Marc,"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.
This last sentence makes me laugh. You trashed the 1ds3 and 5d2 canon cameras as producing plasticy looking files without any example comparison shots. If I look at the unbiased noise test the 5d2 competes very well with the D3x and the 1ds3 competes well up to 1600. I think there needs to be alot more good fair example shots and lot less nebulous bs about this camera's files are crap and this one's files are superior without showing any good examples. Lloyd Chambers of Digilloyd is saying crap like D3x is another league compared to the 5d2/1ds3 and when I look at his few comparison shots on the blog they are bad/faulty comparison shots.Unbiased view points where the reviewer doesn't have a gain from his connection with the camera gear maker is very rare these days. That is why I go to forums like this to get my information. All three cameras are very good and have strengths and weaknesses and we all have different requirements. But I don't mind learning about the weaknesses of my camera relative to another if I am presented with fair comparison shots which show it. Thanks.