Is the NEX-7 image quality better than the quality of the A77?
Imaging Resource (Click here) posted a full set of Sony NEX-7 studio samples. The cool thing is that finally you can compare the NEX-7 and A77 image quality: http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM.
An example: At 16000 ISO the NEX-7 image (Click here) looks sharper than the A77 (Click here). UPDATE: Both cameras used the same Sigma 70mm F2.8 macro lens!
And even at low 100 ISO the NEX-7 image (Click here) is a tack sharper than the A77 image (Click here).
I don’t know yet if the differences we see are here because of the absence of the semi transparent mirror on the NEX-7. One thing is sure, the NEX-7 really looks like an amazing perfomer for me!
Preorder the NEX-7 at Amazon, Adorama, B&H, J&R, eBay.
And the NEX-7 is still the only non-Canon and non-Nikon camera that is constantly under the Amazon top-20 (Click here to see the full ranking).
Get the A77 at Amazon, Adorama, B&H, J&R, eBay.
Loading ...All other new Sony cameras and lenses links:
A65 at Amazon, Adorama, B&H, J&R, eBay.
Sony NEX-7 Amazon, Adorama, B&H, J&R, eBay.
Sony NEX-5n Amazon, Adorama, B&H, J&R, eBay.
Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 Amazon, Adorama, B&H, J&R, eBay.
Sony 50mm f/1.8 Amazon, Adorama, B&H, J&R, eBay.
Sony 55-210mm Amazon, Adorama, B&H, J&R, eBay.
NEX-5n viewfinder Amazon, Adorama, B&H, J&R, eBay.
Related Posts
Share
Recent comments
Comment from yo: I have checked:
http://216.18.212.226/P...
Comment from Rien Vesseur: There is a difference, but I don't think...
Comment from Markac: This is one of the reasons why I hope So...
Comment from fuji: Marginal difference in image quality. Ch...
oppel
8 months ago |Woah…a clear win for the Nex-7. If they used comparable lenses…maybe due to the lack of the mirror?
Dave Cox
8 months ago |Due to basic physics there is absolutely no way the A77 IQ can equal that of the NEX-7 due to the pellicle mirror. However, to use different lenses renders the test unreliable. Why would they do that??
Sky_walker
8 months ago |A77 doesn’t use pellicle mirror.
Dave Cox
8 months ago |?? Are you questioning semantics here or technology? A77 uses a translucent mirror. Is that not a pellicle mirror? Apologies if not, my mistake.
monkeyfacemcbride
8 months ago |yes it does.
Steve Jones
8 months ago |Pellicle just means thin-film, which is what the SLT mirror is. Indeed SLT isn’t a very good term either, as it’s not translucent in the normal sense of the word.
It might be better to call it a beam-splitter. However, pellicle is still an accurate term as it is, indeed, implemented by means of a thin film. I suspect Sony didn’t want to use the term simply to avoid reminding people of the prior Canon cameras that used such a mirror.
Neo NiGHTS ®
8 months ago |I know it’s all semantics, but… aren’t you confusing transparent and translucent?
The mirror in the Axx IS translucent in a sense that it lets light go through it. Although not completely, otherwise it’d be transparent.
Anyway, we all agree that there is a “thing” in front of the sensor and it blocks some light.
Vlad
8 months ago |Translucent implies diffused and even distorted light. Transparent is definitely a better choice here.
El Aura
8 months ago |translucent
Transmitting light but causing sufficient diffusion to prevent perception of distinct images.
(American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)
transparent
Capable of transmitting light so that objects or images can be seen as if there were no intervening material.
(American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)
I think semi-transparent would be the better term. But translucent sounded fancier, that is why Sony went with it.
Clyde
8 months ago |Even though the mirror doesn’t move, it’s still pellicle technology…
Not any different than the 1960′s pellicle systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_Pellix
“In October 2010, the Sony Corporation launched the Sony Alpha SLT-a55 based on the pellicle mirror principle, but now called the Translucent Mirror technology… However, since viewing through the camera is entirely based on the signal from the image sensor rather than by way of a reflex mirror, this camera is by definition not a single lens reflex camera, hence the SLT (single lens translucent) terminology.”
One guys gizmo is another guys gadget.
march
8 months ago |so shy A77…. what you doing, Sony?
Juan
8 months ago |No at 1.600 ISO , 16.000
MF
8 months ago |Would sony not be able to create an SLR type camera with all the pro settings and functions but make it mirrorless??? or am i talking absolute crap?
William
8 months ago |And you’d lose the insanely high fps and full time PDAF in video which is the whole point of putting a pellicle there in the 1st place.
Hellven
8 months ago |you wouldnt lose the high frame rate, only the Pdaf
Raccoon
8 months ago |The NEX can’t do 12 fps (10 instead).
Wayne77
8 months ago |Do you seriously think that difference is due to mirrorless? Absolutely not. If anything, a mirrorless camera has the capbility for much hihger fps than a traditional dslr which has mechanical mirror movement as a limitation…
As if the difference between 10 fps and 12 fps were a big deal. LOL!
spoon
8 months ago |With autofocus the simple answer is yes. That is due to pdaf thanks to the pellicle mirror. No cdaf would be fast enough.
I was merely pointing out the factual difference, you can keep the straw men to yourself.
monkeyfacemcbride
8 months ago |only if you were willing to forgo PDAF at present and have CDAF only and compromise continuous AF. Other than that I cant really think of a reason why they couldn’t. Obviously it goes without saying that it would be EVF only.
PhotoNut
8 months ago |Except that Nikon has already put into production CMOS sensors with PDAF pixels. That to me is the greatest achievement in it’s otherwise lackluster new mirrorless cams.
What will Sony do when Nikon improves its on-sensor PDAF technology and moves it up to APS-C and fullframe sensors?
Clearly, APS-C and full frame DSLRs with on-sensor PDAF (and hybrid CDAF) will be even cheaper and perform better/faster than the Sony traditional PDAF system with light robbing SLT plastic mirror.
For example, Nikon claims that its new mirrorless cams autofocus faster than even their top of the line D3s.
spoon
8 months ago |If there is enough light because in lower light the system still has to rely on CDAF, slow CDAF at that. Which tells us something about the sensitivity of this PDAF system. Also, Fuji used it well before Nikon did.
Vlad
8 months ago |I don’t see how it will be cheaper. You are integrating more stuff on the sensor. This will also affect its performance imho.
narTmoT
8 months ago |I just used this tool to compare the NEX 7 and NEX 5N at ISO 3200 and 6400. After I downloaded the files (still-life) and changed the size of the NEX 7 photo to match that of the 5N, the noise levels actually looked quite close to me. The 5N may have a very slight edge but I cant be certain. What do you guys think?
Raccoon
8 months ago |The 5N has an edge of roughly 1/3 a stop indeed after resizing, but if you look at the shutterspeeds, you’ll notice the 5N also received 1/3 of a stop more light than the NEX 7, which means it should look atleast 1/3 of a stop cleaner too. In other words, they are roughly the same at equal output, which also shows the request to put that sensor in an A77 body for better high ISO performance is a pointless one.
Dave Cox
8 months ago |Great comment!
My A77 experience is so different to some of these comments. The images are so clean and sharp I can’t actually sharpen them! All my work is at ISO 800 or lower but I really am astounded. And the EVF is crystal clear. Maybe it’s my lens? I’m using a Zeiss 16-80.
AlphaSd
8 months ago |BUT, i amcomparing A77 vs Nex7 now.
they have same sturspeeds.
iso3200 1/125
iso3200 1/125 ???
spoon
8 months ago |We were talking about the 5n vs 7, but ofcourse there is half a stop difference between the A77 and Nex 7 at identical physical exposures. Anyone who was expecting less, hasn’t been paying attention lately.
David
8 months ago |Dave, clearly the measurebaters and test chart shooters know better than someone who owns and uses the camera.
extra|ordinary
8 months ago |@Raccoon
Well put.
Barbarous Waytel
8 months ago |oh, duh .. we already knew that from A580 vs A55. The difference is 1/2 stop, but it’s not really visible until ISO 6400
Daniel
8 months ago |The surprise is that images taken with the NEX-7 look better in comparison with the a900/850 also. High ISO is quite cleaner, lots of detail…what strikes me is that i’ve always considered the a850 to perform absolutely superb in good light, so i took a peak at the house pictures, and i found that the Nex-7 image looks sharper(that might be due to the lens) but the interesting part is that the white balance is better calibrated by the new sensor.
Johnny
8 months ago |Very impressive !!
More resolution with nex 7 from ALL other DLRS and A77… nice.
But Α77 is an action camera, more speed at still and video, its another camera for different purpose.
Barbarous Waytel
8 months ago |Lenses used on both cameras are same (it’s Sigma 70mm F2.8 macro).
T.J.
8 months ago |both cameras seem to take amazingly detailed photos, the A77 has more features and uses such as sport, and weddings (camera battery), but the NEX-7 is the obvious winner for pixel peepers (like myself) glad I ordered the right one, now its just needs to arrive
chlamchowder
8 months ago |Both are very good cameras, but the a580 is still very attractive. It would give better high ISO performance and much longer battery life than the a77, while still retaining PDAF (although you cannot use it in movies) and being cheaper than the NEX-7 or A77.
Steve Jones
8 months ago |It not only is predictable that the NEX-7 has better higher ISO performance than the SLT-A77, I might go so far as to point out, that’s exactly what lots of people did predict.
Of course for the vast majority of photos are the vast majority of output sizes, there will be no visible difference, so just how important this is will depend on individual circumstances. I would suggest the most important thing for most people is going to be which systems camera suits their requirements best.
SonyA77
8 months ago |They are shots using the same lens aren’t they? The Sigma 70mm F2.8 EX DG Macro.
admin
8 months ago |Really? How do you knwo that?
Maxwell
8 months ago |They have explaind the studio setup before, I think you can read about
it also. And yes the Sigma 70mm F2.8 macro lens is the one they used
before. As long as there is an adapter they will use it I believe.
You can maybe see EXIF data in images also, look for 70mm focal length
and if so it is 99% sure it is the Sigma 70mm.
SonyA77
8 months ago |Because that’s the lens IR use in their tests.
At the top of the page click the button that says exif data and you get this:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NEX7/EXIF/NEX7hSLI16000NR2D.HTM
Look at the bottom of that page. It is the Sigma 70mm.
Maxwell
8 months ago |Hard to say, the NEX7 images looks to be a bit more sharp and has some
more details then A77 at ISO 100. But could be just that the A77 image
has a bit less sharpness, or the SLT mirror takes a bit.
But, WOW! NEX7 at ISO 100 looks VERY GOOD!
It should have ISO 50 also I think.
At high ISO 6400 it looks like NEX-5N got much the same details as NEX7.
santela
8 months ago |dont think it has iso 50, which is a shame, would have been a great landscape camera.
Steve Jones
8 months ago |You can’t have ISO 50 on the NEX-7 as it will just burn out highlights as it will saturate the charge wells. The only reason the A77 has ISO-50 is because the SLT mirror acts as a mild ND filter. In fact the A77 ISO 50 actually measures around ISO 80.
In fact if you want to compare the A77 and NEX-7 at optimal ISOs for each, it should be ISO 50 on the A77 compared with ISO 100 on the NEX.
Photongraph
8 months ago |That’s right! But i am not sure how much ISO is pulled up by the SLT cameras…
Steve Jones
8 months ago |You can see actual vs measured ISO values on the DXO site (although they haven’t tested the NEX-y yet). What you often find is that ISO 100 is actually measured a little higher – perhaps ISO 120 or so – on some cameras to avoid saturating highlights whilst fast ISO are actually slower than marked (as that flatters the noise appearance).
It will be interesting to see what the NEX7 100 ISO is actually measured at. Then it will be possible to estimate how much light is lost by the SLT on the A77 presuming that these two ISO speeds are actually the base (that is with no gain applied).
Chris Lewis
8 months ago |The lack of the SLT seems to give the NEX-7 a real advantage as far as sharpness and noise at all ISOs.
The shots show much better sharpness at high ISO as well as much nicer noise using the NEX-7 (compared to the A77) and from what I’ve heard (based on video clips posted) the shutter noise is pretty quiet; still not Leica-like, but nevertheless …
I can see myself shooting a lot of available light work using the NEX-7. I do theater photography, weddings and other work where a good “Leica substitute” would be beneficial. The NEX-7 mated with my Zeiss 135/1.8 could make a mind-blowing combination!
One point this leads to and it is this; why not make a DSLR version of the A77 as the SLT mechanism appears to reduce the A77s image quality?
shamb
8 months ago |The NEX-7 certainly seems to have better high ISO quality (the differences in sharpness may be the mirror or focusing, difficult to say), but in normal use wouldn’t this difference be nulled by the a77 a-mount having better quality lenses than NEX?
Plus if you use an a-mount lens on a NEX, you introduce the pellicle mirror (via the Sony adapter) anyway.
Chris Lewis
8 months ago |The Zeiss E 24mm should be at least as good as the A mount version if not better.
I think the 30mm macro and 50/1.8 should be pretty good too and the new zoom is meant to be rather good as well, so I’m pretty well of for lenses.
The 16mm E mount lens isn’t too bad but not as good as an A mount version (imo). I hope a Zeiss version becomes available …
As for the rest, I’m using Contax G lenses (35 and 90mm) which are every bit as good as any A mount, probably much better.
The use of A mount lenses via the A-E adapter will be no better than on an A77, so I agree with that point, but it’s a small sacrifice to make to use that lovely optic. I don’t forsee my using any of the other A mount lenses.
I think now that Sony have realised just how popular the NEX is, they will roll out a series of superb lenses and the rather budget quality of earlier lenses mayt be forgotten.
extra|ordinary
8 months ago |@shamb
Keep in mind that Sony makes two adapters, one with and one without the mirror.
SonyA77
8 months ago |There is someone on the web that removed the mirror from the A55 (I think) and the images were sharper to my eyes anyway.
SonyA77
8 months ago |Here it is.
thesybersite.com/sony/a55/index.htm
Rob
8 months ago |Looks like a focusing issue rather than a difference in IQ.
Anyway, I wouldn’t put much trust in the results of any tests pairing Sony bodies with a Sigma lens.
SonyA77
8 months ago |Why not? Do you think that the Sigma badge is going to magically affect manual focus or something?
Rob
8 months ago |From one camera to the next, possibly–especially if focus confirmation is being relied upon.
Beyond that Sigma and and Sony don’t exactly make for photographic alchemy. For anyone who wants a well-built lens that will give mediocre images for years to come, from a company known for sample variation, odd color casts, and incompatibilities/inconsistent performance with gear of other brands, by all means…
But for obtaining valid test results on Sony bodies, please…use a real lens.
SonyA77
8 months ago |You obviously haven’t used a Sigma macro lens. Or a Sigma 100-300 f4. But never mind, you know best…lol
z
8 months ago |How exactly makes you think focus is considered an issue in studio where you have all the time on the earth and all the light you can get?
Focus confirmation? you joking right?
What makes you think they didn’t shoot 100 or 1000 times and choose the best focused output?
But then again, you are the “type” of person who wouldn’t use EF-S 15-85 just because it doesn’t have red ring, fix aperture and full frame capabilities even though it is up there with L lenses.
Believe me, any kind of brands, types and gimmicks are only useful for hipsters. We should have consider facts and facts only. Sigma 70mm may have very very bad focus motor(noisy and slow) but its resolution is simply unmatched by anything other than zeiss, leica and other macro lenses.
Rob
8 months ago |Alexander Pope had it right: “A little learning is a dangerous thing,” the emphasis here being on “little.” Could probably apply that to “experience,” too…
Chris Lewis
8 months ago |It’s been pretty clearly shown (in various tests, blogs and other posts here and elsewhere) that there is a slight image quality loss due to the SLT mechanism. The difference in quality is slight but enough for people to ask if the pellicle mirror can be raised as a feature in new models.
If the issue is focusing (which I doubt) then it is due to the SLT mechanism rather than user error imo.
passer-by
8 months ago |Moving mirror would add up some cost, which is not to be a problem for a flagship. Personally, cost and vibration reduction are enough to balance out light reduction.
Photongraph
8 months ago |I think the bigger problem is the light loss on the Sony Alpha SLT cameras generally, any sensor on a SLT-mirror Camera needs more High-ISO at same aperture and shutter-speed. (e.g. ISO 200 on the Alpha 77 is not the same ISO 200 as on the NEX-7! Even though both cameras have got the same 24.3 MP CMOS sensor!)
So you have got much more noise and much more unsharp Pictures off course at same pseudo-ISO setting on the Alpha 77 (because of light loss caused by the semi-translucent mirror) than on the NEX-7.
That’s why i am not a fan of Sony’s concept of just using a crappy unmovable SLT mirror. It would be much better when Sony would set an “Extra Mode” maybe with Contrast-AF where the mirror just tilt up like classical D-SLR cameras! That would guarantee much better image quality at High-ISO and much better sharpness of course! And finally you could have got the best of both worlds: permanent available Phase detection AF with SLT-Mirror, and “Extra Mode” with tilting mirror and contrast AF option!
The only really big last issue in SLT-concept would just be electronic viewfinder! This last issue Sony can easily solve with much more better viewfinders which can nearly show sharp and bright pictures like an optical viewfinder on Alpha 900, Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III, Nikon D3(x, s) The Alpha 77 with OLED viewfinder is the next step to this target and shows much better viewfinder pictures than the SLT Alpha 55/33 any time before.
Chris Lewis
8 months ago |Personally, I don’t think the SLT mechanism is that bad, but I don’t see why we need it if we are to use an electronic screen instead of a focusing screen. I think the next logical move is to produce an A mount camera like the NEX-7 which would solve many problems.
Fans of the traditional DSLR wont like either an SLT or NEX type A mount camera, but I can see advantages to an electronic screen provided DSLR users are also catered for.
Bill
8 months ago |The mirror is there for focusing speed. Current PDAF systems do better than CDAF. When CDAF or on sensor PDAF advances to the point it equals the focusing speed and low light capabilities of the current off-sensor PDAF systems, then the mirror will be removed.
EcoR1
8 months ago |I’m sorry, but the difference between A77 and NEX-7 is ridicously small. In real life you can’t tell the difference. It’s very likely you are able to take shaper pictures with A77 handheld when compared to NEX-7, because A77 have in body stabilization. And for example Zeiss 24mm/F1.8 for e-mount don’t have OSS.
It makes absolutely no sense to choose your camera based on that IQ -difference. With a extremely fast focusing of A77, you can take pictures of fleeting moments, which would be imbossible to get with NEX-7. In that case IQ-difference is 100%-0% for A77.
But if you apprciate small size, then you should go with NEX-7.
acolyte
8 months ago |Good summary. I still haven’t had my hands on NEX 7 though. NEX 5 do feels like a toy and is small. I heard NEX 7 is larger so it might be more comfortable..
Might take a while to make its way to a BestBuy near here..
chlamchowder
8 months ago |Your point about the a77 having built in stabilization is a good one – that would make up for the IQ difference by allowing slower shutter speeds handheld. And in sports, the a77 would make up for the small IQ loss with PDAF capability.
However, if you don’t shoot action, the NEX-7 could be a better choice. For static subjects, slow CDAF is no issue, and slightly better IQ is always nice. For me at least, the difference between the NEX-7 and a77 samples at ISO 12800 is visible without zooming in. And if you don’t need the extra megapixels, the a580 is still attractive (better high ISO than the a77, larger burst buffer, much better battery life, cheaper).
I’d like a comparison between the a580 and NEX-7, though, just to see if ISO performance has changed with the new sensor. It seems to be a pretty close call on IR, with the a580 looking nicer in some areas (model) and the NEX-7 doing better in others (flowers). However, the a580 image does look a little brighter, so I wouldn’t make judgments based on that.
DalaaBacho
8 months ago |I think the Images are caompariable… The Nex 7 has a SLIGHT advanage most likely due to the Mirror or lack thereof…
The differences are only obvious when viewing at 100% and the higher ISO’s which is only applicable if you are cropping out the majority of a photo or printing a billboard…and shooting in Low light handheld without a flash… I suspect most of us here are doing nothing of the sort.
Still images in low light… I am going for my tripod and remote shoot a long exposure at the lowest ISO I can… REGUARDLESS of what camera I have. Hands down no matter which camera you own… Low ISO is better than High in terms of grain/Noise….
I think its an interesting site and fun to play with all the different cameras and photos, but the results have to be put into proper perspective.
We are literally splitting hairs with this comparrison because that is about the advantage the nex 7 has over the A77. I, for one, will not change my decision to purchase the A77 it more than suits my needs and its a better package too.
VirtualMirage
8 months ago |Could the sharpness difference be due to how each camera focused?
I didn’t see on their site if they manually focus or rely on the camera’s focus engine, so I am assuming they are using AF. Since the NEX-7 uses Contrast AF it wouldn’t suffer from potential front/back focus issues with the lens. Whereas the A77 uses Phase Detect AF, while fast and can be very accurate, lens back/front focus issues can effect the final image if micro adjustments weren’t performed.
As for the added noise, well that should be expected due to the pellicle mirror.
Does the NEX-7 look like it might be using a slightly different JPEG engine than the A77 (ala NEX-5n)?
Daniel
8 months ago |There’s no problem regarding how they focus the lens, they are pros…about the 70mm f 2.8 lens…it’s one of the sharpest in the Sigma lineup.
Of course the Nex-7 processing is different from the A77′s and,as the others said before me, you cannot quite compare the results at same ISO, becouse in reality, there’s a slight advantage for the Nex.
But if i were to buy one tomorrow i don’t know if i’d be willing to sacrifice the A77′s autofocus and the possibility to have a greater choice of autofocus lenses over a slight increase in IQ.
VirtualMirage
8 months ago |I understand that they are pros but I am not sure they manually focus the lenses (which is what I was trying to get clarification on). I’ve seen targets in the past from them be slightly off due to focus.
Their site mentions I think that they set the aperture to f/4 and pretty much let the camera do its thing, albeit verifying it is focusing properly on its target. But it may be hard to verify on site if it is off by ~1mm or so (which dependent on distance and depth of field, can make a difference of tack sharp or just sharp). There isn’t any mention if they take advantage micro adjustments if it is there.
A sharp lens, no matter how sharp, will still not look its best if it back/front focuses from the intended target. Contrast AF doesn’t suffer from this problem whereas Phase Detect AF can. That is all I was trying to get at.
Either way, I still think the A77 looks great for my needs and I look forward to receiving mine (currently on preorder) when they are released in the US.
tipper
8 months ago |In my opinion there might be a difference because of the microlens array before the NEX sensor too. I’m not sure if this is a general advantage. But normally this must be lens dependend.
Billy bob
8 months ago |True Sony fanboys.
You sit here and argue about meaningless technology and brag about your camera.
All this while some kid in high school is taking better pics on his old Nikon 6mp d40.
Stop being meatheads, no one cares about ISO 1600, or mirrors, they care about the art and final image. It’s called photography, not tech world 2011.
Go take some pics please, and for gods sake, NOT of your cat or a free at ISO 1600.
Daniel
8 months ago |We are taking pictures bob, not your bussines though…it just happens that people are very interested in this so called “poor man’s Leica ” and the A77 as they are quite new on the market. So if Sony forums, be it sonyalpharumors or dpreview or others , aren’t your thing, don’t bother people with idiotic comments about somebody’s kid.
Nobody cares for you being here or not, but maybe you are willing to learn something in the meanwhile …
Just keep in mind that there’s a huge interest in these two cameras from the entire market, not just former Sony clients.
The A77 is the new APS-C-kid on the block…ant the NEX-7 is simlpy superb, the no.1 mirrorless!!
So, in front of one of the first tests with the NEX-7 which shares sensor with the A77 and is compared to, people are making judgements, sharing opinions you d***head.
I’d say that there’s a large number of high quality Zeiss or Leica glass owners that are really interested in the NEX-7!!
monkeyfacemcbride
8 months ago |good point, I think Dave Cox adequately demonstrated yesterday that whatever nit-picky flaws you may think the A77 has, in the right hands it can take an absolute belter of a shot. (hope he doesn’t mind me saying that). I think it basically comes down to “those who can – do, those who cant – moan”
Dave Cox
8 months ago |I don’t mind at all
thanks very much.
acolyte
8 months ago |Bob, what else do you expect me to do when I’m at work and waiting for my code to compile? I can’t simply walk out and take my pictures of people at work in a secure site company right?
Oh and I got no pets. I move constantly :/
Vlad
8 months ago |+1. If I had the possibility to be out and shooting, I would be.
Visualiza
8 months ago |Um…I don’t know what rock you’ve been living under since the dawn of the internet, but this is a post ABOUT gear, so you can take your “It’s all about the art” mumbo jumbo elsewhere.
People like you love to regurgitate these tired platitudes like “gear doesn’t matter” and “who needs high ISO” as if you’re saying something new and profound. Newsflash: We’ve heard it all before. If you’re so artistic and self-righteous, why don’t you follow your own advice and “go take some pics”?
acolyte
8 months ago |@Visualiza: because he doesn’t have a camera?
chlamchowder
8 months ago |Yes, the D40 can take very nice pictures. So can a 10 year old Canon Powershot G1 (I used that for a while). And yes, the final image/composition/moment does matter more than technical IQ, but the capabilities of the camera do make it easier to get pictures that you want, and can make the final result look better, especially in low light.
Ever taken pictures of a volleyball game in a poorly lit gym with a slow (f/4.5) lens? IQ at ISO 12800 does matter quite a bit there. Ever tried to photograph a football or soccer game? PDAF makes things easier and improves your hit rate (and burst rate/buffer to a lesser extent). Ever tried to photograph a bird that was just a little too far away? Having extra megapixels and a sharper lens lets you crop and still retain a very nice looking final image.
So people care about the final image, but since technology helps achieve that final image and affects how much it is appreciated to some extent (less noise is nice, for example), technology is very relevant.
Linh
8 months ago |+1 for the technology is VERY relevant and important. Don’t you think all the greats would’ve preferred to use the latest gears were they available back in their time?
Carlos Echenique
8 months ago |Ummm, stupid question time.
If they used the same lens on the NEX-7 and A77 does that mean that they used the Sony Alpha Mount Adapter on the NEX-7? The one with the Pellicle mirror and phase detection AF?
Wouldn’t that negate any sharpness advantage the NEX-7?
Maxwell
8 months ago |I guess they use the Sony LA-EA1 A-mount to E-mount adapter.
This adapter got no mirror. I guess they set focus manual for the test.
Daniel
8 months ago |The bottom line is that the A77 is more than ok, but the NEX-7, for me, looks amazing in terms of IQ.
It seems that good…i only wish that the E-mount will grow larger sometime soon in order to let people enjoy these cameras(5N is another hit also) becouse the sensors are great.
I say more E-mount lenses becouse the A-mount adapter, the one with the fixed mirror and the A55′s autofocusing system obviously doesn’t make sense. The beauty is to get full advantage of this sensor, without a mirror in the way, with good lenses, manual and self-focusing…
Matt
8 months ago |This is such a stupid question. Seriously, has anyone ever needed to fully zoom into a 24 mp image before for any practical purpose? No. Regardless of what camera you own, just get on with making pictures because the quality is more than good enough on both of them and the rest is up to you as a good photographer anyway
acolyte
8 months ago |But even at non-24MP (no pixel peeping) the IQ at ISO 16,000 of NEX 7 looks prettier than A77. I didn’t even bother zooming.
Wing Wong
8 months ago |Seriously? *scratches head* The differences between the images, depending on which parts you are comparing, are either in favor of the A77 or the NEX7. In some areas, it looks like it could simply be a sharpening setting being bumped up(yellow cloth details), in other areas, the hardware noise reduction kicking in(red pattern/details), and in still other areas, it is moot(green foil top of bottle).
As others have pointed out, at the size of the files coming out, when scaled down for web or for print, it is nearly a moot point in practice, especially when you consider the shots you’ll get spot on with the faster and more accurate AF, sensor stabilization, and larger/weightier body of the A77… all of which contributes to the real-world end-result.
Just saying, the only real deciding factor between the NEX-7 and A77 is which form factor you prefer, and which of the shooting benefits you would prefer.
W.
ypocaramel
8 months ago |Ditto. If there was a 2-3 stop difference when scaled for print that would be a major feature. Right now though it seems pretty obvious which camera you want to buy – a77 for its ergonomics, tilt screen, battery grip, weatherproofing, internal IS and so on, nex7 for the size, if emount works for your work. A65 versus nex-7 might be a bigger question for hobbyists without any very specific needs.
When I buy cameras as a tech toy, I have to think about it foreve. When I just buy what I need for my work however, decisions become quite simple.
Carlos Echenique
8 months ago |Please read the following editorial on that exact subject:
http://www.echenique.com/index.php/2011/10/03/ultra-hi-res-sensors-and-the-demise-of-pixel-peeping/
ypocaramel
8 months ago |Indeed, even DXO now has a “print” benchmark that rescales to 8MP to simulate a 8×12″” 300 dpi print.
Mike
8 months ago |The problem I have is: you can’t get certain features such as AF micro-adjust unless you also take that 24MP sensor and SLT mirror, even if you don’t need or want it.
BMan
8 months ago |Mike, contrast AF doesn’t need AF micro adjust, so either you get it when you also get PDAF, or you don’t need it
squig
8 months ago |The NEX-5N has far superior image quality to the NEX-7 and the A77. I’m a professional and I shoot with a 5D Mark II. I’ve closely examined RAW files from each camera and I have personally tested a NEX-5N. These cameras are just a more megapixels is better marketing exercise by Sony. Don’t believe the hype! See for yourself.
Barbarous Waytel
8 months ago |Sorry, but BS. 5N is no better than Nex-7. Nex-7 is infact better, especially at lower ISO
spoon
8 months ago |This theory had already been debunked. With RAW files from controlled studio tests. So spare us the exaggerations, they (5n and 7) are similar (within a third of a stop at equal size) atleast up to ISO 6400.
REVENGE
8 months ago |I would say even 12800 is dead on similar between the two.
emarsh
8 months ago |When looking at these two cameras, nex-7 and a77, at iso 3200, for all practical purposes, they are identical. A tiny bit of extra sharpness is achieved by the nex-7. Either one of these cameras would be awesome to have. The image quality difference is so minimal that it is splitting very fine hairs to base a buying decision on image quality alone. So, the image quality, in my opinion is equal, now what else to consider? I want them both, for different reasons, lol.
some_@_guy
8 months ago |another test w/o A77′s mirror would be interesting.
acolyte
8 months ago |By taking off the A77 mirror forcefully? -_-
some_@_guy
8 months ago |you can remove it just for the heck of testing =D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDhVkmxaHzw
acolyte
8 months ago |Why is the file size from IR for NEX 7 half the size of A77? Would one please shed me a light?
And is it just white balance, or why is the colors of NEX 7 is more vibrant than A77? Surely nothing to do with the mirror right? Or is A77 just underexposed? (EDIT: is it because it’s the same shutter speed for all the images?)
Also, I too agree that the NEX 7 samples looks better than A77 – but always give it a benefit of the doubt – are we making too much of a deal out of this?
Perhaps we should do less comparing and more absolute critic
Kevin
8 months ago |The macro shot on both suck!! that looks bad.. it could be operator error, I hope so other wise not a good showing.
as for the rest I agree the Nex-7 is sharper !! the 6400 iso looks much better on the Nex-7 look at the cup! and crayola box.. sorry 77 just not that good.
acolyte
8 months ago |Maybe that’s a setup issue. For A700 it’s recommended that you up the sharpness for usual shooting.
Kevin
8 months ago |Nex 5n looks better than both!!!
acolyte
8 months ago |You compared 5N and 7 on IR? I think so but I’m always worried that my eyes are playing tricks on me. The color balance is slightly different so can’t tell..
Carlos
8 months ago |In the lab NEX-7 probably wins (no mirror, assisted AF). In the real world A77 will take advantege of IBIS and PDAF. Remember not all E-mount lenses have OSS.
acolyte
8 months ago |Mm.. Race two people at the same time, give them 10 mins to take pictures, compare the results XD
Jonathan
8 months ago |Out of interest has any one seen any testing using the multishot NR modes of the A77, I’m interested to see how they compare against the traditional SLR’s (eg, D7000). Most of my shooting is below ISO 400/800 so not a huge issue for me but I’m very interested to see for those low light environments with friends if I chose to use the A77’s multishot NR how it would compare?
Vlad
8 months ago |Don’t even think about it. Who shoots below ISO 12800? That would be a useless test!!
Jonathan
8 months ago |Hi Vlad
Please explain? Why would the multi shot test images be useless?
I’m basically after say the same image as posted above (16,000) but with the camera set to use the multi shot option to see how well it reduces noise or if it loses detail or picks up a little more ..etc..etc)
chlamchowder
8 months ago |Multi shout wouldn’t be useless, but the only use I see is to reduce blur when handholding the camera to take a picture of a static scene.
You can’t really stack images when you’re using high ISOs to freeze action (I assume a lot of people would be doing that – I do), and when the scene is static, setting up a tripod for a longer exposure at a much lower ISO would give better IQ.
Jonathan
8 months ago |Hi all,
I understand what you are saying it’s not really good for freezing action but with my HX9 it seems to product cleaner images in low light so was wondering if the A77 might have a more advanced engine and wanted to see if anyone was able to perform some testing even with static objects (or slightly moving objects) I understand using a tripod with static objects with a low ISO is always best but what I’m thinking is those situations you’re at a party, out with friends, etc..etc.. (eg, low light restaurant..etc..etc) you don’t have a tripod but want to use the multi shot to capture a non blurred image but was wondering how a multi shot image in the same lighting/environment would compare to a high ISO shot? Also on a side not if it’s possible to say sake a shot at ISO 16000 then do a multi shot at ISO 16000 just to compare the NR of the overlapping images to see how it deals with noise?
I’m very interested in how good the multi shot engine is in the A77 as I’ve been rather impressed with the HX9 for the size of the chip in this camera to the pictures it produces it’s a great technology.
Vlad
8 months ago |Hi, Jonathan,
I was just being sarcastic, but it was a bit misplaced as I didn’t read your post correctly. I thought you were asking for an IQ comparison based on lower ISOs. Getting a bit tired of all this high ISO nonsense. Just skip my comment
Jonathan
8 months ago |Hi Vlad
No problems
Lower ISO’s generally is not an issue for me but I’m just interested to know how the multi shot engine works and how effective it is as there definitely is some situations it would be nice to have good lower ISO available and I was thinking in these not as common situations for me multi shots might be an option.
Looking back through my pictures most of my low ISO shots are more casual shots out with friends, events (fireworks, low light restaurants..etc..etc) just more curious on how good this multi shot system works and if anyone is able to offer/upload some comparison pictures purely for interest sake really as I’ve been very impressed with my HX9 camera which has this feature and wanted to see how the A77 deals with it
Dave
8 months ago |I wonder if there will be a 9 series NEX?
Adrian
8 months ago |Sony arrogance that they know better what the user needs (more megapixels) it’s preventing them from launching probably the most successful camera: NEX-7 body with the NEX-5N sensor and a couple of fast lenses.
Doug
8 months ago |The superiority of the NEX-7′s IQ over that of the A77 should come as no surprise to anyone. Sony has made a bad trade-off by sacrificing image quality for speed and gimmicky features in its DSLRs with translucent mirrors. This will really hit home next year when they release their full-frame body. Those pros who had been loyal Sony users will be forced to reconsider their investment in the system.
Cliff
8 months ago |This shouldn’t supprise anybody here. Pelicle mirrors have distinct disadvantages. Nothing Sony can do to change the laws of physics. The more you refract light, the more nasty properties you get.
The REAL fun test is the NEX 7 vs. His baby brother! (You gotta LOVE that 5n sensor!)
To me, I don’t need phase detected AF that bad…I take contrast Age and keep all my light, thank you.
Philip
8 months ago |I’m not sure about the SLT technology. The translucent mirror seems like a bad idea; the 1/3 light loss is worrisome and it also seems to reduce sharpness. I’m all for innovation and Sony sensors are superior but if I were Sony, I might want to go back to the mirror design. Having said that, NEX-7 will be one hell of a camera.
danny
8 months ago |Quickly made a comparison, Nex 7 is sharper and less noise. Even at ISO100 pictures are sharper. I am glad I didn’t order the A77 …
sleek
8 months ago |come on people, we all have to agree based on a lot of tests that the image quality of the a77 falls behind the competition even with sony’s own NEXs are better. fuck the 24 MP we won’t use it anyway. 16-18 MP is good especially if the image quality is that of the NEX-5N which beats the hell out of canikon APS-C cams. I’m buying the a77 but image quality is the real concern. Are we better off getting the NEX-7?
..really that a77 is really noisy at ISO 1600 and above. If Sony fixes this and makes the noise in PAR with the NEX-5N, im totally sold. I hope they do in their next firmware. it’s just software noise algorithm which canon and nikon have polished. sony did it with the NEX-5N, i’m sure they can do it with an update for the a77.
Mike
8 months ago |This is just as expected. In fact, everything else would have been a surprise. Not only does the SLT mirror reduce resolution and contrast, the NEX7′s CDAF also has the potential to be more accurate than the PDAF.
Drastically put:
Using the A77 is like buying a full-HD TV but placing it behind a transparent shower curtain.
I have probably looked at every full-size A77 picture that’s out there and there was not a single one that struck me due to the good IQ. It just doesn’t give you per pixel sharpness, so why 24 megapixel except for sales?
c.d.embrey
8 months ago |I’ve NEVER had a client ask me to shoot a test chart. And I’ve never had a client ask me to shoot photos of my dog. Sure would be nice to see some real world photos/videos from a Pro.
BTW I’ve never known a client who had a Professional-Pixel-Peeper on staff. I’m sure that either the NEX-7 or A77 will work fine in the Real World.
c.d.embrey
8 months ago |This book was made with photos shot with an A900 http://www.artsoulbook.com/ This, to me, is about as Real World as it gets.
Check-out the site, Brian Smith answers questions about how/why he does things.
acolyte
8 months ago |Not sure how to check inside – is the photos in the book just portraits?
c.d.embrey
8 months ago |Just scroll down the page, there is some Q&A at the bottom.
Yes, the book is all portraits. There is a hand written message from the subject on the left page and the portrait on the right page.
Pixel Peepers can argue all they want about the Sony A900 vs Nikon D3x. This book, by Brian Smith, says that the A900 is a PROFESSIONAL camera.
Rodrigo
8 months ago |Whenever these pixil-peeping, 1/3-of-a-stop, pellicle-mirriori, boviously-sharper, too-many-mpx, it-only-shoots-in-broad-daylight-and-it’s-still-crap discussions come along I can never let go of the feeling that if the images were reversed you would still get the same guys saying their pre-conceived answer.
I can ony say two things wihtout ever having touched any of the cameras
1) Dave Cox’s pictures show that it’s a monster of a camera even if it’s only a couple of them (Dave, please, shoot more!!!)
2) Paraphrasing Clyde, do those differences – real or imagined – acutally matter in real life: Flickr, FB or 4″x6″ or A3 printing or even A0. Or are we watching our 52″LCD from 20cm away and complaining about pixelling?
Tino
8 months ago |There is a difference in focussing. The hand and book on the a77 is sharper. The face and bottle of wine is out of focus using the a77. With the NEX-7 it is the other way around. Because of this it is impossible to judge the picture quality!!!
danny
8 months ago |That’s what I also think, focussing issues. I have seen pictures from dpreview and there IQ was the same as 7D and D300s.
Mike
8 months ago |There are no focussing issues. This is as good as it gets.
Oswald
8 months ago |Why is this happening? Without doubt the a77 falls short with THIS example. But I love the a77. It’s like an irresistible three legged dog. Such a cute face and can catch treats. No matter it’s limitations I’m still bringing it home.
I love the a77′s 1080p and the meaty body. It has so many pluses. I am sure I will learn quickly to work around it’s limits as I have with other cameras.
Hardly ever will I need such high ISOs. I’ll save up for a FF for next year just incase my needs change, plus I like building a camera collection.
