24.6MP = Noise disaster

[ricardovaste]

What do you think? It's not the "final product" of course, as firmware updates will come, but it doesnt look all that

bad does it?<p>

 

Im seeing less grain and more (slightly) detail on the A900 shot. But a better constrast/colour on the D700 shot.<p>

<a href="http://tinypic.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i37.tinypic.com/2rrsysi.jpg" border="0" alt="Image and

video hosting by TinyPic"></a>

[ricardovaste]

It downsized of course. <a href=http://s160.photobucket.com/albums/t185/ricardovaste/?action=view&current=post-10734-1221040782.jpg>Here is larger</a>

[ronald_moravec1]

What part of the original image are we seeing?

[ricardovaste]

Ronald, I really don't know. I've just linked it from dyxum.com. But, in the world of 100% crops, I would put my money on them being that.

[mek_photography]

I think the dual Bionz processors are definitely going to be a plus when it comes to noise reduction.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Because they are called Bionz?

 

Detail is difference and if the noise at high ISOs masks those differences and is a problem in dark tones an A900 camera will be a studio queen.

[paul_de_ley]

The text in the dial and the background grain look better in the A900 shot but the brush has a yellow halo that is not apparent in the D700 shot. At first impression it seems both cameras are slightly better in different respects without a clear winner?

[lukeap69]

I thought the D700 is more contrasty but the A900 looks more realistic.

[mike_earussi1]

original source

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

[ilich_zuniga]

The Sony looks better in my book, look at those rich greens, and the sharper overall detail in the image. I agree that the Sony looks more realistic.

[paul_de_ley]

Let's hope one of the early testers or buyers will also think of posting a comparison between a D700 shot at full res and an image taken with the A900 set at 13Mp. Although that presumably will not be available as a RAW file...?

[andrew robertson]

We have no idea what these shots will look like when the camera is set up for individual users, or shot in RAW mode. Until we see

the RAW files, judgement is best reserved.

[liquidstereo]

Reading the Luminous Landscape hands-on/review (a short one) is quite informative.<p><p>

 

(1) There is no decent RAW converter yet. <p>

(2) With Sony's IDC (mediocre software at best), the user was able to obtain images that were very similar to the Canon 1DsM3.<p>

(3) Let's wait until ACR is able to process A900 ARW.<p>

(4) Let's wait for a production firmware/unit.<p>

 

I think the A900 will not be worse than the current competition.

[eric_arnold]

that comparison is a bit of a toss-up. the sony image has a bit more contrast. if you look at the label on the beer bottle you can clearly see this. but on the plant the overly-contrasty image is too dark, whereas the nikon gets it just right. both look pretty good to me.

[hawkman]

I don't think this is a good comparison, Sony sample is from a RAW file that has been resized to 12Mpixels, processed with noise reduction software and sharpened. Nikon on the other hand is a JPEG image with in-camera processing. Noise reduction has destroyed fine detail in the Sony image and caused halo aritfacts. for a better comparisson you need to open both RAW files in the same converter like ACR and process them with the same parameters.

[timb196]

Check this out

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=29305302

 

Tim

[fineart_photo]

When you have that much data you can run a good noise algorithm on it at an aggressive setting, then down-sample

to 12MP. You should end up with a good image. The color should also be highly accurate from combining R,G,B pixel

sites.

 

If you like to print you have that option at high resolution which will have the same effect as above. You will

still get a large frameable image.

[ilkka]

I only hope the image quality will be stellar at ISO100-200. I have a tripod so I don't need a ISO1600 speed for my landscapes. This is not a sport shooter's camera.

[ricardovaste]

I think you can be confident of that Ilkka :-). This is surely aimed at studio/landscape photog's and it will surely be a brilliant machine for those applications - but they have to make compromises towards other applications too, otherwise they won't sell the camera as well... hence the 5fps I guess.

[timb196]

Richard:

The max rate the chip can handle is 6.3 and one has to allow for processing so I think that 5 fps is a physical limitation. The 1ds 111 only does 5 fps and my EOS 1V does 6.5 on AAAA batteries. You need the the Canon proprietary batteries to get the most out of it.

 

That said, I photograph trains and airplanes and have found 5 FPS to work for me. With a/c especially shows, I try to get copies of the flight path and maneuvers ahead of time so I can plan my shots somewhat. Trains obviously are easier that way!:-)

 

Cheers

Tim

[timb196]

To all:

came across this

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=29336608

 

I think it is pretty impressive

Tim

[ilkka]

I don't expect many Canon 1Ds users to jump ship and get a full Sony system. But for the rest of us, this is really good news, giving very similar resolution at half the price. And there are many excellent Minolta lenses available second hand. I have a bagful of lenses, about ten in all, waiting for this.

[mark_k3]

Not necessarily

Both D700 and D3 have a landmark on high noise control. comparing to EOS 5D, A900 is very close, considering its pixel density and small size of photosensor