Just love A330 JPEGs ...even at ISO 1600

Ehrik said:

mike_2008 said:

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.

Click to expand...

That's not what I'm seeing at DxOMark. The most important data there is the curves for Dynamic range and SNR 18%, using the Print setting to equalise pixel counts.

The 5D is 0.2 ISO stops better for SNR 18% over the whole ISO scale. That's not significant, but you can't say the A200 wins (I assume "wind" was a typo?).

The DR shows the 5D being 0.6 ISO stops better at low ISO, shrinking to about 0.4 stops at ISO 1600.

I wouldn't call this "hands down" better, but it is better in all respects in limited light than the A200, so your statement is not only arguable, but false.

I good light, low ISO, the A200 has the benefit of ISO 100 which gives it a SNR and a slight DR advantage over the 5D.

Click to expand...

You also have to take into account the actual ISO ratings, I am certain that the A200 is overstating them, and the 5d us more sensitive than the actual ISO rating it's set at. I consistently see the 5d giving more exposure (actual on the photos themselves) than the A200, even when both are set to same exposure and ISO level.

The most obvious noise element, is chroma noise, def notably higher on the A200 than the 5d..that's my own personal view. A200 is not unusable, but it's not as good at the 5d..

Color me confused. If the KM5d is so much better than the a200 then why did you buy an a200 when you already have a 5d?

• you either did no research prior to the purchase
• you dont really own either or both cameras

if indeed you bought an a200 which by your account is inferior to the km5d then why didnt you return it? Instead you come here and blame Sony for your bad spending/purchase decision.

I still for the life of me cant understand why you buy cameras you dont like from a company you dont like, and then do nothing but complain about thing the cameras dont do, even though those very things were known prior to purchase.

My advice is to find a camera that ALREADY has the features you want in it. It seems to me that this would be a far more sensible solution. It would also save every one here a lot of grief.

--

Sony A300 - Sony 18-55 - Minolta 35-105 - Minolta 70-210/4 - Minolta 50/1.7 - Minolta 28/2.8 - Kenko telepro 300 1.4 TC - extension tubes

Lyle From Canada said:

Color me confused. If the KM5d is so much better than the a200 then why did you buy an a200 when you already have a 5d?

• you either did no research prior to the purchase
• you dont really own either or both cameras

Click to expand...

Lol...

Honestly, I find your posts great entertainment, so many conclusions you have already jumped to.

Lyle From Canada said:

if indeed you bought an a200 which by your account is inferior to the km5d then why didnt you return it? Instead you come here and blame Sony for your bad spending/purchase decision.

Click to expand...

I bought the A200 for use in specific situations, aka most in the ISO 100-400 range, and for flash work..it does that pretty well..and I did research my purchase, obviously though, you didn't research your post!

Lyle From Canada said:

I still for the life of me cant understand why you buy cameras you dont like from a company you dont like, and then do nothing but complain about thing the cameras dont do, even though those very things were known prior to purchase.

Click to expand...

I like the A200, it's good (not great) but good.

I am simply stating, it's not a match for the 5d at high ISO. It does some thing better, faster AF etc..some worse, such is life. Again, stop making up stuff as you go along..jumping to conclusions yet again.

I give honest feedback on both models, which is a lot more than can be said for some users.

Lyle From Canada said:

My advice is to find a camera that ALREADY has the features you want in it. It seems to me that this would be a far more sensible solution. It would also save every one here a lot of grief.

Click to expand...

My advice is to keep on topic and stop these boring pointless rants..
The A200 was not intended as a replacement to the 5d, but a compliment..

But keep ranting on about nothing if you wish...

Barry Fitzgerald said:

Ehrik said:

The 5D is 0.2 ISO stops better for SNR 18% over the whole ISO scale. That's not significant, but you can't say the A200 wins (I assume "wind" was a typo?).

The DR shows the 5D being 0.6 ISO stops better at low ISO, shrinking to about 0.4 stops at ISO 1600.

Click to expand...

You also have to take into account the actual ISO ratings

Click to expand...

Indeed, a point I often stress myself and that is often missed in reviews and comparison. Luckily, DxO do just that so for the numbers I mentioned above actual ISO speed is accounted for.

You are probably talking JPEG, and in that case the highlight headroom can be set differently in different models via the tone curve which can change the actual ISO speeds (a faster ISO means less headroom) from what DxO measures. The JPEG engine might be "better" in the 5D, partly because the pixel noise is lower at a given ISO so it's easier to deal with.