Trusted Reviews report on Alpha WITH sample shots

[tom sugnet]

'Image noise is very well controlled at 100-400 ISO, although it does become something of a problem at 800 and 1600' , from the review...
--
Most of the people that I FUJIFILMed did not know that there was someone.

 

[jgpippin]

The problem is you do not know the lighting conditions. You were
not there!
The camera may have operated properly, but the pictures are LOUSY.
There is nothing in this review to show how the camera can take
GREAT pictures.
If a reviewer wants to show how a camera can overcome particularly
difficult lighting conditions, I certainly would appreciate this.
But this was not done here, except for flipping comments.
Show me some GREAT pictures first, then show me how a camera can
overcome difficult lighting conditions.
This review is not doing Sony any favor. I don't expect any
reviewer to do any favor to any camera manufacturer, but there is
absolutely nothing wrong with a reviewer showing GREAT pictures
taken under good light conditions. Then, if you want to show me
something else, fine. But show me some GREAT pictures first.

Careful, your arrogance is showing. But it does seem as if you've tried to mask it with the clever use of more arrogance.

 

[AAK]

How Rude!

Do I have to get back to posting his post? If you want to see how I
am answering to him, just go to it. Are we in grade school here?
Do I have to give you pointers to follow the conversation?

That was really uncalled for.

I've been following every message in order, I've browsed both reviews and I still haven't a clue what you're talking about. And no, I'm not in grade school. In fact, I am, in part a writer myself.

Why so defensive?
And the other poster's question stands:

"Which is?..."

--
=~ AAK - http://www.aakatz.com
=~ Author of the H-Series White Paper
=~ http://www.aakatz.com/h1whitepaper

 

[jpp188636]

Can you give me a link to a review site that consistently posts great pictures?
Thank you.

 

[Elgsdyr]

An image like this (from the 5D review) and the accompanying text makes me not really take their reviews seriously... :-(



"Just a quick snapshot in Auto mode, but again the 5D has got it right. Not a single blown-out highlight or purple fringe in sight, despite the bright sunshine and light-coloured stonework."

'Not a single blown-out highlight'???! Are they watching the same picture?

--
Yours etc.
Torsten Balle Koefoed

http://www.elgsdyr.dk

 

[David Kilpatrick]

They give it their highest rating.

http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?page=7078&head=0

Thanks. a good review - must have been the same group that David
was part of (same scenery).

And it would have been the same camera if Cliff had not spent 20 minutes watching an old bloke knotting ropes! Had to borrow a test camera from the French group's allocation instead... while Cliff disappeared to shoot his location equipment shots.

The 24-105mm Minolta lens he used was privately borrowed from Sony staff, I believe, and unlike my own 24-105mm appears to be very badly centered (they can vary - I have a lucky one, better than the average). Sony's revised version will hopefully have much better QC. Cliff's close-ups do the system no favours at all by being so badly imaged optically. I am sure he could have picked a sharper detail to enlarge.

Also, you'll note that he has left the camera on sRGB, resulting in much punchier colours etc than my tests, which were shot on AdobeRGB. I now wish I had left my camera set for sRGB JPEGs since this is what the average Canon user compares. Even AdobeRGB converted to sRGB never looks as superficially colourful unless you accept clipping (Absolute Colorimetric conversion) but I, of course, always use Perceptual or Relative Colorimetric to keep the wider range of AdobeRGB values.

If you don't know why sRGB with less colours looks more colourful on screen than AdobeRGB with a wider gamut, do some Googling for info. It can be REALLY hard to explain this apparent paradox without wasting hundreds of words each time!

David

 

[David Kilpatrick]

The village shot on page 10 was supposedly taken with a 100-400mm
telephoto zoom, but I don't see that lens listed. Is it one Sony
intends to come out with later in the year? Also, would that be
the actual mm or eqivalent mm?

They used Minolta lenses in the tests.

Paul Genge of Minolta UK had brought a bag of his own personal lenses along. The official lenses provided were the new Sony revisions.

David

 

[David Kilpatrick]

reviewer to do any favor to any camera manufacturer, but there is
absolutely nothing wrong with a reviewer showing GREAT pictures
taken under good light conditions. Then, if you want to show me
something else, fine. But show me some GREAT pictures first.

You were not there. This was a dusty, colourless, Moroccan ecotourism farm in mid-day light. In fact, Cliff had the kit first. I waited for 90 minutes, while the light got later, before borrowing my test body but I didn't have as much time to use it. I did get slightly less awful light but it was the sort of conditions where I would have been saying, let's chill out and have a beer and wait until early evening to get some nice low light.

Imagine - overhead sun, but so yellow with dust and moisture (it was NOT dry - it was very humid) that the camera's AWB recorded around 4200K for shots in full sun, and if you change the RAW conversion to daylight, the images look orange-dust-colour all over. I did not even need sunspecs.

David

 

[Lin Evans]

Measure it in PhotoShop - I did. I can't find one 255,255,255 (the definition of blown highlights) so the statement is correct. This is an extremely brightly lit shot with huge potential for blown highlights and there are none.

Lin

An image like this (from the 5D review) and the accompanying text
makes me not really take their reviews seriously... :-(



"Just a quick snapshot in Auto mode, but again the 5D has got it
right. Not a single blown-out highlight or purple fringe in sight,
despite the bright sunshine and light-coloured stonework."

'Not a single blown-out highlight'???! Are they watching the same
picture?

--
Yours etc.
Torsten Balle Koefoed

http://www.elgsdyr.dk

 

[Meryl Arbing]

I think you misunderstand me. I was just providing additional information for people. They could then draw their own conclusions.

 

[sunhorse]

Then you either did not look hard enough or you don't know how to use Photoshop. Just have to look at the histogram for proof - see the spike on the far right. Look at "waist" of the fountain, before it flares out to the base.

Lin

An image like this (from the 5D review) and the accompanying text
makes me not really take their reviews seriously... :-(



"Just a quick snapshot in Auto mode, but again the 5D has got it
right. Not a single blown-out highlight or purple fringe in sight,
despite the bright sunshine and light-coloured stonework."

'Not a single blown-out highlight'???! Are they watching the same
picture?

--
Yours etc.
Torsten Balle Koefoed

http://www.elgsdyr.dk

 

[Lin Evans]

There is one small spot on the base of the fountain where the reading reaches 255, 255, 255 - I suspect I know as much about how to use PnotoShop as you are anyone else around here. The vast majority of the extreme highlight areas are under 255, 255, 255 - It's quite fair to say that there are no significant hotspots.

Lin

Lin

An image like this (from the 5D review) and the accompanying text
makes me not really take their reviews seriously... :-(



"Just a quick snapshot in Auto mode, but again the 5D has got it
right. Not a single blown-out highlight or purple fringe in sight,
despite the bright sunshine and light-coloured stonework."

'Not a single blown-out highlight'???! Are they watching the same
picture?

--
Yours etc.
Torsten Balle Koefoed

http://www.elgsdyr.dk

 

[woodyjnr]

Sunhorse, perhaps you should calibrate your monitor, the image has a lot of bright areas, but none apart from a small spot are fully burnt out. They are just VERY bright.

and yes lin was correct 255,255,255 and higher would be a burnt highlight- pure white.

Anyway it's a 5D image the A100 looks like it'll have a better DR.

Andrew

 

[Ominous]

Measure it in PhotoShop - I did. I can't find one 255,255,255 (the
definition of blown highlights) so the statement is correct. This
is an extremely brightly lit shot with huge potential for blown
highlights and there are none.

It doesn't have to be 255,255,255.

You can blow one chanel and not the other two. Reds seem to blow out easist. Ever see a red flower that looks "wierd"? Odds are the reds are blown. This will effect the tone of the image.

--
http://www.whalenphotography.net

 

[Meryl Arbing]

The imaging-resource preview noted that with the plastic 'kit lens' the shutter noise was louder than with the expensive Zeiss lenses.

I also heard that the Minolta engineers determined that dampening the mirror slap would negatively effect the IS system.
I guess we need to wait to see how the camera performs in real use.

 

[Dave Beaman]

I have not heard of the reviewer, and I haven't used the Apha 100, but the review seems more of a promotion piece then a review. There were a lot of superlatives given with out reference.

Also, there was this quote when talking about the DRO system

"This produces even better results, but does add about two seconds to the processing time for each shot. However even using this mode I was impressed by the shooting speed."

How can a camera add two seconds to every shot and still impress someone with he shooting speed?

This pictures did not impress me much in any fashion.

dave

 

[Lin Evans]

I have not heard of the reviewer, and I haven't used the Apha 100,
but the review seems more of a promotion piece then a review. There
were a lot of superlatives given with out reference.

Also, there was this quote when talking about the DRO system

"This produces even better results, but does add about two seconds
to the processing time for each shot. However even using this mode
I was impressed by the shooting speed."

How can a camera add two seconds to every shot and still impress
someone with he shooting speed?

It doesn't add time to every shot, it adds time to the "processing". Don't confuse image acquisition with processing because shooting can continue while processing occurs.

It can shoot three frames per second until the media is full. The "processing" is done in the background and an image must be "processed" before you can view it and "chimp" - but one doesn't need to look at every image and this camera can do what no other currently available digital camera can do - that' s shoot at 3fps unlimited except for the card capacity assuming a reasonably fast CF card.

This pictures did not impress me much in any fashion.

dave

 

[David Kilpatrick]

I have not heard of the reviewer, and I haven't used the Apha 100,
but the review seems more of a promotion piece then a review. There
were a lot of superlatives given with out reference.

Also, there was this quote when talking about the DRO system

"This produces even better results, but does add about two seconds
to the processing time for each shot. However even using this mode
I was impressed by the shooting speed."

How can a camera add two seconds to every shot and still impress
someone with he shooting speed?

Th reviewer was quoting Sony UK's Paul Genge, who was I think reading from the wrong hymn-sheet. The DRO actually adds up to 0.5 seconds to each image capture, but does not affect the shooting rate so much - only the lag to store the first image to card. The processing is between the buffer and the card, in effect.

The 2 seconds figure does not appear anywhere in official specs.

David

 

[Elgsdyr]

Measure it in PhotoShop - I did. I can't find one 255,255,255 (the
definition of blown highlights) so the statement is correct.

The image is scaled down, so you can't really rely on that method to find blown pixels.

--
Yours etc.
Torsten Balle Koefoed

http://www.elgsdyr.dk

 

[Dave Beaman]

I have not heard of the reviewer, and I haven't used the Apha 100,
but the review seems more of a promotion piece then a review. There
were a lot of superlatives given with out reference.

Also, there was this quote when talking about the DRO system

"This produces even better results, but does add about two seconds
to the processing time for each shot. However even using this mode
I was impressed by the shooting speed."

How can a camera add two seconds to every shot and still impress
someone with he shooting speed?

Th reviewer was quoting Sony UK's Paul Genge, who was I think
reading from the wrong hymn-sheet. The DRO actually adds up to 0.5
seconds to each image capture, but does not affect the shooting
rate so much - only the lag to store the first image to card. The
processing is between the buffer and the card, in effect.

The 2 seconds figure does not appear anywhere in official specs.

David

That's not so bad, not bad at all. Two seconds is a bit long, I would think

dave