor is capable of is not fully apparent.
I think that the smooth tonal gradation is well exhibited in this image of a little pile of rocks. The shadows open up very naturally, and the whole image has a remarkable sense of presence. In one of the many Sony A7s reviews that I came across I recall somebody stating that the images that it produces have a “medium format” look, and I think that part of the reason is that the large pixels allow for a very accurate reproduction of the natural contrast in the subject.
Not much to add here, except to note the famous bokeh of the old 85mm Rokkor lens, fully open at f/1.7 in this picture too.
At ISO 200 I was able to close up the Rokkor a bit, probably to f/2.8, and the detail on the in-focus new growth is quite impressive – a tribute to the “humble” 12 megapixel sensor (as well as to the vintage glass). And that great color is “as shot”, with the camera’s daylight setting. untouched during processing. Remember to click to bring up the original uploaded file.
Another look at the remarkable color accuracy of this camera-lens combination.
Different type of light and composition, and different lens. There is certainly nothing special about the photo, but I decided to include it because it shows, I think, that hard to define “sense of presence”.
Look at the detail on Engels’s eyes, and on the leaves with water droplets on them that are in focus (remember to click on the image).
This photo may have looked better with a bit more contrast, but I chose to leave it as it is so that it is possible to appreciate what the sensor can do with the detail provided by the Leica lens. Click on the image to get a larger version (still less than half of full resolution). Note, for example, the fine mesh fence in the middle distance, the wood grain on the bridge, and the foliage.
Another look at the resolution of the sensor, now with the 85mm Rokkor at f/8 or thereabouts. For comparison, and I realize that it is not a fair comparison, four thirds sensors already struggle at ISO 640. It is not so much a question of the number of pixels, but of the quality of individual pixels – 12 megapixels on a full frame sensor work much better than 16 megapixels on a four-thirds sensor
A slightly underexposed image. If there is any noise it is certainly not intrusive.
ISO 1000 and the out of focus background is as clean as an ISO 100 image.
Not a very exciting picture, but look at the detail in the shadows, especially towards the right background. I have read complaints about the dynamic range of the A7s and, according to DxOMark, the A7s has one full EV less dynamic range than the A7 and A7r. Perhaps, but this is not how it works in the real world, and I own, use and love all three cameras.
Marx (foster brother of Engels) gives the ISO 1600 look. Perhaps just a bit of noise in the background, but look at the detail on his eyes, nose, whiskers. The sensor faithfully reproduces all the detail that the (sometimes underappreciated) Elmarit 135mm delivers.
The same subject as in the ISO 160 image, but now at f/8 or thereabouts. We lost the dreamy bokeh, but look at the detail on the white petals.
Another somewhat uninspiring photo, but check the detail in the shadows, the very crisp detail on the water, the gorgeous tonal gradation, and the absence of noise.
Ajax and the superlative Rokkor 58mm f/1.2. I tried to get just enough noise reduction to render background noise unobtrusive while preserving as much detail as possible on his face. I only wish I had not cut off the end of his tail – in my (lame) defense, it was quite dark.
Marx struts his stuff at ISO 4000. There is some noise in the background that would have been quite easy to remove, but why lose detail on the fur, when that noise can easily pass for film grain (click for a larger image).
Noise is more visible, but is it really bothersome? And the colors remain as accurate and pleasant as at much lower ISO.
ISO 6400 is not too different from ISO 5000.
There is a bit of luminance noise in the background, which I decided not to remove because I don’t find it intrusive. I would argue that the detail on Marx’s face is still excellent (click), as is the faithful rendition of the distinctive Leica contrast and color given by the Elmarit 135mm. I think that this is a very “usable” image – at ISO 8000.
Ajax is posing here for a very different lens, the Zeiss Vario Sonnar 80-200mm. This lens is insanely sharp and very contrasty, which may in part account for there being a bit more of “texture” in the background. But look at the detail around the tip of his nose. ISO 10000 and counting.
I decided to include a second ISO 10000 image, this one shot with the 85mm Rokkor. Click to get the larger image and look at the detail on the horizontal trunk crossing the creek, the mosses and tiny plants below it, and the bark on the small tree to the right.
By now noise management begins to be more difficult. If I were to re-process this image I would be less aggressive with luminance noise reduction and preserve a bit more of detail on Ajax’s face.
Same comment as for the previous image, but check the detail and cleanliness on his right eye and ear and surrounding fur, the only part that I got in focus.
Not much has changed, and we are up to ISO 20000 !!
Here we are clearly entering “iffy” territory, but this is ISO 25600. I don’t think that I would have been able to shoot this picture with any other camera. Still, detail is quite acceptable, the color rendition is almost as good as at ISO 100, and the sense of presence given by the smooth contrast gradation is still there. Look back and forth between his paws and face.
I decided to stop this series here. You can certainly shoot at ISO 200000 or 400000, and those images would be usable in a documentary setting, but the quality is way below ISO 25600. I think that the Sony A7s is one hell of a camera, with real-world performance that, in my view, exceeds what you can expect from its specifications. Draw your own conclusions.
Wow….amazing post once again..the images are simply brilliant.I pretty much pulled the trigger on the Konica 57mm 1.4 and the 50mm 1.4 after reading both your articles on them.
I like the 57mm a lot ,i only just finally received my 50-1.4 so the jury’s still out.Not had a proper chance to test.But wow the images from those legacy lenses on that A7s makes me want to get an A7s,i went from A7 to A72 simply for better low light and image stabilization for video,but those cat pics are a definite persuasion to see what the 7s is all about.Thanks for the post,was a great read/view.
Thank you Chris. I spent many months thinking and agonizing about the A7s and finally decided to go for it. It truly surpassed my expectations. It may be limited as to maximum print size, because of the 12 Mpixels, but other than that you will not regret it if you go for one. I can’t tell you about video, as I don’t do it . Yes, legacy lenses are something. Regarding the Hexanons, I think that the 57mm has more character than the 50mm, but they are both fantastic lenses. Take care!
This looks like the universal camera we all need. ISO 25600 is still more usable than ISO 3200 on most cameras.
The resolution is still ok for me, not great, but ok.
The only thing I personally miss on the A7S and A7S2 models right now is Third party PDAF support, without this, the Techart Pro I have is not usable.
Still, mindblowing results.
Hi Cvitan – thank you for your visit. Bear in mind that these are jpgs at less than half the resolution of the raw files. It does not have the resolution of, say, the A7r, but on the other hand the images are clean and have a phenomenally controllable contrast. Unless you want to make really large prints I don’t think that the 12 Mpixels will be detrimental in any way. Regarding autofocus – I don’t use it so I can’t tell you 🙂
Hi Again Alberto,
Very nice images again, it is still the camera that I use the most, I really dig the relative simplicity (for a Sony) and unlike most people I have no major trouble with getting a grip on this tiny body, mount a small vintage lens on and couple that with the limited (and quirky to switch) but usable silent mode, and this camera is still one of the stealthiest photographic tools out there, where the lens remains interchangeable.
Couple of mods I’ve done to mine (besides the obvious screen protector):
Fitting a soft release button, not only it does help a little with vibrations, but now my finger reaches the shutter much more easily.
Fixing the EVF proximity sensor (the accidental switching made me crazy every time I flipped the screen and lifted the camera close, it really helps a lot with candid snaps)
…but ultimately, I think it might be time to sell it in the end.
Part of the reason is that I am using the high ISO for avoiding motion blur in troublesome lighting situations, where the colours just seem to go haywire and I am really struggling with that, I have tried a 6D Mark II in the same situation, and it is a lot more manageable and the ISO is still more than good enough there.
That said, even in good, even lighting I am rarely achieving the kind of excellent results that you manage to pull off (that pumpkin shot with the Summaron that you commented on is probably the one I am most happy with) I have tried multiple editing solutions, but I just don’t seem to gel with it. Still a great camera though, especially for things like astrophotography or timelapses, low-light videos, etc.
Cheers, Adam
Hello Adam,
What do you do your processing on? I use Capture One, and I believe that it makes all the difference. In my view it extracts information from the raw files that Adobe Camera Raw misses, at least for Sony ARW files. If you have not used it I suggest you give it a try before you ditch the A7S. It does have something of a learning curve, but in my experience the 30 day free trial period of the fully functional program is all you need to at least figure out if it works for you.
Best,
Alberto
Hi Alberto,
Another great post from you and since it’s the most recent in the cameras section, I’ve decided to comment here.
So I decided to try the classic lenses – and most likely will start with the Minolta MD 35-70 f/3.5 macro. But the camera option is still an open question. And while you already made the point that a full frame camera will help make the most of the vintage lenses, I’m still wondering if the APS-C is not a viable option. Since you mentioned having a Sony A6000 for a while I think you likely have a well informed opinion.
When comparing APS-C with full frame, lately I think that a better analogy than multiplying lens focal distance by the crop factor is cropping the image of the full frame. In the end, it’s really the same lens when mounted on any camera, projecting the same image on the sensor plane. It’s just that the sensor being larger or smaller captures more or less from that image. That could be regarded as an advantage for APS-C versus full frame as it’s using the center of the projected image, which is usually sharper. It also means that the equivalent resolution of the full frame sensor is much higher. Taking an APS-C section at the Fujifilm X-T30 resolution of 26Mp corresponds to 59Mp on the full frame area – nearly the resolution of the Sony A7R4.
These would be my thoughts from a technical/physics point of view. From a usage point of view, to achieve the same composition on APS-C as on the full frame, I would need to move further away from the subject. Which will increase the depth of field when focusing on the subject – but I found several times that I’d rather like a bit more depth of field, rather than less. I’m not sure if it would affect the shutter speed too (at the same aperture and ISO).
Another drawback of going with APS-C is that most likely I’ll need modern lenses for wide angle, but there seem to be viable options in the Fuji and even third-party range.
In the end, what I’m wondering is:
– If you can spot any mistakes in the reasoning above.
– If you feel (or know) that by dropping the outer part of the projected image some of the character of the vintage lenses is lost.
– If there’s anything else from you experience with APS-C that would be a strong argument for going full frame.
– If you’d have to pick just one of Sony A7 / A7R / A7II / A7RII (the relatively affordable options available for full frame – roughly 450 / 700 / 700 / 1000 GBP), which one would it be?
I’m specifically targeting the APS-C Fujifilm X-T30 (600 GBP) over the full frame Sony-s for a few reasons:
Portability – especially when considering modern lenses as well.
Better focus assist for manual focusing (split image and microprism beside focus peaking)
Higher likelihood of less post processing needed (still shooting raw, but being able to quickly use the Fuji film simulations in post-processing).
Again, apologies for the long post and many thanks in advance for any insight, advice or opinion.
Thanks,
Victor
Hi Victor,
I’ll try to address your specific questions, in the context of as many of your arguments as possible – let me know if I leave anything out:
– If you can spot any mistakes in the reasoning above.
Not in the sense that an APS-C sensor is equivalent to cropping a full frame one, and in fact that is what Sony full frame cameras do by default when you mount an APS-C lens on them, and you can also do it manually if you wish. FF sensors tend to be less noisy, because of the larger pixels, but under many conditions this is not an important consideration. I also think that your argument about resolution is not quite complete, because you have to consider the effective angle of the image that you are shooting. The way to see it, I think, is that if you are trying to compose the same image, say one corresponding to a normal focal length of 50mm, you do it with a 50mm lens covering 59Mpixels (or whatever) in a FF camera, and with a 35mm lens covering 29 Mpixels on APSC – the resolution is less, as each pixel covers a large portion of the image in the smaller sensor. Whether or not the difference matters is another question, and perhaps in most cases it does not.
– If you feel (or know) that by dropping the outer part of the projected image some of the character of the vintage lenses is lost.
The angle of view (important if you are interested in wide angle lenses as I am, probably not so much if you seldom go any wider than 50mm), perhaps the bokeh and the narrow depth of field at large apertures, and some fast lenses also tend to “glow” more fully open on smaller sensors, I’ve seen it happen but don’t quite understand why.
– If there’s anything else from you experience with APS-C that would be a strong argument for going full frame.
If you are mostly interested in landscape, architecture, macro then probably no. For portraits or other type of artistic photography where bokeh and narrow depth of field are important then yes, I would go full frame.
– If you’d have to pick just one of Sony A7 / A7R / A7II / A7RII (the relatively affordable options available for full frame – roughly 450 / 700 / 700 / 1000 GBP), which one would it be?
The plain A7 is a great camera, it was my first full frame and I still use it. The A7II is better built and adds image stabilization, which is really good. The A7R will probably give you all the resolution that you will ever want. But you can’t go wrong with the plain A7 (not sure if it is still being made, though).
Better focus assist for manual focusing (split image and microprism beside focus peaking)
Not sure that you need this. The image amplification of the Sonys allows for very critical focusing, even if you turn focus peaking off (it can be distracting sometimes)
Higher likelihood of less post processing needed (still shooting raw, but being able to quickly use the Fuji film simulations in post-processing).
I never use anybody else’s presets, nor film simulation, as I prefer to do it my way, so this would not be a factor for me.
Having said all of this, I think that Fujis are great cameras, and that their lenses are truly great, so if you are tilting that way I would not let anybody talk you out of it….
I hope this helps!
Alberto
Hi Alberto,
I can’t thank you enough for taking the time to write such a detailed answer. And it certainly helps.
I think I’ll start with some vintage lenses anyway and will give myself a bit more time to agonize about the camera body. In the end, I might just end up with two cameras and let practical experience decide where I end up. Fortunately the A7 is still available second hand (the prices cited above are all for second-hand cameras). Looking at your posts, you evolved in time in terms of the toolset used and what I’m trying to do is learn as much as possible from your experience – that you so kindly share. But then we’re all different and have different contexts, so in the end there will probably be no replacement for a bit of trial and error by myself. But anyway, I hope that thanks to you I will get a good head start and end up in a good place quicker. And even if I don’t, I’d never blame you as one of my general principles is to take full responsibility for my decisions.
So thanks again for sharing your thoughts and your experience and hope you keep making great photos.
All the best,
Victor
Hello Alberto, I have just found your website and your reviews/posts are absolutely stunning and so helpful. The wonderful “feel” of your images is very much like Phillip Reeve’s. I love the “darker artistic” effect of your images and wish I could get the same effect myself. I was a Minolta fan back in the day and now shoot JPEGs on Sony APSC gear. I have the Minolta 50mm, f2 MD and the 28mm, f3.5 ROKKOR. I sold the Minolta 35-70mm, f3.5 for some unknown reason and must buy it again and 75-150mm, f4. I look forward to any response you might have time to make. Regards, John Price
Thank you John for your visit and your very kind words! I know that feeling of selling a lens “for some unknown reason”, and then buying it again..it has happened to me. Regarding the Minolta 35-70mm, it is a stellar lens, and one that I will never let go. I have not kept up with prices for a while now, but I would definitely go for one. I have also heard great things about the MD 24-50mm lens, which might be another good choice for the APS-C sensor, as it would give you a 36-75mm equivalent range. I have never owned one, though, so I can’t offer any personal experiences.
All the best!
Alberto