Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 34 of 34

Thread: Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    142
    Post Thanks / Like

    Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

    Hi

    did anybody already compare side by side the Sony A900 with the Fuji X-Pro1 or X-E1 for high ISO noise and/or Dynamic Range?

    How much better is one against the other?

  2. #2
    Senior Member Show Performance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    851
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

    Yes, I have both an A900 and an X-Pro.

    I would say that the X-Pro has lower noise across all ISO ranges and better Dynamic Range. That said, the A900 is still excellent and gives you that FF look that the Fuji doesn't quite produce.

    I'll dig around for some samples.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Show Performance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    851
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

    A900 @ 400ISO


    Fuji @ 800ISO
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    142
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

    Thanks for the images.

    How would you compare the autofocus of the A900 vs x-pro1 (with latest firmware update)? Not for sports but for family snapshots indoors/outdoors and in the evening in restaurants/poor light? speed and accuracy?

  5. #5
    Senior Member Show Performance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    851
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

    Depends on the lens (for both cameras) but I would say the A900 is generally faster, the X-Pro (w/ new FW) more accurate.

    For what you describe, I would go with the X-Pro. The A900 is a beast and I love it but I only use it for paid jobs, the X-Pro gets the call for the everyday stuff. It really is a joy to use - especially if you have a pedigree in rangefinders or something like a Contax G1/G2.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    296
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

    I would say that the X-Pro has lower noise across all ISO ranges and better Dynamic Range.

    Now that grabs my attention..... any idea how come apart from it is newer technology?
    Last edited by lowep; 9th February 2013 at 08:55.

  7. #7
    Senior Member PenSon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    259
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

    One from Sony a900 with sony 24mm f2 at aperture 8 in a dark room.
    ISO 6400
    Used Define2 in photoshop standard values.



    One with Fuji xpro1 in same room with Fuji zoom 18-55mm at 18mm aperture 8.
    ISO 3200
    Used the same parameters in photoshop.



    Both pictures RAW files imported in Capture one v7.02.

    Fuji is the best but the Sony will make nice pictures too

    setup


    Trygve
    Last edited by PenSon; 9th February 2013 at 11:03.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Show Performance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    851
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

    Quote Originally Posted by lowep View Post
    I would say that the X-Pro has lower noise across all ISO ranges and better Dynamic Range.

    Now that grabs my attention..... any idea how come apart from it is newer technology?
    Sorry, I do not know the technical reasons beyond advanced sensor tech. The A900 came out what, 3-4 years ago?

    More interestingly, I would like to see a comparison of the A99 and X-Pro or X-E1. I think they would be very close. Makes me wish there was as FF X-Trans sensor. I plan on doing a comparison between the A900 and the X-Pro w/Speed Booster as soon as they release the C/Y model.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    296
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

    Wow Trygve, amazing what can be done in the dark with either of these beasts! Looking at the reds the Fuji seems to have got a little more exposure than the Sony image but am probably dreaming since as you point out the exposure was the same. What was the shutter speed and how do these files look at 100%?

  10. #10
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

    Quote Originally Posted by lowep View Post
    Wow Trygve, amazing what can be done in the dark with either of these beasts! Looking at the reds the Fuji seems to have got a little more exposure than the Sony image but am probably dreaming since as you point out the exposure was the same. What was the shutter speed and how do these files look at 100%?
    The A900 was @ ISO 6400, and the Fuji was 3200. How is that the same?

    -Marc

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    296
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

    good somebody is awake :sleep006:

  12. #12
    Senior Member PenSon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    259
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

    Both are high iso values and the pictures was taken just to show how well both performe at high iso values. (if you go to the right in EV)
    The exif info are in the pictures.

    Trygve

  13. #13
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

    Quote Originally Posted by Show Performance View Post
    Sorry, I do not know the technical reasons beyond advanced sensor tech. The A900 came out what, 3-4 years ago?

    More interestingly, I would like to see a comparison of the A99 and X-Pro or X-E1. I think they would be very close. Makes me wish there was as FF X-Trans sensor. I plan on doing a comparison between the A900 and the X-Pro w/Speed Booster as soon as they release the C/Y model.
    I currently have an A900 and A99 and could do a controlled test of same lens/same settings/same lighting to see what newer sensor tech brings to the party ... unfortunately I do not have a X-Pro or X-E1 to throw into the mix.

    -Marc

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    296
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

    I hope you do this Marc and it motivates more A900 & A850 owners to upgrade to the A99 leaving in their wake a slough of more affordable FF DSLRs with in-body stabilization and OVF, even if the IQ, AF, low light performance and lack of video of the legacy models is a little dated.

    The good thing about such a development is that it provides an affordable semi-professional entry point into the Sony A-mount system and a guaranteed upgrade path for the future that was not on offer for those who took the risk of buying into the Sony system when the A900 came out.
    Last edited by lowep; 11th February 2013 at 08:14.

  15. #15
    Senior Member Show Performance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    851
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    The A900 was @ ISO 6400, and the Fuji was 3200. How is that the same?

    -Marc
    I notice that too but if you look at my shots above, the Fuj is at 800 and the A900 @ 400. When I originally took the shots I was testing lenses, not ISO so they were not equalized.

    I was surprised to see how much cleaner and more detailed
    the Fuji shot is at 800.

    I'm curious Marc, do the A900 and A99 show much difference in noise at lower ISOs? I didn't look at them that closely before I returned my A99.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    296
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

    I'm a bit slow today. Why did you return your A99?

  17. #17
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

    Quote Originally Posted by Show Performance View Post
    I notice that too but if you look at my shots above, the Fuj is at 800 and the A900 @ 400. When I originally took the shots I was testing lenses, not ISO so they were not equalized.

    I was surprised to see how much cleaner and more detailed
    the Fuji shot is at 800.

    I'm curious Marc, do the A900 and A99 show much difference in noise at lower ISOs? I didn't look at them that closely before I returned my A99.
    I don't normally do these sorts of test as it opens one up to endless criticism ... but I'm interested myself ... I was about to sell my other A900, but there may be strong reasons to keep it ... I have a nice set of 58 flashes and pass through TTL radio system that works like a charm with the A900 ... so I use the lower ISOs when doing that.

    In the pair of images above, the DOF is different for each image which makes it hard to evaluate. I think the reds look nicer on the A900 shot and the cast shadow seems more neutral where the fuji green looks a bit nicer but the cast shadow seems a bit reddish.

    When I compare the A900 and A99 everything will be constant in order to see if differences in sensor development show up.

    -Marc

  18. #18
    Senior Member Show Performance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    851
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

    Quote Originally Posted by lowep View Post
    I'm a bit slow today. Why did you return your A99?
    I didn't care for the handling at all. I'm not sure if Sony has fixed it yet but when released the A99 had a very odd focus confirm synch problem that left me aggravated. Basically the AF confirm box and beep are out of synch. As I recall, when the camera achieves focus you will get a beep and then, a fraction of a second after, the AF confirm box will light up. I've never shot a camera that didn't have these two actions perfectly synchronized. Sure you could turn off the beep but then you would be shooting with a delayed visual confirmation. Pretty much inexcusable that Sony would release the A99 with such a basic flaw. Other DPI members have confirmed this behavior on their A99s.

    Also, I had several random lock-ups, and in general, did not like the shutter feel. The whole camera just felt like a big computer with several bugs that needed squashing, as compared to the A900 or any of the Canon or Nikon cameras that still feel like mechanical workhorses.

    And finally, the high ISO performance was a bit disappointing. As a low light concert shooter, I was expecting much more. In actuality, I didn't see much difference in high ISO performance over the A900. I had a hard time accepting what I was seeing but eventually did and sent the camera back. I wasn't surprised to later see that the DXO low light scores were so poor.

    These are my experiences, and I am not expecting others to feel the same or have the same expectations for the A99. I really, really wanted to love that camera and use the EVF to shoot my adapted C/Y lenses. Maybe after a few FW updates it will be closer to what I wanted but for now, I'm content to shoot the A900 (just picked up a dirt cheap A850 as a second body) and the X-Pro.

    Best,
    Chad

  19. #19
    Senior Member Show Performance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    851
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post

    In the pair of images above, the DOF is different for each image which makes it hard to evaluate. I think the reds look nicer on the A900 shot and the cast shadow seems more neutral where the fuji green looks a bit nicer but the cast shadow seems a bit reddish.

    When I compare the A900 and A99 everything will be constant in order to see if differences in sensor development show up.

    -Marc
    Marc, you aren't referring to my shots of the sage bush are you? The DOF is slightly different but we are evaluating noise and DR. The Sony is visibly noisier, even at 400, than the Fuji which is buttery smooth and clean at 800. And shot after shot, the Fuji is effortless in its presentation of wide DR compared to the effort I need to apply to the A900 files.

    I love both cameras and they are complimentary in the strengths and weaknesses they exhibit.

  20. #20
    Senior Member Show Performance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    851
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    In the pair of images above, the DOF is different for each image which makes it hard to evaluate. I think the reds look nicer on the A900 shot and the cast shadow seems more neutral where the fuji green looks a bit nicer but the cast shadow seems a bit reddish.

    When I compare the A900 and A99 everything will be constant in order to see if differences in sensor development show up.

    -Marc
    Reading your post again, I assume you are referring to the sage shot. Again, don't bother with colors and DOF, they are meaningless to a discussion on noise and DR. I could edit both those images to look identical in terms of color in post but that was not the exercise.

    Make sure you click on each to view them larger and then look at the noise and texture in the OOF areas of the Sony file, compared with how clean and smooth the Fuji file is.

    Chad

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    271
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

    Quote Originally Posted by Show Performance View Post
    Make sure you click on each to view them larger and then look at the noise and texture in the OOF areas of the Sony file, compared with how clean and smooth the Fuji file is.
    Well, if you really want to compare apples to apples, up rez the fuji files to 24mp and see what happens...
    SONY A900
    Always outnumbered, never outgunned.
    My Site|Facebook Fanpage|

  22. #22
    Senior Member Show Performance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    851
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

    Quote Originally Posted by Lonnie Utah View Post
    Well, if you really want to compare apples to apples, up rez the fuji files to 24mp and see what happens...
    Yup, did that. Also did it in reverse and reduced the A900 file. X-Pro still looks cleaner even though it was set at 800 compared to 400 on the Sony.

  23. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    142
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    ... I was about to sell my other A900, but there may be strong reasons to keep it ...

    -Marc
    Could you please explain this a little bit more? Did I oversee something on the rumor sites regarding new developments?

  24. #24
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

    Quote Originally Posted by Show Performance View Post
    Marc, you aren't referring to my shots of the sage bush are you? The DOF is slightly different but we are evaluating noise and DR. The Sony is visibly noisier, even at 400, than the Fuji which is buttery smooth and clean at 800. And shot after shot, the Fuji is effortless in its presentation of wide DR compared to the effort I need to apply to the A900 files.

    I love both cameras and they are complimentary in the strengths and weaknesses they exhibit.
    Sorry, no I was not. I was referring to the shots of the red can.

    I couldn't comment on your shots, they have different backgrounds ... more shadow in one compared to the other.

    That is the problem with trying to compare anything other than exact set-ups with no variable other than the cameras ... which is of course boring.

    It isn't easy to shoot available light shots even with similar cameras (A900 vs A99) using the same exact settings and the same lens ... I tried twice now and even using my Profoto modeling lights, the ambient introduced a slight variable when doing longer exposures @ ISO 100.

    -Marc

  25. #25
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

    Quote Originally Posted by 4711 View Post
    Could you please explain this a little bit more? Did I oversee something on the rumor sites regarding new developments?
    I explained some of the reasons in that post which has nothing to do with what may be coming or not ... I'd keep it mostly because of the proprietary hot shoe on the A900: I have a radio system with that mount built in, including a pass through TTL transmitter for on-camera fill, and multiple Sony flashes with that mount for off-camera use ... usually setting an ISO of 320 or less. That's like $1,500 worth of accessories that I use a lot in my paying work.

    Plus, the A900 has that great viewfinder with no distracting A99 image play-back (unless you turn all reviews off) ... yet the a900 still feeds the image to the LCD. It really is a nice compliment to the A99.

    I may still sell the A900 since my use/need/like of 35mm DSLRs is waining, and I really don't need two 35mm DSLRs.

    -Marc

  26. #26
    Senior Member Show Performance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    851
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    Sorry, no I was not. I was referring to the shots of the red can.

    I couldn't comment on your shots, they have different backgrounds ... more shadow in one compared to the other.

    That is the problem with trying to compare anything other than exact set-ups with no variable other than the cameras ... which is of course boring.
    -Marc

    Marc,

    It is the same background just a different orientation. If you don't take my word or can't see what is there in the file, that's fine, I'm not in the business of doing comparisons I just happened to have these recent shots on file and thought they might illustrate the answer to the OP's question. But I will say without question, based on what I see everyday in a variety of scenes, the X-Pro destroys the A900 in noise and DR.

    I knew this would be the case at higher ISOs but I am surprised at how well the X-Pro does at base compared to the A900.

    All that said, the A900 files are wonderful and the noise that is present is not offensive to me.

  27. #27
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

    Quote Originally Posted by Show Performance View Post
    Marc,

    It is the same background just a different orientation. If you don't take my word or can't see what is there in the file, that's fine, I'm not in the business of doing comparisons I just happened to have these recent shots on file and thought they might illustrate the answer to the OP's question. But I will say without question, based on what I see everyday in a variety of scenes, the X-Pro destroys the A900 in noise and DR.

    I knew this would be the case at higher ISOs but I am surprised at how well the X-Pro does at base compared to the A900.

    All that said, the A900 files are wonderful and the noise that is present is not offensive to me.
    I DO take your word for it ... I have to since I don't have a Fuji X-Pro and getting one is highly unlikely (I am a die-in-the wool Leica M user, and currently have zero interest in APSc sensors). It comes down to just how much aesthetic perceptions play in our own real world applications. More importantly what role the camera type plays since these are apples-to-oranges cameras.

    Frankly, I would hope a much newer camera/sensor would show some improvement in noise, and I've always liked Fuji's aesthetics ... however, I've never found any issue with the DR of the A900 ... in fact, it is one of the better mid-tone range the cameras of any I've used. The A900 is renowned for its color and mid-tone skewed response right out of the camera ... which is why I swapped out my Nikon D3X for the A900 and saved oodles of post time ... that, and getting those Zeiss AF lenses from a 16-35 to a 70-200 with a 1.4X extender plus some tasty primes.

    Personally, I'm far more interested in apples-to-apples comparisons to see how well the A900 stacks up in IQ verses the A99 ... both being 24 meg FF using the same optics ... because I will be using both on the same paying jobs.

    -Marc

  28. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    296
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

    how well the A900 stacks up in IQ verses the A99

    i have not tried either yet that leaves ample room for speculation an important consideration for any consumer about to fork out cash and of little use to anybody who has already done so

    I would guess the main difference is about $1500 + video + better low light performance minus (for stick in the muds) OVF. Please correct me if I am wrong about this.

    Whereas the main difference between the Fuji and the Sony oranges (forget about Apple for once) is most likely as Marc suggests how much juice can be squeezed from an APS-C sensor, how much gear you want to cart around and how much (for stick in the muds) you like rangefinders and/or hybrid EVF?

    Admittedly chemistry, old habits, lifestyle and the images you get out of any of these things may also have some significance

  29. #29
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

    Quote Originally Posted by lowep View Post
    how well the A900 stacks up in IQ verses the A99

    i have not tried either yet that leaves ample room for speculation an important consideration for any consumer about to fork out cash and of little use to anybody who has already done so

    I would guess the main difference is about $1500 + video + better low light performance minus (for stick in the muds) OVF. Please correct me if I am wrong about this.

    Whereas the main difference between the Fuji and the Sony oranges (forget about Apple for once) is most likely as Marc suggests how much juice can be squeezed from an APS-C sensor, how much gear you want to cart around and how much (for stick in the muds) you like rangefinders and/or hybrid EVF?

    Admittedly chemistry, old habits, lifestyle and the images you get out of any of these things may also have some significance
    All true enough.

    I just did a quick test between the A900 and A99 on tripod with fixed lighting using the same Zeiss 135mm (I locked the mirror up for the A900 shot which is not necessary with the A99). I only tested at ISO 6400 because I know the A900 is just dandy at ISO 100 to 800 where a vast majority of my work is done. To keep it short ... the A99 won hands down. Much cleaner/sharper pixel peeping detail, less noise and nicer looking noise, better color rendition with a surprising level of color fidelity for a higher ISO. I used the AWB for both cameras and the A99 was better there also.

    Another advantage of the A99 when shooting is apparent in that there is no mirror slap, so a bit lower hand-held shutter speeds are possible in conjunction with the steady shot.

    I personally do not think it is Luddism, or being "a stick in the mud" to prefer OVF especially one like the A900 has ... I do NOT like the image I just shot coming up in the EVF on the A99 even for 2 seconds, nor when shutting it off in the menu also losing the LCD preview. It is distracting and irritating when in the heat off shooting where you may shoot a quick series ... or do one shot and do a quick nano second review on the LCD. If there was one improvement that would make the EVF/SLTs more effective it would be the option to not have the preview in the viewfinder, but still immediately show up on the LCD.

    To me, and the way I shoot, this is one of the biggest practical shooting differences between OVF and EVF.

    -Marc

  30. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    271
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    I only tested at ISO 6400
    Personally, since about 90% of what I shoot is on a tripod, I could care less about ISO6400...
    SONY A900
    Always outnumbered, never outgunned.
    My Site|Facebook Fanpage|

  31. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    528
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    All true enough.

    I just did a quick test between the A900 and A99 on tripod with fixed lighting using the same Zeiss 135mm (I locked the mirror up for the A900 shot which is not necessary with the A99). I only tested at ISO 6400 because I know the A900 is just dandy at ISO 100 to 800 where a vast majority of my work is done. To keep it short ... the A99 won hands down. Much cleaner/sharper pixel peeping detail, less noise and nicer looking noise, better color rendition with a surprising level of color fidelity for a higher ISO. I used the AWB for both cameras and the A99 was better there also.
    Marc:

    I'm very interested in your ISO6400 comparison. I love the output from my A-850 but ISO 3200 (and even more so for 6400) is defintely a compromise. Would you say the A99 will give you available low-light capability where previously you needed flash? I've been thinking of adding a used Nikon D3S just to augment in this area.

    Regards,
    John

  32. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    296
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

    Quote Originally Posted by Lonnie Utah View Post
    Personally, since about 90% of what I shoot is on a tripod, I could care less about ISO6400...
    If 90% of what you shoot is on a tripod why not care less about about Sony threads and go for a MFDB system that will give you better IQ than any other camera?

  33. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    271
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

    Quote Originally Posted by lowep View Post
    If 90% of what you shoot is on a tripod why not care less about about Sony threads and go for a MFDB system that will give you better IQ than any other camera?
    Because I don't have unlimited funds like many on here.
    SONY A900
    Always outnumbered, never outgunned.
    My Site|Facebook Fanpage|

  34. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    296
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony A900 vs. Fuji X-pro - Noise and DR

    things change

    when I looked at this Imacon FlexFrame 4040 Digital Back on Fugi GX680 III with 125mm Lens up for sale on ebay just now the current bid was $850; the price will probably go up a bit before it is sold but probably not as high as the going rate for a current or recent DSLR

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •