Previous news story    Next news story

Sony SLT-A77 studio comparison samples updated with ACR 6.5

By dpreview staff on Sep 30, 2011 at 22:20 GMT
Buy on GearShopFrom $798.006 deals

Updated Sony SLT A-77 studio comparison RAW shots. We've just re-processed our A-77 shots of the standard studio test scene with the latest version of Adobe Camera RAW - ACR 6.5. (we had originally used a beta version of ACR 6.5). The differences are fairly minimal but the updated shots are are now available in the comparison tool.

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

572
I own it
109
I want it
69
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 94
OntarioJohn
By OntarioJohn (Oct 14, 2011)

My a77 is on order. My camera bag has an a100, 2 Sony Lenses, A minola lens, and a Tamaron. So I have 28 to ? the lens sold with the a100 a 70 300 Minolta Zoom, a 500 mm lens and these older MD lenses laying about like dead soldiers. I am not interested in fighting or negativity. I recently took my camera and my old sony gps gizmo from Dover to Inverness, Amsterdam, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Saltzburg, Switzerland, Straussburg and Paris. Everyone loves the photos and with the gps and a linux box to post the data I uploaded to Google everyday a folder of shots which you could see move with the push pin. So zoomed in on London you saw how the pin moved around, parks etc. I'm 60, badly damaged by chemo, and took a big backpack and cane and 'hiked' through much of Europe with my wife. The a100 only ran out of battery once and I had taken about 2400 shots that day. Paris, what can I say!

0 upvotes
ABETTERDJANDPHOTOGRAPHER
By ABETTERDJANDPHOTOGRAPHER (Oct 20, 2011)

John,

You are going to love this camera. We've been shooting with them for 3 weeks now and they are amazing. Congratulations on a wise decision!

A couple of cheap upgrades for your lenses.

Dump the Tamron and the MINOLTA 70-300 and get a MINOLTA 100-300 APO (about $300 on ebay). With the zoom feature on the A77 the APO will give you awesome shots from 100-600MM. Your 500MM will now cover 500-1000MM! For your lower range shots the MINOLTA 28-135 is the perfect "walk around lens".

By the way we are getting about 800 shots from 2000MaH aftermarket batteries.

Comment edited 50 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Vitruvius
By Vitruvius (Oct 5, 2011)

Can somone please tell me why the 100 percent crop from each camera with various resolutions and various sensor sizes is the same scale in the comparison? Even when you download the full size original files they are the same size. So are we up-sampling some and down-sampling others? Or not shooting the Sony at full res? I want to know why the Sony A77 has so much noise and poor quality image compared to even the Canon T3i. Shouldn't a 24MP camera show more detail than a 12MP Camera even if there is more noise?

0 upvotes
Tafi
By Tafi (Oct 4, 2011)

When can we assume that the a77 article review is finished and published?

0 upvotes
Digiman69
By Digiman69 (Oct 1, 2011)

Look at the 3200 iso raw file of the A900 compared to the one of the A77 and everyone will have clear why DxO clearly rated A77 sensor inferior to the old but still great full frame A900/A800 sensor. I never had problems to use 3200 raw file from my A850, mount on it a fast prime glass and thanks to the steady shot is like having other bodies working at 6400...

0 upvotes
mjkerpan
By mjkerpan (Oct 1, 2011)

Why is everyone here harping about the rather lousy high-ISO performance rather than the very good low-to-medium ISO performance. While it may not offer good image quality over ISO 800 or so, the quality at lower ISOs is simply to die for. Compare the A77 and the 5Dm2 at base ISO: they're delivering similar (high) levels of detail. While this may not be a good camera for high ISO use, it would seem to be an ideal choice for studio use and landscape shooters.

0 upvotes
ABETTERDJANDPHOTOGRAPHER
By ABETTERDJANDPHOTOGRAPHER (Oct 20, 2011)

And weddings! We've shot about 5,000 great shots with our 2 a77s including 3 weddings. We shoot mostly on auto with a few tweaks now and then when needed but this camera shoots bridal magazine quality photos right out of the camera. The 16-50 lens works perfectly through the entire range and the colors are far superb to any lens we've tried :D

0 upvotes
Florian Nanu
By Florian Nanu (Oct 1, 2011)

Pls change Canon 7D with Canon 60 D and look again at raw 400 / 800 and 1600 - you can look at jpegs too ofc.
I find the result nice for 60D and my oppinion is that 5DmkII looks great after all this years ! 8)

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Oct 1, 2011)

Do you mean to imply that the Canon 5D Mark II has been out for 8 years? It hasn't.

