A900 vs. D700 @ DPReview

[David Kilpatrick]

Here is the D3 in the same exposure and light level (though with less ambient sky light, higher contrast) compared to the street scene - which was not specially selected, just picked at random from a bunch of shots:



In-camera JPEG, the NR was almost certainly set to Low, but on.

Here is another at a similar light value (one stop more exposure, probably two stops more light) but better exposed:



Sorry, the A900 did of course cost $4000 not $2000, I was thinking in pounds. The D3 cost $6000 because Richard got a journo's discount and saved about $2000 overall on his D3+14-24mm kit.

I'm fully aware that the D3/D700 had a much better high ISO noise than the A900 - and a much better TYPE of noise too. And, like several others, I've already sat down with Sony execs and discussed this, but no answer is yet forthcoming. One clue is that the manual warns - 'the speed of continuous shooting becomes slower when the NR is set to High'. That means that all the NR being done is a load on the twin processor system, so they may be using quick and dirty NR routines, if just changing this value can actually slow the camera down.

BUT - my point is that any tests which make silly statements like the A900 only being good for a 5 x 7 print at ISO 1600 are just nonsense, no matter how much you may revere their procedures. ISO 1600 is good for almost any sized print from the A900, as you would expect. 5 x 7 - feet, maybe, not inches! And although the high ISO noise at 6400 is not pretty even when writing a 13 megapixel JPEG, the actual printed result is much better than you would imagine. It is a usable setting, not unusable.

Oh, and here is the 1/13th at f 2 tungsten light cat shot at 3200 - the in-camera JPEG, not cropped and with the hair across the eye not retouched out - and of course, no pp at all:


http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/image/104294047

David

[Gianluca]

I don't print very often but I prefer jpgs that do print very well rather than jpg that do look nice at 100%. JPGs are intended to be down sized for web display or printed, because you don't have the time to work on them (otherwise why not to use cRAW instead?). The only customers who will inspect your pictures at 100% are agencies like Alamy, but they strongly suggest to adopt a RAW workflow.

For the same reason, I would like to have the option to turn NR on for JPGs while NR is off for RAWs.

[alphaomega]

It looks to me that the tone between Sonolta and David K has mellowed slightly and they have moved slightly closer to admitting that on the one hand the Jpeg high ISO performance of the D3/700 is better than the A900 but not by an extraordinarily wide margin. Personally I do not believe that the A900 will ever match the Nikons for high ISO Jpeg performance whatever Sony do with Firmware updates. (Look at Amateur Photographers recent review of Canon's 50D. Noise at higher ISOs due to the sensor size - and that is Canon who are supposed to be masters of NR). I do not think that those looking mainly for high ISO Jpeg noise performance were ever considered a target market for the A900 by Sony.
Quote from sonolta.com:

The Sony Alpha a700 DSLR performed beyond my expectations in Milwaukee while covering the Rock River Raptors playing the Boncerushers in CIFL indoor football action. The Bonecrushers have a stunning dance team, and I am very happy the Sony a700 was able to capture the beauty and the enthusiasm of this awesome indoor football dance squad adequately.

As far as I can see Sonolta is an enthusiastic Sony user. He may regret that Minolta sold out - so did I. I even resented the inclusion of Konica in the name.
I am new to Photoclubalpha. To be truthful I got tired of DPReview when David was excluded. There is simply too much "hot air" and not enough factual information available now. The Nik/Can sites are even worse that Sony - IMHO. I appreciate the information available on this forum and would appeal for a calmer tone for the benefit of all and sundry. I also believe that the efforts of people like Sonolta and David K. to highlight deficiencies to the camera makers is a worthwhile pursuit and I would encourage its continuation. I trust this submission will be taken in the spirit it was submitted - the exchange of valuable information between participants and viewers.

[Dr. Harout]

I'm with you alphaomega, standing beside you.

[Greg Beetham]

Goodness graciousment Don,
where would you get the idea from, that someone would want to bash you.
it never crossed my mind, I swear.
Greg

ps can't be too sure about some ruffians around here though.

[alfake]

Funny, Greg! (If English were my mother tongue, you could count on me to join your forces against all the ruffians here who might be secretly thinking of bashing our one and only Sonolta…)
Alfonso

[Gianluca]

LOL...NO, Not Quite! JPGs are also for people that can get the shot right in-camera...that way we don't need to do post production at all, and we don't waste unnecessary time and storage space either

That's exactly what I'm trying to say. JPGs don't have to look good at 100% but they have to print well or be perfect at web size, because you will print them or resize for web most of the time. Perhaps A900 jpgs are not so bad when printed or resized (I'm trying to understand why Sony decided to process them this way, provided that they are not incompetent).

[bossel]

Sony does it this way because they did not have time to refine the processing logarithms...

Here in France we call them algorithms

But I agree, a V4 update for the A900 might be appropriate, for those who need the jpgs.

[bossel]

Thanks for pointing out my typo. Yes...bring it on!

That's quite a sophisticated typo! For a short moment I thought you really meant logarithms