Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 24 Megapixel Full Frame for The Masses  (Read 4172 times)
Cartagenaphoto
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« on: September 20, 2012, 10:15:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi  Wink


I always enjoy reading this site but must admit i find the comments about Sony a850 a bit unfair.

Article says quote: Even at its launch while low ISO image quality has(was) very fine, high ISO tended to be much nosier that the competition (Nikon).
I have seen Michaels own ISO test(and others) of Nikon D3x, Canon 5 D MKII and Sony a900(same as a850) and think the words "much noiser" in the article are a bit unfair because the a900/850 are noiser only from ISO 800 and up and only by maximum a stop.

The article also states, quote:notwithstanding its price point the Sony A850 was well past its best before date even before it was discontinued.
I will answer that with a simple question. Did Nikon have a camera to compete with the Sony in terms of image resolution. No! But I must admit that it dont have liveview and video. But does that really makes it obsolete. Maybe?

The a900/850 also have other qualities such as the Dynamic range which is still quite good and in a fact even better at low ISO than the 5D MKII/ MkIII and also shadow noise in lifted shadows are better than the current Canon 5D MkIII. Obsolete nah I don't think so ;-)


But thank you for a very nice site and some wonderfull articles which I very munch enjoy.


Kind regards

an a900 defender Grin
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6055


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 20, 2012, 11:46:26 AM »
ReplyReply

... a900/850 are noiser only from ISO 800 and up and only by maximum a stop...

Which just happens to be enough for the definition of noisier Wink

Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
petermfiore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 580



WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 20, 2012, 02:01:39 PM »
ReplyReply


An a900 Defender,

If you use and are happy with your camera, why does it matter what any review says at this point?

Peter
Logged

Cartagenaphoto
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #3 on: September 29, 2012, 05:50:22 PM »
ReplyReply


Don't it matter to tell the facts as they are. I think so.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7670


WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 29, 2012, 06:32:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I don't have a Nikon D3X to compare with but I would not shoot my Alpha 900 above 400 ISO, as a matter of fact I use it mostly at 100 ISO.

I genuinely believe Nikon made better use of the Sony sensor than Sony, and that is clearly visible from DxO data.

That said, the Alpha 900 is a nice camera. What I lack most on the Alpha 900 is live view.

Hopefully the Alpha 99 will have better noise performance.

Best regards
Erik




Hi  Wink


I always enjoy reading this site but must admit i find the comments about Sony a850 a bit unfair.

Article says quote: Even at its launch while low ISO image quality has(was) very fine, high ISO tended to be much nosier that the competition (Nikon).
I have seen Michaels own ISO test(and others) of Nikon D3x, Canon 5 D MKII and Sony a900(same as a850) and think the words "much noiser" in the article are a bit unfair because the a900/850 are noiser only from ISO 800 and up and only by maximum a stop.

The article also states, quote:notwithstanding its price point the Sony A850 was well past its best before date even before it was discontinued.
I will answer that with a simple question. Did Nikon have a camera to compete with the Sony in terms of image resolution. No! But I must admit that it dont have liveview and video. But does that really makes it obsolete. Maybe?

The a900/850 also have other qualities such as the Dynamic range which is still quite good and in a fact even better at low ISO than the 5D MKII/ MkIII and also shadow noise in lifted shadows are better than the current Canon 5D MkIII. Obsolete nah I don't think so ;-)


But thank you for a very nice site and some wonderfull articles which I very munch enjoy.


Kind regards

an a900 defender Grin

Logged

trichardlin
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


« Reply #5 on: October 01, 2012, 01:34:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I hear you, man.  From my understanding, when people use the word "much" when discussing cameras (or high end audio gears), they really mean "barely detectable under ideal conditions."

No one is immune to pixel peeping and using hyperbole when they see a difference.  Some examples are 20mp vs 24mp, 97% view finder coverage vs 100%, etc, etc.  These differences are really small in real life, but they are often pointed out as key differences that should affect equipment purchase decision.  Arguably more important factors, such as ergonomics, maddening menus systems, are often just glossed over. 

Richard
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6055


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 01, 2012, 09:29:34 AM »
ReplyReply

...  From my understanding, when people use the word "much" when discussing cameras (or high end audio gears), they really mean "barely detectable under ideal conditions." ...

Amen, brother!
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #7 on: October 02, 2012, 08:59:41 AM »
ReplyReply

I hear you, man.  From my understanding, when people use the word "much" when discussing cameras (or high end audio gears), they really mean "barely detectable under ideal conditions."

No one is immune to pixel peeping and using hyperbole when they see a difference.  Some examples are 20mp vs 24mp, 97% view finder coverage vs 100%, etc, etc.  These differences are really small in real life, but they are often pointed out as key differences that should affect equipment purchase decision.  Arguably more important factors, such as ergonomics, maddening menus systems, are often just glossed over. 

Richard



97% isn't bad, but many 135 cameras only gave about 90%-95% of the image area as a viewable reality. This did matter a lot if you worked on that format as your main means of earning your living. Trust me, I know about that fact!

Rob C
Logged

John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1259


« Reply #8 on: October 02, 2012, 02:56:49 PM »
ReplyReply



97% isn't bad, but many 135 cameras only gave about 90%-95% of the image area as a viewable reality. This did matter a lot if you worked on that format as your main means of earning your living. Trust me, I know about that fact!

Rob C

Rob,

I absolutely believe you, but I'd like to know why this is so.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #9 on: October 02, 2012, 04:11:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi John

In my case, it was because when I was shooting calendars, I also designed them and that allowed me to choose the image format shape, which was mainly 1x1.5 because I could see the final shape and frame accordingly as I shot. Even on Kodachrome there wasn't a lot of spare acreage to waste, and so it was really essential that I use every square millimetre to best advantage.

It would have been relatively simple to take thirteen shpots from a shoot and just cut them a little bit here, a little bit there, but sometimes those pics were also used backed up against one another as a grid on a single page, and so it was a nighmare to have to scale up different parts of each frame for those events, when it made sense simply to instruct the separation people on which shot went beside which, without having them try to use parts rather than the whole. Of course, doing ads was a different thing because much of the b/w work, for press use, ended up as cut-outs, and all the guys wanted from me was an image at so many inches from top of head to toe - they first did their own design/scale and messsing about on a Grant once they had the contacts.

Basically, I suppose, it's just nice to know (you hope!) that what you see is all you're going to get! Admittedly, that was where the 6x6 format had advantages: you weren't so tied in to the tight format shape, as distinct from just the tiny size.

So, really, it comes with the restrictions of the tiny size of the thing, which precludes wasted space and unnecessary enlargement, more than anything else.

Rob C
Logged

AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1175



« Reply #10 on: October 02, 2012, 05:24:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Basically, I suppose, it's just nice to know (you hope!) that what you see is all you're going to get!

Nikon stressed this point heavily with the F/F2/F3 (I assume it continued with the F4 and so on, that what you were seeing in the finder was the full image area on the film.  Most other SLRs I was aware of did have a crop finder, I always thought it was because the paper slide mounts cut off the edges of the frames so you wouldn't cut off anything you had in the slide, but I never gave it much thought, being a Nikon shooter and being interesed only in what I could print, i.e., the whole frame.
Logged

trichardlin
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


« Reply #11 on: October 02, 2012, 07:31:17 PM »
ReplyReply

... 135 cameras ...

Huh, what's that.  Smiley

Seriously, in the film days, all cameras were FF and no one worried about resolution every time a new camera came out.  Now, people claim they are not pixel peeking, yet they incessantly show pictures of lots of grass and leaves to showcase the amazing resolutions of their new cameras.  Sorry for ranting, but I'm going to puke if I see another grass or leaves picture... 

Richard
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7670


WWW
« Reply #12 on: October 02, 2012, 10:48:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

100% or 97% was important when we were using slides. The slides were wider than the opening in the slide mount. 100% many times meant unvoluntary cropping. A view to narrow may ended up with something sticking into your slide.

Things are much better now. My view is that the future belongs to the electronic viewfinder, even if they perhaps are not really good enough today and they are always 100%.

Best regards
Erik




97% isn't bad, but many 135 cameras only gave about 90%-95% of the image area as a viewable reality. This did matter a lot if you worked on that format as your main means of earning your living. Trust me, I know about that fact!

Rob C
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #13 on: October 03, 2012, 02:26:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Indeed, slide mounts did cut into your tranny area, but that didn't count when you worked for reproduction; the things weren't scanned in their mounts!

It's like everything else: it depends on what you have to do with your pictures.

John just asked me why I felt it mattered about that tiny percentage - I explained.

;-)

Rob C
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 02:28:51 AM by Rob C » Logged

John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1259


« Reply #14 on: October 03, 2012, 01:54:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Rob,

Thanks.

The reason I asked is that virtually all my paid photography was for newspapers (I was a reporter, not a photographer, but carried a camera and had a lot of shots going into print.) We used good film and development but reproduction was on what amounted to high grade toilet paper. So, we always left a lot of space around a shot, because we could then crop in and in terms of reproduction, the amount of the crop was not especially significant...so 97%, 95%, 93% viewfinder made little difference. Interesting to see another view; I was kind of curious about whether you were one of the "I only print full frame" purists.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 01:59:53 PM by John Camp » Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #15 on: October 04, 2012, 09:08:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Rob,

Thanks.

The reason I asked is that virtually all my paid photography was for newspapers (I was a reporter, not a photographer, but carried a camera and had a lot of shots going into print.) We used good film and development but reproduction was on what amounted to high grade toilet paper. So, we always left a lot of space around a shot, because we could then crop in and in terms of reproduction, the amount of the crop was not especially significant...so 97%, 95%, 93% viewfinder made little difference. Interesting to see another view; I was kind of curious about whether you were one of the "I only print full frame" purists.



Well, in an ideal world, and with the size strictures one encounters within 135 format, I always seek to use all the acreage that's available. The exceptions were with 6x6, where the sides were a great option regarding available space to suit different page/ad formats, and in the studio, with a white Colorama, it gave nice creative space for copy, which 135 didn't!

Even so, were I still a 6x6 owner and working as now, for myself alone, I would try to compose and print the square shape as shot. I wouldn't loose sleep if something needed cropping, but I'd rather nor have to so do.

Rob C
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad