Alkpha 100 not so great.

Back in September I bought my first DSLR - Sony Alpha 100 twin lens kit.

I'm not a complete beginner having started around 1960 with a Kodak Brownie and I joined the Digital Age as soon as Casio produced a realistic camera.

Perhaps there is a problem with my camera/lenses but the frequent underexposure , soft images and underexposed Flash shots have left me less than impressed.

It's not being able to acheive a consistent quality that I find troublesome.

I've read and re-read the manuals and bought the e-book to see if that could help correct any operator problems but at the end of the day I have concluded that

1) the matrix metering logic is poor , all exposures must be checked against the histogram

2) the built-in flash is liable to underexpose in all modes although fully charged ; the reason is not understood btu I have seen other references to this problem on usenet

3) the standard kit lens is unacceptably soft with more chromatic aberration than I'm used to.

I find that I rely on Post Processing with Bibble more than I feel I should.

Conversely there's a lot I like about the camera. Getting good results is hard work and means keeping the lens stopped down and spot exposures with manual corrections with every shot checked against the histogram.

Definately not a camera to be recommended to someone in a hurry.

I must disagree with you, as I'm sure many other people will. I also bought the double kit lens package, and i'm new to DSLR.

I've had great results, in my humble opinion, and I'm sure if you just have a look at some of the other owner's photos, you'll be impressed too.

My recent December holiday pics are at

http://www.flickr.com/photos/badokun

Perhaps there's something wrong with your camera... that's about all i can think of.

badokun said:

I must disagree with you, as I'm sure many other people will. I
also bought the double kit lens package, and i'm new to DSLR.

I've had great results, in my humble opinion, and I'm sure if you
just have a look at some of the other owner's photos, you'll be
impressed too.

My recent December holiday pics are at

http://www.flickr.com/photos/badokun

Perhaps there's something wrong with your camera... that's about
all i can think of.

Click to expand...

Nice pictures btw!

--
http://www.markus-berger.de

tinpusher said:

Back in September I bought my first DSLR - Sony Alpha 100 twin lens
kit.
I'm not a complete beginner having started around 1960 with a Kodak
Brownie and I joined the Digital Age as soon as Casio produced a
realistic camera.

Perhaps there is a problem with my camera/lenses but the frequent
underexposure , soft images and underexposed Flash shots have left
me less than impressed.

It's not being able to acheive a consistent quality that I find
troublesome.
I've read and re-read the manuals and bought the e-book to see if
that could help correct any operator problems but at the end of the
day I have concluded that

1) the matrix metering logic is poor , all exposures must be
checked against the histogram

Click to expand...

It tends to underexpose a tad...though not a lot. Bear in mind in multi zone, metering is AF linked! vary your AF point and watch exposure change!

tinpusher said:

2) the built-in flash is liable to underexpose in all modes
although fully charged ; the reason is not understood btu I have
seen other references to this problem on usenet

Click to expand...

Not tried the flash..cannot comment

tinpusher said:

3) the standard kit lens is unacceptably soft with more chromatic
aberration than I'm used to.

Click to expand...

Seemed ok to me...shoot with it stopped down for improved sharpness...

tinpusher said:

I find that I rely on Post Processing with Bibble more than I feel
I should.

Click to expand...

Hmm tough one...why would this be? correcting exposure?

tinpusher said:

Conversely there's a lot I like about the camera. Getting good
results is hard work and means keeping the lens stopped down and
spot exposures with manual corrections with every shot checked
against the histogram.

Click to expand...

Most lenses are better stopped down..though it should be ok wide open in most cases...

tinpusher said:

Definately not a camera to be recommended to someone in a hurry.

Click to expand...

Try the AF thing with the metering..and then get back to me! it works....
--

Thanks! All were taken at Cape Town, South Africa.

Aahh!

I hadn't realised that the matrix metering was linked to the autofocus that might explain a few things. Is there a reference to how it is linked?

Thinking about it ,the focusing may have an impact of flash exposure too!

When I get a chance I'll try to run off some manually focused shots and see if I get some consistancy.

I don't want to knock the basic kit lens too much.

I have a shot taken while sailing under the Coronado Bridge , San Diego . It is staight into sun and shows the sun perfectly with no streaking light.
I've never had a lens do that before!
Even the exposure was good!

tinpusher said:

Aahh!
I hadn't realised that the matrix metering was linked to the
autofocus that might explain a few things. Is there a reference to
how it is linked?

Thinking about it ,the focusing may have an impact of flash
exposure too!
When I get a chance I'll try to run off some manually focused shots
and see if I get some consistancy.

I don't want to knock the basic kit lens too much.
I have a shot taken while sailing under the Coronado Bridge , San
Diego . It is staight into sun and shows the sun perfectly with no
streaking light.
I've never had a lens do that before!
Even the exposure was good!

Click to expand...

I did some tests here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=20479359&q=metering&qf=m

Not had a chance to put the A-100 through massive hard metering tests..but it should be similar...to the KM5D used here.

--

so far from general use I've found a100 matrix metering ok, except when there is any light or sky in the shot. It gives much too much considertation to even a small piece of white sky and overexposes these shots by a stop or so. That can be corrected by framing the shot without the sky and locking exposure or something similar, but for spontanous shots or sudden shots its not really practical. When it underexposes in these types of shots it doesnt seem to put any more weight on the fact that i focused on something in the centre of the frame, it just makes sure the sky is exposed well. I think in these cases the matrix metering should just forget the bit of sky and expose the rest of the photo properly.

Barry Fitzgerald said:

tinpusher said:

Aahh!
I hadn't realised that the matrix metering was linked to the
autofocus that might explain a few things. Is there a reference to
how it is linked?

Thinking about it ,the focusing may have an impact of flash
exposure too!
When I get a chance I'll try to run off some manually focused shots
and see if I get some consistancy.

I don't want to knock the basic kit lens too much.
I have a shot taken while sailing under the Coronado Bridge , San
Diego . It is staight into sun and shows the sun perfectly with no
streaking light.
I've never had a lens do that before!
Even the exposure was good!

Click to expand...

I did some tests here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=20479359&q=metering&qf=m

Not had a chance to put the A-100 through massive hard metering
tests..but it should be similar...to the KM5D used here.

--

Click to expand...

I meant it underexposes the shots not overexposes.

svensven said:

Barry Fitzgerald said:

tinpusher said:

Aahh!
I hadn't realised that the matrix metering was linked to the
autofocus that might explain a few things. Is there a reference to
how it is linked?

Thinking about it ,the focusing may have an impact of flash
exposure too!
When I get a chance I'll try to run off some manually focused shots
and see if I get some consistancy.

I don't want to knock the basic kit lens too much.
I have a shot taken while sailing under the Coronado Bridge , San
Diego . It is staight into sun and shows the sun perfectly with no
streaking light.
I've never had a lens do that before!
Even the exposure was good!

Click to expand...

I did some tests here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=20479359&q=metering&qf=m

Not had a chance to put the A-100 through massive hard metering
tests..but it should be similar...to the KM5D used here.

--

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You had me worried there as when I tried a Alpha it seemed to under-expose rather than the other way round.

Judgements about camera depend on your initial expectations. I still have not encountered any digital camera which is perfect & whose files cannot be significantly improved with further post processing. The A100 at its current US price represents good value for money & is a good introduction to DSLRs.

The kit lens is cheap & is a little soft wide open but it does improve considerably when shut down to F 8/9.0. Paradoxically many bridge cameras such as the Minolta 7 & A series were actually quite good at large apertures but their lenses were specifically matched to the camera. The kit lens has a very useful range & that makes it a good walk-round lens but , of course, you can get better lenses at a price !

All DSLR files are slightly soft at standard settings , that is in the nature of the anti-alias filters used to convert the Bayer mosaic matrix. If using Jpeg try setting the sharpening setting higher & in RAW you have much better control over all the parameters. I prefer to do my own sharpening rather than have it imposed on me by the camera maker.

The original poster did not say what his previous camera experience was - if he was using a high quality SLR setup then it is possible that he didn't aim high enough. Weight for weight DSLRs are still more expensive than good quality film cameras & you have to be prepared to spend more on an initial setup although , of course, running costs vis a vie film & printing costs are cheaper.

If he was also used to high quality film processing then he may not have realised how much the printing Lab was improving his shots in the processing with digital unless you use a specialist processing lab you have to do the 'darkroom' work' yourself.

Keith-C

Very nice.

I'd actually moved over from Panasonic's FZ series where the lens is quite exceptional so naturally I see a reduction in lens quality both in sharpness and chromatic aberration.

By many accounts the matrix exposure is poor and even the photgraphic press here in the UK made adverse comments when it was introduced.

For example , the reviewer from What Digital Camera Aug 2006 found that he needed to revert to spot metering ( just liike me ) to avoid underexposure.

In my view , exposure control is not up to the standard of a friend's much cheaper Canon and that annoys me.

It seems to me that there is room for a lot of firmware tweaks ; I just hope Sony is listening.

will changing to MF immediately disable honeycomb meteing or am i remembering somethign else?

tinpusher said:

Aahh!
I hadn't realised that the matrix metering was linked to the
autofocus that might explain a few things. Is there a reference to
how it is linked?

Thinking about it ,the focusing may have an impact of flash
exposure too!
When I get a chance I'll try to run off some manually focused shots
and see if I get some consistancy.

I don't want to knock the basic kit lens too much.
I have a shot taken while sailing under the Coronado Bridge , San
Diego . It is staight into sun and shows the sun perfectly with no
streaking light.
I've never had a lens do that before!
Even the exposure was good!

Click to expand...

--
Bernard

a100+28/2... yee~ha!~
7D+STF135... yee~ha!~
AS/SSS rocks!
lens reviews and more on dyxum.com!

yes be very careful...

easiest way to get underexposed pics (especially anything with people and background) is to focus recompose..

tinpusher said:

Aahh!
I hadn't realised that the matrix metering was linked to the
autofocus that might explain a few things. Is there a reference to
how it is linked?

Thinking about it ,the focusing may have an impact of flash
exposure too!
When I get a chance I'll try to run off some manually focused shots
and see if I get some consistancy.

I don't want to knock the basic kit lens too much.
I have a shot taken while sailing under the Coronado Bridge , San
Diego . It is staight into sun and shows the sun perfectly with no
streaking light.
I've never had a lens do that before!
Even the exposure was good!

Click to expand...

--
Bernard

a100+28/2... yee~ha!~
7D+STF135... yee~ha!~
AS/SSS rocks!
lens reviews and more on dyxum.com!

Canon cameras have used different exposure calcs than Minoltas for a long time. Arthuir Morris is a famous bird photographer and a Canon contract photographer. In reading some of his books, he explains when evaluative metering on Canons works and when it needs help. For example, photographing a light subject on a bright sunny day, the Canon will nail it. It seems that canon recognizes it is a 'sunny 16' exposure and uses some variation of that, ignoring the details of the scene, that could screw up exposure.

But for many other situations, the Canon evaluative metering needs help (particularly with slide film w/o photoshop for correction). He published a pocket field guide that had 60 different lighting situations (subject tone + subject size relative to image in the VF + background tone + type of lighting-soft,contrasty, etc.) Most of the shots required some exposure compensation, most were 1/3 to 2/3 stops either way, but over 20% of the conditions required 1 stop or more compensation.

On his website he has an archive of news letters with lots of photographs with shooting info. You can see how he compensates.

I tried using his pocket guide and found that with my Minolta multisegment metering, I did not have to compensate for most of the cases he listed. I believe that KM / Sony changed the metering algorithms out of fear of blowing highlights. Personnaly, I'm happier with some underexposure rather than lost highlights, but I feel they may have gone too far.

Tom

In good lighting conditions metering is generally OK but there us always the option to bracket exposure if there is any doubt.

Unlike using film , this only costs time & not money but you do have to make the effort to use this facility. If you are concerned about filling your CF card too quickly then you can review the images on the camera LCD &, after checking the histogram & any clipping indicated by image flashing, you can select the best picture & delete the others.

Keith-C

tom said:

Canon cameras have used different exposure calcs than Minoltas for
a long time. Arthuir Morris is a famous bird photographer and a
Canon contract photographer. In reading some of his books, he
explains when evaluative metering on Canons works and when it needs
help. For example, photographing a light subject on a bright sunny
day, the Canon will nail it. It seems that canon recognizes it is
a 'sunny 16' exposure and uses some variation of that, ignoring the
details of the scene, that could screw up exposure.

But for many other situations, the Canon evaluative metering needs
help (particularly with slide film w/o photoshop for correction).
He published a pocket field guide that had 60 different lighting
situations (subject tone + subject size relative to image in the VF
+ background tone + type of lighting-soft,contrasty, etc.) Most of
the shots required some exposure compensation, most were 1/3 to 2/3
stops either way, but over 20% of the conditions required 1 stop or
more compensation.

On his website he has an archive of news letters with lots of
photographs with shooting info. You can see how he compensates.

I tried using his pocket guide and found that with my Minolta
multisegment metering, I did not have to compensate for most of the
cases he listed. I believe that KM / Sony changed the metering
algorithms out of fear of blowing highlights. Personnaly, I'm
happier with some underexposure rather than lost highlights, but I
feel they may have gone too far.

Tom

Click to expand...

Well the KM5D I have is dead on the money most of the time...I think this is Sony not KM messing with things. KM used a 14 segment honeycomb for ages..it works...

Sony did a 40 zone..that isnt as good.
--

...
Great pics, thanks for posting.
--
Stuart / the Two Truths
http://www.flickr.com/photos/two_truths/
http://two-truths.deviantart.com/gallery/

I thought that going to the 40 seg meter would have been a good thing. I had expected that the reason for it was so that the camera would be able to evaluate if a highlight was large or small and ignore small ones. I'm not sure what they actually did with it.

Tom

What is correct exposure? Well distributed tones straight out of the box (what should be expected with jpg - and, if needed, DRO+), or a picture that is suited for post processing (what should be expected with raw format). And how sholud i.e. the highlights be treated? Burned out when the main subject is in shadow, or should keeping details in the higlights be first priority? What fits you? What fits other photographers?

The camera need to be fine tuned for your personal taste. No camera will suit all needs with default settings.

A too strong flash will burn out highlight details. It seems that the Sony flash is a bit on the safe side. Just increase the flash compensation to fit your personal taste.

The kit lens is a cheap (but not bad) lens with a huge zoom range. Don't expect the results at wide opening to be perfect. The solution is a higher quality (and much more expensive) lens, or to stop down the aperture a few steps.

These issues are not for the Sony A100 only, but for all DSLR cameras. To get the best from the camera, it has to be customized. Luckily, the A100 gives you all the options you need for this.

In my opinion the A100 is a really great camera, and it suits my needs when shooting ordinary scenes and low light situations. As with all cameras, it takes some time to learn the camera and the digital files from the box to know.