The A77 thread (cont'd)

Techno wrote: tigertimb wrote: Techno wrote: BTW, you can't "tweak" a sensor. All Nikon do to the sensor itself is put a different interface on it (with the 16Mp they changed it from 12 bit to 14 bit). This has no effect at all on noise. But Nikon won't have the translucent mirror in the light path. Where it loses a 1/3rd of a stop of light, this is recovered by Sony by gaining up the sensor, so effectively gaining 1/3rd of a stop of ISO and corresponding noise and dynamic range etc in the process. This is clearly evident when you compare existing results of the A55 to the A580 - if Nikon are going to be using the same sensor, then they'll be significantly ahead of the game before they make any adjustments themselves A third of a stop - big deal. The Nikon SLR will lose significant clarity because of its moving mirror and its less accurate focus. People seem to dwell on the loss of light because of the fixed SLT mirror but can't see that the idea of a moving mirror (exactly at the time the photo is taken, of course) is a disaster for high resolution cameras. It might have worked OK in film cameras (when there was no alternative to looking through the lens if you wanted to see what the picture looked like) but not any more.

I was purely responding to your comment that the noise on the sensor would be identical - with the same scene, the same exposure settings using the same sensor, the SLT automatically has worse noise.
(and seeing the results of the A580 compared to the A55, I personally do consider this a big deal)

But of course, these are different benefits from the A77 having less vibration and particularly with the electronic first shutter curtain.

But I'm not quite sure why the focus would necessarily be any better - they're both using PDAF and neither being driven off the actual sensor?

RubberDials wrote: mawz wrote: The only serious beef I'm seeing on the spec is the anemic buffer. The A77 and A65 with a 13 shot RAW/17 Shot JPEG Fine buffer have a distinct disadvantage compared to the A55 (20 RAW, 35 JPEG Fine) or A700 (18 RAW, unlimited JPEG Fine). I'm not sure what Sony was thinking here, as you'll max out the buffer in slightly over 2s in the best configuration at 8fps (that would be JPEG fine) where the A55 gets 5 seconds at its most similar config (7fps, JPEG fine) and the A700 will shoot until the card fills in its closest config (5fps, JPEG fine). Essentially the best configuration for the A77 (8fps, JPEG Fine) matches the worst config for the A55 (10fps, RAW) in burst length. I'm not a sports or action shooter so shoot me down if I'm wrong here, but isn't it unlikely that people would want to shoot long sequences in RAW at 24MP? That's a lot of post-processing and file management. I doubt if there's a professional sports photographer on the planet who shoots RAW, but I could be wrong. The camera also shoots at 12mp and presumably this would give you more headroom if you required it, even more if you switched to jpeg. The Canon 1D mk IV - most's people's idea of a high speed cam can shoot between 23 and 32 frames 16MP (depending on the ISO) at RAW before the buffer is full, so I think the A77 performance is creditable.

Actually that is a very good point about 12MP (forgot about that). Filling the buffer over a few seconds rapid shooting is what most concerned me about the specifications, and that would take care of it.

And I don't think you're necessarily right about shooting RAW at high speed - I think we're more birds and wildlife, the kids running around and some airshows and motor racing than professional sports here - and being Sony/Minolta users, a higher percentage of us probably shoot RAW than any the average brand users ('cos we're such serious photographers you know. ). But I suppose I can't really speak for others.

Techno wrote: A third of a stop - big deal. The Nikon SLR will lose significant clarity because of its moving mirror and its less accurate focus. People seem to dwell on the loss of light because of the fixed SLT mirror but can't see that the idea of a moving mirror (exactly at the time the photo is taken, of course) is a disaster for high resolution cameras. It might have worked OK in film cameras (when there was no alternative to looking through the lens if you wanted to see what the picture looked like) but not any more.

Well it's half a stop loss and as tigertimb points out, all other things being equal, the net result is more noise.

But you got the bit about the mirror right. I don't think it's well understood how much of an impact vibration from the Mirror/Shutter has on an image. My own view, although I can't prove it, is that the gain from these two features more than compensates for the IQ losses due to the semi-transparent mirror. That's not counting the loss of the OVF which is the real killer for some.

RubberDials wrote: The camera also shoots at 12mp and presumably this would give you more headroom if you required it, even more if you switched to jpeg.

You might have to switch to JPEG to get images smaller than 24mp. That's the way most Alphas, including the A55, work. After a brief excursion through some user manuals, it appears that the A700 is the only Alpha that allowed RAW shooting at anything less than maximum resolution. If that's wrong, somebody please correct me.

eccles wrote: The A700 has Raw and cRaw.

I'm not distinguishing between RAW and cRAW for this discussion. Only trying to see if any Alpha can provide a RAW or cRAW file at less than maximum resolution. I was responding to this comment:

RubberDials wrote: The camera also shoots at 12mp and presumably this would give you more headroom if you required it, even more if you switched to jpeg.

My thought was that you will have to switch to JPEG to shoot at 12mp.

eccles wrote: What the A700 does allow is to choose the resolution of the accompanying jpeg image when shooting raw+jpeg

So it sounds like you're saying that the A700 does not allow you to shoot RAW (or cRAW) at less than maximum resolution either.

Edited by sybersitizen - 25 August 2011 at 17:06

Peekayoh wrote: Shrek wrote: I'm sorry, but the supposed benefit on vibration with a mirrorless camera is a nonsense. ......clip. I'm guessing you'll be in a minority of one with that POV!

From my experience with film rangefinder cameras, and some mirrorless, there is a benefit to not having a mirror when photographing with a shutter speed that is "marginal" (near or below the 1 / focal length). With my Konica haxar (35mm lens) and good technique, shutter speeds well below 1/35s are possible.

At "safe" shutter speeds, I am not convinced SLR photos are any less clear than from mirrorless cameras...?

sybersitizen wrote: ... snip You might have to switch to JPEG to get images smaller than 24mp. That's the way most Alphas, including the A55, work. After a brief excursion through some user manuals, it appears that the A700 is the only Alpha that allowed RAW shooting at anything less than maximum resolution. If that's wrong, somebody please correct me.

Would it be considered flippant to say that the A900 will do that in crop mode?