Sony a77 pixel question

[Tronk 11]

Hello Everyone,
I just wanted to see if we have any experts in the field of pixels.
The reason I ask is that I have just bought a second hand Sony a77. I'm really impressed as it takes good quality photos, & has 20 million pixels, more than enough for me.
BUT, it has a feature which allows you to x1.4 & x2.0 meaning my 300mm lens can get 430mm or 600mm, but it comes at a cost of loosing pixels.
x1.4 it goes to 12 million pixels and x2 it falls to 6 million pixels. Now my question is this. Is it worth while getting high pixels but having to crop the picture, OR getting closer pictures but not having to crop?
Also RAW over JPEG?
I'd be interested in what people say.
Many thanks,
Tony

[Black Mike]

For me, I'd shoot full resolution without using the built in crop. Its easy to crop in post processing. Always RAW as its easier to manipulate and recover detail from shadows etc. Also the A77 is an older sensor and has higher levels of noise compared to modern mirrorless or full frame sensors. Using Photoshop, Lightroom or other apps, the noise can be better controlled from RAW.

I had an A77 many years ago so I know about the noise issues. Great camera and the Mk2 was even better. Used them with the Sony 70-400 lens which was superb.

[Tronk 11]

For me, I'd shoot full resolution without using the built in crop. Its easy to crop in post processing. Always RAW as its easier to manipulate and recover detail from shadows etc. Also the A77 is an older sensor and has higher levels of noise compared to modern mirrorless or full frame sensors. Using Photoshop, Lightroom or other apps, the noise can be better controlled from RAW.

I had an A77 many years ago so I know about the noise issues. Great camera and the Mk2 was even better. Used them with the Sony 70-400 lens which was superb.

Thanks Mike, its great to hear from someone who's used one.
I'm off for a week in Coningsby next week so I'll shoot everything in RAW.

[Black Mike]

RAW images are around 24mb each from memory.

My son still uses the camera.

[Tronk 11]

RAW images are around 24mb each from memory.

My son still uses the camera.

Its not a big issue the size, it used to be, but a 128GB sandisk gives me thousands of pictures.

[Archer]

Having the camera crop your picture vs cropping it yourself *should* produce the same end result. The problem is that having the camera do this may introduce other effects, artefacts... I don't know what. I have always steered clear of digital zoom (as it's sometimes marketed) and have applied it myself in post-processing as needed. That way I'm sure that it does what I want and I can also still use the original image if I want to.

[Black Mike]

Having the camera crop your picture vs cropping it yourself *should* produce the same end result. The problem is that having the camera do this may introduce other effects, artefacts... I don't know what. I have always steered clear of digital zoom (as it's sometimes marketed) and have applied it myself in post-processing as needed. That way I'm sure that it does what I want and I can also still use the original image if I want to.

I often wondered why people might use the crop (APS-C) mode. It seems there are a few things to consider.
In older cameras the focus area might be smaller than the newer mirrorless wall to wall focus points so using crop mode may help the camera AF to pick up the more central object. I don't know if that's true but I can kinda see why it might work.
Next is file size, crop sensor images are much smaller so perhaps get twice as many images on a card.
Finally, shooting full frame RAW can limit the frame rate on some cameras or indeed cause buffering. Using crop mode will reduce buffering issues.

I don't believe true APS-C mode use will in anyway reduce the image file quality just the image size amd file size. It may of course make flaws in the lens quality more apparent.

Mike