The A77 thread (cont'd)

next 77 pages to go? :)

but i must say i'm pretty dissapointed with Sony dropping the OVF completely :( i was hoping for some real a700 replacement and not better a55

Edited by JekyllAndHyde - 22 June 2011 at 21:03

ISO above 12800 will be useless. Why not get rid of the higher ISO's and then give us ISO 25 and ISO 50?

photoman wrote: ISO above 12800 will be useless. Why not get rid of the higher ISO's and then give us ISO 25 and ISO 50?

Just break out the ND filters, if you're gonna have a "semi translucent" film on one end of the lens you may as well throw one on the front end too

photoman wrote: ISO above 12800 will be useless. Why not get rid of the higher ISO's and then give us ISO 25 and ISO 50?

I'd like the low ISO too, but it is interesting to see over at DXO that the A580 has better ISO 100 than the A900, so I'm both hoping and expecting that there will be improvements with the low ISO too; less noise and greater dynamic range.

And there's speculation that the really high ISO might be done the same way that it's done on the NEX - several shots fired rapidly at very high ISO and then aligned and merged with the purpose of getting rid of the noise.
You can't use it in every circumstance, but it can work exceedingly well and is not just a gimmick - using it, I can shoot at ISO 6400 and get shots that are at least as clean and sharp as a single shot taken at ISO 1600.

a little off topic, but that unmarked lens looks to me suspiciously like a 24-120 f/4 i'd honestly rather have that than a CZ 16-50.

jvsanchez wrote: a little off topic, but that unmarked lens looks to me suspiciously like a 24-120 f/4 i'd honestly rather have that than a CZ 16-50.

Didn't realise that it was something new. Size wise I would think it could be a 24-105/4 - however that would kill off the 28-75/2.8 as a budget option. I don't know about the size of the Nikon 24-120, however the Canon 24-105/4L is bigger. But Minolta lenses used to be smaller then Canon's and this lens seems slightly bigger then the 24-105/3.5-4.5. It looks different then the 16-105 to me. So, is this the legendary much rumored 24-105/4G?

Beachrider wrote: Why are you guys in-love with an arbitrary ISO number? There is nothing magical about ISO-50. It was just useful because of the inherent sensitivity of photo-chemicals. There isn't any reason to expect sensors to have similar sensitivity. Am I missing something?

From my perspective, it's not so much about wanting ISO-50, as it is about wanting even less noise and greater dynamic range. (Even on the A900 at ISO-200, there is still considerable room for the noise to be improved within the shadows)

The current emphasis with new cameras at the moment, all seems to be about improving the high ISO which I'd certainly appreciate on occasions, but more typically, I'm able to shoot at ISO-200 and so improvements there would benefit me more often.
And I would guess a typical A900 user might think the same way - if you read any reviews before buying the A900, you already knew that it didn't excel as high ISO performance compared to existing competition, so you probably bought it for other reasons.
So it's great to see Sony catching up with high-ISO performance, but I hope they also stay ahead of the curve on their existing strengths and for me this included their low ISO performance, with high dynamic range making a superb combination when coupled with the 24Mp

(and ISO 50 also gives benefits for some flash photography, long exposures without the need for ND filters and similarly I frequently hit the 1/8000sec limit when shooting with below f2 on a sunny day (in the UK!) and having ISO 25 would help then too)