A900 and D3X studio comparison

[Dusty]

This one is just for fun! A DXO non-normalized comparison (straight output)...a900 vs D700 vs D90.

-Sonolta

Which one of those is a D3X again?

Dusty

[Dusty]

Honestly, Don, I'd like to debate you on your level, but I just don't know how to stoop that low!
Dusty

You don't debate. You are a Sony fanboy that prefers ignore the facts, test results, and the studio images to instead tell lies and post nonsense to the forum...I don't have time to debate nonsense - so I call them like I see them and I see you sir as a digital idiot.

-Sonolta

I do debate, Don, I interject logic into debates, you rant and throw up a bunch of charts, many not even about the cameras in question, and add ad hominen attacks, because you cannot respond to logic.

Dusty

[Dusty]

Which one of those is a D3X again?
Dusty

It don't take the D3x to waste the a900 in many areas....the APS-C Nikon D90 at $900 hangs with the a900 quite nicely and it shoots video to boot!

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/vie ... 811#p16801" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

-Sonolta

At 1/2 the MPs? You have got to be kidding. And I also believe that this is Photoclub Alpha, not Videoclub Alpha.

Buy one, Don, if they're so great.

What do you call someone who continues to bash the products he's using for digital photography, while both praising the competition and refusing to switch?

Wait a minute, the term was just used in a recent post.... A digital idiot!

Dusty

[KevinBarrett]

So, are you guys just trying to "win" at this point? Sony's SLRs aren't the best, but they are certainly a great value, and it's alright to get enamored over a good deal...to a point. Sonolta, I appreciate your presence on this forum because among other things, you do a wonderful job of bringing perspective and facts to a thread, but one need not be so combative. Dusty, you aren't the only one who is annoyed by link salad, but sometimes the competition deserves praise. If we never acknowledged where the competition offered a better camera/lens/etc..., how could we send a message to Sony about what we hope for in future products?

Most of what people are splitting hairs about in this thread will not make a difference in a print. But since cutting edge is cutting edge, and if one wants to make the very best quality images down to pixel level, one would likely do their own research in system utility and image quality before purchasing a camera in the $3k-8k range.

[Dusty]

So, are you guys just trying to "win" at this point? Sony's SLRs aren't the best, but they are certainly a great value, and it's alright to get enamored over a good deal...to a point. Sonolta, I appreciate your presence on this forum because among other things, you do a wonderful job of bringing perspective and facts to a thread, but one need not be so combative. Dusty, you aren't the only one who is annoyed by link salad, but sometimes the competition deserves praise. If we never acknowledged where the competition offered a better camera/lens/etc..., how could we send a message to Sony about what we hope for in future products?

Most of what people are splitting hairs about in this thread will not make a difference in a print. But since cutting edge is cutting edge, and if one wants to make the very best quality images down to pixel level, one would likely do their own research in system utility and image quality before purchasing a camera in the $3k-8k range.

Not trying to "win" Kevin, just pointing out (again) that an image in more than the sum of it's DXO Labs numbers. I liked parts of both the Sony and Nikon originally posted photos.
I have said in other threads that I bout Sony for it's price/performance point. Many factors went into that, not just IQ, although I'm happy with my A350's IQ. I'm not a high ISO user, nor am I gazillion frames a second shooter.

Camera selection is much more complicated today than when I started. Identical lenses using on differing cameras with identical film and exposure produced identical results, unless one of the cameras didn't fire at the the selected speed. Basically, if the camera had the few features you needed, and glass of sufficient quality, you could do whatever you needed with it. Today you are 'stuck' with whatever film the camera has in it, and while you can dial in exposures to suit your needs, resolution, 'grain' and other things are not going to change.

I would LOVE to see the DR and TR of sensors match and even exceed film. As I and 3/4 of the respondents to the high ISO poll stated, low light is not that much on our radar. However that's not even in question here, although someone want to keep posting about that in the thread. I love resolution. Granted, resolution without quality is doggie-doo, but I don't think that's really a problem with the A900. I would love to someday have a great digital camera that I can hold in my hand, shoot like a 35mm, and get 8x10 view camera results from. Some people have no desire for that, they many a 128000000 ISO camera that will do 72 fps. To each his own!

Dusty

[Greg Beetham]

I think I'd be quite happy with $3000 worth of snr and slightly more accurate colours (some), than $8000 worth.
Greg

[Vidgamer]

The $3000 vs. $8000 difference is huge. Sony has done a good job, IMO, of bringing a lot of value (features) at competitive price-points. This is part of their long-term strategy, I'm sure. I think adding more MP is as well. Even DXO has an article on how more resolution is better. It's not a gimmick like it is on P&S cameras, as we really can make use of more pixels in DSLR-land.

If you're a pro photographer, I'm sure you can justify the cost of a D3X. On a budget and as a hobby, I think my Sony does fine.

[Greg Beetham]

Granted the graphs "indicate" the D3X wins in low noise, but if you look at the first set of graphs you posted at the top of this page, especially the one's above the graphs with the progress bars, the A900 isn't too bad in three parameters and only serioulsy lacking in one, Low-Light ISO = 1431 to the D3X's 1992, so for an extra 5000 coconuts you get a smidgin more Colour Depth and better low light ISO hmmmm....
Greg
ps. My "h" finger wasn't working proper.

[PhotoTraveler]

Oh nice, what could have been a good thread has been destroyed because captain idiot returned.

Why are you still here Don

[KevinBarrett]

Lets suppose Sony suddenly introduced a camera that could match the performance of the Nikon D3x, ISO, noise, DR, at 14 bit A/D conversion, etc., even has the integrated vertical grip and SSS... we'll say it costs $8000

For how many of us would that camera actually make a difference? I know I couldn't hope to afford one until it was made obsolete by the a1000 (remember that one?).

[KevinBarrett]

Sony has little enough market share that they'd go bankrupt trying to offer as many cameras. Who knows which is the best way to get the market share they need to get competitive? Should they offer enough value that they gain a lot of beginners to grow in the Sony system? Or should they target the pros with an untouchable "halo" camera, hoping that the mass-market amateurs will flock to the system thinking "someday?" I think Sony is being competitive the best way they know how, given their market share and resources. It may be a long time before they have a whole system that is toe-to-toe with Canon or Nikon...I'm thinking 1-2 more flagship product cycles, being optimistic.

[KevinBarrett]

I stand corrected! I should have said "Sony's D-SLR division would get axed for decreased profitability if it spent enough on R&D to offer as many bodies as Nikon does." Sony the company has many more mouths to feed than D-SLRs.

[KevinBarrett]

Sony should be saving money and on the sensor, design, component, and other ends of the business beings they are deep into pro video and building sensors. This is an easy task for Sony...all they need to do is chart the right course. If that course is high MP pNs style cameras you can count me out real soon. I want more than just more MP alone.

-Sonolta

Here here!

[Greg Beetham]

Oith to Don, come in Don....put it this way, let's compare the $3000 FF Nikon with the $3000 FF Sony, when they build one that is...one day, and stop comparing an $8000 camera to a $3000 one, except of course if the A900 happens too be pretty good at taking photos anyway..ie in most "normal" use type photography you wouldn't know the difference, so it's actually a credit to the A900 that it's being compared to a camera that is nearly three times it's price.
Greg
ps. By the way the sensor pixel density of the FF Sony is about the same as the sensor in the A700....so I would'nt say the A900 is overloaded.

[Dusty]

I don't care...as I have shown numerous times the performance of the D700, the D3, and the 5DMkII, is better than the a900's in many imaging areas! Even the D90 is better than the a900 in a couple areas! Not to mention LV, video, feature sets, etc, etc...

I won't spend 8K but that's not the point. The point is the D3x is a great camera and Nikon has many great cameras designed for all types of shooters. The D90, the D300, the D700, the D3, and the D3X and others are all current! Unfortunately, realistically, many of us have only the a700 and the a900 to chose from...Wow, I'm thrilled. NOT!

-Sonolta

Well, Don, there's the problem. You want more features, you want more performance, you want everything except more price. You want the $8k camera, but you don't want to spend $8k on it, so you beat up Sony for 'not doing enough'! The feature sets and performance you want is all available....AT A PRICE. Get a clue, will you. I'm not, and I don't believe anyone else here, is saying that Sony makes the greatest cameras around. I am saying that the money spent for Sony DSLRs brings you more bank for the buck than the others do.

Dusty