• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Sony A900: Complete Review (DPR)

i will never understand why they compare noise using default jpeg settings. the nikons always come off looking muddy, and this sony looks like it's been oversharpened then muddied.


i hope the low contrast fine detail noise shot becomes part of their standard testing. i can't stand their little impressionist painting bottle label as a noise test.
 
Not a bad review, but I still don't get why they bitch about the extra MS Duo slot in there as a con. You can get 30mb/s MS cards for reasonable pricing that work great as an in camera backup in case you don't have a chance to swap out your main CF card. Other cameras in it's price class don't have any extra mem card options, so saying that a basic/limited option is worse than no option makes ZERO sense...

Other than that, thought it was a pretty good review. The thing that impressed me was the fact that they took the time to show that a high ISO RAW image from the Sony downsampled to the same 12mp resolution of the Nikon D700 showed nearly as good of performance in the noise department...

Yes, Sony's jpeg engine is a bit soft... However, their RAW results make up for it in my mind. The biggest area that really needs to be tested on all these higher resolution, FF cameras is printed results. Make 8x10, 13x19, and some standard poster sized prints at higher ISO's from these cameras and then tell me if noise is an issue. Sure, this adds some cost to the test but this is closer to reality and keeps people from trying to compare a 100% pixel peeped crop of a 24mp image to a 12mp image...

I would also like to see some attempt at standardized AF tests. I have no clue how to do this well across camera mounts because even 3rd party lenses often change features between mounts. However, when comparing focus speed and accuracy to other camera's within it's own mount, this info would be useful. The review stated good AF speed and accuracy but not the best, especially in lower light. Would like more info on that subject.

Anyway, what the review seems to state is that for some uses this camera is a class leader, for others, it's not. Landscape and Studio work, this camera seems to set some new standards. Sports and available light where higher ISO and AF in questionable lighting matters more, stick with the Nikons for now.

In the end, cool camera... Glad to see it out there, and glad to see that it's being recognized as a respectable camera, even if it's not the do all end all. No camera really ever is...

 
The point of this camera is MP. MP may not mean anything for some users but there're users who greatly benefit from it.
I, for one, would love to have higher MP cameras as long as the penalty is not crazy high as in compact cameras.
 
Originally posted by: Deadtrees
The point of this camera is MP. MP may not mean anything for some users but there're users who greatly benefit from it.
I, for one, would love to have higher MP cameras as long as the penalty is not crazy high as in compact cameras.
Click to expand...



What users are there that greatly benefit from it?

My D70 is 6. No issues printing to 18 X 20. Some issues cropping.

My D90 is 12. No issues printing to 20 X 30. No issues cropping.


I use high quality glass though.
 
Originally posted by: dnuggett
What users are there that greatly benefit from it?

My D70 is 6. No issues printing to 18 X 20. Some issues cropping.

My D90 is 12. No issues printing to 20 X 30. No issues cropping.


I use high quality glass though.
Click to expand...

you're at less than 150 dpi at 20x30. not exactly optimal. 300 dpi is considered the standard. you're at 1/4 of that.
 
Originally posted by: GrJohnso
Not a bad review, but I still don't get why they bitch about the extra MS Duo slot in there as a con. You can get 30mb/s MS cards for reasonable pricing that work great as an in camera backup in case you don't have a chance to swap out your main CF card. Other cameras in it's price class don't have any extra mem card options, so saying that a basic/limited option is worse than no option makes ZERO sense...
Click to expand...

Simple, they hate the fact Sony had to go introduce another format. And I agree. It's just peddling their memory format. They could have stuck an SDHC slot instead. And honestly, I don't see the point for two different memory types on a camera.

But with that said, it's more of a neutral item to me. I'm sure it cost them almost nothing to include it.
 
Originally posted by: randomlinh
Originally posted by: GrJohnso
Not a bad review, but I still don't get why they bitch about the extra MS Duo slot in there as a con. You can get 30mb/s MS cards for reasonable pricing that work great as an in camera backup in case you don't have a chance to swap out your main CF card. Other cameras in it's price class don't have any extra mem card options, so saying that a basic/limited option is worse than no option makes ZERO sense...
Click to expand...

Simple, they hate the fact Sony had to go introduce another format. And I agree. It's just peddling their memory format. They could have stuck an SDHC slot instead. And honestly, I don't see the point for two different memory types on a camera.

But with that said, it's more of a neutral item to me. I'm sure it cost them almost nothing to include it.
Click to expand...

Because two CF slots would be huge I guess. Anyway, one is usually a backup card, or jpeg only.
And Memory Sticks are why Sony will always be Sony, more proprietary bs.
 
True, the MS is like Beta that won't die... However, it's still better than nothing...

As for the camera's purpose, studio and landscape photographers who need/want high resolution without going medium format with expensive digital backs... If you are in a situation where you can control the light, setup the shot, and need the best detail possible, this camera rocks...

Anyway, looking forward to seeing more Canon 5dMkII field tests and reviews... It's just good seeing so many good options in this price range now. Nice to know you don't have to abandon format to get something good...
 
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: dnuggett
What users are there that greatly benefit from it?

My D70 is 6. No issues printing to 18 X 20. Some issues cropping.

My D90 is 12. No issues printing to 20 X 30. No issues cropping.


I use high quality glass though.
Click to expand...

you're at less than 150 dpi at 20x30. not exactly optimal. 300 dpi is considered the standard. you're at 1/4 of that.
Click to expand...


I hear ya. I get the optimal standards, but then there is real life (how it looks displayed). Looks great to those that have my shots. In the end, I'll go with real life results.


