to a camera near you.
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Sony_shows_Alpha_700_replacement_at_CES__more_information_news_304848.html
Let all the doomsday prognosticators start their bashing... I can't wait... Ha, ha...
Sony expects the sensor to deliver high ISO to reach stratospheric levels of hundreds of thousands... despite the crammed sensor.
Sounds insane.
If so I have to consider to move on from the A700 based tests. *sigh*
Let's hope they don't sell it to Nikon, or the D7000 tests will be doomed before they started <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1294742838' post='5411']
Let's hope they don't sell it to Nikon, or the D7000 tests will be doomed before they started <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
-- Markus
[/quote]
Well, 16 vs 24mp are not that much of a difference technically (22% in terms of potential max. LW/PH).
The A700 has no LiveView so an update would be actually welcome in terms of testability.
[quote name='thw' timestamp='1294738778' post='5409']
to a camera near you.
[url="http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Sony_shows_Alpha_700_replacement_at_CES__more_information_news_304848.html"]http://www.amateurph...ews_304848.html[/url]
Let all the doomsday prognosticators start their bashing... I can't wait... Ha, ha...
Sony expects the sensor to deliver high ISO to reach stratospheric levels of hundreds of thousands... despite the crammed sensor.
[/quote]
If this news is true, I'm afraid Nikon might want to use this one on the future D300x (or D400). Personally, I don't think this much of pixel density is needed in APS-C market. I mean, what about the huge gap concerning the pixel density in FX models!
Serkan
Nothing bad about 24mp on APS-C, while the noise per pixel at high ISO might be a bit higher than the 16mp Sony sensor used in the Pentax K5 and Nikon D7000, the pixels are smaller in the image, so so is the noise.
It should be a nice sensor for a D400 from Nikon...
Less so for an A77 from Sony, as they say it will be no DSLR. So a (semi)pro/advanced amateur camera, with no optical view finder (bad in difficult lighting, setting data in the image and so on), bright lights ghosting like in the A55 and A33, overheating problems due to the closed sensor compartment/SSS heat/constant live view sensor heat.
Lets hope though that this A77 will have a better video mode implementation and way better live view during high FPS usage than the a55. And that this model will get actual good AF system to follow fast moving subjects.
But yes, could be a very nice sensor for a Nikon D400.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1294752830' post='5419']
Nothing bad about 24mp on APS-C, while the noise per pixel at high ISO might be a bit higher than the 16mp Sony sensor used in the Pentax K5 and Nikon D7000, the pixels are smaller in the image, so so is the noise.
[/quote]
That's what I meant... Tiny pixels on a smaller cropped sensor. How much low light performance can be expected without loosing detail and color performance. They seem to be following the market needs and think that high pixel density APS-C sensors deserve that much investment. I just can't understand why not investing on a 16-18MP FF sensor with a brilliant low light performance?
Serkan
01-12-2011, 09:28 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-12-2011, 09:29 AM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1294820655' post='5439']
That's what I meant... Tiny pixels on a smaller cropped sensor. How much low light performance can be expected without loosing detail and color performance. They seem to be following the market needs and think that high pixel density APS-C sensors deserve that much investment. I just can't understand why not investing on a 16-18MP FF sensor with a brilliant low light performance?
Serkan
[/quote]
Your criticism does is not right, what is the obsession with "low light" anyway... Way more important is higher resolution, you actually get something from that with every image you take.
You can see that too from every discussion about AA-filters. Without AA-filter, you get more, but fake, detail. Apparently that is very attractive to some. But AA-filters are very important to capture a true image. More real detail can only be achieved by higher resolutions.
It is the same criticism every new sensor... from 6mp to 10mp, 10 to 12, 12 to 16, 16 to 24(?). Yet every generation gives on the whole better images, and even better low light performance. take for instance the current 18mp sensor from Canon, in high ISO it gives remarkable results for APS-C, something we could not have imagined 4 years ago. Or look at the 16mp sensor Pentax and Nikon are using, crazy low noise especially at base ISO, yet smaller pixels than the 12mp generation before it.
Only real downside to the higher resolution is the bigger and bigger file sizes for the RAW files.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1294752830' post='5419']
Less so for an A77 from Sony, as they say it will be no DSLR. So a (semi)pro/advanced amateur camera, with no optical view finder (bad in difficult lighting, setting data in the image and so on), bright lights ghosting like in the A55 and A33, overheating problems due to the closed sensor compartment/SSS heat/constant live view sensor heat.[/quote]
Who told you a sem-pro camera must have OVF? It will have semi-pro build quality, AF system, and faster speed than Canon 1d Mark IV, or Nikon D3s. The EVF will be vastly better than A55. And there is no evidence it will have any overheating issues until it's tested. Stop posting nonsense about unreleased cameras.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1294824522' post='5440']
Your criticism does is not right, what is the obsession with "low light" anyway... Way more important is higher resolution, you actually get something from that with every image you take.
...
[/quote]
I personally don't think that the higher pixel density (as in 24mp APS-C) is more important than a decent low light performance. I don't make huge prints, but indeed use different lenses and some with low speeds. Sometimes even fast lenses with VR don't help to get the required results. So I think having an ISO boost (with keeping the level of detail and color performance) is more important as it allows higher shutter speeds, which is essential. All in all, it's a priority issue based on the given type of photography, and to me higher pixel density on APS-C does not have the priority. Of course a decent low light performance + higher pixel density is very wellcome but only if it could compete with the performance of a sensor with bigger pixels.
My arguement (as a consumer) here was, why dealing with a low light performance in 24mp APS-C, when there's no (let's say) 16-18mp FX sensor that definetly could have better overall performance. Sure the manufacturers would have their reasons to do so but who cares about the cost reduction & market share measures.
In Canon world people have high pixel density with affordable prices and I'm happy for them if the resolution is the most significant criteria that counts. But here at Nikon you must pay for each pixel and I'm not sure if it's worth it.
Serkan
|
