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!

6400 ISO on the A900

jonoslack

Active member
HI There
Well, Quentin wanted to know, so here are some examples.
no noise reduction done (either in camera or not). I was careful not to under-expose, and I've corrected the White balance on the CD covers shot.








here's a crop of the last one:



All the above were taken in 'reasonable' light conditions - the last one was in a nasty dark corner:






Well, it isn't as good as the D700!
However, it's worth remembering with the crops, that these are 100%, and if you were looking at shots from the D3/D700 you would need to be looking at 150% (or something like it).
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hi Guy
Okay - here is 1600 ISO


there is a bit of camera shake on this 100% 'crop' (must be too much coffee)
but you get the point




 
V

Vivek

Guest
There isn't too much difference between the ISO1600 and the 6400 crops.

How is the base (ISO) noise, Jono?
 

jonoslack

Active member
There isn't too much difference between the ISO1600 and the 6400 crops.

How is the base (ISO) noise, Jono?
Hi Vivek
It's worth reinforcing that 100% crops aren't the same as Nikon 100% crops!

There are plenty of other crops around so that you can see the base ISO noise - there is some, unlike the Nikons . . . but then there is much more detail too (a lighter AA filter) so that a 100% crop from the Sony shows more detail, and more noise, than a 100% crop from the D3/D700
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Jono, I asked about the base noise for the given scene and light (and similar exposures).

Seems to me, as with the high pixel density cameras (ie D300), if you expose correctly for one part you blow the other.

How the colors (particularly the greens) are held at high ISOs is fairly important. The ones that can not really handle high ISOs tend to populate it with overt reds.
 
A

asabet

Guest
... base ISO noise - there is some, unlike the Nikons . . .
Both ISO 6400 and ISO 1600 look good to me. As for the Nikons having no noise at base ISO, I wouldn't say that. When I process D700 files in Raw Developer, which is the only RAW processing app I use that truly seems to apply zero NR when NR is disabled, there is some noise at base ISO that becomes apparent with sharpening. There's even some chroma noise at ISO 200! It's just that one would never see it in Lightroom, Aperture, C1, or NX2. As proof, check out the noise (both luminance and chroma) in this full-res ISO 200 D700 snapshot from the other day (processed in Raw Developer with noise reduction disabled and subsequently sharpened in two stages using Nik Sharpener).

The only camera I've used where I can perceive zero noise at base ISO is the Sigma DP1.
 

jonoslack

Active member
HI Vivek

Jono, I asked about the base noise for the given scene and light (and similar exposures).
Okay, sorry, I missed that one, and I've done with testing for today!

Seems to me, as with the high pixel density cameras (ie D300), if you expose correctly for one part you blow the other.

How the colors (particularly the greens) are held at high ISOs is fairly important. The ones that can not really handle high ISOs tend to populate it with overt reds.
I was pleased with the colours in these shots - much better than I'd expected, and really perfectly realistic.

The pixel density on this chip is about the same as on the D300 (both Sony chips I believe, but I assume that this is the 'next generation').

I'm just printing out an A3 from one of these shots with some noise reduction applied, to see how it looks. (what a waste of ink!)

I'll report back.
 
A

asabet

Guest
Jono, would you mind sharing a couple high A900 RAW files with me? Perhaps one at base ISO and one at ISO 1600? I'd like to see how they look in Raw Developer with NR disabled. You can put them in this folder on my Box.net account. It requires signing up with Box.net, which I can assure you is quick/painless and won't lead to spam. The size limit there is 50MB per file, with no limit on # of files.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Hi Jono, Thanks a bunch for the reportage. My intention was not to burden you with more "tests". :)

Amin, No offense but why would you stick with the Raw Developer (and even recommend it to others) when it is clearly below par?

That reminds me that Jono did mention that a proper RAW converter for his A900 isn't available yet. So, the results could improve (already they are pretty good, Jono).
 

jonoslack

Active member
Jono, would you mind sharing a couple high A900 RAW files with me? Perhaps one at base ISO and one at ISO 1600? I'd like to see how they look in Raw Developer with NR disabled. You can put them in this folder on my Box.net account. It requires signing up with Box.net, which I can assure you is quick/painless and won't lead to spam. The size limit there is 50MB per file, with no limit on # of files.
HI There Amin
I've already got a box.net account (completely forgotten, but I even remember the password!).

I'm uploading a couple of files right now (bit slow as son no 3 is downloading music at the same time).

I'm converting to DNG at the moment, so I'll upload a couple of DNG files, and then a 'proper' ARW file at 1600 ISO.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hi Jono, Thanks a bunch for the reportage. My intention was not to burden you with more "tests". :)


That reminds me that Jono did mention that a proper RAW converter for his A900 isn't available yet. So, the results could improve (already they are pretty good, Jono).
Hi Vivek
Testing isn't really my strong point - mind you, at least if you post tests here you don't get shot (as the messenger!).

At the moment I'm converting to DNG with the Adobe DNG converter and then using Aperture.

There is now full support for PS3 PS4 and Lightroom with ACR 4.6 which came out the other day - but I'm liking the Aperture standard dng conversion better (and it's less hassle).

Amin - maybe others would like to look at these files on your box.net account? I'm putting 5 or 6 up there
 
A

asabet

Guest
Amin, No offense but why would you stick with the Raw Developer (and even recommend it to others) when it is clearly below par?
Hi Vivek, no offense taken. I don't see RD as clearly below par, or I certainly wouldn't use it, much less recommend it. I've paid for a number of RAW processing apps and use more than one of them. I happened to show you a RD conversion that has NR disabled, but I could just as easily have shown you one with NR enabled. One of the great things about RD is that it gives you that flexibility, unlike most apps which add NR no matter what.
 
A

asabet

Guest
I'm uploading a couple of files right now (bit slow as son no 3 is downloading music at the same time).

I'm converting to DNG at the moment, so I'll upload a couple of DNG files, and then a 'proper' ARW file at 1600 ISO.
Thanks Jono!! Is there any change to the image characteristics in converting to DNG? I've never noticed any myself, but I thought I'd ask anyway.
 
Last edited:

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
Hi Jono,

Thanks for the ISO 6,400 tests. Looks pretty good - not quite D700, but good nonetheless.

I use auto ISO of the D700 quite a lot. It is quite addictive! However, the reverse of this is the Mamiya ZD, which I use for high resolution and tripod work, is not much good above ISO 100 - and the A900 has similar resolution (although one can argue that MF is different to smaller formats).

So, the A900 might be an ideal compromise - MF file size and decent high ISO performance.

What is left? Well, the D700 has great dynamic rancge when shot at 14bits. I can pull in blown skies from raw, for example, with ease. Also colour is superb at high ISO. so in a box ticking exercise, here is where I am:

1. High resolution - tick
2. Decent high ISO performance - tick
3. dynamic range - possibly a tick (based on Maitre Slacks previous comments...), but not yet completely convinced.
4. high ISO colour - probable tick
5. Great lenses - tick (albeit limited selection)

Quentin
 
A

asabet

Guest
Amin, No offense but why would you stick with the Raw Developer (and even recommend it to others) when it is clearly below par?
Hi Vivek, I'd like to add one more example to illustrate why I like Raw Developer. I've shown that it gives the option to essentially disable NR. On the other hand, it is flexible enough to function very nicely in a high ISO workflow. Please see this thread over at DPReview, which was an open invitation to process a D700 ISO 6400 file. Many folks tried their hand at the file, and you can see my entry using Raw Developer and Noise Ninja about 10 posts above the end of the thread. Comparing my entry to the others, I think RD, Aperture, NX2, LR, and C1 are all capable of similar high ISO results when used in tandem with other applications.
 
Top