sony a77

[Derrel]

It seems from the DxO Mark link you provided us argieramos, that the Sony A77's Low-Light performance LAGS BEHIND the now ancient Canon 1D-Mark II (not even the N-version,but the ORIGINAL Mark II!) AND it is wayyyyyy below the now-old Canon 5D in terms of High ISO performance...the a77 gets its ass kicked at elevated ISO levels by the old Canon 5D. Why am I not surprised that the A77 is inferior at High ISO levels to both a seven year-old Canon FF, and an eight year-old APS-H pro Canon???

You wrote, "The a77 destroyed Professional Level cameras of Canon in Image Quality. Cameras that use much bigger sensor." Uh...not QUITE...the A77 fell FLAT ON ITS FACE at higher ISO values...the old Canon 5D performed the best of the three cameras that YOU chose to compare it with...but the Sony did have wider dynamic range and color depth and a marginally higher overall score...but let's say for lower-light shots, the roughly 800 score of the A77 versus the roughly 1300 score of the original Canon 5D...that's a poor performance for the new Sony against a camera that's about seven years old...

As with most things in the photography world, there ARE trade-offs...from what I gather, the A77 24 MP sensor looks fine at lower ISO levels, but it LOSES DETAIL pretty fast as the ISO levels rise, and in fact, the degree of noise reduction needed at elevated ISO levels brings the overall resolution down to the 16.2 megapixel level of the "other Sony sensors" used by both Pentax in the K5 and Nikon in the D7000, and also the 17.8 MP (effective) MP sensor used in the Canon 7D. Also, the RAW files of the A77 are "cooked", to help alleviate all the danged noise the sensor and electronics create...a few years ago "cooked" RAW files was something people would scream about all day long on-line. Of course, now, with a 24 MP starting point, it seems like "cooked" RAW files and HEAVILY-cooked JPEG images from the A77 are actually a pretty good compromise, all things considered. There are now enough MP that some noise reduction, or even heavy NR, seems like a good trade-off to me, even if it effectively lowers the A77 from a 24 MP camera down to a 16- to 18-MP camera...that seems fine to me...

I think if a person has Sony lenses and flashes, then they ought to look into the A77. If not, then there's not much need to look into the A77. As Pop Photo's Michael MacNamara wrote in his review, he thinks it's a good idea for Canon and Nikon users to "wait and see" what those companies come out with in the **video** front in their upcoming cameras...meaning it's nowhere near the blanket "Let's all migrate to Sony!!!" call to action that "some" people want to try and spin that one, single review into being.

 

[argieramos]

It seems from the DxO Mark link you provided us argieramos, that the Sony A77's Low-Light performance LAGS BEHIND the now ancient Canon 1D-Mark II (not even the N-version,but the ORIGINAL Mark II!) AND it is wayyyyyy below the now-old Canon 5D in terms of High ISO performance...the a77 gets its ass kicked at elevated ISO levels by the old Canon 5D. Why am I not surprised that the A77 is inferior at High ISO levels to both a seven year-old Canon FF, and an eight year-old APS-H pro Canon???

You wrote, "The a77 destroyed Professional Level cameras of Canon in Image Quality. Cameras that use much bigger sensor." Uh...not QUITE...the A77 fell FLAT ON ITS FACE at higher ISO values...the old Canon 5D performed the best of the three cameras that YOU chose to compare it with...but the Sony did have wider dynamic range and color depth and a marginally higher overall score...but let's say for lower-light shots, the roughly 800 score of the A77 versus the roughly 1300 score of the original Canon 5D...that's a poor performance for the new Sony against a camera that's about seven years old...

As with most things in the photography world, there ARE trade-offs...from what I gather, the A77 24 MP sensor looks fine at lower ISO levels, but it LOSES DETAIL pretty fast as the ISO levels rise, and in fact, the degree of noise reduction needed at elevated ISO levels brings the overall resolution down to the 16.2 megapixel level of the "other Sony sensors" used by both Pentax in the K5 and Nikon in the D7000, and also the 17.8 MP (effective) MP sensor used in the Canon 7D. Also, the RAW files of the A77 are "cooked", to help alleviate all the danged noise the sensor and electronics create...a few years ago "cooked" RAW files was something people would scream about all day long on-line. Of course, now, with a 24 MP starting point, it seems like "cooked" RAW files and HEAVILY-cooked JPEG images from the A77 are actually a pretty good compromise, all things considered. There are now enough MP that some noise reduction, or even heavy NR, seems like a good trade-off to me, even if it effectively lowers the A77 from a 24 MP camera down to a 16- to 18-MP camera...that seems fine to me...

I think if a person has Sony lenses and flashes, then they ought to look into the A77. If not, then there's not much need to look into the A77. As Pop Photo's Michael MacNamara wrote in his review, he thinks it's a good idea for Canon and Nikon users to "wait and see" what those companies come out with in the **video** front in their upcoming cameras...meaning it's nowhere near the blanket "Let's all migrate to Sony!!!" call to action that "some" people want to try and spin that one, single review into being.

the a77 produces much better detail in low ISO than those professional could give in their low ISO. So my claim about the a77 destroy them in terms of IQ is still true. Bigger sensor should do better in low light than APS-C sized right? How about we compare it to FF Sony
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS-1D_Mark_IV-vs-Sony_Alpha_DSLR-A900
a850
-Better image quality --> 79.0 vs 74.0
Around 10% better image quality
-Better color depth 23.8 bits vs 22.8 bits
Distinguishes 1 more bits of color
-Slightly lower noise at high ISO 1,415 ISO vs 1,320 ISO
The DSLR-A850 has a slight edge (0.1 f-stops) in low noise, high ISO performance
-More dynamic range --> 12.2 EV vs 12 EV
0.1 f-stops more dynamic range

a850 wins in every category. From the low light performance, to the Image quality. But you don't see me bragging about this result and calling the 1D Mark IV a noisy piece of crap because I know this comparison is unfair.




You think a77 loses detail pretty fast in high ISO? Sure. But it doesn't change the fact that its 1600 ISO still have more detail and better IQ than the 7D specially the D300s in their 100 ISO.

If you are going to talk about the sensor ability, you should not use the a77. You know how the Pericle mirror affects the light right? 24mp is an improvement of the 16mp sensor. Sure it gets a little bit noisy, but everything from the clarity, color accuracy, and dynamic range are better. NEX 7 prove that.

Since you are trying to defend those Canon trolls, I guess you also want to be my prey in this debate. By the way Derrel, you haven't given me the number of the Best Buy store where you say had 6 a77 stocks. If you are going to lie, make sure its believable. lol

 

[mjhoward]

Do you have an idea of what's going on here? It is not me keeps attacking in this thread. You have made some false claim, that's how a fanboy is.. Deny it all you want, you're still a fanboy lol.

And what false claim have I made in this thread?

I have no desire to shoot with Canon because of their inferior lenses quality.

Thats hilarious and your ignorance shines. I would argue that they reign supreme when it comes to Super-telephoto's and perhaps in the world of Macro when it comes to the 65mm MPE.

Sure Canon and Nikon have more lenses. But Sony doesn't create multiple version of certain lenses.

That's because the sony A-mount has only been around for 5 years now. The EF-mount has existed for ~24 years and the F-mount for over 50 years. Of course there will be multiple versions over the course of that many years due to advancements in technology. Do you really think that Sony would/will leave a lens design untouched for 50 years?

You can only brag about the fact that those are third party lenses.

I'm not even sure what you're referring to here as I havn't bragged about anything. If you're referring to the list of Tokina lenses in my signature, those are lenses that I chose to purchase. If I wanted Nikon lenses, I could have just as easily bought some. I actually had a couple of DX Nikon lenses and sold them off once I got my hands on the 11-16. Nikon also does not have the focal length ranges that I get out of the Tokina's, at least not at constant f/2.8. As for anything 'brag' worthy, we do have 3 of the Canon 800mm f/5.6 lenses, something which Sony and any other third party can't touch. But you're right, sony has EVERYTHING covered in spades.

I'm now done responding to your asinine posts. Good luck with your delusion.

 

[Derrel]

Argie,
You are one persistent fellow...I hope you had a lot of fun with the A77 you rented from that company. If it is such a fantastic camera--why do you not rush out and BUY ONE?

