A900 vs E3 vs M8 (which is which!)

[jonoslack]

Hi Jono,

We are (all) fine but a bit "weddinged out"

M Type Nikon as you rightly say. And if it matches expectations, I may well be interested. Business is fine, but who knows with this credit debacle?

Love an S2, but its still vapourware. But I guarantee we will *both* end up buying one though . You know it :ROTFL:

Quentin

Hmm - I'm SURE that you'll have an S2, not so sure that I will though (I might have to discuss it with Silas first, and I'm not sure that he'd approve!).

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Jono,

I think that scaling the extra resolution down to 900pixels is giving the A900 a natural sharpening effect - if you apply sharpening to the other two images it would be a more interesting comparison!

Just out of interest, how much would an A900 and a Zeiss 24-70 cost?

Kind Regards

Brian

Hi Brian
But surely if I did that it would simply be removing the 'advantage' of more pixels (which is already being greatly reduced by reducing the size . . . if you see what I mean).

I don't think there's much doubt that if you have the same size pixels . . . but twice as many, that's going to convey some benefit, whether it's worth the candle is another matter!

 

[Brian Mosley]

What *is* the advantage of those extra pixels when you're displaying your image on the web, or printing less than 20" wide?

You could arguably match the sharpness of the A-900 shot above by good sharpening of your M8 / E-3 images.

To be honest, the E-1 had enough resolution, good dynamic range and great colour for web display and medium sized prints...

I very rarely find the need to crop my images - I compose carefully.

Are there any advantages to shooting with the A-900, apart from shallow depth of field?

Kind Regards

Brian

 

[jonoslack]

What *is* the advantage of those extra pixels when you're displaying your image on the web, or printing less than 20" wide?

You could arguably match the sharpness of the A-900 shot above by good sharpening of your M8 / E-3 images.

To be honest, the E-1 had enough resolution, good dynamic range and great colour for web display and medium sized prints...

I very rarely find the need to crop my images - I compose carefully.

Are there any advantages to shooting with the A-900, apart from shallow depth of field?

Kind Regards

Brian

Printing - you can tell the difference on A4 sized prints (rather in the same way that if you remove the frequencies above 14khz from music somebody who can only hear up to 12khz can always tell the difference).

But of course the real answer is for doing big(ish) prints for landscapes - and of course, it gives you huge cropping potential (which may be useful if your lens doesn't go close enough or far enough).

 

[DavidL]

Time to sort yourself out Jono. You must wonder which camera to pick up theses days:ROTFL:
I've just been quoted prices on the Sony, for a colleague who is thinking of switching from Nikon D2X outfit. The Sony will fit alongside his leaf back as a more portable system. £1800 body £1100 24-70 Zeiss and £900 135 f1.8 Zeiss. Flash was £315 and grip £220 (I know you don't like them).
I'll go sony if I need more pixels. It's the Zeiss thing for those of us of more mature years. He's got a bag of Nikon stuff to trade in but that doesn't add up to much these days but at least this supplier does do trade in. However, he's like me just do the deal and get drunk can't be bothered with all the ebay hassle. If he does the deal I might be tempted to take his 12-24 f4 and the 70-180 macro is tempting, although I don't think I'd use it. I am sticking with D300's for press PR work.
Sony should put you on a retainer, your doing such a great job for them
Dave

 

[asabet]

Printing - you can tell the difference on A4 sized prints

A4 is an aspect ratio of ~1.4, which is closer to 3:2 than 4:3. However, even if we handicap the A900 by comparing vertical resolution only, the native vertical resolution of the A900 in an A4 print (8.3 inches in height) would be 4032/8.3, or 486 dpi. An E3 print would be 2736/8.3, or 330 dpi. Assuming that the two cameras have a similar per pixel sharpness, which is giving the E3 some credit, the difference between 486 dpi and 330 dpi is easily discernible to the human eye/brain. A nice illustration of this can be found here. In fact, with a good printer, one should even be able to tell an A900 print (486 dpi) from a medium format print (eg, 869 dpi) at print sizes as small as A4 and certainly at A3.

The big however is that viewing distance and DOF can all play significant roles in how the prints are perceived, as evidenced by Michael Reichmann's latest experiment with the P45+ and Canon G10.