Page 1 of 1
SONY A900 vs NIKON D700 @ ISO 1600
Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:51 am
by moire2
Well do your own judging:
http://www.minhembio.com/forum/uploads/ ... 040782.jpg
Look at the fabric at the bottom right corner, A900 has sligthly more detail than D700 and better grain/noise structure ...
Who would have thought that huh
Re: SONY A900 vs NIKON D700 @ ISO 1600
Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:20 pm
by bossel
I'd say thats looking very good! Also to consider, I read somewhere (for the D300) that for the same ISO/F-Stop/EV Value the Nikon chooses a slower shutter time to avoid noise in the shadows. Do you have the exif for these two shots?
Re: SONY A900 vs NIKON D700 @ ISO 1600
Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:55 pm
by moire2
bossel wrote:I'd say thats looking very good! Also to consider, I read somewhere (for the D300) that for the same ISO/F-Stop/EV Value the Nikon chooses a slower shutter time to avoid noise in the shadows. Do you have the exif for these two shots?
Yes, it was David K here that repported that D300 uses twice the exposure!
ie. A700 iso 1600 equal d300 iso 800.
That image is from a dpr thread, so sorry no exif. But the images are from IR so the raws are free to dl
The problem is that RT dont support a900 yet so the colors and WB are a mess, naturally. Its just luck we can open these files at all.
Re: SONY A900 vs NIKON D700 @ ISO 1600
Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 10:10 pm
by Dr. Harout
There will be lots of testings in the near future. All we know, the firmware in the A900 is not the final, I mean the one that will hit the market. Sony will make many improvements then we will have a discussion.
What I'm interested now is a comparison between A900 and A700 with a DT lens (any).
Re: SONY A900 vs NIKON D700 @ ISO 1600
Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 10:29 pm
by Dr. Harout
Sonolta wrote:D3/D700/D300/A700/KM5D all crunch the current a900 in high ISO IQ...The a900 needs an upgrade to improve it's high ISO performance before it is released to the public, as the samples on the thread below so clearly demonstrate.
http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/vie ... f=32&t=829
-Sonolta
I am aware Don, but after the right firmware version a comparison with A700 would be very very interesting (but strictly on a DT lens, or 1.5 crop on A900 + other lenses).
I am pretty sure A900 will be better in many issues but the A700 will have its own virtues too and beat the A900 in other instances.
Anyway the mechanism of the mirror is very interesting. I like it.
Re: SONY A900 vs NIKON D700 @ ISO 1600
Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 3:02 am
by Octupi
Sonolta wrote:D3/D700/D300/A700/KM5D all crunch the current a900 in high ISO IQ. We know this from reviewing the image samples posted at the respectable review sites...The a900 clearly needs an immediate *upgrade* to improve it's high ISO performance before it is released to the public.
See this thread for samples and discussion.
http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/vie ... f=32&t=829
-Sonolta
I'm not sure how you upgrade a un-released product. I've worked in software development for 12 years and I've never seen it happen.
It goes from Alpha software to Beta to final freeze and then to mastering. I'm guessing that the images we're using to compare to other models are in the end of alpha or early beta release.
so if we must fuss about comparing (we'll say) beta software to production software then we obviously have not set our expectations correctly or realistically.
Re: SONY A900 vs NIKON D700 @ ISO 1600
Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:47 am
by moire2
Sonolta, I'm surprised that you haven't seen all the RAw images yet
RAW is just fine, like a700 v4
well seems to be with these early test shots at least.
Re: SONY A900 vs NIKON D700 @ ISO 1600
Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:17 pm
by Dr. Harout
Sonolta wrote:Yeah...I am getting the raw picture now! I have been a little busier than normal the past couple weeks do to hurricane season here in the states...Once my server calms down *and* I get 750GB of files backed up that I am working on now, I will have more time to study the a900 files. Yeah, I jumped on the early JPGs as I wanted usable JPGs and they do not seem to be quite the quality I was expecting. I shoot JPGs on my KMs, but Raw on the Sony's so I guess that it is no big change for me anyway.
I agree...Raw stuff is looking mightily detailed for sure.
-Sonolta
Am I glad to hear that from you Don.
As for me, deep inside, I wasn't expecting that much of details, specially after all those gossips running on the net.
