Previous news story    Next news story

Sony SLT-A77 studio comparison samples

By dpreview staff on Sep 26, 2011 at 20:48 GMT
Buy on GearShopFrom $798.006 deals

We have just posted studio test samples from the Sony SLT-A77. In the process of working on the forthcoming in-depth review of the A77, we have shot our standard studio test scene. To allow easy comparison with its peers, we have now added these shots to our comparison tool, found in our existing reviews. The A77 can now be selected from the pull-down list within any review or our standalone comparsion tool.

Click here to use the comparison tool (now with Sony SLT-A77 samples)

568
I own it
108
I want it
66
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 226
12
ABETTERDJANDPHOTOGRAPHER
By ABETTERDJANDPHOTOGRAPHER (Oct 6, 2011)

We shot our first wedding last Saturday with our new A77 and a Minolta 17-35. The room the wedding a reception were in was dimly lit with yellow/orange light and the A77 handled it very well on Auto! We shot almost 700 shots and all but 2 were very useable. The camera handles well, is lightning fast, great color, and the only shot that had noise was one where the flash didn't fire. We've also shot hundreds of daylight test shots at different stops and they are stunning! We tested with MINOLTA 28-135, 70-210 MINOLTA beercan, Minolta 17-35, and a MINOLTA 100-300 APO.

To rgnewell: You obviously either haven't shot with the better Minolta lenses or had bad copies. Our 2 28-135MM Minnys shoot as nice as primes. Also try a Minny 20MM 2.8, and a 100-400 APO and tell us they are not great

We really like this camera and feel it is worth the extra money for the upgrade to our A55s. For wedding photographers this came is XLNT!

Do a google on our handle and you'll find our site with samples.

0 upvotes
Vitruvius
By Vitruvius (Oct 4, 2011)

I thought this was finally the perfect camera and just about per-ordered one, but then I compared the A77 with other cameras I have been looking at and compared them at an ISO that I would most likely shoot - 800. I was surprised to see that the even the Canon T3i at ISO 800 RAW out performed the Sony for noise. What the heck? So much for the "more pixels with more noise equals less pixels with less noise" argument. Or there is something very flawed with this test setup that does not allow the higher res to work to it's advantage in this comparison.

0 upvotes
RickD
By RickD (Oct 2, 2011)

Sony is showing some great technical innovation with the SLT cameras, but the A77 samples are disappointing at high ISO. In raw it looks like the A77 gives up a full stop to the Nikon D7000 and half a stop to Sony's own A35. Likely as a result, the A77 high ISO jpegs show loss of detail and look plastic. It is particularly surprising that the A35 images look better than those from the A77. Hopefully there is a fix in the works.

0 upvotes
Rick Knepper
By Rick Knepper (Sep 29, 2011)

I am a 5D2 & D3x user. RAW to RAW, I have to admit that the SLT-A77 beats the 5D2 although there could be sample variation involved in the 5D2 used or "sample variation" in the testing methodology ( DPR doesn't provide a D3x image for their comparison tool that I could find). Nonetheless, this is one huge reason why Canon and Nikon should get off their azzes and update their FF cams. Noteworthy: the A900 RAW beat the SLT-A77 by a smidge.

2 upvotes
abolit
By abolit (Sep 29, 2011)

just ugly!

0 upvotes
JAAPHOTO
By JAAPHOTO (Sep 29, 2011)

I see too much artifacting in these jpegs for serious use. Compared to my 5D mark 2 or Nikon d3S files they arn't very good. I believe the pixels are just too small to hold together. Files might work OK with a studio setup, but if you push at all on these files they are going to fall appart. Camera makers need to move in a different direction, different technology or stay around 12 or 14 mp with a APS or simillar size chip.

0 upvotes
BMS1
By BMS1 (Sep 29, 2011)

To Dpreview test staff:

Good morning! Hello! Anybody here?

Wakey-wakey...ACR 6.5 is out.

Thanks in advance for your continuous great work.

0 upvotes
Ralf B
By Ralf B (Sep 29, 2011)

To DPreview test staff:

With the public release of ACR 6.5 the a77 is now officially supported.
Any chance for a re-processing of these samples?
I see a deviation in black point as a starter at ISO 100 already...

Besides, over in the forum 1037 your studio shots are already being reprocessed with huge success:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=39469520
Part of the success is applying appropriate processing parameters - which of course is applicable for any cam that provides RAW output. It just is a proven track on this web page that ACR and Sony RAW don't work together at best.

Curious how you will sum the situation up in your final review.

4 upvotes
jmmgarza
By jmmgarza (Sep 29, 2011)

The Sony SLT-A77 sample pix look horrible. They missed quite a bit of detail.

0 upvotes
rgnewell
By rgnewell (Sep 28, 2011)

My LX3 and S60 are small and produce reasonable images, but I search for better ones. After looking at all Sony SLR images I've wondered if Leica lenses work on Sony as Minolta lenses while good are not great. Despite the high ASP (profit) that camera manufactures get from SLRs, they are a pain in the shoulder. I have many heavy Canon L lenses and a film back that produce good scanned images from Velvia film. I've compared these to digital images from my compact digital cameras and see little difference, but scanning is a pain.

0 upvotes
Steve oliphant
By Steve oliphant (Sep 28, 2011)

I think the sony is very cool, and it has some great Innovations .I don't think they need to have this kind of pixel count, 35mm lenses can only resolve so much information, if they start to make lenses that can great, but 119 lines per millimetre or so is not even close 12mp let alone 25mp at a 1.5 crop........

0 upvotes
rocklobster
By rocklobster (Sep 28, 2011)

Now maybe people will stop picking on the 'ageing' sensor in the new PEN cameras as this NEW Sony sensor has apparently sunk to that level.
Like the PEN cameras, lets all look at the positives of these cameras and not just the high ISO performance.

Cheers

0 upvotes
mediman30
By mediman30 (Sep 27, 2011)

There's no point of convincing people to like this camera if this is not for them. I have tried a pre-production copy of the A77 last Saturday at an event sponsored by Sony UK and all I can say is it's a totally different experience. I have an a700 that I have been using for the last four years but the experience I had with the A77 after using it for only a day was completely different - in a VERY positive way. I don't need to mention all the features you get with this camera compared to the more expensive ones out there but there's only one thing I hope people will do when they see this camera in their local camera shops. JUST TRY IT!

Christmas gift for myself - check.

5 upvotes
Hubertus Bigend
By Hubertus Bigend (Sep 27, 2011)

The test shot is clearly out of focus.

Look at the image centre, the focus target, the playing card (which is a substantial amount behind the focus target) and the wall – I'm quite sure the image was focused by AF, and the AF missed the focus target in the centre and hit focus either on the playing card or even on the wall.

Stopped down to f/9 with an APS-C sensor, it's of course harder to notice than, say, with a 35mm full frame SLR at f/8, like the Nikon D3 (which shows everything perfectly in focus except for the playing card, which is massively out of focus).

0 upvotes
Camera Mount Clamp
By Camera Mount Clamp (Sep 27, 2011)

That is a nice camera.

0 upvotes
harold1968
By harold1968 (Sep 27, 2011)

ISO is merely good, not excellent, however dynamic range and colour resolving is awesome (see D X O M A R K).
Arguablly real photographers with fast glass don't need to shot over ISO 800, although 1600 and 3200 can be useful.
The current obession with high ISO performance should not deter real photographers, this is an outstanding camera.
As M9 sales show, it is preferable to have detailed base ISO results that trash every other FF camera on the market then excellent really high ISO performance.

5 upvotes
eprahm
By eprahm (Sep 27, 2011)

Very well said for those of us who are trying to be practical and not hung up in theory world. Will be my next camera within a month or so.

0 upvotes
eprahm
By eprahm (Sep 27, 2011)

Very well said for those of us who are trying to be practical and not hung up in theory world. Will be my next camera within a month or so.

0 upvotes
hippo84
By hippo84 (Sep 27, 2011)

+1!!! Having read all the above, I have a feeling, that nobody shoot at the ISO lower than 1600... If U prefer 7D with less noise but bad DR and colours, it's Your choice, but it doesn't mean, that 7D is better camera...

4 upvotes
onlooker
By onlooker (Sep 28, 2011)

> As M9 sales show

Are you serious? I suspect if all Sony managed was M9-level sales, heads would roll. Sony is not a boutique operation.

And your definition of a "real photographer" as one who does not shoot above ISO 800 is laughable.

1 upvote
Steve oliphant
By Steve oliphant (Sep 27, 2011)

Wow what these test are so different from image resource . com, the sony is at the bottom end of the test there.There seems to be money changing hands here,the canon was better at 1600,but the nikon clearly was the best of them at 1600 iso. I use a Canon 7D and it's very good, but i do work at a camera store and i have done my owen test, and the nikon seemed to be a bit better in the red's for sure, the 5D shots here are clearly out of focus, nice eh, and i know that this camera will crush all of them buy two stops.

0 upvotes
bavarius6
By bavarius6 (Sep 27, 2011)

The JPEGS just don't hold up past 3200, details smeared away. Unfortunately for Sony everybody wants massive ISO's and this sensor just can't deliver, translucent mirror or no translucent mirror. Looks 2 stops noisier than 16mp sensor so taking SLT into account it's still 1 3/4 stops noisier. Like 24mp FF in D3x this sensor needs capping at 6400 max IMO.

0 upvotes
digby dart
By digby dart (Sep 27, 2011)

The sensor is clearly straining under the weight of that translucent mirror and all those pixels, low shutter lag live view comes at a price. That said, seeing what the sensor sees is a revelation in photography, in old terms its seeing what the film sees which is fundamentally a mighty step forward in the pursuit of photographic excellence.

Perhaps the poorer high iso performance will be offset by the improved perception of final outcome that low shutter lag live view gives, only time will tell. Some of the a55 shots I've seen with better glass have been stellar.

0 upvotes
David G Peterson
By David G Peterson (Sep 27, 2011)

The jpeg's look pretty good the raw's should get better with a more optimized raw converter. Another thing that concerns me is the need for really good glass for this and the Nex-7 with their 24mp APS-c sensor's....I guess you'll have to go primes or Zeiss $$

1 upvote
ThomasH_always
By ThomasH_always (Sep 27, 2011)

Sony missed the memo again: "We want better pixels, not more pixels."

Both D7000 and 7D look much better in magnification (thus crop in real life) and of course, the 5D as the full size camera is still a stop or more ahead.

Note that Canon announced an Oct 26 EOS event, thus there might be something new from them, changing this situation even more.

2 upvotes
RedFox88
By RedFox88 (Sep 27, 2011)

No, that is for a new printer not any camera.

1 upvote
sensibill
By sensibill (Sep 27, 2011)

There's no evidence 'it's the pixels'. The A33 with lower MP looks just about as bad, and there's the fact that a 100% crop of the 24MP is going to be a much tighter crop of a given scene. It could also be that Sony just didn't do as good a job with this sensor, and of course there's the fact that it's losing 1/2 a stop to that pellicle (which is not worth the sacrifice in light, IMO).

0 upvotes
Dustinash
By Dustinash (Sep 28, 2011)

Speak for yourself. I think this is exactly what I am looking for, if only it shot 4k video. but 60P? Hells ya. and 24 MP is very useful to some of us

0 upvotes
anagram4wander2
By anagram4wander2 (Sep 27, 2011)

DPReview should be ashamed of itself.

The JPGs are similar across all the default cameras.

