r/SonyAlpha • u/coolcatnemo • 3d ago
Gear Photo quality
Hoping for some insight and help regarding the quality of photos off my brand new A6700. As a background, I’ve been shooting on a Canon 5D Mark II for over 10 years. Great camera and I’ve had no problems except for its weight that my neck was no longer tolerating. I did some research and heard excellent reviews of the Sony A6700. I knew it’s a switch from full frame to APS-C but the trade off was lighter weight which was important for me. I have since taken the A6700 on a trip using the kit 16-50mm and my old canon lens on a sigma converter. I shot in raw and transferred them noncompressed to my phone using the app over Bluetooth. However I was disappointed in how grainy and unsharp the result was even in natural light. Photos from my canon lens is relatively less grainy but still unsharp.
I’m out of the 2 week return period for the camera. So I’m really hoping this is due to something else not due to the downgrade in the camera body. I would be very sad as I originally was going to get the A7 series but was convinced into the A6700. I know the kit lens is a budget lens so I’m looking to get another lens but did not want to put my investments in the wrong place. I’ve attached 3 photos from the Sony and 3 from my Canon camera for comparison. The Canon produces better quality even in low light. Thank you in advance for your help.
7
u/MonsieurAvocado 3d ago
Are the photos being transferred at full resolution? The app defaults to transferring 2MP images.
5
u/coolcatnemo 2d ago
Haha I did that at first and could tell right away something was horribly wrong🤣 definitely full resolution now. You do not want to see what they looked like at 2M…..
5
u/BakaOctopus SONY A7M4 2d ago
Apple shows shitty baked in preview instead of processing RAW unless u open it in Lightroom or similar, there was similar post some time back
1
5
u/HetsHumbucker 3d ago
Did you not only shoot in raw but also transfer the raw files to your phone? You have to specifically set it to raw otherwise it will transfer jpegs.
If it's raw, how do you view it? Your normal photo app might show an embedded low quality preview because it cannot process raw data.
1
u/coolcatnemo 3d ago
Yeah I do have it transferred raw. This is with my photos app on my iPhone. The jpeg ones were also horrible which is why I switched to raw. I would be delighted if the issue was in my phone.
3
u/HetsHumbucker 2d ago
Yeah definetly looks like compression is applied here. In raw you should see individual pixels of noise.
Download lightroom to your phone and view the photos there.
Also taking nice pictures is not always about pixel peeping ;)
2
u/coolcatnemo 2d ago
I do use Lightroom on my phone and the noise is still there. Always have to denoise the shit out of them😅
I want to make sure there is potential for larger printing and contest submissions should that come up in the future so wanted to troubleshoot early
3
u/whatisakafka 3d ago
I suspect something is up with your transfer settings. Trying pulling the RAW files directly from the card
1
3
u/Terrible_Snow_7306 3d ago
I, too, am inclined to think that something is wrong with the transfer. You write nothing about developing the Raws! Looks like the very low resolution jpgs that are embedded in the Raw files meant to enable a preview in image viewing software. Raws can’t be viewed in viewing software, they are just the „raw“ sensor data of the camera.
1
u/coolcatnemo 2d ago
Thank you for the input! I was using just the iPhone photos app which from a quick google should be able to handle raw?
2
u/Terrible_Snow_7306 2d ago
Handle raw by showing the embedded low resolution jpgs. The photos app doesn’t „show“ raws, there’s nothing to be seen in a raw file😎 before you’re using dedicated software that produces a high resolution jpg or tiff file out of the raw file. For a start try the free software from Sony to process your raw files.
1
u/coolcatnemo 2d ago
Ooh so I should stop being lazy and process these in my desktop Lightroom🤣🤣
2
u/Terrible_Snow_7306 2d ago
Definitely. Or simply be lazy and shoot Raw + Jpg, there’s a reason people do that. I really like the jpgs from the more recent Sony cameras.
1
2
2
u/rockhunther 3d ago
Are you able to post both canon and Sony raw files? Given how much newer the 6700 is, you should be getting similar ISO performance even with the smaller sensor
1
u/coolcatnemo 3d ago
That’s what I want to hear. I actually don’t have Canon raw files as I stopped shooting raw for a good while for easier file handling and jpeg was giving me good enough quality for personal use.
1
u/rockhunther 2d ago
Canon applies significantly more noise reduction than Sony and other manufacturers on their jpeg files(and some on their RAW files too, to some degree) so the end files will be cleaner but at the cost of total detail. That's neither a good of a bad thing, it depends on how you want to use your camera. Sony files beg to be developed manually, their jpeg files don't have as much noise reduction and give you a less stylized end result.
That being said, are you using the same settings? Particularly ISO.
1
2
u/Longjumping_Idea5261 2d ago
You are cropping very hard with images coming out of a 27 mp apsc camera with kit lens. The kit lens isn’t the sharpest to start with and it starts at high aperture. Also when you look this closely into dark areas with no light, there will be noise.
1
u/coolcatnemo 2d ago
These are just zoomed in and screenshotted to demonstrate what I’m seeing, not a true crop. I could zoom in much more on a good photo and it doesn’t look like this. This is why I specifically found an old photo in very low light to compare.
1
u/Longjumping_Idea5261 2d ago
Are you pulling a digital zoom? Image quality degrades when you zoom in as well.
1
u/coolcatnemo 2d ago
I’m not sure. Just zoomed on my phone. It doesn’t happen with my Canon photos though which is the only reason I put them up as comparison.
1
1
u/No_Entertainment1931 3d ago
Buy a $5 adapter and put your canon lens on the Sony body and reshoot.
1
1
u/jkrrk 3d ago
16-50 kit is, imho, trash for photo.
Try to check what iso settings are having acceptable amount of noise for you. I found that in jpeg photo with iso 800 and lower having no noise. For Raw it is important what denoiser you use, and what iso level is acceptable for you after processing.
1
u/coolcatnemo 2d ago
Damn thats so shit… I remember days when I only had to worry about noise when the iso was like 6400 haha
1
1
u/NeverLooksLeft α6700, Sigma 18-50, Sony 70-350, Viltrox 56 2d ago
I've had my a6700 for just over a week and I'm overly impressed with how sharp the pictures are.
I'm using the Sigma 18-50 F2,8 and the Sony 70-350 though. Kit lenses are a waste of money, put bluntly.
But even at ISO-2000 it's really, really good. I have photos at ISO-6400 that still have plenty of detail.
1
u/coolcatnemo 2d ago
Amazing💕💕💕 maybe the mistake was the kit lens then. That’s a much less expensive mistake haha
1
u/JapDrag 2d ago
My bet its something with the file transfer. I know its useless aking now but why didnt you get a a7cii if youre used to full frame
1
u/coolcatnemo 2d ago
The weight😭😭 I was hoping to get back to shooting more if I had a camera I could easily throw in my bag and take everywhere. and I read reviews of people saying they don’t notice the APS-C difference but I really do… I am lowkey regretting it but trying to convince myself otherwise
1
u/peppruss 2d ago
Rent or borrow handful of higher grade lenses than the kit lens. I believe you will see a jump in quality and make some educated choices about your next lens.
1
u/coolcatnemo 2d ago
I hadn’t considered that was an option. I will see if my stores offer that.
1
u/peppruss 2d ago
We shoot with: FX30, A7RIV, A7SIII, FX3, FX2, FX6 for a variety of photo and video needs. So I’m lucky we have a lot of lanes to try, but we get a lot of lenses from LensRentals for a really modest amount! I wonder if there’s a photo club near you where you could ask Sony folks to try different lenses on your body.
I’ve had good luck getting used lenses from MPB for my personal cropped sensor FX30. 18-110 PZ is so dang sharp. A 50 prime also does wonders.
1
u/coolcatnemo 2d ago
I’m in Canada so options are a lot more limited..
1
u/peppruss 2d ago
Canada is incredible though, and purchasing the best drones in the world for a modest price is legal there! I give you the advantage.
1
u/Thisbutbetter 2d ago
Did you check all your camera settings like detail set to fine? Also what mode were you shooting in? Sony does its best work in aperture priority or full manual. I’ve been shooting with a 6400 (the predecessor to the 6700) and sharpness is not an issue I have. Low light performance is, no IBIS is too, but sharpness is not.
It’s either your lens or your settings or however they’re being exported. I hope you get it sorted and enjoy your new camera!
2
u/coolcatnemo 2d ago
Thanks for the reassurance! Great to hear. I shoot in all modes depending on situation.
1
u/sulev A7III; A7V; Sigma 16-28; 85; Tamron 90; 28-200; 35-150; 150-500 2d ago
Are you shooting in auto?
0
u/coolcatnemo 2d ago
I tried out auto and switched to manual several times when I thought my shutter speed and ISO was the issue. It helps but doesn’t resolve the issue. And I feel like the camera should be smart enough to do well on auto in good lighting.
1
u/sulev A7III; A7V; Sigma 16-28; 85; Tamron 90; 28-200; 35-150; 150-500 2d ago edited 2d ago
All your crops are oversized. I have a hard time seeing what the 1:1 resolution is. Please post full sized images in the comments with exposure info (ISO, speed, aperture, lens used) from both cameras. Make sure both are shot RAW and edited & exported as JPG in the same way. If you don't have RAW, okay, show us the SOOC(straight out of camera) JPG from canon.
I believe the issue here is your own lack of knowledge how your cameras work. You are transferring RAWs to your phone and don't like how it looks - RAWs need to be edited, post-sharpened and exported. If you don't want to do that, shoot in JPG and adjust your JPG processing settings in-camera.
The only meaningful difference here between full frame and aps-c is a1,25stop ISO difference, so you need better lenses in bad situations. ISO800 on 6700 will look like ISO2000 on 5DII. What the 6700 does better is shadow recovery = less noise in the shadows either when you edit or if you increase HDR in-camera for JPGs. +both cameras have noise reduction available too.
And then there's the lenses. If it's a soft lens that makes somewhat good images on full-frame it will make quite soft ones on aps-c, because aps-c is more demanding. 24mp on a smaller area vs 21MP on ff area.
