FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedThe A77 thread (cont'd)

Page  <1 78798081>
Author
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 15:37
Originally posted by Techno Techno wrote:

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.   


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?
Tim
If you appreciate comments on your photos, how about returning the favour to others . . .
 



Back to Top
Peekayoh View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 19 January 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 3162
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2011 at 15:39
Originally posted by gaging gaging wrote:

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?
I believe it uses quite a bit of battery power.
Back to Top
maewpa View Drop Down
Alpha Eyes group
Alpha Eyes group

Joined: 27 October 2007
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Thailand
Status: Offline
Posts: 7218
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2011 at 15:43
Originally posted by RubberDials RubberDials wrote:

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.


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.
Paul aka maewpa
Back to Top
rsf3127 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 02 August 2010
Country: Brazil
Location: Floripa
Status: Offline
Posts: 668
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2011 at 15:48
Regardless of moving or fixed mirror, or focus accuracy, Nikon is ahead of sony in noise management.
For me this the main issue Sony will have to improve in this new camera line up in order to prevail over the other brands.

Edited by rsf3127 - 25 August 2011 at 15:58
Back to Top
Peekayoh View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 19 January 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 3162
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2011 at 15:52
Originally posted by Techno 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.
Back to Top
Shrek View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie

Joined: 25 November 2008
Status: Offline
Posts: 66
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2011 at 16:28
I'm sorry, but the supposed benefit on vibration with a mirrorless camera is a nonsense. It will certainly help on a tripod, but for regular hand held shooting there won't be a benefit. I still need to use the (1/focal length * crop factor) formula when shooting with a nex, and I have steady hands and pixel peep.

If Sony want SLT cameras to take off, they will need to produce a REALLY good sensor and not sell it to Nikon IMO.
Canon EOS 5D with Carl Zeiss T*
Canon EOS 60D with Nikon F
Sony NEX-3 with anything I can lay my hands on!!!
 



Back to Top
sybersitizen View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 August 2006
Country: United States
Location: California
Status: Offline
Posts: 14451
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2011 at 16:28
Originally posted by RubberDials 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.
Back to Top
eccles View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 20 August 2007
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Bristol
Status: Offline
Posts: 998
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2011 at 16:32
Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:

Originally posted by RubberDials 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.


The A700 has Raw and cRaw. Both are maximum resolution. What the A700 does allow is to choose the resolution of the accompanying jpeg image when shooting raw+jpeg

Edited by eccles - 25 August 2011 at 16:38
Back to Top
sybersitizen View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 August 2006
Country: United States
Location: California
Status: Offline
Posts: 14451
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2011 at 16:50
Originally posted by eccles 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:

Originally posted by RubberDials 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.


Originally posted by eccles 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
Back to Top
Peekayoh View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 19 January 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 3162
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2011 at 16:52
Originally posted by Shrek 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!
Back to Top
artuk View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 06 July 2007
Country: United Kingdom
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 3751
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2011 at 17:03
Originally posted by Peekayoh Peekayoh wrote:

Originally posted by Shrek 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...?
Art
Back to Top
eccles View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 20 August 2007
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Bristol
Status: Offline
Posts: 998
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2011 at 17:03
Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:

Originally posted by eccles eccles wrote:

The A700 has Raw and cRaw.

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

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.


Correct. When you think of it, the raw file is supposed to be just that. If it's smaller than maximum then it isn't the original raw file. Remember the big stink about earlier firmware not allowing NR to be turned off in the raw file.
Back to Top
Peekayoh View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 19 January 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 3162
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2011 at 17:12
Originally posted by sybersitizen 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?
Back to Top
sybersitizen View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 August 2006
Country: United States
Location: California
Status: Offline
Posts: 14451
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2011 at 17:12
Fine, that's as I understood it to be, although the A700 manual appeared to describe it somewhat differently from the other manuals I checked.

So... for RubberDials and others: You can indeed gain a significant speed boost for almost all camera operations by shooting reduced resolution files, but only in JPEG format. I do it all the time with the A55.
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Camera Talk > A-mount APS-C Page  <1 78798081>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.176 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.