Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Sony A900 Announced  (Read 32812 times)
aaykay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 359


« Reply #20 on: September 09, 2008, 10:17:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
(2) The f stop latitude due to the anti-shake sensor is described as 2.4 to 4 stops.

What do they mean by this? What causes such a variation in latitude?

Good question.  Actually it is directly related to the FL of the lens mounted.  The 400mm etc would have around 2.5stops of handholdability, while the 135mm, the 85mm, the 50mm, the 35mm etc would have higher stops of hand-holdability....upto 4 stops.
Logged
aaykay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 359


« Reply #21 on: September 09, 2008, 10:27:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm reminded from previous dpreview comparisons between the Sony A700, A200 and A350 that high ISO noise is not as good as the equivalent Canons. At ISO 1600 and 3200, if noise in the Sonys is as low as the Canon equivalent, it's usually at the expense of detail, and vice versa. If detail is on a par, then the Sony images are noisier.

This worries me a bit. First impression tend to confirm that this trend is continued in the A900. Nikon has already set the benchmark for low noise from a full frame sensor. It is expected (by me, at least) that the soon-to-be-announced successor to the 5D will match the high-ISO low noise performance of the D3 and D700.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220480\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The A700 and the A900 use CMOS sensors, while the others (consumer bodies) use CCD sensors.  As we know, the biggest advantage of CMOS is the ability to accomodate NR circuitry into the sensor itself, which is the key advantage that a CMOS has over a CCD, specifically at higher ISOs.  A CCD cannot accomodate any on-chip NR circuitry.  Thus the CCDs are arguably better than a CMOS at the lowest ISO, but quickly lose steam once the ISOs climb.

But Sony, in addition to the on-chip NR done to the A700 (like all other CMOS manufacturers including Canon does), was also applying NR to the RAW files, AFTER they got generated, unlike the Nikon D300 (which also used the same sensor), which did not apply this "second NR on RAW" in their files.  Sony was taken to the cleaners for this (and the A700 sales suffered due to the bad rap from this), by every single site who tested the A700.  That story was as of a couple of days back.  

But as of YESTERDAY (just before the release of the A900), Sony completely revamped their image processing approach in the A700 (Firmware Ver.4) and using the Nikon playbook, completely removed the NR they were applying on RAW and also made several improvements to the treatment of the images, and the results have essentially proved to be stunning.  In one move, they turned the clock back and equalized the image quality with the corresponding Nikon (D300).  The dpreview Sony SLR forums are all on fire due to this but the news has not yet gotten to the reviewers.

The A900 uses the same sensor design as the A700/D300 but has slightly larger pixels, due to which the noise is expected to be better than the D300/A700.  But the forthcoming detailed tests should reveal how much of an improvement is there.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2008, 10:31:53 PM by aaykay » Logged
Kagetsu
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 196


WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 10, 2008, 12:48:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Also, at 5FPS at its full 24.6MP resolution, the data pipeline architecture is SOLID and is a dimension apart from a camera with say a 12-14MP sensor at 5FPS.  The sensor would be generating around 300MB per Second, if shot RAW+JPEG.  That is very impressive for ANY price !
It's not a whole lot different from the 1Ds, baring in mind that the Sony creates a raw with 12bits depth, and the Canon produces a raw of 14bits depth. In fact, after calculating it, they were practically on par (as far as data throughput is concerned)
« Last Edit: September 10, 2008, 12:48:29 AM by Kagetsu » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #23 on: September 10, 2008, 01:22:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Good question.  Actually it is directly related to the FL of the lens mounted.  The 400mm etc would have around 2.5stops of handholdability, while the 135mm, the 85mm, the 50mm, the 35mm etc would have higher stops of hand-holdability....upto 4 stops.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220483\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's what I thought was probably meant. However, it would be useful to know what the 'sweet spot' is for the 4 stops latitude. If that claim is not sheer hyperbole, then it's an amazing performance.

I consider that I could take a sharp shot with an 85mm lens at 1/160th second, without using IS. If 85mm is the sweet focal length for 4 stops latitude of exposure, then I should be able to get an equally sharp image at 1/10th second exposure using anti-shake. Amazing if true!

Even if I need a 1/320th sec exposure at 85mm for a truly tack sharp image, then the same tack sharp result at 1/20th with anti-shake enabled, is still amazing.
Logged
Christopher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 944


WWW
« Reply #24 on: September 10, 2008, 03:21:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That's what I thought was probably meant. However, it would be useful to know what the 'sweet spot' is for the 4 stops latitude. If that claim is not sheer hyperbole, then it's an amazing performance.

