a200 high iso performance

[marcomariano]

hi sony/km users, i'm a canonite that almost becoming a sonynite 4months ago. =)

i almost got my self a100 because 4months ago(september '07), all a100 prices

suddenly droped down all across sony shops in singapore(i dont know about other

countries). but a night or 2 before buying a100, i search the net looking for a

comparison between a100 & 400d. one thing all reviews have to say. for a100

(features 9/10, performance 6/10) and 400d (features 8/10, performance 8/10).

one more thing, sony may have lots of glasses nowadays but still more expesive

than leading competition like the 70-200f2.8, sony's is USD2000 and canon's is

only USD1600 with IS already. but glasses really doesnt bother that much coz

theres alot of 3rd partie around.

 

ok, enough of the past... what drives suddenly switch to canon is the poor

performance of a100 at high iso, all of those reviews saying that iso400 is

unusable all ready. but i'm still not counting out sony and still getting the

new a200. how does the new iso performance of a200 compared to a100? doest is

improve dramatically? if it so, i may be changing gears to sony since i dont

have that much canon accessories yet.

 

hope to hear fair answers from you...

[drjedsmith]

Hello Marco,<BR>

There is really no visible difference between any new DSLRs at ISO 100-400. You may be able to see a tiny difference when pixel peeping, but I guarantee if you make prints from theses cameras, you will not see any noticeable difference. ISO 800 and up is where the difference may be.<BR>

Of course the processing onboard the A200 will be a little tweaked for better performance, since time has passed and SONY has learned a few things. I'm sure it will be a little better, as it offers up to ISO 3200, whereas the A100 topped out at ISO 1600.<BR>

Marketing aside, what that really means is ISO 800 and possibly 1600 will be usable, and 3200 is there if you get in a pinch. At least that's the way I look at it. :-)<BR>

Jed

[John Seaman]

I don't know where you have read that the Alpha 100 is unusable at ISO 400. I normally keep mine on 400 and the images are quite free of noise. I've also used 800 and 1600 in low light, 800 seems fine, there's clearly more noise at 1600.

 

I sometimes think the reviews build on each other rather than being based on the actual performance.

[marcomariano]

john, heres one from dcresource. compare the a100's iso400 to 400d's iso1600. imo, they are thesame regardless of the available light.

 

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dslr_a100-review/index.shtml

 

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/digital_rebel_xti-review/index.shtml

 

one more from dpreview

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/page27.asp

 

"I normally keep mine on 400 and the images are quite free of noise"

 

its up to your own judgement if an image is noisy or not. for me, thise image of a100 taken at iso400 is noisy already. i'm more of a night shooter thats why i'm sensitive with regards to noise, specialy night shots. just for the record, i also keep images taken at iso1600 from my 400d even though is noisy.

[steve_c.5]

If you want better performance in the noise department, and want the advantages of the Sony platform (built-in stabilization) spend the extra money for the A700. It's SIGNIFICANTLY cleaner at high ISO than my A100.

[marcomariano]

i'm choosing between pentax and sony for 2 main reasons and the most abvious advantage over the big2(Canon & Nikon). built in OIS and DR(not for Canon). i dont mind the lens lineup since there are lots of 3rd parteis around. i will wait til a200 and k20d or k200d, pops in the market.

[bjmarkowitz]

Marco, the thing is with the sony lineup over the canon and nikons is that you do not need to switch to a higher ISO for low light when you can use the anti-shake technology to handhold in low light. That is a major advantage.