A77 IQ @ 400mm vs. A850/A900; my findings (pics)

[Alan_S]

OK, I sort of hesitate to re-hash an old topic, but want to share what I have found relative to this topic, as this is a real game-changer for me. I was one of those that pre-ordered the a77, mainly in anticipation of using it as a 600mm equivalent wildlife lens (coupled with the 70-400G) as a companion to my a850 (+CZ24-70). My hope was that the a77 would gain me a second body that would produce resolution equal to the a850 at the 400mm FL , and provide that resolution at the 600mm equivalence with the APS-C crop factor.

Have had the a77 for 8 weeks now, it is great fun to use and produces great results for the price, especially if you process the RAW files. I have been very impressed with it; so impressed that I have actually been pondering the prospect of selling my a850 to fund a second a77! But before doing that I wanted to test it for the specific application I had in mind when I bought it, and finally have made the direct comparisons at the 400mm extreme, which is the application I hoped to benefit most from. Here is my result; not scientific; in fact, very subjective, as what I want to find out is what is the best I can get out of the a77 at this extreme and how does it compare with the best I can get out of the a850.

I simply set up a sturdy tripod in my back yard and focused on an electrical transformer on a pole about 50 yards away (trying to equate to focusing on a bear or elk in the wild at that distance). Using the a850 and a77 I took two 3-shot sets (at ISO 320 & ISO 1600) with the 70-400G, using 2 sec delay, the A setting wide open @ 5.6, and let the camera select the shutter speed. a77's electronic first curtain is "on." Each set consisted of two SSS-off, one SSS-on. Comparing the sets for sharpness I selected the "SSS-on" files as they showed equal sharpness to the "SSS-off" images. Next, I opened the selected RAW files in ACR default settings, tweaked sharpness and NR sliders to the best combination I could achieve and saved at highest quality jpg (yes, this is subjective, this is all about what is the best I can get in this very specific application , and is the a77 the right tool for me, for this application). Here are my results:

First , for perspective, screen shots of the uncropped test shots:



Next, 100% crops at ISO 320 :



...and 100% crops at ISO 1600 :



As hard as I tried, and much to my disappointment, I simply could not get the a77 files up to any equivalent measure with the a850 at this extreme. Look at the wood grain; I could not get the a77 files to look nearly as "real" as the a850 files. Even reducing the size (which defeats the purpose of my purchase) does not bring the wood grain back to life. (For the record, I shot RAW+JPG with the a77, and also compared the a77's OOC JPGs: ISO 320 were very similar to my best RAW conversions but ISO 1600 fell way short).

So, bottom line, I do not see the a77 fulfilling the particular role I was hoping it would. It has been a lot of fun to use; in most applications it probably serves just as well as FF for most users (plus all the added features are great!). But I simply cannot make it do what I purchased it for. As the images above show, the best I could get at this extreme simply falls short.

As I said, I was thinking about selling the a850 for a second a77... but after testing I'm thinking my second body should be another a850/a900. Has anyone else done similar (400mm side-by-side, best you can eek out of each) direct comparisons with different results?
--

• AlanS

 

[steelhead3]

I didn't do a formal test, but my feelings on the relative merits of both cameras echo yours. Just look at the sky at 400 iso to prove your point. One thing I noticed though is that the 77 prints better than it looks on computer monitor.

 

[peter_jp]

I can't compare as I don't have an A900 or A700, but what I did find was that my combination of A77 and 70-400 required a micro AF adjustment of +4 to get maximum sharpness at 400 mm. Perhaps it is a good idea to test this, before making a decision.
Regards,
Peter

 

[JimmyMelbourne]

This is consistent with my findings, I do find the a77 picture quality to be 'electronic'rather than 'optical'. I cannot explain it more than this, but I think your pictures are representative of this and also might be affected by low ISO noise at extreme distances (for want of a better explanation). i am hoping firmware brings out more natural appearance, and improves npise handling across the ISO spectrum. this probably does not affect general shooting but when inspecting in fine detail it is apparent.

Have you micro adjusted the lens to suit the a77? I also found that some lenses worked OK on my older camera, then with the a77 needed fine tuning to eliminate focus issues. This could also be impacting extreme shots.

 

[Alan_S]

Thanks for the input, Peter. I did run calibration tests with the a77 + 70-400G and found it spot-on (needed a +2 with the 70-200, but nothing with the 70-400). But it is definitely worth re-checking to eliminate as a cause for my results. Thanks again.

I can't compare as I don't have an A900 or A700, but what I did find was that my combination of A77 and 70-400 required a micro AF adjustment of +4 to get maximum sharpness at 400 mm. Perhaps it is a good idea to test this, before making a decision.
Regards,
Peter

--

• AlanS

 

[mandms7]

Thanks for the comparisons. I'm coming from an a700 and was looking to upgrade. After viewing various images taken with the a77, I started looking at the a850/a900 as an alternate. I recently a bought a like-new a850 but started doubting myself if this was the right decision. In addition to the a850 lacking video and some of the other gadgetry of the a77, good full frame glass is expensive! But then I see posts such as yours and have to remind myself that in the end what is most important (to me) is image quality, and I think the full frame a850/a900 still beat the a77 in this area.

Would you be able to post further samples in which you crop the a850 images to be the same size as the a77 images? I'd be curious to see how well they compare when the image sizes are made the same.

Thanks.

 

[Alan_S]

Yes, I have micro-adjusted both the a850 & a77, but may do a double-check. Aiming a bit lower at the same scene will allow for capture of the wires that extend to/from the pole, will check that out to make sure this is not an issue. Thanks for your feedback.

This is consistent with my findings, I do find the a77 picture quality to be 'electronic'rather than 'optical'. I cannot explain it more than this, but I think your pictures are representative of this and also might be affected by low ISO noise at extreme distances (for want of a better explanation). i am hoping firmware brings out more natural appearance, and improves npise handling across the ISO spectrum. this probably does not affect general shooting but when inspecting in fine detail it is apparent.

Have you micro adjusted the lens to suit the a77? I also found that some lenses worked OK on my older camera, then with the a77 needed fine tuning to eliminate focus issues. This could also be impacting extreme shots.

--

• AlanS

 

[Alan_S]

Thanks for the comparisons....

Would you be able to post further samples in which you crop the a850 images to be the same size as the a77 images? I'd be curious to see how well they compare when the image sizes are made the same.

The crops I posted above were at 100%, so enlarging the a850 images degrades them with enlarged pixels... here is a quick screenshot in PS comparing a850 at 100% vs a77 reduced to 66%:

 

[TomHJ]

Interesting comparison; the difference in the detail in the wood is striking/disappointing.

Two observations: From my looking at them, the wood shows greater difference in sharpness (between the a77 and a850) than do the silver wires (or the number 15) on the right, which actually look pretty close (between the a77 and a850) [I'm not sure what I think about the lettering]. Second, the wood in the a77 ISO 1600 picture looks slightly sharper than does the wood in the a77 ISO 320 picture (albeit still not as good as the comparable a850 picture). I'm assuming it isn't vibration in the ISO 320 picture (see my comment about the wires on the right)--could it be small differences in focus (that kept the wires to the right in focus, but not so good with the wood pole)?

 

[DavieK]

We have very poor light here and testing is difficult. But I have a review to write on Canon's new 300mm f/2.8, and for this they sent a 1D MKIV as requested. We had an hour of patchy sunlight combined with horse races locally, and I decided to try my new 70-400mm on the A77, alongside the Canon - not for exactly the same shots.

I have since adjusted the 70-400mm to +3 AF, but that doesn't explain the extremely low microcontrast (fine structure) of the A77 shots. The Canon produced 100% keepers when fired at random angled to galloping hunters anything from 100 to 25ft away. The A77 didn't even manage detailed images at 200 yards.

My original experiences with the 70-400mm before it was launched were on A700 and A900 (prototype at the time) and it seemed to be a contrasty, sharp, luminous lens but my A77 shots (not even wide open, generally f/7.1) look flat, soft and dull. I see exactly the same kind of effect in the wood grain of your A77 example.

More tests needed to get to the root of this.

David

 

[quatpat]

No offence Alan, but it might be cheaper to invest into a course in post-processing rather than in another camera. I have added here below your comparsion, with the A77 crop adjusted to the A850 crop. Do you still see a gerat difference? I don't.

The truth is that the A77 has slightly less microcontrast than non-SLT cameras (I own an A77 and a A350), but this is normal considering the fixed mirror and the much more pixel-packed sensor. However, from my experience, this difference is minor and can easily be overcome through shooting RAW and adequate PP. I would never shoot JPG with this camera though, execept maybe for family photos.

The A850 is a very capable camera, but it is no secret that lower packed sensors have better colour sparation and better detail at pixel level than higher density sensors. Don't forget that the pixel-density of the A850 is equivalent to around 10.5 MP on a APS-C sensor, comapred to the A77's 24MP.

qp





Here are a few recent samples, shot with the A77 and the Minolta 4.5/400mm, some with converter. The firts one is almost a 100% crop.

