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!
HI TomI saw the comparison between the A900 and A77 on LuLa and was surprized how good the A900 sensor still is.
SO question: What is the real benefit of an A77 over an A900?
Just Size or is there anything else?
They are all up-rezed to 24MP.Are you talking 100% crops or are you talking comparing down/Upsized to the same size and pixel count?
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.What I find interesting is how resolution (as a MP number) and high ISO noise have become so high priority in many discussions.
What about color, tonality, microdetail and things like that. What about the ISO where 80% of images are made (low and medium ISO)?
This whole comparison was just about noise / high ISO. I do agree that there are more parameters to consider as you say.What I find interesting is how resolution (as a MP number) and high ISO noise have become so high priority in many discussions.
What about color, tonality, microdetail and things like that. What about the ISO where 80% of images are made (low and medium ISO)?
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.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.
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.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.
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).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.
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.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.
. . . . and nor are studio tests at dpreview everythingJust 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.
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.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.
There must be a god on mount Fuji, you did not know ???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?
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.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.