I am so mad at all of you Sony people!

danelmix said:

Not saying that the picture is anything to brag about (I am a recording engineer, who's ears are shot and figures maybe he can do photography!). But its the simple clarity of his expression,with A77 it would have been way more broken up imo. Maybe it really is only a small difference, but that difference puts it over the top. Photography gear is so similar to recording equipment its frighting, a 2,000 reverb unit sounds beautiful, the 10,000 dollar one on paper is only marginally better, that margin is Priceless! To the ear it just has that IT factor.

Click to expand...

Robsphoto said:

Don't you think it's a pity that some people who haven't owned full frame cameras should sometimes try and persuade potential FF buyers that they aren't going to get their money's worth if they buy a FF camera?

Click to expand...

tbcass said:

Robsphoto said:

Don't you think it's a pity that some people who haven't owned full frame cameras should sometimes try and persuade potential FF buyers that they aren't going to get their money's worth if they buy a FF camera?

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to persuade anybody of anything but merely they should consider everything and think carefully before deciding to spend a considerably greater amount of money than they may need to.

Don't you think it depends on the person's needs if FF gives you it's moneys worth? If close examination at extreme magnification of on screen images is important or printing 2 foot x 3 foot prints for sale is your goal then of course FF is the way to go but for most people, myself included, it is not worth the cost and in these discussions it is important for people to take that into account when purchasing a camera.

Click to expand...

Robsphoto said:

... if you want a large print from just a small part of the picture (such as a distant bird or animal) you may enjoy the benefits of the superior image quality of FF.

Click to expand...

sybersitizen said:

Robsphoto said:

... if you want a large print from just a small part of the picture (such as a distant bird or animal) you may enjoy the benefits of the superior image quality of FF.

Click to expand...

If you use 'just a small part of the picture' of a 24mp/36mp FF camera, you might as well be shooting with Sony's good 16mp APS-C sensors. Yes, there are differences in pixel pitch... but the way to 'enjoy the benefits of the superior image quality of FF' is to shoot and use the entire frame.

Click to expand...

Robsphoto said:

sybersitizen said:

Robsphoto said:

... if you want a large print from just a small part of the picture (such as a distant bird or animal) you may enjoy the benefits of the superior image quality of FF.

Click to expand...

If you use 'just a small part of the picture' of a 24mp/36mp FF camera, you might as well be shooting with Sony's good 16mp APS-C sensors. Yes, there are differences in pixel pitch... but the way to 'enjoy the benefits of the superior image quality of FF' is to shoot and use the entire frame.

Click to expand...

I do sometimes shoot with the 16mp APS-C Sony A55 using the Sony 18mm - 250mm lens. But, it's not always practical to "use the entire frame", no matter what camera or lens we might use.

For example, if I take a picture of some distant animals across the other side of a wide, deep, fast flowing river, and I use the longest telephoto lens that I have available, then to get a nice close-up pic of the animals, I may need to heavily crop the image!

In other words, it's not always possible to completely fill the frame with the subject, and cropping is sometimes a necessary "evil"!

Click to expand...

tbcass said:

I noticed you applied +1.3 EV exposure comp which means the shots were taken at a real iso of about 2500 not 6400. I say that because if you had taken the photo at iso 2500 and 0 EV the shutter speed and f stop would have been the same allowing the same amount of light to hit the sensor.

Click to expand...

Shield3 said:

Jb502 said:

I'm thinking if selling my 2 month old a77 and getting the 99. I need better high ISO. 98% of my photos are indoors. How much better is the a99. I would say max usable a77 is 1600. But only if you have to. 800 is better. Can the a99 at 6400 look like a77 at 800?

Also what about a99's focus points bring do close together? Does they bother you, or is it a problem? That's another concern of mine.

Click to expand...

Having owned both I'd say the a99 @ 6400 was about like the a77 @ 1600. About two full stops. I didn't like 1600 on the a77, nor did I like 6400 on the a99.

Click to expand...

Alan_S said:

tbcass said:

I noticed you applied +1.3 EV exposure comp which means the shots were taken at a real iso of about 2500 not 6400. I say that because if you had taken the photo at iso 2500 and 0 EV the shutter speed and f stop would have been the same allowing the same amount of light to hit the sensor.

Click to expand...

Tom, I don't follow at all; help me understand what you're saying here... What I saw was a shot at a hockey rink with lots of bright white filling the scene (floor, wall, jersey). All that bright white (like a backlit window, a bright sky behind a flying bird, or a snowy hillside) throws the metering off, causing under-exposure (too fast shutter and/or too small aperture settings for the selected ISO setting). Setting the exposure compensation +1.3 forced a brighter/proper exposure, at ISO 6400.

