A6000 DxO Marked

[EinsteinsGhost]

The fact it does it with on sensor phase detect (normally robbing a good third stop) and that PDAF covering a much larger area of the sensor is nothing short of amazing.

Where'd you get this third-stop number? It's my understanding that the PD pixels are a very small portion of the total--in the 1% range.

Bart

 

[TrojMacReady]

From Imaging Resource website I downloaded both A6000 ISO 3200 NR0 and Nex 7 ISO 3200 NR1 (low) There is no NR0 for that Nex 7 unfortunately.

I compared them in photoshop and they are very close although Nex 7 still wins for the saturation level still retains when using NR both colour and luminance while Nex A6000 have lost some saturation when using high iso 3200. Although unfortunately the A6000 images were not properly test yet from imaging resource I noticed due to they haven't done a custom wb due to is a first shot only though. A6000 some how is a little darker than Nex 7 but is only a first shot so have to wait until they review it.

Only best headline of that A6000 is much faster AF with Phase Detection compare to Nex 7 didn't have it and is slower AF than A6000. Thats the only improvement I can see from A6000. I am not confident to upgrade from my exist Nex 7 to that due raw file difference is a bit worry. So cannot really judge who is the best when A6000 is only first shot.

100% crops, NR and sharpening turned off.

NEX 7:





A6000:



For what it's worth because it's hard to say whether they received an equal amount of light (possibly a third of a stop more for the A6000), so the difference could well be smaller than seen here.

 

[Foroa]

An intereting read: PD on sensor without light loss

 

[Michael Everett]

From Imaging Resource website I downloaded both A6000 ISO 3200 NR0 and Nex 7 ISO 3200 NR1 (low) There is no NR0 for that Nex 7 unfortunately.

I compared them in photoshop and they are very close although Nex 7 still wins for the saturation level still retains when using NR both colour and luminance while Nex A6000 have lost some saturation when using high iso 3200. Although unfortunately the A6000 images were not properly test yet from imaging resource I noticed due to they haven't done a custom wb due to is a first shot only though. A6000 some how is a little darker than Nex 7 but is only a first shot so have to wait until they review it.

Only best headline of that A6000 is much faster AF with Phase Detection compare to Nex 7 didn't have it and is slower AF than A6000. Thats the only improvement I can see from A6000. I am not confident to upgrade from my exist Nex 7 to that due raw file difference is a bit worry. So cannot really judge who is the best when A6000 is only first shot.

100% crops, NR and sharpening turned off.

NEX 7:



A6000:



For what it's worth because it's hard to say whether they received an equal amount of light (possibly a third of a stop more for the A6000), so the difference could well be smaller than seen here.

FWIW the A6000 image is both sharper and shows less noise. I downloaded the RAW ISO 1600 shots of the two cameras, ran them through LR 5.4 with only the default settings, and I see the same: the A6000 is slightly sharper and has less noise.

Michael

 

[EinsteinsGhost]

An intereting read: PD on sensor without light loss

If you have pixels occupying sensor space that faces light but the light they capture is not used for imaging, you ARE using that fraction of light for PDAF. In fact, maximizing light capture for imaging has been an area of development for a few years now (see: BSI and gapless design, for examples).

In traditional PDAF setup (SLRs), its not a third stop, rather a half stop (30%).

 

[semifast]

There are m43 cameras that are less expensive, the e-pm2 with 2 lenses is about $400.

Myself I generally prefer aps-c over m43 but there are bargains in both.

 

[naththo]

From Imaging Resource website I downloaded both A6000 ISO 3200 NR0 and Nex 7 ISO 3200 NR1 (low) There is no NR0 for that Nex 7 unfortunately.

I compared them in photoshop and they are very close although Nex 7 still wins for the saturation level still retains when using NR both colour and luminance while Nex A6000 have lost some saturation when using high iso 3200. Although unfortunately the A6000 images were not properly test yet from imaging resource I noticed due to they haven't done a custom wb due to is a first shot only though. A6000 some how is a little darker than Nex 7 but is only a first shot so have to wait until they review it.

Only best headline of that A6000 is much faster AF with Phase Detection compare to Nex 7 didn't have it and is slower AF than A6000. Thats the only improvement I can see from A6000. I am not confident to upgrade from my exist Nex 7 to that due raw file difference is a bit worry. So cannot really judge who is the best when A6000 is only first shot.

100% crops, NR and sharpening turned off.

NEX 7:



A6000:



For what it's worth because it's hard to say whether they received an equal amount of light (possibly a third of a stop more for the A6000), so the difference could well be smaller than seen here.

FWIW the A6000 image is both sharper and shows less noise. I downloaded the RAW ISO 1600 shots of the two cameras, ran them through LR 5.4 with only the default settings, and I see the same: the A6000 is slightly sharper and has less noise.

Michael

What I did in Adobe CC RAW was using NR 25% on both colour and luminance. And sharpened at 100% with detail at 0% for my judement to explore to see how good images can it be shown. Sony still ahead with the sharpest RAW than Pentax, Nikon and Canon to compare. But the best RAW with lowest noise would have to be pointing to Canon 70D, Nikon D7100. Pentax K-3 exhibit softness due to issue problem with lens or possibly to do with AF imaging resource is having or using a cheaper lens with much softer corners. Nex 7 still wins for saturation still level well in higher iso than A6000 can achieves especially in red colours. And A6000 exhibit a little bit too yellow in raw. I think Adobe need to retweak the colours for the A6000. All were opened with Adobe Standard colours. Canon 70D unfortunately shown ugly side of red which almost looks like magenta but thats adobe's fault for having a bad tweak in colours with Adobe Standard.

I hope that Imaging Resource review it sooner and reshoot to do proper studio scene with custom wb and etc that will look much better.

Avoid using 0 NR in JPEG cos it shown ugly side effect of oversharpened speckles thanks to BionX engine ruins it. Use Low NR in JPEG most of time will solve the problem for A6000 as it looks much better. Be warn that default NR in BionX is once again still too aggressive.

 

[David Wyman]

"I am not confident to upgrade from my exist Nex 7 to that due raw file difference is a bit worry"

I wouldn't expect a camera replacing a lesser camera to be as good or better, in all respects, as the NEX-7, even if the lesser camera has some technological upgrades.

However, I like shiny, new things, and the A6000 will supplement my lonely NEX-7, at least until a A7000 comes along.

 

[naththo]

"I am not confident to upgrade from my exist Nex 7 to that due raw file difference is a bit worry"

I wouldn't expect a camera replacing a lesser camera to be as good or better, in all respects, as the NEX-7, even if the lesser camera has some technological upgrades.

However, I like shiny, new things, and the A6000 will supplement my lonely NEX-7, at least until a A7000 comes along.

 

[rhlpetrus]

The fact it does it with on sensor phase detect (normally robbing a good third stop) and that PDAF covering a much larger area of the sensor is nothing short of amazing.

Where'd you get this third-stop number? It's my understanding that the PD pixels are a very small portion of the total--in the 1% range.

Bart

 

[rhlpetrus]

It beats the nikons and pentax.

Nikon D3300 score is 1385

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Ratings/Sports

Still very good indeed and especially for the price.

Considering the A6000 has a lot of PDAF pixels (which is double that of NEX6) its safe to say had it not had those PDAF pixels it would had the highest overall score for APS-C cameras.

How many?

 

[rhlpetrus]

From Imaging Resource website I downloaded both A6000 ISO 3200 NR0 and Nex 7 ISO 3200 NR1 (low) There is no NR0 for that Nex 7 unfortunately.

I compared them in photoshop and they are very close although Nex 7 still wins for the saturation level still retains when using NR both colour and luminance while Nex A6000 have lost some saturation when using high iso 3200. Although unfortunately the A6000 images were not properly test yet from imaging resource I noticed due to they haven't done a custom wb due to is a first shot only though. A6000 some how is a little darker than Nex 7 but is only a first shot so have to wait until they review it.

Only best headline of that A6000 is much faster AF with Phase Detection compare to Nex 7 didn't have it and is slower AF than A6000. Thats the only improvement I can see from A6000. I am not confident to upgrade from my exist Nex 7 to that due raw file difference is a bit worry. So cannot really judge who is the best when A6000 is only first shot.

100% crops, NR and sharpening turned off.

NEX 7:



A6000:



For what it's worth because it's hard to say whether they received an equal amount of light (possibly a third of a stop more for the A6000), so the difference could well be smaller than seen here.

FWIW the A6000 image is both sharper and shows less noise. I downloaded the RAW ISO 1600 shots of the two cameras, ran them through LR 5.4 with only the default settings, and I see the same: the A6000 is slightly sharper and has less noise.

Michael

The a6000 sample above shows less saturation as well. It's hard to compare things w/o really controlling all parameters, from exposure to conversions. But the current sensors are excellent.

--
Renato.

Renato Pedrosa

Explore Renato Pedrosa’s 937 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

OnExposure member

http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

 

[ryan92084]

It beats the nikons and pentax.

Nikon D3300 score is 1385

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Ratings/Sports

Still very good indeed and especially for the price.

Considering the A6000 has a lot of PDAF pixels (which is double that of NEX6) its safe to say had it not had those PDAF pixels it would had the highest overall score for APS-C cameras.

How many?

 

[EinsteinsGhost]

The fact it does it with on sensor phase detect (normally robbing a good third stop) and that PDAF covering a much larger area of the sensor is nothing short of amazing.

Where'd you get this third-stop number? It's my understanding that the PD pixels are a very small portion of the total--in the 1% range.

Bart

 

[Bart Hickman]

...

On a DSLR, it only takes that much because the other 70% is needed for the OVF. And then the mirror flips up and the sensor gets all of the light.

Eh, so you're assuming that 30% directed to PDAF module is an afterthought, leftover? I would say, it is by design. And don't forget yet another path in DSLRs: metering module.

The SLT steals the 30% all the time which is a disadvantage of it relative to the SLR although I suppose one could also design the mirror to flip up in an SLT.

What has this got to do with anything? There are compromises with EVERY design, one chooses that gives up something to gain something else, INCLUDING a mirrorless camera which is really the point of this discussion. There is no free lunch.

The on sensor PDAF is fundamentally different because, well, it's on the sensor.

Fundamentally different in the way light is being received for AF. You're assuming that it uses less light to do the same thing that DSLRs/SLTs need 30% of the light for. Perhaps you're assuming it is significantly less (less than 20% or a third stop?).

That's right. It only blocks some (all?) of the light for a small number of pixels. For SLT, you are forced to divert 30% of the light over the entire area.

In terms of conservation of information, yeah it makes sense you'd need the same amount of light to get the same performance. In the case of CDAF, you need all the light for AF, but it turns out you can re-use it for the image, so there's no harm done. It's possible that for on-sensor PDAF at least some of that light can be re-used for the image as well. I think that's the case for the Canon version of on-sensor PDAF.

So the real thing I'm trying to get at isn't how much the AF needs to do its work. The real question is, how much is available to make the image.

You can't have one or the other. You've to deal with both (there would be no creation of light either way).

The PDAF sensors could possibly be able to register light intensity as an aside.

But worst-case, even if they completely cover some of the pixels, they block significantly less than having to block/cover the entire sensor for the small number of points.

Bart

 

[Euell]

The fact it does it with on sensor phase detect (normally robbing a good third stop) and that PDAF covering a much larger area of the sensor is nothing short of amazing.

Where'd you get this third-stop number? It's my understanding that the PD pixels are a very small portion of the total--in the 1% range.

Bart

 

[EinsteinsGhost]

You are simply arguing on numbers without willing to put a number. So far it appears that you are downplaying any light that is going towards AF needs, as if it does not matter at all. The argument placed has been that the sensor is performing at the top end of APSc sensors per DXO measurements despite of using on sensor PDAF that is supposed to be effective at quite small apertures and EV 0-20.

 

[EinsteinsGhost]

The fact it does it with on sensor phase detect (normally robbing a good third stop) and that PDAF covering a much larger area of the sensor is nothing short of amazing.

Where'd you get this third-stop number? It's my understanding that the PD pixels are a very small portion of the total--in the 1% range.

Bart

 

[quezra]

The fact it does it with on sensor phase detect (normally robbing a good third stop) and that PDAF covering a much larger area of the sensor is nothing short of amazing.

Where'd you get this third-stop number? It's my understanding that the PD pixels are a very small portion of the total--in the 1% range.

Bart

 

[semifast]

Margin of error works both ways. Meaning the actual difference is just as likely to be larger as well as your preference that it's smaller.