Photoclub Alpha

SONY has shown itself to be lagging behind the competition as we reach the third bend on the second lap of the development of HD-video capable DSLRs. At PMA 2010, nothing ‘real’ was shown and the closest they came to further launches in the Alpha range was an advanced pre-production prototype of a 24mm f/2 Carl Zeiss T* ZA SSM.

But Sony may prove yet to be the tortoise – or perhaps to be Brer Rabbit. They could make the finishing line, the goal of a truly useful video DSLR, before Nikon/Canon/Pentax/OlySamPanny get there.

In an unusual move, probably designed to cut down the work of rejecting submissions which fail to make the grade, the on-line picture library Alamy has published lists of cameras (by make) which will NEVER produce a file acceptable to pass their Quality Control. It includes all the Sony Cyber-shots ever made as far as we can tell! They say: “Check your camera – do NOT submit any images from camera models featured on the list below. Camera models featured on this list do not produce files that are capable of passing Alamy’s QC standards.”

ACCORDING to specifications revealed on a German site, the new Sony Alpha 500 will have a 12.3 megapixel CMOS sensor capable of providing Live View to the rear 3 inch medium resolution screen – with Manual Focusing at 14X magnification. The in-prism based Quick AF Live View is retained, giving a choice between two entirely different systems of Live View, Sony’s innovative and easy solution scanning the focus screen, and a critically accurate alternative for tripod work. The camera may sell for just €50 more than the Alpha 380 – or break the £500 body only barrier in the UK right from the start.

Adobe’s Camera Raw Release Candidate 5.5, which introduces global corrections for all Bayer sensor cameras requiring a differential value treatment between the two Green channels, has a visible effect on the colour of Sony Alpha file conversions.

There is a white paper by Sony Semiconductor on the imaging processing which I think is in the HX1, http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/cx_news/vol55/pdf/featuring55.pdf. I assume it is the IMX-032 CMOS sensor (http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/cx_news/vol55/np_imx032cqr.html) mated to a CXD4109AGG image processing chip. There seem to be some interesting techniques employed, multi-plane synthesis to combine several frames for low light and HDR capture.

With the IMX-032, it is interesting to note that the on-board programmable gain amplifier has a gain value of up to 18dB or a factor of 8, so if base ISO is 80, then maximum “analogue” ISO is 640. If we compare the IMX-032 versus Sony’s first column ADC CMOS chip (IMX-017), the IMX-32 has an 11.8% better photo-electron efficiency per unit area (2300e per 1.75 micron square pixel compared to 4500e per 2.5 micron square pixel). Might be a sign that Sony is improving the process and design used to make their CMOS chips.

The backside illuminated chip is called the IMX-061, http://www.chipworks.com/uploadedFiles/Aliased_Pages/CMOS_ImageSensors_Spotlight/Chipworks%20-%20Sony%20IMX061%20EXR-0902-813.pdf
6MP and 1.75 micron pixels in ClearVID (45 degree) layout with a 1:6:1 RGB Bayer filter array, sacrificing colour resolution for spatial resolution.

The Nikon D90 chip is called the IMX-038 (not the IMX-021 as for the A700), so this suggests it has significant revisions compared to the IMX-021 (possibly linked to LiveView and HD Video?).

– Dr Daniel K. L. Oi

Here is an article which is mainly a test review of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM for Sony Alpha, and also Nikon, fit (both were tested). It also deals with the Alpha 900 and D3X, the two 24 megapixel full frame cameras used to test the lenses and two comparison 50mm f1.4s.

The custom white balance function on the Konica Minolta Dynax 5D could not be quicker to use; turn the left hand top dial to the custom symbol, press the button in the centre of the dial, press the shutter after aiming the camera at your white or grey target. Custom WB is now set until changed with a new reading, or returned to fixed or Auto WB.

Like Mike Johnston writing in The On-Line Photographer, I’m aware that any attempt to line up one or more cameras and show comparison images or make judgements is on to a loser from the start. And any webmaster who puts an external link in the first half dozen words of a new post is losing the plot too! But here, for what it’s worth, is the first line-up of results processed using the same software from A900 and D3X uncompressed raw files converted without sharpening or noise reduction.

The latest release of Adobe Lightroom, v2, handles all Sony Alpha and earlier KM digital camera raw formats including the Alpha 700, 200, 300 and 350. It is also updated, along with the final release of Adobe Camera Raw 4.5, to handle Nikon D700. Because Canon appears to have left their filetype identical to the A400, their new 1000D was recognised immediately by ACR even in 4.5 beta version.

Now that there are five Sony Alpha DSLR bodies in circulation, with many owners of the original 2006 Alpha 100 considering a replacement, the differences between this ur-Alpha and the 2007-8 generation of Alpha 700, 200, 300 and 350 need examining.

There’s a lot of controversy right now about whether or not the image structure of the Alpha 700 files at very high ISO – mainly 3200 and 6400 – is as clean as raw processed results from other comparable cameras like the Canon 40D (does not offer ISO 6400), the Olympus E-3 (does not offer ISO 6400) or the Nikon D300. At the heart of this is the way different raw processors handle file conversion, and most specifically, the current performance of Adobe Camera Raw 4.3.1.

After reading Andrea Nivini’s article in Italian Tutti Fotografi, December 2007, which launches an attack on Adobe’s Camera Raw plug-in and its handling of many camera types – but specifically, the Sony Alpha 700 – I decided to check out whether the December 5th release, ACR 4.3.1, fixed the problems.

It’s the same on every web forum – if you post a digital picture which would be acceptable to a photo library or professional buyer, half a dozen grumpy one-liners will come out saying ‘That don’t look sharp to me’ or ‘there must be something wrong with your XXX’ (fill in D300, A700, E-3, D3, 40D as required). Then someone posts a hugely messed up image and people say ‘Wow! What sharpness!’…

Adobe has posted updates to Photoshop, Lightroom, and the Photoshop Camera Raw plug-in, both available immediately for download on Adobe.com. The updates provide raw file support for 14 additional camera models and camera backs within Lightroom and Camera Raw, including the Sony Alpha 700. Links here.

THE question is being asked, will the Alpha 700 match the rich colour rendering of the Konica Minolta 7D and 5D? These cameras had identical colour profiles, and were in turn very similar to the Dimage A1 and A2. The Sony Alpha 100 proved very different. Here’s my best attempt to explain why.