Reading mode: Light Dark

Interesting(?) observations. A900, 1Ds III, D300

Go to last post
Steve Bingham

Steve Bingham

Forum Pro
Messages
27,683
Solutions
7
Reaction score
6,749
Location
Lake Havasu, az, AZ, US
I download the photos from Imaging Resources just for grins. At ISO 200 I picked the Chart as it provided the most information. In my opinion the new A900 isn't equal to the 1Ds III in terms of detail and lack of noise. I had to do a re-rez on the D300 file. First I up-rezed the D300 and compared. Then I down rezed the 1Ds III and A900 - and compared. I lined up areas in question using PS CS3 layers.

My observations: The A900 is not nearly as good as the 3 year year old 1Ds III. Sad, but true. (no re-rezing involved)

Now I know why Nikon is holding off! They probably decided NOT to use this same Sony sensor - for obvious reasons. With dozens of test cameras out there they probably came to the same conclusion I came too - and decided to develop their own chip - again.

The resolution of the A900 was definitely ahead of the D300. However, the A900 does hot appear to handle noise as well at ISO 800 and above. Strange behavior from a FF chip. It will be interesting to see some real tests in this area. My observations are not conclusive - but simply careful observations.
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
http://www.ghost-town-photography.com
 
I'm sure you compared Jpeg files?

In other words, in camera processing rather than what the cameras (sensors) are really capable off.
 
Steve, the Canon 1Ds Mark III was introduced last year (2007) in August, just a few days before Nikon's D3, not 3 years ago.
 
Steve Bingham said:
With dozens of test cameras out there they probably came to the same conclusion I came too - and decided to develop their own chip - again.
Click to expand...
As I recall, Thom said at least one of the test cameras that has been circulating had an 18 MP sensor in it. That suggests to me that Nikon may have already developed their own alternative sensor. They certainly wouldn't have waited until now to start development of their own sensor, since it can take a couple of years to develop such things. And then of course there are all the MF rumors (which I'm still doubtful of, tho not quite as doubtful as before).
Steve Bingham said:
Strange behavior from a FF chip.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it's that strange. The photosites on the new Sony sensor are almost as small as the photosites on the D300 sensor. You would hope Sony would have reduced the noise a bit over the D300 sensor, but it doesn't appear so from the samples and from a number of reviews that are starting to appear.

--
I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own

Web Site - http://www.hgiersberg.com/
 
I will tell you....More pixels is not the answer. I just sold my 1Ds3 to get a D3 and D700. 12mpx is a sweet spot for the time being. Prior to this may favorite camera was the D2Hs. I also had a 1D3, and it is nice, but the D3 is much better over all.

Best of all I got back my Nikon Flash System!

GenoP

--
Web: http://www.pbase.com/genop754
Send eMail to: [email protected]
 
Steve Bingham said:
I download the photos from Imaging Resources just for grins. At ISO
200 I picked the Chart as it provided the most information. In my
opinion the new A900 isn't equal to the 1Ds III in terms of detail
and lack of noise. I had to do a re-rez on the D300 file. First I
up-rezed the D300 and compared. Then I down rezed the 1Ds III and
A900 - and compared. I lined up areas in question using PS CS3 layers.
My observations: The A900 is not nearly as good as the 3 year year
old 1Ds III. Sad, but true. (no re-rezing involved)
Click to expand...
I thought the 1ds mkIII came out less then a year ago?
Steve Bingham said:
Now I know why Nikon is holding off! They probably decided NOT to use
this same Sony sensor - for obvious reasons. With dozens of test
cameras out there they probably came to the same conclusion I came
too - and decided to develop their own chip - again.
Click to expand...
Nikon never made their own chips that I know of...They have been using Sony CCD's and now CMOS chips for awhile.
Steve Bingham said:
The resolution of the A900 was definitely ahead of the D300. However,
the A900 does hot appear to handle noise as well at ISO 800 and
above. Strange behavior from a FF chip. It will be interesting to see
some real tests in this area. My observations are not conclusive -
but simply careful observations.
Click to expand...
Another thing...aren't all these test being conducted with unsupported RAW converters or JPEG's from pre-production cameras?

