# sony a77



## suppyx

anyone have any pictures taken with the sony a77 in low light i cannot decide if i want to buy it considering a lot of my pictures will be taken with low light.  and does anyone have any hdr shots with it.. using the cameras hdr i looked online but still cant decide


----------



## mjhoward

This might interest you: Light loss in A77 mirror exactly measured - Dyxum forums

Also if you're constantly shooting in low light, I have to imagine that you're sensor is going to be running relatively hot all the time since the A77 uses an EVF.  To put out a useable 'view' (image) in lowlight, the gain is boosted... depending on just how low the light is, you could be pushing max gain all the time.


----------



## o hey tyler

In b4 Sony Fanboys claiming otherwise.

Also, shooting in Low light will adversely effect the framerate of the EVF.

Also also, the noise performance at high ISO's is nothing to write home about, and you will need good ISO performance.


----------



## argieramos

suppyx said:
			
		

> anyone have any pictures taken with the sony a77 in low light i cannot decide if i want to buy it considering a lot of my pictures will be taken with low light.  and does anyone have any hdr shots with it.. using the cameras hdr i looked online but still cant decide



Low light performance is not the a77 strength, but it is not bad as these clueless troll Howard and Tyler are saying. They don't know anything about the a77.

If you want the a77 to perform really good in low light, multi-frame noise reduction, and twilight mode (automatic only) will do the job. But if you really want a camera that is good in low light, there is an a580 which is good as the D7000, and trash every single APS-C of Canon. Canon aps cameras are not really great in Low light too 

A77 EVF has no serious issue in low light, but make sure the a77 is running in 1.04 firmware. In extreme darkness, OVF becomes useless, in EVF you can still see things but EVF noise will be visible because of the signal boost, but that does not affect the photo that you are about to take.


----------



## gsgary

No they just keep talking about how good it is


----------



## argieramos

gsgary said:
			
		

> No they just keep talking about how good it is



Uhmm, What? lol


----------



## gsgary

argieramos said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they just keep talking about how good it is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhmm, What? lol
Click to expand...


Where are your photos then ?


----------



## argieramos

gsgary said:
			
		

> Where are your photos then ?



Explain yourself first before you demand something.


----------



## rexbobcat

Looking at the specs, the A77 will have a hard time focusing in low light if there is not a high-contrast area.

Generally, most modern DSLRs have USEABLE high ISO settings. Some are better than others, but the performance is in direct correlation to price so it all depends on what you're looking for.

The EVF will also give a fairly poor image in the viewfinder as well, if it's like any EVF I've seen before, just like Live View in low light gives inaccurate results until the shutter actuates.


----------



## cosmonaut

Old Chevy by Cosmonaut's, on Flickr




One for Daisy by Cosmonaut's, on Flickr




Sunrise on Black Friday by Cosmonaut's, on Flickr





One Headlight by Cosmonaut's, on Flickr

 Even though some of these were flashed I can no doubt tell you the a77 will focus fast and accurate in very dark situations, way beyond my expectations. I manual focus on most of my landscapes because I trust my eyes better than any AF system but YES it will focus in very low light. The NEX 7 as well. I do most all my work in the dark. This and the D7000 are the two best Prosumer cameras on the market only the full frames boys do better. Put your fears to rest. If you want a good camera get a a77, D7000 or NEX 7.


----------



## cosmonaut

rexbobcat said:


> Looking at the specs, the A77 will have a hard time focusing in low light if there is not a high-contrast area.
> 
> Generally, most modern DSLRs have USEABLE high ISO settings. Some are better than others, but the performance is in direct correlation to price so it all depends on what you're looking for.
> 
> The EVF will also give a fairly poor image in the viewfinder as well, if it's like any EVF I've seen before, just like Live View in low light gives inaccurate results until the shutter actuates.



 This is NOT true. Both EVFers on my a77 and NEX 7 produce such good results in normal light you will have to re check the specs to make sure you are really looking at a digital image. Only in low light does the finder get grainy. But with the focus peaking being in the finder it makes manual focusing better than any split screen finder I have ever used. Even in low light and better then a OFVer. I have used a lot of cameras over the last 30 years.


----------



## cosmonaut

The NEX 7 uses a red beam to focus. As long as the beam can hit what you are aiming at it will focus. I used it last night shooting a ballet and I could see the red beam hitting the back of the stage with the lights off and the camera focused with no hunting. I was about 60 ft from the back of the stage.


----------



## cosmonaut

These are at 6400ISO


----------



## skieur

rexbobcat said:


> Looking at the specs, the A77 will have a hard time focusing in low light if there is not a high-contrast area.
> 
> Generally, most modern DSLRs have USEABLE high ISO settings. Some are better than others, but the performance is in direct correlation to price so it all depends on what you're looking for.
> 
> The EVF will also give a fairly poor image in the viewfinder as well, if it's like any EVF I've seen before, just like Live View in low light gives inaccurate results until the shutter actuates.



A77 focusing is NOT based on contrast but rather phase detection.

I don't find that most modern DSLRs have useable high ISO settings at all.  I would not use any DSLR above 1600 ISO and it should not be necessary for most pro shooting.

You have a real problem trying to compare the Sony EVF to any EVF you have seen before.  You have NOT seen an OLED viewfinder. You have not seen the high resolution of the Sony viewfinder.  It is NOT at all like live view and you have NOT seen Sony Live View to compare it to what you have seen.


skieur


----------



## skieur

cosmonaut said:


> These are at 6400ISO



Great shots!  It certainly destroys the dumb remarks about poor low light capability.

skieur


----------



## dxqcanada

Cosmonaut, I am glad you have posted your personal examples.

I am not one to state my camera (brand/model) is better than anyone else's, but I do appreciate someone who show's what their camera can do by example.


----------



## cosmonaut

The a77 has AFed when the light was so low I had to shine a flashlight to manually focus. Trust me the low light AF is more than you will need unless you plan on shooting in a cave.


----------



## dxqcanada

suppyx said:


> anyone have any pictures taken with the sony a77 in low light i cannot decide if i want to buy it considering a lot of my pictures will be taken with low light.  and does anyone have any hdr shots with it.. using the cameras hdr i looked online but still cant decide



I have tried HDR on my A55 a couple of times ... I would suggest to do this in Software, not in-camera ... more control.


----------



## o hey tyler

cosmonaut said:


> These are at 6400ISO



According to the EXIF, they're at 3200.


----------



## Derrel

cosmonaut said:


> The NEX 7 uses* a red beam to focus*. As long as the beam can hit what you are aiming at it will focus. *I used it last night shooting a ballet and I could see the red beam hitting the back of the stage with the lights off* and the camera focused with no hunting. I was about 60 ft from the back of the stage.



Wow...talk about unobtrusive low-light shooting...a red light blasting the performers on-stage in a ballet...NOT!


----------



## cosmonaut

Derrel said:


> cosmonaut said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NEX 7 uses* a red beam to focus*. As long as the beam can hit what you are aiming at it will focus. *I used it last night shooting a ballet and I could see the red beam hitting the back of the stage with the lights off* and the camera focused with no hunting. I was about 60 ft from the back of the stage.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...talk about unobtrusive low-light shooting...a red light blasting the performers on-stage in a ballet...NOT!
Click to expand...

 Yeah, sorry they are 3200. The red beam is not noticable unless the lights are real low, but I tend to agree, NOT for something like that. It was very noticable. I can imagine popping one of the girls in the eye.lol The a77 doesn't shoot the beam but focuses just as well.


----------



## cosmonaut

The thing is, I own both an can seperate myth from facts. The a77 is a stunning camera. Better than Nikon or Canon, no but certainly equal. Unless you go full frame you can not beat this camera. Its not the next coming. But a damn good camera.


----------



## mjhoward




----------



## cosmonaut

I agree we are beating the horse but maybe this will help and I am out of here. I was once in a guitar store and they were selling a Stevie Ray Vaughn Fender addition guitar set up identical to what he used. I picked it up and tried to play it and the neck was so wide I couldn't get my hands around it, the strings were higher, to far apart and like bending fence wire, the mans hands must have been huge and incredible strength. The seller at the store said most couldn't play it well but still it was a big seller. 
 I think cameras are the same. You must find something you like and can use, something you are comfortable with and can trust. If you shoot something else just because of someone else you will only hurt yourself. When I chose the NEX7 I chose it because of it's ease of shooting in manual, something I learned before cameras had program mode,  with the two top dials, not because it's cool. I remember when the NEX series first come out many laughed and considered it ugly. I saw a tool that looked comfortable to hold compared to the other compacts I had used. I kept dropping the EP-1.
 Shoot what gets the job done. If you look at fanboys galleries they usually sux cause they are trying to make something work they are uncomfortable with, chose your own path. I shot Olympus for five years with people looking down their noses at me. But I could make them do what I wanted. I never had to worry with dust on the sensor and could shoot three stops slower than the next guy woithout dropping a wad on VR glass. I could even use vintage glass with IS. Everyone else jumped on the bandwagon after Olympus invented dust removal, in body image stabilization, and now mirrorless cameras. Everyone tends to forget that fact, now they are planning something else new, no one knows what? Everyone is looking for the next big thing that will put them over the top. I generally shot a camera until I have no use for it. I went to Sony because I wanted a real wide lens that Olympus didn't offer without spending a lot of money. I didn't want to drop that kind of cash going wide on a system with such an uncertain future. Full Frame wide is real expensive.


----------



## Nikon_Josh

cosmonaut said:


> Old Chevy by Cosmonaut's, on Flickr
> 
> Sunrise on Black Friday by Cosmonaut's, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One Headlight by Cosmonaut's, on Flickr



I may not have a high opinion of the A77 overall, but I can't disagree with images like these regardless. Good work!


----------



## argieramos

cosmonaut said:
			
		

> I agree we are beating the horse but maybe this will help and I am out of here. I was once in a guitar store and they were selling a Stevie Ray Vaughn Fender addition guitar set up identical to what he used. I picked it up and tried to play it and the neck was so wide I couldn't get my hands around it, the strings were higher, to far apart and like bending fence wire, the mans hands must have been huge and incredible strength. The seller at the store said most couldn't play it well but still it was a big seller.
> I think cameras are the same. You must find something you like and can use, something you are comfortable with and can trust. If you shoot something else just because of someone else you will only hurt yourself. When I chose the NEX7 I chose it because of it's ease of shooting in manual, something I learned before cameras had program mode,  with the two top dials, not because it's cool. I remember when the NEX series first come out many laughed and considered it ugly. I saw a tool that looked comfortable to hold compared to the other compacts I had used. I kept dropping the EP-1.
> Shoot what gets the job done. If you look at fanboys galleries they usually sux cause they are trying to make something work they are uncomfortable with, chose your own path. I shot Olympus for five years with people looking down their noses at me. But I could make them do what I wanted. I never had to worry with dust on the sensor and could shoot three stops slower than the next guy woithout dropping a wad on VR glass. I could even use vintage glass with IS. Everyone else jumped on the bandwagon after Olympus invented dust removal, in body image stabilization, and now mirrorless cameras. Everyone tends to forget that fact, now they are planning something else new, no one knows what? Everyone is looking for the next big thing that will put them over the top. I generally shot a camera until I have no use for it. I went to Sony because I wanted a real wide lens that Olympus didn't offer without spending a lot of money. I didn't want to drop that kind of cash going wide on a system with such an uncertain future. Full Frame wide is real expensive.



There is no such thing as bad camera. Only bad fanboys like howard, tyler, and gary


----------



## o hey tyler

argieramos said:


> There is no such thing as bad camera. Only bad fanboys like howard, tyler, and gary



If you're so bold to imply that you are not a Sony Fanboy, surely you are under the influence of some pretty high potency drugs of whatever variety.


----------



## argieramos

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> If you're so bold to imply that you are not a Sony Fanboy, surely you are under the influence of some pretty high potency drugs of whatever variety.



Oh yea? How did I become a fanboy? I dare you to prove that lol. None of my statements are biased. Everything I said here are facts. You can't prove me wrong because you know I'm right. Don't put me on your shoes you insecure fanboy! Yea, I am calling you a fanboy. I can prove that. Hehe...


----------



## o hey tyler

argieramos said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're so bold to imply that you are not a Sony Fanboy, surely you are under the influence of some pretty high potency drugs of whatever variety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yea? How did I become a fanboy? I dare you to prove that lol.
Click to expand...


I can easily prove that ArgieRamos. If I click on your name next to one of your posts, I can go to "View Forum Posts". 

Easily 95% of your posts to date have been either defending Sony SLT cameras, or defending the Sony product line in some way or another. That spells out F-A-N-B-O-Y. Try it for yourself, just click on your own name and see how many times you've posted in Sony threads, or defended Sony. I dare you. 

There you have it, irrefutable proof. 

Get a life. Seriously.


----------



## argieramos

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> I can easily prove that ArgieRamos. If I click on your name next to one of your posts, I can go to "View Forum Posts".
> 
> Easily 95% of your posts to date have been either defending Sony SLT cameras, or defending the Sony product line in some way or another. That spells out F-A-N-B-O-Y. Try it for yourself, just click on your own name and see how many times you've posted in Sony threads, or defended Sony. I dare you.
> 
> There you have it, irrefutable proof.
> 
> Get a life. Seriously.



Man, I was waiting for you to  show some proof. lol. You're a disappointment Tyler. If fanboys say that Pentax K-5 takes bad pictures because its pentax, I would disagree. That will not make me a Pentax fanboy. I am not defending Sony. I am just stating the facts. You guys keep posting some false claim and I am just here making corrections because unlike you, I have used the product and I know what I'm talking about.
If you think of me as a fanboy, I wonder how do you think of yourself. Is there any term worse than fanboy? That will be you. lol 

I dare you to prove it. Post it here. I will post some to prove that you are the fanboy when I get home. Watch out!  Fanboy!!! Bwuahaha!!!!!


----------



## o hey tyler

Search Results - Photography Forum & Digital Photography Forum


----------



## argieramos

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> Search Results - Photography Forum & Digital Photography Forum



Whats this? No specific post to prove such allegation? I am giving you time to edit all your fanboyism remarks, because I will post those in here.  So people see the true meaning of fanboy Bwuahahaha!!!


----------



## Overread

Ok I don't care who started it first, this is the 3rd time now. 
Fanboy argument (or whatever it is) ends now, get back to regular talking about the Sony a77 and forget about who is the biggest fan of what.


----------



## cosmonaut

Nikon_Josh said:


> cosmonaut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Chevy by Cosmonaut's, on FlickrSunrise on Black Friday by Cosmonaut's, on Flickr
> 
> One Headlight by Cosmonaut's, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> I may not have a high opinion of the A77 overall, but I can't disagree with images like these regardless. Good work!
Click to expand...

 Thanks a lot for the comments. I appreciate the kind words.


----------



## argieramos

cosmonaut said:
			
		

> Thanks a lot for the comments. I appreciate the kind words.



Picture worth a thousand words. 
What lens did you use with that?


----------



## cosmonaut

The first on was with the 8-16mm Sigma and the reason for my move from Olympus, the second was with the 16-50 Sony. I still prefer Olympus colors to Sony's. Sony is a little on the warm side.


----------



## cosmonaut

In all cases, the car, the truck and the dozer I was in very low light conditions. There were no street lights or anything to aid me is in shooting, just a flashlight. In all cases the a77, the last one being the NEX they would focus. It was to dark for me to see what they were  focusing on, but I did hear a focus confirmation beeb, so they did AF, in the dark beyond what my eye could see.  Again I prefer manual focusing when I can but I do trust the focusing system on both the a77 and NEX 7. 




Blue Cat, edit 2 by Cosmonaut's, on Flickr


----------



## argieramos

cosmonaut said:
			
		

> The first on was with the 8-16mm Sigma and the reason for my move from Olympus, the second was with the 16-50 Sony. I still prefer Olympus colors to Sony's. Sony is a little on the warm side.



Have you heard the "Minolta Colors"? 
Try using those good Minolta lenses


----------



## cosmonaut

Actually someone give me a Minolta lens yesterday. 35-70mm macro. It works great on the a77.


----------



## argieramos

cosmonaut said:
			
		

> Actually someone give me a Minolta lens yesterday. 35-70mm macro. It works great on the a77.



Good that it works for you. I used to have that lens I bought from ebay for $25. Very cheap lens but works better than 18-70mm in my opinion.


----------



## gsgary

cosmonaut said:


> These are at 6400ISO




Liar, both are iso3200 and out of focus


----------



## argieramos

gsgary said:
			
		

> Liar, both are iso3200 and out of focus



Liar. Your 1D will never be as good as that. lol


----------



## gsgary

argieramos said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar, both are iso3200 and out of focus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar. Your 1D will never be as good as that. lol
Click to expand...


5Dmk1  iso3200





1dmk2 iso1600





1Dmk2 iso3200


----------



## Crollo

argieramos said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar, both are iso3200 and out of focus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.
Click to expand...


How is he lying the exif information says right there, iso 3200.


----------



## gsgary

Crollo said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar, both are iso3200 and out of focus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is he lying the exif information says right there, iso 3200.
Click to expand...


He wrote  "These are at 6400ISO" not 3200:er: he was trying to make them seem better than they were but they are bad for iso3200, the shots i took are from cameras over 5 years old, A77 is new


----------



## argieramos

gsgary said:
			
		

> 5Dmk1  iso3200
> 
> 1dmk2 iso1600
> 
> 1Dmk2 iso3200



Funny. Those two cameras are not APS-C
I guess Canon doesn't  have anything to match the a77. Even the Nex-3 takes better picture than 7D. lol

Come back here when Canon make something to match the a77, Nex 7, a580


----------



## argieramos

gsgary said:
			
		

> He wrote  "These are at 6400ISO" not 3200:er: he was trying to make them seem better than they were but they are bad for iso3200, the shots i took are from cameras over 5 years old, A77 is new



It should be because of the sensor size difference. But they nowhere near the resolution of the smaller sized 24mp of a77.  A77 IQ is better though. It's a fact


----------



## o hey tyler

argieramos said:


> It's a fact



By fact you must mean your opinion.


----------



## argieramos

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> By fact you must mean your opinion.



No its not. Canon sensor is already behind Sony. Even Nikon fanboy Derrel said that. Check the d800 thread in Nikon Forum


----------



## o hey tyler

Wow, it's amazing people who shoot Canon can even take pictures! How do they even make images if the sensor is "behind" Nikon and Sony? Jeeze, I might as well throw away all my gear that renders awesome image quality on a 36x24mm full frame sensor and switch over to the APS-C, crippled in low light A77. 

I bet we'll see all the big names, like Annie L, switch over to Sony from shooting Canon. I bet she'll hop right on the EVF bandwagon for all her studio work... Since you know, the EVF is the "next big thing." :lmao:

Really Argie, your posts are funny (because they're so amazingly far from the truth). But give it a rest. It's old now. You're a diehard Sony Fanboy and you refuse to admit it. Your previous forum posts prove so. 

With that, I'm adding you to my ignore list. Have a great time continuing to be delusional.


----------



## gsgary

argieramos said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He wrote  "These are at 6400ISO" not 3200:er: he was trying to make them seem better than they were but they are bad for iso3200, the shots i took are from cameras over 5 years old, A77 is new
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It should be because of the sensor size difference. But they nowhere near the resolution of the smaller sized 24mp of a77.  A77 IQ is better though. It's a fact
Click to expand...


Dosn't look like it on those examples because they look ****e


----------



## gsgary

o hey tyler said:


> Wow, it's amazing people who shoot Canon can even take pictures! How do they even make images if the sensor is "behind" Nikon and Sony? Jeeze, I might as well throw away all my gear that renders awesome image quality on a 36x24mm full frame sensor and switch over to the APS-C, crippled in low light A77.
> 
> I bet we'll see all the big names, like Annie L, switch over to Sony from shooting Canon. I bet she'll hop right on the EVF bandwagon for all her studio work... Since you know, the EVF is the "next big thing." :lmao:
> 
> Really Argie, your posts are funny (because they're so amazingly far from the truth). But give it a rest. It's old now. You're a diehard Sony Fanboy and you refuse to admit it. Your previous forum posts prove so.
> 
> With that, I'm adding you to my ignore list. Have a great time continuing to be delusional.



He's on my FAN list i might even ask to be friends


----------



## argieramos

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> Wow, it's amazing people who shoot Canon can even take pictures! How do they even make images if the sensor is "behind" Nikon and Sony? Jeeze, I might as well throw away all my gear that renders awesome image quality on a 36x24mm full frame sensor and switch over to the APS-C, crippled in low light A77.
> 
> I bet we'll see all the big names, like Annie L, switch over to Sony from shooting Canon. I bet she'll hop right on the EVF bandwagon for all her studio work... Since you know, the EVF is the "next big thing." :lmao:
> 
> Really Argie, your posts are funny (because they're so amazingly far from the truth). But give it a rest. It's old now. You're a diehard Sony Fanboy and you refuse to admit it. Your previous forum posts prove so.
> 
> With that, I'm adding you to my ignore list. Have a great time continuing to be delusional.



Do you know why they still takes good pictures? Because they have skills. You should know that. That is why you Canon fanboys need to back off and stop trolling the Sony forum because your brand is not really all that great. Sure, it's popular. But it is already behind in IQ race. A good photographer with "ok" camera will beat an idiot who has the best camera. So your trolling are nonsense.

Ignore me all you want. You do that because you got nothing else to throw back at me. You know i'm right lol


----------



## o hey tyler

argieramos said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, it's amazing people who shoot Canon can even take pictures! How do they even make images if the sensor is "behind" Nikon and Sony? Jeeze, I might as well throw away all my gear that renders awesome image quality on a 36x24mm full frame sensor and switch over to the APS-C, crippled in low light A77.
> 
> I bet we'll see all the big names, like Annie L, switch over to Sony from shooting Canon. I bet she'll hop right on the EVF bandwagon for all her studio work... Since you know, the EVF is the "next big thing." :lmao:
> 
> Really Argie, your posts are funny (because they're so amazingly far from the truth). But give it a rest. It's old now. You're a diehard Sony Fanboy and you refuse to admit it. Your previous forum posts prove so.
> 
> With that, I'm adding you to my ignore list. Have a great time continuing to be delusional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol
Click to expand...

 ,


----------



## argieramos

gsgary said:
			
		

> Dosn't look like it on those examples because they look ****e



You should be proud to produce a decent picture with your not so good camera. His other pictures blow yours though. You are looking at some of his not so good shot but ignoring the fact some of his looks waaayyy better than yours.


----------



## argieramos

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> ,



lol That's it?
You are not saying anything because you know I'm right. lol


----------



## gsgary

argieramos said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dosn't look like it on those examples because they look ****e
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should be proud to produce a decent picture with your not so good camera. His other pictures blow yours though. You are looking at some of his not so good shoot but ignoring the fact some of his looks waaayyy better than yours.
Click to expand...



Get him to post some good ones and i will post some good ones
Paul Carrack liked mine


----------



## argieramos

gsgary said:
			
		

> Get him to post some good ones and i will post some good ones
> Paul Carrack liked mine



You are not showing anything. You are just bragging that your name is on the list of something. Go post something that looks similar to the truck shot. Outdoor and not in studio 

Post something in full Resolution.


----------



## gsgary

argieramos said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get him to post some good ones and i will post some good ones
> Paul Carrack liked mine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not showing anything. You are just bragging that your name is on list of something. Go post something that looks similar to the truck shot. Outdoor and not in studio
Click to expand...








old 10D


----------



## o hey tyler

Gary, where were you shooting from in the overhead shot of the horse rider in muddy waters? Really nice perspective.


----------



## argieramos

gsgary said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get him to post some good ones and i will post some good ones
> Paul Carrack liked mine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not showing anything. You are just bragging that your name is on list of something. Go post something that looks similar to the truck shot. Outdoor and not in studio
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> old 10D
Click to expand...


Those are actually Good. Good Job!
But then again, you failed to show me a picture similar to his. Night time shot. You have taken these shots with ideal lighting.

But uploading good pictures only means you are a good photographer. Doesn't change the fact the Canon Sensors are behind Sony
Sony, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus users can produce pictures like that with similar skills and equipment.

DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

--OUCH!--  nyehehehe!!!


----------



## gsgary

o hey tyler said:


> Gary, where were you shooting from in the overhead shot of the horse rider in muddy waters? Really nice perspective.



If you look at the link, accredited photographers were allowed on top of the tower, they jumped into the water galloped around the tower and under the arch
http://www.knowledge.me.uk/photos/peaks/queen_marys_bower.html


----------



## o hey tyler

gsgary said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gary, where were you shooting from in the overhead shot of the horse rider in muddy waters? Really nice perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you look at the link, accredited photographers were allowed on top of the tower, they jumped into the water galloped around the tower and under the arch
> Queen Mary's Bower, Chatsworth.
Click to expand...


Looks like a nice place to camp out and shoot from. :thumbup:


----------



## gsgary

argieramos said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not showing anything. You are just bragging that your name is on list of something. Go post something that looks similar to the truck shot. Outdoor and not in studio
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> old 10D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are actually Good. Good Job!
> But then again, you failed to show me a picture similar to his. Night time shot. You have taken these shots with ideal lighting.
> 
> But uploading good pictures only means you are a good photographer. Doesn't change the fact the Canon Sensors are behind Sony
> Sony, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus users can produce pictures like that with similar skills and equipment.
> 
> DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side
> 
> --OUCH!--  nyehehehe!!!
Click to expand...


Cheers, thousands more where they came from, you won't see a shot like his from me i don't shoot at night

 here's one shot in the garden 2 studio flashes


----------



## gsgary

o hey tyler said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gary, where were you shooting from in the overhead shot of the horse rider in muddy waters? Really nice perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you look at the link, accredited photographers were allowed on top of the tower, they jumped into the water galloped around the tower and under the arch
> Queen Mary's Bower, Chatsworth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks like a nice place to camp out and shoot from. :thumbup:
Click to expand...



No way you would be able to camp out at chatsworth, conected to the Royal Family


----------



## gsgary

Some people are not happy with their A77
Flickr: Discussing A77 Hanging in Sony Camera Club
Sony: Sony A77 AF problem
Flickr: Discussing A77 power on problem in Sony Camera Club


----------



## o hey tyler

gsgary said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you look at the link, accredited photographers were allowed on top of the tower, they jumped into the water galloped around the tower and under the arch
> Queen Mary's Bower, Chatsworth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like a nice place to camp out and shoot from. :thumbup:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No way you would be able to camp out at chatsworth, conected to the Royal Family
Click to expand...


I didn't  mean literal camping. I mean like, setting up and shooting there for a while... You know, "setting up camp?"


----------



## argieramos

gsgary said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> old 10D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are actually Good. Good Job!
> But then again, you failed to show me a picture similar to his. Night time shot. You have taken these shots with ideal lighting.
> 
> But uploading good pictures only means you are a good photographer. Doesn't change the fact the Canon Sensors are behind Sony
> Sony, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus users can produce pictures like that with similar skills and equipment.
> 
> DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side
> 
> --OUCH!--  nyehehehe!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cheers, thousands more where they came from, you won't see a shot like his from me i don't shoot at night
> 
> here's one shot in the garden 2 studio flashes
Click to expand...


You have proven my point. It's not about the camera. It's about the photographer. As a professional, you should know that. 
Even the low quality iPhone 4 camera can make amazing pictures with Professional tweaking. The iPhone Fashion Shoot By Lee Morris | Fstoppers
That is why you should realize this argument stupid.


----------



## argieramos

gsgary said:


> Some people are not happy with their A77
> Flickr: Discussing A77 Hanging in Sony Camera Club
> Sony: Sony A77 AF problem
> Flickr: Discussing A77 power on problem in Sony Camera Club



Those are the first batch of the production running old 1.02. That is why the 1.03 has been released couple of weeks later.


----------



## mjhoward

gsgary said:


> 5Dmk1  iso3200


That's one hell of a shot. Composition, color, exposure... You nailed it


----------



## gsgary

argieramos said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are actually Good. Good Job!
> But then again, you failed to show me a picture similar to his. Night time shot. You have taken these shots with ideal lighting.
> 
> But uploading good pictures only means you are a good photographer. Doesn't change the fact the Canon Sensors are behind Sony
> Sony, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus users can produce pictures like that with similar skills and equipment.
> 
> DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side
> 
> --OUCH!--  nyehehehe!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers, thousands more where they came from, you won't see a shot like his from me i don't shoot at night
> 
> here's one shot in the garden 2 studio flashes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have proven my point. It's not about the camera. It's about the photographer. As a professional, you should know that.
> Even the low quality iPhone 4 camera can make amazing pictures with Professional tweaking. The iPhone Fashion Shoot By Lee Morris | Fstoppers
> That is why you should realize this argument stupid.
Click to expand...



Then why am i not buying a Sony A77, because i don't like or want one it will not do what i want


----------



## gsgary

mjhoward said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5Dmk1  iso3200
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's one hell of a shot. Composition, color, exposure... You nailed it
Click to expand...



Cheers, that was taken with a 200mmF2.8L


----------



## argieramos

gsgary said:
			
		

> Then why am i not buying a Sony A77, because i don't like or want one it will not do what i want



Nobody is telling you to buy the a77. Why would you even think of buying one? You already own a lot of expensive lenses for Canon. But a photographer with same skills will do better with the a77 than you did with your cameras. The credit will be given to your expensive good lenses and skills. Your camera? Well, they are good but a lot of camera will do much better like the a77, or Nikons. Remember, Canon sensor is already behind Sony.


----------



## gsgary

argieramos said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are actually Good. Good Job!
> But then again, you failed to show me a picture similar to his. Night time shot. You have taken these shots with ideal lighting.
> 
> But uploading good pictures only means you are a good photographer. Doesn't change the fact the Canon Sensors are behind Sony
> Sony, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus users can produce pictures like that with similar skills and equipment.
> 
> DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side
> 
> --OUCH!--  nyehehehe!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers, thousands more where they came from, you won't see a shot like his from me i don't shoot at night
> 
> here's one shot in the garden 2 studio flashes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have proven my point. It's not about the camera. It's about the photographer. As a professional, you should know that.
> Even the low quality iPhone 4 camera can make amazing pictures with Professional tweaking. The iPhone Fashion Shoot By Lee Morris | Fstoppers
> That is why you should realize this argument stupid.
Click to expand...



I think this could be a compliment


----------



## gsgary

argieramos said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why am i not buying a Sony A77, because i don't like or want one it will not do what i want
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is telling you to buy the a77. Why would you even think of buying one? You already own a lot of expensive lenses for Canon. But a photographer with same skills will do better with the a77 than you did with your cameras. The credit will be given to your expensive good lenses and skills. Your camera? Well, they are good but a lot of camera will do much better like the a77, or Nikons. Remember, Canon sensor is already behind Sony.
Click to expand...



No they won't because the Sony will not track a subject like the 1D


----------



## argieramos

gsgary said:
			
		

> No they won't because the Sony will not track a subject like the 1D



You claimed that it can't but the fact is it can.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1037&message=39659320&changemode=1


You claimed that you have used the a77 but the fact is you haven't


			
				gsgary said:
			
		

> Best thing about is you can see the noise before you take the shot


The noise that you see in A55 EVF is the result of signal boost so you can still see things in the dark through the EVF. It is not the noise of the image that you are about to take. The performance has vastly improved with a77 OLED EVF. 
http://www.firstpost.com/topic/orga...ight-comparison-video-zf-8NYaQ9XQ-9416-1.html
Get your fact straight.

It is pretty obvious that you never touched the a77. It's a shame that you have to use professional level and big sensor cameras to compare to a prosumer level a77 because you know that Canon doesn't have anything in the same level to match the a77.


----------



## rexbobcat

argieramos said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they won't because the Sony will not track a subject like the 1D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed that it can't but the fact is it can.
> Continous AF on A77?: Sony SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
> 
> 
> You claimed that you have used the a77 but the fact is you haven't
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best thing about is you can see the noise before you take the shot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The noise that you see in A55 EVF is the result of signal boost so you can still see things in the dark through the EVF. It is not the noise of the image that you are about to take. The performance has vastly improved with a77 OLED EVF.
> Nikon D7000 vs. Sony A77 - OVF vs. EVF low-light comparison, AF speed test - Nikon Videos : Firstpost Topic
> Get your fact straight.
> 
> It is pretty obvious that you never touched the a77. It's a shame that you have to use professional level and big sensor cameras to compare to a prosumer level a77 because you know that Canon doesn't have anything in the same level to match the a77.
Click to expand...


I've AF tracked birds with my 60D, though. Relative to where a person is, a bird is not perceived as moving very quickly. I think what he means by 1D focus is things like sports, basketball etc.... different subjects moving at different velocities in different directions. Technically any modern DSLR can take any kind of photo. You could take an amazing sports photo with an entry-level Canon, Nikon, or pentax. It's just the fact that some are more attuned to certain environments. I mean, it has the same amount of autofocus points that a Canon 7D has, so I assume that it's THAT good at AF-tracking at least. But saying that it compares to cameras that are built specifically for AF tracking with 45+ AF points is kind of baseless. 

I think he was being facetious when saying that you can see the noise before the photo is taken. He was just poking at the gain that you get from the EVF. I'm sure that the EVF is vastly improved over the one that was in my parents' Kodak camera (Oh God.....), but I would think that for a photographer who wants to know almost exactly how he wants his photo to turn out, I could see the gain as being misleading. That's one reason why I don't use live view in dark areas. It's annoying misrepresentation of colors in dark areas is....well....annoying.

The being said, I'm biased against Sony cameras in general, because the newspaper I used to work for used one of the first 10 MP DSLRs that Sony produced, and it was pitiful. PITIFUL. It also had that annoying autofocus thing where it would begin focusing when you put your eye up to the viewfinder. And it would never lock focus. Ever.

I think the truth is that the a77 has its uses, the 1D has its uses, and neither one can replace each other in their respective niches. Now, if they combine the two, then it'd be pretty awesome. Especially if it costs less than the 1D X


----------



## Derrel

argieramos said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why am i not buying a Sony A77, because i don't like or want one it will not do what i want
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is telling you to buy the a77. Why would you even think of buying one? You already own a lot of expensive lenses for Canon. But a photographer with same skills will do better with the a77 than you did with your cameras. The credit will be given to your expensive good lenses and skills. Your camera? Well, they are good but a lot of camera will do much better like the a77, or Nikons. Remember, Canon sensor is already behind Sony.
Click to expand...


You know argieramos, here's how I KNOW what the BEST sports/action cameras are...I take my binoculars and scan down the sidelines and end-lines at the football games I go to, and SEE what the top shooters are using. And you know, it's kind of odd because I see the same things this year as I did the prior year... I see these big, ugly, black Canon 1D-series bodies with their ugly white 300/2.8 and 400/2.8 lenses on monopods, and a small second lens on a neckstrap body (24-70 usually) OR, I see these big, beautiful Nikon D3-series bodies and 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 lenses on monopods, and at day games, the occasional 200-400 VR Nikkor, and then day OR night, a second neckstrap body with a 24-70 on it. I mean, it's as if all the sports shooters on the West Coast of the USA use those crappy Canon and Nikon bodies and lenses...

Why do they DO that!!! Why do all those guys (and a few gals too!) shoot that awful Canon and Nikon junk? I'm not telling you to buy a Nikon or Canon--you already have the Sony a77 system at your disposal. My wife's two grown cousins all shoot Minolta/Sony lenses and digital SLRs. I have been VERY impressed with the build quality of their pro-capable 85mm and their 70-200/2.8 lenses...very nice feel, handling, etc,etc. First-rate, really.


----------



## argieramos

rexbobcat said:
			
		

> I've AF tracked birds with my 60D, though. Relative to where a person is, a bird is not perceived as moving very quickly. I think what he means by 1D focus is things like sports, basketball etc.... different subjects moving at different velocities in different directions. Technically any modern DSLR can take any kind of photo. You could take an amazing sports photo with an entry-level Canon, Nikon, or pentax. It's just the fact that some are more attuned to certain environments. I mean, it has the same amount of autofocus points that a Canon 7D has, so I assume that it's THAT good at AF-tracking at least. But saying that it compares to cameras that are built specifically for AF tracking with 45+ AF points is kind of baseless.
> 
> I think he was being facetious when saying that you can see the noise before the photo is taken. He was just poking at the gain that you get from the EVF. I'm sure that the EVF is vastly improved over the one that was in my parents' Kodak camera (Oh God.....), but I would think that for a photographer who wants to know almost exactly how he wants his photo to turn out, I could see the gain as being misleading. That's one reason why I don't use live view in dark areas. It's annoying misrepresentation of colors in dark areas is....well....annoying.
> 
> The being said, I'm biased against Sony cameras in general, because the newspaper I used to work for used one of the first 10 MP DSLRs that Sony produced, and it was pitiful. PITIFUL. It also had that annoying autofocus thing where it would begin focusing when you put your eye up to the viewfinder. And it would never lock focus. Ever.
> 
> I think the truth is that the a77 has its uses, the 1D has its uses, and neither one can replace each other in their respective niches. Now, if they combine the two, then it'd be pretty awesome. Especially if it costs less than the 1D X



You know that annoying AF thing that begin focusing at the moment that you put your eye up to the viewfinder ("eye-start") can be disabled, right? Or you didn't know that. It's actually disabled by default settings. 
What Sony 10mp camera are you talking about that couldn't lock the focus? The a100 doesn't have a problem doing that very simple task. You weren't using it right thats for sure. Like you said, you're biased against Sony. I should not expect something decent statement from you. I can't believe they hired someone like you, no offense buddy. 
I agree with you that any DSLR can take any kind of photo, with the right lens. I was just showing Gary that his claim about inability of the a77 to shoot a fast moving subject is wrong.
One last thing. Do not compare the Canon LV to Sony. Out of the big 3, Sony LV is unmatched


----------



## argieramos

Derrel said:
			
		

> You know argieramos, here's how I KNOW what the BEST sports/action cameras are...I take my binoculars and scan down the sidelines and end-lines at the football games I go to, and SEE what the top shooters are using. And you know, it's kind of odd because I see the same things this year as I did the prior year... I see these big, ugly, black Canon 1D-series bodies with their ugly white 300/2.8 and 400/2.8 lenses on monopods, and a small second lens on a neckstrap body (24-70 usually) OR, I see these big, beautiful Nikon D3-series bodies and 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 lenses on monopods, and at day games, the occasional 200-400 VR Nikkor, and then day OR night, a second neckstrap body with a 24-70 on it. I mean, it's as if all the sports shooters on the West Coast of the USA use those crappy Canon and Nikon bodies and lenses...
> 
> Why do they DO that!!! Why do all those guys (and a few gals too!) shoot that awful Canon and Nikon junk? I'm not telling you to buy a Nikon or Canon--you already have the Sony a77 system at your disposal. My wife's two grown cousins all shoot Minolta/Sony lenses and digital SLRs. I have been VERY impressed with the build quality of their pro-capable 85mm and their 70-200/2.8 lenses...very nice feel, handling, etc,etc. First-rate, really.



The best sports/action cameras are in the hands of best sports/action shooters. Cameras are only as good as the Photographers. You can use the 1DX or D4, but if you're a moron, it will take you nowhere.
I don't have an a77. I rented one from Borrowlens last month to try out. I am an alpha shooter and my wife has the red d3100 (my wife, so it's mine too lol), you can also consider me as a Nikon user  
I wanted to shoot with Canon before, glad I didn't. I don't want to end up being a troll like Tyler, Howard, and Gary lol....


----------



## gsgary

argieramos said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know argieramos, here's how I KNOW what the BEST sports/action cameras are...I take my binoculars and scan down the sidelines and end-lines at the football games I go to, and SEE what the top shooters are using. And you know, it's kind of odd because I see the same things this year as I did the prior year... I see these big, ugly, black Canon 1D-series bodies with their ugly white 300/2.8 and 400/2.8 lenses on monopods, and a small second lens on a neckstrap body (24-70 usually) OR, I see these big, beautiful Nikon D3-series bodies and 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 lenses on monopods, and at day games, the occasional 200-400 VR Nikkor, and then day OR night, a second neckstrap body with a 24-70 on it. I mean, it's as if all the sports shooters on the West Coast of the USA use those crappy Canon and Nikon bodies and lenses...
> 
> Why do they DO that!!! Why do all those guys (and a few gals too!) shoot that awful Canon and Nikon junk? I'm not telling you to buy a Nikon or Canon--you already have the Sony a77 system at your disposal. My wife's two grown cousins all shoot Minolta/Sony lenses and digital SLRs. I have been VERY impressed with the build quality of their pro-capable 85mm and their 70-200/2.8 lenses...very nice feel, handling, etc,etc. First-rate, really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The best sports/action cameras are in the hands of best sports/action shooters. Cameras are only as good as the Photographers. You can use the 1DX or D4, but if you're a moron, it will take you nowhere.
> I don't have an a77. I rented one from Borrowlens last month to try out. I am an alpha shooter and my wife has the red d3100 (my wife, so it's mine too lol), you can also consider me as a Nikon user
> I wanted to shoot with Canon before, glad I didn't. I don't want to end up being a troll like Tyler, Howard, and Gary lol....
Click to expand...



So you know **** all about the A77, i have just read another review where the only thing that the Sony beat the 7D was resolition but only in good light


----------



## o hey tyler

I'm glad I put Argie on my ignore list. Gary, and Derrel, you should do the same. 

You'll feel much more intellectually enlightened when you don't have to read the stupidity that somehow makes it from Argie's brain, down to his fingers, and onto the keyboard. It's an amazing feat for the thought process to make it that far.  Almost as amazing as how bad the A77 is in low light.


----------



## gsgary

o hey tyler said:


> I'm glad I put Argie on my ignore list. Gary, and Derrel, you should do the same.
> 
> You'll feel much more intellectually enlightened when you don't have to read the stupidity that somehow makes it from Argie's brain, down to his fingers, and onto the keyboard. It's an amazing feat for the thought process to make it that far.  Almost as amazing as how bad the A77 is in low light.



I though he owned an A77 turns out he only had it for a short while and think's he knows everything about it, probably never even tried to track a moving object or shoot a concert in very low light, what a joke


----------



## argieramos

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> I'm glad I put Argie on my ignore list. Gary, and Derrel, you should do the same.
> 
> You'll feel much more intellectually enlightened when you don't have to read the stupidity that somehow makes it from Argie's brain, down to his fingers, and onto the keyboard. It's an amazing feat for the thought process to make it that far.  Almost as amazing as how bad the A77 is in low light.



It is really funny how you keep saying a77 is bad in low light considering none of Canon APS-C match the a77 in IQ. a77 IQ in ISO1600 has better IQ than the Canon 7D in ISO100 according to popphoto lab test. It is also faster. 7D low light performance is not great too specially next to the a580. Even the NEX C3 has better IQ and low noise in high ISO than the 7D. Admit it, Canon cameras are bad nyehehehe


----------



## argieramos

gsgary said:
			
		

> I though he owned an A77 turns out he only had it for a short while and think's he knows everything about it, probably never even tried to track a moving object or shoot a concert in very low light, what a joke



I had it for a week. I can do better judgement than you who lay about using the a77. How do you get the memory card off the a77? Pull it? Or is there a switch? You dont know anything lol.

It is really funny how these so callled professionals struggle debating with me. Nyehehehe lol


----------



## mjhoward

argieramos said:


> I wanted to shoot with Canon before, glad I didn't. I don't want to end up being a troll like Tyler, Howard, and Gary lol....



Who's the troll?  You're the one trying to continue a baseless argument.  BTW, I shoot Canon AND Nikon.  I'm not the 'fanboy' that you ignorantly claim and continuously portray yourself as.  I don't shoot Sony because I have no desire to.  I don't like their business practices, I'm not keen on an EVF and don't need live view phase detect AF since I didn't buy a video camera.  They also have a limited set of lenses to choose from, of which Canon and Nikon has them covered in every single way.  And the crazy thing is I don't have to buy proprietary flash units and adapters to make use of STANDARD OCF among other things.


----------



## argieramos

gsgary said:
			
		

> So you know **** all about the A77, i have just read another review where the only thing that the Sony beat the 7D was resolition but only in good light



Where is the review? lol

Check these.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/238565/sony_alpha_a77_is_about_to_beat_dslrs_at_their_own_game.html
http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2011/09/lab-test-sony-a77-new-king-aps-c-dslrs
You see how the similar level camera from Canon destroyed by the a77. lol




DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side
The a77 destroyed Professional Level cameras of Canon in Image Quality. Cameras that use much bigger sensor and much more expensive.


http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Pu...kes-the-lead/SNR-K5-D7000-and-A580-at-the-top
D7000, a580, K-5 are the top APS-C DSLR in terms of IQ and Low light performance. Where is the Canon? lol



http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_60D-vs-Sony_Alpha_NEX-3
http://www.resensor.com/2011/07/nex-3-vs-7d-who-will-win/
NEX-3 ---> Better image quality, more Dynamic Range than the 60D and 7D. OUCH! 

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS-1D_Mark_IV-vs-Sony-NEX-7
1D Mark IV
-Lower noise at high ISO	 -->1,320 ISO vs 1,016 ISO	
"The EOS-1D Mark IV has a slight edge (0.4 f-stops) in low noise, high ISO performance" ( cool  )
NEX-7
-Much higher true resolution -->24 MP vs 16 MP	
"Capture more than 50% more detail in your photos"
-Better image quality --> 81.0	vs 74.0	
"Around 10% better image quality"
-More dynamic range --> 13.4 EV vs 12 EV	
"0.6 f-stops more dynamic range"
-Better color depth --> 24.1 bits vs 22.8 bits	
"Distinguishes 1.3 more bits of color"

Now, before you diss the other brand, make sure yours is actually have something good.


----------



## argieramos

mjhoward said:
			
		

> Who's the troll?  You're the one trying to continue a baseless argument.  BTW, I shoot Canon AND Nikon.  I'm not the 'fanboy' that you ignorantly claim and continuously portray yourself as.  I don't shoot Sony because I have no desire to.  I don't like their business practices, I'm not keen on an EVF and don't need live view phase detect AF since I didn't buy a video camera.  They also have a limited set of lenses to choose from, of which Canon and Nikon has them covered in every single way.  And the crazy thing is I don't have to buy proprietary flash units and adapters to make use of STANDARD OCF among other things.



 Do you have an idea of what's going on here? It is not me keeps attacking in this thread. You have made some false claim, that's how a fanboy is.. Deny it all you want, you're still a fanboy lol. If you have no desire of shooting with Sony, I don't give a damn. I have no desire to shoot with Canon because of their inferior lenses quality and inferior sensors.  Sure Canon and Nikon have more lenses. But Sony doesn't create multiple version of certain lenses. Sony have good range of lenses and third parties cover those that Sony is lacking. You can only brag about the fact that those are third party lenses. Oh, speaking of lenses, most Canon lenses are rated below Nikon and Sony "G" and CZ lenses. Tsk! lol


----------



## belial

Ignoring argi as well. Reading his posts kills too many brain cells


----------



## argieramos

belial said:
			
		

> Ignoring argi as well. Reading his posts kills too many brain cells



Another butthurt Canon troll who can't accept the fact. I guess I am too much for them lol


----------



## Derrel

It seems from the DxO Mark link you provided us argieramos, that the Sony A77's Low-Light performance LAGS BEHIND the now ancient Canon 1D-Mark II (not even the N-version,but the ORIGINAL Mark II!) AND it is wayyyyyy below the now-old Canon 5D in terms of High ISO performance...the a77 gets its ass kicked at elevated ISO levels by the old Canon 5D. Why am I not surprised that the A77 is inferior at High ISO levels to both a seven year-old Canon FF, and an eight year-old APS-H pro Canon???

You wrote, "The a77 destroyed Professional Level cameras of Canon in Image Quality. Cameras that use much bigger sensor." Uh...not QUITE...the A77 fell FLAT ON ITS FACE at higher ISO values...the old Canon 5D performed the best of the three cameras that YOU chose to compare it with...but the Sony did have wider dynamic range and color depth and a marginally higher overall score...but let's say for lower-light shots, the roughly 800 score of the A77 versus the roughly 1300 score of the original Canon 5D...that's a poor performance for the new Sony against a camera that's about seven years old...

As with most things in the photography world, there ARE trade-offs...from what I gather, the A77 24 MP sensor looks fine at lower ISO levels, but it LOSES DETAIL pretty fast as the ISO levels rise, and in fact, the degree of noise reduction needed at elevated ISO levels brings the overall resolution down to the 16.2 megapixel level of the "other Sony sensors" used by both Pentax in the K5 and Nikon in the D7000, and also the 17.8 MP (effective) MP sensor used in the Canon 7D. Also, the RAW files of the A77 are "cooked", to help alleviate all the danged noise the sensor and electronics create...a few years ago "cooked" RAW files was something people would scream about all day long on-line. Of course, now, with a 24 MP starting point, it seems like "cooked" RAW files and HEAVILY-cooked JPEG images from the A77 are actually a pretty good compromise, all things considered. There are now enough MP that some noise reduction, or even heavy NR, seems like a good trade-off to me, even if it effectively lowers the A77 from a 24 MP camera down to a 16- to 18-MP camera...that seems fine to me...

I think if a person has Sony lenses and flashes, then they ought to look into the A77. If not, then there's not much need to look into the A77. As Pop Photo's Michael MacNamara wrote in his review, he thinks it's a good idea for Canon and Nikon users to "wait and see" what those companies come out with in the **video** front in their upcoming cameras...meaning it's nowhere near the blanket "Let's all migrate to Sony!!!" call to action that "some" people want to try and spin that one, single review into being.


----------



## argieramos

Derrel said:
			
		

> It seems from the DxO Mark link you provided us argieramos, that the Sony A77's Low-Light performance LAGS BEHIND the now ancient Canon 1D-Mark II (not even the N-version,but the ORIGINAL Mark II!) AND it is wayyyyyy below the now-old Canon 5D in terms of High ISO performance...the a77 gets its ass kicked at elevated ISO levels by the old Canon 5D. Why am I not surprised that the A77 is inferior at High ISO levels to both a seven year-old Canon FF, and an eight year-old APS-H pro Canon???
> 
> You wrote, "The a77 destroyed Professional Level cameras of Canon in Image Quality. Cameras that use much bigger sensor." Uh...not QUITE...the A77 fell FLAT ON ITS FACE at higher ISO values...the old Canon 5D performed the best of the three cameras that YOU chose to compare it with...but the Sony did have wider dynamic range and color depth and a marginally higher overall score...but let's say for lower-light shots, the roughly 800 score of the A77 versus the roughly 1300 score of the original Canon 5D...that's a poor performance for the new Sony against a camera that's about seven years old...
> 
> As with most things in the photography world, there ARE trade-offs...from what I gather, the A77 24 MP sensor looks fine at lower ISO levels, but it LOSES DETAIL pretty fast as the ISO levels rise, and in fact, the degree of noise reduction needed at elevated ISO levels brings the overall resolution down to the 16.2 megapixel level of the "other Sony sensors" used by both Pentax in the K5 and Nikon in the D7000, and also the 17.8 MP (effective) MP sensor used in the Canon 7D. Also, the RAW files of the A77 are "cooked", to help alleviate all the danged noise the sensor and electronics create...a few years ago "cooked" RAW files was something people would scream about all day long on-line. Of course, now, with a 24 MP starting point, it seems like "cooked" RAW files and HEAVILY-cooked JPEG images from the A77 are actually a pretty good compromise, all things considered. There are now enough MP that some noise reduction, or even heavy NR, seems like a good trade-off to me, even if it effectively lowers the A77 from a 24 MP camera down to a 16- to 18-MP camera...that seems fine to me...
> 
> I think if a person has Sony lenses and flashes, then they ought to look into the A77. If not, then there's not much need to look into the A77. As Pop Photo's Michael MacNamara wrote in his review, he thinks it's a good idea for Canon and Nikon users to "wait and see" what those companies come out with in the **video** front in their upcoming cameras...meaning it's nowhere near the blanket "Let's all migrate to Sony!!!" call to action that "some" people want to try and spin that one, single review into being.



the a77 produces much better detail in low ISO than those professional could give in their low ISO. So my claim about the a77 destroy them in terms of IQ is still true. Bigger sensor should do better in low light than APS-C sized right? How about we compare it to FF Sony
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS-1D_Mark_IV-vs-Sony_Alpha_DSLR-A900
a850
-Better image quality --> 79.0	vs 74.0	
Around 10% better image quality
-Better color depth	23.8 bits vs 22.8 bits	
Distinguishes 1 more bits of color
-Slightly lower noise at high ISO 1,415 ISO vs 1,320 ISO	
The DSLR-A850 has a slight edge (0.1 f-stops) in low noise, high ISO performance
-More dynamic range --> 12.2 EV vs 12 EV	
0.1 f-stops more dynamic range

a850 wins in every category. From the low light performance, to the Image quality. But you don't see me bragging about this result and calling the 1D Mark IV a noisy piece of crap because I know this comparison is unfair. 




You think a77 loses detail pretty fast in high ISO? Sure. But it doesn't change the fact that its 1600 ISO still have more detail and better IQ than the 7D specially the D300s in their 100 ISO. 

If you are going to talk about the sensor ability, you should not use the a77. You know how the Pericle mirror affects the light right? 24mp is an improvement of the 16mp sensor.  Sure it gets a little bit noisy, but everything from the clarity, color accuracy, and dynamic range are better. NEX 7 prove that.

Since you are trying to defend those Canon trolls, I guess you also want to be my prey in this debate. By the way Derrel, you haven't given me the number of the Best Buy store where you say had 6 a77 stocks. If you are going to lie, make sure its believable. lol


----------



## mjhoward

argieramos said:


> Do you have an idea of what's going on here? It is not me keeps attacking in this thread. You have made some false claim, that's how a fanboy is.. Deny it all you want, you're still a fanboy lol.


 
And what false claim have I made in this thread?



argieramos said:


> I have no desire to shoot with Canon because of their inferior lenses quality.


 
Thats hilarious and your ignorance shines.  I would argue that they reign supreme when it comes to Super-telephoto's and perhaps in the world of Macro when it comes to the 65mm MPE.  



argieramos said:


> Sure Canon and Nikon have more lenses. But Sony doesn't create multiple version of certain lenses.


 
That's because the sony A-mount has only been around for 5 years now.  The EF-mount has existed for ~24 years and the F-mount for over 50 years.  Of course there will be multiple versions over the course of that many years due to advancements in technology.  Do you really think that Sony would/will leave a lens design untouched for 50 years?



argieramos said:


> You can only brag about the fact that those are third party lenses.



I'm not even sure what you're referring to here as I havn't bragged about anything.  If you're referring to the list of Tokina lenses in my signature, those are lenses that I chose to purchase.  If I wanted Nikon lenses, I could have just as easily bought some.  I actually had a couple of DX Nikon lenses and sold them off once I got my hands on the 11-16. Nikon also does not have the focal length ranges that I get out of the Tokina's, at least not at constant f/2.8.  As for anything 'brag' worthy, we do have 3 of the Canon 800mm f/5.6 lenses, something which Sony and any other third party can't touch.  But you're right, sony has EVERYTHING covered in spades.

I'm now done responding to your asinine posts.  Good luck with your delusion.


----------



## Derrel

Argie,
   You are one persistent fellow...I hope you had a lot of fun with the A77 you rented from that company. If it is such a fantastic camera--why do you not rush out and BUY ONE?

No, "I" do not "think the A77 loses detail pretty fast"--that is what the review sites all mention...people who test and compare cameras for a living are ALL noticing the same thing...the A77 loses detail due to noise, and noise reduction, quite rapidly. That's just a fact, mentioned by all the reviewers and test sites. It's not my opinion, it's a fact. But you seem unable to comprehend facts, or dispassionate comments or analysis about your one-time-rental-love, the A77.

Your statement that I am "trying to defend those Canon trolls"--I am not quite sure what you mean by that. My last post was just some observations based upon the link YOU introduced to this post; in which the A77 gets its ass kicked at High ISO levels by two different, and much,much older Canon cameras...that was your link...I mentioned that the Sony does better than those cameras which YOU SELECTED to compare it against. I wrote, "*Sony did have wider dynamic range and color depth and a marginally higher overall score*", and you allege I am trying to "defend...Canon trolls". I'm sorry argieramos, but you are clearly not reading my posts in any sort of level-headed, dispassionate manner... I specifically mentioned areas in which the Sony out-performed the two Canons that YOU SELECTED to compare it against, and which YOU LINKED US TO...

Argie...come on...you wrote, "*If you are going to talk about the sensor ability, you should not use the a77*." Uh, argieramos, this post is entitled "sony a77"...YOU LINKED US to a comparison of the Sony a77 and the Canon 5D and 1D Mark II. I must stress again, argieramos, *YOU are the guy who gave us the link to the Sony A77 as compared with the Canons at the DxO Mark web site*...and now you are telling me I should not use the information which you introduced? You're telling me I ought not discuss the Sony A77 in the post entitled "Sony a77"--but that I ought to discuss the NEX 7?

I do not quite understand why you will not engage on the facts that you linked us to...even when I give the A77 its due, you attack,attack,attack,and then deflect; telling me to look at the NEX 7, instead of the new, exciting, mid-level APS-C d-slr, the Sony A77?


----------



## dxqcanada

mjhoward said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Canon and Nikon have more lenses. But  Sony doesn't create multiple version of certain lenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because the sony A-mount has only been around for 5 years now.   The EF-mount has existed for ~24 years and the F-mount for over 50  years.  Of course there will be multiple versions over the course of  that many years due to advancements in technology.  Do you really think  that Sony would/will leave a lens design untouched for 50 years?
Click to expand...


Actually the Sony A-Mount is the Minolta A-Mount ... which started in 1985 (I think).
I  do feel that the Sony lens lineup is limited (even Minolta's Maxxum  lens lineup was not that extensive) ... and I do wish that they did make  more lenses and multiple versions of some lenses. 
Example, I would be happy with a 400mm f4.0 (Minolta did make a 400mm f4.5).


----------



## Derrel

I really,really,really thought that the $1899, lightweight, 400mm f/4.5 Minolta A-mount telephoto was a CRITICAL LENS for Sony to keep in the lineup, as a way to offer a really desirable, useful, portable lens. The 400/4.5 had so,so many things going for it; it was unchallenged by any other lens maker or camera maker's offerings...the price was fabulous! I honestly thought that when Sony took over, that THAT would become a lynchpin in their lens lineup. But that did not happen.

Sigma has made huge inroads over the years by designing lenses that the camera makers do not offer (like their superb 150mm macro), or which the camera makers price at exceptionally high levels, like the 10-20mm Sigma zoom that was all the rage a decade ago, or the 50mm f/1.4 Sigma HSM, or the 30mm f/1.4 Sigma HSM, or the 120-300mm f/2.8 Sigma, or the 100-300 f/4 HSM Sigma, and so on. To me, the 400mm f/4.5 appeared to be the exact kind of lens that would allow wildife and nature shooters to pair a fine lens with the in-body stabilization Sony is known for...but apparently it seems that lens has been shelved by the Sony executives, as they develop other lenses.


