Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Mon Jul 28, 2014 9:01 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 2:05 am 
Nostrum wrote:
So the point is, that the alpha 380 will limit me (and pretty much everybody) even more in that respect.


That's quite a patronizing generalization.
Clearly, the new Alphas are aimed at the beginner consumer market. For a beginner, the features are quite innovative with fast liveview, flipout screen, etc. ISO is not a cardinal concern of their's when looking for a new camera. It could be better, yes, but its not. And quite frankly, it's damn fine to use high in practice, as illustrated by WestCoast.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 3:18 am 
Bob Andersson wrote:
In two different posts skylightphotos wrote:
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...
.
.
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.

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.


I admit that t I was incorrect about the magnitude of the price difference, the Nikon kit sells for $1230 and the Sony kit $850, making the difference about $400 once the 5% sales tax is calculated in. This still puts the D90 well out of the price league of the a380. Shifting my ground? Absolutely not! I am not saying at all that the 380 is excused from comparison, but at least do it to cameras in the same price range.

Trolling? Sure give it a name and accuse me of it, fine with me. I just saw something that was wrong wrong wrong, and felt I needed to let you know.

(edit) I am sorry to say as I read back, it is pretty clear to me you still did not really understand what I said, and that may well be because of the way I said it.

I am sure if we were sitting at the same table and having this discussion over a beer or two, I would be better able to explain my point. The truth is, I HATE these forums but in SPITE of that I still wanted to get my point across, that is how STRONGLY I felt about this.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 7:08 am 
Sublimity wrote:
Nostrum wrote:
So the point is, that the alpha 380 will limit me (and pretty much everybody) even more in that respect.


That's quite a patronizing generalization.
Clearly, the new Alphas are aimed at the beginner consumer market. For a beginner, the features are quite innovative with fast liveview, flipout screen, etc. ISO is not a cardinal concern of their's when looking for a new camera. It could be better, yes, but its not. And quite frankly, it's damn fine to use high in practice, as illustrated by WestCoast.


point taken, but i did only say "in that respect" as in "will limit people more as far as high iso is concerned". I wasnt talking about the camera as a whole. And i think noone can argue that that performance of the new alphas is (still) very poor compared to the competition. Westcoasts shot looks ok but its mainly bright colors, its small and maybe enhanced with a good PP noise reduction tool...


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 1:23 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:32 pm
Posts: 9962
Location: Queenstown, New Zealand
Hi skylightphotos, did you read my earlier comments on this thread and the text which went with the comparison? I used the D90 because it had the same sensor and imaging pipeline as the D5000, and the latter goes directly up against the A380.

So the images you saw from the D90 are exactly the same as if I'd used a D5000, and since the lenses were set at f8 and cropped from near to the middle, it also pretty much eliminates any optical differences too.

The reason I didn't use a D5000 is becuase Nikon couldn't get one to me in time, so I used a D90 instead becuase the quality - which is what I was comparing there - is identical.

Simple as that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 6:22 am 
Sony noise performance is fine if you're willing to shoot RAW and you've invested in a decent RAW converter and noise reduction software. Have a look at popo's comparison of a 50D and A350 noise handling here and pay particular attention to my edits to the Sony RAW file on page 2. After shooting with it for over a year, I never felt limited by the Sony A200's noise handling.

It's slightly disingenuous to claim that ISO 800+ shooting is rarely done. Please don't do that.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 4:39 pm 
Gordon, could you also compare output from RAW, preferably when using the same converter? DCRaw could serve well here, as it's updated often and it doesn't try to hide sensor imperfections.
The reason I ask is that many people are raw shooters these days and DCRaw seems to be good enough for a fair comparison.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 2:55 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:32 pm
Posts: 9962
Location: Queenstown, New Zealand
Hi Slapo, I always include some RAW results in my reviews, but I won't be doing full sets of results in RAW except for perhaps the top-end pro models like the Nikon D3x.

My policy is to test the cameras as most of their owners will use them, and while enthusiasts like our forum members will generally shoot in RAW, the vast majority of the people buying this kind of camera and reading my reviews will not. That's why I always go for default JPEG settings and kit lenses for most of my tests, although again I do also include some RAW results and where possible those with a better lens to satisfy the higher-end folk out there!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:47 pm 
Gordon Laing wrote:
Hi Slapo, I always include some RAW results in my reviews, but I won't be doing full sets of results in RAW except for perhaps the top-end pro models like the Nikon D3x.

