I'm still nor seeing the detail I would expect from a 24 mp camera. But I hate to say that without direct comparison. Also, these are probably camera jpgs.
There certainly appears to be some potential here. Although the last A900 + cz 24-70 image (the flower close-up)from the first post looks way someone turned the contrast and saturation WAY up to a weird effect. Generally thought, ISO 100 and 200 look fine.
Would like to see more high ISO images, and crops. ISO 400 images and crops from the Polish link look OK, for the most part.
I would even dare to say that colors look so "film-like". Certainly not what we are used to with the Canons. This by itself is a good reason to buy the A900.
Are you guys seeing full size images? When I click on the thumbs, the image which comes up is not full size. Agree on the color which is what has impressed me most thus far with every sample I have seen. Concerned about limited dynamic range because I have seen a number of images with clipped highlights and the A900, even at ISO 200 still shows some noise(meaning that if you underexpose to protected those highlights, digging into the shadows in post production might result in too much noise, unlike what is possible with say a Canon sensor).
There are a ton of samples - over 30 pages - on this site from China as the camera is shipping there already. If you scan through the pages, you can find some full size. Again, the color really jumps out at you.
Those colors!!!!!! Remind me of Fujichrome 400, seriously.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Are you guys seeing full size images? When I click on the thumbs, the image which comes up is not full size. Agree on the color which is what has impressed me most thus far with every sample I have seen. Concerned about limited dynamic range because I have seen a number of images with clipped highlights and the A900, even at ISO 200 still shows some noise(meaning that if you underexpose to protected those highlights, digging into the shadows in post production might result in too much noise, unlike what is possible with say a Canon sensor).
There are a ton of samples - over 30 pages - on this site from China as the camera is shipping there already. If you scan through the pages, you can find some full size. Again, the color really jumps out at you.
I am noticing noise at ISO 200 images as well -- and I was able to download couple full size images and look at them in PS. The noise I am seeing at ISO 200 is not insignificant. ISO 200 is supposed to be the native sensitivity for the sensor. That is not encouraging. The color looks fine, but I'm not sure that alone is going to sell me on the camera. Still looking to see more of what the a900 is capable of.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Are you guys seeing full size images? When I click on the thumbs, the image which comes up is not full size. Agree on the color which is what has impressed me most thus far with every sample I have seen. Concerned about limited dynamic range because I have seen a number of images with clipped highlights and the A900, even at ISO 200 still shows some noise(meaning that if you underexpose to protected those highlights, digging into the shadows in post production might result in too much noise, unlike what is possible with say a Canon sensor).
The saturated colour could be nothing more than a setting in the JPEG converter. I'll go for accuracy over saturation any day. Not saying that the A900 is bad - I need to see better samples.
Same with noise - some camera makers add default noise reduction whereas others give you a more untouched file which you can apply NR to according to taste. You can't really compare the image quality versus a Canon until you've taken side by side shots of the same scene and then compare accuracy, and look at the colours and noise and detail after you have made the most of the respective files.
True, we need to see direct comparisons. The thing that strikes me about the color is that I have seen a number of samples where the skin tones remained neutral and accurate in appearance without a noticeable color cast nor over saturation yet, the color elsewhere in the frame still had a certain depth to it. Part of this, no doubt, is the glass and is a typical zeiss fingerprint with regard to their lenses(somewhat contrasty and 3D). I do agree with what someone else said. There is a sort of film look to the images and the lack of flatness typically seen in Canon images(when shot with Canon glass).
foto-z wrote:
The saturated colour could be nothing more than a setting in the JPEG converter. I'll go for accuracy over saturation any day. Not saying that the A900 is bad - I need to see better samples.
Same with noise - some camera makers add default noise reduction whereas others give you a more untouched file which you can apply NR to according to taste. You can't really compare the image quality versus a Canon until you've taken side by side shots of the same scene and then compare accuracy, and look at the colours and noise and detail after you have made the most of the respective files....Show more →
That's what I saw and liked. That and the nice greens. Canon greens are too often muddy. The greens from the Sony are very clean.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
True, we need to see direct comparisons. The thing that strikes me about the color is that I have seen a number of samples where the skin tones remained neutral and accurate in appearance without a noticeable color cast nor over saturation yet, the color elsewhere in the frame still had a certain depth to it. Part of this, no doubt, is the glass and is a typical zeiss fingerprint with regard to their lenses(somewhat contrasty and 3D). I do agree with what someone else said. There is a sort of film look to the images and the lack of flatness typically seen in Canon images(when shot with Canon glass).
foto-z wrote:
Same with noise - some camera makers add default noise reduction whereas others give you a more untouched file which you can apply NR to according to taste. You can't really compare the image quality versus a Canon until you've taken side by side shots of the same scene and then compare accuracy, and look at the colours and noise and detail after you have made the most of the respective files.
I agree with what you are saying. However, I was just looking at some samples added to the 5D MkII preview over at dpreview.com. And while this is something of an apples to oranges comparison given different scenes/subject matter, jpeg processing and possible noise reduction differences, I would have to say that the 5D MkII files look significantly cleaner at 800 ISO than the a900 files do at 200 ISO. There is just a lot of difference in noise performance that I don't think can ultimately be accounted for by software processing differences. I am a bit disappointed, but am keeping an open mind and will look forward to some competent, raw-based, comparisons. I want to give the a900 benefit of the doubt so I am hoping that the samples I've seen will ultimately be shown to be erroneous.
I think there is no doubt that when it comes to noise, the 5DII is going to trounce all over the Sony. Just look at the 5DII studio scene of the Olympus cameras shot at ISO 1600. Amazingly clean. I do think the Sony A900 will offer other image qualities which some might prefer over the Canon but lack of noise will not be one of them.
We still need to see more high-iso samples, but I'm having the impression that the difference between Sony and Canon's approach is that Canon does a lot of noise reduction at the hardware level, while Sony seems to do it mostly at the processing level with software. That's why we see a lot of noise when noise reduction is off with the A900. The good thing that I see in Sony's (no noise reduction) approach is that files seem to contain more details and have a grainy film-like look, as I do believe hardware noise reduction still affects the image details somehow. I'm sure Sony's files would print very nicely while maybe they're not as good as the Canon files to look at at 100% on comnputer screens.
Is it my imagination or does the first one of the black butterfly show very poor dynamic range?...Despite the flowers being over exposed there does'nt seem to be any shadow detail at all on the black butterfly itself!
