Sony's design for the 24mp APS

The D7000 APS sensor will kick its a-- when it comes to DR and noise
control. The Panasonic m4/3 sensor bests it on an area and pixel density
versus noise issue. Sony's own NEX-5N produces much less noise. almost two
stops! But if you look at the noise of the NEX-7 sensor, you'll see
something interesting; it's sharper. Compare it to the A77 (24mp) Sony
and you'll see the difference. The noise is defined in the NEX-7. The RAW
output is cleaner, less molested than what we see from the likes of Nikon
or even the 5N. There is not one APS sensor that is as noisy as the NEX-7,
even older ones! But the NEX-7 seems to have gone all-out for resolution.

"Rich" wrote in message
...
The D7000 APS sensor will kick its a-- when it comes to DR and noise
control. The Panasonic m4/3 sensor bests it on an area and pixel
density
versus noise issue. Sony's own NEX-5N produces much less noise. almost
two
stops! But if you look at the noise of the NEX-7 sensor, you'll see
something interesting; it's sharper. Compare it to the A77 (24mp) Sony
and you'll see the difference. The noise is defined in the NEX-7. The
RAW
output is cleaner, less molested than what we see from the likes of
Nikon
or even the 5N. There is not one APS sensor that is as noisy as the
NEX-7,
even older ones! But the NEX-7 seems to have gone all-out for
resolution.

... but which system produces the best pictures, when you don't pixel-peep?
Remember the old saying about bandwidth: the wider you open the window the
more dirt blows in. Likely most of the effects you are seeing are due to
the software/firmware design in the system cameras.

David

"RichA" wrote in message
...
[]
I presume you mean printed shots?

No, I mean the final images, whatever form that takes. It almost
certainly does /not/ involve pixel peeping.

Wild guess, you can probably shoot
at 800 ISO with it, enlarge to 11x14 (roughly) and not see any noise.
If noise on the print matches that on the screen, the 5N could
probably do the same at 2400 ISO with little loss of resolution. The
value of the NEX-7 (purely from a picture standpoint, not taking the
camera's physical attributes into account) may be limited to large
prints done at low ISO or the ability to withstand cropping better (at
low ISO) than other APS cameras.

I would be surprised if an image with the same resolution from the 5N or 7
when viewed at the same size we not fairly similar in terms of noise.
Note that I say "same resolution". If you use the higher resolution of
the 7, it's hardly surprising that you may see more noise!

I would consider the complete system, including handling of the camera,
and not base a buying decision purely on pixel peeping and trying to judge
noise.

David

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:40:27 -0000, "David J Taylor"
wrote:

"RichA" wrote in message
...
[]
I presume you mean printed shots?

No, I mean the final images, whatever form that takes. It almost
certainly does /not/ involve pixel peeping.

Wild guess, you can probably shoot
at 800 ISO with it, enlarge to 11x14 (roughly) and not see any noise.
If noise on the print matches that on the screen, the 5N could
probably do the same at 2400 ISO with little loss of resolution. The
value of the NEX-7 (purely from a picture standpoint, not taking the
camera's physical attributes into account) may be limited to large
prints done at low ISO or the ability to withstand cropping better (at
low ISO) than other APS cameras.

I would be surprised if an image with the same resolution from the 5N or 7
when viewed at the same size we not fairly similar in terms of noise.
Note that I say "same resolution". If you use the higher resolution of
the 7, it's hardly surprising that you may see more noise!

I would consider the complete system, including handling of the camera,
and not base a buying decision purely on pixel peeping and trying to judge
noise.

I agree, but when examining the raw files on DP Review, it is clear
that at higher ISOs the 5N is recording more detail. Go to their raw
comparison, select ISO 6400, and then zoom to the watch face. You can
read some of the fine text on the 5N but not on the 7. On top of that,
I can't see any standard zooms out there that can satisfy the 7's
sensor. I'll wait on this one. Clearly, not an SLR replacement, yet.

"Bowser" wrote in message
...
[]
I agree, but when examining the raw files on DP Review, it is clear
that at higher ISOs the 5N is recording more detail. Go to their raw
comparison, select ISO 6400, and then zoom to the watch face. You can
read some of the fine text on the 5N but not on the 7. On top of that,
I can't see any standard zooms out there that can satisfy the 7's
sensor. I'll wait on this one. Clearly, not an SLR replacement, yet.

Agreed, I would ask for a retest on that one. Either the test or sample
has an error, or the 24 MP sensor isn't capturing light as efficiently.

Fortunately for me, 12 MP is more than enough for my images, so I don't
need to buy the more expensive lenses which a 24 MP sensor might require.

I'm not sure I see any of these cameras as "SLR replacements" for someone
with an investment in lenses. Perhaps as an additional compact camera
where high-ISO is required, and perhaps as an alternative to the DSLR for
someone just starting a system.

Cheers,
David

"RichA" wrote in message
...
[]
Another issue is the lack of stabilization in the body. With 24MP,
and good lenses, that is something that would be desirable.

There I disagree - stabilisation should be in the lens, not in the body.
If you must use non-IS lenses, I suppose you have a point! G

David

On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 07:36:00 -0000, "David J Taylor"
wrote:

"Bowser" wrote in message
.. .
[]
I agree, but when examining the raw files on DP Review, it is clear
that at higher ISOs the 5N is recording more detail. Go to their raw
comparison, select ISO 6400, and then zoom to the watch face. You can
read some of the fine text on the 5N but not on the 7. On top of that,
I can't see any standard zooms out there that can satisfy the 7's
sensor. I'll wait on this one. Clearly, not an SLR replacement, yet.

Agreed, I would ask for a retest on that one. Either the test or sample
has an error, or the 24 MP sensor isn't capturing light as efficiently.

Fortunately for me, 12 MP is more than enough for my images, so I don't
need to buy the more expensive lenses which a 24 MP sensor might require.

I'm not sure I see any of these cameras as "SLR replacements" for someone
with an investment in lenses. Perhaps as an additional compact camera
where high-ISO is required, and perhaps as an alternative to the DSLR for
someone just starting a system.

Love that raw comparator. I checked the 7 against a few more cameras,
and even the Panasonic G3 captures more detail at ISO 3200 and above.
If this is true, and unless the testing has gone wrong, that would
make the Gx1 a nice alternative since it uses the same sensor, is
smaller, and can use all that nice glass, like the 20mm 1.7 and 25mm
1.4.

Decisions, decisions...

"RichA" wrote in message
...
On Dec 15, 10:20 am, "David J Taylor" david-
wrote:
Another issue is the lack of stabilization in the body. With 24MP,
and good lenses, that is something that would be desirable.

There I disagree - stabilisation should be in the lens, not in the body.

}Why?

He's covered it before, he can't see straight without it. :-)

Trevor.

"RichA" wrote in message
...
On Dec 15, 10:20 am, "David J Taylor" david-
wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message

...
[]

Another issue is the lack of stabilization in the body. With 24MP,
and good lenses, that is something that would be desirable.

There I disagree - stabilisation should be in the lens, not in the
body.

Why?

Please see all previous posts on the topic!

- stabilisation needs to be tailored differently for different focal
lengths
- image on the ancillary sensors is stabilised with in-lens

etc. etc.

"Trevor" wrote in message
...

"RichA" wrote in message
...
On Dec 15, 10:20 am, "David J Taylor" david-
wrote:
Another issue is the lack of stabilization in the body. With 24MP,
and good lenses, that is something that would be desirable.

There I disagree - stabilisation should be in the lens, not in the
body.

}Why?

He's covered it before, he can't see straight without it. :-)

Trevor.

With electronic viewfinders the viewing image is stabilised with in-body
IS.

If you don't see the gain in stabilising the viewing image, you must not
be using long focal lengths, or always using a tripod!

David