kenshin wrote:
The 4 holes I believe is the mic for recording audio when you're shooting video. And no, the 24-105 is an L lens and all L lenses come with hoods & pouches.
lucidbrands wrote:
Shadow noise seems better than the 5D. I don't like to use flash, so I've relied on the low light capability of the 5D and now, the 5D mark II. When I know I'm going to shoot in very dark places--like a reception--I'll often add the ST-E2 Speedlight transmitter. The unit is small and sits in the flash shoe mount. It's like a flash without the flash. It just puts out the pulse for focus. Works great.
Now there's an idea I never tried. Thanks for the tip.
I wanna know what he was smoking when he said the Sony had higher resolution. Maybe I just misunderstood but to me the 5D MkII sample were *much* cleaner with better contrast and tone than the Sony which appears flat and uneven.
BubbaJon wrote:
I wanna know what he was smoking when he said the Sony had higher resolution. Maybe I just misunderstood but to me the 5D MkII sample were *much* cleaner with better contrast and tone than the Sony which appears flat and uneven.
The Sony has been testing at a slightly higher resolution than the 1Ds mkIII with noise reduction turned off after the AD converter. Other than that, who knows. It's what he sees. It's not a big point though.
One thing interesting is that I can already see noise at 400 on the Sony, and a chroma noise, which isn't pretty. Both the Canon an Nikon are much better.
I also asked him if he would use the reduced size samples as he did with the 5D vs the mkII test.
This is making me think that the D3x will come in between the mkII and the Sony a900 in noise, but closer to the Sony at higher ISO's, but about as good as the mkII at lower ones.
Mel Gross wrote
One thing interesting is that I can already see noise at 400 on the Sony, and a chroma noise, which isn't pretty. Both the Canon an Nikon are much better.
I think that noise is visible on the Sony a900 at 200 ISO -- at least it was in the samples I've seen.
Lotusm50 wrote:
I think that noise is visible on the Sony a900 at 200 ISO -- at least it was in the samples I've seen.
Yeah, a bit.
This has been out for a few days, but I just now got a chance to read it. It's Michael Reichmann's field review of the Sony a900.
I'll quote a bit. You'll see why.
Resolution
My subjective evaluation of the Sony A900's image quality can be broken down into three areas – noise, resolution, and dynamic range. On the resolution front first, it can be said that when used with a lens capable of showing what this sensor can do, the A900 is the highest resolving DSLR that I've ever used. I have not yet had an opportunity to work with the just announced Nikon D3x, but when I do I will conduct an informal four way shoot-out between the Canon 5D MKII, 1Ds MKIII and the Sony A900. Notwithstanding this upcoming comparison, anyone buying an A900 can be confident that there's nothing else anywhere near the A900's price range that can beat it in terms of resolving power. Simply outstanding when used with the best lenses.
Noise
Unfortunately this excellence is not the case when it comes to sensor noise. This camera's sensor appears to trade off resolution for noise at higher ISOs, and though ISO 200 is very clean indeed even it isn't completely noiseless. At ISO 400, one stop higher than the cameras native sensitivity, there is some luminance noise visible in mid-tone areas. A bit of luminance noise reduction in Camera Raw or Lightroom quashes it nicely, but at the expense of a bit of resolution.
Using standards of 2–3 years ago noise performance at ISO 400 is fine, but not as compared with other lower resolution cameras of today. (The Canon 5D MKII is likely to significantly outperform it based on my evaluation of images from an early pre-production camera. We'll soon see. The Nikon D3X is at this point an unknown quantity in this regard).
By ISO 800 noise is unavoidably obvious and there is a bit of visible chroma noise as well. This can be tamed a bit in the raw converter, and isn't too objectionable in prints up to about 13 X19", but is quite noticeable on screen at higher magnifications.
Sensitivities above ISO 800 I regard as unacceptable for fine art prints and publication quality images, unless a special effect is intended....Show more →
I took a few VERY quick shots in JPEG mode. Just cropped with a tiny bit of exposure adjustment. Nothing scientific, but so far I like what I see. It has the "5D" feel, and those who owned a MK I will know this feeling...
You can also mount a Canon EX flash, I use the 220EX and set the custom function not to fire the flash. You get the same infrared focusing assist and the flash does not fire. This is a big focusing assist in very low light.
lucidbrands wrote:
Shadow noise seems better than the 5D. I don't like to use flash, so I've relied on the low light capability of the 5D and now, the 5D mark II. When I know I'm going to shoot in very dark places--like a reception--I'll often add the ST-E2 Speedlight transmitter. The unit is small and sits in the flash shoe mount. It's like a flash without the flash. It just puts out the pulse for focus. Works great.
BubbaJon wrote:
Oh - and the 24-105 actually comes with the lens hood! Is that a first? Never having bought the kits before I was always grumbling that Canon made you buy the hood seperate...
I think all the L lenses come with hoods... all the ones I've purchased have.
BubbaJon wrote:
I seem to recall when I bought my 17-40 and the 24-105 they were without. Found a Chinese source for OEM Canon lens shades so I got a fairly decent price. Never bought a kit before so unknown on that front...
When I bought those two lenses they both came with hoods.
