6400 ISO on the A900

[jonoslack]

Jono, Yes. You already passed the wizardiness test, you know.

Hi Vivek
THANK YOU . . . but, unlike you and Todd, I'm only a wizard, not also a
True Star

 

[asabet]

HI Amin
I'm glad you enjoyed them . . . perhaps you can see why I jumped aboard so abruptly (that dealer who offered me a play was the culprit). The 100% sharpness is pretty splendid isn't it - very nearly as good as the M8 (at 100%). It does make one realise that the AA sensor on the Nikon full frames is a rather brutal affair! A sideways benefit of the light Sony filter is that less than perfect lenses behave better on the A900 than they do on the Nikons (despite what one might expect).

I certainly can see why you'd make the switch. The Sony is probably the closest thing to medium format resolution (edge over the Canon due to the Son's presumably weaker AA filter) while maintaining the operational advantages of 35mm DSLR. It really hit me when I opened those files. If I were choosing now between the Sony and the Nikon, I don't know which one I'd pick, though I'm very happy with my D700 and not personally thinking of switching.

As for the high ISO - just because you can make them look the same (and I agree with your assesment of that 3200 shot) doesn't mean that you can do as much with them in post processing - let's face it, if you want really high ISO the Nikon is still better.

I think that's true, and I'd add that the D700 files probably have a bit more dynamic range to play with in RAW. Basically, we have three excellent choices in ~$3K 35mm full frame DSLRs from Canon, Nikon, and Sony. They are different enough in features that they each specialize in certain areas, which is good for everyone.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Hey folks the new C1 Pro has a profile for the Sony 900.

 

[jonoslack]

Hey folks the new C1 Pro has a profile for the Sony 900.

Oh Dear
Does that mean I have to give up on Aperture?
and after I spent all that money on a 15" LED macbook pro