Thanks for the comparisons....

Would you be able to post further samples in which you crop the a850 images to be the same size as the a77 images? I'd be curious to see how well they compare when the image sizes are made the same.

The crops I posted above were at 100%, so enlarging the a850 images degrades them with enlarged pixels... here is a quick screenshot in PS comparing a850 at 100% vs a77 reduced to 66%:

 

[EvilOne]

I am a wild life, and sports photographer ( amateur ) I carry two camera in the field.. one with a wide angle, and the other with a long lens.. in this case A700 with Sony 70-200 2.8 SSM G with a G series Sony 2X teleconverter, and V Grip.

Here is shot taken from 30 yards away// @ 400 mm with the 2 X converter and with crop factor...out to 600mm ( 35 mm equivalent. )Not from Raw, but a JPEG out of the camera... fast enough to catch the wood chips as the flicker flew out if its nest in the tree..Also, I saw the flicker fly into the tree nest and stood there for about 5 minutes in the hope to catch it on the way out.. This shot was hand held..camera weights 11 lbs with grip, lens, teleconverter, 2 batteries, and I'm 67 years old.

Yellow shafted Flicker



Date Taken:2009-04-28 10:22:10
Camera:SONY DSLR-A700
Exposure Time:0.0005s (1/2000)
Aperture:f/5.6
ISO:800
Focal Length:400mm (600mm in 35mm)
Photo Dimensions:4272 x 2848
File Size:10.32 MB
JPEG Quality:8/18
Flash:flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
Exposure Program:aperture priority
Exposure Mode:auto
Light Source:daylight
White Balance:manual
Color Space:sRGB

--BTW, I am waiting on delivery of my A77. I hope this post is not inappropriate in your thread.. if so I apologise... it was only meant to add some discussion.
Bill
Capturing memories, one at a time.

Visit my Smug Mug Galleries at:
http://evil-twin.smugmug.com/

 

[Alan_S]

No offense taken (I am quite familiar with extensive PP techniques using CS5 Photoshop and ACR). My comparison stopped at best I could get at the point of RAW conversion in, ACR, without moving further into elaborate PP technique (which would also enhance the a850 images). Would you mind sharing the details of the further PP you did on this? If there's a slider tweak or two in ACR that I and others could benefit from I'd love to know what it is! Thanks for the feedback.

No offence Alan, but it might be cheaper to invest into a course in post-processing rather than in another camera. I have added here below your comparsion, with the A77 crop adjusted to the A850 crop. Do you still see a gerat difference? I don't.

The truth is that the A77 has slightly less microcontrast than non-SLT cameras (I own an A77 and a A350), but this is normal considering the fixed mirror and the much more pixel-packed sensor. However, from my experience, this difference is minor and can easily be overcome through shooting RAW and adequate PP. I would never shoot JPG with this camera though, execept maybe for family photos.

The A850 is a very capable camera, but it is no secret that lower packed sensors have better colour sparation and better detail at pixel level than higher density sensors. Don't forget that the pixel-density of the A850 is equivalent to around 10.5 MP on a APS-C sensor, comapred to the A77's 24MP.

qp

 

[Alan_S]

Thanks, Bill. Nice shot! And that is exactly what this thread is about -- we each have a frame of reference, utilizing our skills with our existing equipment, and expectations/purposes for the choices we make when investing in new. Having used the a77 for the past few weeks I can attest that it is a fantastic tool, its just looking like it may not be the particular tool I was looking for, for my specific purpose. I guess we're all looking for the best bang for the buck, and maybe I was looking for the results of a 25 yr old Minolta 600mm f/4 (typically selling for around $6,700.00 USD on eBay) in a $1,400 package (coupled with my 70-400G). As good as the a77 is, at least for my intended purpose, the compromise may be too great.

I am a wild life, and sports photographer ( amateur ) I carry two camera in the field.. one with a wide angle, and the other with a long lens.. in this case A700 with Sony 70-200 2.8 SSM G with a G series Sony 2X teleconverter, and V Grip.

Here is shot taken from 30 yards away// @ 400 mm with the 2 X converter and with crop factor...out to 600mm ( 35 mm equivalent. )Not from Raw, but a JPEG out of the camera... fast enough to catch the wood chips as the flicker flew out if its nest in the tree..Also, I saw the flicker fly into the tree nest and stood there for about 5 minutes in the hope to catch it on the way out.. This shot was hand held..camera weights 11 lbs with grip, lens, teleconverter, 2 batteries, and I'm 67 years old.

Yellow shafted Flicker



Date Taken:2009-04-28 10:22:10
Camera:SONY DSLR-A700
Exposure Time:0.0005s (1/2000)
Aperture:f/5.6
ISO:800
Focal Length:400mm (600mm in 35mm)
Photo Dimensions:4272 x 2848
File Size:10.32 MB
JPEG Quality:8/18
Flash:flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
Exposure Program:aperture priority
Exposure Mode:auto
Light Source:daylight
White Balance:manual
Color Space:sRGB

--BTW, I am waiting on delivery of my A77. I hope this post is not inappropriate in your thread.. if so I apologise... it was only meant to add some discussion.
Bill
Capturing memories, one at a time.

Visit my Smug Mug Galleries at:
http://evil-twin.smugmug.com/

--

• AlanS

 

[LSHorwitz1]

I don't find it especially surprising that a full frame sensor, with 50% greater size, produces visually superior results from the same lens.

Expecting the a77 to perform as well as a full frame recent vintage camera is a bit of wishful thinking, as far as I am concerned.

Going back to the era of Ansel Adams and even before then, photographers have coveted large formats for a very good reason.

The a77 which I own and love is a marvelous camera, but expecting it to actually replace a full frame alternative just does not make sense to me for extreme examples such as shown in this thread.

Larry

 

[quatpat]

Thanks Allan, I really didn't mean to question your PP abilities, but rather to point out that with some tweaking many "shortcomings" can be eliminated.

I did the following to your sample: Since the A77 crop was resized, it needed some sharpening, as always when you resize a photo. In order to enhance microcontrast I added some light unsharp mask (around 70 with 0.8 pixel radius), and then enhanced a bit the overall contrast. Then I reduced the blue channel a bit in order to match the A850's colours, and did some very light NR with Topaz.

I know that this sounds like a lot of PP in order to just match the straight outcome of the A850, but in reality it isn't. All you need to do is to add a bit more unsharp mask and overall contrast to the A77 files, not much more. On the plus side the A77 files leave really a lot of cropping space, so to me it is one thing against another. All in all I find the A77 files rather easy to manage, with plenty of DR, and noise not being too much of a problem as long as the photo is exposed correctly.

qp

No offense taken (I am quite familiar with extensive PP techniques using CS5 Photoshop and ACR). My comparison stopped at best I could get at the point of RAW conversion in, ACR, without moving further into elaborate PP technique (which would also enhance the a850 images). Would you mind sharing the details of the further PP you did on this? If there's a slider tweak or two in ACR that I and others could benefit from I'd love to know what it is! Thanks for the feedback.

No offence Alan, but it might be cheaper to invest into a course in post-processing rather than in another camera. I have added here below your comparsion, with the A77 crop adjusted to the A850 crop. Do you still see a gerat difference? I don't.

The truth is that the A77 has slightly less microcontrast than non-SLT cameras (I own an A77 and a A350), but this is normal considering the fixed mirror and the much more pixel-packed sensor. However, from my experience, this difference is minor and can easily be overcome through shooting RAW and adequate PP. I would never shoot JPG with this camera though, execept maybe for family photos.

The A850 is a very capable camera, but it is no secret that lower packed sensors have better colour sparation and better detail at pixel level than higher density sensors. Don't forget that the pixel-density of the A850 is equivalent to around 10.5 MP on a APS-C sensor, comapred to the A77's 24MP.

qp

 

[photonut2008]

It appears that either the lens or your support have reached their limits with the A850 (looks like it's a lens issue to me), which is why the A77 has no more to offer. I wouldn't be surprised if the A77 could pull more detail from that lens at a shorter focal length, or from a different lens.

The lack of micro-contrast in the A77 shots bother me the most. Probably it's related to the pellicle mirror. Yes, it can be overcome with some post processing, but that results in a more heavily processed look to its files.
--
Anthony Beach

 

[Stormvogel]

A good year to all,

This one is 100 % crop more or less.
With A77 and 70-400. on 400 mm.





This one is about 50% crop.





Only to add discusion.

Cheers Willem.

 

[Stormvogel]

Sorry the second monky is 100% crop.

Cheers Willem.

 

[Nordstjernen]

The crops I posted above were at 100%, so enlarging the a850 images degrades them with enlarged pixels... here is a quick screenshot in PS comparing a850 at 100% vs a77 reduced to 66%:

What about differences in contrast? A lot higher contrast makes the first image look way sharper than the second. But does it contain more detail? Nobody can tell from expamples that differ this much in contrast!