Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Nick Rains on September 18, 2008, 11:55:28 pm
-
Just thought you'd like to know that now the ACR4.6 beta is public I can process A900 files alongside 1Ds3 files.
Based on a very quick look today I'd say that the Sony files still falls slightly behind the Canon on sharpness and smoothness of tone. You have to look closely but the Canon is simply 'crisper' whilst the Sony has this odd granularity in smooth areas, not really noise, just a subtle lumpiness in areas where the Canon shows flat tone.
I'll look at some other files in a while, maybe when I get some time over the w/e.
The attached file is a screenshot with both images processed the same in ACR4.6. It may well be that the Sony file (on the right) can be 'massaged' to match the Canon.
-
Nick,
The differences are subtle but noticeable. But what ISO were these shots?
My main gripe about the A900 is its performance at ISO 1600 and 3200. If the 1Ds3 can better it, then the 5D MkII might even better better it.
-
Based on a very quick look today I'd say that the Sony files still falls slightly behind the Canon on sharpness and smoothness of tone. You have to look closely but the Canon is simply 'crisper' whilst the Sony has this odd granularity in smooth areas, not really noise, just a subtle lumpiness in areas where the Canon shows flat tone.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222555\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No doubt, the Canon file is indeed cleaner and seems to resolve a little bit more by looking at the rendering of the boat's mast cables on the left of the image.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Could you fix the CA on the Sony one?
-
The attached file is a screenshot with both images processed the same in ACR4.6. It may well be that the Sony file (on the right) can be 'massaged' to match the Canon.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=222555\")
The Sony has direct light so the contrast is higher, but the detail on the Canon is SO much better. This just proves that just because the MP count is larger doesn't necessarily mean you're going to get better IQ.
A friend that sent me this thread also sent me this interesting article:
[a href=\"http://uk.news.yahoo.com/techdigest/20080917/ttc-exclusive-canon-engineers-held-back-e870a33.html]Canon engineers held back by marketing department's "megapixel race"[/url]
-
I have looked at some other files and the Sony can look just as sharp and finely detailed as the Canon. In fact in one shot using the 135F2 and 135/1.8 the Sony was better. I also noticed that I shot the Sony at 200ISO and the Canon at 100ISO The Sony has a base ISO of 200 (I think) so this seemed reasonable.
Noise is definitely higher at base ISOs but merely adding 5 to the NR in ACR4.6 pretty much cancels this out.
There is still a slightly less smooth tone to the Sony, but the detail is certainly there. Only bench tests can really distinguish these camera as far as resolution is concerned so to all intents and purposes they are as good as each other IMHO.
Detail - draw
Noise - Canon by a head but at 1 stop less ISO.
-
Nick,
It sounds as though we're into pixel-peeping territory here. One would expect two modern sensors of the same size and type (CMOS) and similar pixel count to produce very similar image quality at base ISO.
Did you not take any shots at ISO 800, 1600 and above? It's at these ISOs one might expect to see the greatest differences.
-
Quote: A friend that sent me this thread also sent me this interesting article:...
NEWSFLASH: Engineer found who agrees wholeheartedly with his organisation's marketing department !
We are delighted to bring you a startling world exclusive interview with an Engineer who claims to be impressed by his company's marketing department.
"Not only do they work ever so hard," he was quoted as saying, "with long hours, often tiring themselves with late nights of corporate entertainment, they manage despite that to keep a coolly quantitative and analytical view of exactly how customers are segmented into different groups and are able to map feature desirability to these groups. I'm extremely respectful of those insights. Of course, I'm also delighted that without that vital step in the sales and development cycle, my colleagues and I wouldn't have jobs to do at all."
We were able to confirm our contact's Engineering credentials by the soup stains on his tie, his disarmingly friendly manner and his frequent inspections of his shoes.
- - + - -
Oh, beg pardon. I seem to have ambled off into the realms of fantasy for a moment....
Y
-
One would expect two modern sensors of the same size and type (CMOS) and similar pixel count to produce very similar image quality at base ISO.
Why?
-
Why?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222635\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Market competition plus the fact that this always seems to be the case, judging by the comparisons at dpreview. Differences at base ISO seem to be overshadowed by factors such as processing technique, raw converter type and compatibility and, in relation to jpeg output, in-camera default settings.
At least, this seems to be the case to me. High ISO performance seems to me to be the frontier where differences are most marked.
-
I have looked at some other files and the Sony can look just as sharp and finely detailed as the Canon. In fact in one shot using the 135F2 and 135/1.8 the Sony was better. I also noticed that I shot the Sony at 200ISO and the Canon at 100ISO The Sony has a base ISO of 200 (I think) so this seemed reasonable.
Noise is definitely higher at base ISOs but merely adding 5 to the NR in ACR4.6 pretty much cancels this out.
There is still a slightly less smooth tone to the Sony, but the detail is certainly there. Only bench tests can really distinguish these camera as far as resolution is concerned so to all intents and purposes they are as good as each other IMHO.
Iliah Borg, in this dpreview thread, confirms that the *real* base ISO of the A900 is around ISO 130.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29320995 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=29320995)
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29321180 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=29321180)
-
Thanks for all the hard work Nick. It appears that the ultimate quality of output from these cameras will come down to the user, RAW conversion, and the lenses.
-
Iliah Borg, in this dpreview thread, confirms that the *real* base ISO of the A900 is around ISO 130.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29320995 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=29320995)
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29321180 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=29321180)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222683\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
He's talking about RAW headroom. To a good approximation, all DSLR's leave about a stop more highlight headroom than the ISO standard for metered middle gray relative to saturation, very likely to compensate for the abrupt response cutoff at saturation of digital sensors instead of the smooth rolloff that film has. In such a case it makes sense to leave some more headroom for properly rendered highlights, at the expense of a bit more noise in shadows. The A900 is not special in this regard, so if you like, according to this standard, ALL DSLR's overstate their ISO by around one stop.
-
Hi Nick-
Thanks for your A900 preview and these test shots... When you looked at other shots, was there still the odd clumpiness in the A900 files? I'm looking at moving over from the 1Ds mkII, mainly for the ergonomics (so much lighter, much better control placement), Zeiss glass (the Canon 24-105 is an OK to good lens, the Zeiss 24-70 a great one) and in-body IS (IS on lenses where Canon's version dosen't have it) ... The extra 8 million pixels are nice, but they're a third or fourth reason to consider the Alpha, not the decision driver. However, that clumpiness could be a deal breaker compared to my very smooth Canon...
-Dan
-
Hi Nick-
Thanks for your A900 preview and these test shots... When you looked at other shots, was there still the odd clumpiness in the A900 files? I'm looking at moving over from the 1Ds mkII, mainly for the ergonomics (so much lighter, much better control placement), Zeiss glass (the Canon 24-105 is an OK to good lens, the Zeiss 24-70 a great one) and in-body IS (IS on lenses where Canon's version dosen't have it) ... The extra 8 million pixels are nice, but they're a third or fourth reason to consider the Alpha, not the decision driver. However, that clumpiness could be a deal breaker compared to my very smooth Canon...
-Dan
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=222738\")
Dan, the following contains a few samples. Please be warned that these are all a bit premature in judging what the camera is capable of, since none of the support for the images are anywhere close to being "mature" and fully supported products yet:
[a href=\"http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/sony_a900preview_samples/]http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/sony_a900preview_samples/[/url]
http://www.alphamountworld.com/image-sampl...e-image-gallery (http://www.alphamountworld.com/image-samples/sony-a900-sample-image-gallery) (contains some fairly high-res images)
There are some other places where they show higher resolution mindblowing images, but those have some members-only restrictions.
-
Also, if you can get a copy of the French magazine "Chasseur d'Images" (October Issue), it has a detailed review of the A900 (they are not typically Sony fans), along with the 5DII and so on.
And they gave the A900, 6 stars out of 5, for landscape use ! All other categories were scored as 5 stars.
Their additional verdict: At ISO 1600, the A900 has less noise than the Nikon D3. At ISO 6400, the D3 wins. Of course they did imatest/DXO tests etc., and printed the results at A2 size, while considering their scoring.
Bottomline, anyone intending to use the A900, better be prepared to invest in the latest crop of ultra-high-end lenses, to get the benefit of what it is capable of. Anything less, and prepare to be disappointed, since the sensor resolution is pretty merciless on even average lenses, especially when one moves to the FF borders.
-
Bottomline, anyone intending to use the A900, better be prepared to invest in the latest crop of ultra-high-end lenses, to get the benefit of what it is capable of. Anything less, and prepare to be disappointed, since the sensor resolution is pretty merciless on even average lenses, especially when one moves to the FF borders.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222755\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It makes me wonder just how much better the latest crop of ultra-high-end lenses are compared with lenses of yesteryear that scored 4 and above out of 5 on the Photodo MTF tests; lenses such as the standard Minolta 50/1.4, the Sigma 24/2.8 (one of the better lenses from Sigma) and the Tamron SP 90/2.8 which is also one of the better lenses in the Tamron range.
My Minolta 35-105 zoom would be the walk-around lens and is probably no better than the Canon 28-135 within the range common to both lenses. My Sigma 400/5.6 prime, although probably at least as sharp as the Canon 100-400 (and slightly sharper at F5.6 according to Photodo tests) does suffer from obvious vignetting at full aperture and even at F8.
I had my eye on the A900 because I already have a few Minolta-fit lenses. However, should I feel the need to buy additional lenses, the switch becomes an expensive exercise which is difficult to justify.
On the other hand, there are two areas in my Canon lens range which I feel need upgrading, the extreme wide end and the extreme telephoto end. My Sigma 15-30 does not really have adequate edge and corner resolution, and an upgrade to the Canon 100-400 would be much appreciated.
If I'm going to end up buying replacements for these two lenses anyway, they might as well be Sony/Zeiss or some other Minolta-fit alternative, if such lenses exist.
Of course, I won't be pre-ordering any camera till I've seen full reviews and comparisons between all options. There are indications that the 5D2 has less noise than the D3 at ISO 6400 when same physical size images are compared.
-
It makes me wonder just how much better the latest crop of ultra-high-end lenses are...
I find myself very exited about the next few years because I think we will continue to see several new and improved lenses due to the image quality the current DSLR's are capable of.
Dave Chew
-
I find myself very exited about the next few years because I think we will continue to see several new and improved lenses due to the image quality the current DSLR's are capable of.
Dave Chew
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222778\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Me too! But I hate buying gear that becomes under-used and sits on my shelf. The 15-30 and 100-400 range are much used by me. The 24-105 completes the range and is also much used..
My immediate concern in considering the purchase of an A900 would be the availability of a better quality 15-30 and 100-400, or similar equivalents. Is there anything of the quality of a Nikkor 14-28/2.8, for example, with a Minolta fit?
I should add, the sample images from the new Zeiss 16-35/2.8 I've seen so far seem a bit disappointing at the edges and corners. Whilst this lens would probably be an upgrade to my Sigma 15-30, it's not clear at this stage if it would be better than the Canon 16-35 MkII on a 5D MkII.
-
Me too! But I hate buying gear that becomes under-used and sits on my shelf. The 15-30 and 100-400 range are much used by me. The 24-105 completes the range and is also much used..
My immediate concern in considering the purchase of an A900 would be the availability of a better quality 15-30 and 100-400, or similar equivalents. Is there anything of the quality of a Nikkor 14-28/2.8, for example, with a Minolta fit?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222785\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So far as I know the only lens in the ballpark of the 14-28 is the oly 7-14. Unfortunately it doesn't fit on a 20+mp FF body.
-
So far as I know the only lens in the ballpark of the 14-28 is the oly 7-14. Unfortunately it doesn't fit on a 20+mp FF body.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222789\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It looks as though that might be the case. If Nikon were to announce soon its own 24mp DSLR at a price competitive with the the A900 and 5D MkII, I might opt for the Nikon for the sake of that Nikkor 14-24/2.8.... if the Nikon were also to include video .
Good job I'm in no hurry.
-
It makes me wonder just how much better the latest crop of ultra-high-end lenses are compared with lenses of yesteryear that scored 4 and above out of 5 on the Photodo MTF tests; lenses such as the standard Minolta 50/1.4, the Sigma 24/2.8 (one of the better lenses from Sigma) and the Tamron SP 90/2.8 which is also one of the better lenses in the Tamron range.
From what I hear, the Minolta/Sony 50mm f/1.4, the 85mm f/1.4 Zeiss, the 135mm f/1.8 Zeiss, the 24-70 f/2.8 Zeiss and the 16-35 f/2.8 Zeiss, performed outstandingly (excellent++) on the A900.
-
... it's not clear at this stage if it would be better than the Canon 16-35 MkII on a 5D MkII.
The same beta-testers (Nikon D3/D700 shooter included) had both the Zeiss 16-35 f/2.8, the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8, and also the Canon 16-35 f/2.8II (and 17-40 f/4L).....corner-to-corner, the Zeiss was SHARP (as I would have expected), with the 16-24 range going with a razor thin margin to the Zeiss, vis-a-vis the Nikon 14-24.
Again, remember the 16-35 f/2.8 Zeiss, is NOT a production version and such pre-production versions can be expected to be tweaked further.
-
Again, remember the 16-35 f/2.8 Zeiss, is NOT a production version and such pre-production versions can be expected to be tweaked further.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=222806\")
Let's hope this is the case. Did you read this thread? [a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=27853]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=27853[/url]
-
I find myself very exited about the next few years because I think we will continue to see several new and improved lenses due to the image quality the current DSLR's are capable of.
I think any of the Full-frame premium lenses, designed/built over the past couple of years, have been benchtested to perform well on ultra-high pixel density (Digital) Full-frame sensors - specifically the ones coming out of the armoury of sensor makers like Sony or Canon.
The "Digital" aspect needs to be stressed, due to the different requirements of the lenses optimized for a digital sensor, as opposed to a film-era design.
During the A900 press conference, Yoichi San, the guy in charge of the Sony/Alpha Camera division's engineering group, stressed the point (with graphs etc) that showed that the latest crop of Zeiss and "G" lenses can out-resolve Full-frame sensors having over THRICE the resolution of the 24.6MP A900 sensor. So unless they cross that threshold, these lenses should be more than sufficient, even though the prior film-era lenses may have to be shelved.
I think this is one of Sony's key competitive advantages (along with the Zeiss AF lenses in the range), over other competitors having a lot more wider range of film-era lenses, since most of the Sony lenses are optimized for (and built/designed) around high-pixel density digital FF sensors. The Nikon 24-70 f/2.8, the 14-24 f/2.8 etc are obviously new designs from the Nikon range and almost certainly Canon would be updating their range too.
-
Again, remember the 16-35 f/2.8 Zeiss, is NOT a production version and such pre-production versions can be expected to be tweaked further.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222806\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In my opinion it is the exact opposite. Pre-production lenses are typically better since they are designed by higher precision equipment in small series. The key challenge for high quality lenses is to maintain that accuracy accross a massive production line.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The Minolta User Club has now a new website focussed on the Sony system with infos around the Sony DSLR's:
http://www.photoclubalpha.com (http://www.photoclubalpha.com)
-
Let's hope this is the case. Did you read this thread? http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=27853 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=27853)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222808\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, I read that thread. That poster (David K), seems to have shot a picture with a prototype (one of the SEVERAL prototypes) and even more controversially, seems to have even published it. He actually was allowed into the Sony introduction event in Edinburgh, after snagging a press-pass.
This lens would not even be produced (after finalizing and fine-tuning the performance of the prototypes), for several months (retail release date being January, 2009).
I would say he did a grave faux paus in publishing samples from the specific prototype, he managed to lay his paws on ! If I am Sony, I would not let this fellow into any future event of mine !
-
In my opinion it is the exact opposite. Pre-production lenses are typically better since they are designed by higher precision equipment in small series. The key challenge for high quality lenses is to maintain that accuracy accross a massive production line.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222813\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually, this was not even a pre-production sample. This was one of SEVERAL prototypes, shot through a drab hotel glass window. In other words, the "properties" of the lens are yet to even be finalized, since the production versions would only be released in January, 2009.
Surprised that Sony has not controlled their pre-public event better, with tighter agreements with the participants.
-
The Minolta User Club has now a new website focussed on the Sony system with infos around the Sony DSLR's:
http://www.photoclubalpha.com (http://www.photoclubalpha.com)
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=222832\")
Yes, the above mentioned site has some good information and is managed by David K.
A similar US-based site is [a href=\"http://www.alphamountworld.com]http://www.alphamountworld.com[/url], managed by Carl Garrard.
But the very BEST site for anything related to the Alpha/Sony mount, bar none, is http://www.dyxum.com (http://www.dyxum.com).
dyxum has specifications and detailed reviews of every lens, every camera body and every flash ever sold in the Sony/Alpha mount, with thousands of user reviews on all of them. dyxum also has links to all other Alpha related sites.
It also has a VERY well moderated forum, with moderators from the US, from the UK, from New Zealand, from Australia, from Sweden, from Poland etc., and is a VERY well managed and respectful community of Alpha-mount users. Registration is also free.
-
Just thought you'd like to know that now the ACR4.6 beta is public I can process A900 files alongside 1Ds3 files.
Based on a very quick look today I'd say that the Sony files still falls slightly behind the Canon on sharpness and smoothness of tone. You have to look closely but the Canon is simply 'crisper' whilst the Sony has this odd granularity in smooth areas, not really noise, just a subtle lumpiness in areas where the Canon shows flat tone.
I'll look at some other files in a while, maybe when I get some time over the w/e.
The attached file is a screenshot with both images processed the same in ACR4.6. It may well be that the Sony file (on the right) can be 'massaged' to match the Canon.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222555\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thats a software problem not a hardware problem. The A900 is supposed to have a NR off setting. Sensor pixels dont clump.
I would expect ACR to make a better interpretation of the Canon over the unreleased Sony at this point. The question is why would ACR create lumps from pixel data? Noise I can understand. Not lumpy pictures. ACR did the same to the A700 which gave it a bad rap when it was new. They cleaned that up.
The latest Sony firmware on the A700 is supposed to make a big improvement as well. That technology should be in the A900 firmware.
-
Yes, I read that thread. That poster (David K), seems to have shot a picture with a prototype (one of the SEVERAL prototypes) and even more controversially, seems to have even published it. He actually was allowed into the Sony introduction event in Edinburgh, after snagging a press-pass.
This lens would not even be produced (after finalizing and fine-tuning the performance of the prototypes), for several months (retail release date being January, 2009).
I would say he did a grave faux paus in publishing samples from the specific prototype, he managed to lay his paws on ! If I am Sony, I would not let this fellow into any future event of mine !
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=222841\")
The situation is looking very promising regarding both new lenses and new camera offerings.
I notice at dpreview that Carl Zeiss has launched a new version of its famous 21mm Distagon with a Canon mount, available also at the end of the year. Seems like this is going to be an expensive Christmas for camera enthusiasts.
With HD movie capability on the 5D2, that new Epson HD projector (TW-5000 or 7500) with a claimed dynamic contrast ratio of 75,000:1 might also prove to be irresistable.
I get the impression that the Distagon 21/2.8 is unbeatable for corner to corner sharpness. It's certainly noticeably better than the Nikkor 14-24 at 21mm, using a 1Ds3. Check out this review at 16:9 [a href=\"http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon1424_21mm/nikon1424_21mm1.html]http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon1424_2...1424_21mm1.html[/url]
If the Sony 16-35/2.8 proves to be no better than the Nikon 14-24/2.8, then it's likely I will be leaning very heavily towards the 5D2 with Distagon 21/2.8 prime, especially considering the HD video capability of the 5D2, which I would definitely use.
On the other hand, these wide-angle lenses do not have IS or autofocussing (the new Distagon by design and the Nikkor 14-24 no doubt disabled when fitted to a Canon). The anti-shake sensor of the A900, especially if there really can be as much as a 4 stop latitude, is very appealing.
-
Their additional verdict: At ISO 1600, the A900 has less noise than the Nikon D3. At ISO 6400, the D3 wins. Of course they did imatest/DXO tests etc., and printed the results at A2 size, while considering their scoring.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222755\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's really great news. We can all only benefit from the A900 being a top level entry!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I notice at dpreview that Carl Zeiss has launched a new version of its famous 21mm Distagon with a Canon mount, available also at the end of the year. Seems like this is going to be an expensive Christmas for camera enthusiasts.
Yes, the introduction of the legendary 21mm Distagon will be a great thing for the Canon users, who have not had a truly great wide-angle available, that was natively made for the mount. As long as you don't mind working with MF, I think it would be an excellent choice and obviously if the objective is shooting landscapes, having AF may not be a big priority.
Whether the A900 or the 5DII, the resolution from either of these is just mindblowing and truly require great lenses to really take advantage of.
Based on JPEG samples from both products, I would strongly lean towards shooting RAW-only with either of these, if the objective is to get the best results from them. I personally only shoot RAW.
Incidentally, here is a hand-held ISO 1600 shot from the A900, using the Carl Zeiss 135mm f/1.8, shot at f/1.8, 1/60s:
(http://photo1.bababian.com/usr396435/upload13/20080919/sfw22xHKGcx6s4L8bx3w0FYeumEmW_l9MiPRZ8ht1j0mNuq56FCuQpA==.jpg)
-
Incidentally, here is a hand-held ISO 1600 shot from the A900, using the Carl Zeiss 135mm f/1.8, shot at f/1.8, 1/60s:
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222965\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Very nice, is she a friend of yours?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Very nice, is she a friend of yours?
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222967\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ha, ha not really. This image was posted on dpreview and I just linked to it.
-
From what I hear, the Minolta/Sony 50mm f/1.4, the 85mm f/1.4 Zeiss, the 135mm f/1.8 Zeiss, the 24-70 f/2.8 Zeiss and the 16-35 f/2.8 Zeiss, performed outstandingly (excellent++) on the A900.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222805\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I haven't tried all these lenses on the A900 but did try the 85/1.4 and 24-70/2.8 on Saturday. Having pixel-peeped and printed the results I can confirm that no one is exaggerating their quality. Incidentally, the Sony branded 70-200 I tried produces stunning results on the 900, both at the wide and long ends. I only tried it wide open, so was quite surprised.
Don.
-
It looks as though that might be the case. If Nikon were to announce soon its own 24mp DSLR at a price competitive with the the A900 and 5D MkII, I might opt for the Nikon for the sake of that Nikkor 14-24/2.8.... if the Nikon were also to include video .
Good job I'm in no hurry.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222791\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Y'know what, I used the 14-24 Nikon in a D3 review last month and was rather underwhelmed by it. It had much better corners than other equivalent lenses but the sharpness at f5.6 - 11 was no different to my 17-40, at least not noticeably so in real world shooting.
I've seen the tests and read the threads but my own experience was slightly different. I suppose 'my mileage varied'.
-
Y'know what, I used the 14-24 Nikon in a D3 review last month and was rather underwhelmed by it. It had much better corners than other equivalent lenses but the sharpness at f5.6 - 11 was no different to my 17-40, at least not noticeably so in real world shooting.
I've seen the tests and read the threads but my own experience was slightly different. I suppose 'my mileage varied'.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223171\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Your experience could be due to QC variation, Nick. However, the new Zeiss 21mm Distagon for the Canon might be a better option.
-
Hi,
The shot on DPReview is taken with 24-70/2.8 at f/8.0, I would still argue that it is significantly less sharp at the edge then at the center. Just follow the rails from the center to the right and left edges.
http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/sony_a90...dsc01990_dw.jpg (http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/sony_a900preview_samples/originals/dsc01990_dw.jpg)
Erik
Yes, I read that thread. That poster (David K), seems to have shot a picture with a prototype (one of the SEVERAL prototypes) and even more controversially, seems to have even published it. He actually was allowed into the Sony introduction event in Edinburgh, after snagging a press-pass.
This lens would not even be produced (after finalizing and fine-tuning the performance of the prototypes), for several months (retail release date being January, 2009).
I would say he did a grave faux paus in publishing samples from the specific prototype, he managed to lay his paws on ! If I am Sony, I would not let this fellow into any future event of mine !
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222841\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Hi,
The shot on DPReview is taken with 24-70/2.8 at f/8.0, I would still argue that it is significantly less sharp at the edge then at the center. Just follow the rails from the center to the right and left edges.
http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/sony_a90...dsc01990_dw.jpg (http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/sony_a900preview_samples/originals/dsc01990_dw.jpg)
Erik
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=223197\")
This shows how benchtests sometimes can differ from real world shots. I see the same edge softness on many of my own test shots on the same lens. Not too bad, but certainly visible.
OTOH...
[a href=\"http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/380-zeiss_za_2470_28?start=1]Photozone[/url]
shows this lens as being very consistent across the frame at F8.
Confusing...
-
This shows how benchtests sometimes can differ from real world shots. I see the same edge softness on many of my own test shots on the same lens. Not too bad, but certainly visible.
OTOH...
Photozone (http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/380-zeiss_za_2470_28?start=1)
shows this lens as being very consistent across the frame at F8.
Confusing...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223199\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I can't say I did specific "chart type" testing but I did shoot a couple of shots at 24mm and 70mm to look for distortion on the 1st 24-70 into New Zealand and those shots were evenly sharp right across the frame. I guess we're not really going to know how consistent this lens is until there are many production lenses in use.
This disagreement reminds me of how people talk about the Canon 24-70L. Mine was excellent, one of my all time favourite lenses in fact, but there seem to be quite a few that aren't. From my small test, the Zeiss had sharpness to match the Canon and better distortion control but I can't say about the contrast because the camera was set to produce very flat jpegs when I tried it. What I did like was that the Zeiss does not extend to go wide like the Canon and, from memory of my Canon, it seems a bit more compact.
-
Photodo uses a crop camera to test (A700), so the corners are never tested. Same issue with Nikon lenses. No sure about Canon.
bob
-
Hi,
Were you testing thae 24-70/2.8 on an Alpha 900? Any other Alpha DSLR is APSC format and does not utilize the full frame.
It's really a qustion what is the state of the art in "normal zoom" lens design. Some of the new Nikon lenses show that the obtainable quality is is pretty high.
The 14-24/2.8 seems to be impressive and so does the 16-85 APS zoom.
Best regards
Erik
I can't say I did specific "chart type" testing but I did shoot a couple of shots at 24mm and 70mm to look for distortion on the 1st 24-70 into New Zealand and those shots were evenly sharp right across the frame. I guess we're not really going to know how consistent this lens is until there are many production lenses in use.
This disagreement reminds me of how people talk about the Canon 24-70L. Mine was excellent, one of my all time favourite lenses in fact, but there seem to be quite a few that aren't. From my small test, the Zeiss had sharpness to match the Canon and better distortion control but I can't say about the contrast because the camera was set to produce very flat jpegs when I tried it. What I did like was that the Zeiss does not extend to go wide like the Canon and, from memory of my Canon, it seems a bit more compact.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223202\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Hi,
Were you testing thae 24-70/2.8 on an Alpha 900? Any other Alpha DSLR is APSC format and does not utilize the full frame.
It's really a qustion what is the state of the art in "normal zoom" lens design. Some of the new Nikon lenses show that the obtainable quality is is pretty high.
The 14-24/2.8 seems to be impressive and so does the 16-85 APS zoom.
Best regards
Erik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223353\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, I was testing on the Alpha 900. Sorry, I should have made that clear. I tried a number of lenses that day: 85/1.4; 24-70/2.8; 70-200/2.8; 35mm/1.4; 16-80DT and 11-18DT (the last two were decidely weird to use as you see a vignetted picture in the viewfinder, with faint corner guides, but the photos work like a crop sensor, just fine). The four big lenses were all top quality but that sensor is quite brutal - if you miss focus it stands out hugely at 100% on a computer screen, if not so much in print!
-
This shows how benchtests sometimes can differ from real world shots. I see the same edge softness on many of my own test shots on the same lens. Not too bad, but certainly visible.
OTOH...
Photozone (http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/380-zeiss_za_2470_28?start=1)
shows this lens as being very consistent across the frame at F8.
Confusing...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223199\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nick,
As Bob McCarthy mentioned, Photozone test all lenses with APS-C size cameras. Nevertheless, I suppose one can extrapolate the results and not be far wrong, but that's not ideal. Some lenses can have a very flat response to about 15mm from centre of frame, then take a steep dive towards the corners.
-
Nick,
As Bob McCarthy mentioned, Photozone test all lenses with APS-C size cameras. Nevertheless, I suppose one can extrapolate the results and not be far wrong, but that's not ideal. Some lenses can have a very flat response to about 15mm from centre of frame, then take a steep dive towards the corners.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223431\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, re-read the specs on the Photozone site, I missed it before.
Big difference between 22mm across and 36mm. The DPR Lens Reviews show the difference clearly.
-
Yes, re-read the specs on the Photozone site, I missed it before.
Big difference between 22mm across and 36mm. The DPR Lens Reviews show the difference clearly.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=223452\")
There are some posts in a different Sony/Alpha website, where the 24-70 f/2.8 Zeiss clearly shows corner-to-corner sharpness on the A900. Consistently.
Here are some additional A900 + 24-70CZ pictures:
[a href=\"http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=36184]http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=36184[/url]
Another A900 + 24-70 f/2.8 image (slow download since large image but don't see any softening that was mentioned above and is sharp across the 36mm frame):
http://74.86.43.122/a900/2008-09-10-123927-09790.jpg (http://74.86.43.122/a900/2008-09-10-123927-09790.jpg)
-
There are some posts in a different Sony/Alpha website, where the 24-70 f/2.8 Zeiss clearly shows corner-to-corner sharpness on the A900. Consistently.
Here are some additional A900 + 24-70CZ pictures:
http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=36184 (http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=36184)
Another A900 + 24-70 f/2.8 image (slow download since large image but don't see any softening that was mentioned above and is sharp across the 36mm frame):
http://74.86.43.122/a900/2008-09-10-123927-09790.jpg (http://74.86.43.122/a900/2008-09-10-123927-09790.jpg)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223485\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think there is nothing more to say, and this is a slap for canon. No way any Canon L zoom will produce such corner to corner sharpness. Kinda sad.
-
I think there is nothing more to say, and this is a slap for canon. No way any Canon L zoom will produce such corner to corner sharpness. Kinda sad.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223515\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I must be missing something. I don't see any sharp corners in any of these shots.
Most of the images have too shallow a DoF to be sharp in the corners and the image of the building at F6.3 is reduced resolution and doesn't have any fine detail in any of the corners. In fact the resolution of the F6.3 shot, when opened on my computer, is only 17MB, less than the file size of a 6mp camera, never mind 24mp.
-
I must be missing something. I don't see any sharp corners in any of these shots.
Most of the images have too shallow a DoF to be sharp in the corners and the image of the building at F6.3 is reduced resolution and doesn't have any fine detail in any of the corners. In fact the resolution of the F6.3 shot, when opened on my computer, is only 17MB, less than the file size of a 6mp camera, never mind 24mp.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223543\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You don't need 24Mp to see if a lens is bad. These examples show just the sort of look I like to produce. I was disappointed when I tried the Zeiss 16-80 on an A700 but the 24-70 on the A900 was a completely different experience.
-
You don't need 24Mp to see if a lens is bad. These examples show just the sort of look I like to produce. I was disappointed when I tried the Zeiss 16-80 on an A700 but the 24-70 on the A900 was a completely different experience.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223547\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't think anyone is saying that the lens is bad. It's just that corner resolution is the big disadvantage of full frame, and 24mp full frame is likely to show a greater difference than 12mp in the corners.
The sample images linked above have not been taken in order to display corner resolution so it's still a moot point.
Now the new Zeiss 21/2.8 Distagon really is sharp from corner to corner on the 1Ds3; clearly better than the Nikkor 14-24/2.8.
-
In fact the resolution of the F6.3 shot, when opened on my computer, is only 17MB, less than the file size of a 6mp camera, never mind 24mp.
The pictures with shallow DOF were just pictures taken with the camera - not intended to show corner-to-corner performance of the 24-70CZ on FF.
But the f/6.3 building shot was SPECIFICALLY shot to show corner to corner performance on Full-frame, with objects in the very corners (of 35mm FF) that can demonstrate the sharpness of the image at the borders. Actually the full-size JPEG was around 30+MB in size and had to be downsized but I would be very surprised if anybody were to make statements that they saw any kind of softness in it (there was NO softness, either at the borders or in the center, as an FYI )
This f/6.3 picture was specifically picked (among a bunch of others with less DOF or shots taken at an angle, which could be misleading) to counter the "internet rumor mill" which will tend to propagate speculations about performance, based on some shot somebody saw in some website. I think dpreview should have shot some brick-walls to demonstrate border resolution of the lens, than shooting images with a lot of depth or with variable depths once one gets to the borders, which will in turn be seized by people who are out to prove their own pre-set decisions.
Bottomline, the lens is SHARP, corner-to-corner on FF according to the shooter/beta-tester this person (who is also a Nikon D700/D3 shooter) was more impressed with the corner-to-corner performance of the CZ on A900, when compared to the new 24-70 f/2.8 Nikon version, which in turn is rated better than the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L (and this corner-to-corner rating has nothing to do with the Alpha/CZ version being Stabilized, while the others are not) . Does this provide any added talking points ?
-
I don't think anyone is saying that the lens is bad. It's just that corner resolution is the big disadvantage of full frame, and 24mp full frame is likely to show a greater difference than 12mp in the corners.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223551\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, I'm not going to argue about this but I have tried the A900 Zeiss combination for myself and I know what it is like. Corner softness is not a significant issue with this lens, nor with the three other full frame lenses I've tried. Quite unlike what people have come to expect with certain lenses from Canon, Nikon and, in fact, the Zeiss 16-80 on the Sony DT system, which is actually very poor in the corners despite being a cropped sensor system.
-
Well, I'm not going to argue about this but I have tried the A900 Zeiss combination for myself and I know what it is like. Corner softness is not a significant issue with this lens, nor with the three other full frame lenses I've tried. Quite unlike what people have come to expect with certain lenses from Canon, Nikon and, in fact, the Zeiss 16-80 on the Sony DT system, which is actually very poor in the corners despite being a cropped sensor system.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223672\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Fair enough! I'm merely pointing out that the above samples do not demonstrate corner sharpness particularly well. At this point in time we'll have to take your word for it.
-
But the f/6.3 building shot was SPECIFICALLY shot to show corner to corner performance on Full-frame, with objects in the very corners (of 35mm FF) that can demonstrate the sharpness of the image at the borders. Actually the full-size JPEG was around 30+MB in size and had to be downsized but I would be very surprised if anybody were to make statements that they saw any kind of softness in it (there was NO softness, either at the borders or in the center, as an FYI )
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223637\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's true that the building shot does have two corners at the bottom with at least some detail. However, when you downsize an image, you inevitably throw resolution away, and the resolution you throw away is where it counts, ie. the parts of the image where resolution is highest, not the parts where resolution might be lowest, such as the corners.
Whatever difference there may be between resolution in the corners and resolution in the centre, downsizing the image inevitably reduces such differences.
-
It's true that the building shot does have two corners at the bottom with at least some detail. However, when you downsize an image, you inevitably throw resolution away, and the resolution you throw away is where it counts, ie. the parts of the image where resolution is highest, not the parts where resolution might be lowest, such as the corners.
Whatever difference there may be between resolution in the corners and resolution in the centre, downsizing the image inevitably reduces such differences.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223786\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This image was "downsized" (not cropped) from the original. Thus what you see is the actual corners/borders on FF. But it has been downsized from its original size of 30+MB, which is unfortunately not available. Thus you will have to take the word of the shooter (incidentally who shoots Nikon D700 FF too), that it was SHARP to the borders of FF.
-
This image was "downsized" (not cropped) from the original. Thus what you see is the actual corners/borders on FF. But it has been downsized from its original size of 30+MB, which is unfortunately not available. Thus you will have to take the word of the shooter (incidentally who shoots Nikon D700 FF too), that it was SHARP to the borders of FF.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223790\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm afraid I subscribe to the 'seeing is believing' school of thought .
-
I'm afraid I subscribe to the 'seeing is believing' school of thought .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223807\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Fair enough. If I can get this to work, here is an unsharpened, straight crop out of the corner of an image. I'll include a downsized version of the original image so you can place it. Focus was on the vertical rail in the centre of the photo.
-
Fair enough. If I can get this to work, here is an unsharpened, straight crop out of the corner of an image. I'll include a downsized version of the original image so you can place it. Focus was on the vertical rail in the centre of the photo.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223848\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Deep,
Thanks for your trouble in providing this shot. However, I don't see any crops of corners. You've shown an edge which appears to be okay considering the low resolution of the scene, but even with this edge, we can't be sure about resolution fall-off because there's no fine detail (hairs, grass stalks, grains of sand).
Glossy paint is just not an ideal target for checking resolutiuon.
In any case, many good Canon lenses are also okay up to the edges. The middle of the extreme edge of a 35mm frame is only 18mm from the centre. It's the area from 18mm to 22mm (from centre) which represents the corner. It's this area where most lenses show a marked softness with full frame 35mm.
-
Deep,
Thanks for your trouble in providing this shot. However, I don't see any crops of corners. You've shown an edge which appears to be okay considering the low resolution of the scene, but even with this edge, we can't be sure about resolution fall-off because there's no fine detail (hairs, grass stalks, grains of sand).
Glossy paint is just not an ideal target for checking resolutiuon.
In any case, many good Canon lenses are also okay up to the edges. The middle of the extreme edge of a 35mm frame is only 18mm from the centre. It's the area from 18mm to 22mm (from centre) which represents the corner. It's this area where most lenses show a marked softness with full frame 35mm.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223853\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
?? The crop is the top right corner, not just the edge. Admittedly, to the right, it is coming out of the plane of focus but that is different to the lens being soft. The top post is in the plane of focus and is also not soft. Okay, not a perfect example but enough to see what's going on. Also, this is unsharpened - a tiny bit of sharpening that you need for pixel-peeping reveals more subtle detail in the paint than a casual glance would suggest or than a poor lens would resolve. It's easy for even a poor lens to resolve hair or sand. In those cases, the detail appears sharp by default. Subtle edges of brush strokes will just vanish with low resolving power, so this is actually quite a useful, if boring, example.