No, "I" do not "think the A77 loses detail pretty fast"--that is what the review sites all mention...people who test and compare cameras for a living are ALL noticing the same thing...the A77 loses detail due to noise, and noise reduction, quite rapidly. That's just a fact, mentioned by all the reviewers and test sites. It's not my opinion, it's a fact. But you seem unable to comprehend facts, or dispassionate comments or analysis about your one-time-rental-love, the A77.

Your statement that I am "trying to defend those Canon trolls"--I am not quite sure what you mean by that. My last post was just some observations based upon the link YOU introduced to this post; in which the A77 gets its ass kicked at High ISO levels by two different, and much,much older Canon cameras...that was your link...I mentioned that the Sony does better than those cameras which YOU SELECTED to compare it against. I wrote, "Sony did have wider dynamic range and color depth and a marginally higher overall score", and you allege I am trying to "defend...Canon trolls". I'm sorry argieramos, but you are clearly not reading my posts in any sort of level-headed, dispassionate manner... I specifically mentioned areas in which the Sony out-performed the two Canons that YOU SELECTED to compare it against, and which YOU LINKED US TO...

Argie...come on...you wrote, "If you are going to talk about the sensor ability, you should not use the a77." Uh, argieramos, this post is entitled "sony a77"...YOU LINKED US to a comparison of the Sony a77 and the Canon 5D and 1D Mark II. I must stress again, argieramos, YOU are the guy who gave us the link to the Sony A77 as compared with the Canons at the DxO Mark web site...and now you are telling me I should not use the information which you introduced? You're telling me I ought not discuss the Sony A77 in the post entitled "Sony a77"--but that I ought to discuss the NEX 7?

I do not quite understand why you will not engage on the facts that you linked us to...even when I give the A77 its due, you attack,attack,attack,and then deflect; telling me to look at the NEX 7, instead of the new, exciting, mid-level APS-C d-slr, the Sony A77?

 

[dxqcanada]

Sure Canon and Nikon have more lenses. But Sony doesn't create multiple version of certain lenses.

That's because the sony A-mount has only been around for 5 years now. The EF-mount has existed for ~24 years and the F-mount for over 50 years. Of course there will be multiple versions over the course of that many years due to advancements in technology. Do you really think that Sony would/will leave a lens design untouched for 50 years?

Actually the Sony A-Mount is the Minolta A-Mount ... which started in 1985 (I think).
I do feel that the Sony lens lineup is limited (even Minolta's Maxxum lens lineup was not that extensive) ... and I do wish that they did make more lenses and multiple versions of some lenses.
Example, I would be happy with a 400mm f4.0 (Minolta did make a 400mm f4.5).

 

[Derrel]

I really,really,really thought that the $1899, lightweight, 400mm f/4.5 Minolta A-mount telephoto was a CRITICAL LENS for Sony to keep in the lineup, as a way to offer a really desirable, useful, portable lens. The 400/4.5 had so,so many things going for it; it was unchallenged by any other lens maker or camera maker's offerings...the price was fabulous! I honestly thought that when Sony took over, that THAT would become a lynchpin in their lens lineup. But that did not happen.

Sigma has made huge inroads over the years by designing lenses that the camera makers do not offer (like their superb 150mm macro), or which the camera makers price at exceptionally high levels, like the 10-20mm Sigma zoom that was all the rage a decade ago, or the 50mm f/1.4 Sigma HSM, or the 30mm f/1.4 Sigma HSM, or the 120-300mm f/2.8 Sigma, or the 100-300 f/4 HSM Sigma, and so on. To me, the 400mm f/4.5 appeared to be the exact kind of lens that would allow wildife and nature shooters to pair a fine lens with the in-body stabilization Sony is known for...but apparently it seems that lens has been shelved by the Sony executives, as they develop other lenses.

 

[belial]

Another butthurt Canon troll who can't accept the fact. I guess I am too much for them lol

Nah. Canon does just fine. Who's the fanboy argie? Canon Nikon an Sony make good cameras all with their pluses and minuses. Now stop acting like you know what you're talking about

 

[Nikon_Josh]

I'm glad I put Argie on my ignore list. Gary, and Derrel, you should do the same.

