A900 vs. D700 @ DPReview

[Dr. Harout]

[bfitzgerald]

I only had a brief look at the review.

I note the good DR scores for the A900, I see Dave at IR also updated his tests, and gives the A900 good marks for DR (raw that is)
The nikon seems a bit DR challenged on jpegs, raw wise it looks much better. So I guess Sony are not the only ones struggling with jpegs.
I continue to be unimpressed with the A900 jpegs I have seen so far, let's be honest..they are not really very good. Raw is another story though, and I expect much better results.

Not enough here to get me jumping up and down DR wise, we are a long way off T-MAX 100/FP4 levels. I don't even think we are near colour neg either..not for highlight handling. +2 stops more and I get more interested, and a full 3 colour/layer sensor would hit the spot for me

[Yagil Henkin]

I'd guess in "Off" and noise ninja on the chroma, the picture would have been different. Would've liked better In-Camera NR, of course, but if I should judge from the amazing improvement of "off" mode in A700v4, then the "off" in the A900 should be very interesting indeed.

[bfitzgerald]

What puzzles me, is why sony released the A900 with jpeg problems, right after they sorted out the A700. Strange...

I would have expected very similar results, with an edge to the A900 for higher ISO. Maybe sony need to fire their beta testers, clearly somebody isn't doing their job properly. But it's all rather academic, the A900 is well out of my price range, so it's not something that is going to bother me that much.

[David Kilpatrick]

It was obvious from the first JPEGs that they were horrible - much worse than the A700 ever was. The dynamic range test is odd because Uschold found the A900 has 9.1 stops and his tests are JPEG based; I would say, from practical use, that the d-range is similar to the A200, slightly less than the A700 or A350 but this may just be an impression given by the default contrast. I have not been able to recover any more from the A900 by way of highlights, than any previous Sony model.

When you process a D700/D3 high ISO file in ACR, a huge amount of colour noise appears in the first stage of viewing - before the image sharpens up. It's interesting to see how it suddenly disappears as the raw conversion takes over. The A900 does not look so very different during this process (and the ACR conversion is so far superior to the JPEG it seems grossly unfair to compare JPEG/JPEG A900/D700, rather than RAW/RAW).

Despite the dPreview result, I didn't actually get particularly good images from the D700 compared to the D3, or to the A900. It may just have been chance or my choice of subjects - the temptation with the D3/D700 is to go out and shoot at ISO 800+ all the time just because it can. The temptation with the A900 is to stick to ISO 200 because that's what it does best.

David

[David Kilpatrick]

Actually, the comparison with the stamp shot in dPreview *is* grossly unfair. The Sony image is shown at 1.5X magnification compared to the Nikon. While it's almost OK to show 100% crops of 10 megapixels versus 8, 12 versus 10 etc because people may view the difference as small, showing 100% from a 24 megapixel next to 100% from a 12 does worsen an already bad comparison.

And when you quote my A700 comment, you forget that this referred to Extra Fine JPEGs, which were (and remain) on a different level to the Fine JPEG captures alongside raw files, which is what dPreview has tested.

I have tried the A900 using Extra Fine JPEG, and while it could almost be recommended, the files are just the same size as cRAW most of the time - or bigger. For some reason, Bridge takes longer to preview a JPEG than it does a RAW, with the A900. It must be the file size. I may try Extra Fine JPEG again, but right now, I'm inclined not to use JPEG at all as the results are so inferior.

David

[David Kilpatrick]

Stuart - who is no fan of my views generally! - posted this on dpreview, which is precisely the point I make:

----------------------------------------------------

I think that this really illuminates the failings in Dpreview's testing strategy...
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond700/page30.asp

It is not that the A900's noise is obviously worse than the others, that was really always going to be true, I acknowledge that.

However; those comparisons are completely invalid, as is very apparent just by looking at the images themselves. By using one-to-one crops for cameras of different resolutions, the test becomes as much a joke as Dpreview's antishake test.
Totally unrealistic.
--
Stuart / the Two Truths

----------------------------------------------------

It does not matter that the A900 would still come out worse (you can see that easily enough, the colour blotches on the stamp tests are enormous) at size-for-size - it's just that they make it appear 50% worse than it actually is, and not everyone reading dPreview is knowledgable about this stuff - you can understand it, I can, Stuart can, but thousands of relatively inexperienced or ignorant viewers won't actually understand what is being shown.

David

[David Kilpatrick]

Sorry, Don, I have not defended the JPEG quality. I have said from the start that it was poor. No different from you. These recent posts say exactly the same - it sucks. How does that make me a 'fanboy'? You are seriously weird. I'm off to bed!

David

[Javelin]

They started shipping them in Canada a couple days ago and I guess the US yesterday or today. we should see a lot more user reports in the next few days or week.

[bfitzgerald]

Strange..dp say the jpeg DR on the A900 is great, IR say it sucks.

I agree that the high ISO tests are not really very valid, and unfair to the A900. Why are they using jpeg anyway??? Ok we need to see it, but raw output from both makes more sense. Why not do the two of them?

Back to the beta tester thing, I would be amazed if they didn't give feedback on IQ. Either that or it was ignored..or even it could be possible sony rushed it out the door. I expect a firmware update will sort it out. But really, at this level, it's not a great idea to put it out in this poor state. Esp since reviewers will get hold of it and be rather critical. Bottom line though, somebody at sony land isn't doing their job properly, time to kick them to the curb, after all if internet forum folks spot the problem, and Sony boss does not. Then I hate to say it, but the phrase "incompetent" springs to mind.

Mabye it's the same guy who thought "bionz" raw was a good idea. And we know what happened on that one!

Aarif appears to be on the ball, think high res A700.

[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.