Original Sony A7 vs latest crop sensor cameras.

Will full frame cameras, regardless of age, always out perform/resolve the latest crop sensor cameras?

Crop sensor cameras can have outstanding resolution, equal or exceeding that of FF sensors (the original A7 has 24 MP). Furthermore, the A7 had an anti-aliasing filter, which reduces resolution by about 1/3rd, and no in-body image stabilization (IBIS) found in many crop-sensor cameras. The biggest advantage of a larger sensor is lower noise and greater light sensitivity. Even so the original A7 is no champion in that regard.

 

/camera technology is evolving very rapidly, so new cameras, otherwise similar, often have better image quality and more useful features than one two or three years old.

 

I'm a Sony guy, starting with the 2nd generation A7ii, through the A9. The A7ii was the first Sony with IBIS, so I built my system on that basis (lenses are the most expensive but enduring components). Fuji and others have similar "systems", some with IBIS, which would serve equally well. Unless you have papers blowing off your desk, the original A7 is not a contender in this race.

Nasty and tricky question @Sanford !

If I take it literally and to the extremes, I'll assume we are cheaping out on the lenses too. In that case (old lens line that wasn't great on film either) I think putting a FF sensor behind it makes more sense and would try something like an A7 or 5D to gather every hint of resolution the lens is providing, with strobes and tripods.

 

If budged glass isn't limiting us, why bother with FF? - I simply dug through DxOMark picked a 5D and the best Olympus MFT they listed (OMD EM1 MK II) overall score 80 vs 71 higher color depth and dynamic range in MFT, high ISO a wash. The MFT brings 5axis OIS a maybe better, probably competitive AF, impressive frame rate etc. If you spend a lot on the finest lenses available for it, it should sing and in any other aspect like portability and light demanded for needed DOF be less of a pain in the behind than an old FF.

 

Yes the A7 is more recent. - So what? If we lean back twice as long as the gap between the cameras I picked, we'll have a similar situation.

 

In a real world scenario I'd wonder how a camera that never performed well is supposed to outperform anything decent. - I read Sony's AF improved over time? OTOH: Why bother to go beyond "good enough"? - If something earned that label in your eyes, shoot it till it falls apart and replace it with somebody else's shelf queen.

"Will full frame cameras, regardless of age, always out perform/resolve the latest crop sensor cameras? "Sanford.

 

Yes ,in low light performance. Yes, if your enlargements are the size of the Empire State building.

 

No, if you take photos of wild life or sport...do I need to explain?

 

No, if you do not like to carry around a great lump of a camera.....okay, the Sony A7 range is a bit smaller and lighter....then with the huge lumps of their lenses you might as well use a DSLR AND SAVE LOADS OF COINS. And get better performance and handling ,reliability..with a .proven products with support.

 

Sony are not really world leaders in their service or support.....they are really about moving boxes....

In terms of the superseded CCD MFD backs, they are still seen as superior to the latest "full frame" cameras in some ways. But the only 36x24 digital camera that still has classic status is the Leica M9. I am not making claims about it, I'm just telling you what people are saying and buying.

 

As far as the A7 goes, I agree with the above comments that the newest cameras with smaller sensors are superior. You would prefer an A7 to an XT-2 if you wanted to use adapted SLR lenses as they were intended, or if you wanted to use a Speed Booster for medium format lenses.

," I'm just telling you what people are saying and buying."

 

Marketing...that's why folks spend more money on a brand, that is marketed heavily like A7's on PN.

 

Little to do with anything other than marketing and web hype

Edited April 7, 2018 by Allen Herbert

It has proven time and time again photographers, looking at a large print, do not have a clue what camera or size sensor took the photo.

 

Bored with repeating the obvious.

No. Yes. Maybe. The Nikon D700, for example, neither outresolves nor outperforms the Nikon D500 with the exception of high ISO noise performance (and in that aspect one would need to define how the comparison is to be made). The latest Sony APS-C camera A6500 (released Fall 2016) according to dxomark doesn't outperform the A7 (released Fall 2013); since both are 24MP cameras, the resolution of the crop sensor is higher though. The next Sony APS-C body release quite likely will surpass the A7 performance.

The image I get out of my Nikon D300/D300s(12mp crop sensor) are in almost every quantifiable way better than images from Kodak DCS 14/n(14mp full frame).

 

I could live with the D300 as my only camera, although I prefer my D800 as a giant leap in almost every way. Even if I put aside how clunky and awkward the Kodak is, the D300 has more dynamic range, less noise(the Kodak is terrible at anything above 80-the base ISO), and overall better color rendition(the Kodak delivers funny looking caucasian skin regardless of what I do to the images, and has some odd color artifacts).

 

The D300 is an old camera in digital terms, although admittedly the Kodak is even older. It's ONLY noteworthy for being the first FF DSLR in Nikon mount. Just yesterday, I dropped out of bidding on an SLR/n. It's supposed to be a big improvement over the 14/n both in handling and image quality, but I decided I was stupid to spend $300+ on a curiosity when there are more practical things I'd like to buy(although I still want an SLR/n one of these days, and it was the first I'd seen for sale).

 

The modern crop sensors from Nikon are amazing even if some are wrapped in less than spectacular bodies. There's SOME debate about the best high ISO camera, with some citing the D3s and some the D4/Df(same sensor). I haven't really looked closely at how the D850 fares next to those, but having a backlit sensor(like the latest high end Sonys) should make a difference. It is ~3x the resolution of the D3s and D4. Also, from what I've seen the D5 is quite good also. The D850 pixel density is still lower than the 24mp consumer DSLRs, and about the same as the D500.

Edited April 8, 2018 by ben_hutcherson

There's SOME debate about the best high ISO camera, with some citing the D3s and some the D4/Df(same sensor).

According to dxomark, the latest hierarchy (excluding everything larger than FX): A7III, followed by A7S, A7RIII, A9, A7RII, Pentax K-1, Nikon Df, D3S, 1DXII: Sports | DxOMark

Marketing...that's why folks spend more money on a brand, that is marketed heavily like A7's on PN.

That's Capitalism, old chap. Give people what they want, make them want what you have. In Socialism, give people what they need and take the rest.

 

It's a pity that the "most people" to which you refer have not the intelligence to decide for themselves. Keep trying, though.

According to dxomark, the latest hierarchy (excluding everything larger than FX): A7III, followed by A7S, A7RIII, A9, A7RII, Pentax K-1, Nikon Df, D3S, 1DXII: Sports | DxOMark

 

I'm guilty of sometimes getting "tunnel vision" on Nikon stuff since I know it the best.

 

The list actually is interesting to me. I knew that both the Df and D3s were very well regarded for their high ISO performance, but I'm surprised that they rank so much better than the D4/D4s.

 

I know that the difference is splitting hairs between a lot of these bodies, but the list also reassures me in my decision a few weeks ago to buy(or rather put on lay-a-way) a D600 as a back-up to my D800.

 

Something else of interest to me in the noise rankings is the difference between the D2X and D2H. I have both cameras, and consider the D2H sensor terrible in a lot of ways(it's-to my knowledge-the only camera to use the proprietary Nikon LBCAST sensor) but without doing extensive comparisons I thought it at least had a slight noise edge over the notoriously noisy D2X. DXOMark says otherwise. I used a D2X as my main camera for a little while last year, and I was always uncomfortable with it above ISO 400. That just goes to show, though, that the D2H was clearly built for a target audience-namely people who need a fast camera without a huge amount of resolution-i.e. photojournalists.

 

Also, looking at the overall sensor rankings, there are a lot of low end and mid-range crop sensor cameras that perform better than early FFs like the D3, D700, and 1Ds. The Kodak DCS 14/x and DCS SLR/x weren't tested by DXOMark, but I suspect that they'd be WAY down the list. This is true both when one looks at overall ratings and individual ratings in color, dynamic range, and noise.

I know that the difference is splitting hairs between a lot of these bodies,

From the dxomark website: A difference in low-light ISO of 25% equals 1/3 EV and is only slightly noticeable. That amounts to a difference in score of about 900-1000 from the highest ranking ones! Or in other words: everything between 2800 and 3700 is at best 1/3 EV apart. And many people are splitting hairs over a difference of 100 or even less!

P

That's Capitalism, old chap. Give people what they want, make them want what you have. In Socialism, give people what they need and take the rest.

 

It's a pity that the "most people" to which you refer have not the intelligence to decide for themselves. Keep trying, though.

i remember the rise of the consumerist movement decades ago. Well marketing has managed to convince people that consumerism won and that everyone I saw noe an educated consumers. My father in law could have written the book (actually he might have written parts of it) . It is very easy to manipulate advertisers and consumers by how you collect your data, what you collect and whom you target. Some of the gimmicks are so simple a 2 year old could understand them and the average consumer has no idea what they are being told and how to get around regulations.

"It's a pity that the "most people" to which you refer have not the intelligence to decide for themselves. Keep trying, though" was written with tongue in cheek. Lefties seem to think they're the only one's in the know.

 

I listed and carefully evaluated attributes of several cameras with respect to my needs. Sony came out on top, but that's for me. I'm happy to describe the process, but that too would be a repetition from previous posts.

"It's a pity that the "most people" to which you refer have not the intelligence to decide for themselves. Keep trying, though" was written with tongue in cheek. Lefties seem to think they're the only one's in the know.

 

I listed and carefully evaluated attributes of several cameras with respect to my needs. Sony came out on top, but that's for me. I'm happy to describe the process, but that too would be a repetition from previous posts.

 

 

Understood

"That's Capitalism, old chap. Give people what they want, make them want what you have. In Socialism, give people what they need and take the rest.Ed.

 

It's a pity that the "most people" to which you refer have not the intelligence to decide for themselves. Keep trying, though"..Ed.

 

Wow, just have to think some folks love their privileged arseholes....guess they have blue eyes.

 

Sort of. think there's a whole world out there who question the pointy hats, white bedsheets.... thing... of the truly lost and sad.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Allen Herbert

Just a sad thought.

Sony A7's

 

With their big honking lenses.

 

And a big honking price....

""That's Capitalism, old chap. Give people what they want, make them want what you have. In Socialism, "Ed.

 

Right hard core. Pointy hats and white bedsheets..

 

Scroungers," nor do wells", sucking the life of humanity. There should be places for them so they cannot bother us with their err stuff.

 

Only one place for them....a dark place...along with the very wickedness of Socialism

 

Free health care disgusting socialism shit.....humanities suffering lines our pockets...how good is the feel of gold in your pocket. Warm and nice.

 

Who cares a monkeys about humanity when we can fill our pockets full of lovely coins and gold. Let the wothless sad poor little buggers die...who cares a monkeys....guess what...nobody.

 

Hey, we go to church every week,, and fill the coffers full of gold. .. guarantee heaven.....unlike you truly worthless poor folk....

Edited April 11, 2018 by Allen Herbert

Just a thought

Best not talk Politics

 

Piss of stuff.

 

We are all mates with our photography....

 

Lets keep it that way.

Well it is the greed of capitalism that has pushed forward technical advances. Otherwise we would still use box cameras,

Humanity.

 

Greed.

 

Sort of a sad though

 

My species is named "Greed

 

We want be friends with any species listening.

Edited April 12, 2018 by Allen Herbert

We understand that only greed will advance a civilization.

 

Please contact us.