login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > SONY cameras good for low light/high ISO? Search   Reply
1234last
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3,846
Phoenix, Arizona, US


Thread was destroyed, and should be locked, thanks. wink
Feb 11 13 08:35 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
realistgva
Posts: 421
Plan-les-Ouates, Geneva, Switzerland


I have both the A77 and A99,

The A77 was world better than the A850 in low light.
The A99 is just blowing it away
check out this comparison https://plus.google.com/103146166984102 … joiAcBQvjY
Feb 11 13 08:41 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Select Models
Posts: 35,410
Upland, California, US


Dude... you shoulda posted a high ISO sample pic... kinda like I always do... Nikon D600 shooter here thou... wink

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v330/GaryAbigt/Jin1.jpg

In the forest... and yes... well over 1600 ISO... wink
Feb 11 13 08:42 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3,846
Phoenix, Arizona, US


Feb 11 13 10:41 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
CZ Digital
Posts: 78
Prague, Prague, Czech Republic


1600 is about where the comfort zone ends for me on my a77 and NEX5.  I can push a bit higher as the raw files have a lot of headroom and react nicely to denoise efforts but I usually don't risk it.  The 1/3 stop of light loss due to the translucent mirror isn't really noticed under normal shooting conditions unless you're pixel peeping.

If I'm putzing around town at night I will switch over to jpg and use the multishot image stacking if I don't have time / not inclined to setup a tripod.  ISO 3200 with image stacking gets surprisingly clean results as long as you don't mind a bit of lost detail with the "world class" Sony jpg engine ;-)

I'm enjoying the hell out of the EVF, fully articulated screen, and a lot of other features the Sony cameras bring to the table.  Will be getting the a99 and relegating the a77 to backup duties later this summer when and IF the EU prices ever settle down to something reasonable (currently a few hundred $ MORE than the D800 / 5D3). :-(
Feb 11 13 11:18 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Legacys 7
Posts: 33,776
San Francisco, California, US


Did you download the latest firmware update? I had posted a thread that directed Sony users to the website where they're able to download. Some have pointed out that the noise have been improved in the latest update.
Feb 11 13 01:02 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Raoul Isidro Images
Posts: 5,985
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia


Almost all new DSLR cameras today are great for low light.

The thing to worry about is the dreaded hot pixel which is part and parcel of low light and long exposure.

Sony doesn't seem to suffer with this, but then again, they only hold a small chunk of the pie, and users don't seem to complain about them.

.
Feb 11 13 01:11 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3,846
Phoenix, Arizona, US


Feb 11 13 02:56 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Zack Zoll
Posts: 2,272
Glens Falls, New York, US


I have the NEX7, and it is ... okay in low light.  1600 ISO images seem to make decent 4x6s, or 8x12s if they're black and white.  Past that, it's really black and white only, as far as I'm concerned.

The A77 is slightly worse.  Which makes sense, because it's losing something like half a stop of light to the pellicle mirror.

I have not used the A99, but I understand it tests quite well.  About the same as the cameras from the Big Two in that range, according to DPReview.

But here's the trick, and the reason why current Sony cameras are all worse in low light than they test:  Sony cameras are better at resolving highlights than other brands, and worse at resolving shadows.  You can pull out more detail from an underexposed image with a Nikon or a Canon than you can with a Sony.  Noise occurs mostly in shadow areas.  Because of all this, the current Sony cameras actually perform worse at high ISO settings than tests would indicate.

My NEX7 is my go-to camera, but I use my D7000 for weddings and such, as it performs much better at high ISOs than the Sony does.  'Tests' show something like a 1 stop difference, but in practice I find it to be closer to 2.
Feb 11 13 04:57 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
K E S L E R
Posts: 11,574
Los Angeles, California, US


I had the NEX 7 and the A99, both sucks for low light.

NEX 7 sucks at anything above ISO 400, A99 is 1 stop better at best. 

If you like grain, sure both are good at producing noise, A99 has grain at ISO 100, kinda sad.
Feb 11 13 05:03 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
FKW Studio
Posts: 106
Crofton, Maryland, US


K E S L E R wrote:
I had the NEX 7 and the A99, both sucks for low light.

NEX 7 sucks at anything above ISO 400, A99 is 1 stop better at best. 

If you like grain, sure both are good at producing noise, A99 has grain at ISO 100, kinda sad.

Kessler you either have the highest standards for iso performance or you are simply out of your mind- the A99 has similar if not better high iso performance than the 5dMkIII and D600!

I have been using the A850 for two years- I disagree with the above statement saying the A77 is better, unless you are shooting jpeg- in RAW the A850/A900 are definitely still a full-stop ahead of the A77. The A99 is 2 full stops ahead of the A850 and completely usable up to 1600.

In the studio these cameras excel for their dynamic range and true colors, my original reason to switch to Sony from Canon. I also work for an event photography studio in Baltimore however and regularly am using my Sony A850 iso1600 and beyond while shooting events, the quality is great if you expose your images properly. I have found the Sony's sensors to be extremely forgiving with blown highlights, shadow-noise seems to be their weakness, but I'll take the colors any day over the flat noise-free images of canikon!

Getting my A99 tomorrow and pumped for the even better image quality.

Feb 11 13 05:32 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
FKW Studio
Posts: 106
Crofton, Maryland, US


Zack Zoll wrote:
I have the NEX7, and it is ... okay in low light.  1600 ISO images seem to make decent 4x6s, or 8x12s if they're black and white.  Past that, it's really black and white only, as far as I'm concerned.

The A77 is slightly worse.  Which makes sense, because it's losing something like half a stop of light to the pellicle mirror.

I have not used the A99, but I understand it tests quite well.  About the same as the cameras from the Big Two in that range, according to DPReview.

But here's the trick, and the reason why current Sony cameras are all worse in low light than they test:  Sony cameras are better at resolving highlights than other brands, and worse at resolving shadows.  You can pull out more detail from an underexposed image with a Nikon or a Canon than you can with a Sony.  Noise occurs mostly in shadow areas.  Because of all this, the current Sony cameras actually perform worse at high ISO settings than tests would indicate.

My NEX7 is my go-to camera, but I use my D7000 for weddings and such, as it performs much better at high ISOs than the Sony does.  'Tests' show something like a 1 stop difference, but in practice I find it to be closer to 2.

Zack you will find that if you output both your NEX7 and D7000 files at the same size (you have to remember the NEX7 is 24mp) that the noise advantage you think exists in the D7000 will go away quickly- 24mp when downsampled (what is it, 16mp for the D7000?) will go a LONG way.

Feb 11 13 05:34 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Legacys 7
Posts: 33,776
San Francisco, California, US


K E S L E R wrote:
I had the NEX 7 and the A99, both sucks for low light.

NEX 7 sucks at anything above ISO 400, A99 is 1 stop better at best. 

If you like grain, sure both are good at producing noise, A99 has grain at ISO 100, kinda sad.

Kesler, you're smoking. I've seen your rants about this camera on Dpreview. And your rants about the Nikon D800 and Canon. I use the A99 and haven't experienced any of the issues that you were constantly complaining about. It's "kinda sad" when people constantly look for flaws in a camera. Not to be mistaken for things that actually do exist. 100 iso is clean. No grain.

Feb 11 13 06:56 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Zack Zoll
Posts: 2,272
Glens Falls, New York, US


FKW Studio wrote:
Zack you will find that if you output both your NEX7 and D7000 files at the same size (you have to remember the NEX7 is 24mp) that the noise advantage you think exists in the D7000 will go away quickly- 24mp when downsampled (what is it, 16mp for the D7000?) will go a LONG way.

That's sort of true.  But since you usually use high ISOs in the dark, that means that relative inability of the Sony cameras to render shadow detail means that a higher ISO is often needed than with the D7000, or other cameras.

Again, the Sony cameras in theory are every bit as capable as the others.  In practice, this is not the case.

Of course, that same tendency to resolve highlights better than shadows is exactly why I love the NEX so much in the first place - it gives is a tonal range more akin to film capture.

For my needs, it is the best digital camera I've ever used.  But I have no misconceptions about it.  Between constantly running the sensor, and the way it exposes shadows, it's just not in the same league for high ISO shots.

Feb 11 13 07:01 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Legacys 7
Posts: 33,776
San Francisco, California, US


Zack Zoll wrote:

That's sort of true.  But since you usually use high ISOs in the dark, that means that relative inability of the Sony cameras to render shadow detail means that a higher ISO is often needed than with the D7000, or other cameras.

Again, the Sony cameras in theory are every bit as capable as the others.  In practice, this is not the case.

Of course, that same tendency to resolve highlights better than shadows is exactly why I love the NEX so much in the first place - it gives is a tonal range more akin to film capture.

For my needs, it is the best digital camera I've ever used.  But I have no misconceptions about it.  Between constantly running the sensor, and the way it exposes shadows, it's just not in the same league for high ISO shots.

The A99 is a different duck. It's more than up to the task in the high iso. Keep that in mind.

Feb 11 13 07:13 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
FKW Studio
Posts: 106
Crofton, Maryland, US


Zack Zoll wrote:
That's sort of true.  But since you usually use high ISOs in the dark, that means that relative inability of the Sony cameras to render shadow detail means that a higher ISO is often needed than with the D7000, or other cameras.

Again, the Sony cameras in theory are every bit as capable as the others.  In practice, this is not the case.

Of course, that same tendency to resolve highlights better than shadows is exactly why I love the NEX so much in the first place - it gives is a tonal range more akin to film capture.

For my needs, it is the best digital camera I've ever used.  But I have no misconceptions about it.  Between constantly running the sensor, and the way it exposes shadows, it's just not in the same league for high ISO shots.

Zack I'm sorry but I still have to disagree with your statement that Sony cameras are not "every bit as capable of others." - this is of course if you sincerely are only defining cameras and their capabilities by their iso performance over 1600... come on, man. That's hobbyist gear-head behavior.

When you are in the dark, what do you do? ... you use STROBES- and if you use them properly, you create proper exposures, exposures free of noise. And thats on my 4 year old A850. Even a kid could process these raws, they are that clean- and the detail that remains smothers what I used to get from my Mark II and its excellent banding issues...

I am a working professional, my bills are paid by my sony gear, and if you don't believe my cameras are as capable as my counterparts shooting Canikon, ask my clients who hired me over them what they think smile The Inbody IS coupled with fast zeiss primes negates the negligible difference in iso performance from the pellicle mirror anyways.

Feb 11 13 07:37 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Legacys 7
Posts: 33,776
San Francisco, California, US


FKW Studio wrote:

Zack I'm sorry but I still have to disagree with your statement that Sony cameras are not "every bit as capable of others." - this is of course if you sincerely are only defining cameras and their capabilities by their iso performance over 1600... come on, man. That's hobbyist gear-head behavior.

When you are in the dark, what do you do? ... you use STROBES- and if you use them properly, you create proper exposures, exposures free of noise. And thats on my 4 year old A850. Even a kid could process these raws, they are that clean- and the detail that remains smothers what I used to get from my Mark II and its excellent banding issues...

I am a working professional, my bills are paid by my sony gear, and if you don't believe my cameras are as capable as my counterparts shooting Canikon, ask my clients who hired me over them what they think smile The Inbody IS coupled with fast zeiss primes negates the negligible difference in iso performance from the pellicle mirror anyways.

And with the A99 being able to produce excellent images at 6400, it's in the league with the D800 and 5DII..

Feb 11 13 07:41 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Zack Zoll
Posts: 2,272
Glens Falls, New York, US


I made it pretty clear that I hadn't used the A99, and that when referring to 'Sonys' I was referring to other models I had used ... which is basically all of them, aside from the A900 and A99.

I'm using the NEX 7 with the Minolta 58 f/1.2 as my go-to nighttime lens, but I also use a Leica 40 f/2.  During the day I sometimes use some so-so AF lenses so I can shoot easier from the hip, and in-studio I use the Schneider 50 and 135.  Trust me when I say that the glass isn't the issue.

I think the images I take are just as good as what I would get from 35mm film at night.  I think that the D7000 is clearer, with or without strobes.  I don't like the images nearly as much as those with the NEX and better glass, but they are clearer.
Feb 11 13 08:23 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
FKW Studio
Posts: 106
Crofton, Maryland, US


Zack Zoll wrote:
I made it pretty clear that I hadn't used the A99, and that when referring to 'Sonys' I was referring to other models I had used ... which is basically all of them, aside from the A900 and A99.

I'm using the NEX 7 with the Minolta 58 f/1.2 as my go-to nighttime lens, but I also use a Leica 40 f/2.  During the day I sometimes use some so-so AF lenses so I can shoot easier from the hip, and in-studio I use the Schneider 50 and 135.  Trust me when I say that the glass isn't the issue.

I think the images I take are just as good as what I would get from 35mm film at night.  I think that the D7000 is clearer, with or without strobes.  I don't like the images nearly as much as those with the NEX and better glass, but they are clearer.

Clearer- until you upscale them to 24mp wink

Feb 11 13 08:39 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
FKW Studio
Posts: 106
Crofton, Maryland, US


Clearer- until you upscale them to 24mp wink - no point in comparing images at different output sizes!
Feb 11 13 08:39 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Legacys 7
Posts: 33,776
San Francisco, California, US


Zack Zoll wrote:
I made it pretty clear that I hadn't used the A99, and that when referring to 'Sonys' I was referring to other models I had used ... which is basically all of them, aside from the A900 and A99.

I'm using the NEX 7 with the Minolta 58 f/1.2 as my go-to nighttime lens, but I also use a Leica 40 f/2.  During the day I sometimes use some so-so AF lenses so I can shoot easier from the hip, and in-studio I use the Schneider 50 and 135.  Trust me when I say that the glass isn't the issue.

I think the images I take are just as good as what I would get from 35mm film at night.  I think that the D7000 is clearer, with or without strobes.  I don't like the images nearly as much as those with the NEX and better glass, but they are clearer.

Yeah I got that. But further down in comment, your post reads more like Sony cameras in general statement,(current) instead of those that you've worked with. But you cleared that up and we're on the same page. Another reason to bring the A99 in the topic, your point about the highlights that are available in the Sony while loosing details in the shadow vs. the others have better noise in the shadows and detail. The A99 shines in this area. Also, something that I'd noticed, in the very high iso, Sony has more detail. It doesn't loose detail like I'd noticed with the D600 at high iso. You can look at some examples online to see this.

Feb 11 13 09:01 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
K E S L E R
Posts: 11,574
Los Angeles, California, US


I rant because I have high expectations.  I rant because I have real world experience with these issues. 

For those who think the A99 have better high ISO performance than the 5D3, all I gotta say is ROFL.

When my camera isn't up to the task for which it is intended for, I complain.  Sure I can give a list of issues I had with my A99 but who cares?  Do I hate Sony?  Nope, Love them, used a NEX7 for 6-7 months straight.  Do I hate the A99? Nope, I just laugh at the fan boys who seriously think its a camera to beat all other cameras.

3 Things I hate most about this camera,

1) AF..  Yup, ironic isn't it?  Even the NEX7 has better AF reliability for Single shot AF.  The A99 will STRUGGLE with back lighting, I know, I tried 3 cameras.  If you enjoy shooting outdoors with back lighting, you're in for a surprise.  The AF grid mine as well be all center points, the grid is pathetically small.  It also sucks with low contrast AF in poor lighting condition.  I don't get it, the NEX7 beats it in almost every single way.  Yes I know, Phase detect vs Contrast.  IF you shoot motion, the A99 wins, if you're like me, 99% single shot, I prefer an accurate AF system.

2) Battery life.. lets face it, if you intend to use it for professional shoots, carry at least 3-4 spares.  If you shoot studio catalog? You're fucked hard.  Good luck with the EVF, have to switch the setting to automatically adjust to ambient light which will fluctuates. 

3) You guessed it, lens selection.  If you guys are happy with screw driven AF, non weather sealing, then Sony is for you.  The only lens I got with the camera was the Zeiss 24-70.  Lens was great... up to 50mm, all downhill after that and yes I tried a few copies.
Feb 12 13 01:18 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
K E S L E R
Posts: 11,574
Los Angeles, California, US


Legacys 7 wrote:

Kesler, you're smoking. I've seen your rants about this camera on Dpreview. And your rants about the Nikon D800 and Canon. I use the A99 and haven't experienced any of the issues that you were constantly complaining about. It's "kinda sad" when people constantly look for flaws in a camera. Not to be mistaken for things that actually do exist. 100 iso is clean. No grain.

Whats even more sad is people living with flaws of the camera.  Its because of those people camera manufactures will simply "brush off" issues and leave them unaddressed.  Be glad for people like me who complain and have high expectations. 

I LOOK for issues because I don't want to be caught with my pants down on a job.  I expect to know every little thing wrong with my camera so I don't get, "opps, I didn't know the AF sucks balls and can't lock on back lit subjects."  Or opps, I only brought 1 spare battery, who would have known you might have to shoot more than 1000 photos on a 40 look, lookbook. (Sarcasm)

I discovered majority of the issues and drawbacks of the A99 before I put it through any real punishment.  Did about 10-15 shoots, totaling well over 10k frames in 3 different bodies to come up with my "rant."

Feb 12 13 01:29 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Legacys 7
Posts: 33,776
San Francisco, California, US


K E S L E R wrote:
I rant because I have high expectations.  I rant because I have real world experience with these issues. 

For those who think the A99 have better high ISO performance than the 5D3, all I gotta say is ROFL.

When my camera isn't up to the task for which it is intended for, I complain.  Sure I can give a list of issues I had with my A99 but who cares?  Do I hate Sony?  Nope, Love them, used a NEX7 for 6-7 months straight.  Do I hate the A99? Nope, I just laugh at the fan boys who seriously think its a camera to beat all other cameras.

3 Things I hate most about this camera,

1) AF..  Yup, ironic isn't it?  Even the NEX7 has better AF reliability for Single shot AF.  The A99 will STRUGGLE with back lighting, I know, I tried 3 cameras.  If you enjoy shooting outdoors with back lighting, you're in for a surprise.  The AF grid mine as well be all center points, the grid is pathetically small.  It also sucks with low contrast AF in poor lighting condition.  I don't get it, the NEX7 beats it in almost every single way.  Yes I know, Phase detect vs Contrast.  IF you shoot motion, the A99 wins, if you're like me, 99% single shot, I prefer an accurate AF system.

2) Battery life.. lets face it, if you intend to use it for professional shoots, carry at least 3-4 spares.  If you shoot studio catalog? You're fucked hard.  Good luck with the EVF, have to switch the setting to automatically adjust to ambient light which will fluctuates. 

3) You guessed it, lens selection.  If you guys are happy with screw driven AF, non weather sealing, then Sony is for you.  The only lens I got with the camera was the Zeiss 24-70.  Lens was great... up to 50mm, all downhill after that and yes I tried a few copies.

Let's take some steps back here. In your initial post, your argument was iso 100 had grain. That was what I was replying to. Dude, that's bull shit and you know it. Going into the cliche, "fan boy" reply is bull shit too. If there's something wrong with a camera, I acknowledge it instead of going into denial. I don't have time for that, when I'm spitting out almost 3 grand for any camera. And I too have high expectations when it comes to my camera gear. I can't afford not to when shooting for clients.

I'd challenged and called bull shit on your post, because I haven't had any of these issues. Hence why I'd also mentioned the other two cameras from the other companies that you found issues with. So no, "be glad" for not having someone that's constantly looking for something. Again, not the same as something that is actually there. And no one is saying that you haven't had any issues with the A99. We're saying that we haven't had any of those issues. Mayhaps you're just an unlucky dude when it come to using all three of these cameras. Meaning Sony, Nikon and Canon.

What I don't get either is, you already knew that Sony's lens selection isn't as wide as the other two, as well as the type of technology that are behind them. So why even bother if you already know this?

Dude, I've read all of your constant crying about every one of these cameras to the point where you were switching between each camera because you had some issues. Your rants reads more like you have issues and not your cameras. I too have high expectations, but I'm not foolish enough to spend money on a product where I already know that the limits of the equipment is there before I purchase them. Good luck with that.

Feb 12 13 02:42 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Legacys 7
Posts: 33,776
San Francisco, California, US


K E S L E R wrote:
Whats even more sad is people living with flaws of the camera.  Its because of those people camera manufactures will simply "brush off" issues and leave them unaddressed.  Be glad for people like me who complain and have high expectations. 

I LOOK for issues because I don't want to be caught with my pants down on a job.  I expect to know every little thing wrong with my camera so I don't get, "opps, I didn't know the AF sucks balls and can't lock on back lit subjects."  Or opps, I only brought 1 spare battery, who would have known you might have to shoot more than 1000 photos on a 40 look, lookbook. (Sarcasm)

I discovered majority of the issues and drawbacks of the A99 before I put it through any real punishment.  Did about 10-15 shoots, totaling well over 10k frames in 3 different bodies to come up with my "rant."

Trust, you're not the only one that talk about cameras having issues. Recognize the difference when others have tested their cameras out, checking for those issues. When they don't see those issues, that's not denial. I've asked a few on her regarding the issues that you've mentioned, in particular, one who shoots with this camera and the A900 constantly, shooting a lot of commercial and fashion work. No issues at all. I'd asked him because I know that he's been shooting with Sony for a long time, he's not a fan boy and will give me a straight up answer.

When there are issues with any Sony camera, Sony users don't ignore them. You should know this from seeing the constant discussion in Dpreview. You started like 3 to 4 threads on this same topic on that website forums. It was a fruitless one, seeing that you were asking the exact same question. The main problem that I've seen come up regarding Sony is the video in this particular camera. I can't say or debate that because I haven't used it. But my point for bringing this up is because Sony users, the ones that have pointed this out are not keeping quiet about it and want the company to address this issue.

Last, no on here have pointed out that the A99 is the camera that beats all. What many have pointed out is, it's a camera that rival the others in the same category. Each camera have advantages and disadvantages.

Feb 12 13 02:53 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
MichaelClements
Posts: 1,735
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia


I use the A850 which I'm sure is useless at high iso. Fortunately I'm a light freak so at iso100 it's sweet!
Feb 12 13 03:15 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Zack Zoll
Posts: 2,272
Glens Falls, New York, US


Legacys 7 wrote:

Yeah I got that. But further down in comment, your post reads more like Sony cameras in general statement,(current) instead of those that you've worked with. But you cleared that up and we're on the same page. Another reason to bring the A99 in the topic, your point about the highlights that are available in the Sony while loosing details in the shadow vs. the others have better noise in the shadows and detail. The A99 shines in this area. Also, something that I'd noticed, in the very high iso, Sony has more detail. It doesn't loose detail like I'd noticed with the D600 at high iso. You can look at some examples online to see this.

Sorry if I was misleading.  You know, online forum, quick responses, etc.  My mistake.

I am looking forward to seeing some more real-world reports from the A99.  I think it's a little early to say right now, since most reviewers are still enamored with the newness of it, or complaining about what it should have had.  But if it delivers as promised, that D7000 will probably go away as soon as that sensor finds its way into an NEX model.  Realistically, using the settings I normally use, I feel that if Sony comes out with a relatively compact 70-200 f/2.8 or similar for it, then I only need 1 -1 1/2 stops of ISO improvement to ditch the Nikon.  If they make an f/4 version of that lens, then 2 - 2 1/2 stops of ISO improvement.

And of course better high ISO settings will improve the contrast detection in low light.

FKW Studio wrote:
Clearer- until you upscale them to 24mp wink - no point in comparing images at different output sizes!

Why on Earth would I do that?  How many paid gigs do you do where the client wants 16x20s of every image?  In my experience, they only want big prints of posed portraits and things like that, and I never shoot those on high ISO settings anyway.  Since I'm only printing candids and grab shots small, how well they print large isn't important.

Feb 12 13 07:36 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3,846
Phoenix, Arizona, US


Feb 12 13 08:53 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Legacys 7
Posts: 33,776
San Francisco, California, US


Zack Zoll wrote:

Legacys 7 wrote:
Yeah I got that. But further down in comment, your post reads more like Sony cameras in general statement,(current) instead of those that you've worked with. But you cleared that up and we're on the same page. Another reason to bring the A99 in the topic, your point about the highlights that are available in the Sony while loosing details in the shadow vs. the others have better noise in the shadows and detail. The A99 shines in this area. Also, something that I'd noticed, in the very high iso, Sony has more detail. It doesn't loose detail like I'd noticed with the D600 at high iso. You can look at some examples online to see this.

Sorry if I was misleading.  You know, online forum, quick responses, etc.  My mistake.

I am looking forward to seeing some more real-world reports from the A99.  I think it's a little early to say right now, since most reviewers are still enamored with the newness of it, or complaining about what it should have had.  But if it delivers as promised, that D7000 will probably go away as soon as that sensor finds its way into an NEX model.  Realistically, using the settings I normally use, I feel that if Sony comes out with a relatively compact 70-200 f/2.8 or similar for it, then I only need 1 -1 1/2 stops of ISO improvement to ditch the Nikon.  If they make an f/4 version of that lens, then 2 - 2 1/2 stops of ISO improvement.

And of course better high ISO settings will improve the contrast detection in low light.


Why on Earth would I do that?  How many paid gigs do you do where the client wants 16x20s of every image?  In my experience, they only want big prints of posed portraits and things like that, and I never shoot those on high ISO settings anyway.  Since I'm only printing candids and grab shots small, how well they print large isn't important.

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.

Feb 12 13 09:05 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Legacys 7
Posts: 33,776
San Francisco, California, US


ArtisticGlamour wrote:

I do. Specifically the High ISO issues.

And, what I would like to see is perhaps some of your a99 High ISO examples?

I'm not shooting the a99, but the a55 and a77...and I'm very happy at ISO 1600 or less, which is where I shoot. (I usually try to limit to
Feb 12 13 09:10 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3,846
Phoenix, Arizona, US


Feb 12 13 09:24 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
FKW Studio
Posts: 106
Crofton, Maryland, US


Zack Zoll wrote:

Legacys 7 wrote:
Yeah I got that. But further down in comment, your post reads more like Sony cameras in general statement,(current) instead of those that you've worked with. But you cleared that up and we're on the same page. Another reason to bring the A99 in the topic, your point about the highlights that are available in the Sony while loosing details in the shadow vs. the others have better noise in the shadows and detail. The A99 shines in this area. Also, something that I'd noticed, in the very high iso, Sony has more detail. It doesn't loose detail like I'd noticed with the D600 at high iso. You can look at some examples online to see this.

Sorry if I was misleading.  You know, online forum, quick responses, etc.  My mistake.

I am looking forward to seeing some more real-world reports from the A99.  I think it's a little early to say right now, since most reviewers are still enamored with the newness of it, or complaining about what it should have had.  But if it delivers as promised, that D7000 will probably go away as soon as that sensor finds its way into an NEX model.  Realistically, using the settings I normally use, I feel that if Sony comes out with a relatively compact 70-200 f/2.8 or similar for it, then I only need 1 -1 1/2 stops of ISO improvement to ditch the Nikon.  If they make an f/4 version of that lens, then 2 - 2 1/2 stops of ISO improvement.

And of course better high ISO settings will improve the contrast detection in low light.


Why on Earth would I do that?  How many paid gigs do you do where the client wants 16x20s of every image?  In my experience, they only want big prints of posed portraits and things like that, and I never shoot those on high ISO settings anyway.  Since I'm only printing candids and grab shots small, how well they print large isn't important.

Zack my point is you can't compare the IQ of two cameras at two different output sizes. If you really want to compare the IQ of a 16mp to 24mp, you either upscale the 16 to 24, or the 24 down to 16. Then instead of pixel peeping at 100%, make a 300dpi print and tell me which is which, capieche?

Feb 12 13 09:33 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3,846
Phoenix, Arizona, US


FKW Studio wrote:
Zack my point is you can't compare the IQ of two cameras at two different output sizes. If you really want to compare the IQ of a 16mp to 24mp, you either upscale the 16 to 24, or the 24 down to 16. Then instead of pixel peeping at 100%, make a 300dpi print and tell me which is which, capieche?

I agree. The image quality is greatly effected by the lens in combination with the resolution of the sensor.

Feb 12 13 09:37 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
K E S L E R
Posts: 11,574
Los Angeles, California, US


Legacys 7 wrote:

Let's take some steps back here. In your initial post, your argument was iso 100 had grain. That was what I was replying to. Dude, that's bull shit and you know it. Going into the cliche, "fan boy" reply is bull shit too. If there's something wrong with a camera, I acknowledge it instead of going into denial. I don't have time for that, when I'm spitting out almost 3 grand for any camera. And I too have high expectations when it comes to my camera gear. I can't afford not to when shooting for clients.

I'd challenged and called bull shit on your post, because I haven't had any of these issues. Hence why I'd also mentioned the other two cameras from the other companies that you found issues with. So no, "be glad" for not having someone that's constantly looking for something. Again, not the same as something that is actually there. And no one is saying that you haven't had any issues with the A99. We're saying that we haven't had any of those issues. Mayhaps you're just an unlucky dude when it come to using all three of these cameras. Meaning Sony, Nikon and Canon.

What I don't get either is, you already knew that Sony's lens selection isn't as wide as the other two, as well as the type of technology that are behind them. So why even bother if you already know this?

Dude, I've read all of your constant crying about every one of these cameras to the point where you were switching between each camera because you had some issues. Your rants reads more like you have issues and not your cameras. I too have high expectations, but I'm not foolish enough to spend money on a product where I already know that the limits of the equipment is there before I purchase them. Good luck with that.

Sigh... I really could careless whether or not you believe me.  I have no reason to BS, none, don't give a shit to BS.

Let me put it out, at ISO 100, I was comparing files to the 5D3, which the A99 has more noticeable grain/ noise.  You do know the Translucent Mirror has a lot to do with this right?  If you ever noticed why the NEX 7 or the RX1 performs better than Sonys respective Translucent SLR its because of that.  Google it if you want, but I have a feeling you're gonna call BS on that too.  But hey, your camera do what you will.

So you think I have problems and somehow I magically MAKE issues with my camera? LOL, Jedi powers maybe? hahah!

Feb 12 13 10:01 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3,846
Phoenix, Arizona, US


Feb 12 13 10:09 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3,846
Phoenix, Arizona, US


Feb 12 13 10:13 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Bill M
Posts: 70
West Boylston, Massachusetts, US


I love all my SONYs, beginning with my first, DSC-717!! I still use it occasionally! ...SONY has always been spectacular for natural light, the reason I first selected it in comparison tests, and the A65 captures well up to high ISOs. I don't care too much about noise as I post-produce & smooth in my style. I do try to stay in reasonable ranges.
I would never use any other brand unless I were on the proverbial desert island. SONY knows how to capture and display light. Even the major brands are starting to use SONY sensors... Just go for the whole package!
Feb 12 13 10:20 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Leighthenubian
Posts: 2,749
Toronto, Ontario, Canada


ArtisticGlamour wrote:
Here is the noisiest shot of the weekend...and it's on the cropped sensor a77 JPEG at ISO 2500! The white you see on his back is wet SNOW and not noise, but you do see noise in the background bokeh.

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/130212/10/511a84c53efde.jpg
Taken at (wide open) f2.8 at 1/2000 at ISO 2500!

This is the noisiest shot of the morning, and yet I find the noise (in the bokeh) to be uniform and not harsh or displeasing. This at full wide open which is NOT the sweet spot of the lens.

Pretty happy to be able to pull 1/2000 out of cloudy almost "twilight" snowy/rainy conditions.

ummm this is pretty bad ...what's the best High ISO shot for that day?

Feb 12 13 10:30 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3,846
Phoenix, Arizona, US


Feb 12 13 10:35 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Select Models
Posts: 35,410
Upland, California, US


ArtisticGlamour wrote:

Without pics...it didn't happen.

lol... LMAO... you tell'm... borat

Feb 12 13 10:37 am  Link  Quote 
1234last   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers