Alpha A100 (Official)

[tokrot]

the pics look good to me...

Not as vibrant colors as 7D/5D... If this is really the case, I won't go for 7D upgrade in future. Really disappointed. Sony's colors really lack the WOW factor. Now is to wait for more Sony A100's pictures to show up in more forums and pbase and reanalaysis the colors again. *sigh*

 

[tokrot]

strange. they used the same sensor as D200.

No, the color reproduction (in JPG form) has nothing to do with Sensor (propably except shooting RAW). More likely to do with White balance and in-camera-hardware image processing. 7D is using the similar sensor as D70, but the colors are miles apart because of Poor WB in D70.

 

[Clockunder]

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.

I wasn't refering to any specific cameras but generally to all the DSLRs in the market. From past experiences in looking at sample pictures (including this one : http://digitalcamera.impress.co.jp/06_02/auth/toku1/index_iso.htm ) and then making a subjective comparisons of noise and details at ISO 1600 between the different cameras, I have a personal observation :

If the ISO 1600 performance of the various DSLRs in the market is ranked, those at the higher ranks are occupied mostly (I said in most cases because there are exceptions like the KM 7D which performs quite badly) by those with ISO 3200 capability. So if we randomly pick a DSLR, it would very likely be in the higher level in the ISO 1600 ranking if it has ISO 3200 capability and would very likely be further down the ranking if it doesn't have ISO 3200.

Whether technological (hardware and/or software) or marketing are responsible for such a phenomenon is not my point here (although I personally believe technological as well as marketing factors make the market this way because technological factors are the limits while sensible/good marketing mean not pushing a camera to ISO 3200 if it's not clearly capable of it but placing a camera in its "rightful" relative competitive position in the marekt place. However, this is not the thrust of my comments earlier.). The point I tried to make earlier on is that, due to underlying factors and consistent with my observation of the market place, if a camera is only up to ISO 1600, it's very likely that its ISO 1600 performance is only so so and if a camera is up to ISO 3200, it is likely to be quite good at ISO 1600 performance. (I'm not saying all but "very likely" because that is what the market currently is and there a outliers).

Due to the underlying factors producing this market phenomenon, I believe that Sony is unlikely to upset the market balance and the A100, with a max. ISO of 1600, is not going to be an exception in its ISO 1600 performance. The early sample pictures taken @ISO 1600 by A100 I've seen so far seem to be consistent with my observation.

I'm still waiting for more reviews to confirm or refute my speculation about A100's image quality performance.

 

[Clockunder]

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...

I think you missed my point again. Whether it's technological (hardware or sofware) or marketing or whether it's the same engine (i.e. technology) or a detuned engine is not my point.

See my post : #203 in this thread.

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showpost.php?p=2223080&postcount=203

 

[Clockunder]

: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?

I think if ISO 1600 noise and details are as good as ISO 400 as technology improve, then many people would use ISO 1600 with cheaper slower lenses instead of using ISO 400/800 with more expensive fast lenses for their indoor or long focal length shots etc.? :think:

 

[eow]

Not as vibrant colors as 7D/5D... If this is really the case, I won't go for 7D upgrade in future. Really disappointed. Sony's colors really lack the WOW factor. Now is to wait for more Sony A100's pictures to show up in more forums and pbase and reanalaysis the colors again. *sigh*

that this colour management thingy rite?
we can use back the km7d/5d colour profile when post processing
is it feasible or is it how the icc profile/colour management work?
From the feed back the a-100 seem to be faster /better in the af

 

[tokrot]

that this colour management thingy rite?
we can use back the km7d/5d colour profile when post processing
is it feasible or is it how the icc profile/colour management work?
From the feed back the a-100 seem to be faster /better in the af

what color management thing? Are u talking about Adobe PS SRGB? It has nothing to do with 5d/7d. Moreover, I dun think it's possible to duplicate exact colors from 7D/5D. Correct me if I am wrong..

 

[pai]

that this colour management thingy rite?
we can use back the km7d/5d colour profile when post processing
is it feasible or is it how the icc profile/colour management work?
From the feed back the a-100 seem to be faster /better in the af

it is possible to tweak the adobe camera raw colour settings to make the colours look more like the 7D, but it isn't as simple as just changing the icc profile to the 7d one... more likely that you'd have to buy a proper colour chart, shoot it with both cameras, then tweak the settings one by one... haha, i talk only, ask me how to do i also :dunno:

 

[Agetan]

Save a profile in Raw conversion on PS CS2 and re-run the profile on all images or selected images...

Of course, it is better to have something better, I love 7D colour, a bit warm, but not bad. Hence I will be reluctant to consider something from Sony if colour is not good.

hopefully the future DSLR from SOny will be better or similar to 7D colour reproduction.

We shall see...

Hart

 

[TME]

I simply love the saturation... very much like slide film...

 

[Timber Wolf]

Hohoho... did you guys read today's papers?

In the Digital Life advert for tmrw on Page 15.... guess which brand of cam they're using? :bsmilie:

QX

 

[eow]

Hohoho... did you guys read today's papers?

In the Digital Life advert for tmrw on Page 15.... guess which brand of cam they're using? :bsmilie:

QX

The new dslr rite?;p

 

[Timber Wolf]

Yupx. Sony really is doing marketing here =)
QX

 

[zcf]

Not as vibrant colors as 7D/5D... If this is really the case, I won't go for 7D upgrade in future. Really disappointed. Sony's colors really lack the WOW factor. Now is to wait for more Sony A100's pictures to show up in more forums and pbase and reanalaysis the colors again. *sigh*

Some explaination from DPReview forum
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=18881833

Les Leventhal wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> The information you are providing about dynamic range of the a100
> is really interesting. As you know, on other threads people are
> arguing about the color quality of the a100 compared to KM color.
> Do you have an opinion yet on the quality of a100 color?


Yes, it's different. The narrow-band RGB of the 6 megapixel KM sensor is no longer there, but that is to be expected - if they had used the same filter densities on the 10 megapixel, it would be half the speed of the Nikon D200 all round (just as the KM 6 megapixel was half the speed of the Nikon 6 megapixel - remember, the Sony 6 megapixel CCD started out life with a minimum ISO of 200 and a maximum of 6400 in the Nikon D100 which has dropped off most people's radar now). If they had gone for the same quality of colour filtering as KM did, the camera would have had an ISO range of 50 to 800, or close to that.
So the short answer is the colour gamut and discrimination is more like Canon or Nikon, less like the uniquely 'tight' colour given by the 7D and 5D. But that also means WB will be less unreliable, accidental colour casts not so common, and colour clipping problems on highlights less marked.
If you stand back and look at the history of DSLR CCD use, it's the 7D and 5D which stand alone in trying to remodel colour by making the sensor filters more film-like in bandpass. This was Konica's great contribution to the cameras apparently, despite Minolta have more colour measurement experience. Konica had research which showed what RGB colours the public preferred to represent familiar real-life colours - what made the most realistic grass, sky, skin, and so on.
David

Although I still don't understand what does the "narrow band", "bandpass" mean

 

[Timber Wolf]

Hmm... narrowband i.e. lets in only a narrow range of light frequencies while absorbing/reflecting the rest i think.

The good thing about this is that the colours produced are more specific and accurate while you reduce the sensitivity of the sensor.

By increasing the bandpass of the sensor I think they mean letting in light of a greater frequency range. This increases sensitivity as more light is let thru but reduces the ability to discriminate between colours. This is one aspect of the Foveon sensor if i'm not wrong... no JPGs are produced in camera due to the extensive processing needed to get the colours right as the sensors have a broad range, and lower colour specificity.

QX

 

[drake336]

Ah... Foveon (my ex-company almost started production on that one), sadly like Fuji's Super CCD SR, it didn't really take off... people are going for pure megapixel power, so the companies are going the same...