Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Told you Sony's 24mp sensor was noisy

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Told you Sony's 24mp sensor was noisy

 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-26-2011
Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>I noticed it in the NEX-7 results and now, it seems that the SLT-A77 has
>the issue. However, the camera does show really high resolution.
>
>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta77/page14.asp



The level of high ISO noise is quite frightening. We had some images
from both an NEX-7 and an A77 at a Sony event. The noise levels at
high ISOs were extremely high. We were reassured that the cameras
were pre-production samples and that the production cameras would be
much better. It seems that they aren't.

Sony Alpha has a long history of disappointments and this is just one
more to add to the list. You would think that Sony would learn from
their mistakes, but they just keep on making the same ones, over and
over again.


>The Pentax K5 remains the noise control king of APS.



Sony makes some excellent sensors that perform exceptionally well in
other brands of camera. But put the same (or similar) sensor in a
Sony camera, and the results are very disappointing.

The 16 MP sensor in the Pentax K-5 is also used in the Nikon D7000 and
several Sony models. In the Pentax and Nikon it delivers excellent
image quality with very good noise control - the Pentax just shades
the Nikon in this respect. But put the same sensor in a Sony A35 or
NEX-C3, and it becomes one of the noisiest sensors on the market.

The same was true of the 24 MP full frame A900 (and later A850) whose
high ISO noise was desperately bad. Yet the Sony-made 24 MP sensor in
the full frame Nikon D3X performed extremely well. However the
sensors are not the same, so the conclusions here are less clear,
except that if you want low noise at high ISOs, don't buy Sony.

I had hoped that the A77 would be good enough to win over Sony A700
users and encourage them to stay with the brand (and buy some of our
stocks of unsold Sony and Minolta lenses!) but they will be switching
brands now. Most leaving Sony seem to go to Nikon.

There could be no excuse for Sony getting the A77 wrong, but ...

Next, the A99, or A9X as Sony UK prefers to call it. Another profound
disappointment in the making.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-26-2011
On Oct 26, 5:57*am, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >I noticed it in the NEX-7 results and now, it seems that the SLT-A77 has
> >the issue. *However, the camera does show really high resolution.

>
> >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta77/page14.asp

>
> The level of high ISO noise is quite frightening. *We had some images
> from both an NEX-7 and an A77 at a Sony event. *The noise levels at
> high ISOs were extremely high. *We were reassured that the cameras
> were pre-production samples and that the production cameras would be
> much better. *It seems that they aren't.
>
> Sony Alpha has a long history of disappointments and this is just one
> more to add to the list. *You would think that Sony would learn from
> their mistakes, but they just keep on making the same ones, over and
> over again.
>
> >The Pentax K5 remains the noise control king of APS.

>
> Sony makes some excellent sensors that perform exceptionally well in
> other brands of camera. *But put the same (or similar) sensor in a
> Sony camera, and the results are very disappointing. *
>
> The 16 MP sensor in the Pentax K-5 is also used in the Nikon D7000 and
> several Sony models. *In the Pentax and Nikon it delivers excellent
> image quality with very good noise control - the Pentax just shades
> the Nikon in this respect. *But put the same sensor in a Sony A35 or
> NEX-C3, and it becomes one of the noisiest sensors on the market.
>
> The same was true of the 24 MP full frame A900 (and later A850) whose
> high ISO noise was desperately bad. *Yet the Sony-made 24 MP sensor in
> the full frame Nikon D3X performed extremely well. *However the
> sensors are not the same, so the conclusions here are less clear,
> except that if you want low noise at high ISOs, don't buy Sony.
>
> I had hoped that the A77 would be good enough to win over Sony A700
> users and encourage them to stay with the brand (and buy some of our
> stocks of unsold Sony and Minolta lenses!) but they will be switching
> brands now. *Most leaving Sony seem to go to Nikon. *
>
> There could be no excuse for Sony getting the A77 wrong, but ...
>
> Next, the A99, or A9X as Sony UK prefers to call it. *Another profound
> disappointment in the making. *


On a pixel size to pixel size basis, the Panasonic GH2 sensor beats
all the Sony cameras. Again, if they ever scale up the technology to
APS or (dare I say it?) FF size, it will be amazing. The Sony A700
body was unique and remarkably well-suited to the hand, IMO. The new
77 is really nothing like it.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-26-2011
RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On a pixel size to pixel size basis, the Panasonic GH2 sensor beats
>all the Sony cameras. Again, if they ever scale up the technology to
>APS or (dare I say it?) FF size, it will be amazing.



That is very unlikely ever to happen, though.


>The Sony A700
>body was unique and remarkably well-suited to the hand, IMO. The new
>77 is really nothing like it.



Sony makes soooo many mistakes in product design.

I agree, the A700 handled well. It was the best of the Alpha DSLR
range, and the de facto top-of-the-range model, given the sheer
incompetence of the full frame A900 and A850. The A700 had/still has
a lot of loyal followers.

Now, Sony is trying to replace a very good DSLR with a thoroughly
mediocre SLT, with all the problems that the pellicle mirror and EVF
bring. Our Minolta/Sony stalwarts are outraged, and we have far fewer
A77 pre-orders than we expected. We have had several cancellations of
pre-orders, the most recent today. It is getting to the point where
Alpha cameras will be impossible to sell, but we have to offer them to
get the best terms on the NEX range.

Two customers also changed their A77 pre-orders to the NEX-7 on the
basis that it has the same sensor and the same EVF. Their logic was
that there is no point in having a heavy, bulky SLT when the same
image quality and viewfinder are available in a smaller package.

We don't have a release date for the A77/NEX-7.

 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-27-2011
On Oct 26, 12:54*pm, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >On a pixel size to pixel size basis, the Panasonic GH2 sensor beats
> >all the Sony cameras. *Again, if they ever scale up the technology to
> >APS or (dare I say it?) FF size, it will be amazing. *

>
> That is very unlikely ever to happen, though.
>
> >The Sony A700
> >body was unique and remarkably well-suited to the hand, IMO. *The new
> >77 is really nothing like it.

>
> Sony makes soooo many mistakes in product design. *
>
> I agree, the A700 handled well. *It was the best of the Alpha DSLR
> range, and the de facto top-of-the-range model, given the sheer
> incompetence of the full frame A900 and A850. *The A700 had/still has
> a lot of loyal followers.
>
> Now, Sony is trying to replace a very good DSLR with a thoroughly
> mediocre SLT, with all the problems that the pellicle mirror and EVF
> bring. *Our Minolta/Sony stalwarts are outraged, and we have far fewer
> A77 pre-orders than we expected. *We have had several cancellations of
> pre-orders, the most recent today. *It is getting to the point where
> Alpha cameras will be impossible to sell, but we have to offer them to
> get the best terms on the NEX range.


People need to adapt a bit. I remember them complaining when Minolta
was sold to Sony.
Getting away from the optical viewfinder will take some people a long
time to get used to. I hope that by buying a NEX-7, they will get
used to it and buy into the SLT's, but I personally don't like the
idea of the light loss with the pellicle. Then again maybe the less
expensive A65 will be a good choice, as it has the same EVF and 24M
sensor?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-27-2011
RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Oct 26, 12:54*pm, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Sony makes soooo many mistakes in product design. *
>> I agree, the A700 handled well. *It was the best of the Alpha DSLR
>> range, and the de facto top-of-the-range model, given the sheer
>> incompetence of the full frame A900 and A850. *The A700 had/still has
>> a lot of loyal followers.
>> Now, Sony is trying to replace a very good DSLR with a thoroughly
>> mediocre SLT, with all the problems that the pellicle mirror and EVF
>> bring. *Our Minolta/Sony stalwarts are outraged, and we have far fewer
>> A77 pre-orders than we expected. *We have had several cancellations of
>> pre-orders, the most recent today. *It is getting to the point where
>> Alpha cameras will be impossible to sell, but we have to offer them to
>> get the best terms on the NEX range.

>
>People need to adapt a bit. I remember them complaining when Minolta
>was sold to Sony.



When a camera manufacturer with a long history of innovation and a
reputation for high quality products is sold to an electronics firm
whose reputation has taken a hit, there are good reasons to complain.
Given the mess Sony has made of the opportunity presented by Minolta,
the pessimists have been proved right. The Alpha range is a disaster.
The highly successful NEX has no Minolta DNA.


>Getting away from the optical viewfinder will take some people a long
>time to get used to. I hope that by buying a NEX-7, they will get
>used to it and buy into the SLT's, but I personally don't like the
>idea of the light loss with the pellicle.



The pellicle has been tried before, and rejected. There are too many
fundamental problems for it to work; light loss is just one of them.


>Then again maybe the less expensive A65 will be a good choice,
>as it has the same EVF and 24M sensor?



The same sensor/EVF, yes. A slower processor and a plastic body.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-27-2011
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>I noticed it in the NEX-7 results and now, it seems that the SLT-A77 has
>>the issue. However, the camera does show really high resolution.
>>
>>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta77/page14.asp


> The level of high ISO noise is quite frightening. We had some images
> from both an NEX-7 and an A77 at a Sony event. The noise levels at
> high ISOs were extremely high. We were reassured that the cameras
> were pre-production samples and that the production cameras would be
> much better. It seems that they aren't.


> Sony Alpha has a long history of disappointments and this is just one
> more to add to the list. You would think that Sony would learn from
> their mistakes, but they just keep on making the same ones, over and
> over again.


>>The Pentax K5 remains the noise control king of APS.


> Sony makes some excellent sensors that perform exceptionally well in
> other brands of camera. But put the same (or similar) sensor in a
> Sony camera, and the results are very disappointing.


> The 16 MP sensor in the Pentax K-5 is also used in the Nikon D7000 and
> several Sony models. In the Pentax and Nikon it delivers excellent
> image quality with very good noise control - the Pentax just shades
> the Nikon in this respect. But put the same sensor in a Sony A35 or
> NEX-C3, and it becomes one of the noisiest sensors on the market.


> The same was true of the 24 MP full frame A900 (and later A850) whose
> high ISO noise was desperately bad. Yet the Sony-made 24 MP sensor in
> the full frame Nikon D3X performed extremely well. However the
> sensors are not the same, so the conclusions here are less clear,
> except that if you want low noise at high ISOs, don't buy Sony.


In other words there's nothing wrong with the sensor. Which suggests
the problem must be in the processing, i.e. other camera makers have
better in-camera jpeg noise reduction, and possibly put a bit of NR in
between the sensor and the supposedly unprocessed RAW image file. In
recent years we've seen a number of new much improved noise reduction
methods available as stand-alone programs or editor plug-ins which not
surprisingly give better results than in-camera noise reduction.

So the interesting question is whether when these improved noise
reducers are applied to Sony RAW images you get noise reduction at
least comparable to that offered by other camera makers. You certainly
get an amazing improvement over what Sony's own in-camera jpeg noise
reduction offers.

But how does it then compare to what you can get from Nikon and Canon
with similar processing?

--
Chris Malcolm
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-27-2011
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>On a pixel size to pixel size basis, the Panasonic GH2 sensor beats
>>all the Sony cameras. Again, if they ever scale up the technology to
>>APS or (dare I say it?) FF size, it will be amazing.


> That is very unlikely ever to happen, though.


>>The Sony A700
>>body was unique and remarkably well-suited to the hand, IMO. The new
>>77 is really nothing like it.


> Sony makes soooo many mistakes in product design.


> I agree, the A700 handled well. It was the best of the Alpha DSLR
> range, and the de facto top-of-the-range model, given the sheer
> incompetence of the full frame A900 and A850. The A700 had/still has
> a lot of loyal followers.


> Now, Sony is trying to replace a very good DSLR with a thoroughly
> mediocre SLT, with all the problems that the pellicle mirror and EVF
> bring.


Plus at least one major advantage of the pellicle mirror: no mirror
vibration, and the electronic "shutter" opening means no shutter
vibration either.

--
Chris Malcolm
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-28-2011
On 27 Oct 2011 18:10:13 GMT, Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: > Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: >>I noticed it in the NEX-7 results and now, it seems that the SLT-A77 has
: >>the issue. However, the camera does show really high resolution.
: >>
: >>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta77/page14.asp
:
: > The level of high ISO noise is quite frightening. We had some images
: > from both an NEX-7 and an A77 at a Sony event. The noise levels at
: > high ISOs were extremely high. We were reassured that the cameras
: > were pre-production samples and that the production cameras would be
: > much better. It seems that they aren't.
:
: > Sony Alpha has a long history of disappointments and this is just one
: > more to add to the list. You would think that Sony would learn from
: > their mistakes, but they just keep on making the same ones, over and
: > over again.
:
: >>The Pentax K5 remains the noise control king of APS.
:
: > Sony makes some excellent sensors that perform exceptionally well in
: > other brands of camera. But put the same (or similar) sensor in a
: > Sony camera, and the results are very disappointing.
:
: > The 16 MP sensor in the Pentax K-5 is also used in the Nikon D7000 and
: > several Sony models. In the Pentax and Nikon it delivers excellent
: > image quality with very good noise control - the Pentax just shades
: > the Nikon in this respect. But put the same sensor in a Sony A35 or
: > NEX-C3, and it becomes one of the noisiest sensors on the market.
:
: > The same was true of the 24 MP full frame A900 (and later A850) whose
: > high ISO noise was desperately bad. Yet the Sony-made 24 MP sensor in
: > the full frame Nikon D3X performed extremely well. However the
: > sensors are not the same, so the conclusions here are less clear,
: > except that if you want low noise at high ISOs, don't buy Sony.
:
: In other words there's nothing wrong with the sensor. Which suggests
: the problem must be in the processing, i.e. other camera makers have
: better in-camera jpeg noise reduction, and possibly put a bit of NR in
: between the sensor and the supposedly unprocessed RAW image file. In
: recent years we've seen a number of new much improved noise reduction
: methods available as stand-alone programs or editor plug-ins which not
: surprisingly give better results than in-camera noise reduction.
:
: So the interesting question is whether when these improved noise
: reducers are applied to Sony RAW images you get noise reduction at
: least comparable to that offered by other camera makers. You certainly
: get an amazing improvement over what Sony's own in-camera jpeg noise
: reduction offers.
:
: But how does it then compare to what you can get from Nikon and Canon
: with similar processing?

By default, Canon estimates the amount of noise reduction you need and applies
it to the RAW file. But no information is lost; and if you don't want the NR,
you can easily reverse it in the photo editor. Occasionally I'll decide that
an image needs more NR and tweak it upwards in PP. It makes the image a bit
blurrier, but usually the overall effect is improved.

I'm not sure this is an answer to the question you posed, but maybe it helps
define the context.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-29-2011
On 10/28/2011 8:52 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
> On 27 Oct 2011 18:10:13 GMT, Chris Malcolm<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> : In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bruce<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> :> Rich<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> :>>I noticed it in the NEX-7 results and now, it seems that the SLT-A77 has
> :>>the issue. However, the camera does show really high resolution.
> :>>
> :>>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta77/page14.asp
> :
> :> The level of high ISO noise is quite frightening. We had some images
> :> from both an NEX-7 and an A77 at a Sony event. The noise levels at
> :> high ISOs were extremely high. We were reassured that the cameras
> :> were pre-production samples and that the production cameras would be
> :> much better. It seems that they aren't.
> :
> :> Sony Alpha has a long history of disappointments and this is just one
> :> more to add to the list. You would think that Sony would learn from
> :> their mistakes, but they just keep on making the same ones, over and
> :> over again.
> :
> :>>The Pentax K5 remains the noise control king of APS.
> :
> :> Sony makes some excellent sensors that perform exceptionally well in
> :> other brands of camera. But put the same (or similar) sensor in a
> :> Sony camera, and the results are very disappointing.
> :
> :> The 16 MP sensor in the Pentax K-5 is also used in the Nikon D7000 and
> :> several Sony models. In the Pentax and Nikon it delivers excellent
> :> image quality with very good noise control - the Pentax just shades
> :> the Nikon in this respect. But put the same sensor in a Sony A35 or
> :> NEX-C3, and it becomes one of the noisiest sensors on the market.
> :
> :> The same was true of the 24 MP full frame A900 (and later A850) whose
> :> high ISO noise was desperately bad. Yet the Sony-made 24 MP sensor in
> :> the full frame Nikon D3X performed extremely well. However the
> :> sensors are not the same, so the conclusions here are less clear,
> :> except that if you want low noise at high ISOs, don't buy Sony.
> :
> : In other words there's nothing wrong with the sensor. Which suggests
> : the problem must be in the processing, i.e. other camera makers have
> : better in-camera jpeg noise reduction, and possibly put a bit of NR in
> : between the sensor and the supposedly unprocessed RAW image file. In
> : recent years we've seen a number of new much improved noise reduction
> : methods available as stand-alone programs or editor plug-ins which not
> : surprisingly give better results than in-camera noise reduction.
> :
> : So the interesting question is whether when these improved noise
> : reducers are applied to Sony RAW images you get noise reduction at
> : least comparable to that offered by other camera makers. You certainly
> : get an amazing improvement over what Sony's own in-camera jpeg noise
> : reduction offers.
> :
> : But how does it then compare to what you can get from Nikon and Canon
> : with similar processing?
>
> By default, Canon estimates the amount of noise reduction you need and applies
> it to the RAW file. But no information is lost; and if you don't want the NR,
> you can easily reverse it in the photo editor. Occasionally I'll decide that
> an image needs more NR and tweak it upwards in PP. It makes the image a bit
> blurrier, but usually the overall effect is improved.
>
> I'm not sure this is an answer to the question you posed, but maybe it helps
> define the context.
>



AFAIK NR is usually accomplished by color blurring.


--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Nikon reveals D5200 SLR with D7000-taunting specs: 24MP sensor, 39-point AF, wireless port Polly the Parrott Digital Photography 19 12-06-2012 04:35 PM
Pay a wazzup gives life you just have to read everything I told you wazzub C Programming 0 03-03-2012 11:01 PM
Re: Told you Sony's 24mp sensor was noisy RichA Digital Photography 4 10-30-2011 11:28 AM
Re: Told you Sony's 24mp sensor was noisy Me Digital Photography 2 10-26-2011 10:55 PM
noisy cpu fan, I replaced with another and it is still noisy Ed Computer Support 3 01-23-2007 07:08 PM



Advertisments