Sony A900 test shots

[lostprophet]

Had a few Sony A900's arrive this week at work

All shots taken with the Zeiss 24-70 F2.8 all straight from camera no post processing other than cropping

FULL IMAGE RESIZED

All of the following shots are 100% crops
ISO 100

ISO 200

ISO 400

ISO 800

ISO 1600

1SO 3200

ISO 6400

I wanted to re do some of these as they are not the sharpest of shots but it was a bit too busy to re do them. Might have another try tomorrow if I get the time

 

[Early]

Would it be possible to compare the noise with a similarly priced model of another brand? Without getting in trouble with gods, of course.

 

[Early]

Scratch that! I see your Canon 50D has it beat by a mile, noise wise.

 

[lostprophet]

Would it be possible to compare the noise with a similarly priced model of another brand? Without getting in trouble with gods, of course.

It wouldn't be a good test as no one makes a 24mp Full frame body, although there be another camera soon

Canon has a 21mp camera at over twice the price, 1DS mkIII and in November there will be the 21mp 5D mkII

The Nikon D700 is close to the £2000 of the Sony but its a 12mp camera so again not a good test as the Nikon has basically no noise what so ever

 

[shivaswrath]

ick, I'd take the D700 over the A900 anyday - real noisy! or you always have the $8k Canon (that is dropping below that mark as a matter of fact!)

 

[S2K1]

With all these new cameras with such low noise, it's hard for me to appreciate this camera.

 

[Bifurcator]

Here they are side by side. You might have to maximize your browser window.

Sony 900 - ISO 1600 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Canon 50D - ISO 1600

Sony 900 - ISO 3200 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Canon 50D - ISO 3200

Sony 900 - ISO 6400 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Canon 50D - ISO 12800

​

.

 

[Bifurcator]

I think there's not that much difference myself. About the same amount of noise but the Sony's noise is colored.

And yeah, the D700 looks way better than both of these IMO.

 

[skieur]

Sorry, but I would find a shot on a television or photography test grid under controlled lighting conditions with the lens specifications of each, a more reliable indication. This leaves open too many questions.

skieur

 

[Sw1tchFX]

hmmm....

5D MkII looks like a much more attractive super-megapixel option. Otherwise, yeah, D700 if you're going to spend 3k.

 

[skieur]

hmmm....

5D MkII looks like a much more attractive super-megapixel option. Otherwise, yeah, D700 if you're going to spend 3k.

Even after you run an A900 shot through a noise reduction plug-in, you will still have considerably better resolution than the Nikon D700. :roll:

skieur

 

[dEARlEADER]

Even after you run an A900 shot through a noise reduction plug-in, you will still have considerably better resolution than the Nikon D700. :roll:

skieur

really?... show us...

 

[Bifurcator]

I think he may be right:

• http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/nikond3_samples/originals/dsc_1405-lr.jpg Nikon D3/D700
  File size................5818 KB
  Dimensions...........4256 x 2832
  Focal length..........130.00 mm (130 mm equiv.)
  Sensitivity............ISO 200
  Shutter speed.......1/800 sec
  Aperture...............F6.3
  Exp comp.............+0.0 EV
  Lens....................Nikon AF-S VR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED
  
  
• http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/sony_a900preview_samples/originals/dsc01990_dw.jpg Sony A900
  File size..............7829 KB
  Dimensions..........6048 x 4032
  Focal length.........70 mm
  Sensitivity...........ISO 200
  Shutter speed......1/640 sec
  Aperture..............F8.0
  Exp comp............+0.0 EV
  Lens...................Sony 24-70mm f2.8 ZA

The scene view on these is real close to the same. The lenses are comparable enough to draw a few conclusions! Download both images. First set the view zoom in PS so the the images are the same size on screen. Compare them side by side. Then crop around the top section of the bridge tower (like from the flag-level walkway on up). Set them to 100% display in PS or whatever and compare them side by side again. The A900 has a considerable amount more detail. Of course it would tho as they are about the same scene coverage while one is 4256 x 2832 and the other is 6048 x 4032.

In spite of the obvious differences I think this is a useful and revealing test. You can see for yourself if you're not too busy planning a precious metals takeover that is...

 

[dEARlEADER]

I think he may be right:

• http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/nikond3_samples/originals/dsc_1405-lr.jpg
  File size................5818 KB
  Dimensions...........4256 x 2832
  Focal length..........130.00 mm (130 mm equiv.)
  Sensitivity............ISO 200
  Shutter speed.......1/800 sec
  Aperture...............F6.3
  Exp comp.............+0.0 EV
  Lens....................Nikon AF-S VR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED
• http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/sony_a900preview_samples/originals/dsc01990_dw.jpg
  File size..............7829 KB
  Dimensions..........6048 x 4032
  Focal length.........70 mm
  Sensitivity...........ISO 200
  Shutter speed......1/640 sec
  Aperture..............F8.0
  Exp comp............+0.0 EV
  Lens...................Sony 24-70mm f2.8 ZA

The scene view on these is real close to the same. The lenses are comparable enough to draw a few conclusions! Download both images. First set the view zoom in PS so the the images are the same size on screen. Compare then side by side. Then crop around the top section of the bridge tower (like from the flag-level walkway on up). Set them to 100% display in PS or whatever and compare them side by side again. The A900 has a considerable amount more detail. Of course it would tho as they are about the same scene coverage while one is 4256 x 2832 and the other is 6048 x 4032.

In spite of the obvious differences I think this is a useful and revealing test. You can see for yourself if you're not too busy planning a precious metals takeover that is...

Well... i think comparisons like this are useless.... there are differences in subject, ambient light, focal distance, shutter, and aperture settings...

also... the issue i was responding too was regarding noise... as in the sloppy way it is handled by the a900.... it was mentioned a high noise a900 picture will out resolve the D700 after it has been processed for noise removal... i asked for proof....

i'm going back to my seal skins now...

 

[Bifurcator]

Well... i think comparisons like this are useless....

I think comments on comparisons that call them useless are useless. They are as good as they are. With the application of the knowledge you have about lenses, focal lengths, apertures, distances, light, shadow, and time of day you should be able to draw certain well founded conclusions. 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.

I think you just love Nikon as you've made very very clear in the past. And that's OK... (me too!) but at the same time I think it's intellectually dishonest to claim that no useful information can be drawn from such comparisons.