Sony Digital Camera Forums
Sony DSLR, SLT, NEX, & Mirrorless Discussion => Sony Alpha SLT Camera Discussion => Topic started by: AScot on March 11, 2017, 12:37:16 AM
Gary L. Friedman posted a test he made comparing the Sony A99 II and Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 with the Sony RX-10 II. See it Here. (http://friedmanarchives.blogspot.ca/2017/03/full-frame-vs-small-sensor-dont-laugh.html)
hopefully im replying to what you are talking about, he does emphasis that in the right favourable conditions there is little difference in the cameras, but what about in less favourable conditions
I have the Friedman archive sent to me so read it this morning Charles. The unfavourable conditions are the tails on the Bell curve Brian.
I could pick differences in the chain wire fence but hey, you are more likely to have the little one in your pocket than carry the big one and the best camera is the one you have with you.... john
I was unsure that I was reading Gary's comparison correctly. I got the impression that perhaps he was saying to the reader that there was no need to purchase an expensive camera like the A99II when a much cheaper camera, like the Sony RX-10II, was sufficient. Actually, he used the Sony RX100 M5 for the first photos showing the old Vegas barn and the Sony RX10 for the photos showing his hairy head. :|
I loaded his photos into Photoshop CC 2017 and Performed all the usual checks and there is no way that these cheaper cameras can produce the versatile photo files of those of the A99II. There is no doubt that they are good, but the detail in the A99II is superior when you look very closely. This allows for much greater enlargements or cropping to save or improve a photo. That may be his point, for smaller enlargements or no cropping, the cheaper cameras are adequate, but we all knew that, did we not? Of course, much of it greatly depends on the quality of the lenses, lighting and the settings used. However the A99II is a more expensive camera for many other reasons than obtaining large prints or cropping to improve a poor photo.
BTW, I was able to SEE the differences in the images... on my laptop screen.
And while the smaller sensor really is good, it just isn't up to the standards of the A99II with dedicated CZ lenses.
In a pinch, John is 100% correct. But I plan to buy the A99II and NOT the RX100 OR RX10. For that price I can buy another lens. ;)
i am loving my A99II - now that im getting to know how to use it lol. when comparing it to my A77 there seems to be so much more you can do with it. I guess it depends what you want with your pics, yes a cheaper camera will suit many people and that is all they will ever need. You can compare it to cars, some own a lamborgine and others a lada (sorry lada fans), both will do the job of getting you from a to b ............ and im very close to the lada end of the scale in case you were wondering. i had Gary Friedmans book on the A77 and found it of great use, i will be getting the A99II book when he releases it.
^^^That's an opinion I agree with 100%. ;)
Yes CHOLLY I also could see differences.
Note that the Vegas photos were taken with the A99II at 50mm, 1/320, f8 and the RX100 M5 at 70mm, 1/800, f6.3. These RX100 M5 settings are equivalent 35mm settings as the smaller sensor camera is really 25.7mm, 1/800, f2.7. At 50mm the A99II has a field of view of 39.6o and at 25.7mm the RX100M5 has a field of view of 28.8o all of which explains the differences in perspective, making it difficult to compare anything. (Notice that the Jeremy's sign and distant hills appears much closer in the RX100 M5 photo.)
Brian, what is a Lada? A Russian car? Fortunately, we do not have them here in North America. Lada is not even in my dictionary. :) We have Kia's as cheap cars. (although they are also quite good).
we also have Kia, im pretty sure the Lada was originaly Checkoslavkian, or probably Russian, they are available here, but quite rare and yes they are a good cheaper option similar to the Kia.
Lada were Russian, and sold all over Europe I believe.
You can find out more on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lada (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lada) if you're interested :)
Getting back on topic, from a quick read through the tests just confirm what we already knew;
1) Compact & Bridge cameras are getting ever more capable (particularly if you go to the top end of the market).
2) If you're trying to get large DOF in strongly lit conditions you're playing to the strengths of Smaller sensor cameras, so the differences with large sensor cameras will be minimised.
3) Where a large sensor and high quality lens show through is when you move into more difficult areas - low light, fast accurate AF, larger DR, etc.
For some, the RX10 and RX100 will be all the camera they need, for others, only a large sensor, interchangeable lens camera will do :)