The beginning of the end?

[Birma]

The high ISO obsession has baffled me far more than the mega pixel race, but I suppose this is down to the types of pictures I take; mostly on a tripod anyway. I'm embarrassed to say that I can't remember when I last fired up my a100. The VF always looked dreadful after the A700.

[classiccameras]

For the type of photography I did with SLR film cameras, I rarely if ever went above 100 ASA with process payed colour reversal as the quality dropped off and grain became evident. All we basically had was ASA 25, ASA 50, ASA 65 and ASA 100 in slide film, yes there was higher in the E6 family but I never touched it. The main reason was for slide projection where grain was not welcome.
I cannot see digital being any different for my style of photography, although digital projection is doggie-doo compared to a slde projected from a high quality slide projector onto a silver/white screen in a darkened room.

So no matter how bad noise gets on a digital camera at the higher ISO settings, it won't bother me as I will be sticking around at ISO 100, 200 and 400 at a push. I doubt very much if I would go beyond those settings. So this brings into play quite few cameras for me that because ordinarily they would be discounted these days for poor high ISO performance, they would slot in to my criterior very nicely as often or not their low ISO performance was outstanding.

Yes, the obsession with high ISO image quality seems to be a very high on the priority list, mostly propagated by reviewers. Nothing wrong in that for some photographers but its not an issue for me as I explained.
I use my A37/57 as if they were film cameras loaded with ASA 25 or ASA 50 slide film most of the time.
Ah, pixels, don't get me started, its a crazy race and I have no desire to move up from what I already have and as I said my next purchase may well be backwards to 10mp.

Peter

[bakubo]

Peter, get yourself an A100 and you will be very happy. Get 2 or 3 since they are cheap and as backups in case of problems. Get 3 A100 bodies and you might be set for life.

[classiccameras]

bac old chap, what a good suggestion, spooky, it was my next question.

I have seen several bodies for under £100, but it all depends on working order and condition plus the number of miles [actuations] they have done.
Will do some dealer contacting.
Thanks

Peter

[bakubo]

Peter, awhile back David was so impressed with the A100 low ISO files he wrote that the "A100 moves me to tears" so that is a pretty good recommendation if you shoot low ISO. Here it is:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/19487433

[bfitzgerald]

Peter, awhile back David was so impressed with the A100 low ISO files he wrote that the "A100 moves me to tears" so that is a pretty good recommendation if you shoot low ISO. Here it is:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/19487433

That was then! This is now
A100 isn't a bad camera by any means, at the time though it wasn't really worth the asking price (IMO Sony just took advantage of the first non D200 10mp camera) s/h it's not a bad buy you should be able to get one for £100 odd or around there. Strangely the Km5d holds it's value somewhat better. A200 is around there too price wise.

I personally found the A100 images a bit on the sterile side and was quite disappointed the 5d/7d tonality didn't make it into this model. A200 I found much more appealing, but sadly it was cut down in a few areas. I know folks say high ISO is over rated, but if you shoot in lower light the 10mp CCD wasn't as good as the 6mp one. All these years later my view hasn't really changed much, but at the average price for any of these bodies there isn't a lot to complain about.

[Atgets_Apprentice]

I agree about the low light, with the 6mp v the 10mp. I used my 7D and a100 briefly side by side, and that was my conclusion. I recall a trip to Berlin with both, where I used the (brand new) a100 for some night shots, and on review, had to go straight back out with the 7D to get better quality images! Next night, I shot both together, and the 6mp shots were infinitely better.

I think my a580, properly controlled, comes pretty close to the 7D quality at night.

[bakubo]

The A100 advice was for Peter who only cares about low ISO. I wish I had addressed my comments to Peter so it was clear. Oh wait, I did.

[bfitzgerald]

A580 should do the best out of all the APS-C sensors past and present for low light.
I mostly used the A200 for non low light tasks, but at a pinch it's usable at ISO 1600 "if" you make sure to adjust the exposure. Sony still underexpose in low light to this day and with the 10mp sensor it's fatal (less so for the newer sensors)
A100 and A200 are quite similar here though the A200 was "a bit better" in low light (not a huge improvement though) I did a controlled metering test with the A200 side by side with the Km5d and I had to add over a stop exposure on the A200 to match the 5d.

In good light the somewhat cautious A100/200 metering isn't a bad thing, but in lower light levels you get a lot of colour noise in images (this improves quite a bit with the adjusted exposure) So I got another 5d as I tend to do lower light a fair bit and ISO 1600 on the Minolta's with the 6mp CCD are good. So low light for me Km5d first, A200 second, A100 last place. It's a bit of a toss up at times the A200 is quite a bit faster for AF (if you're doing moving stuff in daylight) by modern comparisons both the A100 and Km5d are pretty sluggish for AF, and they're just not as fast or snappy as more recent Sony's.

Anyway, I used to suggest going for new bodies..but with rapidly dropping prices (on the A100, A200 and A700 and other older models) I think there are some pretty good bargains to be had and they get cheaper all the time which is great! If Sony release a new back of A mount cameras we should see prices drop nicely across the board and on the older SLT models.

I'm starting to think that buying new isn't the best way to go about things with the drop in re-sale prices on bodies so heavy over time. Lenses are another story though they tend to hold their value quite well (as lens prices tend to go up over time)

Onto Henry well it has to be mentioned other people do read this board too, and whilst I'm here I never found the DR of the 10mp CCD showing any significant improvement DR wise (despite some saying so) v the new CMOS sensors yes they clearly have improved DR

[Greg Beetham]

Yep no one would suggest using the A100 at high ISO would be a good idea, it produces Chroma noise at the drop of a hat, you even have to be careful with images that might contain a range of exposure values beyond its meagre latitude range, any of the small areas that are a couple of stops underexposed will have some noise, but those mostly go unnoticed if they happen in oof areas.
Where it’s not so good is when you get noise in parts of the sharply focused areas where you don’t want it, but even then it is usually worse in the camera produced JPEG’s than the RAW’s because of the default saturation. I use the A100 with all camera embellishments turned off or set to zero and then if I want to use the JPEG later I can reduce the default saturation a bit to quieten down the Chroma noise a tad, that usually works up to a point as long as like I said the image doesn’t contain large areas of underexposure.
I’ve always been happy with the A100’s people shots, probably because I’m not frightened of using flash fill if needed I guess, although usually during the daylight hours flash is not necessary unless the subject is in our direct summer sunlight where you can get harsh shadow areas.
The usual remedy is to underexpose the ambient highlight areas by 1/3rd or 2/3rd and set the flash to 0 balance, if the subject is brightly backlit use the AEL button.
Generally the A100 in daylight does a pretty good job with people shots and especially zoomed in portrait type shots and also can do good scenic shots if it’s not overly contrasty. Back in its day the camera produced the highest test results for lpm and beat the later A200 as well.
Greg
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra100/29
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra200/30

btw I committed a fopar the other day, I said somewhere the A700 didn’t have a drive button, duh! Of course it does, I just didn’t see it because it had ‘DRIVE’ written on it, and not a logo.
A100 KM24-105

[classiccameras]

Yes, the picture David took of the sea scape was in a different league. The way the A100 handled the lighting and how it dealt with the high lights was exceptional. I can name a few other well known cameras that would have burnt out the high lights and would have exhibited less tonal range, not bad for a camera which had a limited DR.

It seems from reading many reviews of the KM 5D, A100 and A200 at that period, Sony were beginning to struggle keeping down high ISO noise after moving up to 10mp. Other brands were better, so it seems that Sony started appling rather over agressive noise reduction from about ISO 400/800 +. This had a negative effect on picture definition and detail by smearing out the noise above 400 ISO. Generally for every day use this was not a problem untill the pixel peepers started to complain and the reviewers jumped on it as well.

So, up to the A100/200 low ISO picture quality was superb and even Jpegs were pretty good as well. I'm also sure that the CCD sensor had a big part to play.
I have located a mint A100 body for £99. I'm afraid to say that this legacy of over aqgressive noise reduction [with hardly any user control] is still with us today.

Peter

[Dusty]

The reason why I like both the KM5D and the A100 is they are both CCD sensor cameras, (A200 as well I'm pretty sure) they stopped making them I think because they are more expensive to make than CMOS sensors, (I read somewhere) I also think they produce a more natural look too, (skin tones are good from both) but perhaps the CMOS has more DR potential.
Greg

The A350 is the last of the CCD sensors, and the best, too! Great skin tones. As to higher ISO speeds, well, just like in the film days, it will record an image, but it may not be the truest to life one!

I never under stood how people want the camera to see in the dark colors they can't! I expect crappy photos above 400 or 800. IF I could get consistently good ISO 1600 photos, I wouldn't know what to do with them!

Dusty

[bfitzgerald]

Well to me I don't need ISO 12800 to be good, but a decent 1600/3200 and at a push a usable 6400 is handy. Why? Well it opens up available light shooting that wasn't really possible with film esp with the image stabilisation (or at this quality). For me one key area where you could experiment and a whole new area of photography became a reality so quite a big deal to me.

There are limits of course to how low light you might need, I think we're at pretty good levels now though they may improve it more. DR and high ISO well to me more useful than just stuffing pixels onto a sensor. It really depends on what type of shooting you are into.

It's generally accepted that the A100 has quite a light AA filter and thus lighter than the A200 and a bit more resolution. Though I'd doubt the difference would be that dramatic in print. Both are cheap now, both quite decent bodies in different ways. I wasn't overly excited with the 14mp CCD but then resolution was never really a great need for me personally.

Longer term I think we'll move into newer sensor technology at some point which could be about the only way camera makers will be able to keep selling us new cameras, what we have right now... is being quite honest, pretty damn good really.

[classiccameras]

Yep, AA filters can make or break a camera's reputation as Olympus found out to their cost, every thing was working fine in the resolution stakes for Olympus up to the E-510, then they decided to fit stronger AA filters on all subsquent models, they were slagged off in most reviews DPr spotted this first. We now see cameras such as Pentax and Fuji dropping them completely.
As I said 90% of my photography is fine weather landscapes, steam fairs, aircraft museums etc. where definition and colour reproduction is important, and most of this will be ISO 100/200 and up to 800 at a push.

I agree Barry, what we have now is pretty good and Sony SLT, lets be honest, take some cracking pictures and people like Nikon who have been using Sony sensors since the D200 think the same about their IQ. Pentax also put faith in Sony for their sensors.
I guess the approach Fuji are taking with their sensor technology is the future possibly.

[Atgets_Apprentice]

AP has a "Preview" online here:

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/re ... -on-review

Note that at present, page 2 doesn't contain the camera specs.