Noise a850 vs. A77

[rexbobcat]

I rarely shoot high ISO. Mostly my daughters ballet and school plays which isn't often. Those pictures never gets printed. They are just viewed on the computer. So high ISO is important but not overly important. My Olympus gear was really bad over 800iso. If I worked for Rolling Stone and shot concerts then a 5D would be my choice. But for what I do I can't justify getting one. I think that a camera like the NEX 7 with it cropped sensor, small size and low cost plus IQ approaching the IQ of a full frame camera is awesome. I think in the near future owning a full frame camera will be of little benefit. I am very pleased with my Sony gear. It does what I want it to do. Like I said. Sony and Olympus both think outside the box. Call it gimmiky if you like but they have the balls to try new things.

I agree with most of what you said, but...

Most of what you said makes sense if you put photos on FB and keep them on your computer like you said. But how many people only enjoy keeping their photos on the computer? Heh.

And I get soooo tired of these moms at basketball games with their entry-level DSLRs (including Sony) with their entry-level lenses asking "why are all of my pictures blurry?" "It's out of focus." "It shouldn't do that! I paid $600 for this camera!!!!"

You get what you pay for. "New things" refers to features that people are wanting, and make work easier. "Gimmicks" refer to those features that sound cool on the box of the product. Sony and Olympus have tried new things, but I'm not sure that their innovation really outweighs their gimmicks....I mean....in-camera HDR? Is that really innovation, or is it just being lazy.....

 

[jaomul]

I rarely shoot high ISO. Mostly my daughters ballet and school plays which isn't often. Those pictures never gets printed. They are just viewed on the computer. So high ISO is important but not overly important. My Olympus gear was really bad over 800iso. If I worked for Rolling Stone and shot concerts then a 5D would be my choice. But for what I do I can't justify getting one. I think that a camera like the NEX 7 with it cropped sensor, small size and low cost plus IQ approaching the IQ of a full frame camera is awesome. I think in the near future owning a full frame camera will be of little benefit. I am very pleased with my Sony gear. It does what I want it to do. Like I said. Sony and Olympus both think outside the box. Call it gimmiky if you like but they have the balls to try new things.

I agree with most of what you said, but...

Most of what you said makes sense if you put photos on FB and keep them on your computer like you said. But how many people only enjoy keeping their photos on the computer? Heh.

And I get soooo tired of these moms at basketball games with their entry-level DSLRs (including Sony) with their entry-level lenses asking "why are all of my pictures blurry?" "It's out of focus." "It shouldn't do that! I paid $600 for this camera!!!!"

You get what you pay for. "New things" refers to features that people are wanting, and make work easier. "Gimmicks" refer to those features that sound cool on the box of the product. Sony and Olympus have tried new things, but I'm not sure that their innovation really outweighs their gimmicks....I mean....in-camera HDR? Is that really innovation, or is it just being lazy.....

In camera HDR isn't my thing, or a camera that stiches together a panorama but these extra functions (gimmicks) don't seem to add cost to the camera so why not have them, they may appeal to some. When hd video arrived on DSLRs many dismissed it as a gimmick, now there are posts even here that recommend a sony over a canon or a nikon over a sony because of video functionality. It has to be said that with technology improving that cheaper smaller lighter cameras are competing. I still think though that if a small light camera with a smallish sensor can compete with their larger counterparts that the larger ones have massive ability to improve over what they now are.
This is all good news if you enjoy the tech as much as the photography

 

[cosmonaut]

The a77 focuses in almost darkness. The NEX 7 as well I don't get to many blurry pictures. I seldom get out of manual settings and the in camera HDR is quite useless the anti shake where the camera takes six shots and puts them together for a sharp picture is amazingly good. But even with that other than trying it I never use it. But at least they try new things. Nikon and Canon are going to be playing catch up if they are not careful. When was the last upgrade to the 5D? There are already rumors to the next full frame Sony. I think that will be the one that puts them ahead in the game.

I rarely shoot high ISO. Mostly my daughters ballet and school plays which isn't often. Those pictures never gets printed. They are just viewed on the computer. So high ISO is important but not overly important. My Olympus gear was really bad over 800iso. If I worked for Rolling Stone and shot concerts then a 5D would be my choice. But for what I do I can't justify getting one. I think that a camera like the NEX 7 with it cropped sensor, small size and low cost plus IQ approaching the IQ of a full frame camera is awesome. I think in the near future owning a full frame camera will be of little benefit. I am very pleased with my Sony gear. It does what I want it to do. Like I said. Sony and Olympus both think outside the box. Call it gimmiky if you like but they have the balls to try new things.

I agree with most of what you said, but...Most of what you said makes sense if you put photos on FB and keep them on your computer like you said. But how many people only enjoy keeping their photos on the computer? Heh.And I get soooo tired of these moms at basketball games with their entry-level DSLRs (including Sony) with their entry-level lenses asking "why are all of my pictures blurry?" "It's out of focus." "It shouldn't do that! I paid $600 for this camera!!!!" You get what you pay for. "New things" refers to features that people are wanting, and make work easier. "Gimmicks" refer to those features that sound cool on the box of the product. Sony and Olympus have tried new things, but I'm not sure that their innovation really outweighs their gimmicks....I mean....in-camera HDR? Is that really innovation, or is it just being lazy.....

 

[kassad]

You get what you pay for. "New things" refers to features that people are wanting, and make work easier. "Gimmicks" refer to those features that sound cool on the box of the product. Sony and Olympus have tried new things, but I'm not sure that their innovation really outweighs their gimmicks....I mean....in-camera HDR? Is that really innovation, or is it just being lazy.....

These gimmicks are probably the strongest selling point for Sony. Your average DSLR or Mirrorless etc buyer isn't a pro or looking to go pro. They are people who want to take better than average pictures, better than they can get with a point and shoot. Most of these people will never use Photoshop let alone to do a HDR or stitch a panorama together. Unfortunately for me this is the course Sony has set. I suspect to "pro" camera market is far smaller that the amateur market. Sony is going where the market is.

 

[o hey tyler]

The a77 focuses in almost darkness. The NEX 7 as well I don't get to many blurry pictures. I seldom get out of manual settings and the in camera HDR is quite useless the anti shake where the camera takes six shots and puts them together for a sharp picture is amazingly good. But even with that other than trying it I never use it. But at least they try new things. Nikon and Canon are going to be playing catch up if they are not careful. When was the last upgrade to the 5D? There are already rumors to the next full frame Sony. I think that will be the one that puts them ahead in the game.

I rarely shoot high ISO. Mostly my daughters ballet and school plays which isn't often. Those pictures never gets printed. They are just viewed on the computer. So high ISO is important but not overly important. My Olympus gear was really bad over 800iso. If I worked for Rolling Stone and shot concerts then a 5D would be my choice. But for what I do I can't justify getting one. I think that a camera like the NEX 7 with it cropped sensor, small size and low cost plus IQ approaching the IQ of a full frame camera is awesome. I think in the near future owning a full frame camera will be of little benefit. I am very pleased with my Sony gear. It does what I want it to do. Like I said. Sony and Olympus both think outside the box. Call it gimmiky if you like but they have the balls to try new things.

I agree with most of what you said, but...Most of what you said makes sense if you put photos on FB and keep them on your computer like you said. But how many people only enjoy keeping their photos on the computer? Heh.And I get soooo tired of these moms at basketball games with their entry-level DSLRs (including Sony) with their entry-level lenses asking "why are all of my pictures blurry?" "It's out of focus." "It shouldn't do that! I paid $600 for this camera!!!!" You get what you pay for. "New things" refers to features that people are wanting, and make work easier. "Gimmicks" refer to those features that sound cool on the box of the product. Sony and Olympus have tried new things, but I'm not sure that their innovation really outweighs their gimmicks....I mean....in-camera HDR? Is that really innovation, or is it just being lazy.....

There are already rumors for the next 5D too... I guess I don't see your point.

 

[Kolia]

These gimmicks are probably the strongest selling point for Sony. Your average DSLR or Mirrorless etc buyer isn't a pro or looking to go pro. They are people who want to take better than average pictures, better than they can get with a point and shoot. Most of these people will never use Photoshop let alone to do a HDR or stitch a panorama together. Unfortunately for me this is the course Sony has set. I suspect to "pro" camera market is far smaller that the amateur market. Sony is going where the market is.

Agreed.

These gimmicks are what drove me to Sony. I bought an a390 last year and upgraded to a a65 a few months ago.

I had a film Rebel film camera 15 years ago and didn't like the multiple version of similar lenses with a wide price range.

Like you said, the mass market doesn't care about spending hours reworking pictures.

I find it somewhat amusing when CaNikon friends are snubbing my because of my "toy camera" yet none of them own a FF or have any sort of recognition as pro anything. Many people chose CaNikon for the image they project.

If Sony makes enough waves with its gimmicky product to push Canon and Nikon to innovate too, everybody wins.

 

[o hey tyler]

That's interesting. I chose Canon because of the usability, availability of lenses, the price point, image quality, and high ISO capabilities.

Wasn't really considering my "image" when I made the switch from Sony. Just looking for a better system... Which I found.

 

[Kolia]

What made you go with Sony in the first place ?

I wasn't judging anybody by my comment.

 

[o hey tyler]

What made you go with Sony in the first place ?

Because it was my first DSLR that I bought. I didn't read far enough into it and do my homework. Shortly after I purchased my A200, I realized the limitations of the system, and switched to one that worked for me and my needs.

I didn't want a solely APS-C 50mm lens, I didn't want a proprietary flash system, I didn't want a CCD sensor, I didn't want such exorbitantly priced lenses, I did want live view, etc.

 

[argieramos]

But it doesn't have any effect on the topic at hand so it would logically be disregarded by those who enter this thread looking for information that the topic title represents.

Just stating a fact here.

Neither your opinion about my post have any effect on the topic. Gary said that the a850 is not made for high ISO but he would rather have it over the NEX-7 and a77. Obviously, high ISO is not the most important thing to him. I replied to his comment because I saw his point and I agree, that's why I asked him how often does he shoot in ISO6400 vs lower ISO. That's how this low ISO IQ thing brought up in here. I was trying to have a healthy, friendly, and happy discussion in this thread but I guess you don't want that. I am cool with that. lol

A lot of people who shoot with available light, especially action in available light use ISO 1600-6400 quite regularly.

Of course you wouldn't know that because you're too wrapped up in sensor statistics rather than doing real world shooting with an actual camera because it's too "cold" out.

A lot of people shoot with available light? Ofcourse! Everyone does. There are times that you just can't use a flash and the ambient light is not good enough. I was asking how often do you use the 6400? For what I see a850 shots from 100-3200 are good. 6400 not that good, but still usable. A lot of people are using flash right? In Portrait, Studio, Wildlife, Sports, Landscape, and General outdoor Photography, what ISO do you use? 6400?

I see that you are still using that "cold' issue to attack me. You really don't want a decent and healthy discussion huh? lol...

 

[o hey tyler]

Neither your opinion about my post have any effect on the topic. Gary said that the a850 is not made for high ISO but he would rather have it over the NEX-7 and a77. Obviously, high ISO is not the most important thing to him. I replied to his comment because I saw his point and I agree, that's why I asked him how often does he shoot in ISO6400 vs lower ISO. That's how this low ISO IQ thing brought up in here. I was trying to have a healthy, friendly, and happy discussion in this thread but I guess you don't want that. I am cool with that. lol

A lot of people who shoot with available light, especially action in available light use ISO 1600-6400 quite regularly.

Of course you wouldn't know that because you're too wrapped up in sensor statistics rather than doing real world shooting with an actual camera because it's too "cold" out.

A lot of people shoot with available light? Ofcourse! Everyone does. There are times that you just can't use a flash and the ambient light is not good enough. I was asking how often do you use the 6400? For what I see a850 shots from 100-3200 are good. 6400 not that good, but still usable. A lot of people are using flash right? In Portrait, Studio, Wildlife, Sports, Landscape, and General outdoor Photography, what ISO do you use? 6400?

I see that you are still using that "cold' issue to attack me. You really don't want a decent and healthy discussion huh? lol...

I used 6400ISO on my 5Dmk2 the other night to take photos of the stars, and they turned out great. Other people use ISO that high to freeze action in available light.

That's why I chose the 5Dmk2 because it does so well up to ISO6400. Even images at a higher ISO are salvageable but may require a touch of NR.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Of course you wouldn't know that because you're too wrapped up in sensor statistics rather than doing real world shooting with an actual camera because it's too "cold" out.

I see that you are still using that "cold' issue to attack me.

 

[argieramos]

A lot of people who shoot with available light, especially action in available light use ISO 1600-6400 quite regularly.

Of course you wouldn't know that because you're too wrapped up in sensor statistics rather than doing real world shooting with an actual camera because it's too "cold" out.

A lot of people shoot with available light? Ofcourse! Everyone does. There are times that you just can't use a flash and the ambient light is not good enough. I was asking how often do you use the 6400? For what I see a850 shots from 100-3200 are good. 6400 not that good, but still usable. A lot of people are using flash right? In Portrait, Studio, Wildlife, Sports, Landscape, and General outdoor Photography, what ISO do you use? 6400?

I see that you are still using that "cold' issue to attack me. You really don't want a decent and healthy discussion huh? lol...

I used 6400ISO on my 5Dmk2 the other night to take photos of the stars, and they turned out great. Other people use ISO that high to freeze action in available light.

That's why I chose the 5Dmk2 because it does so well up to ISO6400. Even images at a higher ISO are salvageable but may require a touch of NR.

Before I make a comment on that one, can I see the sample of that bro if you don't mind? High ISO noise is not that noticeable on that kind of photography anyway.

 

[argieramos]

Of course you wouldn't know that because you're too wrapped up in sensor statistics rather than doing real world shooting with an actual camera because it's too "cold" out.

I see that you are still using that "cold' issue to attack me.

Still got nothing else to say? You scared to talk trash on me? lol

 

[argieramos]

These gimmicks are probably the strongest selling point for Sony. Your average DSLR or Mirrorless etc buyer isn't a pro or looking to go pro. They are people who want to take better than average pictures, better than they can get with a point and shoot. Most of these people will never use Photoshop let alone to do a HDR or stitch a panorama together. Unfortunately for me this is the course Sony has set. I suspect to "pro" camera market is far smaller that the amateur market. Sony is going where the market is.

Agreed.

These gimmicks are what drove me to Sony. I bought an a390 last year and upgraded to a a65 a few months ago.

I had a film Rebel film camera 15 years ago and didn't like the multiple version of similar lenses with a wide price range.

Like you said, the mass market doesn't care about spending hours reworking pictures.

I find it somewhat amusing when CaNikon friends are snubbing my because of my "toy camera" yet none of them own a FF or have any sort of recognition as pro anything. Many people chose CaNikon for the image they project.

If Sony makes enough waves with its gimmicky product to push Canon and Nikon to innovate too, everybody wins.

Nikon is now putting in-camera HDR function in their camera too. Having these "gimmick" features is better than not having anything at all