Excellent Korean A99 review with good raw samples

Started Oct 15, 2012 | Discussions
TrojMacReady
Senior MemberPosts: 8,364
Like?
Re: Excellent Korean A99 review with good raw samples
In reply to moimoi, Oct 16, 2012

moimoi wrote:

Thanks for sharing this review with us.  A few comments:

(i)  I would have liked to see more shots in the ISO range 1600-6400 (the only samples they posted were not shot in low-light situations) to get a better idea of how the a99 performs.

You missed for example the ISO 5000 shot at F1.4 1/60s taken at night?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Allan Olesen
Senior MemberPosts: 1,721
Like?
Re: Excellent Korean A99 review with good raw samples
In reply to Ionian, Oct 16, 2012

Ionian wrote:

Just because you choose to not be educated doesn't mean that the rest of America chooses to be.  

So you are saying that the rest of America chooses not to be educated?

Or are you just missing a degree in counting your own negations?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Aloeignut
Contributing MemberPosts: 547
Like?
Re: Excellent Korean A99 review with good raw samples
In reply to Ionian, Oct 16, 2012

My post was not a sweeping statement but an old joke.  A quick search of the internet under the terms"Americans" & "foreign language" produced a recent article in the Huffpost Arts & Culture by Alan Elsner in which he wrote about Americans and foreign languages.  Some interesting facts included the 2007 census bureau's finding that less than 20% of Americans spoke a second language and they were mostly immigrants or children of immigrants.  He also stated that 44% of Europeans don't speak a second language and although that is considerably better than the U.S., it is still a sizable minorty.  He also quotes my old joke and  mentioned that Barack Obama admitted in 2008 that he does not speak a second language.  So if Mr. Columbia University, Harvard Law, constitutional law professor, President of the United States didn't bother to learn a second language then I guess I don't feel too badly about my lack of education.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
moimoi
Senior MemberPosts: 2,659Gear list
Like?
Re: Excellent Korean A99 review with good raw samples
In reply to TrojMacReady, Oct 17, 2012

I see it now, but I regret it.  I wish I would have missed that shot, though.  Noise is pretty darn ugly, and no details.   Even at ISO 2500 (which is a a case of low-light scene), it is pretty ugly, and little details.  I will need to look at the raw (but I don't have CS6 yet, but I will).

I really can't comprehend how such poor photos can be released to promote a new camera.  Are the photographers blind?

At ISO 3200, its cousin D600 seems to perform much better (check aarif's new photos taken with the D600, it is quite impressive).  Crazy enough, the D600 and a99 share the same sensor.

-- hide signature --

All harsh, impolite and/or unreasonable replies will be simply ignored.
Measurebators are out of my world, photography is not about babbling behind a computer... but rather being out of your home, shoot and share photographs with other people. Shoot and Share...Thanks.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Michaels7
Regular MemberPosts: 499Gear list
Like?
nt..
In reply to GuyMcKie, Oct 17, 2012
No text.
 Michaels7's gear list:Michaels7's gear list
Sony SLT-A99 Sigma 85mm F1.4 EX DG HSM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TrojMacReady
Senior MemberPosts: 8,364
Like?
Comparison?
In reply to moimoi, Oct 17, 2012

moimoi wrote:

I see it now, but I regret it.  I wish I would have missed that shot, though.  Noise is pretty darn ugly, and no details.   Even at ISO 2500 (which is a a case of low-light scene), it is pretty ugly, and little details.  I will need to look at the raw (but I don't have CS6 yet, but I will).

I really can't comprehend how such poor photos can be released to promote a new camera.  Are the photographers blind?

So you were looking for OOC jpegs then? I'm sure there are a lot of people that care, but personally, I only look at RAW results.

At ISO 3200, its cousin D600 seems to perform much better (check aarif's new photos taken with the D600, it is quite impressive).  Crazy enough, the D600 and a99 share the same sensor.

You're comparing heavily downsampled processed RAW shots with OOC jpegs in different conditions. Hard to take seriously.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
moimoi
Senior MemberPosts: 2,659Gear list
Like?
Re: Comparison?
In reply to TrojMacReady, Oct 17, 2012

TrojMacReady wrote:

moimoi wrote:

I see it now, but I regret it.  I wish I would have missed that shot, though.  Noise is pretty darn ugly, and no details.   Even at ISO 2500 (which is a a case of low-light scene), it is pretty ugly, and little details.  I will need to look at the raw (but I don't have CS6 yet, but I will).

I really can't comprehend how such poor photos can be released to promote a new camera.  Are the photographers blind?

So you were looking for OOC jpegs then? I'm sure there are a lot of people that care, but personally, I only look at RAW results.

At least it shows that the jpg engine and noise reduction are pretty poor.  The noise pattern (i.e., cracks) is simply dreadful.   Yes, the RAW files will hopefully look better, but by which amount?

At ISO 3200, its cousin D600 seems to perform much better (check aarif's new photos taken with the D600, it is quite impressive).  Crazy enough, the D600 and a99 share the same sensor.

You're comparing heavily downsampled processed RAW shots with OOC jpegs in different conditions. Hard to take seriously.

Check this sample at full res. taken with the D600 at ISO 6400 from dpreview

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/2210311/dsc_3937?inalbum=nikon-d600-preview-samples

To me, this is much cleaner (make sure to check the poorly lit areas in the photo) that anything I have seen with the a99 at ISO 3200.

-- hide signature --

All harsh, impolite and/or unreasonable replies will be simply ignored.
Measurebators are out of my world, photography is not about babbling behind a computer... but rather being out of your home, shoot and share photographs with other people. Shoot and Share...Thanks.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
moimoi
Senior MemberPosts: 2,659Gear list
Like?
More high ISO samples
In reply to TrojMacReady, Oct 17, 2012

From the D600

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d600/nikon-d600GALLERY.HTM

The Ghandi statue taken at ISO 6400 is pretty darn good.  No ugly noise pattern found at the transition between darker and lighter areas.

-- hide signature --

All harsh, impolite and/or unreasonable replies will be simply ignored.
Measurebators are out of my world, photography is not about babbling behind a computer... but rather being out of your home, shoot and share photographs with other people. Shoot and Share...Thanks.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Nordstjernen
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,788Gear list
Like?
Re: Comparison?
In reply to TrojMacReady, Oct 17, 2012

TrojMacReady wrote:

You're comparing heavily downsampled processed RAW shots with OOC jpegs in different conditions. Hard to take seriously.

I would not say he is comparing. He is looking for what he wants to see, and he carefully pick samples to support his point of view.

I have never seen him comparing indentical shots, just random images for which we don't know anything about light level and exposure. Also he doesn't care about exposure & light level, contrast, sharpness, color etc., which all has to be taken in account when comparing raw, since there is so much going on in-camera before the raw data is written.

 Nordstjernen's gear list:Nordstjernen's gear list
Sony SLT-A99 Sony Alpha 7
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TrojMacReady
Senior MemberPosts: 8,364
Like?
Re: Comparison?
In reply to moimoi, Oct 17, 2012

moimoi wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

moimoi wrote:

I see it now, but I regret it.  I wish I would have missed that shot, though.  Noise is pretty darn ugly, and no details.   Even at ISO 2500 (which is a a case of low-light scene), it is pretty ugly, and little details.  I will need to look at the raw (but I don't have CS6 yet, but I will).

I really can't comprehend how such poor photos can be released to promote a new camera.  Are the photographers blind?

So you were looking for OOC jpegs then? I'm sure there are a lot of people that care, but personally, I only look at RAW results.

You're comparing heavily downsampled processed RAW shots with OOC jpegs in different conditions. Hard to take seriously.

Check this sample at full res. taken with the D600 at ISO 6400 from dpreview

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/2210311/dsc_3937?inalbum=nikon-d600-preview-samples

To me, this is much cleaner (make sure to check the poorly lit areas in the photo) that anything I have seen with the a99 at ISO 3200.

I have seen much cleaner, from RAW samples I processed myself.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TrojMacReady
Senior MemberPosts: 8,364
Like?
Re: More high ISO samples
In reply to moimoi, Oct 17, 2012

moimoi wrote:

From the D600

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d600/nikon-d600GALLERY.HTM

The Ghandi statue taken at ISO 6400 is pretty darn good.  No ugly noise pattern found at the transition between darker and lighter areas.

Not really a good example of shadow transitions to impress when there's some vertical banding visible.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
moimoi
Senior MemberPosts: 2,659Gear list
Like?
Re: Comparison?
In reply to Nordstjernen, Oct 17, 2012

Nordstjernen wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

You're comparing heavily downsampled processed RAW shots with OOC jpegs in different conditions. Hard to take seriously.

I would not say he is comparing. He is looking for what he wants to see, and he carefully pick samples to support his point of view.

Not comparing.  But I looked at the noise pattern from two cameras equipped with the same sensor, and what I see from the a99 remains unimpressive, whereas I like what I see from the D600.  I am a Sony shooter but probably not a fanboy.

I have never seen him comparing indentical shots, just random images for which we don't know anything about light level and exposure. Also he doesn't care about exposure & light level, contrast, sharpness, color etc., which all has to be taken in account when comparing raw, since there is so much going on in-camera before the raw data is written.

Nope, because it is mostly useless to do so.  Yes, you can shoot in a lab, look at some dull photos taken with both cameras with the same focal length at the same ISO, but those circumstances are absolutely not practical, and does not give any hint of performances for real-life photography.

In the meantime, I invite you to check some real-life photography (I confess those samples are not artistically interesting) at the IR website, and check for yourself.  Keep in mind a photo is worth 1000 words.

-- hide signature --

All harsh, impolite and/or unreasonable replies will be simply ignored.
Measurebators are out of my world, photography is not about babbling behind a computer... but rather being out of your home, shoot and share photographs with other people. Shoot and Share...Thanks.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TrojMacReady
Senior MemberPosts: 8,364
Like?
Re: Comparison?
In reply to moimoi, Oct 17, 2012

moimoi wrote:


Nope, because it is mostly useless to do so.  Yes, you can shoot in a lab, look at some dull photos taken with both cameras with the same focal length at the same ISO, but those circumstances are absolutely not practical, and does not give any hint of performances for real-life photography.

You rather handpick samples that suit your preconceived ideas than relying on controlled tests. Makes total sense.

Controlled and well executed tests have always given me a good idea how cameras compare in the real world. On the other hand, I can handpick some image from my FZ18 that look better than those from my DSLR, despite a factor 15 difference in sensor size. Food for thought!


Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
moimoi
Senior MemberPosts: 2,659Gear list
Like?
Re: Comparison?
In reply to TrojMacReady, Oct 17, 2012

TrojMacReady wrote:

moimoi wrote:


Nope, because it is mostly useless to do so.  Yes, you can shoot in a lab, look at some dull photos taken with both cameras with the same focal length at the same ISO, but those circumstances are absolutely not practical, and does not give any hint of performances for real-life photography.

You rather handpick samples that suit your preconceived ideas than relying on controlled tests. Makes total sense.

Of course I am the one who is biased here... (just being sarcastic)

Controlled and well executed tests have always given me a good idea how cameras compare in the real world. On the other hand, I can handpick some image from my FZ18 that look better than those from my DSLR, despite a factor 15 difference in sensor size. Food for thought!


Bullcrap.  That's not what photography is about.  For example, take a shoot at night in New Orleans, in which you have some great opportunities but while shooting at ISO 3200-6400 could be necessary.  Then let's see how this new 24 MP sensor performs with both cameras.

Anyhow, the link to IR is there, and I invite people to look at those shots.  People will be their own judges.  Period

-- hide signature --

All harsh, impolite and/or unreasonable replies will be simply ignored.
Measurebators are out of my world, photography is not about babbling behind a computer... but rather being out of your home, shoot and share photographs with other people. Shoot and Share...Thanks.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TrojMacReady
Senior MemberPosts: 8,364
Like?
Re: Comparison?
In reply to moimoi, Oct 17, 2012

moimoi wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

moimoi wrote:


Nope, because it is mostly useless to do so.  Yes, you can shoot in a lab, look at some dull photos taken with both cameras with the same focal length at the same ISO, but those circumstances are absolutely not practical, and does not give any hint of performances for real-life photography.

You rather handpick samples that suit your preconceived ideas than relying on controlled tests. Makes total sense.

Of course I am the one who is biased here... (just being sarcastic)

How else can we label your "comparisons" with which you entered this thread? It's either bias or being clueless. Pick your evil.

Controlled and well executed tests have always given me a good idea how cameras compare in the real world. On the other hand, I can handpick some image from my FZ18 that look better than those from my DSLR, despite a factor 15 difference in sensor size. Food for thought!


Bullcrap.  That's not what photography is about.

Says the one handpicking his melons vs grapes "comparisons"?

It's a good predictor of relative performance, provided the comparison uses a similar light temperature.

For example, take a shoot at night in New Orleans, in which you have some great opportunities but while shooting at ISO 3200-6400 could be necessary.  Then let's see how this new 24 MP sensor performs with both cameras.

Is that an invitation to wait with our conclusions or does in include a conclusion already? I'm ready to make a guess though: about half a stop difference in RAW. What were you expecting?


Anyhow, the link to IR is there, and I invite people to look at those shots.  People will be their own judge.  Period.

Sure, for those shooting jpegs at the default settings, it canbe helpful. Period.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads