Dissapointing Sony A77 II High ISO performance

Started May 2, 2014 | Discussions
fishy wishy
fishy wishy Veteran Member • Posts: 9,333
Re: 2010 called....

TrojMacReady wrote:

People have removed their mirrors and compared image brightness: about 0.5 EV difference (compensation required in a converter to equal brightness). The actual transmission values of the A77 mirror/beamsplitter (without camera) have been measured in a lab at different angles. At the angle used, that turned out to be 70 to 80%. The former translates to 0.5 EV light "loss" and corresponds with values mentioned in the various Sony patents.

As for AF comment, that makes no sense whatsoever. The AF and metering sensors in classic DSLR designs also get about a third of the light (through the semi silvered center of the main mirror, bounced via a small secondary mirror behind it) while the rest is reflected to the OVF. Meaning, those AF sensors have to work with only a smaller portion of the light too.

The A77 understates ISO's, a few competitors overstate ISO's, that alone leads to wrong conclusions about signal to noise ratios of these cameras and the effect of the beamsplitter (between 0.3 and 0.5 EV as described above).

Good info, except the apologism for the A77 noise. Why anyone tries to argue is sad, because it stands out so badly and is why I never even shortlisted it.

On the dpreview comparator the A77 noise at 3200 is worse than the D7100 by easily 1+1/3 stop- for instance the D7100 @6400 is clearly better on the flesh tones where a lot peer at it. Arguments about the exposure being more or less generous fall to the exposure values in the files for download which nowhere near makes up the difference. Maybe Nikon was right to hold off from the 24MP DX for 18 months compared to Sony.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studio-compare

tbcass
tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 41,291
Re: 2010 called....

You are completely misinterpreting what you are seeing. Let's compare on a different web site where I see almost no difference.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

-- hide signature --

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.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM +10 more
VirtualMirage
VirtualMirage Veteran Member • Posts: 3,956
Re: 2010 called....

fishywisht wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

People have removed their mirrors and compared image brightness: about 0.5 EV difference (compensation required in a converter to equal brightness). The actual transmission values of the A77 mirror/beamsplitter (without camera) have been measured in a lab at different angles. At the angle used, that turned out to be 70 to 80%. The former translates to 0.5 EV light "loss" and corresponds with values mentioned in the various Sony patents.

As for AF comment, that makes no sense whatsoever. The AF and metering sensors in classic DSLR designs also get about a third of the light (through the semi silvered center of the main mirror, bounced via a small secondary mirror behind it) while the rest is reflected to the OVF. Meaning, those AF sensors have to work with only a smaller portion of the light too.

The A77 understates ISO's, a few competitors overstate ISO's, that alone leads to wrong conclusions about signal to noise ratios of these cameras and the effect of the beamsplitter (between 0.3 and 0.5 EV as described above).

Good info, except the apologism for the A77 noise. Why anyone tries to argue is sad, because it stands out so badly and is why I never even shortlisted it.

On the dpreview comparator the A77 noise at 3200 is worse than the D7100 by easily 1+1/3 stop- for instance the D7100 @6400 is clearly better on the flesh tones where a lot peer at it. Arguments about the exposure being more or less generous fall to the exposure values in the files for download which nowhere near makes up the difference. Maybe Nikon was right to hold off from the 24MP DX for 18 months compared to Sony.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studio-compare

Remember that the DPR tests are not exactly equal.  I know they don't keep the exposures the same and I can't recall if they adjust the lighting too from camera to camera.

Either way, look at the EXIF information on both cameras.  You will see that it looks like DPR is basing comparison on ISO and not on exposure values.  Knowing that ISO is really baseless on digital cameras and varies from manufacturer to manufacturer, some cameras may be understated while other overstated.

In the instance with the D7100 and the A77, D7100 has a longer exposure time than the A77 (1/1600s vs 1/2000s at ISO6400).  This gives at least a 1/3 stop advantage to the D7100.  If basing ISO on shutter speed, that would mean that if the A77 was the correct exposure and shutter speed for ISO 6400 then the D7100 would really be ISO 5000 or lower just based on that and no other possible inconsistencies in the testing methodology.  Flipped, it would mean the A77 was around ISO 8000 or higher in equivalent.

 VirtualMirage's gear list:VirtualMirage's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony a77 II Tokina AT-X Pro 11-16mm f/2.8 DX Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD +18 more
EinsteinsGhost
EinsteinsGhost Forum Pro • Posts: 11,977
More smoke...
1

Almazar80 wrote:

You must have shot with the A77 and its competitors for quite a while, as it appears that your expertise in the noise characteristics of the A77 and other cameras are, as you imply, authoritative. Can you tell us what tests you ran and under what conditions. I am curious to see what methodology you came up with to be able to say, with certitude, that the A77 lost an f stop due to the mirror.

Obviously he hasn't done that but is just blowing smoke confident that his unscientific observations are the absolute truth.

Since SLT uses only a third stop of light for AF, it would put it far behind in that area (conpared to SLRs) as well.

You know, SLRs magically create more light (100% to view finder, enough to the metering module and still have left over light to do more than 30% to AF module).

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
EinsteinsGhost
EinsteinsGhost Forum Pro • Posts: 11,977
The Third Stop Circus
1

I wonder what score the A77m2 wil have, but from this comparison any one can see it, ore they are blind, even more, the real picture's show even more credibility for the A6000, I would like to have a A77m2 with the high ISO performance of the A6000, but that's not going to hapen with this camera. even the A58 have better high ISO Jpeg's than the old A77 and now the A77m2 ........ !!!!

tbcass wrote:

phototherapy wrote:

the A6000 ISO6400 looks like the A77m2 ISO1600, this is terribly wrong, what the fu.... is Sony doing with the A-mount camera's ?

That is totally wrong. To my eyes the A6000 iso6400 shots don't look much if any better than those from my A77.

And naysayers of "improvements" in a6000 are claiming they can't see the gains in a6000 compared to NEX-7.

That really puts a perspective on these pixel peepers who are frustrated at not being able to see what a third stop loses or gains.

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
danny006 Senior Member • Posts: 1,090
Re: More smoke...

Since SLT uses only a third stop of light for AF, it would put it far behind in that area (conpared to SLRs) as well.--

A traditional dslr uses also a fraction of the light hitting the mirror. There is a secondary little mirror inside the main mirror which is used for phasedetect autofocus. And the rest of the light goes up to the viewfinder. So your statement is not correct.

And the autofocus on an slt works always, on a dslr the AF doesn't work when the picture is taken because the mirror goes up.

www.alex-digitalpics.be by Sony

 danny006's gear list:danny006's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS Rebel T6s Canon EF 28-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS USM Samyang 14mm F2.8 IF ED MC Aspherical Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM | S
EinsteinsGhost
EinsteinsGhost Forum Pro • Posts: 11,977
Re: More smoke...

Since SLT uses only a third stop of light for AF, it would put it far behind in that area (conpared to SLRs) as well.--

A traditional dslr uses also a fraction of the light hitting the mirror. There is a secondary little mirror inside the main mirror which is used for phasedetect autofocus. And the rest of the light goes up to the viewfinder. So your statement is not correct.

And the autofocus on an slt works always, on a dslr the AF doesn't work when the picture is taken because the mirror goes up.

www.alex-digitalpics.be by Sony

That is not my statement. I happen to have combined te rhetoric from anti-SLT brigade to show how they believe SLRs create their own light... they have to if the total sum is more than 100% of the light.

Whereas in reality, the SLR tech uses splitting into three optical paths: OVF, metering and AF.

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Photostyle Contributing Member • Posts: 718
Re: The Third Stop Circus

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

I wonder what score the A77m2 wil have, but from this comparison any one can see it, ore they are blind, even more, the real picture's show even more credibility for the A6000, I would like to have a A77m2 with the high ISO performance of the A6000, but that's not going to hapen with this camera. even the A58 have better high ISO Jpeg's than the old A77 and now the A77m2 ........ !!!!

tbcass wrote:

phototherapy wrote:

the A6000 ISO6400 looks like the A77m2 ISO1600, this is terribly wrong, what the fu.... is Sony doing with the A-mount camera's ?

That is totally wrong. To my eyes the A6000 iso6400 shots don't look much if any better than those from my A77.

And naysayers of "improvements" in a6000 are claiming they can't see the gains in a6000 compared to NEX-7.

That really puts a perspective on these pixel peepers who are frustrated at not being able to see what a third stop loses or gains.

Wow, well those are not imaginairy results / numbers !!!

Tone Row Regular Member • Posts: 334
Re: OK
1

Ed at Ridersite wrote:

Well, OK, but where's the answer to his question? Give us an example of a revolutionary camera.

My point exactly. There hasn't been a revolutionary APS-C based DSLR in years. I would argue that the last revolutionary cameras in this category were the EOS 300D and the D70, and those were revolutionary not because of their specs but because they took DSLRs out of the realm of professional photography and into the hands of the masses. It's just amazing to me that people read Sony rumor sites, get worked up over what could be, and then slam Sony for not building what the rumor site was conjecturing. Simply amazing.

If Sony is guilty of anything, it's that they continue to build cameras that try to be all things to all people with a product layout of good/better/best rather than the task based systems that you see with other manufacturers.

 Tone Row's gear list:Tone Row's gear list
Sony SLT-A55 NEX5R
EinsteinsGhost
EinsteinsGhost Forum Pro • Posts: 11,977
Re: The Third Stop Circus

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

I wonder what score the A77m2 wil have, but from this comparison any one can see it, ore they are blind, even more, the real picture's show even more credibility for the A6000, I would like to have a A77m2 with the high ISO performance of the A6000, but that's not going to hapen with this camera. even the A58 have better high ISO Jpeg's than the old A77 and now the A77m2 ........ !!!!

tbcass wrote:

phototherapy wrote:

the A6000 ISO6400 looks like the A77m2 ISO1600, this is terribly wrong, what the fu.... is Sony doing with the A-mount camera's ?

That is totally wrong. To my eyes the A6000 iso6400 shots don't look much if any better than those from my A77.

And naysayers of "improvements" in a6000 are claiming they can't see the gains in a6000 compared to NEX-7.

That really puts a perspective on these pixel peepers who are frustrated at not being able to see what a third stop loses or gains.

Wow, well those are not imaginairy results / numbers !!!

But those aren't a77II numbers if we must talk numbers. The question is, if a77II improves upon those numbers by a third stop for low light performance, would you notice? Because, many in E-mount forum are claiming to not see the third stop improvement in a6000 compared to NEX-7. Have you seen those claims?

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
danny006 Senior Member • Posts: 1,090
Re: More smoke...

Yes, I'm sorry. I didn't read your post well enough.

-- hide signature --

www.alex-digitalpics.be by Sony

 danny006's gear list:danny006's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS Rebel T6s Canon EF 28-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS USM Samyang 14mm F2.8 IF ED MC Aspherical Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM | S
K E Hoffman
K E Hoffman Veteran Member • Posts: 5,103
Re: More smoke...
1

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Since SLT uses only a third stop of light for AF, it would put it far behind in that area (conpared to SLRs) as well.--

A traditional dslr uses also a fraction of the light hitting the mirror. There is a secondary little mirror inside the main mirror which is used for phasedetect autofocus. And the rest of the light goes up to the viewfinder. So your statement is not correct.

And the autofocus on an slt works always, on a dslr the AF doesn't work when the picture is taken because the mirror goes up.

www.alex-digitalpics.be by Sony

That is not my statement. I happen to have combined te rhetoric from anti-SLT brigade to show how they believe SLRs create their own light... they have to if the total sum is more than 100% of the light.

Whereas in reality, the SLR tech uses splitting into three optical paths: OVF, metering and AF.

It is amazing to me the numbers of SLR / OVF defenders who don't even know how it works..

-- hide signature --

K.E.H. >> Shooting between raindrops in WA<<
Don't Panic!.. these are just opinions... go take some pictures..

 K E Hoffman's gear list:K E Hoffman's gear list
Canon EOS 450D Nikon 1 J1 Sony a6500 Sony E 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 OSS Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS +3 more
Photostyle Contributing Member • Posts: 718
Re: The Third Stop Circus

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

I wonder what score the A77m2 wil have, but from this comparison any one can see it, ore they are blind, even more, the real picture's show even more credibility for the A6000, I would like to have a A77m2 with the high ISO performance of the A6000, but that's not going to hapen with this camera. even the A58 have better high ISO Jpeg's than the old A77 and now the A77m2 ........ !!!!

tbcass wrote:

phototherapy wrote:

the A6000 ISO6400 looks like the A77m2 ISO1600, this is terribly wrong, what the fu.... is Sony doing with the A-mount camera's ?

That is totally wrong. To my eyes the A6000 iso6400 shots don't look much if any better than those from my A77.

And naysayers of "improvements" in a6000 are claiming they can't see the gains in a6000 compared to NEX-7.

That really puts a perspective on these pixel peepers who are frustrated at not being able to see what a third stop loses or gains.

Wow, well those are not imaginairy results / numbers !!!

But those aren't a77II numbers if we must talk numbers. The question is, if a77II improves upon those numbers by a third stop for low light performance, would you notice? Because, many in E-mount forum are claiming to not see the third stop improvement in a6000 compared to NEX-7. Have you seen those claims?

What I can see now at Imaging Resources is the big difference between the old A77 and new A6000, that ISO 6400 A6000 = A77 ISO 1600 !!!! IF the A77m2 has not improved over the old A77, then there will be many many questions, and so far it seem that way, but let's hope there is also improvement on the high ISO performance.

TrojMacReady
TrojMacReady Veteran Member • Posts: 8,729
There are no apologies needed

fishywisht wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

People have removed their mirrors and compared image brightness: about 0.5 EV difference (compensation required in a converter to equal brightness). The actual transmission values of the A77 mirror/beamsplitter (without camera) have been measured in a lab at different angles. At the angle used, that turned out to be 70 to 80%. The former translates to 0.5 EV light "loss" and corresponds with values mentioned in the various Sony patents.

As for AF comment, that makes no sense whatsoever. The AF and metering sensors in classic DSLR designs also get about a third of the light (through the semi silvered center of the main mirror, bounced via a small secondary mirror behind it) while the rest is reflected to the OVF. Meaning, those AF sensors have to work with only a smaller portion of the light too.

The A77 understates ISO's, a few competitors overstate ISO's, that alone leads to wrong conclusions about signal to noise ratios of these cameras and the effect of the beamsplitter (between 0.3 and 0.5 EV as described above).

Good info, except the apologism for the A77 noise. Why anyone tries to argue is sad, because it stands out so badly and is why I never even shortlisted it.

No apologies, just verifiable facts. At the same ISO, a Canon 7D requires up to 2/3 EV slower shutterspeeds. Fujifim cameras and the EM5 overstate even more. The only sensible comparisons compare at the same physical exposure settings (shutterspeed and f stop) and then equalize brightness differences afterwards. That takes ISO ratng differences out of the equation.

On the dpreview comparator the A77 noise at 3200 is worse than the D7100 by easily 1+1/3 stop- for instance the D7100 @6400 is clearly better on the flesh tones where a lot peer at it. Arguments about the exposure being more or less generous fall to the exposure values in the files for download which nowhere near makes up the difference. Maybe Nikon was right to hold off from the 24MP DX for 18 months compared to Sony.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studio-compare

See above, add the fact that the D7100 has a newer generation sensor (approx. 1/3 EV more effiient), add half a stop for the beamsplitter and it suddenly makes a lot more sense. Real difference at the same physical exposure is closer to 2/3 EV.

EinsteinsGhost
EinsteinsGhost Forum Pro • Posts: 11,977
Re: The Third Stop Circus

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

I wonder what score the A77m2 wil have, but from this comparison any one can see it, ore they are blind, even more, the real picture's show even more credibility for the A6000, I would like to have a A77m2 with the high ISO performance of the A6000, but that's not going to hapen with this camera. even the A58 have better high ISO Jpeg's than the old A77 and now the A77m2 ........ !!!!

tbcass wrote:

phototherapy wrote:

the A6000 ISO6400 looks like the A77m2 ISO1600, this is terribly wrong, what the fu.... is Sony doing with the A-mount camera's ?

That is totally wrong. To my eyes the A6000 iso6400 shots don't look much if any better than those from my A77.

And naysayers of "improvements" in a6000 are claiming they can't see the gains in a6000 compared to NEX-7.

That really puts a perspective on these pixel peepers who are frustrated at not being able to see what a third stop loses or gains.

Wow, well those are not imaginairy results / numbers !!!

But those aren't a77II numbers if we must talk numbers. The question is, if a77II improves upon those numbers by a third stop for low light performance, would you notice? Because, many in E-mount forum are claiming to not see the third stop improvement in a6000 compared to NEX-7. Have you seen those claims?

What I can see now at Imaging Resources is the big difference between the old A77 and new A6000, that ISO 6400 A6000 = A77 ISO 1600 !!!! IF the A77m2 has not improved over the old A77, then there will be many many questions, and so far it seem that way, but let's hope there is also improvement on the high ISO performance.

Don't expect big gains. Expect reasonable gains. I expect about a third stop improvement on paper (as in DXO measurements) which many will claim to be insufficient or unnoticeable as is the case with a6000 vs NEX-7. And that really would be more representative of how ridiculous the argument on a third stop here or there is... it really depends on the photograper understanding exposure more than the camera itself.

And in threads like these, even worse. There is no comparison, no baseline yet some people can magically talk difference or lack of, without having a clue about exposure itself.

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
zackiedawg
zackiedawg Forum Pro • Posts: 31,158
Re: The Third Stop Circus

My own observation can only be based on the NEX-5N versus the A6000, but I will say that I do see a gain in the A6000 - not a huge gain, but definitely there, at high ISO - especially when resizing the 24MP sensor down to 16MP...I'd venture 1/2 stop at the middle ISOs, to maybe as much as 1 stop at the very highest (12800) and up.

Since the NEX7 users seemed to almost universally agree that the NEX-5N was one of the best high ISO performers, and that the NEX7 shots, once processed and resized to 16MP, was generally about even with the 5N, then I'd venture that the A6000 is better than the NEX7 by roughly the same amount I see compared to the 5N.

-- hide signature --

Justin
galleries: www.pbase.com/zackiedawg

 zackiedawg's gear list:zackiedawg's gear list
Sony a6300 Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony E 16mm F2.8 Pancake Sony DT 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 Voigtlander 35mm F1.4 Nokton +22 more
Bacho Forum Member • Posts: 77
Re: Dissapointing Sony A77 II High ISO performance

http://pliki.optyczne.pl/Sony_A77mkII/28_75/DSC04770.JPG

http://pliki.optyczne.pl/Sony_A77mkII/28_75/DSC04762.JPG

i am watching this two at iso800, for me is important till iso 800

maybe maybe is little better.

anyway sony is making full of us

here you have iso 800 from nikon 7100, same page

http://pliki.optyczne.pl/ND7100/sample/DSC_2400.JPG

compare if  it is possible and write a comment

my comment is: sony is little worse, but has  maybe less green magenta noise

we need to wait for raws

 Bacho's gear list:Bacho's gear list
Sony a7
SigmaDude New Member • Posts: 2
Re: Dissapointing Sony A77 II High ISO performance
1

As an A77 owner and user I have been following the rumors about the mk II quite close. Will I buy it? Most likely not, its just too little of an upgrade from the first version. The camera basically fixes the most criticized items - major improovement to autofocus and a much bigger buffer. Great!

Has anyone expected major improovements to ISO? Well, I would love to, as the A77 is not really a lord of darkness. But with advances in noise removal software like DXo 9 Prime, I dont worry about it that much anymore. And you should not either expect a good ISO performance from an APS-C camera with 24 megapixels. If you are looking for an amazing high ISO performance, you need to go full frame, you need to get an A7s or something which was designed for this purpose. The A77 was not. Face it.

Now, as said before, for me its too little of an upgrade to buy. To A57 or A65 users or some of the still DSLR users it will be a good option, its basically an A77 done right. For me I will wait for the next product cycle - hopefully till then the A-mount will become mirrorless. Hopefully we will get a global shutter. We hopefully get a new video codec, more fps in video, more options. I would actually go for the A77 if it would offer either an R option without the AA filter or if there would be an S with low megapixels but higher ISO.  But those are not even avaiable for the full frame Alphas and Sony is foolishly keeping those options to the A7 product line. Well, at least I dont have to spend money now

Anyways, stop peeping, go shooting. Cheers

Zerblat
Zerblat New Member • Posts: 3
Re: Dissapointing Sony A77 II High ISO performance

sybersitizen wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

sybersitizen wrote:

Miike Dougherty wrote:

DXO ranks the A77 satisfactory high ISO at 1,200.

Would you mind pointing out where the ISO 1200 figure is published?

I'm hoping the A77 II with gap-less pixels can achieve 1,600.

Regardless of the specific A77 figure, any 2/3 stop improvement would be hard to achieve.

That would be about 0.4 EV improvement, but I can't find the ISO 1200 figure either.

Right... I corrected my original post just now, saying a 1/3 stop improvement might be doable... but it would still be a barely observable difference.

The only DxO figure I see for the A77 is ISO 801.

Yes the A77 ISO figure is 801 and the Nikon D800 is  ISO is 2853 only 2000 ISO apart

Nordstjernen
Nordstjernen Veteran Member • Posts: 6,876
Misunderstanding

Seeky wrote:

These images are worthless to determine low light high ISO performance because the scenes are not low light at all.

There is a common belief that you can't test high ISO performance under bright light conditions. This is a widely spread misundertanding.

  1. The sensitivity of digital sensors is linear
  2. Bright or low light, the exposure is what matters!
  3. Night scenes often have large dark areas - so just check the result for equivalent areas
  4. If the exposure is so long that termic noise kicks in, then you mess up the test
  5. Once more: The sensitivity of digital sensors is linear
 Nordstjernen's gear list:Nordstjernen's gear list
Sony Alpha a99 Sony a7
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads