The changing field of professional cameras

[Canuk]

The camera on an iPhone may make images that look good on a screen, but try to print one. The local camera shop here, is constantly getting people come in w/ photos from their iPhones to print only to realize how crappy the images look even on a 4x6 print.

 

[mjhoward]

What you say contradicts with what I see in these side by side shots Imaging Resource "Comparometer" ™ Digital Camera Image Comparison Page Take a look at the maniquin in the green outfit with the book in 1600 ISO. The Canon 5D Mark II image is SOFTER than the image from the Sony A77.

By the link you provided, the D7000 is much sharper and retains much more detail than the A77 and apparently all of the other cameras you listed. I only checked one comparison out of curiosity, the last photo with the bottles and yarn @ ISO1600. But then again, all these comparisons use different lenses so the results are useless!

 

[Dao]

You know, I think most of the cameras are just fine as far as the image quality concern.

Are there any differences between them, yes I am sure. But just for image quality, it may not matter too much for most of the photographers. I wish Sony continue to wow the market with their full frame cameras. If they have a full frame camera with decent performance can cost around $1500 new, I may consider switch to Sony. Or at least take a closer look.

For what I do, I do not need 10fps (6fps is good enough for me now). Lens wise, I just need few decent primes with a good standard zoom lens and a good telephotos lens. If cost is a concern, some of the Tamron and Sigma lens are not bad at all, prime or zooms.


My Canon 40D is old when it compare to other newer cameras. But I did not find it has bad image quality. I even saw a lot of great photos coming out from 20D, 30D or Nikon D50 or 70s. And yes, in certain situation, to have a camera with better ISO performance is nice, but I do not think it is deal breaker if a camera do not perform as good as others in that area.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Sorry Skieur, but are you honestly saying the A77 is a good high ISO camera? You make alot of valid points in your post and I agree with you and think the gap is closing so don't think this is a blast at you, it really is not!

My only beef is using the A77 as an example of a good High ISO camera. The A77 has absolutely ghastly High ISO. DP Review slammed this camera for its HIGH ISO noise performance, it really is not a camera I would spend 20 pennies on, it has other things going for it but its another typical case of Sony being the company who sells style over substance (the main reason I try to avoid Sony products if I can).

You would be better off mentioning the D7000 in comparison to these cameras in my humble opinion.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

A magnesium metal chassis is mostly about heat dissipation, and the blocking of electromagnetic interference.

The insertion of the iPhone camera into a discussion of pro grade DSLR cameras is a canard, and a useless canard at that.

if you actually read his post!!!! MJ Howard was stating how in 'PERFECT' conditions an Iphone can produce a decent photo that matches other cameras... He has a valid point here! But as we all know, conditions are not always 'PERFECT' for taking photographs so the iphone suffers badly in anything but perfect conditions.

 

[Derrel]

I think the Sony A77's best pro camera feature is how the Live View viewfinder image cuts out at 8 FPS, and does not allow the user to keep up with moving subjects...or maybe it is how the A77's autofocus system cannot keep up with the shutter...and is routinely out-done by the conventional Canon 7D, with its flapping mirror...

The image performance as described by dPreview is one of the camera's weaker areas.Sony SLT-A77 Review: 26. Conclusion: Digital Photography Review As dPreview states: "Very noisy RAW files at high ISO settings."

As well as ,"we're not very impressed by the A77's pixel level image quality at ISO 3200 and above compared to its competitors."

And, "as far as image quality is concerned, the A77 is a camera with a split personality."

As well as, "...we're unhappy with the mushy JPEG rendering in all but the most favorable conditions, and very disappointed by intense noise toward the top of the A77's ISO sensitivity scale."

And there is also:"...the A77 is unequivocally noisier than its competitors both in terms of measured and visible noise." and "...we're disappointed by the mushiness of its JPEGS in everyday shooting,"

Once again, I say, "Ehhh."

 

[rexbobcat]

I think it's too bad the Sony A-850 has been discontinued. A full-frame size sensor, and the huge viewfinder image, and the impeccable traditional layout were really impressive, and the price of under $2,000 for a full-frame was market-leading.Sony Alpha DSLR- A850 Full Frame Digital SLR Camera DSLRA850 B&HThe A77 is NOT impressive to me...read the dPreview review...cramming 24.6 MP into a crop-sensor leaves the image performance severely lacking, and far below that of a FF camera...and the high frame rates are nice and all, but the autofocus system cannot even begin to keep up...and the image through the viewfinder is so dim that in-studio use under modeling lights is severely impaired. Sorry, but the Sony A77 is in NO WAY a "professional" camera...it has some serious,serious fundamental flaws as a "machine", and would make a disastrous choice for somebody looking for a real "professional camera".If you put the photos from the A77 side by side with those from a Nikon or Canon 12 megapixel camera (meaning 5D original, Nikon D3, D3s, or D700), you can see that the camera's JPEG images are soft, and the sensor is very noisy, and the image quality is strictly not up to snuff, at ANY of the higher ISO values...and the camera has NO LIVE VIEW in 8- or 12 frames per second mode, so panning and following motion is basically damned near impossible...the RAW files are noisy at high ISO...in all, the Sony A77 is not a very good professional-level instrument. The Sony A77 has some very serious shortcomings in image quality, ISO range, lack of viewfinder at high FPS!! (Good Gawd, that's a serious problem!), and poor viewfinder image under lower-light levels.I honestly have no idea why you are calling this a "professional camera", when it is clearly not up to the BASIC level of functionality for a pro camera...it's high-end gadget freak consumer all the way....small sensor, bad finder under anything but bright light, poor sensor performance at high ISOs, strong noise reduction, poor control over degree of noise reduction, an AF system that cannot keep up with the shutter, and no real-time viewing at 8 fps or 12 fps...and SOOC JPEG Images that are severely lacking in detail...Sony SLT-A77 Review: 26. Conclusion: Digital Photography Review"Ehhh..."

What you say contradicts with what I see in these side by side shots Imaging Resource "Comparometer" ™ Digital Camera Image Comparison Page Take a look at the maniquin in the green outfit with the book in 1600 ISO. The Canon 5D Mark II image is SOFTER than the image from the Sony A77.Looking further you will find that the image performance is not lacking at all. Notice the detail of the A77 is equal to that of the Nikon D3 or Canon IDs mark iii. I don't think that ISO 25,600 is lacking in ISO range either. The viewfinder image is better under lower light than usual optical viewfinders since it is OLED. The autofocus system according to Popular Photography is the fastest of any DSLR in both movie mode and photo shooting.skieur

The photosites on all of Canon's pro cameras are larger than that of the A77 (can't speak for Nikon). Even the 1D's 1.3x crop APS-H sensor has larger sites. This means that the camera can...well...take in more light information. I don't know the technics of it, all I know is that the larger the sensor, the larger the photosites, which equals better ISO. I also know that less MP (nowadays anyways) translates into better image quality in large sensors when compared to high megapixel APS-C, because there are less photosites, but the photosites that are there are far apart and larger, allowing for better quality. (I think I have this right. Someone elaborate if I'm wrong. lol)

 

[unpopular]

That is true, but larger images also mean more reduction at any given print size, and no no matter what as you approach these absurd ISOs you're going to get noisy results to the extent I am not sure it matters much if there is more grain in one camera than the other at ISO 2.3 billion.

In fact, while the NEX 7 does have more noise than the lower pixel count NEX 5, the NEX 7 does perform fairly well when compared to the SLT series. I think the biggest problem with these is that some of the light is being diverted away from the sensor at time of exposure resulting in lower signal.

---

Honestly, though, I think that us small-fry photographers get a little overly enthusiastic about 35mm frame-sized sensors and that older model medium format sensors will easily out-perform current full frame systems at a similar price range. Perhaps you won't have ISOs at above 16k (or lower), but unless you're a press photographer - who cares?

 

[skieur]

I am honestly saying that the A77 is the same at high ISOs as the Nikon D3X and the Canon IDS Mark III. If you don't believe it, check out the photo I mentioned in the link.

skieur

 

[skieur]

The insertion of the iPhone camera into a discussion of pro grade DSLR cameras is a canard, and a useless canard at that.

I believe the point that was intended to be made, was.

No, it wasn't. To quote you "You can put an iPhone 4S photo up against those same bodies and even then you may not be able to tell the difference." I pointed out the difference so my point was made, not yours.


skieur

 

[skieur]

That is true, but larger images also mean more reduction at any given print size, and no no matter what as you approach these absurd ISOs you're going to get noisy results to the extent I am not sure it matters much if there is more grain in one camera than the other at ISO 2.3 billion.

---

Honestly, though, I think that us small-fry photographers get a little overly enthusiastic about 35mm frame-sized sensors and that older model medium format sensors will easily out-perform current full frame systems at a similar price range. Perhaps you won't have ISOs at above 16k (or lower), but unless you're a press photographer - who cares?

Medium format certainly outperforms in some areas but Hasselblad and the others do not handle high ISOs very well and require lots of studio light for indoor work.

skieur

 

[Ballistics]

Looking at these shots @ ISO 6400... the 5D Mark II is clearly the winner in the mannequin picture over the A77. But in the house picture, The 5D mark II is ultra blurry making it a crap picture. The D7000 house picture is at a different angle and at a different time of day(year?) That site is terrible.

 

[skieur]

Sorry Skieur, but are you honestly saying the A77 is a good high ISO camera? You make alot of valid points in your post and I agree with you and think the gap is closing so don't think this is a blast at you, it really is not!

My only beef is using the A77 as an example of a good High ISO camera. The A77 has absolutely ghastly High ISO. DP Review slammed this camera for its HIGH ISO noise performance, it really is not a camera I would spend 20 pennies on, it has other things going for it but its another typical case of Sony being the company who sells style over substance (the main reason I try to avoid Sony products if I can).

You would be better off mentioning the D7000 in comparison to these cameras in my humble opinion.

Well, if the A77 has ghastly high ISO, then so does the Nikon D3X and the Canon IDS Mark III, since side by side the images look very similar in sharpness, quality etc.

skieur

 

[o hey tyler]

The insertion of the iPhone camera into a discussion of pro grade DSLR cameras is a canard, and a useless canard at that.

Aren't canards more or less useless by definition? :scratch:

I just haven't came across anyone with an unfounded statement that was actually useful.

 

[Ballistics]

Sorry Skieur, but are you honestly saying the A77 is a good high ISO camera? You make alot of valid points in your post and I agree with you and think the gap is closing so don't think this is a blast at you, it really is not!

My only beef is using the A77 as an example of a good High ISO camera. The A77 has absolutely ghastly High ISO. DP Review slammed this camera for its HIGH ISO noise performance, it really is not a camera I would spend 20 pennies on, it has other things going for it but its another typical case of Sony being the company who sells style over substance (the main reason I try to avoid Sony products if I can).

You would be better off mentioning the D7000 in comparison to these cameras in my humble opinion.

Well, if the A77 has ghastly high ISO, then so does the Nikon D3X and the Canon IDS Mark III, since side by side the images look very similar in sharpness, quality etc.

skieur

Yeah, that's because who ever shot these pictures are awful or rushed through the process.