a99 low-light

Started Jan 16, 2013 | Discussions thread
philbot Contributing Member • Posts: 846
Re: a99 low-light

Alphoid wrote:

I was looking at full frames. I am disappointed with Sony. I am looking at DxOMark for the a99.

  • a900 DxO: ISO1431
  • a99 DxO: ISO1555
  • D600 DxO: ISO2980

Does the a99 really have half the low-light performance of a modern full-frame, and on-par with Sony's 2008 model? Is it really a full stop behind Nikon's budget model (which is also as good as or better at resolution, lens selection, color depth, dynamic range, has many more focus points, much battery life, and only 0.5fps lower shooting speed)?

I like IBIS+fast primes, but that's not bridging a full stop gap and a $800 price difference... If DxO is correct, Sony has not released any viable full frames in a long, long time...

In real world usage, many A99 shooters are finding the difference much smaller then 1 stop..

However, there are many factors that can attribute to DxO's 1 stop difference

1. Different colour filters, the A99 colour accuracy is very high, the chosen filters no doubt allow more chroma noise to be evident in RAW

2. You can never expect parity in in-camera RAW 'pre-conditioning' and DxO don't take this into account (other then certain camera's with obvious differences labelled as 'smoothed RAW'

3. The SLT mirror is clearly 0.3-0.5 stops, so you have to always expect that..

If you live your life by DxO, sure, Sony come out poor, even if the overall score is still very high in terms of all camera's, if knowing the score is lower then the competition somehow makes your photo's unusable and not viable, then the answer is simple..

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow