Lotusm50. First of all, those aren\'t NR turned OFF, because there is no such thing for ISO 800. NR kicks in at ISO 1600. Secondly, you\'re showing us JPEGS, which isn\'t what we\'ve been talking about. If you shoot jpeg, then YES, the 1Ds III is clearly better. Just like in the V1 of the A700 firmware, the A900\'s jpegs smudge up and show very little detail. JPEGs are the true weakness of this camera. The 1ds III isn\'t two stops less noisy, it just has finer grain, which the A900 has with RAW conversion as well. BTW, this isn\'t taking into account the fact that the A900 shots were underexposed, according to Iliah Borg. Give it a rest. To show the difference in detail between jpeg and RAW for the A900, here is a RAW conversion (early beta RAW program) of the A900 vs.1Ds III at ISO 100. Compare this A900 RAW at ISO to the jpegs at IR, which is right here. A900 ISO 100 JPEG
FWIW, Here is what the full review at Chausser d\'Images said.
- image quality on par and sometimes exceeding 1dsIII;
- noise on par with 1ds III;
- very good noise handling until iso 1600, d3/700 better at higher iso\'s;
- best optical viewfinder of all dslr\'s.
ulrikft, all of the RAWs at IR do have NR on, but that kicks in at ISO 1600.
Sep 25, 2008 at 07:48 PM
Previous versions of douglasf13's message #6208921 « Some better A900 samples »
