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

tbcass said:

julienA said:

he used to advocate the exact opposite, with the exact same arrogance, and of course ignoring or bashing people telling him he was wrong:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=32918797

mike_2008 is a born again believer, and as such, not very credible.

Click to expand...

I disagree as any intelligent thinking person will change their viewpoint based on new evidence as it's revealed. It's the stubborn person who holds tight to beliefs despite new evidence to the contrary (zealot) that I don't trust. There are a few such zealots on these forums who will remain unnamed.

--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

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

Click to expand...

And on it goes, I have my thoughts on all of the above and more! ;-)
--
"Pru, it's kicking off!"
I am a Toadie and proud!

TrojMacReady said:

tomtom50 said:

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...

Not so much. My company produces and sells high CRI daylight balanced lighting systems of the type DPR uses.

Over time the light output falls significantly. TrojMacReady is making the understandable but incorrrect assumption that light level remains the same after months of use. It is not true.

Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, most Nikon, Canon and Pentax cameras were shot at similar physical exposures.

And it's not a complete assumption, as even Dpreview noted that atleast the A77 is 1/3 of a stop more sensitive than indicated, where the A55 wasn't. Which they don't normalize in comparisons (studio tool and noise graphs).

Click to expand...

So what you are saying is the A77 was effectively shot at 1/3 stop higher ISO than the A55 and other cameras?

If so how significant would that be? Those shadow spools look pretty bad and I somehow don't think 1/3 of a stop less ISO would clean them up much.

Mike, why is it a valid argument to say that the 24mp images are roughly noise equal to the 16mp images when downsized? Surely this would allow an advocate of the 16mp sensor to do the same; downsize by 30% and therefore undercut the downsized noise result of the 24mp sensor. If images come out of the camera with more noise then it is a noisier camera. If you can reduce the noise post capture that's nice but it doesn't change the OOC results.

The 77 is a interesting camera but, like all cameras, has it's strengths and it's flaws. The most shocking of it's apparent weaknesses for me isn't noise or the heavy jpeg NR but is the continuous AF performance. I was under the impression that this was the one big upside to SLT's but apparently the 77 struggles to hold lock on a moving target as well as it's SLR competitors. Is it a possibility that the AF sensors need slightly more light than the semi-translucent mirror is providing?

bavarius6 said:

Mike, why is it a valid argument to say that the 24mp images are roughly noise equal to the 16mp images when downsized? Surely this would allow an advocate of the 16mp sensor to do the same; downsize by 30% and therefore undercut the downsized noise result of the 24mp sensor. If images come out of the camera with more noise then it is a noisier camera. If you can reduce the noise post capture that's nice but it doesn't change the OOC results.

Click to expand...

You could do the same extra 30% downsizing of the A77 and get the same result. The point is that you lose no performance in terms of noise compared with the 16MP sensor, but if you wish to print at higher resolution at lower iso you may with the 24mp sensor.

bavarius6 said:

The 77 is a interesting camera but, like all cameras, has it's strengths and it's flaws. The most shocking of it's apparent weaknesses for me isn't noise or the heavy jpeg NR but is the continuous AF performance. I was under the impression that this was the one big upside to SLT's but apparently the 77 struggles to hold lock on a moving target as well as it's SLR competitors. Is it a possibility that the AF sensors need slightly more light than the semi-translucent mirror is providing?

Click to expand...

I doubt it's a light problem. I also have my doubts about the veracity of dpr's comments. these guys are not expert sports shooters by their own admission. I'm interested in seeing how real users find the performance before condemning it.

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

barreto_co said:

You are right about people wanting different things. If I could afford, I would buy a Phase One digital back with 80mp. So for me, the more pixels the better, and the bigger the sensor the better.

Click to expand...

If all you do is studio work or landscapes yes but such cameras are too slow and cumbersome for all around use. I am one of those for whom extreme high resolution is of little use though it would be fun to closely examine the photographs on screen at 100% to marvel at the detail. That isn't photography as much as it is some kind of fascination.

barreto_co said:

barreto_co said:

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

Click to expand...

Semi-pro cameras have to be good at RAW, so if you only want to shoot JPEG, maybe cameras that are not designated Pro or Semi-Pro are more for you. These cameras should be good at RAW first, then JPEG after, not the other way round.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily because such cameras don't actually have better IQ but instead have features, build quality and speed that make them more useful in a wider range of applications. Many pros rarely shoot RAW because time is money and RAW's take time.

barreto_co said:

Since I only want to shoot at ISO 100 and process RAW, is there another APS-C camera with better image resolution at those settings?

Click to expand...

At iso400 and below right now, NO!!!

--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

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

bavarius6 said:

Mike, why is it a valid argument to say that the 24mp images are roughly noise equal to the 16mp images when downsized? Surely this would allow an advocate of the 16mp sensor to do the same; downsize by 30% and therefore undercut the downsized noise result of the 24mp sensor. If images come out of the camera with more noise then it is a noisier camera. If you can reduce the noise post capture that's nice but it doesn't change the OOC results.

Click to expand...

Actually it is valid if one claims the 24mp camera has more noise than the 16mp one. By down sizing to equivalency you level the playing field. If you down size the 16mp camera images by 30% it would be a fair comparison to a 12mp camera. This procedure was used many times when comparing the noise level of the A900 to the A700 because it is a legitimate comparison.

bavarius6 said:

The 77 is a interesting camera but, like all cameras, has it's strengths and it's flaws. The most shocking of it's apparent weaknesses for me isn't noise or the heavy jpeg NR but is the continuous AF performance. I was under the impression that this was the one big upside to SLT's but apparently the 77 struggles to hold lock on a moving target as well as it's SLR competitors. Is it a possibility that the AF sensors need slightly more light than the semi-translucent mirror is providing?

Click to expand...

All things being equal the SLT cameras do tend to AF better in low light and in burst mode they track continuously because the mirror doesn't flip. The statement that it doesn't focus as well as the 7D and D7000 has been contradicted elsewhere so I'll withhold judgement. What Sony's SLT's do not have is predictive AF which predicts where an object will be based on existing movement. SLT with predictive AF would be a killer but the computing power to implement it is costly.

--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

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

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.

I'll quote the relevant piece from p.19 of the review. Please, please try to have this mind in future discussions. Anyone who continues to say that the A77 would have been better with a 16MP sensor is plain wrong.

"What this means is that if you're an A55 user habitually making prints of a given size, the A77 will give you near-identical image quality in low light, high ISO situations. The extra pixels on its sensor won't appreciably increase the quality of the output you're used to, but they won't make things noticeably worse, either. "

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

Click to expand...

I hope I'm not hijacking your threat, and my post is not directly related to you, but it amazes me seeing more and more forum members discussing a camera IQ / final output based on somebody else's opinions, reviews, chart tables or other non personal stuff, although I recognize you always learn something when reading those tests.

Back to the subject, it seems many - I'm not saying all of them - either don't take their own test pictures, print, or look at them based on their own usual photo work flow, but instead have to rely on others work/analysis to base/justify their own opinion or purchase decision/option.

We are really living different times (and sometimes strange ones) - I know - but most of these discussion could surely be of more interest if many would go home, print their photos to A2/A3 - I hope all these acknowledged photographers have at least a good A3 printer back home - and come back and report...

I know you can't (entirely) put your prints on screen, but surely one can provide own final / ready to output files for comparison purposes, whatever the (needed) format may be.

How about picking DPR (excellent) review database of the main APS-C cameras/sensors, having it go through your usual photo work flow and demonstrate camera A is better than camera B in therms of final IQ, according to "Your Personal Opinion and Photo Work Flow"?
Just some food for further though.

