I am so mad at all of you Sony people!

I offered 1600 on one on eBay. Guy countered at 1650. He says less that 1000 shots taken. But there is no box included. Has everything else though. Battery charger strap etc.

What do you think? Should I do it.

He just countered me at that price 5 minutes ago, and it included shipping tomorrow via overnight do I would have it Friday.

Jb502 said:

I offered 1600 on one on eBay. Guy countered at 1650. He says less that 1000 shots taken. But there is no box included. Has everything else though. Battery charger strap etc.

What do you think? Should I do it.

He just countered me at that price 5 minutes ago, and it included shipping tomorrow via overnight do I would have it Friday.

Click to expand...

Do it. You won't regret it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is a Splendid Deal even better if the seller did not send in the warranty card .

The Deal that B&H is offering brings the Body in at 1977.00 if you subtract the Grip and Flash cost of roughly 900.00 but you still have to buy the package to get it. Too good of a deal for me to pass up though.

That sounds like a sweet deal for a like new used one 1000 shutters is nothing.

I bought it!!!!

m.ebay.com/itm/121214641794

Anybody want to buy an a77 kit? LOL

I wish my 16-5o was a ff lens. What's the best option to replace it?

Zeiss 24-70. Amazing lens, hurts the wallet$$.

Enjoy that ff beast!

Hehe...congrats to your new purchase! I love mine as much as you seem to love yours, but I kept the A77 for lighter travelling.

Stef.

A caravan? Isn't that a Dodge?

Owen

I noticed on Canon when taking shots of the moon with the same settings and lens on my 7d and 5d2 that at low ISO the 7d had more detail but at ISO 400 the level of detail was almost identical and above that the 5d2 won, I know it's not quite the same but it was a real eye opener (of course other than the sensor the 7d was a much better camera too!)
--
James

Well, mine came in the mail, and all I can say, Is wow. This is exactly what I had hoped for. Indoor shots at 3200 look great. I would say as good as my a77 at 800. Focus is dead on also. And my cz 50 1.4 doesnt need any micro adjustment at all. On my a77 is needed -15. Here are some iso 1000-3200 shots. These have been processed in lightroom. So they are not straight out of the camera. but no major noise reduction either.



ISO 3200





ISO 1600







ISO 1000

Were those processed RAW files? I ask because at full size they have a strange "granulated" look to them with very little detail. I wouldn't say they are 2 stops "better" than the A77 detail wise but they are more pleasant to look at. What settings in LR did you use?

We try and keep it to ourselves how great it is the lines are long enough when we pre order. When it finally dawns on the Nikon shooters the lines and wait will only get longer. Try and keep it quite. Please put some electrical tape over the Sony logo when your out and about and be sure to tell everyone it's a Sigma.

I'm not sure. I just mess around till it looks good.

But coming from an a77, that first shot at 3200, is unbelievable. Definitely a full 2 stop improvement over the a77. No question about it.

They were from raw.

Jb502 said:

I'm not sure. I just mess around till it looks good.

But coming from an a77, that first shot at 3200, is unbelievable. Definitely a full 2 stop improvement over the a77. No question about it.

They were from raw.

Click to expand...

I think they look fantastic. Enjoy it.

Jb502 said:

Well, mine came in the mail, and all I can say, Is wow. This is exactly what I had hoped for. Indoor shots at 3200 look great. I would say as good as my a77 at 800. Focus is dead on also.

Click to expand...

Great samples, Jb502! and yes, easily two full stops of improvement. You're going to enjoy it! One of the things that thrills me the most about the improvement over the a77 is the ability to actually use my 70-400G in lower light. Gives that lens new life (that lens is too expensive to have to put away for a night football game!)!

Case in point, high school football game this past Friday night. Here is a sample; was shooting manual on a monopod, 1/400, f/5.6 (wide open), ISO 5000... I found this the best compromise between stop-action shutter speed and ISO (with the a77, losing the two stops would have meant ISO 1250 for equivalent noise control which would correspondingly reduce the shutter to 1/100 -- or some combination between, any of which would result in more motion blur (1/400 was barely fast enough) and/or more noise/higher ISO, with much less acceptable shots):



...this is a near 50% crop; in hindsight I could have bumped up the ISO a bit more to better freeze the action, but hey, at pixel peeping levels you can see the individual teeth of the guy passing the football -- not bad! This was a hail mary touchdown pass, BTW... #31 in the foreground was in the endzone and caught the ball for a TD!

Sorry, didn't mean to hijack your thread with my stuff. Just confirming your results and sharing similar findings on this end ... Enjoy!

--
- AlanS

tbcass said:

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...

I wondered where you have been. I've been carrying on this drum beat over in the Cyber Shot forum. People just can't accept that it's sensor size not pixel size that affects the amount of noise. Once a misconception gets planted on the internet it's hard to get rid of it.

Click to expand...

Hi Tom, are you 100% certain that one of the Sony people who actually designed the Sony RX100 is completely wrong and is definitely “planting a misconception” on internet when he said in a Sony statement about the RX100 that:

"It’s true that increasing pixel count increases noise. But since we manufacture our own sensors, we can easily tweak sensor specs to suit specific needs. This allowed us to craft a totally new sensor that delivers superbly detailed images with low noise. For high-sensitivity shooting we managed to reduce noise levels below those of existing Cyber-shots by combining technologies from Cyber-shot and α Series. As a result, we can shoot at up to ISO 6400 for normal photos and up to ISO 25600 when using Multi Frame NR."

http://www.sony.com.sg/microsite/cybershot/rx100/index.html

You can see more detail on this topic and the views of another Sony RX100 designer here:

http://www.robsphotography.co.nz/crop-factor-advantage-appendix-2.html

Cheers

Rob

Jb502 said:

Well, mine came in the mail, and all I can say, Is wow. This is exactly what I had hoped for. Indoor shots at 3200 look great. I would say as good as my a77 at 800. Focus is dead on also. And my cz 50 1.4 doesnt need any micro adjustment at all. On my a77 is needed -15. Here are some iso 1000-3200 shots. These have been processed in lightroom. So they are not straight out of the camera. but no major noise reduction either.

Click to expand...

I agree, they are lovely photos, particularly for ISO 3200!

We have just got back from a trip during which we visited a bird sanctuary, and even late in the evening, the A99 produced a colourful bird image at ISO 4000, when to the human eye, it was so dark that the colours of the bird were hardly visible at all.

The A99 viewfinder is also superb compared with other cameras that I own!

The DPR Studio Shot Comparison Tool seems to confirm the views of Sony A99 owners with regard to the quality of their high ISO images. Try, for example, a comparison at ISO 6400 between the Sony A99 and the A77.

Cheers

Rob

First, it's clearly well covered with a sauce of marketing and second, if he really means pixels and is comparing those, even with the marketing sauce he's right.

The sensor designers and practise tell the story regarding whole sensors or images at a given output. That's all one needs to know.

tbcass wrote:

[I]TrojMacReady wrote: 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 said:

First, it's clearly well covered with a sauce of marketing and second, if he really means pixels and is comparing those, even with the marketing sauce he's right.

The sensor designers and practise tell the story regarding whole sensors or images at a given output. That's all one needs to know.

Click to expand...

When Tom says "it's sensor size not pixel size" that affects the amount of noise, and you and Tom suggest that people are "misguided" or that Sony is "planting a misconception" on internet, this would suggest that you must be 100% certain that Sony's statement that: It’s true that increasing pixel count increases noise" is wrong!

Even in "marketing speak" it would have been quite easy (if it was true) for Sony to say "It's not true that increasing pixel count increases noise, it's only the sensor size that determines the amount of noise."

So, I'm pleased that you are not now saying that the Sony statement I have quoted above is "misguided" or "planting a misconception on internet"!

Cheers

Rob

http://www.robsphotography.co.nz/
[/QUOTE]

hi dan, i am loving the shot, especially the first one. could you share if you used any filters on this shot? the sky is so blue. thanks. isa

I fully agree with you Alan. I have both the A77 and A99, thinking that I would use the A77 for my birding shooting. But like you, I found that cropping the A99's shots to the same size as the APS-C of the A77 still gives better looking photographs. The A77 has been releagated to a back up camera, if the A99 fails on me.