Told you Sony's 24mp sensor was noisy

I noticed it in the NEX-7 results and now, it seems that the SLT-A77 has
the issue. However, the camera does show really high resolution.
The Pentax K5 remains the noise control king of APS.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta77/page14.asp

On 26/10/2011 4:04 p.m., Rich wrote:
I noticed it in the NEX-7 results and now, it seems that the SLT-A77 has
the issue. However, the camera does show really high resolution.
The Pentax K5 remains the noise control king of APS.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta77/page14.asp

With the Pentax K5 it looks like a /****load/ of NR goes on between
reading the sensor and so-called "raw file".

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 22:04:16 -0500, Rich wrote:

I noticed it in the NEX-7 results and now, it seems that the SLT-A77 has
the issue. However, the camera does show really high resolution.
The Pentax K5 remains the noise control king of APS.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta77/page14.asp

But the NEX looks better than the A77 since it receives more light. I
expected higher noise levels from the more densely packed sensor, but
what I'd like to see is prints from these cams. Viewing these images
at 100% on screen tells me little.

My NEX 7 is still on pre-order.

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 06:32:46 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote:
: On Oct 26, 2:18*am, Me wrote:
: On 26/10/2011 4:04 p.m., Rich wrote: I noticed it in the NEX-7 results and now, it seems that the SLT-A77 has
: the issue. *However, the camera does show really high resolution.
: The Pentax K5 remains the noise control king of APS.
:
: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta77/page14.asp
:
: With the Pentax K5 it looks like a /****load/ of NR goes on between
: reading the sensor and so-called "raw file".
:
: If it results in loss of detail or quality, that's not good.

Well, is it that or just that the default presentation of the RAW image is set
to a high NR level? If the latter (as I think it would be in the Canon world),
then you could back it off with no overall loss of information.

Bob

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 06:51:02 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Oct 26, 11:29*am, Bowser wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 22:04:16 -0500, Rich wrote:
I noticed it in the NEX-7 results and now, it seems that the SLT-A77 has
the issue. *However, the camera does show really high resolution.
The Pentax K5 remains the noise control king of APS.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta77/page14.asp

But the NEX looks better than the A77 since it receives more light. I
expected higher noise levels from the more densely packed sensor, but
what I'd like to see is prints from these cams. Viewing these images
at 100% on screen tells me little.

My NEX 7 is still on pre-order.

I'm still wondering about a choice. A new "pro" Panasonic m4/3rds is
due and Sony's production is compromised.

I think the best we can hope for in the GX1 is the sensor in the G3.
Good, not in Sony's class. I think that the sensor in the NEX 7, when
not handicapped by a pellicle mirror will be about a stop better. Just
guessing. For me, if it's good up to ISO 3200 I'm OK with it.

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bruce wrote:
Rich wrote:
I noticed it in the NEX-7 results and now, it seems that the SLT-A77 has
the issue. However, the camera does show really high resolution.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta77/page14.asp

The level of high ISO noise is quite frightening. We had some images
from both an NEX-7 and an A77 at a Sony event. The noise levels at
high ISOs were extremely high. We were reassured that the cameras
were pre-production samples and that the production cameras would be
much better. It seems that they aren't.

Sony Alpha has a long history of disappointments and this is just one
more to add to the list. You would think that Sony would learn from
their mistakes, but they just keep on making the same ones, over and
over again.

The Pentax K5 remains the noise control king of APS.

Sony makes some excellent sensors that perform exceptionally well in
other brands of camera. But put the same (or similar) sensor in a
Sony camera, and the results are very disappointing.

The 16 MP sensor in the Pentax K-5 is also used in the Nikon D7000 and
several Sony models. In the Pentax and Nikon it delivers excellent
image quality with very good noise control - the Pentax just shades
the Nikon in this respect. But put the same sensor in a Sony A35 or
NEX-C3, and it becomes one of the noisiest sensors on the market.

The same was true of the 24 MP full frame A900 (and later A850) whose
high ISO noise was desperately bad. Yet the Sony-made 24 MP sensor in
the full frame Nikon D3X performed extremely well. However the
sensors are not the same, so the conclusions here are less clear,
except that if you want low noise at high ISOs, don't buy Sony.

In other words there's nothing wrong with the sensor. Which suggests
the problem must be in the processing, i.e. other camera makers have
better in-camera jpeg noise reduction, and possibly put a bit of NR in
between the sensor and the supposedly unprocessed RAW image file. In
recent years we've seen a number of new much improved noise reduction
methods available as stand-alone programs or editor plug-ins which not
surprisingly give better results than in-camera noise reduction.

So the interesting question is whether when these improved noise
reducers are applied to Sony RAW images you get noise reduction at
least comparable to that offered by other camera makers. You certainly
get an amazing improvement over what Sony's own in-camera jpeg noise
reduction offers.

But how does it then compare to what you can get from Nikon and Canon
with similar processing?

--
Chris Malcolm

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bruce wrote:
RichA wrote:

On a pixel size to pixel size basis, the Panasonic GH2 sensor beats
all the Sony cameras. Again, if they ever scale up the technology to
APS or (dare I say it?) FF size, it will be amazing.

That is very unlikely ever to happen, though.

The Sony A700
body was unique and remarkably well-suited to the hand, IMO. The new
77 is really nothing like it.

Sony makes soooo many mistakes in product design.

I agree, the A700 handled well. It was the best of the Alpha DSLR
range, and the de facto top-of-the-range model, given the sheer
incompetence of the full frame A900 and A850. The A700 had/still has
a lot of loyal followers.

Now, Sony is trying to replace a very good DSLR with a thoroughly
mediocre SLT, with all the problems that the pellicle mirror and EVF
bring.

Plus at least one major advantage of the pellicle mirror: no mirror
vibration, and the electronic "shutter" opening means no shutter
vibration either.

--
Chris Malcolm

On 27 Oct 2011 18:10:13 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote:
: In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bruce wrote:
: Rich wrote:
: I noticed it in the NEX-7 results and now, it seems that the SLT-A77 has
: the issue. However, the camera does show really high resolution.
:
: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta77/page14.asp
:
: The level of high ISO noise is quite frightening. We had some images
: from both an NEX-7 and an A77 at a Sony event. The noise levels at
: high ISOs were extremely high. We were reassured that the cameras
: were pre-production samples and that the production cameras would be
: much better. It seems that they aren't.
:
: Sony Alpha has a long history of disappointments and this is just one
: more to add to the list. You would think that Sony would learn from
: their mistakes, but they just keep on making the same ones, over and
: over again.
:
: The Pentax K5 remains the noise control king of APS.
:
: Sony makes some excellent sensors that perform exceptionally well in
: other brands of camera. But put the same (or similar) sensor in a
: Sony camera, and the results are very disappointing.
:
: The 16 MP sensor in the Pentax K-5 is also used in the Nikon D7000 and
: several Sony models. In the Pentax and Nikon it delivers excellent
: image quality with very good noise control - the Pentax just shades
: the Nikon in this respect. But put the same sensor in a Sony A35 or
: NEX-C3, and it becomes one of the noisiest sensors on the market.
:
: The same was true of the 24 MP full frame A900 (and later A850) whose
: high ISO noise was desperately bad. Yet the Sony-made 24 MP sensor in
: the full frame Nikon D3X performed extremely well. However the
: sensors are not the same, so the conclusions here are less clear,
: except that if you want low noise at high ISOs, don't buy Sony.
:
: In other words there's nothing wrong with the sensor. Which suggests
: the problem must be in the processing, i.e. other camera makers have
: better in-camera jpeg noise reduction, and possibly put a bit of NR in
: between the sensor and the supposedly unprocessed RAW image file. In
: recent years we've seen a number of new much improved noise reduction
: methods available as stand-alone programs or editor plug-ins which not
: surprisingly give better results than in-camera noise reduction.
:
: So the interesting question is whether when these improved noise
: reducers are applied to Sony RAW images you get noise reduction at
: least comparable to that offered by other camera makers. You certainly
: get an amazing improvement over what Sony's own in-camera jpeg noise
: reduction offers.
:
: But how does it then compare to what you can get from Nikon and Canon
: with similar processing?

By default, Canon estimates the amount of noise reduction you need and applies
it to the RAW file. But no information is lost; and if you don't want the NR,
you can easily reverse it in the photo editor. Occasionally I'll decide that
an image needs more NR and tweak it upwards in PP. It makes the image a bit
blurrier, but usually the overall effect is improved.

I'm not sure this is an answer to the question you posed, but maybe it helps
define the context.

Bob

In rec.photo.digital Bruce wrote:
Bowser wrote:

I think that the sensor in the NEX 7, when
not handicapped by a pellicle mirror will be about a stop better. Just
guessing. For me, if it's good up to ISO 3200 I'm OK with it.

Sony claims that the pellicle mirror robs only about one third of a
stop of light. Without any means of verifying that claim, we have no
option but to take it at face value.

Those who have compared NEX-7 with A77 exposures have found about 1/3
stop difference.

--
Chris Malcolm

On 10/28/2011 8:52 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
On 27 Oct 2011 18:10:13 GMT, Chris wrote:
: In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems wrote:
: wrote:
:I noticed it in the NEX-7 results and now, it seems that the SLT-A77 has
:the issue. However, the camera does show really high resolution.
:
:http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta77/page14.asp
:
: The level of high ISO noise is quite frightening. We had some images
: from both an NEX-7 and an A77 at a Sony event. The noise levels at
: high ISOs were extremely high. We were reassured that the cameras
: were pre-production samples and that the production cameras would be
: much better. It seems that they aren't.
:
: Sony Alpha has a long history of disappointments and this is just one
: more to add to the list. You would think that Sony would learn from
: their mistakes, but they just keep on making the same ones, over and
: over again.
:
:The Pentax K5 remains the noise control king of APS.
:
: Sony makes some excellent sensors that perform exceptionally well in
: other brands of camera. But put the same (or similar) sensor in a
: Sony camera, and the results are very disappointing.
:
: The 16 MP sensor in the Pentax K-5 is also used in the Nikon D7000 and
: several Sony models. In the Pentax and Nikon it delivers excellent
: image quality with very good noise control - the Pentax just shades
: the Nikon in this respect. But put the same sensor in a Sony A35 or
: NEX-C3, and it becomes one of the noisiest sensors on the market.
:
: The same was true of the 24 MP full frame A900 (and later A850) whose
: high ISO noise was desperately bad. Yet the Sony-made 24 MP sensor in
: the full frame Nikon D3X performed extremely well. However the
: sensors are not the same, so the conclusions here are less clear,
: except that if you want low noise at high ISOs, don't buy Sony.
:
: In other words there's nothing wrong with the sensor. Which suggests
: the problem must be in the processing, i.e. other camera makers have
: better in-camera jpeg noise reduction, and possibly put a bit of NR in
: between the sensor and the supposedly unprocessed RAW image file. In
: recent years we've seen a number of new much improved noise reduction
: methods available as stand-alone programs or editor plug-ins which not
: surprisingly give better results than in-camera noise reduction.
:
: So the interesting question is whether when these improved noise
: reducers are applied to Sony RAW images you get noise reduction at
: least comparable to that offered by other camera makers. You certainly
: get an amazing improvement over what Sony's own in-camera jpeg noise
: reduction offers.
:
: But how does it then compare to what you can get from Nikon and Canon
: with similar processing?

By default, Canon estimates the amount of noise reduction you need and applies
it to the RAW file. But no information is lost; and if you don't want the NR,
you can easily reverse it in the photo editor. Occasionally I'll decide that
an image needs more NR and tweak it upwards in PP. It makes the image a bit
blurrier, but usually the overall effect is improved.

I'm not sure this is an answer to the question you posed, but maybe it helps
define the context.



AFAIK NR is usually accomplished by color blurring.


--
Peter