The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

Lonnie Utah

New member
Make sure you click on each to view them larger and then look at the noise and texture in the OOF areas of the Sony file, compared with how clean and smooth the Fuji file is.
Well, if you really want to compare apples to apples, up rez the fuji files to 24mp and see what happens...
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Marc, you aren't referring to my shots of the sage bush are you? The DOF is slightly different but we are evaluating noise and DR. The Sony is visibly noisier, even at 400, than the Fuji which is buttery smooth and clean at 800. And shot after shot, the Fuji is effortless in its presentation of wide DR compared to the effort I need to apply to the A900 files.

I love both cameras and they are complimentary in the strengths and weaknesses they exhibit.
Sorry, no I was not. I was referring to the shots of the red can.

I couldn't comment on your shots, they have different backgrounds ... more shadow in one compared to the other.

That is the problem with trying to compare anything other than exact set-ups with no variable other than the cameras ... which is of course boring.

It isn't easy to shoot available light shots even with similar cameras (A900 vs A99) using the same exact settings and the same lens ... I tried twice now and even using my Profoto modeling lights, the ambient introduced a slight variable when doing longer exposures @ ISO 100.

-Marc
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Could you please explain this a little bit more? Did I oversee something on the rumor sites regarding new developments?
I explained some of the reasons in that post which has nothing to do with what may be coming or not ... I'd keep it mostly because of the proprietary hot shoe on the A900: I have a radio system with that mount built in, including a pass through TTL transmitter for on-camera fill, and multiple Sony flashes with that mount for off-camera use ... usually setting an ISO of 320 or less. That's like $1,500 worth of accessories that I use a lot in my paying work.

Plus, the A900 has that great viewfinder with no distracting A99 image play-back (unless you turn all reviews off) ... yet the a900 still feeds the image to the LCD. It really is a nice compliment to the A99.

I may still sell the A900 since my use/need/like of 35mm DSLRs is waining, and I really don't need two 35mm DSLRs.

-Marc
 
Sorry, no I was not. I was referring to the shots of the red can.

I couldn't comment on your shots, they have different backgrounds ... more shadow in one compared to the other.

That is the problem with trying to compare anything other than exact set-ups with no variable other than the cameras ... which is of course boring.
-Marc

Marc,

It is the same background just a different orientation. If you don't take my word or can't see what is there in the file, that's fine, I'm not in the business of doing comparisons I just happened to have these recent shots on file and thought they might illustrate the answer to the OP's question. But I will say without question, based on what I see everyday in a variety of scenes, the X-Pro destroys the A900 in noise and DR.

I knew this would be the case at higher ISOs but I am surprised at how well the X-Pro does at base compared to the A900.

All that said, the A900 files are wonderful and the noise that is present is not offensive to me.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Marc,

It is the same background just a different orientation. If you don't take my word or can't see what is there in the file, that's fine, I'm not in the business of doing comparisons I just happened to have these recent shots on file and thought they might illustrate the answer to the OP's question. But I will say without question, based on what I see everyday in a variety of scenes, the X-Pro destroys the A900 in noise and DR.

I knew this would be the case at higher ISOs but I am surprised at how well the X-Pro does at base compared to the A900.

All that said, the A900 files are wonderful and the noise that is present is not offensive to me.
I DO take your word for it ... I have to since I don't have a Fuji X-Pro and getting one is highly unlikely (I am a die-in-the wool Leica M user, and currently have zero interest in APSc sensors). It comes down to just how much aesthetic perceptions play in our own real world applications. More importantly what role the camera type plays since these are apples-to-oranges cameras.

Frankly, I would hope a much newer camera/sensor would show some improvement in noise, and I've always liked Fuji's aesthetics ... however, I've never found any issue with the DR of the A900 ... in fact, it is one of the better mid-tone range the cameras of any I've used. The A900 is renowned for its color and mid-tone skewed response right out of the camera ... which is why I swapped out my Nikon D3X for the A900 and saved oodles of post time ... that, and getting those Zeiss AF lenses from a 16-35 to a 70-200 with a 1.4X extender plus some tasty primes.

Personally, I'm far more interested in apples-to-apples comparisons to see how well the A900 stacks up in IQ verses the A99 ... both being 24 meg FF using the same optics ... because I will be using both on the same paying jobs.

-Marc
 

lowep

Member
how well the A900 stacks up in IQ verses the A99

i have not tried either yet that leaves ample room for speculation :toocool: an important consideration for any consumer about to fork out cash and of little use to anybody who has already done so

I would guess the main difference is about $1500 + video + better low light performance minus (for stick in the muds) OVF. Please correct me if I am wrong about this.

Whereas the main difference between the Fuji and the Sony oranges (forget about Apple for once) is most likely as Marc suggests how much juice can be squeezed from an APS-C sensor, how much gear you want to cart around and how much (for stick in the muds) you like rangefinders and/or hybrid EVF?

Admittedly chemistry, old habits, lifestyle and the images you get out of any of these things may also have some significance
 

fotografz

Well-known member
how well the A900 stacks up in IQ verses the A99

i have not tried either yet that leaves ample room for speculation :toocool: an important consideration for any consumer about to fork out cash and of little use to anybody who has already done so

I would guess the main difference is about $1500 + video + better low light performance minus (for stick in the muds) OVF. Please correct me if I am wrong about this.

Whereas the main difference between the Fuji and the Sony oranges (forget about Apple for once) is most likely as Marc suggests how much juice can be squeezed from an APS-C sensor, how much gear you want to cart around and how much (for stick in the muds) you like rangefinders and/or hybrid EVF?

Admittedly chemistry, old habits, lifestyle and the images you get out of any of these things may also have some significance
All true enough.

I just did a quick test between the A900 and A99 on tripod with fixed lighting using the same Zeiss 135mm (I locked the mirror up for the A900 shot which is not necessary with the A99). I only tested at ISO 6400 because I know the A900 is just dandy at ISO 100 to 800 where a vast majority of my work is done. To keep it short ... the A99 won hands down. Much cleaner/sharper pixel peeping detail, less noise and nicer looking noise, better color rendition with a surprising level of color fidelity for a higher ISO. I used the AWB for both cameras and the A99 was better there also.

Another advantage of the A99 when shooting is apparent in that there is no mirror slap, so a bit lower hand-held shutter speeds are possible in conjunction with the steady shot.

I personally do not think it is Luddism, or being "a stick in the mud" to prefer OVF especially one like the A900 has ... I do NOT like the image I just shot coming up in the EVF on the A99 even for 2 seconds, nor when shutting it off in the menu also losing the LCD preview. It is distracting and irritating when in the heat off shooting where you may shoot a quick series ... or do one shot and do a quick nano second review on the LCD. If there was one improvement that would make the EVF/SLTs more effective it would be the option to not have the preview in the viewfinder, but still immediately show up on the LCD.

To me, and the way I shoot, this is one of the biggest practical shooting differences between OVF and EVF.

-Marc
 

jfirneno

Member
All true enough.

I just did a quick test between the A900 and A99 on tripod with fixed lighting using the same Zeiss 135mm (I locked the mirror up for the A900 shot which is not necessary with the A99). I only tested at ISO 6400 because I know the A900 is just dandy at ISO 100 to 800 where a vast majority of my work is done. To keep it short ... the A99 won hands down. Much cleaner/sharper pixel peeping detail, less noise and nicer looking noise, better color rendition with a surprising level of color fidelity for a higher ISO. I used the AWB for both cameras and the A99 was better there also.
Marc:

I'm very interested in your ISO6400 comparison. I love the output from my A-850 but ISO 3200 (and even more so for 6400) is defintely a compromise. Would you say the A99 will give you available low-light capability where previously you needed flash? I've been thinking of adding a used Nikon D3S just to augment in this area.

Regards,
John
 

lowep

Member
Personally, since about 90% of what I shoot is on a tripod, I could care less about ISO6400...
If 90% of what you shoot is on a tripod why not care less about about Sony threads and go for a MFDB system that will give you better IQ than any other camera?
 

lowep

Member
things change

when I looked at this Imacon FlexFrame 4040 Digital Back on Fugi GX680 III with 125mm Lens up for sale on ebay just now the current bid was $850; the price will probably go up a bit before it is sold but probably not as high as the going rate for a current or recent DSLR
 
Top