A900: An ISO 100-400 camera

[kelvin]

Thank you Jono and Eoin, I updated Aperture and it worked! Now I have to get busy and learn how to use the software.

 

[Eoin]

best place to start, is the Aperture tutorials on apple's web site. Make a coffee sit back, relax and enjoy !

http://www.apple.com/aperture/tutorials/

Then when you've mastered all this, start looking at the plugin's available, they take apertures abilities to a whole new level.

Also seriously explore the edit with external editor function, another power tool to harness the power of (insert your favorite pixel editor here) within aperture.

Enjoy!:lecture:

 

[jonoslack]

Thank you Jono and Eoin, I updated Aperture and it worked! Now I have to get busy and learn how to use the software.

As Eoin said (this time he beat me to it!)

I reckon that the NIK software plugins are the best of the bunch, and Viveza (for colour) and Silver efex pro (for black and white) Really do do the business.

 

[fotografz]

Here's my take on the A900 and ISO performance.

I'm in agreement that this is more like any high meg camera ... except my previous Canon 1DsMKIII wasn't much better ... in that it smeared detail above ISO 1000, and IMO was a decent ISO 100 to 800 camera.

Here's the difference that I see ... the nature of the A900 noise is that it's cleaner ... more like film grain ... but more importantly it looks worse on screen than in a print ... where the Canon looked better on screen, but looked plastic in print. Since I sell prints that was a VERY important discovery.


I use the A900 @ 640 and 800 all the time (for paying work). I like the look of it a lot ... but then, I've been searching for the Holy Grail ... a digital camera with files that look more film like. If exposed correctly, I've not seen bad grain at all ... because it reminds me so much of what scanned film looks like when printed. I've even had to lift underexposed 800 shots where my flash had not powered back up enough, and I got better results than from my other high meg cameras. But, again, I don't want plastic digital look that's so popular with many folks. If I want smooth, I shoot MFD at ISO 50.

I use a D3/D700 for obvious low ambient light shots, and would no more use the A900 for that than I would a MF digital camera.

Different strokes for different folks.

Here's one of the ISO 800 wedding shots where the flash underfired, and I had to lift it by at least 1.5 stops ... it's a picture I wanted to save because of the letch subject matter : -) Shot with the A900 and Zeiss 24-70/2.8 @ 70mm.

 

[viablex1]

^^ lol, really gives man mammals a bad name!!! nice color though!!

 

[douglasf13]

Now that I have a uniWB set for the camera, I've been pretty amazed how much more red and blue channel exposure latitude has been available in my shooting. I agree with fotografz that the noise in the A900 files is very pleasing.

 

[fotografz]

Now that I have a uniWB set for the camera, I've been pretty amazed how much more red and blue channel exposure latitude has been available in my shooting. I agree with fotografz that the noise in the A900 files is very pleasing.

Yeah, the A900 really responds to getting the WB correct. The color right out of the camera was really a pleasant surprise.

 

[douglasf13]

I think we may be talking about different things. UniWB is the native WB of the sensor, and all shots come out green until adjusted in the raw converter. The advantage being that your camera histogram is accurate, and it usually shows the green channel being much more saturated than red or blue.

 

[edwardkaraa]

Hi Marc,

Nice to see you here after the Contax info forums It seems Contax people are finding the new Sony/Zeiss system quite attractive.

In the picture you show, and it is a very nice "moment" to say the least there is pleanty of blotchy chroma noise visible even at this very small size. You can look at the girl's hair in the middle and above the 2 lamps on the wooden wall. I'm sure it's easily removable but I find impressive that I can actually see it at this size. Anyway, I shoot mostly at ISO 100, one stop below the native sensitivity, because it seems to produce the cleanest files and not so much loss in DR. Between 100-400 the colors of this camera are simply amazing.

Here's my take on the A900 and ISO performance.

I'm in agreement that this is more like any high meg camera ... except my previous Canon 1DsMKIII wasn't much better ... in that it smeared detail above ISO 1000, and IMO was a decent ISO 100 to 800 camera.

Here's the difference that I see ... the nature of the A900 noise is that it's cleaner ... more like film grain ... but more importantly it looks worse on screen than in a print ... where the Canon looked better on screen, but looked plastic in print. Since I sell prints that was a VERY important discovery.


I use the A900 @ 640 and 800 all the time (for paying work). I like the look of it a lot ... but then, I've been searching for the Holy Grail ... a digital camera with files that look more film like. If exposed correctly, I've not seen bad grain at all ... because it reminds me so much of what scanned film looks like when printed. I've even had to lift underexposed 800 shots where my flash had not powered back up enough, and I got better results than from my other high meg cameras. But, again, I don't want plastic digital look that's so popular with many folks. If I want smooth, I shoot MFD at ISO 50.

I use a D3/D700 for obvious low ambient light shots, and would no more use the A900 for that than I would a MF digital camera.

Different strokes for different folks.

Here's one of the ISO 800 wedding shots where the flash underfired, and I had to lift it by at least 1.5 stops ... it's a picture I wanted to save because of the letch subject matter : -) Shot with the A900 and Zeiss 24-70/2.8 @ 70mm.

 

[fotografz]

Hi Marc,

Nice to see you here after the Contax info forums It seems Contax people are finding the new Sony/Zeiss system quite attractive.

In the picture you show, and it is a very nice "moment" to say the least there is pleanty of blotchy chroma noise visible even at this very small size. You can look at the girl's hair in the middle and above the 2 lamps on the wooden wall. I'm sure it's easily removable but I find impressive that I can actually see it at this size. Anyway, I shoot mostly at ISO 100, one stop below the native sensitivity, because it seems to produce the cleanest files and not so much loss in DR. Between 100-400 the colors of this camera are simply amazing.

I agree, this is the closest thing to the ND so far. Remember Irakly from the Contax forum? He said the same thing the minute he picked up my A900. As far as noise, you are more of a Pixel Peeper than I am This camera is fine for my applications up to ISO 800, and even 1250 if the exposure is good. The example I showed was a torture test of being able to recover a badly underexposed ISO 800 shot ... the location was lit with all kinds of mixed colored lighting like blue green overheads washing the room accented with magenta and red spot lights.

I've done a few shots in the studio using strobes, and at ISO 100 it's quite amazing. So far, I have 2 non-Zeiss lenses and have been pleasantly surprised. The 50/1.4 is better than the Zeiss N50/1.4 which exhibited horrible Bokeh, and the Sony 70-200/2.8G APO is every bit the campanion to the Zeiss 24-70/2.8 ... easily the best zoom in this focal range I've ever used.

 

[gtmerideth]

Douglas, might you discuss the UniWB? As per the manual, it's establishing a custom WB. Did you use daylight as the light source? Then, how do you adjust the settings?

I know it's a hijack but this technique is very important.

thanks,
gary

 

[Quino Terceño]

I am with Gary. Please Douglas, tell us.

Thanks.

Quino

 

[edwardkaraa]

Yes, I have to admit that I suffer from a serious case of pixel peeping

I did get some horrible noise at underexposed ISO 800 as well. But I guess for well exposed photos, one can go as high as 1600.

I do remember Irakly, I recall that he had an outstanding portrait portfolio.

Cheers,
Edward

I agree, this is the closest thing to the ND so far. Remember Irakly from the Contax forum? He said the same thing the minute he picked up my A900. As far as noise, you are more of a Pixel Peeper than I am This camera is fine for my applications up to ISO 800, and even 1250 if the exposure is good. The example I showed was a torture test of being able to recover a badly underexposed ISO 800 shot ... the location was lit with all kinds of mixed colored lighting like blue green overheads washing the room accented with magenta and red spot lights.

I've done a few shots in the studio using strobes, and at ISO 100 it's quite amazing. So far, I have 2 non-Zeiss lenses and have been pleasantly surprised. The 50/1.4 is better than the Zeiss N50/1.4 which exhibited horrible Bokeh, and the Sony 70-200/2.8G APO is every bit the campanion to the Zeiss 24-70/2.8 ... easily the best zoom in this focal range I've ever used.

 

[edwardkaraa]

I have to revise what I said earlier about the A900 being a 100 to 400 iso camera only. I took today a few snapshots at iso 1600, making sure they are correctly exposed, and not only noise looks excellent (NR OFF) but I have never seen such detail in a 1600 iso file from my 1Ds2. More and more, I am starting to appreciate Sony's approach and hope they won't get influenced by the hype over high iso.

 

[edwardkaraa]

85mm ZA 1/45 f/2 iso 1600 NR Off

sharpened for the web.

View attachment 12853

 

[edwardkaraa]

Sorry to revive this thread, but I was wondering recently why do my raw files open in IDC with auto high iso noise reduction ON while the setting in the camera is off. I shot the same shot at iso 1600 in raw and JPG NR off. I processed the raw in IDC with the NR setting on auto and another on off. The result is the camera jpg has noise reduction even though the setting is NR off. It seems to have strong luminace NR and weak chrominance NR. Second best is IDC on auto, quite similar to the jpg but with more chrominance NR applied and less luminance NR. It is slightly sharper. The best result come from IDC NR off, it seems to be truly off and produces very sharp results and film like grain. I usually leave the luminance noise and reduce the chrominance a bit but not completely as to not to lose saturation. Very interesting that NR is on even when specifically selected on off. I didn't try any shots with NR on but I assume they would be even worse.