I consider that I could take a sharp shot with an 85mm lens at 1/160th second, without using IS. If 85mm is the sweet focal length for 4 stops latitude of exposure, then I should be able to get an equally sharp image at 1/10th second exposure using anti-shake. Amazing if true!

Even if I need a 1/320th sec exposure at 85mm for a truly tack sharp image, then the same tack sharp result at 1/20th with anti-shake enabled, is still amazing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220510\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

and ? you can take razor sharp images with a 70-200 @ 200 at 1/50th .... the only new nice thing is that you could use every lens.
Logged

barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 549


« Reply #25 on: September 10, 2008, 07:20:04 AM »
ReplyReply

This one is sure to appeal to the high res stock photo crowd, probably less to the everyone else.

Good to see sony have done nice work on a big OVF, sure to impress. Have to say, as a Minolta user, this isnt the direction I wanted them to take. 24mp is overkill for most, and the jpeg samples are not too impressive (ok you can shoot raw, but still) Imaging resource hints at less than spectacular DR as well. High ISO isnt as good as expected.

Another nail in the megapixel is the only judge of IQ coffin.

Still, least they did something, roll on that D700 esque sony!
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #26 on: September 10, 2008, 08:04:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There are 3 slightly worrying issues about this camera that spring to mind.

(1) No Live View for ultra accurate manual focussing. However, I can see the reason for this. Without image stabilisation in the lens, Live View is not as useful unless the camera is on a tripod. That's one disadvantage of the anti-shake sensor compared to the lens image stabilisation.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220480\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Why? The optical viewfinder is not stabilized, but live view would be if it uses the actual sensor image, which would be the only way to get accurate focus information anyway.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
mas55101
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 77


« Reply #27 on: September 10, 2008, 09:18:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It would cost more, same as the D3 costs more than the D700 (think features and performance).  However, a D3x (or whatever Nikon calls it) may not use the same sensor, it might use a better one.
Sony DSLR-A900                 
-2 to +2 EV in 1/3 EV steps 
5 fps                                 
100-1600, (up to 6400)                                         
24.6 million pixels = 2.9 MP/cm²                               

Nikon D700
-5 to +5 EV in 1/2 or 1/3 EV steps
8 fps (with battery pack)
200-6400 (100 - 25600 with boost)
12.1 million pixels = 1.4 MP/cm²

I like oranges better than apples; I have never considered if I could get more apples for my money.
It could be an ergonomics issue for some:

http://a.img-dpreview.com/previews/nikond7...ges/inhand2.jpg

http://a.img-dpreview.com/previews/SonyDSL...ges/inhand2.jpg
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220476\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's not reasonable to compare a 24mp camera to a 12 mp camera, except maybe to show that the technology for the 24mp isn't there yet.  That however is disproven by Canon.  The Mark 3 is the one to compare with the 900.

Think of it this way - with 12mp (d700) we're at least into 645 film quality.  I think, now, we're just looking for 6x7 quality.  So how fast film could we use without graininess?
Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #28 on: September 10, 2008, 12:10:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It's not reasonable to compare a 24mp camera to a 12 mp camera, except maybe to show that the technology for the 24mp isn't there yet.  That however is disproven by Canon.  The Mark 3 is the one to compare with the 900.[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, some want to compare a 24 MP DSLR to a 12 MP DSLR based on price and resolution alone while ignoring other considerations, and that's what prompted my comparison of some of those other considerations.  I also do not think comparing a $7000 camera to a $3000 camera is relevant; indeed, factoring in the price, in my opinion the A900 is far and away a better value compared to the 1Ds MkIII based on the published specifications and features.

I do not think Canon has "disproven" that you can't equal the output and performance of a 12 MP DSLR with that of a 24 MP DSLR.  The 1Ds MkIII still only gets 5 fps, the D3 gets 9 fps (11 fps if you don't need AF), and the D3 and D700 are the undisputed kings of high ISO performance.  It comes down to what is more important to you:  resolution or ISO performance.

Quote
Think of it this way - with 12mp (d700) we're at least into 645 film quality.  I think, now, we're just looking for 6x7 quality.  So how fast film could we use without graininess?