You'll feel much more intellectually enlightened when you don't have to read the stupidity that somehow makes it from Argie's brain, down to his fingers, and onto the keyboard. It's an amazing feat for the thought process to make it that far. Almost as amazing as how bad the A77 is in low light.

Argie is very popular on this forum it would seem...

 

[argieramos]

And what false claim have I made in this thread?

Not in this thread. Remember the old a77 thread?

Thats hilarious and your ignorance shines. I would argue that they reign supreme when it comes to Super-telephoto's and perhaps in the world of Macro when it comes to the 65mm MPE.

Some lenses probably. But most lenses rated below Nikon and Sony CZ counterparts.

That's because the sony A-mount has only been around for 5 years now. The EF-mount has existed for ~24 years and the F-mount for over 50 years. Of course there will be multiple versions over the course of that many years due to advancements in technology. Do you really think that Sony would/will leave a lens design untouched for 50 years?

Do you think Sony will make an IS version of their lenses? My point is Canon has tons of lenses but many of them have multiple versions. First is the standard one. The second one has IS. The third one is a bit better version of the second one. You know what I mean?
A-mount has been around for more than 5 years you f0ol. It's from Minolta. Didn't you ask me what false claim have you made in this thread? I guess I don't need to answer that.

I'm not even sure what you're referring to here as I havn't bragged about anything. If you're referring to the list of Tokina lenses in my signature, those are lenses that I chose to purchase. If I wanted Nikon lenses, I could have just as easily bought some. I actually had a couple of DX Nikon lenses and sold them off once I got my hands on the 11-16. Nikon also does not have the focal length ranges that I get out of the Tokina's, at least not at constant f/2.8. As for anything 'brag' worthy, we do have 3 of the Canon 800mm f/5.6 lenses, something which Sony and any other third party can't touch. But you're right, sony has EVERYTHING covered in spades.

I said you can only brag about the fact that those lenses that cover some of the area that Sony is lacking are third parties. Not Sony made. I didn't say you bragged about something.

I'm now done responding to your asinine posts. Good luck with your delusion.

lol. Just go and do your research. Aight mate?

 

[argieramos]

Nah. Canon does just fine. Who's the fanboy argie? Canon Nikon an Sony make good cameras all with their pluses and minuses. Now stop acting like you know what you're talking about

Of course I know what I am talking about. Can you prove otherwise?
You are right, Canon, Nikon and Sony make good cameras. But these Canon trolls keep objecting and diss the a77 in the Sony forum ignoring the fact that Canon top APS-C and similar level camera the 7D has nothing on the a77. They have to bring their big boys 1D series and full frame 5D in this debate and compare it to APS-C sensor camera, the a77. lol.

This is my statement for Tyler, Howard, Gary. If you guys love your Canon, that's cool. But before you diss other brand, make sure your favorite brand has something good. Even NEX C3 takes better IQ pictures than the 60D and 7D it's a proven fact.

 

[mjhoward]

That's because the sony A-mount has only been around for 5 years now.

A-mount has been around for more than 5 years you f0ol. It's from Minolta. Didn't you ask me what false claim have you made in this thread? I guess I don't need to answer that

Silly me, I thought we were discussing Sony lenses and how infrequently they change. I could be wrong, but Sony has only made A-mount lenses for 5 years yes? Minolta was never mentioned and was never the topic of discussion. If you re-read what I said... I said SONY A-mount, not minolta A-mount. Sony didn't manufacture any of those lenses prior to 2006. I still don't know what false claims you're referring to.

This is my statement for Tyler, Howard, Gary. If you guys love your Canon, that's cool. But before you diss other brand, make sure your favorite brand has something good. Even NEX C3 takes better IQ pictures than the 60D and 7D it's a proven fact.

I don't even own a Canon, my workplace does. I own Nikon and for most things, is my preference. Canon does have their place, as mentioned, though.

 

[argieramos]

Argie,
You are one persistent fellow...I hope you had a lot of fun with the A77 you rented from that company. If it is such a fantastic camera--why do you not rush out and BUY ONE?

No, "I" do not "think the A77 loses detail pretty fast"--that is what the review sites all mention...people who test and compare cameras for a living are ALL noticing the same thing...the A77 loses detail due to noise, and noise reduction, quite rapidly. That's just a fact, mentioned by all the reviewers and test sites. It's not my opinion, it's a fact. But you seem unable to comprehend facts, or dispassionate comments or analysis about your one-time-rental-love, the A77.

Your statement that I am "trying to defend those Canon trolls"--I am not quite sure what you mean by that. My last post was just some observations based upon the link YOU introduced to this post; in which the A77 gets its ass kicked at High ISO levels by two different, and much,much older Canon cameras...that was your link...I mentioned that the Sony does better than those cameras which YOU SELECTED to compare it against. I wrote, "Sony did have wider dynamic range and color depth and a marginally higher overall score", and you allege I am trying to "defend...Canon trolls". I'm sorry argieramos, but you are clearly not reading my posts in any sort of level-headed, dispassionate manner... I specifically mentioned areas in which the Sony out-performed the two Canons that YOU SELECTED to compare it against, and which YOU LINKED US TO...

Argie...come on...you wrote, "If you are going to talk about the sensor ability, you should not use the a77." Uh, argieramos, this post is entitled "sony a77"...YOU LINKED US to a comparison of the Sony a77 and the Canon 5D and 1D Mark II. I must stress again, argieramos, YOU are the guy who gave us the link to the Sony A77 as compared with the Canons at the DxO Mark web site...and now you are telling me I should not use the information which you introduced? You're telling me I ought not discuss the Sony A77 in the post entitled "Sony a77"--but that I ought to discuss the NEX 7?

I do not quite understand why you will not engage on the facts that you linked us to...even when I give the A77 its due, you attack,attack,attack,and then deflect; telling me to look at the NEX 7, instead of the new, exciting, mid-level APS-C d-slr, the Sony A77?

The thread is entitled "sony a77" but the content is no longer just about the a77, right? You came here and started talking about sensors. You gave judgement to the 24mp sensor based on what you read about the a77. Yes I posted the link of the comparison of the a77 against the Pro level DSLR as Gary compared those cameras already. Next time try to keep track of what's going on here before posting like that.

I can smell your intention in this thread. If you can lie about BestBuy having a77 in stock, and say that the a77 is not a real camera, then I shouldn't expect something decent statement from you. Why do you have to lie paps? You know liar will go to hell

 

[argieramos]

Silly me, I thought we were discussing Sony lenses and how infrequently they change. I could be wrong, but Sony has only made A-mount lenses for 5 years yes? Minolta was never mentioned and was never the topic of discussion. If you re-read what I said... I said SONY A-mount, not minolta A-mount. Sony didn't manufacture any of those lenses prior to 2006. I still don't know what false claims you're referring to.

I don't even own a Canon, my workplace does. I own Nikon and for most things, is my preference. Canon does have their place, as mentioned, though.

Minolta A-mount = Sony A-mount
You do not give the A-mount specific brand labeling because its the same fre***** A-mount. It's about the Sony lenses, not the A-mount
But nice excuse btw

 

[mjhoward]

Silly me, I thought we were discussing Sony lenses and how infrequently they change. I could be wrong, but Sony has only made A-mount lenses for 5 years yes? Minolta was never mentioned and was never the topic of discussion. If you re-read what I said... I said SONY A-mount, not minolta A-mount. Sony didn't manufacture any of those lenses prior to 2006. I still don't know what false claims you're referring to.

I don't even own a Canon, my workplace does. I own Nikon and for most things, is my preference. Canon does have their place, as mentioned, though.

Minolta A-mount = Sony A-mount
You do not give specific brand label on the A-mount because its the same fre***** mount. It's about the Sony lenses, not the A-mount
But nice excuse btw

I'm sorry, I should have known I needed to spell it out for you... Sony A-mount lenses have only been around since 2006. Sure the mount might be the same, but we were discussing lenses were we not?

 

[argieramos]

I'm sorry, I should have known I needed to spell it out for you... Sony A-mount lenses have only been around since 2006. Sure the mount might be the same, but we were discussing lenses were we not?

We were talking about the lens. You started talking about the A. EF, and F-mount.