douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #16 · a850 vs a900, 1 stop better noise performance? | |
Did you email Iliah and ask him for data? Quote honestly, there isn't a single source more qualified in this area, IMO. I have said the 5Dii is a jack of all trades, master of none many, many times, and I stick by that assessment. That doesn't have a negative connotation to me. If anything, I think it was a wise move by Canon overall. It certainly isn't in the D3s league for high ISO, although being very good. As for low ISO, it doesn't have quite the DR, color, or low read noise of the D3x or A900, but, again, it is still very, very good.
I don't think I've ever said the A900 is the best camera around, but, rather, the best at a thing or two. It usually goes something like, "The A900 is a very noisy camera." I usually then respond with, "Well, that's because Sony uses a denser CFA on the sensor than most, and that requires more amplification. The result is better color, worse noise." That is good for some things, and not for others.
You're making way too many assumptions about the market pre-Sony. Nikon was using Sony sensors well before Sony entered the DSLR market, and, IMO, Nikon's renaissance was aided by 1) the little D40 for the mass market and 2)NIkon's introduction of the D3 (which isn't a Sony chip.) A while back, all of Sony's and NIkon's chips were CCD (some still are,) and there were users then that continuously claimed that CCD had advantages over the Canon chips, but, similar to today, everyone went straight for the noise tests. I still know of quite a few A100 users that prefer its output to the newer CMOS cams they own now, but, again, anecdotes. The whole agreement thing between Sony and Nikon regarding the D3x and pro Sony body is pure speculation. Sony and NIkon share sensors in similarly priced cameras all across the board, and the D3x doesn't sell in enough volume to be an issue.
To be honest, I'm more interested in discussing the new D3s. According to everyone from Iliah to Thom Hogan, Nikon has somehow improved both its high ISO AND its color. Now that is a real mystery I'd like to learn about 
|
I will have to rough it with my 30" Apple Cinema display.
), superior viewfinder and solid build. Resolution is all I need, noise levels are as good as I need and the resulting files are great material to work with in post pro. And, require less work for me than with Canon. I get that "I was there" feeling with the Sony files where as with the Canon files I was feeling more "did it really look like this?" feeling. I feel there is more clarity to the Sony files and Sony handles highlights better with a more forgiving recovery and roll off. Shadow noise on Sony is worse but manageable and in printing the shadows look great unless one tries to "recover" them too much, which looks unnatural to me.