Camera Labs

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say lol......

_________________
flickr

Sony α300
Sony HVL-F58AM Bounce-Shift Flash
Tamron SP 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF)
Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di
Sony 50mm F/1.4 SAL-50F14
Sony 100mm Macro F/2.8 SAL-100MF28

High noise above 800 ISO, that pretty much eliminates .0001 of all photographic applications. LOL

I am not the first to say this, but this is a useless comparison. Where I live a D90 is almost twice as expensive as the A380. Not only that, Sony has never laid claim to any great ISO performance for that camera, it is simply not after that type of market.

I am normally a fan of your reviews, and you do have some really excellent points. In this one however, you have done exceptionally poorly (see reasons above). I am disappointed in your choices here, cameras and lenses. I expect better from you.

Indeed I may be biased, but what I say is still true. Please do not take it too personally. I sincerely hope you redeem yourself in the future.

Hi skylightphotos,

Welcome to the forum.


I've highlighted the sentence which I believe addresses your concern. Pricewise, here in the UK the D90 is £649 and the D5000 is £539 which, oddly enough, is the exact price of the A380. My duties here as a Mod don't imply any inside knowledge of Gordon's review process but I do know that he can only review what the various manufacturers make available. Maybe the D5000 is in such high demand that Nikon were unable to make one available for this comparison? I just don't know.

I'll reserve judgement on the merits of the A380 until the full review is in. As you know, the high ISO results are just a small component of the full review, which has yet to be published. IMHO at the end of the day it doesn't really matter what Sony may or may not claim regarding high ISO performance or any other feature. Potential purchasers need the caomparisons so they can make their own minds up.

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.

And thank you for welcoming me.

What you say is interesting, but missing the point. Indeed ISO performance is only a small part of the entire camera performance. What a company claims does not affect the camera's performance but actually should impact what you say about a camera. Consider the following example, albeit extreme:

If you compare the off road performance of a Hummer to a Corvette, there is no argument the Hummer would win. The Corvette's off road performance is still poor, but the comparison is not useful, unfair or a poor choice, whichever way one may wish to describe it.

If you do not have cameras available, then don't do a comparison between cameras that are clearly not in the same class. In other words, you cannot use availability or lack of availability of certain models of cameras as an excuse for making poor choices for comparisons. Why not just do evaluations separately?

I do not have the 380 or the 350, and incidentally, it was among other things, poor ISO performance that kept me from getting those cameras. I am just not in the market for those cameras, but there clearly other people are. Sorry Bob, there is just no good defense possible here.


Maybe it is possible to delete the whole article with the comparison, and we can hope not too many people have read it yet.

I certainly appreciate where you are coming from but I think we'll have too differ, in the friendliest possible way, over that one. If it looks like a DSLR, it feels like a DSLR and it's the same price as "xyz's" DSLR then I think a huge number of potential purchasers will regard the comparison as fair. But only in the larger context of the full review.

This won't be the thread for it, as it's A380 specific and we do try to stay on-topic, but I look forward to hearing what you chose. And maybe you'll be tempted by our August On Assignment competition.

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.

You may exercise your democratic right to be wrong but at least give a reason. Yes both cameras are both DSLRs but clearly the 2 cameras are not in the same class and clearly they are aimed at different markets. Just as Corvettes and Hummers (see my example) are both vehicles but aimed at different markets. Clearly you can see that?

It seems to me that your first post on the forum clearly shows you understand the principle that price is a major determining factor in deciding which cameras should be compared. And I utterly reject the idea that when a manufacturer can't match the features that are present in other similarly priced cameras, in this context high ISO noise, they should somehow be excused from comparison. And yet it also seems from your most recent post that somehow the A380 shouldn't be compared with other cameras in the same price range. You are shifting your ground and you'll get no further argument from me. I may, in your eyes, yet again be exercising my "democratic right to be wrong" but I'll at least do you the courtesy of assuming your pop at Gordon is through genuinely held belief and I would urge other members to accept that you did not join the forum just to engage in a spot of trolling.

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.

Uuuh, I expected it to be pretty bad, but still THAT bad?



If you look at ISO 400, there's allready much smearing from the poor noise filter going on, greatly reducing detail.

And while it obviously depends on specific purpose you use your camera, denying that high ISO performance is important is quite ridiculous - everybody will benefit from it in one way or another. Just to give you a few examples: Sports, indoor photography, the evening, parties, churches, portraits in less than optimal light - the list is endless. And it's not even something a flash can cure either (unless you like pictures with no ambient light at all)

_________________
Canon EOS 5D Mark II | Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM | Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM | Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM
...and a lot of lighting stuff. -> complete list of equipment

Website
Blog

You sound like a knowledgeable photographer who relies on high ISO performance. Can you please show us some of your photos taken at or above 800 ISO?
No excuses please.

Even though I allready named you numerous uses for high ISO, here we go...















I could go on, I got around 100 of those party pictures for instance, but I can't be bothered really, sorry.

I didn't look up the settings for all of them, so yes, you might find one or another with ISO 400 - probably because I didn't want to introduce more noise and use higher ISOs, even with my 50D.

_________________
Canon EOS 5D Mark II | Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM | Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM | Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM
...and a lot of lighting stuff. -> complete list of equipment

Website
Blog

You answered my question.
The majority of people buying an A380 would “delete” the majority of those photos due to poor lighting, even the 50D’s performance seems marginal at best at high ISO. (800+)
I did like #5444 which was shot at 400-ISO, good photo.

/edit: Oh sod it, I can't be bothered to explain the advantages of high ISO performance, can I? That's something the whole world has discovered years ago - apart from you appearently.

So why would the average sony user delete those pictures? I'm not quite with you there...

Just one thing though: Why do you think I didn't use higher ISOs? Because I wanted best possible quality, so I chose the lowest ISO I could still work with. That doesn't mean I didn't WANT to use ISO 1600+... I would be very very happy to use it, if the camera wasn't the limit. So the point is, that the alpha 380 will limit me (and pretty much everybody) even more in that respect.

_________________
Canon EOS 5D Mark II | Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM | Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM | Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM
...and a lot of lighting stuff. -> complete list of equipment

Website
Blog

I want to add my 2 cent here and say that often i will NEED to use ISO 1600, otherwise i wouldn't have been get the shot that i did. Anyway the shot taken below was shot @ 1600 ISO on my 40D with flash bounced of the ceiling in the rather very dark room i was in. I was forced to use ISO 1600, as i wanted to balance the flash with ambient lighting. Anyway you can view a full size sample of the picture below Here. I will admit to setting the Noise reduction sliders to high in Canon's DPP RAW conversion software, but i still am amazed by how good the ISO performance is and how much MORE usable the camera is with the better noise control, as i often will shoot at ISO 400-800 and not fret. I should also point out that all NR in camera was set to off . I hope this shows you Westcoast, that i wouldn't just 'delete' a shot from my 40D taken at 1600 ISO, i would certainly KEEP IT (provided i liked it...etc).
Anyway i hope i haven't been to rude or anything i am just trying to put my point across

_________________
Ed


Canon 40D + Grip | Sigma 10-20 EX | 17-85 | Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX II | 50 F/1.8 | 430 EX II + Other Stuff
Flickr
Portfolio - Not recently updated!
Saving for: -

Yes, I’m very aware of the functions of the ISO button, and also the miracles of post processing and noise suppression.
But I question any buying decisions being made by a first time DSLR purchaser based on lab results at 800 + ISO.
Here one I just took at ISO 1600…