• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

a65 and a77 (1 Viewer)

I'm a fan of densely-packed sensors, and I'm in no doubt whatsoever that - properly implemented - more pixels can mean not only no noise penalty but a noise advantage. I see the truth of this every day with my 7D.

I mention this to show that I'm predisposed to a positive opinion of the sensor in these cameras - I'm not going to bash just because it's a Sony.

So with that said: I'm not at all impressed.

From the site linked to on the Ephotozine page, this is a 200 ISO example, and at full res (yes, pixel-peeping) it's very noisy indeed.

I don't habla Español so I don't know if this is because it's a pre-prod body (although that rarely matters much); or because the RAW converter used doesn't fully support the cameras, but it's not a good start.

I've also downloaded and converted some of the RAWs (Raw Therapee does support the A77), and although at low ISOs the conversions are OK, they're nothing to write home about, really.

The 500 ISO example I converted isn't pretty though. And - crucially - it's not good at the image level: even without pixel-peeping (instead resizing the file to 1000 px longest side), the image looks noisy and lacking in detail. A 1000 px, 500 ISO image should look noise free.

And at high ISO, I've never seen more chroma noise. I maxed out all of the chroma NR tools in Raw Therapee on a 6400 ISO image and still couldn't remove it properly, although luma actually seems fairly well controlled.

Results aren't helped by an apparent tendency of the cameras used in the article to underexpose by quite a lot.

As I say, I'm completely persuaded by the benefits of densely-packed sensors, and I'm not Sony bashing, but I don't think the sensor in the Sonys (which will presumably be the basis for the Nikon D400's sensor) is a good example of the breed, on the basis of what I've seen thus far.
 
Last edited:
what suprised me was the shutter noise Given there is no mirrow to flip up and down it seems very loud to me.
Rob.
 
100% crops from the 500 ISO Sony flower and a (400 ISO - close enough) Canon 7D file I had to hand.

The Sony definitely looks heavily NRd.

As I say, this might just be because of pre production issues - I'm not bashing...
 

Attachments

  • a77_crop.jpg
    a77_crop.jpg
    260.1 KB · Views: 162
  • 7D_crop_a.jpg
    7D_crop_a.jpg
    284.1 KB · Views: 155
They haven't blown me away yet either - so far, they don't look like the JPG processing is as good as the A5xx series and their 14MP and 16Mp sensors - and the RAW show more blotchy noise than I've seen from Sony sensors in years. Then again, I do have to agree that two issues still should be considered to be completely fair - indeed, these are all preproduction cameras (so far, all the EXIF points to firmware of .58 or somesuch - haven't seen a firmware 1.0 yet)...and more importantly, Sony RAWs always required careful selection of RAW converter to get the best out of them, and I haven't yet seen any explicit confirmation of support for this new sensor from any of the RAW software makers.

I'd honestly wait to see what official firmware 1.0 and full RAW support from the right RAW converters brings to the table before coming to final conclusions.

I'm not bashing either - I shoot with a Sony A550, and love it - but was definitely a little worried when I saw the preproduction high ISO results. But I'm holding until everything's official to make my conclusions.
 
Slightly more favourable review from WDC, but with on screen sample pics only 5½" x 3½" just about any photo will look ok

http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/news/529956/sony-alpha-a77-first-impressions.html

Burst of 12 frames per second, when in the Continuous Priority AE mode, and with full-time continuous auto focus as you shoot. It can only sustain this for 13 shots at the Raw highest quality jpeg setting.

13 would be enough for me :t:
 
Keith Reeder said:
I'm a fan of densely-packed sensors, and I'm in no doubt whatsoever that - properly implemented - more pixels can mean not only no noise penalty but a noise advantage. I see the truth of this every day with my 7D.

I mention this to show that I'm predisposed to a positive opinion of the sensor in these cameras - I'm not going to bash just because it's a Sony.

So with that said: I'm not at all impressed.

From the site linked to on the Ephotozine page, this is a 200 ISO example, and at full res (yes, pixel-peeping) it's very noisy indeed.

I don't habla Español so I don't know if this is because it's a pre-prod body (although that rarely matters much); or because the RAW converter used doesn't fully support the cameras, but it's not a good start.

I've also downloaded and converted some of the RAWs (Raw Therapee does support the A77), and although at low ISOs the conversions are OK, they're nothing to write home about, really.

The 500 ISO example I converted isn't pretty though. And - crucially - it's not good at the image level: even without pixel-peeping (instead resizing the file to 1000 px longest side), the image looks noisy and lacking in detail. A 1000 px, 500 ISO image should look noise free.

And at high ISO, I've never seen more chroma noise. I maxed out all of the chroma NR tools in Raw Therapee on a 6400 ISO image and still couldn't remove it properly, although luma actually seems fairly well controlled.

Results aren't helped by an apparent tendency of the cameras used in the article to underexpose by quite a lot.

As I say, I'm completely persuaded by the benefits of densely-packed sensors, and I'm not Sony bashing, but I don't think the sensor in the Sonys (which will presumably be the basis for the Nikon D400's sensor) is a good example of the breed, on the basis of what I've seen thus far.
Click to expand...

Keith, as you pointed out to me in a thread on the D400, could the A77's shortcomings be down to a higher megapixel density coupled with less light hitting the sensor due to the need for an EVF?
 
Hor Kee said:
Keith, as you pointed out to me in a thread on the D400, could the A77's shortcomings be down to a higher megapixel density coupled with less light hitting the sensor due to the need for an EVF?
Click to expand...

The definitive answer for that will be when shots can be compared from the A77 and the NEX7, which uses the same sensor, but with no mirror assembly at all...the NEX7 will be the purest example of what the sensor itself can produce.
 
Not a cracking shot by any means but this Gull was caught in flight in semi overcast conditions late evening on an SLT a33 camera using a 500 mm minolta mirror lens, quite an easy shot to get on what is suppossed to be the poorest and slowest of the sony SLT viewfinders. It was certrainly no harder getting this shot than it would have been on my a550.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/13372714@N00/6182610180/in/photostream
 
Last edited:
I don't think the SLTs have any issue with the EVF simply watching a flying bird or keeping up with it, nor the focus speed being able to keep up with movement. The only real issue some birders have had with the A33/55 EVF was when firing continuous frames while panning along with a flying bird - during the continuous burst, the EVF displays a flicking slideshow of last-frame-taken, which creates a bit of a delay between the real action of the bird and what you see in the finder. Something slow and predictable like a gull should be fine, but when getting to smaller, more erratic birds, it becomes much more difficult to fire continuously while tracking with the EVF than your A550's OVF. The A77's EVF however appears to be a significant improvement in lag/delay and panning during continuous shooting. How good will be up to when the birders start testing it out in anger.
 
I didn't have a problem with the A55 on larger birds, which were just slow enough to keep up with, and usually track pretty predictably...so the slight frame delay didn't hurt directional tracking. Where my issue came up was trying to track and shoot continuous frames of small sparrows and such - very tiny, fast, and extremely erratic birds that quickly change direction. With my OVF, I can keep firing frames and immediatly detect directional changes...with the A55 EVF, by the time the bird in the EVF was suddenly lunging down in the frame and I started panning down, the action had already happened a fraction of a second before, and I was trying to reacquire the target by predicting where it actually was from 1 frame behind, rather than following in real time. I also experienced a bit of eye strain from the color tearing and separation when quickly panning across a scene. All minor issues, and definitely photographer-dependent...but those are some of the complaints of EVFs for some birders, and I did have a few issues with it myself which prevented me from considering the camera.

The A77 EVF seems to be a very significant leap in refresh rate, resolution, lag, etc. and may have solved most or all of those issues. Certainly the color tearing issue has been tackled, and the tracking while shooting appears to refresh much more quickly - just a minor fraction off real-time, which may have impoved action tracking ability.
 
I will also be watching the A65 with interest Carl, although the weather sealing of the A77 would probably tip me towards it. It looks a very promising camera for landscapes too, as long as its performance up to iso 400 is good I am not really bothered about how it behaves re black cats in coal cellars at very high iso settings.
 
Zackiedawg said:
I didn't have a problem with the A55 on larger birds, which were just slow enough to keep up with, and usually track pretty predictably...so the slight frame delay didn't hurt directional tracking. Where my issue came up was trying to track and shoot continuous frames of small sparrows and such - very tiny, fast, and extremely erratic birds that quickly change direction. With my OVF, I can keep firing frames and immediatly detect directional changes...with the A55 EVF, by the time the bird in the EVF was suddenly lunging down in the frame and I started panning down, the action had already happened a fraction of a second before, and I was trying to reacquire the target by predicting where it actually was from 1 frame behind, rather than following in real time. I also experienced a bit of eye strain from the color tearing and separation when quickly panning across a scene. All minor issues, and definitely photographer-dependent...but those are some of the complaints of EVFs for some birders, and I did have a few issues with it myself which prevented me from considering the camera.

The A77 EVF seems to be a very significant leap in refresh rate, resolution, lag, etc. and may have solved most or all of those issues. Certainly the color tearing issue has been tackled, and the tracking while shooting appears to refresh much more quickly - just a minor fraction off real-time, which may have impoved action tracking ability.
Click to expand...

I think I have spotted what you mean although I still seem to be able to live with the effect, I have also got an a550 and have had good results from it, but I do find myself using the a33 in preference to it.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 12 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

Oregon John
What I think would be the perfect birding (rather than bird photography) camera
Replies
10
Views
2K
robinlanark
R
C
Digiscoping
Replies
2
Views
1K
Jason Bugay Reyes
Jason Bugay Reyes
S
Yet another bridge camera thread...
Replies
4
Views
322
seawatcher
S
A
Hello
Replies
19
Views
754
MelospizaMelodiaFan
MelospizaMelodiaFan
G
New Swarovski Smart Binoculars
Replies
5
Views
2K
Dyrlege
D

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top