I do undertand that if you had your nose to a 20 X 30 shot with my D90 you may not be happy. Luckily no one I know does that.
 
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: dnuggett
What users are there that greatly benefit from it?

My D70 is 6. No issues printing to 18 X 20. Some issues cropping.

My D90 is 12. No issues printing to 20 X 30. No issues cropping.


I use high quality glass though.
Click to expand...

you're at less than 150 dpi at 20x30. not exactly optimal. 300 dpi is considered the standard. you're at 1/4 of that.
Click to expand...


I hear ya. I get the optimal standards, but then there is real life (how it looks displayed). Looks great to those that have my shots. In the end, I'll go with real life results.


I do undertand that if you had your nose to a 20 X 30 shot with my D90 you may not be happy. Luckily no one I know does that.
Click to expand...

If what you have serves you right, it's all good. But, don't think others feel the same.
There're many photographers out there who need a lot more MP than you do. It's really good to have 35mm option instead of having to go for MF.

With my 12.8 MP camera, I printed 50x75('real life' size of a 5'7 person with enough head/toe room) and the result was not good enough at all.
 
Originally posted by: Deadtrees
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: dnuggett
What users are there that greatly benefit from it?

My D70 is 6. No issues printing to 18 X 20. Some issues cropping.

My D90 is 12. No issues printing to 20 X 30. No issues cropping.


I use high quality glass though.
Click to expand...

you're at less than 150 dpi at 20x30. not exactly optimal. 300 dpi is considered the standard. you're at 1/4 of that.
Click to expand...


I hear ya. I get the optimal standards, but then there is real life (how it looks displayed). Looks great to those that have my shots. In the end, I'll go with real life results.


I do understand that if you had your nose to a 20 X 30 shot with my D90 you may not be happy. Luckily no one I know does that.
Click to expand...

If what you have serves you right, it's all good. But, don't think others feel the same.
There're many photographers out there who need a lot more MP than you do. It's really good to have 35mm option instead of having to go for MF.

With my 12.8 MP camera, I printed 50x75('real life' size of a 5'7 person with enough head/toe room) and the result was not good enough at all.
Click to expand...


I do think others feel the same, cause they do... I know them. We just don't know the same "others"...

There is a world of difference between a 20X30 and a 50X75! I would suspect I'd feel the same as you in that case.
 
Wow, the dynamic range RAW test is unbelievable.
All in all, a very solid straightforward small format DSLR, with enough resolution to almost match medium format.
Some small quibbles, but all in all congrats to the Sony engineers.
 
Originally posted by: dnuggett
What's the math that got you there on the D90? Image size is 4288X2848.
Click to expand...

4288/30 = ~143
2848/20 = ~142

to get to 300 dpi on both axes for 30x20 you're looking at 9000x6000. or 54 mp.
 
Wasn't too impressed with it, actually. Even in RAW mode, the high-ISO performance is disappointing, which is one of the reasons I bought a DSLR.
 
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: dnuggett
What's the math that got you there on the D90? Image size is 4288X2848.
Click to expand...

4288/30 = ~143
2848/20 = ~142

to get to 300 dpi on both axes for 30x20 you're looking at 9000x6000. or 54 mp.
Click to expand...

Depending on the subject and the method of printing 150 dpi can be perfectly acceptable. Portraits, for example, don't lose much going from 300 down to 150 on, say, a lightjet (similar to the old Iris prints).

Most photographic processes won't resolve much more than ~200 dpi, lightjets won't do much more than ~150.
 
What gets me the most is fine gradation and color. That's why I always regard Kodak DSLRs as the best even though they've all got some issues.
Too bad that Kodak doesn't not make DSLRs anymore and the rest of makers can't keep up with what Kodak has achived so many years ago.
To have that quality, MF seemed to the only way. Until now(Maybe).....

Sony was the last camera maker that I expected that quality and I'm seeing that Sony has improved so much in that area(I expected Fuji to get there first then Canon). Well, it's too early for me to draw a conclusion but upon seeing some user submitted pictures of A900, I'm just amazed. It's too early for me to draw a conclusion as I haven't seen enough pictures from various users but I hope it's real.

On the other hand, sure they need to work on noise control issues but if they really do provide that amazing gradation/color, I'm sold.

 
The 2 memory slots is better then one and a earlier person did point out that no other camera in it's 'price class' has two, so you at least have the option. Sure 2 CF slots would be better but a 4GB MS card isn't going to break the banks on a camera of that price.

It's a good camera but it's not going to touch a lower MP camera for high iso.

The 5D images are STONKINGLY good for a camera of 3yrs old?! Seriously good. If only camera had a FF with at least 5-6MP with a decent autofocus for sport that isn't f0cking huge ala 1 series style and with a flash...basically I want a D700 but uses Canon lenses!

Koing
 
Originally posted by: Deadtrees
What gets me the most is fine gradation and color. That's why I always regard Kodak DSLRs as the best even though they've all got some issues.
Too bad that Kodak doesn't not make DSLRs anymore and the rest of makers can't keep up with what Kodak has achived so many years ago.
To have that quality, MF seemed to the only way. Until now(Maybe).....

Sony was the last camera maker that I expected that quality and I'm seeing that Sony has improved so much in that area(I expected Fuji to get there first then Canon). Well, it's too early for me to draw a conclusion but upon seeing some user submitted pictures of A900, I'm just amazed. It's too early for me to draw a conclusion as I haven't seen enough pictures from various users but I hope it's real.

On the other hand, sure they need to work on noise control issues but if they really do provide that amazing gradation/color, I'm sold.
Click to expand...

Sony has been making sensors for a very long time. Not as long as Kodak, to be true, but long enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top