David Kilpatrick wrote:ISO - no change. Before and after shots have slightly different noise distribution, but no more so than any two shots separated by a few minutes. There is no significant (visible) improvement in high ISO or normal ISO performance, and indeed the information did not suggest that there would be.
The problem is that the current ACR does a very good job at filtering out the stray 'warm' pixels right at the demosaicing stage. And exactly those warm pixels were the primary 'offenders' with the a900 noise. The noise was simply too disorderly non-Gaussian. In order to see any change now you'd need a less complex SW algorithm than the current ACR is.David Kilpatrick wrote:Agorabasta - just ACR. In raw, I don't have any real interest in JPEGs at high ISO. I'm sure if there were improvements, Sony would have said so.
David
I put quite some time and effort in finding the proper AF micro-adjustments for some of my most-used lenses ... and what I found is this: It's incredibly hard to find settings that actually improve things rather than messing things up, and it's scaringly easy to get carried away. I guess that's why AF micro-adjustment isn't available in entry-level and mid-level camera models. For any given lens, whenever you think you found a good setting then you have to re-check and then re-check again, under many different shooting conditions, to make sure it actually is an improvement. You also need to know, among other things, what aperture-related focus shift is and which of your lenses suffer from this and how. It's an awful lot of work to get it right for more than one or two lenses.David Kilpatrick wrote:I can't tell as I had removed all of mine - they did not seem to be helping.
I was quite surprised at my -9 result, and I checked it a number of times - I use Lens Align.01af wrote:I put quite some time and effort in finding the proper AF micro-adjustments for some of my most-used lenses ... and what I found is this: It's incredibly hard to find settings that actually improve things rather than messing things up, and it's scaringly easy to get carried away. I guess that's why AF micro-adjustment isn't available in entry-level and mid-level camera models. For any given lens, whenever you think you found a good setting then you have to re-check and then re-check again, under many different shooting conditions, to make sure it actually is an improvement. You also need to know, among other things, what aperture-related focus shift is and which of your lenses suffer from this and how. It's an awful lot of work to get it right for more than one or two lenses.David Kilpatrick wrote:I can't tell as I had removed all of mine - they did not seem to be helping.
However if you get it right then it can turn an apparently mediocre lens into a really good one, or a good lens into an excellent one. Typically, good settings are in the ±0 to -5 range. Significantly higher values may indicate a hardware problem ... or a bad user error. Positive values are rare (does this say something?). In my opinion, less-than-perfect focus is the most-prevalent single reason for substandard lens performance. That's why I am always more interested in AF accuracy than AF speed.
What is that? Never heard of it. Is it the same as the infamous KM 7D FFB (first frame black) problem?stevecim wrote:I would be happy if they fixed fixed the black frame problem with the A550
In the ultimate extremely perfect world..... no adjustments required.agorabasta wrote:Olaf, in a perfect world you could have a fast PDAF with a fine CDAF microadjustment. In a yet more perfect world you could have those CDAF microadjustments recorded and analysed/catalogued so that less fine CDAF is even needed at the time of shot.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests
