Are we getting all we can out of the A900?

[fotografz]

Hi Ben
Pleased to be of service.
I hear you about the RAW converter. I use Aperture, and have exactly the same feeling. If it isn't good enough with a particular camera . . . then I won't use the camera!

Noise, especially in the sky, is an obvious characteristic of ACR conversions. It's certainly not an issue with Aperture.

Sorry, but it's not an issue with Lightroom or ACR either. I use Lightroom workflow for all my different cameras including the A900.

Here's a cull shot as demonstration. 24-70 @ 55mm ISO 100 ... directly from an untouched A900 RAW file no PS anything ... not even sharpening for web. then a crop of the sky ... plus a solid color using thr color picker to match as a control when looking for noise ... of which there is none.

3D is there also. See the dance shot attached: 85/1.4 @ f/1.7 640 ISO on the A900 which I see with all the lenses depending on settings, etc. A function of the micro contrast separation of tones and rendering of detail ... without the AA smeared pixels from my former Canon gear.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

I'm not making up what I saw either in ACR or C1, if you apply zero sharpening then of course you won't see the noise but I don't process with zero sharpening neither do I want to process it out when sharpening either. It could be that there is none with iso 100, all Jono's files were iso 200 which I understand is the native iso setting of the camera.

Thing is that I'm not trying to pursuade anyone other than myself, I've seen what's an issue for me with my way of processing. Finito, I've no one else to pursuade

 

[jonoslack]

I'm not making up what I saw either in ACR or C1, if you apply zero sharpening then of course you won't see the noise but I don't process with zero sharpening neither do I want to process it out when sharpening either. It could be that there is none with iso 100, all Jono's files were iso 200 which I understand is the native iso setting of the camera.

Thing is that I'm not trying to pursuade anyone other than myself, I've seen what's an issue for me with my way of processing. Finito, I've no one else to pursuade

Hi Ben
Well, Marc seems persuasive. I really haven't tried it with ACR - I've just heard others complaining. But I use almost no sharpening. The very light AA filter makes it unnecessary (IMHO of course).

Certainly, I have no noise in the sky.

I would have thought that your sharpening would actually account for most of what you don't like.

As you say - no need to convince anyone else. The difference between the A900 and 5D files would seem to me to be a very big thing, and taste is going to be pretty relevant here (perhaps more important than anything else).

 

[douglasf13]

A900 has the lowest read noise at low iso of just about any camera outside of the D3x (because it has a weaker color filter and performs multiple reads.) If you're noticing noise at ISO 200, it may have to do with either the sharpening used or underexposure at capture. Sony uses a strong CFA, so underexposure is particularly detrimental. Also, you may just not be used to looking at a 24mp picture at 100%, which is quite a difference from 12mp.

Regardless, at least your findings will save you a ton of money. I wasn't so lucky, and Id have a hard time moving away from the A900 at this point

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Watch these hoops I'm not going to bother jumping through...

Seriously guys, I'm happy with what I have, I found the AA filter on the D700 far worse than I'm used to and the high iso to have an almost comical noise reduction (much like what they tried to do with ACR 4.0 before the huge fuss). I'll stick to what I know and like and go back to thinking about technique and asthetics of using off camera flash for the upcoming wedding season, my busiest ever. Also thinking of how to bring in more edgier PJ style posing on my ultra conservative clientele.

I've reached the point where all my gear works - perfectly. It's now more than just subconscious for all the incredible intricacies of modern DSLR's and wireless TTL lighting. All my lenses and cameras focus perfectly even wide open (finally). I have a season coming up where I will have 6 days at home out of 6 weeks and little time to post process. I want everything just to work, to work well, to work without thought. For all that now I could afford to switch systems eventhough since November it's been an economic no go, I think I'm better using what I know and am supremely comfortable with, using workflows that work fast, seamlessly and most of all stress free.

What I am waiting incredibly impatiently for is either Radiopopper or Pocket Wizard to get a move on with EU compatible units for my wireless work.

 

[douglasf13]

Hey, makes sense to me, Ben. It sounds like you're in a good place, gear wise, so why ruin a good thing? Have a good wedding season.

 

[fotografz]

I'm not making up what I saw either in ACR or C1, if you apply zero sharpening then of course you won't see the noise but I don't process with zero sharpening neither do I want to process it out when sharpening either. It could be that there is none with iso 100, all Jono's files were iso 200 which I understand is the native iso setting of the camera.

Thing is that I'm not trying to pursuade anyone other than myself, I've seen what's an issue for me with my way of processing. Finito, I've no one else to pursuade

You mean "disuade" don't you? :ROTFL:

I have no doubt you saw what you saw Ben. I can see that in any camera at any low ISO processed certain ways. First thing I noticed with the A900 was that I had to ease up on my sharpening presets ... don't need it. Don't need to screw with color as much either ... pretty good out of the can. Work flow has speeded up while image integrity is less compromised in post.

To me, the idea that you have a set way of processing, and the camera better meet it, is discounting new ways the manufacturers are improving the response and the flexability of the processing programs to be set up for that camera system.

The thing is, I make the decisions the same way you do, and this camera was more of what I want than I got from my $8,000 Canon ... in terms of IQ based on MY critera, The 1DMKIII and 1DsMKIII were the last straw for me ... my heart sunk when I saw the first files and the smeary, homoginized look I had bust a hump to fix. And I'm relieved that I don't have to bolt on some other lens system to get decent WA shots (mostly manual focus lenses at that.) ... and haven't had to wade through countless "copies" of the A900 lenses to get a good one like I did with Canon ... but maybe I got lucky for once.

I also continue to contend that a lot of folks using this camera don't know all it can do or how to do it ... Yet! We have no benchmark of previous Sony experience to use as a guage or a guide. My files have gotten better after just two weddings with it. But I sure can't process them like I did my Canon files ... that is for sure.

Here's another "cull shot" basically untouched shot at ISO 400 ... not 100, not 200 ... 400. ... with a corner crop that delivers what I want at the edges ... but I sharpened the crap out of it to see if I could make noise a problem. I printed the good version of the set up at 17" X 22" and suffered no noise nor pixel smear.

 

[fotografz]

Watch these hoops I'm not going to bother jumping through...

Seriously guys, I'm happy with what I have, I found the AA filter on the D700 far worse than I'm used to and the high iso to have an almost comical noise reduction (much like what they tried to do with ACR 4.0 before the huge fuss). I'll stick to what I know and like and go back to thinking about technique and asthetics of using off camera flash for the upcoming wedding season, my busiest ever. Also thinking of how to bring in more edgier PJ style posing on my ultra conservative clientele.

I've reached the point where all my gear works - perfectly. It's now more than just subconscious for all the incredible intricacies of modern DSLR's and wireless TTL lighting. All my lenses and cameras focus perfectly even wide open (finally). I have a season coming up where I will have 6 days at home out of 6 weeks and little time to post process. I want everything just to work, to work well, to work without thought. For all that now I could afford to switch systems eventhough since November it's been an economic no go, I think I'm better using what I know and am supremely comfortable with, using workflows that work fast, seamlessly and most of all stress free.

What I am waiting incredibly impatiently for is either Radiopopper or Pocket Wizard to get a move on with EU compatible units for my wireless work.

No Ben, you had US jumping through the hoops ... which you now have pursauded me to cease doing even when asked ... no good "hoop jumping" goes unpunished :ROTFL:

You are satisified ... and really, that's all that counts. I wasn't. Doesn't make either of us wrong ... it just means that we like what we like. You like your 5ds, where it was on the top of the list of cameras I hated to use. You think the D700 isn't as good, where it's one of the best high ISO cameras I've ever used ... never the twain shall meet. Let's leave it at that.

 

[Steen]

(...) Me too, I'm keeping my ZFs for work with the D700 in low ambient light. Recently added a Bright Screen diagonal split rangefinder with a huge microprism ring which has made a big difference. (...)

Thank you for your elaborated reply to my questions, Marc. Isn't it a bit tricky to swap screens on the D700, I mean it's not something you do on the fly, you need to do some surgery with tools, right ?

 

[Steen]

Steen, Sounds like a future decision is lingering, without any specific deadline. What is your timeframe for upgrading? (...)
Lars

Lars, in fact what I have now works quite well for me so I will try not to do anything before I have seen samples (and prices) from the coming R10 and new R autofocus lenses hopefully within the next couple of years.
But I honestly do see the Sony Alpha system with auto focus Zeiss lenses as the closest competitor to Leica so far. And if Leica doesn't wake up and realize they have to use segmentation as a strategy, i.e. that they have to invent affordable entry level cameras to get more customers buying into their expensive high end interchangeable lens systems, then to me the Alpha system looks like a very strong winner candidate in the DSLR arena.

 

[Steen]

Bondo, there is little reason for a 12mp Exmor FF, unless high fps is the goal. Exmor is a unique design that has very low read noise at low ISO, but not at high ISO. Essentially, directly opposite of Canon. A 12mp megapixel Exmor will have no less noise than a 24mp Exmor downsized to 12MP. Even MFDB backs have similar pixel pitches to the A900 at this point, and they perform beautifully. (...)

Very interesting, Douglas, and also very surprising to me. I've always thought that bigger was better with regards to pixel pitch ? (e.g. see Jacks thread about "The 9 micron sensor: Magic or Myth ?" - I am aware that the MFDBs use CCD sensors, but still ... ?)

Isn't Ben Rubinstein somewhat right about "how noticeable the focus fall off is with such a high resolution sensor" - see post # 19 in this thread ? Or has it got nothing to do with resolution ... ?
I've often wondered why the focus fall off seemed to be rather abrupt in some of the A900 samples posted on this board, but I am aware I should be cautious judging just from such small websized samples.

 

[Lars]

...then to me the Alpha system looks like a very strong winner candidate in the DSLR arena.

At least for now. It would be great for all consumers if that happened, as it would pressure others (I'm thinking Nikon) to focus more on revving its glass range.

 

[Lars]

If you send me your email address, I'll send you one! (it will be cRaw for size reasons but still 24 megs and while my ISP will accept a file that big in an email, I don't know if yours will.)

Bill

Thanks Billl Steen and Jono beat you too it - I now have too many A900 raw files to look at. :thumbs:

 

[fotografz]

At least for now. It would be great for all consumers if that happened, as it would pressure others (I'm thinking Nikon) to focus more on revving its glass range.

From your lips to God's ears. Zooms have gotten better as well as the 100 macro to some degree ... but it's hard to believe that the same company that can make the 200/2 VR can't make a Killer 35/1.4 ASPH and a new 85/1.4 APO. Please?

 

[fotografz]

Thank you for your elaborated reply to my questions, Marc. Isn't it a bit tricky to swap screens on the D700, I mean it's not something you do on the fly, you need to do some surgery with tools, right ?

Well, no 35mm SLR screen swap can be done on the fly ... that's the domain of modular Medium Format cameras.

For once I actually downloaded the installation instructions and followed them exactly. Took about 5 minutes. Don't know why I'd want to swap screens on the fly anyway. The camera still auto focuses with this screen in the D700.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Takes all of 10 seconds to do using only a thumbnail on my 5D's. I have the grid screen with penciled in 8X10 markings, much cheaper than the 8x10 screen made for the job!

 

[douglasf13]

Very interesting, Douglas, and also very surprising to me. I've always thought that bigger was better with regards to pixel pitch ? (e.g. see Jacks thread about "The 9 micron sensor: Magic or Myth ?" - I am aware that the MFDBs use CCD sensors, but still ... ?)

Isn't Ben Rubinstein somewhat right about "how noticeable the focus fall off is with such a high resolution sensor" - see post # 19 in this thread ? Or has it got nothing to do with resolution ... ?
I've often wondered why the focus fall off seemed to be rather abrupt in some of the A900 samples posted on this board, but I am aware I should be cautious judging just from such small websized samples.

Yeah, it's a common misunderstanding that many of the tech guys on various forums have a hard time explaining. Sensor technology and size ends up playing more of a role than pixel size, although there has been a massive wave of "small pixel=bad" in the last few years. What people always forget is that comparisons should be made at like viewing size. Pixel size is going to continue to get smaller and smaller, as technology allows more info to pass through the camera quickly, and our image quality will continue to improve. Assuming my computer can handle it, and the fps of the camera are enough for me, I'll always choose more pixels.

Ben is probably right about focus falloff and sharpness in general. High megapixel cameras don't do this worse than lower MP cameras....it's just that we are able to see it with these cameras. I know of some that don't even use AF at all with the D3x, because the results are too spotty. Diffraction works the same way. D3x/A900 doesn't have more diffraction than the old 5D, but rather you can see it better because of the higher resolution.

 

[fotografz]

Takes all of 10 seconds to do using only a thumbnail on my 5D's. I have the grid screen with penciled in 8X10 markings, much cheaper than the 8x10 screen made for the job!

Cool! That's excellent, as long as your mirror doesn't fall out :ROTFL:

 

[douglasf13]

Takes all of 10 seconds to do using only a thumbnail on my 5D's. I have the grid screen with penciled in 8X10 markings, much cheaper than the 8x10 screen made for the job!

Cool idea. As a side note, I got the gridded screen for the A900, and it is really great.

 

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

Douglas, is the gridded screen as bright as the standard one?
Bill