Sony A850 launched

ldmelsa said:
How does the lowlight compare to the Canon/Nikon?
Click to expand...

The noise is about equal to one extra stop on the Canikon suspects.

Where it really shines is at Iso 400 and below. From Iso 1600 and up the other outperform it from all the reports i have seen.

I think that i happily give up that one stop advantage for the brilliant Is0 400 and below performance and excellent price.

I must say I cant understand the whole very high Iso camp. Its like the photography world is almost obsessed with Iso performance. I understand its usefulness, but more than 80% of my shots are below Iso 400.

Sure if Iso 1600 looked like Iso 400 then a higher proportion of my shots would be at higher Iso, but not enough for me to have the majority of the shots at higher Iso ratings.

So to all the photographers out there. What percentage of your shots are higher than Iso 400, ie 800 and up. At not because you forgot to change it, but because you needed it to get the shot?
 
Wynsam said:
Where it really shines is at Iso 400 and below.
[snip]
I think that i happily give up that one stop advantage for the brilliant Is0 400 and below performance and excellent price.
Click to expand...

The problem for Sony is, that's a rather unimpressive claim. Pretty much all modern DSLRs have excellent 400 ISO. Even on my 50D (15MP, 1.6x crop), 100 and 400 ISO are pretty much indistinguishable. Of course, if I take a 100% crop area out of 100, 200 and 400 each, and put them next to each other, they don't look entirely the same. But mix them up and ask me to order them by ISO rating, and I'm pretty sure I'd get it wrong.

Wynsam said:
I must say I cant understand the whole very high Iso camp. Its like the photography world is almost obsessed with Iso performance. I understand its usefulness, but more than 80% of my shots are below Iso 400.
Click to expand...

Excluding my travel shots, which are mostly outdoors during the day, the vast majority of my shots are at 800 or higher. At events I often go to 3200 or even 6400 - and yes, that's with flash. The reason is it allows me to expose the background reasonably well, which lends context to the pictures that they wouldn't otherwise have.

Wynsam said:
Sure if Iso 1600 looked like Iso 400...
Click to expand...

The 5DmkII's 1600 looks like my 400. Actually, looking at the dpreview tests, the 5DmkII's 1600 looks better than my 400 :eek:
 
koffiejunkie said:
The problem for Sony is, that's a rather unimpressive claim. Pretty much all modern DSLRs have excellent 400 ISO. Even on my 50D (15MP, 1.6x crop), 100 and 400 ISO are pretty much indistinguishable. Of course, if I take a 100% crop area out of 100, 200 and 400 each, and put them next to each other, they don't look entirely the same. But mix them up and ask me to order them by ISO rating, and I'm pretty sure I'd get it wrong.
Click to expand...

Sure most if not all DSLR look good between Iso 100-400. None of them can match the A850 resolution and full frame shooting at its price point though.For some uses thats very important. Depends on what looking good means though. Ask the guys who use meduim format cameras. Many will only uses a fullframe DSLR that has high resolution if they were to use a DSLR at all.

koffiejunkie said:
Excluding my travel shots, which are mostly outdoors during the day, the vast majority of my shots are at 800 or higher. At events I often go to 3200 or even 6400 - and yes, that's with flash. The reason is it allows me to expose the background reasonably well, which lends context to the pictures that they wouldn't otherwise have.
Click to expand...

Wow ok, I could never get acceptable results there on my current body.(still stuck with an A100). For me the solution has been flash use. Buy wireless enabled flash/es, use them wirelsessly to get them closer to the subject if out of range, if needed use HSS( high speed synch).

koffiejunkie said:
The 5DmkII's 1600 looks like my 400. Actually, looking at the dpreview tests, the 5DmkII's 1600 looks better than my 400 :eek:
Click to expand...

Its a great camera, if I was in the Canon system I would have been very tempted.
 
Wynsam said:
Wow ok, I could never get acceptable results there on my current body.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, above 1600 it's not noise free, but the noise is pretty fine and even, which makes it very easy to deal with in Noise Ninja. The point is, at those high sensitivities, I can capture the colour and the detail, i.e. I get the shot.
 
Noise Ninja is definitely my friend:) Probably one of my oft used actions in PS.
 
I tend to forget about imaging-resource.com but they have pretty thorough reviews, and a pretty nice still life set that they test all their cameras against. This makes comparing different cameras quite more straight-forward. Anyway, they have a write-up on the A850

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA850/AA850A.HTM

Here's a summary of the pros and cons.