What the crop does not show is how similar the detail is right across - but that would have been a 16MB upload! I didn't keep too many 24-70 shots. I was more interested in the 85/1.4 and even then, I was more worried about the "look" as a portrait lens than edge sharpness.
Many Canon lenses are okay to the edges, yes. My 24-70L was excellent, even with very fine grain slide film like RSX which resolves as much detail as a 24Mp sensor. Other Canon lenses, like the 24-85 and cheaper zooms, could not outresolve RSX when I tried them. I have a stack of Canon primes which are superb too but this discussion is about whether the Zeiss lens is sharp across the frames. I've tried one example and it was. Until you try one for yourself, you'll probably keep worrying!
Happy shooting
-
But,
In many situations you really need a zoom. Maybe that Zeiss 21/2.8 is a bit better than the Nikon 12-24/2.8 but zooms are much harder to make than single focals.
I often find myself in situations where I need the right focal length or I need to crop. In theory I would love single focals but in practice I would never use them.
Any lens should be sharp corner to corner at medium apertures like f/8 to be really useful. Some aberrations like lateral chromatic aberration and distortion can easily be compensated so I don't care that much about those.
Erik
Best regards
Erik
I don't think anyone is saying that the lens is bad. It's just that corner resolution is the big disadvantage of full frame, and 24mp full frame is likely to show a greater difference than 12mp in the corners.
The sample images linked above have not been taken in order to display corner resolution so it's still a moot point.
Now the new Zeiss 21/2.8 Distagon really is sharp from corner to corner on the 1Ds3; clearly better than the Nikkor 14-24/2.8.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223551\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
FWIW, both my ZA 85 and ZA24-70 are at their optimum performance at f4. Actually, the 85 is very similar between f4 and f5.6
-
I'm afraid I subscribe to the 'seeing is believing' school of thought .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223807\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Absolutely ! These are not nickel and dime purchases and one has to be totally convinced before purchasing it....I agree.
But remember, this lens is a 2007/2008 design, specifically created for a high pixel density Full-frame sensor. What all of these images show, is just an indication of how it performed on the A900 - which was a BIG unknown, till Sony actually released the Full-frame camera.
Sony obviously intends to establish their "system" differentiation from the other players in the Full-frame marketplace, by their leveraging of Zeiss and its excellent optical designs and ultra-high-end Schott Glass, allowing them to leapfrog the competition on the "lens/glass" aspect. Bringing out this lens as a Sony/KM "G", would simply bring such a lens at par with a Canon "L" or the equivalent Nikon high-end version (in fact, Konica Minolta did have a 24-70 f/2.8 design, ready to go, when they were bought by Sony but Sony decided not to use the design, and went with Zeiss for this critical FF lens - great move, IMO). There is an upcoming 24-105 f/4G SSM, which will obviously be cheaper and function as a probable "kit lens" for the A900, similar to the function served by the Canon 24-105 f/4L IS.
As an aside, I just purchased the CZ 24-70 f/2.8 (VERY difficult to obtain, since it was on backorder almost everywhere, even though our local high-end retailer had one in stock, NIB). Bought the CZ 85mm f/1.4 too. Just waiting for the A900 to be shipped (supposed to be end of October), since using these lenses on the A700 seems to be under-utilizing their capabilities. I was totally convinced (based on the images I saw), that there will not be any problems whatsoever, with these lenses, on the A900. The highest vote of confidence - voting with one's wallet We will see.
-
But remember, this lens is a 2007/2008 design, specifically created for a high pixel density Full-frame sensor. What all of these images show, is just an indication of how it performed on the A900 - which was a BIG unknown, till Sony actually released the Full-frame camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224979\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I would fully expect the Sony 16-35 to have significantly better edge and corner resolution than my Sigma 15-30. If it didn't there would be something seriously wrong.
However, if you are going to demonstrate corner resolution, then you must show some actual corners that are in focus and which contain detail, as in the following shots which demonstrate how bad the Sigma zoom is in the corners and how relatively acceptable it is around the middle of the far edge.
The following shot was hand-held at 1/50th second, F5.6 and ISO 1600 on the 5D, using the Sigma 15-30 zoom at 15mm.
In order, from left to right; (1) the full uncropped scene; (2) the full left edge; (3) the bottom left corner. Sharpening has been applied, but no noise reduction.
[attachment=8546:attachment] [attachment=8551:attachment] [attachment=8549:attachment]
-
I did a quick shot of the MTF curves published by Sony for the CZ 16-35. Especially at full opening not very impressive in the corners. It's not on my wishlist (also because I have primes fish-eye 16mm, 24mm 2.8 and 35mm 1.4).
[attachment=8702:Sony_CZ1...TFcurves.jpg]
Dear me! Those curves do look rather unimpressive, except those for 35mm at F8 which seem exceptionally good; so good in fact that they are unbelievable. I can't believe a lens can be that sharp in the centre at F8. Here are the Photodo curves for the Canon 35/F1.4 prime.
[attachment=8707:30mm_F1_4.jpg]
-
The curves Sony provides seem to match closely what I have seen from independent sources, so in this case (where I haven't seen third party curves) I expect them to be rather accurate too. Wait until you see the Sony CZ 24-70 MTF curves if you find these hard to believe!
It's the claimed performance of the lens within a circle of about 8mm diameter in the centre of the frame that I find difficult to believe. Contrast at 40 lp/mm and F8 is 95% and higher. That seems to me to be better than the laws of diffraction would allow.
-
I was thinking about looking into an a900, but just saw the 300 2.8 (lens I use 60% of the time) is $6000.
But camera still looks promising.
-
New review
British Journal of Photography (http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=817662)
Older review
Imaging-Resource (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA900/AA900A.HTM)
-
New review
British Journal of Photography (http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=817662)
After reading that, I'm reminded of the adage, 'A picture is worth a thousand words'. In fact, I think we could amend that adage to, "A picture, plus a complete set of accurate MTF charts, is worth 100,000 words".
-
In dpreview's review of the Nikon D700 (just posted) there's a high-ISO noise comparison between the Nikon D700, and Sony A900.
It's not looking good for the A900. Even the 5D appears to have less noise at ISO 3200 than the A900. At ISO 6400, the D700 looks a world apart from the A900.
I know when comparing different size images resulting from sensors with a different pixel count, one should either uprez one image, or downsample the other image, so that one can compare equal size images. I don't know why dpreview doesn't do that. It certainly affects the appearance of noise and generally seems a sensible thing to do because most people do not size their prints according to the native resolution of their camera's sensor. (Sorry, I can't make a print bigger than 12"x18" from my D700 because that's the size I get at 240ppi )
However, I just can't see that upsizing the D700 image is going to make the A900 image at ISO 6400 look anywhere near as clean and sharp as that upsized D700 image. The noise difference is so huge.
On the other hand, I do have some reservations about the jpeg nature of these shots. I get the impression they are out-of-camera large/fine jpegs with NR settings at default or standard.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond700/page17.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond700/page17.asp)
-
In dpreview's review of the Nikon D700 (just posted) there's a high-ISO noise comparison between the Nikon D700, and Sony A900.
It's not looking good for the A900....
...However, I just can't see that upsizing the D700 image is going to make the A900 image at ISO 6400 look anywhere near as clean and sharp as that upsized D700 image. The noise difference is so huge.
Maybe, but in the far more useful sensitivities up to 1600, there is no way the D700 is going to match the detail of the A900, which gives a huge amount of headroom for noise reduction on your computer later. 1600 with one of those fast lenses (and anti-shake built in) is going to work in any sane amount of light, even without a tripod. And we haven't even seen what you can get out of the RAW files yet. I'd respectfully have to argue that it's looking very good for the A900 - until we see what the 5DII comes up with!
-
Maybe, but in the far more useful sensitivities up to 1600, there is no way the D700 is going to match the detail of the A900, which gives a huge amount of headroom for noise reduction on your computer later. 1600 with one of those fast lenses (and anti-shake built in) is going to work in any sane amount of light, even without a tripod. And we haven't even seen what you can get out of the RAW files yet. I'd respectfully have to argue that it's looking very good for the A900 - until we see what the 5DII comes up with!
Agreed! At lower ISOs the A900 will deliver greater detail, otherwise there'd hardly be any reason for buying it. Clearly, these sorts of issues depend on your usage. Most folks will attempt to use the lowest ISO possible, consistent with a shutter speed that is fast enough for a sharp image.
But there is a dilemma here, when you know (if this proves to be the case) that image quality definitely suffers at high ISO, but also suffers at low ISO due to a shutter speed which may be too slow for the movement of the subject, if not for the movement of the camera. One is sort of caught between a rock and a hard place.
The dpreview comparisons indicate to me, if one is in a situation where ISO 6400 (and possibly even ISO 3200) is required for a sufficiently fast shutter speed, the D700 will deliver better image quality than the A900, period.
When the subject is moving quickly (a croc or a whale jumping out of the water, a footballer jumping for the ball), image stabilisation and/or tripod doesn't help much.
Speaking for myself, I want as far as possible a general camera which is adequate in all situations. I don't want to carry a D700 and at least one Nikkor lens for high ISO performance; another camera for best detail at low ISO, and yet a 3rd, cropped format camera, as a lens extender for my longest telephoto.
I would prefer a 39mp Canon full frame with image quality at least equal to that of the D700 at ISO 6400 (viewing equal size prints), and which has sufficient pixel density to make my 50D redundant as a lens extender. In the meantime, I'll probably settle for a 5D MkII. When its ISO 6400 images are downsized to 12mp, I wouldn't be surprised if image quality is on a par with that of the D700 at ISO 6400.
-
Agreed! At lower ISOs the A900 will deliver greater detail, otherwise there'd hardly be any reason for buying it. Clearly, these sorts of issues depend on your usage. Most folks will attempt to use the lowest ISO possible, consistent with a shutter speed that is fast enough for a sharp image.
But there is a dilemma here, when you know (if this proves to be the case) that image quality definitely suffers at high ISO, but also suffers at low ISO due to a shutter speed which may be too slow for the movement of the subject, if not for the movement of the camera. One is sort of caught between a rock and a hard place.
The dpreview comparisons indicate to me, if one is in a situation where ISO 6400 (and possibly even ISO 3200) is required for a sufficiently fast shutter speed, the D700 will deliver better image quality than the A900, period.
When the subject is moving quickly (a croc or a whale jumping out of the water, a footballer jumping for the ball), image stabilisation and/or tripod doesn't help much.
I've photographed whales jumping out of the water, horses doing cross country, weddings in very dark chapels, portraits in evening light, flying birds on gloomy days - none of which are suited to tripods or helped much by anti-shake (except the weddings). I've never, ever, needed more than 1600. My point is 1600 is already extreme sensitivity and 3200 only adds one stop to that. The situations where "ISO 6400 (and possibly even ISO 3200) is required for a sufficiently fast shutter speed" almost don't exist for the vast majority of photographers. I'd go so far as to argue that the situations where having video available or being able to crop heavily are far more common. (Makes Canon look quite clever, really!). But, okay, if you have some project where you work in near dark, can't control the light and don't need the camera's best performance, the Nikon will be marginally better, granted. At 1600, looks like there will be little to choose either way.
There is a current infatuation with high sensitivity performance. That's not a bad thing in itself but it is massively overrated today. All current DSLRs produce good photos in bad light and the best perform better than nearly anyone needs. Most of us are adequately served by current poor light performance but we can use better highlight control and better detail capture. Well, both D700 and A900 do well with highlights (not that I've tried the Nikon but it looks promising) but the A900 is clearly vastly better at detail capture and it appears it holds the advantage to about 1600 "ISO". Brilliant!
-
I've photographed whales jumping out of the water, horses doing cross country, weddings in very dark chapels, portraits in evening light, flying birds on gloomy days - none of which are suited to tripods or helped much by anti-shake (except the weddings). I've never, ever, needed more than 1600.
There's a difference between needing it and wanting it. Most people accept the limitations of their equipment and then rationalise to themselves that they don't need such performance. When I'm using a 400mm lens on the Daintree river on a dull day, trying to photograph small birds flitting around in the foliage on the river bank, I sometimes find I'm shooting at ISO 1600, F8 (which I prefer because it's the sharpest aperture on the Canon 100-400 zoom) and 1/60th second. So I drop down to F5.6 and get 1/125th. It's still not fast enough for a truly sharp, high quality image with the cropped format 40D which turns the lens into 640mm in full frame terms.
There are two solutions to this problem. Buy a big, heavy and very expensive 400/2.8 prime which is as sharp at F2.8 and/or F4 as my 400 zoom is at F8, plus a Sony A900. Or just buy a camera that produces higher image quality at high ISO. Image comparisons I've seen so far indicate that, even at ISO 1600, the slightly lower pixel density 1Ds3 produces sharper and cleaner images than the A900.
For all practical purposes, the 5D MkII is close enough to the 40D when its images are cropped to the same format size. I would find it very useful to be able to use the 5D2 at ISO 3200 in circumstances where I would use the 40D at ISO 1600 and half the shutter speed. I'll be disappointed if 5D2 image quality at ISO 3200, pixel for pixel, is not equal to the 40D at ISO 1600.
Another way of looking at this is to ask oneself, if Canon were to have simultaneously released an 8mp cropped format (upgrade to the 20D) using 5D2 pixels and the improved technology associated with the 5D2, would such a camera have a one stop high-ISO improvement over the 20D, bearing in mind that the general image quality improvement of the 40D, compared with the 20D, is negligible?
-
I don't wish to sound negative about the A900. Everyone's uses and purposes are slightly different. Since I already have a few Minolta lenses which are very good according to Photodo tests, I'd really like to buy the A900, if it were to offer the sort of performance which at least equalled and hopefully exceeded that of the 5D2.
The extra few megapixels are neither here nor there. The Sony 16-35 lens does not appear to be better than (or even as good as) the Nikkor 14-24, and just yesterday I received, at long last, a Nikon/Canon adapter from Mark Welsh.
I can find no reasonably lightweight zoom lens in the Sony/Zeiss repertoire that can better the quality of the Canon 100-400 IS F4.5-F5.6 (a lens I use a lot) and Zeiss is now offering the superb 21mm Distagon with a Canon mount, so I can find no good reason to buy an A900, which is a pity, but I have to be realistic.
I'm also rather concerned about the following 'cons' from the updated Imaging-Resource review of the A900. I quote:
. Some image noise even at ISO 200
. At anything above ISO 200, noise limits maximum print size before resolution becomes an issue.
. High-ISO performance doesn't match that of Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III (Which is also 2.6x as expensive though)
. Dynamic range less than that of many current models
Whilst the Canon 1Ds3 might be 2.6x the price of the A900, indications so far are that the image quality of the 5D2 will exceed that of the 1Ds3 by at least some margin, however small.
Hope you don't think I'm being brutal
-
Hope you don't think I'm being brutal
Not at all - it's your money! It is, however, a fair amount of money and you'd be either very rich or impetuous if you spent it before you tried the options out. A camera in the hand is very different from the theory.
It also sounds like you could do well to look sideways at other options. I would consider being forced to use f8 to get a sharp photo and sufficient depth of field in that situation inexcusable....
-
In dpreview's review of the Nikon D700 (just posted) there's a high-ISO noise comparison between the Nikon D700, and Sony A900.
It's not looking good for the A900. Even the 5D appears to have less noise at ISO 3200 than the A900. At ISO 6400, the D700 looks a world apart from the A900.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond700/page17.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond700/page17.asp)
Ray,
Sorry to be franck, but what you write here looks like non sense to me. The A900 is a high pixel camera and its field of application is not high ISO.
Canon might have done a slightly better job with the 5DII, but that camera is one year younger than the D3/D700 technologicallywise. You can be 100% sure that the successor of the 1d3 will have better image quality at high ISOs simply because a 20+ MP camera will never be as good with high ISO noise. The 5DII is also not a real high ISO camera.
So I don't know why you are even considering the A900 and feel like you have to repeatedely run it down. It has never meant to be a camera for you if high iso noise is the only think you consider important in a camera, but that doesn't take anything from its value for most photographers.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Ray,
Sorry to be franck, but what you write here looks like non sense to me. The A900 is a high pixel camera and its field of application is not high ISO.
Canon might have done a slightly better job with the 5DII, but that camera is one year younger than the D3/D700 technologicallywise. You can be 100% sure that the successor of the 1d3 will have better image quality at high ISOs simply because a 20+ MP camera will never be as good with high ISO noise. The 5DII is also not a real high ISO camera.
So I don't know why you are even considering the A900 and feel like you have to repeatedely run it down. It has never meant to be a camera for you if high iso noise is the only think you consider important in a camera, but that doesn't take anything from its value for most photographers.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
Be as frank as you like. All I've got to go by is what I see and read on review sites such as Dpreview and Imaging Resources. If they have got things wrong, or, if I've misinterpreted their results, please feel free to point out my errors.
I've been considering the A900 ever since I heard about it because (1) I expected it to be more affordable than the 1Ds3, which it is, (2) I have a 24" wide format printer and would appreciate the additional detail provided by a 24mp sensor, (3) I already have a bunch of Minolta lenses.
Aren't those good reasons?
High ISO performance is not my only criterion. Availability of better quality lenses in the range that I currently use a lot, but feel is a bit inadequate, is an important consideration; specifically lenses in the wide angle range of 15-30 and the telephoto range of 100-400.
-
It also sounds like you could do well to look sideways at other options. I would consider being forced to use f8 to get a sharp photo and sufficient depth of field in that situation inexcusable....
It's not inexcusable. The excuse is very good. I'm not aware of any other options that are not too expensive and too heavy. The Canon 400/2.8 at F4 would no doubt be sharper than the 100-400 at F8. However, it simply doesn't fit my purposes because of its weight and its inflexibility because it's a prime.
None of the zooms in this range that have been tested at Photozone, whether Nikkor, Sigma or Tamron, are better than the Canon 100-400. They all have below par resolution at their maximum aperture of F5.6.
-
It's not inexcusable. The excuse is very good. I'm not aware of any other options that are not too expensive and too heavy. The Canon 400/2.8 at F4 would no doubt be sharper than the 100-400 at F8. However, it simply doesn't fit my purposes because of its weight and its inflexibility because it's a prime.
None of the zooms in this range that have been tested at Photozone, whether Nikkor, Sigma or Tamron, are better than the Canon 100-400. They all have below par resolution at their maximum aperture of F5.6.
Like I say, Ray, you've got to look sideways. My Olympus 50-200 on my E3 covers exactly the range of your Canon lens on a 5D (and with the dedicated 1..4 converter near enough to the range on a crop sensor Canon). It's sharp wide open and gives the same depth of field at f4 that your lens does at f8 on a 5D. It's also way lighter, cheaper and waterproof and focus is quick and accurate, even in the poor light that you photograph in. Plus, that big Canon zoom sucks in dust, not a problem at all with the Olympus setup. Olympus even make a 90-250 (=180-500 on 35mm) which is f2.8 all the way and also weather proof and sharp wide open. This is just one example of keeping an open mind.
Don't forget that Sony is bringing out the 70-400/4-5.6G, which should weigh about the same as the Canon but could well be sharper and is more useful. Or you could get the astounding 70-200/2.8G and stick a doubler on it and probably still match your Canon at 5.6. Also, photos I've seen taken with the 16-35 Zeiss are very promising indeed and that is a much more useful zoom range than the Nikon 12-24, just less trendy. If you have a 24" printer and Minolta lenses, the A900 must be your best option and does not cut you out of lens options at all. In fact, it gives you some awesome options you do not get with other brands, especially if you want your Zeiss glass to come in autofocus.
Gotta give up on you. You've contradicted yourself since the start of this thread and seem quite negative for no good reason. Let's hope you sort things out over the next few months and can get back to being happy behind your camera!
P.S. I recently tried out a Canon 400/2.8 on a 1DIII. Do you think I could get that thing to focus? A huge, huge setup, needing a monopod to hold it up and just a pig to use. I really had to wonder what all the hype was about and have to agree with you that it is not a serious option for photographing moving birds!
-
Hi Ray,
Regarding old lenses I have some doubts. I guess that full format will make some stiff demands on the lenses. I have an Alpha 700, here is my experience of the lenses I have.
KM 11-18 (APS-C), corners awful
ZA 16-80 (APS-C) corners bad below 5.6, in practice OK at any aperture except at 16 mm. Better in practical picture taking than in tests.
KM 28-75/2.8 really good in tests, I prefer 16-80 in general because much more useful
KM 80-200/2.8 quite good. Some lateral CA
KM 75-300/4.5-5.6 (Big beercan), not really sharp but not really unsharp. Has some lateral or axial color, not obvious which.
KM 300/4 APO not as sharp as it should be
KM 400/4.5 quite OK if properly focused and stopped down to 5.6, works well with 1.4APO extender, OK with 2X extender if you can focus correctly.
KM 100/2.8 Macro, OK, not sharper than 16-80, 28-75 or 80-200/2.8
I'm considering the Alpha 900 but I guess I spent a few greenbacks to many recently on a good printer (the Epson 3800) and a hopefully good HD projector.
A2 prints are very sharp with the 16-80 at f/8 and also the 80-200 at all apertures I used with the Alpha 700.
I guess that I may invest in the Alpha 900 depending on lens tests. I'll probably would go for the following lenses:
Sigma 12-24 (It's decent if you get a good copy, I'm no wide angle freak)
I might keep the KM 28-75/2.8. It's not a pro optic but is supposed to very sharp and I have no evidence to the contrary
I might consider the Zeiss ZA 24-70/2.8 depending on tests
The 80-200 is an old favorite, I guess I had it for 15 years or so. Only disadvantage is that it is noisy.
I may consider one of the new G zooms 75-300 or 75-400
Best regards
Erik
Bernard,
Be as frank as you like. All I've got to go by is what I see and read on review sites such as Dpreview and Imaging Resources. If they have got things wrong, or, if I've misinterpreted their results, please feel free to point out my errors.
I've been considering the A900 ever since I heard about it because (1) I expected it to be more affordable than the 1Ds3, which it is, (2) I have a 24" wide format printer and would appreciate the additional detail provided by a 24mp sensor, (3) I already have a bunch of Minolta lenses.
Aren't those good reasons?
High ISO performance is not my only criterion. Availability of better quality lenses in the range that I currently use a lot, but feel is a bit inadequate, is an important consideration; specifically lenses in the wide angle range of 15-30 and the telephoto range of 100-400.
-
Hi,
Regarding the Canon 100-400 there seems to be a lot of sample variation. If you get a good sample I guess it's an OK lens.
Regarding Oly lenses, Photozone tested a few and I think that all were well centered and of consistent quality.
Best regards
Erik
Like I say, Ray, you've got to look sideways. My Olympus 50-200 on my E3 covers exactly the range of your Canon lens on a 5D (and with the dedicated 1..4 converter near enough to the range on a crop sensor Canon). It's sharp wide open and gives the same depth of field at f4 that your lens does at f8 on a 5D. It's also way lighter, cheaper and waterproof and focus is quick and accurate, even in the poor light that you photograph in. Plus, that big Canon zoom sucks in dust, not a problem at all with the Olympus setup. Olympus even make a 90-250 (=180-500 on 35mm) which is f2.8 all the way and also weather proof and sharp wide open. This is just one example of keeping an open mind.
Don't forget that Sony is bringing out the 70-400/4-5.6G, which should weigh about the same as the Canon but could well be sharper and is more useful. Or you could get the astounding 70-200/2.8G and stick a doubler on it and probably still match your Canon at 5.6. Also, photos I've seen taken with the 16-35 Zeiss are very promising indeed and that is a much more useful zoom range than the Nikon 12-24, just less trendy. If you have a 24" printer and Minolta lenses, the A900 must be your best option and does not cut you out of lens options at all. In fact, it gives you some awesome options you do not get with other brands, especially if you want your Zeiss glass to come in autofocus.
Gotta give up on you. You've contradicted yourself since the start of this thread and seem quite negative for no good reason. Let's hope you sort things out over the next few months and can get back to being happy behind your camera!
P.S. I recently tried out a Canon 400/2.8 on a 1DIII. Do you think I could get that thing to focus? A huge, huge setup, needing a monopod to hold it up and just a pig to use. I really had to wonder what all the hype was about and have to agree with you that it is not a serious option for photographing moving birds!
-
Be as frank as you like. All I've got to go by is what I see and read on review sites such as Dpreview and Imaging Resources. If they have got things wrong, or, if I've misinterpreted their results, please feel free to point out my errors.
I've been considering the A900 ever since I heard about it because (1) I expected it to be more affordable than the 1Ds3, which it is, (2) I have a 24" wide format printer and would appreciate the additional detail provided by a 24mp sensor, (3) I already have a bunch of Minolta lenses.
Aren't those good reasons?
High ISO performance is not my only criterion. Availability of better quality lenses in the range that I currently use a lot, but feel is a bit inadequate, is an important consideration; specifically lenses in the wide angle range of 15-30 and the telephoto range of 100-400.
Ray,
I am not saying that you are mis-interpretting what others have written. All I am saying is that if your interest for the A900 is conditioned by it being the best camera on the market for high ISO image quality - which very much seems to be the case looking at what you have written in this thread - then you are wasting your time considering it.
If it is not the case, then for somebody like you who is shooting often without tripod, the body IS of the A900 alone should IMHO be enough of a deal closer.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Ray,
I am not saying that you are mis-interpretting what others have written. All I am saying is that if your interest for the A900 is conditioned by it being the best camera on the market for high ISO image quality - which very much seems to be the case looking at what you have written in this thread - then you are wasting your time considering it.
If it is not the case, then for somebody like you who is shooting often without tripod, the body IS of the A900 alone should IMHO be enough of a deal closer.
Cheers,
Bernard
But my interest in the A900 is not conditioned by high ISO alone, Bernard. The anti-shake sensor is a big plus. I don't have the IS option with my Sigma 15-30 which I use a lot on my 5D, and I won't have it with the Nikkor 14-24 when I get that lens for my 5D, so the availability of a really good ultra-wide angle zoom for the A900, sharp from corner to corner and with the benefit of image stabilisation, would be something that would affect my choice. It's really a matter of weighing the pros and cons in relation to my purposes.
Basically, I'm searching for some positive advantages of the A900 which can counteract and actually overwhelm that disappointing high-ISO performance. When I see a comment (from Imaging Resource) that above ISO 200 noise begins to limit resolution, I get worried. Is this a one-ISO camera like early DBs?
I get the impression that Imaging Resource is doing its best to provide a positive spin here. They make a few comments that A900 image resolution and dynamic range is excellent at base ISO of 200, but are using out-of-camera jpegs to substantiate any resolution advantage compared with the 1Ds3 (with different default sharpening levels). Examining the A900 and 1Ds3 images on their comparator, I can see no resolution advantage of the A900 at base ISO that I would consider significant in any way.
There appears to be a half stop DR advantage in highest quality A900 RAW images at base ISO, compared with the 1Ds3, and a 1/2 stop is definitely worth having. But I'm not contemplating buying a 1Ds3. The 5D MkII is the alternative for me, a camera which it is claimed will have better image quality than the 1Ds3.
It might look as though I'm running down the A900, but I'm merely trying to be objective and impartial. I'm not interested in tying myself to a brand loyalty and then feeling the need to defend any criticism as though I'm supporting a football team.
Do we really want to make our camera purchasing decisions wearing rose colored glasses?
-
Do we really want to make our camera purchasing decisions wearing rose colored glasses?
Certainly not.
We all have different glasses based on our different needs, but the key is to figure out exactly what pair to use (what the priorities are), and to use that given pair for all cameras you are looking at.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Like I say, Ray, you've got to look sideways. My Olympus 50-200 on my E3 covers exactly the range of your Canon lens on a 5D (and with the dedicated 1..4 converter near enough to the range on a crop sensor Canon). It's sharp wide open and gives the same depth of field at f4 that your lens does at f8 on a 5D. It's also way lighter, cheaper and waterproof and focus is quick and accurate, even in the poor light that you photograph in. Plus, that big Canon zoom sucks in dust, not a problem at all with the Olympus setup. Olympus even make a 90-250 (=180-500 on 35mm) which is f2.8 all the way and also weather proof and sharp wide open. This is just one example of keeping an open mind.
Don't forget that Sony is bringing out the 70-400/4-5.6G, which should weigh about the same as the Canon but could well be sharper and is more useful. Or you could get the astounding 70-200/2.8G and stick a doubler on it and probably still match your Canon at 5.6. Also, photos I've seen taken with the 16-35 Zeiss are very promising indeed and that is a much more useful zoom range than the Nikon 12-24, just less trendy. If you have a 24" printer and Minolta lenses, the A900 must be your best option and does not cut you out of lens options at all. In fact, it gives you some awesome options you do not get with other brands, especially if you want your Zeiss glass to come in autofocus.
Gotta give up on you. You've contradicted yourself since the start of this thread and seem quite negative for no good reason. Let's hope you sort things out over the next few months and can get back to being happy behind your camera!
P.S. I recently tried out a Canon 400/2.8 on a 1DIII. Do you think I could get that thing to focus? A huge, huge setup, needing a monopod to hold it up and just a pig to use. I really had to wonder what all the hype was about and have to agree with you that it is not a serious option for photographing moving birds!
Deep,
I've been looking sideways for many years and have engaged in many debates on this forum about the merits of the 4/3rds system compared with APS-C and full frame 35mm. If you think the Olympus 50-200 on the E3 can produce better results than a Canon 100-400 on a 50D or 1Ds3 (in place of the 5D2), then show me some test comparisons. I've never seen any.
Not only have I never, never, never, ever seen any direct, controlled comparisons between the Oly 50-200 and the Canon 100-400 with the latest camera bodies, I can find no rational reason to expect any improved image quality from the 50-200, compared with the 100-400 with larger format sensors.
No reason to expect any 'significant' improvement plus no pictorial evidence demonstrating any improvement is not entirely conclusive I know, but is fairly and reasonably conclusive by my standards.
Let's consider what I believe to be the facts, rightly or wrongly. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
(1) Zuiko lenses are generally sharper than their Canon counterparts because they have to be in order to deliver the same resolution, due to the greater resolution demands of the smaller 4/3rds sensor.
(2) Out-of-camera jpegs from the E-3 appear to be sharper than jpegs from the Canon 40D, leading some people on this forum to claim that the E-3 produces sharper (or better quality) images than (even) the 5D. After the Dpreview tests of the E-3 we now know that RAW E-3 images are actually slightly less sharp than 40D RAW images, due to the stronger AA filter on the E-3. I would think a 50D would widen that gap.
(3) There is clear evidence in both the Dpreview and Imaging Resource tests that the 40D has lower noise and produces sharper images at high ISO than the E-3. There is other evidence elsewhere, and my own tests also confirm this, that the 5D has a significant high-ISO noise advantage over the 40D and 50D.
(4) Whilst it's true that smaller formats have a DoF advantage when used at the same aperture (comparing equal FoV images) this advantage appears to be completely wiped out by the lower noise and potentially better image quality of the larger sensor with its greater light-gathering capacity.
This is how the relationship works. Comparing the E-3's 17.3x13mm sensor with the 40D's 22.2x14.8mm sensor, we find that the E-3 has a DoF advantage of 1/3rd to 2/3rds of a stop depending on whether we're cropping the E-3 image to 35mm aspect ratio or cropping the 35mm aspect ratio to a 4/3rds aspect ratio.
However, the 40D has at least a one stop noise/image quality advantage over the E-3. If we were to pixel-peep comparisons betwee the E-3 at ISO 200 and F5.6, and the 40D or 50D at ISO 320 with lens at either F6.3 or 7.1 depending on cropping, we might find the 40D or 50D would still have the edge. But either way, it's merely a pixel-peeping edge we're talking about. I'm after something more substantial.
(5) Whilst I would not be surprised if the the Oly 50-200 were sharper at F4 than the Canon 100-400 at F5.6, a 1.4x converter will not get you even close to the FL of a 400mm lens on the 50D. You need a 2x converter. Converters always downgrade lens performance. It's unavoidable. A 2x extender also converts that maximum aperture of F4 into F8. I can't see any hope of improvement with this suggestion of yours, but thanks for trying
Olympus even make a 90-250 (=180-500 on 35mm) which is f2.8 all the way and also weather proof and sharp wide open. This is just one example of keeping an open mind.
This option looks more promising. However, that lens would still need a 1.4x extender to match the 640mm equivalence of a 400mm lens on the 50D. With 1.4x extender, 250mm at F2.8 becomes a downgraded 350mm at F4. Factor in the small crop factor in relation to the 50D and you get something like 400mm, so the effective FL is roughly equivalent. But I'm very doubtful that a downgraded zoom lens at F4 and ISO 200 (for example) on the E-3 would exceed the quality of the 100-400 at F5.6 and ISO 400 on the 50D.
But thanks for your help. If there are any comparison images out there addressing this specific issue, I'd be very interested.
-
...... but the key is to figure out exactly what pair to use (what the priorities are), and to use that given pair for all cameras you are looking at.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
Isn't that precisely what I've been doing? Where have I given the impression that I'm wearing different colored glasses for different cameras? I'm always searching for specific advantages that any new camera model might have that I would find useful. But I'm also wary of the exaggerated hype that often accompanies new cameras. There are a few advantages of the A900 which I would find useful, but given the choice between an ultra-wide angle zoom which is sharp from corner to corner but lacks IS, and a zoom which is not sharp corner to corner but has IS, I think I would prefer the former.
-
What I don't understand of the DPReview comparison is the camera settings used for the comparison. All cameras had NR on, which will cover up any true comparison of the amount of real noise. Built-in NR of one camera might work better than the other, but when photographed in RAW and taken to after-NR in the computer all parameters would be the same. The other thing they did and which I didn't understand was that they used in-camera JPEG conversion, and at least for the Alpha 900 they didn't even choose the finest setting (extra fine). It might be that "fine" in one brand of camera is "extra fine" in another, depending on how the specs are translated into setting names by their respective makers. In standard mode (the mode used by DPReview) the Alpha 900 is set to higher color saturation, and I found color noise at high ISO to be considerably higher than when set to "neutral".
I agree, it can be misleading to draw conclusions from in-camera jpeg quality. Default sharpening and NR settings can be different in different cameras. However, in my experience from looking at many Dpreview comparisons over the years, there's usually a trade-off between noise and detail which is always fairly obvious in jpegs. If one image at high ISO looks impressively smooth and noise-free (like some Nikon D300 images), there's an obvious loss of detail. The camera which applies less NR to its jpeg images at default setting, often displays greater noise but also has more detail.
The characteristic which strikes me about the A900 jpegs at high ISO is that they lack both low noise and detail. There's no trade-off to be seen. They are simply noisy as well as lacking in detail.
-
Here is a handheld sample shot at ISO 200 in extremely low light. IS was on of course. I added some vignetting in RAW conversion. The dynamic range of this camera is huge. Look at the brightest part of the lamp, which is still graduated. The JPEG version of the same shot showed full burn-out in the back and in the light lamp areas. In this version every level is conserved.
EPd,
There seems little doubt that the A900 is a fine camera capable of equalling, and in some respects exceeding, the image quality from the more expensive 1Ds, under the right conditions. It appears to have a 1/2 stop DR advantage at base ISO, compared with the 1Ds3 (according to Image Resources testing), and in certain situations the anti-shake sensor will prove to be an advantage compared with any equivalent Canon lens which happens not to have IS built in, and there are a few.
However, I would think it likely that the 5D MkII will also have at least a 1/2 stop DR advantage compared with the 1Ds3, so from my perspective, how the A900 compares with the 5D2 is more relevant.
At the same time, I appreciate it must be gratifying for current owners of an A900 to learn that their new camera can outperform the much more expensive 1Ds3 in at least some respects.
-
Hi,
I isn't easy as that. Many lenses are quite soft in the corners at large apertures but may be OK at f/8 (or so). I'd suggest that we can live with a lens that's soft at large aperture with IS, because:
- When using maximum aperture DOF is very limited anyway
- We can stop down a couple of steps with IS
There is no question that sharper is better, but if we need to make compromises some compromises are better than others. I would also suggest that there is great advantage to using autofocus lenses. Modern cameras are not meant for manual focusing. Check: http://www.slrgear.com/articles/focus/focus.htm (http://www.slrgear.com/articles/focus/focus.htm)
One interesting observation: I was photographing with my 400/4.5 in yellowstone. At one stage I saw something that may have been an animal or a stone, I couldn't say from the viewfinder. I took a picture and enlarged it on the display and could than see it was an elk with a very fine rack. Now, I don't have 20/20 eyesight but I use corrective lenses.
Best regards
Erik
Bernard,
Isn't that precisely what I've been doing? Where have I given the impression that I'm wearing different colored glasses for different cameras? I'm always searching for specific advantages that any new camera model might have that I would find useful. But I'm also wary of the exaggerated hype that often accompanies new cameras. There are a few advantages of the A900 which I would find useful, but given the choice between an ultra-wide angle zoom which is sharp from corner to corner but lacks IS, and a zoom which is not sharp corner to corner but has IS, I think I would prefer the former.
-
Hi,
Regarding the Canon 100-400 there seems to be a lot of sample variation. If you get a good sample I guess it's an OK lens.
Regarding Oly lenses, Photozone tested a few and I think that all were well centered and of consistent quality.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
I can find only one review of a 4/3rds lens on the Photozone site, the Leica 14-50, and that certainly seems to have excellent performance. However, Photozone make a point of advising not to compare lens tests across different systems, because all their results are 'system' results which are to some extent dependent upon the camera body used. I believe that most (if not all) of the Canon lenses have been tested using an 8mp 350D.
I've heard also that there is sample variation in the Canon 100-400. But isn't there sample variation in all lenses? Generally, one can get an idea of the image quality of one's lens by comparing sharpness at various apertures. Good lenses tend to be sharper at F5.6 than at F8. Poor lenses tend to be sharpest at F16 to F11. Medium quality lenses tend to be sharpest at F8.
My own copy of the Canon 100-400 at 400mm is sharpest at F8, but only by a very small margin compared with F11. The difference between F5.6 and F8 is greater than the difference between F8 and F11, regarding sharpness.
I think the quality of my copy of this lens is a least average or typical. It would be too troublesome and difficult (not to mention time-consuming) to go around comparing different copies in the hope I might find one that is better.
-
"Outperforming" the "competition" is a very relative concept to me. I think I should be a better photographer if I want to "outperform" in any way.
Indeed! There's a lot to be said for the concept, "The camera doesn't matter". One simply restricts one's activities to subjects that the camera can handle, or one uses what some might consider to be a deficiency, as an artistic effect, and hope it works.
The following shot has more noise by far than any other image I've taken and kept. I almost junked this shot because it was clearly excessively underexposed, but on second thoughts I decided I quite liked it. This is the 5D at ISO half a million .
[attachment=8818:Temple_b..._Ayudhya.jpg]
-
Hi,
I isn't easy as that. Many lenses are quite soft in the corners at large apertures but may be OK at f/8 (or so). I'd suggest that we can live with a lens that's soft at large aperture with IS, because:
- When using maximum aperture DOF is very limited anyway
- We can stop down a couple of steps with IS
There is no question that sharper is better, but if we need to make compromises some compromises are better than others. I would also suggest that there is great advantage to using autofocus lenses. Modern cameras are not meant for manual focusing. Check: http://www.slrgear.com/articles/focus/focus.htm (http://www.slrgear.com/articles/focus/focus.htm)
One interesting observation: I was photographing with my 400/4.5 in yellowstone. At one stage I saw something that may have been an animal or a stone, I couldn't say from the viewfinder. I took a picture and enlarged it on the display and could than see it was an elk with a very fine rack. Now, I don't have 20/20 eyesight but I use corrective lenses.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
I find that soft corners are only a problem with wide angle lenses. Stopping down improves the situation. However, with a high resolution sensor, one doesn't want to stop down to F11 for the sake of sharp corners when F5.6 would give one sufficient DoF.
I also have some difficulty manually focussing through an optical viewfinder, which is why I find the Live View feature of Canon's latest models useful. The fact that the A900 doesn't have a Live View, I consider yet another disadvantage. The Live View feature on the 50D is a big step up with its higher resolution LCD. Lens image stabilisation also contributes to the ease of manual focussing when the camera is not on a tripod, although a tripod helps.
Manually focussing with a Nikkor 14-24 on a 5D2 will not be ideal using Live View without tripod, due to its lack of IS.
-
Ray, if you lens is limiting, it does not matter how good your sensor is. A fantastic lens on a good sensor will outperform a poor lens on an excellent sensor in ANY normal scenario. Full stop. You can spend half you life dredging through test charts and fora and reading opinions and trying to sort facts from speculation. It appears you are very diligent about that. None of that can come close to matching the experience of using a camera/lens combination for a while and playing with the RAW files yourself. It's amazing how, when you do that, the trees start to clear and you can see the whole forest.
I'm super happy with what I have now. So is my rapidly increasing clientele, which is vitally important because they, ultimately, pay for my equipment. Getting twisted into knots wondering what infinitesimal advantage I may gain in situation A or B by changing my whole system will take me away from that happiness. I do read up whatever I can and take every chance to try new bodies and lenses from various manufacturers, not to get worked up about what I don't have but so I can keep an eye out towards the future when I steadily expand my kit. The best way to treat this rapidly changing market is to start by counting your blessings and work on what you are really restricted by (I am way less restricted than your research seems to have suggested - phew!). I recommend you consider a similar philosophy.
I promised myself I would leave this conversation alone but, hey, I'm a bit hyper and can't leave stuff alone. So now I'll unsubscribe to this topic so I don't waste any more time. Good luck and happy shooting!
-
You can spend half you life dredging through test charts and fora and reading opinions and trying to sort facts from speculation. It appears you are very diligent about that. None of that can come close to matching the experience of using a camera/lens combination for a while and playing with the RAW files yourself. It's amazing how, when you do that, the trees start to clear and you can see the whole forest.
Deep,
What causes you to think I don't have experience using cameras or prefer to dredge through test charts of other copies of lenses? Like many people, I simply don't have the time to hire equipment and test all options. Competently carried out tests are very useful because they save time, trouble and expense and give one a good indication of what a particular camera is capable of.
Whenever I am uncertain about a particular principle, I'll take the trouble to verify it by doing my own tests, if I have the equipment. When buying a lens, I'll usually test it first, taking my laptop to the store so I can compare the results with shots from a lens I already own, or with another brand of lens in the store.
I consider cameras to be merely tools, but rather complex tools. It's necessary to understand the principles and relationships between DoF and format size, noise and resolution etc in order to make the right decision when buying a camera. I know what I want and my understanding of these issues is so good that I never need to test a camera before buying it. (Except on odd occasions when the claimed performance of a camera is so incredible that I just can't resist checking it out for myself, as I did with the D3, and found the claims to be somewhat exaggerated).
Lenses, however, are in a different category because of greater QC variability.
-
Ray, based on what I have seen around, the opinion seems to be that the D3/D700 are great all-purpose machines with a FF sensors and due to its relative low resolution (for a FF), it is optimized for high-ISO performance and sheer speed (FPS).
The A900 on the other hand, is equipped with a high resolution sensor and thus expecting it to have comparable high-ISO performance as the D3/D700 is not very realistic. But for a person who needs that resolution, the lower resolution sensor is not an option at all.
Just a matter of priorities.
Dpreview should really have tested the A900 with JPEG/"Extra Fine" instead of the "Fine" that they tested with. Maybe it is a matter of terminology but 'Fine' in the Sony lexicon seems to be clearly positioned between 'Extra Fine' and 'Coarse', while in case of a competitor, 'Fine' is in reality the 'Extra Fine' of Sony. So for apples-to-apples comparison, they should have ignored the terminology and employed Sony's "Extra Fine" in their JPEG comparison....just a side observation I had.
Quoting from dpreview's D700 review when referring to the A900:
============
However, the amount of detail that is rendered by the Sony's new 24MP sensor is quite simply astonishing. If resolution and detail at low sensitivities are high up on your priority list it'll be difficult to ignore Sony's new flagship.
============
Naturally the 24 MP Sony DSLR-A900 stands out in this test, offering considerably more resolution than its 12 megapixel competitors. The resolved detail is quite simply staggering.
============
"Staggering" and "Astonishing" are not terminologies that dpreview is fond of using, when it comes to cameras from Sony - based on past experience.
Bottomline, if you need ultra-high-resolution, then it would be impractical to expect stratospheric high-ISO performance and when you get extraordinary high-ISO performance, you will have to give up on ultra-high-resolution. Just the "physics" of the situation.
I think you made a statement earlier, that in the A900, detail is missing, while noise is present....dpreview seems to think otherwise, based on the above quotes.
-
The A900 on the other hand, is equipped with a high resolution sensor and thus expecting it to have comparable high-ISO performance as the D3/D700 is not very realistic. But for a person who needs that resolution, the lower resolution sensor is not an option at all.
I would argue that stitching makes it possible to shoot very high resolution images with the D3/D700, but that best quality high ISO shot will be harder with a A900, although its high ISO performance seems surprisingly good for me considering the single frame resolution.
The 130+ MP stitch of Pumori below should proof this point.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2138/2468165660_9fa5856e4d_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I may consider one of the new G zooms 75-300 or 75-400
Just a small correction. The new "G" SSM zooms are 70-300 and 70-400.
In dpreview, there was a post relating to images from the A900 and the new 70-300 G SSM lens:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3037/2926369478_078b5a162d_b.jpg)
100% crop from the above image:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3148/2925993075_6368326ae5_o.jpg)
-
I would argue that stitching makes it possible to shoot very high resolution images with the D3/D700, but that best quality high ISO shot will be harder with a A900, although its high ISO performance seems surprisingly good for me considering the single frame resolution.
That is true, stitching will work, as long as the subject is static. I would argue that if you are willing to stitch and the subject is static, even an extremely low-res APS-C camera can produce staggeringly high resolution images, as long as you stitch multiple takes.
-
Well, mostly when I stitch I use it either instead of cropping or to increase the angle of view. If I had an A900 I would probably still stitch.
Erik
That is true, stitching will work, as long as the subject is static. I would argue that if you are willing to stitch and the subject is static, even an extremely low-res APS-C camera can produce staggeringly high resolution images, as long as you stitch multiple takes.
-
Dpreview should really have tested the A900 with JPEG/"Extra Fine" instead of the "Fine" that they tested with. Maybe it is a matter of terminology but 'Fine' in the Sony lexicon seems to be clearly positioned between 'Extra Fine' and 'Coarse', while in case of a competitor, 'Fine' is in reality the 'Extra Fine' of Sony. So for apples-to-apples comparison, they should have ignored the terminology and employed Sony's "Extra Fine" in their JPEG comparison....just a side observation I had.
We're all capable of making mistakes. Perhaps Dpreview are not used to seeing an 'Extra Fine' option. Perhaps they tried it and saw no improvement which they thought was significant for their demonstration purposes. Who knows! It's of no great concern to me because I don't shoot in jpeg mode.
============
However, the amount of detail that is rendered by the Sony's new 24MP sensor is quite simply astonishing. If resolution and detail at low sensitivities are high up on your priority list it'll be difficult to ignore Sony's new flagship.
============
Naturally the 24 MP Sony DSLR-A900 stands out in this test, offering considerably more resolution than its 12 megapixel competitors. The resolved detail is quite simply staggering.
============
"Staggering" and "Astonishing" are not terminologies that dpreview is fond of using, when it comes to cameras from Sony - based on past experience.
Bottomline, if you need ultra-high-resolution, then it would be impractical to expect stratospheric high-ISO performance and when you get extraordinary high-ISO performance, you will have to give up on ultra-high-resolution. Just the "physics" of the situation.
I think you made a statement earlier, that in the A900, detail is missing, while noise is present....dpreview seems to think otherwise, based on the above quotes.
"Staggering" and "astonishing" are not scientific terms. Anything, absolutely anything, can be described as astonishing in relation to something which is not astonishing, or in relation to something which is no longer astonishing but perhaps once was.
The second part of this quote should give you a hint as to what this degree of staggering astonishment is in relation to...."Naturally the 24 MP Sony DSLR-A900 stands out in this test, offering considerably more resolution than its 12 megapixel competitors. The resolved detail is quite simply staggering."
Dpreview have enough experience to know what to expect when you double the pixel count of a sensor, just as Imaging Resource does not have to make a song and dance about how BIG the A900 files are. We should all know that 24mp is precisely twice as big as 12mp. Reviewers sometimes feel the need to use a literary style to get the reader interested, which is fair enough provided they also show us the results of their careful testing so we can see for ourselves just how astonishing those results might be.
Anyone who has a 40D or other brand of cropped format DSLR of similar pixel count, can test for themselves just how much detail to expect from a 24mp full frame DSLR, at least in that central part of the 35mm frame which the cropped format represents. I've taken the trouble myself to compare my 5D with my new 15mp 50D, using the same lens at the same aperture from the same distance to subject. The 50D represents a 39mp full frame sensor which has been cropped in software to 15mp. Even at F22 I can find a very marginal increase in detail, but such extra detail would of course only be visible in a very large print on close scrutiny.
However, the increase in detail at F8 is just astonishing. (Not really. I expected it ).
Ray, based on what I have seen around, the opinion seems to be that the D3/D700 are great all-purpose machines with a FF sensors and due to its relative low resolution (for a FF), it is optimized for high-ISO performance and sheer speed (FPS).
The A900 on the other hand, is equipped with a high resolution sensor and thus expecting it to have comparable high-ISO performance as the D3/D700 is not very realistic. But for a person who needs that resolution, the lower resolution sensor is not an option at all.
There's a fallacy here which needs addressing. In fact, it has already been addressed many times, even by photography enthusiasts with a PH.d. in Physics, such as Emil Martinec who occasionally makes an appearance on this forum.
Increasing pixel count does not necessarily have to result in greater image noise. There are numerous examples in Canon's development of DSLR technology which demonstrate this. The D60 had twice the pixel count of the D30 which it succeeded, yet noise even at the pixel level was no greater than that of the 3mp D30. Likewise with the 8mp 20D which followed the 6mp 10D; the 8mp 1D2 wich followed the original 4mp 1D; the 16mp 1Ds2 which followed the 11mp 1Ds and the latest 21mp 1Ds3 which has slightly lower noise than the 1Ds2 despite a greater pixel count.
The other consideration is that all images without exception have to be viewed at a specific size. One has to be careful when comparing image noise in prints, or on monitor, when such images are different sizes, unless one is examining the noise characteristics of an individual pixel.
Whilst it's useful to know the comparative noise level of the individual pixel, which DPreview shows us, such noise at the pixel level will always be modified by the degree of enlargement of the final print. For example, a D700 or D3 pixel has less noise than a 1Ds3 pixel. However, when comparing equal size images, the D3 image will have to be enlarged to the same size as the 1Ds3 image, which inevitably results in an enlargement of D3 noise, or alternatively, the 1Ds3 image will be downsized to the D3 image size, a process which inevitably results in a discarding of some 1Ds3 noise (as well as resolution).
Whilst D3 owners like to assert that their camera has the lowest noise of any other DSLR on the market (because they are 'sort of' supporting their favourite football team ), the facts of the matter appear to be that D3 noise is pretty much on a par with 1Ds3 noise, in practice.
I see no reason why the 24mp upgrade to the Nikon D3 should have more noise than the 12mp D3, when equal size images are compared. Unfortunately, Sony doesn't seem to have quite made it, in the high ISO stakes.
-
Just a small correction. The new "G" SSM zooms are 70-300 and 70-400.
In dpreview, there was a post relating to images from the A900 and the new 70-300 G SSM lens:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3037/2926369478_078b5a162d_b.jpg)
100% crop from the above image:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3148/2925993075_6368326ae5_o.jpg)
The 100% crop of the cock's head certainly looks very sharp and detailed. But I would expect similarly impressive results from a 40D with the same lens from the same shooting position. The cock's head would then almost fill the frame as shown in the following image with 40D format superimposed.
[attachment=8840:Cock_with_crop.jpg]
-
The 100% crop of the cock's head certainly looks very sharp and detailed. But I would expect similarly impressive results from a 40D with the same lens from the same shooting position. The cock's head would then almost fill the frame as shown in the following image with 40D format superimposed.
[attachment=8840:Cock_with_crop.jpg]
Ray, this is getting really funny. By your 40D crop logic, would we not get an even more detailed view if you were to take the picture with a 5 year old 7.2MP Sony DSC-V3 point-and-shoot (or the newer 13.5MP Sony DSC-W300 P&S), since such p&s cameras would magnify an even smaller cropped portion of the cock's head, since that 7.2MP (or 13.5MP) on such small sensors, are WAY denser than even the 50D or any other dSLR in existence ?
-
I see no reason why the 24mp upgrade to the Nikon D3 should have more noise than the 12mp D3, when equal size images are compared. Unfortunately, Sony doesn't seem to have quite made it, in the high ISO stakes.
Ray, you seem to have already made up your mind but is circling around this topic again and again. You seem to be hunting around for statements (like in the IR review) that will "confirm your pre-set suspicions" about the A900 and ignoring others that are contrary to your already-made-up view.
I think several 1600, 3200 and 6400 ISO images from the A900 were shown on several foras, with terrific performance and remember these images were processed using very early versions of post processing tools (since none of them are "mature" enough when it comes to processing A900 RAW files - yet, and which in turn are being compared to "highly mature" processing tools for cameras like the 1DSMKIII, which have been on the market for a year now).
The JPEG engines of Sony cameras are typically sub-par but that should not be a problem at all, for people willing to work in RAW. I personally only work in RAW and never shoot JPEG. But several of these reviews seem to focus a lot of JPEG output and berate the overall product for that.
The sensor in the A900, is the same design as the A700 and the Nikon D300, just that the pixels in the A900 are slightly LARGER and as long as you are willing to work with RAW, I don't see any "problems" here. I never heard of anybody complaining about D300 high-ISO images, which in turn are comparable to the A700 high-ISO images (after the V4 firmware upgrade)....the A900 can only be better at the pixel level, since it is the same design with further optimization for a whole year *AND* captures more light per pixel than either the D300 or the A700 along with 235% more light at the sensor level *and* the A900 has slightly weaker AA filter (than the D300/D700/D3). People shooting with both the Nikon D700 and the A900 have commented that the D700 images are slightly "fuzzy" because of the strong(er) AA filter when compared to the A900.
Don't know what will convince you but I think indications are that you will be a happy person with the new Canon 5DII and you are simply circling around here for someone to convince you about that. I think based on the fact that you have a significant lens and body lineup from Canon, I would stick with Canon if I were you, since IF you REALLY want to get full advantage from the A900, you will need to invest in the top-of-the-line Zeiss AF lenses and the "G" series lenses, which are certainly not cheap by any stretch. If you intend to use your decades old Minolta lenses on the A900, you will get reasonable results but those are simply not comparable to the images from the 2007/2008 designed Zeiss Full-frame lenses in the Alpha mount, that are specifically developed for Full-frame Digital sensors.....just the way things are.
-
Ray, this is getting really funny. By your 40D crop logic, would we not get an even more detailed view if you were to take the picture with a 5 year old 7.2MP Sony DSC-V3 point-and-shoot (or the newer 13.5MP Sony DSC-W300 P&S), since such p&s cameras would magnify an even smaller cropped portion of the cock's head, since that 7.2MP (or 13.5MP) on such small sensors, are WAY denser than even the 50D or any other dSLR in existence ?
You've missed the point, old chap. I use the example of the 40D crop because the 40D pixel is about the same size as the A900 pixel. Both cameras are modern and therefore employ the latest technology. My point is, if one wants an idea of the astonishing quality the A900 is capable of, one can use a 40D to find out, provided one is able to use a lens of comparable quality. Of course, such a comparison tells one nothing about the edge performance of the full frame A900 with the particular lens used.
Another very practical issue flowing from this concept relates to the practice of using the cropped format camera as a lens extender when one's longest telephoto lens does not have sufficient reach. I do this myself whenever I travel. A higher pixel-density sensor is usually better than a 1.4x or 2x extender.
With an A900, there would be no advantage in carrying a 10mp cropped format camera as a lens extender. That would be a weight saving.
It would be interesting to see a comparison between the A900 and 14mp A350, using the same lens at the same distance. I think one would need a very high quality telephoto lens to provide any worthwhile additional detail in those circumstances. I haven't yet compared my 50D with the 40D, using my longest telephoto. I'm doubtful the 100-400 is good enough to reveal any worthwhile differences at F8 and F11, although I would expect to see some very minor improvement at 200% enlargement and above.
-
Ray, you seem to have already made up your mind but is circling around this topic again and again. You seem to be hunting around for statements (like in the IR review) that will "confirm your pre-set suspicions" about the A900 and ignoring others that are contrary to your already-made-up view.
Not at all. Nothing could be further from the truth. I've always been very interested in the A900, since I first heard the announcement of its development. I have 3 Minolta-fit lenses which are all above the 4 out of 5 Photodo rating; the Minolta 50/1.4, the Sigma 24/2.8 and the Tamron SP 90/2.8 macro. I'm not sure that any modern equivalents to these 10 year old lenses would necessarily be much better.
I think several 1600, 3200 and 6400 ISO images from the A900 were shown on several foras, with terrific performance and remember these images were processed using very early versions of post processing tools (since none of them are "mature" enough when it comes to processing A900 RAW files - yet, and which in turn are being compared to "highly mature" processing tools for cameras like the 1DSMKIII, which have been on the market for a year now).
The JPEG engines of Sony cameras are typically sub-par but that should not be a problem at all, for people willing to work in RAW. I personally only work in RAW and never shoot JPEG. But several of these reviews seem to focus a lot of JPEG output and berate the overall product for that.
That's a very good point, but you should understand that objective and fair-minded people like myself can only draw conclusions from the evidence available. If there is a general issue with sub-par JPEG performance from Sony cameras, one might wonder (1) Why has Sony not fixed this problem in their flagship model? (2) Why have very experienced reviewers like Imaging-Resource not mentioned a caveat in relation to this, along the lines, "In our experience, Sony JPEGS in the past have proved to be much noisier and of lower resolution than results from their RAW images at high ISO, so the JPEG images shown in our Comparator are not necessarily an indicator of RAW performance"?
Don't know what will convince you but I think indications are that you will be a happy person with the new Canon 5DII and you are simply circling around here for someone to convince you about that. I think based on the fact that you have a significant lens and body lineup from Canon, I would stick with Canon if I were you, since IF you REALLY want to get full advantage from the A900, you will need to invest in the top-of-the-line Zeiss AF lenses and the "G" series lenses, which are certainly not cheap by any stretch. If you intend to use your decades old Minolta lenses on the A900, you will get reasonable results but those are simply not comparable to the images from the 2007/2008 designed Zeiss Full-frame lenses in the Alpha mount, that are specifically developed for Full-frame Digital sensors.....just the way things are.
I don't need anyone to convince me. I can make up my own mind provided I have the information. At this stage, the information is not completely reliable for the reasons you've stated. I'm in no hurry. I can wait till the RAW comparisons are out, using production models of both the A900 and 5DMkII.
DSLRs are of no use without lenses. When initially choosing a system, or thinking about changing to another system, the quality of available lenses in the range one knows one is likely to use, is a very important consideration.
You must have gathered from my previous comments that I'm not entirely happy with the wide angle performance of my Sigma 15-30 and the telphoto performance of my Canon 100-400 zoom at 400mm and F5.6. Simply upgrading to a 5DMKII is not going to change this. I shall be looking closely at comparisons between the the Sony 16-35 and Nikkor 14-24 when (or if) they become available, as well as comparisons between the new Sony 70-400 and the old Canon 100-400. I haven't bought the Nikkor 14-24 yet, although I received a Mark Welsh adapter a few days ago. I probably will buy the Nikkor, if only to use it on my 5D. Should Nikon announce a real humdinger in the form of a 24mp upgrade to the D700 at an attractive price (before I get either the A900 or 5D MkII) then the fact that I already have an excellent Nikkor lens will of course influence my decision.
-
Not at all. Nothing could be further from the truth. I've always been very interested in the A900, since I first heard the announcement of its development. I have 3 Minolta-fit lenses which are all above the 4 out of 5 Photodo rating; the Minolta 50/1.4, the Sigma 24/2.8 and the Tamron SP 90/2.8 macro. I'm not sure that any modern equivalents to these 10 year old lenses would necessarily be much better.
I think the above lenses should work just fine - for the most part - but digital sensors behave significantly differently from film and thus newer digital-oriented lens designs have digital-specific lens coatings and specially "shaped" lens elements that are intended to optimize their use with digital sensors, along with improving its telecentricity. In the film world, non-telecentric lenses would at best introduce some vignetting....in the digital spectrum, the same lenses would cause vignetting, light scatter (when light falls at an angle on the micro-lenses of a digital sensor) and color bleeding. The older film designs are a gamble at best, on digital sensors (specifically on Full-frame digital sensors), even though they might perform adequately, for all you know.
That's a very good point, but you should understand that objective and fair-minded people like myself can only draw conclusions from the evidence available. If there is a general issue with sub-par JPEG performance from Sony cameras, one might wonder (1) Why has Sony not fixed this problem in their flagship model? (2) Why have very experienced reviewers like Imaging-Resource not mentioned a caveat in relation to this, along the lines, "In our experience, Sony JPEGS in the past have proved to be much noisier and of lower resolution than results from their RAW images at high ISO, so the JPEG images shown in our Comparator are not necessarily an indicator of RAW performance"?
Fair enough. But having used several Sony cameras in the past, I can state that their RAW and JPEG engines are world's apart. The RAW is mindblowingly good (except in case of the A700 initially, when they did NR on RAW - and reversed by Firmware Ver.4) while the JPEG is passable at best. Olympus on the other hand, is extremely good with their JPEGs and people see very little improvement from shooting RAW. Canon treats the JPEG outputs from their professional models, differently from their crowd-pleasing consumer models (output being audience-specific). Just the nature of how the beasts are created.
Either way, it is your time and money. I doubt you would go wrong by making a choice in any of these camps. I have deliberately chosen Sony because of the in-body stabilization in a Full-frame body, which just is not available at all in the other options, along with ultra-modern lenses. Having shot with the Canon 5D/1DSMKII and the 85mm f/1.2L (Ver.1), what I find is that even though the lens itself is built as a low-light tool, it is well nigh impossible to hold it steady in low light, since it does not have IS built-in. When you want a slow shutter speed, even a 35mm or a 50mm will also benefit from I.S. The 135mm f/2.0L is also another example where having I.S is a big plus, regardless of what the Canon PR machine wants you to think.
Anybody stating that they don't WANT/NEED I.S in the 24-70 f/2.8L or the 16-35 f/2.8L or the 17-40 f/4L etc are not speaking truthfully. Basically, it is just not possible to accomodate additional I.S lens elements into these primes or zooms, without significantly increasing their size and the PR machine of these camera companies, kicks in and tries to shove this problem under the carpet, by pretending it does not exist - while at the same time, denying I.S in the body. Even a 24mm will benefit from I.S, believe it or not.
Also, when you introduce compensating I.S elements into the lens, something has to give - you are introducing additional elements with more "matter" through which light has to pass through. For instance, if they introduce a new 70-200 f/4L, with 2008 technology, it will almost certainly be superior to the 70-200 f/4L IS, since it will not have to have the additional compensating I.S elements that move around in the lens (when I.S kicks in), along with the additional mechanical complexity within the lens through the additional gyro-sensors and such.
So Sony has some very real advantages here. It has introduced a Full-frame camera with some really compelling features like a 100% VF etc, unlike smaller players like Pentax and Olympus, who seem to be happy operating in the small sensor space. Most of the Sony FF lenses are ultra-modern and top-of-the-line and designed from the ground up, for digital Full-frame sensors. None better in the market. A similar A900-type sensor in the A700 and the Nikon D300, with SMALLER pixels, are doing just fine, with no complaints even at 3200 or 6400 ISO. So where is all this ruckus about high-ISO noise in the A900 images, coming from ? The Ver.4 firmware upgrade in the A700 (which has radically transformed the imaging in the A700 for the better, bringing it at par with the D300), was a DIRECT result of the research efforts around the A900 imaging engine.
Either way, good luck with whatever you decide on.
-
Hand-held (no tripod used) picture of a lens taken with the A900 and Carl Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 Vario-Sonnar (ISO 200, 70mm, f/8, 1/13sec):
(http://homepage.mac.com/gollmark/.Pictures/M2870.jpg)
-
That is true, stitching will work, as long as the subject is static. I would argue that if you are willing to stitch and the subject is static, even an extremely low-res APS-C camera can produce staggeringly high resolution images, as long as you stitch multiple takes.
Actually, stitching works pretty well with many non static subjects, they just need to be small enough to fit into one of the frames or need to be steady/stichastic enough (water in a river for instance) that the stitch will not be visible.
Other than that, I feel that DR and tone is a very important aspect of landscape photography where the D3/D700 is in a different league compared to most APS cameras I have had the chance to use. This is a tremendous asset when stitching.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
What RAW converter are you using? My versions of LR and Aperture don't seem to handle A900 RAW files.
-
Anybody stating that they don't WANT/NEED I.S in the 24-70 f/2.8L or the 16-35 f/2.8L or the 17-40 f/4L etc are not speaking truthfully. Basically, it is just not possible to accomodate additional I.S lens elements into these primes or zooms, without significantly increasing their size and the PR machine of these camera companies, kicks in and tries to shove this problem under the carpet, by pretending it does not exist - while at the same time, denying I.S in the body. Even a 24mm will benefit from I.S, believe it or not.
Also, when you introduce compensating I.S elements into the lens, something has to give - you are introducing additional elements with more "matter" through which light has to pass through. For instance, if they introduce a new 70-200 f/4L, with 2008 technology, it will almost certainly be superior to the 70-200 f/4L IS, since it will not have to have the additional compensating I.S elements that move around in the lens (when I.S kicks in), along with the additional mechanical complexity within the lens through the additional gyro-sensors and such.
aaykay,
I've never seen any statements from people claiming they don't want or need IS in ultra-wide zooms. However, if it's true, as you claim, that IS with a floating element built into the lens, will inevitably reduce the potential quality of the lens, then that might be a reason for not wanting it.
There's a certain logic to this claim, but how it works out in practice is not clear. The last wide angle zoom I bought, the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS, is very sharp; as sharp as the Canon 50mm primes which don't have IS. However, because it's an EF-S lens designed for the crop format, it has a smaller image circle and therefore a slightly worse corner performance than the 50mm primes when they are used on the crop format.
The Canon 300/2.8 IS, 70-200/2.8 IS and 70-200/4 IS all have fine reputions for being sharp lenses. On the other hand, the very finest Canon lenses, such as the 200/1.8 and 85/1.2 don't have IS.
There's no doubt that a good anti-shake sensor is a big advantage. I wouldn't argue against that. But it's probably less useful for wide angle lenses than for telephotos. Having recently bought a very lightweight Manfrotto 190CXPRO4 carbon fibre tripod with 460MG pan & tilt head, ideal for travelling, I'm not too worried about a lack of IS in ultra-wide angle lenses, although I'd prefer to have it.
-
The last wide angle zoom I bought, the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS, is very sharp; as sharp as the Canon 50mm primes which don't have IS. However, because it's an EF-S lens designed for the crop format, it has a smaller image circle and therefore a slightly worse corner performance than the 50mm primes when they are used on the crop format.
Check out the size difference between the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS and the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Don't know if the massive size difference between these 2 EF-S lenses (Canon and Tamron) are due to the presence of IS on one (and the additional floating elements that will be added to the lens due to it) and lack of it on the other (which is equally highly rated for optical quality on EF-S bodies):
(http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Other/Sigma-Tamron-Canon-Digital-Camera-Lenses.jpg)
(http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Other/Sigma-Tamron-Canon-Digital-Camera-Lenses-Extended.jpg)
(http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Other/Sigma-Tamron-Canon-Digital-Camera-Lenses-with-Hoods.jpg)
(http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Other/Sigma-Tamron-Canon-Digital-Camera-Lenses-with-Hoods-Extended.jpg)
From the below link:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews...ens-Review.aspx (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx)
-
aaykay,
I've never seen any statements from people claiming they don't want or need IS in ultra-wide zooms. However, if it's true, as you claim, that IS with a floating element built into the lens, will inevitably reduce the potential quality of the lens, then that might be a reason for not wanting it.
If you go into several of the Canon/Nikon forums, that is exactly what several people claim. That they don't need IS. What a convenient viewpoint, especially since Canon or Nikon does not offer IS for those (35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm etc).
Also, it is not *a* floating element built into the lens...there are *several* elements that will need to be added into an IS lens, to compensate for the image degradation that the floating elements would introduce into the design. Check out the number of *additional* elements/groups in the 70-200 f/4L IS or 70-200 f/2.8L IS, when compared to their non-IS counterparts. The saving grace for the IS versions in this case is that the non-IS versions are much older designs and thus the IS versions have got a leg up over them.
When we say the floating elements will inevitably reduce the potential quality of the lens, well, the "reduction in potential quality" is applicable to ALL lenses (specifically the ones currently having IS) - not localized to the ones that do not come with IS, due to design problems in adding IS to those.
Obviously, when these companies started out by adding in-lens IS, the bodies most in use, were film bodies, where an in-body stabilization was not an option at all (can't shake the film, can we ?). And when they moved full tilt into the digital landscape (and the demand for film bodies waned), they are unable to shake off the prior film legacy built into their lenses and begin all over again - probably due to the heavy marketing done around in-lens IS, and the price premium an IS lens commands over a non-IS lens. As long as the users continue to defend the companies' mode-of-operation, why would they change course and add IS into the body (with a firmware option that would turn off in-body IS automatically, when it detects an IS lens being mounted and otherwise employ the in-body IS) ?
Having said the above, I do realize that there are several longer lenses which do benefit from in-lens IS, regardless of the image degradation the additional IS elements would introduce. More of a benefits outweighing the downsides, kind of deal, since it allows one to see the stabilized image on the VF, than merely allowing the *capture* of a stabilized image. But quite frankly, for the really long lenses, where this phenomenon is most prevalent, I prefer to break out my Series-5 or Series-3 Gitzos - works really well.
-
If you go into several of the Canon/Nikon forums, that is exactly what several people claim. That they don't need IS. What a convenient viewpoint, especially since Canon or Nikon does not offer IS for those (35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm etc).
Exactly! This is a very convenient strategy that some people employ when their ego and self esteem is tied up with their choice of equipment. Whilst I haven't come across people claiming they don't need or want IS in the wider angle focal lengths (probably because I don't get around other forums much), I have come across similar comments when people are confronted with the fact that their camera is a bit noisy at high ISO. People sometimes then defend their choice of equipment along the lines, "Doesn't worry me. I never use ISO 1600." The obvious response to that is, "Of course you never use ISO 1600 if image quality is not acceptable."
Also, it is not *a* floating element built into the lens...there are *several* elements that will need to be added into an IS lens, to compensate for the image degradation that the floating elements would introduce into the design. Check out the number of *additional* elements/groups in the 70-200 f/4L IS or 70-200 f/2.8L IS, when compared to their non-IS counterparts. The saving grace for the IS versions in this case is that the non-IS versions are much older designs and thus the IS versions have got a leg up over them.
When we say the floating elements will inevitably reduce the potential quality of the lens, well, the "reduction in potential quality" is applicable to ALL lenses (specifically the ones currently having IS) - not localized to the ones that do not come with IS, due to design problems in adding IS to those.
This is something which needs further investigation. Unfortunately, in the absence of proper testing of lenses, along the lines that Photodo employed several years ago, it's very difficult to compare lenses across different systems. I would never just assume that, because a lens does not contain the additional elements required for IS, it is likely to have better absolute image quality than a similarly priced lens that does have built-in IS.
Having said the above, I do realize that there are several longer lenses which do benefit from in-lens IS, regardless of the image degradation the additional IS elements would introduce. More of a benefits outweighing the downsides, kind of deal, since it allows one to see the stabilized image on the VF, than merely allowing the *capture* of a stabilized image. But quite frankly, for the really long lenses, where this phenomenon is most prevalent, I prefer to break out my Series-5 or Series-3 Gitzos - works really well.
This characteristic of the anti-shake sensor worries me a bit. I find it very useful to see a stabilised image through the viewfinder and particularly useful when trying to manually focus using Live View with camera hand-held. At the same time, I would prefer that autofocussing be so accurate that manual focussing is never required.
Lack of accuurate focussing and/or lack of a sufficiently fast shutter speed for the conditions, are the two major culprits in most those shots of mine, over the years, which I consider are technically flawed, followed by incorrect exposure. I would find it very constraining if I were in a position again where I felt reluctant to go above ISO 200 because of image degradation. There are many situations outside of the studio where subject movement, in conjunctuion with less than ideal lighting, dictates that one use a fast shutter speed. The longer the lens, the faster the shutter speed required in such circumstances
-
Exactly! This is a very convenient strategy that some people employ when their ego and self esteem is tied up with their choice of equipment. Whilst I haven't come across people claiming they don't need or want IS in the wider angle focal lengths (probably because I don't get around other forums much), I have come across similar comments when people are confronted with the fact that their camera is a bit noisy at high ISO. People sometimes then defend their choice of equipment along the lines, "Doesn't worry me. I never use ISO 1600." The obvious response to that is, "Of course you never use ISO 1600 if image quality is not acceptable."
As a Nikon user, I would love to have body IS and can only praise Sony for having gone that route in a FF body. This simply extends significantly the range of possible applications in photography.
It doesn't mean that I would use this in more than 10% of my images, but these 10% are important too. I am sure that Galen Rowell would have loved to have body IS on wide glass when shooting aerials with his 35 f1.4, or when wide taking shots hanging high on a an iced cliff with 100 kmh winds turing his rope into a pendulum.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am sure that Galen Rowell would have loved to have body IS on wide glass when shooting aerials with his 35 f1.4, or when wide taking shots hanging high on a an iced cliff with 100 kmh winds turing his rope into a pendulum.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
I'm not sure that IS, whether built in the lens or built in the sensor, would help much when swinging on a rope with 100km/h winds .
Working from the principle that a sharp image of a static subject requires a shutter speed at least twice 1/FL and preferrably 3x, shutter speeds of 1/30th to 1/60th sec with a 15mm lens are often quite achievable without the necessity of jumping to a high ISO.
-
Working from the principle that a sharp image of a static subject requires a shutter speed at least twice 1/FL and preferrably 3x, shutter speeds of 1/30th to 1/60th sec with a 15mm lens are often quite achievable without the necessity of jumping to a high ISO.
Well, often but not always. Achieving sharp wide angle images when strong wind is blowing, when your are exchausted after a quick dash up a hill, when you are shivering with cold, when the boat you are on is moving with the waves, when the old Russian helictoper is shaking, when night is falling on swampy ground too soft for a tripod... those are real world situations where IS helps on a wide lens.
If I am given the choise to either use IS at ISO 100, or no IS at ISO 640, I'll always opt for the former. Today the A900 is the only body giving photographers option #1 with pro grade bright lenses (zooms or primes) while delivering class leading image quality. It is simply making possible images that were basically impossible to take before with the same level of performance. From that standpoint, it is clearly as revolutionary a camera as the 1ds3 or D3 were when they were released, and perhaps even more if you consider its price point.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well, often but not always.
More like never; MLU is required to achieve absolute acuity at anything below about 1/250. It might be sharp enough for some, but I wonder how many of those 24 million pixels are being thrown away by shoddy technique considering that even at a mere 12 million pixels I see a noticeable loss of detail between using MLU and not using it at slower shutter speeds.
-
Well, often but not always. Achieving sharp wide angle images when strong wind is blowing, when your are exchausted after a quick dash up a hill, when you are shivering with cold, when the boat you are on is moving with the waves, when the old Russian helictoper is shaking, when night is falling on swampy ground too soft for a tripod... those are real world situations where IS helps on a wide lens.
If I am given the choise to either use IS at ISO 100, or no IS at ISO 640, I'll always opt for the former. Today the A900 is the only body giving photographers option #1 with pro grade bright lenses (zooms or primes) while delivering class leading image quality. It is simply making possible images that were basically impossible to take before with the same level of performance. From that standpoint, it is clearly as revolutionary a camera as the 1ds3 or D3 were when they were released, and perhaps even more if you consider its price point.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
I've tried taking photos from the back of a moving elephant and I can assure you that IS doesn't help at all. The best one can do is try and take the shots during periods of minimum movement between one lurch and the next, using the highest ISO one's camera is capable of, consistent with acceptable quality.
I've tried taking shots at 1/13th sec with my Canon 24-105 IS at 24mm. It's difficult to get a sharp image. Pretty much hit and miss at that shutter speed. Maybe the A900 would do a better job at such slow shutter speeds, but generally, any subject that's suitable for such a slow shutter speed must be very static. Not much use for street photography without flash. In fact, they are the sorts of subjects that would mostly lend themselves well to the slow and methodical procedure of setting up a tripod.
-
More like never; MLU is required to achieve absolute acuity at anything below about 1/250. It might be sharp enough for some, but I wonder how many of those 24 million pixels are being thrown away by shoddy technique considering that even at a mere 12 million pixels I see a noticeable loss of detail between using MLU and not using it at slower shutter speeds.
This depends on the camera (and on the hand also - although I don't think that I am very steady at all). I have tack sharp hand held shots from my Mamiya ZD that were taken at much slower shutter speeds... and the camera doesn't have an AA filter to hide some imperfections.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I've tried taking photos from the back of a moving elephant and I can assure you that IS doesn't help at all. The best one can do is try and take the shots during periods of minimum movement between one lurch and the next, using the highest ISO one's camera is capable of, consistent with acceptable quality.
I've tried taking shots at 1/13th sec with my Canon 24-105 IS at 24mm. It's difficult to get a sharp image. Pretty much hit and miss at that shutter speed. Maybe the A900 would do a better job at such slow shutter speeds, but generally, any subject that's suitable for such a slow shutter speed must be very static. Not much use for street photography without flash. In fact, they are the sorts of subjects that would mostly lend themselves well to the slow and methodical procedure of setting up a tripod.
Ray,
Yes, there are certainly situations where even IS doesn't help. Still, I'd rather have it for all the real life situations listed above where it does help.
If most of your shooting is done from the top of elephants, which would be perfectly fine in my book, then you probably should buy a Nikon D700 with a 50 mm f1.4. The D700 and not a 5dII because of dust protection and the ability of the AF to track objects...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
This depends on the camera (and on the hand also - although I don't think that I am very steady at all).
The hand (or even a rock steady tripod) has no bearing on mirror induced vibration.
-
A900 6400 ISO images from a user who also shoots with the Nikon D3 (NO noise reduction done - either in-camera or otherwise):
(http://www.slack.co.uk/oddsandends/_DSC1333.jpg)
(http://www.slack.co.uk/oddsandends/_DSC1334.jpg)
(http://www.slack.co.uk/oddsandends/_DSC1335.jpg)
(http://www.slack.co.uk/oddsandends/_DSC1336.jpg)
100% crop from the above:
(http://www.slack.co.uk/oddsandends/_DSC1336c.jpg)
(http://www.slack.co.uk/oddsandends/_DSC1338.jpg)
100% crop from the above:
(http://www.slack.co.uk/oddsandends/_DSC1338c.jpg)
The above were from the below post on dpr:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29688195 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=29688195)
-
looks good to me.
-
Looks good to me also, considering it's ISO 6400. These are also fine examples of how noise at 100% enlargement might be quite obvious, but on a small print can be hardly noticeable. This is a factor which must be taken into consideration when comparing noise in images from different cameras with a substantially different pixel count, such as the D700 and A900, or the D3 and 1Ds3.
Unfortunately, such examples in isolation have limited usefulness. We need a comparison, not necessarily with another camera, but at least with the same camera used at ISO 1600, 800 and 400 on the identical scene so we can get an idea of just how much those images have been degraded as a result of using ISO 6400.
We should also bear in mind that high ISO images can often look impressive (for the setting) when a full ETTR is applied to a low contrast scene such as the typical indoors scene.
-
The hand (or even a rock steady tripod) has no bearing on mirror induced vibration.
Correct, but the mirror damping does.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Looks good to me also, considering it's ISO 6400. These are also fine examples of how noise at 100% enlargement might be quite obvious......
Especially, when absolutely NO noise reduction was done, either in-camera or in post, with a deliberate intent to show the pictures at ISO 6400, warts and all.
Most pictures on the net, on the other hand, would have already had a couple of NR runs done on them, before being posted.
-
Correct, but the mirror damping does.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
I wonder if this is actually correct, that the hand has no bearing on mirror induced vibration. I would have thought that grasping a camera firmly with both hands would provided additional dampening of mirror slap.
It shouldn't be too difficult to test. Mirror slap tends to have its greatest effect on image sharpness at shutter speeds around 1/30th, on a tripod. Having confirmed that this is the case, with a particular camera and lens, one could then take a few shots at 1/30th, hand-held using IS on the same lens, and check the difference. One would want to choose a focal length such that 1/30th, hand-held with IS should be sufficient for a sharp image, for example 24mm.
-
Correct, but the mirror damping does.
There are a lot of issues that contribute to how deleterious mirror vibration will be (or not be), and we don't know how much mirror dampening the A900 can accomplish, but IS will not stop the camera from recording the likely significant mirror vibration. Since you mentioned the Mamiya ZD, it should be noted that camera weighs about 5 pounds with its back attached, and that kind of weight contributes to the dampening of mirror vibration; and the photosites are considerably larger than the A900 photosites, which also minimizes the recording of mirror vibration. The bottom line is that the A900 weighs 2.5x less than the ZD and its photosites are half as large.
-
There are a lot of issues that contribute to how deleterious mirror vibration will be (or not be), and we don't know how much mirror dampening the A900 can accomplish, but IS will not stop the camera from recording the likely significant mirror vibration. Since you mentioned the Mamiya ZD, it should be noted that camera weighs about 5 pounds with its back attached, and that kind of weight contributes to the dampening of mirror vibration; and the photosites are considerably larger than the A900 photosites, which also minimizes the recording of mirror vibration. The bottom line is that the A900 weighs 2.5x less than the ZD and its photosites are half as large.
Agreed on the principle, but I am talking about the ZD camera, not the 645 AFII + ZD back, the weight is closer to 3 pounds. Similar to that of a 1ds3 or D3 in fact, eventhough the camera is more bulky.
It is true that it is heavier with larger pixels, but on the other hand the mirror is much larger also and has to travel more which should worsen the situation.
Anyway, it is true that IS will not get rid of mirror vibration on the A900, but this does IMHO not reduce the value of IS. A tripod will always be a better option, but for these cases where a tripod is not an option, IS on wide will be very valuable.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Don't know if this has been posted in this thread already, but Raw Developper 1.8.1 now supports the A900.
Considering that it is the best demoisaicing engine out there, I would think that comparisons should best be done from RD conversions.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well,
It is a larger mirror. Focal plane shutters do also cause vibration. On the Pentax 67 shutter vibration was worse then vibration fro the mirror. Why do you think that IS does not compensate for vibration from mirror?
Best regards
Erik
Agreed on the principle, but I am talking about the ZD camera, not the 645 AFII + ZD back, the weight is closer to 3 pounds. Similar to that of a 1ds3 or D3 in fact, eventhough the camera is more bulky.
It is true that it is heavier with larger pixels, but on the other hand the mirror is much larger also and has to travel more which should worsen the situation.
Anyway, it is true that IS will not get rid of mirror vibration on the A900, but this does IMHO not reduce the value of IS. A tripod will always be a better option, but for these cases where a tripod is not an option, IS on wide will be very valuable.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It is a larger mirror. Focal plane shutters do also cause vibration. On the Pentax 67 shutter vibration was worse then vibration fro the mirror. Why do you think that IS does not compensate for vibration from mirror?
Just guessing, but my underdtanding is that IS typically works best on regular vibrations. It would probably have a harder time compensating for a very fast one shot event like a mirror movement.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well,
It is a larger mirror. Focal plane shutters do also cause vibration. On the Pentax 67 shutter vibration was worse then vibration fro the mirror. Why do you think that IS does not compensate for vibration from mirror?
Best regards
Erik
The effects of mirror vibration when using IS for hand-held shots is an interesting subject worthy of some careful testing. It certainly seems reasonable to suppose that the floating element in an IS lens is not able to react quickly enough to counter the relatively high frequency vibration of mirror slap, and probably the same for the anti-shake sensor.
However, the question is, do the conditions of holding a camera firmly with both hands and pressing it against one's cheek, have the effect of providing additional dampening of mirror slap so that it ceases to be a problem (or at least becomes less of a problem)? Without having done specific testing of this issue, my guess would be a yes.
If the answer is 'no', then that has serious implications for the value of IS in wide angle lenses. It would partly explain why Canon has not provided IS in a number of its wide angle primes and zooms , and it would suggest that the claimed additional benefit of the anti-shake sensor in the A900, in respect of these wide angle lenses which sometimes don't have IS in the Canon equivalent, is misleading.
My own tests have confirmed that the effects of mirror vibration when camera is on a tripod are most pronounced around 1/30th of a second. They get gradually less as one moves away from that shutter speed, in either direction, so by 1/60th and 1/15th exposure, loss of sharpness due to mirror slap is (or can be) insignificant.
Now it's clear that this range of shutter speeds, 1/15th to 1/60th, is the range which is most likely to be used with wide angle lenses in poor light. It's the range which, without the benefits of IS, one could not expect tack sharp results.
So basically we're caught between a rock and a hard place. If lighting is good so we can use a shutter speed faster than 1/60th, we don't need IS (with wide angle lenses). If lighting is poor and requires a shutter speed between 1/15th and 1/60th, IS won't help much because of mirror slap. If lighting is so poor that a shutter speed slower than 1/15th is required (1/10th & 1/6th sec etc), then IS will help, but you really can't expect a truly sharp image at such slow speeds, although one might get results acceptably sharp for small prints.
Edit: Some more thoughts on this issue. The Live View feature on Canon's latest DSLRs gets around this problem nicely. If it's true that mirror vibration is not sufficiently dampened when camera is hand-held at shutter speeds from 1/15th to 1/60th, then using Live View solves the problem. The mirror is up and the view is stabilised if the lens has IS. With Live View in all its latest cameras, there is now a good reason for Canon to provide IS in all its wide angle lenses. In this context, the lack of a Live View in the A900 can be seen as a major disadvantage (unless it's true that pressing a camera to one's cheek dampens mirror vibration).
-
My own tests have confirmed that the effects of mirror vibration when camera is on a tripod are most pronounced around 1/30th of a second. They get gradually less as one moves away from that shutter speed, in either direction, so by 1/60th and 1/15th exposure, loss of sharpness due to mirror slap is (or can be) insignificant.
How about testing the A900 first before drawing conclusion on the actual damping issue of its mirror.
Regards,
Bernard
-
How about testing the A900 first before drawing conclusion on the actual damping issue of its mirror.
Regards,
Bernard
I'm drawing inferences, not conclusions. Until testing and comparisons are made along the lines I've suggested, no firm conclusions can be made. If someone wishes to make a point that mirror dampening in the A900 is a major improvement on other FF 35mm DSLRs, such as the 5D which I know from my own testing is very susceptible to mirror vibration at 1/30th sec exposure, then let them show the results of their tests with camera on tripod, with and without MLU enabled.
-
Hi,
Without formal testing I can say that AS works for wide angles on Sony Alpha (A100 and A700) and also on the KM7D, which I all had. I actually think that minor slap causes very little vibrations on those cameras, possibly with exception to the Alpha 100, from what I have see. I did not do consistent tests with resolution test targets. It's more experience from taking 30 k pictures.
I have done some tests, shooting star tracks from tripod using long telephoto (400 + 1.4X) and I could not really see difference with or without mirror lockup, but that was obviously with long exposure times.
Erik
The effects of mirror vibration when using IS for hand-held shots is an interesting subject worthy of some careful testing. It certainly seems reasonable to suppose that the floating element in an IS lens is not able to react quickly enough to counter the relatively high frequency vibration of mirror slap, and probably the same for the anti-shake sensor.
However, the question is, do the conditions of holding a camera firmly with both hands and pressing it against one's cheek, have the effect of providing additional dampening of mirror slap so that it ceases to be a problem (or at least becomes less of a problem)? Without having done specific testing of this issue, my guess would be a yes.
If the answer is 'no', then that has serious implications for the value of IS in wide angle lenses. It would partly explain why Canon has not provided IS in a number of its wide angle primes and zooms , and it would suggest that the claimed additional benefit of the anti-shake sensor in the A900, in respect of these wide angle lenses which sometimes don't have IS in the Canon equivalent, is misleading.
My own tests have confirmed that the effects of mirror vibration when camera is on a tripod are most pronounced around 1/30th of a second. They get gradually less as one moves away from that shutter speed, in either direction, so by 1/60th and 1/15th exposure, loss of sharpness due to mirror slap is (or can be) insignificant.
Now it's clear that this range of shutter speeds, 1/15th to 1/60th, is the range which is most likely to be used with wide angle lenses in poor light. It's the range which, without the benefits of IS, one could not expect tack sharp results.
So basically we're caught between a rock and a hard place. If lighting is good so we can use a shutter speed faster than 1/60th, we don't need IS (with wide angle lenses). If lighting is poor and requires a shutter speed between 1/15th and 1/60th, IS won't help much because of mirror slap. If lighting is so poor that a shutter speed slower than 1/15th is required (1/10th & 1/6th sec etc), then IS will help, but you really can't expect a truly sharp image at such slow speeds, although one might get results acceptably sharp for small prints.
Edit: Some more thoughts on this issue. The Live View feature on Canon's latest DSLRs gets around this problem nicely. If it's true that mirror vibration is not sufficiently dampened when camera is hand-held at shutter speeds from 1/15th to 1/60th, then using Live View solves the problem. The mirror is up and the view is stabilised if the lens has IS. With Live View in all its latest cameras, there is now a good reason for Canon to provide IS in all its wide angle lenses. In this context, the lack of a Live View in the A900 can be seen as a major disadvantage (unless it's true that pressing a camera to one's cheek dampens mirror vibration).
-
Hi,
I can get tack sharp pictures hand held on all cameras with wide angles at around 1/10 or even 1/4 with AS..
Erik
The effects of mirror vibration when using IS for hand-held shots is an interesting subject worthy of some careful testing. It certainly seems reasonable to suppose that the floating element in an IS lens is not able to react quickly enough to counter the relatively high frequency vibration of mirror slap, and probably the same for the anti-shake sensor.
However, the question is, do the conditions of holding a camera firmly with both hands and pressing it against one's cheek, have the effect of providing additional dampening of mirror slap so that it ceases to be a problem (or at least becomes less of a problem)? Without having done specific testing of this issue, my guess would be a yes.
If the answer is 'no', then that has serious implications for the value of IS in wide angle lenses. It would partly explain why Canon has not provided IS in a number of its wide angle primes and zooms , and it would suggest that the claimed additional benefit of the anti-shake sensor in the A900, in respect of these wide angle lenses which sometimes don't have IS in the Canon equivalent, is misleading.
My own tests have confirmed that the effects of mirror vibration when camera is on a tripod are most pronounced around 1/30th of a second. They get gradually less as one moves away from that shutter speed, in either direction, so by 1/60th and 1/15th exposure, loss of sharpness due to mirror slap is (or can be) insignificant.
Now it's clear that this range of shutter speeds, 1/15th to 1/60th, is the range which is most likely to be used with wide angle lenses in poor light. It's the range which, without the benefits of IS, one could not expect tack sharp results.
So basically we're caught between a rock and a hard place. If lighting is good so we can use a shutter speed faster than 1/60th, we don't need IS (with wide angle lenses). If lighting is poor and requires a shutter speed between 1/15th and 1/60th, IS won't help much because of mirror slap. If lighting is so poor that a shutter speed slower than 1/15th is required (1/10th & 1/6th sec etc), then IS will help, but you really can't expect a truly sharp image at such slow speeds, although one might get results acceptably sharp for small prints.
Edit: Some more thoughts on this issue. The Live View feature on Canon's latest DSLRs gets around this problem nicely. If it's true that mirror vibration is not sufficiently dampened when camera is hand-held at shutter speeds from 1/15th to 1/60th, then using Live View solves the problem. The mirror is up and the view is stabilised if the lens has IS. With Live View in all its latest cameras, there is now a good reason for Canon to provide IS in all its wide angle lenses. In this context, the lack of a Live View in the A900 can be seen as a major disadvantage (unless it's true that pressing a camera to one's cheek dampens mirror vibration).
-
Hi!
I could never confirm any advantage of mirror lock up on any of my cameras. I use it religiously anyway. Which camera do you use?
Erik
More like never; MLU is required to achieve absolute acuity at anything below about 1/250. It might be sharp enough for some, but I wonder how many of those 24 million pixels are being thrown away by shoddy technique considering that even at a mere 12 million pixels I see a noticeable loss of detail between using MLU and not using it at slower shutter speeds.
-
Which camera do you use?
I'm currently using the D300.
-
Hi,
I can get tack sharp pictures hand held on all cameras with wide angles at around 1/10 or even 1/4 with AS..
Erik
I'm very impressed. Really tack sharp? Can you show us some 100% crops, comparing the same scene shot on a tripod with MLU enabled?
MLU shouldn't have much benefit at 1/10th or 1/4th, but just in case, have it enabled.
Several years ago when I bought my 5D and 24-105 zoom with an IS which it was claimed allowed up to 3 stops exposure advantage, the first shots I made were at 24mm and 1/6th and 1/13th sec, just to check how good that IS really was. I was a bit disappointed. I don't recall ever getting a truly sharp image at such slow shutter speeds. Probably good enough for 8x10" prints though.
-
Hi Ray,
I probably shouldn't say "tack sharp" but reasonably sharp under the circumstances. I have not done any formal comparisons. I enclose a couple of 100% cropped pictures I shot on my summer holiday. They are taken with high ISO i a cathedral in Regensburg, Germany. Exposure is 60 mm at 1/4s and and 45mm 1/6s, both taken on Sony DSLR A700 with 1600 ISO and at full aperture. Lens is ZA 16-80/3.5-4.5.
Best regards
Erik
I'm very impressed. Really tack sharp? Can you show us some 100% crops, comparing the same scene shot on a tripod with MLU enabled?
MLU shouldn't have much benefit at 1/10th or 1/4th, but just in case, have it enabled.
Several years ago when I bought my 5D and 24-105 zoom with an IS which it was claimed allowed up to 3 stops exposure advantage, the first shots I made were at 24mm and 1/6th and 1/13th sec, just to check how good that IS really was. I was a bit disappointed. I don't recall ever getting a truly sharp image at such slow shutter speeds. Probably good enough for 8x10" prints though.
-
Hi,
Thanks for info. I had Minoltas from SR-T 101, XM, XD7, Dynax 9Xi, KM 7D and Sonys DSLR A100 and DSLR A700. I also own a Pentax 67. In general I'm quite religious about mirror lockup, but I cannot say that I could ever confirm that it was benefitial. On the Sonys and the KM 7D it is available at the 2s self timer setting and that's something I generally use with the camera on tripod. On the Pentax I could see vibrations introduced by the focal plane shutter, I'm less certain I could see any effect of the MLU. On the early Minoltas I might have seen some minor vibrations from the mirror when using a 500mm reflex lens.
My observations are from photography. I did not make any comparison with camera on tripod photographing USAF test targets or so.
Best regards
Erik
I'm currently using the D300.
-
I probably shouldn't say "tack sharp" but reasonably sharp under the circumstances. I have not done any formal comparisons. I enclose a couple of 100% cropped pictures I shot on my summer holiday. They are taken with high ISO i a cathedral in Regensburg, Germany. Exposure is 60 mm at 1/4s and and 45mm 1/6s, both taken on Sony DSLR A700 with 1600 ISO and at full aperture. Lens is ZA 16-80/3.5-4.5.
That's maybe not 100% tack sharp, but that is for sure sharp enough and way sharper that would have been achieved without IS. Very impressive considering that you are shooting with the equivalent of a short tele on your APS sensor body.
Based on this, I would think that a wide lens openeds at 2.8 in your hands could deliver sharp results around 1/2 s in similar conditions. You could probably make do with 800ISO.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Ray,
I probably shouldn't say "tack sharp" but reasonably sharp under the circumstances.
Erik,
That certainly is reasonably sharp under the circumstances. I wish I could have got such good results when I was in Italy a few years ago trying to comply with the usual no-flash rules that apply in most cathedrals. My camera was the 20D and my widest lens was the Sigma 15-30 (24-48 in 35mm terms) with no IS.
I really think it's time for an IS shoot-out between the A900 and the 1Ds3 (or the 5D2 if available).
If anyone is able or willing to do this, can I suggest the following procedure.
First take a series of shots with camera and selected lens on tripod, at various shutter speeds from 1/4 to 1/125th, with MLU enabled and MLU disabled. Use remote cord, switch off IS, and allow a couple of seconds after flipping the mirror to allow any vibrations to settle down before taking the shot.
Examine the results from both cameras in order to determine at what shutter speed the effects of mirror slap are greatest.
Then proceed to repeat all the shots at the same apertures, ISO settings and shutter speeds with cameras now off tripod, hand-held in the same position as they were when on tripod. Enable IS of course.
Ideally, it would also be useful if one could carry out such tests in a studio with variable lighting. One could then use the cameras at base ISO and the the lenses at their sharpest aperture for all shots. Without variable lighting, one will have to change aperture and/or ISO as one changes shutter speed, which will of course affect the quality of the shots to some degree. However, this should not invalidate the results as long as one compares same exposures (and same ISO and aperture) on and off the tripod.
The results of such an experiment should answer the following questions.
(1) At what shutter speed (or range of shutter speeds) is enabling MLU most beneficial for the camera and lens combination used?
(2) How much resolution is lost using IS with a hand-held shot as opposed to tripod without IS?
(3) To what extent, when the camera is hand-held, are the effects of mirror slap mitigated (if at all) at those critical shutter speeds when it's worst on the tripod?
Unfortunately, I'm unable to carry out such tests myself because I don't have an A900 (or any camera with an anti-shake sensor). Nor do I have a 1Ds2 or 5D2.
-
Hi Ray,
Just a comment on the lens. It's pretty nice in the center (the crops I uploaded were pretty central) at all apertures, but corners are bad if not stopped down, specially at 16 mm. I used to say that 16 mm was added with a wrench :-). But the lens is usable at all focal length at f/8. The stupid thing was that I had a 50/1.4 in my backpack but simply forgot about. I also took several exposures on each motive.
I may try your suggested test (on my A 700), but see a problem, if I use constant lighting I will probably get problems with different apertures.
By the way, the jury is still out on the A 900 at this place, as a former MF shooter I really appreciate sharpness. I made a couple of large prints at a pro lab using Durst Lambdas on 70x100 photographic paper and they really impress me. From the A700 I can make prints that I perceive as sharp in A2 (40x59 cm) on my Epson. I seldom make any larger enlargments. The extra pixels from the A 900 would certainly be welcome.
I see the A 900 as an investment with a couple of lenses. I can see that I have lateral CA on the 80-200/2.8 APO with the A 700 and I guess I would see more on full frame. My present thinking is that I would possibly buy a an A900 with a Sigma 12-24 (which is known to be surprisingly decent for the price), an Zeiss 24-70/2.8 and possibly 70-300G or 70-400G. I have not really impressed by the sample pictures I have seen from the 24-70/2.8 (on FF) , so I don't plan to buy until I have seen some MTF-tests. We have fortunately a monthly here in Sweden that makes MTF tests at the Hasselblad factory, they unfortunately only publish figures for MTF at 20 lines/mm although they get data for up to 60 lp/mm. I generally found "Foto" seems to have lens evaluations which are in agreement with my experience.
The 80-200/2.8 APO is still one of my best lenses in spite of the lateral color I can see, BTW, the major issue I have with it is the noisy autofocus. Lateral color is easily reduced in Lightroom, so I'm not so upset about it. I also have a Minolta 28-75/2.8 which is much better than the ZA 16-80, but the 16-80 is much more a practical lens and works really well at f/8 which is what I normally use. Convenience is a major factor.
I'm not really for fixed focals. I often find that I need variable focal length to be able to crop in the viewfinder and fitting vantage point to focal length is frequently not an option. This does not apply to telephoto, a telephoto lens that is to long I have not yet seen.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
That certainly is reasonably sharp under the circumstances. I wish I could have got such good results when I was in Italy a few years ago trying to comply with the usual no-flash rules that apply in most cathedrals. My camera was the 20D and my widest lens was the Sigma 15-30 (24-48 in 35mm terms) with no IS.
I really think it's time for an IS shoot-out between the A900 and the 1Ds3 (or the 5D2 if available).
If anyone is able or willing to do this, can I suggest the following procedure.
First take a series of shots with camera and selected lens on tripod, at various shutter speeds from 1/4 to 1/125th, with MLU enabled and MLU disabled. Use remote cord, switch off IS, and allow a couple of seconds after flipping the mirror to allow any vibrations to settle down before taking the shot.
Examine the results from both cameras in order to determine at what shutter speed the effects of mirror slap are greatest.
Then proceed to repeat all the shots at the same apertures, ISO settings and shutter speeds with cameras now off tripod, hand-held in the same position as they were when on tripod. Enable IS of course.
Ideally, it would also be useful if one could carry out such tests in a studio with variable lighting. One could then use the cameras at base ISO and the the lenses at their sharpest aperture for all shots. Without variable lighting, one will have to change aperture and/or ISO as one changes shutter speed, which will of course affect the quality of the shots to some degree. However, this should not invalidate the results as long as one compares same exposures (and same ISO and aperture) on and off the tripod.
The results of such an experiment should answer the following questions.
(1) At what shutter speed (or range of shutter speeds) is enabling MLU most beneficial for the camera and lens combination used?
(2) How much resolution is lost using IS with a hand-held shot as opposed to tripod without IS?
(3) To what extent, when the camera is hand-held, are the effects of mirror slap mitigated (if at all) at those critical shutter speeds when it's worst on the tripod?
Unfortunately, I'm unable to carry out such tests myself because I don't have an A900 (or any camera with an anti-shake sensor). Nor do I have a 1Ds2 or 5D2.
-
Erik,
In my experience, Canon DSLRs produce very consistent sharpness from ISO 50 to ISO 400. There is probably a greater difference in DR than resolution, and changes in DR should have no bearing on the purpose of this test. If 1/4th sec to 1/125th is too great a range in relation to use of a sharp aperture, try 1/15th to 1/60th with just a 2 stop difference.
I see the A 900 as an investment with a couple of lenses. I can see that I have lateral CA on the 80-200/2.8 APO with the A 700 and I guess I would see more on full frame. My present thinking is that I would possibly buy a an A900 with a Sigma 12-24 (which is known to be surprisingly decent for the price), an Zeiss 24-70/2.8 and possibly 70-300G or 70-400G. I have not really impressed by the sample pictures I have seen from the 24-70/2.8 (on FF) , so I don't plan to buy until I have seen some MTF-tests. We have fortunately a monthly here in Sweden that makes MTF tests at the Hasselblad factory, they unfortunately only publish figures for MTF at 20 lines/mm although they get data for up to 60 lp/mm. I generally found "Foto" seems to have lens evaluations which are in agreement with my experience.
I'll be very interested to see test reports on that 70-400G, as well as the Sony 16-35. I could get by with just those two lenses plus what I already have, which includes the Minolta 35-105 and a few primes.
-
Hi Ray,
German biweekly C't (like Computer Technology) had a shootout between different systems. Including Canon 24-105 IS and Sony Alpha 700 with Minolta 24-105. They used a test rig oscillating with different frequencies. In their test both of the above were among the best systems tested, with the Sony Alpha having the edge, as far as I can recall. I'll be nasty enough to post the results in the week end.
Erik
Erik,
In my experience, Canon DSLRs produce very consistent sharpness from ISO 50 to ISO 400. There is probably a greater difference in DR than resolution, and changes in DR should have no bearing on the purpose of this test. If 1/4th sec to 1/125th is too great a range in relation to use of a sharp aperture, try 1/15th to 1/60th with just a 2 stop difference.
I'll be very interested to see test reports on that 70-400G, as well as the Sony 16-35. I could get by with just those two lenses plus what I already have, which includes the Minolta 35-105 and a few primes.
-
DPreview A900 test is out.
Low ISO image quality appears to be very much MFDB class with a DR of 12.6 stops, better than most current 22MP offerings from Phase and Leaf.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
DPreview A900 test is out.
Low ISO image quality appears to be very much MFDB class with a DR of 12.6 stops, better than most current 22MP offerings from Phase and Leaf.
Cheers,
Bernard
I guess there has to be a trade-off somewhere. One can't have it all, in one camera...yet. It looks as though the A900 is a camera that will appeal more to MFDB users who want an inexpensive system for studio work, rather than travellers who want a versatile system for all occasions, including specifically, low light shooting without flash and wildlife shooting with telephoto lens in less than ideal lighting.
I might have to give this camera a miss, with some regret because, as I've already mentioned, I have a few Minolta lenses which I never bothered selling when I switched to Canon several years ago.
-
I guess there has to be a trade-off somewhere. One can't have it all, in one camera...yet. It looks as though the A900 is a camera that will appeal more to MFDB users who want an inexpensive system for studio work, rather than travellers who want a versatile system for all occasions, including specifically, low light shooting without flash and wildlife shooting with telephoto lens in less than ideal lighting.
I might have to give this camera a miss, with some regret because, as I've already mentioned, I have a few Minolta lenses which I never bothered selling when I switched to Canon several years ago.
While there is always going to be tradeoffs with cameras, the A900's higher ISO's are still very usable when compared to the D700 or 1dsiii at the same size print. It may not be quite as good, but I don't believe it's a deal breaker for the kind of shooting you describe. Either way, if high ISO is more important to you than resolution and dynamic range, the D700 is a no brainer.
-
While there is always going to be tradeoffs with cameras, the A900's higher ISO's are still very usable when compared to the D700 or 1dsiii at the same size print. It may not be quite as good, but I don't believe it's a deal breaker for the kind of shooting you describe. Either way, if high ISO is more important to you than resolution and dynamic range, the D700 is a no brainer.
High ISO is never more important than resolution. The height of the A900 ISO settings is just fine. It's the resolution at those high ISO settings that is disappointing.
In most reviews, there's an emphasis on jpeg quality and strict adherence to camera settings such that, if one camera doesn't have an ISO 6400 setting, it will not be compared with another camera that does have an ISO 6400 setting. The fact that ISO 6400, for all practical purposes, is ISO 3200 underexposed one stop appears to be of no interest to reviewers.
However, from my perspective I don't really care what the ISO setting is called. I simply want the best quality image I can get under the lighting conditions. If the shot requires, for an appropriate shutter speed at the maximum aperture, an underexposure of one stop at ISO 3200, then so be it. It would be absurd to think, "Oops! I can't take this shot. My camera doesn't have an ISO 6400 setting."
When one disregards the labelling of the ISO settings and one just compares images taken at the same aperture and shutter speed, the D3 has at best only a 1/2 stop noise/DR advantage over the 5D, according to my own tests, shooting RAW. There seems to be a suggestion in the dpreview review of the A900 that the D700 has a lower DR than the D3 comparing jpeg output. I can find no RAW image DR comparisons between the D700 and D3.
The bottom line for me is, I cannot justify switching systems for the sake of a 1/2 stop high-ISO noise improvement and no increase in pixel count, so the D700 is not an option for me, after due consideration. Maybe the D700 successor will be.
-
The bottom line for me is, I cannot justify switching systems for the sake of a 1/2 stop high-ISO noise improvement and no increase in pixel count, so the D700 is not an option for me, after due consideration. Maybe the D700 successor will be.
So your conclusion is... the crowd can't hold its breath... a contest has never been that close before... the tension is unbearable... you will get a 5DII when it becomes available?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
So your conclusion is... the crowd can't hold its breath... a contest has never been that close before... the tension is unbearable... you will get a 5DII when it becomes available?
Cheers,
Bernard
Not necessarily, Bernard. I'm in no hurry . Got plenty of cameras to play with. It'll probably be a while before the 5D2 becomes readily available. In the meantime, perhaps Nikon will announce an irresistable successor to the D700.
I picked up a copy of the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 yesterday. Managed to fit it to my 5D body without too much hassle, using the Mark Welsh adapter which I ordered about 8 months ago but received just a couple of weeks ago.
One thing I've learned about this costly DSLR upgrade process is not to rush into purchases. There's often something better around the corner.
-
So your conclusion is... the crowd can't hold its breath... a contest has never been that close before... the tension is unbearable... you will get a 5DII when it becomes available?
Cheers,
Bernard
I would have predicted this several posts back, except for the fact that he kept on circling around with the same theme for a while, to finally go back to what makes the best sense for him - pick up a Canon body !
-
I would have predicted this several posts back, except for the fact that he kept on circling around with the same theme for a while, to finally go back to what makes the best sense for him - pick up a Canon body !
What theme would you like me to circle around with? Unlike Michael, I can't afford to buy any equipment that takes my fancy merely because it might have one or two small features that my current equipment lacks.
So far, I haven't seen any direct and meaningful comparisons between the A900 and 5D2 or between the best lenses for the A900 and the equivalent best lenses available with Canon mount. The image comparisons with the 1Ds3 I've seen so far seem to indicate that any advantage in respect of resolution and DR at base ISO, that the A900 appears to have, is quite small and clearly not as great as the advantage that the 1Ds3 has at high ISO.
If there is any reason for a photographer to switch from a Canon system to a Sony system, I haven't seen it yet, in this thread or at Dpreview and Imaging Resource, but I've been looking hard.
I'm sorry that you seem to take this so personally. You can criticise Canon equipment as much as you like. You won't hurt me as long as you stick to the facts.
-
Hi,
I guess that the Sony A900 is good enough so Sony/Minolta owners don't need to jump wagons to Canon or Nikon. I think that lenses may matter, but I have not seen any evidence yet that Sony lenses perform better than the Canon lens line. The only advantage the Sony has over the competition in picture taking capability is the in body image stabilization which works with all lenses.
There may be other aspects:
- Speed and exactness of autofocus
- Frame rate
- Weight of body
- Vibrations, dampening sound level
- User interface
I'm quite skeptical about reviews as I never use JPEG and most comparisons test JPEG processing.
Best regards
Erik
What theme would you like me to circle around with? Unlike Michael, I can't afford to buy any equipment that takes my fancy merely because it might have one or two small features that my current equipment lacks.
So far, I haven't seen any direct and meaningful comparisons between the A900 and 5D2 or between the best lenses for the A900 and the equivalent best lenses available with Canon mount. The image comparisons with the 1Ds3 I've seen so far seem to indicate that any advantage in respect of resolution and DR at base ISO, that the A900 appears to have, is quite small and clearly not as great as the advantage that the 1Ds3 has at high ISO.
If there is any reason for a photographer to switch from a Canon system to a Sony system, I haven't seen it yet, in this thread or at Dpreview and Imaging Resource, but I've been looking hard.
I'm sorry that you seem to take this so personally. You can criticise Canon equipment as much as you like. You won't hurt me as long as you stick to the facts.
-
Those of you that were wondering how the A900 works with Sony lenses in the corners should look at these.
This is with the Zeiss 135 AF wide open at 1.8.
http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.as...=37672&PN=1 (http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=37672&PN=1)
This guy does great work. He's linked full size shots as well.
-
Hi,
I have done some testing on my Alpha 700 according to Ray's suggestions. The results were not really what I expected. I did not have the time to make a good summary. Here is what I have done:
A series of tests from 1/8s to 1/125s with a 80-200/2.8 using a Velbon Sherpa 630 CF tripod and a RRS BH40 head, all tripod based exposures with cable release
A) Tripod, mirror lock up, no AntiShake
Tripod, no mirror lock up, no AntiShake
C) Tripod, no mirror lock up, AntiShake
D) Free hand, AntiShake
- The A-series was clearly much better than the rest
- Antishake did't really help on tripod
- The freehand with AntiShake were reasonably good
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
That certainly is reasonably sharp under the circumstances. I wish I could have got such good results when I was in Italy a few years ago trying to comply with the usual no-flash rules that apply in most cathedrals. My camera was the 20D and my widest lens was the Sigma 15-30 (24-48 in 35mm terms) with no IS.
I really think it's time for an IS shoot-out between the A900 and the 1Ds3 (or the 5D2 if available).
If anyone is able or willing to do this, can I suggest the following procedure.
First take a series of shots with camera and selected lens on tripod, at various shutter speeds from 1/4 to 1/125th, with MLU enabled and MLU disabled. Use remote cord, switch off IS, and allow a couple of seconds after flipping the mirror to allow any vibrations to settle down before taking the shot.
Examine the results from both cameras in order to determine at what shutter speed the effects of mirror slap are greatest.
Then proceed to repeat all the shots at the same apertures, ISO settings and shutter speeds with cameras now off tripod, hand-held in the same position as they were when on tripod. Enable IS of course.
Ideally, it would also be useful if one could carry out such tests in a studio with variable lighting. One could then use the cameras at base ISO and the the lenses at their sharpest aperture for all shots. Without variable lighting, one will have to change aperture and/or ISO as one changes shutter speed, which will of course affect the quality of the shots to some degree. However, this should not invalidate the results as long as one compares same exposures (and same ISO and aperture) on and off the tripod.
The results of such an experiment should answer the following questions.
(1) At what shutter speed (or range of shutter speeds) is enabling MLU most beneficial for the camera and lens combination used?
(2) How much resolution is lost using IS with a hand-held shot as opposed to tripod without IS?
(3) To what extent, when the camera is hand-held, are the effects of mirror slap mitigated (if at all) at those critical shutter speeds when it's worst on the tripod?
Unfortunately, I'm unable to carry out such tests myself because I don't have an A900 (or any camera with an anti-shake sensor). Nor do I have a 1Ds2 or 5D2.