Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Tell me please!

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Toledo, OH area
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by krzkrzkrz
    Im starting to agree with this. A lot of users are trying to comment unreasonably on the high noise issue on the the A100. The high ISO is not a big issue as some perceive it to be.
    And many camera's have higher noise, less detail, and lower resolution than the A100, yet cost much more (like the new Nikon D200) and people don't label them as "high noise".

    Lets cut to the chase. Sony supplies Nikon with the CCD used in the D200, which is the same CCD as the Sony A100, ISO noise is chip-level, so looking at high ISO settings and the noise level the A100 and D200 will be fairly close to one another in a RAW file.

    This actually sounds more like Canon and Nikon fan-boys not wanting Sony to cut into their turf and show their precious camera up. So, they'll look for ANYTHING, even something slight like this so they can dismiss and label the camera something terrible, when it's not.

    When I shoot, I typically only use ISO of AUTO or 100. At AUTO it will never shoot at ISO 1600. I couldn't get my A100 to shoot at ISO 800 either in AUTO (I believe the manual says it may select ISO 800 but it appears the margin for that is last resort). Maybe I'll try taking a picture in a totally dark room to test it. But basically, AUTO is ISO 100-400, which has "Canon-like noise" and those are the ISO settings most people use because they are the sharpest.

    I would only use ISO 1600 under very rare situations, even with a Canon. And in those situations I may WANT noise! I remember back in the film days I would sometimes use ISO 3200 film because it was *SO* grainy. It was absolutely wonderful how noisy ISO 3200 film was, you could get some real rough and intense looking images with that much noise. The noise made the picture come alive! The point is, ultra-high ISO is not really designed for normal shooting, it's more designed for special situations, and in those situations you may actually want noise. If I wanted an extra stop, I'd go with a faster lens instead of going with a higher ISO.

    Here's an example of that wonderful grainy Kodak T-MAX ISO 3200 film:

    http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne...l-92476451@N00

    Tim
    Last edited by teckel; 08-04-2006 at 09:14 PM.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,590
    The D200 is a lot less noisy than the A100. Just having the same sensor does not tell all. The D200 itself is very noisy at 800 and above anyway, so that is a bad example to take.

    And if only noise was like a very grainy photo, but it is not. Noise is nothing like a grain in film, it is more like the interference on TV, not pretty or attractive. Especially the noise of the A200 which is all kinds of colours.

    So... if you think you will want to use higher ISOs at times, don't go for the Sony A200. If that is not the case, by all means consider it.
    Canon EOS 350D, Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 macro, Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DC EX, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM, Tokina AT-X124 Pro 12-24mm F4, Soligor 1.7x C/D4 DG Teleconvertor, Manfrotto 724B tripod, Canon Powershot S30

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    464
    Quote Originally Posted by coldrain
    The D200 is a lot less noisy than the A100. Just having the same sensor does not tell all. The D200 itself is very noisy at 800 and above anyway, so that is a bad example to take.

    And if only noise was like a very grainy photo, but it is not. Noise is nothing like a grain in film, it is more like the interference on TV, not pretty or attractive. Especially the noise of the A200 which is all kinds of colours.

    So... if you think you will want to use higher ISOs at times, don't go for the Sony A200. If that is not the case, by all means consider it.
    What DSLR would you recommend that offers high noise quality thats on the same rang (price-wise, and possible features) with the Sony A100?

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,559

    Red face People who push High-ISO

    Look... high ISO settings are usually a direct result of "crappy aperture" on the lens. Trying to get more out of the lens than it was intended to provide... so... yeah.. noise galore!

    If you want to improve the noise-to-light ratio... buy f/2.8 glass... and shoot f/2.8-4.0... or entertain the idea that you may need a decent flash or auxillary lighting.

    There have only been a few occasions I have even given a thought of using anything higher than ISO-800. So... if I were a betting man... which i am not... I would say that sticking between 100-400 will provide you will 80-90% of your shots. So this argument is rather... dry. (cough)

    Name:  IMG_4344adj.jpg
Views: 865
Size:  98.3 KB
    I will be testing my new SONY A100K later this week... for focus with my various Minolta glass and for side by sides with the Canon EOS 20D... for those obnoxious ISO-1600 shots (as few and far between as they are).

    Name:  IMG_4378-crop-resz.jpg
Views: 876
Size:  96.7 KB

    BTW: SONY included a coupon for 15%-off eligible accessories.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 08-07-2006 at 03:42 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    7
    Great Job Tim. Just got my A100 based on your info. Remarkable!
    John

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    7
    Tim, since you seem to be sharp all around, can you please tell me what you think of the Tamron AF75-300mm F/4-5.6 LD macro (1:3.9)? Are you familiar w/ this lens? I want to use it w/ the Sony A-100. I just got it today from Amazon (one of their side stores) and I feel uncomfortable with the fact that it was advertised new, but the box, manual, and the wrapping seem to be from the 70's. I will be testing it tomorrow, but cautiously and suspiciously, since the item is far from being new. The cost was $90.00. Is it why? Thanks for your input.
    John

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •