FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedThe A77 thread (cont'd)

Page  <1 7778798081>
Author
albnok View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 01 October 2007
Location: Malaysia
Status: Offline
Posts: 1018
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2011 at 09:19
artuk: I tried an A77 with a F43, to trigger my F43. In the menu it said Version 1.00. However they did not have final production firmware in it.

Given my experience with the F43 being exactly as the F58 (plus some fixes) I can be optimistic that if the F43 works, the F58 should work as well, but the F20 would probably not work.
 



Back to Top
RubberDials View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 03 January 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 1339
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2011 at 11:50
Originally posted by mawz 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.
Back to Top
FX View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 09 January 2007
Country: United Kingdom
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 487
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2011 at 11:52
Some good Video and still samples here:

http://vimeo.com/28075979

Edited by FX - 25 August 2011 at 12:27
α100|Sony 18-70|Sony 75-300|Sony 100/2.8 Macro | Manfrotto 190XPROB | Lowepro Rezo 180AW
Back to Top
pegelli View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Dyxum Administrator

Joined: 02 June 2007
Country: Belgium
Location: Schilde
Status: Offline
Posts: 37556
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2011 at 11:57
Originally posted by RubberDials RubberDials wrote:

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.


Not saying you're wrong, but if it's a "spray and prey" burst only one or two frames of the "peak moment" will have to be developed.
You can see the April Foolishness 2023 exhibition here Another great show of the talent we have on Dyxum
Back to Top
raebeizof View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 24 April 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 237
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2011 at 12:24
Originally posted by maewpa maewpa wrote:

[QUOTE=twm47099] ......
Unrelated and on reflection I'm wishing they hadn't bothered with the 24MP - at 16MP it might have been a near-perfect camera for me (well, a near-perfect specification EVF camera with movie function I won't use!). Still have high hopes for it, though and it looks like it will be a lot of fun to use.


I completely agree.

It's a backward step from Sony if image quality/high ISO isn't even as good as the A55! We shall see though. I've just seen an image comparison between the A77 and a Sony NEX5. The images(s) were resized and the A77 image was much noisier.

On a side note, aren't Nikon going to be using the exact same sensor as the A77? They must be happy with it. Or maybe their sensor 'tweaks' are better than Sony's?

Anyway, I'm holding fire on my opinion and purchase until proper reviews appear from people here on Dyxum and elsewhere.
Back to Top
blackdog View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 21 January 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 935
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2011 at 12:39
I agree with the 16MP idea. I'm using a Pentax K5 and the sensor is wonderful. Really low shadow noise. Beautiful, clean low iso (reminds me of my old a100) and very useable high ISO. Perhaps Sony will achieve similar results with the 24MP with the final firmware, but the lower max iso makes me think otherwise.

Interesting to see what Nikon does. It seems like a foregone conclusion that they'll use the 24MP sensor in the D400, but if they used the 16MP sensor and were able to better what they got out of it with the D7000 (which many consider the cream of the APS-C for IQ), that may really leave Sony out on a limb. We'll see.
 



Back to Top
924nut View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 29 October 2005
Country: United Kingdom
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 252
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2011 at 13:13
RubberDials wrote:

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.


Not saying you're wrong, but if it's a "spray and prey" burst only one or two frames of the "peak moment" will have to be developed.


As someone who uses Sony 700s for all my Karting motorsport work _ i am enthusiastic to try the camera but concerned about things such as this buffer situation and the fact we only have SD cards which are generally slower than CF - (hopefully someone will prove me wrong on this)
As for the burst rate and producing a high workload - I personally dont use continuous that much, but it is actually switched onfor those occasions when an incident happens in front of you - problem is a sequence of karts climbing over each other etc could take several seconds - a 1sec burst filling the buffer does not sound good - again someone prove me wrong as my 700s are getting old now
2006 3rd Place in Motorsport News Photograph of the Year & a Runner up in the 2005 Competion - Both on Minolta 7D
Back to Top
WildWater View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 September 2006
Country: United Kingdom
Location: London (SW)
Status: Offline
Posts: 426
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2011 at 13:31
Originally posted by RubberDials RubberDials wrote:

<snip>
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.


Agreed - which makes it odd that the 1D has a fine JPEG burst depth of 121 frames (about 5 times the RAW depth) yet the A77's fine JPEG depth is only slightly more than the RAW (at 17 vs 13 RAW)
Chris
Back to Top
kefkafloyd View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 July 2006
Country: United States
Location: Massachusetts
Status: Offline
Posts: 2455
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2011 at 13:35
It all depends on how fast the machine clears the buffer and how slow the framerate while it is doing it. Until someone sits down with the latest UHS SD cards or memory sticks and does some buffer tests, we won't know for sure.

The a700 with a non-UDMA card locks up hard after it hits the buffer, while a faster card will at least slow to 3 FPS, for instance.
Back to Top
gaging View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Knowldegbase Contributor

Joined: 21 May 2010
Country: United States
Location: Holt, Michigan
Status: Offline
Posts: 574
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2011 at 14:04
As I understand, there is an on/off option for the electronic first curtain shutter. The electronic first curtain shutter seems like an advantage to me, so why would anyone want to turn it off?
Back to Top
Techno View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 20 October 2006
Country: United Kingdom
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 210
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2011 at 14:14
Originally posted by raebeizof raebeizof wrote:

Originally posted by maewpa maewpa wrote:

[QUOTE=twm47099] ......
Unrelated and on reflection I'm wishing they hadn't bothered with the 24MP - at 16MP it might have been a near-perfect camera for me (well, a near-perfect specification EVF camera with movie function I won't use!). Still have high hopes for it, though and it looks like it will be a lot of fun to use.


I completely agree.

It's a backward step from Sony if image quality/high ISO isn't even as good as the A55! We shall see though. I've just seen an image comparison between the A77 and a Sony NEX5. The images(s) were resized and the A77 image was much noisier.

On a side note, aren't Nikon going to be using the exact same sensor as the A77? They must be happy with it. Or maybe their sensor 'tweaks' are better than Sony's?

Anyway, I'm holding fire on my opinion and purchase until proper reviews appear from people here on Dyxum and elsewhere.


If you resize the image to pixel level I think that the A77 picture is bound to be noisier than the 16Mp A55. If you look at the image (at the same size) it will almost certainly be less noisy. Sony aren't stupid.

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 you're right to await PROPER reviews of a production camera before making your judgement. I reckon the A77 is going to be a winner.   
Back to Top
klw10 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 06 May 2009
Country: United States
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 1366
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2011 at 14:19
I hope it is better than the A55. I have found that the A55 is good but my A900 at the same ISO cleans up better in Light Room 3 in my opinion. Maybe I am the only one that feels that way but it does appear that way for me.
Back to Top
tigertimb View Drop Down
Alpha Eyes group
Alpha Eyes group

Joined: 22 November 2007
Country: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 5630
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2011 at 14:34
Originally posted by Techno 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
Tim
If you appreciate comments on your photos, how about returning the favour to others . . .
Back to Top
Techno View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 20 October 2006
Country: United Kingdom
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 210
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2011 at 15:15
Originally posted by tigertimb tigertimb wrote:

Originally posted by Techno 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.   
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Camera Talk > A-mount APS-C Page  <1 7778798081>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.109 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.