Try two and half for the Mark II.

0 upvotes
Drareg Ajerap
By Drareg Ajerap (Oct 9, 2011)

LOL! Some folks use the 8 figure instead of the colon for their smilies so 8) instead of :)

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Oct 1, 2011)

For what it's worth, with the ISO 6400 RAW, process with ACR6.5 with NR set to zero and then use Topaz's Denoise plugin; that last makes for vast improvement in noise reduction.

No, this camera aint up to say a Nikon D3s and based on this 6400 ISO test setup high ISO shots are near useless without Denoise. I have no idea what Sony was thinking. A Sony rep even told me to my face, while I was handling a demo A 77, "It's noise free thru ISO 6400".

Why couldn't Sony use a 14MP sensor? Sony had better thank Topaz for making a useful Photoshop plugin.

0 upvotes
Milton Tischenberg
By Milton Tischenberg (Oct 1, 2011)

I think we have some mistakes here, if we look at the pieces of glass or coin, a great to see a shot of Sony, even if the bottle is more dusty, and we are seeing with the Sony zoom, which should decrease to compare fairly, see more details to finish.

0 upvotes
RedFox88
By RedFox88 (Oct 1, 2011)

Still 1 stop noisier than Canon's aps-c and d7000, 2 stops noisier than the 5D2. DPR is right, difference was minimal.

0 upvotes
jaysdesk
By jaysdesk (Oct 1, 2011)

To repeat an earlier post, ACR 6.5 may show more raw noise than earlier versions(6.2, 6.4 etc.), when the noise reduction is set at zero.
Please observe that when the ISO is increased, the size of the raw files, also go up for all the grouped cameras except the SLT-A77, signifying, some noise processing in the earlier versions of the ACR.
I don't have access to ACR 6.5 now, but I speculate that if the raw files for other cameras are re-processed through ACR 6.5, those files will also remain the same size for different ISOs, and display different noise patterns, than those posted on the comparison tool.

0 upvotes
joe_rogg
By joe_rogg (Oct 1, 2011)

What happened? DP doesn't give you the option of downloading the RAW file. I clicked on the option button but it does not display the RAW file. Are there to many folks downloading this file?

0 upvotes
BMWX5
By BMWX5 (Oct 1, 2011)

Click the yellow word "RAW" to download.

0 upvotes
BMWX5
By BMWX5 (Oct 1, 2011)

Choose "RAW" from the dropdown so the link to download RAW will appear.

0 upvotes
Ivanaker
By Ivanaker (Oct 1, 2011)

Year old d7k and two year old 7d beats this very latest sony.

5 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Oct 1, 2011)

Could DPReview please post the RAWs for download, then we can do our own conversions with Adobe Camera Raw 6.5?

I tire of looking at others' jpegs.

0 upvotes
David_London
By David_London (Oct 1, 2011)

They do - the download link is under each sample.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Oct 1, 2011)

Got it, thank you. Though one has to pull down RAW on top to get the RAW option below for download--odd.

0 upvotes
rmbackus
By rmbackus (Oct 1, 2011)

It's already known, but apparently not by Sony: the more pixels you cram onto a sensor of a fixed size, the more noise you get.

1 upvote
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Oct 1, 2011)

In condition that used technology is the same but even if it is some say that by downsizing the more mpx sensor's samples the noise will be compensated thanks to more resolution
I am not one of them thought

0 upvotes
rmbackus
By rmbackus (Oct 1, 2011)

It was and still is a rule that (digital) pixels or (analog) grain are not the key factors to resolution, sensor or film area is !
Just compare the old Minox 8 x 11 mm film and 135 film.

I'm a happy Sony A-200 user and am as disappointed as you all about still the marketing-hype about pixels.

0 upvotes
Hubertus Bigend
By Hubertus Bigend (Oct 1, 2011)

I fear you are in error.

I generally don't like DxOMark and regard many of their findings methodically flawed and misleading, but they've published one really interesting article on this matter which I think is mostly true.

It's titled "Contrary to conventional wisdom, higher resolution actually compensates for noise".

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Insights/More-pixels-offset-noise!

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Oct 1, 2011)

You do realize that DXO is commenting on ISO 200 pictures?

That's a problem for your point and DxO's.

0 upvotes
Hubertus Bigend
By Hubertus Bigend (Oct 1, 2011)

Yes, but I don't see the problem. The principle is true for whatever ISO you choose:

"A high-resolution camera can still be turned into a low-resolution camera by averaging its pixels."

And thereby noise will always be reduced, too.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Oct 1, 2011)

"averaging" means blurring.

No, it's the heat problem at higher ISOs and greater pixel density.

Denser pixels produce extra heat which means extra noise. Also high ISO settings produce higher heat which adds to noise. So a way around some of that extra heat is to only go higher with one of those numbers--either more pixels, or higher ISO capacity.

And since most use high ISOs it's best to drop the number of pixels. (Famous examples are the Panasonic LX5, Canon S90, S95, G12, and the most famous of all: the Nikon D3, D3s and D700. Those Nikons all destroy the high ISO performance of this Sony; it appears that the lowish MP Nikon D7000 does too. And with Zeiss glass, those full frame Nikons do amazing colour at high ISO, 12800.)

Notice that DxO can't be bother to mention heat; they just stick with noise, I suspect they're not the same, and that heat is a subset of noise and that perhaps better signal processors can do something with some of the noise, but not with the heat.

0 upvotes
Hubertus Bigend
By Hubertus Bigend (Oct 5, 2011)

Heat isn't really such a problem. If it was, today's cameras couldn't be used, with their sensor in permanent use by live view displays and electronic viewfinders, let alone in video mode, without massively deteriorated image quality because of noise.

Yes, "averaging" means blurring, but so what? With a sensor offering more pixels, you can either use averaging to reduce pixel count and noise (yes, it does work) to about the same level you would have had with a less-MP sensor in the first place, or not use averaging and make use of the higher resolution, albeit with slightly more noise. It's your choice! Unless they really overdo it, and with 24 MP it doesn't seem to me they have overdone it yet, more megapixels give you more options, without any real disadvantage.

The A77's greatest disadvantage regarding noise to me seems the translucent mirror, filtering out half a stop of the light, not so much the sensor.

0 upvotes
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Oct 1, 2011)

Well we are going to see a lot of below 3200 ISO highlight samples of A77, a lot of people who will just use it for low ISO landscapes ( it does 12 fps guys!!!), but also
ACR sucks, downsize the samples etc.
There is some irony in my message don't take it very seriously :)

0 upvotes
inFocus
By inFocus (Oct 1, 2011)

Irony is wasted on the internet, don't you know that? Try seriousity instead, it has a tendency to work.

0 upvotes
Hugo600si
By Hugo600si (Oct 1, 2011)

Hehe, I will use it for low iso (I'm very happy with the iso 50 for studio and landscape use). The 12fps I couldn't care less about, I've used the maximum speed on my a700 only 3 times since I bought it.

ACR is pretty good here though, notice the lack of moire on the focus line which clearly has moire on the 7d and d7k.
The camera does have its weaknesses, but for a sony invested guy its a no brainer. Between brands... really depends on what you need for a camera, I think all camera's in the comparison far out resolve my need, the quality is excellent for all and feature wize it depends on the photographer (for me all have all the features I need)

1 upvote
RedFox88
By RedFox88 (Oct 1, 2011)

Why buy a 24 MP dSLR if you need to downsize them? What a ridiculous suggestion!

0 upvotes
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Oct 1, 2011)

You just didn't get the sens of my message
even with irony alert :)
I was suggesting that there is gonna be some people who will try to compensate the camera relatively poor high iso performance by arguments like "I don't shoot high iso" (Well I do even with my PS camera), "Downsize the samples to compare the noise level" ( even if the difference is so evident that there is no need of downsizing to see that A77 isn't as good as D7000 for example) etc ...
And yes it's a bit lets say "strange" to buy a 24 mp camera and then resize the pictures (good for cropping thought)

0 upvotes
Hubertus Bigend
By Hubertus Bigend (Oct 1, 2011)

As I already commented under http://www.dpreview.com/news/1109/11092610sonyslta77studio.asp, the shots are clearly out of focus.

Simply developing the same old shots in another RAW converter won't do the sensor any more justice than the first attempt did.

There are already lots of sample images floating around the net proving that the A77 can do sharper than the dpreview comparison shot suggests. If this was all it could do, the 12 MP Olympus E-5 (with its even smaller sensor) would resolve detail just as well.

0 upvotes
gl2k
By gl2k (Oct 1, 2011)

Image quality on modern cams is so close that it makes almost no difference what cam you use. And IF (!!!) high ISO is important than full frame is the way to go.
It's all about the handling of the body and the overall system (lenses, speedlights, etc.) that makes the difference.

To me the main question is : Does SONY have a lens that can resolve 24 MP on an APS-C size sensor ? hmmm ...

2 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Oct 1, 2011)

Yes the zeiss 24/2 =)

0 upvotes
chlamchowder
By chlamchowder (Oct 1, 2011)

But full frame is expensive - the cheapest one out there (the a850) sells for about $500 more than the a77. Getting good high ISO performance with a cheaper APS-C sensor will be attractive to many people, like sports shooters (because the crop factor also helps).

And yes - Sony does have lenses that can resolve 24 MP...I think most of the fixed focal length lenses (35/1.8, 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/2.8, 135/1.8, etc.) should out resolve a 24 mp sensor at optimal apertures....at least I hope.

0 upvotes
lucidOne
By lucidOne (Oct 1, 2011)

It reminds me of Sony's F828 (increased noise levels resulting from pushing the tech to far). Prior to the F828 Olympus made a statement that going below 3.9 microns becomes problematic in sensor design. Of course tech has improved since then - but it's interesting they would draw that line in the sand.

Maybe the Nex-7 will have improved performance.

0 upvotes
RJD79
By RJD79 (Oct 1, 2011)

it should be noted that resolution at F9 on an aps-c camera with 24 mpixels is going to be diffraction limited. this puts the A77 into disadvantage, mainly at low iso.

i also wanted to ask for a long time why the Sony A55 shots are visibly lighter than basically all other cameras. this makes proper comparison difficult.

0 upvotes
Andre100
By Andre100 (Oct 1, 2011)

When I compare the RAW delivered by ACR 6.5 and Jpeg at ISO 3200 (for example) it is obvious that the color noise is awfully higher for the RAW than the ISO
I can't believe such a behavior ! Or the noise reduction of sony's Jpeg does a great job !
My question is where is the bug ? Or probably, the BAYER treatment of RAW file of ACR 6.5 iis definitvely unreliable !

0 upvotes
Philip Goh
By Philip Goh (Oct 1, 2011)

That's because they DPReview RAW shots do not have noise reduction applied. They do this with *all* their cameras where the RAW files show more noise than the equivalent JPEGs. It's not some conspiracy to discredit the A77.

0 upvotes
Aero Windwalker
By Aero Windwalker (Oct 1, 2011)

As long as the lagging time of the view finder turning on exists, it's far from an efficient camera.

0 upvotes
chlamchowder
By chlamchowder (Oct 1, 2011)

I think the battery life is a bigger issue with the EVF

0 upvotes
TakisL
By TakisL (Oct 1, 2011)

You try hard to promote A77. Very hard...

4 upvotes
h2011
By h2011 (Oct 1, 2011)

Why studio images from a77 are larger than other SLRs? They all have to be same size. Can somebody explain? Please try to compare images of d7000 with a77 on www.imaging-resource.com, upto ISO6400 a77 manages very well.

0 upvotes
Hubertus Bigend
By Hubertus Bigend (Oct 1, 2011)

Viewed at 100% on the computer screen, the megapixel count determines how large the image appears. The more pixels, the larger the image.

1 upvote
RedFox88
By RedFox88 (Oct 1, 2011)

No, they should not all be the same size. Many different cameras, many different pixel counts!

0 upvotes
policeman0077
By policeman0077 (Oct 1, 2011)

different pixel photos are difficult to compare, in addition lenses' resolution also should be considered?

0 upvotes
Andre100
By Andre100 (Oct 1, 2011)

I wonder how the raw is so noisy compared to jpeg ! Is there a bug ?

0 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Oct 1, 2011)

It's called detail, the JPGs don't have it. Because of the in-camera Detail Reduc... sorry i mean Noise Reduction. ;)

1 upvote
RedFox88
By RedFox88 (Oct 1, 2011)

Andre, if you'd read you'd understand the DPR turns ALL noise reduction off for their RAW samples in the studio comparison shot. JPG by design will have noise reduction applied.

0 upvotes
Jikester
By Jikester (Oct 1, 2011)

Was excited about the A-77 until seeing these. I wonder if the NEX-7 will be much better?

0 upvotes
Chaitanya S
By Chaitanya S (Oct 1, 2011)

it probably will be, considering there is no mirror in between the sensor and the lens.

0 upvotes
Lng0004
By Lng0004 (Oct 1, 2011)

better? Yes. Much? No.

1 upvote
chlamchowder
By chlamchowder (Oct 1, 2011)

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the NEX-7 will come close to the a580/D7000/K-5 in terms of ISO performance. DxOMark gave the a77 a high ISO score that was a hair lower than the a55's. So making a guess from that, the NEX-7 (without the mirror cutting out light) should come close to the 16 MP sensor when the output sizes are matched.

0 upvotes
BMWX5
By BMWX5 (Oct 1, 2011)

We would like an explanation why DP used a beta version in the first place.

0 upvotes
Lars Rehm
By Lars Rehm (Oct 1, 2011)

Because the final version wasn't available at the time. We use beta versions all the time. As you can see there is no visible difference in the results.

6 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (Oct 1, 2011)

To be fair you were not even using a beta version but an RC version. RC versions are much closer to the finished product than a beta. Generally the only difference is they may add a few new cameras that came out after the RC version. DPR are fully right in using RC versions, it's not as though some cameras don't have their software tweaked before they are in the shops for jpeg output and that is when you really see a difference.

0 upvotes
RedFox88
By RedFox88 (Oct 1, 2011)

Stu, why are you whining when there is no difference in the output?!

0 upvotes
ksgant
By ksgant (Oct 1, 2011)

They've never really solved their noise problems have they.

0 upvotes
Abu Baqer
By Abu Baqer (Oct 1, 2011)

They solve it a bit by increasing the resolution. Up to ISO 3200 it's O.K, but from ISO 6400 & higher noise can been easily.

0 upvotes
chlamchowder
By chlamchowder (Oct 1, 2011)

No one really has the high ISO problem solved with APS-C, but with cameras like the a580/D7000/K-5, noise performance is quite decent. I think Sony knows how to make sensors.

0 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (Oct 1, 2011)

The focus on the Sony is out of line with the rest of them. Seems like its on the Queen at the back, every other one is somewhere else.

0 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Oct 1, 2011)

Only noticed the apparently bad contrast lens.

0 upvotes
jaysdesk
By jaysdesk (Oct 1, 2011)

At first I found it curious that the size of the raw file for the SLT-A77 remains absolutely constant across the ISO range. Then I reasoned that this should be the expected result for unprocessed raw files.

This is not what we observe with other cameras( including SLT-A55, and DSLR-A900, which display some slight variation in the raw file size for different ISO settings).
This suggests to me that this time around, Adobe truly, leaves the noise alone, at null settings, in the ACR 6.5(something that I understand was not the case in earlier versions).

The ballooning size of the JPG files at higher ISOs seems to indicate that a lot of noise is passed on to the JPG pipeline.

If there is any validity to any of this, then a meaningful comparison can be made,only if all the raw files for all the cameras, are processed through ACR 6.5.

0 upvotes
marv1n
By marv1n (Oct 1, 2011)

That interesting.
Because actually, canons cr2 uses lossless jpeg compression. So file size vary by several MB depending on scene, iso, bokeh.
So I wonder if or what kind of compression sony uses.

0 upvotes
thx1138
By thx1138 (Oct 1, 2011)

There is no such thing as lossless jpg compression. It's a lossy format. They have lossless compression for RAW files. Canon RAW files vary considerably in size depending on the ISO used, by upto 20%.

0 upvotes
SteB
By SteB (Oct 1, 2011)

I compared the A77 to the 7D, D7000 and GH2 up to ISO 1600 in RAW. I carefully scanned all round the image, looking at various things like chroma and luminance noise, detail retention, and resolution. At low ISOs the A77 is impressive. However, by ISO 400 you are starting to see enough chroma noise on the A77 to destroy fine detail, and to make removing it difficult. The A77 again surprisingly lags some way behind the GH2, which is slightly behind the D7000 and 7D. By ISO 800 the A77 was lagging behind the GH2 even more. By ISO 1600 it was ugly enough not to want to see more. Again what surprised me was that the GH2 was closer to the D7000 and 7D, than the A77 was to the GH2. Whilst I didn't bother downloading and resizing the A77 files, it was clear that even with this slight downsizing the A77 files would have had still had more chroma noise. It's now clear why the JPEGs show such a lot of detail smudging.

2 upvotes
jenbenn
By jenbenn (Oct 1, 2011)

I dont find it impressive at low iso. If you convert the 7d and the aplpha 77 raw images with ACr and intpolate the 7d image to the alphas 6000x4000 pixels you will not notice any extra detail. both cameras are the same. Theoratically the 24MP may resolve more (it may be measurable) but it doesnt translate into print. Thus I call it an epic fail. The camer is not better than lower Mpa cameras at low iso but much worse at high iso.

2 upvotes
s1Lma
By s1Lma (Sep 30, 2011)

Still, one-stop difference between the competition. This complies with the theory, as someone said. The pity thing here is the heavy noise in shadows and the absence of clarity at the base iso which, in turn, diminishes benefits of the pixel growth... Let's look forward to the nex's shots.

BTW, thanks DPreview for the update.

0 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (Sep 30, 2011)

What is interesting to me is that Sony has actually made great strides in noise management. Now WHEN they bring out the FF body with maybe 24MP THEN the 5DmkII will have very real competition.

0 upvotes
bobby335i
By bobby335i (Oct 1, 2011)

i dont think the next SonyFF will be 24mp, some rumors say it might be 32mp or 36mp

0 upvotes
chlamchowder
By chlamchowder (Oct 1, 2011)

They already brought out a 24 MP FF body (the a900)

2 upvotes
IcyVeins
By IcyVeins (Sep 30, 2011)

Honestly, what percent of your photos are taken at higher than ISO 1600? For almost everybody it will be 1% or less.

1 upvote
jpr2
By jpr2 (Oct 1, 2011)

very little (if any) for landscapes, but quite high if one is into night scenes, or even for low light but high actions' packed scenes :)

1 upvote
Drareg Ajerap
By Drareg Ajerap (Oct 1, 2011)

My daily average: 800 -40%;1600 -30%;400 -20%;200 -5%;200 -2%;100 -2%;6400 -1% Why? I often mount an old manual lens, set things to Av and stroll down corridors and alleys and malls. I hardly go outside until after the golden hour.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Oct 1, 2011)

@ IcyVeins,

Honestly, about 80 percent of what I shoot, I shoot above 3200 ISO.

0 upvotes
chlamchowder
By chlamchowder (Oct 1, 2011)

Honestly, how many people shoot sports/other action shots, save money by buying slower lenses, or take pictures in low light? I think a lot....

0 upvotes
RedFox88
By RedFox88 (Oct 1, 2011)

But all cameras can do well in good light. What separates cameras is their low light abilities or lack thereof. It's also very nice for taking indoor photos without a flash. You get to record the ambiance of the setting instead of flooding it with light. When you need good high ISO, and you have a camera that can do it you are on top of the world! :D

0 upvotes
Drareg Ajerap
By Drareg Ajerap (Sep 30, 2011)

If there's any improvement it's very insignificant: A77 is still the worst at ISO 6400 JPEG up and ISO 3200 RAW up when compared with the other three in studio comparisson quartet.

1 upvote
tesch
By tesch (Sep 30, 2011)

I must admit, when I first looked at these comparisons I really was very disappointed in the amount of noise in the A77 raw files. But after updating Lightroom and comparing the raw files on my own computer to the 5DMKII, there’s very little difference. The 5DMKI is still a better image at the higher ISOs and the A77 falls off dramatically around 3200 but the difference is not enough to justify “me” spending the extra $1K on the Canon. I’m in the market for an upgrade so I will be buying one of these cameras…..I just think it’s going to be the A77.

1 upvote
ksgant
By ksgant (Oct 1, 2011)

Really? Even the 7D was much better than the A77 in terms of noise. Above 3200 it's unusable, even using LR's great noise filering.

But I have to say, noise aside, I really like the features that the A77 has on it. If you can live down below 3200 ISO, then this is a great camera. I personally cannot.

2 upvotes
futile32
By futile32 (Oct 1, 2011)

ksgant: I disagree, at 3200 and 6400 I think its fully usable. Even with default ACR settings... adding a little NR makes a big difference. Perhaps my expectations or needs are lower?

iso3200
http://thepixelbox.smugmug.com/photos/i-gmgsrNs/0/O/i-gmgsrNs.jpg

iso6400
http://thepixelbox.smugmug.com/photos/i-JF5tPrf/0/O/i-JF5tPrf.jpg

1 upvote
tesch
By tesch (Oct 1, 2011)

Just wondeingr, does Canon do any noise reduction on their raw image? I seem to remember them doing some type of reduction some time back but have really lost touch with wht they do now.

These comparisons are very subjective....I don't think the 7D was better at all. In fact at lower ISOs the a77 is way ahead of the 7D. I'd rather live with a better overall image quaility with better tonal range and more pixels than noiseless images at higher ISOs. Can I live below 3200? ..........I just preordered from Sony Style.

0 upvotes
abolit
By abolit (Sep 30, 2011)

disappointing....

0 upvotes
rishi o'
By rishi o' (Sep 30, 2011)

Looks better by 1 stop to me. Last time I recall ISO 1600 on the a77 was about equal to ISO 6400 on the 5n. Now ISO 3200 on the a77 is about equal to ISO 6400 on the 5n. I bet this means that the nex 7 and the nex 5n would be pretty close and to me that shows that Sony did not make a mistake by going 24mp if the 16mp sensor performs about the same..
Well - that's my observation. I'm feeling pretty good about it (for the first time).

1 upvote
Albino_BlacMan
By Albino_BlacMan (Sep 30, 2011)

Whats the dpreview technique for making the samples comparable? Are they all shot at the same distance with an equivalent focal length lens (all 50mm equivalents) or all framed the same with the company's sharpest lens? And if they are all framed the same than how do they make the comparison tool show approximately the same scene for the close ups? Is it a different number of pixels for each close-up?

1 upvote
spoorthy
By spoorthy (Sep 30, 2011)

thats what it seems like but shouldnt a third party lens thats on all mounts be used to show off just what the sensor can do?

0 upvotes
Lars Rehm
By Lars Rehm (Sep 30, 2011)

We generally use 50mm lenses on APS-C sensors and 85mm lenses on full-frame cameras. For each brand we use the prime lens that in our experience gives the best results.

0 upvotes
robbo d
By robbo d (Oct 1, 2011)

i'm curious why Pentax can make these Sony sensors absolutely sing? Wonder what they would or are doing with these higher mP sensors. Is it anythng to do with the Pentax being tweaked towards stills with low light and dynamic range and Sony inclined to include better video? and try for a slightly different market?

0 upvotes
Swaleck
By Swaleck (Oct 1, 2011)

Change out the 7D to a 5N for an interesting comparison. Jump up the ISO to 12800, raw, and view the detail. Sony did a great job with the 5N sensor, perhaps 24 MP is just a step too far for anything less than a full frame sensor at this time unless you are demanding high resolution and never intend to go much past base ISO. Personally, I would be very happy with the 5N sensor in the A77 body.

0 upvotes
Eric Calabros
By Eric Calabros (Oct 1, 2011)

5n sensor is the same thing Nikon has put in D5100. Just compare the RAW. The only difference is jpeg engine

0 upvotes
Philip Goh
By Philip Goh (Oct 1, 2011)

Perhaps Pentax has more experience squeezing the best performance out of the sensor, given that they were using pretty poor sensors with the K20D and K-7.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 94