Sony SLT-A77 studio comparison samples

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 $$

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe guys, you all have to read that thread:

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

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?...

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.

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 :)

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?

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Panasonic G3 is even better than this Sony A77

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

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

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.

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.

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.