A700 ISO Test for JPS

[Marc]

Pics from the Sony A700 at incremental ISOs from 100 to 6400. These were all taken at 50mm at f2.8 in RAW, with absolutely no processing except a crop. I am no expert in these things, so draw your own conclusions, but I know Noise Ninja would make light work of the ones up to 1600.

100

200

400

800

1600

3200

6400

 

[GavSt]

what compression level did you save the jpg as?

 

[Marc]

Just saved as JPG. :shrug:

 

[peppyuk]

These seem quite noisey to me, are they really heavy crops?

 

[JPS]

Thanks for the comparison photos fabs. Just so people know why he's posted this thread, I had asked him how his A700 compares to the A100 in ISO noise levels. I must admit that if these are straight from the camera then I'm a little perplexed as I thought the A700 would be a bit better than this - certainly at ISO 800 and above.

Does anyone use Noise Ninja then and how much of an improvement could be expected if a file was passed through NN?

 

[Marc]

Hmmm, I didn't think they were that bad myself, although Save for Web seems to have done them no favours. As I said, I tend to use Noise Ninja to clean them up where necessary. Below is the 800 after NN:

 

[foodpoison]

Disappointingly noisy above 400!

 

[Slapo]

Have you uploaded the ISO 800 and 1600 raw files somewhere?

I'd give it a go and see what I can do.

If you don't have space for sharing them, try e.g. rapidshare.com

 

[alexisonfire]

Just out of interest i did the same test with my D80, but thinking about it now using JPG, cropping and sharpening them probably made the noise even worse but oh well, here it is...

ISO100

ISO200

ISO400

ISO800

ISO1600

ISO H1 (software driven iso3200 equivilent)

 

[Marc]

To be honest, it's probably me more than the camera. Given that these are RAW, straight out of the camera, shouldn't we expect to do some processing on them? Maybe I'll try again with jpegs, just to see how the camera handles them.

 

[JPS]

I was actually wondering about shots in RAW straight from the camera as a comparison to the ones in RAW straight from my A100. The A100 shows a lot of noise at ISO 400 and above (all this before any noise software has been on the image).

 

[Marc]

An additional thought. Maybe the test wasn't as good as it should be as I kept it at f2.8, should I have reduced the aperture as I increased the ISO or would that not have made a difference? :shrug:

 

[a1ex2001]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra700/page17.asp - lets hand it over to the experts?

 

[Jamougha]

For another comparison; D300, 6400 ISO, f/2.8, no processing other than resize to 800 high and crop at the sides.

The only way to really boost noise is to underexpose and then brighten afterwards, or to take a smaller crop of the image. How much of the image did you crop out, did you rescale and lop off the sides or are these 100% crops?

 

[Slapo]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra700/page17.asp - lets hand it over to the experts?

That's no fun, you know

Many people here shoot raw and use various converters, so the dpreview tests are good for rough comparisons, but if you have your own workflow that's different from the reviewer's, then it might not matter that much and you might want to do your own.

 

[Jamougha]

Yes, the dpreview tests just compare the different manufacturers in-camera algorithms; waste of time in my view. Also their 'standard deviation of luminosity/colour' benchmark is not even remotely close to a good measure of noise. The way to get a good score is to generate huge purple and green splotches rather than less visible and more easily removed specks of noise.

 

[GavSt]

Just saved as JPG. :shrug:

depending on the settings... that could introduce a whole lot of noise that wasn't present in the raw files

 

[JPS]

I wondered about the ISO noise on the A700 as I am about to (finally) update my gear - I have A-mount lenses so I may as well move to the A700 and keep costs down. Although I have just done another wedding 'run through' for a wedding next month that I have and the vicar has changed his mind and I am no longer able to use flash in the church.

This leaves me with an issue as my camera is not too good above ISO 400 - even that is still rather bad with the noise to be honest.

Now do I go with the Sony or move to the D300 - or D3 if I got a bank loan - for the better noise quality???? Then there's the starting from scratch buying all the other gear like lenses, remote unit, flash etc etc..

 

[Marc]

I wondered about the ISO noise on the A700 as I am about to (finally) update my gear - I have A-mount lenses so I may as well move to the A700 and keep costs down. Although I have just done another wedding 'run through' for a wedding next month that I have and the vicar has changed his mind and I am no longer able to use flash in the church.

This leaves me with an issue as my camera is not too good above ISO 400 - even that is still rather bad with the noise to be honest.

Now do I go with the Sony or move to the D300 - or D3 if I got a bank loan - for the better noise quality???? Then there's the starting from scratch buying all the other gear like lenses, remote unit, flash etc etc..

To be honest, I would have thought you'd be fine with the A700. I have seen plenty of "Official" tests which are very complimentary about it's noise levels and, as I said, I know someone who took a pic at 3200 ISO on his A700 and there wasn't a spec of noise on it.It was probably me who b*llsed up the test!

 

[Marc]

Just found these. Taken in a church at Christmas at ISO 800. Had picked up my A700 the day before and citylink had delivered the 50mm f1.4 1 hour previous to these being taken.

 

[spannerdude]

To be honest, it's probably me more than the camera. Given that these are RAW, straight out of the camera, shouldn't we expect to do some processing on them? Maybe I'll try again with jpegs, just to see how the camera handles them.

Which firmware version are you on?
What DRO settings did you use?

 

[Marc]

Which firmware version are you on?
What DRO settings did you use?

Firmware version 3
D-R+

 

[Slapo]

To be honest, it's probably me more than the camera. Given that these are RAW, straight out of the camera, shouldn't we expect to do some processing on them? Maybe I'll try again with jpegs, just to see how the camera handles them.

Well, my workflow with raws is usually RawTherapee->{Neat Image, optional, usually for ISO 800+ shots**->the GIMP->{batch conversions to jpeg and framing, optional, if I save small versions as tiff or pngs, I use FastStone Photo Resizer for this step**.

Often, I don't apply any noise reduction at all when converting raws, as RawTherapee gives me the option not to do that.

So yes, processing is expected.

 

[spannerdude]

Firmware version 3
D-R+

Strange.
I'd be very disappointed if my A700 gave results like yours.

 

[Marc]

Strange.
I'd be very disappointed if my A700 gave results like yours.

As I said, it was probably me rather than the camera.

 

[spannerdude]

Are these 100% crops? Can you post the original image?

What did you use to process the shots from RAW. It seems that issues exist with some applications.

 

[Marc]

Are these 100% crops? Can you post the original image?

No, I used save for web. I will try and upload a full image and link to it

What did you use to process the shots from RAW. It seems that issues exist with some applications.

I use Adobe Camera Raw, although I didn't actually process any of these, I just opened them in Elements' editor and saved as Jpeg.

 

[Marc]

Had a go at uploading the ISO 800 pic

RAW

JPEG

 

[spannerdude]

Mmmm...ACR is the application I was thinking of specifically. I remember reading reams of posts on other forums about how it mashes Sony RAW files and that Adobe aren't too interested in fixing it

 

[Marc]

Mmmm...ACR is the application I was thinking of specifically. I remember reading reams of posts on other forums about how it mashes Sony RAW files and that Adobe aren't too interested in fixing it

Not heard that before. Mayb I'll try using a different Raw converter.

 

[spannerdude]

Now that was an interesting exercise.
I downloaded your iso 800 RAW file and opened it with Sony Image Data Converter. I edited it in a couple of different ways and see some very different results. I'm no expert but here's what I think...

I have to say from the outset that I think your problems stem in the main part from the fact that the original is underexposed. If you look at the histogram it is a long way from the right hand side. I think this is because before the crop there is quite a lot of light coloured wall and wood surrounding the black camera. This doesn't help as DRO will try to pull detail out of the dark areas, that means extra amplification and therefore noise.
Here's the results of my playing with the image.

First, your own image (as above) created with ACR. I hope you don't mind me doing a direct comparison in the interest of science?:shrug:
Original ACR image

Next up: Opened in IDC, exported unedited to CS3, cropped to a similar size as your original and saved as JPEG 800px wide. No PP at all.

Next up: Opened in IDC, EV+0.3, Auto noise, Auto DRO, +10 sharpening. Exported to CS3, cropped, saved as JPEG 800px wide. PP'd only in IDC.

Finally, based on my usual workflow: Opened in IDC, EV+0.3. Exported to to CS3, Levels tweaked to histogram, contrast boosted 15% and neat imaged 15% Lum, 45% Chrom, 95% Sharpening

When pixel peeping at 100% in all three of the images produced with IDC you can see every speck of the speckle effect on the top and in last two especially you can see every pore of the rubber grip.

No wonder the Sony FanBoys are in uproar about the image quality in some of the magazines comparative tests.

 

[JPS]

No wonder the Sony FanBoys are in uproar about the image quality in some of the magazines comparative tests.

Are you saying that the images we see in the magazine tests are heavily manipulated to look better or that there is no way the A700 can produce the good looking high ISO shots that I've seen in magazines and also the dpreview test...... :shrug:

 

[spannerdude]

Are you saying that the images we see in the magazine tests are heavily manipulated to look better or that there is no way the A700 can produce the good looking high ISO shots that I've seen in magazines and also the dpreview test...... :shrug:

Neither. There has been great debate on some of the other hardware oriented forums I've visited dpreview included about the poor results for Sony DSLR's given in some reviews. The arguments have often revolved around the poor handling of Sony raw files by reviewers.
If they are using ACR, then it there may be something in it. It seems to make a very poor job of Sony RAW files.

 

[Marc]

Wow, that's some effort you've put in there Spannerdude!

Not sure I understand most of it, I'm not very technical. I shot it in Aperture Priority, so I let the camera itself worry about the exposure. Should I have done it in manual? :shrug:

I have to say that I've been very happy with the camera. As I say, I use ISOs up to 1600 when shooting polo and I then use noise ninja. I will certainly try another Raw converter just to see if there is a major difference.

JPS, I hope you find the information you need to make a decision.

 

[Slapo]

I've tried convering the test raw in RawTherapee and then denoising it in Neat Image.

http://rapidshare.com/files/129972211/DSC08213.zip

The jpeg looks like it hasn't been denoised at all or not very well.
With neat image, the sharpened image looks pretty good, imo.

Here's a small sample.

 

[JPS]

JPS, I hope you find the information you need to make a decision.

thanks for all the time and effort you guys have put into this thread these past few days, much appreciated. I suppose my main downfall was believing that the example shots I've seen on review sites were straight from the camera - I should have guessed that the files would have been through some kind of noise filter before being printed.

I'm stuck between going over to Nikon for my second body with the D300 (and having to buy into a new system), or going for the A700 and being able to mix and match my current Sony gear. I do need two bodies really, it's a hard choice I'm going to make this week.

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

thanks for all the time and effort you guys have put into this thread these past few days, much appreciated. I suppose my main downfall was believing that the example shots I've seen on review sites were straight from the camera - I should have guessed that the files would have been through some kind of noise filter before being printed.

I'm stuck between going over to Nikon for my second body with the D300 (and having to buy into a new system), or going for the A700 and being able to mix and match my current Sony gear. I do need two bodies really, it's a hard choice I'm going to make this week.

Tis a hard decsion to buy into a new system....but it will be even harder to move from your current system if you buy the A700 body also, eaiser to jump ship now rather than later.

 

[Jamougha]

You're currently using the two A100 kit lenses, a nifty and a 100mm f/2.8 correct? Maybe I'm a gear snob, but for professional wedding work it seems to me like you could use a new set of lenses anyway?

 

[JPS]

You're currently using the two A100 kit lenses, a nifty and a 100mm f/2.8 correct? Maybe I'm a gear snob, but for professional wedding work it seems to me like you could use a new set of lenses anyway?

That's true, a new set of lenses is required, the few weddings I've done have been 'family and friends' so far and they were completely happy with the results. (I did have some issues with the first wedding I did but that was more of a 'bride issue' than a photographic one).

I just wanted to future proof my second camera body - well for at least another 18 months or two years - and also invest in another lens or two to compliment the portrait/wedding market. To do this I want to get a camera that can handle low light church scenes without too much noise on the finished photo.

 

[Jamougha]

In that case it seems to me like a simple decision. Get a D300 with a couple of f/2.8 zooms and it will cost you almost the same as getting the A700 and lenses. ebay the sony gear to pay for a second hand D200 or even a D40X as your backup. You still need a flash or two but you're out very little money on the switch.