Oh wow, I’ve read your comments for years! Not parody, I honestly think there’s something wrong with the results & they should be checked. I’m a Nikon shooter.

Preferably just the base iso with a second copy body & lens!

Yes, rechecking of the work is fine, but deleting the material before any other test would to me would be wrong. I too have no doubt the test was done carefully.

However, I would think that when DPR posted this they too noticed the results and felt confident going forward with them. I don't think they just posted this casually without noticing.

Perhaps try to come up with an explanation for why the camera produces those results?

Yes, I think an explanation is needed from Sony, if, in fact, this camera produces soft images; it’s being marketed and reviewed elsewhere as having equivalent image quality. Here’s how I’d go about it: get another copy of the A7cr, shoot one shot at base iso, then one shot with the A7rV w/same settings/lens. If the rc is still soft, then we have confirmation—which is quite a scoop for DPReview—that there’s something fishy. Follow up w/an explanation from Sony, if they’ll bite. But, if the shots come back equivalent, DReview takes down the current test, shoots another & bolsters their credibility. It’s win-win for DPReview, it seems to me.

I don't think they should remove anything (always best to keep all info available) but definitely post a re-shoot with an already reviewed camera and the new location. (they must have done it, don't expect identical results, as it may not be the very same camera body -- may be they use loner cameras ...)
It would also be good (I assume they do) to keep a "reference" camera + lens and to shoot it just before or after the test , just for their own peace of mind.

J-mf, I don’t think it’s their new studio setup, I think it’s most likely either the copy of the camera or lens they used is suspect—or it was just mis-focused (also possibly b/c of camera malfunction, maybe a firmware issue?). Not sure how their new studio setup would lead to bad focus, but maybe?

--> raphaelmatto
I don't think there is a way to guess.
the only scientific method is to repeat , and then change settings one a time
---here the big change is moving the set-up : it needs to be validated (not just the set up, but also the lighting, possibly the vibrations in the building) ...the only way (and also a way to insure continuity) is to re-shoot with previously tested equipment (ideally , a few previously tested cameras)
--- then, you can try with a different specimen of the new camera + len
---just to be sure,try some bracketing of the focus (just in case, )
ideally, (but only people like lensrentals can do it, do some statistics about the variability inside the same model ...before that , no way to know (but my guess would be that the pro testers have done their homework, and don't publish without checking ...)

I won't go on forever ... just to mention that measurements and tests are all about reliability (reproducibility). Some older articles on DPR were dealing with the test from LensRentals ..really impressive, (but optical bench, rather than general image result).
In science, considerable time is spent just ensuring reproducibility. Take the world's largest particle collider in Geneva. After each "shutdown", the 2 main collaborations (3000+ physicists each) go back to measure a "garden variety" particle (the Z boson, 0.091 TeV, while they are currently searching for TeV particles) to show the apparatus works as expected (and correct any glitch). Not only do they perform the measurements, they keep the data available at conferences (at the very least in back-up slides, but sometimes they bother us with the nitty-gritty!).
In the present case a standard camera is needed (and ideally take one shot before each test)...this would save time for all future tests.

@Dragonrider

Scale the A7CR's image down to the Z7 II's size, and you get similar noise/detail. And again, scale down the A7CR's image to the R7's size, and the R7 is noisier.

The fact that the A7CR is even being compared to the R7, an APS-C camera that costs half as much, is an indictment for the A7CR, at least these test images.

@ Thoughts R Us . That was my point in making the comparison. The above comment about scaling is specious in that the R7 has smaller pixels than the A7CR, but less noise at the pixel level at higher ISOs. Sony seems to have lost high ISO performance relative to both Nikon and Canon with the last few releases.

@Thoughts R Us

Welcome to a decade ago or more. You can compare most high res FF against most APS-C and end up with similar results, because they use a similar pixel pitch.

I agree with Dragonrider. The high ISO noise in the Sony images is blotchier and in general looks worse. I am surprised because Sony used to be more of a leader here.

@Thoughts R Us

Try testing the samples and you'll see it's not an issue, beyond being internet war fuel.

“I am amazed at how forgiving and balanced the approach is by some when there are some shortcomings in a Sony device, but then exaggerate the flaws of any other brand :)”

Dude you literally do this

What "bias" are you accusing me of?

It's not a secret that I've a preference for Sony cameras. That doesn't mean I bash non-Sony cameras. In fact, I have hardly made any comments about non-Sony cameras in the last few years.

The difference between you and me is that I don't write over 70 comments of the same point to denigrate one particular brand, or post lies to show one brand is better than other or post in bad-faith.

Raw (nef, arw) are encoded and encryption by the manufacture of tiff color space. Lens corrections can be baked into the raw by the camera engine, you just don't know. dpreview have been mentioning about camera correction into the raw. Dig deeper

you just don't understand, manufacturers can do anything to the raw if they want. The time it gets captured to the sensor and processed by the chip to become raw. code and algorithms are needed to produce the raw anyways.
Yes, sony and any company can do some raw cooking if they want to.
just google raw cooking and read foryourself.

enlighten yourself from another dpreview reader too:
https://www.lonelyspeck.com/sony-star-eater-and-how-to-fix-it/#Update%20December,%202018

""Many raw file formats, including IIQ (Phase One), 3FR (Hasselblad), DCR, K25, KDC (Kodak), CRW CR2 (Canon), ERF (Epson), MEF (Mamiya), MOS (Leaf), NEF NRW (Nikon), ORF (Olympus), PEF (Pentax), RW2 (Panasonic) and ARW, SRF, SR2 (Sony), are based on TIFF, the Tag Image File Format.[4] These files may deviate from the TIFF standard in a number of ways, including the use of a non-standard file header, the inclusion of additional image tags and the encryption of some of the tag data."" --Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format

i am done. noise reduction can be baked into the raw for sure. ca "i think" they can. ok, len correction maybe harder, but possible. but i think sony examor chip is fast enough.

Yes, the RAWs still have manufacturer manipulation built in, or are "cooked." They have to be, unless you are given the actual data of the electrical signals of the sensor created by the incoming light waves. They still represent the engineering choices of the manufacturer.

One way we know this is that each company has its own proprietary RAW file format, and the software that works on RAW, like Adobe LR, each has their own unique way of processing those files.

So it's not like there is one magic RAW file format that everyone uses and is the same.

RAW will contain more information than jpeg, and is an attempt to give you as much "raw" data as possible, but there is no such thing as a true RAW file without some manufacturer "cooking."

@Thoughts R Us

Only the ADC does any cooking consistently, because it's necessary to turn the captured light signal into data. In the end, each RAW pixel represents a single color, along with a range of brightness. This is the basic data you get in a RAW file. It can be seen in software like RawDigger, which will give you a full undebayered view.

As far as compatibility between brands, the absolute biggest issue is EXIF data. Each brand has its own tags and data, and if anything significant is changed, even just by 1 number/letter, software won't be able to read it. It's the same as when people edit name tags, to allow compatibility for new cameras on software that hasn't been updated yet. The RAWs still open and work properly, because RAW data is RAW data.

Cooking is mainly done with types of NR or resizing (Canon & Pentax RAW NR, Sony extended ISO/long exposure RAW NR, debayered S/M RAW, etc.). Nearly everything else tends to be guided by EXIF, not the RAW data.

So are they using the same lens on the Canon and Nikon as they are on the Sonys?

@RD: Said the poster who bragged about the pixel sharpness of his D850 years ago.

There is a big difference.

How is the 45MP R5 able to have more sharpness than the 60MP A7R V, and substantially less noise?

Are Canon sensors intrinsically better or something?

Also there is quite a lot of Noise reduction baked into R5 RAWs even at base ISO .

Small writings in the R5 camera can be read even at ISO 51200. While they are completely unreadable in Sony cameras. Even with higher resolution

@Adam-T there's none at mid or higher ISOs. So if you compare 10-50k there's no NR. Guess they know their sensors better as Nikon does with sony sensors as well ;-)

And even if it would have, isn't it embarassing that a noise reduced image still shows more details? Maybe put your bias aside and think about what went wrong with the test shots instead of spreading some lies.

@PredatorsPrey
What lies ??????? all I said was """ Also there is quite a lot of Noise reduction baked into R5 RAWs even at base ISO .""" 100% truth in that ..

