A77, am I the first to notice?

[Greg Beetham]

I understand what you’re saying Aram, I’m thinking of the parameters or the constraints of posting here on Photoclubalpha as a main example, last I saw these were 1000 pixels on the long side and 125K maximum size as well, unless that’s changed that is. I’m pretty sure that you would vastly exceed 125K with 100% quality in a very detailed photo using a 12MP camera never mind a 24MP one.
I can usually keep it down around between 60K and 120K depending on how complex the detail in the photo is using the 6MP and 10MP cameras but it’s more difficult with the 12MP camera, the last image I posted had to be reduced quite a lot in size and quality to get it under the limits, sometimes I post images at 25% or 30% quality just to get under the limit. So with that in mind I was having trouble thinking how I would manage to get a 24MP camera down to those parameters, maybe if I posted at a long side of 300 pixels it might work ha ha.
It’s not just Photoclubalpha where you need to keep the size down, other places have size constraints, there is email as well, some people don’t want huge photos posted into their inbox.
Greg

[UrsaMajor]

I understand what you’re saying Aram, I’m thinking of the parameters or the constraints of posting here on Photoclubalpha as a main example, last I saw these were 1000 pixels on the long side and 125K maximum size as well, unless that’s changed that is. I’m pretty sure that you would vastly exceed 125K with 100% quality in a very detailed photo using a 12MP camera never mind a 24MP one.

FWIW, I believe that the limit here on image file size is 250K, not 125K.

(I have the type of personality that believes in leaving no nit unpicked.)

With best wishes,
- Tom -

[Greg Beetham]

Thanks Tom I must have miss-remembered what the posting size was. But anyway the argument is still valid I think, reducing an image file from 24MP down to that size means it looses a lot more than a 6MP or 10MP or even the 12MP cameras that I have, now I’m also wondering what’s in store for FF if that format goes to somewhere between 30 and 40MP look at how much image data has to be tossed away to post an image on the web. Not that the reduction algorithms don’t work but it seems a wast of space to me too have a camera with an image file so large and then toss most of it away most of the time.
Greg

[UrsaMajor]

Thanks Tom I must have miss-remembered what the posting size was. But anyway the argument is still valid I think, reducing an image file from 24MP down to that size means it looses a lot more than a 6MP or 10MP or even the 12MP cameras that I have, now I’m also wondering what’s in store for FF if that format goes to somewhere between 30 and 40MP look at how much image data has to be tossed away to post an image on the web. Not that the reduction algorithms don’t work but it seems a wast of space to me too have a camera with an image file so large and then toss most of it away most of the time.
Greg

Another way to look at things - do you really lose that much if you compare an 8x10 inch (20x25cm) print from an A900 file with the same image printed from an A700 file? Assuming both images were properly exposed and both used the same lens, I doubt that you can tell the difference. If you go to a very large print, the differences will appear, but that is relevant for use in an art galley, not for most home use.

IMO, the same logic applies to postings here. I have some 8x10 inch prints taken with my KM 7D that are hanging on the wall in my home, and are completely satisfactory. I also have a 20x30 inch (50x75cm) A700 print hanging on the wall that I posted here a couple of years ago in 600x900 pixel size. No one commented about the poor quality of that 600x900 image when I posted it. Several people here - including David - have posted A900 images that received strong praise.

It may be overkill to start with a 30+ megabyte file and downsize it for posting here, but that does not mean that it will be a worse image than one which comes from a KM 7D.

With best wishes,
- Tom -

[Greg Beetham]

Another way to look at things - do you really lose that much if you compare an 8x10 inch (20x25cm) print from an A900 file with the same image printed from an A700 file? Assuming both images were properly exposed and both used the same lens, I doubt that you can tell the difference. If you go to a very large print, the differences will appear, but that is relevant for use in an art galley, not for most home use.

IMO, the same logic applies to postings here. I have some 8x10 inch prints taken with my KM 7D that are hanging on the wall in my home, and are completely satisfactory. I also have a 20x30 inch (50x75cm) A700 print hanging on the wall that I posted here a couple of years ago in 600x900 pixel size. No one commented about the poor quality of that 600x900 image when I posted it. Several people here - including David - have posted A900 images that received strong praise.

It may be overkill to start with a 30+ megabyte file and downsize it for posting here, but that does not mean that it will be a worse image than one which comes from a KM 7D.

With best wishes,
- Tom -

I agree I don't really think it matters much with printing, printers are way behind in actual resolution compared to cameras, up to a point of course, it's generally accepted that a 6MP limit was around 8X10" but I've never really tested it at bigger myself, all my printers have been A4 jobs. But I have done photos of the same subject with the KM5D and A100 (big difference between 6MP and 10MP right?), and printed them out on gloss A4 (similar to 10X8") photo paper in a HP Photosmart D7360 printer and there was no difference in the print quality at all...there were slight colour differences. I even showed them to other photographers and asked which camera produced which photo and some got it right and some didn't, mainly it was guesswork on their part. So when it comes to printing if you have a camera that has 14, 16, 18 or 24MP I guess one must consider if one should purchase an A3 printer at some point, but it might be more cost effective to take the file to a specialized print shop.
I suppose the extra MP’s can be handy sometimes, but on average I think they just fill up memory cards and hard drives much faster. I think with the way it’s going it’s becoming necessary to start thinking of the smaller file options, (and that’s something I never really considered seriously before), except maybe on special purpose occasions when the photographer really wants that extra resolution…provided of course the lens in use will actually transfer or realize any advantage in real terms, it remains to be seen if most lenses in use now will show any benefit at all when used on an APS-C format camera at 24MP.
Greg

[stevecim]

I think the 24MP is alot about marketing, I seem to remember when dpr reviewed the 7D, they felt that the 7D 18MP sensor has more noise than the 15MP in the 50D but the extra detail of the 18MP sensor more than made up for it (and noone talks about nosie on the 7D) I guess Sony could have made a 20MP which would have been a good jump from the their current 16MP but 20MP would not have a big enough edge over Canons 18MP models. So by jumping to 24MP, they now have a 6MP edge over canon, has long has they have done a good job with the 24MP sensor (and we all know how Sony can stuff things up) All reviewers will not be able to avoid stating that the new Sony 24Mp models have the highest resolution of any APS-C camera. And that will sell Cameras.

I would not be surprised if Canon next releases next year where going to be around 21MP, this could give sony a 12-24 month window when they are "king of the hill" but can they make the most of it!.. ( first thing they have to do is loose the idea that they can NOT compete against Can/Nik in all segments)

[Dusty]

24 MP gives you the latitude to crop (assuming you don't cram the subject edge to edge), and memory cards are cheaper all the time. The real question is getting lenses to resolve 24MP at that format. Once we've reached the limit of resolution, we'll have to go FF or MF to get more MPs.

Now, they need to work on dynamic range a bit, and being able to pull down to 50 (at least) or 25 ISO, instead of trying to make them all night vision cameras!

Dusty

[Birma]

Now, they need to work on dynamic range a bit, and being able to pull down to 50 (at least) or 25 ISO, instead of trying to make them all night vision cameras!

Dusty

+1

[bfitzgerald]

I've a feeling once you strip out the headline grabbing 24mp, fast fps
That the A77 is going to disappoint more robust feature set type shooters.

Evidently the bits of info I'm picking up on suggest the battery life won't be that great, it will have a relatively small buffer (for the fps) and no tethering support either. I'd also put some bets down that a few niggling issues from the past have not been addressed (some will but a few glaringly obvious ones will be here)
This is going to be more a pumped up A55 consumer camera than a genuine strong all round semi pro/high level APS-C model.

Sony do have a bit of a fixation with mega pixels and recently high fps..but a users needs at this level go far beyond that.
As for resolution I've just sold the rights to use an image to the BBC and I can tell you it wouldn't even pass a good 4 megapixel sharpness test but a good image is worth a heck of a lot more than the number of pixels on it.

[stevecim]

here is a good start
<from dpr>
the A77 is not just the most customizable Sony we've ever encountered, but that customization includes a number of long asked-for features. In addition to the ability to fine-adjust the AF tuning, Sony has added the ability to define the upper and lower extremes that the Auto ISO system will use - a step we suspect many users will welcome.

[bfitzgerald]

Let's be frank if Sony released a camera at that price range without AF fine tuning it would be unthinkable.
The A65 looks better value but lacks AF adjustment and has wasted empty space on the top plate.

Yes some good things they have a WB and ISO button As predicted buffer is a bit small for it's fps, battery life below par too.
High ISO samples did not impress.
Sony have done some good stuff they've worked out customisation on some buttons, bracketing range is better (long time coming too long), I see DMF in the A77 menus, lens corrections (again long overdue) I see no NR off on jpegs, can't find Auto ISO options on the screens I've seen and I wonder of P shift made it ;-0

[Lonnie Utah]

Barry, I see that now the ovf has started to get really good, bordering on rave reviews, you've moved on to bashing this camera in new and interesting ways...

[bfitzgerald]

Lonnie some folks like EVF's some don't DPR will rave about it and it will get a great review. But DPR tend to be "tech fans" and are not able to give objective views on "overall it's performance as a camera" I gave up reading their reviews some time ago bar the odd glance here and there.

Personally I will avoid EVF's for a long as possible I can't stand them. But IR have a more in depth talk about that they mention better for highlights, but plugged shadows etc. Basically you'd have to try it to see how you get on. I'm simply trying to move on from the EVF v OVF debate I think my position is fairly obvious. There is no doubt that many will reject it on the EVF alone I note DK's remarks about emails etc etc about wanting an OVF..so I believe I'm not alone here!

It's not bashing the samples look pretty poor maybe they are not production images, maybe the jpeg engine is a bit iffy who can say. Have a look yourself it looks pretty bad (least to my eyes) And I'm not alone in saying that! Something is wrong that's for sure. Leaving that aside the A65 looks much better value for money to my eyes. (if you can tolerate a few downgraded bits) UK pre order is around £1200 quite a bit more than the A700 was. A65 is way cheaper at around £799

[bossel]

I've been able to check the A55 EVF a few times in the past few months, under normal conditions, though (not extra bright or extra dark or extra contrasty). Owning an A700 with a good OVF and after all the EVF bashing I have to say I was surprised. Hard to see any pixels and it looks surprisingly natural. The new 2.4mp viefinder with improved contrast should be perfect for 90% of all usages (but a OVF doesn't make 100% neither).

[bakubo]

MR has a hands-on A77 report:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/revie ... ions.shtml

Here is a part of what he says about the A77 EVF:

The area where I find EVFs to be problematic is in high contrast situations. As one moves from bright to dark areas the viewfinder's brightness pumps. I find this distracting. An optical viewfinder allows the eye to compensate for brightness differences, while an EVF (even one as good as Sony's new one) does its own compensation.

Outdoors the A77's viewfinder does the job, though shadow areas can become blocked up. In low light I find that it gives an unrealistically bright and contrasty impression of the scene in front of it, and also one that gets grainy as the VF's amplification is boosted to enhance visibility.

Also, dpreview in their preview said this:

One situation in which the EVF loses out to an optical finder is if it's used in bright light with glasses, where there is a much greater difference in intensity between the ambient light and the light coming from the finder. In this particular situation we found ourselves having to cup a hand around the viewfinder.

This has always been the primary area that I have not liked about all the earlier EVFs. The A77 is a bit better, but still needs more work. For those of you in the UK, northern Europe, Canada, etc. you probably will see few problems though. Still I want to check the A77 out when it is in a store because the EVF is probably good enough to not cause too many problems along with the other advantages.