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 »

Revisiting this one as I've been playing with some A77 raw files some more with LR5.
I've noticed at very high ISO levels there is a magenta cast in raw files (least with ACR) you have to adjust the shadows tint in the camera calibration on LR to correct this (And I assume on PS too) Not sure why that is but I noticed it.

I still can't match the A57's output even bringing the A77 files down to 16mp the A57 still looks better IMO. If you downsize a lot to say 6mp the difference isn't much though close ish. Above ISO 3200 the colour noise is very heavy (quite a bit more than the A57 at this level) this can make it difficult to remove without impacting the image (ie removing colour fidelity from the image itself)

So again I'd say ISO 3200 is a realistic max high ISO levels, above that you are looking at quite a bit of work which could impact workflow for some folks trying to balance NR and colour noise removal on the files. Looking at more recent 24mp sensors it looks like the Nikon's have about a stop better performance from what I've been playing with.

As I've not had a chance to field shoot an A77 (just a shop play) one thing I noted on the A200 years back, is that Sony's default rather conservative metering had a serious impact on colour noise with that camera. As mention a few pages back The A200 had quite extensive colour noise issues at high ISO (much higher than the Km5d at say ISO 1600) But if you improved the exposure (about +0.7 of a stop) the noise performance was greatly improved with a lot less colour noise (though IMO the 5d was better at high ISO)

So if the more aggressive exposure helps tame the A77's colour noise I can't say, but it's possible it might help. I'm not sure why Sony are conservative with metering/exposure at high ISO levels, they could greatly reduce their issues with simply more exposure. I could probably add a stop more to the A57 in lower light in many cases, such a difference in exposure has a huge impact on the final image and noise. Overall I could probably notch up the exposure across the board half a stop at all ISO levels with ease, or for low light switch to CW metering which seems to be quite close to the type of exposure you want for low light situations.
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 interesting views on a A77. I was for a short while considering getting the A65 because the price had dropped, but it really is no huge step up from the A57, plus 'in my view' noisier, but the EVF was superior. As you can gather, I stay in the entry level section for most things due to costs.

Being a bit of a Jpeg nut, probably because I'm too lazy to spend hours fixing RAW pics. but that's by the way. Its because of this that I am always on the look out in reviews to see what cameras gives high quality Jpegs. Fuji for example does especially the X-E1 [and I'm still tempted by this camera but not until its cheaper]. Reading about the A37 and A57 many reviews praised the A37 Jpeg out put as excellent but were critical of the A57 Jpeg quality saying it was a bit mushy whatever that means and you would be better off using RAW.
I have since been told that the A37 has the same processor and Jpeg engine as the NEX-5N which got very good reviews for its Jpeg out put. The A57 is not quite the same. It was apparently to give the entry level users who normally use Jpeg point and shoot auto modes high quality out of camera Jpegs. Having said all that, the Jpeg out put from my A57 looks pretty good to me although I think my A37 pips it. One thing I have learnt about the Alpha mount cameras, they need high quality lenses to get the best out of the sensor but I guess that applies to most cameras.
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 »

I suppose the A65 might appeal to people (ie landscape shooters) as it has the 24mp (if you need/want that) and it has the GPS too (useful for that type of shooting)
Hard to say how the A65 has sold v the A77. Both models were IMO too pricey at launch the A65 hit the market at £850 with a kit lens!

It's now down to £499 with a kit lens v £699 A77 body only. I guess for most the £200 difference isn't worth it, but some will feel the A77 has a lot more on body controls, sealing, more customisation manual flash output, higher rated shutter and lots of other small things added up. On balance the extra £200 is probably worth it, but I suspect both models will fall a bit more in price.

The OLED has it's advantages ie no tearing but it tends to crush down the blacks even more v the LCD EVF, least that's what I found.
Has to be said that both Sony models probably got a bad perception with noise, it is a bit disappointing to be outclassed sensor wise by such a margin.

Evidently Sony are working on the jpeg engine, so SAR says but then they said no more SLT models and now he's not so sure!
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 like this, A friend of mine who runs a web site for all things Olympus said poor old Sony, the reviewers are laying into them for their sensor performance because of SLT, yet in reality the SLT cameras perform as good as any other with a few minor differences. They really are making mountains out of Mole hills un justifiably.

Most review sites layed into the 4Thirds format and gave it a bashing for years, yet in reality, a 4thirds 'E' camera takes great pictures, was more often than not better built than Canikon but was a tad down on the dynamic range and noise [noise never hurt any one]. He is of the opinion that these constant negative reviews that focussed mostly on the bad and not much on the good was partly responsible for the sales decline and eventual ending of 4thirds production., I believe Olympus said the same in a more diplomatic way. Sony need to counter these negative comments about SLT but they just stay quiet! There is no doubt that the photo media can make or break a product. The Sony SLT cameras do not deserve that.
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 »

Not so sure on this. At the time of normal 4/3 I personally had serious doubts about that system. Smaller sensor, no price or real size advantage and yet worse sensor performance. It was no shock to me Olympus dumped normal 4/3 I don't think it ever stood a chance as a DSLR alternative system from day 1. Maybe it works better for micro 4/3 (and possibly compacts in the future)

On to Sony I don't think they have had a major drumming in the review sites, IR and DPR have been mostly positive with their reviews (DPR a bit too much IMO clouding their objectivity somewhat) It is only natural with something like SLT that folks will start looking at things closely, and I think that whilst you could argue the light sucking fixed mirror might not be significant overall to IQ performance, from a marketing perspective it was a somewhat risky strategy for Sony to follow (just the concept of the mirror in the way of the image sensor will turn some folks off)

Yes Canon have been slack on their sensors (well APS-C anyway), but they've the biggest system to in some ways can afford to take it easy (70d signals a new step forward for them)

Sony's problem is basically they need to give people are reason to consider SLT or EVF cameras, and they're not pricing them at a level that is attractive. You can't really knock someone for wondering how Sony gets off trying to charge £2000 for a FF body when it's clearly not as good as a £1250 odd Nikon one. I don't mind "not as good" myself, but that = to me at least "not pay as much" I'm sure that view is shared by more than a few people too. So in some ways Sony do deserve some criticism for their SLT angle on things, and I'm still of the view it was a mistake to not offer at least one OVF model. If Sony do dump the SLT mirror then it's quite a lot of R&D money flushed down the pan, maybe they should have been more cautious and just made normal DSLR's until they could offer "some" models with no mirror AF off the sensor etc.

It's partly down to marketing and perception, the SLT mirror is a marketing turn off (right or wrong) price isn't as good as it should be, and I think many people feel EVF solutions are a bit premature and not ready for the prime time, and most people probably feel they should not be priced above OVF models for obvious reasons. Sony have not IMO handled the SLT thing very well overall, they are at least partly to blame for some of the criticism they have got.
User avatar
Birma
Tower of Babel
Posts: 6585
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 3:10 pm

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

Unread post by Birma »

bfitzgerald wrote:<snip> ...You can't really knock someone for wondering how Sony gets off trying to charge £2000 for a FF body when it's clearly not as good as a £1250 odd Nikon one. ... <snip>
Assuming you're comparing A99 with D600 here, perhaps you need an "IMO" in front of that "clearly not as good as". I'd say both have their pluses and minuses, and the D600 does have an attractive price, but I struggle to understand why its clearly a better camera. (Also the cheapest I have seen D600 is £1,350 in UK.)
Nex 5, Nex 6 (IR), A7M2, A99 and a bunch of lenses.
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 D600 is currently on cash back so that's £150 off the headline price hence actually it's £1200 total right now a whopping £800 less than the A99
In terms of sensor performance I can clearly see the advantage the Nikon has, so can most it's def better in low light as it's not got a mirror in the way!. We could debate a few things like battery life, and a higher top shutter speed and various spec points of each. I can't really see where the £800 extra is worth the outlay on the Sony, both are IMO consumer FF models.

Has to be said (yes it's repetitive) but what the hell are Sony smoking? They're throwing away an opportunity to compete in the FF market. Worse they must be haemorrhaging A mount users to Nikon and Canon at a huge rate. Had I not had an iffy Nikon experience I'd be all over that fairly quickly and happily sell off all my A mount stuff. I'm sure quite a few have wandered off to other makers. Sony can't afford to make mistakes like this..when the A99 was announced after the D600 I was amazed they had the nerve to ask £2500 for it!

Some serious lack of basic business sense in Sony land right now.
User avatar
Dr. Harout
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 5662
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:38 pm
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Contact:

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

Unread post by Dr. Harout »

Birma wrote:
bfitzgerald wrote:<snip> ...You can't really knock someone for wondering how Sony gets off trying to charge £2000 for a FF body when it's clearly not as good as a £1250 odd Nikon one. ... <snip>
Assuming you're comparing A99 with D600 here, perhaps you need an "IMO" in front of that "clearly not as good as". I'd say both have their pluses and minuses, and the D600 does have an attractive price, but I struggle to understand why its clearly a better camera. (Also the cheapest I have seen D600 is £1,350 in UK.)
+1 :evil:
A99 + a7rII + Sony, Zeiss, Minolta, Rokinon and M42 lenses

Flickr
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 »

Well I'm not seeing an an £800 price difference, maybe someone would like to point out where the extra cash goes on bits in the A99?
Nikon got a rap for pricing the D600 at £2000 release, but quickly dropped the price. A99 has only dropped a bit from it's initial crazy 5dMkIII level.

Amazon UK sales rank A99: 35,622 in Electronics, D600: 1608.

Long term damage being done with such strategies from Sony, you can disagree if you wish but that's how I see it.
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 »

The D600 can't even begin to compare with the A99 - it only outclasses it in one respect, high ISO (and that only at a level where few are likely to go). If the D600 had been any good, we would by now have had two D600s or a D600 and D800E and sold all but maybe one Alpha body. Instead, we've sold the D600, kept the A99, and bought an extra A580.

It is hard to explain how many things are wrong with the D600 - the focus moduie and its coverage and accuracy, the metering consistency, the issue with oil/dust spots which is not trivial at all. Nikon has dropped the D600 price to rock bottom for two reasons - Canon's 6D which is a far better camera in practical terms and was at a much lower price point, and the damage done to Nikon sales by the sensor spot issue (plus the costs of replacing the entire innards of thousands of cameras). Canon has raised the street price of the 6D, now the position is reversed in price terms. Sony has kept the A99 high priced. Whether it is worth the difference, I am not sure, but it's a different class of body/shutter to the D600.

David
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 »

I've hands on experience of Nikon's iffy QC so I'm not entirely surprised as spots on sensors, overly aggressive metering and AF issues.
That aside, subject to working properly I'm not seeing the price premium justified by Sony. And as you said yourself David in your own A99 review.


"The economical Nikon D600 is a direct competitor, despite rabid claims on internet that the 99 is ‘professional’ and the 600 is ‘consumer’. They are both semi-pro models but the 99 probably has a better shutter mechanism and a higher precision body. The Nikon has better image quality and battery life. Both have similar dual card slots, manual adjustment of audio input for video recording, wireless flash options, grip and so on"
"Slightly pointless wording on the bright orange anodised lens mount bezel lets you know this camera is not actually aimed at working professionals"

"Sony lenses are not cheaper, nor wider in range of choice or sources of supply, than Nikon or Canon. There is no collateral benefit when you hand over as much as 50% extra to Sony for their innovative cost-saving technology. In my British Journal review, I concluded that the Alpha 99 was between 30 and 50% over-priced and combined with the cost and limited range of Sony lenses there would be little good reason for any new full-frame entrant to prefer Sony over Nikon or Canon"


Bottom line for most potential buyers is the A99 is a consumer partial mag alloy body, and not a pro level one. So why it's closer to the D800 and 5dMkIII pricing looks to me like nothing more than wishful thinking. I can only consider the A99 as a failure by Sony to tap into the full frame market, and speaking to some serious video nuts recently, they've pretty much dismissed Sony's efforts as quite comical on the video front. It's fallen between 2 stools..doesn't really offer enough bang per buck for stills shooters or enough of a step up from APS-C, and def not hitting it with it's moire/artefact loaded soft video output either (not my words the words of a video buff who gave me their view on the A99 from a video shooters POV). When you get A99 users comparing it to an OM-D and the A99 getting a sound thumping, you know something went wrong.

High ISO performance is one area where potential up-graders will be looking at, and I'd rate the 6d as top, D600 next and the A99 last. Charging more for last doesn't inspire me. Maybe I'm too bang per buck driven, but it's just not worth the high cost for a modest gain in low light performance. A real missed opportunity IMO and many A Mount users share that view. The question isn't how many A99's have Sony sold, but how many users have the lost to other makers? That's the really interesting debate.
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 »

Barry, give me your ideas.

If you were starting out right now for your first entry/mid range APS-C DSLR SLT included, What would be on your short list for consideration?
Actually any one can answer this as it might be useful intel to get a general concensus. One proviso, leave the large lens range out of the equasion as a reason to buy, its a camera performance related question not the entire system.

Thanks
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 »

It's impossible to answer that because I had 2 bad experiences with other makers. If I took that out of it, I really do think the system has to be looked at. No way around that.

Canon are quite boring with their 700d which was a pointless update.
I really can't say anything hugely appealing at the entry level from any makers, Nikon to cut down, Pentax have the spec but not the QC, Sony only have the A58 now and that's about as interesting as buying an airfix camera (build feels about as good as that too)

Moving higher up the chain I think the D7100 and 70d are the only real contenders. The K5II was merely a bug fix for the lousy AF module Pentax put in the previous version. A65 and A77 are getting on a bit and only worth a look for a blow out price.

If I were starting off now it would be an impossible choice, I'd probably skip the entry range and try something higher up. Push come to shove I'd maybe get a 60d, and look at the 70d when prices settle to more reasonable levels.

I personally think the action is going to be full frame from these makers for the next decade. That gives them the muscle to fend off any micro 4/3 or ILC challenges, it's gives them very clear water in terms of IQ v compacts and smartphones and tablet devices by a big margin. It also allows them to re-sell lots of FF lenses to APS-C users who probably have mostly cropped lenses. So FF is where the big action is going to be, I'm certain of that. APS-C will be around no question, but at lower prices and less models overall. That's why I think Sony have taken a very short term view of the market, trying to get short term profits at the expense of longer term system sales (lenses etc)

Sony seem to be ok about evidently selling the PS4 below cost to get wider adoption, they'd do well to look at that model for the camera business. Not below cost, but at more appealing levels. The more users Sony have, the larger their longer term system profits will be. But they don't have the brains to see what's happening around them. The FF battle has started, and they're still drinking wine in the tents, and stuffing their faces. It's a modern day Battle of Agincourt, and Sony are the French overly confident and completely oblivious to what's going on at ground level walking into a hail of Canikon longbow fire.

2014 they'll probably try the same front assault strategy that's failed as it always does, tons of models and not that competitively prices.
This is why FF is so important, it's where I suspect most of the DSLR growth will be, and Sony can't afford to lose their APS-C users to other makers because they don't offer products they want to buy, at prices that they find reasonable.

It's a walking disaster waiting to happen for Sony, unless they really take stock of their current plans and strategy.
User avatar
Birma
Tower of Babel
Posts: 6585
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 3:10 pm

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

Unread post by Birma »

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.
Nex 5, Nex 6 (IR), A7M2, A99 and a bunch of lenses.
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’m not into delayed reaction cameras, slow turn on and delays with the flash here and there including delayed reaction view finders so I’m hard pressed to find one now that turns on and you can take a photo straight away like my three older cameras do.
I see Canon are getting into that field too now with most likely slower hit and miss AF, (and half of the available light gone, 70D) but hey it’ll be able to focus during video and that’s the important thing…right?

Nikon seemed to have dropped the ball and Pentax has drifted off planet while Sony has become hypnotized with making everything cybershoty and laggy and sort of directionless.

Really at the moment you would have to look at what Canon camera exists that can still work properly, maybe there isn’t one there either, although the G15 looks ok it isn’t an ILC so it doesn’t qualify as a system camera, but it is becoming tempting as a second camera handy cam seeing as how all the DSLR makers are gradually reducing the response times of their consumer DSLR models back to P&S standards, even some of the expensive Sony ones aren’t much better.

I really don’t know at the moment what I would choose if I had to, maybe the 650D perhaps but I have no idea if it’s as laggy as all the others in the areas I mentioned above, I would imagine not but it could well be just the same, I haven’t read very many Canon reviews.

I’m not sure FF is ready for primetime in the intro consumer area, APS-C has that market and probably will for a while yet, I still remember that it costs about eight times more to make a FF sensor over an APS-C one so there is no way a FF can compete directly with a cheap APS-C camera.

If Sony takes the A-mount into the mirrorless arena it’s virtually all over for that mount as far as retrospective compatibility goes so I would be reluctant to jump on that horse now.

If Nikon can get its chit back together one day soon it might be worth keeping tabs on.

Pentax is another one to watch from a safe distance.

Olympus, good cameras but not a good follow focuser from what I hear so it’s not going to challenge Canon as an all-rounder.

Panasonic, are they still making cameras in this category?

Fuji, not for this black duck, not yet anyway, too weird.

Samsung, ditto. (it looks like a camera, feels like a camera but sorry it’s a Samsung thingy, I’ll pass)

So the smart money at the moment goes on Canon. (just feast your peepers on all dem lenses)
Greg
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests