Sony A900 test shots

[Bifurcator]

also... the issue i was responding too was regarding noise...

The optical resolve of the A900 is so much greater in this case that the noise would have to be 10 times greater before the advantages were overtaken. And it's not 10x. It's not even 2x. It's probably close to something like 1.2 ~ 1.3 times.

 

[dEARlEADER]

If you're lacking the facilities to think analytically or have a lack of knowledge/experience then the conclusions you are able draw from such comparisons may be severely limited.

well.. i guess it's a lack of experience and knowledge.... call me crazy (or maybe stupid... which i think you were) but if we are going to play pixel peep IMO the environment and calibrations should somewhat controlled.

 

[Bifurcator]

Did you just call me stupid?? Hehehe, thanks!

But let's be very clear - the difference isn't even close to "pixel peeping"! It's in-your-face massive, loud and clear, crystal clear, very VERY obvious. It's both mathematically and observably an over 30% increase in scene resolution.

Call me stupid if you like but math doesn't lie.

 

[dEARlEADER]

Did you just call me stupid?? Hehehe, thanks!

But let's be very clear - the difference isn't even close to "pixel peeping"! It's in-your-face massive, loud and clear, crystal clear, very VERY obvious. It's both mathematically and observably an over 30% increase in scene resolution.

Call me stupid if you like but math doesn't lie.

pm sent

 

[sultan]

But let's be very clear - the difference isn't even close to "pixel peeping"! It's in-your-face massive, loud and clear, crystal clear, very VERY obvious. It's both mathematically and observably an over 30% increase in scene resolution.

Call me stupid if you like but math doesn't lie.

Try this - in real photos, can you notice the 30% increase in resolution? I can't. Different processing on cameras makes the real somewhat noticeable difference. As to A900 vs. 5D MKII vs D700, I would pick the D700 for it's speed, durability, ergonomics and superior High ISO performance. The A900 looks like absolute garbage for high ISO (almost as bad as my 5 year old P&S), the 5D looks good and the D700 looks even better (comparison from another site) by preserving detail and sharpness and producing pleasing film like grain rather than soft blotches.

 

[Bifurcator]

Try this - in real photos, can you notice the 30% increase in resolution? I can't.

If you can't then you're not following the instructions. These are "real photographs" with NO processing.

http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1390407&postcount=13 <-- Instructions!

Different processing on cameras makes the real somewhat noticeable difference.

This REALLY has nothing to do with the subtleties of in-camera processing.

Given the exact same scene (let's say it's a brick wall - but not the one you Nikon and Canon fanboys are beating your heads against. ) there are simply more pixels defining Sony A900 image than there are the Nikon D700 (the FF Canon is NOT in this discussion yet... at all.)

If for example the D700 described one of the bricks in the wall at an 85 pixel width the Sony would describe the same brick in a 121 pixel width. It's just the physical properties of the two devices - nothing to do with anything about processing, loving Nikon, needing glasses, or not being ABLE to notice it.

As to A900 vs. 5D MKII vs D700, I would pick the D700 for it's speed, durability, ergonomics and superior High ISO performance. The A900 looks like absolute garbage for high ISO (almost as bad as my 5 year old P&S), the 5D looks good and the D700 looks even better (comparison from another site) by preserving detail and sharpness and producing pleasing film like grain rather than soft blotches.

The OP posted example shots of the Canon 50D and the Sony A900 and Sw1tchFX, and myself said tthe D700 still looked better. skieur pointed out that we were delusional and that the A900 compared to the D700 was better because of more inherent resolution. I investigated, admitted I was wrong and posted a comparison showing skieur as being right on the money.

As for the rest of your paragraph that's a personal problem mixed with marketing hooey... Show us.

 

[sultan]

Bifurcator, why are you starting a flame war over nothing? I am not denying that the A900 has more pixels and can give slightly more detail than the D700. In low ISO, I am not denying that the A900 gives more detail. However, provided that you are not blind, the D700 is undeniably better at ISO 1600 and above.

 

[skieur]

However, provided that you are not blind, the D700 is undeniably better at ISO 1600 and above.

No it is NOT, and that is the point. The resolution of the A900 even at ISO 1600 and above is far greater than the D700. The noise is irrelevant because even after it is filtered out, the resolution of the A900 is still much higher. Do the math and that is the ONLY conclusion possible as Bifurcator demonstrated, if you are not challenged in math skills.

skieur

 

[Bifurcator]

skieur... you flamer you...




But I don't think too many people are interested in the facts. They want "Nikon" and know inherently that "Sony" sucks. :lmao:

 

[skieur]

skieur... you flamer you...




But I don't think too many people are interested in the facts. They want "Nikon" and know inherently that "Sony" sucks. :lmao:

You are correct, but then I have more experience than all of them. I have not found any camera that is exactly what I want design and quality wise but in the area of value/price the Sony A900 seems unbeatable. I do not really for example expect Canon to come out with a Mark IV at $3,000 instead of $8,000. Will Nikon come out with a D4 with 24 megapixels and a $3,000 price tag? I don't think so, and will certainly not hold my breath.

skieur

 

[Bifurcator]

I have not found any camera that is exactly what I want design and quality wise...

Yeah, me neither. It's getting allot closer though! For example I've been waiting 10 or 15 years for dSLRs to become FF 35mm and capable of recording HD video. Those were two really big ones for me.

Another big one that no one has addressed yet is modularity in design. I want to interchange an EVF for a pentaprism at will and I want a choice of of EVFs. I want to remove the digital back and shoot film or try a different sensor if I like or clip it onto a stand and use it as an enlarger head. I want to add more or faster memory to the internal buffer. etc. And I want it all for about $1K, certainly under $2K.

 

[skieur]

Yeah, me neither. It's getting allot closer though! For example I've been waiting 10 or 15 years for dSLRs to become FF 35mm and capable of recording HD video. Those were two really big ones for me.

Another big one that no one has addressed yet is modularity in design. I want to interchange an EVF for a pentaprism at will and I want a choice of of EVFs. I want to remove the digital back and shoot film or try a different sensor if I like or clip it onto a stand and use it as an enlarger head. I want to add more or faster memory to the internal buffer. etc. And I want it all for about $1K, certainly under $2K.

Yes, those are exactly the features that I would like as well since I also have a background in video too.

skieur