My policy is to test the cameras as most of their owners will use them, and while enthusiasts like our forum members will generally shoot in RAW, the vast majority of the people buying this kind of camera and reading my reviews will not. That's why I always go for default JPEG settings and kit lenses for most of my tests, although again I do also include some RAW results and where possible those with a better lens to satisfy the higher-end folk out there!


I remember you saying that before, but that is to the disadvantage of people who are on a budget who want to get the most out of their cameras, e. g. students, techies, people who want a DSLR particularly because of a big sensor, RAW, interchangeable lenses and other advantages they offer.
They might be a minority, but that's why it might be more difficult for them to get samples the way they'd be using the cameras.
Then again, bandwidth and time are always worth saving, so maybe it could be left to users to do that, although the photos wouldn't be that well comparable as if they were made by you.
I'm not trying to be pushy, I'm just trying to make a point. :)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 6:05 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:32 pm
Posts: 9962
Location: Queenstown, New Zealand
16TH AUGUST UPDATE! FULL REVIEW NOW POSTED:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_DSLR_A380/

Gordon


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 11:04 am 
Yeah, i too can't find a good way to hold the grip... I really dislike it gordon!


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 11:47 am 
The Alpha range must be going through it's teenage years and having difficulty figuring out what it wants to be when it grows up.

- Over achieving muscle bound freak? A900
- Capable, quiet and competent? A700
- Part of the in crowd? A200/A300/A350
- Purse wielding, skirt wearing weirdo? A380

:lol:


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 12:22 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:30 pm
Posts: 6950
Location: The Netherlands, Ridderkerk
That's a great analogy primitive.

Good work Gordon, that's another great review!

- Bjorn -

_________________
Street and documentary photographer | Google+ | Twitter

Leica M9-P (my article on Camera Labs) | Leica D-Lux 5 | 50mm Summilux


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 1:27 am 
Good review Gordon...

Could you make again the Outdoor Resolution with the CZ 16-80??
I think this lens could offers a better comparation between D90/D5000 and a380...

That CCD is excellent with a good lens.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 4:37 am 
Nostrum wrote:
/edit: So the point is, that the alpha 380 will limit me (and pretty much everybody) even more in that respect.

I am using a A300(which has pretty much the same ISO performance) and i don't feel limited. I must be a nobody then =X

Well i think judging high ISO performance at 100% zoomed in is over-rated.
I recently made a 12x8"(which i think is the biggest i'll ever print, being a hobbyist) and a few 9x6" prints for my school Taekwondo club 8) They were VERY happy with the pictures because they never had shoots like these because they were using tiny P n S cameras.

The average joe(like me) wouldn't be printing huge posters with an A330, or A380 so the ISO performance of these cameras are fine.
If you're still not happy but don't want to shoot raw then shoot JPEG with NR off and clean it up with a Noise remover software with Batch Edit(Noise Ninja is really good, and fast too) so you only have to click the files and press ok.

Here are the pictures from the taekwondo grading held in my school. All taken at ISO 1600

Image

Image
It happened so fast that the two guys are still "holding" the plank of wood..

Image

Image
I made the 12x8" print with this photo

I'll throw in the EXIF for good measure
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nigelchuah ... 7548/meta/

Happy Shooting :D


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 11:53 am 
You are correct Gold_Fish!, most people will certainly not print that large and I do believe the noise issue becomes more pronounced at larger print sizes.

I have a A300, and I am straying into the fringe territory of large prints (and heavy cropping as well) and noise has become more of an issue, particularly if the image is slightly underexposed, given a "normal" exposure or filled with areas in shadow with detail. Overexposing slightly actually shows less noise at higher ISO.

But, to be fair, I am moving into a commercial state, and these cameras were really not designed to accommodate that. So, anyone who does plan on doing large printing from heavily cropped photos, maybe an upgrade to the A700 should be on the cards just to have the better noise control.

P.S. Those pieces of wood look well cut, almost pre-cut :) ... just kidding, those guys look like they mean business!


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group