Sony Alpha 5100 Mirrorless Camera Help

[Ghost]

I managed to snag a Sony Alpha 5100 during the Amazon sales and expected it to blow me away in terms of image quality and noise compared to my OnePlus One. I was very surprised when testing photos in both low light and indoor environments the larger sensor really didn't seem to help. Here are two photos scaled to the same resolution and converted to jpg.

 

Noise is to be expected, but why is a £270 smart phone managing to take photos that, at least from my point of view match a £300 with a APS-C sensor?

 

Am I doing something wrong, I used "auto" settings on both so the results could be comparable.

 

Edit: Camera Model corrected.

[Fate]

Probably different shutter speeds, leading to different amounts of noise, leading to lesser image quality. 

For example, the A5100 may use a faster shutter speed and higher iso so there's no camera shake, while the smart phone may use a slower shutter speed and lower iso. (higher iso = more noise [grain] and worse image quality)

[Flyguygamer]

SHOOT MANUAL!

 

Set 1/50 sec, the lowest f number you can and iso 3200 see what you get.

[Ghost]

SHOOT MANUAL!

 

Set 1/50 sec, the lowest f number you can and iso 3200 see what you get.

Huzzah, it worked (although now the screens seem slightly overexposed), do you know anywhere I can get tutorials on how to predict these settings?

 

[Flyguygamer]

Hazah, it worked (although now the screens seem slightly overexposed), do you know anywhere I can get tutorials on how to predict these settings?

 

http://www.worth1000.com/tutorials/161769/camera-skills-manual-exposure-photography-for-beginners

[Flyguygamer]

Huzzah, it worked (although now the screens seem slightly overexposed), do you know anywhere I can get tutorials on how to predict these settings?

 

The tutorial I linked my not be the best but here are the basics.

 

• Trial and error
• Live view helps
• fast shutter = less light, freezes movement
• Large aperture (Small f number) larger=more light, less dof, smaller = less light and larger dof
• iso, lower is better but if you need fast shutter or small aperture then pull the iso up.

I set a shutter speed and aperture I think will work or that I need then move the iso to expose properly.

[Ghost]

The tutorial I linked my not be the best but here are the basics.

 

• Trial and error
• Live view helps
• fast shutter = less light, freezes movement
• Large aperture (Small f number) larger=more light, less dof, smaller = less light and larger dof
• iso, lower is better but if you need fast shutter or small aperture then pull the iso up.

I set a shutter speed and aperture I think will work or that I need then move the iso to expose properly.

I have been looking into HDR to try to get the screens to expose properly, I can either get a dark background, and text visible on screens, or a light background and the screens washed out.

 

I feel like I'm missing a trick.

 

How much would you recommend the modes where you set 2 of the 3 and let the camera guess the third?

[Flyguygamer]

I have been looking into HDR to try to get the screens to expose properly, I can either get a dark background, and text visible on screens, or a light background and the screens washed out.

 

I feel like I'm missing a trick.

 

How much would you recommend the modes where you set 2 of the 3 and let the camera guess the third?

Aperture priority or shutter priority. Don't like those.

Set the camera to spot metering and meter for the proper place, then set the shutter and aperture. Auto iso is fine if you want.

[Ghost]

I will just ask here instead of making another thread. @Flyguygamer

 

I am trying to get a good picture of my watch (for experimentation) and I'm struggling to get a really sharp picture. Lighting is not ideal but the photos are taken with flash bounced off the ceiling.

 

To be able to get the watch in full frame I need to zoom in fully, otherwise I can't focus on the watch. This limits me to F5.6 and that in turn requires 1/60 shutter speed. The ISO is auto-ing to 3200.

 

Other things that may be affecting my image quality: DMF focus, fill flash.

 

I was wondering if it is the fault of my lens or somewhere I have messed up.

 

 

Using slow sync flash pointing directly at the subject:

(ISO at 500)

[Flyguygamer]

I will just ask here instead of making another thread. @Flyguygamer

 

I am trying to get a good picture of my watch (for experimentation) and I'm struggling to get a really sharp picture. Lighting is not ideal but the photos are taken with flash bounced off the ceiling.

 

To be able to get the watch in full frame I need to zoom in fully, otherwise I can't focus on the watch. This limits me to F5.6 and that in turn requires 1/60 shutter speed. The ISO is auto-ing to 3200.

 

Other things that may be affecting my image quality: DMF focus, fill flash.

 

I was wondering if it is the fault of my lens or somewhere I have messed up.

 

 

Using slow sync flash pointing directly at the subject:

Set flash to full power and point it at the subject,

Set 1/100 shutter

Set f/4 at 35mm and get the camera closer to the subject.

Set iso 3200

 

Post result

[Ghost]

Set flash to full power and point it at the subject,

Set 1/100 shutter

Set f/4 at 35mm and get the camera closer to the subject.

Set iso 3200

 

Post result

Did as you said, pictures are uploading. The lens can only do F5.6 at 35mm or F4 at 21mm, I attempted both.

 

With the ISO you suggested the shot was utterly overexposed.

But then I set it to auto to see the result. The suggested ISO was: 200

Then at 21mm with auto ISO.

[Flyguygamer]

Did as you said, pictures are uploading. The lens can only do F5.6 at 35mm or F4 at 21mm.

 

With the ISO you suggested the shot was utterly overexposed.

But then I set it to auto to see the result. The suggested ISO was: 200

Then at 35mm with auto ISO.

There you go, get wider and therefore a faster aperture, at least 1/100 sec and auto iso, you'll be good.

[Ghost]

There you go, get wider and therefore a faster aperture, at least 1/100 sec and auto iso, you'll be good.

Do you think a macro extender, a tripod or maybe even a macro lens would help with a shot like this?

 

The kit lens seems to be really struggling with closer up shots. Even where it looked really good with a big aperture there was a lot of unnecessary background.

[Flyguygamer]

Do you think a lens extender, a tripod or maybe even a macro lens would help with a shot like this?

No, they make you focus closer, you need a higher focal length and smaller apertures

 

 

 

http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2013/08/23/what-is-a-macro-lens-magnification-minimum-focus-distance/.

[Ghost]

No, they make you focus closer, you need a higher focal length and smaller apertures

 

 

 

http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2013/08/23/what-is-a-macro-lens-magnification-minimum-focus-distance/.

An interesting read but I am still slightly confused. So macro lenses can achieve a 1:1 image at a far smaller focal length, and because they use such a small aperture (large in size) they have a very shallow DOF.

 

From what I read about the lens I linked it can focus at 2.4cm away from the lens, which as far as I understand, is only a problem when photographing wildlife. Would that not be advantageous in the photograph I am trying to take? I could take the photo from very close to the object and because it has a constant F3.5 aperture it would perform well in low light.

 

The only other reasonably priced lens I can see, that, from my understanding would be beneficial would be this (amazon) which would really help in low light shots. Maybe this but it seems very expensive.

 

Sony lens catalogue.

 

n.b.: I'm not actually going to buy a lens just to photograph my watch, I'm just trying to find out more.

[Flyguygamer]

An interesting read but I am still slightly confused. So macro lenses can achieve a 1:1 image at a far smaller focal length, and because they use such a small aperture (large in size) they have a very shallow DOF.

 

From what I read about the lens I linked it can focus at 2.4cm away from the lens, which as far as I understand, is only a problem when photographing wildlife. Would that not be advantageous in the photograph I am trying to take? I could take the photo from very close to the object and because it has a constant F3.5 aperture it would perform well in low light.

 

The only other <£300 lens I can see, that, from my understanding would be beneficial would be this (amazon) which would really help in low light shots.

 

Sony lens catalogue.

 

n.b.: I'm not actually going to buy a lens just to photograph my watch, I'm just trying to find out more about reasoning.

That  is a good lens, I love my 50 1.8

Yeah, unless you take photos like this, you don't need a macro lens.

 

[Ghost]

I dug a cheapo tripod out from under my bed and using a shutter speed of 1 second, F8 , ISO 250 manged to take this:

 

 

Thanks for all your help @Flyguygamer

 

I may now treat myself to a really nice tripod.

[Flyguygamer]

I dug a cheapo tripod out from under my bed and using a shutter speed of 1 second, F8 , ISO 250 manged to take this:

 

 

Thanks for all your help @Flyguygamer

 

I may now treat myself to a really nice tripod.

Any more questions please ask