The A77 RAW conversion is using an Alpha version of ACR.

Unless Sony has some magic to make the JPGs look so much different.

This is not a level playing field.

Bye DPReview - That sucked.

2 upvotes
darkref
By darkref (Sep 27, 2011)

bye!

0 upvotes
treepop
By treepop (Sep 27, 2011)

people get so worked up :(

2 upvotes
Lars Rehm
By Lars Rehm (Sep 27, 2011)

It's a Beta-Version. We use those pretty frequently on many of our reviews as, very often, there is not yet any official ACR support for the cameras when we are testing them. We also use our own processing as detailed on our RAW sample pages. Images are processed in ACR with all sharpening and NR turned off. Sharpening is then added in Photoshop via an unsharp mask.

2 upvotes
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Sep 27, 2011)

anagram4wander2
"Bye DPReview - That sucked"
Not only DPR then, go to DxO, in SNR measurements put on screen mode and put A77 against D7000, nikon is whole step better than sony which is pretty much what I see in DPR's samples

0 upvotes
rocklobster
By rocklobster (Sep 28, 2011)

Comon anagram4, the RAW converter version, type, brand or whatever makes only a slight difference to noise appearance if any. Sony just has a very good JPEG engine in the camera. Blaming DPREVIEW for this is a cop-out. You should be ashamed of yourself!

0 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (Sep 27, 2011)

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5639653565/photos/1428222/studiocomp

So, on the stamp, is the chin rastering done with lines or crosses?

3 upvotes
JPMontez
By JPMontez (Sep 27, 2011)

That is curious indeed!... Pentax 645D seems to backup A77's. Afterall more resolution seems to have its benefits...

0 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (Sep 28, 2011)

so here are the ISO 1600 comparison

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5639653565/photos/1430052/studiocomp1600

Smooth noise VS details.
Nikon really have noise under control, but where are the details???
I like the 645D shoot :)

0 upvotes
djec
By djec (Sep 27, 2011)

genuine question: why are the file sizes (raw) not larger relative to the other lower MP cameras?

1 upvote
JimWarp
By JimWarp (Sep 27, 2011)

Lots of noise as JPEG or RAW (even with ISO 200), lots of CA, soft, strange colors. A definite buy ...or not.

3 upvotes
JPMontez
By JPMontez (Sep 27, 2011)

What do you think of these other RAW conversions made from the A77 samples with IDC and Capture One? Quite better than the ones coming from ACR, no?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=39450219

6 upvotes
Drareg Ajerap
By Drareg Ajerap (Sep 27, 2011)

R I P A 7 7 V I V A 5 N ? : )

4 upvotes
jlamesa
By jlamesa (Sep 27, 2011)

Maybe guys, you all have to read that thread:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=39453100

4 upvotes
hippo84
By hippo84 (Sep 27, 2011)

Thanks! Very interesting!

2 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Sep 27, 2011)

Wowz... the 5N is exactly one(!) stop better than the A77... the A77 is indeed pretty much awful at high ISO's.

0 upvotes
rocklobster
By rocklobster (Sep 27, 2011)

As you may expect with higher pixel density but perhaps it should be not as much as we are seeing here

0 upvotes
RedFox88
By RedFox88 (Sep 27, 2011)

What about all you that kept repeating the myth that smaller pixels doesn't equate to more noise? Certainly looks like that myth has been shattered with the noisy a77.

0 upvotes
sensibill
By sensibill (Sep 27, 2011)

There's no myth. The size of the pixels and density of this sensor is still well ahead of compact sensors that can still turn out _relatively_ low read noise. The MP isn't the culprit here, it's the pellicle mirror sapping 1/3 of the incoming light.

0 upvotes
thx1138
By thx1138 (Sep 27, 2011)

Stop looking at pixel level noise it tells you nothing about different cameras with different resolution. A 100% view on the Sony A77 corresponds to a massive enlargement, a print several feet long and you would not stand 3" to examine a real print of that size. The ONLY fair way to compare the two cameras is to equalize their pixel counts, and usually you would downrez the A77 to 5N size. If so you would find most of that stop difference disappeared, but the A77 file might still have more detail.

I would also wait for full RAW support from ACR rather than look at terrible jpgs.

1 upvote
JPMontez
By JPMontez (Sep 27, 2011)

When looking at dpreview's RAW samples at ISO 3200, Sony A77 looks indeed much noisier when compared to Canon 7D. But when you look at DxOMark measurements, noise difference at this ISO level is pretty much neglectible. What could justify this?...

1 upvote
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Sep 27, 2011)

DxO renders RAWs differently than ACR I think

0 upvotes
Drareg Ajerap
By Drareg Ajerap (Sep 27, 2011)

Either DxO Mark can't be trusted or Sony still has to make a camera worthy of its sensor. (Well, maybe NEX 5n is it.)

0 upvotes
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Sep 27, 2011)

Aslo yo have to choose screen option for DxO graphs for better comparison of DPR samples to DxO results

0 upvotes
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Sep 27, 2011)

also lol

0 upvotes
ck3
By ck3 (Sep 27, 2011)

AFAIK DXO measures noise in the midtones. If you look at the samples here, you'll notice that the 7D has quite a bit darker shadows than the A77 (whatever the reason for that may be). The darker shadows in turn help to conceal the noise as you will notice, when you manipulate the A77 samples accordingly.
Nevertheless the shadow noise of the A77 isn't something to brag about...

1 upvote
rocklobster
By rocklobster (Sep 27, 2011)

Subjectively, the A77 images look much noisier than the 7D and this is where DxO misses the mark - pun intended. Their noise measuring instrument obviously operates on different parameters than the human eye. Pity because photography is all about what the eye sees.

2 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Sep 27, 2011)

There's something going on with the Sony RAW files ever since the introduction of the A35. The A35 has the exact same sensor as the A55, but looks quite bad in comparison. The same blotchyness is present in the A77 RAW files as seen here. In fact, the A77 downsampled to A35 looks pretty similar, noise wise.
But both their DXO measurements don't translate into the visual performance one would expect and to me that's a first. The A35 unsurprisingly showed the same results in DXOMark as the A55, yet visual performance is a non sequitur. Likewise for the A77. Will be interesting to find out what 's going on here.

0 upvotes
Hannu108
By Hannu108 (Sep 27, 2011)

" Their noise measuring instrument obviously operates on different parameters than the human eye. Pity because photography is all about what the eye sees."

So true.

0 upvotes
wildbild
By wildbild (Sep 27, 2011)

It was interesting to see that the panasonic GH2 with its even smaller pixels (on a smaller sensor) delivers more detail at ISO 800 and 1600. To me the new kid from sony looks like a 15yo who is almost to strong to walk.

1 upvote
hippo84
By hippo84 (Sep 27, 2011)

It's strange, but i see the opposite... Choose ISO 1600 and look at the playing cards, for example... And compare colours with that of 7D )) Did U still think, that Canon's sensor better with such colours. Ha-ha ))

1 upvote
Low Budget Dave
By Low Budget Dave (Sep 27, 2011)

Are you looking at the same samples I am looking at? The GH2 colors are compressed and the image grain past 800 shows clear evidence of over-sharpening.

1 upvote
Drareg Ajerap
By Drareg Ajerap (Sep 27, 2011)

@hippo84: the playing card at 1600 JPEG seems to be going A77's way but raise it to 3200 and things are even. Turn it to raw and the A77's rendering gets dismantled.

Thanks for pointing out the card. It's funny but you are right. From the other areas I checked, the A77 was lagging behind. But however I also noticed that the other cameras were off focus here.

0 upvotes
wildbild
By wildbild (Sep 27, 2011)

Hey! was talking about the raw-files!

0 upvotes
wildbild
By wildbild (Sep 27, 2011)

And even looking at the jepg there is more fine detail in the GH2's 1600 ISO file than there is in the sony's 800 ISO file. outch!

0 upvotes
Button Pusher
By Button Pusher (Sep 27, 2011)

@hippo84

It is pretty well known that the playing card should not be used as the ultimate reference point in this studio shot comparison due to focusing differences. Nice try though.

0 upvotes
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Sep 27, 2011)

Downsize the samples guys !!! downsize the samples !!! it will make the a77's samples looks as clean as tears of child, it will make disappear all this nasty noise, correct the colors and make comeback all lost details and it will be better than any other aps-c camera , just downsize them !!!
I am just kidding :)

2 upvotes
ogl
By ogl (Sep 27, 2011)

but...I'm serious...Anyway - GOOD JOKE!

it's myth, downsizing the samples NEVER lower the noise.
and it's absolutely idiocy to buy 24 MP camera, shoot in RAW and downsize every picture....

1 upvote
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Sep 27, 2011)

Not a myth. There is a reason people in these forums state small pictures posted in forums doesn't tell us much about noise performance. I can show you 0.5 MP image from my A500 at ISO 12800 with no noise. But believe me, it's there at 12MP. ;)

0 upvotes
Frederik Paul
By Frederik Paul (Sep 27, 2011)

Why should someone downsize when I lose the extra MP then? You could simply use only 18 or 16 MP from the start.

0 upvotes
ogl
By ogl (Sep 27, 2011)

Yes...IIt's my mistake. Downsize from 12 till 0.5 MP - really works. :))) Or from 24 to 1-2 MP. But I don't think that we need to do it...

0 upvotes
Hannu108
By Hannu108 (Sep 27, 2011)

@Frederik Paul, You'll gain little bit sharpness...

0 upvotes
putomax
By putomax (Sep 27, 2011)

<downsizing the samples NEVER lower the noise.>

that's not true, half the izeit lowers noise by half ;-)

0 upvotes
hippo84
By hippo84 (Sep 27, 2011)

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/734|0/%28brand%29/Sony/%28appareil2%29/619|0/%28brand2%29/Canon - any questions? Aren't excellent DR and color depth more important at the majority of shooting conditions?

1 upvote
wildbild
By wildbild (Sep 27, 2011)

what am I doing with excellent DR but no detail that I get from sonys crappy (except 24 f2.0) lenses? makes no sense at all..

0 upvotes
ryansholl
By ryansholl (Sep 27, 2011)

Well I'll be damned, Sony actually made a good lens, and it's a 24 F2? What am I doing with all this other AF Zeiss glass?!

0 upvotes
wildbild
By wildbild (Sep 27, 2011)

recycle.

0 upvotes
ogl
By ogl (Sep 27, 2011)

have a look - A77 ar ISO200 is worse than K-r at ISO800....

1 upvote
ogl
By ogl (Sep 27, 2011)

I've never seen before so high level of noise at ISO200-400 in RAW. ISO800-6400 are really BAD.
It's worse than 10 MP CCD APS-C sensor from Sony.

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Sep 27, 2011)

Yup, I even see speckles of noise at ISO100 on the surface of the blue watch...

0 upvotes
ogl
By ogl (Sep 27, 2011)

A77 has HUGE amount of noise in RAW from ISO200 and above.
K-5, 5D Mk II and D7000 are much better.

0 upvotes
Low Budget Dave
By Low Budget Dave (Sep 27, 2011)

I think there are people here out to get Sony. When I look at the samples, I see it differently. The Nikion shows smoothing (or blur) especially at the edges, and the Pentax is almost identical. The only things different from Pentax are the crop and the color curves.

1 upvote
ogl
By ogl (Sep 27, 2011)

it seems to me we saw different photos...
I say about RAW.

0 upvotes
ogl
By ogl (Sep 27, 2011)

I say about noise in RAW. Not about resolution and DOF.
24 is more than 16. Always.

0 upvotes
victor china
By victor china (Sep 27, 2011)

the A77 is about a stop behind at the pixel level, if you normalize it it is about half a stop behind... and that's probably the light loss of the translucent mirror.

I expect the NEX-7 to be at the same level of the 16MPX sensor when size is normalized... meaning that the increase in resolution is allowing real gain of resolution at base iso, and no real loss at high isos...

0 upvotes
Lea5
By Lea5 (Sep 27, 2011)

Seems to me a great camera regarding to the marvellous images in your link.

3 upvotes
jlamesa
By jlamesa (Sep 27, 2011)

When you all get tired peeping pixels, see some real life photos shot witn A77

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30519

6 upvotes
zstan
By zstan (Sep 27, 2011)

Pity nobody appreciates the AF speed and dynamic range of the a77...

3 upvotes
slncezgsi
By slncezgsi (Sep 27, 2011)

I have not seen any comparison that would shot the dynamic range of A77. The DPreview studio shots does not really allow to test that by naked eye.

0 upvotes
hippo84
By hippo84 (Sep 27, 2011)

Take a look at DXO test. A77 gets 78 and 7d's score is only 66. Being a little worse at high ISO, A77's sensor has great color depth and DR.

2 upvotes
Debankur Mukherjee
By Debankur Mukherjee (Sep 27, 2011)

The Image tests are out. Fitting 24 MP in a APS-C Sensor has made the sensor more noisy in RAW mode and in JPEG mode the sharpness is lost due to high Noise reduction applied. This sensor needs even better in-camera post processing to give better results in high ISO.

0 upvotes
sensibill
By sensibill (Sep 27, 2011)

Smaller, more dense sensors like m43 going from 12MP to 16MP weren't this affected, so it's either the pellicle or not Sony's best sensor - not necessarily the MP.

0 upvotes
exp1orer
By exp1orer (Sep 27, 2011)

Panasonic G3 is even better than this Sony A77

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=39451949

1 upvote
onlooker
By onlooker (Sep 27, 2011)

Based on these RAW images, if I was going to get an APS-C camera today, I would get the 7D.

3 upvotes
Drareg Ajerap
By Drareg Ajerap (Sep 27, 2011)

I replaced the D7000 with the NEX C3 in the Studio Comparison quartet and I'm leaning toward this NEX for 3 reasons. 1) I still don't have a mirror-less one in my collection. 2) It equals or even slightly edges the 7D in raw. 3) I already have the 7D.

0 upvotes
RubberDials
By RubberDials (Sep 27, 2011)

The 7D hasn't got any in-body IS - shoot a fast prime below 1/160 and camera shake will have more of an impact on the final image detail than noise.

0 upvotes
macky patalinghug
By macky patalinghug (Sep 27, 2011)

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/8017913541/photos/676011/aimg_0049_1

taken with at 1/20 with a 35mm f/2

0 upvotes
RubberDials
By RubberDials (Sep 27, 2011)

Now post the one with the IS on. Nikon and Canon users can't test this unfortunately. On a Sony cam take a shot with IS on and one with it off. Up to 1/160 there is a difference in critical sharpness. Nice shot btw.

0 upvotes
hikenhi
By hikenhi (Sep 27, 2011)

Put this SLT-A77 against the Pentax K-5, RAW, ISO 3200. Any Questions?

0 upvotes
rishi o'
By rishi o' (Sep 27, 2011)

Put the SLT-A77 against the 1/3 cost 5n at ISO 3200.

1 upvote
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Sep 27, 2011)

Why would we put it against a camera that already applies NR in RAW at ISO 3200?

0 upvotes
Drareg Ajerap
By Drareg Ajerap (Sep 27, 2011)

I replaced D7000 w/ NEX C3 before I moved the cursor (in 3200 ISO) raw to the Greek looking face then to that Margaret Thatcher looking woman then to that chick in the Kodak frame and observed that: the 5Dmk2 was on top; followed by NEX C3, then the 7D then the A77. It was only on the Thatcher-like face that I had some difficulty choosing between the 7D and the A77.

I did the same thing in 3200 JPEG and found that in Thatcher-like face the Canons were better. In the Kodak chick I saw a a close duel between the 7D and NEX C3 for here the Sony appeared cleaner but the Canon seemed to render the eyes better. The best rendering over all was from the 5Dmk2 while the A77's capture was at the bottom looking like it used a watercolor filter.

From these quick glances I can say that: 1. The Canons here make better JPEG than Sony. 2. The current APSC sensor technology still can't beat the 2nd generation FF sensor. 3. In terms of raw, the Sony 16MP sensor is currently the best APSC sensor.

1 upvote
itev
By itev (Sep 27, 2011)

Mr Sony : I want the Nex-5N sensor in the a77 body !

0 upvotes
mjkerpan
By mjkerpan (Sep 27, 2011)

I want to see the tests again when RAW support is better. ACR's support for the A77 is SUPER preliminary and it shows: in low-contrast areas the JPEG samples of the same area...

Any way, once the processing workflow bugs are worked out, this looks like it will be a great camera for getting lots of detail at low-to-moderate ISO.

3 upvotes
BozemanMark
By BozemanMark (Sep 27, 2011)

The NEX-5N looked very good compared to just about everything at every ISO. Put that sensor in a NEX-7 body and Sony won't be able to make enough of them.

3 upvotes
Drareg Ajerap
By Drareg Ajerap (Sep 27, 2011)

Yep. I also like like that Sony 16MP on my Canon :)

0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Sep 27, 2011)

What lens does dpreview use? How good/sharp is it?

0 upvotes
zakk9
By zakk9 (Sep 27, 2011)

Sony 50mm f/1.4 @ f/9

0 upvotes
Midnighter
By Midnighter (Sep 27, 2011)

While I know its needed for DOF f9 is beyond the diffraction point of 24MP APS-C (1.5 factor). So, in effect, what you are saying is the shot is diffraction limited.

0 upvotes
zakk9
By zakk9 (Sep 27, 2011)

At a third of a stop beyond f/8? Nothing that would be visible to the eye. In that case, all of dpr's test shots would be diffraction limited, since they are mostly shot at this or eqv. apertures. The GH2 photo is shot at f/6.3.

0 upvotes
Midnighter
By Midnighter (Sep 27, 2011)

Diffraction hits f8 at 21MP for APS-C x1.5. The GH2 has a pixel pitch of 3.6, even smaller than the a77 sensor so its further below f8. However my guess is the GH2 would be diffraction free at f6.3.

0 upvotes
zakk9
By zakk9 (Sep 27, 2011)

I enlarged the GH2 photo at ISO800 to SLT77 size, and it showed similar noise but much more detail. I'm sure the SLT77 is a nice camera, but maybe it's time for Sony to think about lenses that can actually handle all the megapixels without weighing twice times as much as the camera?

0 upvotes
thx1138
By thx1138 (Sep 27, 2011)

Yes this is a good way to compare different cameras with different resolution, or you could have down rezzed the Sony to GH2 size. The 7D is very unforgiving on glass, Sony will be worse.

0 upvotes
Sosua
By Sosua (Sep 27, 2011)

Which lens are you referring to that weights twice as much as an A77?

0 upvotes
Sosua
By Sosua (Sep 27, 2011)

Which lens are you referring to that weights twice as much as an A77?

0 upvotes
zakk9
By zakk9 (Sep 27, 2011)

Nah... not literally, but most of the high quality Zeiss glass in A-mount is on the heavy side, up to and around 1kg. Nikon and Canon aren't any better in this respect, but compared to the lenses for the GH2, they are huge, apparently without offering much more when it comes to optical qualities.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 226
12