Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 111

Thread: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

  1. #51
    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: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Perhaps I should have done that too (sent it in for calibration)- I'm only reporting my experience, and sophisticated AF is not my sphere of expertise.

    However, the fact that I DID get missed focus in simple situations (usually focusing on something behind the point in high contrast situations), Although it reflects my lack of skill in setting up the AF properly (I left it at defaults) is not necessarily simply my fault.

    Perhaps (like many other cameras) the autofocus should be foolproof out of the box, left at defaults; saying that you need to shoot 1000 images per weekend to learn to get it right doesn't actually prove me wrong.
    Only that specific D3 needed calibration, my previous D700 did not, nor does it seem the D3X does either, but I've yet to bench test it (this weekend's tech project before I use it at a wedding).

    Not saying anything is anyone's fault. With more sophisticated technical selections comes the requirement to properly select which is best for your application and learn to use it properly ... including practicing shifting the AF point around the viewfinder to avoid off-axis focus recompose errors which vividly show up with fast aperture longer lenses when used at max aperture.

    These cameras aren't made for a single application, or it would narrow down the potential of who would buy them. There are a number of things I automatically set on my wedding cameras based specifically on how I use them. I don't change them unless what I'm doing with them changes. I almost never use Program settings nor AF defaults which tend to use adjacent AF points to assist ... okay for smaller max aperture lenses usually that have some wiggle room from DOF, but not so with fast max apertures I tend to shoot with moving subjects where an adjacent AF assist may grab a higher contrast point behind the subject. Even with single point AF you do learn what to focus on and where the potential for miss focus may be. Really no different than if you were manually focusing using focus assist.

  2. #52
    Shelby Lewis
    Guest

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Marc,

    How are you getting on with the d3x? I have this nagging sensation that it would make the perfect companion to my a900... and while I have been looking at digital MF for a long time, the d3x still haunts me a bit. TBH, I've not seen many files from it that I really liked... especially after using the sony/zeiss combination.

    But the thought of having good servo-af, a t/s solution, and a wealth of high-performance flash options make it a compelling. If I knew I could get color/sharpness out of it like the a900 (which I bet you can get close), I'd move it to the top of my priority list (replacing MF for now).

    As far as af-assist... yet another reason why I think the a900 is still not aimed at serious event photography (at least in low-light). I loved with canon the ability to turn on the af-assist while leaving the flash off via custom functions. I've yet to find a similar function with the 58 flash/a900 combo. Especially seeing that there is no "on" choice in the menu when referring to the on-camera af assist (only "off" or "auto").

    I'm coming to grips with the af and I do "feather" the af button to try to keep good focus during processionals/recessions... but it just isn't speedy enough (for me) to offer consistent results.

    Yeah... and the 135/1.8 in combo with focus-recompose is a sharpness nightmare, lol.

  3. #53
    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: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Quote Originally Posted by Shelby Lewis View Post
    Marc,

    How are you getting on with the d3x? I have this nagging sensation that it would make the perfect companion to my a900... and while I have been looking at digital MF for a long time, the d3x still haunts me a bit. TBH, I've not seen many files from it that I really liked... especially after using the sony/zeiss combination.

    But the thought of having good servo-af, a t/s solution, and a wealth of high-performance flash options make it a compelling. If I knew I could get color/sharpness out of it like the a900 (which I bet you can get close), I'd move it to the top of my priority list (replacing MF for now).

    As far as af-assist... yet another reason why I think the a900 is still not aimed at serious event photography (at least in low-light). I loved with canon the ability to turn on the af-assist while leaving the flash off via custom functions. I've yet to find a similar function with the 58 flash/a900 combo. Especially seeing that there is no "on" choice in the menu when referring to the on-camera af assist (only "off" or "auto").

    I'm coming to grips with the af and I do "feather" the af button to try to keep good focus during processionals/recessions... but it just isn't speedy enough (for me) to offer consistent results.

    Yeah... and the 135/1.8 in combo with focus-recompose is a sharpness nightmare, lol.
    Well Shelby, I haven't had the D3X long enough to really say anything about it except that it's fast and uses all the stuff I already have. Plus it's exactly the same ergonomics as my D3 so there's very little getting up to speed.

    The first shots I did with the 14-24 were quite promising. Really nice color using 14 bit. Not plastic looking like my 1DsMKIII was. Let me shoot a wedding with it and I'll get back to you. I'm looking to get the 45 T/S after seeing some really cool wedding portraits done with that lens (I hate doing wedding portraits, so doing something with selective focus and live view interests me).

  4. #54
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    I'm betting that you may like the D3x's IQ even more for weddings, since it has slightly more DR than the A900, and the color separation on the A900 that I've gone on about (probably too much) is more of a foliage/landscape advantage, so the blue separation of the Nikon and Sony are similar, and skin tones should be roughly equivalent. The D3/D3x combo sounds like a dream wedding setup to me. I'm interested to hear your thoughts about how the "grain" of the Sony and Nikon cameras compare. We all know that the A900 has more of it, but I'm wondering if it's more "pleasing" like some say. I'm also looking forward to more pics, regardless of the camera used. -d

  5. #55
    Shelby Lewis
    Guest

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Quote Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post
    I'm betting that you may like the D3x's IQ even more for weddings, since it has slightly more DR than the A900, and the color separation on the A900 that I've gone on about (probably too much) is more of a foliage/landscape advantage, so the blue separation of the Nikon and Sony are similar, and skin tones should be roughly equivalent. The D3/D3x combo sounds like a dream wedding setup to me. I'm interested to hear your thoughts about how the "grain" of the Sony and Nikon cameras compare. We all know that the A900 has more of it, but I'm wondering if it's more "pleasing" like some say. I'm also looking forward to more pics, regardless of the camera used. -d
    Well, I can't speak for the d3x, but the one thing i dislike about the a900 is the chroma noise... the luminance noise is very nice imo, but the chroma is all blotchy.

    Sounds like I'm attacking the a900... but just being a bit critical.

    I love it!

  6. #56
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Yeah, that's apparently part of the trade off of Sony using those dense CFAs. What converter are you using?

  7. #57
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    I have been getting great results at high-iso by removing only the chroma noise and leaving the "grain". Much much better than my 1Ds2. Compared to what I've seen on the forums so far, the A900 smokes every other camera including the D3X in terms of high-iso quality (not low noise). The Nikon files are completely washed out and lifeless, and the Canons are smoothed out and plasticky. The A900 has the best high-iso image quality to date, grainy as it should be.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  8. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    280
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    62

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Quote Originally Posted by edwardkaraa View Post
    I have been getting great results at high-iso by removing only the chroma noise and leaving the "grain". Much much better than my 1Ds2. Compared to what I've seen on the forums so far, the A900 smokes every other camera including the D3X in terms of high-iso quality (not low noise). The Nikon files are completely washed out and lifeless, and the Canons are smoothed out and plasticky. The A900 has the best high-iso image quality to date, grainy as it should be.
    You mean you prefer this:

    Sony A900 3200 ISO 100% crop



    To this:

    Canon 5D Mk II 3200 ISO 100% crop



    Both processed in Raw Developer with the same settings - the same small amount of chroma noise reduced on both. Not seeing the plasticky Canon files everyone keeps talking about. I'd be happy to provide the raw files for both if you'd like to take a crack at them.

  9. #59
    Senior Member ryc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Or-Y-Gun
    Posts
    548
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Wow, tahts disturbing I better not shoot at 3200 ISO.

    How do you remove chroma noise only with LR and ACR?

    BTW, go out and watch the movie "Drag me to Hell" If your a fan of the Evil Dead series you will love it!

  10. #60
    Senior Member ryc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Or-Y-Gun
    Posts
    548
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    I could not do much with that jpg but I did get rid of some of that horrible noise. However, it still looks horrible.

  11. #61
    Senior Member ryc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Or-Y-Gun
    Posts
    548
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Well, most of my stuff is in good lighting and I don't need 3200 ISO. At lower ISO the camera performs well.

  12. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    280
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    62

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    It's fine at lower ISOs but I disagree with Edwards claim that it has better looking noise regardless of ISO.

    The noise on all of these 20+ Mpix looks reasonably good up to a point due to the very small pixel size but the more noise A vs B has the worse it will look. No getting around that fact because with more noise you lose more fine detail as shown above. Well, there is one exception and that is if you start getting pattern noise like banding which we perceive much more easily.

    And with respect to the Nikon I haven't used a D3X but if every other Nikon that I've used is any indication the reason the files look washed out and lifeless at higher ISOs is simply due to the approach Capture NX 2 takes to suppress noise, not anything in the underlying file. Use another raw developer and you will see a very different outcome.

    Come on guys, these are all great tools. The fact is they simply have different strengths and weaknesses, nothing wrong with that.

  13. #63
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    carstenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Interestingly, if you downsize the two crops of the branch to 50%, a better test for what it would look like printed (and let's face it, when else do you need the full resolution?), then they look very similar, with the A900 having a tad more detail and a tad more definition in dark areas. There is still some large blotching, but they are much closer. The A900 crop is a touch lighter in general, so darkening it a little would bring them even closer.

    I am not saying the A900 is as good as the 5D2 in dark situations at high ISO, but the difference in real-world terms is much smaller than a 100% crop would lead one to believe. In fact, it is so small that at least for me it would not be a decisive factor in choosing between the two. And I expect the situation at ISO 1600 to be even better.
    Carsten - Website

  14. #64
    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: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Quote Originally Posted by carstenw View Post
    Interestingly, if you downsize the two crops of the branch to 50%, a better test for what it would look like printed (and let's face it, when else do you need the full resolution?), then they look very similar, with the A900 having a tad more detail and a tad more definition in dark areas. There is still some large blotching, but they are much closer. The A900 crop is a touch lighter in general, so darkening it a little would bring them even closer.

    I am not saying the A900 is as good as the 5D2 in dark situations at high ISO, but the difference in real-world terms is much smaller than a 100% crop would lead one to believe. In fact, it is so small that at least for me it would not be a decisive factor in choosing between the two. And I expect the situation at ISO 1600 to be even better.
    Yet, in reality it will be much worse even at ISO 1000.

    As Irakly constantly reminds me, you don't normally shoot ISO 1000 to 2000+ in nice light.

    The real-world test is ugly light, or very contrasty light with fall off in the shadows.

    I have pals that use the Canon 5DMKII ... and while it's not my cup of tea, I cannot fault it's performance at the higher ISOs. IMO the only better low light camera is the Nikon D700/D3 at the cost of resolution. But as you say, how often do you really need that kind of resolution ... which landscape shooters may disagree with, but I wouldn't for my wedding work which is 80% 8'X10" prints.

    Properly used (AKA, sparingly), Nik Define 2 is the A900s best friend.

  15. #65
    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: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Seitz View Post
    It's fine at lower ISOs but I disagree with Edwards claim that it has better looking noise regardless of ISO.

    The noise on all of these 20+ Mpix looks reasonably good up to a point due to the very small pixel size but the more noise A vs B has the worse it will look. No getting around that fact because with more noise you lose more fine detail as shown above. Well, there is one exception and that is if you start getting pattern noise like banding which we perceive much more easily.

    And with respect to the Nikon I haven't used a D3X but if every other Nikon that I've used is any indication the reason the files look washed out and lifeless at higher ISOs is simply due to the approach Capture NX 2 takes to suppress noise, not anything in the underlying file. Use another raw developer and you will see a very different outcome.

    Come on guys, these are all great tools. The fact is they simply have different strengths and weaknesses, nothing wrong with that.
    I have agree with you Greg.

    "One size fits all" doesn't apply to camera gear. Use the tool for it's strengths, and avoid it's weaknesses.

    IMO, the only wide range ISO, high meg camera on the market today is the Canon 5D-MKII. But it's a compromise through out that range ... with cameras like the A900 and D3X being better at lower ISOs, and the D700/D3 being better at high ISOs. But for a single camera solution the 5D-MKII comes the closest.

    My preference is a 2 camera solution with less compromises for their intended use.

  16. #66
    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: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Quote Originally Posted by Shelby Lewis View Post
    Well, I can't speak for the d3x, but the one thing i dislike about the a900 is the chroma noise... the luminance noise is very nice imo, but the chroma is all blotchy.

    Sounds like I'm attacking the a900... but just being a bit critical.

    I love it!
    Personally, I don't think you are being critical Shelby ... you're simply defining the perimeters of use. It's sound judgement based on real-world experiences rather than fanciful wishfull thinking in some ill concieved attempt to justify a purchase decision, or whatever motivation that leads to unrealistic performance claims on the internet.

    I don't drag out my Hasselblad H3D-II/39 to shoot stuff it wasn't designed for either.

    Fact is, for most people, in most situations, the A900 is a stellar performer ... maybe the best solution for the money available today given the resolution, SSS and the Zeiss AF optics. Can't fault enthusasism for that.

  17. #67
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    Personally, I don't think you are being critical Shelby ... you're simply defining the perimeters of use. It's sound judgement based on real-world experiences rather than fanciful wishfull thinking in some ill concieved attempt to justify a purchase decision, or whatever motivation that leads to unrealistic performance claims on the internet.

    I don't drag out my Hasselblad H3D-II/39 to shoot stuff it wasn't designed for either.

    Fact is, for most people, in most situations, the A900 is a stellar performer ... maybe the best solution for the money available today given the resolution, SSS and the Zeiss AF optics. Can't fault enthusasism for that.
    I quite agree - pretending it's something it isn't (i.e. a fast autofocusing, low light, speed demon) belittles the thing's it IS good for - i.e. good light, fantastic lenses, lovely files.

    I have to shoot a concert in a church tonight, and I have a couple of weddings at the end of the month, I'll make the A900 work for me (together with the M8's) , and the 135 f1.8 will certainly help this evening, but I'd rather be using a D700 (at least for the concert). I don't do enough of this kind of stuff to warrant having a separate system, and the A900 is better for what I do most of, but I don't have any illusions that it (or any other system) is going to be the best for everything.

    Just this guy you know

  18. #68
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Seitz View Post
    You mean you prefer this:

    Both processed in Raw Developer with the same settings - the same small amount of chroma noise reduced on both. Not seeing the plasticky Canon files everyone keeps talking about. I'd be happy to provide the raw files for both if you'd like to take a crack at them.
    Georg,

    When I first saw your files, I thought the second one was from the A900, as this is what I usually get at iso 3200 processed in IDC with NR off and then removing the chroma noise only in noise ninja. I am not sure if this particular to raw developer, but I definitely do not see any of my high iso files looking like this. In any case, similar settings do not give fair results as files of different cameras require different settings on the same converter.

    I would be very interested to have a look at the A900 raw file if possible.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  19. #69
    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: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Quote Originally Posted by edwardkaraa View Post
    I have been getting great results at high-iso by removing only the chroma noise and leaving the "grain". Much much better than my 1Ds2. Compared to what I've seen on the forums so far, the A900 smokes every other camera including the D3X in terms of high-iso quality (not low noise). The Nikon files are completely washed out and lifeless, and the Canons are smoothed out and plasticky. The A900 has the best high-iso image quality to date, grainy as it should be.
    Well, hate to burst that bubble ... but preliminary tests I just did to get up to speed on the D3X is pretty much in conflict with everything you say here.

    Did 20 different side-by-side shots with both cameras using the 85/1.4 lenses from each system (a disadvantage for the Nikon given that the 85/1.4 isn't the sharpest knife in the Nikon drawer : -) . Used different real life lighting scenarios (from crappy to okay), and different ISOs. Here are some high ISO shots ... where, contrary to internet chatter, the D3X smokes the A900 hands down ... and these are examples where the scenarios favored the A900, so it did a little better than it did on others.

    Didn't do much of anything to any of the files except crop in on them ... while I compared and inspected them in C1, I processed them in CS4 ... in C1 the Nikon comparatively does even better especially in the shadow noise. I did note that the noise structure itself is almost identical between the two cameras (no surprise there since it's the same sensor maker). Color out of the cameras was pretty similar ... with the Nikon a bit more true to the actual subject ... in other words, leaning towards a more neutral feel.

    I'd say, at the higher ISOs, the D3X will respond to Nik Define-II better than the A900 because the noise is less blotchy.

    One odd thing I noted was how each slightly differed in metered values when using aperture preferred. So to even the playing field, I metered manually. That way, all the camera settings were identical.

    I'd say that for my applications and use, the D3X is the best 35mm DSLR available today. Now, that doesn't take anything away from the A900 given the price and feature set, or someone else's application criteria.

  20. #70
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N.S. Canada
    Posts
    2,010
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    That D3x kicks out a nice file...

  21. #71
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    280
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    62

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Quote Originally Posted by edwardkaraa View Post
    Georg,

    When I first saw your files, I thought the second one was from the A900, as this is what I usually get at iso 3200 processed in IDC with NR off and then removing the chroma noise only in noise ninja. I am not sure if this particular to raw developer, but I definitely do not see any of my high iso files looking like this. In any case, similar settings do not give fair results as files of different cameras require different settings on the same converter.

    I would be very interested to have a look at the A900 raw file if possible.
    Sure, here you go, this contains the Sony and Canon raw files:

    http://www.mediafire.com/file/mdmq2r...0-5D2-3200.zip

    Thanks,

    Greg

  22. #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    280
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    62

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Marc,

    Thanks for showing those. I'd say based on the relative differences I've been seeing and the same that you've shown you might be able to infer that the 5D2 and the D3X would be very close indeed in the upper ISO range and there is certainly plenty of evidence that shows the D3X is cleaner at low ISOs. Now where is that D700X?

    Thanks,

    Greg

  23. #73
    Senior Member ryc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Or-Y-Gun
    Posts
    548
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Well. tobe straight forward based on what I am seeing, the a900 is only good to about 800 and maybe 1600. Maybe if Sony ever decided to release a firmware update, it might address the noise issue.

  24. #74
    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: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Quote Originally Posted by robmac View Post
    That D3x kicks out a nice file...
    Yep, and I just started working with the files. I'm sure there's more in there ... just takes time.

    No matter what, it has to be a simple processing proceedure .... 500 files from a wedding dictates that can't be some complex ordeal ... I just don't have the time to "noise control" every freaking shot from a dark reception hall. Which is why I kept the D3 to work with the D3X.

    Still love the Sony ... my Summer-time camera ...

  25. #75
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    165
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Thanks for posting all these high iso comparison shots between the A900, D3x and 5d2 as it is nice to know and see the differences in a fair way. There is no doubt that the D3x is doing a lot of noise removal in camera even on the RAW file which I don't like because I would prefer to do the noise removal in post with noise-ninja and have choices in the tradeoff between losing detail and removing noise. It would be interesting if you ran noise-ninja on the 5d2 and A900 files to see how they compare to the D3x file on the same scene with lots of tiny detail. The candlestick shot only has detail in the candlestick holder part of the picture and the rest of the picture doesn't have alot of fine detail. Maybe D3x's noise removal "secret sauce" is better than programs like noise-ninja but I am sceptical till I see a comparison shot done like I mention above.
    Also, can't you just batch run the 500 pictures through noise-ninja, don't know how long that would take so maybe that is not an option if you need fast turn around.

  26. #76
    Shelby Lewis
    Guest

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Just thought I'd add that I don't think the a900 is terrible at 3200... great, no.... terrible, no. It's just not up to the standards we're all coming to expect. However, at moderate print sizes 3200 is actually quite usable. You HAVE to take resolution into account.

    An example.

    100% crop... not beautiful for sure:


    but at roughly 5x7 or 8x10 it would be just fine in print... this is only resized and corrected (somewhat) for color with color noise reduction in (gasp) ACR ... but you HAVE to expose correctly... and I think RD's detail retrieval is actually detriment to the a900 in high-iso situations as it make grain overly sharp and apparent:


    Headin' out to shoot... later.
    Shelby

  27. #77
    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: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Quote Originally Posted by wayne_s View Post
    Thanks for posting all these high iso comparison shots between the A900, D3x and 5d2 as it is nice to know and see the differences in a fair way. There is no doubt that the D3x is doing a lot of noise removal in camera even on the RAW file which I don't like because I would prefer to do the noise removal in post with noise-ninja and have choices in the tradeoff between losing detail and removing noise. It would be interesting if you ran noise-ninja on the 5d2 and A900 files to see how they compare to the D3x file on the same scene with lots of tiny detail. The candlestick shot only has detail in the candlestick holder part of the picture and the rest of the picture doesn't have alot of fine detail. Maybe D3x's noise removal "secret sauce" is better than programs like noise-ninja but I am sceptical till I see a comparison shot done like I mention above.
    Also, can't you just batch run the 500 pictures through noise-ninja, don't know how long that would take so maybe that is not an option if you need fast turn around.
    I have the advantage of viewing the full screen shots, and the D3X isn't losing detail at High ISOs ... the wick in the candle shot is just as detailed as in the A900 shot.

    When you take the file waaaaay up there isn't any more mushy pixels than there is in the A900 shots at lower ISOs.

    My intention isn't to use the D3X for high ISO work ... I have a D3 for that. But it's good to know what the boundries are just in case.

    The ISO 800/1000 files from the D3X are really very good. Which is an important ISO for my work.

    No, applying some noise reduction program wholesale is not an option. It just smashes the pixels unless it's applied sparingly and selectively. A couple of problem files, sure ... a whole batch ... nope.

  28. #78
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    Well, hate to burst that bubble ... but preliminary tests I just did to get up to speed on the D3X is pretty much in conflict with everything you say here.
    Marc, you didn't burst any bubble. I have never claimed the A900 had less noise. Still to my eyes, your A900 files look better, they just need a slight touch of chroma noise reduction. I understand the misunderstanding, you are looking for noise free files, for me noise by itself is not the criteria to judge a file's quality. Once chroma noise is removed, I actually like the luminance noise because it looks like film grain. As you have seen, Shelby is adding film grain to many of his wedding shots to make them look real.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  29. #79
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    My version (by the way, whatever lens you used on the Canon, it seems sharper in the corners than the ZA 24-70 at 70mm )

    Edit: Sorry the photo seems to have been automatically downsized when uploaded to the post.

    Attachment 17667

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Seitz View Post


    Sony A900 3200 ISO 100% crop



    To this:

    Canon 5D Mk II 3200 ISO 100% crop



    Both processed in Raw Developer with the same settings - the same small amount of chroma noise reduced on both. Not seeing the plasticky Canon files everyone keeps talking about. I'd be happy to provide the raw files for both if you'd like to take a crack at them.
    Last edited by edwardkaraa; 15th March 2011 at 09:53.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  30. #80
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Here is IDC vs. DPP:



    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  31. #81
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Jorge, a firmware upgrade won't put a weaker CFA into the A900, and, apparently, that's the main issue with the A900's high ISO. We just have to take the good with the bad in all of these cameras, now that choosing only one is like committing to a single type of film.

    That being said, Iliah Borg has mentioned that he is testing a simulation of a channel preconditioning algorithm that gives the A900 equal to or greater DR than his D3x cameras, but who knows if Sony will implement such a thing in a firmware update?

  32. #82
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    280
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    62

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Quote Originally Posted by edwardkaraa View Post

    Edit: Sorry the photo seems to have been automatically downsized when uploaded to the post.

    Attachment 17667
    I think the directly attached files are resized to 900 pixels but if you post in your gallery you can link in a larger one up to 1200 pixels if I'm not mistaken.


    Quote Originally Posted by edwardkaraa View Post
    My version (by the way, whatever lens you used on the Canon, it seems sharper in the corners than the ZA 24-70 at 70mm )
    Oh no, don't tell Jono that, he still thinks I'm hiding something.

  33. #83
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Here are 2 different crops, again IDC vs DPP:



    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  34. #84
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Seitz View Post

    Oh no, don't tell Jono that, he still thinks I'm hiding something.
    lol now that he's got his 24-105 I don't think he would mind. By the way, I think the photos are either focused at a different plane, or the field curvature is in play, as you can see in the 2nd crops.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  35. #85
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    280
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    62

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Edward,

    I'm not seeing the crops.

    Thanks,

    Greg

  36. #86
    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: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Quote Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post
    Jorge, a firmware upgrade won't put a weaker CFA into the A900, and, apparently, that's the main issue with the A900's high ISO. We just have to take the good with the bad in all of these cameras, now that choosing only one is like committing to a single type of film.

    That being said, Iliah Borg has mentioned that he is testing a simulation of a channel preconditioning algorithm that gives the A900 equal to or greater DR than his D3x cameras, but who knows if Sony will implement such a thing in a firmware update?
    That would be cool. Fingers crossed.

  37. #87
    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: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Quote Originally Posted by edwardkaraa View Post
    Marc, you didn't burst any bubble. I have never claimed the A900 had less noise. Still to my eyes, your A900 files look better, they just need a slight touch of chroma noise reduction. I understand the misunderstanding, you are looking for noise free files, for me noise by itself is not the criteria to judge a file's quality. Once chroma noise is removed, I actually like the luminance noise because it looks like film grain. As you have seen, Shelby is adding film grain to many of his wedding shots to make them look real.
    Okay, you like what you like.

    One correction, I am NOT looking for noise free files. What I do not want are blotchy backgrounds that prevent certain types of B&W conversions, nor noise with streaks in it. THAT does not look like film grain ... it looks like digital noise. I still shoot film, I know what film grain looks like ... and that ain't it.

    Enough already.

    Let's all enjoy our Sony's and share ways to improve the files ... which is a thread I started weeks ago. Always open to ways to make it better.

    Am doing the same with the D3X files. Equal time, and all that.

  38. #88
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Seitz View Post
    Edward,

    I'm not seeing the crops.

    Thanks,

    Greg
    Sometimes direct linking to pbase doesn't work for some strange reason.

    Attachment 17680

    Attachment 17681
    Last edited by edwardkaraa; 10th April 2011 at 09:17.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  39. #89
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    165
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Marc,

    Is it possible you upload some of the raw files for these high iso test comparison shots of the D3x and the A900 along with low iso comparison shot so I can see that all the detail is till there in the high iso shots?

    I assume you were enabling the 14bit mode in the D3x when you took these shots, do you take any with it disabled. I just would like to see the difference that mode makes to the files since I have read here that the mode reduces the fps to 1/2 of normal and that maybe the camera is reading the sensor twice to reduce noise.

    Just would like to better understand all the tradeoffs each of these fine cameras make. Also, if you could post an example of a plastic 1ds3 shot like you mentioned earlier I would like to see it. TIA

  40. #90
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    180
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    I have also found when using c1 on the a900 high iso images to crank up the color noise reduction in c1 while turning the luminance down almost all the way.. this works good on several high iso images i have experimented with

  41. #91
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Bill Caulfeild-Browne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, Canada
    Posts
    2,535
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    184

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    toddbee, I agree - see my ISO 1600 image of the ferry in the Fun Pictures thread yesterday. The Luminance was way down, but the Color was at 90%. (In C1 only because it looks awful in LR!)
    Bill

  42. #92
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    180
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    bill,
    i have been playing with them in c1 and have to say there is a learning curve to tame the noise at higher iso's. but once you get the hang of it, i feel the noise can be squashed considerably. i feel with the a900 raw files, there is more post work to make them sing at higher iso's. i have also been turning down the default NR in c1 raw conversion at low iso's and it seems to add even more resolution then the already amazing files. i also have toyed with raw developer and have to say it does extremely well at handling the files too.

  43. #93
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    28
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    I didn't visit this thread for a while. Lotsa activity.

    In my field of work, to prevent these kinds of exchanges that tend to fragment care, we resort to randomized controlled trials. RTC's, must as a prerequisite, have an adequate sample size (computed statistically) in order to be significant.

    The anology being, if you could do this in all of the disputed contentions in this thread, then I will skew my thoughts to the favorable opinion. Since these types of experiments are not deviced for photography because it is "art", which is a largely subjective field, then there is no final say on any matter, at least by a ANY single person.

    The only gripe I have is the heavy handed insistence that such and such are better (AF, built quality etc..etc..) where the only evidence shown are experiments that are not randomized, controlled, not free of confounders, and no statistical inferences. Even the tests done by dpreview although standardized does not have a control group, which makes them quasi experiments. Therefore results should be taken with a grain of salt.

    Forgive my respectful "insolence", but I take no ones experience with any camera as facts, they are all anecdotal. ALL. Same as the contention that having tested/owned all other cameras makes one's opinion "seem" authoritative.

    All of the points that were said here should be taken with a healthy amount of skepticism. I know this goes BOTH ways with whatever, sony or nikon, canon and the rest. At best these are all opinions. None is better than the other (emphasis added).

    We need to be scientific in assessing and also in providing the evidence to support our data. And let it stand there.

    Indeed, let us just enjoy the beauty and flaws of every camera that we have. It was a good debate both sides. There were no bashing. Lets just remember to be scientific.
    Last edited by docrjay; 12th July 2009 at 11:38.

  44. #94
    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: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Quote Originally Posted by docrjay View Post
    I didn't visit this thread for a while. Lotsa activity.

    In my field of work, to prevent these kinds of exchanges that tend to fragment care, we resort to randomized controlled trials. RTC's, must as a prerequisite, have an adequate sample size (computed statistically) in order to be significant.

    The anology being, if you could do this in all of the disputed contentions in this thread, then I will skew my thoughts to the favorable opinion. Since these types of experiments are not deviced for photography because it is "art", which is a largely subjective field, then there is no final say on any matter, at least by a ANY single person.

    The only gripe I have is the heavy handed insistence that such and such are better (AF, built quality etc..etc..) where the only evidence shown are experiments that are not randomized, controlled, not free of confounders, and no statistical inferences. Even the tests done by dpreview although standardized does not have a control group, which makes them quasi experiments. Therefore results should be taken with a grain of salt.

    Forgive my respectful "insolence", but I take no ones experience with any camera as facts, they are all anecdotal. ALL. Same as the contention that having tested/owned all other cameras makes one's opinion "seem" authoritative.

    All of the points that were said here should be taken with a healthy amount of skepticism. I know this goes BOTH ways with whatever, sony or nikon, canon and the rest. At best these are all opinions. None is better than the other (emphasis added).

    We need to be scientific in assessing and also in providing the evidence to support our data. And let it stand there.

    Indeed, let us just enjoy the beauty and flaws of every camera that we have. It was a good debate both sides. There were no bashing. Lets just remember to be scientific.
    While you are at it take note that no one here as far as I can see, no matter how adamant, has positioned anything other than being their experience and their opinion based on their needs and specific requirements.

    There are a few things that are specifically different and need not be scientifically proven ... like one camera being a single card shooting machine and another being able to shoot to two CFs at once. But even this is based on need ... real or perceived.

    Most of the rest is also need driven and functionally or artistically subjective. And as with all subjective art subjects can be and are often backed by passion.

  45. #95
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    28
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    And as with all subjective art subjects can be and are often backed by passion.
    Indeed my friend, indeed!

  46. #96
    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: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Quote Originally Posted by docrjay View Post
    I didn't visit this thread for a while. Lotsa activity.

    In my field of work, to prevent these kinds of exchanges that tend to fragment care, we resort to randomized controlled trials. RTC's, must as a prerequisite, have an adequate sample size (computed statistically) in order to be significant.

    The anology being, if you could do this in all of the disputed contentions in this thread, then I will skew my thoughts to the favorable opinion. Since these types of experiments are not deviced for photography because it is "art", which is a largely subjective field, then there is no final say on any matter, at least by a ANY single person.

    The only gripe I have is the heavy handed insistence that such and such are better (AF, built quality etc..etc..) where the only evidence shown are experiments that are not randomized, controlled, not free of confounders, and no statistical inferences. Even the tests done by dpreview although standardized does not have a control group, which makes them quasi experiments. Therefore results should be taken with a grain of salt.

    Forgive my respectful "insolence", but I take no ones experience with any camera as facts, they are all anecdotal. ALL. Same as the contention that having tested/owned all other cameras makes one's opinion "seem" authoritative.

    All of the points that were said here should be taken with a healthy amount of skepticism. I know this goes BOTH ways with whatever, sony or nikon, canon and the rest. At best these are all opinions. None is better than the other (emphasis added).

    We need to be scientific in assessing and also in providing the evidence to support our data. And let it stand there.

    Indeed, let us just enjoy the beauty and flaws of every camera that we have. It was a good debate both sides. There were no bashing. Lets just remember to be scientific.
    Actually, the more I think about this, it is a good subject to discuss further perhaps ... at least to better understand where people are coming from. Maybe it belongs in the Sunset Bar Forum ... but it's started here so ....

    Most of us rely on anecdotal experiences from people who's opinions over time have proven of value in the past. Often, these other photographers have subjective tastes similar to our own, or have offered technical solutions that worked to accomplish some specific task.

    Let's take out fearless leaders Jack and Guy for example. While my creative focus is quite different from either of these photographers, Guy often faces very similar real world demands ... so his anecdotal experiences are usually a good indicator that I would have similar experiences. Guy doesn't have to perform a controlled test monitored by MIT for his opinion to be of worth to me. So, it is specific to lining up your needs to others in similar conditions or demands.

    Jack has provided some invaluable technical advice, on and off forum, that solved specific issues I had communicated. Yes, some subjectivity here also, but not so much when it solves the issue at hand for a specific person and their specific needs.

    When people make some comment, heavy handed or not, I usually look at their work to determine what their tastes and creative focus may be. This tells me what criteria they are using to make their pronouncements ... often made with the authority of that very use and need. Anyone that takes anyone else's pronouncements as authoritarian should be intelligent enough to realize it is ALL subjective and fueled by the passion of their specific criteria.

    The desire to make it all scientific is a futile task IMHO. There are to many variables, which is what makes it art. It would be quite easy to challenge every single anecdotal comment or experience (in favor of or against) with a simple 2 word sentence ... "prove it!" This is of course impossible.

    People make this challenge all the time by referencing someone's work that aligns with their own tastes and creative prejudices. This is no more proof than citing the work of Raphael to challenge the work of Picasso ... then going on to cite the brushes and paints used by Raphael as superior to those used by Picasso ... and so on.

    I have used most of the cameras under discussion in this thread. It does not make me an authority on any of them EXCEPT where it impacts my own criteria and creative objectives. It is there that I am the authority. If I say I don't like such and such and say why ... it doesn't mean it will be true for one single other person on the planet. It is my "current" truth not a universal one. If someone is after similar objective or faces similar conditions, then that opinion may be of further value. Otherwise there would be no point to any discussion nor a need for any forum.

    I for one do not favor homogenization and have yet to find a single camera that accomplishes anything that pops into my head or covers all of the situations in which I must make photographs. What seems to have happened with digital is that most people have to make a single choice because it is so darned expensive to have more than one solution. So we make a choice that best fits our tastes and objectives ... then bristle about any comment that points out the short-comings ... asking for proof ... which again is the universal way to stop any experienced opinion dead in it's tracks.

    Your thoughts?

    -Marc

  47. #97
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    28
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Hmmmm....

    I am not trying to discount experience, there is value in it. But you cannot insist it to anyone. You must remember that experience is the lowest in the hierarchy of data. It is not to say its insignificant but its just a rough approximation of relative merit.

    The desire to make it all scientific is a futile task IMHO
    No sir, it is never futile, history and time has proven that. On the other hand the desire or to insist on being arbitrary and unscientific is. Especially when its whim is to be an "authority".

    My only message here is to be "reasonably rational" without demeaning others. Such a yardstick is noble than the certainty that one's opinion are the only ones that have the heaviest merit because of their experience and the gear that they have or had.

    I agree with a lot of what you said. I think you have the gist of what I am trying to say. I don't see the use of pursuing this further because it is unfair to the other forum members as well as the original poster. If you are pleased to have the final say then the priviledge is yours.

    But let me just end by saying that indeed asking for proof is the universal way to put opinion to its right place.

    Peace out.

  48. #98
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Quote Originally Posted by docrjay View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post

    The desire to make it all scientific is a futile task IMHO.
    No sir, it is never futile, history and time has proven that. On the other hand the desire or to insist on being arbitrary and unscientific is. Especially when its whim is to be an "authority".
    HI Doc
    Well, I am (I was) a Scientist, and I understand very well what you're saying about controlled trials and statistics. But I'm with Marc here.

    There is plenty of scientific information around with respect to photograpy - MTF tests Dxo figures, even dpreview's reviews are heading in that direction.

    But as far as I'm concerned they're completely useless, too many variables. Actually there two variables which are too many, and that is SUBJECT and SITUATION. It changes, and when it changes the whole pack of cards is up in the air again - of course, you can do tests on identical subjects (how about a row of bottles, or a teddy bear, or a resolution chart) - this may allow you to make scientific conclusions - but they're unlikely to be the same as those you would get in different lighting with a different lens under different conditions - and here's the rub - we don't all take pictures of the same thing!

    Obviously, we all like to like the things we bought - but I don't see much partisanship around this site, certainly less than any other photo site I've been to.

    Just this guy you know

  49. #99
    Senior Member nostatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    socal
    Posts
    1,037
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    Bringing science into art often leads to paralysis by analysis and hence, the death of art.

    That isn't to say that science isn't critical and shouldn't be brought to bear on the problems. But it is imperative that the forest not be lost for the pixel-peeping. In the end, technology isn't going to get the shot, a person is. And in the end, technology isn't going to view the image, a person is. Without context data has no meaning.

    And I'm a scientist (reformed) so I get to take potshots at my former self. :P

  50. #100
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

    it doesn't have to be art vs science: some like chicken, some halibut, some don't and some (me) like them both. oh yeah, my graduate training was in research physics

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
  •