Initial Thoughts on the New Sony A7R3: Hands-On

[Michael Erlewine]

The Sony A7R III arrived today. The menu system is the usual nightmare. What I need is a list of how to set it up instead of figuring it out all over again. So far, I can’t determine yet how to magnify the view so I can shoot from it. It’s not in the same league as the new Nikon D850 except perhaps in the pixel-shifted image, which of course, is why I bought it.

If I had any sense, I would send the whole thing back and just use the Nikon D850. LOL.

The pixel-shift on the A7R3 is easy to use, but for a focus-stacker very tedious, physically, but they seem to have done it right. The results are outstanding. Scary. Part of me would like to just send it back, but I probably won’t. In other words, it is not a lot of fun so far, especially since Adobe has not yet supported it. The thought of doing a 100-layer stacked image is daunting even to consider. Ouch!

The tiny paper manual ONLY tells where to look at an online version and when I do, there is about nothing there that really explains much of anything. We are really on our own. You would think that with all that money Sony must have, they could hire someone like Thom Hogan, etc. to write it right. Someone will make a fortune making it easy to know how to use this camera.

Looking at a pixel-shift image (my main interest) in Sony Imagining Edge Software is upsetting. For example, comparing the color in an image (pixel-shift) and the same image exported to PS as a TIF is troubling. The color is enough different between the two to make me wonder. The enclosed image (just a screen grab) shows the TIF colors in PS are more balanced than the same image at the same 100% in the Imaging Edge Software. The TIF is much better-balanced color. I must be the Sony Software as opposed to the image itself.

I guess I’m getting old, not only physically, but tired of endlessly moving to new equipment with all the attendant difficulties. I just want to take photos, but I can see this is a never ending stairway and perhaps not going to heaven, either. LOL.

With all my griping, the pixel-shift image at first blush is damn good. I have no excuse to send it back! Not being much of a field-shooter anymore, I don’t like the dinky-ness of the A7R3.

Anyway, I have the A7R3, am (sort of) getting used to it and am afraid I will have to keep it. LOL. We will see.

[Michael Erlewine]

Here is a proof-of-concept stacked image taken with the Sony A7R3 using pixel-shift as follows:

This is what I call a “short stack,” in this case six pixel-shifted images (each image using four pixel-shifts). These six resulting TIF images were then stacked using Zerene Stacker to produce a final stacked image.

Because I only took six images, there are areas in the photo that are not in focus, perhaps most easily seen in the Spadix (large vertical in center), where I focused on the bottom and top of the Spadix, but not in the center. If I were to take a more normal stacked image, it might have 50 or more layers, but here, to save time, I just made six images.

The result shows me that the A7R3 will work well for focus stacking, especially if they ever automate it better than they have now. I had to do each of the six images separately, since I don’t know how (or if) there is a way to batch process these at this point. I am impressed by the color and (unlike my Nikon D850), the A7R3 did not require much of any color adjustment. Interesting.

I was using the APO-El Nikkor 105mm on the Cambo Actus, with the Sony E-mount, and a little time delay. So, to repeat myself, I see no reason why this setup will not be excellent for focus stacking. However, to be really useful, we would need software that accessed a folder and automatically processed all the 4-image pixel-shift packets in that folder and (for me) then converted the composite images (in this case six) into TIF files, ready to stack in Zerene Stacker.

Aside from adjusting the exposure level, I did not post-process this image much at all.

Sorry if this is a little sloppy, but I am doing it for me and sharing it with you, if you can find it helpful.

[Michael Erlewine]

Here is an single image (unstacked) at f/16 to give you an idea of what the A7R3 can do. This is pixel-shifted using the Voigtlander 65mm Macro lens for Sony E-mount.

[Michael Erlewine]

I am “trying” to test out the Sony A7R3 in single-shot and pixel-shift mode, testing it against itself and also as close as I can to see how it compares to the Nikon D850.

These shots are taken on the Cambo Actus Mini technical camera, using the D850 and A7R3 cameras in as close to the same conditions I can manage.

They were shot within minutes of each other in natural light coming in a window on a snowy and overcast day. The lens is the APO-El Nikkor 105mm lens at f/5.6.

The larger image is just an overview shot, a pixel-shifted image from the Sony A7R3 to provide context.

There are two crops:

One is with the Nikon D850 “as taken” and a second shot as cleaned up in post. Obviously, the second image could be to whatever taste we want. This comparison does show me that the Nikon is similar (to a degree and IMO) to what we call S-log in video. It is a bit of a canvas that we must tweak and finish in post, while I notice that the images from the A7R3 are much more finished and ready-to-go. I may prefer the S-log qualities; not sure yet.

And the second image compares a single image from the A7R3 with an image that has been pixel-shifted. As for this, I don’t see all THAT much difference between the two for all the pixel-shifting work. So I hope others can test this themselves and weigh in here with your thoughts. Yes, I see some differences, but not as much as I expected.

Of course, I have a lot more to do to form my own opinion of what I am seeing.

[David H. Hartman]

Why is the out of camera D850 sample so flat?

Lately with my D800 I've been shooting with the Neutral PC and punching the image up as desired with LCH. I feel I get a better handle on exposure that way.

Thank you for posting. I'll have a look when I'm home. I'm pecking at a 720P smartphone.

Best,

Dave

When I get home I'm going to check out some videos on s-log and v-log to refresh or learn what I never knew as the case may be.

[Erik Lund]

Thanks for the report Michael!

Looks like a fun and capable little camera

I also wonder about the flat and/or dull look of the D850 image,,, and the many artefacts and double lines from the stacked Sony image,,, but ok, that's just a stack test, but how do you conclude from this that it works great?

The real look and feel is difficult to judge here with so different raw processing,,, Also, still not a good raw converter?

[richardHaw]

please forgive me if i sound daft.

the D850 can bracket the focus of your lens so you can get a series of images for stacking later with another software zerene.

so the Sony has the same thing? is pixelshift the same thing?

please help me understand this. thank you in advance.

[arthurking83]

please forgive me if i sound daft.

the D850 can bracket the focus of your lens so you can get a series of images for stacking later with another software zerene.

so the Sony has the same thing? is pixelshift the same thing?

please help me understand this. thank you in advance.

Michael uses manual lenses, AND a Cambo Actus bellows/rail .. so no AF.
No AF = inability to use D850's focus stacking feature(for Michael at least).

For Michael: you've mentioned a few times re the additional work required for colour from the D850, and the difference in colour from the Sony in it's Imagine Edge software vs Photoshop.
Surely these results are simply a matter of the different profiles used by the raw conversion software.

That is, no matter what different software you end up using on a raw file, they'll all be different to the other software in terms of colour/tone rendering unless they've been profiled to match each other.
While the D850 image looks more S-Log in terms of colour/tone reproduction, had you used either other conversion software, the result would have been different.
The unprocessed D850 image just looks like one that's been shot in the Flat Picture Control setting, and opened in Nikon Capture NX-D.
If you want an D850 image to open and render more vivid like the Sony image, you'd set the D850 to 'Vivid' or 'Landscape' Picture Control and it should look too far different for 'ya!
Alternatively in (assuming you use) ACR ... set the Vivid profile they have created as the default rendering style.

This then makes 'less work' for your D850 images too

I recently trialled the DxO Photolab software for my Nikon centric raw files .. and I reckon I may end up buying it. And so far I like the camera profiles they use as default when compared to what Adobe's camera profiles were.
But in saying that, after so many years of dealing with Nikon's camera profiles, I still don't find DxO's profiles as easy to work with as I've been used too in Nikon's software.

This is up to me to either accept(as is) and evolve with a different method, or work out a system(of presets) with DxO's raw converter that may replicate what I've become accustom too.

Judging by your comparison images between the A7III single and shifted images, other than a much more vivid colour rendering .. not much different at all.

[Michael Erlewine]

For Michael: you've mentioned a few times re the additional work required for colour from the D850, and the difference in colour from the Sony in it's Imagine Edge software vs Photoshop.
Surely these results are simply a matter of the different profiles used by the raw conversion software.

Of course, when we enter into the cow pasture of post processing, we have to watch our step. I was simply saying (saying simply) that out of the box, the Sony color looks more finished than does the Nikon. It takes less tweaking. If the Nikon profiles are all that bad, someone should make some good ones. I have tried using camera profiles by Ming Thein and they are OK, but I still have to do a lot to bring them into where I want them. I just... notice... that with the A7R3 I don't have to do much. If I look at the Nikon results as equivalent to S-log (flat) and the A7R3 results as (perhaps) to assuming, all is good. However, that's not what I was doing. I may like the Sony color approach, just as I "liked" the Hasselblad approach to color in the X1D. We are just talking here. I'm no expert.

[arthurking83]

Of course, when we enter into the cow pasture of post processing, we have to watch our step. I was simply saying (saying simply) that out of the box, the Sony color looks more finished than does the Nikon. It takes less tweaking. If the Nikon profiles are all that bad, someone should make some good ones. ....

As you said .. we have to watch our step when it comes to post processing discussion, because in general we probably aren't discussing the same thing.
What I mean by that is that your default settings will almost certainly be a bit different to my default settings .. which will be a bit different to <insert another members name here> settings ... ad infinitum

As I remember ACR(and more commonly for myself, Lightroom), you had options to use different rendering profiles.

So the term 'out of the box' in effect becomes meaningless because the box itself has so many variables and magic tricks in it that affect the initial outcome.

I haven't used Adobe software for a few years now(maybe 2 or so), even tho I could probably load up my copy of LR4 (or maybe 5 .. can't remember what the last version I had).
So I can't recall if the chosen Picture Control setting used in the cameras setup also affected the default camera profile used in the Adobe software.
That is, if you used the Vivid Picture Control in the D850, did your Adobe software render the resultant image with their incarnation of a Vivid camera profile.

So the result could be simply that .. "out of the box" .. the Sony A7III may be set to a camera colour/tone profile that is equivalent to 'Vivid' .. where the D850 may be set to 'Neutral' .. or maybe (more likely) to the 'Standard' Picture Control.

The only way you can really compare 'out of the box' images in terms of colour is that you need to shoot your images in either jpg or tif format in camera AND set any tweaks for those in camera picture profiles to zero too(as they will have a bit of tweaking to them).
The camera's sensor and internal processing(ie. tone curves) then becomes the 'box' (of magic tricks and variables) .. and the inter relationship between software vendor and camera maker is eliminated.

I mentioned that I wasn't particularly pleased with ACRs rendering of similar Nikon colour profiles, but the one thing I did try was to test how different the images would be if I shot jpg.
About the only time I'd ever shot jpg in camera(ie. simply for testing). Only then did the Nikon software(ViewNX2) and Adobe (Lightroom 4) display close to equal colour and tone rendering.

So the bottom line (the way I'm reading it) is that you've made more work for yourself with the Nikon files, due to not having implemented a similar colour/tone rendering regime in your software compared to what the software has automatically chosen for the Sony.

One thing I'd be curious to see:
Using only the Sony software(that is no Adobe/ACR/photoshop at all). Compare the differences between a single shot (ARW) file and a pixel shifted (ARQ) converted to jpg via just that software alone.

ps. my interest in all this is about the pixel shift tech, and I've always thought about getting a Pentax K1(cheap) way to play with it myself.
pps. I'm a bit of a geek/nerd about such techy stuff too!
ppps. the A7III makes it a bit more interesting due to it's more flexible lens options too.

[Michael Erlewine]

One thing I'd be curious to see:
Using only the Sony software(that is no Adobe/ACR/photoshop at all). Compare the differences between a single shot (ARW) file and a pixel shifted (ARQ) converted to jpg via just that software alone.

ps. my interest in all this is about the pixel shift tech, and I've always thought about getting a Pentax K1(cheap) way to play with it myself.
pps. I'm a bit of a geek/nerd about such techy stuff too!
ppps. the A7III makes it a bit more interesting due to it's more flexible lens options too.

I will try to do that tomorrow, if possible. I was not impressed with the color in the Sony software, but we will see. It is dark out already today, but will try it tomorrow. In the meantime, here are two images, the first is a single unshifted-frame, the first in the series of four images that were taken to create a pixel-shifted image. The second is a pixel-shifted image. 

[David H. Hartman]

So the term 'out of the box' in effect becomes meaningless because the box itself has so many variables and magic tricks in it that affect the initial outcome.

To me D850 out of the box is choose a PC, tweak if desired, have the D850 deliver a JPG or open an NEF in Nikon Captured NX-D. That's "The Nikon Box."

If an NEF is saved by the D850 with Nikon presets in a Picture Control format that is ignored by Light room, DXO or Capture One that's out of "The Second Box" and the colors and other attributes are *not* Nikon's and something potentially very  different from "Out Of The Box." 

When one adds a non-camera makers software there is no out of the box and if the second box defaults are used one is rolling the dice. If one creates their own defaults for the second second box the image is now, "Straight Out Of The Second Box With Modifications."

This is a can of worms, Yes?  Let's go fishing!        

Dave Hartman

[David H. Hartman]

A clarification: I'm not saying one should or must use the camera maker's software. If one uses a non-maker's software one will likely need to create their own defaults unless they are lucky. Using a non-maker's software as installed is a crap shoot.

Dave Hartman who can't afford to collect boxes.  

[arthurking83]

....
When one adds a non-camera makers software there is no out of the box and if the second box defaults are used one is rolling the dice. If one creates their own defaults for the second second box the image is now, "Straight Out Of The Second Box With Modifications."

This is a can of worms, Yes?  Let's go fishing!        

Dave Hartman

That's basically my point of view too.
There's no right or wrong .. just degrees of differences in what we each refer too as 'the box'!

Who knows what collaborative agreement Adobe have with Sony on the technical aspect of profiles, or the probable lack of communication between Adobe and Nikon on the same issue.
To me it makes absolutely no sense for camera makers to suppress important technical aspects such as colour/tone data, so that thirdparty software vendors can use to assist the user with such issues.
Especially so with camera makers that don't offer as intricate or powerful software as those thirdparty makers do(ie. Adobe/DxO/etc).

Michael: was there any exposure differences between the four images that went into the creation of the pixel shifted image at all?

It appears enough of a difference between those two resultant images to determine that the pixel shift feature could be a handy tool to have.

A while back I downloaded a few Pentax PEF files and their software to judge for myself (on my PC) the difference that this technology can provide.

Again, it makes no sense to me why Sony would limit the capability of this feature and force the user to the Sony software only.
I suspect more people would find it useful if they opened(or licensed) the technology to third party software vendors and allow them to leverage the same tech in new(and usually) better ways!

[Michael Erlewine]

Michael: was there any exposure differences between the four images that went into the creation of the pixel shifted image at all?

It appears enough of a difference between those two resultant images to determine that the pixel shift feature could be a handy tool to have.

A while back I downloaded a few Pentax PEF files and their software to judge for myself (on my PC) the difference that this technology can provide.

Not likely, as the day was cold, overcast, and snowing. The light was pretty stable, in the small time it takes to do four exposures.

The techsperts will figure all this out. My initial take, which no doubt will change, is that there is not THAT much difference between a single shot and a pixel-shifted shot.

I feel we are coming to some kind of parity in camera technology, a point after which further increases may always beckon us, but I believe we will soon have all that me need to take better photos. We are at the verge of getting ahead of the curve for most practical applications. At least I am starting to feel that way. With the D850 and the A7R3, I no longer feel a real need to pursue the medium-format mirrorless cameras as I once did, with their disadvantages.