[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1315092477' post='11284']
With slower AF-ing lenses, yes.
[/quote]
You never get tired of putting your own spin in everything here, do you?
The short answer is: YES.
(1) A77 has 8 fps with AF and manual exposure.
(2) 12 fps with AF and auto exposure
(3) 12 fps with no AF but manual exposure.
And that's better than 7D and D300s.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1314290628' post='10986']
16 vs 24mp.
At the end of the day the 24mp images will be softer - not because of the sensor but because the lenses just don't provide the required resolution anymore.
[/quote]
Image softness does not depend on sensor resolution.
A 100% view of a 24MP image will obviously look softer compared to a 16MP image (independently of whether or not the sensor outresolves the lens) but a 100% view pixel sharpness is not photographically relevant.
The relevant image sharpness will be the same for the 24MP image. On the contrary, it may be better since the AA filter is allowed to become weaker.
As for the 24MP sensor's noise performance, we'll know what's going on when DxOMark have tested it. Sony produce the incredibly low in noise 16.3MP sensor and I don't see why they would have forgotten everything about sensor design just because they increased the pixel pitch.
[quote name='Class A' timestamp='1315178574' post='11303']Sony produce the incredibly low in noise 16.3MP sensor and I don't see why they would have forgotten everything about sensor design just because they increased the pixel pitch.[/quote]
I downloaded two (ISO 800 and ISO 1600) A77 studio shots from Imaging Resource and used RAW Developer 1.9.2 for conversion (default settings). At 100% this looks darn noisy to me and I´m not living in an anti-Sony camp. Either the Raw conversion is really bad or the 24 MP sensor simply does not excel in this regard.
Source:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA77/AA77hSLI00800NR3.ARW.HTM
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA77/AA77hSLI01600NR3.ARW.HTM
Sammy, have you downsized the resolution of the A77 files to match those of the camera/s you compared it with? Viewing the output of cameras with different resolution at 100% magnification won't tell you much about the actual differences between them. You first have to normalize resolution - either by downsizing the shots from the higher resolution camera, or by upsizing the shots from the lower resolution one.
[quote name='boren' timestamp='1315206679' post='11306']
Sammy, have you downsized the resolution of the A77 files to match those of the camera/s you compared it with?[/quote]
I made no direct comparison of the A77 files to images from other cams. Anyhow, go ahead and download the A77 images to evaluate the material on your own.
[quote name='Class A' timestamp='1315178574' post='11303']
A 100% view of a 24MP image will obviously look softer compared to a 16MP image (independently of whether or not the sensor outresolves the lens) but a 100% view pixel sharpness is not photographically relevant.[/quote]
For you, you mean? Granted, for ideal photographers who always compose perfectly and never crop, per pixel sharpness doesn't mean much. For others, like me, it does matter. Also sometimes people buy higher resolution sensors for bigger prints, you know.
[quote name='Tiz' timestamp='1314347073' post='11035']
Has anyone processed these RAWs and compared them with other cameras?
[url="http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA77/AA77A7.HTM"]http://www.imaging-r...AA77/AA77A7.HTM[/url]
[/quote]
I've checked the D7000 and A77 samples with ISO 100, 800 and 1600 (beyond is something I use rarely even on my D700).
Frankly, the high ISO results from A77 are better than I expected. I think ISO 1600 results are very usable when not 100% viewed. In 100% views, textures and colors look artificial and very plastic (even in NR1 samples). I found D7000 ISO 1600 results more realistic by means of color and texture rendering.
OTOH, the details (if this is the only criteria for the user) are remarkable. @ISO 1600, the remarks on the circular test chart are easily readable.
All in all, I believe more of these samples will show the quality after a while. But as one mentioned in this thread above, I would rather see the Nex-7 body combined with the Nex-5n sensor... And I think A77 is yet another APS-C DLSR with a high pixel density... More like it will from come soon, but Nex-7 is something new and exciting...
Serkan
Upon further analysis including ISO 3200 files and having RAW Developer noise reduction as well as sharpening completely disabled I tend to conclude that the noise penalty for the higher pixel density is relatively small (downsized and compared to the Canon 7D). It´s clearly more evident at ISO 3200 but that´s already a somewhat extreme territory. The A77 Raw files look reasonably sharp too.
[quote name='Sathe Wild' timestamp='1315167380' post='11300']
You never get tired of putting your own spin in everything here, do you?
The short answer is: YES.
(1) A77 has 8 fps with AF and manual exposure.
(2) 12 fps with AF and auto exposure
(3) 12 fps with no AF but manual exposure.
And that's better than 7D and D300s.
[/quote]
Never get tired of being realistic. No, I am not in need of high FPS. Doers not make me stupid, though.
12 FPS but point and shoot, not very desirable in my view.
12 FPS with manual focus, even sillier, totally useless.
8 FPS< that is nice and fast. I'll take the system with lenses that are nice and fast in AF. Saying that is not important reeks of famboyism, if you ask me. So, Nikon D300s + battery grip and AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 VR for instance. Or Canon 7D with 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM II.
But maybe the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 HSM is really fast on the A77 or K5?
' />