Hi there, thanks for the update. Nice to see informed and unbiased evaluations of the s900.
I just had a couple of questions about the test conditions, or maybe I missed them? Mostly, are these test results raw conversions? or are they jpegs out of the camera? Also curious what lenses were used for each camera.
I find the a900 vs. a700 test most interesting, I've been looking for a controlled comparison of the two at higher isos. The fact that the a700 actually takes cleaner shots at higher isos leaves me believing that the noise out of the a900 is largely due to its processing - meaning it can be improved upon (and there's definitely room for improvement, even with raw).
Do you know what might have caused the different colours on the a700 though?
All test shots used each manufacturer's prime 50mm f/1.4 lens (Canon, Nikon, Sony/Minolta). Test conditions are in the test introduction, but all shots at at f/4 with shutter speed varied as ISO changes. This provides a constant depth-of-field. The tripod location was the same in all shots and a shutter timer was used to minimize camera shake.
As for the samples images on the last page we used the famous Minolta beer can (70-210mm f/4), a Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX Macro, a Minolta/Sony 24-105mm f/3.5-4.5, and a 50mm f/1.4 for the various shots. You can determine the lens from this list by looking at the EXIF data in each full-sized image.
We used the Tungsten WB preset for the test shots on all tested cameras. It seems clear that the A900 and A700 have a different color temperature default for Tungsten. ALL shots used camera defaults and in-camera JPEG processing. RAW is very useful in many situations, but with a new camera like the A900 which RAW converter is the best choice for processing is very much a question mark. A couple of PROs we know who are shooting the A900 in their studio use Capture One RAW conversion software.
As a semi-pro, I find Sony's images to be very soft. For a lens with an aperture capable of f/1.4, one would at least HOPE it would be sharp by f/4 or especially f/5.6. It is appropriate to offer a client a variety of images, including various crops. I would be ashamed if a $3,000 body and added glass could not deliver such capable images. Additionally, Sony's noise performance leaves much to be desired.
Granted, while lighting is by far the most important element of photography, sharpness/AF accuracy is among my top priorities as well. Although I am sure no Unsharpen Mask or High-pass sharpening was applied to any of the sample images, Sony's still appear far softer than what I'm accustomed to.
The results would also likely improve in sharpness if we had used the microadjust feature to tweak AF for each lens. I have seen results of the 70-210mm f/4 before and after microadjust and it certainly did improve performance, so that may also be the case with the f/1.4.
We have been working with the A900 just over a week and tweaking the microadjust can be very time-consuming with lots of samples to carefully evaluate. Sony makes this even more difficult since there is no zoom or magnify feature in Intelligent preview. That feature alone would have made the micro-adjust faster.
Really, even at f/4? I've seen some slight variations with faster lenses (f/1.2-f/2.8) using the microadjustment tweaks inside the custom settings, but I really have my doubts at f/4 or even f/5.6 if a noticeable difference would be visible. Perhaps the lens you had was simply a lemon. :P
Remember, the full-frame sensor has a more shallow DOF at a given aperture value than APS-C, so if you are used to seeing shifts at f/2.8 on APS-C, that is ballpark what you can expect on FF at f/4. Check the DPreview images from the Sony and Canon 1DsIII, both sensors are high enough resolution to show parts of their test scene moving in and out of the plane of focus which all looked in focus in previous tests of lower-resolution sensors.
The Minolta 50mm f/1.4 is the same lens used in noise tests of the Sony A700 and the past review of the Sony A200. We have 50mm f/1.4 lenses available for all tested brands except Olympus/Panasonic. Because of the 2X lens factor we use an Olympus 35mm Macro lens as the test lens for 4/3 cameras.
Wesley has already said that these are out of the camera jpegs at default settings & every manufacturer has different values for settings even if they may use the same names for them.
If you want sharper out of the camera JPEGs then simply set more sharpness.
Or as a semi-pro you'll probably be using RAW & you'll be used to having to sharpen in pp anyway.
"Sony sensor is double the resolution of competing full-frame cameras"
is technically incorrect. You also made this same statement in your initial review of the a900. In order to double the resolution, one must quadruple the megapixels, not just double them.
You are talking about doubling the SIZE of the sensor, which is, as you point out, four times the resolution. Most readers would consider 12 MP double the resolution of a 6 MP sensor. I therefore stand by my description that the A900 at 24.6 megapixels doubles the resolution of the 12 megapixel full-frame competitors.
I think that's a misconception that you should not perpetuate. It is the responsibility of the educated reviewer to inform people about linear resolution. That is the only number that truly speaks about how large you can print the image at a given DPI. Sure you could make the argument that twice the pixels is twice the detail and I wouldn't object but the ability to resolve two different points on either axis is a product of linear resolution. Please don't perpetuate the megapixel myth people are already clueless about the true meaning of the megapixel count and while the 24.8MP is nice for well lit, low action studio type shots most people really need something to shoot action with and talking about increased detail of 24MP vs 12 MP is something that is not important unless you want to shoot to make posters.
You are incorrect. Look it up. You are only doubling the MP, not the linear resolution which is what we look at when we speak of resolution in regards to a digital sensor in this context. This is basic stuff any reviewer should be aware of and its sort of an embarrassment to the site and review that you do not know this. No knowledgeable reviewer would claim that 24MP gives double the resolution of 12MP. The fact that you stand by this inaccuracy is even more troublesome. Do some research.
I did try to look up your claim when you first made it in your comments to the A900 preview. I found nothing that corroborated your claim. We tried to look up your CLEAR definition of double resolution as 4 times the number of pixels again and found nothing to indicate that.
It is not that we doubt you, but without any references to substantiate what you say it is not reasonable to make changes. If you have the "proof" you say is so easy to find please send us some links and we will take a look.
The 24.6 megapixel A900 does have twice as many pixels as the Nikon D3/D700 and Canon 5D.
I'm guessing default settings in JPEG. Which is a valid baseline, but given different manufacturers different philosophies on JPEG processing, makes commenting on apparent sharpness of the image somewhat difficult. Also, was any form of dynamic range expansion turned on? I'm surprised at how much color noise is already appearing in the A900 shots at ISO 400, wonder if it is a result of boosting some shadows?
As you guys are buying your test bodies, I can understand not having a 1DIII, but making statements such as "At Lower ISOs, 100-400, nothing on the market comes close to the Sony." seems a bit odd without at least trying it against a body with 86% of the pixel count. And obviously if those in the market have the means to get a medium-format back and associated gear, you are far beyond the capabilities of the A900.
Yes, default settings were used in all parameters, including dynamic range expansion. We tried to be careful to say compared to others in its class, which is obviously full-frame 35mm-size sensors. We have not compared any of the full-frame cameras to medium forma or anything like the new Leica medium format that uses the Kodak sensor, nor do we plan to.
As for comparisons to the 1Ds Mark III, the comments were based on conversations we had with Pros who have shot both the Sony A900 and the Canon 1Ds III. We also looked at images shared with us by a couple of them. We would be more comfortable with our own hands-on with the $8000 1Ds III but that will be a moot point once we have the 5D Mark II. Canon claims the 5D II sensor, with the same resolution, is superior to the 1Ds III so we will soon get our first hand look.
One thing that stands out here though, is the strange notion that with all the noise, the higher resolution is of any use.
I don't know of anyone who wouldn't control noise with noise reduction once it reaches the levels of the a900 at ISO 800. Even 400 isn't great, just ok.
Once that is done, the higher resolution will be no better than anywhere else. The more noise, the more noise reduction, the less detail.
It would have been more interesting if noise reduction was applied to see the effects of bringing it in line with the other cameras. Where would the detail have gone?
In addition, if noise is so high at higher ISO's, as it is, making smaller prints so as to not see it, would also mean making smaller prints than would allow you to see the higher resolution as well. No gain, no pain.
I also find it interesting that field reports about this camera from both DPR and the Luminous Landscape have agreed that real-world pictures show less detail that the Canon 1Ds mkIII. The high detail is smeared because of the non removable noise reduction done before the A/D converter (as opposed to the noise reduction that can be turned off after the A/D converter.
The subject used for the comparisons is also pretty bad. I'm sure something more suitable that that could be found.
I shoot plenty of objects at ISO 100-400, sometimes using a tripod. In such cases, the differences between 12MP and 26MP will definitely be apparent. That said, I don't do print work and will just end up cropping and resizing down to a manageable resolution. Still, for details of a motherboard as an example, that increased resolution could be very handy.
As for the subject matter of the ISO comparisons, I'm of the opinion that as long as it's static (i.e. the same in each review) it serves its purpose. We've all seen the various chart photographs (which are widely available elsewhere), but I suppose Wes can reproduce those if necessary. I just don't see how it makes much of a difference one way or the other; the sample images at the end do a good job of showing other possibilities with the camera, and personally I think some of the images look very nice indeed. Just stay away from ISO 800 or higher if possible.
My complaint with the ISO image subject is a lack of anything to help differentiate between good NR software and a low-noise sensor. With a test image composed almost entirely of smooth single-color areas, good NR software could make those pretty smooth while maintaining the borders between colors. A subject with more detail makes it harder to just blur noise away without seeing the results in detail captured.
and on a color checker chart you can evaluate sensor performance in high ISO for colo/saturation drifts ... this cannot be seen on the current simple 3 color test target ...
This review kept reminding me of the DPReview.com review of the same camera.
It's definitely different works, but the emphasized points are very similar like choosing to commend sony for lack of gadgetry.
I guess that fine we all build thoughts from some starting point - but I'll eat my left shoe if the author didn't read the dpreview article before writing this.
Plese read my Sony A900 Preview where I praise the same points long before dpreview published their review of the Sony A900. We all read other reviews but I have no problem reaching my own conclusions.
I know it's not unlikely that opinions can be similar looking at the same product (if a car is 0-60 in 30 seconds is any reviewer not going to say it's slow?).
But I just kept getting deja vu while reading it. Maybe they read your preview article.
Thanks for the article in any case, I did read it after all :).
Wesley, I think the ISO 12800 and 25600 crops on page 3 are just repeats of the ISO 6400 crops (they don't seem to match what's in their respective full-size images).
Sorry - that was my error when I put together the HTML code for the tables. Lots of copy/paste in there, and the linked images were correct but had the 6400 thumbnail still. (Had to change 64 to 128 and 256 after pasting.) The correct crops are now in place, which show that ISO 25600 on the D600 is about the same as the 6400 on the A900.
We get your point, no need to triple post. Just playing, :).
I really don't see the point of buying a $3000 body and then shooting in JPEG. Unless your doing studio work, newspaper work(overkill), or just snapshots.
I do like its low light capabilities coming close to the D3, I just hate Sony as a company for its lackluster customer service and shady business practices. Competition is good though.
Please pixel-peep on the large image. The ducks themselves are sharp and a small crop from the larger image. With a full-frame and high resolution the depth of field is shallow and the background and foreground are less sharp in this image.
The lens that was used for this photo also looks like it could benefit from a micro-adjust for focus, which is a feature available on the A900.
Good to see the DSLR camera reviews on AT are slowly getting better :)
But, can't you find something more interesting to test other than just the one picture of an SLI logo on a nVidia box? For instance, something that shows fine detail (in addition to flat areas of solid color)
We plan to begin using another target in our full-frame DSLR roundup to come when th 5D Mk II is finally shipping. There is already a huge database of "component boxes" test shots and it makes more sense to make a change when you can provide a group using the new setup.
Cameras that are reviewed do not stay in our possesion forever, so it really isn't always possible to reshoot models that were tested in earlier reviews. At present we buy all the models reviewed on the open market and resell them soon after the review is completed.
Actualy they can't because they want to be different. there's a reason why you find NR/high ISO test done on a color checker chart on the other sites, while you get a 3 color (ok black, white and green) on AT.
Using a color checker chart would be too mainstream it seems ...
We chose not to republish our preview as part of the final review as some other sites do. However the hands-on preview is linked in the first sentence of the review. The points you make are covered in detail earlier in that article. We also mention both points in this review but we did not go into detail about them again.
If enough readers want it we can include the preview information again in the final review. Some important cameras, like the A900, tend to generate a series of articles exploring different aspects of the camera.
I think a field test of the IS system would be good
eg. 70-200mm canon USM IS vs sony 70-200mm with body IS
which is better? how many stops exactly.
maybe also a test with something wide like a 35/50mm
I think just repeating what they are is not much of a test.
For the fps test, you could run it through some different memory cards and see if the write speed is affected.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
45 Comments
Back to Article
kalow - Monday, November 17, 2008 - link
Hi Wesley,Can you confirm if your a700 has firmware 4? I looked into the exif and it says v03
Gantlett - Friday, October 31, 2008 - link
The photographed subjects in the photo reviews pose 0 challenge for my VGA camera, let alone a multi-megapixel multi-thousand $ professional DSLR.With all due respect, I think AnandTech.com should focus on computers and not photography (even if they really like digital photography...)
oldscotch - Wednesday, October 29, 2008 - link
Hi there, thanks for the update. Nice to see informed and unbiased evaluations of the s900.I just had a couple of questions about the test conditions, or maybe I missed them? Mostly, are these test results raw conversions? or are they jpegs out of the camera? Also curious what lenses were used for each camera.
I find the a900 vs. a700 test most interesting, I've been looking for a controlled comparison of the two at higher isos. The fact that the a700 actually takes cleaner shots at higher isos leaves me believing that the noise out of the a900 is largely due to its processing - meaning it can be improved upon (and there's definitely room for improvement, even with raw).
Do you know what might have caused the different colours on the a700 though?
Thanks again,
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, October 29, 2008 - link
All test shots used each manufacturer's prime 50mm f/1.4 lens (Canon, Nikon, Sony/Minolta). Test conditions are in the test introduction, but all shots at at f/4 with shutter speed varied as ISO changes. This provides a constant depth-of-field. The tripod location was the same in all shots and a shutter timer was used to minimize camera shake.As for the samples images on the last page we used the famous Minolta beer can (70-210mm f/4), a Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX Macro, a Minolta/Sony 24-105mm f/3.5-4.5, and a 50mm f/1.4 for the various shots. You can determine the lens from this list by looking at the EXIF data in each full-sized image.
We used the Tungsten WB preset for the test shots on all tested cameras. It seems clear that the A900 and A700 have a different color temperature default for Tungsten. ALL shots used camera defaults and in-camera JPEG processing. RAW is very useful in many situations, but with a new camera like the A900 which RAW converter is the best choice for processing is very much a question mark. A couple of PROs we know who are shooting the A900 in their studio use Capture One RAW conversion software.
jamesbond007 - Wednesday, October 29, 2008 - link
As a semi-pro, I find Sony's images to be very soft. For a lens with an aperture capable of f/1.4, one would at least HOPE it would be sharp by f/4 or especially f/5.6. It is appropriate to offer a client a variety of images, including various crops. I would be ashamed if a $3,000 body and added glass could not deliver such capable images. Additionally, Sony's noise performance leaves much to be desired.Granted, while lighting is by far the most important element of photography, sharpness/AF accuracy is among my top priorities as well. Although I am sure no Unsharpen Mask or High-pass sharpening was applied to any of the sample images, Sony's still appear far softer than what I'm accustomed to.
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, October 29, 2008 - link
The results would also likely improve in sharpness if we had used the microadjust feature to tweak AF for each lens. I have seen results of the 70-210mm f/4 before and after microadjust and it certainly did improve performance, so that may also be the case with the f/1.4.We have been working with the A900 just over a week and tweaking the microadjust can be very time-consuming with lots of samples to carefully evaluate. Sony makes this even more difficult since there is no zoom or magnify feature in Intelligent preview. That feature alone would have made the micro-adjust faster.
jamesbond007 - Thursday, October 30, 2008 - link
Really, even at f/4? I've seen some slight variations with faster lenses (f/1.2-f/2.8) using the microadjustment tweaks inside the custom settings, but I really have my doubts at f/4 or even f/5.6 if a noticeable difference would be visible. Perhaps the lens you had was simply a lemon. :Pstrikeback03 - Thursday, October 30, 2008 - link
Remember, the full-frame sensor has a more shallow DOF at a given aperture value than APS-C, so if you are used to seeing shifts at f/2.8 on APS-C, that is ballpark what you can expect on FF at f/4. Check the DPreview images from the Sony and Canon 1DsIII, both sensors are high enough resolution to show parts of their test scene moving in and out of the plane of focus which all looked in focus in previous tests of lower-resolution sensors.forest23 - Friday, August 14, 2009 - link
Oh no , not someone else who believes that putting a lens ona half frame camera gives greater depth of field. But see Coxes Optics
1974 pages 68-97
Wesley Fink - Thursday, October 30, 2008 - link
The Minolta 50mm f/1.4 is the same lens used in noise tests of the Sony A700 and the past review of the Sony A200. We have 50mm f/1.4 lenses available for all tested brands except Olympus/Panasonic. Because of the 2X lens factor we use an Olympus 35mm Macro lens as the test lens for 4/3 cameras.Heidfirst - Wednesday, October 29, 2008 - link
Wesley has already said that these are out of the camera jpegs at default settings & every manufacturer has different values for settings even if they may use the same names for them.If you want sharper out of the camera JPEGs then simply set more sharpness.
