FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

A77ii or A99?

Page  <12345 6>
Author
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 9727
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 October 2018 at 14:56
If I say I see a difference between full-frame and APS-C some people around here start to say "equivalence" and then I say that I see a different even when equivalence is taken into account. I'll echo the "I care mostly about how the images I am capturing look" remark and there FF is better then APS-C IMHO. Every time. If you do not see it, by all means go APS-C.

Everybody just use the camera that makes the most sense for them. That is why I have an A99m2 for the serious stuff and an A6000 for the informal/street/small stuff. Different tools for different situations. Reading the remarks by Phil, it is clear to me the A99 makes the most sense. So, that was what I advised - not because I prefer full frame, as I have steered people away from full frame in the past.
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
 



Back to Top
QuietOC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 28 February 2015
Country: United States
Location: Michigan
Status: Online
Posts: 2566
Post Options Post Options   Quote QuietOC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 October 2018 at 15:01
Originally posted by Paul07 Paul07 wrote:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-slt-a99-ii/8

Thanks, that flat test chart really shows the strong AA filter in the A99 compared to the 24 MP A7 and APS-C cameras. I suspect the lens(es) they used on the A99 and A77II is not particularly sharp. That's unfortunate--the A99 rendering should be great with a sharper lens. Looking at this has made me rule out the A7 cameras from my consideration.

Edited by QuietOC - 04 October 2018 at 15:04
Sony A7II A77II LA-EA3 LA-EA4 MC-11
Minolta Maxxum 600si
Pentax Q7 5-15 15-45/2.8
Back to Top
Miranda F View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Bristol
Status: Offline
Posts: 3360
Post Options Post Options   Quote Miranda F Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 October 2018 at 15:03
Originally posted by Phil Wood Phil Wood wrote:


- gravestones (part of a project to document local victims of WW1) - A77/A58 can do this with a suitable lens, the main issue is lighting - I never seem to get to them at the right time of day. When trying to get a legible view of an inscription when the sun is behind the stone can be very tricky. The A99 might be a bit better in terms of DR?

Have you tried any of the modern hand-held LED worklights (Haqlfords, petrol stations)? THey're very bright, and you cna move them aorund until the contrast is good.
Miranda F & Sensorex, Sony A58, Nex-6, Dynax 4, 5, 60, 500si/600si/700si/800si, various Sony & Minolta lenses, several Tamrons, lots of MF primes and *far* too many old film cameras . . .
Back to Top
Paul07 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 09 March 2006
Country: Belgium
Status: Offline
Posts: 2131
Post Options Post Options   Quote Paul07 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 October 2018 at 15:03
Originally posted by QuietOC QuietOC wrote:

Originally posted by Paul07 Paul07 wrote:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-slt-a99-ii/8

Thanks, that flat test chart really shows the strong AA filter in the A99 compared to the 24 MP A7 and APS-C cameras. I suspect the lens(es) they used on the A99 and A77II is not particularly sharp.


It shows more than that, also when going to iso 6400.

But like Addy said, if you like aps-c best, just stick with it.

In the end, I still don't understand the issue you see in Phil getting an a99 for his Minolta glass ?

Edited by Paul07 - 04 October 2018 at 15:08
α7RII-VG 24-70G 70-200G 85/1.8 Samyang 35/2.8 ~~~ α6300 10-18/4 16-70/4 ~~~ Nex-5N 16-50 18-200 ~~~ RX10 IV ~~~ α100 50/1.4 24-105 ~~~ HX60V
Back to Top
QuietOC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 28 February 2015
Country: United States
Location: Michigan
Status: Online
Posts: 2566
Post Options Post Options   Quote QuietOC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 October 2018 at 15:12
Originally posted by Paul07 Paul07 wrote:

Originally posted by QuietOC QuietOC wrote:

Originally posted by Paul07 Paul07 wrote:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-slt-a99-ii/8

Thanks, that flat test chart really shows the strong AA filter in the A99 compared to the 24 MP A7 and APS-C cameras. I suspect the lens(es) they used on the A99 and A77II is not particularly sharp.


It shows more than that, also when going to iso 6400.

But like Addy said, if you like aps-c best, just stick with it.

I do see that the A99 images at ISO 6400 have noticeably more noise than the A77II images at ISO 3200. An image that requires ISO 3200 on APS-C requires the use of ISO 2.34x3200 = 7488 on full-frame. That's just physics.

Originally posted by Paul07 Paul07 wrote:

In the end, I still don't understand the issue you see in Phil getting an a99 for his Minolta glass ?

I don't see an issue with it. In fact, as I've said I also been looking at getting A99 myself.

Edited by QuietOC - 04 October 2018 at 15:23
Sony A7II A77II LA-EA3 LA-EA4 MC-11
Minolta Maxxum 600si
Pentax Q7 5-15 15-45/2.8
Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 9727
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 October 2018 at 15:33
Originally posted by QuietOC QuietOC wrote:

I do see that the A99 images at ISO 6400 have noticeably more noise than the A77II images at ISO 3200. An image that requires ISO 3200 on APS-C requires the use of ISO 2.34x3200 = 7488 on full-frame. That's just physics
Neither cameras would I use with those settings. And looking at the JPEG's, the A99 is much better, showing some extra noise but also much more detail. With the RAW conversion by DpReview you get a lot of noise of the nasty kind.

I keep my A77m2 below 1600iso, it is unusable over that. The A900 I kept below 1200iso, it is unusable over that. The A77m2 sensor is better, but I still prefer the A900's rendering.
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
 



Back to Top
Paul07 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 09 March 2006
Country: Belgium
Status: Offline
Posts: 2131
Post Options Post Options   Quote Paul07 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 October 2018 at 15:41
Originally posted by QuietOC QuietOC wrote:

I see that the A99 images at ISO 6400 have noticeably more noise than the A77II images at ISO 3200. An image that requires ISO 3200 on APS-C requires the use of ISO 2.34x3200 = 7488 on full-frame.


I don't know where the logic of the 2.34 multiplication comes from, but I am used to go by my obersations rather than mathematics when it comes to getting end results.
The above would result in smartphones being by far preferable for low light work ? My experience says different.

Looking at DPR, if I compare iso 6400 for a99/a99ii/a77ii/RX100-VI and select RAW output. I look at the area with the 3 bottles at the bottom-center: the left bottle has VQA written on the bottle neck. If I put these letters in the center, results for noise and detail are ranked :
1- a99-ii
2- a99
3- a77ii
4- RX100-IV (which by the way is the most recent of these camera's, getting great feedback in reviews when it comes to noise results for a 1" sensor.

In short, I cannot match my experience over the years or other data I see with the 2.34x logic...


Originally posted by QuietOC QuietOC wrote:

Originally posted by Paul07 Paul07 wrote:

In the end, I still don't understand the issue you see in Phil getting an a99 for his Minolta glass ?

I don't see an issue with it. In fact, as I've said I also been looking at getting A99.


Must have been a misunderstanding at my end.
α7RII-VG 24-70G 70-200G 85/1.8 Samyang 35/2.8 ~~~ α6300 10-18/4 16-70/4 ~~~ Nex-5N 16-50 18-200 ~~~ RX10 IV ~~~ α100 50/1.4 24-105 ~~~ HX60V
Back to Top
Paul07 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 09 March 2006
Country: Belgium
Status: Offline
Posts: 2131
Post Options Post Options   Quote Paul07 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 October 2018 at 16:08
Originally posted by addy landzaat addy landzaat wrote:

looking at the JPEG's, the A99 is much better, showing some extra noise but also much more detail.


Agree
α7RII-VG 24-70G 70-200G 85/1.8 Samyang 35/2.8 ~~~ α6300 10-18/4 16-70/4 ~~~ Nex-5N 16-50 18-200 ~~~ RX10 IV ~~~ α100 50/1.4 24-105 ~~~ HX60V
Back to Top
QuietOC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 28 February 2015
Country: United States
Location: Michigan
Status: Online
Posts: 2566
Post Options Post Options   Quote QuietOC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 October 2018 at 16:11
Originally posted by Paul07 Paul07 wrote:

Originally posted by QuietOC QuietOC wrote:

I see that the A99 images at ISO 6400 have noticeably more noise than the A77II images at ISO 3200. An image that requires ISO 3200 on APS-C requires the use of ISO 2.34x3200 = 7488 on full-frame.


I don't know where the logic of the 2.34 multiplication comes from...

That is just the area difference between the sensors. People seem to believe that sensor size by itself somehow creates/amplifies light. It doesn't. Increasing the size of an image optically just makes it proportionally dimmer thus requiring higher ISO.

I understand that almost everyone compares how cameras capture different images at the same exposure settings. They often use the same lenses on multiple formats, or at least lenses with the same relative apertures. They will talk about shallower depth-of-field, wider field-of-view, and have to explain all the other differences in the images. I don't have much use for the complexity of such comparisons.

ISO 50 and 100 on the A99 would be like adding ISO 25 and 50 settings to my APS-C cameras. That's easy to understand. I could occasionally use ISO 25 if it was available on my A68.

The above would result in smartphones being by far preferable for low light work ?

Smart phones cameras often have the most efficient sensors, but they are severely limited by those tiny lenses and relatively high base ISO.



Edited by QuietOC - 04 October 2018 at 16:28
Sony A7II A77II LA-EA3 LA-EA4 MC-11
Minolta Maxxum 600si
Pentax Q7 5-15 15-45/2.8
Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 9727
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 October 2018 at 16:46
Your comparing in theory by using the 2.34 multiplication - I don't have much use for the complexity of such comparisons

Without kidding, what your saying is that a smaller sensor is more effective, you might be right, but to me it is inconsequential as the pictures from a bigger sensor in general are better then those from a smaller sensor.
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
Back to Top
QuietOC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 28 February 2015
Country: United States
Location: Michigan
Status: Online
Posts: 2566
Post Options Post Options   Quote QuietOC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 October 2018 at 17:47
Originally posted by addy landzaat addy landzaat wrote:

Your comparing in theory by using the 2.34 multiplication - I don't have much use for the complexity of such comparisons

Without kidding, what your saying is that a smaller sensor is more effective, you might be right, but to me it is inconsequential as the pictures from a bigger sensor in general are better then those from a smaller sensor.

Photographers don't have to understand physics to use a camera. The complexity of reality works anyway. But ignoring that complexity when analyzing data leads to false conclusions.

Edited by QuietOC - 04 October 2018 at 17:51
Sony A7II A77II LA-EA3 LA-EA4 MC-11
Minolta Maxxum 600si
Pentax Q7 5-15 15-45/2.8
Back to Top
pegelli View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Dyxum Administrator

Joined: 02 June 2007
Country: Belgium
Location: Schilde
Status: Offline
Posts: 26852
Post Options Post Options   Quote pegelli Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 October 2018 at 18:39
Originally posted by QuietOC QuietOC wrote:

Originally posted by Paul07 Paul07 wrote:

Originally posted by QuietOC QuietOC wrote:

I see that the A99 images at ISO 6400 have noticeably more noise than the A77II images at ISO 3200. An image that requires ISO 3200 on APS-C requires the use of ISO 2.34x3200 = 7488 on full-frame.


I don't know where the logic of the 2.34 multiplication comes from...

That is just the area difference between the sensors. People seem to believe that sensor size by itself somehow creates/amplifies light. It doesn't. Increasing the size of an image optically just makes it proportionally dimmer thus requiring higher ISO.

I understand that almost everyone compares how cameras capture different images at the same exposure settings. They often use the same lenses on multiple formats, or at least lenses with the same relative apertures. They will talk about shallower depth-of-field, wider field-of-view, and have to explain all the other differences in the images. I don't have much use for the complexity of such comparisons.

ISO 50 and 100 on the A99 would be like adding ISO 25 and 50 settings to my APS-C cameras. That's easy to understand. I could occasionally use ISO 25 if it was available on my A68.

The above would result in smartphones being by far preferable for low light work ?

Smart phones cameras often have the most efficient sensors, but they are severely limited by those tiny lenses and relatively high base ISO.

I don't think this is correct. On an APS-C camera the light outside the sensor just gets absorbed in the black interior of the camera while on FF it gets to the sensor. So if an image needs a certain aperture/shutter speed/iso on APS-C to be correctly exposed it will need exactly the same aperture/shutter speed/iso to be correctly exposed on full frame.
Mind the bandwidth of others, don't link pictures larger then 1024 wide or 960 pix high, see here
Back to Top
QuietOC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 28 February 2015
Country: United States
Location: Michigan
Status: Online
Posts: 2566
Post Options Post Options   Quote QuietOC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 October 2018 at 20:03
Originally posted by pegelli pegelli wrote:

I don't think this is correct. On an APS-C camera the light outside the sensor just gets absorbed in the black interior of the camera while on FF it gets to the sensor. So if an image needs a certain aperture/shutter speed/iso on APS-C to be correctly exposed it will need exactly the same aperture/shutter speed/iso to be correctly exposed on full frame.

I don't consider a crop of an image to be the same as the entire image. Do you?

The OP and I have the lovely Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM. This APS-C kit zoom is not that much like the big CZ 24-70mm F2.8. It is smaller and shorter. Both lenses act the same on an APS-C camera at the same focal lengths. They expose the same on any camera.

I've put the 16-50mm on a 1.4X teleconverter and seen that it could cover full-frame that way. It basically becomes a 24-75 F4 and that allows a full-frame camera to capture all the same images from that lens as the APS-C camera does with that lens. The teleconverter has drawbacks, the main one being the image is now 2x dimmer. But note a teleconverter is not required. All optical images scale in brightness with the area used to capture them. A gigantic sensor or piece of film requires a proportionally dim image. Lens can't create more light. Neither can sensors.

Maybe you can get a gigantic super bright lens for whatever gigantic sensor/piece of film and want the tiny depth-of-field possible. Fine, there are many big, bright lenses to use on full-frame--the current digital medium format systems don't compare well. Capturing lots of light and shallow depth-of-field images is a real thing that often can't be done with smaller or larger sensors.

My Minolta F3.5-4.5 zooms might have better image quality than the 16-50 F2.8 on a teleconverter, but I suspect they aren't as good on full-frame as that lens on APS-C. But an A99 might still be fun with all those old lenses. I would use the ISO 50 setting and capture some clean raw single exposures.

Edited by QuietOC - 04 October 2018 at 20:35
Sony A7II A77II LA-EA3 LA-EA4 MC-11
Minolta Maxxum 600si
Pentax Q7 5-15 15-45/2.8
Back to Top
pegelli View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Dyxum Administrator

Joined: 02 June 2007
Country: Belgium
Location: Schilde
Status: Offline
Posts: 26852
Post Options Post Options   Quote pegelli Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 October 2018 at 20:34
Originally posted by QuietOC QuietOC wrote:

Originally posted by pegelli pegelli wrote:

I don't think this is correct. On an APS-C camera the light outside the sensor just gets absorbed in the black interior of the camera while on FF it gets to the sensor. So if an image needs a certain aperture/shutter speed/iso on APS-C to be correctly exposed it will need exactly the same aperture/shutter speed/iso to be correctly exposed on full frame.

I don't consider a crop of an image to be the same as the entire image. Do you?

The OP and I have the lovely Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM. This APS-C kit zoom is not that much like the big CZ 24-70mm F2.8. It is smaller and shorter. Both lenses act the same on an APS-C camera at the same focal lengths. They expose the same on any camera.

I've put the 16-50mm on a 1.4X teleconverter and seen that it could cover full-frame that way. It basically becomes a 24-75 F4 and that allows a full-frame camera to capture all the same images from that lens as the APS-C camera does with that lens. The teleconverter has drawbacks, the main one being the image is 2x dimmer.

A teleconverter is not required. All optical images scale in brightness with the area used to capture them. A gigantic sensor or piece of film requires a proportionally dim image.

Maybe you can get a gigantic super bright lens for whatever gigantic sensor/piece of film and want the tiny depth-of-field possible. Fine, there are many big, bright lenses to use on full-frame--the current digital medium format systems don't compare well. Capturing lots of light and shallow depth-of-field images is a real thing that often can't be done with smaller sensors.

My Minolta F3.5-4.5 zooms might have better image quality than the 16-50 F2.8 on a teleconverter, but I suspect they aren't as good on full-frame as that lens on APS-C. But an A99 might still be fun with all those old lenses. I would use the ISO 50 setting and capture some clean raw single exposures.


I think the statement I make is correct, both when using the same lens and when using different lenses with the same angle of view between the two formats (assuming an evenly lit subject).

Neither your original statement, nor my response say anything about lenses used or the same/different angle of view or the use of a teleconverter. Once you start talking about equivalence in all aspects (including sharpness and dof) you have to define very clearly what you are keeping constant and what the variables are. I think that's way off topic for the subject discussed here.


Mind the bandwidth of others, don't link pictures larger then 1024 wide or 960 pix high, see here
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Camera Talk Page  <12345 6>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.062 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Feel free to contact us if needed.