The DPR review has definitively killed one sacred cow...

The cow worshippers are revolting!
--
IQ is not judged exclusively by high iso noise performance

Biggs23 said:

You are absolutely, 100%, wrong. Period. You're welcome to cite DXO all you want ...

Click to expand...

but let me give you a cite-free analogy with no more connection to camera sensors than mole rats have to Olympic pole vaulting.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to take my car to Pluto for servicing.

Maybe in a lab test, but the difference would be so marginal (read noise already hitting levels below 2 e-), in the real world you're not going to notice it.

tomtom50 said:

A lot of qualifiers in that quote! How about this, also from pg. 19:

"Even when its files are downsampled to 16MP, images the A77's 24MP sensor still display slightly higher noise levels at ISO 12800 than the 16MP sensor of the A55, as you can see from the images above with noise reduction turned off. Chroma noise is slightly more intense, with larger chroma 'blobs', although this is muted by ACR's default noise reduction settings."

mike_2008 is over-stating.

Different people want different things. I personally NEVER print to a size where 24MP is better than 16MP. How many people do?

Consider these quotes from Conclusions:
"- In-camera JPEGs don't show off the 24MP sensor to its best extent"
"- Comparatively strong noise reduction at medium and high ISO settings"
"- Very noisy raw files at high ISO settings"

Compare to the praise of the jpeg engine in the NEX 5N review
"- Very good JPEG output quality"

I want good jpegs. I only process RAW once in a while.

Would an a75 with 16MP and the NEX 5N jpeg engine be a better camera? For many people, yes!

If you like the a77 buy it. It might not be cutting edge for high ISO noise but it is good enough and great in all sorts of other ways. It doesn't have to best in every way. Nothing ever is.

Click to expand...

Great post!

mike_2008 said:

Ergo all those banging on about noisy pixels are not serious photographers.

Click to expand...

Some serious photographers might be blinded by digital noise, but for most I think photoraphy is about content -- not 0.5 stop less/more noise ;-)

From my point of view the A77 files are as useful as the files from the A900, and with Loupe View/Electronic First Curtain I get more sharpness from the the A77 pixels.

ET2 said:

There is an advantage to big pixels in low light (high ISO) applications, where read noise is an important detractor from image quality, and big pixels currently have lower read noise than aggregations of small pixels of equal area.

Click to expand...

Assuming that the 24mp sensor has smaller pixels than the 16mp sensor isn't that the point, that the 16mp sensor should have less noise than the 24mp sensor in low light where high iso is most used? In good light the 24mp sensor should out perform the 16mp sensor.

--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

Quite honestly underexposed areas always tend to have more noise and noise in dark areas is not very objectionable since it isn't visible unless viewed at 100% and that part of the photo isn't important. It is only when trying to rescue an underexposed image that shadow noise is objectionable IMO.
--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

mike_2008 said:

Will win what, exactly? If you think we're going to see more than a fraction of a stop eked out of a new sensor technology derived from the A77 sensor I think you are very optimistic. the 5n sensor has just been released and is not any improvement at all over the slt-corrected A77.

Click to expand...

Will win the 'noise' war. I'm NOT saying that it would be a miraculous improvement, only that it WOULD be an improvement. That is 100% of my argument: a modern spec 16-18MP a77 would have fared at least somewhat better in high-ISO noise.

rolleiman said:

Lots and lots of words, and lots of self-belief but no evidence and no facts and therefore FAIL. Bring something evidence-based and we'll talk but until then the argument stands: no benefit from low MP a77.

Click to expand...

This is a typical argument used by those making claims that are unsupported by history. The ONLY way that someone could give you what you ask (truly evidence based proof of my argument) is if Sony had also produced a smaller MP a77. They didn't, so it's IMPOSSIBLE to provide what you ask, except to point out the history of modern digital cameras. If what you are saying is true, why did Nikon opt for a piddly 12MP in the virtually undisputed king of high-ISO, the D3s? Why didn't they simply get the best of both worlds and go with a much higher MP and kept the high-ISO goodness as a side benefit? According to your argument they chose a smaller MP sensor for kicks and giggles rather than because it provided them with a distinct and tangible benefit.

rolleiman said:

Biggs23 said:

You are absolutely, 100%, wrong. Period. You're welcome to cite DXO all you want when they compare the a55 to the a77, but that is a FAILED COMPARISON. Let me give you an analogy here that will, perhaps, enlighten those holding your opinion.

Click to expand...

Probably true for high ISO but higher pixel counts can be cleaner at low ISO due to the noise being effectively smaller/finer. It isn't a linear relationship, as I understand it.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. I'm not saying that it's not a trade-off, it absolutely is. I'm simply saying that I believe more people would be happy with the camera overall had Sony chosen to pursue a cleaner high-ISO approach and leave the MP race out of it.

rolleiman said:

But, hey, the pix look good, the viewfinder is big and bright, and you don't have to hear that mirror. Every time. And what you see is what you're about to get. And at 24mp you can crop vigorously.

Click to expand...

Yep, I'm not complaining about the camera and so far am quite pleased with it!

... and throw it at this:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=39682035
Have fun!
--
Ralf
http://RalfRalph.smugmug.com/

Ralf Bliesener said:

... and throw it at this:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=39682035
Have fun!

Click to expand...

No thanks. Here at least there's a chance that some people will see sense, trying to convince rabid fanboys that sony might have any merits at all is just a waste of time.

--
IQ is not judged exclusively by high iso noise performance

mike_2008 said:

Ralf Bliesener said:

... and throw it at this:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=39682035
Have fun!

Click to expand...

No thanks.

Click to expand...

Wow, you give up fast.

mike_2008 said:

Here at least there's a chance that some people will see sense, trying to convince rabid fanboys that sony might have any merits at all is just a waste of time.

Click to expand...

Could it be that hinting rabid fanboys here who use language like "rubbish" and "sacred cows" in attempted discussions on some questionable choices in Sony's offerings is just the same?

mike_2008 said:

IQ is not judged exclusively by high iso noise performance

Click to expand...

Agreed, as stated before:

To me it appears as the a77 being an excellent low to mid ISO RAW shooter - which could have been an excellent low to Hi ISO RAW and JPEG shooter. It is a great camera, kudos to Sony for the overall package.
--
Ralf
http://RalfRalph.smugmug.com/

mike_2008 said:

[snip]

Unfortunately we suffer in this forum from non-technical people repeating the same thing ad nauseum until it becomes 'truth' when it is simply not true at all!
[snip]

Click to expand...

Known as "Proof by repeated assertion" and sadly all to common in many areas of life, even amongst "technical" people who should know better...

Joe

mike_2008 said:

trying to convince rabid fanboys that sony might have any merits at all is just a waste of time.

Click to expand...

Pot calling the kettle what?

Nordstjernen said:

mike_2008 said:

The A77 images when viewed at the same size as the A55 have the same noise performance. So there would be no advantage to using a lower resolution sensor apart from a purely technical one when viewing at 100%. By simply resizing the A77 files to A55 dimensions you get 16MP performance. This is also confirmed by the dxomark results.

So, once and for all, there would be no advantage to using a lower density sensor for high iso performance! Are we clear?

However there is an advantage at low iso for the 24MP, if shooting well.

Click to expand...

You can scream this out very loud, but just a few will listen since pixel peeping without evaluating the result is too common.

Also, we know from experience that for processed/printed files the appearance of noise is smoothed out, and this is true for both low and high ISO.

Just hardcore pixel peepers on gear froums like this would compare unprocessed files at 100 % scale -- with default camera/raw converter settings! Photographers will draw their conclutions from results obtained during daily work. No serious photographers are selling unprocessed or poorly processed files.

Click to expand...

Would a method like Popular Photography employs for lenses be a better way to evaluate IQ? For example they rate a lens at various printout sizes (this is for the Sigma 120-300/2.8):



This method would deal with a print instead of an on screen image at 100%. This might also help people with the "how many MP do I really need?" question.

--
Rick
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fjbphotos/

See http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/10/26/iso-wars-sony-nex-7-vs-sony-nex-5n-full-test-with-crops/

This is a very careful and more exhaustive study than what DPR did. It compares full size at ISO 100, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400, and 12800.

It also downsizes the 24MP output to 16MP and compares again.

His results do not contradict DPR, although his wording is a bit firmer.

"It is no question that the 5n does a bit better at high ISO." ... "But overall, they are not really THAT far off"

I agree. Both DPR and Huff are saying the same thing, with their tone modulated a bit differently.

If anything is "definitive" it is the idea that the 24MP sensor has 100% equal high ISO performance compared to the 16MP sensor. It doesn't. It is close but a bit worse.

For my use I find the worse jpeg engine on the a77 compared to the 5N more troubling. The a77, like the a850 and a900, require processing jpegs to get near the sensor performance. The NEX 5N jpeg engine is much better. These differences are a lot bigger than the hairs being split in this whole thread.

mike_2008 seems intent on establishing that the 24MP sensor is superior in all ways to the 16MP sensor as the conventional wisdom. The facts are not backing him up. They are both very good. If you downsample 24MP high ISO output you get very close to 16MP performance, but the 16MP sensor nonetheless maintains a high ISO edge.

Das Biot said:

Very true if you're framing something big. On the other hand, I find that small, or very distant, objects will benefit from this technique.

However I like to frame my shots directly in the EVF and don't spend too much time in post processing.

My style isn't for everyone, but it gives me the results I like.

Click to expand...

Understood but I would rather do it post processing. To each his own.
--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

TrojMacReady said:

In that comparison, the physical exposure of the A77 (1/2000 F8) is closer to the A55 at ISO 12800 (1/2000 F9) than ISO 6400 (1/1000 F9), since the A55 received 2/3 EV more light in those exposures. On top of what I said before.

Click to expand...

Wow, you mean they aren't even comparing at like exposure? What a flawed, joke of a comparison, as ISO is relatively arbitrary, and exposure in digital is simply shutter and aperture speed. Good catch.

--
Thanks,

Digitalshooter

tomtom50 said:

See http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/10/26/iso-wars-sony-nex-7-vs-sony-nex-5n-full-test-with-crops/

This is a very careful and more exhaustive study than what DPR did. It compares full size at ISO 100, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400, and 12800.

It also downsizes the 24MP output to 16MP and compares again.

His results do not contradict DPR, although his wording is a bit firmer.

"It is no question that the 5n does a bit better at high ISO." ... "But overall, they are not really THAT far off"

Click to expand...

Except that if the ISO 3200 examples are showing how he controlled the test, he didn't control it too well. The NEX 7 received 1/3 of a stop less light in that shot, which if indicative for the rest, doesn't bode well for the results being representative. Atleast in the Focus Numerique test they kept shutterspeed and F stop equal and provided the RAW files for us to clearly see they the NEX 7 is no worse.

headofdestiny said:

TrojMacReady said:

In that comparison, the physical exposure of the A77 (1/2000 F8) is closer to the A55 at ISO 12800 (1/2000 F9) than ISO 6400 (1/1000 F9), since the A55 received 2/3 EV more light in those exposures. On top of what I said before.

Click to expand...

Wow, you mean they aren't even comparing at like exposure? What a flawed, joke of a comparison, as ISO is relatively arbitrary, and exposure in digital is simply shutter and aperture speed. Good catch.

Click to expand...

Yep. Visibe exposures are different, physical exposures appear to be different too.

Add the fact that we're comparing pixel level noise and you get an idea how messed up the conclusions are that people draw about images from that tool.