Is there much web IQ difference between Sony A68 and the A7 series.

[JBW]

Sony A68

Sony Alpha a77

As I read the specs they seem pretty close with the A77 having a lot more sand and moisture protection which would contribute to the significantly higher price.

I would like to go for a modest increase in web IQ. I say modest because my MS is acting up with new symptoms and a seriously better IQ would cost way to much.

Balance and vision are playing silly games with me.

Yesterday I tripped while walking and was thankful that I didn't have my camera with me. It would quite annoy me to bust an expensive camera. Not nearly as annoying to bust a $600 camera.

My eyes are changing on a daily basis. Sometimes my prescription is fine (like today) Sometimes I use my distance glasses for computer work. Again annoying and I would not like to have them change and stay in a way that would turn an expensive camera into a paperweight.

I wouldn't mind exploring other brands as long as they are in the 500 to 700 range and will with the right lens do good macro, in garden and the occasional wide field deep space shot.

Brian
Ps I must admit I am partial to the A68.
PPS Myra would be using the A58.
PPPS I've had MS for going on 40 years and I've always found a work around, no doubt such will be the case once again.
Brian

[xpatUSA]

Hello Brian,

If your only concern per the thread title is how it looks on the web, then there is no difference betwixt the two, in spite of what pixel peepers might say, IMHO.

I base this bold statement on the necessary down-sampling to post here at, say,1600px wide. Down-sampling is a great equalizer as far as "IQ" is concerned.

I have to opine that your A58 is more than good enough for posting on the web. So my advice would be to keep it and buy the good woman whatever suits her (I bought a Panasonic LX7 for mine (love that lens) but she has never used to this very day).

At my age, I sympathize with your condition and my trivial ills do indeed pale into insignificance by comparison.

[JBW]

Hello Brian,

If your only concern per the thread title is how it looks on the web, then there is no difference betwixt the two, in spite of what pixel peepers might say, IMHO.

I have to opine that your A58 is more than good enough for posting on the web. So my advice would be to keep it and buy the good woman whatever suits her (I bought a Panasonic LX7 for mine (love that lens) but never used to this very day).

At my age, I sympathize with your condition and my trivial ills do indeed pale into insignificance by comparison.

Actually she has told me to buy what I want and she'll be happy with the A58.

[xpatUSA]

Actually she has told me to buy what I want and she'll be happy with the A58.

In that case, it's your choice Brian, and I withdraw my recommendation. My comment re: IQ (the subject of this thread) stands.

Ted.

[Manfred M]

+1 to Ted's comments.

I assume you are looking at the images on your laptop, which is likely no more than a 2MB display (2000 x 1000 pixels, or there about), so anything over a 2MB camera will be downsampled and you will be throwing away most of the data your camera recorded. Large megapixel counts only matter if you are making prints (and large format prints at that).

[JBW]

+1 to Ted's comments.

I assume you are looking at the images on your laptop, which is likely no more than a 2MB display (2000 x 1000 pixels, or there about), so anything over a 2MB camera will be downsampled and you will be throwing away most of the data your camera recorded. Large megapixel counts only matter if you are making prints (and large format prints at that).

in reality I upgraded top a pretty nice custom built desktop a couple of months back. 4 cores and lots of bells and whistles. But my monitor is not quite up to scratch.

[george013]

in reality I upgraded top a pretty nice custom built desktop a couple of months back. 4 cores and lots of bells and whistles. But my monitor is not quite up to scratch.

Don't obey she who must be obeyed.

If mold is the main reason to change camera, buy a humidity regulated cabinet. Or use just one with some reusable gel. Or just rice, you must have a lot of it.
More pixels, more af-points, more, more...... What do you use? You know our limitations and you know your future. Beside that cabinet a good monitor makes a hell of a difference, for you.

George

[billtils]

Brian


I'd very much agree with the drift of the above. The "upgrade" camera is up to you re yes/no and if yes, which. I'd also strongly recommend upgrading the monitor - first priority in fact.

Reading the original "mould" thread, the answer seems to be keep it nice and dry in storage and in a sealed poly bag when you go out and only remove when it has equilibrated to the new temp; and it's not clear (at least to me) that there is an upgrade that will cure the problem in itself.

I'm sure all of us here send our best wishes and hopes regarding management of your MS.

[JBW]

Brian


I'd very much agree with the drift of the above. The "upgrade" camera is up to you re yes/no and if yes, which. I'd also strongly recommend upgrading the monitor - first priority in fact.

Reading the original "mould" thread, the answer seems to be keep it nice and dry in storage and in a sealed poly bag when you go out and only remove when it has equilibrated to the new temp; and it's not clear (at least to me) that there is an upgrade that will cure the problem in itself.

I'm sure all of us here send our best wishes and hopes regarding management of your MS.

so far so good

[Manfred M]

But my monitor is not quite up to scratch.

For a photographer, the most important component is a good computer screen that is capable of displaying at least 100% of the sRGB colour space. Photo editing does not require a particularly powerful computer, but the screen is everything.

[JBW]

For a photographer, the most important component is a good computer screen that is capable of displaying at least 100% of the sRGB colour space. Photo editing does not require a particularly powerful computer, but the screen is everything.

I didn't mean that my monitor wasn't good. It is the monitor i did most of the pp work with Robber Fly shot. But it is a few years old and undoubtedly there are better monitors out there.

[Manfred M]

I didn't mean that my monitor wasn't good. It is the monitor i did most of the pp work with Robber Fly shot. But it is a few years old and undoubtedly there are better monitors out there.

That does not answer the question - is it 100% sRGB compliant? If it isn't, that is problematic. If that is not mentioned in the specs it is a safe assumption that it is not.

As for the Robber Fly shot, this is irrelevant to the discussion.

[JBW]

That does not answer the question - is it 100% sRGB compliant? If it isn't, that is problematic. If that is not mentioned in the specs it is a safe assumption that it is not.

As for the Robber Fly shot, this is irrelevant to the discussion.

Can't find it mentioned.

How so? The Robber Fly shot was dependent upon many thing not the least of was other people seeing what I posted. My colors and their colors (yours included) must be close enough as no one mentioned how off the colors were on their monitor.

[Manfred M]

Can't find it mentioned.

How so? The Robber Fly shot was dependent upon many thing not the least of was other people seeing what I posted. My colors and their colors (yours included) must be close enough as no one mentioned how off the colors were on their monitor.

The only time I mention colours being off is when this is obvious. With your Robber Fly, I cannot tell. Insects can have strange and interesting colours, so I have no idea as to the correct colouration as I am not familiar with the insects in your part of the world. Nor do we know what the other viewers of that image are using

What I do know is that my screen is 100% sRGB compliant. It says so on the spec sheet and also says it is 99% AdobeRGB compliant (also on the spec sheet). It shipped with a calibration chart that is specific to my screen confirming that it was tested and meets those specs. I have it set up using using a hardware profiling device. I have set it to an output level of 100 nits and use it in a room when the light levels at the work surface are between 40 and 70 lux. This setup meets CAPA image judging requirements.

I suspect that few people run their equipment set up this precisely; but I do know that when I look at colours, I can positively say that I am confident that the colours are being displayed accurately.

[JBW]

The only time I mention colours being off is when this is obvious. With your Robber Fly, I cannot tell. Insects can have strange and interesting colours, so I have no idea as to the correct colouration as I am not familiar with the insects in your part of the world. Nor do we know what the other viewers of that image are using

What I do know is that my screen is 100% sRGB compliant. It says so on the spec sheet and also says it is 99% AdobeRGB compliant (also on the spec sheet). It shipped with a calibration chart that is specific to my screen confirming that it was tested and meets those specs. I have it set up using using a hardware profiling device. I have set it to an output level of 100 nits and use it in a room when the light levels at the work surface are between 40 and 70 lux. This setup meets CAPA image judging requirements.

I suspect that few people run their equipment set up this precisely; but I do know that when I look at colours, I can positively say that I am confident that the colours are being displayed accurately.

Fair enough. But you make my case. Why would my monitor not being certified be a problem at all. All that seemingly matters is that I, you and others all agree that whatever I'm putting out looks good on our own screens.

What matters is not what standard our monitors perform to but that they show a picture comparable to wjhat the sender posted.

[Manfred M]

What matters is not what standard our monitors perform to but that they show a picture comparable to wjhat the sender posted.

And how can you know what that is?

So far as I know, there is only one way to do this. If you and I are using a computer screen that shows the entire colour space and both have been calibrated and profiled and we are using them in an appropriately lit workspace, they then we can both say we are looking at the same image. If that is not the case, we have no idea.

Whenever I look at an image that anyone posts, so long as the colour space has been embedded in the file, I can definitely say I can see the image and any comments I make regarding colours, contrast, exposure, etc. is accurate and can be trusted.

When I look at the Robber Fly image, my initial reaction is that it has a blue colour cast and likely needs to be a bit warmer.

If I say that, how do I know that you are seeing my "correction" in the same way that I do? How can we have a meaningful discussion on this when we are not looking at the same image?

[billtils]

Brian

Perhaps you could shed some light on things and tell us what monitor you use and how it is calibrated?

Thanks

[JBW]

Brian

Perhaps you could shed some light on things and tell us what monitor you use and how it is calibrated?

Thanks

It's an Acer and I calibrae with the NVIDIA control panel. I believe that you and I can both see the differences in the shots Grumpy just posted. And that's the point I'm trying to make.

Manfred has a world class setup and environment. If i'm right and we can both see the difference that he sees albeit not exactly the same differences isn't that what matters.

Manfred if we take your argument to its logical conclusion CiC should fold up its tent and ride into the desert. You argue that for any meaningful discussion to occur we need to start from a commons vision.

I argue that it is impossible to achieve that commonality. Still and all we can have meaningful discussions.

What you see as a blue tint I see as shadows and light coming through a window. I will never see what you see because I don't have a dedicated room set to world class standards. That doesn't mean we can't discuss shots.

[Manfred M]

It's an Acer

That's a make, not a model, so more information is needed. I happen to use a Benq, but not all their screen models are sRGB compliant. If you know the model number and look up the spec sheet and it says 100% sRGB compliant, then it is. If the spec sheet does not, then it is not.

I calibrae with the NVIDIA control panel.

It's not possible to do this without an external calibration tool, so you cannot be calibrating but rather are making adjustments.

I believe that you and I can both see the differences in the shots Grumpy just posted. And that's the point I'm trying to make.

And you are missing the point. Unless you have a compliant and calibrated screen, you can see that there are differences, but you don't know if you are seeing the correct colours

Manfred has a world class setup and environment. If i'm right and we can both see the difference that he sees albeit not exactly the same differences isn't that what matters.

Again, not correct. I have a decent setup, but certainly not "world class", but one that is good enough. I have been in "world class" editing environments and my setup is not there.

Seeing the differences in the images is not enough. Seeing them correctly is important.

Manfred if we take your argument to its logical conclusion CiC should fold up its tent and ride into the desert. You argue that for any meaningful discussion to occur we need to start from a commons vision.

Part of CiC's role is help and education. We are trying to educate people on what is important and not.

This discussion is no different than when someone asks "which camera model should I buy" or which "lens should I buy". These discussions tend to revolve around what the photographer is trying to do and his or her skill level.

I argue that it is impossible to achieve that commonality. Still and all we can have meaningful discussions.

What you see as a blue tint I see as shadows and light coming through a window. I will never see what you see because I don't have a dedicated room set to world class standards. That doesn't mean we can't discuss shots.

The commonality is creating images and as one's knowledge and skills improve upping one's skill level.


Let me go back to the original problem you identified:

1. You are getting mould in your current camera body and were hoping to prevent this from happening by replacing it with a weather sealed model so this does not happen in the future. The answer you got was that this solution would not work as mould spores would still get inside and would flourish in the environment where you live. The solution that was proposed was that you consider getting a humidity controlled storage solution to protect your camera bodies and lenses.

Sealed cameras are useless, unless coupled with sealed lenses. These tend to be higher end and can usually be identified because they have an elastomer gasket around the lens mount.

The storage bag with desiccant that you current store in will not work.

2. The story then changed a bit where the problem was fogging when you took your camera outside into a warmer, humid environment. Again the sealed body (and lens) is not a solution. The problem is caused by the temperature differential between the storage environment and the shooting environment. The only way to solve this issue is to allow the camera and lens to warm up to a point were condensation is not an issue.

A sealed body is a partial solution, but you still have the issue of the front element of the lens, which will fog over, even if it is a sealed lens. If not, the moisture can work its way into interior lens elements and clearing this problem will taken quite some time.

3. A few of us suggested that rather than spending money on a new camera, investing in a new camera body as an obvious way for you to continue your photographic growth.

A new computer screen is not nearly as "sexy" as other types of photography equipment, but as it is the most frequently used tool in ones work, it is a wonder why this situation exists at all. A lot of people will spend all kinds of money on a new computer system; fast processor, fast video card, etc. without analyzing what these contribute to their workflow.

Most computer systems target either the "office user" who uses basic office software, works in a bright environment and spends time looking at web sites. None of these are particularly resource intensive users. At the other end are the computer gamers who need the video processing power to play games. These are the two audiences that computer sales people are most familiar with and have no issues in steering them in the right direction. Other less known uses like photo editing, video editing or creating artwork on a computer all have different requirement and most computer sales people don't have a clue on what these users need.

The photo editing side of this group is the one that is easiest to handle; they don't need a particularly powerful multi-processor computer running a 64-bit operating system. Editing still images is not particularly resource intensive, so a decent mid-range computer with a decent amount of RAM is all that is required. A good mid-range video card with at least 2 GB on-board video RAM is quite main stream. What is important is a good computer screen that can accurately display at least the sRGB colour space (AdobeRGB is you plan to do your own prints) and it must be calibrated and profiled using a relatively inexpensive hardware profiling device from xRite or Datacolour. Higher end screens made for this type of work typically require a higher end profiling device.

[billtils]

... accurately display at least the sRGB colour space (AdobeRGB is you plan to do your own prints) ...

Interesting snippet there Manfred. Why would you need to go AdobeRGB and not sRGB to print? I ask because I have recently been using a respected local print shop rather than doing it myself, and they specify that uploads must be sRGB.

Just curious ...