Photo sharing: Sony Alpha

[HPS3]

Havoc, I enjoy reading your posts and appreciate all of the work you put into the comparisons.

Fractal, I also enjoy all of your photos. The last one is cool.

I agree totally with Phil on the camera comparisons. Having shot with most of the above, the only one I've stuck with is the Fuji X-E2. I really like the rangefinder style cameras (VF on the left). I also think Fuji has the most accurate "single focus point" focus of all cameras I've used. In single point focus, Sony A7II and A6000 were the worst. Sony really likes backgrounds and false confirmations.

Also when comparing noise at same exposures (even when pushing Fuji files), it's at least as good as a7II and at least a stop better than a6k (I hated the noise characteristics on Sony). The best camera I've used for high ISO is the 6D. The 6D is compatible to the DF I would think.

All of us here worry about better gear, but the truth is that all of the current cameras are better than any of us. When I look through Flickr and see AMAZING photos.....I'm talking exceptional.....it's usually a M4/3 or Canon 500D or D5200 or sometimes a Leica M240. I'm just saying that it's the artist and nothing else! I take the same boring photos with a GX7 or Leica SL. Its all about light and subject and I'm not even close to learning to match them all up.

Talking about all of this gear is making me remember that I just ordered some Fuji Superia 400 for my Canon AE-1 and 50 f1.8. If I only had a film scanner...........

 

[havoc315]

Havoc, I enjoy reading your posts and appreciate all of the work you put into the comparisons.

Fractal, I also enjoy all of your photos. The last one is cool.

I agree totally with Phil on the camera comparisons. Having shot with most of the above, the only one I've stuck with is the Fuji X-E2. I really like the rangefinder style cameras (VF on the left). I also think Fuji has the most accurate "single focus point" focus of all cameras I've used. In single point focus, Sony A7II and A6000 were the worst. Sony really likes backgrounds and false confirmations.

Also when comparing noise at same exposures (even when pushing Fuji files), it's at least as good as a7II and at least a stop better than a6k (I hated the noise characteristics on Sony). The best camera I've used for high ISO is the 6D. The 6D is compatible to the DF I would think.

All of us here worry about better gear, but the truth is that all of the current cameras are better than any of us. When I look through Flickr and see AMAZING photos.....I'm talking exceptional.....it's usually a M4/3 or Canon 500D or D5200 or sometimes a Leica M240. I'm just saying that it's the artist and nothing else! I take the same boring photos with a GX7 or Leica SL. Its all about light and subject and I'm not even close to learning to match them all up.

Talking about all of this gear is making me remember that I just ordered some Fuji Superia 400 for my Canon AE-1 and 50 f1.8. If I only had a film scanner...........

I completely agree with your sentiment. Fact is, in a non-challenging situation, you can get a great image with any camera. It's about the subject, lighting, skill of the photographer.

That said -- evaluating gear can be fun in itself. Beyond that, there are still huge advantages with improvements in camera tech.
First, there are advancements that make it easier to get those great images. You can capture great images with manual focus, but AF can make it much easier. And you can get great AF with just a single center AF point, but it's easier with a great AF spread. You can capture sports with single shot shooting, but 8-12 fps makes it easier.

Second, even though you can capture great images with any camera in non-challenging situations, better sensors and better lenses can make a huge difference in challenging situations. You're not going to get good dark ride shots with a Canon Rebel and kit lens.
High ISO performance opens up lots of shooting -- letting you get better low light shots, better sports shots.

Finally, there are just issues of whether the camera is fun to use, the ergonomics, etc.
Like the a6300-- the great live view and EVF make it more fun to use than a traditional dslr. But the hard eyecup makes it impossible to use the EVF with glasses.... So pros and cons that are valuable to discuss.

 

[fractal]

Havoc, I enjoy reading your posts and appreciate all of the work you put into the comparisons.

Fractal, I also enjoy all of your photos. The last one is cool.

I agree totally with Phil on the camera comparisons. Having shot with most of the above, the only one I've stuck with is the Fuji X-E2. I really like the rangefinder style cameras (VF on the left). I also think Fuji has the most accurate "single focus point" focus of all cameras I've used. In single point focus, Sony A7II and A6000 were the worst. Sony really likes backgrounds and false confirmations.

Also when comparing noise at same exposures (even when pushing Fuji files), it's at least as good as a7II and at least a stop better than a6k (I hated the noise characteristics on Sony). The best camera I've used for high ISO is the 6D. The 6D is compatible to the DF I would think.

All of us here worry about better gear, but the truth is that all of the current cameras are better than any of us. When I look through Flickr and see AMAZING photos.....I'm talking exceptional.....it's usually a M4/3 or Canon 500D or D5200 or sometimes a Leica M240. I'm just saying that it's the artist and nothing else! I take the same boring photos with a GX7 or Leica SL. Its all about light and subject and I'm not even close to learning to match them all up.

Talking about all of this gear is making me remember that I just ordered some Fuji Superia 400 for my Canon AE-1 and 50 f1.8. If I only had a film scanner...........

Thanks Harry. I agree with the sentiment regarding modern gear. It's nice to have so many options to pick from. I also believe today's processing software and how you utilize it can make a huge difference in images. 2 people shooting the same subject at the same time with the same camera and settings can come up with vastly different images.

Right now, I'm "jonesing" for more signs of Spring to appear to shoot more outdoors. In the meantime, it's forced me to take another look at subjects within the comfort of my home.

A few "table top" photos. Sony Zeiss 24mm 1.8.

f/2.2

f/2.2

f/2.8

 

[dmaxphil]

That lens is lovely.

 

[havoc315]

Woohoo... Lightroom added the A6300 apparently..... Time to test some raw shooting.

 

[havoc315]

I thought I would compare an old seagull photo, taking with Nikon D750 + 300/4, with the seagulls I took the other day with the A6300 + 70-200. The A6300 suffers a bit from having been shot at jpeg instead of raw... But the comparison is still pretty favorable to the Sony:

Nikon:
Seagull by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Sony:

DSC00705.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Nikon: (ignore my post processing choices):
Seagull in the crowd by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Sony:

DSC00500.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

[havoc315]

Yay! Raw support!!
I will need to really put the camera through the paces this weekend.

But for now, my kids impatiently let me take a couple low light shots of them.... As before, I did comparison shots with the D750. A6300 with 50/1.8, at 1.8 and 1/80. D750 with 24-70/2.8, at 70mm, 2.8, 1/80. Creating the same depth of field, but the ISO on the D750 was about 1 stop higher.
I was testing a couple of things. First off, how does the high ISO look. The camera auto selected ISO between 2000 and 4000. On the D750, it went 3200 to 6400. In this case, even though the ISO was about 1 stop lower, the A6300 needed slightly more noise reduction. The good news, with just a tad more NR, the file quality was pretty similar. Absolutely, these files look better than jpeg. Even at ISO 4000, I'm satisfied with the results out of the A6300.
The other thing I was testing, was eye-AF with AF-C versus AF-S. AF-S did seem a bit more consistent. In the handful of images I took, every AF-S was perfectly focused. The AF-C got the eye perfect a couple of times, but also missed focus a couple of times. So I suppose for posed portraits, I might still prefer AF-S over AF-C.
Last observation, I hate the AWB of the A6300 in artificial lighting. It is very inconsistent. I didn't correct the white balance in the below photos. The AWB for my son was ok. But for my daughter, it left the scene excessively yellow, and it isn't very easy to correct. The D750 AWB was much more consistent.

So the samples:

Way too yellow, ISO 4000. But apart from the terrible AWB, the image is pretty good. If I were to correct the AWB. I am definitely happy with this as a low light, ISO 4000 shot.

DSC00755.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

My son at ISO 2000:
DSC00762.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Now from the D750 at ISO 3600:
DSC_6456.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

[fractal]

Yay! Raw support!!
I will need to really put the camera through the paces this weekend.

But for now, my kids impatiently let me take a couple low light shots of them.... As before, I did comparison shots with the D750. A6300 with 50/1.8, at 1.8 and 1/80. D750 with 24-70/2.8, at 70mm, 2.8, 1/80. Creating the same depth of field, but the ISO on the D750 was about 1 stop higher.
I was testing a couple of things. First off, how does the high ISO look. The camera auto selected ISO between 2000 and 4000. On the D750, it went 3200 to 6400. In this case, even though the ISO was about 1 stop lower, the A6300 needed slightly more noise reduction. The good news, with just a tad more NR, the file quality was pretty similar. Absolutely, these files look better than jpeg. Even at ISO 4000, I'm satisfied with the results out of the A6300.
The other thing I was testing, was eye-AF with AF-C versus AF-S. AF-S did seem a bit more consistent. In the handful of images I took, every AF-S was perfectly focused. The AF-C got the eye perfect a couple of times, but also missed focus a couple of times. So I suppose for posed portraits, I might still prefer AF-S over AF-C.
Last observation, I hate the AWB of the A6300 in artificial lighting. It is very inconsistent. I didn't correct the white balance in the below photos. The AWB for my son was ok. But for my daughter, it left the scene excessively yellow, and it isn't very easy to correct. The D750 AWB was much more consistent.

So the samples:

Way too yellow, ISO 4000. But apart from the terrible AWB, the image is pretty good. If I were to correct the AWB. I am definitely happy with this as a low light, ISO 4000 shot.

DSC00755.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

My son at ISO 2000:
DSC00762.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Now from the D750 at ISO 3600:
DSC_6456.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Good stuff Adam. You are the second person I've seen make a A3000 vs D750 comparison. This quick RAw test confirmed the other review, which is good news for me. Looking forward to more.

 

[havoc315]

Good stuff Adam. You are the second person I've seen make a A3000 vs D750 comparison. This quick RAw test confirmed the other review, which is good news for me. Looking forward to more.

can I have the link to the other test?

If you opt against full frame, I think the A6300 will be a nice upgrade for you. But I wish it had IBIS.

 

[fractal]

Here's the link. I believe In his third post in the thread he has RAW comparisons of A6300 vs D750 high iso.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57426599

 

[HPS3]

Fractal, those shots look so close! i wouldn't be able to tell much difference on my laptop.

 

[Hockeyman]

Universal Globe by Mike Sperduto, on Flickr

 

[havoc315]

More A6300..... High ISO test, in properly exposed light. Shadows would be worse.
These are all at ISO 12800. They all were shot RAW, default color noise reduction in Lightroom. First, I'll post from the D750. Luminance set to 20. First the whole image, and then a crop:

DSC_6462.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

DSC_6462.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

I'd say that is an excellent result, with minimal noise reduction applied.

I'm happy to report, the A6300 stands up well. I'm using the same photo below, but 3 different luminance settings, 0, 20 and 40.

First, the whole image, at Luminance 20:

medium NR by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Now, crop at Luminance 0:

no NR by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Luminance 20:

medium NR by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Luminance 40:

High NR by Adam Brown, on Flickr


No, it doesn't equal the D750 (also note that the D750 is pixel peeped a bit more) at the same luminance settings. But, when both are at ISO 12,800, the A6300 only needs a little more luminance reduction. A setting of 40 is not horrible. You can still retain fair detail at 40. I wouldn't be shooting ISO 12,800 portraits on the A6300, or anything of fine detail. I wouldn't want to do extreme pixel peeping at 12,800. But ultimately, when shooting raw, you can get decent images at 12,800 -- More than just web-viewing size images. You can probably still print 8X10's at ISO 12,800. Which really isn't bad at all.

It will be interesting to see DXO testing, but at least simply in terms of noise, the A6300 may be less than a full stop behind the full frame D750 (but not much less). Though I'm going mostly from memory, I think the A6300 may have better high ISO capabilities than the full frame A99. Again, I want to see DXO testing, but I definitely feel like there is some noticeable improvement in raw files over the A6000. Usually, you see the biggest upgrades in jpegs from improvements in processing -- I did not think the A6300 jpegs were any better than the A6000. But I feel I am seeing a slight but noticeable noise improvement.

 

[dmaxphil]

Good stuff. There seems to be some high ISO improvement in the A6300. I'm bored, so I put together (the longest post ever) some shots comparing 100% crops of the A6300 raws posted with some DPR studio A6000 raws and some A7II shots from a recent trip. I threw in some Df shots for comparison. The images labeled "No NR" are unprocessed raws. The others have the Noise Reduction Luminance slider set at 39 and contrast at 12 (in LR), settings I would consider pretty aggressive NR.

When I ran previous high ISO comparisons of the A6k vs A7II there was definitely more of a difference - in the a7's favor. But things look pretty similar here.

Update - DPReview just added the A6300 to the Studio tool, so I added those samples. And More! 5DMIII, Df, D750.

Some of these are from the guy who posted on the DPR thread, others are my pics, and most are from the DPR studio comparison tool.

First, the unprocessed Raws at ISO 6400

 

[dmaxphil]

Now ISO 6400 with noise reduction as described in above post.

 

[dmaxphil]

ISO 12800 No noise reduction

 

[dmaxphil]

ISO 12800 with noise reduction as described (Luminance slider set at 39 and contrast at 12 (in LR))

 

[dmaxphil]

And a few other cameras

A99

with noise reduction

 

[dmaxphil]

D810

with noise reduction

 

[havoc315]

@dmaxphil Nice work. The 4-year-old A99 looks way behind (being older, plus the light loss from the SLT mirror). It's the only full frame camera that may be worse than the A6000/A6300.
I note the A7ii looks to be the next worst, of the full frame cameras.
The D750 and Df look better than anything else. But the differences aren't earth shattering.