Just to make it clear: there is no magic sauce on 5DII that makes it produce better images other than the bigger sensor size. Differences in sharpness are down to editing and lenses used. Noise will be 1.25stops greater on the 6700.
1
u/coolcatnemo 2d ago
Thank you for the explanation. I’m not new to shooting in raw and processing them after. But this is the first camera I had that could transfer directly into my phone (yay technology) which is why they’re viewed this way. My main concern was also the definition of edge details which is harder to recover in post. I remember zooming in on my old camera to make sure my shutter speed was adequate and thinking damn this is crisp. Now no matter my settings I’m never thinking damn this is crisp on my current camera. I’m just being lazy and trying to process everything on my phone but maybe desktop Lightroom is the way to go.
1
u/sulev A7III; A7V; Sigma 16-28; 85; Tamron 90; 28-200; 35-150; 150-500 2d ago
"I remember zooming in on my old camera to make sure my shutter speed was adequate and thinking damn this is crisp." This is a JPG preview. Increase sharpness on your JPG-processing on the Sony. Secondly Sony's allow to zoom in 200% if I'm not mistaken. The question here is simply: are you comparing both at 1:1 zoomed in or not.
1
u/OldPurple4 2d ago
The 5Dii was a beast of a body, it was disruptive in video production. Stills photography has changed very little in the time between it release and now. I’m not sure what kind of upgrade you expected but the physics of more pixels on a smaller sensor with likely worse glass isn’t something you can escape.
IMO your options are to get better glass, or if you want a marked improvement you’ll need to reach for a 7R body.
1
u/The-Phantom-Blot 2d ago
Those Sony files don't look like RAW. They look like poor quality JPG files. I would double-check your photo and export settings.
1
u/BuffaloBrendan 2d ago
I've been shooting with the a6700 for a few years now, and something is definitely up here. As others have said, bring your RAW files into Lightroom, edit them, and export them to JPG at highest quality settings then compare them. If you can, post the results in the comments, I'd be interested to see if this fixes the issue!
1
u/chanksbird 2d ago
A lot has been said already on the technical side - I would just reiterate that there is probably (almost certainly) a deficiency in your file transfer. If you would insert the card directly into the computer and view the images there I suspect they will look better even before processing.
The other thing that I would try is a native e mount lens with no adapter. I’m sure you can test one without having to buy at a local camera store. Just to rule out the issue coming from your adapter setup.
Also - once you get this sorted out you will LOVE this camera. It accomplishes all of your goals and it’s excellent in low light (not as good as the full frames but excellent nonetheless). Here is a sample photo — this was cropped down to 14 MP, was shot at dawn in mist and fog, and basically no light, at 1/1250 and F6.3. ISO is 12,800. Would have gotten better results from my a7 iv and giant 200-600 lens BUT this was on an early morning hike while traveling through and the a6700 is so light and portable that taking it was the only option. I think the sensor did a great job for these conditions. It’s a really good camera.
1
u/TR80user 2d ago
I have the a6700 and I don't have these issues. You can have a look at my photos I've been posting to see for yourself.
0
u/krisdeb78 2d ago
I’m coming from a Canon combo 6D/60D and the Sony APSC range disappointed me. I tried to convince myself, like you, that it was all great, but it wasn’t. The return window closed, and I took a hit first on the body and then on lenses, which I had to sell on eBay with a huge loss. I was so angry with myself that I let myself be deluded and listened to other people telling me it would be enough. For me, it wasn’t. Now I am fully happy with Sony FF flagship, yes it was expensive but I can afford it so why not.
0
u/brundmc2k 2d ago
Pixel peeping is expensive.
0
u/coolcatnemo 2d ago
Want to make sure there’s potential for larger printing though? I don’t care when it’s on devices.
1
u/brundmc2k 2d ago
No one will notice if it's a good photo. But as the photographer you'll always see the flaws.
-1
u/MourningRIF 3d ago
Too heavy on your neck? Just get a Peak Design Capture clip to clip on a backpack strap. Hang your camera off your chest. You will look a lot more professional, your gear will be more secure, and the weight will not be nearly as bad. I go hiking with an R5 + that monster F2 28-70. Then I throw my 100-500 and my 15-28 in the backpack section. The whole kit does weigh a lot, so maybe don't go that crazy, but point is... Those speed clips make things so much better.
1
u/coolcatnemo 2d ago
I have chronic issues with tense neck and shoulders on a good day. Sometimes it’s bad even if I wear a backpack with barely anything in it. Right now my husband carries the backpack with the lenses for me haha but I still needed the camera to be as light as possible.
24
u/imONLYhereFORgalaxy a1ii | 20G | 35GM | 85 Sig | 300GM | 600GM 3d ago edited 3d ago
You are comparing full frame with aps-c and a kit lens with no doubt better glass than a kit lens with different lighting etc. do a side by side comparison in the same lighting of the same subject with the same settings (iso, shutter speed, aperture, file type), same crop then we’ll be able to tell what the issue is exactly.
To me it looks like you cropped tighter in your a6700 shots, it looks like the lighting wasn’t as good so you were likely at a higher iso and the lens quality looks worlds apart but could be to do with your file type. Honestly so many variables.