Sony RX1 gets DxOmarked. it’s better than the A99!
DxOmark (Click here) just published the full Sony RX1 test! And with no suprrise (at leats for me) the RX1 has a slightly better score thna the Sony A99! And it basically matches the Nikon D600 results (here is the comparison).
Sony RX1 price check: Amazon, B&H, Adorama, J&R, eBay.
Sony RX1 Gariz case on eBay (via Slidoo).
Ren Murray
5 months ago |That makes me sick. The a99 has the same sensor, but the ISO performance is much worse because of the SLT mirror.
As a professional photographer who shoots Sony, I have been waiting for an a900 replacement body that performs the way the RX1 does…but I obviously need interchangeable lenses.
Very frustrating to know that Sony COULD do it, but just inexplicably chooses not to.
Sky_walker
5 months ago |The ISO performance measured by DxO is oddly low – it doesn’t lay in line with other tests nor with 1/3 EV drop from SLT mirror. Not even mentioning the fact that DxO repetitively puts this test online just to remove it and put back online after some time.
Something simply smells to be wrong with ISO score measured in DxO, and camera is underrated to how it performs.
klw10
5 months ago |owning both the a900 and the a99 I have to agree with you. Something is fishy with the a99 low light fox mark score.
Denis
5 months ago |Didn’t you notice the ISO value marked 3200 is 1600 in fact on A99?
Troj
5 months ago |But since the exposures (at same shutterspeed and F stop) from the A900 and A99 are practically a match both in jpegs *and* almost every RAW converter, that has very little value for practical noise comparisons as referenced here (by users and reviewers).
klw10
5 months ago |what in the world are you talking about? Did I see that iso 3200 is iso 1600? What? The a99 is better than the low light dxo score shows silly. Read what I typed.
Sergei
5 months ago |I have just set both a850 and a99 to iso 3200 and the same shutter and aperture combination – both produce the same exposure -0.3 on a99, histogram is almost identical.
alphabart
5 months ago |If they implement the Flipup translucent mirror, a next gen A99 or maybe the FF nex will perform just as good! Way to go Sony!!! They’re on the right track I guess
Frank
5 months ago |If you really must have more light, then take the mirror out and MF.
There is so much nonsense here about noise you’d think it was the be all and end all of a cameras specification. I guess every ISO whiner in this blog is a night shooter…it must just be me in the World that is shooting in good light at <800 most of the time.
Sky_walker
5 months ago |Only a frequent removing of the mirror and putting it back again will damage the mirror holder (it’s made of cheap plastic) so I wouldn’t advice that. Better Sony just make a proper flip-up mechanics (or rather: mirror raising like on A900)
Former Minoltan
5 months ago |On the other hand, the in-body stabilization of the A99 gives it 2-3 stops over what the bodies of the D600 and RX1 provide. So whereas you will lose 1/3 a stop (Sony) to 1/2 stop DXOMark, in the end in most situations the A99 will still be 1.5-2.5 stops better than either unless one shells out for OS glass from Nikon.
Ren Murray
5 months ago |This isn’t true in wedding/events situations in low light. Unless I am shooting 200mm I don’t need to stabilization, because I have to keep the shutterspeed around 1/100 minimum to avoid motion blur of people as they move around. With a 50mm focal length, I have no need for SSS.
Frank
5 months ago |But your viewing audience will not see any noise in their normal sized prints, so it doesn’t matter anyway. “Real” people, i.e non-geeks, haven’t a clue what noise is and don’t know how to spot it. They don’t view their wedding photos at 100% with their nose pressed up to a 24″ monitor.
Former Minoltan
5 months ago |I hear what you’re saying, but my belief from all I’ve seen is that the SLT mirror results in a 1/3 stop difference, maybe 1/2 maximum in certain conditions. And in that case I think the differences are negligible at best.
For your low-light wedding/event situations, only you know whether shooting at ISO 1250 with a D600 v. ISO 1600 with an A99, or at 2500/3200, etc, for example, is too negative a trade-off vs the advantages of the system.
But it’s my opinion that for 95-99% of the market for this camera, it won’t make a difference.
I’m much more concerned about the price difference between the A99 and the D600, then 1/3 stop less light transmission in the situations, few and far between, where I expect good prints at ISO 3200 or 6400 because I can’t use the IBIS for some specific reason.
I Switched To Nikon
5 months ago |Premium Sony glass is just as expensive as premium OS canikon glass. I just purchased a brand new Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VRII for less than I could get the Sony 70-200 2.8. The Sony 500mm F4 is $15,000! I can purchase a D800, the Nikkor 500mm F4 VRII and the 70-200 for the price of the Sony 500mm.
The argument that the steady shot body makes lens purchases more affordable just isn’t true especially if your looking for premium (new) glass.
Sony’s washed out DLSR road map of bodies and lenses have left consumers high and dry with products that don’t perform as well as the competition.
Former Minoltan
5 months ago |I just checked B&H, and I’m going to call your bluff. The stabilized 500mm f/4 is the only example I could find for your point of view.
The Sony 70-200 f/2.8 is less expensive than Canon. The Sony 100mm f/2.8 Macro is less expensive than the Canon L. (I could not find similar Nikon glass).
Canikon apparently don’t have stabilized 50mm f/1.4, nor 85mm nor 135mm to match the Sony Zeiss offerings, nor the Sony 135mm STF? For shame.
You’re welcome to link to offerings of 50mm, 85mm and 135mm by Canikon that rival the Sony and Zeiss offerings, if you can find some. And it sounds like you’re blaming Sony for your poor shopping for the 70-200, unless you got it on a temporary deal somehow. I use B&H for all my comparisons.
Cheers.
I Switched to Nikon
5 months ago |I’m not going to compare one by one Sony lenses against canikon. There are differences on both sides some good and some not so good. You can find good third party glass for all three mounts with OS and without. Again I don’t believe that the in body argument is significant enough to be a decideing factor when choosing a system.
Here’s my recent experience. I’m not happy with my a77 AF speed and low light/high ISO performance and I wasn’t happy with Sony’s long telephoto options (300 G 2.8 and 500 G f4). I’m quite sure both of these lenses provide spectacular optics, but they are very pricey especially compared to Nikon who also provide excellent optics, more choices and better pricing.
I decided I wanted to go FF and my priority was AF speed, high ISO performance and competitive pricing. In my mind there was only one route for me and that was the Nikon D600. So when I compare my costs this is what it came down to. I use Henry’s (Canadian store) because I’ve been nailed hard before on VAT charges from both Adorama and B and H.
Nikon
$1999 D600 with 24-85 kit which I might add is a very capable lens, and a 64mb lexor 400 memory.
$1999 Nikkor 70-200 F2.8 VRII
Total price taxes in $4,440 at my local supplier, and currently at Henry’s in Canada $4,540
At the same time I was looking at the Sony a99 with equivalent lenses. For the sake of argument I will use the cheapest mid-range kit from Sony in my comparison.
$2,799 Sony a99
$549 Sony 18-135 DT (not even a FF lens, but cost wise the same price as the Nikon 24-85 kit)
$2,199 Sony 70-200
$99 Lexor memory card
Total price taxes in $6,267
Currently at Henry’s
Sony 500mm F4 $14,000
Nikon 500mm F4 VRII $8,900
I can hear it now though some people are going to say you can’t compare the a99 to the D600. To each his own at this point I can’t say for sure how they match up, but the difference between the a77 and the D600 is like night and day. The low light and AF speed on the D600 kills the a77. The D600 doesn’t have gps sweep pano, and a lot of other gimmicks the a99 has, but I never used them on the a77 anyhow, so it was a no brainer for me to move to Nikon for what I see as better value and performance.
Lofote
5 months ago |I don’t get it. The loss is minimal compared to the extreme developments of sensors in High ISO modes. Do you really *need* those 1/2 f stops of noise performance!? You couldn’t have them 3 years ago, due to more noise on the sensor, you really *need* them now?
E
5 months ago |I love the use of ‘need’. I understand if it said ‘want’, but ‘need’ always bring questions to my head:
How do you cope now? How have you coped so far?
I can understand those that swap brands due to lack of some performance, but not all that ‘need’ do that.
/E
Steve
5 months ago |Why do you care what others “need”?
Most of my commercial work is live stage photography done at dress rehearsals and yes I love IBS and fast optics but I also really appreciate a camera that does its part by producing excellent ISO 6400 images. One of my partners shoots the Canon 5DIII and it does a very nice job of it and I should know because I do the LR and PS post processing for her. Sony just needs to do better!
Sergei
5 months ago |I have shot both a99 and 5d Mk3 – they both produce clean jpegs at high iso with a lot more detail in a99 Jpegs. Just mind the iso settings and use iso 5000 on a99 instead of 6400 for cleaner results.
redfern
5 months ago |IBIS = In-body Image Stabilization
IBS = Irritable Bowel Syndrome
Your comment is now funny.
Former Minoltan
5 months ago |“but I also really appreciate a camera that does its part by producing excellent ISO 6400 images.”
And the SLT mirror only accounts for 1/3 stop of light transmission loss according to the physics wonks, despite what DXOMark might say.
Real life? Your excellent ISO 6400 images should still be excellent on the A99, and will be just as good at ISO 5000, at least, if you can fudge either the f-stop or shutter speed by 1/3 a stop.
mick232
5 months ago |It is not 1/2 stops.
It is 0.7 stops when you compare the A99 to the RX1.
It is 0.94 stops when you compare the A99 to the D600.
Sky_walker
5 months ago |That’s the whole point – DXO messed up scores.
Former Minoltan
5 months ago |Not according to physics, which is why we’re tending to be skeptical about DXOMark at the moment.
Former Minoltan
5 months ago |The way I read it, the A99 is still the best option with the in-body stabilization. The dynamic range difference is a small worry, but the ISO figures don’t worry me at all.
Imagine you’re shooting the RX1 or Nikon at 35mm, ISO 3200, f/5.6, 1/45 sec (to be safe per hand shake). With the A99 SSS, you should be able to shoot the same scene at 35mm, ISO 800, f/5.6, 1/6th-1/8th sec; or ISO 1600 and 1/10th-1/15th sec, for example.
I understand that there are professional situations where this may not be ideal, but there are many where it is a perfectly acceptable or even beneficial trade-off (also considering the video and live-view advantages of the SLT mirror).
But for the vast majority of users who can’t afford or don’t want to buy stabilized Nikon lenses, the A99 still comes out ahead because of the IBIS. Low-light shooting with the 5th-generation-or-so (from KM 7D) Minolta-Sony IBIS more than makes up for 1/3 or 1/2 stop that is lost due to the SLT mirror.
Should they design a flip-up? If feasible. But these numbers look sweet to me!!!
Twaddler Belafonte
5 months ago |” but just inexplicably chooses not to”
There’s nothing inexplicable about it: they’ve sallied their horse to the SLT technology so you can have wicked nice autofocus in video mode. It’s a shame for those of us who don’t give much crap about video.
Beaur
5 months ago |I have both cameras, the a99 performs extremely well. I dont get the score at all. It beats my gf’s d600 in most cases. SMH at the DXO.
Anirban Ray
5 months ago |This is really no surprise and that is exactly the reason Sony should really consider getting that mirrorless full frame (preferably with alpha mount considering the lens options) out in the market as quickly as possible as its flagship model.
Sky_walker
5 months ago |If anything: They should finally consider mirror flip-up in single-shot mode. Just to make ppl like DxO happy.
A99 would be received completely differently if they’d implement mirror flip-up in it. They already released 2 patents on that solution, so wasting time on delaying it even further is most foolish thing they could have done.
Jhemp
5 months ago |I dont know what to say about DXO score regarding the a99 ISO performance??????? I have the a99 and a900, and have shot with just about everything else DSLR wise and I feel the a99 ISO performance is great! Worlds above the a900!
alphabart
5 months ago |Don’t worry, The diffence between the RX1 ISO and A99 ISO is the Translucent mirror, that’s all
DaveT
5 months ago |I don’t accept the DxO ISO score for the a99 as being applicable to the real world. I shot mine outdoors all new years eve outdoors. Most of the time I was in manual with auto ISO. I set the max to 25,600 just to see what would happen accepting that many shots might not be usable later.
There were NO shots which were not usable because of ISO noise. At the same time my NEX-7 with similar glass (f/2 almost all night) was hopeless above 3200.
Joel
5 months ago |Comparing the RX1 and D600, interesting to see the tradeoff in the the metamerism score and ISO. The RX1 trades better colour accuracy (D50/CIE-A 84/81 vs 77/74) for slightly lower ISO performance (2534 vs 2980). The A99 has a metamerism score of (85/81), basically the same as for the RX1. This suggests that the A99 and RX1 share the same colour filters, the difference in ISO performance is 2/3rds of stop. The D600 looks to have less dense colour filters.
Sky_walker
5 months ago |Nikon always used this trick for improving their sensitivities. That’s why so many people prefer Canon over Nikon – Nikon colors are just unbearable without extensive correction for anyone who cares about it. Basically: If you want colors – go for Canon or Sony. If you want B&W high ISO shots – go for Nikon.
Neo NiGHTS ®
5 months ago |Despite that weird high ISO score from the A99 (because NO OTHER SLT camera has EVER been THAT penalised by the translucent mirror), the results are very well within expectations.
Minor differences may come from different filters and such.
Congrats for Sony for improving the sensors more and more. Now they ‘only’ need to make good use of it…. on an affordable package
selkirk
5 months ago |The difference comes from the translucent mirror AND the new second AF system on the sensor ^^
Neo NiGHTS ®
5 months ago |Is it proven that the on-sensor PDAF also affects ISO capability?
Sky_walker
5 months ago |Nope. It’s not.
Former Minoltan
5 months ago |The way I read it, the A99 is still the best option with the in-body stabilization. The dynamic range difference is a small worry, but the ISO figures don’t worry me at all.
Imagine you’re shooting the RX1 or Nikon at 35mm, ISO 3200, f/5.6, 1/45 sec (to be safe per hand shake). With the A99 SSS, you should be able to shoot the same scene at 35mm, ISO 800, f/5.6, 1/6th-1/8th sec; or ISO 1600 and 1/10th-1/15th sec, for example.
I understand that there are professional situations where this may not be ideal, but there are many where it is a perfectly acceptable or even beneficial trade-off (also considering the video and live-view advantages of the SLT mirror).
But for the vast majority of users who can’t afford or don’t want to buy stabilized Nikon lenses, the A99 still comes out ahead because of the IBIS. Low-light shooting with the 5th-generation-or-so (from KM 7D) Minolta-Sony IBIS more than makes up for 1/3 or 1/2 stop that is lost due to the SLT mirror.
Should they design a flip-up? If feasible. But these numbers look sweet to me!!!
Jules
5 months ago |+2 I agree with you!
Clever observation!
Ario
5 months ago |The next replacement of A99 should have a translucent mirror lock-up or translucent mirror snap-on/off with on-sensor PDAF-CDAF. It will be the (next) RX-1, tadaaaaaaa… but still everybody will complaint on other thing(s)…
mict
5 months ago |thats a funny comparision. my a850 has only 100 iso less then a99. THAATS NUTS. wish a850 could be so good in low light.
Sky_walker
5 months ago |That’s because DxO score is pure BS. No way A99 is close to A850 in terms of ISO. Just compare shots. It’s like night and day.
DXO is clearly lying here or have some enormous mistake in their scoring system.
Hendrick
5 months ago |It is clear, Sony is not using the best sensors it makes for itself, it sells them to third parties. Sony’s idea seems to sell equipment based on bells and whistles. Even Fuji is getting the better 16mp APS-C sensors (see the ISO advantage they clearly have over any other APS-C camera, Sony or otherwise.
I don’t think I’ll stick around here much longer. My last stand to stay with Sony will be the new NEX. That camera better be equipped with the real deal in sensor technology.
john
5 months ago |put the crack pipe down
spaceman
5 months ago |+1
Troj
5 months ago |And here’s the practical value of the difference in “ISO” score between the A99 and A900 at the same physical exposures:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50299052
That’s less than a third of a stop in *visble* noise IMHO…
Troj
5 months ago |Umm… that should have read A99 and **RX1** of course.
hellven
5 months ago |so, now the 4th position on the camera sensor ranking is a Sony cyber-shot! ahah
Andrew Broadfoot
5 months ago |I bought the A99 and plan on buying a second body. The shots seem similar to my A850 and A900 at different ISO levels so I’m ok with the some what lateral move. I rather like the live view for work.
Rob
5 months ago |Has anyone else notice that some of the new compacts are using Super HAD sensors, instead of CMOS? What portends for the rest of the Sony lineup? Will the new cams all have Super HAD this year????? The potential for ISO performace is remarkable!
Anirban Ray
5 months ago |A Super HAD CCD 2 full frame sensor will be just awesome and may be twice as good as any CMOS out there for low light. Why aren’t they doing that already? Then all this talk about SLT mirror and noise may just simply go away.
Rob
5 months ago |I agree. Also, let’s speculate that on-sensor focussing may appear in the near future and eliminate the need for slt altogether! This is of course assuming IQ is up to snuff, which is no small trick.
Maxwell
5 months ago |FF NEX is what I hope Sony release this year.
Don Cox
5 months ago |I think early next year is more likely.
Martín
5 months ago |Yes, I also think this. They will present (or unveil) this model in 2013 but release this product in the market in early 2014.
I prefer to have this “NEX 9″ in 2013, but I don’t think that this will be possible.
Cliff
5 months ago |Makes me laugh when I see people talking about how much we love our SLT mirrors and how great the autofocus is…only to act so shocked to discover that it hurts the low light performance.
Some people still believe that we can divert light from the sensor and STILL have equal performance compared to SLR or mirrorless.
Too funny.
Bare
5 months ago |Not a Sony sensor inside Nikon D5200.
http://www.chipworks.com/blog/recentteardowns/2013/01/08/inside-the-nikon-d5200-dslr-toshiba-found/
Rob
5 months ago |Nobody doubts that the best sensors out there are made by Sony. Let Nikon find other manufacturers for their downmarket cams, but they may be cutting off their nose….
Fazal Majid
4 months ago |Nikon uses a Sony sensor in the D3200 and a Toshiba sensor in the more upmarket D5200, which contradicts your theory. Toshiba uses copper in its process, vs. aluminium for Sony, which probably yields better results.
The reason why Sony sensors outperform Canon and Panasonic is because they use a 180nm process vs. 500nm for Canon’s full-frame sensors. Sony’s sensors are made on a fab they sold to Toshiba in 2008 and bought back in 2010, so it’s highly likely Toshiba has the same production capacity in sensors as Sony, even if they chose to specialize in smaller sensor for mobile phones up to now and are only now targeting the APS-C sensor market.
There are also better sensor technologies than Sony – Samsung’s 130nm copper technology, not used for large sensors (yet), and STM’s 110nm plant in Grenoble, used for the new Leica M Typ 240.
Bare
5 months ago |Big Surprise, Toshiba sensor inside Nikon D5200!
http://www.chipworks.com/blog/recentteardowns/2013/01/08/inside-the-nikon-d5200-dslr-toshiba-found/
So is Sony loosing a APS-C sensor market share?
Rob
5 months ago |If Sony gets smart, they’ll stop selling the best chips to Nikon – let Nikon be the Panasonic and Olympus of the future, all peddling second rate products.
Neo NiGHTS ®
5 months ago |I didn’t even know that Toshiba made sensors!
Perhaps it’s the same that’s being used for the D3200 also?
noname
5 months ago |The 41mp sensor inside Nokia’s PureView is Toshiba made sensor.
Neo NiGHTS ®
5 months ago |Is it? I didn’t know that.
So…. Toshiba has just arrived on the sensor market and it’s already making sensors better than older players like Samsung and Panasonic? Good thing to know.
I hope they get even better, so Sony will have some serious competition and, of course, we will all get better sensors!
SonyCyberPunk
5 months ago |why are u posting two similar info??
MrLee
5 months ago |Now Sony needs to follow this up with a simular setup in an alpha mount (36MP or so) with on sensor focusing with a wider AF area than the a99 and finally be done with the sub par slt tchnology…
Rob
5 months ago |Sony’s manufactured a 34 megapixel Super HAD sensor since ~2009 for surveillance. That sensor is light sensitive, but produces grainy images. Apparently, Super HAD is now ready to play in the camera market – I’m keen to see what the specs are, including s/n ratios and overall IQ.
Troj
5 months ago |Almost every Sony camera with a CCD the past few years had a Super HAD design, even the A100 (2006) did.
mick232
5 months ago |The sad thing is the following:
Sony added the SLT mirror mainly to be able to implemented AF in video. At the same time, the A99 falls short in video (lack of sharpness even when compared to smaller sensor cameras like the NEX5N or GH2) due to non-ideal downscaling algorithms (line-skipping).
Video is also the reason why the camera is 24MP instead of 36MP.
Bottom-line:
- the focus on video led to a lower-resolution and lower-ISO camera -> bad for stills photographers
- at the same time, video on the A99 is less than ideal due to the line-skipping issue that cameras like 5DM3 or GH2 do not suffer from -> bad for video-shooters
- the A99′s AF is sub-par for sports compared to Canon/Nikon latest FF models -> bad for sports shooters
- the A99′s resolution is less than D800E or D800 -> bad for landscape shooters
And if that weren’t enough, the A99 is overpriced and released at a time when Canon and Nikon introduce inexpensive FF cameras.
In other words: the A99 completely misses to attract any considerable target audience except existing Sony enthusiasts that don’t have a choice.
Rob
5 months ago |What’s going on is that there’s a bit of a dishonest game afoot, that’s being played by trolls who visit this site. Basically, Sony can’t win – no matter what they do, short of marketing a perfect camera. One camera will never win at all aspects. As you note, the A99 is meant to be a video friendly camera – and the tradeoffs are that it’ll have lower resolution and somewhat compromised ISO performance. However, it CAN focus effectively while in video mode, which is a helluva trick that CANIKON can’t manage. I don’t look at the other fan pages, but bet that SONY trolls aren’t on them day after day making that point.
I guess what Sony needs to do is to have a couple or three flagship models, if they’re going ahead with current focusing technology. A high-rez stills model with no AA filter for nature/studio, a high iso event cam, and a camera more oriented to video (maybe with 4K capabilities). Sony can do it – it’s kinda frustrating that they haven’t.
nameless
5 months ago |SLT does benefit still shooters too:- fast live view, full-time AF, live histogram… to name a few. Perhaps, it’s the opposite.. Sony doesn’t want any DSLR to have video capability because they already selling camcorders. If they want to make video oriented camera, it will be an E-mount, not an A-mount. Owh, they already release such camera – VG-900.
Sky_walker
5 months ago |As for bottom line: spot-on. Though as said above: SLT benefits still shooters as well. Only A99 doesn’t use it like it should (before release I could bet A99 will be record-breaking in terms of FPS count, something like 16 FPS mode known from film days would be awesome. Instead Sony released camera which barely exceeds D800 which has 36 MPx).
Poke
5 months ago |Very good news. Last year 1 camera in the top 20 in DXO scores. Now they have one in the top 5 and two in the top 10. Canon cannot claim any in the top 10. It has to give Sony some good recognition. Cannot wait for the FF/ mirror less. I just hope it can focus.
Hamed
5 months ago |im waiting for the NEX-9 FF, i think it will beat any camera in the market
gee
5 months ago |i am very happy stay tune on this site, because you guys let me know a99 (my camera) is hot, and quite many ppl own it!!!
Alexey Ozerov
5 months ago |Near 2 times difference in low-light – WTF???
Jason
5 months ago |Not surprising at all. Take out that damn pellicle mirror and the A99 would be competing among the best FF camera bodies out there.
Joe
5 months ago |The A99 is still the fifth or sixth best full frame body out there according to these measurements. If you take the measurements for what they are, and consider other factors (Built-in GPS, SteadyShot, 1080p60p Video, APS-D, Articulating LCD, Focus Peaking, no shutter dirt issues, etc.) the value is tremendous. I’ll take the Pepsi challenge with the other FF bodies any day of the week.
Jason
5 months ago |I agree with your points about its features, just noting that the SLT mirror detracts it from being truly great. If only Sony would release this same camera in a traditional DSLR/OVF version.
Beka
5 months ago |I wonder how they could measure ISO sensitivity. (unless they somehow removed lens). We don’t know what the Transmission of the lens is. For example: f2 of the lens easily could be only T3 and F4 could be real T4.5 or so.
What I’m saying is how they could measure sensors sensitivity if they don’t know ho much light sensor receives (’cause don’t know how much light the lens lets pass)
So only way they could measure sensitivity is they considered f5 was T5.
But in this case sensitivity score should be lower which would cause decreasing of signal/noise ratio hence ISO score. That could explain lower ISO score of the RX1 compared to D600.
What do you think?
Vlad3D
5 months ago |True, and T value is not the only factor affecting ISO score.
What about shutter speed? Manufactures can also play with it in order to look better in tests. You set shutter speed to 1/100 but camera shoots with 1/60 (and lower internal ISO). This will help to reduce noise in naive tests.
I never heard of someone tried to measure actual shutter speed of cameras.
I am planing to do it someday with my NEX-6.
mick232
5 months ago |Transmission is irrelevant. Ever heard of TTL (through the lens) metering? It automagically compensates for variable transmission.
startowa13
5 months ago |I don’t care, I own A99 I shoot at night at high iso 3200-6400-10000 and I don’t see a problem. If I see grain on 6400-10000 I use a little bit of Topaz DeNoise 5 and the problem is solved. I can print noise free 26×39 and sell without a problem. So, people get one, start shooting and then talk.
Dirk
5 months ago |I am just an enthusiast, and I’m certainly sure that most of the readers here are.
The DxO Mark just shows the difference in ISO sensitivity and just when the treshold is being undershot. Could probably be that A99 is better at 25dB or 20dB treshold?!? Who cares?
Colordepth and DR are almost equally, so why bothering with that boring ISO “issue”?
These tests are performed with basic settings. Who is shooting at basic settings?
Some prefer oversaturation, some prefer warmer WB, some snappy contrast, etc. etc.
As one pro said – go and learn capturing nice photos prior complaining about gear…
I’m owing my A99 now for about 10 weeks and I like it far more than my “old” A900. Really nothing to complain about. As of just printing 6×4″ or max 12×8″ I don’t mind ISO 6400, with 6×4″ even 12800 is a usable value. So what.
Rooru S.
5 months ago |Right now I’m using a pre-production a99 thanks to some contacts at Sony and I call this score BS compared to a850. One of three, the a99 underperforms (I really doubt about this), the test is flawed or they’re lying. Even between NEX-7 and A77, there was just a minimal difference. How come the a99 and RX1 have such a big gap.
joe
5 months ago |The RX1 does not have a SLT mirror in it’s light path like the A99. The VG900 should have the same score as the RX1 but with a huge advantage of a variable angle OLED EVF and able to use almost any APS-C or full frame lens using low cost E mount adapters.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8338/8170745790_59300d69fc_k.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8489/8159590765_803d943a74_k.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8343/8194434390_dcb0dbdbea_k.jpg
joe
5 months ago |The VG900 should get the same score as the RX1 since it doesn’t have a SLT mirror in it’s light path and works with most APS-C and full frame lenses with low cost adapters.
Tom DeHOff
5 months ago |Typical of a large company, Not listening to their customers is terrible mistake. Too many people asking for a choice and the time is running out for not listening.
Ivan Mikolji
5 months ago |Here is a link to a underwater video taken with 3 different cameras including the Sony a99, Nex7, and HDR-CX700V. No color correction applied to the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpuBGXEfxRc&featu re=youtu.be
and this link is of a underwater image shot with the a99
http://www.mikolji.com/IMAGE_GALLERY_AQUATIC_FAUNA_FRESHWATER_MAMMALS_DSC03646.html