----------



## belial

argieramos said:
			
		

> Another butthurt Canon troll who can't accept the fact. I guess I am too much for them lol



Nah. Canon does just fine. Who's the fanboy argie? Canon Nikon an Sony make good cameras all with their pluses and minuses. Now stop acting like you know what you're talking about


----------



## Nikon_Josh

o hey tyler said:


> I'm glad I put Argie on my ignore list. Gary, and Derrel, you should do the same.
> 
> You'll feel much more intellectually enlightened when you don't have to read the stupidity that somehow makes it from Argie's brain, down to his fingers, and onto the keyboard. It's an amazing feat for the thought process to make it that far.  Almost as amazing as how bad the A77 is in low light.



Argie is very popular on this forum it would seem...


----------



## argieramos

mjhoward said:
			
		

> And what false claim have I made in this thread?


Not in this thread. Remember the old a77 thread?



> Thats hilarious and your ignorance shines.  I would argue that they reign supreme when it comes to Super-telephoto's and perhaps in the world of Macro when it comes to the 65mm MPE.



Some lenses probably. But most lenses rated below Nikon and Sony CZ counterparts. 



> That's because the sony A-mount has only been around for 5 years now.  The EF-mount has existed for ~24 years and the F-mount for over 50 years.  Of course there will be multiple versions over the course of that many years due to advancements in technology.  Do you really think that Sony would/will leave a lens design untouched for 50 years?



Do you think Sony will make an IS version of their lenses? My point is Canon has tons of lenses but many of them have multiple versions. First is the standard one. The second one has IS. The third one is a bit better version of the second one. You know what I mean?
A-mount has been around for more than 5 years you f0ol. It's from Minolta. Didn't you ask me what false claim have you made in this thread? I guess I don't need to answer that.




> I'm not even sure what you're referring to here as I havn't bragged about anything.  If you're referring to the list of Tokina lenses in my signature, those are lenses that I chose to purchase.  If I wanted Nikon lenses, I could have just as easily bought some.  I actually had a couple of DX Nikon lenses and sold them off once I got my hands on the 11-16. Nikon also does not have the focal length ranges that I get out of the Tokina's, at least not at constant f/2.8.  As for anything 'brag' worthy, we do have 3 of the Canon 800mm f/5.6 lenses, something which Sony and any other third party can't touch.  But you're right, sony has EVERYTHING covered in spades.



I said you can only brag about the fact that those lenses that cover some of the area that Sony is lacking are third parties. Not Sony made.  I didn't say you bragged about something.



> I'm now done responding to your asinine posts.  Good luck with your delusion.



lol. Just go and do your research. Aight mate?


----------



## argieramos

belial said:
			
		

> Nah. Canon does just fine. Who's the fanboy argie? Canon Nikon an Sony make good cameras all with their pluses and minuses. Now stop acting like you know what you're talking about



Of course I know what I am talking about. Can you prove otherwise?
You are right, Canon, Nikon and Sony make good cameras. But these Canon trolls keep objecting and diss the a77 in the Sony forum ignoring the fact that Canon top APS-C and similar level camera the 7D has nothing on the a77. They have to bring their big boys 1D series and full frame 5D in this debate and compare it to APS-C sensor camera, the a77. lol.

This is my statement for Tyler, Howard, Gary. If you guys love your Canon, that's cool. But before you diss other brand, make sure your favorite brand has something good. Even NEX C3 takes better IQ pictures than the 60D and 7D  it's a proven fact.


----------



## mjhoward

mjhoward said:


> That's because the *sony* A-mount has only been around for 5 years now.





argieramos said:


> A-mount has been around for more than 5 years you f0ol. It's from Minolta. Didn't you ask me what false claim have you made in this thread? I guess I don't need to answer that



Silly me, I thought we were discussing Sony lenses and how infrequently they change.  I _could_ be wrong, but *Sony* has only made A-mount lenses for 5 years yes?  Minolta was never mentioned and was never the topic of discussion.  If you re-read what I said... I said *SONY* A-mount, not minolta A-mount.  Sony didn't manufacture any of those lenses prior to 2006.  I still don't know what false claims you're referring to.



argieramos said:


> This is my statement for Tyler, Howard, Gary. If you guys love your Canon, that's cool. But before you diss other brand, make sure your favorite brand has something good. Even NEX C3 takes better IQ pictures than the 60D and 7D  it's a proven fact.



I don't even own a Canon, my workplace does.  I own Nikon and for most things, is my preference.  Canon does have their place, as mentioned, though.


----------



## argieramos

Derrel said:
			
		

> Argie,
> You are one persistent fellow...I hope you had a lot of fun with the A77 you rented from that company. If it is such a fantastic camera--why do you not rush out and BUY ONE?
> 
> No, "I" do not "think the A77 loses detail pretty fast"--that is what the review sites all mention...people who test and compare cameras for a living are ALL noticing the same thing...the A77 loses detail due to noise, and noise reduction, quite rapidly. That's just a fact, mentioned by all the reviewers and test sites. It's not my opinion, it's a fact. But you seem unable to comprehend facts, or dispassionate comments or analysis about your one-time-rental-love, the A77.
> 
> Your statement that I am "trying to defend those Canon trolls"--I am not quite sure what you mean by that. My last post was just some observations based upon the link YOU introduced to this post; in which the A77 gets its ass kicked at High ISO levels by two different, and much,much older Canon cameras...that was your link...I mentioned that the Sony does better than those cameras which YOU SELECTED to compare it against. I wrote, "Sony did have wider dynamic range and color depth and a marginally higher overall score", and you allege I am trying to "defend...Canon trolls". I'm sorry argieramos, but you are clearly not reading my posts in any sort of level-headed, dispassionate manner... I specifically mentioned areas in which the Sony out-performed the two Canons that YOU SELECTED to compare it against, and which YOU LINKED US TO...
> 
> Argie...come on...you wrote, "If you are going to talk about the sensor ability, you should not use the a77." Uh, argieramos, this post is entitled "sony a77"...YOU LINKED US to a comparison of the Sony a77 and the Canon 5D and 1D Mark II. I must stress again, argieramos, YOU are the guy who gave us the link to the Sony A77 as compared with the Canons at the DxO Mark web site...and now you are telling me I should not use the information which you introduced? You're telling me I ought not discuss the Sony A77 in the post entitled "Sony a77"--but that I ought to discuss the NEX 7?
> 
> I do not quite understand why you will not engage on the facts that you linked us to...even when I give the A77 its due, you attack,attack,attack,and then deflect; telling me to look at the NEX 7, instead of the new, exciting, mid-level APS-C d-slr, the Sony A77?



The thread is entitled "sony a77" but the content is no longer just about the a77, right? You came here and started talking about sensors. You gave judgement to the 24mp sensor based on what you read about the a77. Yes I posted the link of the comparison of the a77 against the Pro level DSLR as Gary compared those cameras already. Next time try to keep track of what's going on here before posting like that. 

I can smell your intention in this thread. If you can lie about BestBuy having a77 in stock, and say that the a77 is not a real camera, then I shouldn't expect something decent statement from you.  Why do you have to lie paps? You know liar will go to hell


----------



## argieramos

mjhoward said:
			
		

> Silly me, I thought we were discussing Sony lenses and how infrequently they change.  I could be wrong, but Sony has only made A-mount lenses for 5 years yes?  Minolta was never mentioned and was never the topic of discussion.  If you re-read what I said... I said SONY A-mount, not minolta A-mount.  Sony didn't manufacture any of those lenses prior to 2006.  I still don't know what false claims you're referring to.
> 
> I don't even own a Canon, my workplace does.  I own Nikon and for most things, is my preference.  Canon does have their place, as mentioned, though.



Minolta A-mount = Sony A-mount
You do not give the A-mount specific brand labeling because its the same fre***** A-mount. It's about the Sony lenses, not the A-mount
But nice excuse btw


----------



## mjhoward

argieramos said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silly me, I thought we were discussing Sony lenses and how infrequently they change.  I could be wrong, but Sony has only made A-mount lenses for 5 years yes?  Minolta was never mentioned and was never the topic of discussion.  If you re-read what I said... I said SONY A-mount, not minolta A-mount.  Sony didn't manufacture any of those lenses prior to 2006.  I still don't know what false claims you're referring to.
> 
> I don't even own a Canon, my workplace does.  I own Nikon and for most things, is my preference.  Canon does have their place, as mentioned, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Minolta A-mount = Sony A-mount
> You do not give specific brand label on the A-mount because its the same fre***** mount. It's about the Sony lenses, not the A-mount
> But nice excuse btw
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, I should have known I needed to spell it out for you... Sony A-mount lenses have only been around since 2006.  Sure the mount might be the same, but we were discussing lenses were we not?


----------



## argieramos

mjhoward said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, I should have known I needed to spell it out for you... Sony A-mount lenses have only been around since 2006.  Sure the mount might be the same, but we were discussing lenses were we not?



We were talking about the lens. You started talking about the A. EF, and F-mount.


----------



## mjhoward

argieramos said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, I should have known I needed to spell it out for you... Sony A-mount lenses have only been around since 2006.  Sure the mount might be the same, but we were discussing lenses were we not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were talking about the lens. You started talking about the A. EF, and F-mount.
Click to expand...


If you notice, the A-mount was the only one I specified a manufacturer for...  EF has always been Canon and F mount has always been Nikon so no need to distinguish the lens manufacturer.  It doesn't matter anyway, you're thick headed and will seemingly never be capable of a sensible argument.  So thats it for me, there's a daycare down the street if I decide I want to continue arguing with a child.


----------



## argieramos

mjhoward said:
			
		

> If you notice, the A-mount was the only one I specified a manufacturer for...  EF has always been Canon and F mount has always been Nikon so no need to distinguish the lens manufacturer.  It doesn't matter anyway, you're thick headed and will seemingly never be capable of a sensible argument.  So thats it for me, there's a daycare down the street if I decide I want to continue arguing with a child.



By the looks of that post, you weren't talking about just the lenses. Couldn't  you just say Sony, Canon, Nikon lenses? Even dxqcanada thought you were talking about the A-Mount.  

So that's it? Why giving up so soon bro?  nyehehehe!


----------



## mjhoward

argieramos said:


> Couldn't  you just say Sony, Canon, Nikon lenses? Even dxqcanada thought you were talking about the A-Mount.



Well it wouldn't make much sense to include FD mount Canon lenses in the discussion now would it?  Bye-bye Argue... err I mean Argie.


----------



## argieramos

mjhoward said:
			
		

> Well it wouldn't make much sense to include FD mount Canon lenses in the discussion now would it?  Bye-bye Argue... err I mean Argie.



It wouldn't matter. We were talking Canon, Nikon, Sony DSLR lenses. Your post was misleading. Like I said, even dxqcanada thought you were talking about A-mount.

Yea, run away chicken lol


----------



## EchoingWhisper

o hey tyler said:


> Wow, it's amazing people who shoot Canon can even take pictures! How do they even make images if the sensor is "behind" Nikon and Sony? Jeeze, I might as well throw away all my gear that renders awesome image quality on a 36x24mm full frame sensor and switch over to the APS-C, crippled in low light A77.
> 
> I bet we'll see all the big names, like Annie L, switch over to Sony from shooting Canon. I bet she'll hop right on the EVF bandwagon for all her studio work... Since you know, the EVF is the "next big thing." :lmao:
> 
> Really Argie, your posts are funny (because they're so amazingly far from the truth). But give it a rest. It's old now. You're a diehard Sony Fanboy and you refuse to admit it. Your previous forum posts prove so.
> 
> With that, I'm adding you to my ignore list. Have a great time continuing to be delusional.



Then if the low light abilities of the Sony sensors are so bad, how do they take picture? You ain't stupid ain't you? He's just stating the fact that Sony sensors are better than Canon when you're trying to say Sony sensors are bad. Protecting Canon eh?


----------



## EchoingWhisper

gsgary said:


> Some people are not happy with their A77
> Flickr: Discussing A77 Hanging in Sony Camera Club
> Sony: Sony A77 AF problem
> Flickr: Discussing A77 power on problem in Sony Camera Club



Every camera has problems, and only people who have a problem in their camera will complain. Normal people wouldn't visit these sites and say - hey I don't have this problem!


----------



## EchoingWhisper

DxOMark - Compare cameras side by sideook at the points - 15 points = 1 stop improvement in everything. 12 points = more than 2/3rd of a stop. And if you resize the A77's pictures to 18MP (same as 7D), you are likely to get 33% better noise performance, which means A77 gained more than 1 stop over 7D.


----------



## argieramos

Derrel said:
			
		

> It seems from the DxO Mark link you provided us argieramos, that the Sony A77's Low-Light performance LAGS BEHIND the now ancient Canon 1D-Mark II (not even the N-version,but the ORIGINAL Mark II!) AND it is wayyyyyy below the now-old Canon 5D in terms of High ISO performance...the a77 gets its ass kicked at elevated ISO levels by the old Canon 5D. Why am I not surprised that the A77 is inferior at High ISO levels to both a seven year-old Canon FF, and an eight year-old APS-H pro Canon???



For your info Derrel, even your favorite D7000 got it's ass kicked at high ISO by the old  Canon 5D. 
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_5D-vs-Nikon_D7000
So are you going to consider D7000 a bad high ISO performer? lol



> You wrote, "The a77 destroyed Professional Level cameras of Canon in Image Quality. Cameras that use much bigger sensor." Uh...not QUITE...the A77 fell FLAT ON ITS FACE at higher ISO values...the old Canon 5D performed the best of the three cameras that YOU chose to compare it with...but the Sony did have wider dynamic range and color depth and a marginally higher overall score...but let's say for lower-light shots, the roughly 800 score of the A77 versus the roughly 1300 score of the original Canon 5D...that's a poor performance for the new Sony against a camera that's about seven years old...



Oh right, 1D Mk II (APS-H) and 5D (Full Frame) that use much bigger sensors and much more expensive has better high ISO performance than the a77 that use smaller sensor. Well, bigger sensor supposed to do better in low light, right? But you can't change the fact that the a77 still has better IQ in low ISO than those Pro-level, bigger sensor, and much more expensive cameras could ever achieve in their low ISO. 



> As with most things in the photography world, there ARE trade-offs...from what I gather, the A77 24 MP sensor looks fine at lower ISO levels, but it LOSES DETAIL pretty fast as the ISO levels rise, and in fact, the degree of noise reduction needed at elevated ISO levels brings the overall resolution down to the 16.2 megapixel level of the "other Sony sensors" used by both Pentax in the K5 and Nikon in the D7000, and also the 17.8 MP (effective) MP sensor used in the Canon 7D. Also, the RAW files of the A77 are "cooked", to help alleviate all the danged noise the sensor and electronics create...a few years ago "cooked" RAW files was something people would scream about all day long on-line. Of course, now, with a 24 MP starting point, it seems like "cooked" RAW files and HEAVILY-cooked JPEG images from the A77 are actually a pretty good compromise, all things considered. There are now enough MP that some noise reduction, or even heavy NR, seems like a good trade-off to me, even if it effectively lowers the A77 from a 24 MP camera down to a 16- to 18-MP camera...that seems fine to me...



Many manufacturers have been secretly cooking Raws for years. Yes, even Nikon. I am surprised you didn't know that. a77 loses detail in high ISO. Yea, just like every single camera does. But still, a77 in ISO 1600 has better IQ than the 7D and way better than the D300s in their ISO 100. 



> I think if a person has Sony lenses and flashes, then they ought to look into the A77. If not, then there's not much need to look into the A77. As Pop Photo's Michael MacNamara wrote in his review, he thinks it's a good idea for Canon and Nikon users to "wait and see" what those companies come out with in the **video** front in their upcoming cameras...meaning it's nowhere near the blanket "Let's all migrate to Sony!!!" call to action that "some" people want to try and spin that one, single review into being.



Yes, Canon and Nikon should do "wait and see and shut up" lol 

You're supposed to be a Pro Derrel. But you're keep getting owned by me.


----------



## o hey tyler

EchoingWhisper said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, it's amazing people who shoot Canon can even take pictures! How do they even make images if the sensor is "behind" Nikon and Sony? Jeeze, I might as well throw away all my gear that renders awesome image quality on a 36x24mm full frame sensor and switch over to the APS-C, crippled in low light A77.
> 
> I bet we'll see all the big names, like Annie L, switch over to Sony from shooting Canon. I bet she'll hop right on the EVF bandwagon for all her studio work... Since you know, the EVF is the "next big thing." :lmao:
> 
> Really Argie, your posts are funny (because they're so amazingly far from the truth). But give it a rest. It's old now. You're a diehard Sony Fanboy and you refuse to admit it. Your previous forum posts prove so.
> 
> With that, I'm adding you to my ignore list. Have a great time continuing to be delusional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then if the low light abilities of the Sony sensors are so bad, how do they take picture? You ain't stupid ain't you? He's just stating the fact that Sony sensors are better than Canon when you're trying to say Sony sensors are bad. Protecting Canon eh?
Click to expand...


You've proven since you've been here that you have less than satisfactory reading comprehension. I am assuming this issue carried over into this thread for you.


----------



## Derrel

argieramos said:
			
		

> For your info Derrel, even your favorite D7000 got it's ass kicked at high ISO by the old  Canon 5D.
> Canon 5D vs Nikon D7000
> So are you going to consider D7000 a bad high ISO performer? lol



Argie, according to your own link above, they wrote: "
*1,368 ISO*vs*1,167 ISO*




The 5D has a slight edge (0.2 f-stops) in low noise, high ISO performance".





So, Argie, you consider 2/10 of one f/stop "getting its ass kicked"? You really are a delusional boy! Have a great week!


----------



## argieramos

Derrel said:
			
		

> Argie, according to your own link above, they wrote: "
> 1,368 ISOvs1,167 ISOThe 5D has a slight edge (0.2 f-stops) in low noise, high ISO performance".
> 
> 
> 
> So, Argie, you consider 2/10 of one f/stop "getting its ass kicked"? You really are a delusional boy! Have a great week!



Yes. If you look at the fact of how old the 1D MkII compare to the D7000.
Didn't you also say that 1D MkII kicked the a77 ass in high ISO? Go back to the 1D MkII and a77 comparison again then do the math and tell me which one of us is the real delusional. The slight advantage of the 5D to the D7000 is not a big deal to you, but it is on 1D MkII to the a77. You got an issue bro..


----------



## Nikon_Josh

Is it time to start posting 'stupid' you tube videos again yet? Where is 'unpopular' when you need him!


----------



## argieramos

Nikon_Josh said:


> Is it time to start posting 'stupid' you tube videos again yet? Where is 'unpopular' when you need him!



Posting "stupid" youtube video makes you more stupid than the video itself.


----------



## rexbobcat

argieramos said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Argie, according to your own link above, they wrote: "
> 1,368 ISOvs1,167 ISOThe 5D has a slight edge (0.2 f-stops) in low noise, high ISO performance".
> 
> 
> 
> So, Argie, you consider 2/10 of one f/stop "getting its ass kicked"? You really are a delusional boy! Have a great week!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. If you look at the fact of how old the 1D MkII compare to the D7000.
> Didn't you also say that 1D MkII kicked the a77 ass in high ISO? Go back to the 1D MkII and a77 comparison again then do the math and tell me which one of us is the real delusional. The slight advantage of the 5D to the D7000 is not a big deal to you, but it is on 1D MkII to the a77. You got an issue bro..
Click to expand...


Actually, from what I've seen, the A77's noise is luminance noise, while the 1D gives more color noise. The A77 probably has better ISO overall, because of newer sensors/processors, but it's kind of hard to compare two cameras that act completely differently.


----------

