"The A900 has worse high-ISO performance than the best crop-sensor cameras"
That can't be true at all...it should be better (or at the very lest not worse) at high ISO than most of the current crops save for something like the 1d mk III / 1d mk IV maybe.
"can't record to both memory cards simultaneously, and doesn't have much in the way of in-production lens selection (though there are a few great ones)."
Until the D300s, only the 1d series cameras in the Canon line and the D1-D3 series were doing that, so it's not like the A900 is alone in that area.
Sure, the Sony line is lacking some lenses, but no more so than the competition IMO. The OVERALL zoom line up IMO is the best and rivals Nikon's best zooms (16-35 is worse than the 14-24, but 24-70 is as good if not better)... and they offer THE best 70-300 and 70-400 zooms on the market. Canon nor Nikon don't have anything as good as the 70-400 / 70-300. And Zeiss 85 and 135 are superior to Nikon's and possibly Canon's offerings (well 135 is better, I don't know about the 85 1.4 Zeiss compared to Canon's 85 1.2)...
"The D700 is a far more accomplished camera than the others in many ways. Its autofocus is in a different league, it can shoot at 8 fps, it has vastly shorter mirror black-out and shutter-lag times than the other two, it's designed with an attention to detail that Canon hasn't achieved in decades and that Sony won't achieve for years, and it's the best low-light camera on the market except for the new D3S."
Yes, D700 is better in AF, but it's not clearly superior at high ISO to 5d mk 2... and frankly when people say it has noiseless high ISO, that's simply not true. I actually wouldn't be printing big at high ISO with any of these cameras... For me, I don't care about how good the AF / high ISO are with the D700, its lack of detail compared to the other 2 simply takes it out of the competition... I realize some people's needs might be different... but as far as poorer AF is concerned, you should still be able to shoot most things with 5d mk 2 / A900. Of course if you absolutely need the best servo AF, D700 it is. To me the best IQ possible + ok AF makes a better camera than best AF possible + OK IQ. Admittedly, the feature set is much better than Canon or Sony... as I miss normal Auto ISO in M mode and spot metering linked to AF point.
But its biggest flaw is inexcusable: it suffers from worse shadow banding than any camera in recent memory. Any old DSLR has better usable dynamic range at base ISO.
Well, I've never seen any banding in shadows in thousands of shots, and as to the dynamic range comment, this seems nonsense to me.
Though you may well be right about manufacturers able to produce better cameras if they wanted to, your comments seem childishly exaggerated.
The 5Dii banding in low ISO shadows exists, but how you expose and/or process your images may or may not bring out this flaw, so it really depends on the shooter. If you'd like, you could post a few throw-away raw images with deep shadows with your 5Dii, and we can see if the banding is there in your copy (I've yet to see a copy without it.)
m_appeal wrote:
I don't own one, but It's not perfect in the corners on FF from what I read... whereas the 14-24 has perfect corner performance.
I think they are 2 different beasts altogether. From 16 to 24 the zeiss is stellar wide open except in the very extreme corners. At f/8 corners become excellent. At 28 to 35 only the center is very sharp wide open but again at f/8 it's perfect. I'm sure the nikon must be better in some aspects but I have not seen any comparisons and it would be very difficult to do any meaningful ones as the can't be mounted on the same body.
From what I've seen Nikon 14-24 is sharp into the extreme corners even wide open. I have not seen samples with the D3X though....
Apparently, the Nikon 24-70 doesn't perform as well on the D3x as the Zeiss does on the A900, although I'm more speculating on that than anything... BUT I did read that 24-70 isn't perfect on the D3x.
m_appeal wrote:
That can't be true at all...it should be better (or at the very lest not worse) at high ISO than most of the current crops save for something like the 1d mk III / 1d mk IV maybe.
I find it hard to believe too, but I've looked at more than a few high-ISO images and I think a Canon 7D, for example, is distinctly better at ISO 1600. I don't think the sensor in the A900 is all that great at converting photons to electrons. It has excellent low-ISO dynamic range (i.e., low shadow noise) because it uses Sony's column-parallel ADC technique, not because the sensor itself has an unusually high signal-to-noise ratio. Thus at high ISOs the dynamic range falls off a cliff due to severe shadow noise.
wolfloid wrote:
Well, I've never seen any banding in shadows in thousands of shots, and as to the dynamic range comment, this seems nonsense to me.
Though you may well be right about manufacturers able to produce better cameras if they wanted to, your comments seem childishly exaggerated.
A fair comment, wolfloid. However, when you're trying to decide between these cameras, as I am, each of these flaw seems impossible to live with! It's pretty annoying that Nikon is the only one with an all-round great performer in the D3X, and it's the price of a car and almost as big... There is some truth in the idea that Nikon does things late but does things right, and I suspect the D700X (or whatever the D3X sensor package in the D700 body will be called) will blow the 5D Mark II and A900 out of the water. But Nikon will undoubtedly charge for the privilege. Probably $4k.
Specularist wrote:
I find it hard to believe too, but I've looked at more than a few high-ISO images and I think a Canon 7D, for example, is distinctly better at ISO 1600.
I haven't seen anything that would lead me to the conclusion tha 7d is better at ISO 1600. What images have you seen that make you think that?
wolfloid wroteThere is some truth in the idea that Nikon does things late but does things right, and I suspect the D700X (or whatever the D3X sensor package in the D700 body will be called) will blow the 5D Mark II and A900 out of the water. But Nikon will undoubtedly charge for the privilege. Probably $4k.
Yeah, well, in this case it's going to be 2 (not 1) years too late, which IMO is ridiculous. I for one am not really interested to hang around with Nikon to wait for that. Yes, they may come out with a D700x (may) sometime in 2010, but charging 4K for that camera would be exorbitant at that time, not that it has stopped Nikon before. I don't think it will blow them out of the water either... it might be a D3x in a D700 body, so it will have better features... but they have seriously missed the boat on the affordable high MP FF market segment.
I've owned the 5d2 with L glass, the D700 with the nikon pro glass (14-24 wide, for example), and the now the Sony a850 with Zeiss glass...
The Sony is by far my favorite of the 3 for landscapes and fashion/portrait work as low ISO (<800). The files are just amazing. The skin tones are the nicest of the three cams, the colors are vibrant and post processing is a dream.
Just my 2cents. If I wanted high ISO or video, I would choose the 5D2.
Specularist, one of the main differences between the A900 vs. the D3x is the narrower-cut CFA in the A900. The downside being that less light hits the sensor, meaning it requires more amplification. MFDB runs into the same issues. The D3x already doesn't "blow the A900" out of the water, so I'm not sure a D700x will. While the D3x certainly has a better handle on shadow noise due to the 14bit processing (which may simply be multisampling from the 12 bit data,) the A900 has better color resolution. I know quite a few shooters who use both cameras, and prefer the A900 to the D3x in many instances. I agree that the D3x is probably the best all around camera, but it isn't the best at everything.
As far as the A900 vs. APS-C cameras, I've yet to see an APS-C camera better than the A900 at ISO 3200, if the images are outputted at the same size. FWIW, if one is after the best lowlight performance with the A900, the ideal solution is to never shoot past ~ISO 800, and boost in a great demoisacing converter like RPP or RT, but that is getting picky
Well the OP has a lot opinions on which to base his decision. In the end, everybody tends to prefer the camera brand they shoot.
A few questions I'd like to know about the OP: What does he do with his landscapes? What lenses he currently uses? And, is his computer system and workflow ready for the large files?
M_Appeal,
A year ago you were trashing the D3x over its price point and stated that you prefer high ISO over MP. What made you change your mind and go with Sony?
You make it sound like thinking that about D3x isn't something that should be allowed. Don't know why it's necessary to rehash that. I still think that Nikon overprice some stuff in absurd fashion, like the D3x and the latest 70-200 VR II...but that's for another thread.
I don't think I quite said that I prefer high ISO over MP?... if I did, I do not now... I think I realized that high ISO performance is not everything...and most of the time a high MP camera will come close to delivering a similar performance to something like a D700 at high ISO with more noise but also more detail. If you are shooting at high ISO, your image quality is going to be somewhat compromised no matter what even if you have a D700 or a 5d2...
I've actually tried the 5d2 and 1ds3 before going to Sony now for $ reasons / Zeiss lenses / IS / Sony colours & low ISO quality. IS should be of great help when shooting a portrait with something like a 135 1.8, so I don't have to necessarily use high ISO...
James R wrote:
Well the OP has a lot opinions on which to base his decision. In the end, everybody tends to prefer the camera brand they shoot.
Maybe on Dpr, but I've seen less of that here. Many on these fredmiranda forums have owned and used different brands, and I certainly see more shooters distinguishing the nuances between them. If I needed great lowlight performance, or video, or fast multi-point AF tracking, etc, I'd certainly not be shooting the A900 primarily. However, assuming the OP can use his lenses, the A900 for low ISO landscapes is a no brainer. OP, what are your lenses?
m_appeal wrote:
You make it sound like thinking that about D3x isn't something that should be allowed. Don't know why it's necessary to rehash that. I still think that Nikon overprice some stuff in absurd fashion, like the D3x and the latest 70-200 VR II...but that's for another thread.
I don't think I quite said that I prefer high ISO over MP?... if I did, I do not now... I think I realized that high ISO performance is not everything...and most of the time a high MP camera will come close to delivering a similar performance to something like a D700 at high ISO with more noise but also more detail. If you are shooting at high ISO, your image quality is going to be somewhat compromised no matter what even if you have a D700 or a 5d2...
I've actually tried the 5d2 and 1ds3 before going to Sony now for $ reasons / Zeiss lenses / IS / Sony colours & low ISO quality. IS should be of great help when shooting a portrait with something like a 135 1.8, so I don't have to necessarily use high ISO......Show more →
I wasn't intending to rehash the D3x topic. It's just that your statement was made during the D3x release. Here is your quote:
"kenshin wrote:
No need to get all worked up about the price IMO. The Canon flagship was $8k when it first came out and between the announcement of the 5DII and its release, the price has plummeted down to ~$6700 new. The $8k price for the D3x will drop pretty quickly upon release I suspect. And just because you can't afford it (or wouldn't pay that amount for it) doesn't mean there won't be a market for it as Canon's 1Ds line has proven.
I expect things will be different now, because 1ds3 was the only 21 MP kid on the block. Trust me, I'm not whining because I can't afford this camera. I want high ISO over MPs anyways if I need to choose. I still wouldn't be able to afford a 5000 dollar camera if this is how much it cost. But I wouldn't be whining then. I'm only bringing the price up because I think it's nuts given what else is out there. Anyways, this was my last whiny post about the price."
I just was asking what changed? Not meant to be a slam.
douglasf13 wrote:
Maybe on Dpr, but I've seen less of that here. Many on these fredmiranda forums have owned and used different brands, and I certainly see more shooters distinguishing the nuances between them. If I needed great lowlight performance, or video, or fast multi-point AF tracking, etc, I'd certainly not be shooting the A900 primarily. However, assuming the OP can use his lenses, the A900 for low ISO landscapes is a no brainer. OP, what are your lenses?
I somewhat agree with your first statement. But, I not sure that an a900 is a no "brainer." I've been tempted to switch from Nikon to Canon, but, it never made financial sense. I looked at the cost of switching to Sony and was surprised at their lens and peripheral pricing--I was curious, not considering a switch. My position is that there is more than just a sensor to consider when buying a camera.
^ As I said, I realized high ISO isn't everything... after trying the high MP offerings and seeing that you can have 5d2 perform similarly at high ISO and much better at low ISO in terms of detail.
James R wrote:
I somewhat agree with your first statement. But, I not sure that an a900 is a no "brainer." I've been tempted to switch from Nikon to Canon, but, it never made financial sense. I looked at the cost of switching to Sony and was surprised at their lens and peripheral pricing--I was curious, not considering a switch. My position is that there is more than just a sensor to consider when buying a camera.
I'm saying it's a no-brainer for the OP, according to his post (assuming his alt lenses are useable.) YMMV
James R wrote:
I somewhat agree with your first statement. But, I not sure that an a900 is a no "brainer." I've been tempted to switch from Nikon to Canon, but, it never made financial sense.
I didn't lose much $ from switching, except for the hit I took on the 1ds3, but even then I didn't lose that much...
I just got very lucky buying the Sony Alpha 900 for a rather ridiculous price of $ 2000 USD new including shipping and taxes.