Best regards,
Pedro

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/10/23/the-sony-nex-7-digital-camera-review-by-steve-huff/

This is putting the two latest Sony APS-C sensors side-by-side, including 24MP resized to 16 MP with the following conclusion:

"It is no question that the 5n does a bit better at high ISO."

or in a few words: "Similar" is not "same"

"I am in the camp that says Sony probably should have stayed with the same sensor they used in the NEX-5n. The 5n sensor seems to be a perfect medium of resolution, ISO noise performance and file size. "

" But overall, they are not really THAT far off. "

or in other words: It does not matter much in real life. User preferences should play the deciding role in choosing from the many great APS-C cameras Sony currently offers - and the resulting purchasing decisions should be respected and not dissed with unnecessary rethorics.
--
Ralf
http://RalfRalph.smugmug.com/

Ralf Bliesener said:

or in other words: It does not matter much in real life. User preferences should play the deciding role in choosing from the many great APS-C cameras Sony currently offers - and the resulting purchasing decisions should be respected and not dissed with unnecessary rethorics.

Click to expand...

I've never dissed anyones choices, I have had an issue with people making, casual, arrogant, incorrect statements about how much better the A77 would have been with a 16MP sensor, that's all.

I agree completely with your assessment. In my opinion all the curent bodies offered by sony, both nex and alpha, have something to recommend them.

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

mike_2008 said:

Ralf Bliesener said:

or in other words: It does not matter much in real life. User preferences should play the deciding role in choosing from the many great APS-C cameras Sony currently offers - and the resulting purchasing decisions should be respected and not dissed with unnecessary rethorics.

Click to expand...

I've never dissed anyones choices, I have had an issue with people making, casual, arrogant, incorrect statements about how much better the A77 would have been with a 16MP sensor, that's all.

I agree completely with your assessment. In my opinion all the curent bodies offered by sony, both nex and alpha, have something to recommend them.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately Sony doesn't offer an A77 with the 16MP sensor so there really isn't any choice if you want the A77 body and features without the 24MP sensor. I myself would likely go with a 16MP version if it had a correspondingly larger buffering capacity.

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

Ralf Bliesener said:

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/10/23/the-sony-nex-7-digital-camera-review-by-steve-huff/

This is putting the two latest Sony APS-C sensors side-by-side, including 24MP resized to 16 MP with the following conclusion:

"It is no question that the 5n does a bit better at high ISO."

or in a few words: "Similar" is not "same"

"I am in the camp that says Sony probably should have stayed with the same sensor they used in the NEX-5n. The 5n sensor seems to be a perfect medium of resolution, ISO noise performance and file size. "

" But overall, they are not really THAT far off. "

or in other words: It does not matter much in real life. User preferences should play the deciding role in choosing from the many great APS-C cameras Sony currently offers - and the resulting purchasing decisions should be respected and not dissed with unnecessary rethorics.

Click to expand...

His results are biased against the NEX 7 as the 5N was allowed more light (longer shutterspeed). If there is a difference in sensitivity ratings between cameras, it should atleast be noted.

Personally, I put a little more faith in a controlled studio test such as Imaging Resource (same 1/3 EV sensitivity noted, but with such small differences they adjust light levels to level the playing field, according to their setup explanations):



Or this one from Focus Numerique where eposures were identical:

Dave Oddie said:

TrojMacReady said:

tomtom50 said:

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...

Not so much. My company produces and sells high CRI daylight balanced lighting systems of the type DPR uses.

Over time the light output falls significantly. TrojMacReady is making the understandable but incorrrect assumption that light level remains the same after months of use. It is not true.

Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, most Nikon, Canon and Pentax cameras were shot at similar physical exposures.

And it's not a complete assumption, as even Dpreview noted that atleast the A77 is 1/3 of a stop more sensitive than indicated, where the A55 wasn't. Which they don't normalize in comparisons (studio tool and noise graphs).

Click to expand...

So what you are saying is the A77 was effectively shot at 1/3 stop higher ISO than the A55 and other cameras?

Click to expand...

In general yes, in the case of the A55 even 2/3 of a stop. That's going to be a signficant difference.

Dave Oddie said:

If so how significant would that be? Those shadow spools look pretty bad and I somehow don't think 1/3 of a stop less ISO would clean them up much.

Click to expand...

See above. Effectively ISO 3200 from the A77 test as a physical exposure is closer to ISO 6400 from the A55. Now if you compare those, this is what you get:









So now the A55 was shot at a 1/3 higher real ISO, but it's also a bit noisier. I think you get the idea.