Well I agree with you, I hope we don't drag a "film versus digital" debate into this discussion.  In terms of graininess, there is no competition.  I have an ISO 800 sample from one of the Imaging Resource shots converted by Iliah Borg, which according to Iliah is one stop underexposed (if you are thinking in terms of ETTR), and that suggests that you could have gotten the same results from an ISO 1600 shot.  If you want to check it out (it's 8 MP), it is here:  [a href=\"http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/mypicturesfolder/sharing/AA900hSLI0800.jpeg]http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/myp...00hSLI0800.jpeg[/url]

Since Nick Rains mentioned in his review that he would like to have compared the 1Ds MkIII directly to the A900, he (and others) might be interested in this:  http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29267635
Logged
douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 546


« Reply #29 on: September 10, 2008, 01:34:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, some want to compare a 24 MP DSLR to a 12 MP DSLR based on price and resolution alone while ignoring other considerations, and that's what prompted my comparison of some of those other considerations.  I also do not think comparing a $7000 camera to a $3000 camera is relevant; indeed, factoring in the price, in my opinion the A900 is far and away a better value compared to the 1Ds MkIII based on the published specifications and features.

I do not think Canon has "disproven" that you can't equal the output and performance of a 12 MP DSLR with that of a 24 MP DSLR.  The 1Ds MkIII still only gets 5 fps, the D3 gets 9 fps (11 fps if you don't need AF), and the D3 and D700 are the undisputed kings of high ISO performance.  It comes down to what is more important to you:  resolution or ISO performance.
Well I agree with you, I hope we don't drag a "film versus digital" debate into this discussion.  In terms of graininess, there is no competition.  I have an ISO 800 sample from one of the Imaging Resource shots converted by Iliah Borg, which according to Iliah is one stop underexposed (if you are thinking in terms of ETTR), and that suggests that you could have gotten the same results from an ISO 1600 shot.  If you want to check it out (it's 8 MP), it is here:  http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/myp...00hSLI0800.jpeg

Since Nick Rains mentioned in his review that he would like to have compared the 1Ds MkIII directly to the A900, he (and others) might be interested in this:  http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29267635
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220614\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

  Tony, are you saying that when you downsize the A900 file to 12MP to match the D700, the D700 is still much cleaner?

  As far as the live view is concerned, I think Sony did make a mistake in not including the mirror-up type.  I have a feeling they are trying to draw a line in the sand in relation to what Sony thinks real live view is. AKA, the A350 type.

  As an aside, the A900 actually has a feature I will use much more than live view: Intelligent Preview.  Hit the DOF button (or focus hold button on lens if you choose,) and the camera takes a pic that is stored in the buffer.  You can then change WB, Exposure and DRO, and the pic shows the changes.  In M mode, you can actually adjust the Shutter speed and Aperture, and the exposure shows the changes, albeit without actually changing the DOF.  I think this will be great for studio strobe shooting, personally.
Logged
Nick Rains
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 700



WWW
« Reply #30 on: September 10, 2008, 04:54:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Since Nick Rains mentioned in his review that he would like to have compared the 1Ds MkIII directly to the A900, he (and others) might be interested in this:  http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29267635
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220614\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I did compare to the 1DsM3, at least as far as was possible - what I need to see is the two camera's files processed through the same software. One independent RAW processor developer is looking at the A900 files as we speak so maybe I'll have some news on that front soon.
Logged

Nick Rains
Australian Landscape Photographer
www.nickrains.com
iPad Publishing
www.photique.com.au
MatthewCromer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 411


« Reply #31 on: September 10, 2008, 06:32:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I did compare to the 1DsM3, at least as far as was possible - what I need to see is the two camera's files processed through the same software. One independent RAW processor developer is looking at the A900 files as we speak so maybe I'll have some news on that front soon.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220684\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The Sony RAW software is shite, as is their jpeg engine.

There are some really impressive conversions linked at DPReview at ISO 1600, 3200 and even 6400 that look comparable to the 1DsIII, so hopefully the Alpha 900 will measure up to the other full-frame cameras when full RAW support becomes available
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #32 on: September 10, 2008, 07:46:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Why? The optical viewfinder is not stabilized, but live view would be if it uses the actual sensor image, which would be the only way to get accurate focus information anyway.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220552\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bernard,
I'm glad you've picked me up on this point because I probably don't fully understand the issues and don't own any anti-shake DSLRs.

I've assumed that the normal anti-shake sensor design does not have any effect on the image as seen through the viewfinder. How could it, since the light path is through the lens, bounced off a mirror and into the viewfinder, completely bypassing the sensor?

For this reason, I have presumed that the anti-shake sensor is only active when the shutter is fully depressed, as opposed to the in-lens image stabilisation of Canon lenses which is active all the time during focussing, when shutter half-pressed.

I understand that the engineering problems in designing a full frame anti-shake sensor have been formidable. This is another 'first' for Sony. To also provide a Live View facility with real-time image stabilistaion during manual focussing, would result in that sensor bobbing around like a small boat in a storm for as long as it took to focus and take the shot. I think there might be an issue of durability in such a design.
Logged
Kenneth Sky
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 418


WWW
« Reply #33 on: September 10, 2008, 09:27:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It's not a whole lot different from the 1Ds, baring in mind that the Sony creates a raw with 12bits depth, and the Canon produces a raw of 14bits depth. In fact, after calculating it, they were practically on par (as far as data throughput is concerned)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220506\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So what's the excuse for the price differential?
Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #34 on: September 10, 2008, 09:46:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I did compare to the 1DsM3, at least as far as was possible - what I need to see is the two camera's files processed through the same software. One independent RAW processor developer is looking at the A900 files as we speak so maybe I'll have some news on that front soon.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[a href=\"http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/Supported_cameras.html]http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/Sup...ed_cameras.html[/url]

The A900 has just been added as a beta version of this software, which was what I linked to above.
Logged
aaykay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 359


« Reply #35 on: September 10, 2008, 10:09:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It's not a whole lot different from the 1Ds, baring in mind that the Sony creates a raw with 12bits depth, and the Canon produces a raw of 14bits depth. In fact, after calculating it, they were practically on par (as far as data throughput is concerned)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220506\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think the fact that we are talking about this $2999 camera as "practically on par from a data throughput" perspective, with a $8000 camera is impressive all by itself.  Not only throughput, but also the 100% viewfinder (bigger than the 1DSMKII and needs higher tolerances due to the 100%), in addition to the unprecedented I.S in the Full-Frame body, and the engineering around it (which none of the Canons have).

The A700 Full-RAW (not cRAW), is around 19MB in size.  The A900 is twice the resolution, thus the RAW file size should be in the 40MB neighborhood.  At 5FPS, shooting RAW-only, that is 200MB/Sec.  Add another 100 MB/Sec, when shooting RAW+JPEG.

Now let us see what kind of data pipeline architecture Canon would provide the upcoming 5D replacement(s).  If they make it comparable to the 1DSMKIII, I think that will seriously impact the 1DSMKIII market and create a firestorm among the unhappy 1DS owners who paid out $8000 for the body.  

I think Canon will probably introduce 2 Full-frame bodies.   One with the high-end architecture like the A900, but priced much higher and another cheaper body, with lower spec.  Either way, good for the consumers, since it will drive down overall FF prices.
Logged
Nick Rains
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 700



WWW
« Reply #36 on: September 10, 2008, 10:52:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/Sup...ed_cameras.html

The A900 has just been added as a beta version of this software, which was what I linked to above.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220742\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes I saw that and briefly checked it out. So far it looks very ordinary - slow and the results were average to say the least. To be fair though, I have not given it much of a chance yet. I'll try again when I get some time.
Logged

Nick Rains
Australian Landscape Photographer
www.nickrains.com
iPad Publishing
www.photique.com.au
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #37 on: September 10, 2008, 11:27:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Tony, are you saying that when you downsize the A900 file to 12MP to match the D700, the D700 is still much cleaner?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220637\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Courtesy Imaging Resource, ISO 3200, resized 1Ds MkIII on right and 100% D700 on left:

Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #38 on: September 10, 2008, 11:34:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yes I saw that and briefly checked it out. So far it looks very ordinary - slow and the results were average to say the least. To be fair though, I have not given it much of a chance yet. I'll try again when I get some time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220753\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm not selling it, I'm just suggesting that you could make direct comparisons using the same RAW converter using it.  I expect there are various settings that one would need to familiarize themselves with to get optimum use from it.  I understand your ambivalence about learning to use a new program, the older I get the less patient I become with learning new things (heck, at 47 I have forgotten more stuff than my 19 year old son has learned, one more cellphone and I may just declare senility).  Looking at the ISO 800 sample I linked to at post #31, the results looked pretty decent to me and a significant improvement on what Sony's software achieved.

BTW, I liked your review and I would not hesitate to save up and buy this camera if it were an F-mount.  I expect something similar (price, resolution, performance, and features) from Nikon later next year.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2008, 11:40:23 PM by Tony Beach » Logged
Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 890


« Reply #39 on: September 11, 2008, 12:00:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Imaging Resource review

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA900/AA900A.HTM

They have much better shots than DPR which seems to mangle many cameras. They claim at low ISO it beats the 1Ds M3.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad