p.2 #1 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
Just a few more observations to add. Sensor dust will be an issue with the A900 if you are changing lenses often. There is an anti dust coating and the sensor does have the anti dust vibration but it does not work very well overall. Apparently, it vibrates much much slower than say the system Olympus uses.
The memory door is a little flimsy in build quality and does not have any sort of foam for weather resistance. I believe the new 5DII door does have foam.
The intelligent preview is very handy and quick to use. It only works with either chipped adapters or compatible lenses.
Sony has implemented/licensed a dynamic range compression/Optimizer that is extremely useful if you ever want to shoot perfect, out of camera jpegs. It really is amazing in use and allows for much tweaking and degrees of compression. It seems to work almost like the fill light/recovery slider in ACR/Lightroom. Using this setting will result in more noise in the shadows, even at ISO 200. I was shocked to see that the fine jpeg level files ended up at over 20MB in size, sometimes approaching 30MB! out of the camera. The RAW + Jpeg setting results in smaller, more compressed jpges than does the Fine Jpeg setting. On that note, just ordered a 32GB card!
p.2 #2 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
Here is an out of camera Fine Jpeg with the Dynamic Optimizer set at level 3 (out of a possible setting up to 5). The 100% crop shows the noise (in the roof tiles) even at ISO 200. Lens was the Super Multi Coated Takumar 135mm 3.5.
p.2 #3 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
Just to give an idea of what this Dynamic Optimizer is capable of, check this out. Same shot taken with RAW + Jpeg. As shot conversion with ACR for the RAW file. Jpeg was set for Dynamic Optimizer +5. I am not able to replicate this jpeg from the RAW file easily, if at all. Lots of noise though in the shadows of that jpeg. I should note that the creative style setting was on "Landscape" which is a bit over the top (jpeg color and tone).
p.2 #4 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
I am surprised that there is not a way to produce the Dynamic Optimizer result from the RAW file. I would assume that whatever they can do in camera, they can also do with their RAW conversion software. To essentially have this as a jpeg-only feature I seems to me would really limits its value for many users.
p.2 #5 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
DRO+ has a separate chip in the camera for it's processing, and it involves a per pixel adjustment which would take forever to duplicate with PS and layers, but I'm not exactly sure why it can't be done with a program. Apical, the company that developed the tech, does make software for some video applications, but it is very expensive, and maybe there is a licensing issue. Go here to read about it: Apical
Tariq, I'm surprised that there is no sealing on the A900 door. On the A700, rather than using a cheap piece of foam, the door has a rubber channel around the card slots that seals into another piece on the door, but it is frequently unnoticed. In fact, I've been responsible for revealing this to a lot of reviewers who thought the door was unsealed. I can't imagine that Sony would seal the A700 door better than the A900, so is it possible there is some gasketing or rubber sealing that is hard to see? If not, then boo on Sony.
p.2 #6 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
The Sony RAW conversion program does read the DRO setting and one can also fine tune it further there. I'm sure its down to Adobe and others not wanting to pay the licensing fee to Apical. Here is the correct link for that company by the way: http://www.apical-imaging.com/iridix
p.2 #7 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
douglasf13 wrote:
Tariq, I'm surprised that there is no sealing on the A900 door. On the A700, rather than using a cheap piece of foam, the door has a rubber channel around the card slots that seals into another piece on the door, but it is frequently unnoticed. In fact, I've been responsible for revealing this to a lot of reviewers who thought the door was unsealed. I can't imagine that Sony would seal the A700 door better than the A900, so is it possible there is some gasketing or rubber sealing that is hard to see? If not, then boo on Sony. ...Show more →
Here is what the inside of the door on the A900 looks like. I don't see any gasket. It is spring loaded which is nice. Is the A700 door spring loaded?
p.2 #8 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
Whoops, sorry for the wrong link. AKAIK, Sony RAW converter reads DRO, but can't perform DRO+, unless that's changed.
Embarrassingly enough, I don't remember if the A700's door is spring loaded, and I don't have the camera with me to check. I use large cards, and don't open it too much. The A900 door does look a lot different, according to my memory, though. I don't believe that the A700 has those troughs on the sides of the opening, where the grooves on the doors fit in them. Maybe Sony came up with something better for the A900, since the A700 door has a little play in it?
p.2 #9 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
douglasf13 wrote:
Whoops, sorry for the wrong link. AKAIK, Sony RAW converter reads DRO, but can't perform DRO+, unless that's changed.
Embarrassingly enough, I don't remember if the A700's door is spring loaded, and I don't have the camera with me to check. I use large cards, and don't open it too much. The A900 door does look a lot different, according to my memory, though. I don't believe that the A700 has those troughs on the sides of the opening, where the grooves on the doors fit in them. Maybe Sony came up with something better for the A900, since the A700 door has a little play in it?...Show more →
The A900 door has absolutely no play. It closes with a reassuring snap.
I will need to do some more testing with the DRO function regarding RAW. I just know that the Sony raw conversion software produced an identical result compared to the jpeg of the same image (which was set for DRO +5).
Regarding image quality overall, I can say for certain that the original 5D does have slightly better per pixel image quality with less artifacts and less noise. My original impression about the elasticity or malleability of the RAW files compared to an original 5D file holds true as well. One can really dig into the shadows a great deal at low ISO's without running into noise with a 5D file. Not so much with the A900 file. Because of this, I often slightly underexposed when shooting the 5D to protect the highlights knowing that I could later easily pull my shadow detail out without fear of noise. The A900 files remind me a little more of some of the MF digital files I have processed. That is, underexposure is a big no no. That is probably why one reads so much about the benefits of overexposing the A900 with regards to noise. I'm still trying to get a handle on the A900's preference for exposing to the right and the effect on highlight detail/Dynamic Range. The DRO feature may indeed help here because it not only lightens the shadows but also has the recovery effect in the highlights. Then, the issue will be that that feature is only available using the Sony converter for RAW(which I'm not sold on yet as RAW Developer appears to give better detail) or jpeg.
p.2 #12 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
Lotusm50 wrote:
I am surprised that there is not a way to produce the Dynamic Optimizer result from the RAW file. I would assume that whatever they can do in camera, they can also do with their RAW conversion software. To essentially have this as a jpeg-only feature I seems to me would really limits its value for many users.
After further testing, it appears to me that this Dynamic Optimizer effect can be easily reproduced in ACR. It simply requires an extreme boost to not only the Fill Light but also the Brightness. It is quite amazing that the camera is able to do this advanced processing on a per image basis. I recall a while back reading something from Canon concerning a future technology that allowed the use of different ISO's for various parts of an image to increase the dynamic range. This Dynamic Optimizer technology seems to be something similar. I guess the real benefit with using it would be for anyone who desires perfect out of camera jpegs. This feature could be a huge time saver for those jobs which previously required individual image tweaking in a raw program such as Lightroom or Aperture of hundreds of shots. I have a few jobs like that I normally spend half a day editing/tweaking. No more! The low ISO jpegs are that good. Thus far, my optimal settings for using this Dynamic Optimizer have been at ISO 160, -7 exp. comp. and a DO advanced setting of either 2 or 3. Anything above that gets too noisy in the shadows for me.
Overall, the more I use the a900, the more I like it. I have about 30 days to decide to keep it or not. Hopefully, in that time, we will know what the 5DII is capable of.
p.2 #13 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
Here is an example of what I consider to be great out of camera jpeg performance from the a900. I have noticed that both ACR converted raws and the a900 jpeg engine can result in a few artifacts that do not show up when I use Raw Developer to convert the same image. Out of camera jpeg below. All I did was resize in PS. Lens was the Minolta 100 F2.
p.2 #15 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
Here is a comparison between Raw Developer, ACR and an out of camera jpeg. Notice the artifacts in both ACR and the jpeg (slight stair stepping)...and also on all three, the CA of the Minolta 100 f2. 24.6MP is very demanding of even the best lenses. To be fair, this is a very high contrast situation. Fine detail is also noticeably better from Raw Developer. ACR received default sharpening. If you were to sharpen it more, the artifacts would be even worse! I suppose I will have to purchase a license for my Demo version of Raw Developer if I stick with the a900.
p.2 #18 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
BTW, I don't know about ACR, but I used Lightroom, and I understand they're supposed to be identical, but the settings I use by default for every image in LR are (if I can remember correctly):
I do this automatically for every file, even from digital backs, and I think it's the best starting point, and makes clean and sharp results. You might want to try that in ACR and compare it to Raw Developer.
p.2 #19 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
Per pixel detail is not going to be an issue with this camera and a good lens at all. These are 100% crops taken from the out of camera jpegs. Noise is more than some might expect and raws result in less noise. These are at ISO 160 with -.7 exposure comp. Minolta 100 2.0 lens.
p.2 #20 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
RobertP wrote:
BTW, I don't know about ACR, but I used Lightroom, and I understand they're supposed to be identical, but the settings I use by default for every image in LR are (if I can remember correctly):
I do this automatically for every file, even from digital backs, and I think it's the best starting point, and makes clean and sharp results. You might want to try that in ACR and compare it to Raw Developer.
This is the closest I could get to your settings, labeled ACR 2. There is no Chrominance NR in ACR. I did use the CA slider and de-fringe high contrast edges. It certainly looks better but I still think Raw Developer has the edge.
I can't imagine that Sony would seal the A700 door better than the A900, so is it possible there is some gasketing or rubber sealing that is hard to see? If not, then boo on Sony.