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!

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

4711

Member
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?
 
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.
 

4711

Member
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?
 
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.
 

lowep

Member
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:

PenSon

New member
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:
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.
 

lowep

Member
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%?
 

fotografz

Well-known member
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
 

PenSon

New member
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
 

fotografz

Well-known member
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
 

lowep

Member
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:
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.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
Top