Menu
What's new
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!

The Noise thing has me bothered.

ryc

ryc

Member
Ok, After seeing so many negatives about the high ISO performance of the A900, I decided to do my own peeping. I found an old photo I did of my piano with the D700 and Zeiss 28mm f2 at ISO 1250. I just tried to duplicate it with the same settings but with the Zeiss at f2.8 because it is what I have with the zoom. There is no arguing the D700 and Nikon cameras have better ISO performance but the question I pose to my self and others is weather the performance of the A900 is acceptable. Look at the files for your self and decide. I will post some people samples as well.

I am on the fence at the moment so I really don't know yet how important this ISO issue is to me.

You can download the full size 100% crops from here:

http://www.jorgetorralba.com/p323071619

I will post some smaller in this thread.

First A900





Now D700





And now for the wonderful no complaints stuff at ISO 200 :)



 
G

Greg Seitz

New member
If you're happy with how the camera performs for the bulk of your shooting I wouldn't worry too much about it especially if you aren't doing large prints of your high ISO work.

You've also got the image stabilization to help you out in the more static situations so that can certainly help keep your ISO range lower and the extra resolution over the D700 also helps when matching to the same output size.

Bottom line is there will always be compromises when comparing anything so you just make the choice that fits your needs best and run with it. That might be a one system approach or a multiple system approach, it really depends on how you intend to use them.

All of these cameras are capable of producing stunning results and it's often too easy to get caught up in the little technical details and forget the big picture of what YOU can do with the camera.
 
Last edited:
S

Shelby Lewis

Guest
cdnguyen said:
Look at the serial number on the piano. The D700 pic looks better in my eyes. Contrast is also better.
Click to expand...
That clearly looks like a DoF (or focus) issue... in that the plane of focus on the a900 is above the serial # (Closer to the "A") whereas the d700 shot is focused more directly on the serial. The lighting in these is a bit different as well... so makes it hard for me to judge accurately.

Contrast, if you're using zeiss, isn't going to be a problem, lol. :D
 
etrigan63

etrigan63

Active member
My question is how would the A900 images fare against a D3X? Arguably they should be similar with similar glass (processing electronics notwithstanding by using RAW files).
 
edwardkaraa

edwardkaraa

New member
Ok guys, you should all dump your crappy A900s that produce so much noise at all iso and are blown out of the water by any Canon or Nikon out there. I am even willing to do you a favour and take it from you for the unbelievable sum of 100$, that no one else would be willing to pay due to the very crappy high iso results :D
 
A

apocolibri

Member
Jorge,
Look how much more shadow information there is in the upper right part of the full frame image taken with the A900. The D700 image is really blocked up by comparison. The strings are sharper (top right) on the A900 shot due to the 2.8 Sony vs 2.0 Nikon aperture, so the playing field really isn't level in this test).

You might want to look for an old post from Mark Williams when he first started shooting with the A900. He made what I thought was a terrific observation in that most of us often obsess over how an image looks at 100% magnification when the real test is how the image looks on paper. I've noticed this on my DMR as well and Mark expressed my thoughts most eloquently with his observations of grain levels with the A900. The grain looks more film-like in prints.

I've personally found that many Canon cmos files, though almost grainless look flat next to the Sony and Leica files when printed. Printing is where the rubber meets the road... so don't obsess over grain in images shot at 1250 and under when observing on screen at 100%. Though you may see a little more grain in the Sony images, you may also prefer the way the image looks when printed compared to Nikon or Canon images. It's most certainly a matter of personal preference (not intending to bash Nikon or Canon) but I prefer what I see in the Sony images when printed at speeds under 1250 asa.

Lawrence
 
edwardkaraa

edwardkaraa

New member
The high-iso noise was never kept as a secret and we all knew about it before buying so it's not really a surprise to anyone. Now the funny thing is that people who were advocating that photos are meant to be printed not scrutinized at 100% seem to have changed their mind ;)
 
Terry

Terry

New member
We can compare it all day long to the D3x but there are also other factors at work in the decision process.

For the price of the D3x you could have your A900 and all your glass with money left over or two A900 bodies plus a 24-70 and almost a 135.
Also, for some of us handling a D3 just doesn't work.

I thought hard about selling the D700 to buy the A900 and knew what I was giving up in high ISO. If you aren't using this for professional purposes, do we really need that much resolution for giant prints in bad light?
 
ptomsu

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Two things on this:

1) back in the analog days I usually was shooting ISO50 or ISO100 in one body and have the other body loaded with an ISO800 film, which you could push to ISO1600. And I used Kodak and Fuji mainly. Did I ever need more than ISO 1600? Almost NOT. So what we are discussing today in terms of ISO 3200, 6400, 12800 and above is kind of some possibilities created by some camera vendors in order to sell equipment. I still keep saying it is fine to have but you really do not need it.

2) For me - comparing the pictures posted here - I clearly prefer the look, contrast, colors etc from the Sony. The D700 looks kind of artificial to me and I think this is also the secret behind the "excellent" noise performance - there is still a lot of processing going on in the background even if it has "only" 12 MP, which make the photos look steril and artificial. This was one reason I sold my D3 and also my 5D2 (had similar look for me) to buy the A900.

Now the D3X might be better in terms of noise at high ISO than the Sony, but the definition is - what is better. For me it clearly has more processing on the image which makes the files look not as good as the Sony files to me.

I guess it is all also personal preference. I still keep my Nikon lens collection, because I want to see the next incarnation of the Nikon and Sony - so with the blink of an eye I could either continue with Sony or Nikon. But all I can think about I trust more the Sony as they are manufacturing and developing their own chips, so they will also work on more noise free but still natural looking high ISO - just my 5c. And if this happens, then all my Nikon lenses will be sold immediately ;)
 
Quentin_Bargate

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
I sold my D700 when I purchased the A900. There is a tipping point in digital camera resolution around 20mp+ where you go from pretending you have enough resolution to actually having enough for large prints and stock library submissions.

You can pixel peep all you want about high ISO noise performance - and the D700 has superb high ISO noise performance - but it does not compensate for the sheer horse power of the A900, as well as its superb colour and other qualities, such as dynamic range.

Quentin
 
F

fotografz

Well-known member
edwardkaraa said:
The high-iso noise was never kept as a secret and we all knew about it before buying so it's not really a surprise to anyone. Now the funny thing is that people who were advocating that photos are meant to be printed not scrutinized at 100% seem to have changed their mind ;)
Click to expand...
"People" ... thinly veiled reference to me I'm sure :ROTFL: Evidently no critical observations are allowed here.

Why is it that all this has to be "for or against?" :wtf: Or did Jack and Guy decide that this Sony forum is only for "mutual admiration"?

Objective criticism concerning performance of this relatively new camera is what leads to possible solutions isn't it?

Now some folks are experimenting with post techniques to lessen that effect which I am pretty certain came from reacting to observations concerning the noise issue. Without objective critical comments nothing gets done, or gets done slowly. It's the same process many Zeiss lovers went through with the Contax ND which was a LOT more plagued with issues ... many of which got solved, albeit too late (I say that because I see this camera as the natural successor to the ND which also featured AF Zeiss lenses).

When I said that IMO the true test is prints not 100% screen shots, I meant exactly that. IMO, we should evaluate it that way because it's the end intent that counts. At that time I hadn't printed all that much from this camera.

That was then. This is now.

I've now printed over 400 A900 files, some at 17X22, most at 8X10 ... but some of those are crops, with a few severe crops.

Noise shows up in prints also.

Most certainly not as bad as the 100% screen grabs show ... but it's there to contend with. And depending on the ambient conditions, it isn't just in high ISO files either. It manifests itself differently at different luminance levels. Just to mention one thing I've noticed, it can adversely affect the subtile OOF transitions of the bokeh that the Zeiss lenses deliver because of the more abrupt noise transitions.

To be clear, I am not looking for NO noise, and in some conditions the noise is perfectly acceptable even more film like than other cameras deliver. It's the other real world situations where blotchiness, uneven noise levels, less ability to lift shadow areas and so on ... is in need of attention.

Some of that can be addressed and is being addressed ... and some of it we'll learn to live with. That will help all of us define the boundaries of this camera to maximize its performance and avoid it's shortcomings.

However, implying there are no shortcomings is useless internet chatter of zero value to anyone IMHO.

I also don't think we make this camera better by trashing other really good ones ... it just makes it all look very defensive and lacks credibility.
 
S

Shelby Lewis

Guest
wow... DpReview? :thumbdown:

Look, we all have different agendas with our gear. Given the things that the a900 excels at, I think it was only natural for those of us who shoot in extreme lighting conditions to begin to question its abilities. After 4 weddings and many portrait shoots... I can say one thing... in good light the a900 meets and exceeds all my expectations with regards to IQ. Simply a fantastic camera.

But the fact remains that the very thing that many people hold dear... the randomness of its high-iso noise (especially chroma)... make it a difficult camera to deal with in post given public perception and want for clean, crisp files (wedding clients especially). B/W conversions can be VERY problematic with the blotchy chroma noise which, strangely, is randomly better/worse from frame to to frame. I'll admit that in one frame, the a900 looks pretty damn nice at iso 3200. In another it's bested by my old canon 5D at 1600. It's amazing how the color and luminosity of a scene can tip the balance with this camera.

So... I usually just stay at 800 and use more flash than I used to when the light gets low. The 58 exposes well (although it's not a very robust flash) and using it bounced creates nice, soft light... at least from an on-camera viewpoint. If you're in a cave of a room with no ability to bounce the flash, pick up a d3x. :D:D

Otherwise, Marc's suggestions for processing each file as an individual noise project I think is a sound one.

Flash bounced over my right shoulder:
 
edwardkaraa

edwardkaraa

New member
Well, Marc, it wasn't meant in a malicious way :) I respect your work and opinion and any commenst are given in a friendly way like every one else on this forum.

But my point is, it's the very reason that gives us these wonderful low iso files that cause the blotchy chroma noise at high iso. We all know it's the dense CFA and the lack of noise reduction at the hardware level (and it seems both Canon and Nikon use different CFA densities, and do apply NR at the hardware level). It's a fact and a trade off we have to live with. I understand that this chroma noise is no good for wedding work. But for me, as Quentin and Peter said, I prefer the non-processed look of the A900 high iso files, and find it more appealing to remove most if all the chroma noise in post without getting that processed look that is so evident in the 5D2 files provided by Georg.

Perhaps Sony can do something about it in a firmware update, but I have the impression that anything done on the CFA density (in future models) or in camera processing will inevitably have an unwanted effect on the lovely low-iso photos.
 
douglasf13

douglasf13

New member
Marc, I agree with a lot that you're saying, however, if I recall correctly, you're using lightroom. We've all known from the beginning that LR is the worst A900 converter, especially at higher ISO, and it produces blotchier, less refined noise qualities than other converters, and you may not be seeing the potential of the A900's high ISO.
Granted, like you said, it doesn't matter too much, because that's why you have a D3 :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top