login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > SONY a99 "HIGH ISO" (+/-1600) any good? Search   Reply
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3,846
Phoenix, Arizona, US


I don't have the a99, and shoot with the a55/a77, but I'm hearing so many good things about the SONY a99 that I'd like to ask those folks who own/use one for reviews and examples relating to higher ISO's. (around 1600+ or so).
(or links to examples)

Also any other SONY DSLR shooters can post example images, to compare to other Sony cameras, large and small.

PLEASE keep the posts limited to experienced SONY DSLR shooters, their experiences, and backup your posts with SONY images, if possible. This is about Sony High ISO (1600, or more) experiences ONLY (especially the a99, at iso 1600+).

Thanks (in advance). wink
Feb 13 13 09:24 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3,846
Phoenix, Arizona, US


Mods, please keep an eye on this thread and help keep it on the specific topic, thanks. wink
Feb 13 13 09:29 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3,846
Phoenix, Arizona, US


CZ Digital wrote:
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). :-(
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.
MichaelClements wrote:
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!
Bill M wrote:
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!
Project4145 wrote:
I just bought the a99 and it may not beat the field but it's far and away better than any of it's predecessors I've shot for ISO performance.  I had the Minolta 7d and the a700, neither of which were usable above ISO1000 for me. 

ISO6400 from the a99

http://project4145.zenfolio.com/img/s2/v72/p1332287908-4.jpg

Feb 13 13 09:51 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3,846
Phoenix, Arizona, US


FKW Studio wrote:
Sony A850 samples
for general reference, the A77 is one stop behind the A850, the A99 is two ahead
ISO1600
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8514/8404533500_22dafeb197_b.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8089/8365599031_e1326d6ae5_b.jpg
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5196/7435870450_5baab59e94_b.jpg

Weddings at ISO1600
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8486/8231145442_196ab0d2af_b.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8309/8021901992_bac8ab806d_b.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8314/7934587996_5b6a48f67c_b.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7253/7729957106_d07e5d8ac4_b.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7276/7632646972_c1a7ea72fc_b.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7252/7632648730_d6d17cba37_b.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8017/7632655868_7809c05068_b.jpg

The noise performance has been entirely satisfactory for me and my clients, especially for print purposes.

Feb 13 13 10:02 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3,846
Phoenix, Arizona, US


realistgva wrote:
I shoot a lot at high ISO not out of choice but constraints. This was also a reason to get the a99 next to the a850(which I loved but not above iso 400) I got some great concert pictures at 1600 but way too many bad once.

Since end of November I have been hired by the local ice hockey club. The settings are very simple at least ISO 1600 f2.8 1/800s. Most pictures are shot at 2000iso and the crowd requires only a change to a shutter speed between 1/60 to 1/125.

This is the link to my blog with all the hockey entries. There should be enough samples to look at. They are all processed using capture one pro 7. In most cases nothing beyond the default noise reduction.
Would I prefer is 100 yes anytime.but I don't sweat about is anymore. I know the client will be happy with my pictures
http://www.klausbinder.com/wpress/categ … ice-hockey
James Ogilvie wrote:
Enjoying my A99 quite a bit.  The high ISO capability is beyond my needs, but nice to have. I've shot some dim natural light stuff, and the camera fared beautifully.

I'm much more interested in the dynamic range and other things.  Best camera I've ever owned, even more so than my A900

Very pleased.
Silver Thunderbird wrote:
I've had an A99 for about a month now, still getting to know it. Before that, I used an A580 ... before that, an A100 ... and before that, in the film days, Minolta 7000. I never tried taking the A100 over 400. The A580 was a lot better, and the A99 seems better still. I haven't used other brands, as I've been comfortable with my legacy Minolta lenses, now upgraded to a mostly Zeiss collection.

Someone asked for samples, so I quickly took three this evening. All of a mostly willing model participant, and all shot with a Zeiss 24-70 at about 50mm, JPG 720 pixel conversion from RAW in LR, steady shot on in-camera, noise reduction off in-camera. No flash of course. No editing at all to these shots otherwise.

ISO 25,600, 1/60, f2.8
http://i.imgur.com/uuTnibn.jpg

ISO 6400, 1/13, f2.8
http://i.imgur.com/SZcnL93.jpg

ISO 1600, 1/3, f2.8
http://i.imgur.com/DZxXgj8.jpg

Feb 13 13 10:07 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3,846
Phoenix, Arizona, US


Thanks for the images, folks! Looking pretty good even at 6400!
I never shoot over 1600, so this tells me a lot about the new SONY's.
Good to see others are happy with the results.
Feb 13 13 10:08 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3,846
Phoenix, Arizona, US


Erik Ballew wrote:
My a33 falls apart around ISO 800.

My a350 was the same way, but I'm having much better luck with the a55 (and now the a77).

Feb 13 13 10:11 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
CZ Digital
Posts: 73
Prague, Prague, Czech Republic


OP:

Thanks for splitting the thread up...last one became a pissing match that made for a painful read with very little real information.  I'm interested in purchasing the a99 this summer and will be following this thread for examples and intelligent discussion from other Sony users as well. 

I'll try and go out this weekend (weather permitting) and get some high ISO shots in (1600-3200) to post for discussion.  Everything in my port was shot either with my a77 or NEX5, but they're all relatively low ISO (100-800) with the exception of my avatar image (I believe 1600 ISO from my a77, pic was lit with a small table lamp with a 25w incandescent bulb).

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/121109/07/509d228e183a6_m.jpg
Feb 13 13 11:59 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
realistgva
Posts: 375
Plan-les-Ouates, Geneva, Switzerland


CZ Digital wrote:
OP:

Thanks for splitting the thread up...last one became a pissing match that made for a painful read with very little real information.  I'm interested in purchasing the a99 this summer and will be following this thread for examples and intelligent discussion from other Sony users

CZ I have both the a77 and a99. My own take is that the a77 is fine up to 1600iso a and sort of OK up to just over 2000iso.
With the a99 I find the results OK up to 2000 I so and acceptable results up to 6400 iso.

Beyond iso the dynamic range of the a99 is just amazing. I have pretty much given up using the a77. If my wife was not shooting with it I would have sold my a77 which I bought las may.

Feb 13 13 01:03 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3,846
Phoenix, Arizona, US


CZ Digital wrote:
OP:

Thanks for splitting the thread up...last one became a pissing match that made for a painful read with very little real information.  I'm interested in purchasing the a99 this summer and will be following this thread for examples and intelligent discussion from other Sony users as well. 

I'll try and go out this weekend (weather permitting) and get some high ISO shots in (1600-3200) to post for discussion.  Everything in my port was shot either with my a77 or NEX5, but they're all relatively low ISO (100-800) with the exception of my avatar image (I believe 1600 ISO from my a77, pic was lit with a small table lamp with a 25w incandescent bulb).

You are WELCOME! I'm kinda thinking an a99 may be in my future too, so I'm interested in the twilight capabilities. And from what I'm seeing things look pretty damn good even at ISO6400! I'm not unhappy with the a77 but I think the a99 is showing to be outstanding for my needs.

Feb 13 13 01:20 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3,846
Phoenix, Arizona, US


realistgva wrote:
CZ I have both the a77 and a99. My own take is that the a77 is fine up to 1600iso a and sort of OK up to just over 2000iso.

This is very much the same as my findings...good at 1600, but don't want to go much over that if possible. 2500 was pushing it PAST the limits of what I want, as shown here at ISO2500...you can see it's a bit too noisy (although not unpleasant, and easy to fix). I want better shots than this out of the camera!

ISO 2500 is just a bit too noisy on the a77's cropped sensor (for straight out-of-camera use): But I'm not unhappy with it.
http://i1103.photobucket.com/albums/g461/TyPortfolio/wolf_zpse4ca0f2e.jpg

Feb 13 13 01:23 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3,846
Phoenix, Arizona, US


At ISO 800 the a55 was fine, and I rarely shoot over ISO 800 anyway...but, I still would like to get GOOD results at higher ISO's (say up to 6400). But VERY happy with the a55 at ISO 800:
http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/130213/14/511c17fbab10d.jpg
Feb 13 13 01:28 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Legacys 7
Posts: 33,662
San Francisco, California, US


ArtisticGlamour wrote:

You are WELCOME! I'm kinda thinking an a99 may be in my future too, so I'm interested in the twilight capabilities. And from what I'm seeing things look pretty damn good even at ISO6400! I'm not unhappy with the a77 but I think the a99 is showing to be outstanding for my needs.

Oh indeed the A99 is excellent up to 6400. I'd say that the Nikon D600 has it beat a little at 6400. But not by much. The camera is a joy to use. I'm very confident shooting past 1600 to 6400 without worrying about noise issues.

Both the dynamic range, full frame and low high iso is what attracted me to this. But more so the dynamic range. Sony really shines in this area. Even my A700 is good here. But damn, when I'd first tested the A99 out, the first thing that hit me was the dynamic range. It's something that was always mandatory for me, going back to my Minolta 7D years, due to the limits of dslr dynamic range during those years.

Feb 13 13 01:30 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3,846
Phoenix, Arizona, US


Legacys 7 wrote:
Both the dynamic range, full frame and low high iso is what attracted me to this. But more so the dynamic range. Sony really shines in this area. Even my A700 is good here. But damn, when I'd first tested the A99 out, the first thing that hit me was the dynamic range. It's something that was always mandatory for me, going back to my Minolta 7D years, due to the limits of dslr dynamic range during those years.

I have to agree about SONY's dynamic range (and color rendition) in general being very good!

Select Models mentored some thoughts about Nikon's Active-D lighting, and it motivated me to explore the similar feature on the Sony...which is the "DRO feature". If anyone shoots for the in-camera JPEGS at all, it's worth looking into the Sony's DRO feature. It has brought much more detail into the shadows, and smoother shadow transitions, for me...straight out of the camera JPEGS. (at all my normally used ISO's)

Feb 13 13 01:40 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Legacys 7
Posts: 33,662
San Francisco, California, US


ArtisticGlamour wrote:
I have to agree about SONY's dynamic range (and color rendition) in general being very good!

Select Models mentored some thoughts about Nikon's Active-D lighting, and it motivated me to explore the similar feature on the Sony...which is the "DRO feature". If anyone shoots for the in-camera JPEGS at all, it's worth looking into the Sony's DRO feature. It has brought much more detail into the shadows, and smoother shadow transitions, for me...straight out of the camera JPEGS. (at all my normally used ISO's)

I have this feature on both my A700 and A99 cameras. I don't need it because I shoot the raw format. When I use to shoot with my Minolta 7D, I used a similar technique. I had to because I didn't have a choice and there was no DRO during that time and I solely shoot raw. What I'd do is shoot underexposed intentionally and then pull out the details in the shadows while maintaining the highlights in Photoshop. It was similar to the Zone System that was created by Ansel Adams. If I were to do a regular exposure, I'd get the highlights, but would loose what I wanted in the shadows. If I'd had done the opposite, I'd get what I'd need in the shadows, but would blow out the highlights. so I found it easier underexposing the image.

Feb 13 13 03:54 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3,846
Phoenix, Arizona, US


Legacys 7 wrote:
What I'd do is shoot underexposed intentionally and then pull out the details in the shadows while maintaining the highlights in Photoshop. It was similar to the Zone System that was created by Ansel Adams. If I were to do a regular exposure, I'd get the highlights, but would loose what I wanted in the shadows. If I'd had done the opposite, I'd get what I'd need in the shadows, but would blow out the highlights. so I found it easier underexposing the image.

I used to do this a lot here in Arizona. Often the sky was so bright in relation to the landscapes I would have to underexpose the whole image to get ANY details in the sky. I also use a split ND sometimes for that...but mostly I have gone to shooting in the sweet light (and long shadows) of sunrise and sunset. It's definately a balancing act. For wildlife (and model shoots) it's the best time, but sometimes requires the higher ISO's (and/or fill flash) to bring out the details.

Feb 14 13 06:21 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Legacys 7
Posts: 33,662
San Francisco, California, US


ArtisticGlamour wrote:
I used to do this a lot here in Arizona. Often the sky was so bright in relation to the landscapes I would have to underexpose the whole image to get ANY details in the sky. I also use a split ND sometimes for that...but mostly I have gone to shooting in the sweet light (and long shadows) of sunrise and sunset. It's definately a balancing act. For wildlife (and llama shoots) it's the best time, but sometimes requires the higher ISO's (and/or fill flash) to bring out the details.

I'd thought that you resided in Michigan. There's a Sony user on here that lives there that commented on a Sony thread. But I'd thought it was you.

Feb 14 13 08:45 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3,846
Phoenix, Arizona, US


realistgva wrote:
ISO 1600, 1/3, f2.8
http://i.imgur.com/DZxXgj8.jpg

That's a pretty sweet ISO1600 shot! Nice! (and good looking dog!)

Feb 14 13 07:07 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3,846
Phoenix, Arizona, US


CZ Digital wrote:
OP:

Thanks for splitting the thread up...last one became a pissing match that made for a painful read with very little real information.  I'm interested in purchasing the a99 this summer and will be following this thread for examples and intelligent discussion from other Sony users as well. 

I'll try and go out this weekend (weather permitting) and get some high ISO shots in (1600-3200) to post for discussion.  Everything in my port was shot either with my a77 or NEX5, but they're all relatively low ISO (100-800) with the exception of my avatar image (I believe 1600 ISO from my a77, pic was lit with a small table lamp with a 25w incandescent bulb).

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/121109/07/509d228e183a6.jpg

Cool! I look forward to any feedback. Much appreciated!

GREAT work on the avatar image^.

Feb 15 13 06:14 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
realistgva
Posts: 375
Plan-les-Ouates, Geneva, Switzerland


I did take a few minutes at last nights game to take a few pictures at high ISO.

I have posted the images (raw and edited) on my blog. They have all been down sized to 2048x3072 or around 6mpix.
http://wp.me/p1NCG1-hd

Don't look at background, subject, ... the pictures are only meant to show how BAD high ISO does look in real life.

To be honest I have no intent to go anywhere as high as here they look fine to me. Sure it was not very dark and there was still some light.

Beyond ISO I totally love the new firmware. AF-D tracking is awesome the way it stay's focused on subject is pretty close to magic
Feb 16 13 09:05 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3,846
Phoenix, Arizona, US


Thank you for the post...the link didn't work for me.

Was this the right images?
http://www.klausbinder.com/wpress/2013/ … ageid=1055
Feb 16 13 09:12 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
realistgva
Posts: 375
Plan-les-Ouates, Geneva, Switzerland


ArtisticGlamour wrote:
Thank you for the post...the link didn't work for me.

Was this the right images?
http://www.klausbinder.com/wpress/2013/ … ageid=1055

It should work now. I had not hit the publish button.
The direct link is http://www.klausbinder.com/wpress/2013/ … eview/1067

Feb 16 13 09:23 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3,846
Phoenix, Arizona, US


realistgva wrote:
It should work now. I had not hit the publish button.
The direct link is http://www.klausbinder.com/wpress/2013/ … eview/1067

Excellent link! Thank you.

Reasonably CLEAN at 12,600! Gotta LOVE that!

Feb 16 13 01:23 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
realistgva
Posts: 375
Plan-les-Ouates, Geneva, Switzerland


ArtisticGlamour wrote:

Excellent link! Thank you.

Reasonably CLEAN at 12,600! Gotta LOVE that!

I am like you and had the a77. I really hoped I could skip the a99. Now I have 2 and they surprise me every day. They are absolutely stunning.
Yes iso 12k is pretty good I am sure I can get away with 25k with a little more post processing and noise reduction. Dark churches are no concern anymore, bring them on:-)

Feb 16 13 01:31 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
realistgva
Posts: 375
Plan-les-Ouates, Geneva, Switzerland


Feb 16 13 01:31 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3,846
Phoenix, Arizona, US


Realistva, can I ask what lens you were using? Thanks! wink
Feb 17 13 07:44 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
realistgva
Posts: 375
Plan-les-Ouates, Geneva, Switzerland


For the games it is mainly the sony g70-200f2.8 , cz24-70 and a few with the sigma 15mm fisheye.

I also own the Sony g70-400, Minolta 100mm macro. And lens baby composer.

In the family we also have the cz135 which my wife has claimed with the a77.

My daughter uses the  a100 with the minotla 35-105 (which I like to borrow very compact and good pictures if you don't need f2.8. She has also the 100-300 form the Minolta days.

I sold my 18-250 when I got my a850 2 years ago. It was just no match for the new lenses.

When I feel like travelling light I have also a Sony hx-100. My take is that 70% of the people would be better served with a bridge than DSLR and kit ,lens
Feb 17 13 08:27 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
FKW Studio
Posts: 106
Crofton, Maryland, US


Hello everyone. I received my A99 just last week and have been simply amazed by this camera ever since. I used the A99 yesterday for 8 hours straight at a Bar Mitzvah. Everyone complains about the battery life- After 8 hours of continuous use (camera never turned off, screen always active) I went through 1.5 batteries. I am using the grip with 3 batteries. This is with GPS enabled, steadyshot enabled, etc... in other words, very similar performance to my A850. I don't spend much time reviewing images, and personally I think the latter is the main drainer of battery life, or anything else that can be categorized as not shooting a picture. I did not shoot much video, a few clips just for kicks, but mostly stills.

I was shooting alongside my partner using a D4 and had no trouble keeping up as far as focus was concerned, in fact with AF-D I locked more keepers than he did when the family came running in for their introductions- this surprised me, considering the D4 has amazing AF. The AF-D is really that good- freakishly good- however the EVF was not able to keep up. While I was able to pan with the subjects because I've been doing this a long time, I can confirm that the EVF is not as easy to use for tracking compared to OVF (until they release a firmware update to correct this), but bottomline, the resulting images were SHARP! My A850 could never keep up with subjects like this, particularly in low light, so very happy.

Most of these I'm posting are shot at ISO1600. There's one or two shot at ISO2000 and ISO3200, but with the way our lighting is set up and balanced with ambient, we usually are shooting at ISO1600. That said, I am very happy with the quality coming out of this camera- all of these are straight out of camera, RAW converted to jpeg in lightroom, with no edits whatsoever.

ISO1600
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8096/8481838957_a4960e3dcb_z.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8386/8482929856_08ef563606_z.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8376/8482929628_21bc58c4eb_z.jpg

ISO2000
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8230/8481840573_5044ea6dbd_b.jpg

ISO3200
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8086/8482929758_e4405a1697_b.jpg

And here is an ISO1600 sequence showing how the AF-D tracked focus on the running subjects in lowlight- props to the F58 too for recycling 100% at 1/8 power 6 fps

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8530/8481840301_0bf03afccd.jpghttp://farm9.staticflickr.com/8509/8481840187_36026f664e.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8382/8482930604_5a592935b7.jpghttp://farm9.staticflickr.com/8529/8481840015_27533ec53d.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8233/8482930418_5512f8848f.jpghttp://farm9.staticflickr.com/8092/8481839817_d25afc3746.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8231/8481839737_de9b80dafa.jpghttp://farm9.staticflickr.com/8384/8481839631_385f882074.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8104/8482930048_3db205974c.jpghttp://farm9.staticflickr.com/8377/8482929956_ed6df384a9.jpg
Feb 17 13 09:25 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Legacys 7
Posts: 33,662
San Francisco, California, US


Very good shots.
Feb 18 13 07:39 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3,846
Phoenix, Arizona, US


realistgva wrote:
For the games it is mainly the sony g70-200f2.8 , cz24-70 and a few with the sigma 15mm fisheye.

I also own the Sony g70-400, Minolta 100mm macro. And lens baby composer.

In the family we also have the cz135 which my wife has claimed with the a77.

My daughter uses the  a100 with the minotla 35-105 (which I like to borrow very compact and good pictures if you don't need f2.8. She has also the 100-300 form the Minolta days.

I sold my 18-250 when I got my a850 2 years ago. It was just no match for the new lenses.

When I feel like travelling light I have also a Sony hx-100. My take is that 70% of the people would be better served with a bridge than DSLR and kit ,lens

Nice family setup!

Feb 18 13 08:35 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3,846
Phoenix, Arizona, US


realistgva wrote:
When I feel like travelling light I have also a Sony hx-100. My take is that 70% of the people would be better served with a bridge than DSLR and kit lens

Love my Panasonic FZ35, but it does suck for anything over ISO400! wink The a99 is looking great at iso 1600!

GREAT examples, folks!

Feb 26 13 06:34 am  Link  Quote 
  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