Lmendy
Leading Member
I have an RX100. I have been very impressed with the image quality from this compact marvel. I was wondering if Sony was using the same chip and processing technology in their soon to be released A58?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
A58?
- Thread starter Lmendy
- Start date
Clyde Thomas
Senior Member
a58 has a considerably downgraded LCD resolution from all other 5 series Alphas.
Sony, for some strange reason, decided to make a58 lcd resolution 460K, and 2.6"... smaller and less resolved than anything, with less articulation in movements.
RX100 has The 3-inch LCD boasts 1,229k, nearly 3x the resolution...
Consider the a57. At least it has 920K lcd resolution, and 3" with full articulation.
Sony has entered a trend where market confusion is considered a feature. Higher numbered cameras, touted as upgrades, are now dumbed down versions of the previous.
It's called, "Make.Believe".
Sony, for some strange reason, decided to make a58 lcd resolution 460K, and 2.6"... smaller and less resolved than anything, with less articulation in movements.
RX100 has The 3-inch LCD boasts 1,229k, nearly 3x the resolution...
Consider the a57. At least it has 920K lcd resolution, and 3" with full articulation.
Sony has entered a trend where market confusion is considered a feature. Higher numbered cameras, touted as upgrades, are now dumbed down versions of the previous.
It's called, "Make.Believe".
TrojMacReady
Veteran Member
Not all 5 series.
I'm also not sure how this answers the OP's question about the chip and processing.
TrojMacReady
Veteran Member
Hard to tell whether they are using the same Bionz chip without opening the camera, but the jpeg processing of the A58 seems improved a bit over the A57, at least in part by incorporating some of the A99 processing technologies according to Sony.
If you're happy with the RX100 rendering of jpegs, odds are you will like the Sony approach in the A58 too.
If you're happy with the RX100 rendering of jpegs, odds are you will like the Sony approach in the A58 too.
...don't forget the new 20MP sensor and the OLED viewfinder.
The A58 will suit my needs perfectly. It arrives tomorrow.
Damn, you win.inFocus wrote:
...don't forget the new 20MP sensor and the OLED viewfinder.
The A58 will suit my needs perfectly. It arrives tomorrow.
alisaad619
Well-known member
congratulation , it's a great camera and I advice you to buy Gary Friedman coming book for A58 .It'll help you get the most out of your camera (the book will be released on Q2/2013 you can sign up to be notified from his website http://www.friedmanarchives.com/ )...don't forget the new 20MP sensor and the OLED viewfinder.
The A58 will suit my needs perfectly. It arrives tomorrow.
That's good for you. The reason why I'm hammering on it, is that I don't want other people to be disappointed with the things that would have disappointed myself. I care about smooth video. The A57 does it so much better than my previous A33. I want to send a message home to Sony that tells them "hey, perhaps we should have given the A58 60p video, because people do care about that". I think this is a very silly mistake on Sony's part. I'm convinced that it is merely a software issue, because it does not take more cpu cycles to extract HD resolution from 20mp vs 16mp. It's just line skipping anyway, that they use.
But what I would really like to know, and I can't find *any* sample of this on the internet, is if the 60i video is an interlaced representation of a 30p recorded source, or if it's truly 60i in the sense that each other field is from another 1/60 segment. What I'm after is, is the temporal resolution 60 or 30 fps? The 60i output from the A33 is 30 fps for instance,
Would it be possible, when you're camera arrives, to make a 5 to 10 second recording in 60i that does a smooth constant slow panning motion, and make the raw MTS file available for me to download somewhere? It would answer this really nagging question.
Where is the evidence for this? You're making these claims, but what I always say: that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Nope, Europe has PAL system.
TrojMacReady
Veteran Member
Imaging Resource studio shots. Less smearing in the red channel, a hair less noise, but above all better detail retention and less artifacts at higher ISO's.
Last edited:
That's fine too, because that would mean that you either get a temporal resolution of 25 or 50 fps...
I was not aware that the imaging resource Comparometer included the A58. So I went to take a look. First thing I checked, Still-life 1600. I'm seeing the A58 resolving more detail in some parts and less detail in other parts. I'm seeing more noise from the A58.
Same deal with the Still-life 3200 comparison. I'm not trusting the focusing at this point...
Only the still-life series are available for comparing. Do you have any other side-by-side comparisons? Something that does not involve judging by looking at a picture that is only available from one camera, because that would only be meaningless speculation and wishful thinking.
TrojMacReady
Veteran Member
This isn't the result of focusing, this is red channel NR:
And noise:
And based on the corresponding RAW files from the same set, I don't think the center of the jpegs (the corners and edges often do show inconsistencies) shows a focusing or lens issue regarding detail:
Because the RAW files converted with the same Lightroom engine, show a similar focus point at the same output size:
Last edited:
Lmendy
Leading Member
First, I truly appreciate those of you who understood my original question. I am a still shooter. I rarely use video. I am not overly concerned with the size and resolving power of the LCD. I care about image IQ. I do shoot most of my images in jpeg (unless I am shooting something for large print).
Now, about my eyes. They are 66 years old and I suffer from the usual old age ailments and partial color blindness. I forgot about the comparometer on imaging resources. I compared the A58 with the RX100 and the A58 appeared cleaner with slightly more detail. I then compared it with the APC king of the hill, the Nikon D7100 and to my surprise, the A58 looked a bit cleaner and had more detail at 400iso. It could be due to the A58 demonstrating more contrast.
I would certainly appreciate it if some of you younger folks with better vision take a look and compare. It certainly seems at this point, the A58 may be one heck of a bargain for still shooters (especially us old guys who would certainly appreciate built in image stabilization)
The A58 view underwent scaling down it seems, and that means pixels went through a process, where there was opportunity for noise reduction and enhancing. When you pan around, one can easily cherry pick bits where the A57 looks better as well.
Lmendy
Leading Member
I was checking at iso400. Not to concerned with anything above 1600. I did find a pdf of a58 manual. It does have adjustable nr starting at low. does the a57 have settings for noise?
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum