Photoclubalpha

I've not used the new Pentax models one would hope any problems would have been fully sorted by now (Pentax still apply NR to high ISO raw files though no idea why), it's just a bad taste in the mouth so appealing as they might be I'd simply avoid the brand full stop.

I'll try reducing the contrast, some have said shoving DRO right up helps too. Problem with the DRO method is it will give you completely misleading images on playback you could seriously underexpose a shot and it would not look that bad on the LCD. So that's a bad idea IMO.
I have not had long with an A77 but my impression was that the DR wasn't any better than the A57 EVF wise, the blacks are really black on the OLED where as the LCD EVF is less dense in the deep tones.

I'm taking a pause on this one and it's kinda ground things to a halt for me. I don't think I'd be interested in another SLT Model. It's not a problem using one in normal conditions, but I'm coming the the conclusion that a clear view of the subject is the most important thing and the only way to get that is with an optical finder.

Thanks for the suggestions. For what its worth I did a bit of research nothing too tecnical into other lens brands such as Canon, Nikon, Pentax and of course Sony. I left the CSC stuff out although having said that Panasonic m4/3 lenses would give them all a run for their money. With the exception of the Olympus 14-54 ED Zuiko and the Panasonic 14-45, some Sony lenses are really very good.

I was not too impressed with Canon, even some of their 'L' range were nothing to shout about. Nikon were generally slightly better overall and their high end stuff quite good. Pentax, not impressed, they all struggled to record decent MTF curves plus other below par performances. The two basic kit lenses were not bad but I would recommend Tamron or Sigma as a starting point with Pentax.

Sony with a couple of exceptions gave the better overall performances in comparison to their rivals. In a way we don't know how lucky we are with Sony/Minolta lens choice.
If you have invested a bit of money in Sony/Minolta lenses it may be worth waiting to see what A mount has in store for us next year.

Just to throw my two pence worth in to the ring . I can understand Barry's issues with EVF portraiture, but as ClassicCameras also asked about Landscape I'd say that LV on the flippy-flappy rear-screen and focus peaking were your friend . For me, landscape shots mean that the camera is on a tripod, and rarely at head height. Any VF is very difficult to see through. Being able to see the scene on a nice big 3" screen, and with lots of chimping and understanding the camera's histograms is great for me. Once I can get nice LV images on my iPad straight from the camera wirelessly I'll be even more happy .

Barry's dream camera would appear to be already out there - A850 or A900. Best OVF made for a DSLR, no video distractions, bullet proof construction, A mount, full frame, and Minolta flash shoe.

I've not had any serious problems for landscape type work, but that's probably due to generally avoiding harsher lighting. The swivel LCD is useful though it's not high up my needs list, I have used it a few times and it's proved fairly handy. I'm not sure Sony made the right choice with the hinge location though other makers might have a better design with the side swivel LCD.

Either way it's not a major factor for me the LCD swivel.
I can understand some folks going for a 24mp SLT for scenic work, I'm just not sure I'd find much use for the 24mp SLT models bar some increased functionality (more so the A77)

Not many A900/A850's around and they are holding their prices fairly well from what I've seen. The concern I have it that I don't think Sony will respond and give us an OVF camera in the future, so that leaves you with either digging around for s/h options or trying something else. Canon are just like other makers they have some nice lenses, and they have a few turkeys too. Mostly there isn't much to complain about A mount lenses wise (bar some missing ones) prices are good s/h and some capable lenses. Finding a body though is the problem.

I'm not sure I see a future in A mount without at least one OVF body available. I'm quite happy to use the EVF for some tasks, but it falls down quite badly in some situations. It's not an ideal one fits all solution for me. And I still find it a bit weird looking at one all day long.

bfitzgerald wrote:I'll try reducing the contrast, some have said shoving DRO right up helps too. Problem with the DRO method is it will give you completely misleading images on playback you could seriously underexpose a shot and it would not look that bad on the LCD. So that's a bad idea IMO.

Yeah, minimize contrast and use portrait since that further reduces contrast. I don't know about Sony and DRO, but I find the sort of equivalent on the Olympus E-M5 lifts the shadows and helps a little bit with the highlights in the EVF display (doesn't affect the raw file). I haven't had any problems with underexposure, but I generally use the histogram and my experience for that -- not looking at an image on the LCD which can look so different depending on ambient light, etc. From what I understand with the E-M5 since these are all just manipulations of the raw data to produce a jpeg used for display in the EVF it is useful and has helped a lot. Whether Sony DRO does something similar or not is something I don't know, but I suggest you experiment. Of course, I am not suggesting that doing all of this is going to make you suddenly be happy with the EVF in high contrast situations. Just that it improves the situation over having standard contrast, non-portrait, etc. An improvement is better than nothing though, right? I have found with the E-M5 that it improved things enough for me to be able to get by okay most of the time. Only experimenting a bit yourself will tell you if the A57 can be improved or not. By the way, the way I did it with the E-M5 was super simple and took maybe 5 minutes. Put the camera on a tripod or table and have it point to some contrasty scene with rather strong light and shadows. Then reduce contrast to the minimum and watch as things change a bit. Probably just a small improvement, but better. Then change to portrait (you should try all of the settings though). Another small improvement. Then play around with DRO and DRO+ and watch as the display changes. Probably another improvement. Together all of these things may add up to enough improvement to make your use in these situations less painful and frustrating. I also reduce saturation a bit. All of these things also help to make the histogram a bit more accurate with regards to what is in the raw file, I think.

Give this a try and let us know what you find.

Thanks bakabo

On the A-37 My first test was to switch from Landscape to normal and dial in contrast -1, saturation -1, sharpening 0. DRO off. Jpeg Fine
Although pictures were a less contrasty and saturated they retained some really good colours with out being over the top. The same settings on portrait revealed a tiny bit less contrast and saturation and equally usable.

High numbers in DRO such as +4/5 lifted detail out of the shadows brilliantly but colours became wishy washy and skys burnt out.
DRO on Auto seems to work very well, so I leave that alone. My Microsoft edit programme is pretty good at lifting out shadow detail and supressing noise with out adding to the smearing that is already built in to the Sony processing.
I much prefer to sharpen in PP rather than in camera.

One trick with the Olympus E-510/20/620/450 was to reduce in camera sharpening by -1 or -2, this really did reduce shadow noise and artifacts, enhance DR and it worked very well for most situations.
I will continue to experiment with both my 37 and 57 as some where there will be a 'sweet spot'. I found it on my Olympus cameras.
Thanks for your help
Pete

Not that I have had any experience with EVF’s (I looked through my friends Panasonic once), but I was thinking if you reduced the contrast for bright sunny days so the shadows aren’t so black do you then switch back again for dull days or low contrast, or interiors, or just not bother and leave it as it is?
I was just wondering about the effect on the view you would get on a slightly overcast day, it might look soft, dull and uninteresting in the VF, when it might actually look pretty good otherwise. (if the settings were normalized)
In any case the RAW file probably has much more DR than the 8bit jpeg in the viewfinder so you might not be getting an accurate RAW pre-view anyway, whatever you do with the settings.
Greg

classiccameras wrote:On the A-37 My first test was to switch from Landscape to normal and dial in contrast -1, saturation -1, sharpening 0. DRO off. Jpeg Fine
Although pictures were a less contrasty and saturated they retained some really good colours with out being over the top. The same settings on portrait revealed a tiny bit less contrast and saturation and equally usable.

High numbers in DRO such as +4/5 lifted detail out of the shadows brilliantly but colours became wishy washy and skys burnt out.

Are you shooting raw? The point is to shoot raw and adjust the jpeg setting so that the EVF display is better (since the EVF display uses an internal jpeg so is affected by the jpeg settings, but the raw isn't). That is what Barry was complaining about.

I shoot both RAW and Jpeg and I have noticed the difference in EVF and LCD display with your suggestions, the EVF displays look more realistic with much more detal in the shadows.
I am a Jpeg fan and it interested me that Barry found the OO camera Jpegs on his 57 not that brilliant nor did DPReviews. I believe from what I read that the A-37 has the same processor as the NEX-5N and the Jpegs from both cameras were pretty good according to a few reviews. It was for the entry level market who will mostly use Jpegs and often or not in 'auto' mode. However, several reviews were not impressed with the A-57 OO camera Jpegs.

In all honesty, I'm beginning to see the advantages and disadvantages with EVF and more the advantages of an OVF.
Pete

I put the camera in portrait and dropped the contrast down and that seems to have improved the shadow areas somewhat. I'll see how that works in harder contrasty light.

I have just done the same adjustments and tested the A37 in high contrast light in the garden. Portrait and lower contrast settings are much better, and yes there is far better detail in the shadow areas and yet the sky remains perfectly exposed, no burnt out clouds. For my simple photography, this must be the sweet spot or very nere it.

I still suggest experimenting with DRO and DRO+ also to see how it affects the EVF display in high contrast situations.

You can indeed use DRO to lift the shadows considerably. One caveat though: The effect is only shown while pressing the DOF-Preview button!

You mean if you have the camera set up for the DOF as shot preview, and I have it on focus magnify!
Lowering the contrast helps, somewhat. I'll have a play around for a few days, though I'm leaning towards grabbing an A700 or A580 as a second body.

Neonsquare wrote:You can indeed use DRO to lift the shadows considerably. One caveat though: The effect is only shown while pressing the DOF-Preview button!

Hmm, that is very surprising. I wonder if there is some sort of configuration option that would change it on Sony? On the E-M5 it can display the results of all the jpeg settings so the DRO/DRO+ equivalent is pretty useful to improve the EVF.