A77 IQ @ 400mm vs. A850/A900; my findings (pics)

Personally, I think the A77 image is over-sharpened. This stuff is quite subjective and its just my opinion. The obvious places are where the sky is in the background.

quatpat said:

Thanks Allan, I really didn't mean to question your PP abilities, but rather to point out that with some tweaking many "shortcomings" can be eliminated.

I did the following to your sample: Since the A77 crop was resized, it needed some sharpening, as always when you resize a photo. In order to enhance microcontrast I added some light unsharp mask (around 70 with 0.8 pixel radius), and then enhanced a bit the overall contrast. Then I reduced the blue channel a bit in order to match the A850's colours, and did some very light NR with Topaz.

I know that this sounds like a lot of PP in order to just match the straight outcome of the A850, but in reality it isn't. All you need to do is to add a bit more unsharp mask and overall contrast to the A77 files, not much more. On the plus side the A77 files leave really a lot of cropping space, so to me it is one thing against another. All in all I find the A77 files rather easy to manage, with plenty of DR, and noise not being too much of a problem as long as the photo is exposed correctly.

qp

Alan_S said:

No offense taken (I am quite familiar with extensive PP techniques using CS5 Photoshop and ACR). My comparison stopped at best I could get at the point of RAW conversion in, ACR, without moving further into elaborate PP technique (which would also enhance the a850 images). Would you mind sharing the details of the further PP you did on this? If there's a slider tweak or two in ACR that I and others could benefit from I'd love to know what it is! Thanks for the feedback.

quatpat said:

No offence Alan, but it might be cheaper to invest into a course in post-processing rather than in another camera. I have added here below your comparsion, with the A77 crop adjusted to the A850 crop. Do you still see a gerat difference? I don't.

The truth is that the A77 has slightly less microcontrast than non-SLT cameras (I own an A77 and a A350), but this is normal considering the fixed mirror and the much more pixel-packed sensor. However, from my experience, this difference is minor and can easily be overcome through shooting RAW and adequate PP. I would never shoot JPG with this camera though, execept maybe for family photos.

The A850 is a very capable camera, but it is no secret that lower packed sensors have better colour sparation and better detail at pixel level than higher density sensors. Don't forget that the pixel-density of the A850 is equivalent to around 10.5 MP on a APS-C sensor, comapred to the A77's 24MP.

qp

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I find your consternation/piqued-curiosity (call it whatever it is) to be quite foolish. Why? Because the person is comparing the options he has before him. He is doing it to the best of his ability. He is seeking feedback. And he is doing it consistent with the manner in which he will do his work/activity (shooting and post-processing).

He has the two top Alpha A-mount cameras and the top telephoto lens Sony makes.

Personally I think this thread is quite valuable.

Why is it not amusing anymore? I thought the comparison was inappropriate? Or did I misunderstand the previous "complaint"?

Karl Scharf said:

Alan_S said:

Lastly I want to thank all those that provided such valuable input, and I trust Karl continues to find this amusing ! I have learned quite a bit here.. was on the verge of selling this new camera, but thanks to your help I've decided it's a keeper!

Click to expand...

Karl Scharf said:

• AlanS

Click to expand...

Not so amusing anymore Alan, now that you have worked out all the bugs in your testing. Seems like you have basically come to the same conclusion in a round about way that most of the expert testers have stated for some time now.

I am happy for you that you have decided to keep the A77. It is a fine camera and should complement your A850 very nicely.
--

• Happiness is: Sony SLT-A77 / Rokinon 8mm / Sigma 10-20, 18-250, 50-500mm - Karl

Click to expand...

This is a great thread and once again shows the importance post-processing.

Cheers!

I stopped worrying about resolution about after I got the Minolta 7D. For the types of things I do/shoot, I'm more concerned with AF-performance, handling, viewfinder, ergonomics, and a few other things. Sharpness (to me) is like CPU clock-speed ratings - immaterial.

The full-frame advantage is depth-of-field and a wider field-of-view such that I'm able to use the 85/1.4, 135/1.8 and 200/2.8 for more portraiture.

I say all this only because I think there are many diverse reasons why or how we come to our photography.

Cheers!

Gary Eickmeier said:

I can't help but point out that the a77 with the 24mp in an APS-C sensor gives you more pixels for resolution than the a850 cropped down to the same image size.

There goes the full frame advantage, no matter how you look at it.
--
Gary Eickmeier

Click to expand...

Gary Eickmeier said:

I can't help but point out that the a77 with the 24mp in an APS-C sensor gives you more pixels for resolution than the a850 cropped down to the same image size.

There goes the full frame advantage, no matter how you look at it.

Click to expand...

This makes two assumptions...

You can't fill the viewfinder on the FF camera.
You do not have access to high end long lenses.

Compared to a crop camera with a 400mm lens a FF camera with a 600mm is very satisfying. At some certain distance the crop camera with the 600mm would be too long.

In the very near future Sony will again have a FF camera with the same pixel density as the current 24 meg crop sensor.

Cheers,
--

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin.
You can see larger versions of my pictures at http://www.dennismullen.com .

