A900 vs. D700 @ DPReview

[MCPhotography]

I cannot understand this complete obsession with jpeg output from a 25MP camera?

In terms of prints - I have numerous 3200 ISO prints from the A900 shot in RAW and then printed at 24" x 17" that are trully excellent - yes some visible luminance noise, but actually very grainlike and no loss of fine detail.

The cameras in reality should not really be compared as they will appeal to different users. The D700 - great for many types of photography and if jpeg is your thing then it ticks the boxes. The A900 (currently until Sony sort out the jpeg engine, which should really not be that difficult) is a RAW shooters dream. Incredible detail that up until recently was the domain of MF backs. Do you think those users were bothered about jpeg output from their 22MP H3D combos?

A reality check is required - have you seen the noise from a 1DS mkIII? I have and lets just say that the higher resolution A900 will produce cleaner files at 1600ISO (shot RAW) with better detail than a 1DS mkIII - if that is not something to shout about, then I don't know what is. And lets face it, when it comes down to comparing the D700 and A900, despite the obvious resolution advantage the A900 provides - (you should see some of the D700/A900 Edinburgh Cityscape images I took last week where the D700 turned trees into mush), you can achive (in print) simillar output in noise terms at virtually any print size at 1600 ISO, if you want proof, come round to my studio and I will show you!

Its a healthy debate and unless you have personally tested both cameras together in a non biased fashion (including comparing prints at various sizes), then you are only basing your opinion on what others are saying - on the other hand both cameras are here and I know where I would put my money! No Sony fanboy, but a working professional that understands what tools suit his type of work best. And thats the rub, both cameras have their USP's.

Kind regards and best wishes.


Mark

[Dr. Harout]

I think Mark is right on this issue Don.
We have an advantage here of listening and viewing works of photographers/professionals until we own an A900 to test it and play with it ourselves.
I won't be surprised if I hear that this or that big website writes against Sony (or any other company/product) for some premises from other company(ies)... if you understand what I mean.
Face it, we are just seeing links here, for now... some praising, some 'hanging', some nagging, while some...
So let us be patient a bit. Remember when Canon 1Ds MKIII came out, just a short while later a new firmware was announced (and that goes for Nikon and the rest).
I'm sure A900 will have negative sides along with the positives. If I were convinced that it suits me, believe me I would've ordered one for myself.
As for jpeg... frankly I shoot RAW only (no jpegs for me).

[bfitzgerald]

I was under the impression that in the D700 review on Dp, that the results for the A900 were jpeg aka DR wise. I may of course be wrong. If it is though, there is a big difference between that and the IR results.
I agree with Don, that jpeg output is important, there are times that it can be of use (esp burst shooting), as well as for fast delivery of files etc etc.
I don't think the current jpeg output is acceptable IMO it's poor. Sony really need to sort this one out, the jpegs on the A200/350 etc are a bit pants too..
Not seen enough V4 A700 files to really comment, but it's pretty clear to me, that everyone else does jpegs better than sony. A far cry from the KM days, ok warts and niggles on those 2 DSLR's aside, the jpegs were good..very good.
Yes jpeg matters...even if you mostly shoot raw, it's nice to have something decent there if and when you want it.

[caporip]

[quote="Sonolta"]Myself, I am getting sick and tired of people proclaiming Raw is the only way to go. Let me show you folks a KM5D 6MP Camera JPG file enlarged to 5144 x3120 pixels (17.6MP)...This is a size acceptable with Alamy, this image prints at 11x17 @ 300 DPI...and this image looks absolutely stunning at 20 x 30 inches. This is one type of fine art image that I sell, and it is the same stuff that I have had in the Butler Museum of Art - Beecher Center in the past.

It occurs to me that you are missing the point most people are making. I dont think anyone is knocking JPEGs on this thread per se all that has been said is that as a camerea the JPEG output on the a900 leaves something to be desired I dont think anyone is in denail about this and saying that if you have an a900 it makes sense to shoot raw is not knocking JPEGS its just being realistic. I have an A900 I am pleased with it and am becoming aware of its strengths and weaknesse which in my case, and i appreciate it may not be the same for you, are'nt that many.

While I'm on the subject we know you know your stuff and your output etc but there are times as was the case on DPreview when your responses could be a tad more polite.

Maybe worth thinking about.

Richard

[caporip]

It occurs to me that you are missing the point most people are making.

No, you are missing the point, I don't want to shoot, process, and store raw all-of-the-time.

I dont think anyone is knocking JPEGs on this thread per se all that has been said is that as a camerea the JPEG output on the a900 leaves something to be desired I dont think anyone is in denail about this and saying that if you have an a900 it makes sense to shoot raw is not knocking JPEGS its just being realistic.

You are not reading the threads, some here do bash JPGs...giving folks the "I never shoot JPG" and the "Why the hell do you shoot JPG" speaks.

I have an A900 I am pleased with it and am becoming aware of its strengths and weaknesse which in my case, and i appreciate it may not be the same for you, are'nt that many.

Well, I want good JPGs, long continuous bursts, live view, movie mode, better high ISO, faster frame rates, etc, etc, etc...and I would like to keep my grip/eye start AF as well!

While I'm on the subject we know you know your stuff and your output etc but there are times as was the case on DPreview when your responses could be a tad more polite.

Some raw and a900 "elitists" need to worry about the needs of themselves, rather than the needs of I and others. It is not polite for people to say "Why shoot JPG, they suck" and "Raw is way better than JPG" and "JPGs, your joking, right"....If I can shoot great JPGs and avoid processing, then that's what I do...How hard is that for you to understand? I also love the increased write speeds, the massive amount of storage it frees up, the less backup space required, the instantaneous printable results I get straight from the camera, and many other JPG benefits that I care not to go into here.

Maybe worth thinking about.

No. Maybe you should worry about your own needs and I will worry about mine!

Richard

-Sonolta

Q E D I rest my case.

[alphaomega]

I think I have read all the entries in thread but I am kind of lost on the Jpeg argument that the A900 is not doing too well here. The DPReview stated under the Jpeg comparison (presumably low ISO) with A900 that

However, the amount of detail that is rendered by the Sony's new 24MP sensor is quite simply astonishing. If resolution and detail at low sensitivities are high up on your priority list it'll be difficult to ignore Sony's new flagship. Default colors and sharpening are not far off from the Nikon's though.

Now this was a Jpeg comparison with the D700.
There can be no doubt that the D700 outperforms the A900 at higher ISO settings when you compare the larger A900 image with the smaller D700 equivalent. What else could be expected considering the relative pixel densities as has been pointed out. They are simply two different animals and behave differently. Sony clearly decided to make a statement with the A900 and have done so. Just look at the resolution comparison. I really cannot understand what the strong words are all about. Even looking at Sonolta's art images I would have thought that shooting Jpegs at low ISO settings would yield a more than satisfactory result. There should be no need to use high ISO settings. If he needs higher ISO settings he could presumably use his A700 v.4. Considering that Sony took over Minolta just over a couple of years ago it is truly amazing what they have managed to bring to the market. They are No. three now and some of the other competitors are looking for other formats now in order to try and compete. Only Leica are moving up with Sony and that to a completely new format. Sony have actually managed to beat both Nikon and Canon to now have the highest Mp DSLR and an expanding top quality lens range. I understant the frustration with the high ISO Jpegs but I am sure it will be fixed in the near future. I chose Sony although I did not have to as I went straight from MD. I had great faith in them and still have. I love my A700 & A350 and have a good laugh when I read the reviews and the tendency to always pick a Nik or Can to win. Somehow I often cannot recognise my cameras when I read the reviews.

[Gianluca]

I agree with you alphaomega. Perhaps I would prefer a D700 right now, but I think that Sony did it right choosing an high resolution sensor for the A900 not only because MPixel does sell well (just run a serach on Google for "Sony A900" and you will see a lot of forums impressed by its pixel/price ratio) but also because they have the chance to turn in an opportunity the fact that they are new in the market. As matter of fact they had to begin from scratch with bodies and also with lenses. Now they have a good selection of premium glass that will perform better on full frame than the equivalent Nikon/Canon. Of course they need more lenses (tilt and shift, longer macro, 12-24, 400, 600, ..) and perhaps 2 more bodies, but in my opinion they have built a solid system so far, and they are making pressure to Canon and Nikon.

I think that Nikon will have to introduce a high resolution DSLR too, but are they able to do it without Sony sensors? Sony stated that the A900 sensor is exclusive. They could make it a little different (14 bit, ..) and sell it to Nikon, or Nikon could buy it from someone else, but the D3x will be more expensive than the A900.

I would really like to see how "old" Nikon lenses do perform on a 24 MPixel FF. Even the new 70-200/2.8 VR is not doing very well on the 12 MPixel FF.

Anyway, this competition between Canon, Nikon and Sony is very interesting, isn't it?

[David Kilpatrick]

Don, there are aspects of the dPreview test which - though we can clearly see the A900 has a very blotchy, chrome-noise ridden JPEG - are simply not 'equal'.



This is just the first image. Please look at the brightness level of the stamp - the highlights, if you like, of the face. There is a phenomenal amount of gain, relative gain, in the A900 image compared to the dead flat low contrast of the Nikon image. What exactly is going on here? They are not comparing like for like, because the exposure match for the grey tone clearly does not produce a match for the upper tone levels.

I've just opened the 800 ISO Sony and Nikon examples in Photoshop and the top of histogram in the Nikon is way off from the right hand end, the Sony just touches it with a couple of little scattered dots and the main part ending much closer. I have also resampled the Nikon to match the same imaging area as shown on the Sony, and it's interesting to see how much detail is lost.

The sharp edge in the Nikon shot is due to moving blocks of grey/black to make the fit match again. I have tried to match up both the highlight brightness, and the density of the black block, so the Nikon matches the tonal range (if not the much higher local contrast) of the Sony file. The Sony image looks extremely sharpened to me on the stamp, and the Nikon image quite soft when viewed at this identical scale. I think that the step from the blotchy, high colour noise of the A900 to a D700-style luminance grain would only require a firmware upgrade exactly like v4 for the A700. Let's hope it arrives.

David

[bfitzgerald]

You can print pretty big on the 5d for ISO 1600, it is only ISO 3200 that really starts to drop it down. Saying that, I would disagree with Dave at IR on his 5d review, I think he said only good for 6"x4", well you can go bigger than that..maybe 8"x6", I have even gone to that pushed to ISO 6400. Print quality is subjective, but I didn't get any complaints when I put them into the album..

No idea on the A900, we will see what is going on when raw support turns up

[bfitzgerald]

Well I agree that KM did tweak the jpegs on the 5d, high ISO etc..and for the good.

Now, as sony seems to be struggling, maybe we should have a whip round a send them a 5d, with a post-it note on it. "jpegs, like this please..thanks very much"

[David Kilpatrick]

Don, one thing the A900 does is to shoot 13 megapixel JPEGs alongside its raw files, if you select that size; of course, it will do 13 megapixel JPEGs, a perfect match for the Nikon D700, without raw as well. This is convenient, since it means you can use the A900 just like a D700 if you shoot JPEGs - up to 6400, it doesn't go higher as we know.

Here is a typical ISI 6400 13 megapixel JPEG direct from the camera but compressed to JPEG level 10 -


http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/image/104275945 for the original

For those who don't want to bother with pBase viewing, here is some centre detail on the 1985 50mm f1.4 lens at f/3.2 - by street sodium light, AWB:



And here is some EXTREME edge detail from the shot:



OK, it's not cats, but it is more Phil's postage stamp - detail-intensive. This is direct camera JPEG stuff. It could be better. But it has an incredible amount of detail compared to the D700 at 6400 and I know, I've used both, the 'family firm' has invested $6000 in Nikon D3 kit as well as a recent $2000 in A900 kit.

The 1600 at 5 x 7 comment is pure COMPLETE nonsense and garbage. It is damaging, entirely wrong, and you keep repeating it - talk about me being a Sony 'fanboy', you are so ANTI you come over as almost mentally unbalanced on this matter (and I've got a drawerful of PM's asking me whether you are!).

The A900 writes its JPEGs with a default resolution of 350dpi instead of the usual 72dpi. Do you know what that means? It means you can send a camera JPEG direct to a newspaper, and they will not curse you to hell! Have you ever place a 72 dpi image, even 12 megapixels, on a page on in an image frame on InDesign or XPress? You see a tiny corner of the image and have to hit two keystroke combos to shrink and fit the image to view. If you place in InDesign without a frame, the 24 megapixel image at 72dpi would be so big you could not ever find the shrink handles. Sony - incredibly aware of the industry needs - actually embeds 350 dpi in the JPEGs meaning that print drivers, layout programs etc all come up with a proper size of image.

I have just printed a 350dpi, 13 megapixel image (this example) on my Epson 3880 at 150%. The image size is 12.5 x 19.75 inches. The result is immaculate - you can see some grain, but there is no hint of the colour blotches visible at 100% and the level of detail is just phenomenal. That real estate agent sign at the edge, at this size, is just 1/4 square and all the writing is resolved (at 2880dpi fine print with maximum detail set) so you can read it with a magnifier - I can not read it with my eye, I have to use a loupe.

Anyone can download my ISO 6400, NR set to LOW, in-camera 13 megapixel JPEG from pBase and try it themselves. Even you.

Honestly... we have been given an incredible camera, a reward if you like for sticking with Minolta and Sony through a decade of bombardment with negative stuff like your posts here, and all you can do is sit there spewing out prejudice against anything you have not used and are not using personally.

David

[David Kilpatrick]

Well I agree that KM did tweak the jpegs on the 5d, high ISO etc..and for the good.

Now, as sony seems to be struggling, maybe we should have a whip round a send them a 5d, with a post-it note on it. "jpegs, like this please..thanks very much"

Barry, I will send you my 13 x 19 print from the 6400 iso shot posted a few minutes ago - the postage to Ireland is not too much, and I would like you to see it and make whatever comments you feel fit. I'll send you a copy of Photoworld at the same time.

Just PM me with your address.

David

[pakodominguez]

OK, it's not cats, but it is more Phil's postage stamp - detail-intensive. This is direct camera JPEG stuff. It could be better. But it has an incredible amount of detail compared to the D700 at 6400 and I know, I've used both, the 'family firm' has invested $6000 in Nikon D3 kit as well as a recent $2000 in A900 kit.
...
Honestly... we have been given an incredible camera, a reward if you like for sticking with Minolta and Sony through a decade of bombardment with negative stuff like your posts here, and all you can do is sit there spewing out prejudice against anything you have not used and are not using personally.

David

I think Don thinks he can make things change by driving his own crusade, and he's using this forum for that. In a certain way, he's right: Sony needs to understand that their approach to JPG (the engine) is POOR. Period.

Minolta approach was way better, and the knowledge that Konika brought was complementary quality-wise (in other hand, Konika's way to impose their point of view was one of the factors that made the 7D show up late on this game). You can work from a 7D JPG and get a wonderful print, without having to dig into the MRW, because the JPG is already rich in color and fine detail, and have a special property that I like to call "deepness". Properties that I haven't seen in any other brand's JPG.

I think Don's crusade is a waste of time. He fight those "fanboys" that spend their time denying the system's faults. But one-person agenda won't change Sony's point of view. Sony probably think their JPGs are good enough, since the photographers they target are more Raw-lovers. But I want good JPGs too -and A mode with non-chipped lenses, on board flash, compatibility with all Minolta/Sony flashes, and the rest of my list. And I will try to get my message passed to the people that can decide a V2's firmware: I'm going to the PhotoPlus Expo with my list, and I know a couple of people here in NYC that, part of their job is listening to Alpha users.

For those people that want an objective point of view (Don: your point of view is not objective at all, it's just noisy and IMHO useless) I find this thread a good reading, because Kiklop owns and use both cameras (D700 and A900) http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts ... 36949&PN=1

Regards

[caporip]

sonolta

By definition an opinion is subjective. If you have an opinion, and clearly you do, it is based on your own experiences,issues and understanding just as anyone else's is. That is not to say it is wrong but it is likely to be different , to varying degrees, from the next person. Even when the opinion is based on facts it's still your intepretation of those facts.

I would repeat what i said earlier in that no one, as far as i am aware, has said that A900 jpegs at high ISOs could not be improved but that does not mean it doesn't have other strengths that for some people make it an attractive proposition just as the D700 may be for others.

[caporip]

i am not and never have been a fanboy and i really resent you making that statement. The possession of a A900 does not make me a fanboy all i have tried to point out that different people have different views and that different camera suit different people why that makes me a "fanboy" is beyond my comprehension.