Calling all Sony Alpha users! (Part 3)

Status
Not open for further replies.

stan the man

Nutkicker
Messages
7,299
Name
mark
Edit My Images
Yes
thanks fabs, yes sorry I did mean 8GB. I don't know what RAW or JPG are, I do have an idea what megapixels are.

hi fritter,and welcome :wave:

basically,RAW files are uncompressed,so you can alter/adjust exposure ect in your RAW converter before converting to JPEG file...great if that once in a lifetime shot is under/over exposed...

JPEG's are files which the camera compresses,ie: makes all the choices for you in camera,so you are unable to adjust exposure,white balance etc...so if that once in a lifetime shot is under/over exposed...then it's generally a delete job.
 
wow, thanks Stan. you just opened my eyes. I have the manual and camera here now. Its a whole new avenue I hadn't noticed before. Incidentally I don't like this manual seems very poor for a novice like me.
 
wow, thanks Stan. you just opened my eyes. I have the manual and camera here now. Its a whole new avenue I hadn't noticed before. Incidentally I don't like this manual seems very poor for a novice like me.

Anything specific you want to know, just ask here. There are a few A300 users around, but I'm sure it's not that different to the other models in terms of use.
 
wow, thanks Stan. you just opened my eyes. I have the manual and camera here now. Its a whole new avenue I hadn't noticed before. Incidentally I don't like this manual seems very poor for a novice like me.

don't worry...you'll soon get the hang of it,it's just getting decent shots that's the hard bit ;)

the manual isn't that bad really...i vcan thorougly recommend getting bryan peterson's book "understanding exposure",and gary friedmans book on the A200/300 and 350 are highly recommended also (y)

http://www.friedmanarchives.com/alpha350/index.htm
 
The understanding exposure book is immense :D

I have bought the digital field guide for my a200 which is really helpful as well as it goes into more detail on what each button on the camera does.
 
if you want to cover all bases you can shoot in RAW+JPEG (& indeed choose what quality of jpeg).
 
hi fritter,and welcome :wave:

basically,RAW files are uncompressed,so you can alter/adjust exposure ect in your RAW converter before converting to JPEG file...great if that once in a lifetime shot is under/over exposed...

JPEG's are files which the camera compresses,ie: makes all the choices for you in camera,so you are unable to adjust exposure,white balance etc...so if that once in a lifetime shot is under/over exposed...then it's generally a delete job.


Not quite true;) A raw file can be compressed or un-compressed, A RAW file is basically the data captured by the camera's sensor without any in-camera (or minimal) processing they will usually contain a lot more data than a jpg file and are considerably larger. a D300 will produce both 12 & 14 bit RAW images where as a jpg is normally 8bit.

A JPG image is processed in camera using user definable settings for things like colour, sharpness, saturation etc depending on the camera and is compressed and only usually contains 8-bit data.
 
Not quite true;) A raw file can be compressed or un-compressed, A RAW file is basically the data captured by the camera's sensor without any in-camera (or minimal) processing they will usually contain a lot more data than a jpg file and are considerably larger. a D300 will produce both 12 & 14 bit RAW images where as a jpg is normally 8bit.

A JPG image is processed in camera using user definable settings for things like colour, sharpness, saturation etc depending on the camera and is compressed and only usually contains 8-bit data.

thanks paul....you put it much better than i could (y)
 
I`ve been photographing using jpg + raw lately so that I could get home and then Upload pcs straight away. After a bit of thought though I'm usually editing pictures a little at least before uploading so I am starting to do purely in raw now.
 
RAW doesn't afaik take advantage fully of DRO though (although I don't know how good/much use DRO is on a A200/A300/A350).
 
RAW doesn't afaik take advantage fully of DRO though (although I don't know how good/much use DRO is on a A200/A300/A350).

If you use the Sony supplied IDC converter for raw files a certain amount of DRO processing is possible but nowhere near as much as the camera generated jpegs can produce.

A problem is that with DRO active the camera will underexpose so it can protect the highlight end to extract an optimised file. Even taking raw only you will get a dark raw file. BUT the danger is that what you see on the LCD is DRO camera processed - which you will not necessarily be able to replicate when you process the raw file. What you see is NOT what you will get in the raw file.

DRO is best left off when taking only raw.
 
If you use the Sony supplied IDC converter for raw files a certain amount of DRO processing is possible but nowhere near as much as the camera generated jpegs can produce.

A problem is that with DRO active the camera will underexpose so it can protect the highlight end to extract an optimised file. Even taking raw only you will get a dark raw file. BUT the danger is that what you see on the LCD is DRO camera processed - which you will not necessarily be able to replicate when you process the raw file. What you see is NOT what you will get in the raw file.

DRO is best left off when taking only raw.

Strangely I find that not to be the case. I have DRO set to auto and shoot only in RAW, yet I find, if anything, the results are a little over exposed. :shrug:
 
Strangely I find that not to be the case. I have DRO set to auto and shoot only in RAW, yet I find, if anything, the results are a little over exposed. :shrug:

Have you tried taking two otherwise identical shots one with and one without DRO on?
 
OK, had a quick play.

These are both as shot, nothing done at all other than saved as jpegs. Not sure if I can spot any difference if I'm honest.

DRO Auto

DRO_auto.jpg


DRO Off

DRO_off.jpg
 
OK, had a quick play.

These are both as shot, nothing done at all other than saved as jpegs. Not sure if I can spot any difference if I'm honest.

There's more detail on the owl's face area with DRO on and generally the highlights are down ... but both look overexposed to me anyway.
 
There's more detail on the owl's face area with DRO on and generally the highlights are down ... but both look overexposed to me anyway.

Yeah, you could be right about the detail in the face. The pics were taken in aperture priority with no exposure compensation so that's probably why they're both over-exposed, although well within the range to be easily recovered. Really must get myself a light meter. ;)
 
DRO is best left off when taking only raw.


Strangely I had a go at Jpeg shooting the other month and set the DRO on the A700 to the highest level to check the results. Some images came out very well indeed with great control on the shadow area.

I switched back to RAW and left DRO alone as it was and noticed that the RAWs were coming out more pinky or slightly orange, expecially the skin tones. I was under the impression that DRO didn't alter the RAW image. I turned off the DRO to be safe and got better looking RAW shots after that - back to what they were like before I'd altered the settings.
 
I was just wondering if a Slingshot 100 would be big enough for my A300?

Depends what you want to put in the cag with it. It'll certainly be big enough for the A300 and a few lenses and probably a few other bits and pieces.
 
I switched back to RAW and left DRO alone as it was and noticed that the RAWs were coming out more pinky or slightly orange, expecially the skin tones. I was under the impression that DRO didn't alter the RAW image. I turned off the DRO to be safe and got better looking RAW shots after that - back to what they were like before I'd altered the settings.
I believe that using DRO sets flags in the RAW file which IDC at default settings automatically cues on.
The problem with DRO is that sometimes it seems to be capable of producing better results than you can get even from RAW & pp but it's very hard to judge under which conditions this will happen ...
I seem to recall David Kilpatrick writing an article or 2 on it.
 
I was just wondering if a Slingshot 100 would be big enough for my A300?

I have a Slingshot 200 and its fits my a350 nicely along with four lenses, flashgun and chargers.

The Slingshot 100 might be good for the camera and 2 addtional lenses.
 
I have the slingshot 100 and it fits my a200 perfectly :D Only have the one lens atm but there is room for a decent telephoto in there as well as prime.

There is also room for 4 cf cards inside as well as a section on the top that holds my charger, USB cable and any other bits I have lying around that might be useful.

There is also a screen protector cloth built in which is nice as well as a Weatherproof cover although i havent tried this yet as its tucked away at the bottom and I dont fancy trying to push it back in :D
 
Cheers for the replies folks, I think I will go for the AW100 just now, aside from my A300, Kit Lens and a CF Card I don't have anything else yet, although I'm going to get some cleaning kit, a second CF card and at least one more lens in the not too distant future.
As long as I have room for my camera, 2-3 lens, my wallet, mobile and iPod it'll do for me for now!
 
hi guys
been looking in2 getting the sony 70-200G - but funds may not allow:( how does the sigma 70-200 f2.8 do? mostly for motorsports(y)
cheers
 
hi guys
been looking in2 getting the sony 70-200G - but funds may not allow:( how does the sigma 70-200 f2.8 do? mostly for motorsports(y)
cheers

Will it be long enough for motorsports? You may want to look at the Sony 70-300 G lens. Not as fast as the 70-200, but a very good lens with a better reach and less dosh than the Sigma 70-200.
 
70-400mm G SSM should also be out at the end of the month ~£1100 plus or minus if you need the extra reach.
 
hi guys
been looking in2 getting the sony 70-200G - but funds may not allow:( how does the sigma 70-200 f2.8 do? mostly for motorsports(y)
cheers

the sigma fairs quite well in reviews,and will be okay for tracks like mallory,oulton etc,where you are reasonably close to the circuit,but may not have enough reach for tracks like silverstone and brands...

p.s.was talking in general about any 70-200 (y)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top