Definitive A900/D3X noise/ISO samples

[Vidgamer]

Funny, I use the A100 and find the noise at iso400 more than acceptable. They make fantastic prints. Maybe you suffer from Pixelpeekitus. My iso400 available light shots at a recent wedding got rave reviews.

There's a lot of that going around. If it bothered you, you would no longer have the A100, I'd bet. Normal people (not to say that those of us online are abnormal, but, you know what I mean, I hope...) don't have a problem with the A100 ISO 400 noise -- they're happy to get captured memories of the event.

If I have a preference, I'd rather not use ISO 400, but I use it frequently. Sometimes I even (gasp!) use ISO 800. Sometimes, results look surprisingly good.

I suspect that 400 and 800 would look less noisy without DRO+, but I can't help but keep that turned on, as I think it does a good job. Well, nothing's perfect, and the A100 isn't, but it seems to be Good Enough for me.

Online, there's a constant push for perfection at the pixel level that just won't be seen without printing large. Not everything will be printed large. In fact, few things will be. If I think I have a need for something special, I'll try to fix the ISO at 100 or 200 and maybe use RAW. This will maximize what you get out of the A100.

In the meantime, I am curious about the noise issues and what else can be done about them, but I think I have to accept the A100 for what it is.

[j_p_p]

Another Raw Comparison between the BIG 3 :

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/revie ... hree.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Vidgamer]

There's a lot of that going around. If it bothered you, you would no longer have the A100, I'd bet.

Not true...if you don't have the money to upgrade then you are stuck with the A100.

Not true... for you. I was actually responding to tbcass, who, I presume, could afford another camera body.

If you already have a camera, and you determine that it is Good Enough for your use, then you don't necessarily need to get something else. Not to mention that you then get to decide between a new camera body or a new lens. You'll find that many people who have a lot of money don't spend it frivolously.

You have certain needs and probably needed something more than the A100. In your case, it did bother you, and then you got something else. Tbcass is OK with it, and still has it.

I hope that clarifies the statement sufficiently.

Normal people (not to say that those of us online are abnormal, but, you know what I mean, I hope...) don't have a problem with the A100 ISO 400 noise -- they're happy to get captured memories of the event.

No, many normal people do have a problem with the A100....it won't cut it in dark gyms, dark arenas, dark living rooms etc...If you don't use a flash the A100 is the wrong camera to own. FTR....people that do want high quality photos at ISO 400 and above are normal.

A friend of mine thought that his Nikon didn't cut it in dark gyms, etc., and got a D3. The A100 is hardly alone in this regard.

FTR, I have ISO 800 photos that I'm perfectly happy with. When printed at 4x6, you can't even tell that it's 800. I need to print one at 8x10 -- I expect it'll look pretty good.

If I have a preference, I'd rather not use ISO 400, but I use it frequently. Sometimes I even (gasp!) use ISO 800. Sometimes, results look surprisingly good.

The A100 killed me on low light shoots for a year....I was glad to get rid of it.

I suspect that 400 and 800 would look less noisy without DRO+, but I can't help but keep that turned on, as I think it does a good job. Well, nothing's perfect, and the A100 isn't, but it seems to be Good Enough for me.

I never used DRO....

It's a neat and useful feature that comes with tradeoffs.

Online, there's a constant push for perfection at the pixel level that just won't be seen without printing large.

By large you must mean 8x12 inches because the A100 could not cut 8x12's at ISO 800 in my normal indoor venues.

I think of 8x10 or 11x14 as "large". (I've only printed a couple of things at poster sizes from the A100.) I just don't have an occasion to need to print that many photos at these sizes, and for the things that I like to print large, usually I can be at a low ISO. For example, flowers, airplanes (from airshows), etc.

I've photographed few indoor stage or sporting events with this camera. Last year, in two cases that I can think of, one had fairly poor results (that I'm sure you'll be happy to know) for printing large, but the other, I think I could print some 8x10s that would look fine -- I printed 4x6s and was just blown away. (Although, I did spend time on some of the photos fine tuning the results in between RAW converters and using noise reduction, it was just better than expected, coming from an f4 lens!)

So, where the A100 impacts some of your favorite subjects, I'm in less of a need for the high-ISO monster that you need. It's ok that different people have different needs. I also don't sell my photos, so my needs are less in that respect as well.

Not everything will be printed large. In fact, few things will be.

Bull....90% of my prints are 8x12 or larger....A100 was a big letdown indoors on 8x12's and in-fact impossible to use much of the time.

If I think I have a need for something special, I'll try to fix the ISO at 100 or 200 and maybe use RAW. This will maximize what you get out of the A100.

It's all about Don, isn't it? I have printed quite a few 11x14s, with really stunning results. Evidence enough that it was worth the upgrade over my previous camera.

And it's not bull. For me. And I'm sure for many readers.

So you are saying it's an ISO 100-200 camera only....I almost agree with you.

In the meantime, I am curious about the noise issues and what else can be done about them, but I think I have to accept the A100 for what it is.

If you have the most recent firmware then you must accept it or sell it.

If you want to take a photo that you intend to print at 11x14, you might consider it a 100-400 camera at that time. I took the time to look in my old folders, and found an example of an ISO 400 photo that I printed at 11x14. It's one of our favorites,that we had hanging on the wall for a year or two. JPEG, straight out of the camera, no NR. I had gotten multiple positive complements, including from a photographer.

Now I'm definitely going to have to make a point of printing an ISO 800 photo large. Just 'cause.

But it's clear that it was not Good Enough for you, and you were correct to get a better camera.

[peterottaway]

This topic has got very long at 11 pages. And has wandered off course on occasions.

Isn't it time to shut it down ?

If people want to carry on debating various noise problems and treatments, them perhaps a new topic could be opened up.

[Vidgamer]

....
There once was a point where the A100 was the ONLY Sony body!

I bought the A100 when it was the ONLY Sony body and ... I still use it. So does tbcass. Even though I could afford to get another one. Even though! Imagine the horror! All of my shots, RUINED with the A100 noise! How do I sleep at night?

Not to mention that you then get to decide between a new camera body or a new lens. You'll find that many people who have a lot of money don't spend it frivolously.

You got it all wrong...when I owned an A100 it was the ONLY A-mount choice.

I didn't get it wrong. You were the one suggesting that I didn't have money to buy anything better. Why would I buy something better if this is good enough for my current use?

No, many normal people do have a problem with the A100....it won't cut it in dark gyms, dark arenas, dark living rooms etc...If you don't use a flash the A100 is the wrong camera to own. FTR....people that do want high quality photos at ISO 400 and above are normal.

I think this would be a good general/poll question. How many people really use 800+ for selling top-quality large prints? The A100 isn't a good choice for that, but any tool has its limitations....

Patient: "Doctor, Doctor! My arm hurts when I bend it like this!"
Doctor: "Well, don't do that!"

I have printed less than five dozen 4x6's in my life.

You might have noticed that it's a popular size, though.

It's can be cool if you shoot JPGs...I like it ok on the a700, I just don't use it. I found KM zone matching really well but I on the A100 and A700 I shoot raw.

If I think the lighting is going to be a challenge, I'd rather do raw. Under normal circumstances, JPEGs turn out well enough out-of-the-camera.

I like looking at photos at least as large as the screen and that is why most of my prints are at least 8 inches short side.

I decided that there's no point in having a 10mp camera if I can't make use of the resolution, so I decided to do a lot of 11x14s. Previously, 8x10 would be my "large".

...
So, where the A100 impacts some of your favorite subjects, I'm in less of a need for the high-ISO monster that you need. It's ok that different people have different needs. I also don't sell my photos, so my needs are less in that respect as well.

True...it's just that the A100 was a noisy camera, it's better with the firmware upgrades, but it's best not to pass along it's fine at mid/high ISO's when for many folks it's not so hot.

And for many folks, it is fine. I'm just leaning more towards tbcass' opinion where if you don't obsess over 100% views on the monitor, it's really not so bad. What did people do with film? All my life I've seen "noise" in film photos, and human vision copes with it. Maybe the rules are different today, now that digital cameras have improved. I've read that the stock photo places are critical over technical details. I'm sure that a pro photographer can demand higher quality, but in the real world, things probably are not so demanding.

SO, if I have to clarify it, for pro photographers, don't use the A100 for mid/high ISOs. Or just don't use it at all. For everyone else, consider not being so obsessive about 100% pixel peeping and see what your 11x14 prints look like. Straight out of the camera. At ISO 400.

...
For anyone that likes low noise photos above base ISO the a100 is not the camera to choose.

For anyone that likes low noise photos, perhaps one could argue against any Sony?! That's why we're interested in this thread....

[aster]

Hi Vidgamer,

I'd agree with you about ISO 400 on the A100. I get manageable results at ISO 400 especially at bad weather conditions when daylight is dim. Lower ISO's give better results naturally but lately I've been shooting many ISO 400 shots and can't complain as even the shots after Sun went down gave some speedy yet tolerable results. I can print these without worries at any size after some raw-to-jpeg processing.

I shoot RAW+JPEG most of the time. Here's one of the in-camera jpegs from yesterday. The Hagia Sophia in Istanbul as seen from a construction site area.
(the jpeg artifacts are there, but I'm sure the raw will yield better results when converted through a good software)

Have nice day
Yildiz

ps. A100+CZ 16-80mm at 80mm

100% Crop of Hagia Sophia at ISO 400 in-camera jpeg



Original photo resized for forum

[David Kilpatrick]

I had to use the A100 for just over a year as my main camera, which meant for shooting everything. In fact we bought a second A100 in August 2007, because we had booked a trip to Egypt and wanted more detailed pictures than Shirley's KM5D could deliver.

With good colours in the subject, and good exposure, it is almost impossible to see any noise in a normally processed A100 shot from raw:



Original click to open: http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/im ... iginal.jpg

This is cropped top and bottom but otherwise full width of the shot. It's difficult to get the same result from anything dull, flat or underexposed and your Hagia Sophia mosque detail is almost designed to show noise (a dark mid-grey tone will always look most noisy). Also, the in-camera JPEG processing is nothing like as good as Adobe Camera Raw for A100 ISO400 files. The dancer was processed using 25 sharpening (usual defaults), 25 luminance NR, 50 chroma NR. The new NR routines in ACR are excellent, much improved over the CS2/early CS3 raw converter, and you can see in the full sized shot that stitching on the edge of the clothing remains perfectly sharp. There is no smearing of fine detail now.

I would say that improvements in ACR alone have made a one-stop difference to getting the best results from the A100 compared to when it first appeared.

But even when it was brand new, I found the sRGB in-camera JPEGs very usable in good light. This was the first test I made of the A100 ISO range:



Full size 100 per cent view: http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/im ... iginal.jpg

While 800 and 1600 show a fair amount of noise, 400 would definitely be usable for any outdoor work in good light. The key to avoiding noisy images is to get the exposure correct.

David

[aster]

Hi David,

The above article-like post is very informative, thanks.
You're right, the Hagia Sophia museum shot was specifically chosen for this thread. I shoot at different ISO levels to understand how the image will be effected consequently. ISO 100 shots are way better but it's good to know that even ISO 400 can be recovered from the losses that jpegs suffer from. By the way, Hagia Sophia no longer functions as a mosque, we wish to keep it as a wonderful museum from the Byzantine era instead as respect to all creeds. Almost all religious followers from all religions want to own up to it but it's already been damaged by such people and as a result the wonderful treasures inside the Hagia Sophia was either burnt, broken, or transferred to personal collections of some obssessed people who weren't even closed to believing anything. This happened hundreds of years ago but somehow human nature is the slowest in evolving and maturing. Therefore it's a museum and hopefully is respected for it.

I'll try to upgrade my Raw converter software as you suggested.

The Egyptian dancer photo is an excellent photo, I remember it from when I came to your website for the first time and read all the artiles and lens reviews. The boots, shirt and finger nail contours and details are cleary visible! I suppose you had to kneel in front of her to get this shot, the proportions would not be like this otherwise.

Thanks
Yildiz

Just so you all know, Istanbul doesn't always look as boring and grayish and noisy as the photo I uploaded in my post above, here are two more shots from the exact same spot from a couple days ago.
Both are with A100 at ISO 100, handheld, after the Sun gracefully came down.

[Vidgamer]

I bought the A100 when it was the ONLY Sony body and ... I still use it. So does tbcass. Even though I could afford to get another one. Even though! Imagine the horror! All of my shots, RUINED with the A100 noise! How do I sleep at night?

You are lucky...you like the noisiest Sony or KM 6MP+DSLR ever built! Some of us CAN NOT use it for everyday shooting. Just because you can deal with a noisy camera does not mean others can. You rarely print large and you don't sell...maybe a good pNs will be enough for you.

I used your DXOMark web page, and it only reviews 3 Sony cameras. The A100 doesn't look that much different from the others, when it comes to the noise measurement. The A350 starts out slightly better, but by the time it gets to higher ISOs , it's the same! I wouldn't call that a huge improvement. The A900 starts out the same as the A100! Wow.

My question on these noise measurements would be, how do they adjust for the pixel difference? I mean, is this a measurement of noise at the pixel-level? The fact that you're getting more detail has to count for something.

Maybe a P&S is good enough for me? I considered that, but as soon as I started shooting with the A100, I got better results. Hard to argue with that. I met one photographer (actually in the business of selling used camera equipment) who decided to get out of SLRs and go back to a 5mp P&S, because he was getting perfectly fine 8x10s, and never printed larger. I wasn't going to argue with him. It's a matter of matching your needs with the tool that will do the job. Given enough light, many P&S cameras can do a pretty good job most of the time.

I had one of the highest regarded (on DPR even!) P&S cameras, and the A100 performs much better at higher ISOs. I ran into too many cases where the P&S was just not good enough. If the A100 does poorly, why would you want me to do even more poorly? Or, is it a kind of elitist attitude that suggests that only pro photographers are allowed to have a DSLR? Let the masses have their P&S cameras -- I laugh in their general direction!

Who cares what you use? I thought you said you don't print much large stuff, you don't sell, and the A100 is good enough. Most of the informed world screamed bloody murder when the noisy A100 was released. Read DPR for gosh sake...hundreds if not thousands of threads on the excessive noise.

Oh, I see. If I'm not a pro, then I don't matter. Well, there are a lot of amateurs having fun photographing. Maybe David needs to have a special section for us amateurs who are better off with a P&S camera.

I'd bet that more amateurs own Sony DLSRs than pros, by far.

When I bought the A100 they told me it was a bit noisy at higher ISOs. I did not buy it when it was just released, so I read the comments online. I took some sample shots in the store, and decided that I could live with that.

It's not a matter of just large prints. Tons of shooters use high ISO including wedding, sports, event, editorial, street, museum, indoor, arena, action, cloudy day, newspaper, magazine, twilight, rainy day, dusk shooters etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. Dude you need to get a clue on this...the A100 is a NOISY camera...you are starting to sound like an A100 Fanboy!

Yes, I could get a better camera. I understand, the A100 is not worthy! I bow to your greatness, oh mighty elite one....

You might have noticed that it's a popular size, though.

For point-n-shoot users. Buy a Fuji pNs and be done with it already and start understanding the A100 is a NOISY camera.

It's a popular size for handing out to family. It allows you to build an album of many prints. I occasionally will find things I particularly like to print large. I can't imagine doing an album of 11x14s, but I can't imagine putting a lot of 4x6s on the wall either. Everything has its purpose.

As I said before, I don't do the night football that you do, so I don't tend to run into those problems. As for weddings, this camera does better than my P&S. I probably could have done better at the last wedding with a competing DSLR. But you keep wanting me to go back to the P&S for some reason to do worse in these situations....

After getting the A100, I decided that there's no point in having a 10mp camera if I can't make use of the resolution, so I decided to print some 11x14s. Previously, 8x10 would be my "large". Even with some noise, the A100 stomps on P&S cameras. I'm really surprised that you don't understand that.

I make tons of 12x18's and 18x24's with my 5MP KM5D that sell as fine-art....I thought you said you do mostly small prints...if you do large prints at ISO400 and above then the A100 noise may be hurting your output.

My ISO 400 11x14 looks fine. You can hardly see any noise unless you pay a lot of attention to the shadows.

I suspect that the occasional fine-art photo could still be highly-regarded even with a certain amount of noise.

And for many folks, it is fine.

It's the noisiest modern DSLR Sony or Km has built...why can't you get that through your head? It's noisy and it's discontinued and you can buy them for a couple hundred bucks.

OOH, maybe I should get a 2nd copy!

Again, according to DXOMark the 350 doesn't look much better. Not even the 900 considering the sensor and price differences.

I'm just leaning more towards tbcass' opinion where if you don't obsess over 100% views on the monitor, it's really not so bad.

Look buddy, that A100 noise translates to ruined prints at ISO's as low as ISO 400. 400 is usable but not always for printing even medium size prints. Believe me, I am the one that used the camera indoors at high ISO for thousands and thousands of shots. I am talking prints, I don't care what you are talking about.

I find that any flaws are much harder to see in prints. I see flaws when pixel-peeping that just don't matter on the print.

And things that bother me don't bother people that see the prints, further degrading the need for perfection.

....
I'm sure that a pro photographer can demand higher quality, but in the real world, things probably are not so demanding.

The real world here is DK sells images, I sell images, many others here sell images, and many readers sell images, and many other folks just want the real skinny on the A100 noise levels.

In the real world, you're outnumbered by amateurs, and the professionals have less-noisy cameras than you do.

I think everyone got the message on the A100 noise. Did they get it on the A350 noise? Or the A900 noise? (Why is anyone buying these cameras? )

SO, if I have to clarify it, for pro photographers, don't use the A100 for mid/high ISOs.

LOL...How about folks that just want top quality noise free photos at ISO 400 and up?

If it doesn't meet your standards, don't use it. Seems simple enough.

For everyone else, consider not being so obsessive about 100% pixel peeping and see what your 11x14 prints look like.

Like I told you it's about 8x12's and even 8x10's....ISO 400 can be noisy and 800 can be unusable for some.

ISO 400 can be noisy... but can also be good enough to make a stunning 11x14 print. Surely 8x10s are doable. Perhaps it depends upon the exposure and whether you try to post-process the ISO 400 print to bring detail from the shadows. That's certainly going to bring up the noise and limit what you can do with a shot. So, I'm not going to say that ISO 400 is some pinnacle of perfection, but it is usable much of the time.

For anyone that likes low noise photos, perhaps one could argue against any Sony?! That's why we're interested in this thread....

Yes, they could, and some have been for years. It's exactly why I am posting the true skinny on the A100.

What, you're going to save the world from a camera that is no longer being sold? What about the A350 or A900 noise? Are you OK with those? They make marginal improvements, but the A100 is horrible?

[Vidgamer]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/9644425@N06/2833544721

ISO 1600.

No, I don't go out of my way to use 1600, but when it's really that dark, you do what you gotta do. I spent a lot of time on this one, to try different RAW converters and different settings. Viewed at 100%, it has imperfections. Hard to see them at this reduced size, or printed.

I never claimed that the A100 was a high ISO monster, so I don't know why you keep trying to put words in my mouth. A bit of a straw-man argument. I like the A100 for what it does for me, and for what it can do that the P&S crowd cannot.

[picman]

More comparisons

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/revie ... .shtml#con" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cheers, Bob.

[David Kilpatrick]

Camera Raw does no favours to any of these cameras at high ISO, but Reichmann no doubt knew that. He avoided one other simple comparison, easily done without extra work - in-camera JPEG. I know why he avoided it, too. By giving exactly the same exposure with all three cameras, he will have ended up with different density raw files needing a range of different corrections in ACR. He has already compromised accuracy by grey-balance setting in ACR. In some ways his test is very fair because it judges the three on a similar final result from identical exposure/ISO settings. In other ways it is not, because you can sure the in-camera JPEGs and default raw conversions will look entirely different - including their relative noise levels.

David

[Vidgamer]

You love the A100...you are it's biggest fan!

It's a good camera. As you can see, it works pretty well, even at high ISO. My P&S, that you would like me to return to, couldn't come close to this, as good as it is.

BTW...if I left the blacks as dark as you did that in that photo not one of the black players on the field would have a face left. If you enjoy 8x10's of people with no faces fine...I prefer my photos of people to actually have a face and that's why I dumped he A100.

It really was dark back there. You might be able to tell that the spotlights were in the arena, and there was very little lighting of the audience at that time. It amazes me that the camera picks up the background as much as it does. I only darkened the curve slightly, and the subject was not harmed in the process.

When you took photos of black players, at least they were in the same light as everyone else.

Another strawman argument? Why would you expect the unlit audience to be clearly visible? Let's set up some arbitrary situations that the A100 is poor at, and, hey, look how poor the A100 is! Even though most cameras would also not do a good job of capturing the unlit audience.

FTR...when shooting action indoors you need shutter speeds of 1/360 to 1/500 and the A100 just can not cut the mustard even with fast lenses. And like I said before, it also could not cut it at ISO 400 to shoot cats with in low light either...

-Sonolta

ISO 400 works great! Your cat photos looked fine -- I didn't see any noise, probably because you downsized them for the web.

I get it, you don't like the A100's ISO 400. I think it's fine. I can make use of ISO 800 in a pinch, and I think ISO 1600 is trouble. What is a problem for me is when ISO 1600 is not good enough. What do I do then? If I'm already at f2.8, I may be out of luck.

In the case of the Medieval Times photos, I forgot my Minolta 50/1.7, which would have been a much better choice (although that lens is a bit soft wide open). Even if ISO 1600 was perfectly noiseless, it still wasn't fast enough.

Clearly, though, faster lenses do matter. My low-light photography definitely improved with the 2.8 lenses.

Regardless, it doesn't bother me that the A100 does not perform as well as cameras costing twice as much. If you want to dump on the A100, you should at least compare it with cameras in its price range.

[pakodominguez]

The A100 had lots of good thing, but noise performance wasn't one of them. At all. I think it is a waste of time defending noise on the A100: Even Sony didn't seams to care too much about it (their FW update didn't changed anything on noise performance) probably because they prefered to put that energy on the A700. I sold mine the day after I got the A700 on the mailbox and I have no regrets (And I think David did a mistake buying a second body, but he does what he wants with his economies...)

The A900 is a good camera but I want it to be a wonderfull camera (not just because the price tag) and we aren't there yet. The problem is that, if you spend time/space on forums denying weak points on cameras (A100 or A900) we won't get the improvement we NEED on their FW, a la A700 V4.

Regards

[David Kilpatrick]

Pako, the A100 held up very well in value. It cost £295 with the lens - we got six months of use from it - it sold for £250 with the lens, and I gave my local camera shop £50 for selling it. Total cost of having 10 megapixels instead of 6 was £95, mainly for the Egyptian trip (overall travel cost and expenses for two came to about £1000). The buyer was an elderly photo enthusiast who has now died, but said he had really enjoyed having the A100 (seems he knew he had a limited time) and got some great photos with it.

I have kept one A100 fitted with the Haoda Fu split screen, it gets no use at all now but it is a useful backup. The only difficult ISO setting is 1600 - everything else can be dealt with by in-camera JPEG NR, or the right raw processing. 1600 never really loses its noisy look unless you decide to lose detail as well.

David