Alpha A100 (Official)

[Clockunder]

I think u are missing the point... very few sensors have native ISO3200... most of them are extrapolated... anyway according to David Kilpatrick (dpreview), a pro photographer who was invited to test the new Alpha 100, the high ISO performance is quite excellent given the ability to resolve stuff like almost 2 km away... let's wait for more mainstream reviews first and take a look at the pics at normal viewing sizes... how many people view at 100% 72dpi and 35 inches across??? That's not quite realistic cos we are not pros who need to do double sheets...

You're missing the point here. Think : Why does some extrapolate to ISO 3200 while some don't and stop at ISO 1600?

If you've seen the noise levels of the different DSLRs at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200, you would come to the same observation and probably deduce the answer as to why some have ISO 3200 and some don't. The reasons why some of them have reasonably acceptable noise at ISO 3200 are besides the point. The point is that ISO 3200 is only made available if noise performance at ISO 3200 is acceptable which in most cases are when ISO 1600 is very good. Therefore if a camera doesn't have ISO 3200, the noise level at ISO 1600 is only so so and therefore they don't make ISO 3200 available on the camera.

Notwithstanding the above, the issue will be made clearer after we see more reviews and sample pictures of the A100 at ISO 1600.

(p.s. the numerous sample pictures taken by A100 at ISO 1600 posted in various forums seem to support my earlier deduction about the likely noise performance of the Sony A100. Here's an example : http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?page=7083&head=0 . If you're refering to these day landscape pictures taken by David Kilpatrick : http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=18770426 , I would say that noise performance is better tested by taking pictures at dark or low light areas instead of these bright landscape. )

 

[antere]

Seems like this doesn't allow vertical grip as well...

 

[wind30]

You're missing the point here. Think : Why does some extrapolate to ISO 3200 while some don't and stop at ISO 1600?

If you've seen the noise levels of the different DSLRs at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200, you would come to the same observation and probably deduce the answer as to why some have ISO 3200 and some don't. The reasons why some of them have reasonably acceptable noise at ISO 3200 are besides the point. The point is that ISO 3200 is only made available if noise performance at ISO 3200 is acceptable which in most cases are when ISO 1600 is very good. Therefore if a camera doesn't have ISO 3200, the noise level at ISO 1600 is only so so and therefore they don't make ISO 3200 available on the camera.

which cameras are you refering to? I think got no relationship between ISO3200 and sensor performance. Example, Canon 20/30D and canon 350D. They have practically identical ISO performance but 350D no ISO3200 setting. KM7D has ISO3200 but has worse performance at ISO1600 compared to canon 350D (less details for KM7D). Also is the fuji s3pro (no ISO3200) ISO performance worse than KM7D? I see no relationship whatsoever leh.

I think whether a camera has ISO3200 is just a marketing decision, some manufacturer perfers more noise reduction.

 

[sulhan]

which cameras are you refering to? I think got no relationship between ISO3200 and sensor performance. Example, Canon 20/30D and canon 350D. They have practically identical ISO performance but 350D no ISO3200 setting. KM7D has ISO3200 but has worse performance at ISO1600 compared to canon 350D (less details for KM7D). Also is the fuji s3pro (no ISO3200) ISO performance worse than KM7D? I see no relationship whatsoever leh.

I think whether a camera has ISO3200 is just a marketing decision, some manufacturer perfers more noise reduction.

:think: ...i thought the less details is basically a less data problem.....:think:

I've heard many comparison about ISO 1600 noise talks...and comparison. Really curious how many % of shots you guys (general public) took in the past 2yrs use iso 1600 or above?

 

[thw]

I've heard many comparison about ISO 1600 noise talks...and comparison. Really curious how many % of shots you guys (general public) took in the past 2yrs use iso 1600 or above?

Since I only have slow f/4 -5.6 lenses, about 50% of my shots at Disney were taken at ISO 1600. :bsmilie:

Drops to about 15% under most circumstances.

 

[zcf]

Since I only have slow f/4 -5.6 lenses, about 50% of my shots at Disney were taken at ISO 1600. :bsmilie:

Drops to about 15% under most circumstances.

:bigeyes: For me much less than 1%, may be due to the compensation of KM's Anti-Shake, I rarely need ISO1600 :think:

 

[jsbn]

I'm not sure if the 10 stops DR for the S3Pro is real or not... cos I have read many comments online that the performance of the DR for the S3Pro is only marginally better than the S2Pro and not clearly better than that of the 30D or D200... that's my impression from my reading so far... otherwise I would expect lots of Nikon users (prosumers) would have hopped on the Fuji bandwagon, the high price nothwithstanding, given a 10 stop DR...

I haven't taken my S3Pro directly in Dynamic Range comparison against a D200 or an EOS 30D.

But one thing I can say, "Its alot more quieter!!!" :bsmilie:

 

[jsbn]

:think: ...i thought the less details is basically a less data problem.....:think:

I've heard many comparison about ISO 1600 noise talks...and comparison. Really curious how many % of shots you guys (general public) took in the past 2yrs use iso 1600 or above?

Locally, I rarely have to touch anything above ISO800 on my S3Pro and (in the past) on my Dynax5D.

But when I travel, its ISO800 and ISO1600 all the way on my Dynax 5D. I assume it will be the same for my S3Pro as well.

 

[wind30]

:think: ...i thought the less details is basically a less data problem.....:think:

I've heard many comparison about ISO 1600 noise talks...and comparison. Really curious how many % of shots you guys (general public) took in the past 2yrs use iso 1600 or above?

For KM7D, my upper limit on ISO was 800. I seldom used 1600 due to poor performance. I guess it is around 20% of the time. Basically almost all indoor shots I hope to have good high ISO if I did not use flash. I find using wide aperture is problematic due to DOF issues. KM7D was good enough for low light as I had a 20mm f1.8 prime. I did not buy a flash for KM7D.

I am not really looking at ISO1600 or 3200, but rather a better ISO800. The cameras I have used all exhibit a significant loss of fine details at ISO800. Heard canon 350d is better.

For my olympus E1, I had a flash along and frankly speaking, the flash beats high ISO like 99% of the time. but it was a chore to mount the flash and unmount it. My usage for the E1 high ISO is like 5-10%. Max ISO I would set is 400.

 

[TME]

For KM7D, my upper limit on ISO was 800. I seldom used 1600 due to poor performance. I guess it is around 20% of the time. Basically almost all indoor shots I hope to have good high ISO if I did not use flash. I find using wide aperture is problematic due to DOF issues. KM7D was good enough for low light as I had a 20mm f1.8 prime. I did not buy a flash for KM7D.

I am not really looking at ISO1600 or 3200, but rather a better ISO800. The cameras I have used all exhibit a significant loss of fine details at ISO800. Heard canon 350d is better.

For my olympus E1, I had a flash along and frankly speaking, the flash beats high ISO like 99% of the time. but it was a chore to mount the flash and unmount it. My usage for the E1 high ISO is like 5-10%. Max ISO I would set is 400.

I agree... prefer to use flash as no matter what brand or model... ISO1600 is really still noisy... it's only a matter of less or more noise... and so ISO800 is really the clincher...
bro, can leave the flash on the mount but switch off no? For Minolta the flash's IR assist still works, which is a bonus in low light...

 

[TME]

You're missing the point here. Think : Why does some extrapolate to ISO 3200 while some don't and stop at ISO 1600?

If you've seen the noise levels of the different DSLRs at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200, you would come to the same observation and probably deduce the answer as to why some have ISO 3200 and some don't. The reasons why some of them have reasonably acceptable noise at ISO 3200 are besides the point. The point is that ISO 3200 is only made available if noise performance at ISO 3200 is acceptable which in most cases are when ISO 1600 is very good. Therefore if a camera doesn't have ISO 3200, the noise level at ISO 1600 is only so so and therefore they don't make ISO 3200 available on the camera.

Notwithstanding the above, the issue will be made clearer after we see more reviews and sample pictures of the A100 at ISO 1600.

(p.s. the numerous sample pictures taken by A100 at ISO 1600 posted in various forums seem to support my earlier deduction about the likely noise performance of the Sony A100. Here's an example : http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?page=7083&head=0 . If you're refering to these day landscape pictures taken by David Kilpatrick : http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=18770426 , I would say that noise performance is better tested by taking pictures at dark or low light areas instead of these bright landscape. )

Actually I think u missed the point as pointed out by others... the presence of ISO3200 is really a marketing ploy to distinguish between entry level and mid-level DSLRs... they all use the same sensors with slightly different engines and processing parameters... u can think of the entry-level models as being detuned... a little like how a BMW325i uses the same identical engine as a BMW323i but the 323i has a detuned engine of the same capacity...

In any case, for ISO3200, it's a situation of 'bo pian", no choice then use... and it is assumed from a marketing point of view that entry-level users tend to want a more sophisticated P&S and would likely not be in a low light situation where ISO3200 is necessary... and because the ISO3200 is an extrapolated rating, the sensor is less of an issue... the comparison between cameras with ISO3200 is more of the algorithms that do the extrapolation and the decisions made by the graphic engine in dealing with the light falling on the sensor... in part the sensor is kind of maxed out in terms of its limit of sensitivity and the hardware graphics engine combined with the software (or firmware) is trying to make intelligent guesses as to how an image at that sensitivity should look like... and that has to do with the ingenuity of the engineers and how well they know photography (low light especially) as well as how well they can optimise their circuits (external to the sensor) to achieve the ideal image...

 

[Stanly]

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydslra100/

dpreview has a preview to the new DSLR.....

 

[dr34mc4st3r]

dpreview just updated sony a100 image samples!
http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/sonya100_preview/

 

[tokrot]

Good bye KM colors... seems like Sony colors are not as good as KM as perceived.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=18793516

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=18774647

Disappointed...

 

[TME]

The first shot is rated at ISO100... I thought the release news was ISO160 as the lowest ISO number???

 

[satay16]

Good bye KM colors... seems like Sony colors are not as good as KM as perceived.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=18793516

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=18774647

Disappointed...

strange. they used the same sensor as D200.

 

[GENO]

strange. they used the same sensor as D200.

I wonder why we want to make so many comments on something which we have not even touch it yet? How they test it, i dont even care a bit??? I will only believe and know + confirm when i tested it myself....

Lets wait till the @100 arrives here...the weather can makes a big diff in testings..

 

[eow]

let just wait for the real thing....chances are i would bet it will be a very good camera

 

[tokrot]

http://forum.xitek.com/showthread.php?threadid=373159

more pictures...remember to check the next few pages...

 

[eow]

http://forum.xitek.com/showthread.php?threadid=373159

more pictures...remember to check the next few pages...

the pics look good to me...