I think travel users are more likely to want photos straight out of the camera, or with minimal work whereas photos from studio cameras are more likely to go through post processing to remove moire and the photos can be taken again.

No AA filter does not squeeze the absolute max of the lens resolution - it mixes high with low frequencies and creates a havoc (aliasing). This is more or less a century old knowledge.

To the OP - there is a contributor here (PST forum) who analyzed the AA filters of many cameras, and he found non-symmetric AA filters for many recent cameras.

"mixes high with low frequencies and creates havoc" LOL!

Yes.....this is more than "just a hair less sharp." Significant indeed. Sounds like DPR is investigating to see if there is some other cause for the lack of sharpness.

If all you do is shoot at ISO25,600 I agree you need to consider whether 61MP is hurting you or helping you, especially in extreme shadow recovery like the examples shown.. but if you normally shoot below 6400 then the story is very different.

(This should be “duh” to anyone that is doing serious research to find the best camera for their situation.)

Very few 6K monitors so 24MP is enough if you’re not cropping substantially…

I don’t have a ton of experience with the 61MP sensors. But I can say I get similar noise in images on the whole and much more detail comparing my 50MP A1 to the 24MP A9II at ISOs up to 12,800…. (I rarely shoot about 12,800, though sometimes up to 25,600)

I pick up the 50MP camera first in every situation..

By the way I shoot dance all the time, up to ISO 12,800 and occasionally a bit higher when the lighing is really low.. And 50MP with DeepPrime gives me absolutely fantastic results...

I’m saying if you use deepprime on 61MP files at iso 25,600, you can extract more details than you can if you use deepprime on 20MP files at iso 25,600…

It’s the same…. Seriously do the test yourself, because you won’t believe me otherwise… I did it myself and it’s clear..

If you don’t care that much about extracting details you can save yourself a lot of time and just skip all of these studio scene posts.. but you are still here discussing, so I thought you’re interested..

Yeah if you’re a JPG shooter and don’t want to spend the time to get the best image (even it’s only a handful of seconds) then also, none of this matters..

that was just an easy example I could show you right in the studio scene. You said "I don't know how you can get more detail on one if you have to scale the Sony at 20MP" and I showed you a case where this is super obvious to see in the studio scene, so you could verify with your own eyes and not suspect I'm playing some trick if I were to upload some images for comparison.

I'm also suggesting if you're always shooting at 25,600, which seems to be the case (weird, but okay?) that you should really consider investing $130 in DXO Pure Raw as your images will look much better for much less money than purchasing a lens with one stop faster aperture.

But instead it seems you're really not interesting in improving. You're more interested in arguing. That's fine fine. I am not interested in arguing with you, though, so I'm out.

@Shaminder: If you put this lens on the A7RV or A7RIV does it look the same as past images? Maybe the lens was dropped?

There are way too many variables in these tests. Try testing 2 lenses against each other and see how not easy it is. Manual focus to the same target would be advised.

Bigsensorisbest, Take some test shots you can reproduce and exchange that 28-70f2 if you can for another.

No 2 lenses are identical and the tolerances are very wide. Most lenses will land with some variance in the middle, but there are many brand new lenses that are no where near the engineers design. Decentered, tilted, etc...

It is infuriating and if you want a good copy, you need to test 3-4 lenses. All brands tolerances are too wide.

If DPR used the same model lens but not the exact lens, this could be the issue in the results. Far higher % than a shifted sensor in the camera.

After you take the human factor out(Which is a lot harder than you might think), the lens is the highest % of being culprit. No 2 are the same.

focus is done on sensor, no need to calibrate since mirrorless took over

Sony has this adjustment for some mirrorless but I think it is only for A lenses and I don't see it in the A7C R manual.

It’s only for a mount lenses used with specific adapters that have their own PDAF sensors in the adapter (not popular for a number of years now because it defeats the excellent on sensor AF). It’s possible the new cameras don’t have this option anymore. I doubt those old adapters are for sale anymore.

I wouldn't expect them to use AF at all for focusing an studio test scene...

OMG, my brain's slow.... sucks being a middle aged man and still thinking of old ways even when they're not longer applicable.