If, as you suggest, he had shot at 0 EV, ISO 2500, w/same f-stop & shutter, you're right -- that would have been the same amount of light hitting the sensor, BUT, at ISO 2500, the shot (particularly the hockey player's face) would have been under-exposed.

Instead, the ISO sensitivity was set at "a real ISO" of 6400 (not 2500) -- all the +1.3 EV did was correct what would have been an under-exposed shot due to the affect of the bright scene on the metering system, allowing more light to hit the sensor. No?

Click to expand...

sybersitizen said:

Robsphoto said:

sybersitizen said:

Robsphoto said:

... if you want a large print from just a small part of the picture (such as a distant bird or animal) you may enjoy the benefits of the superior image quality of FF.

Click to expand...

If you use 'just a small part of the picture' of a 24mp/36mp FF camera, you might as well be shooting with Sony's good 16mp APS-C sensors. Yes, there are differences in pixel pitch... but the way to 'enjoy the benefits of the superior image quality of FF' is to shoot and use the entire frame.

Click to expand...

I do sometimes shoot with the 16mp APS-C Sony A55 using the Sony 18mm - 250mm lens. But, it's not always practical to "use the entire frame", no matter what camera or lens we might use.

For example, if I take a picture of some distant animals across the other side of a wide, deep, fast flowing river, and I use the longest telephoto lens that I have available, then to get a nice close-up pic of the animals, I may need to heavily crop the image!

In other words, it's not always possible to completely fill the frame with the subject, and cropping is sometimes a necessary "evil"!

Click to expand...

Now you're saying something different... something we all know. Cropping is indeed sometimes a necessary evil, but it's never a way to enjoy the benefits of the superior image quality of FF.

Click to expand...

Robsphoto said:

sybersitizen said:

Robsphoto said:

sybersitizen said:

Robsphoto said:

... if you want a large print from just a small part of the picture (such as a distant bird or animal) you may enjoy the benefits of the superior image quality of FF.

Click to expand...

If you use 'just a small part of the picture' of a 24mp/36mp FF camera, you might as well be shooting with Sony's good 16mp APS-C sensors. Yes, there are differences in pixel pitch... but the way to 'enjoy the benefits of the superior image quality of FF' is to shoot and use the entire frame.

Click to expand...

I do sometimes shoot with the 16mp APS-C Sony A55 using the Sony 18mm - 250mm lens. But, it's not always practical to "use the entire frame", no matter what camera or lens we might use.

For example, if I take a picture of some distant animals across the other side of a wide, deep, fast flowing river, and I use the longest telephoto lens that I have available, then to get a nice close-up pic of the animals, I may need to heavily crop the image!

In other words, it's not always possible to completely fill the frame with the subject, and cropping is sometimes a necessary "evil"!

Click to expand...

Now you're saying something different... something we all know. Cropping is indeed sometimes a necessary evil, but it's never a way to enjoy the benefits of the superior image quality of FF.

Click to expand...

I still enjoy the benefits of the superior image quality of the full frame Sony A99, even when an A99 image has been cropped.

Click to expand...

sybersitizen said:

Robsphoto said:

sybersitizen said:

Robsphoto said:

sybersitizen said:

Robsphoto said:

... if you want a large print from just a small part of the picture (such as a distant bird or animal) you may enjoy the benefits of the superior image quality of FF.

Click to expand...

If you use 'just a small part of the picture' of a 24mp/36mp FF camera, you might as well be shooting with Sony's good 16mp APS-C sensors. Yes, there are differences in pixel pitch... but the way to 'enjoy the benefits of the superior image quality of FF' is to shoot and use the entire frame.

Click to expand...

I do sometimes shoot with the 16mp APS-C Sony A55 using the Sony 18mm - 250mm lens. But, it's not always practical to "use the entire frame", no matter what camera or lens we might use.

For example, if I take a picture of some distant animals across the other side of a wide, deep, fast flowing river, and I use the longest telephoto lens that I have available, then to get a nice close-up pic of the animals, I may need to heavily crop the image!

In other words, it's not always possible to completely fill the frame with the subject, and cropping is sometimes a necessary "evil"!

Click to expand...

Now you're saying something different... something we all know. Cropping is indeed sometimes a necessary evil, but it's never a way to enjoy the benefits of the superior image quality of FF.

Click to expand...

I still enjoy the benefits of the superior image quality of the full frame Sony A99, even when an A99 image has been cropped.

Click to expand...

Great. How about showing us the benefits by shooting some comparisons with your A55 and your A99 in crop mode?

Click to expand...

sybersitizen said:

Alan_S said:

tbcass said:

I noticed you applied +1.3 EV exposure comp which means the shots were taken at a real iso of about 2500 not 6400. I say that because if you had taken the photo at iso 2500 and 0 EV the shutter speed and f stop would have been the same allowing the same amount of light to hit the sensor.

Click to expand...

Tom, I don't follow at all; help me understand what you're saying here... What I saw was a shot at a hockey rink with lots of bright white filling the scene (floor, wall, jersey). All that bright white (like a backlit window, a bright sky behind a flying bird, or a snowy hillside) throws the metering off, causing under-exposure (too fast shutter and/or too small aperture settings for the selected ISO setting). Setting the exposure compensation +1.3 forced a brighter/proper exposure, at ISO 6400.

If, as you suggest, he had shot at 0 EV, ISO 2500, w/same f-stop & shutter, you're right -- that would have been the same amount of light hitting the sensor, BUT, at ISO 2500, the shot (particularly the hockey player's face) would have been under-exposed.

Instead, the ISO sensitivity was set at "a real ISO" of 6400 (not 2500) -- all the +1.3 EV did was correct what would have been an under-exposed shot due to the affect of the bright scene on the metering system, allowing more light to hit the sensor. No?

Click to expand...

I was going to mention something about that too. The fact the exposure was compensated doesn't mean anything, really. The OP's shots are well exposed. Maybe he had to set compensation that way in order to accomodate the mostly bright scene with mostly white uniforms. Tom's shot is underexposed even though the uniforms are much darker, and it could have benefitted from + compensation as well.

What matters in a comparison like this is the shutter speed, aperture, and light levels.

OP: 1/640, f/5.6, ISO 6400, light level: ?

Tom: 1/500, f/5.6, ISO 1600, light level: ?

Without knowing exactly how the light levels in the two arenas compare, not much can be concluded other than an observation that the A99 produces cleaner images than the A65 under similar challenging lighting - exactly as we would expect.

Click to expand...

danelmix said:

sybersitizen said:

Alan_S said:

tbcass said:

I noticed you applied +1.3 EV exposure comp which means the shots were taken at a real iso of about 2500 not 6400. I say that because if you had taken the photo at iso 2500 and 0 EV the shutter speed and f stop would have been the same allowing the same amount of light to hit the sensor.

Click to expand...

Tom, I don't follow at all; help me understand what you're saying here... What I saw was a shot at a hockey rink with lots of bright white filling the scene (floor, wall, jersey). All that bright white (like a backlit window, a bright sky behind a flying bird, or a snowy hillside) throws the metering off, causing under-exposure (too fast shutter and/or too small aperture settings for the selected ISO setting). Setting the exposure compensation +1.3 forced a brighter/proper exposure, at ISO 6400.

If, as you suggest, he had shot at 0 EV, ISO 2500, w/same f-stop & shutter, you're right -- that would have been the same amount of light hitting the sensor, BUT, at ISO 2500, the shot (particularly the hockey player's face) would have been under-exposed.

Instead, the ISO sensitivity was set at "a real ISO" of 6400 (not 2500) -- all the +1.3 EV did was correct what would have been an under-exposed shot due to the affect of the bright scene on the metering system, allowing more light to hit the sensor. No?

Click to expand...

I was going to mention something about that too. The fact the exposure was compensated doesn't mean anything, really. The OP's shots are well exposed. Maybe he had to set compensation that way in order to accomodate the mostly bright scene with mostly white uniforms. Tom's shot is underexposed even though the uniforms are much darker, and it could have benefitted from + compensation as well.

What matters in a comparison like this is the shutter speed, aperture, and light levels.

OP: 1/640, f/5.6, ISO 6400, light level: ?

Tom: 1/500, f/5.6, ISO 1600, light level: ?

Without knowing exactly how the light levels in the two arenas compare, not much can be concluded other than an observation that the A99 produces cleaner images than the A65 under similar challenging lighting - exactly as we would expect.

Click to expand...

I kinda felt the same way when he posted his hockey shot, to me its way to dark and didn't really support his point. I set the 99 that way for my first run because I was willing to try the auto iso out because its the only way you can do ev compensation in manual mode. I don't believe the 77 could do that, if it could I missed the boat. I thought it worked wonderfully. As did the af-d which the 77 also doesn't have. you do actually get a few extra bells and whisltes for your $ besides a ff sensor. And man do my FF lenses just sing on this body, no regrets at all.

Click to expand...

Alan_S said:

danelmix said:

sybersitizen said:

Alan_S said:

tbcass said:

I noticed you applied +1.3 EV exposure comp which means the shots were taken at a real iso of about 2500 not 6400. I say that because if you had taken the photo at iso 2500 and 0 EV the shutter speed and f stop would have been the same allowing the same amount of light to hit the sensor.

Click to expand...

Tom, I don't follow at all; help me understand what you're saying here... What I saw was a shot at a hockey rink with lots of bright white filling the scene (floor, wall, jersey). All that bright white (like a backlit window, a bright sky behind a flying bird, or a snowy hillside) throws the metering off, causing under-exposure (too fast shutter and/or too small aperture settings for the selected ISO setting). Setting the exposure compensation +1.3 forced a brighter/proper exposure, at ISO 6400.

If, as you suggest, he had shot at 0 EV, ISO 2500, w/same f-stop & shutter, you're right -- that would have been the same amount of light hitting the sensor, BUT, at ISO 2500, the shot (particularly the hockey player's face) would have been under-exposed.

Instead, the ISO sensitivity was set at "a real ISO" of 6400 (not 2500) -- all the +1.3 EV did was correct what would have been an under-exposed shot due to the affect of the bright scene on the metering system, allowing more light to hit the sensor. No?

Click to expand...

I was going to mention something about that too. The fact the exposure was compensated doesn't mean anything, really. The OP's shots are well exposed. Maybe he had to set compensation that way in order to accomodate the mostly bright scene with mostly white uniforms. Tom's shot is underexposed even though the uniforms are much darker, and it could have benefitted from + compensation as well.

What matters in a comparison like this is the shutter speed, aperture, and light levels.

OP: 1/640, f/5.6, ISO 6400, light level: ?

Tom: 1/500, f/5.6, ISO 1600, light level: ?

Without knowing exactly how the light levels in the two arenas compare, not much can be concluded other than an observation that the A99 produces cleaner images than the A65 under similar challenging lighting - exactly as we would expect.

Click to expand...

I kinda felt the same way when he posted his hockey shot, to me its way to dark and didn't really support his point. I set the 99 that way for my first run because I was willing to try the auto iso out because its the only way you can do ev compensation in manual mode. I don't believe the 77 could do that, if it could I missed the boat. I thought it worked wonderfully. As did the af-d which the 77 also doesn't have. you do actually get a few extra bells and whisltes for your $ besides a ff sensor. And man do my FF lenses just sing on this body, no regrets at all.

Click to expand...

I'm with ya, danelmix. And the increased dynamic range is sweet frosting on the cake. I originally purchased an a99 as a wide-angle companion to my a77. At the time I considered the a77 as the ultimate tele-converter for my 70-400G. Wasn't long before the 77 sat capped in the bag, as the 50% "extra reach" of the a77 proved to be an illusion (rather than a benefit) compared to cropping the a99's cleaner files.

Click to expand...

Robsphoto said:

sybersitizen said:

Robsphoto said:

sybersitizen said:

Robsphoto said:

sybersitizen said:

Robsphoto said:

... if you want a large print from just a small part of the picture (such as a distant bird or animal) you may enjoy the benefits of the superior image quality of FF.

Click to expand...

If you use 'just a small part of the picture' of a 24mp/36mp FF camera, you might as well be shooting with Sony's good 16mp APS-C sensors. Yes, there are differences in pixel pitch... but the way to 'enjoy the benefits of the superior image quality of FF' is to shoot and use the entire frame.

Click to expand...

I do sometimes shoot with the 16mp APS-C Sony A55 using the Sony 18mm - 250mm lens. But, it's not always practical to "use the entire frame", no matter what camera or lens we might use.

For example, if I take a picture of some distant animals across the other side of a wide, deep, fast flowing river, and I use the longest telephoto lens that I have available, then to get a nice close-up pic of the animals, I may need to heavily crop the image!

In other words, it's not always possible to completely fill the frame with the subject, and cropping is sometimes a necessary "evil"!

Click to expand...

Now you're saying something different... something we all know. Cropping is indeed sometimes a necessary evil, but it's never a way to enjoy the benefits of the superior image quality of FF.

Click to expand...

I still enjoy the benefits of the superior image quality of the full frame Sony A99, even when an A99 image has been cropped.

Click to expand...

Great. How about showing us the benefits by shooting some comparisons with your A55 and your A99 in crop mode?

Click to expand...

Doing that wouldn't alter my opinion that I still enjoy the benefits of the superior image quality of the full frame Sony A99, even when an A99 image has been cropped. For example, an image taken by the A99 in extremely low light is, IMHO, better than the A55 could do in that same light, whether or not the A99 is in "crop mode"!

Click to expand...

TrojMacReady said:

So I will reply with the same old before people get misguided again:

In practise (key) there is no clear correlation between pixel size and noise for a given output size or sensor area. Which is confirmed by sensor designers and makers, including Sony, even when looking at extreme (pixels approaching 1 micron) cases.

Click to expand...

danelmix said:

coloradosnowman said:

Rob, well said! I made the leap from an Olympus E-5 to the a99 and haven't looked back. Sure I took excellent photos with my E-5, but with my a99 they come so much easier and are usually even better. I am one of those who told Dan to "just do it" and it sounds like he is very happy with his decision, as am I with mine.

Congratulations Dan! And nice photos!

Regards, Dean

Click to expand...

Thanks Dean ,so well worth it!!

Click to expand...