Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Sony Alpha dSLR / Konica Minolta dSLR, Sony SLT

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 8, 2006, 2:39 PM   #21
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 36
Default

I think Sony is counting on their loyal Sony consumer customers who are getting into DSLRs for the first time. You know, the person who has Sony everything - TV, camcorder, DVD player, etc. And the loyal Sony customer is going to pay a little more for the Sony name even though the product may not be the best value for the money. The problem is that Sony is not the brand name it used to be.
sail978 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2006, 2:39 PM   #22
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
I followed your instructions (from the earlier thread) and it took care of some hot pixels (there were about 5 initially, only visible at 800 ISO or up). But the ones I have right now don't go away even after the remap (always bright at speeds slower than 1/8 and 400 ISO and up).
Make sure you've been using the camera for a while so that the CCD is warm (temperature can impact it). Then, try it again.

They may not have been hot enough for the firmware remap to find them. It will look for a brightness threshold before deciding if they are hot enough to be remapped or not. I don't know what "cutoff" it's using either (shutter speeds may be too slow for it to tryand remap them at 1/8 second).

It may take more than one try to get them all.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2006, 2:42 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 202
Default

Oh alright. I'll try this again. thanks!
maxxum7d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2006, 3:17 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
tmoreau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 477
Default

I shoot raw+jpg and see lots of hot pixels in the jpg's of my 30sec exposures, BUT the raw files come into pse4 with none!. This is with noise reduction turned off in camera and photoshop.

Has anyone else expierienced this?
tmoreau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2006, 3:18 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

JimC wrote:
Quote:
One more from Saturday Night. Hand Held using ISO 3200, Manual Exposure, 1/20 second, wide open at f/2 using a Minolta 100mm f/2.

Straight from the camera jpeg with no processing of any kind except for rotation and downsizing using the Lanczos algorithm in Irfanview, saving at 85% JPEG Quality for web viewing. EXIF in Image.

Cameras settings for sharpness, saturation atnormal. Camera setting for contrast was dialed back -1.


I made the mistake of leaving the sharpness bumped up 2 notches while shooting at a dance recital at 3200 ISO and there was more grain than I bargained for. I can always go back to the raw file or even reduce the JPG noise, but I think I'm better off working with raw.

I agree that Sony should have kept the ISO 3200.... is that something that could be upgraded through a firmware revision if they got enough complaints or is it a physical limitation of the CCD? I think it was smart of them to release an entry level model for now. Glad to see they added the anti-dust feature. Between the 10 megapixel, the stabilization, and the dust feature, they should be able to rope in some customers. Of course none of that will matter to the "blue bloods". I;m sure down the road, there will be a alpha/7D version. I wonder if that was part of KM's demise in coming out with the 7D before the 5D.

Funny... I was over at Circuit City today where I work to see if they had any 5Ds and they didn't. I started to pick up the Nikons, Canons, Olympus, etc. and not one of them felt that they had as comfortable a grip as my 7D. I like the fact that the grip is grooved out for the fingers including the shutter release area. I have small hands and the D-50 felt awful to hold. It was too small. The D-70 wasn't so bad and some of the other larger DSLRs, but nothing compares to the ergo feel of the 7D or the 5D. Of course that is just my observation and opinion. The more I think of it, how it feels while holding is one of the most important features.

meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2006, 3:43 PM   #26
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

You could simulate ISO 3200 by underexposing one stop and pushing it back up with software. Raw would be better for that purpose.

All most models with ISO 3200 are doing is multiplying the values in the raw file anyway.

That's why it's considered to be an "extended" mode with models that have it, since the signal is not being amplified prior to the Analog to Digital Converter. Instead, they're just multiplying the ouput values for each pixel to simulate more CCD sensitivity.

I still don't like 'em leaving it off (more tweaking required in Post Processing, and I wouldn't have straight from the camera jpeg images exposed properly at ISO 3200, since I'd need to underexpose to simulate it).


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2006, 11:44 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

JimC wrote:
Quote:
You could simulate ISO 3200 by underexposing one stop and pushing it back up with software. Raw would be better for that purpose.

All most models with ISO 3200 are doing is multiplying the values in the raw file anyway.

That's why it's considered to be an "extended" mode with models that have it, since the signal is not being amplified prior to the Analog to Digital Converter. Instead, they're just multiplying the ouput values for each pixel to simulate more CCD sensitivity.

I still don't like 'em leaving it off (more tweaking required in Post Processing, and I wouldn't have straight from the camera jpeg images exposed properly at ISO 3200, since I'd need to underexpose to simulate it).
I'm not sure why that helps, but it's because I just don't understand the concept of why you would want to underexpose and bump back up. When I read something like that it sounds like I'm just going back and forth. I'm sure it does something the way you're explaining it, but I just don't know what.
To me that sounds like underexposing one stop and pushing it back up just puts you back where you started, but that is because I don't understand what you achieve by doing that. I have a lot to learn and as I use the camera I find out new things.

For awhile I couldn't figure out why certain indoor shots were coming out with a sorta yellowish hue unless I used a flash. I felt it was white balance related or maybe I had to change color temperature. I read the chapter on the white balance and it turns out it was because I was running the white balance on auto. I had to put in manual and set it for tungsten lighting, which seems to give me the results I want. For awhile I thought something might be wrong with the camera. I feel it should work properly on AWB, but hey, it's just a machine.


meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2006, 4:21 AM   #28
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

meanstreak wrote:
Quote:
To me that sounds like underexposing one stop and pushing it back up just puts you back where you started, but that is because I don't understand what you achieve by doing that. I have a lot to learn and as I use the camera I find out new things.
You get shutter speeds twice as fast for the same lighting and aperture, just like using a higher ISO speed. You also get higher noise and lower dynamic range by underexposing and pushing back in PP. lol

Quote:
For awhile I couldn't figure out why certain indoor shots were coming out with a sorta yellowish hue unless I used a flash. I felt it was white balance related or maybe I had to change color temperature. I read the chapter on the white balance and it turns out it was because I was running the white balance on auto. I had to put in manual and set it for tungsten lighting, which seems to give me the results I want. For awhile I thought something might be wrong with the camera. I feel it should work properly on AWB, but hey, it's just a machine.
Most cameras have a problem with auto white balance in artificial lighting.



JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2006, 8:06 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 511
Default



When you begin to understand Kelin, its the best way to white balance jpeg.

Did I write that? Maybe not the very best way. I completly forgot about cards. Just haven't used a card lately. No, I don't trust the camera. Kelvin is quick and quite accurate once you have a grip on it.

Cards are great for getting white balance. I only wish my 5D would tell me the Kelvin it read from the card so that next time I encountered that same light I could just set the Kelvin and go on.
Tazzie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2006, 9:28 AM   #30
E.T
Senior Member
 
E.T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 921
Default

meanstreak wrote:
Quote:
I agree that Sony should have kept the ISO 3200.... is that something that could be upgraded through a firmware revision if they got enough complaints or is it a physical limitation of the CCD?
Might be that 10MP sensor (very propably same as in Nikon D200) is noisier than lower megapixel count sensors used in KM dSLRs and Canon and that heavier NR is harder to get through in dSLRs market.


Quote:
I have small hands and the D-50 felt awful to hold.* It was too small...
but nothing compares to the ergo feel of the 7D or the 5D.
Ain't the only one too small, Canon 350D's handgrip feels like that of Point&Pray "ultra"zooms.
No wonder, handgrip of 7D and 5D seems very similar to A2 which is very good, size is just right and it isn't either too angular or too rounded.


JimC wrote:
Quote:
You can even get a pocket camera with ISO 3200 now (the Fuji F30 has ISO 3200).
Speaking of it that model seems to be vapourware when it comes to reviews... Guess I have to assume it means that 3200 and claims about its "super" sensor won't withstand closer inspection.
E.T is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:45 AM.