Latest Alpha photos using a production version from All About

optical_illusion · Jun 18, 2006

Jeff Varszegi · Jun 18, 2006

I agree with Ominous that the high ISO performance isn't the greatest in the world. However, that's what we expected. In general the ISO 800 performance seems to be what I'd expect at ISO 1600 from a Canon camera, maybe slightly worse than that.

However, there are a lot of mitigating factors. In the first place, the noise that's present is a little more pleasing than that I see coming from some Canon shots, more natural-looking. In addition, the roughly one-stop loss in noise is counteracted by the many-stops gain with anti-shake on shorter lenses. This is not a camera/system I'd necessarily buy (yet) for shooting sports, but it is one I will definitely consider for indoor or other low-light general shots, especially of static subjects.

I like the colors and most other aspects of shots I see coming from this camera.

The ISO 800 shot is noisier but seems sharper than the ISO 400 shot. I chalk this up to random luck, and may only show that anti-shake systems are not infallible (as I already knew).

Alex2 · Jun 18, 2006

ISO test
F4.0 1/3 ISO LO80 33mm
http://allabout.co.jp/ ... ... digitalcamera/closeup/CU20060618A/index11.htm

F4.0 1/5 ISO100 33mm
http://allabout.co.jp/ ... ... digitalcamera/closeup/CU20060618A/index12.htm

F4.0 1/10 ISO200 33mm
http://allabout.co.jp/ ... ... digitalcamera/closeup/CU20060618A/index13.htm

F4.0 1/20 ISO400 33mm
http://allabout.co.jp/ ... ... digitalcamera/closeup/CU20060618A/index14.htm

F4.0 1/40 ISO800 33mm
http://allabout.co.jp/ ... ... digitalcamera/closeup/CU20060618A/index15.htm

F5.0 1/50 ISO1600 33mm
http://allabout.co.jp/ ... ... digitalcamera/closeup/CU20060618A/index16.htm

---------

There something wrong here. The Iso 80-100-200-400 photo samples are blur because the shutter used was from 1/3 to 1/20. The Iso 800 and 1600 are noisier but sharp and without blur because the shutter used was 1/40 and 1/50 respectively.

I notice that the ISO 800-1600 alpha photo samples have more noise than some competitors but in these photos the detail is preserved and using software as neat image you can solve the problem of the noise saving the detail.

Hi all
alex2

Jeff Varszegi · Jun 18, 2006

I am hoping that this doesn't mean that the anti-shake doesn't work well. If the anti-shake really is good for 3.5 stops, one should get well under the FL of the shot with no problems.

Ominous · Jun 18, 2006

Jeff Varszegi said:
I am hoping that this doesn't mean that the anti-shake doesn't work
well. If the anti-shake really is good for 3.5 stops, one should
get well under the FL of the shot with no problems.

Even w/o antishake you should be able to get under the FL of even a crop camera with the right method.

--
http://www.whalenphotography.net

Legacys_Quest7 · Jun 18, 2006

to me Canon is just another camera. I find it funny how many Canon users get caughtup in this camera ego games. To each his own. What I want to see is some quality pictures with all of that Canon gear. I've seen Canon users who are loyalist that suck at taking pictures. Yeah this also applies to any camera user.

All of this bragging about what Canon can do, I can still out perform many Canon users with a Holga. And that's plastic. It's not about what you have, but how to use what you have.

Ominous said:
Jeff Varszegi said:

I am hoping that this doesn't mean that the anti-shake doesn't work
well. If the anti-shake really is good for 3.5 stops, one should
get well under the FL of the shot with no problems.

Click to expand...

Even w/o antishake you should be able to get under the FL of even a
crop camera with the right method.

--
http://www.whalenphotography.net

--
http://www.legacys-photo.com

David Martin · Jun 18, 2006

Perhaps the most interesting comparisons to make for this camera are with the Nikon D200, which uses the same sensor, and the 5D and 7D, as a lot of former Minolta owners may be interested.

Comparisons with the Canons are perhaps less useful, as that is an admitted strength of the Canon line and it is already clear that their noise levels will not be approached.

I am in no position to do any comparisons with the Minolta's, and not too well placed on the D200's either, but to me the noise so far on the Alpha does not look out of line with typical results you see from the D200, which is not reallly very surprising.

IOW, for many shooters who mainly shoot at low ISO, little problem, but when you do want to shoot at higher ISO you have to be prepared to do some noise reduction.

Perhaps of more general interest is the switch in colour from what was done on the Minoltas - some ex KM'ers may have concerns about this.

David has done a wonderful job in explaining what is happening with the lenses and so on, but the remaining great uncertainly is the plans to release higher end models - with their line-up of expensive glass, they could certainly do with filling that hole as soon as possible.
--
Regards,
DaveMart

'Just a wildebeast on the plain of life'
Please see profile for equipment

José B · Jun 18, 2006

Remember those days with our Dimage 7xx cameras and we used to get a lot of noise complaints from both Dimage and non-Dimage users?

I think you hit the nail on the head, the high ISO images I've seen so far really resembles that from the D200. I don't think this is a deal breaker for most people since how often do you shoot at high ISOs?

Cheers,

José

David Martin said:
Perhaps the most interesting comparisons to make for this camera
are with the Nikon D200, which uses the same sensor, and the 5D and
7D, as a lot of former Minolta owners may be interested.
Comparisons with the Canons are perhaps less useful, as that is an
admitted strength of the Canon line and it is already clear that
their noise levels will not be approached.
I am in no position to do any comparisons with the Minolta's, and
not too well placed on the D200's either, but to me the noise so
far on the Alpha does not look out of line with typical results you
see from the D200, which is not reallly very surprising.
IOW, for many shooters who mainly shoot at low ISO, little problem,
but when you do want to shoot at higher ISO you have to be prepared
to do some noise reduction.
Perhaps of more general interest is the switch in colour from what
was done on the Minoltas - some ex KM'ers may have concerns about
this.
David has done a wonderful job in explaining what is happening with
the lenses and so on, but the remaining great uncertainly is the
plans to release higher end models - with their line-up of
expensive glass, they could certainly do with filling that hole as
soon as possible.
--
Regards,
DaveMart

'Just a wildebeast on the plain of life'
Please see profile for equipment

--
Shooting with the famous Replacements (1DMarkIIN and 30D)
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_1dmk2n
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_30and20d
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/maxxum_7d

Daemeon · Jun 18, 2006

Why do you always do that? He never even mentioned his camera. In fact, he didn't even compare it to another camera. He was speaking in general terms.

Legacys_Quest7 said:
All of this bragging about what Canon can do, I can still out
perform many Canon users with a Holga. And that's plastic. It's not
about what you have, but how to use what you have.

Ominous said:

Jeff Varszegi said:

I am hoping that this doesn't mean that the anti-shake doesn't work
well. If the anti-shake really is good for 3.5 stops, one should
get well under the FL of the shot with no problems.

Click to expand...

Even w/o antishake you should be able to get under the FL of even a
crop camera with the right method.

--
http://www.whalenphotography.net

Click to expand...

--
http://www.legacys-photo.com

--
--The artist formerly known as The Krakken

Jeff Varszegi · Jun 18, 2006

And if you want softer pictures, for sure. And if you don't mind losing many more shots. You can't take a monopod/tripod everywhere, and there's only so much you can do handheld. Enter anti-shake.

Ominous said:
Jeff Varszegi said:

I am hoping that this doesn't mean that the anti-shake doesn't work
well. If the anti-shake really is good for 3.5 stops, one should
get well under the FL of the shot with no problems.

Click to expand...

Even w/o antishake you should be able to get under the FL of even a
crop camera with the right method.

--
http://www.whalenphotography.net

Legacys_Quest7 · Jun 18, 2006

I think that you have the wrong guy. Bitter about what? I made a statement, the poster made a indirect statement. Which doesn't take a rocket scientist to see this.

Your question of why bitter doesn't make any sense because my statement and point was less about who has the better camera and about photography. Don't try to read too deep nor put a spin on this.

Btw, I rarely post or come on here. But I will make my point on here. Just like you are playing Devil's advocate. But I guess that would be just
as foolish as you are accusing me of being bitter.

Anyways, my point still stands.

Daemeon said:
Legacys_Quest7 said:

All of this bragging about what Canon can do, I can still out
perform many Canon users with a Holga. And that's plastic. It's not
about what you have, but how to use what you have.

Ominous said:

Jeff Varszegi said:

I am hoping that this doesn't mean that the anti-shake doesn't work
well. If the anti-shake really is good for 3.5 stops, one should
get well under the FL of the shot with no problems.

Click to expand...

Even w/o antishake you should be able to get under the FL of even a
crop camera with the right method.

--
http://www.whalenphotography.net

Click to expand...

--
http://www.legacys-photo.com

Click to expand...

--
--The artist formerly known as The Krakken

--
http://www.legacys-photo.com

Legacys_Quest7 · Jun 18, 2006

I use my camera and shoot high fashion, and many other types of photoraphy. I am currently a photography major. Bfa student.

Let me get to the point, it's not about Canon, Sony, Minolta etc..It's about what you can do with the camera. This is why I made the point about how I can take a plastic Holga camera and do better than many Canon users. No bragging here. But I am making the point about knowing more about photography and less about how my camera has th biggest @ick and can shoot more &ut aka fps than your camera which you'll miss that good sex aka shot because you don't have the equiptment.

Of all the years that I've owned cameras. I'm taking about Canon, Minolta, dslr, compact digital and a 4x5, I've never ever in my life would sit up and debate back n forth about who has the better camera or what was poor. I mean don't get me wrong, but I noticed that alot of Canon users have this pattern. I see these same patterns on other forums too. It's rediculous and pathetic. I want to see some images shoot with your camera. And I don't care what you have.

My work speaks for itself. I have a reputation for being a good photographer and in demand because my 'Minolta' isn't doing the work, but me as a photrographher.

Jeff Varszegi said:
Ominous said:

Jeff Varszegi said:

I am hoping that this doesn't mean that the anti-shake doesn't work
well. If the anti-shake really is good for 3.5 stops, one should
get well under the FL of the shot with no problems.

Click to expand...

Even w/o antishake you should be able to get under the FL of even a
crop camera with the right method.

--
http://www.whalenphotography.net

Click to expand...

--
http://www.legacys-photo.com

pc168 · Jun 18, 2006

Now these samples look a bit better. The A100 could be an attractive camera to many people. Especially to those who want to upgrade from P&S and prosumer. However, to make existing DSLR users (merely referring to Nikon and Canon) to jump the boat to Sony would not be that easy. I don't believe Nikon user would shift to Sony merely because of A100 using the same CCD of the D200 (we assume) and has more features like anti-shake and anti-dust. The Nikon lens system is a perfect one. To me, I'm a Canon user (350D). The CMOS performance is so powerful that I think this is my major reason for considering Canon. Once again, Sony has to do something very outstanding to make me to jump the boat.

Jeff Varszegi · Jun 18, 2006

It is fashionable on these forums to declare that gear doesn't matter. Every so often, these posts surface in the Canon gear forum as if they're some great revelation. I am no professional photographer, but I am learning pretty quickly, and I already know that gear certainly does matter. It can make the difference between getting the shot and missing it, or getting a low-quality and high-quality shot. That's why you don't shoot with your cheap plastic Holga every day.

Legacys_Quest7 · Jun 19, 2006

You missed the point here. My work backs up my point and the Holga example backs it up too. but you missed both points. Let me clarify for you.

While that plastic Holga will obviously not out perform that camera, it's all about knowing how to use that camera if be Canon or Holga. My point and purpose for that example is stating that you have all of these photographers on here with these egos but don't know how to use that camera. Now you know why I used the Holga as an example. It wasn't about which one is state of the art, but others doing less art with the cameras and are more of a b.s. artist.

Now let's compare the 7D with Canon gear that you have. No I don't have all of those lenses, but I have and do take images that are better than guys with 5 to 7 grand worth of equiptment. Do you see my point? It's more than about what you have, but how you use it.

I spend less time going from forum to forum playing these types of games. Photography for me isn't about your camera will never out perform mine. Btw, I've seem some stuff that has been shot with a point and digital that has blown away some of the best more expensive camera. Guess why? The photographer.

Jeff Varszegi said:
It is fashionable on these forums to declare that gear doesn't
matter. Every so often, these posts surface in the Canon gear
forum as if they're some great revelation. I am no professional
photographer, but I am learning pretty quickly, and I already know
that gear certainly does matter. It can make the difference
between getting the shot and missing it, or getting a low-quality
and high-quality shot. That's why you don't shoot with your cheap
plastic Holga every day.

--
http://www.legacys-photo.com

Daemeon · Jun 19, 2006

I'll presume I got the wrong guy, and recant.

I apologize.
--
--The artist formerly known as The Krakken

Jeff Varszegi · Jun 19, 2006

When did I say that skill didn't matter??? Hello? Why the stupid attacks? Get some sleep, and learn to read a little better. I never attacked any camera system.

David Martin · Jun 19, 2006

Hi Jose!

whether it is important or not is a value call, but certainly I don't see anything too surprising in the noise from it so far.
What do you think of the colour from the new camera, Jose?

José B said:
I think you hit the nail on the head, the high ISO images I've seen
so far really resembles that from the D200. I don't think this is a
deal breaker for most people since how often do you shoot at high
ISOs?

Cheers,

José

David Martin said:

Perhaps the most interesting comparisons to make for this camera
are with the Nikon D200, which uses the same sensor, and the 5D and
7D, as a lot of former Minolta owners may be interested.
Comparisons with the Canons are perhaps less useful, as that is an
admitted strength of the Canon line and it is already clear that
their noise levels will not be approached.
I am in no position to do any comparisons with the Minolta's, and
not too well placed on the D200's either, but to me the noise so
far on the Alpha does not look out of line with typical results you
see from the D200, which is not reallly very surprising.
IOW, for many shooters who mainly shoot at low ISO, little problem,
but when you do want to shoot at higher ISO you have to be prepared
to do some noise reduction.
Perhaps of more general interest is the switch in colour from what
was done on the Minoltas - some ex KM'ers may have concerns about
this.
David has done a wonderful job in explaining what is happening with
the lenses and so on, but the remaining great uncertainly is the
plans to release higher end models - with their line-up of
expensive glass, they could certainly do with filling that hole as
soon as possible.
--
Regards,
DaveMart

'Just a wildebeast on the plain of life'
Please see profile for equipment

Click to expand...

--
Shooting with the famous Replacements (1DMarkIIN and 30D)
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_1dmk2n
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_30and20d
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/maxxum_7d

--
Regards,
DaveMart

'Just a wildebeast on the plain of life'
Please see profile for equipment

David Martin · Jun 19, 2006

That's why they mainly discuss equipment, rather than photography.

Legacys_Quest7 said:
While that plastic Holga will obviously not out perform that
camera, it's all about knowing how to use that camera if be Canon
or Holga. My point and purpose for that example is stating that you
have all of these photographers on here with these egos but don't
know how to use that camera. Now you know why I used the Holga as
an example. It wasn't about which one is state of the art, but
others doing less art with the cameras and are more of a b.s.
artist.

Now let's compare the 7D with Canon gear that you have. No I don't
have all of those lenses, but I have and do take images that are
better than guys with 5 to 7 grand worth of equiptment. Do you see
my point? It's more than about what you have, but how you use it.

I spend less time going from forum to forum playing these types of
games. Photography for me isn't about your camera will never out
perform mine. Btw, I've seem some stuff that has been shot with a
point and digital that has blown away some of the best more
expensive camera. Guess why? The photographer.

Jeff Varszegi said:

It is fashionable on these forums to declare that gear doesn't
matter. Every so often, these posts surface in the Canon gear
forum as if they're some great revelation. I am no professional
photographer, but I am learning pretty quickly, and I already know
that gear certainly does matter. It can make the difference
between getting the shot and missing it, or getting a low-quality
and high-quality shot. That's why you don't shoot with your cheap
plastic Holga every day.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.legacys-photo.com

--
Regards,
DaveMart

'Just a wildebeast on the plain of life'
Please see profile for equipment

fishcatcher · Jun 19, 2006

Legacys_Quest7 said:
You missed the point here. My work backs up my point and the Holga
example backs it up too. but you missed both points. Let me clarify
for you.

You are missing part of the point as well. I shoot professionally. I have 25 K of Nikon gear, an R1, and Oly 8080, several MF cameras, and a couple of Leicas--and over 35 years I have owned virtually every type and brand of camera gear out there (mostly high end), and while that proves nothing about my photographic vision and abilities, it has made my work faster, more efficient, and has provided lens options and body options that make POSSIBLE types of shooting that no one can do with a Holga. Photographic ability is no greater than the tools will allow. Photographs are made not taken, but they are made with tools serving vision.

Ansel Adams took a lot of great shots with an SX-70 Polaroid (published a book of them), but just to show it could be done, but what he did and what he could do with an SX70 was limited. He didn't do work that the camera was not designed for, and he didn't take action shots with his view camera very often.

So, you are in part right that if you don't have any skill or artistic vision, you are not likely to get great photogrpahic images no matter what your gear is, but that is only half of the story. The better your gear the greater the range and potential for photographic development both professionally and artistically. When you are a student and can't afford good gear, you have to do the best work possible with what you have. One can make a virtue out of that necessity, which is partly what you appear to be doing.

By the way, these forums are designed to discuss gear, but you do see a lot of very poor images posted to them, mostly by newbies that want to use the fora for a combination of social interaction, ego gratification, electronic photo albums, and a place to get feedback and help, so naturally you are going to see a preponderance of snapshots and only a few accomplished photographs. That shouldn't be an invitation for a diatribe about their lack of abilities and your accomplishments.

If it were up to me, the forums would be about gear, but it isn't, and the forums are seldom monitored or moderated, so they are what they are.

Legacys_Quest7 said:
While that plastic Holga will obviously not out perform that
camera, it's all about knowing how to use that camera if be Canon
or Holga. My point and purpose for that example is stating that you
have all of these photographers on here with these egos but don't
know how to use that camera. Now you know why I used the Holga as
an example. It wasn't about which one is state of the art, but
others doing less art with the cameras and are more of a b.s.
artist.

Now let's compare the 7D with Canon gear that you have. No I don't
have all of those lenses, but I have and do take images that are
better than guys with 5 to 7 grand worth of equiptment. Do you see
my point? It's more than about what you have, but how you use it.

I spend less time going from forum to forum playing these types of
games. Photography for me isn't about your camera will never out
perform mine. Btw, I've seem some stuff that has been shot with a
point and digital that has blown away some of the best more
expensive camera. Guess why? The photographer.

Legacys_Quest7 said:
Jeff Varszegi said:

It is fashionable on these forums to declare that gear doesn't
matter. Every so often, these posts surface in the Canon gear
forum as if they're some great revelation. I am no professional
photographer, but I am learning pretty quickly, and I already know
that gear certainly does matter. It can make the difference
between getting the shot and missing it, or getting a low-quality
and high-quality shot. That's why you don't shoot with your cheap
plastic Holga every day.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.legacys-photo.com

Latest Alpha photos using a production version from All About

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

David Martin

Guest

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

David Martin

Guest

David Martin

Guest

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts