Is a77 high ISO really as bad as is made out?

Specifically for the discussion of the A-mount DSLR range
Forum rules
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3996
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: Is a77 high ISO really as bad as is made out?

Unread post by bfitzgerald »

Birma wrote:Well, as we all know, after Agincourt it was the English who became complacent and the last major engagement of the HYW saw an English army charge headlong in to a prepared French position and were literally gunned down with the new 'tech' of handguns and artillery :) .

I'd say that Sony are right on the ball with trying to be at the forefront of FF development with the RX1 and the impending FF Nex stills model (there is already a FF Nex video). I can see the sense in Sony not wanting to be a "me too" Canikon clone; look where that has got Pentax. All tech companies want to be at the front of that next "paradigm shift" in the market, and minor players have more interest in accelerating that shift than established players.

I seem to remember this interview:
Samuel Andreo, director of photographic products for Sony Spain. 2006 circa A100 launch date.

"Catching up with Canon is a possibility, but very remote, in the distant future. At the moment we are concentrating on third place for the next 18 or 24 months, and in 3 or 4 years, which is when we will aspire to second place, we will tackle Nikon. But we see Canon as far off in the distance and we are in no way competing against them, because there is a strong fidelity"

So we're 7 years in, Sony still a distant no. 3 no hope of attacking Nikon not even close to that.
My question is, all the amazing plans and strategies..result "fail"
My plan works because you have to give people a reason to look at Sony in this segment. All Sony are doing is trying to cut costs with EVF's and SLT designs and charge you more for the privilege.

There is no real reason to look at Sony, bar having a decent bunch of Minolta lenses lying around. Coming up with unique ideas is fine, but if people don't really want to buy them, it's not a great idea is it. Only way Sony can sell SLT to people is by making them more cost effective, mirror or no mirror folks are not paying more for "perceived" less.
Sony have tried to position themselves as a premium maker and people are, hand over fist buying Canikon v Sony products. Not working ain't working however you want to word it. FF NEX will probably be overpriced too so you can forget about that one. RX1 is a niche product has little to do with the DSLR market.
Sony have changed directions many times over their short period, from hit and miss model updates, to leaving models to die in the market with no updates (A700/900), moving to SLT and EVF models. Nothing has worked, not even put a minor dent in the Canikon armour.

If you don't have the right people in place, you can't get the result.
classiccameras
Viceroy
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:33 am

Re: Is a77 high ISO really as bad as is made out?

Unread post by classiccameras »

Some good ideas and reasoning behind your decissions.
I don't think FF will be the saviour of any of the main brands, that market's too small and they are too expensive. APS-C has got some future in it mainly because of the huge investments made in the systems such as lenses, Canikon are not about to drop that just yet.

Not sure where Pentax are going, they have a small band of dedicated followers and now Ricoh are in charge, it makes you wonder what future strategy they will have, I wonder what the new K50 will bring, as Barry said, is it a bug fix like the K511 is. Having said that, they all seem to get positive reviews.
I agree about the Nikon 7100 and the old 60D, can't go wrong with these.
My old D5100 takes stunning pictures but its doggie-doo to use mainly because Nikon insist its an entry level camera and thus people like me don't need the right buttons in the right places, how short sighted is that. They should resurrect the D90 with a new sensor, that would be a winner, sort of poor mans 7100!

FF needs to be smaller and cheaper but I can't see that happening due to the physics. Also lenses which were good for APS-C need to be much better optically to do a FF sensor justice.

As much as we critisize Sony and its well deserved for their 'rudderles' approach to development. no route map in sight yet, I can't help thinking that at the entry/enthusiast end of the DSLR SLT's they are better in some ways than the Canikon equivalents, if you can live with EVF.
Panasonic according to a couple of review sites is the market leader in CSC's followed by Sony, Olympus are getting very near to falling off the edge. The m4thirds part of CSC sector has flat lined in some parts of the world.

