Equipment Sony A900 in camera NR, now 5D vs Nikon

The real big voom at the moment seems to be with the Sony Alpha 900, until the 5D MkII comes along - perhaps, review linked below
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra900/

 

Telling from the test images provided I'm pretty unimpressed with the quality (specifically noise and detail) above ISO400. Could be blamed solely on Sony's in camera NR, but still it is no match for CaNikon in this regard...24mp "Class leading resolution" or not.

 

agree Vers, they mention the noise issues above ISO400 in the review. However, if like me you shoot RAW, then there are ways of dealing with that during RAW conversion. I suspect its not going to be as good as the 5D MkII on noise at high ISO, but think worth keeping an eye on Sony prices - might become an affordable option. With my 5D I shoot nearly all my pictures at ISO 200 and under, although having the option to go a lot higher has helped me out occasionaly; its going to depend on what you shoot. If I did not have an investment in Canon lenses I would consider the 900, but waiting for the 5d MkII at the moment to see how it compares - those are this years 2 cameras with

 

Even if you shoot RAW you cannot turn off the in camera NR Sony implements. IQ goes to crap after so much NR is applied and while it is a 24mp sensor deemed as "class leading resolution" that title means absolutely nothing to me considering it does not have class leading IQ. As for being as good as the 5DII, it will not...even the MKI seems to render more detail and better high ISO capabilities.

 

Wrong, off doesn't seem to be truly off for JPEGs (but it's well known that Sony's JPEG engine isn't the best anyway) but is for RAW.
(alternatively right but then you have to tar Canon, Nikon & all the rest with the same brush as the ability for integration of onchip processing is 1 of the primary reasons for going with a CMOS sensor in the first place, you just have additional processing off chip as well)

Photoshop is well known amongst Sony users to be not the best RAW converter for their cameras (I have no idea if this is the same for Canon & Nikon) so it's another variable that possibly may affect the results.
I you read the review thoroughly you'll see that for noise in RAW they say that "at ISO 1600 the three cameras (A900, D700, 1D Mk III) are broadly comparable".
Like all cameras familiarity helps & other users have also found that if you downsize A900 files to similar (i.e. 11-12Mp) to D700 then it will hang with that until about ISO6400.
Also how you use DRO affects noise (at least on A700 & I doubt that A900 differs greatly).

There are other areas of the review that are also questionable:
they slate it for having a 2nd (MS Duo) card slot when neither of it's competitors has a 2nd slot of any format - it may not be a pro but neither is it a con.

they say that it has poorer AF speed than it's competitors but it's reported to be better than the 5D (& as the 5D Mk II seems to be unchanged in the AF area presumably also better than that) & other people that have used both the A900 & D700 put them as equivalent so again whilst it may not be better nor does it appear to be worse.

they knock it for being 10% dearer than 5D MkII but it's an UK website & in the UK it's 10% cheaper list (& already discounted from that) & it's available ...

The A900, D700 & the 5D MkII (when it finally hits retail) all appear to have quite different aims perhaps as a result of difference in corporate thinking or target market. Sony seem to be majoring on maxing performance at what they believe are the typical settings where the majority of users photos are taken rather than trying to push the ISO boundaries further apart.
It's not perfect but then neither is either of the other offerings - you pick the 1 that suits you best or perhaps go multi-system.
Choice is good & now one has the choice of 3 "affordable" new FF bodies with very high IQ whereas only a few months ago there was only 1 that was starting to show it's age, overall that's got to be a good thing.

 

"Noise reduction settings applied to raw as well as JPEG files - cannot be 'turned off for raw but left on for JPEGs' (as is normal practice)" DPR

Perhaps I got lost in the wording of that statement? Either way the med-high ISO performance seems very poor and certainly looks much worse than the Canon and Nikon counterparts...even if RAW files were not converted using Sony software. And as for the comparison between the 5DII and A900 I was speaking specifically of IQ (High ISO performance included).

