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!

A900: An ISO 100-400 camera

edwardkaraa

New member
I'm starting to use the A900 more often these days, and I'm totally impressed with image quality and film-like colors it produces. I'm also starting to realize that one has to consider it as an ISO 100-400 camera, otherwise disappointemnt will be inevitable. I used it the other day at ISO 400 as the light was getting low and I had no tripod. There is so much noise in the darker areas of the image. At 1600-3200, the noise is impossible to remove even with dedicated noise reduction software without killing all fine detail. One characteristic which seems odd to me is some chroma noise which looks like multicolored large dots, really large like 5-10 pixel diameter one dot can cover some important detail in a shot like an eye or a nose in a group shot.

I would certainly use this camera at higher ISO for personal use, but for paid jobs I would not go above ISO 400. I have to say though that at ISO 100-200, the colors this camera gives me is so satisfyingly rich and deep that this alone makes me forgive the abysmal high-ISO. I have always done paid jobs on a tripod and lowest possible ISO anyway.
 

douglasf13

New member
A few things. Firstly, this camera tends do underexpose. Search "uniwb" on the dpreview Sony DSLR Forum, and that'll show you how to get a proper histogram in camera. Also, don't shoot in jpeg, and don't use Adobe or Sony IDC. C1, RAW Therapee, RPP, and Aperture are much better at higher ISO, and the A900 will be similar to the competition at ISO 800 with these raw converters. If I remember correctly, I read that you're using IDC, which is about the worst thing out there.

Also, if you use one of the better converters like raw therapee, you can try not shooting over ISO 400, and then boosting exposure in post. Many are finding this brings better results.
 

deepdiver

New member
Yes, never shoot JPG for high iso on A900.
it's really bad.
To be honest i never use JPG when I'm shooting with it :D :D
 

jonoslack

Active member
HI Edward
Duncan took the words out of my mouth . . . only he put it better than I could.

I have setting three on:

auto-iso
auto-wb
+1 stop exposure

Then I use Aperture to process raw files - 3200 is still useable, although of course it isn't in the same league as the D3/D700. On the other hand, if your subject isn't dashing about, the in body IS makes up a bit more ground

The exposure is the critical thing though - on the D3 I used to underexpose by 1/3 in good light and leave it even in poor. on the A900 I leave it even in good light, then up to a stop overexposure as the light gets worse.

And ACR is dreadful with it (so bad that one wonders whether someone has persuaded Adobe to do it badly!).
 

edwardkaraa

New member
Thanks for your very helpful replies.

In fact, I only shoot raw, never jpg. I have tried so far ACR and C1 but found the overall look to be better with IDC. That's why I'm willing to put up with its slowness until I find something better. I tried today Bibble 5 but it doesn't work on my machine. It seems RPP is the best A900 converter on the market, but it works only with Mac :(

Anyway, if I understand it correctly, the approach of Sony is really commendable and is similar somewhat to the MFDB approach with better color filters on the sensors leading to better color separation and depth, and inevitably more noise, while other manufacturers are going for lighter filters and better high Iso performance on the expense of color quality. Being basically a low ISO shooter, I much prefer the A900 approach, and I have to say that I like A900 colors much more than with previous brands.

Btw, how would you rate raw therapee?
 
Last edited:

jonoslack

Active member
Anyway, if I understand it correctly, the approach of Sony is really commendable and is similar somewhat to the MFDB approach with better color filters on the sensors leading to better color separation and depth, and inevitably more noise, while other manufacturers are going for lighter filters and better high Iso performance on the expense of color quality. Being basically a low ISO shooter, I much prefer the A900 approach, and I have to say that I like A900 colors much more than with previous brands.
Ah - so it isn't just my subjective feeling - I love the colour, I've only had a couple of cameras before with colour anything like as good . . . Olympus E1 and Kodak 14/n, and of course, both of those were subject to noise.

Every time I open an A900 file it gives me a little buzz all over again, they're just so . . . erm . . NICE!
 

Lars

Active member
Anyway, if I understand it correctly, the approach of Sony is really commendable and is similar somewhat to the MFDB approach with better color filters on the sensors leading to better color separation and depth, and inevitably more noise, while other manufacturers are going for lighter filters and better high Iso performance on the expense of color quality. Being basically a low ISO shooter, I much prefer the A900 approach, and I have to say that I like A900 colors much more than with previous brands.
That's a very interesting comment... How do the sensor color filters differ on MF, more narrow spectrum?
 

edwardkaraa

New member
I'm no expert on the matter, but from reading several threads about this, it seems that recent models of the most popular manufacturers have lighter more transparent RGB filters which reduce the noise considerably, but with the disadvantage of reduced color separation and depth. It is the by-product of high-ISO race of who can produce the camera with the highest noisefree ISO. MFDB are designed for studio work and thus color quality is very important so the RGB filters are not tampered with. Sony has knowingly or unknowingly followed the same path with the A900. However, it might not be the same with future models because high-ISO is so important for many buyers.
 

edwardkaraa

New member
Ah - so it isn't just my subjective feeling - I love the colour, I've only had a couple of cameras before with colour anything like as good . . . Olympus E1 and Kodak 14/n, and of course, both of those were subject to noise.

Every time I open an A900 file it gives me a little buzz all over again, they're just so . . . erm . . NICE!
Exactly my feeling :)
 

jonoslack

Active member
I'm no expert on the matter, but from reading several threads about this, it seems that recent models of the most popular manufacturers have lighter more transparent RGB filters which reduce the noise considerably, but with the disadvantage of reduced color separation and depth. It is the by-product of high-ISO race of who can produce the camera with the highest noisefree ISO. MFDB are designed for studio work and thus color quality is very important so the RGB filters are not tampered with. Sony has knowingly or unknowingly followed the same path with the A900. However, it might not be the same with future models because high-ISO is so important for many buyers.
In which case isn't it lucky that they've made such a blindingly good camera this time around. I honestly can't see any good reason why I would want a different dSLR for a long time to come (now then, where have I heard that before!).
 
K

kelvin

Guest
I just downloaded Aperture 2, it won't open my Sony A900 RAW file. Did I do something wrong? Help.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I just downloaded Aperture 2, it won't open my Sony A900 RAW file. Did I do something wrong? Help.
Hi there
the RAW support is in the operating system - have you done all the updates?
Alternatively you can download the Adobe DNG converter, convert to dng and use those in Aperture.
 

Eoin

Member
I just downloaded Aperture 2, it won't open my Sony A900 RAW file. Did I do something wrong? Help.
Need a little more information to help, I presume your using Leopard (v10.5) but what I suggest you do is connect to the net then do a full software update (apple logo in your top menu bar, software update) allow the computer to do this a few times as some updates then require another update once they are installed. You'll eventually get the message your software is up to date.

AFAIK the support for the A900 is included in the digital camera raw update, I haven't been following in which release of the update it was included, but as a matter of course I install all the updates as they are available and the A900 works fine for me on Aperture v2.1.2
 
Top