I was taking Agfa 800 ISO pics in my teen years, (1985ish) and actually like the grain. So suck it. (I kid the overly sensitive)
emarsh
8 months ago |Are people forgetting that things move? lol Try taking pictures of a kid that’s running around, or a bird in flight, then see which camera can take a sharper picture. A77 or Nex-7? I wonder. Now, the Nex-7 has great image quality, but the A77 isn’t far behind it, only a small amount, when sitting on a tripod, shooting fabric.
Tino
8 months ago |You are completely right. I am the owner of an A700 and an A300. Both cameras are almost equal in IQ. When you look to focussing speed and handling the A700 is far a head. Some remarks:
- mostly I not look to pictures at 100% but cropped on a television or printed on max A4
- 95% of my pictures are max 800 iso
- when you compare for example ISO 3200 of the NEXT-5 / Sony A77 you should print them both on A3 and then compare (not both on 100%)
If you keep these thing in mind I think the Sony A77 is a great camera.
c.d.embrey
8 months ago |Agreed, no one prints 100% crops, instead of the whole picture.
acolyte
8 months ago |Pixel peepers *might* do!
Cliff
8 months ago |My God, Sony….end this debate soon and add a damn flip up “translucent” mirror on the new FF camera.
Let us run “up” for the times we need max light and clarity and “down” for the few times we need lightning fast autofocus in good light conditions.
This debate woud be dead if Sony did that.
All this stress and heartache and mirror crap over stinking phase detect autofocus? Jeez…its not THAT damn important!
Mike
8 months ago |I took Imaging Resource’s studio samples of the A77, NEX7, A850, and A900 and chose some random locations on the photo.
The result can be seen here: http://tinyurl.com/655ajse
The NEX7 clearly wins, with the full-frame models on second place. According to my judgement, the A77 is last. It doesn’t matter if you look at cloth, brush or scale, there’s more detail and micro-contrast in each case.
And for all those arguing that’s just pixel peeping, here’s the same resized to 25% (equivalent to 6MP):
http://tinyurl.com/6zaysg8
The difference is still visible.
Jonathan
8 months ago |I understand what you are saying Mike but the differences are not that huge I don’t think and all 4 camera’s seem to have very good detail seeming it’s a 100% crop?
Also I think the issue people are having with the comparison you have done, although very nice and well done is that the images are blown up to 100% then the blown up image is reduced. I think what others are saying you generally will never print or blow an image to 100% but rather print an image at its full 24MP for example to an A4 page or do slight cropping that might drop the image down to say a 20MP image for example and when this image is printed and compared side by side you will be very hard pressed to see the difference if at all possible.
Mike
8 months ago |Not that huge? Excuse me, it is the same sensor and the clearly visible difference is solely due to the SLT mirror. This is the object that Sony chose to place between the sensor and the real world in all their future cameras instead of letting lens owners choose. This mirror limits achievable picture quality not only in the A77 but will do so in all future cameras.
The image is not “blown up” to 100%. The 100% view shows best what’s actually in the file and the resized view shows how it could look like when printed. It doesn’t matter if you view it on screen or print it.
Jonathan
8 months ago |Mike, I have a feeling you’re missing the point a little, don’t get me wrong I totally understand what you are trying to say in that the SLT mirror reduces IQ (very slightly). I think we all agree on this point and expect a slight loss in IQ. The point people are trying to make is that in the real world the margin of difference is just about ‘0’ as no one ever prints a picture at 100% and this is the zoom rate you are having to go to to see any difference (pixel peeping)…
The point people are trying to make is if you had to print the pictures at say A4 size (some even say print at A0 if you like) you will not notice any difference, as the margin of difference is so negligible that you will only notice it if pixel peeping.
I personally have done a number of canvas prints with my A350 and I’ve never had a single issue with IQ and the A77 is going to produce better images than my A350 already which at the end of the day allows you to print bigger canvases or perform more aggressive cropping if needed.
Hope that explains what I meant in my previous post and why others are saying the IQ of the A77 is not an issue at all and that it’s expected that the SLT will have slightly reduced IQ but it really is negligible and nothing to worry about.
All the best!
KingRenas
8 months ago |For me NEX-7 still have better quality, this is very noticeable especially at 16000 ISO, there you can see the difference between NEX-7 & A77 on the last picture.
I’m quite happy the camera I will get it is very good comparing with A77.
Clyde
8 months ago |I challenge anyone to see a difference between the two Sony’s on any print under 48″x72″.
explorer76
8 months ago |Ohh well. When will people realize that the “sharpness” in jpegs is dependent on the amount of in-camera sharpening applied. Cameras differ a lot in term of the amount of default sharpening, contrast, and saturation applied to the jpegs and thats why it is typically not very useful to compare jpegs like that. The visual “sharpness” of an image is not the same as the amount of actual detail captured in the image.
Off course it is quite likely that overall NEX-7 will have somewhat better IQ than the A77 due to the 1.5x amount of light falling on the sensor. However at base ISO I would expect them to capture similar amount of detail.
PaulW
8 months ago |I would love to own both these cameras…but I have gone for the A77 – the reason is in body stabilisation. Had the NEX 7 had that it would havce been a far far tougher decision….but SSS on every lens I mount has got to be worth a couple of stops. Also the range of AF lenses available…I thought NEX 7 might support Alpha lenses with full AF.
At the end of the day both cameras look very desirable …and owning both would be my ideal set up. Finances mean I have to choose.
Cheers,
Paul
PS I think most of us have to get used to looking at 100% crops on 24MP. In lightroom I will set to 2:1 instead of 1;1 when I zoom in to examme detail
Ren
8 months ago |I just downloaded the 100 ISO photo of the mannequin at the table to experiment with it. Indeed, adding a bit of sharpening makes it identical to the NEX7 image. I then tweaked with it more and was able to make it look virtually indistinguishable from the same image from the Nikon D3X. It just needed a bit of brightening, added contrast and some color correction. These adjustments can all be made in camera.
The a77 can’t perform at high ISO like the D3X, but for $1500, it sure does hold it’s own at lower ISO’s!
I can’t wait to play with the RAW files from the a77!
Ren
8 months ago |By the way, try comparing the a77 to the Canon 5D MKII. If you go by sharpness of these jpegs, the 5D MKII is a piece of $hit…and we all know that’s not the case.
Nawaf
8 months ago |Does the NEX-7 have the same 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverter thing as on the A77? Would be very useful for bird watching because you don’t need 24MP when you can get 6MP of a bird in the whole frame.
Sorry to go OT.
Clyde
8 months ago |Only works in JPG on a77. Don’t know if NEX-7 has it at all.
Should work in RAW like a900 can shoot 10MP APS-C Raw (as 1.5x crop) to reduce RAW file size when larger isn’t necessary. I use that all the time and it is quite convenient.
Ollder
8 months ago |?? Of course you can crop whatever image afterwards. Much better way than to make it in camera body. So, what’s the matter? (Maybe the only STUPID feature in A77).
Nawaf
8 months ago |I get it, but it would be easier to process as file sizes would be at a minimum and less cropping. Only issue is as Clyde stated that it is only available in jpeg which is a downside.
Guess fullframe is the way to go if you need all the good features.
sigh
8 months ago |Sigh!
You use this to get better metering… especially when you wish to focus on an particular object without the rest of the scene.
Of course you can do it manually or force adjust the EV.
This is just so much more convenient especially if the subject is moving.
explorer76
8 months ago |Sure you can crop later but there are advantages of having the crop mode specially on a camera with EVF. Lets assume you are trying to capture some distant bird:
1. Since the EVF view will magnify to match the crop so it is much easier to look at the bird and frame the shot the way you want. So instead of taking a “loose” shot and hoping that you will find a good crop later you can get it right in the camera and save time later. Could be a great time saver if you have many images.
2. Metering system can consider only the cropped area to make metring decisions instead of being distratced by stuff which you dont intent to include in the image anyway.
3. If you are tracking then the maginified view can help you keep the desired focus point on your bird – something which might be difficult in your original smaller view. For a contrast detect AF system like in NEX, it will allow the camera to focus only in the crop area and ignore everything else increasing the accuracy and speed of tracking
4. If the camera writes smaller files in the crop mode then it can fit more frames in the continuous shooting buffer
etc.
So yes you can always crop later, but if you know that you are “reach-limited” and need to crop to get your shot then there are advantages to getting it done as you shoot rather than doing it after the fact.
Ollder
8 months ago |Hmmm… ok, when you put it that way. I agree
…And additionally, you can use your camera EVF as more powerful telescope.
Actually, my very first system camera – a long long time ago – was a second hand Konica, which had a half-size mode. It used vertically a half of 35mm film pane. Handy, when materials were costly.
http://basepath.com/Photography/KonicaAutoReflex.php
Nawaf
8 months ago |Great explanation! The EVF is a huge advantage now, when you point out the magnification.
I’m waiting for a new Canon FF, but this EVF magic might just make me change my mind.
Sam Waldron
8 months ago |Easy – its the AA filter – the NEX-7 will have a lighter AA filter, hence more detail – all the NEX series have had lighter AA filters.
Pops
8 months ago |A lot of websites have removed the price for the A77. Its making me nervous. :/
Ollder
8 months ago |Nice to hear, it makes me hopeful!
(Cannot understand any reason to preorder, as I think I can buy the camera when it is available. At the current price and purchasing at same time than preordered (exorbitant?) ones.)
TerroMinn
8 months ago |On my A35 there is no color aberration like on test image of A77
Zenitar 50/1.7@5.6 – http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/4814/73898302.1/0_51ced_471adbcd_orig
Clyde
8 months ago |Is that from the a77… or the Zenitar?
Ollder
8 months ago |From Zenitar, I quess. Usually the CA is (or is not) from lens. Except in A77 possibly from the mirror… so, promising to A77 too
danny
8 months ago |I checked images at imaging resource between 7D and A77(ISO100), no difference in sharpness (slightly better from A77). Same with D7000. That’s the camera’s I compare with.
Something else about noise. The comparison you see on almost all the websites (dpreview,imaging resource) is NOT correct. What you see from the A77 is ,let’s say for example, a 120% crop, you see a larger crop then the 18MP Canon 7D whitch then would be a 100% crop. I checked it out in photoshop and to get the same crop you have to get a 120% crop from the 7D and a 100% crop from the A77. This means there is a 40% !! difference in cropping compared to what you see on dpreview/imaging resource. If you then compare the noise levels you will hardly see any difference. I am sure the A77 will deliver good quality pictures, even at higher ISO, and this will be my next camera for sure. Hope I made myself clear.
Ollder
8 months ago |I did this same comparison between 7D-120% and A77-100%. To my eyes the A77 was clearly sharper at ISO100, at ISO 1600 I found it just slightly better when at ISO 3200 7D had slightly more details. But still A77 was subjectively more pleasant in some certain areas, maybe because of stronger contrast. Only at ISO 6400 the D7 clearly passed A77 but still the difference wasn’t dramatical. I did not compare further (yet) as the trend seemed clear.
Of course, this is not science and these were JPEGs, but what I found was that A77 is definitely not “unusable” even for high ISOs and on good light it’s high pixel number gives noticeable benefit.
When talking the basic topic, it’s chrystal clear that NEX7′s images are chrystal clear compared to A77
Vagabondos
8 months ago |After searching for 7 months, i decided to go with Nex-7 mainly due to its size and expandability. Image quality will be a step up from my olympus e500. Sure, nex 7 doesn’t have in-body steady shot, gps, faster shutter speed, etc. but i see future in mirrorless technology and i am sure sigma, tamron, zeiss will come up with more lenses. I hope i can get one before christmas
Raul S.
8 months ago |I got a question…in the test..they used the LA-EA1 or LA-EA2 adapter? Because depending on which adapter they used on NEX-7 that means a great variable in the equation.
fuji
8 months ago |Marginal difference in image quality. Cheaper price. Less weight.
Markac
8 months ago |This is one of the reasons why I hope Sony still offers an OVF option with it’s replacements for the A850 and A900 FF cameras. Sure it can make a cheaper option with SLT and EVF as a replacement for the A850, but it should also use an OVF for a more serious A900 replacement. If this doesn’t happen, it’ll likely get beaten by Nikon which will use an OVF with Sony’s sensor and achieve superior results. It could also get beaten by a FF NEX!
Rien Vesseur
8 months ago |There is a difference, but I don’t think it would bother me in real-life photography. I find the rendering of whites more disturbing. There’s often a kind of haze around very bright white areas – the surrounding area seems affected. Also there seems to be loss of detail in bright white objects. I’ve noticed it even more in movies made with Sony still cameras. Wonder if it’s got something to do with the intensity of the signal ‘radiating’ into the adjoining pixels. Or I am the only one noticing (maybe imagining?)
yo
3 months ago |I have checked:
http://216.18.212.226/PRODS/NEX7/FULLRES/NEX7hSLI00100NR2D.JPG
vs
http://216.18.212.226/PRODS/AA77/FULLRES/AA77hSLI00100NR2D.JPG
But now check this from a Sony alpha A65 raw to jpg:
http://216.18.212.226/PRODS/AA65/FULLRES/AA65hSLI00100NR2D.JPG
Now, if you think the A65 RAW2JPEG looks better, then my thoughts are:
* There’s a lot of room for improvement on the JPEG algorithm on the A65 and A77. Sony A65 would benefit from a extra fine mode, a sharpness +3 on Auto and Auto+, and an overall improved JPEG engine, even compared to the NEX7 one. The fact that the raw works, leaves out the issue of the translucent mirror, but maybe an error or something on the jpeg implementation on the hardware of the a65/a77, which actually works fine on the nex7.