Sensor-ship

P

Pebblesculpt

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7
Edit My Images
No
I've just used a Canon 600D and did a direct comparison with a Sony A200. Naturally I expected the 600D to be better - I took the same photo with both using ISO800, 1/100s, f4 and a 28mm focal length (both had very similar Sigma lenses). The 600D picture was pleasantly exposed while the A200 was unpleasantly, and very significantly, darker.

The comparison was made in Camera Raw from the RAW images.

So, fellows, the question is how does the Sony A77 perform under the same conditions? Is it like the A200 or will it be better?

The A77 is the upgrade route I have in mind but I'm wondering now how I'm going to judge it.

Can anyone offer some insight?


Thanks.
 
Maybe one of the lenses had aperture problem? OR some dark filter on? Just checking...

And why do you fancy A77 after 600D? It's better to stay with Canon or at least move to Nikon. The AXX Sony series no longer have a viewfinder any more and instead you will get a pixelated electronic viewfinder surrogate as found in compacts, and the sensor will be robbed of 1/3 light due to semi transparent mirror in the way. I'd much rather have 7D.
 
Ahhh, I didn't mention that it is the A200 that I own, not the D600. I also have Sony-fit lenses so an A77 makes a lot of sense as an upgrade path.

I understand about the viewfinder - I've tried it and it is very much better than it sounds. Interestingly, it can show the dark scene in front of you much brighter than an optical viewfinder.

The central question, though, is about comparison between identical fundamental camera settings and significantly different picture results... I found the huge difference surprising: it is a difference that is more familiar in 'consumer marketing' of TVs ( see: contrast ratios) than in the supposedly established field of camera specs.

What can we trust to tell us about these very real differences if ISO, f-stop and shutter speed (plus side-effects from lenses - assume accounted-for) are no-longer enough? Do reviewers somewhere catalog these comparisons using comparable, measurable values?

This is pretty important - it can be hard to adequately test-drive a camera before buying.

Thanks.
 
Is it something to do with the CCD versus a CMOS? And Lol at Daugirdas' description of a modern 2.4M dot OLED EVF. Name me one compact with the 2.4M EVF? And I wouldn't call the Fujis or Sonys compacts.
 
Basically, there should never be a dramatic difference. I can't explain your experiences but there's known to be a marginal difference between manufacturers however, I'd never expect to see vast differences. Can you be certain that ACR wasn't applying some processing on import?

Otherwise how would any external meter work? EVs should be a fixed known consistent standard. Otherwise the next entry level Nikon could have ISO settings of Low, Standard, High, Very High, and Superdark Mode.:thinking:
 
I agree with your thinking, Phil V, and I don't think any processing was done by ACR. The images looked the same after import as they did on the back of the camera when taken.

I had a very quick go at using ACR to improve the darker one but the detail wasn't in the image and/or ACR ran out of adjustment space.

Can anyone verify by experiment with other cameras?
 
I moved to an A77 from an A700 in Dec last year and have not regretted it. Don't make comparisons with compact cameras regarding the viewfinder, it is VERY good (and that's coming from the A700 which has one of the best optical VF around). At ISO800 the IQ is very good/excellent, but it does depend upon your pixel peeping. Most cameras can show issues with low light.

The thing that disturbs me the most is the tone of some of the replys to this thread. Like a number of thread replies, it would seem that a shift to C or N is the "fix", I appreciate that it's easier to recommend on what you know, but at the expense of a blinkered view?

Sony cameras can underexpose, why not dial in 0.5 stop of overexposure and try again.
 
Jeff Spangle said:
Sony cameras can underexpose, why not dial in 0.5 stop of overexposure and try again.
Click to expand...

I think the point is, the Sony is reported to have produced a much darker image as the same ISO, Aperture & Shutter speed as the Canon.

This shouldn't happen...
 
RichardtheSane said:
I think the point is, the Sony is reported to have produced a much darker image as the same ISO, Aperture & Shutter speed as the Canon.

This shouldn't happen...
Click to expand...

I agree. But it is worth trying what I suggested. Moving on, lens fault as suggested.
 
daugirdas said:
The AXX Sony series no longer have a viewfinder any more and instead you will get a pixelated electronic viewfinder surrogate as found in compacts
Click to expand...

You couldn't be more wrong...
The A77 EVF is a very high resolution OLED viewfinder, it is much larger then any other APS-C Optical viewfinder (it's the same size as a Full Frame viewfinder)..

They even use it on their new Full Frame A99, it's that good..

Not that EVF's don't have some downsides, but it also has many upsides.. it's been very well received by reviewers..

You are right about the SLT light loss, but you have to put that in context, 1/3 stop isn't that dramatic, and in actual fact, the Sony sensors are a little more performant to Canon at the moment (APS-C), so the 1/3 stop is actually negated by that alone.

e.g. From DxO, comparing total image noise..
ezm1W.jpg



As for the OPs questions, I'm sure as others say, it's down to the RAW software that has to correctly set exposure etc as part of it's default conversion, that can differ between camera's, or lens issues, etc.. internally they apply gains to the sensor signal to approximate the ISO effect, so brightness should be very close between all cameras if everything else was equal (which it isn't)

I was set on a Nikon D7K (Actually worth considering with it's silly price at the moment), but ended up with an A77, they all take great pictures, I just like the extra usability things the whole SLT/EVF thing brings to the table, and that makes it more fun for me, as well as helping me improve my keeper rate (primarily helped by the exposure simulation in does in the EVF, showing you how the final image will look).

Still, I think the 7D/D7K/A77/K5-IIs are all superb cameras, only personal differences in what you like/dislike about a camera are more important then anything else..
 
Last edited:
The A200 has the same sensor as the Nikon D80/200 AFAIK. I had both an A200 and a D200 and they were both a bit of a mess beyond ISO 400. Not sure if that has anything to do with it. Maybe you have NR on? And this is compensating for noise by darkening the image somehow?

The A77 is a different kettle altogether.
 
phil-t said:
You couldn't be more wrong...
The A77 EVF is a very high resolution OLED viewfinder, it is much larger then any other APS-C Optical viewfinder (it's the same size as a Full Frame viewfinder)..

They even use it on their new Full Frame A99, it's that good..
Click to expand...

1,024 x 768 is not high resolution no matter what. This might be the highest res EVF in mainstream electronics, but it couldn't be further away from retina definition or the real optical image. That's also a reason why A99 is a failure. It's like windows 7.5 mobile :lol:
 
The old 100% viewfinder red herring?

Given the only way you'll get a 100% image printed is to print it on oversize paper, and then you frame it or mount it?

Only in web viewing do we ever see an 100% image, so surely were mostly wanting to shoot with a small margin, having a 97% viewfinder is as much an advantage as a disadvantage.
 
daugirdas said:
1,024 x 768 is not high resolution no matter what. This might be the highest res EVF in mainstream electronics, but it couldn't be further away from retina definition or the real optical image. That's also a reason why A99 is a failure. It's like windows 7.5 mobile :lol:
Click to expand...

"Retina Defintion" - LOL :D, that's an apple marketing idiocy, and considering the iPhnone 4's awesome retina display is only 960*640 for a 3.5" display, 1024*768 for the viewing size/distance of the A77 EVF is actually perfectly fine.

Imagine-Resource had this to say about resolution..
The second thing you may notice about the Sony A77's viewfinder is its incredibly high resolution. With XGA resolution (1024x768) and 2,359,296 dots, this is easily the highest-resolution EVF we've ever seen. I found I could make out pixels in the text and icons of the information displays if I squinted hard enough, but never had any sense of pixelation in the viewfinder image itself.
Click to expand...
The only pixellation you see is in the font used for the info overlay, but considering the 7 segment approach is still popular in a lot of OVFs, it's still a step up.. :)

It's more then enough to give a very unpixellated view of the world, and not forgetting it has it's own advantages (as well as disadvantages of course)
- Exposure simulation, giving it superb pre-chimping
- Focus peaking, combined with..
- Focus magnification - awesome MF abilities
- Live histogram, level, and a myriad of other useful bits of information that you can toggle through (or have it 'minimal')
- Image preview and menu navigation without lifting your eye away from the VF
- Ability to 'see in the dark' as it gains up in low light so you can see more then your eyes are able to
- You can view in B&W with several tone curves.


The SLT then allows 12fps with AF, and a rear liveview that is identical to the EVF experience (full PDAF etc), with the triple articulated screens on the A77/A99, it opens up low level shooting with ease..


Of course, if you can find me a swathe of credible reviews that scorn the EVF as low res/pixellated P&S hocum, I'm happy to change my mind, although my eyes might not play ball when I actually look through my A77 and struggle to see the jaggies..

:D

(I assume we are having some harmless banter here btw.. :))
 
Last edited:
phil-t said:
"Retina Defintion" - LOL :D, that's an apple marketing idiocy, and considering the iPhnone 4's awesome retina display is only 960*640 for a 3.5" display, 1024*768 for the viewing size/distance of the A77 EVF is actually perfectly fine.
Click to expand...

you are looking at an iphone from a fair distance (let's hope at least 20-30cm away), which then constitutes far less than 30% of your vision field, thus only a few degree angle. That EVF is on the other hand covering all your vision field and roughly 50-90 degree angle (i.e. far far more than iphone). At almost same resolution there is simply no comparison given viewing distances. If the vision is blurry on the other hand, that's not an EVF debate any more.

If you look at it another way, 1024*768 is barely a 6x4 print, that is missing a lot of details. Either way, it is the very worst thing in the imaging market at the moment, but if it makes you happy, I am happy.
 
Thank for your considered replies - by the number of pointers towards possible faults in the lens or adjustments on import the consensus seems to be that ISO, shutter speed and f-stop are reliable comparators an any camera. I shall have to look at more comparisons to see what's true.

The opinions about the EVF have also been interesting. When I first started to look at the A77 I was worried about the viewfinder - in my case I was concerned about latency - how far behind real-life the image was going to be. I wasn't worried about resolution as our own human eyes don't have as much of that as we think - even large Full HD TVs outdo eyes for resolution at some normal viewing distances (on paper, anyway).

However... I went to Jessops and looked through an A77 viewfinder IRL and all my reservations were lifted. It behaves very nicely. There isn't a noticeable latency; the image is clear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top