Definitive A900/D3X noise/ISO samples

[pakodominguez]

Don't ask me what I will get because it will be something cheap but usable. Only guy's like you and DK can afford the good stuff.
-Sonolta

ha!
I have a LaCie 321 at work (you know who paid for that, don't you?) and, at home I have a cheapo No-Brand CRT I got at Best Buy 4 years ago, that I prefer to the 17" flat screen that came with the HP desktop combo I bought early summer '07...
I only put good money on equipment that will last, like good lenses and Flashes. I think the A900 will get in this category

[Vidgamer]

[Vidgamer]

Back to the topic of A900 noise vs. the competition, someone on another web board said that he thought that Sony used a stronger (better) color filter on the sensor, but at the expense of sensitivity. His opinion was that this explains a noise difference between Sony and Nikon, but also means that the color is better on the Sony. I don't recall reading that about the A900 (although recall reading about the color filters in general a while ago). Comments?

[bfitzgerald]

Just for a laugh I punched in the KM5d, and A100 (no A700 or A200 to compare to yet), and it rated it higher than the A900 for DR at low ISO, albeit a tad..

Interesting lol

I always though the 5d has better DR at ISO 200..but hey, what do I know!

[Vidgamer]

Just for a laugh I punched in the KM5d, and A100 (no A700 or A200 to compare to yet), and it rated it higher than the A900 for DR at low ISO, albeit a tad..

Interesting lol

I always though the 5d has better DR at ISO 200..but hey, what do I know!

Yeah, I think I mentioned before comparing the A100 to the newer cameras (as you say, the ones that they have), and finding it interesting. What's lost is what DK mentioned in another thread is that there should be some allowance for the fact that some cameras have more pixels (and not just more noise). Just based on the DxO results, the A100 looks better than the 350 in many places, and disturbingly "close" to the A900. And yet, I would expect the photos to look better in the other cameras, in real-world results.

(I'm still keeping my A100, though! )

[Vidgamer]

I have posted the KM5D and A100 dynamic range and other numbers to these forums a dozen times. DXO does make *an allowance* for all cameras as they evaluate PRINTS and DISPLAY output.
....

In that case, the A100 does better than I thought!

[01af]

Do today's teenage newbie photographers see 1970s and 80s film SLRs the same way - like almost antique machines?

Have you ever been to a used photo gear swap-meet? It's fascinating.

70-year-old men are drooling over collapsible medium-format cameras with brillant finders, early Rolleiflexes, and Exakta Varex cameras. The 60-year-old are lusting after Leica M3, Zeiss Ikon, Contarex, and Nikon F with chunky Photomic finders. The 50-year-old are buying Pentax Spotmatic, Nikon F2, and Leicaflex SL cameras. The 40-year-old are looking at Olympus OM, Minolta XM, Canon F-1, Pentax LX, and Nikon F3 cameras. The 30-year-old are spending their money on the Uber-cameras of the analogue AF era, like Canon EOS 1V; Minolta Dynax 9, or Nikon F4. And the 20-year-old have absolutely no interest in anything that's not digital.

Each age-cohort inevitably is most interested in exactly that stuff that was current when their interest in photography and photo gear originally arose---usually when they were in their teens or early twenties. Anything older consequently is considered antique. If they look at anything else then it's newer stuff (usually for doing actual work rather than making dreams from several decades ago come true), not older.

-- Olaf