The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Sony A77
- Thread starter dhsimmonds
- Start date
jonoslack
Active member
HI Tom
well, there are a number of benefits:
proper live view with very fast focusing
excellent subject tracking
EVF with really impressive information (of course this is also a disadvantage)
Peaking for focusing with manual focus lenses (and the MF/AF button makes this really good.
10 fps
video
twizzly LCD
it turns the 135 f1.8 into a stunning 210mm f1.8
also disadvantages
it turns the 135 f1.8 into a stunning 135 f1.8
just the best optical viewfinder
full frame means that the SZ zooms make sense
this is boring, but I think one could go on and on in both directions.
I don't know about the IQ yet compared to the A900, because none of my favourite raw processors support it yet, but it seems promising.
It's a different beast . . . . except that the actual feel and usage is reassuringly similar to the A900 - which is a relief!
all the best
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Just had a look at the Studio Test Results from Dpreview - if you compare high ISO quality between A77, D3S, E5 and 5D2 the still D3S wins hands down, tightly followed by the 5D2.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/stu...8&x=-0.8568226462963304&y=-0.9012180935185253
What is surprising is that in these tests the A77 is not doing much better than the E5, actually the E5 sometimes delivering much crisper results even at high ISO.
Of course the A77 is 24MP versus 12MP of the E5, but still if you look at the end results - both JPEG and RAW - then the A77 is not so outstanding.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/stu...8&x=-0.8568226462963304&y=-0.9012180935185253
What is surprising is that in these tests the A77 is not doing much better than the E5, actually the E5 sometimes delivering much crisper results even at high ISO.
Of course the A77 is 24MP versus 12MP of the E5, but still if you look at the end results - both JPEG and RAW - then the A77 is not so outstanding.
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
Peter,
I've made a comparison here:
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?p=354250#post354250
The results are rather surprising, and the GH2 seems to outresolve the A77 by a healthy margin.
I've made a comparison here:
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?p=354250#post354250
The results are rather surprising, and the GH2 seems to outresolve the A77 by a healthy margin.
ptomsu
Workshop Member
+1
Actually I have done independent tests with the E5 and SHG glass and upres'd the images to 24MP and even higher and it is amazing what you can get out of the E5 and pro lenses.
Now I do not want to say this should be a common practice and definitely is not for me, because it is too time consuming to do that in post processing. But it clearly shows the capabilities of existing top of the line 12MP systems, be this Nikon, Olympus, well somehow also Panasonic although 16-18MP. WRT details and sharpness it is still amazing what one can get out of 12MP if done the right way.
Now back to high ISO, I was actually surprised that the A77 did not perform significantly better than the E5 at 3200 - 6400 ISO. This is one of the known weak points of the E5 and its sensor size and the aged sensor, so I would really have expected to see clearly far better results from the A77. Delivering just as good as one of the less performing cameras in high ISO is actually disappointing. Not sure if this cannot be improved with later FW or this is the price you have to pay for such high resolution on an APSC sized sensor.
Maybe physics cannot be overcome?
Actually I have done independent tests with the E5 and SHG glass and upres'd the images to 24MP and even higher and it is amazing what you can get out of the E5 and pro lenses.
Now I do not want to say this should be a common practice and definitely is not for me, because it is too time consuming to do that in post processing. But it clearly shows the capabilities of existing top of the line 12MP systems, be this Nikon, Olympus, well somehow also Panasonic although 16-18MP. WRT details and sharpness it is still amazing what one can get out of 12MP if done the right way.
Now back to high ISO, I was actually surprised that the A77 did not perform significantly better than the E5 at 3200 - 6400 ISO. This is one of the known weak points of the E5 and its sensor size and the aged sensor, so I would really have expected to see clearly far better results from the A77. Delivering just as good as one of the less performing cameras in high ISO is actually disappointing. Not sure if this cannot be improved with later FW or this is the price you have to pay for such high resolution on an APSC sized sensor.
Maybe physics cannot be overcome?
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
They are all up-rezed to 24MP.
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
I agree, but when a camera boasts 24MP, I believe it's interesting to check if there's any point with that or if a camera with a lower pixel count will resolve the same kind of detail. My conclusion so far is that at any ISO up to 800 (I didn't check above that, since I'm hardly ever in that area), there's little or no gain compared to the two systems that I currently use. When it comes to colour, tonality etc., I'm very happy with Panasonic (and not so much so with Nikon), so that's further down my list at the moment.
ptomsu
Workshop Member
This whole comparison was just about noise / high ISO. I do agree that there are more parameters to consider as you say.
Coming to the point, I do find colors of the E5 and micro detail unbeatable. And I am looking both original size and 100% crop. Especially in 100% crop the E5 images are really unveiling their superior fine details. Contrast and micro contrast is very good IMHO because there is no AA filter. And DR I would say is pretty sufficient from the E5 as well although there are cameras doing better (much better) on paper.
So coming back to the test shots shown and discussed here, I was really shocked to see that the A77 could not beat the E5. Obviously resolution is not everything
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Hm, .... do not want to admit, but actually have to backup your opinion. The results from my E5 are at least on par with the A77 till ISO 6400 and beat it clearly below ISO 400. Sure this is because of the optimized combination of sensor and lenses. Kudos to Olympus for this.
Having said that there is clear that the A77 has its merits. And what would really help to boost IQ would be a much weaker AA filter. I wonder if finally the A99 will come with that feature.
Interesting. Specially since I believethe A900 allready proved that a 24MP sensor can deliever additional resolution over cameras with less MP, it seems that while the pixel count of the A77 is the same the "real" resolution might not be the same.
But I will keep my mouth shut now because a) I have only limited experience with the A900 and no experiemce with the A77 and b) I believe one should look at raw images and also at printed images before jumping to a conclusion.
Sensor size (or better pixel size?) seems still very important factor. Allready when I compared the shaddows in K5 images to the shaddows in images from the much older D700 I came to that conclusion.
jonoslack
Active member
Well, I'm not sure about this 'beat it clearly' - maybe at a 100% crop, but that's not quite the point (at least, it's not the point for me).
1. the lens used on the E5 is unquestionably sharper at f6.3 than the Sony 50 f1.4 is at f9.
2. The A77 is using the first shipping version of the firmware,
3. it's not yet supported by any of the main raw converters.
4. The DxO report is pretty favourable
E-P3: 51
E5: 56
A77: 78
Panasonic GH2: 60
DxO comparison
These are not small differences. You may not consider DXO to be the be-all and end-all of camera IQ (I don't either). . . but I don't consider the dpreview studio test to be so either! (even less so).
writing off the A77 on the basis of studio tests at dpreview alone seems a little premature . . . . Don't you think?
All I can say is that I'm getting fine jpgs out of a camera which is a pleasure to use. I won't be able to judge the IQ objectively until Aperture supports the camera, but 'real world' shots I'm getting right now seem to have decent sharpness, good colour (even at high ISO) and decent dynamic range.
douglasf13
New member
Bizarre that preview tested the A77 at f9, which is well into showing diffraction limits. Either way, the mirror of the SLT cameras is known to reduce resolution a bit, so it'll be interesting to compare it to NEX-7.
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Just to clarify, I am not writing off the A77 based on any of these tests. Just interesting to see how good this "old" sensor in the E5 performs compared to the latest and greatest. Plus what we all know and tend to forget (including myself) - MP is not everything.
jonoslack
Active member
. . . . and nor are studio tests at
dpreview everything
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
If f/9 is into diffraction territory for the A77, f/6.3 should be likewise for 4/3 sensor, right? Unfortunately for the laws of physics, however, all tests that I have seen of the Zuiko 50mm macro shows it to be exceptionally sharp until f/11 and sharper than most fully stopped down to f/22.
How can that be? Is Olympus defying the laws of physics? Is there a dedicated optical god somewhere on mount Fuji who they pay tribute to and that the engineers at Sony haven't heard about? Black magic? Voodoo?
ptomsu
Workshop Member
There must be a god on mount Fuji, you did not know ???
Honestly I think it are multiple factors coming together:
1) tele centric design
2) tight control while manufacturing resulting in high quality lenses (well at least their pro grade lenses)
3) in case of the E5 a weak AA filter. AA filter kind of amplifies diffraction (like any anomaly) which means the weaker the less visible are any distortions through diffraction
jonoslack
Active member
I quite agree - an excellent lens. The Sony 50 f1.4 is quite good as well, but it's designed as a fast normal lens, not a macro lens. It simply is nothing like as good as the Zuiko - especially when stopped down.
jonoslack
Active member
Hi there
Sorry to 'double post' but I think this is important.
Jorgen very convincingly pointed out that the resolution on the 800 ISO images on the dpreview comparator showed the A77 files to be showing less resolution - even than an upsized D3s file.
All I've done is to pick a different part of the test image
Anyway, here are the results
SLT77:
GH2:
D7000:
E-5:
12MP D3s:
My point here is that the A77 has been pretty roundly damned - excuses have been made with respect to lens quality (I agree) and also talk about diffraction (which I don't). But actually it would seem to be simply that the point of focus is different.
I'm banging on here - not because I think the A77 IQ is necessarily wonderful (I won't know until Aperture supports the RAW conversion). Simply that it's sad to see the impression that something is not good, when that may not be the case.
all the best
Sorry to 'double post' but I think this is important.
Jorgen very convincingly pointed out that the resolution on the 800 ISO images on the dpreview comparator showed the A77 files to be showing less resolution - even than an upsized D3s file.
All I've done is to pick a different part of the test image
Anyway, here are the results
SLT77:
GH2:
D7000:
E-5:
12MP D3s:
My point here is that the A77 has been pretty roundly damned - excuses have been made with respect to lens quality (I agree) and also talk about diffraction (which I don't). But actually it would seem to be simply that the point of focus is different.
I'm banging on here - not because I think the A77 IQ is necessarily wonderful (I won't know until Aperture supports the RAW conversion). Simply that it's sad to see the impression that something is not good, when that may not be the case.
all the best