David's A900 ISO 6400 pic, has arrived.

[bfitzgerald]

Thanks to DK, the print has turned up.

It is BIG (I have lost my tape..so DK will know the size!)
Now, you cannot see it, but I can. Viewed at normal distances (for a print this size) I would be more than happy with it. I suspect if you were taking the shot for a person, and they paid you..they would be very happy with it! Far better than I expected..

There are some areas that could be better, colour noise, there is some there..though you need to get pretty close to start seeing it. Also, fine texture details would look better if the jpeg engine was a bit lighter on the NR side of things, a more film esque very fine grain would work well here. But, I am nitpicking. Chances are you wouldn't be printing this large, and of course things get better smaller, but this is a good print considering we are at such a high ISO level.

No doubt raw would be even better. So does the A900 suck at high ISO? Nope..I would use this, and not complain (wow!) I still think sony can do with a bit of work on the jpeg side of things, tighten things up a tad.

So there you have it, DK is right, I was far too sceptical all along. Anyone got a spare wad of £1900???

I guess the old film body will do for now...just a quick shot of Dingle's main Church (vignetting added!)
Yeah FF is nice, esp WA wise...if you were thinking of the A900, and have the cash, go get it, I would !!

[Bodak]

I am pleased for you Barry..

I think that you have now jumped a major barrier and look forward to further comments from you as time goes by.
I did not fall off a chair but are genuinely happy that the lights are on.

[tbroadley]

Well to use a hackneyed phrase "it takes a man etc"
Still, Barry, I actually appreciate your observations more than you might realize; as in the beginning I had niggling doubts and then I began to see the potential and have a confirmed sceptic like yourself make the statements above, that means a lot

so well done my friend and I thank you
Tim

[bfitzgerald]

Well you just have to say it as you see it. And nothing beats a print.
Most important to remember viewing distance, if you put your nose up to it, you will walk away less impressed. But then we all get carried away on the pixel peeping side of things.

Hard to compare to a D3, I have seen some larger prints from them at high ISO, but different subjects..I think the Nikon's would be your ist choice for high ISO print quality, they are very good. And I still think 20+mp is maybe a tad overkill for most..

However, I don't think anyone would be unhappy with this camera at high ISO, going off of this print sample. Jpeg and all, its decent..
It would be even better with less luminance NR, and a bit more colour NR, so I think sony have a bit more work to do on this side of things.

[David Kilpatrick]

I can't remember the exact print size on the A2 paper but I think it's about 19 x 13.

By using the A900 at ISO 3200 or 6400 and going for either the 13MP or 6MP JPEG writing, along with RAW, you get pretty good regular JPEGs ideal for most social photography (or personal/family photography). I now think I could improve on the settings used anyway, and get the tighter more film-like Nikon style luminance noise pattern further into the shadows.

David

[David Kilpatrick]

Barry, one person on dPreview thinks the shot you posted of yours, is the shot being discussed!

Here is a link to the file again:



http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/image/104275945

As said - in-camera 13MP result, not necessarily with the very best possible options set - now that it's known that some minor adjustments to zone and brightness settings can do a bit better at high ISO with the effective loss of about half a stop in true 'speed'.

David

[gpr2020]

Barry that was bashing the a900 when it first came out after seeing image on dpreview is now praising it.
In the future if you did not use the camera, do not bash at it.

[Dr. Harout]

Am I glad to hear this.
A question arises: how much can we enlarge a 100-200 ISO? But please don't calculate the size in feet, metric please.

[bfitzgerald]

Ooops, my mistake for posting a film shot!

I still think 24mp is more than most would ever need (IMO of course) , I still think the jpegs could be better, and need some work. However, it is decent at high ISO, I doubt many want more than that. Critique never hurt sony, after all they are just a company, and need feedback.

[David Kilpatrick]

Am I glad to hear this.
A question arises: how much can we enlarge a 100-200 ISO? But please don't calculate the size in feet, metric please.

Simple enough - the image is a little over 4000 x 6000 pixels. The perfect resolution for most inkjet printers is around 240-250 pixels per inch or 100 pixels per centimetre.

That means 40 x 60cm at normal 'best quality' (or 18 x 24 inches for the non-metric). That is, the quality you see at this size should be sufficient for the closest examination of the print, from 10cm away if you like. It should be as sharp as a 20 x 30cm from a 35mm negative. There is no need to limit this to 100-200, the noise/sharpness at ISO 400 is easily good enough and I doubt you would see much difference at 800. Noise only really begins to affect detail from 1600 to 6400, and even 1600 can look 'smooth' at this large size. I have got A2 prints from 3200 and 6400 and they are great.

David

[moire2]

According to dpr, ISO above 400 is useless on A900, any images at such ISO should be deleted to save the pain of even looking at them, so barry burn that print now! its useless!


:/

[01af]

According to dpreview, ISO above 400 is useless on A900 ...

Have you been told so, or did you make this up yourself? In any case, you obviously did not read what dpreview wrote about the A900's high-ISO performance---if you did then you wouldn't post such blatant nonsense.

-- Olaf

[David Kilpatrick]

'According to dPreview' may mean 'according to the Sony forum on dPreview and what people have been saying' - if so, moire22 is excused.

David

[01af]

'According to dPreview' may mean 'according to the Sony forum on dPreview and what people have been saying' - if so, moire22 is excused.

Umm ... agreed.

I just browsed through dpreview's In-Depth Review of the A900 and was assuming moire22 is referring to that. There they say at ISO 100/21° to ISO 400/27°, the A900's performance is the highest of all current 35-mm-format DSLR cameras; noise at ISO 800/30° to ISO 1600/33° is good but many competitors are somewhat better; and at ISO 6400/39° the A900 shots are 'of very, very limited use'.

Strange how 'good' will turn into 'useless' in the minds of many people as soon as something slightly better arrives.

By the way---did anyone notice how the focusing speed being not the fastest makes a point in Conclusion---Cons while at the same time the extremely high focusing accuracy does NOT appear in Conclusion---Pros ... instead, it's worth just a casual qualifying remark (in parentheses) in the Cons section. I've been waiting for an auto-focus SLR camera that prefers AF accuracy over AF speed for two decades. And I always knew that when it arrives eventually then reviewers WILL score it down for that. Kudos to Sony and shame to Simon Joinson (dpreview reviewer)!

-- Olaf