a77 image quality advice, how do I get the best from it?

[jcoffin]

I had a read of a Leica S2 review just for kicks, and came away not overly impressed [ ...]

Yes, if you compare an S2 to a DSLR on DLSR terms, it's going to come out looking quite mediocre. This remains true, even though a number of the problems cited in many reviews have since been fixed (or at least ameliorated) via firmware updates. The basic specs (1.5 fps, max ISO of 1250, etc.) remain the same.

On the other hand, it looks a lot better if you compare it to other medium format systems. Consider a PhaseOne IQ 180 for example. For a mere $44,000US, you get 0.7 frames per second and a maximum ISO of 800 (though it does have a pixel-binning mode that gets you all the way up to 0.9 frames per second and ISO 3200). Lenses are currently available in something like 7 focal lengths plus one zoom (and, of course, they don't exactly give away the lenses either).

Despite all that, the last I heard PhaseOne was mostly unable to keep up with demand. Supply is tight enough that their dealers all seem to have waiting lists to get them, and there are at least rumors of people who've bought and immediately re-sold them for substantially inflated prices.

Of course, production is largely a matter of perspective too. It probably takes Canon less than a day to produce as many cameras as PhaseOne has since the company started (in fact, it wouldn't surprise me if it was closer to an hour than a day).

[David Kilpatrick]

Dave - I don't use C1 Pro, although I have it. It is too convoluted and slow for my way of working and occupies to much non-standard computer space - because I work with Bridge, Acrobat and InDesign as well as Photoshop it makes total sense for me to stick to ACR. Also, C1 Pro does not recognise the Mamiya ZD 22 (and for all I know, does not recognise the DM 22 which is the current version). I've had a play with Mamiya's software on the old G4 laptop and it can do the tethered shooting thing well enough, but there is absolutely no benefit.

Phase One have offered me a refurbed P40+ back at trade price (effectively 25% off whatever a Phase One agent might sell it to me for). Looking at prices around the world it does make some sense.

In the meantime, I've given Richard a test to do using his Cambo monorail which has a Nikon D7000 mounted on the back at the moment - he will be shooting a still life using the rear standard to move the camera in steps and assemble first of all, a four shot 60 megapixel image; then if that works, a 500 megapixel 36-shot composite.

There seems to be every chance of acquiring pretty good 5 x 4 monorail kits at less cost than any tilt-shift lens right now, and getting either Alpha or my Mamiya back adaptors to fit them. I would like to see what a NEX-7 body on a monorail would be like.

David

[Simmondsphotography]

If anyone can do it these people can - they do infra-red conversions:

Advanced Camera Services
http://www.advancedcameraservices.co.uk

David

Thank you David, I will keep that and try them at the appropriate time.

[artington]

David, do you recommend good tilt and shift lens for the A900 other than MF lens couple over a tilt/shift adaptor ? I have read too many mixt review about expensive lenses that I'm afraid to invest.

Regards,

Frank

http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/lenses/sch ... a-fit.html

http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/lenses/sch ... -lens.html

[Greg Beetham]

That's the one that I'd be interested in on the A900 artington, (if I had an A900 that is) the 50mm T/S, that gives 1X perspecive on FF (or close too it).
Greg
Ps The main limitation I think the Leica S2 has is it isn't modular like other MF systems, with those at least you stand a good chance of being able to upgrade the digital back on occasion, after winning the lotto...

[agorabasta]

Frankly, it is not lenses that are the problem for not resolving fine detail with the APS-C cameras but the sensor.

Not even close!

The analogue optical path is by far the most limiting part in the APS systems. In fact, the best 'native' output for the Bayer array is twice the linear resolution at capture, so the best possible detail would be revealed if you develop a77 files to about 100Mp.

You may try using the 'scaling' function in Lr just to get an idea of how far the system res may really be pushed. At its max value of 150 the Lr scaling produces x2.25 more output pixels for a given central crop. And all it adds to image is real rather than fake resolution.

Below is a small central crop from a max-scale test res image from the IR a77 raw samples - http://216.18.212.226/PRODS/AA77/FULLRES/AA77hRESM.ARW

Had your lenses been just as good everywhere in the frame, you could get near 100Mp of real res from an APS sensor, especially with those fashionable lax LPFs we see around far too often these days.

[Magnar Fjortoft]

When I got my A900 I was overhelmed by the image quality. After a while I decided to compare the A700 and A900 side by side from 50 x 70 cm and 70 x 100 cm prints. When processed and printed the differences where neglible, also for very detailled scenes like a ship yard. Also, mirror vibration was troublesome with the A900 even when put on a sturdy tripod. The "feel" when using the A900 was superior, though!

When I got my A77 I ran some quick tests against the A900, with some new large format prints. The results showed just neglible differences. The A77 is resolving finer detail than the A900 thanks to the electronic first shutter curtain.

But there also are differences.

Most noticeable when pixel peeping is the differences in pixel cleanness. The A900 pixels are cleaner, compared to the more muddy A77 pixels. So the files need to be treated different at the post processing stage. With just a bit more noise reduction and a tad more Unsharp Mask the differences are smoothed out when the files are printed.

Also, the A900 is more immune to abberation, astigmatism and coma than the A77 -- simply because the A77 pixels are so small. If there was an A9x with the same pixel pitch as the A77, you would see the same when pixel peeping at 100 %. But then you would inspect the files from a 50 Mp full frame camera. So you need to post process the A77 files more carefully, or use better lenses!

So how does the differences show up in prints? When fully processed to the same contrast and color, I found it very hart to pick which print was from the A900 and which was from the A77. But when inspecting unprocessed raw files at high magnification, you would expect visible differences!

I get better results from the A77 than the A900. Not because of the file quality, but simply because the A77 has much better autofocus and better color, especially in artificial light. With a sturdy tripod the electronic first curtain helps getting slightly sharper images with telephoto lenses, and clearly sharper images with super telephoto lenses (400 mm ++), no matter for how long the A900 mirror has been locked up before the shutter is released. So for me other aspects of the camera are more important than pixel quality to get superb results.

Conclution: From my experience the A77 raw files need to be developed with some more care than the A900 files, and you also shoud use high quality glass to get the most out of the tiny 24 Mp pixels. But then the A77 IQ is equalling the A900, which in itself is extraordinary!

So what to say after the discussion here? I am the happy owner of the Zeiss 24 mm f:2 and Zeiss 85 mm f:1.4 lenses, and I am awaiting the rumored Zeiss 50 mm f:1.4 lens. Also, for the aps-c format we could need a high grade 14-16 mm prime lens.

So will I stay with the A77 and aps-c format now when I have sold my two A900 cameras? I don't know! The A77 is offering higher image quality than needed for my professional work, but then, who don't want to go for even higher image quality, like the rumored 34 Mp FF camera? The Zeiss 24 mm and 85 mm lenses would be great with such a camera!

[lonewolf16x9]

I hear everything you say Magnar!
Having tried the A77, I want both, I'm not at all put off by it, in fact just the opposite!
SLT I'm cold on, I feel it will go the way of the Do Do as soon as they can get adequate PDAF on sensor, (Ala Nikon V1) where that leaves us is a whole different kettle of Fish!
I agree if you play the A77 to it's strengths (EVF/Peaking/Electronic First Curtain) the results are sharper than the A900, no question in my mind on that but the A900/850 files are just so much more pliable, I'll skip SLT This round I think but EVF/Peaking/Electronic First Curtain, I want! Plus I doubt my PP skills are up to your Snuff Magnar...
In fact I know they're not!

[Greg Beetham]

David what version firmware in the A77 were you using when you noticed the first frame focus issue, I looked for the thread but couldn't remember where it was. Someone at dpr has seen it (but didn't post a link) and posted that you were using ver. 1.03 and now it's fixed with ver. 1.04 but I thought you said you were using ver. 1.04 ?
Greg

[David Kilpatrick]

Version 1.03 and 1.04, and it is not strictly first frame focus, it can affect one or two frames usually shortly after switching the camera on. For what it's worth, this did not happen with the earlier firmware on my purchased camera (edit: I realise I didn't have any earlier firmware on this!) but I suspect it could have happened with press launch cameras (edit: I don't know what firmware they were, but it was not even 1.03). Because it does not happen every time, looking at the circumstances of spoiled shots I suspect it has a lot to do with timing.

For example, I grabbed the camera to shoot a rainbow - always react fast as they change. I grabbed it again to catch a passing full sunlight on a beach, and on another occasion, I was jumping out of the car to catch people in the right place. All the missed focus instances seem to be 'rapid response' situations.

We know the camera has a long shutdown sequence, I suspect it also has a fairly long initialisation process and that firing may be possible before ALL the functions are fully active.

David

[Greg Beetham]

Ah, so they best way of producing it regardless of version is to switch it on and quickly aim and shoot, something we have more or less grown accustomed too.
I’m thinking maybe the GPS and the extra screen relay (EVF) might be major contributors to the extra initialization time and they might be ahead of AF and lens model AS check in the boot sequence as well.
Greg

Ps David see you have found a way too post there, I was going to post a link there back to here, but now not necessary.

[David Kilpatrick]

I'm not likely to replicate the conditions for the failures which bothered me! I can see that the exposure made after firmware upgrade 1.04, after November 29th in Scotland, are nearly all either studio work or night-time shots and low light - also, I started using the 16-50mm f/2.8 instead of the 16-80mm, partly because it is now dark here a lot of the time when I am not in my office.

If we do not get storms, snow, violent winds and rain I may have a chance to check

David

[lonewolf16x9]

That 24mm F2 would be even better David Eh
I bet Magnar is glad of his where he lives...

[Magnar Fjortoft]

The Zeiss 24 mm f:2 is my favourite lens! I hope new Zeiss and G lenses are up to this standard! Also, I would like to see a new 85 mm Zeiss lens with SSM and less cromatic abberation at wide aperture settings than the present lens.

[David Kilpatrick]

It is worth mentioning that none of my shots on the 24mm f/2, which were taken with firmware v.1.03, show the startup focus error. Also, I have been doing a lot of research into this angle of lens including medium format options. I now believe there is not any identifiable 24mm lens better than the Sony CZ f/2.

David