Or as a semi-pro you'll probably be using RAW & you'll be used to having to sharpen in pp anyway.
jamesbond007 - Thursday, October 30, 2008 - link
RAW images, which typically have zero sharpening (or any in-camera adjustments made) are sharper than the images provided.TariqGibran - Wednesday, October 29, 2008 - link
Your statement:"Sony sensor is double the resolution of competing full-frame cameras"
is technically incorrect. You also made this same statement in your initial review of the a900. In order to double the resolution, one must quadruple the megapixels, not just double them.
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, October 29, 2008 - link
You are talking about doubling the SIZE of the sensor, which is, as you point out, four times the resolution. Most readers would consider 12 MP double the resolution of a 6 MP sensor. I therefore stand by my description that the A900 at 24.6 megapixels doubles the resolution of the 12 megapixel full-frame competitors.sxr7171 - Monday, November 3, 2008 - link
I think that's a misconception that you should not perpetuate. It is the responsibility of the educated reviewer to inform people about linear resolution. That is the only number that truly speaks about how large you can print the image at a given DPI. Sure you could make the argument that twice the pixels is twice the detail and I wouldn't object but the ability to resolve two different points on either axis is a product of linear resolution. Please don't perpetuate the megapixel myth people are already clueless about the true meaning of the megapixel count and while the 24.8MP is nice for well lit, low action studio type shots most people really need something to shoot action with and talking about increased detail of 24MP vs 12 MP is something that is not important unless you want to shoot to make posters.TariqGibran - Wednesday, October 29, 2008 - link
You are incorrect. Look it up. You are only doubling the MP, not the linear resolution which is what we look at when we speak of resolution in regards to a digital sensor in this context. This is basic stuff any reviewer should be aware of and its sort of an embarrassment to the site and review that you do not know this. No knowledgeable reviewer would claim that 24MP gives double the resolution of 12MP. The fact that you stand by this inaccuracy is even more troublesome. Do some research.Wesley Fink - Wednesday, October 29, 2008 - link
I did try to look up your claim when you first made it in your comments to the A900 preview. I found nothing that corroborated your claim. We tried to look up your CLEAR definition of double resolution as 4 times the number of pixels again and found nothing to indicate that.It is not that we doubt you, but without any references to substantiate what you say it is not reasonable to make changes. If you have the "proof" you say is so easy to find please send us some links and we will take a look.
The 24.6 megapixel A900 does have twice as many pixels as the Nikon D3/D700 and Canon 5D.
melgross - Thursday, October 30, 2008 - link
Doubling the number of pixels increases the resolution by 39% (approx), but doubles the pixel DENSITY.This isn't in question.
lsman - Tuesday, October 28, 2008 - link
On first page,That resolution performance is amazing when you consider the 24.6MP Sony A700 is just $3000
You meant A900 is just $3000
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, October 28, 2008 - link
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Now corrected.CEO Ballmer - Monday, October 27, 2008 - link
These things are very nice, but the ZuneCam will prove they are waaaaay over-priced!http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com">http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com
strikeback03 - Monday, October 27, 2008 - link
I'm guessing default settings in JPEG. Which is a valid baseline, but given different manufacturers different philosophies on JPEG processing, makes commenting on apparent sharpness of the image somewhat difficult. Also, was any form of dynamic range expansion turned on? I'm surprised at how much color noise is already appearing in the A900 shots at ISO 400, wonder if it is a result of boosting some shadows?As you guys are buying your test bodies, I can understand not having a 1DIII, but making statements such as "At Lower ISOs, 100-400, nothing on the market comes close to the Sony." seems a bit odd without at least trying it against a body with 86% of the pixel count. And obviously if those in the market have the means to get a medium-format back and associated gear, you are far beyond the capabilities of the A900.
Wesley Fink - Monday, October 27, 2008 - link
Yes, default settings were used in all parameters, including dynamic range expansion. We tried to be careful to say compared to others in its class, which is obviously full-frame 35mm-size sensors. We have not compared any of the full-frame cameras to medium forma or anything like the new Leica medium format that uses the Kodak sensor, nor do we plan to.As for comparisons to the 1Ds Mark III, the comments were based on conversations we had with Pros who have shot both the Sony A900 and the Canon 1Ds III. We also looked at images shared with us by a couple of them. We would be more comfortable with our own hands-on with the $8000 1Ds III but that will be a moot point once we have the 5D Mark II. Canon claims the 5D II sensor, with the same resolution, is superior to the 1Ds III so we will soon get our first hand look.
melgross - Monday, October 27, 2008 - link
Some odd conclusions both here and DPR.One thing that stands out here though, is the strange notion that with all the noise, the higher resolution is of any use.
I don't know of anyone who wouldn't control noise with noise reduction once it reaches the levels of the a900 at ISO 800. Even 400 isn't great, just ok.
Once that is done, the higher resolution will be no better than anywhere else. The more noise, the more noise reduction, the less detail.
It would have been more interesting if noise reduction was applied to see the effects of bringing it in line with the other cameras. Where would the detail have gone?
In addition, if noise is so high at higher ISO's, as it is, making smaller prints so as to not see it, would also mean making smaller prints than would allow you to see the higher resolution as well. No gain, no pain.
I also find it interesting that field reports about this camera from both DPR and the Luminous Landscape have agreed that real-world pictures show less detail that the Canon 1Ds mkIII. The high detail is smeared because of the non removable noise reduction done before the A/D converter (as opposed to the noise reduction that can be turned off after the A/D converter.
The subject used for the comparisons is also pretty bad. I'm sure something more suitable that that could be found.
JarredWalton - Monday, October 27, 2008 - link
I shoot plenty of objects at ISO 100-400, sometimes using a tripod. In such cases, the differences between 12MP and 26MP will definitely be apparent. That said, I don't do print work and will just end up cropping and resizing down to a manageable resolution. Still, for details of a motherboard as an example, that increased resolution could be very handy.As for the subject matter of the ISO comparisons, I'm of the opinion that as long as it's static (i.e. the same in each review) it serves its purpose. We've all seen the various chart photographs (which are widely available elsewhere), but I suppose Wes can reproduce those if necessary. I just don't see how it makes much of a difference one way or the other; the sample images at the end do a good job of showing other possibilities with the camera, and personally I think some of the images look very nice indeed. Just stay away from ISO 800 or higher if possible.
strikeback03 - Monday, October 27, 2008 - link
My complaint with the ISO image subject is a lack of anything to help differentiate between good NR software and a low-noise sensor. With a test image composed almost entirely of smooth single-color areas, good NR software could make those pretty smooth while maintaining the borders between colors. A subject with more detail makes it harder to just blur noise away without seeing the results in detail captured.haplo602 - Monday, October 27, 2008 - link
and on a color checker chart you can evaluate sensor performance in high ISO for colo/saturation drifts ... this cannot be seen on the current simple 3 color test target ...LTG - Monday, October 27, 2008 - link
This review kept reminding me of the DPReview.com review of the same camera.It's definitely different works, but the emphasized points are very similar like choosing to commend sony for lack of gadgetry.
I guess that fine we all build thoughts from some starting point - but I'll eat my left shoe if the author didn't read the dpreview article before writing this.
yyrkoon - Monday, October 27, 2008 - link
You know, you could have just as easily not left a comment at all.No one really cares what your thoughts are on web plagiarism . . .
Wesley Fink - Monday, October 27, 2008 - link
Plese read my Sony A900 Preview where I praise the same points long before dpreview published their review of the Sony A900. We all read other reviews but I have no problem reaching my own conclusions.LTG - Monday, October 27, 2008 - link
Ok I'll eat a shoe then :).I know it's not unlikely that opinions can be similar looking at the same product (if a car is 0-60 in 30 seconds is any reviewer not going to say it's slow?).
But I just kept getting deja vu while reading it. Maybe they read your preview article.
Thanks for the article in any case, I did read it after all :).
TechLuster - Monday, October 27, 2008 - link
Wesley, I think the ISO 12800 and 25600 crops on page 3 are just repeats of the ISO 6400 crops (they don't seem to match what's in their respective full-size images).JarredWalton - Monday, October 27, 2008 - link
Sorry - that was my error when I put together the HTML code for the tables. Lots of copy/paste in there, and the linked images were correct but had the 6400 thumbnail still. (Had to change 64 to 128 and 256 after pasting.) The correct crops are now in place, which show that ISO 25600 on the D600 is about the same as the 6400 on the A900.Heidfirst - Monday, October 27, 2008 - link
Sony's JPEG engine still isn't the best, you really need to shoot RAW & convert (& again ACR still isn't very good with Sonys).http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/10/23/the-alpha...">http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/10/23/the-alpha... is worth a read.
twistedlogic - Monday, October 27, 2008 - link
We get your point, no need to triple post. Just playing, :).I really don't see the point of buying a $3000 body and then shooting in JPEG. Unless your doing studio work, newspaper work(overkill), or just snapshots.
I do like its low light capabilities coming close to the D3, I just hate Sony as a company for its lackluster customer service and shady business practices. Competition is good though.
Heidfirst - Monday, October 27, 2008 - link
Sony's JPEG engine still isn't the best, you really need to shoot RAW & convert (& again ACR still isn't very good with Sonys).http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/10/23/the-alpha...">http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/10/23/the-alpha... is worth a read.
Heidfirst - Monday, October 27, 2008 - link
Sony's JPEG engine still isn't the best, you really need to shoot RAW & convert (& again ACR still isn't very good with Sonys).http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/10/23/the-alpha...">http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/10/23/the-alpha... is worth a read.
araczynski - Monday, October 27, 2008 - link
is it my untrained eye or were all shots but the 2 ducks just fuzzy as all get go? is that a benefit of an oversensitive camera? or the photographer?Wesley Fink - Monday, October 27, 2008 - link
Please pixel-peep on the large image. The ducks themselves are sharp and a small crop from the larger image. With a full-frame and high resolution the depth of field is shallow and the background and foreground are less sharp in this image.The lens that was used for this photo also looks like it could benefit from a micro-adjust for focus, which is a feature available on the A900.
wheel - Monday, October 27, 2008 - link
Good to see the DSLR camera reviews on AT are slowly getting better :)But, can't you find something more interesting to test other than just the one picture of an SLI logo on a nVidia box? For instance, something that shows fine detail (in addition to flat areas of solid color)
Wesley Fink - Monday, October 27, 2008 - link
We plan to begin using another target in our full-frame DSLR roundup to come when th 5D Mk II is finally shipping. There is already a huge database of "component boxes" test shots and it makes more sense to make a change when you can provide a group using the new setup.Cameras that are reviewed do not stay in our possesion forever, so it really isn't always possible to reshoot models that were tested in earlier reviews. At present we buy all the models reviewed on the open market and resell them soon after the review is completed.
haplo602 - Monday, October 27, 2008 - link
Actualy they can't because they want to be different. there's a reason why you find NR/high ISO test done on a color checker chart on the other sites, while you get a 3 color (ok black, white and green) on AT.Using a color checker chart would be too mainstream it seems ...
xsilver - Monday, October 27, 2008 - link
odd also that more wasnt mentioned about the actual revolutionary things about the a9001) dual bionz chip allowing 24mp images at 5fps
2) in body IS for a FF sensor (first)
Wesley Fink - Monday, October 27, 2008 - link
We chose not to republish our preview as part of the final review as some other sites do. However the hands-on preview is linked in the first sentence of the review. The points you make are covered in detail earlier in that article. We also mention both points in this review but we did not go into detail about them again.If enough readers want it we can include the preview information again in the final review. Some important cameras, like the A900, tend to generate a series of articles exploring different aspects of the camera.
xsilver - Tuesday, October 28, 2008 - link
I think a field test of the IS system would be goodeg. 70-200mm canon USM IS vs sony 70-200mm with body IS
which is better? how many stops exactly.
maybe also a test with something wide like a 35/50mm
I think just repeating what they are is not much of a test.
For the fps test, you could run it through some different memory cards and see if the write speed is affected.