Illuminate wrote:

Gimme a break...drivel

BTW: I'm a proud NEX-7 owner

Your contribution to this discussion has been illuminating ;x

ArtisticGlamour wrote:

Illuminate wrote:
Good guess..50mm at F2, 1/20th

Yeah, with the bright domelight and 1/20 shutter speed and a stationary subject, I'm not really sure what your point is. That doesn't show much except the background noise in the background is about the same.


Oh please...do tell? Explain further...

As in that sample image I referenced was 30% capture and 70% questionable PP. It doesn't in the least show the hi ISO ability of the camera in question. I asked for something considered "hi ISO" this year (2013).

Illuminate wrote:
As in that sample image I referenced was 30% capture and 70% questionable PP. It doesn't in the least show the hi ISO ability of the camera in question. I asked for something considered "hi ISO" this year (2013).

Might I direct you to this fantastic website called DPreview, you can do a direct noise comparison between the A99, 5DmkIII, D4, etc.

My A99 JUST came, I will do my best to get some crazy high iso shots asap, because lets all admit, this is the absolute most important factor in purchasing a camera in the year 2013 with modern-age sensors

FKW Studio wrote:

Might I direct you to this fantastic website called DPreview, you can do a direct noise comparison between the A99, 5DmkIII, D4, etc.

My A99 JUST came, I will do my best to get some crazy high iso shots asap, because lets all admit, this is the absolute most important factor in purchasing a camera in the year 2013 with modern-age sensors

YA...looking forward to it..high ISO shooter.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:

First, calm down. This isn't about anyone pissing on your Canon 20D, or you personally (although you could take notes about that yourself).

Second, the image of the wolf is at iso 2500, and is the highest iso/lowest light image I got from the weekends shoot. It shows exactly the noise at the camera's full REACH of the lens/sensor combination at iso 2500. A little different than a well lit domelight shot with a prime at 1/20@f2.

Third, if you are going to make a comment about the guy behind the lens on the images I posted...you should back it up. Please, comment further, or STFU.

The 20D is long gone...and you missed my point obviously. My backup is a Nikon D3s which rocks at ISO 6400. Better than the 5DII it replaced at that amplification.

Illuminate wrote:

YA...looking forward to it..high ISO shooter.

Gee why such a negative tone? I shoot primarily in the studio, lots of commercial work, all in lower isos. I also shoot events every weekend and I gave you a very sound and technical explanation of why I (and just about every other photographer I shoot with) have no need to push iso1600. Your image of the bride in the limo would've been cleaner if you used a lower iso with a CTOed strobe- which doesn't even have to do with noise but with color (that uncorrected yellow tungsten is just ick) and a better lit image (what's that? there's more to making images than iso performance?), but if you prefer to just gain up to 3200/6400 go for it!

ArtisticGlamour wrote:

Illuminate wrote:
The 20D is long gone...and you missed my point obviously. My backup is a Nikon D3s which rocks at ISO 6400. Better than the 5DII it replaced at that amplification.

Here, let me refresh your memory...

Clear enough for your reading comprehension skills? Questions?

Another one who lacks the ability to read and comprehend...

FKW Studio wrote:
I shoot Sony because all the Snobs shoot Nikon. The Canon guys I work with are very open, but man something about that Nikon horse. They camera racists lol

Not me..I work for a living and I want the right tools for the jobs I do. I use three different camera platforms but if I had to choose one, it wouldn't be Sony.

My response in this thread was to the issue of high ISO..which I haven't really seen yet. My NEX-7 is great, as mentioned up to ISO 800 i'll say. Beyond that it's not to my liking.

Let's be reasonable though. Very few here show work that is shot above 1600 so the files at that level and below should be spectacular. Haven't seen a proper sample of that yet.

high ISO is not 1600!

We have moved beyond that as of 2010...sheesh.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:

Another one whose REAL brave from 3000 miles away. LOL!

WHY are you in this thread? Do you need to read the OP once again? Do you have anything SONY to contribute. Maybe you could "sum it up" for us in one post?

Brave??

Buddy if you want to find me just say so. I've got the cash to travel.

Illuminate wrote:
Brave??

Buddy if you want to find me just say so. I've got the cash to travel.

Are you kidding me?

IMO low iso: 50-400
Mid iso: 400-800
High iso: 1000-3200
Ultra high iso: 6400 +

but really now. its just a word. tomorrow I'm going to call 200iso High ISO ok?

Illuminate wrote:
Buddy if you want to find me just say so. I've got the cash to travel.

Talk is cheap.

Illuminate wrote:

Did you read my reply to his post?

Nobody in their right mind considers ISO 1600 to be high ISO these days. A sample image at that amplification says nothing about a modern camera, but lot's about the person taking the image.

Who told you that lie. People still do consider 1600, high iso. Many don't shoot that high. Anything that it is 800 and above is considered high iso.

Illuminate wrote:

Not me..I work for a living and I want the right tools for the jobs I do. I use three different camera platforms but if I had to choose one, it wouldn't be Sony.

My response in this thread was to the issue of high ISO..which I haven't really seen yet. My NEX-7 is great, as mentioned up to ISO 800 i'll say. Beyond that it's not to my liking.

Let's be reasonable though. Very few here show work that is shot above 1600 so the files at that level and below should be spectacular. Haven't seen a proper sample of that yet.

high ISO is not 1600!

We have moved beyond that as of 2010...sheesh.

I work for a living too. And I know other Sony users that shoot with them doing professional work. So your point, "the right tool" doesn't compute when the Sony is very capable. Your point is more subjective than about a camera's lack of.

Legacys 7 wrote:
Actually it's not early at all. It's up to you to test it out for yourself. That same sensor is also inside the Nikon D600. The sensor is already being used in Sony's compact camera, but it's not their Next cameras. It would cost just as much as the A99. The compact stationed lens they're using it now, is priced the same as the A99. Most of the complaints that I've read are related  to bells and whistles and nothing related to the quality of the image. Some think that it has more bells and whistles that are geared towards video. You can never satisfy everyone. It's a damn good camera.

It is a little early, yes.  It's out for sale/rental, but since I have no interest in the A system I wouldn't bother renting it to see how it performs.  I'll be able to do some good reading on it in another month or so though.  If it seems to be holding up well once the newness wears off, I'll probably buy a full-frame NEX sight unseen once it's announced.

The fact that the sensor is also in the D600 does not tell me how it performs in the A99.  It gives me an idea, but there are too many other factors.  For instance, different processors.  Also the A99 leaves the sensor on all the time, which causes it to heat up more than the D600 without Live View ... this also affects how the picture looks.

To give you an analogy, using the same sensor is like using the same engine in a different car.  My Ford Taurus has the same 6 cylinder EcoBoost engine as the base model Mustang.  But in the Mustang the engine and other parts are tweaked, the car is a little lighter, and it drives the rear wheels, while mine drives the front wheels.  As a result my car isn't nearly as fast as a Mustang in terms of acceleration or top speed, even though it has the same engine.  It also shares that engine with a few pickup trucks, but my Taurus is also not a pickup.

Those of you that posted A99 images, thank you very much.  That has been very helpful for me.  I only do a few weddings a year, and about that many fundraisers/concerts/other events, so my needs in the ISO department are pretty reasonable.  I'll need more time to be totally sold on the idea, but these look better than my D7000 by a pretty good margin, at least on the computer screen.

Zack Zoll wrote:
It is a little early, yes.  It's out for sale/rental, but since I have no interest in the A system I wouldn't bother renting it to see how it performs.  I'll be able to do some good reading on it in another month or so though.  If it seems to be holding up well once the newness wears off, I'll probably buy a full-frame NEX sight unseen once it's announced.

The fact that the sensor is also in the D600 does not tell me how it performs in the A99.  It gives me an idea, but there are too many other factors.  For instance, different processors.  Also the A99 leaves the sensor on all the time, which causes it to heat up more than the D600 without Live View ... this also affects how the picture looks.

To give you an analogy, using the same sensor is like using the same engine in a different car.  My Ford Taurus has the same 6 cylinder EcoBoost engine as the base model Mustang.  But in the Mustang the engine and other parts are tweaked, the car is a little lighter, and it drives the rear wheels, while mine drives the front wheels.  As a result my car isn't nearly as fast as a Mustang in terms of acceleration or top speed, even though it has the same engine.  It also shares that engine with a few pickup trucks, but my Taurus is also not a pickup.

Those of you that posted A99 images, thank you very much.  That has been very helpful for me.  I only do a few weddings a year, and about that many fundraisers/concerts/other events, so my needs in the ISO department are pretty reasonable.  I'll need more time to be totally sold on the idea, but these look better than my D7000 by a pretty good margin, at least on the computer screen.

Hold up. It's not early. It's only early if you lack the desire to want to learn. The best way to get an understanding of a camera is to do your own hands on. Waiting for the masses to give you a decent review doesn't help much due to bias reasons.

Your example of the sensor being on all the time, heating up and affects the picture, is both terrible and shows a lack of information and knowledge on the A99. It doesn't have a heating issue. Comparing that to a engine isn't a good analogy. Outside of the evf and mirror, the approach is the same. The camera sensor doesn't over heat.

Legacys 7 wrote:

Who told you that lie. People still do consider 1600, high iso. Many don't shoot that high. Anything that it is 800 and above is considered high iso.

I have photographed at ISO 3200.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

I have photographed at ISO 3200.

Who told you that lie. People still do consider 1600, high iso. Many don't shoot that high. Anything that it is 800 and above is considered high iso.

You're confusing this with all and most.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
Only on Model Mayhem can a simple/friendly conversation about Sony's at iso 1600 turn into some pissing match about what the definition of "high" iso is or is not.
Jesus.

The Original Post mentioned around 1600, which I consider fairly high iso (as it was in the days of film). WTF.

It is Model Mayhem. You surely didnt expect a totally rational discussion, did you?

I come from the film days, I cut my teeth on pan-x and ASA 25 chromes......

When I was in high school I was pushing tri-x to 1600, even more--- but, then I thought HUGE clumpy grain was waaaay cool.... 

When I got "serious" about digital, iso 400 was pretty damn iffy. Now, I have images in my portfolio that I shot at iso 102400. Just.because.I.could.

"High iso" really kinda depends on your starting point of reference.

I dunno where its all going, but 10 years from now I suspect that if you can see it, you will be able to shoot a clean , noise free image of it.

Aint technology grand? Think of the creative things we can do now that were out of reach only a couple years ago.

rfordphotos wrote:
It is Model Mayhem. You surely didnt expect a totally rational discussion, did you?

LOL! It is comical, and usually I can kinda follow along.

I was thinking we needed a good SONY thread...but regret even posting this one.

Dean Soapbox Killer Photo wrote:
Gentlemen, please stay on topic.

Thanks.

Legacys 7 wrote:
Hold up. It's not early. It's only early if you lack the desire to want to learn. The best way to get an understanding of a camera is to do your own hands on. Waiting for the masses to give you a decent review doesn't help much due to bias reasons.

Your example of the sensor being on all the time, heating up and affects the picture, is both terrible and shows a lack of information and knowledge on the A99. It doesn't have a heating issue. Comparing that to a engine isn't a good analogy. Outside of the evf and mirror, the approach is the same. The camera sensor doesn't over heat.

I didn't say it overheated.  I said that it was on all the time.  Which is it.  It constantly received electricity and, while not overheating, does produce more heat than if it were off.  It's a perfectly valid comparison to make between that and a car engine, and is the difference between a transmission that shifts into third gear at 30 MPH and one shifts into third gear at 60 MPH.  The same engine/sensor, used in two different ways, will provide two different results.  If you're not a car guy, that's fine ... but that's how it works.  Companies pass around sensors and engines all the time to try and make more models out of less parts.

Believe it or not, the sensor is only one part of the camera.  There's a whole bunch of other crap wired up in there.

As far as not wanting to learn ... well, that's not true.  If it were, I wouldn't be part of this thread, would I?  I mean, unless I was just here to yell at people.

Zack Zoll wrote:
I didn't say it overheated.  I said that it was on all the time.  Which is it.  It constantly received electricity and, while not overheating, does produce more heat than if it were off.  It's a perfectly valid comparison to make between that and a car engine, and is the difference between a transmission that shifts into third gear at 30 MPH and one shifts into third gear at 60 MPH.  The same engine/sensor, used in two different ways, will provide two different results.  If you're not a car guy, that's fine ... but that's how it works.  Companies pass around sensors and engines all the time to try and make more models out of less parts.

Believe it or not, the sensor is only one part of the camera.  There's a whole bunch of other crap wired up in there.

As far as not wanting to learn ... well, that's not true.  If it were, I wouldn't be part of this thread, would I?  I mean, unless I was just here to yell at people.

Here's what I'd stated. "Your example of the sensor being on all the time, heating up and affects the picture, is both terrible and shows a lack of information and knowledge on the A99. It doesn't have a heating issue. Comparing that to a engine isn't a good analogy. Outside of the evf and mirror, the approach is the same. The camera sensor doesn't over heat."

The over heat part in the end was a typo. What I'd meant was, it doesn't have a heating issue. But I'd pointed that out in the beginning of this paragraph.

Regarding your car analogy. There was some details to why I said that it's a poor example to use. I'd said it because your example doesn't apply here, due to it not having heating issues. That's what your point is relating to image quality. You haven't even seen the results nor tested it out to conclude this. That's called speculation. 

Car guy. Sorry Charlie, I know a lot about cars. I've worked on them and even if I weren't a car guy, I don't need to know anything about them to get your point. I understood that. I just didn't agree with it.

No you're not willing to learn. You're posting about the camera, but you want to take the route where people will have bias points of view to validate or confirm if the camera is a winner or looser. Like I'd pointed out, the best way to know is to get a hands on. Not wait some months down the line by reading reviews. I do my own test and reviews. If the camera sucks or good it's due to me testing it out.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
Only on Model Mayhem can a simple/friendly conversation about Sony's at iso 1600 turn into some pissing match about what the definition of "high" iso is or is not.
Jesus.

The Original Post mentioned around 1600, which I consider fairly high iso (as it was in the days of film). WTF.

Tell me about it. Welcome to M.M. where shit get shifted into a different topic.