Pros:
* Extraordinary resolution, nothing touches it at its price point, but there's literally no other full-frame DSLR at its price point anyway
* Built-in SteadyShot image stabilization
* Good color rendering: Natural without seeming flat (slightly more saturated than the A900)
* A lot of nice user interface touches, well thought out controls
* Intelligent Preview feature is a real time-saver for determining best camera settings
* +/- 2 EV steps on auto bracketing is nice for HDR (High Dynamic Range) shooters
* RAW files are truly RAW! (Able to turn off high-ISO noise reduction in the RAW files)
* Huge viewfinder image, really hearkens back to the days of film SLRs (in a good way)
* User interchangeable focusing screens
* Lighter than many other full-frame SLRs in its resolution class
* Rugged magnesium alloy body
* 3.0-inch, high-resolution LCD
* Top panel LCD (albeit a small one)
* Dramatically low price for a full-frame camera with this much resolution
* HDMI output
* Good battery life
* Dual memory card formats

Cons:
* Some image noise even at ISO 200 (:eek:)
* At anything above ISO 200, noise limits maximum print size before resolution becomes an issue
* High-ISO performance doesn't match that of competing full-frame models (but all such are a good bit more expensive)
* Dynamic range of JPEGs less than that of many current models, though excellent dynamic range expected from RAW files
* Viewfinder resolution dropped to 98% vs 100% for the A900
* Top frame rate only 3fps; lowest among full-frame DSLRs
* Slower frame rate translates into noticeable early shutter penalty (it won't fire if you press the shutter button too soon after previous shot, A900's "dead time" was much less apparent)
* Noticeable delay when switching from record to playback mode is annoying
* Despite being much lighter than its's only competitor, still a big, heavy hunk of metal and glass (not the camera's fault, just a fact of life with full-frame.)
* No built-in flash (not unusual for a pro model though)
* APS-C mode does not improve burst speed
* Exposure accuracy may suffer with DT lenses in APS-C mode
* No Live View mode
* No Movie mode
 
I have noise issues from ISO100 on the A100. Sony's only big issue has been noise from the start (I did not know at the time I got my Sony). I only use ISO100, but most of my shooting is landscapes. If there is too little light I use a tripod and longer shutter, rather than upping the ISO.

If their FF did not have this problem too, I would have gotten one when I upgrade.
 
Quantum Theory said:
I have noise issues from ISO100 on the A100. Sony's only big issue has been noise from the start (I did not know at the time I got my Sony). I only use ISO100, but most of my shooting is landscapes. If there is too little light I use a tripod and longer shutter, rather than upping the ISO.

If their FF did not have this problem too, I would have gotten one when I upgrade.
Click to expand...

I dont find that at all. I also shoot with the A100, have tons of wedding shots at Iso 400 and 800 that print beautifully. Just picked some A4 prints that look stunning, all shot at 400 and 800, in poor light, outside after sunset, no flash, so not really sure that you are talking about.

Are you shooting raw and using noise ninja? It makes a difference. The jpeg engine is not the best in the world in the A100, the A700 firmware version 4 is much better if you want an idea of a better Sony.

That said I also do use jpeg out of the camera for many shots, just when I know its going I will want to squeeze the best out of the shot then I shoot raw.
 
Last edited:
marine1 said:
I also see noise on both my A100 and A700 version 4 firmware too.
I wish they would fix it.
Click to expand...

Hi there

I can see noise too. Do you use Noise Ninja? When I do it cleans it up more than acceptably.

What does it look it in prints, i.e. not when you are pixel peeping? Does it limit what you can print?
 
I only shoot RAW (is there any other way) and I know how to reduce noise in PP. It should not be needed though. I want to print my landscapes BIG and the A100 does not allow me to do that.

If I had to spend that kind of money (for the A850), I would rather get a 7D.
 
marine1 said:
I have not used that, I only see it when looking at the pics on the computer, I dont waste time printing them if I see noise.
Click to expand...

Listen what I think you need to do is sell me that A700 that makes so much noise, I mean that's horrible not being able to print shots because of noise:D
 
Quantum Theory said:
I only shoot RAW (is there any other way) and I know how to reduce noise in PP. It should not be needed though. I want to print my landscapes BIG and the A100 does not allow me to do that.

If I had to spend that kind of money (for the A850), I would rather get a 7D.
Click to expand...

The 7D does look good. Are you committed with lots of good Sony/Minolta glass? Let me know If you exist the system and buy Canikon instead.
 
I have an A200 and I must say I would much prefer that over that horrible new A230 they have launched, it's terrible to hold.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X