 

There have been several reports that the 5D has better AF in low light and locks quicker, while the D700 takes a bit longer to lock but tracks a bit better. There have also been reports that the 5DII, while it still uses the old AF system, locks and tracks better than the MKI (possibly due to Digic IV). All of this is pretty subjective and probably bias in one way or another...guess we'll have to wait for legit tests to come out.

 

The D700 has the same AF module as the D3 and the D300. I would like to see those reports. I know you love the 5D and think it's the best camera ever, but several online "reports" does not the truth make. My D300 and the D3 I have used focus even when I can't see the subject (and no, I don't use AF assist, although with flash mounted AF assist it is near perfect in total darkness). Granted I use f/1.4 and f/2.8 lenses. Maybe your "reports" are using f/5.6 lenses or something, but the DX/FX3500 AF used in the D3, 700, and 300 is a marvel at low light focusing.

Edit: you know, balancing FUD and fan boi-ism doesn't mean you need to re-lable the thread to Canon Vs Nikon.

 

And if you took the time to post the rest of my post you would have included this as well:

So thanks for playing.

BTW the reports came from individuals who use both Canon and Nikon systems and own both bodies...I didn't just make it up. As for the 5D being the presumably the "best camera ever", where is that direct quote? I do, OTOH, believe its a great camera...would you argue against that point?

 

LOL, sorry Vers, not to be offensive but that post was a bit smart-assed.

 

If someone wants to take my words out of context then at least be a bit more creative in doing so...the very same goes for putting words in my mouth. As for the whole "fan-boi" comment, lets not play that card...I don't think I have to say this again but since some individuals forget I will. Nikon has some very good equipment out--particularly the D3, D700, D300 and the 14-24+24-70. IF Nikon had a prime line-up (including Super-tele's) that matched or beat Canon's (in regards to both IQ and cost) AND IF I hadn't had so much money invested in Canon or the belief that they [Canon] may turn the heat up I'd be a happy owner of some Nikon equipment. So in the case of being this so-called "fan-boi" I'd like to set the record straight by stating that comment has no basis what so ever At the end of the day I wish I could afford both systems like so many other professionals in this field...you know, so that way I could raise the Nikon flag along side the Canon flag that's in my front yard

 

Hmmm - seems the mods have been busy and I have been split off to a new thread

I have been looking at some A900 images, high res JPEGs converted from RAW and also some RAW files. A few have NR turned off and some on, although highest ISO RAW is currently ISO 800. Would like to see some landscape RAWs but what has been posted so far demonstrates good image quality. Always difficult however without a comparison with something else but I would be happy to own an A900 from what I can see here - doing my own RAW conversions
http://www.alphamountworld.com/image-samples/sony-a900-sample-image-gallery

 

I think that the problem is more in the way that DPR worded it clumsily rather than you (also I think that they cut & pasted chunks from the A700 review as in many ways they are very similar).
You can't set individual levels for RAW & JPEG NR i.e. OFF for RAW but say Medium on for JPEG, it's a single global setting.
If you read the review thoroughly you''ll see that you can turn off NR & it will be off for RAW but the JPEG will still have some NR applied by the (poor) Sony JPEG engine (assuming that you are shooting RAW+JPEG).

This was posted late last night after this thread here had started http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/10/23/the-alpha-900-as-a-high-iso-body/ & you can also find several threads on DPReview saying much the same thing.
At the end of the day it doesn't seem to have been developed with high ISO in mind (I still think that Nikon & Sony collude to some extent to not really go directly against each other) so knocking it for that is much like knocking a Formula 1 car for not being very good cross country ...
& there is always hope for improvement via firmware updates such as the A700 received with V4.

Nikon don't (yet) have a counterpart to the A900 or 5D MkII/1DS MkIII. On the other hand the A900 can do a fair impersonation of the D700/D3 certainly to ISO1600 if not 3200+.
There certainly seems to be a fair amount of interest from Nikon users in the A900 with quite a few having picked 1 up already.

Perhaps it's more of a case that each of them is capable of being "best in class" under different specific circumstances?

& yet I've read posts by people that have used both the D3 & D700 & say that the D700 doesn't AF the same as the D3 & I seem to recall similar re. D3 & D300?