I think i will wait till the fat lady sings before I make any conclusions...
Steve Bingham said:
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
http://www.ghost-town-photography.com
Click to expand...
Just my two cents
--
http://www.pbase.com/dwinnert
 
Hemidart said:
I thought the 1ds mkIII came out less then a year ago?
Click to expand...
Yes
Hemidart said:
Nikon never made their own chips that I know of...They have been
using Sony CCD's and now CMOS chips for awhile.
Click to expand...
Nikon doesn't manufacture/fabricate their own chips, but they designed the D2h and D3 sensors themselves. They are not Sony sensors.
Hemidart said:
Another thing...aren't all these test being conducted with
unsupported RAW converters or JPEG's from pre-production cameras?
Click to expand...
That's a big problem right now, yes. But sony has never produced quiet sensors, so JPG and conversion engines aside, I can't conceive of how this sensor is going to be competitive at anything other than the lowest ISOs. Which is fine, as that's the crowd it's most likely aimed at anyway. (But personally I'd never complain about a little versatility. ;-)
 
Jim Keye said:
That's a big problem right now, yes. But sony has never produced
quiet sensors, so JPG and conversion engines aside, I can't conceive
of how this sensor is going to be competitive at anything other than
the lowest ISOs. Which is fine, as that's the crowd it's most likely
aimed at anyway. (But personally I'd never complain about a little
versatility. ;-)
Click to expand...
But Sony manufactures the chips for the D300/D3/D700 and they are considered low noise. I think Sony has problems with the processing of the data coming off the chip.

--
http://www.pbase.com/dwinnert
 
Please, please, please do not compare the A900 JPEGS to anything. Sony is not on it's game with these huge jpegs, but the RAWS look really good. Donwload Iliah Borgs raw converter, and check out the A900 RAWS.

Also, I don't believe Imaging Resource turned off the RAW NR before they shot, and that would affect detail as well. Sony has recently added the OFF option to the A700 (A900 has it as well,) and my A700 is like a new camera. Nearly identical to D300.
 
Steve Bingham said:
I download the photos from Imaging Resources just for grins. At ISO
200 I picked the Chart as it provided the most information. In my
opinion the new A900 isn't equal to the 1Ds III in terms of detail
and lack of noise. I had to do a re-rez on the D300 file. First I
up-rezed the D300 and compared. Then I down rezed the 1Ds III and
A900 - and compared. I lined up areas in question using PS CS3 layers.
My observations: The A900 is not nearly as good as the 3 year year
old 1Ds III. Sad, but true. (no re-rezing involved)
Click to expand...
3 year old 1Ds III ............ The 1Ds III came out in Aug of 2007 ONE YEAR AGO.
 
Hans Giersberg said:
Hans Giersberg said:
With dozens of test cameras out there they probably came to the same conclusion I came too - and decided to develop their own chip - again.
Click to expand...
As I recall, Thom said at least one of the test cameras that has been
circulating had an 18 MP sensor in it.
Click to expand...
Yes, I read that too, Hans . . . along with 24 mp chip.

That suggests to me that Nikon
Hans Giersberg said:
may have already developed their own alternative sensor. They
certainly wouldn't have waited until now to start development of
their own sensor, since it can take a couple of years to develop such
things. And then of course there are all the MF rumors (which I'm
still doubtful of, tho not quite as doubtful as before).
Hans Giersberg said:
Strange behavior from a FF chip.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it's that strange. The photosites on the new Sony sensor
are almost as small as the photosites on the D300 sensor. You would
hope Sony would have reduced the noise a bit over the D300 sensor,
but it doesn't appear so from the samples and from a number of
reviews that are starting to appear.

--
I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own

Web Site - http://www.hgiersberg.com/
Click to expand...
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
http://www.ghost-town-photography.com
 
Hemidart said:
Steve Bingham said:
I download the photos from Imaging Resources just for grins. At ISO
200 I picked the Chart as it provided the most information. In my
opinion the new A900 isn't equal to the 1Ds III in terms of detail
and lack of noise. I had to do a re-rez on the D300 file. First I
up-rezed the D300 and compared. Then I down rezed the 1Ds III and
A900 - and compared. I lined up areas in question using PS CS3 layers.
My observations: The A900 is not nearly as good as the 3 year year
old 1Ds III. Sad, but true. (no re-rezing involved)
Click to expand...
I thought the 1ds mkIII came out less then a year ago?
Click to expand...
Obviously I was mistaken. I was thinking of the II.
Hemidart said:
Hemidart said:
Now I know why Nikon is holding off! They probably decided NOT to use
this same Sony sensor - for obvious reasons. With dozens of test
cameras out there they probably came to the same conclusion I came
too - and decided to develop their own chip - again.
Click to expand...
Nikon never made their own chips that I know of...They have been
using Sony CCD's and now CMOS chips for awhile.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, I should have said "Nikon design".

While it's widely known that Nikon uses sensors designed by Sony in most of its digital SLRs, the D3's sensor is an original Nikon design. The only other digital SLR models to also feature a sensor created by Nikon are the D2H and D2Hs, and as with those models, Nikon isn't revealing their manufacturing partner.

Sony? Not sure. In any case, the D3 is a unique sensor - as will be the D2x or D4 - or whatever. You make an excellent point, however.
Hemidart said:
Hemidart said:
The resolution of the A900 was definitely ahead of the D300. However,
the A900 does hot appear to handle noise as well at ISO 800 and
above. Strange behavior from a FF chip. It will be interesting to see
some real tests in this area. My observations are not conclusive -
but simply careful observations.
Click to expand...
Another thing...aren't all these test being conducted with
unsupported RAW converters or JPEG's from pre-production cameras?

I think i will wait till the fat lady sings before I make any
conclusions...
Hemidart said:
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
http://www.ghost-town-photography.com
Click to expand...
Just my two cents
--
http://www.pbase.com/dwinnert
Click to expand...
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
http://www.ghost-town-photography.com
 
headofdestiny said:
Please, please, please do not compare the A900 JPEGS to anything.
Sony is not on it's game with these huge jpegs, but the RAWS look
really good. Donwload Iliah Borgs raw converter, and check out the
A900 RAWS.
Click to expand...
Like I said, "My observations are not conclusive - but simply careful observations." I also mentioned I needed to see the raw files. In short, these are simply observations - to later be verified or denied. I tried to download the raw but my server crapped after 35 minutes.
headofdestiny said:
Also, I don't believe Imaging Resource turned off the RAW NR before
they shot, and that would affect detail as well. Sony has recently
added the OFF option to the A700 (A900 has it as well,) and my A700
is like a new camera. Nearly identical to D300.
Click to expand...
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
http://www.ghost-town-photography.com
 
Good eyes . . . the 3rd person to correct an obvious error. But thanks!
I got confused with the II. Typing faster than I was thinking. Imagine! :^)
MikeSoCal said:
Steve Bingham said:
I download the photos from Imaging Resources just for grins. At ISO
200 I picked the Chart as it provided the most information. In my
opinion the new A900 isn't equal to the 1Ds III in terms of detail
and lack of noise. I had to do a re-rez on the D300 file. First I
up-rezed the D300 and compared. Then I down rezed the 1Ds III and
A900 - and compared. I lined up areas in question using PS CS3 layers.
My observations: The A900 is not nearly as good as the 3 year year
old 1Ds III. Sad, but true. (no re-rezing involved)
Click to expand...
3 year old 1Ds III ............ The 1Ds III came out in Aug of 2007
ONE YEAR AGO.

--
Click to expand...
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
http://www.ghost-town-photography.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top