Gary Waugh
Senior Member
I would keep the A580 for the times when you need 50% more reach that the APS-C size sensor will give you. That is a lot less expensive than buying a full frame lens that is 50% longer.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Will a580 become a collectible/rarity?
- Thread starter TheVoid
- Start date
I really do think that's the case. Every once in a while with electronics this happens, and the a57 was definitely one of those.
TheVoid
Senior Member
It's settled. It's worth more to me than it what I would gain by selling it.
Even better than the A57. The High ISO files from the A580 are much, much cleaner than the A57 and without the wormy noise that the SLT mirror adds. The skin tones look much natural too. If I find a A580 in the $400 price range then I am definitely jumping on one instantly.
What is this wormy stuff you're talking about? I've never heard of it except from your 2 posts here. Please post an example. With thousands of pics with the a57 in all sorts of conditions and multiple lenses I have never seen what you're talking about?
If I had to guess, I'd say you're looking at the results of poor bokeh, or the out of focus areas, which is caused by the lens, and not the camera, sensor, or mirror.
If I had to guess, I'd say you're looking at the results of poor bokeh, or the out of focus areas, which is caused by the lens, and not the camera, sensor, or mirror.
Ron Poelman
Veteran Member
+1, someone needs to spend over $10 bucks on a lens or read the manual.
I know, I picked it up from SAR where a guy was talking about the A99. It made sense since I observed the same pattern on my A65. I attribute that to the SLT mirror adding its own characteristic to the image. Sometimes it is on the subject but mostly in the bokeh.
"I like the A99 as a camera very much and prefer it about the D600 – the Sony has so many nice features! But the jpeg-Output is better with the Nikon! Especially in the dark areas (below the ati-chip) the noise reduction of Sony looks like small worms – I don’t like! The Nikon noise is looks more like the corn of analog film – well done Nikon!"
--
Nick P
"I like the A99 as a camera very much and prefer it about the D600 – the Sony has so many nice features! But the jpeg-Output is better with the Nikon! Especially in the dark areas (below the ati-chip) the noise reduction of Sony looks like small worms – I don’t like! The Nikon noise is looks more like the corn of analog film – well done Nikon!"
--
Nick P
Hmmm, let me see. My 17-50mm Tamron cost definitely more than $10 and I did read the manual which did not talk about noise or noise pattern at all. Maybe your smart remark is made at someone else then.
Ron Poelman
Veteran Member
anything vaguely like a worm.
Some samples would be helpful.
Some samples would be helpful.
Sure, if and when I find some. I had sold off my A65 some time ago and never really kept any high ISo files but as soon as I find a charger for my new A65, I'll see if I can replicate it.
Ron, I did a search and came up with this:
If there are other users who feel like me then there must be something to it. Maybe it stuck with me when I first read it there and used it because I agreed with it. It appears to be there under certain conditions and if I find my old files I'll post it here. Bottom line is I like the features, AF, etc. in the SLT cameras and shoot mostly under 800 ISO and use MFNR for anything higher.
Loading…
www.luminous-landscape.com
Loading…
www.dpreview.com
If there are other users who feel like me then there must be something to it. Maybe it stuck with me when I first read it there and used it because I agreed with it. It appears to be there under certain conditions and if I find my old files I'll post it here. Bottom line is I like the features, AF, etc. in the SLT cameras and shoot mostly under 800 ISO and use MFNR for anything higher.
What is this? I clicked through both posts and didn't see any pictures.
Is this something you read about somewhere that someone else had or something that you've seen affect your pictures?
If it's such and issue, you no doubt have countless photos that show it!
Or maybe just one?
Please show us what you are talking about, if there is something to talk about.
Is this something you read about somewhere that someone else had or something that you've seen affect your pictures?
If it's such and issue, you no doubt have countless photos that show it!
Or maybe just one?
Please show us what you are talking about, if there is something to talk about.
Ron Poelman
Veteran Member
I'll grab some this arvo and see if we can see anything.
That said, my @57 never goes the other side of ISO400
when I have a choice, the NR in Aftershot works OK
but a clean ISO200 beats a cooked ISO6400 any day.
Wide open for all shots I guess ?
That said, my @57 never goes the other side of ISO400
when I have a choice, the NR in Aftershot works OK
but a clean ISO200 beats a cooked ISO6400 any day.
Wide open for all shots I guess ?
tbcass
Forum Pro
The "wormy" noise you are talking about is not added by the SLT mirror but is the result of heavy handed jpg noise reduction.
tbcass
Forum Pro
I know what you are talking about but it is not caused by the SLT mirror. It is the result of the JPG processing and Sony's heavy handed high iso noise reduction. I know this because it is not visible in well processed RAW files.
Tom, I appreciate your input regarding the NR in jpg applied by Sony. I loved the A65 when I had it and the only thing I wished it had was at least usable images at 3200 ISO. If those artifacts are not visible in RAW then it is very good because I just picked up the A65 again and have since updated my LR and it will be interesting to see what I can do with the RAW files in LR.
Ron Poelman
Veteran Member
Herewith three 1:1 crops at ridiculous ISO for an @57.
Raw, plenty of noise but more or less even cover.
Same as above with VERY heavy NR applied. Artifacts everywhere, guess they qualify, but who would push it that far ?
OOC JPEG for reference. Not too bad, really.
I call it as someone trying real hard to prove a point, Canon jockey no doubt.
Raw, plenty of noise but more or less even cover.
Same as above with VERY heavy NR applied. Artifacts everywhere, guess they qualify, but who would push it that far ?
OOC JPEG for reference. Not too bad, really.
I call it as someone trying real hard to prove a point, Canon jockey no doubt.
Last edited:
tbcass
Forum Pro
Please do that. I don't shoot RAW much so I'm no expert in LR but when I process iso3200 RAW images from my A65 or A77 in LR there is more noise than the JPEGs but there is also more detail and you also don't have that ugly swirled "wormy" look when viewed at 100%. In addition the noise is very fine grained similar to film grain. When viewed at screen size there isn't much difference with a bit more crispness in the processed RAWs. I believe that Sony in camera JPEGs are not processed with 100% viewing in mind.
tbcass
Forum Pro
If you back off some on the NR on the RAW images you get more noise but also more contrast and detail. The noise is fine grained and for many, myself included, preferable to the heavy handed NR in the JPGs. It's just a matter of personal preference.
--
Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels
------------
Miss use of the ability to do 100% pixel peeping is the bane of digital photography because it causes people to fret over inconsequential issues.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum