For the low ISO shots? I don't think so. From what I have read, the noise reduction which is switchable from on/off is for High ISO only. If this is not the case, show me where you found the info.
From the A900 manual:
"When shooting with the ISO set at 1600 or above, the camera reduces the noise that becomes more noticeable when the camera sensitivity is high."
douglasf13 wrote:
Keep in mind that the IR RAWs have NR on them. IR didn't set it to "off"
Thanks Tariq, I already have 4.6, if only for the DNG converter, I hate what they did with the sharpening and noise reduction since ACR 4 (I sharpen in PS, I want ACR to show me if it is sharp!) so i convert to DNG and use the older ACR 4.0
Iliah Borg, a RAW developer, says that the IR A900 RAW files are around 2/3 of a stop underexposed, which won't help the noise. Also, it's only fair to compare the noise of the 5D with the noise of the A900 if you scale the A900 down to 12MP.
Ultimately, the IR RAWs are not great examples to use for testing. IR's imatest on RAW is more interesting.
douglasf13 wrote:
Iliah Borg, a RAW developer, says that the IR A900 RAW files are around 2/3 of a stop underexposed, which won't help the noise. Also, it's only fair to compare the noise of the 5D with the noise of the A900 if you scale the A900 down to 12MP.
But what good is 24 mp if you have to down sample it to have the same apparent noise as a 12mp camera? The real comparison for most people will be the new 5D MkII.
douglasf13 wrote:
Ultimately, the IR RAWs are not great examples to use for testing. IR's imatest on RAW is more interesting.
Perhaps, but few people can translate what they see in imatest graphs and charts into what actual relative performance would be.
It's simple. If you need high ISO performance, a la' 5D or D3, then downsample to 12MP. If you need low ISO, stunning resolution, then keep it at 24.6MP. Best of both worlds. If comparing noise to the 5D II, then the A900 should be downsampled to 21MP as well. It's ALL about viewing/print size, which is commonly forgotten.
The IR imatest graphs have nice summations by IR that give an idea how the camera performs. Basically, jpeg is average, but RAW is top notch.
BTW, one more thing as well. The IR RAW images were taken with a 100-300mm zoom lens, as opposed to a standard prime. Bizarre.
Not if you want noise free 24 megapixel images at base iso which is resonable given that the 5D mkII will certainly be. This is iso 400 noise from the base iso and that is troubling for me, you don't shoot a 24 megapixel camera to have to downsize so as to get quality from a 3 year old 12 megapixel camera at base iso! You say it's all about viewing size, if I buy 24 megapixels worth then I want a decent 24 megapixels. I want to print bigger than I would with the 12 megapixel camera period.
I don't like the prospect of the 5D mkII for many reasons but the 1Ds mkIII seems to resolve better than the Sony (pretty much same chip in the 5D mkII) and the noise seems to be original 1Ds level which just isn't good enough. Better resolving 21 megapixels with less noise and 14 bit or Anti Shake, 5fps and Zeiss lenses. Looks like that is the question. Given the usual use of such a high res camera, on a tripod, it seems like the Zeiss lenses will be the only real pull.
douglasf13 wrote:
Iliah Borg, a RAW developer, says that the IR A900 RAW files are around 2/3 of a stop underexposed, which won't help the noise. Also, it's only fair to compare the noise of the 5D with the noise of the A900 if you scale the A900 down to 12MP.
Ultimately, the IR RAWs are not great examples to use for testing. IR's imatest on RAW is more interesting.
If you look at the RAW low ISO studio sample I linked to in ACR, you will note that it is not underexposed by 2/3rds of a stop. If anything, less than 1/4 stop at most. Perhaps other ISO shots are exposed differently, I don't know.
Also, all of the IR studio test shots are taken with a Sigma 70mm lens, not the 100-300. That Sigma, for whatever reason, is the standard lens IR use for all camera bodies. That avoids the lens as one variable when IR is comparing cameras.
I have said it before, and I sound like a broken record, but the Sony A900 is not the camera to buy if you are looking for the lowest high ISO noise combined with high resolution. That will be the 5DII. Downsampling the A900 to the MP count of the 5DII will make no difference as your only talking about 3MP's.
I was also very excited when I first heard about A900: full frame with 5fps and sensor anti-shake. At first it sounded like it was worth going thru trouble of converting my C/Y Zeiss lenses to mount on A900 and gain a stop or two of image stabilizer. But the noise is deal breaker.
Sticking to my good old 5D till I see something else with better potential. Perhaps Canon will some day get wise and add the option of sensor-shift stabilizer to their body and let the photographer decide to use the sensor or in-lens stabilizer.
Doesn't Nikon use Sony chips? I don't hear much about noise problems from Nikon folks.
I don't agree at all. Once some more tests come, we'll soon see.
BTW, any A700 user knows that ACR overexposes A700 RAWs by around 2/3 exposure, so it would make sense that an underexposed A900 RAW would look more correctly exposed. We'll see. Also, I was incorrect about the lens being used. Wrong test.
Beni wrote:
This is iso 400 noise from the base iso and that is troubling for me, you don't shoot a 24 megapixel camera to have to downsize so as to get quality from a 3 year old 12 megapixel camera at base iso! You say it's all about viewing size, if I buy 24 megapixels worth then I want a decent 24 megapixels. I want to print bigger than I would with the 12 megapixel camera period.
.
I don't think its quite that bad given that the base ISO is 200. That puts the noise about 1 stop behind the old 5D at the per pixel level. Since the Sony has in body IS, then you could theoretically be shooting with a shutter speed / aperture combo 2-3 stops lower then what is possible on the Canons without IS lenses meaning that you might need to actually shoot the Canon at ISO 1600 when you can shoot the Sony at ISO 200. The base ISO noise is not as smooth as Canon but is no way objectionable, to me at least.
Anyway, that is how I'm trying to rationalize this purchase!
BTW, any A700 user knows that ACR overexposes A700 RAWs by around 2/3 exposure, so it would make sense that an underexposed A900 RAW would look more correctly exposed. We'll see. Also, I was incorrect about the lens being used. Wrong test.
Interesting! Is this by going by the histogram on the rear LCD screen of the A700 or by just comparing the histogram in ACR to another RAW converter?
Both, as far as I know. Until I get an A900 in my hands, I won't know if ACR is doing the same for it, but it's definitely the case with the A700, and since there isn't an A900 camera profile for the A900 yet, I'd bet it's still overexposing on import. I have to dial in about -2/3 or so compensation in ACR for the A700, or bring down the brightness setting quite a bit. It's a well known issue with ACR and the A700.
There will always be some noise, since each photodiod dont register the exact same value, if there is no noise in ie bluesky's etc you should be worried! becaus then there is NR in the works!
even D700 images have somenoise (luckily) at bae iso.
many of these look way oversharpened with bad CA.. and just generally unnatural to my eyes. at 3k i don't see how this camera would put much of a dent in either canon or nikon, especially with the superior noise characteristics of both their latest offerings.
Yes, there are lots of samples around (try the preview at dpreview.com, for example). And yes, at least tentatively from the preliminary (possibly pre-production) samples we've seen from both, the noise characteristics of the 5D MkII are quite superior to the a900. I would say (again, tentatively, and in my subjective opinion) there is at least a 2 stop difference (that is, 800 ISO on the 5D MkII appears at least as clean and as detailed as 200 ISO on the a900). I am hoping that apparent gap closes as real production cameras get in real hands ans practical comparisons are done.
douglasf13 wrote:
I didn't realize that we'd seen the "superior noise characteristics" of the 5Dii. Honestly, we haven't seen much from the 5Dii at all, except movies.
