sony a77

[skieur]

That seems to be a non-issue at least at the lower end. The a33 has higher IQ than any camera below $700.

Non issue at the high end too. I have shot in a mine..almost in the dark. 1/3 of an fstop is not even noticeable.

skieur

You have become a belligerent fool. The loss is 1/2 ev for starters, not 1/3 ev. The reason you don't notice it is because sony increases the gain of the sensor to compensate for this loss. This is why the images from it are so farking noisy... also something you can't seem to acknowledge. Another down side to the translucent mirror is that it is another piece of glass between the subject and the sensor. This introduces two issues... the first is a slight degradation in sharpness. This is a slight degradation, similar to having a quality UV filter on your lens. You may not notice the difference without pixel peeping. The other downfall is shooting conditions which allow for 'ghosting' or multiple reflections.

These are just problems with having the mirror there. This doesnt address any of the other problems with the body. And sure, full time Phase Detect AF is nice for a video camera... but we arn't videographers here. If I or anyone here wanted a video camera they would probably pick a more suitable product such as... a VIDEO camera... not a DSLR.

Well, maybe if your information was accurate and you actually did some research, I would seem less belligerant. The supposed loss of 1/2 EV is for the A55, NOT the A77. The loss for the A77 is 1/3 ev. (Get your models straight!) Why would Sony increase the gain of the sensor for a mere 1/3 ev? Where did you come up with that one? The photos are not anymore noisy than the Canon or Nikon as I proved in the link comparing them....Of course, maybe you are like one of my other attackers who has NO experience whatsoever in looking carefully at images which he demonstrated by his comment about a test photo being out of focus. If there is a slight degradation in sharpness from the translucent mirror then how relevant is that when the final image is still SHARPER than the same Nikon and Canon image?

As I pointed out your model confusion is demonstrated again. The "ghosting" problem you mentioned is EXCLUSIVE to the A55. Reviews have indicated that it has been corrected in the A77 by changing the coating on the mirror.

The full time fastest phase detection AF produces more accurate continuous focus in both stills and video and by the way I am a videographer as well and mix stills with video in my work, so going back and forth between the formats quickly is extremely convenient and time-saving.

skieur

 

[unpopular]

Whether or not the pellicle SLR should have gone the way of the traveling slit or been revived in Sonys latest pro/enthusiast/amateur line of cameras is an insignificant topic as compared to this bizarre obsession chronicled by Skieur in these two recent threads.

No matter what is what, you've embarrassed yourself.

 

[Crollo]

Yeah, a 1/2 stop is not a lot. Tell that to someone that actually cares about their photos. A 1/2 stop is a lot.

a lot? well if you are coming fromCanon, it means nothing considering a77 IQ is far better than every single Canon aps-c camera. It is a proven fact.

You are just as delusional as skieur.

Hahahah no that's insulting. Skeiur is persistent, but argieramos is just an idiot.

 

[skieur]

Whether or not the pellicle SLR should have gone the way of the traveling slit or been revived in Sonys latest pro/enthusiast/amateur line of cameras is an insignificant topic as compared to this bizarre obsession chronicled by Skieur in these two recent threads.

No matter what is what, you've embarrassed yourself.

Not at all. You have embarassed yourself with your obsession with MISINFORMATION, admitted lack of understanding of the SLT viewfinder, and not knowing the difference between focus and detail resolution in a Nikon shot as demonstrated.

skieur

 

[unpopular]

Ok. now you've annoyed me.

If it were resolution then the flowers and mannequin would be equally blurry. This isn't the case. The flowers, which are a few inches into the foreground are *clearly* blurry, while the mannequin is relatively sharp.

And I didn't admit anything about the SLT's viewfinder except that in certain exposure conditions it may not matter. But I am the ONLY person I know of who explicitly exposes for the hilights. Sure, I think everyone should - but my method is not standard. With most people referencing off the mid tones, the shadow sensitivity declines by the degree of light lost to illuminate viewfinder: the exact same problem which has always existed in all pellicle SLRs.

 

[Derrel]

dPreview mentioned that the ghosting caused by the pellicle mirror HAS BEEN ELIMINATED in their test of the A77. They mention it specifically. As far as using the Canon 7D as the APS-C image quality benchmark--BAD idea....the sensor in the 7D is now "older", and it has ALWAYS suffered from high noise and low color saturation...the newer Sony-made sensors used in the newer Nikmon and Pentax cameras do a better job, because the sensor is better than the one Canon built for the 7D, and the electronics are better...however if one wants to make the Sony A77 look "good", using the Canon 7D's as a point of comparison does favor the Sony camera/sensor...

The images coming from the Canon 7D have quite a bit of noise, which must be "dealt with" by noise reduction after the fact. it's kind of interesting to open a 7D image and SEE, LITERALLY SEE, all the noise and speckles in the image, and then watch as the JPEG decompression routine applies the NR information that rides withy the file...not all image viewers will do this, but I have some that do, and it's very enlightening to see how noisy the 7D's images really are. HOWEVER, the same issue seems to affect the A77 images at moderate and elevated ISO levels--specifically, the megapixel count is quite high, so even with moderate, to moderately heavy Noise Reduction applied, the A77 images look pretty good. Although, as dPreview comments on repeatedly, the A77's in-camera JPEG images at moderately high ISO's and higher look "disappointing" is the word they use.

You know, this issue came up 18 months ago; the Canon 7D's image quality is good for a 1,6x body, but the FF cameras have better color depth, lower noise, and wider dynamic range...and better high-ISO performance. Canon's upcoming 1DX professional camera is showing the way the camera makers are going to go on their next pro cameras--LOWER MP counts, and better per-pixel image quality. ANd on their pro-sumer and enrhusiast bodies, HIGHER MP counts...

 

[unpopular]

Wait. Piss.

Ok. you're right, Skieur. The meter would obviously be calibrated for the transmissive side of the pellicle. I don't think the mirror is the cause of any noise performance issues provided that this is the case. If it isn't, shame on sony, but this could be easily accounted for in EC.

Just curious - do you need to compensate for this with a handheld meter?

 

[mjhoward]

dPreview mentioned that the ghosting caused by the pellicle mirror HAS BEEN ELIMINATED in their test of the A77. They mention it specifically.

Ok so I stand corrected on this issue but the body still has its problems and should not even be compared to the D3x and the likes in terms of IQ and being a better body. It's just silly.

 

[skieur]

Wait. Piss.

Ok. you're right, Skieur. The meter would obviously be calibrated for the transmissive side of the pellicle. I don't think the mirror is the cause of any noise performance issues provided that this is the case. If it isn't, shame on sony, but this could be easily accounted for in EC.

Just curious - do you need to compensate for this with a handheld meter?

Oh, and you use a handheld meter to compensate for 1/3 of an f stop. :lmao:

skieur

 

[gsgary]

Wait. Piss.

Ok. you're right, Skieur. The meter would obviously be calibrated for the transmissive side of the pellicle. I don't think the mirror is the cause of any noise performance issues provided that this is the case. If it isn't, shame on sony, but this could be easily accounted for in EC.

Just curious - do you need to compensate for this with a handheld meter?

Oh, and you use a handheld meter to compensate for 1/3 of an f stop. :lmao:

skieur

You must have bought an A77

 

[unpopular]

Wait. Piss.

Ok. you're right, Skieur. The meter would obviously be calibrated for the transmissive side of the pellicle. I don't think the mirror is the cause of any noise performance issues provided that this is the case. If it isn't, shame on sony, but this could be easily accounted for in EC.

Just curious - do you need to compensate for this with a handheld meter?

Oh, and you use a handheld meter to compensate for 1/3 of an f stop. :lmao:

skieur

sometimes I am not even sure how to reply to you, skieur. I mean, wtf?

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Wait. Piss.

Ok. you're right, Skieur. The meter would obviously be calibrated for the transmissive side of the pellicle. I don't think the mirror is the cause of any noise performance issues provided that this is the case. If it isn't, shame on sony, but this could be easily accounted for in EC.

Just curious - do you need to compensate for this with a handheld meter?

Oh, and you use a handheld meter to compensate for 1/3 of an f stop. :lmao:

skieur

I think you guys need to take a step back, Skier has been a professional photographer for over 30-50-70 years now and you guys keep questioning him... every thread he is on goes on for about twenty pages because simply put.. NO ONE listens to Skier, when he is an experienced PRO who values his Sony products. This one is currently 11 pages, ONLY 9 pages to go before you get the message Skier is correct!

 

[unpopular]

Maybe his advanced age is why I don't understand wtf he meant by that comment.

It was a decent enough question: when using a handheld meter do you need to compensate for the amount of light which is reflected into the finder. If you don't then these cameras are compensating somehow automatically, either by misrepresenting the shutter speed, or, and more likely, increasing analog gain, or within the image processing software after the exposure is made.

I don't think that this question needed to have been met by such skepticism. I might not be 103, but I do know my way around a light meter.

 

[skieur]

Wait. Piss.

Ok. you're right, Skieur. The meter would obviously be calibrated for the transmissive side of the pellicle. I don't think the mirror is the cause of any noise performance issues provided that this is the case. If it isn't, shame on sony, but this could be easily accounted for in EC.

Just curious - do you need to compensate for this with a handheld meter?

Oh, and you use a handheld meter to compensate for 1/3 of an f stop. :lmao:

skieur

sometimes I am not even sure how to reply to you, skieur. I mean, wtf?

Well, the only difference with the mirror is possibly 1/3 of a stop but that is only based on dpreview which can be taken with a grain of salt, unless it is confirmed by other reviews.

So, why are you suggesting that I would need a handheld meter to compensate. Do you use a handheld meter to compensate for 1/3 of an fstop?

You keep making a big deal out of nothing in terms of criticizing the A77. ISO is not any worse on the Sony A77 than on Canon or Nikon as per the photos on the comparameter on imaging-resource and neither is picture noise. It is a joke to complain about the 12fps speed of the A77 at 24 megapixels when no other camera can do it with their mirrors. Canon by the way requires focus lock for burst mode, NOT the Sony which has continuous, fast phase detection autofocus even in burst mode.

Quit talking about the specs and issues with the A55 as if they were problems with the A77. How many times do I have to tell you???
THEY ARE DIFFERENT CAMERAS.

Why does Derrel have to tell you that you are WRONG? Why did you NOT go back and check your information, before he arrived? Why do you also have to jump on the bandwagon related to inaccurate information from others and reinforce misinformation? The Red information was incorrect and inaccurate. Ghosting was inaccurate. Light loss was inaccurate and irrelevant at 1/3 of an fstop. Writing times were inaccurate.
Noise could not be proven by images.


Then you compounded misinformation and inaccurate information by the ad hominem argument as in attack the person providing the information. I am tired of responding to such challenged research, experience and knowledge from most of you guys.

skieur

 

[unpopular]

So, why are you suggesting that I would need a handheld meter to compensate. Do you use a handheld meter to compensate for 1/3 of an fstop?

No, not at all. I am asking if when you use a hand held meter, do you have to compensate for the pellicle? This would indicate if the in-camera meter is compensating, or if the sensor's analog gain or raw processor is compensating.

I mean, I know you think I'm as dumb as a box of rocks or something, but I'm really not.