Sony A77

[Jim DE]

jono and Bob, I as well pulled he trigger and pre ordered a a77. Estimated date for the USA will be Oct 19th just in time for some fall mountain stream shots and the return of the eagles at Conowingo Dam.

Now, it is the worst part of this .... waiting and reading all the negative comments and stone throwing from the pixel peeper's and nay sayers

 

[Lonnie Utah]

stone throwing from the pixel peeper's and nay sayers

Don't worry about it. After I got my a900 I did a lot of pixel peeping too, and was shocked at the "noise" in the files......




...Until I started making some really big (20x30" and 24x36" prints). The stuff they are looking at will never be seen at "normal" resolutions. Going to a file this big takes some adjustment in how you look at it...


However, as tempting as this camera is, I think I'm holding off until the FF comes out next year.

 

[bradhusick]

Well, you'd better carry LOTS of batteries because according to DPReview "The A77 uses the familiar FM500H battery that dates back to the A700. It's an 11.8Wh battery that the A77 can get 530 shots out of when using the rear display and 470 shots when using the viewfinder, according to CIPA standard testing."

At 12fps, that's 39 SECONDS of shooting. Okay, you don't hold the shutter release down for 39 seconds (the buffer only holds 13 RAWs) but really, when I shoot a pro lacrosse game I take 1500-2000 shots per game with my Canon 1Dm4 using part of 1 battery. On the A77 that would take 5 batteries per game. DEAL BREAKER for pro sports. They need a pro battery grip ASAP that extends the life to more than 2000 shots.

 

[etrigan63]

I have to agree with Lonnie. Looking at the files onscreen is never a substitute for looking at them on their destination media. If Sony I'd serious about getting SLT into the pro mainstream (vs. the consumer mainstream), they quickly need to address the technical shortcomings of their offering that will put a lot of pros off.

I, for one, am interested in the high-iso performance. The sensor crop works to my benefit as I like to shoot from the back of the venue and finding long, fast glass can get ridiculously expensive. The Nikon D300s did not have the high-iso I needed and thus I shoot with a D700. The A77 holds promise, but I am also waiting to see what Nikon has to offer.

 

[mathomas]

Looks like a very nice piece.

Re batteries: my A55 eats batteries like they're M&Ms. I can imagine the A77 is pretty voracious, too (though it's probably a different battery). I hope they've fixed the overheating issue, too, for the A77. It's only bitten me a couple of times, for a short period.

I'll probably stick with the A55 since it's so nicely small and 16MP is enough for me. I shoot film for the "important" stuff, anyway . I'll definitely have to play with an A77 sometime (or maybe I shouldn't....).

 

[Jim DE]

I don't take 2000 shots in 6 months ... I'm kinda old school in my method of capture. More in line with how I used my view cameras ..... The only time I used sequential shooting setting is on BIF shots otherwise it's one frame per shutter activation so battery life will never be an issue with me as it hasn't been with my current SLT especially once I can find someone selling the vertical grip.

All my minolta/Sony glass works on crop sensor Sony cameras (many of my lenses won't on FF sensors) plus I like the lens factor/cost advantage crop sensor cameras offer in super long telephoto wildlife photography so a full frame camera is not in my plans anytime soon.

 

[Lonnie Utah]

More so than anything else, I think this camera puts pressure on Canon and Nikon to improve performance and costs. At $1400 it's obviously it's aimed at the 7d and d7000 market. I'm sure that if the price of the Dollar vs the Yen hadn't gone sideways recently, it would been closer to the $1000 mark we heard a few months ago.

With a few exceptions, feature for feature, this camera trumps both offerings from Canon and Nikon. Resolution (total megapixels), Steady shot, AF speed, FPS, GPS etc, etc. Now we need to see if the IQ is there in the RAW files (I don't put too much stock in OOC jpgs). If it is, look out big boys....

It is going to be interesting to see how this shakes out and how the "big two" react. I don't think they can continue going they way they've gone or they are going to get passed by....

 

[etrigan63]

Granted, but I purely hope that Sony will have some other battery solution in the pipe if they want pro shooters to take this camera seriously. That and the anemic buffering.

Jim, it's not a question of being old school, when i shoot live dance performances i don't have the luxury of telling the dancers to do a routine over so I can get a better shot of it. That is reserved for the studio stuff.

 

[jonoslack]

The battery life question is interesting.
One of the reviews said they got 870 shots and 30 minutes of video out of a charge - the battery grip holds two batteries.

But even if it only takes 450 shots on a battery - that's twelve times as many shots as a roll of film, and a spare battery is cheap as chips, and smaller than a roll of film. I understand why Carlos and Brad need to take a lot of shots, but is 500 shots (or 1000 with the grip) really that much of a hardship? If the raw files are the same size as the A900 it sounds like you'll need to change 16gb cards at almost exactly the same time!

all the best

 

[Lonnie Utah]

Paul Genge just said on the Sony UK Facebook webcast that the battery is rated for 4-5 hours of continuous use, video, or stills. Don't worry about the # of shots, just an average for the average user.

 

[Jim DE]

Carlos, I fully understand your situation and back in the 60's I shot sports for a local paper and thought we really had the bomb with 3-5fps motor drives though most times we would still shoot both eyes open and fire of one to three shots to get the second base ball in glove base runner tag shots but we had no choice but to live with the technology that existed. If I was doing that kind of photography I am sure I would be smoking the megapixels like everyone else. I stand at the railing at Conowingo dam photographing the bald eagles next to guys that sound like they are running video cameras the way they fire off their shots. Last year I could of done 7fps but still just used the slower setting instead judiciously.

But, as I said if I needed to smoke um off I surely would give the ole 12fps a go! I have nothing against that technique what so ever. My primary photography anymore is scenics, wildlife, and outdoor sportsmens photos. With only a few exceptions it is set up and wait shooting

 

[etrigan63]

Hey Jim. I fully appreciate the film situation with activities like sports and stage productions. I cut my eye teeth with film as well, but in the 70's. I did not mean to imply that my technique was based on "spray and pray" (so many are these days), but like you said, having the 12 fps is nice for those kinds of moments.

Jono, in a perfect world, the dance companies would allow me to attend the full dress rehearsal so i could get the timing down. In reality, I am usually hired the day before the show and 98% of the time I don't even get a chance to look at the program. Turkey doesn't get much colder than that.

 

[Lonnie Utah]

I stand at the railing at Conowingo dam photographing the bald eagles next to guys that sound like they are running video cameras the way they fire off their shots.

"spray and pray" (so many are these days), but like you said, having the 12 fps is nice for those kinds of moments.

Spray and pray.

 

[DavidL]

. . .. and I've formally ordered one. looks great to me.

Oh no What are you gonna offload on me now?.
Think you should get rid off all your stuff, stop messing around and get an S2, all the rest are compromises and you know it
Cheers
David

 

[davemillier]

Re: Sony A77 vs NEX 3 IQ

I've printed Imaging resource sample images (the mannequin still life) from the A77 and NEX 3 at base ISO for both at the maximum size I can squeeze on to A3 paper (on my R2400).

Having carefully scrutinised the prints under bright light close up through reading glasses the only meaningful difference I can detect is a bit of colour moire in the manniquin's wig from the NEX 3 ( I assume that means the A77 has a stronger AA filter).

It seems that if you are printing on a desktop printer there is little or no resolution advantage from the 24MP sensor.

That'll save a lot of dosh then,

Cheers

Dave

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Well over 95% of those buying these cameras will probably never print larger than A4 and would be very well off with 6MP

 

[Charles2]

Well over 95% of those buying these cameras will probably never print larger than A4 and would be very well off with 6MP

Yes, we 95% do not print large. Also, many of us do not nail composition; often we make up for that with a crop in post-processing. That's where more good-quality pixels help.

 

[dmeckert]

i'm anxious to see what the RAW files look like.

not to be a debby downer...but...

sony's jpegs (supposedly early firmware...blah blah blah) from this camera look attrocious, with really bizarre looking artifacts, and lots of smoothing even at low-moderate ISOs. and it could be the lens, or the jpegs, or the photographers shooting at f/8 when diffraction should start about there, or slightly wider...whatever, but they just don't look like i would expect 24mp to look like (comparing to 12mp DX, nevermind 22mp MF)

i'm way more interested in the nex-7. though at ~$2200 with the zeiss 24, i'm not sure i'm interested in that either at this point when fuji likely has a system forthcoming (and has proven their mettle with the x100)

*sigh*

the rest of the specs look awesome. and i imagine the final firmware will clean things up a bit as well, as the a700 update did so miraculously years ago.

definitely curious to see what their next FF effort looks like.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Yes, we 95% do not print large. Also, many of us do not nail composition; often we make up for that with a crop in post-processing. That's where more good-quality pixels help.

Since you can make rather sharp A4 prints already with 3MP, 24MP should give you around A1 format (84 x 60cm). That reminds me of a journalist I met many years ago who only had one lens, a 35mm. "I just point the camera in the general direction of the subject and let the desk staff choose the cropping" was his mantra.

A NEX-7, the 24mm and nothing else? Maybe that's the solution :toocool:

 

[nugat]

Re: Sony A77 vs NEX 3 IQ

I've printed Imaging resource sample images (the mannequin still life) from the A77 and NEX 3 at base ISO for both at the maximum size I can squeeze on to A3 paper (on my R2400).

Having carefully scrutinised the prints under bright light close up through reading glasses the only meaningful difference I can detect is a bit of colour moire in the manniquin's wig from the NEX 3 ( I assume that means the A77 has a stronger AA filter).

It seems that if you are printing on a desktop printer there is little or no resolution advantage from the 24MP sensor.

That'll save a lot of dosh then,

Cheers

Dave

A 4000 pixels and 15.6mm tall sensor calls for a lens that delivers 256 lines per milimeter (128 line pairs/mm). In fact taking into account AA/IR glass plate and debayer algorithm losses, the lens resolution should be higher. This is a very tall order if good contrast was to be maintained. Even the best cinematic primes costing 15-20k a pop would fail here. From the optics point of view 100lp/mm with 30% contrast is possibly a practical maximum lens performance (or ca 80lp/mm at MTF50). Today it's reached by
some very top glass only (cinematic Zeiss Master and Leica C primes, Leica M, Olympus SHG).
Mounted on top bodies they would deliver max. at MTF30:

in 4/3 format (ca 13 mm tall sensor)- 2600 line widths/picture height
APS-C (ca 15 mm)-- 3000lw/ph
FF 35mm (24mm)-- 4800 lw/ph
So much for theory, in practice of photography all top systems deliver currently ca 2700-2800 lw/ph regardless of format. At 240dpi that translates into 11-12 inches of fully detailed print.