I think a good proportion of future growth will be high end compacts [or even high end bridge] such as the Canon G15 mentioned by Greg and Fuji X. All reports suggest these 2 markets are expanding where as the DSLR market is shrinking. You can bet your bottom Dollar the manufacturers are fully aware of whats happening, its just some just have no idea which way to turn or appear to have no strategy, i'm sure the big boys are keeping things very close to their chest in a wait and see.

Peter
User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3996
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: Is a77 high ISO really as bad as is made out?

Unread post by bfitzgerald »

FF will get cheaper, much cheaper in time. I doubt it costs 8x as much to make a FF camera as a crop one, I bet the manufacturers want you to think that. I think most greatly over estimate the cost of making a FF body, I bet if you found out the actual manufacturing cost of an A99 it would be much lower than you expect. No prism to carefully align, no mirror mechanism to put in there, quicker and cheaper to make, but somehow more expensive to buy ;-)
LCD TV's were really expensive when they first hit the market, I know someone who dumped down nearly £2000 on one, for it to die 4 years later.

I paid a lot less for mine, I waited until it was appealing price wise. Cameras lose a lot of value over time, until they are basically worthless at a certain age. So my thinking is simple, don't pay too much for a body that's worth little down the road. Sony made so many blunders with their DSLR's the ruined their entry range, killed the A700 sale for over a year with NR raw and left it to die for 4 years with no update.

I know folks who shot with a Canon 300d, now using 5dMkIII's and other higher end FF bodies. Not all of course, but at all price points it's important to bag potential buyers. The seeds for future buyers were firmly planted by Canon over a decade ago and continue to spring up now. I was quite shocked when the A99 was announced I expected it to have a new generation EVF, the 6fps is ok but hardly the SLT "wow factor" many assumed would turn up. It's really a FF sensor, shoved into an A77 body with a few tweaks. Even the AF system is taken from the A77 nothing new there (bar the AF-D that doesn't work with most lenses!)

If Nikon are selling a FF body for £1200 right now, I think we can safely say they are not making a loss on that. The actual sensor cost is probably not that much.
FF is where the growth is going to be, it's Canon 300d all over again and what happens now will have a huge impact on the health of camera makers over the next decade.
David Kilpatrick
Site Admin
Posts: 5985
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:14 pm
Location: Kelso, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Is a77 high ISO really as bad as is made out?

Unread post by David Kilpatrick »

Barry, remember, when I wrote the A99 review we had not experienced what happened with the D600 kit we bought at the same time. That review reflects how it was without knowing the D600's subsequent problems.

Today I've been reverting to A77 and NEX-5n, and also using a generic turbo booster MD to NEX converter. It's interesting that the Minolta MD lenses give or take some strange WB and contrast issues turn in such a good result on the NEX that the A99 looks redundant. It could just be that as we've always suspected, lenses make more difference than pixels.

And the original question - well, even at ISO 50, the A77 is needing noise reduction!

David
classiccameras
Viceroy
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:33 am

Re: Is a77 high ISO really as bad as is made out?

Unread post by classiccameras »

David, how true, the lens makes all the difference, there are a lot of mediocre lenses out there for DSLR's, because most are built down to a price for the general market. Unless you get a quality lens, most will not do justice to the sensor and even more importantly for FF.
It was no different in the film days, I had to get the best Canon FD lenses for razor sharp slides and some of the independants were quite 'soft' in comparison.

I think some of the reviews where a camera is marked down for image quality because of the kit lens, may have done a whole lot better with a high end lens of known performance.

Peter
User avatar
Greg Beetham
Tower of Babel
Posts: 6117
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:25 pm
Location: Townsville, Qld. Australia
Contact:

Re: Is a77 high ISO really as bad as is made out?

Unread post by Greg Beetham »

Barry the cost was eight times more for a FF sensor over an APS-C sensor, that doesn’t translate into the entire camera being eight times the price.
I read that a few years ago now but Sony has built a new large wafer fab since then so they are probably getting higher yields which could bring the FF sensor cost down but still nowhere near APS-C sensor production cost, if that 8x price was true of course, I didn’t see any reason at the time to doubt it.

The FF camera sweeping all before it argument isn’t working for me so far.

I think FF will remain a niche area in the big scheme of things for those wanting the incremental quality improvements and are willing to pay the price and don’t mind the weight, FF might even enjoy a short lived flurry if a camera comes along that can actually get within shouting distance on the price and performance of APS-C.
The D600 @ £1200 is close to $2000AUD and that is not a cheap camera or one that is likely to attract entry level users in vast numbers, a million or two worldwide maybe but not a hundred million or two hundred million units like smart phone do.

From reading some articles on projections of the future of camera sales it seems the manufacturers have formed the opinion that much of the western market has reach ‘maturity’ or close to it, (read high unit density) and they are focusing more on emerging markets, mainly China and India for future sales expansion. I’m not sure if they intend to try to sell FF cameras to those markets but I would think that entry level APS-C cameras would figure largely in their efforts
I think the manufacturers are going to struggle convincing the greater proportion of entry level users that they really need to pack mule up with FF cameras and lenses to take decent photos.
Greg
Ps Actually I think KM will be able to pick up a used A-mount division for a song in a couple of years if they want.
User avatar
bakubo
Tower of Babel
Posts: 5865
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Japan
Contact:

Re: Is a77 high ISO really as bad as is made out?

Unread post by bakubo »

Greg Beetham wrote:Actually I think KM will be able to pick up a used A-mount division for a song in a couple of years if they want.
Yeah, that wouldn't surprise me at all.
classiccameras
Viceroy
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:33 am

Re: Is a77 high ISO really as bad as is made out?

Unread post by classiccameras »

I would love to see the Konica Minolta name resurrected and i'm sure they would do a better job than Sony on A mount DSLR and I doubt they would even look at SLT.

I have wanted for some time to get higher quality lenses for my A37/57 bodies such as Sony primes or CZ etc.. However, its very unclear at the moment if A mount has any future and thus its a dilemma for me. Fortunately, I have not made huge investments in my A mount kit, so it wouldn't be too much of a trauma to jump ship.
Pete
User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3996
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: Is a77 high ISO really as bad as is made out?

Unread post by bfitzgerald »

Depends what happens with this next "new batch" of Sony bodies. I found the appearance of the A58 quite worrying, it feels cheap and isn't appealing. Repeating previous mistakes of downgrading models and killing off interest from upgraders.

I understand DK's point with his D600 problems, and that can make the A99 more appealing based on just that alone. If Sony don't offer a more attractive FF option next time around or try launching a high end APS-C one at £1200 odd, I think Sony will be in serious trouble trying to hold onto users. If they don't support screw drive lenses or do some other stunt like that, I think that will have very serious consequences for A mount. I'd love to see KM pick up the mount again, but it's not very likely is it.

I'll keep a look out for what's going on with other makers, I do think FF is going to break a price point in the next year. Not that I "really need FF" it's just a shame to have so many FF Lenses with nothing to put them on digital wise.
classiccameras
Viceroy
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:33 am

Re: Is a77 high ISO really as bad as is made out?

Unread post by classiccameras »

This is only a guess, but i suspect Sony will want to consolidate its A mount range into possibly 3 APS-C and one or two FF. These will probably be a side line to the NEX range which is doing OK.
One thing that will make my mind up will be the dropping of the screw focus, that goes I go.
3 APS-C , entry, mid ange and high end.
FF, A99 and possibly one other.
Pete
User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3996
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: Is a77 high ISO really as bad as is made out?

Unread post by bfitzgerald »

Greg the FF isn't sweeping all before it, but it will grow and likely replace (or be an alternative) to higher end APS-C models.
Remember the Canon D30 all the way back in 2000, first real Canon DSLR and it cost over $3000 for a 3mp DSLR ah those were the days ;-)
Canon 300d was a bit under £900, but broke a price point for a DSLR that people could actually afford (not cheap but within reach of many)

Already we can see £300 DSLR's for sale right now, even lower on some blow out deals. So it's not unrealistic to expect the £1000 price point to be broken in a year or so. And after than we might see FF move into mid level bodies. If it replaces APS-C I'm not so sure (probably not at the entry to mid range), but it will certainly be viable for the enthusiast shooter. Even if the sensor does cost 8x an APS-C one, well you work out the sensor cost on an APS-C camera and I suspect it's not that much.

Even if a sensor cost £400 (and I doubt it costs anywhere near that) you could quite happily build a body for under £1000 no problems. Makers are just going to try to wring every bit of profit margin out of FF while they can. That's why it's a real shame Sony didn't notice the slow moving bandwagon and respond with a budget FF body.
User avatar
Greg Beetham
Tower of Babel
Posts: 6117
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:25 pm
Location: Townsville, Qld. Australia
Contact:

Re: Is a77 high ISO really as bad as is made out?

Unread post by Greg Beetham »

I agree for sure, it would have made more sense to make a FF camera that wasn’t so expensive, and I’m not even sure why the A99 is so expensive anyway, it’s a good cam but I think (as well) the price is inflated, especially as there are some issues, for the asking price there should be none.
I think the price of FF cameras will come down eventually but I’m not sure what mechanism will bring the price down, if they sell enough of a model to get into the ‘making money’ side of the equation then possibly the price could be discounted on the balance of the run and all you have to do is wait for that to happen.
They still have to make money so they can cover costs and stay in business, and it’s quite correct about the model incept prices trending downward over time when you compare prices now against prices way back in the early days, it is a marvel how that happens, how it becomes cheaper to make a more advanced model now than it was before.

Sony has already had huge discounts on the A99 in the US (the free power grip and F60 flash) to get it moving and that was not a good sign so early in its life. That brings a question up in my mind, if Sony can afford to give away over $1000 on the price as an incentive why not announce the camera at a better price to begin with, wouldn’t that have made more sense?
I’m still struggling with that whole deal but I think in the end I’ll just accept that it’s Sony we’re dealing with.
I still think that FF suffers from a handicap (besides sensor cost) that APS-C doesn’t, and that is to make proper use of it you need to look at lenses, i.e. what lenses one can afford balanced against what extra incremental improvement one would realize by spending large on top grade lenses…or not.

It’s probably a chicken or the egg situation, they can only bring the price of FF down if they sell huge amounts of them but they need the price to come down so they can sell huge amounts of them and it’s looking shaky (I think) that FF will sell in the quantity that is needed to get it down into the consumer intro area or even the prosumer APS-C area, and I’m not sure the camera manufacturers would want too even try to make an entry model FF with the narrow margins that that would most likely entail in today’s retail environment.
I guess if they bit the bullet and offered a trimmed down camera (bare essentials) and had the smallest margin possible then they might get one to sell in large numbers but the danger of that is there is no leeway before going broke if it still needs to be discounted after the fact.

There is always the possibility too that lots of people will be mesmerized by FF being brought into a price realm that they could regard as potentially affordable and get FF fever (GAS) without bothering with any further research on the practical side of things.
As an aside check the price of the RX-1, it’s just a little box with a FF sensor and wide angle lens with no view finder, (it’s of no interest to me, it can’t produce natural perspective) how can they justify that price? It’s fascinating that there are people actually buying it.

I remember Sony offering the A850 at a special price at one point when the A700 was about to go extinct or just after being discontinued, they even offered the special here in Australia which is unusual to say the least; their idea was if you wanted an A700 replacement just buy the A850 and you would get a handsome upgrade in the process.
Well that wasn’t really an upgrade for the A700 in my book because buying an A850 would obviously be a format that was going to render a superzoom APS-C lens back to a 11 or so MP without a clearly defined border in the VF for framing, not only that the A700 could run rings around the A850 in response times and frame rates, also my KM100macro would be just a 100 again instead of a 150, how is that supposed to be an upgrade?

I don’t know what message Sony got out of that experiment but the special price only lasted a month I think and the price wasn’t all that special anyway, it was still about $900 - $700 more expensive than the A700, definitely not chicken feed for a sidegrade.
Replacing the upper mid-range APS-C category with a reasonably well optioned FF (with an EVF) could be a success but they’ll still want to charge too much for it I’d say, probably $800 more than the same thing in APS-C.
Greg
User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3996
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: Is a77 high ISO really as bad as is made out?

Unread post by bfitzgerald »

A900 was a bit pricey first release at around £2000 just a nip under if I'm right, it did drop to about £1500. Read Sony interviews complaining that the glass prism was pricey and the alignment for the 100% VF was also expensive. So the A850 came out and the A900 went up to around £2000 again, A850 £1600 odd and it crept up in price.

That's why I find the A99 price so comical, no prism, no lengthy manufacturing with alignments and stuff and they release it at a bizarre £2500! So much for cost savings then!

Honestly, in the same way I found the first digital cameras to be grossly overpriced, and the first DSLR's too were simply too expensive by a long margin. Cost of those buys a heck of a lot of film and processing (pay as you go photography film is great that way!) How things pan out I've no idea. But all the stuff coming out of SAR isn't encouraging (how accurate it is another topic) Talk of a $3000 FF NEX, a DSLR type NEX or a hybrid mount. Sony seem to be obsessed with a "pay more for Sony take" and I expect the next A mount stuff to follow that too. FF will march on and get cheaper, danger for Sony is they niche themselves into a corner and have very little impact on the market. I've never paid £1000 for a camera body, and I doubt I ever will. I paid just under £700 for a D7000 and I'd not likely spend much over that.

Even if you have no interest in FF bodies, it will help push APS-C ones down in price. D7100 is already almost £800 for a body. I'm not sure there is much room for Sony to release another £1100 A77 update, at least not at that price point. That's where I hope FF will come in. But being honest I'm sitting and waiting no rush. Right now with Sony they make FF unreachable for most people, and are a compelling reason to either stick to APS-C or buy another brand. That's not a good strategy IMO
User avatar
Greg Beetham
Tower of Babel
Posts: 6117
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:25 pm
Location: Townsville, Qld. Australia
Contact:

Re: Is a77 high ISO really as bad as is made out?

Unread post by Greg Beetham »

I actually do have some interest in a FF camera mind, but I don’t need one with a vast range of features or video, I just require one that has basic functionality that actually works properly, no dumb glitches with flash for example.
I only need one for a couple of reasons, maybe even three that I know for sure FF can do better than APS-C with the lenses I already have, and that’s it, I’m not going to spend $3000 coconuts on an A99 body that’s for sure.
So that’s what I’d like to see a FF DSLR camera that’s just a solid basic still camera without any flim flam or flubs.
Greg
classiccameras
Viceroy
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:33 am

Re: Is a77 high ISO really as bad as is made out?

Unread post by classiccameras »

Actually, all the camera manufacturers have spent too much time, money and effort making cameras all things to all people. As Greg said, a camera just for stills without all the bells and whistles is what most of us want. If I wanted to take movies I would use my Sony Camcorder.

No matter how cheap they make a FF camera, yes sales will increase in that sector but its still only going to be a small part of their overall product lines and the bulk of their profit will come from other formats.
I'm not sure where APS-C will go in the future, but it ramains a big selling format in the DSLR sector. There is an awful lot of money invested especially by Canikon in these systems and I suspect there are more inovations yet to come from these companies to hold on to that market.
FF camera bodies also need to be smaller, but its a difficult task considering the internal dimensions needed to accomodate a FF sensor with all the physics associated with that. FF versions of the cheap budget [kit] lenses we see today on APS-C DSLR's will not be good enough so either a new range of kit lenses is needed that will perform well with FF or you resort to the high end lenses that are going to be out of reach for many.

I don't think FF is going to be a cheap system by comparison so It will remain a niche market, but who knows, we are now seeing FF compacts. Digital is a fast moving technology, so watch this space as they say.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests