When you’re beginning to learn about photography, there is a lot to understand. Apart from the basics of cameras and photography, if there is one thing that trips most beginner photographers, it’s the different kinds of lenses available for a single brand of camera body. I’ve been there myself, so I thought I’ll clear up some basics. Let’s talk about Continue Reading
Photodoto
Posts Tagged ‘differences’
What are the Differences Between Canon EF, EF-S, EF-M, RF lenses
20
Apr
Spot the differences: Comparing a $430 35mm F1.4 7Artisans lens to Leica’s $5,895 Summilux-M
19
Aug
 |
It’s well known that better optics ultimately yields better images, as higher-quality glass and components affect how the light hits the image sensor inside your camera. But just how much does cheaper glass differ from expensive glass? We’d like to think it differs quite a bit, but a recent comparison from Leica Rumors shows just how close a cheap lens can be to an incredibly expensive lens — one nearly 14X the cost.
In the blind comparison, Leica Rumors put the Leica Summilux-M 35mm F1.4 ASPH lens ($ 5,895) up against the 7Artisans 35mm F1.4 lens ($ 430). All images were shot on a Fujifilm GFX 50R, using the exact same settings. We’ve embedded the images from Leica Rumor’s Flickr account down below, presenting them in the same order Leica Rumors has on its website. You can carefully view and even download the full-resolution images from Flickr to look at more carefully. Following the images, we’ll share what photos were shot on what lens, so don’t scroll down too soon if you want to spoil the surprise.
Now that you’ve had some time to pore over the images, are you confident you know which shots are from which lens? Below are the answers:
- Scenes 1–3 (Leica is A, 7Artisans is B)
- Scene 4 (Leica is B, 7Artisans is A)
While this is a rather extreme comparison that is by no means scientific nor representative of the build quality or manufacturing conditions of either lens, it goes to show just how far optics, even budget optics, have come over the years. Ultimately, the best choice is the one that fits your need.
Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
How to Understand the Differences Between Full-Frame Versus Crop-Sensor Cameras
14
Jun
I remember how excited I was to get my first DSLR several years ago. My wife and I had a newborn and wanted to get better shots of our little baby than what a pocket camera could provide. So we soon found ourselves with a new-to-us Nikon D200 that produced stunning images of our precious little boy. The pictures wouldn’t win any prizes, but they were leagues beyond what we could get with our pocket camera or cell phone and that was fine with us.
However, the more I learned about cameras in the coming months, the more I started to think we had made a mistake because our camera was, I discovered, a crop-sensor model. Unbeknownst to us, we had spent hundreds of dollars on what was clearly an inferior camera! Or so I thought at the time. The truth, as is so often the case, is much more nuanced. I’ll explore it a bit in this article so you can understand the practical differences between these two types of cameras and hopefully decide which one is right for you.
This duck is rushing to get the latest full-frame camera he read about on the internet.
Different, not better
Before I get too deep into this article I want to make one thing clear; neither crop, nor full-frame, nor medium format, nor micro-four-thirds are any better than the others. All of them are different, and each format has its strengths and weaknesses (yes, even full-frame cameras have weaknesses!) and each is ideally suited to different types of photography. Moreover, all types of cameras are capable of taking great photos. Even mobile phones, which are basically super-duper-ultra-crop sensor cameras, can take breathtaking award-winning shots that grace not only social media feeds but billboards, walls, and pages of magazines across the world.
The term crop-sensor or full-frame refers solely to the size of the imaging sensor inside a camera. A full-frame sensor is the same size as a piece of 35mm film which was, and still is, the most widely-used type of film in analog cameras. The most common size that the term crop-sensor refers to is known as APS-C, which is the same size as a piece of film from the mid-1990’s Advantix format (also called the Advanced Photo System or APS) invented by Kodak.
How the smaller sensor affects your images
Using a smaller sensor has interesting effects on things like depth of field and apparent focal length of lenses, but it’s not a subjective measure of how good or bad a camera is. Think of it like going to an all-you-can-eat buffet with different sized plates. Shooting with a full-frame camera is like taking a normal size plate to the serving area, whereas using a crop sensor camera is like using a plate that is about 30% smaller. Both will get the job done, and both are great for different types of people. So what’s all the fuss about? Understanding some of the practical differences between these two types of plates…er…cameras will help you know which type is best for you.
So what’s all the fuss about? Understanding some of the practical differences between these two types of plates…er…cameras will help you know which type is best for you.
Crop-sensor versus Full-Frame…it’s not about which is better, but which will suit you better.
ISO performance
For years one of the immutable truths about shooting with a full-frame camera was that it automatically gave you better performance at high ISO values. While this is still mostly true today, it’s also safe to say that for a majority of practical scenarios crop-sensor cameras have picked up the slack and can hold their own fairly well when pitted against their large-sensor counterparts.
If you are looking for the ultimate in high ISO performance though, you might want to ditch that Canon Rebel and start shopping around for a 5D Mark IV or a 1DX. The reason for this discrepancy is due to physics. The pixels, or tiny individual light-sensitive bits on a camera imaging sensor, are usually larger on a full-frame camera.
Bigger buckets
For example, pretend it’s raining and you want to collect some of the water that’s falling freely in your front yard. To do so you set out 24 large buckets (so big you call them mega-buckets) next to each other and wait a few minutes for them to start filling up. Your neighbor, meanwhile, sees your plan and rushes to do the same thing but uses 24 ultra-mega-buckets that are about 30% larger than yours. When the sun comes out and the birds start to sing, who will have collected more water? I’ll give you a hint, it’s not going to be you.
Even though you and your neighbor were both harvesting rainwater with 24 mega-buckets, hers were larger in size and therefore able to collect more water. It’s kind of the same with cameras in that a model like the Nikon D5500 has a 24-megapixel image sensor which is the same as a full-frame Nikon D750. However, since the pixels on the D750 are bigger they are more sensitive to light. So, when there’s not much light available, such as a situation where you may need to shoot at ISO 6,400 or 12,800, they do a better job of collecting the light.
ISO 6400, crop-sensor Nikon D7100. Note how grainy much of the dark areas look, and the somewhat desaturated feel of the bright colors.
Shooting the same scene with a full-frame Nikon D750 yields much better results, with less overall noise and cleaner colors.
Technology advances
This analogy quickly breaks down when you consider the advances in modern technology. Most crop-sensor cameras today significantly outshine their forebears from just a few years ago when shooting at ISO 3200 or 6400. The Fuji X-T1, a modern crop-sensor camera, is about equal to the full-frame Canon 5D Mark III in terms of high ISO performance. Granted the latter is a few years old and has since been bested by other full-frame cameras, but still, the point remains that today’s crop-sensor cameras are no slouch when it comes to shooting at high ISO values.
However, if you want the absolute best in terms of high ISO sensitivity, a modern full-frame camera is usually going to be your best bet. It’s not a zero-sum game though, and there are many other practical considerations to think about. Lastly, just because a camera can shoot at ISO 25,600 doesn’t mean it’s the right one for you.
Cost and Size
There is a principal of mathematics known as modus ponens which is used as a way of showing a certain thing to be true because it follows a logical progression. Basically, it’s a formal way of saying that one thing P naturally implies Q. If P is true, then Q must also be true.
Camera Size
When we apply this rule to photography we can immediately see one disadvantage of cameras with larger sensor sizes. It goes like this; full-frame sensors are larger than cropped image sensors (i.e. condition P). Larger sensors need larger camera bodies in order to compensate for the increase in sensor size (i.e. condition Q). Therefore, cameras with larger sensors are larger than cameras with smaller sensors. Quod erat demonstrandum.
The sensor in a full-frame camera is much larger than the sensor in a crop-frame camera. Therefore, the camera itself needs to be larger too.
Price – $ $ $
Thus, we can see another key difference between cameras with various sensor sizes, and it’s something to keep in mind when considering which type of camera to buy. Image sensors range from the size of a tic-tac breath mint to that of a postage stamp, to a potato chip, and even larger when you consider highly specialized imaging devices like those used at NASA. These image sensors are not cheap to manufacture, which is why full-frame cameras can easily cost twice as much as their crop-sensor counterparts. If you go all the way up to medium format, with sensors that are significantly larger than full-frame, you can easily spend $ 10,000, $ 20,000, or more on the camera alone, without any lenses.
Crop-sensor cameras like the Nikon D3300 or the Canon Rebel T6i are smaller, less expensive, and also more portable than their full-frame counterparts. If you’re shopping for a camera, don’t need crazy-high ISO performance, and also don’t want to empty your pocketbook in the process, then a crop-sensor or micro-four-thirds camera (which has a sensor that’s about 25% as large as a full-frame camera) will suit you quite nicely.
However for many photographers, the size of their camera is of little concern, and they don’t mind the increase in size, weight, and cost that comes with venturing into the full-frame territory. Just know that bigger isn’t always better, especially because along with bigger sensors comes bigger lenses that are required to fit on them as well.
Lens Size and Selection
When considering a camera system, whether crop-sensor or full-frame, it’s not just the size of the camera that you will need to keep in mind but the size and price of the accompanying lenses as well. Lenses designed for smaller sensors are generally smaller and less expensive than lenses for full-frame cameras. A 70-200mm f/2.8 lens for full-frame cameras, which is fairly standard for many photographers, can easily cost upwards of $ 1500. Whereas a similar piece of glass like the Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 lens for crop-sensor cameras will set you back about $ 1000. It’s even better when you look at the micro four thirds system, where lenses are significantly smaller and often less expensive than comparable full-frame models.
The classic 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. Designed for full-frame cameras, it’s a fantastic lens that will give you great photos but it’s also expensive and heavy. Similar lenses for cameras with smaller sensors are smaller, lighter, and often cheaper.
However, one advantage of going with a full-frame system is the sheer quantity and variety of lenses that you have available at your disposal. Since all 35mm film cameras ever made are full-frame, you can use most of those lenses on modern cameras and sometimes you don’t even need an adapter. Many modern full-frame cameras are capable of autofocusing with older lenses too, making it easy to find high-quality glass that will suit your needs if you don’t necessarily need to buy brand-new. There is a growing selection of lenses for crop-sensor cameras, particularly in the micro-four-thirds ecosystem. But if you need access to the largest possible array of lenses than a full-frame camera might just be your best bet.
Lens Performance: Depth of Field and Focal Length
At this point, it might sound like I’m less than enthusiastic about full-frame cameras, but I promise you that’s not the case. I shoot with both crop-sensor and full-frame gear. There is a reason why full-frame cameras and lenses are highly sought-after despite their larger size, heavier weight, and greater cost. Most glass made for full-frame systems costs more and weighs more because it is higher quality. They also produce superior results compared to some of the cheaper lenses for smaller cameras. (Note that I said most, not all. Certainly, there are many outstanding lenses for APS-C and micro-four-thirds cameras. But it’s safe to say that lenses made for full-frame cameras are, for the most part, going to produce outstanding results.)
There’s also the fact that when shooting full-frame you get the benefit of a shallower depth of field. For example, portrait photographers often prefer shallow depth of field. When shooting with a large sensor and a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens you can get results that are difficult to replicate with crop-sensor gear. The math is a bit tricky, but shooting a subject at 200mm with an aperture of f/2.8 on a full-frame camera gives very different results than using a crop-sensor camera.
Examples
Shot with a 200mm lens on a full-frame camera.
I shot the photo above at 200mm with my full-frame camera, but it would have been quite different if I shot it on my crop-sensor camera. A 200mm lens behaves like a 300mm lens when mounted on an APS-C camera. That means I would have had to move much farther back to get this same composition and therefore would have significantly increased the depth of field. The background would not have been as blurry, and the pillar behind the boy would have been more in focus as well.
85mm lens on full-frame versus crop-sensor
Here’s a photo that I took with my crop-sensor D7100, using an 85mm lens at f/4.
85mm lens at f/4 shot with a crop-sensor camera.
After I took that picture I put the same 85mm lens on my full-frame D750 and while standing in the same spot, took the following image:
85mm lens at f/4 on full-frame, same physical position as the first picture.
It looks like I zoomed out, but in fact, I was using the exact same lens but on a full-frame camera. To get a picture like the one I shot initially, I had to move forward which then changed the background elements and also gave me a shallower depth of field with a background that was more out of focus.
85mm lens at f/4 shot on a full-frame camera.
The reason this happens is that with the former you are getting a picture that accurately reflects a lens’s true focal length, whereas on a crop sensor camera you are seeing a cropped version of what the lens sees.
Wide-angle
This picture of the Edmond Low Library on the Oklahoma State University campus was taken with my 35mm lens on my Nikon D7100 (crop-sensor).
35mm lens at f/4 on a crop-sensor camera.
I took the next picture sitting in the exact same spot on the library lawn, using literally the exact same 35mm lens mounted to my full-frame Nikon D750.
35mm lens at f/4 on a full-frame camera.
Nothing changed here except the camera on which the lens was mounted. The shot of the library on my crop-sensor camera is, in a very real sense, a cropped version of what you see on a full-frame camera. The implications of this are profound since it means a 35mm lens on a crop-sensor body actually behaves more like a 55mm lens. (The exact value varies just a bit depending on whether you shoot Nikon or Canon, which each use a slightly different crop factor.)
Implications – how it affects you
So what are the practical implications of this phenomenon? It means that if you are primarily interested in landscape, architecture, or other shots that are suited for wider focal lengths, a full-frame camera will generally be a good choice. However, if you like to shoot wildlife or sports, a crop-sensor camera can give you a lot of extra reach with your lenses and effectively transform a 300mm telephoto lens into a 450mm birdwatching, goal-scoring powerhouse.
I like to do close-up photography on my full-frame D750 not because it’s objective a better camera, but because there are specific features about it that I like for this type of photography.
The Final Word
After examining various differences between crop and full-frame cameras, I hope it’s clear that neither one is inherently better. Both are uniquely suited to different types of photographic tasks.
I’m always eager to hear from the dPS community on topics like this though, and if you have thoughts you would like to share on this issue please leave them in the comments below. Which system do you use and why? Are you satisfied, or are you considering switching from one format to another?
Do you have any questions after reading this article? Post a reply and in the meantime, no matter what type of camera you have, remember to get out there and use it to take pictures you enjoy.
The post How to Understand the Differences Between Full-Frame Versus Crop-Sensor Cameras by Simon Ringsmuth appeared first on Digital Photography School.
Ten important differences between Panasonic’s GH5 and GH4 (and one key similarity)
16
Jan
In-body IS
 |
Panasonic’s new GH5 flagship will be hitting the streets soon, joining the GH4 in the company’s line of video-centric cameras. With our eye on video features, we take a look at the ten biggest differences between these two cameras.
Although this article is mainly looking at video shooting, the biggest physical change between the GH5 and its predecessor promises benefits both for stills and video shooters.
The addition of five-axis image stabilization is a major step forwards for the GH series. Using Panasonic’s latest version of its I.S. system, the camera will combine internal stabilization with in-lens stabilization when shooting with own-brand lenses. For video shooters, this includes a digital stabilization element for dealing with larger or faster translational movements than physical stabilization can correct for.
Although most serious film makers won’t consider in-body stabilization to be an effective replacement for stabilization hardware, it will significantly extend the GH5’s appeal for run-and-gun video, where a little camera shake just adds a little vérité atmosphere.
Full width 4K video
 |
Using the full width of the sensor has three hugely significant benefits. First, it means that all the lenses designed for the Four Thirds format provide the angle of view that they were designed to give (putting to one side the slight crop as you move from the 4:3 aspect ratio down to 16:9). This makes it easier to find lenses that will give a wide-angle view of the world. This use of the full sensor width also means that focal length reducers (such as Speed Boosters) with Super 35 lenses will give the same field of view as they were designed to give.
Second, using the full width of the sensor means using a larger area of the sensor, which means more light capture and better noise performance. Using this larger region should mean up to a 1/2EV improvement over the cropped region the GH4 used for UHD 4K. Add to this improved noise reduction algorithms (that seem particularly effective for combating temporal noise, based on what we’ve seen), and the GH5 should be a significantly better performer as light falls.
Finally, there’s the resolution benefit that comes from oversampling. Capturing the sensor’s full resolution and then downsampling allows the capture of finer detail than is possible with just using a 4096 or 3840 x 2160 region of the sensor.
Internal 10-bit recording
 |
The addition of ten bit internal video capture is a big deal. To really understand why, we’ve gone into a bit more depth in our First Impressions Review, but at its most basic, the move to 10-bit recording means 4x the number of ‘steps’ available in each channel: 64x as much data in total. This means much more subtle gradation can be captured, meaning more tolerance for subsequent grading and processing. On top of this, the GH5 can capture with 4:2:2 chroma sub-sampling, effectively meaning twice the color resolution of the GH4.
The GH4 was one of the few cameras we’ve encountered to allow 10-bit output to an external recorder, so it’s a big deal that 10-bit 4:2:2 footage can be recorded internally on the GH5 (though you’ll still need an external recorder if you want to use the camera’s highest frame rates).
The increased grading flexibility should be especially useful for any users who buy the optional V-Log upgrade, since it gives more bit-depth to compress the camera’s dynamic range into: decreasing the risk of banding and posterization when the footage is pulled back into a end-use color space.
60p 4K capture
 |
The GH5 is only the second camera we’ve yet encountered that can shoot 4K footage at above 30 frames per second. The GH5 gains the ability to shoot UHD 4K video at 48, 50 and 59.94p.
60p (and 50p if you’re shooting for PAL output) is great for capturing fast movement, rather than giving the blurred impression of movement that 24p brings. Several shooters in the office have become big fans of the look. Alternatively, of course, It can be slowed back down to 24p, giving UHD footage at 1/2.5th speed. Either way, it’s another creative option in your toolbox to use (or not) as suits your style.
Pro video tools
 |
Dig a little deeper into the GH5 and its videographer-focused features and you’ll find it moves beyond the already impressive array offered by the GH4. In addition to existing features such as time code, SMPTE bars and the option to limit output to broadcast-safe data values, the GH5 add a series of features and capabilities.
For instance, the GH5 can present Waveform and Vectorscope representations of the scene being shot. This ability to visualize your shot using video-industry standard tools is a welcome step forward, and the first time we’ve seen them in a hybrid stills/video camera.
And, while the GH4 could already be upgraded to shoot with a Log profile (another first for a camera coming through our office), the GH5 VLog upgrade adds the ability to load Look Up Tables (LUTs) onto the camera, so that the camera can show a ‘faux-graded’ preview while shooting in the harder-to-interpret Log gamma and color mode.
The other video-friendly feature that stood out to us was the ability to pre-define a series of up to three focus distances before you start shooting, meaning that the camera can rack focus between these points in a controlled manner. It means it’s possible to refocus smoothly without a dedicated focus puller or any of the uncertainty of autofocus.
User interface (Menus and My Menu)
 |
The GH5’s user interface has received a significant overhaul. Enough of it remains the same that existing users will be able to start shooting straight away but the menus have been revamped to make them easier to navigate and remember.
In addition to the better menu categorization and improved location indication, Panasonic has also added a ‘My Menu’ tab, meaning that users can get fast access their most-used settings. These settings can then be saved onto an SD card, meaning this customization doesn’t need to be repeated every time you switch cameras.
On top of these menu changes, Panasonic has made a host of small tweaks that make a big difference to everyday operation. One such example is that the camera now remembers different focus settings for its stills and video modes, meaning that you don’t have to constantly reconfigure the camera to the differing demands of still and video work.
Secure, full-size HDMI socket
 |
Another seemingly small change to the camera’s body is the move to using a full sized HDMI socket, acknowledging the likelihood that the camera will be connected to an external monitor or recorder.
On top of this, Panasonic has included a cable retainer that screws into the camera body, in the box. This greatly decreases not only the risk of a cable coming loose, mid shoot but also significantly decreases the risk of breaking the HDMI socket, which is not unheard-of on hard-working video cameras.
XLR accessory
 |
One challenge when shooting video on still cameras is how to record high quality sound. Most still cameras include a simple audio-in mini jack, meaning that if you want to record using proper XLR-connected microphones you need to use an third party adapter or record sound off camera and sync in post.
On the GH4, Panasonic solved this with its optional YAGH unit, which included XLR inputs as well as four SDI outputs. A good solution to be sure, but it cost $ 2000!
On the GH5 Panasonic is offering what appears to be a reasonable compromise: the DMW-XLR1 microphone accessory. The XLR1 mounts to the camera’s hot shoe, includes two XLR inputs, physical switches and dials similar to what you would find on a pro video camera, and records 96kHz/24-bit sound. It even has a dummy shoe mount on top in case you need to mount another accessory, such as a wireless receiver, above. It doesn’t include SDI connectors, but we’re guessing that most GH5 users will be satisfied with HDMI-out.
We don’t have pricing information yet, but we’d like to think it will cost less than $ 2000.
Auto ISO in M movie shooting
 |
It’s a little thing, but one we very much welcome: with the GH5, Panasonic has added the ability to shoot with Auto ISO in Manual video mode.
Allowing the camera control settings in a ‘manual’ mode may seem like a head-scratcher at first but, particularly for run-and-gun shooting, it can be a really useful combination. It means that the camera operator can set their aperture and shutter speed to maintain the depth-of-field and sense of movement that they want to convey, while trusting the camera to maintain the correct exposure even if the lighting changes.
Offering exposure compensation means that the user retains control over what ‘correct’ exposure is.
Viewfinder
 |
The GH5’s rear screen has been updated but it’s the viewfinder that’s most immediately striking. Its step up to 3.68m dots means it is able to offer 1280 x 960 pixel resolution: a 25% increase in linear resolution compared with the GH4. This may not sound like a major benefit for video shooters but a to-the-eye shooting stance gives a much steadier grip for hand-held shooting than holding the camera at waist level.
The excellent, detailed viewfinder, along with built-in stabilization is only likely to encourage shooting this way, even if only for a shot here and there.
The rear screen moves from 1.04m dots (720 x 480 pixels) to 1.62m dots (900 x 600 pixels). The GH5’s panel should also be more efficient or brighter as it uses an RGB pattern with white pixels interspersed into the array, rather than the conventional RGB pattern used on the GH4.
Battery and media
 |
For all the things that have changed, Panasonic has done a good job keeping as much as possible the same. [REC] button aside, the new camera’s ergonomics are broadly unchanged, compared with its predecessor. But it’s the decision to use the same batteries and media type that’s likely to please existing GH4 users.
The GH5’s promised 400Mbps capture (due in a summer 2017 firmware update) will be too much for most current SD cards, which could have prompted a move to a different capture media. Instead, Panasonic has stayed true to the SD format and added a second slot, compatible with the forthcoming V60 class cards that will guarantee to support the appropriate data rates.
Sticking to the same DMW-BLF19 battery as the GH3 and 4 means any money invested in spare batteries won’t be wasted. The new camera is rated at 410 shots per charge, down from 530 on the GH4 but it’s unlikely many users would have welcomed the larger body and need for a whole set of extra batteries that a change in power supply would have necessitated.
Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
Sony a7R II versus a7 II: Eight key differences
07
Aug
Sony a7R II versus a7 II: Eight key differences
 |
Sony’s a7-series marked the debut of full-frame mirrorless, and Sony still dominates this market with its a7S II, a7 II and a7R II. Sony has developed a reputation for rapid development cycles, and since they all look basically the same, it can be hard to figure out the differences between its current a7-series offerings.
The higher resolution a7R II costs almost twice as much as the a7 II, and in this article we’ll be explaining why. So join us, as we take a detailed look at the major differences between the Sony a7 II and the a7R II.
Resolution
 |
The a7R II was the first camera to offer a BSI-CMOS full-frame sensor, when it was released last year. The additional resolution compared to the a7 II makes it possible to print significantly larger images, and of course there’s lots of scope for cropping.
Like all of the cameras in Sony’s a7-series, the a7 II and a7R II are both built around full-frame CMOS sensors, and the a7 II uses the same 24MP as its predecessor, the first-generation a7. The a7 II’s sensor is perfectly capable, and can deliver excellent image quality, but it’s not a patch on the 42MP sensor in the a7R II.
The increase in resolution isn’t the only reason we say that. The flagship a7R II features a back side illuminated (BSI) CMOS sensor, which offers significantly greater dynamic range, far better low light performance, and features 399 phase detection autofocus points (more on that later).
Dynamic range
 |
The Sony a7R II boasts a significantly higher base ISO dynamic range than the a7 II, and this relationship is maintained until the two camera’s highest ISO settings. Both are superior to Canon’s EOS 5D III. Source: Bill Claff
The a7 II’s older 24MP sensor lags behind the newer a7R II in terms of dynamic range at all ISO sensitivity settings. At the all-important base ISO (ISO 100 in both cameras) the difference is a little under one stop. The gap closes a touch from ISO 200-400 but widens again thereafter.
Very few things ignite (or should that be ignorate…?) quite as much argument on DPReview forums and comment sections as dynamic range, but the basic fact is this: greater dynamic range, especially at base ISO, means greater latitude for exposure adjustment in Raw mode. In cameras that offer very good dynamic range, like the a7R II and Nikon D810 (just to take two examples) this effectively negates the requirement for graduated neutral density filters, and greatly expands a photographer’s ability to capture a full tonal range in a single exposure.
The a7R II is better than the a7 II in this regard, but both are better than full-frame DSLRs in this class (we’ve plotted the EOS 5D III in this graph, from Bill Claff), which are also limited by relatively high levels of noise in shadow areas. This can become problematic when Raw files are manipulated too heavily.
Read more about the a7R II’s sensor performance
ISO sensitivity / low light
 |
Even at ISO 12,800, the a7R II’s Raw files contain bags of detail, and more dynamic range than the a7 II. When normalised at 24MP, the higher-resolution a7R II also offers superior perceptual detail and lower noise levels than the a7 II. As well as image quality, the a7R II scores over the older camera again in terms of low-light AF performance.
In the good old days, it was generally believed that the more pixels you packed onto a sensor, the noisier the images you’d get out the other end. These days of course we’re much more enlightened, and as we all know, the idea that more pixels = more noise isn’t necessarily true. And everybody is happy now because we all understand that pixel-level noise isn’t the whole story, and the time we used to spend arguing about such things on the Internet we now spend with our families, when we’re not out in the sunshine taking photographs.
Only some of that last sentence is true, but what is true is that despite having almost twice as many photo-sites as the a7 II, the 42MP a7R II offers superior high ISO image quality. When files are normalized to 24MP and viewed side-by-side, the a7R II offers at least one stop better perceptual image quality in terms of Raw noise levels, and in terms of detail retention it’s more like two stops better than its 24MP cousin.
Part of the reason for this performance gap is simply the fact that the a7R II’s sensor is a couple of years newer than a7 II’s, and sensor technology (especially at Sony) moves quickly. But fundamentally, the sensor in the a7R II is of a very different design. BSI-CMOS sensors move a lot of per-pixel electronics to the back of the sensors, out of the way, so they’re more efficient when it comes to converting photons into usable signal. As such, the a7R II isn’t just better than the a7 II, it’s better than almost every other full-frame camera we’ve ever tested. Up to around ISO 25,600 it even holds its own (when files are normalized at 20MP) against the Nikon D5.
Shutter
 |
Another benefit of BSI-CMOS sensors is the extra room afforded for more sophisticated circuitry – in the case of the a7R II that means faster readout circuitry. This allows the camera to record high frame-rate video (more on this shortly), autofocus faster than any comparable full-frame mirrorless camera (again, more shortly), and also to offer a fully electronic shutter.
Shutter-induced vibrations plagued our experience of using the original a7R, and have proved a serious headache in several other high-resolution cameras, including the Nikon D800-series. The a7 II and a7R II mitigate these issues with an electronic first-curtain shutter feature, but the a7R II also offers a totally electronic shutter option that comes with an almost negligible penalty in terms of additional noise (a traditional side-effect of electronic shutters).
We don’t recommend shooting with the fully electronic shutter option all the time, because there is the risk of some rolling-shutter distortion (i.e. if you’re panning to follow a fast-moving subject). But it is extremely handy for situations where you want to be discreet, like a performance space or a wedding ceremony.
Video
 |
The a7R II is a 4K-capable camera with a raft of high-end features, intended to appeal to professional videographers just as much as stills shooters.
The a7 II is increasingly looking like the odd one out in Sony’s current a7-series lineup, due to its lack of a 4K video capture. Of the two cameras, the a7R II is significantly more capable for shooting video, thanks not only to the addition of 4K, but numerous other features aimed specifically at the needs of professional filmmakers.
These include an oversampled Super 35mm (~APS-C) crop mode for 4K, internal recording in both HD and 4K modes and the super flat S-Log2 profile, for additional flexibility when it comes to grading footage.
The quality of the a7R II’s footage blows away the a7 II. Not only can the older camera not record 4K video, but its HD footage is softer and less detailed than the full-frame 1080 output of the a7R II. Interestingly, while the a7R II delivers superior quality 4K footage in its oversampled Super 35mm crop mode (notwithstanding a higher risk of rolling shutter), it gives much more detailed 1080 video when using its entire sensor. But the basic takeaway here is that regardless of the resolution or crop mode, the a7R II delivers better-looking video than the a7 II.
Autofocus
 |
When combined with continuous focus, Eye-AF is a great feature for capturing portraits – especially of kids that won’t stay still.
The a7 II uses the same AF hardware as its predecessor the first-generation a7, but Sony claims that autofocus performance has been improved by around 30%. In our testing we have no reason to dispute this figure, and in everyday use the a7 II’s AF is more than capable of keeping up in most situations.
The a7 II’s autofocus might be perfectly acceptable, but the a7R II is in another league. Both cameras use a ‘hybrid’ system which combines on-sensor phase-detection pixels with conventional contrast-detection but with more than twice as many phase-detection AF points as the a7 II, and the ability to focus third-party lenses (later added to a more limited extent to the a7 II via firmware) the a7R II’s AF specification impressed us greatly when it was first announced.
While it can’t keep up with the action as well as the market-leading 3D AF Tracking system found in Nikon’s current DSLRs, the a7R II’s ability to find and track an eye in Eye-AF mode for example is incredibly useful for wide-aperture portraits, and low-light AF reliability with fast lenses is almost a match for the best DSLRs.
That’s the good news – the bad news is that there’s still no way to position AF point by touch on either camera, and the a7RII and a7 II’s control and menu ergonomics make it annoyingly tricky to find, set and master their extensive autofocus settings.
Performance
 |
In terms of autofocus, the a7R II roundly outperforms the a7 II but when it comes to general operational speed it is markedly more sluggish in some ways. Image review especially can be very frustrating, as the a7R II’s huge files (made even larger if you select uncompressed Raw) can take several seconds to become available to review and zoom to check focus after they’ve been shot. When capturing sequences of images, the a7R II gives the kind of buffer-clearing times that we’ve not been used to since the early days of digital DSLRs. And we don’t say that in a nostalgic way.
The a7 II isn’t exactly a speed champion when it comes to processing speed, but it’s a little more nimble than its 42MP cousin.
Battery life
 |
Although both the a7 II and a7R II have relatively poor rated battery life, it is possible to charge the cameras over USB, and you can continue shooting while they’re charging.
With a CIPA-rated battery life of 350 shots, the a7 II offers greater endurance than the a7R II, which clocks in at a mere 290 shots per charge. But it’s a bit of a stretch to call 60 hypothetical exposures a ‘key difference’ in battery life. Honestly, they’re about in the same ballpark, and both are pretty poor. Both the a7 II and a7R II offer significantly less endurance than equivalently-priced DSLRs at 350 shots and 290 shots per charge, respectively (CIPA standard in both cases).
The a7 II has a better CIPA-rated battery life than the a7R II, but endurance in heavy real-world from either camera varies from just ok-ish to downright terrible, depending on things like the ambient temperature and the amount of video you end up shooting. We’d strongly recommend taking at least one spare battery out with you when working with either camera, but if possible, take a couple. Ideally, take several. Pop round and borrow a couple of ours. We trust you.
The somewhat lower quoted battery life of the a7R II can be explained by its more power-intensive 4K capture mode, but even if you’re mostly shooting stills and keeping image review to a minimum, don’t expect to get through a busy day’s shooting with either camera without changing your battery at least once. The good news is that both cameras feature in-camera USB charging and can still be used while charging. This might not help much if you find yourself in the middle of nowhere, but could be a life-saver when shooting at an event or in a studio.
In summary
 |
It should be obvious if you’ve read this far that the Sony a7R II is a significantly more capable camera than its stablemate the a7 II. They might look identical, but a quick run-down of just the major feature differences makes the distinction obvious enough: more pixels, 4K video, a vastly more capable autofocus system, fully electronic shutter, and more complete support for third-party lenses.
Whether these differences justify the enormous increase in price over the more basic a7 II is of course something that you have to decide for yourself. If you’re primarily or exclusively a stills shooter and you don’t have much need for continuous autofocus, the a7 II might suit you just fine. Its 24MP sensor isn’t the best around, but it’s not bad, and its 5-axis image stabilization system is very useful when shooting hand-held in poor light or at long focal lengths.
All this being said, if you’re new to the Sony a7 system, the a7 II doesn’t bring much to the table that you can’t find duplicated or outmatched in other, competitive DSLR models. The a7R II, on the other hand, offers some unique features that we suspect will make it distinct from competitive DSLRs for some time yet.
- Read our full Sony a7 II review
- Read our full Sony a7R II review
Want to compare more cameras? Click here
Did we miss anything? Let us know in the comments.
Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
Fujifilm X-Pro2 versus X-T2: Seven key differences
17
Jul
Fujifilm X-Pro2 versus X-T2: Seven key differences
 |
In the X-T2 and X-Pro2, Fujifilm offers two flagship cameras that have a lot in common, but are designed for slightly different purposes. So which one should you buy? We’ve broken down the key differences.
Video
 |
Let’s get probably the biggest differentiator out of the way right up front – the X-T2 offers 4K video, while the X-Pro2 makes do with standard HD. The addition of 4K to the X-T2 surprised us a little when we first saw it on the spec sheet, but it’s clear that Fujifilm sees this feature as an important ‘must have’ in a camera as versatile as the X-T2. The X-T2 can record video in clips up to 10min duration, or 30min when the optional power booster grip is attached.
The X-Pro2, on the other hand, is meant for a different kind of photographer – one who is more stills-oriented, and more likely to shoot with prime lenses than zooms. The addition of 4K to the X-Pro2 would have certainly increased its cost – and the engineers tell us that it would also have increased its size and weight as a consequence of the necessity for a beefed-up heat sink. So if you need 4K, the X-T2 is the camera for you.
Rear LCD screen
 |
The X-Pro2, being the more ‘traditional’ of the two cameras, has a simple, fixed rear LCD. In contrast, and in keeping with its ultra-versatile ‘do anything’ design philosophy, the X-T2 features a complex, multi-articulating screen that enables easy framing from high and low angles in both landscape and portrait orientations. This articulating design is also more useful for video work.
The decision by Fujifilm (which actually manufactures capacitive membranes for touchscreens) not to include touch sensitivity in either camera is a little disappointing. Also a bit odd is the resolution difference between the screens on the back of the X-T2 and X-Pro2. The X-Pro2’s screen resolution is 1.6 million dots – somewhat higher than the 1.04 million-dot screen on the back of the X-T2 (it’s the difference between 900 x 600 rather than 720 x 480 pixels).
So in summary: If you want screen articulation, go for the X-T2. If you don’t mind a fixed screen, you’ll get slightly higher resolution from the X-Pro2.
Viewfinder
 |
At a quick glance, the electronic viewfinder specifications of the X-Pro2 and X-T2 are very similar. Both are centered around the same 2.36 million-dot OLED display, and both offer a window on the world that is both sharp and detailed. But the X-T2’s electronic viewfinder is the better of the two, for a couple of important reasons.
First is the addition of ‘burst mode’ to the X-T2, which increases the refresh rate of the live view image in the camera’s viewfinder to 100fps. And second is the complex optical assembly (shown above) that focuses the viewfinder’s image into your eye. The X-T2’s EVF is one of the best electronic finder that we’ve ever used. Its unusually high magnification of 0.77X and 100% frame coverage place it a level above the 92% coverage and 0.60X of the X-Pro2.
But before we dismiss the X-Pro2 altogether…
Viewfinder
 |
The X-Pro has one major trick up its sleeve – its viewfinder is a ‘hybrid’ type, that also offers a rangefinder-style optical view, which employs frame-lines to preview composition.
The difference between an optical and electronic viewfinder experience is hard to explain until you’ve compared them directly, but if you’re shooting with prime lenses between 28 and 50mm equivalent, the X-Pro2’s optical finder is a delight. Electronic manual focus assist in optical finder mode is an added bonus. The X-T2’s fully electronic finder is a better choice if you’re primarily a zoom lens user.
Ergonomics
 |
While the basic control logic of the X-T2 and X-Pro2 is very similar (and more or less standard across the entire X-series) the two cameras are ergonomically quite different. The rangefinder-style X-Pro2’s viewfinder is positioned off to the left of the camera (with its back facing you) while the X-T2’s finder sits in a DSLR-style ‘hump’ in line with the lens axis.
Which of these designs appeals more to you is a matter of personal preference (skip back to the previous slide for a better explanation of the technical differences between the two cameras’ viewfinders) but the experience of shooting with them is subtly different as a result.
The X-Pro2 (shown above) is designed with stills shooters primarily in mind, and more specifically, stills shooters who like to use prime lenses. The X-Pro2 doesn’t handle quite as well with Fujifilm’s longer, heavier zooms, whereas these are the kinds of lenses that the X-T2 is specifically designed to be paired with. With the optional power booster grip attached, the X-T2 balances nicely, even with Fujifilm’s beefiest lenses. And of course, that grip also duplicates key controls for vertical format shooting.
Faster…
 |
Of these two cameras, the X-T2 is the faster. Designed to cater to the needs of sports and action photographers the X-T2 boasts a maximum continuous shooting rate of 8 fps, with continuous autofocus. This can be increased to 11 fps in boost mode, with the optional grip. The fastest framerate with live view maintained is less, at 5 fps, but this is still plenty fast enough for most subjects. In fully electronic shutter mode, maximum framerate caps out at 14 fps.
The X-Pro2, in contrast, is limited to 8 fps with autofocus, and a mere 3 fps with live view maintained in the viewfinder.
These are different horses designed for different courses. The speed-oriented X-T2 also boasts a USB 3.0 interface, capable of considerably greater data transfer rates than the USB 2.0 interface of the X-Pro 2. In addition both the X-T2’s SD card slots are compatible with the latest UHS-II interface type, whereas only the #1 slot of the X-Pro2 can make full use of these cards.
…and longer
 |
As well as increasing the X-T2’s speed and duplicating its controls for vertical format shooting, the optional power booster grip also triples the camera’s battery life. It’s not magic – the grip simply accommodates an additional two batteries, bringing the total number of available cells to three. Hence three times the endurance, to a rated ~1000 exposures.
The X-Pro2 lacks an accessory grip, and endurance caps out at around 250 exposures with the EVF, and ~350 when the optical finder is used (CIPA ratings in all cases).
Autofocus
 |
The X-T2 incorporates Fujifilm’s most advanced autofocus system yet. It boasts 325 AF points (169 of which offer phase detection) which work in concert to offer a ‘hybrid’ autofocus system. Extensive customization of the X-T2’s continuous autofocus performance is made possible with Canon-style AF setting ‘sets’.
For now, the X-T2’s AF is superior to the very similar system found in the X-Pro2, but this is Fujifilm we’re talking about – the most firmware updatey company of them all (except perhaps Samsung – RIP). As such, we’re told that the X-Pro2’s autofocus system will be brought up to par with the X-T2’s in terms of baseline performance by way of a firmware update scheduled for autumn.
Autofocus
 |
Note that the X-T2’s AF-C customization options (above) will remain unique to this model though, meaning that the X-T2 will remain a better choice if AF performance – or action photography in general – are your priorities.
Which one should you buy?
 |
If you’re in the market for a new camera and the Fujifilm X-Pro2 and X-T2 are on your list, chances are that both will keep you pretty happy. As far as image quality is concerned, we’re very pleased by the output from their 24MP APS-C sensor, and in video mode, both models are lightyears ahead of previous-generation X-series cameras. The X-T2 scores over the X-Pro2 in terms of video simply by the addition of a pretty impressive 4K specification, and both cameras produce good-looking HD footage.
Beyond the basics, the X-Pro2 is probably a better choice for prime lens photographers, thanks to its off-center hybrid viewfinder which offers both electronic and optical viewing options. If you mostly shoot candids, street portraits or non-moving subjects in general, its lower maximum shooting rate, (slightly) more basic AF system and non-articulating LCD screen might not bother you at all.
In contrast, the faster, more action-oriented X-T2 is a better all-rounder. It can take pictures more quickly, its viewfinder can refresh more quickly, the rear LCD articulates in useful ways, and with the optional power booster grip attached, it offers a vastly better battery life. It’s also much more comfortable to use with Fujifilm’s heavier zoom lenses than the boxier X-Pro2.
Did we miss anything? Let us know in the comments.
Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
You must be logged in to post a comment.