Dennis no doubt a full frame and a 600 is a performer but it comes at a huge price difference compared to a crop sensor and a 70-400. I bought my a77 strictly as a low cost way to achieve reach with IQ. So far I have not been disappointed.

I honestly feel we all might be in sticker shock with the a99. Being retired and in this economy value for the dollar is everything to me. Unless I was shooting for money even the cost of a old 600 is very hard to justify for a hobby. Heck, the 70-400 was hard enough on the wallet by itself.

Understood, I was just pointing out the FF advantage is real. You could save even more money by getting a smaller sensor. The Sony DSC-HX100V has a 28-810mm zoom lens with optical stabilization and 16meg sensor for just a little over $400. It's all relative. On the other extreme you could go medium or large format.

Cheers,
--

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin.
You can see larger versions of my pictures at http://www.dennismullen.com .

Jim Funston said:

I honestly feel we all might be in sticker shock with the a99.

Click to expand...

Given an FF SLT will come without the ueber-expensive pentaprism and huge moving mirror assembly but with a comparatively low manufacturing cost OLED EVF, fixed translucent mirror and lots less of moving parts, I assume the sticker shock will be with Canon and Nikon.

The new FF sensor will amortize its R&D spread on the a9x, D800 and D4, also allowing Sony to price the a9x aggressively.

As said in post title: Sticker shock speculation .
--
Ralf
http://RalfRalph.smugmug.com/

I tend to agree but do you think that that a similar savings is/was seen in the A77, compared to its Canon and Nikon kin?

liquid stereo said:

I tend to agree but do you think that that a similar savings is/was seen in the A77, compared to its Canon and Nikon kin?

Click to expand...

Some 'Yes' and some 'No' thoughts on your question:

Yes:

• Given that the Canon 7D and the Pentax K 5 can be considered as 'kin' = competition, the a77 definitely is priced aggressively in that context.

No:

• Different marketing strategy: Stressing the 24 MP (a first in APS-C) and the extensive feature set, Sony priced the a77 at roughly the Nikon D7000 release price level - intentionally positioned above current D7000 market prices.
• The 24 MP APS-C sensor so far is exclusive to Sony, less spread of R&D possible (a77, a65, Nex7) but APS-C sensors are much less of a manufacturing cost factor than FF sensors
• Last not least: Let's see street prices for the a77 in six months. Look at the fact that some used a77 are currently sold above retail price for all sorts of reasons, including a market demand sustaining such sales....

--
Ralf
http://RalfRalph.smugmug.com/

liquid stereo said:

This is a great thread and once again shows the importance post-processing.

Click to expand...

+ 1

--
Ralf
http://RalfRalph.smugmug.com/

Hi,

glad to hear you're getting things sorted.

Only adding a comment about PP. I think it was back in septembre or october when there was a thread complaining that the A77's JPG OOC ouput seemed impossible to achieve in current converter software. Finally it turned out that the A77 RAW files needed quite different (higher numeric values) settings for contrast etc. than those "normally used" on A700 or A850/900 files to achieve a similar pleasing look. It's not clear to me if this happens due to the fact the converter software needs to be tweaked already for improved results and/or profiles "are not quite there". But it's clear that settings need to be selected to achieve the desired look - and not oriented by numeric values used in the conversion of raw files from other camera models.
--
Cheers,
Michael Fritzen

liquid stereo said:

This is a great thread and once again shows the importance post-processing.

Click to expand...

+1

Also shows the importance of photographic technique.

A few questions:

When you micro-adjust the 70-400, do you adjust at 400mm?

If so, do you notice any softening at 70mm? Or if one plans to use the full zoom range, is it best to micro-adjust somewhere in the middle? And does the aperture setting influence where the focus falls relative to the sensor?

Have any a77 users encountered any flare due to dust or condensation on the translucent mirror?

Is there any chance that the translucent mirror's 'translucency' might change with age?

Shouldn't a lens be manually focused (maybe with magnification) when
testing sharpness -- especially when the target isn't flat and perpendicular
to the sensor?

How heavy a tripod does one need to control mirror slap vibration --
or does it require two points of support for the lens?

Yes you are right, the A77 is sharpened a bit more than the A850 crop. However, I just wanted to show that it is possible to extract good detail also with the A77, although some more sharpening is needed in PP in addition with some contrast increase.

liquid stereo said:

Personally, I think the A77 image is over-sharpened. This stuff is quite subjective and its just my opinion. The obvious places are where the sky is in the background.

Click to expand...

I can totally relate, Jim! Nearing retirement myself, 6-8 months ago I was seriously looking at, and trying to justify dropping the cash for one of those 25 yr old $6-7k Minolta lenses. At that time I viewed the "rumored" a77 as possibly the ultimate teleconverter for the 70-400G (at less than 1/4 the price of the old lens). It appears to have met my expectations, but have found it's much more than that. I anticipated leaving the 70-400 permanently attached, but these past 8 weeks I have found that I enjoy using it with the CZ24-70, and the HD video (something I didn't think I'd use) is incredibly nice to have right at your fingertips (sometimes unexpectedly )! It is just a lot of fun to use. It will be interesting to see what the a99 brings to the table, but right now, with the a850, a77 and some good glass, I feel pretty well set to move on to that retirement!

Jim Funston said:

Dennis no doubt a full frame and a 600 is a performer but it comes at a huge price difference compared to a crop sensor and a 70-400. I bought my a77 strictly as a low cost way to achieve reach with IQ. So far I have not been disappointed.

I honestly feel we all might be in sticker shock with the a99. Being retired and in this economy value for the dollar is everything to me. Unless I was shooting for money even the cost of a old 600 is very hard to justify for a hobby. Heck, the 70-400 was hard enough on the wallet by itself.

Click to expand...

--

• AlanS

Alan same here ... I expected the 70-400 to just live on the a77 for wildlife shots which before the 77 was only 10% of what I enjoy to do. Normally I am 90% of the time shooting land and seascapes mostly with my NEX and legacy glass. Since October and the a77 that has changed (new toy syndrome I guess) . I have not pulled my NEX out in months and have mostly been shooting eagles and wildlife.

I even have shot some seascapes with the 77 and a 8mm, a 11-16, and most recently a 16-50. At 50iso on the large MAC desktop screen to me the captured detail is difficult to view at screen view. Hard to explain but when I expand the view to one to one it is easier to view and the detail captured is just amazing IMO. My NEX is shooting with much better glass but the a77 attributes definitely bring something else to the table as well. Now I just have to use each camera in a way that best suits it's strong points.

This is all fun and keeps me busy and out of trouble. I have no intentions of shooting with the need to make money anymore ( you could not pay me enough to shoot another wedding or dog show again as I did to put my way through college in the late 60's and early 70's..... Got burned out so bad that when I graduated I never touched a camera for the next 9 years. That stuff is not for me anymore in any sense ... I shoot for me and the joy of the shot, nothing else). Right now I am nursing my old lab but when he recovers I will continue my quest to shoot a unbaited owl in flight shot which I have assigned to my bucket list.

Its definitely a dynamic marketplace made even more so by cameras being introduced in an "out of sync" manner. Personally, I would think of the A77 and Canon 7D in the same league if Sony had been a bit more sophisticated with the AF sensors on the A77. (I say that simply because I could care less about video and live-view. I like DSLRs for speed and accuracy. In the past I enjoyed them for landscape and low-light shooting but my Fuji X100 now reigns in those arenas.) I may be wrong but but it seems like Canon's 7D has the advantage for sports, wildlife, action, etc. With the exception of MP at least.

Cheers!

Ralf Bliesener said:

liquid stereo said:

I tend to agree but do you think that that a similar savings is/was seen in the A77, compared to its Canon and Nikon kin?

Click to expand...

Some 'Yes' and some 'No' thoughts on your question:

Yes:

• Given that the Canon 7D and the Pentax K 5 can be considered as 'kin' = competition, the a77 definitely is priced aggressively in that context.

No:

• Different marketing strategy: Stressing the 24 MP (a first in APS-C) and the extensive feature set, Sony priced the a77 at roughly the Nikon D7000 release price level - intentionally positioned above current D7000 market prices.
• The 24 MP APS-C sensor so far is exclusive to Sony, less spread of R&D possible (a77, a65, Nex7) but APS-C sensors are much less of a manufacturing cost factor than FF sensors
• Last not least: Let's see street prices for the a77 in six months. Look at the fact that some used a77 are currently sold above retail price for all sorts of reasons, including a market demand sustaining such sales....

--
Ralf
http://RalfRalph.smugmug.com/

Click to expand...

Update - another walk out with some sun, and some subjects. A77, A900, A55, A580; 70-400mm G, 70-300mm new Tamron, 70-300mm Sigma OS (didn't use in the end the wind and juggling other gear made changing the lenses difficult), 70-300mm Sigma APO Macro DG.

Best result small target/wildlife - A55 with Sigma APO Macro DG. Overall this is the highest contrast of the lenses, and also has no BF/FF issues. Slightly wiry bokeh and dirty peripheral imaging on full frame on A900 (CA) but when cropped to APS-C very impressive for the cheapest lens of the lot. This is a brand new one bought last month mainly for the close focus.

Worst result - 70-400mm on A580. Back focus to such an extent that even photographs of buildings stopped down to f/11 are not sharp. Tamron 70-300mm on A580 very good, smoother quality to the image than the cheap Sigma - only issue, at 300mm and f/5.6, strong purple-blue bloom from highlights (white of goosanders against dark river).

Confirmation that the 70-400mm is actually very sharp - A55 (unlike the A580, no BF issue). The higher ISO settings of the A77 just don't look as good.

Use MF peaking, but pull the focus to the closest point in the range where peaking hits the edge of subjects; stop down to f/8 as this greatly improves the 70-400mm at 400mm. DoF always extends more behind the focus point than in front, and with most subjects the outline/silhouette which shows MF peaking is further away than the desired focus plane. Peaking only happens on strong contrasts like edges, and edges can be at the rear of a target subject.

David