Reading mode: Light Dark

Just love A330 JPEGs ...even at ISO 1600

Go to last post
Hi Vaughan

You bring light to the forum, do not worry about the d* heads.
 
AlphaDSLR said:
I I was beginning to wonder if anyone actually owned an A230 or A330 camera. Nobody but you seems to use and post with that series. Perhaps you should do some posting in the beginners forum to show some prospective DSLR buyers that Sony is a viable option to Canon and Nikon.>
Click to expand...
Well I have decided that I am done with posting images....or anything else for a while, I certainly wont be starting any threads for the forseeable future

There is something wierd going on here, there is a hardcore of posters that are detemined to convince themselves and others that the lower end Alphas are garbage....OK, if they want to whinge about missing features thats one thing.....but to claim that the IQ is poor is just ridiculous, it most obviously is not....actually it is excellent, but they can not or will not accept it

As I said before.....a month or so back, the anti-A230/330 lobby was a fever pitch, the claims were that the A330 was so bad....terrible....unuseable....it was impossible to even hold.......all that was just BS......a huge proportion of the opinion here is just whaffle and predjudiced nonsense....the A330 has the best out of camera JPEG quality of any camera I have ever used.....it is a great little camera for me (and many others)....and its cheap

Prob is......the vocal section of the "entry level Alphas are garbage" lobby are the most prolific posters....and they render this forum almost useless to the casual newbie camera buyer because the talk such nonsense....but their view dominates the agenda....so whats the point of reading this forum ?....most whingers dont own, or have never used an A230/330.......but if nothing else, I hope I have shown how good the A230/330 can be .....but just watch......now I am going to stop posting images.....the BS fantasy abut A230/330 will re-emerge.....but I cant be bothered to argue.....I am off to use my camera, and I will post images again after Jan 10
AlphaDSLR said:
Keep up the good work.
--

'Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.'

Rene Descartes
Click to expand...
--
The photographer formerly known as Kodakuser :-)



Sony A330/kit lens samples here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35161694@N03/sets/72157622495084386/
 
zackiedawg said:
That's actually a pretty usable limit for these cams, I think personally. I never hesitated to use ISO1600 on my A300>
Click to expand...
Thaks Justin....those are great.... even the cheapest modern Alphas outperform the older models.....I will post after christmas when I have used my new A500 (gonna buy one today)......I may post a few on Dyxum....its just too much like hard work here.....too many just want to believe that Sony cams are bad.....even when presented with evidence to the contrary....thanks, I like your posts
 
I dont have a sony camera but was watching your messages for some weeks and you showed me that these cameras are nott all bad like said here please tell me (and others) where you are writing next time as you have helped me choose my camera actually it will be an a330 I think
 
vaughanbb said:
Thaks Justin....those are great.... even the cheapest modern Alphas outperform the older models.....I will post after christmas when I have used my new A500 (gonna buy one today
Click to expand...
If you buy it today, let us know what you think today too :) No need to wait till Jan 10th. And post the pics as you test your new cam. You should just ignore the "whiners." Don't let them get under your skin. Here is one trick: If someone (or a group of people) says something nasty or argue, don't respond. No need to respond or debate or argue. Just ignore and make your point again in a new post, a new thread, without acknowledging their existence. That trick works :) And you will feel much better.
 
dougas said:
Tuputam said:
In such good lighting most cameras would do well at ISO 1600 anyway. There was no need to shoot at ISO 1600 here, was there?
Click to expand...
Agreed. Any modern DSLR will shoot ISO1600 in bright daylight, but why would you want or need to. Pointless post. The images are also too noisy to use for anything anyway.
Click to expand...
Hang on a minute VaughnB. Not sure what is so upsetting about this?

I a not criticizing the image or the camera. The thread title was "Just love A330 JPEGs...even at ISO 1600". When you start threads that try to make a point on behalf of a camera then the images have to back it up. In this case the high ISO images were shot in daylight...?

You have posted in the SPEED thread and I liked the shots. I don't really care less if these images were shot with an A900 or an A230, they claim to show good high ISO perfromance but are shot in the wrong conditions to do so.

If you had just posted the pictures syaing "I love A330 JPEGS" and made no claims I wouldn't have commented.
--
Sony Alpha A200 - Minolta AL-F
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stevendougan/
 
vaughanbb wrote:
use ISO1600 on my A300>
vaughanbb said:
Thaks Justin....those are great.... even the cheapest modern Alphas outperform the older models.....I will post after christmas when I have used my new A500 (gonna buy one today)......I may post a few on Dyxum....its just too much like hard work here.....too many just want to believe that Sony cams are bad.....even when presented with evidence to the contrary....thanks, I like your posts
Click to expand...
I like the shots Vaughan, came out well

In some ways the newer ones outperform the older ones, not sure the new entry ones have much different IQ wise, least not the shots I have seem

Being honest, the A200 I have does pretty well but it's no match for the Km5d for high ISO, that old 6mp CCD is getting on a bit, but it's still good for low light work.

With the A200 I find the jpegs are too soft at high ISO, so I always shoot raw on that, and mostly add some exposure, often it's under in low light, and that can make the noise a lot worse. The A230 I tried looked identical pretty much in that respect

A500 looks good for low light..have fun if you pick one up..just don't take my comments to heart too much ;-)
 
Glad to see you showing your true colours Barry. Pretty bizarre claim nonetheless. Care to demonstrate with some size-matched photos at high iso and low light from both cameras?
Barry Fitzgerald said:
Being honest, the A200 I have does pretty well but it's no match for the Km5d for high ISO, that old 6mp CCD is getting on a bit, but it's still good for low light work.
Click to expand...
--
http://mike2008.smugmug.com
 
Thanks for showing up and delivering the proof that Vaughan is right. You contribute to the fact that ignore lists here now seem longer than the first page of forum entries.
--
Ralf



http://ralfralph.smugmug.com/
10.000 slides still to scan........
 
Barry Fitzgerald said:
I like the shots Vaughan, came out well

In some ways the newer ones outperform the older ones, not sure the new entry ones have much different IQ wise, least not the shots I have seem

Being honest, the A200 I have does pretty well but it's no match for the Km5d for high ISO, that old 6mp CCD is getting on a bit, but it's still good for low light work.

With the A200 I find the jpegs are too soft at high ISO, so I always shoot raw on that, and mostly add some exposure, often it's under in low light, and that can make the noise a lot worse. The A230 I tried looked identical pretty much in that respect

A500 looks good for low light..have fun if you pick one up..just don't take my comments to heart too much ;-)>
Click to expand...
Barry, I have never had any problem with you....I like your posts and you make some good points, you are not one of the people that wind me up actually......Best wishes
Vaughan

--
The photographer formerly known as Kodakuser :-)



Sony A330/kit lens samples here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35161694@N03/sets/72157622495084386/
 
mike_2008 said:
Glad to see you showing your true colours Barry. Pretty bizarre claim nonetheless. Care to demonstrate with some size-matched photos at high iso and low light from both cameras?
Click to expand...
Why is it bizarre?

10mp CCD not as good as a 6mp CCD at high ISO, not exactly news for most folks.

Don't get me wrong, if you watch your exposure (underexposure in the case of the A200 in some cases), you can get ok high ISO from the camera, but it's no match for the KM in this regard, just less noise from the sensor.

I've been shooting the A200 for a year, and the 5d for a lot longer..I'd love to say the A200 was as good, it's not..end of story.

No need to post shots, that's the situation..why would I waste my time trying to prove something I know is correct?
 
To convince your skeptical fan base Baz.

Your partial and ones-sided comments are misleading as usual... You say the 5d is 'hands down' better at high iso than the A200. This is patently not the case if you look at dxomark and compare the cameras using the print button, it's clear that they are identical in performance at high iso and A200 wind at low iso.

You're a cheap KM fanboy with a chip on your shoulder about sony.
Barry Fitzgerald said:
No need to post shots, that's the situation..why would I waste my time trying to prove something I know is correct?
Click to expand...
--
http://mike2008.smugmug.com
 
Pierre, unfortunately it is people like you that ruin forums....there is no point me posting here if everything I say is disbelieved....I then have to waste time proving everything I say....its just tiring, cant you just accept that I am a straightforward guy.....posting my thoughts ?..... not sure why you think otherwise
--
The photographer formerly known as Kodakuser :-)



Sony A330/kit lens samples here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35161694@N03/sets/72157622495084386/
 
mike_2008 said:
To convince your skeptical fan base Baz.

Your partial and ones-sided comments are misleading as usual... You say the 5d is 'hands down' better at high iso than the A200. This is patently not the case if you look at dxomark and compare the cameras using the print button, it's clear that they are identical in performance at high iso and A200 wind at low iso.

You're a cheap KM fanboy with a chip on your shoulder about sony.
Click to expand...
I struggle to find a logical point in your post! (as usual)

Frankly your tone is in the gutter, as it has been for some time. The Km5d is not perfect, it has many warts and some issues of it's own. In some ways the A200 is better, but in others, it is not.

I simply state what I have found..and that is, the 5d is better for high ISO, I am hardly the ist person to suggest this, maybe you need to take your Sony love sun glasses off for a while..and open your eyes up to reality.

And what kind of poster would suggest I ignore my real world use with both cameras, to read some stupid site that crunches numbers, but has nothing to do with real shooting conditions? Very odd comments.

If you don't believe me use both side by side.

Nothing to do with what badge is on the camera, but everything to do with erm the sensor.
 
Dear Vaughan, I can understand your frustration with the forum at the moment and in my personall opinion that the forum is frustrated, mainly with Sony’s direction and lack of A-700 replacement?

The Sony forum, like the Pentax forum are all grouped together , unlike the Canikon forums , so there is a lot of argument and discussion between various groups within, a bit of a melting pot!

You have the “noob” Sony user's and the old Minolta guard, this can also lead to friction, and then there are the lunatics who are just mean and nasty and unfortunately they can be, because it’s not face to face. In general I think we all have had our moments, but we in our own little way contribute to this forum, good or bad.

So stick around, this forum is no different to life in general it’s a cruel hard world out there.

"Flame suit on"
 
You're so funny, you are sh!tty to everyone here and then anyone who calls you out on it is in the gutter? Real class.

My logical point is simple and clear, dxomark shows that the resized images from the km5d and a200 are essentially identical at high iso. You claim that 5d is hands down better at high iso, which is true only if you ignore the fact that one is 5MP and the other 10MP. You like to call your posts a 'debate', well why not try making it an honest one for a change.
Barry Fitzgerald said:
I struggle to find a logical point in your post! (as usual)

Frankly your tone is in the gutter, as it has been for some time. The Km5d is not perfect, it has many warts and some issues of it's own. In some ways the A200 is better, but in others, it is not.

I simply state what I have found..and that is, the 5d is better for high ISO, I am hardly the ist person to suggest this, maybe you need to take your Sony love sun glasses off for a while..and open your eyes up to reality.

And what kind of poster would suggest I ignore my real world use with both cameras, to read some stupid site that crunches numbers, but has nothing to do with real shooting conditions? Very odd comments.

If you don't believe me use both side by side.

Nothing to do with what badge is on the camera, but everything to do with erm the sensor.
Click to expand...
--
http://mike2008.smugmug.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top