Reading mode: Light Dark

the images alone worth the price tag!

Go to last post
m_appeal said:
I don't know if they are representative of what the camera can do. If
someone can point me to great samples from the A900, that would be
fantastic. I'd like to see those.
Click to expand...
These samples are mushy IMO, see e.g. these:
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_link/155232-9529-13-1.html
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_link/155124-9529-7-2.html

I am happy using my S3 instead of a900 if it delivers that kind of results. Yes, S3 coverted to 12 MB 16-bit is not real 12 MB as D3/D700 but it has its benefits too.

I do not care that much what brand some item is, but I tend to know what works and what does not (e.g. Sony AV-receivers have good value, just bought a STR-DA3300ES and other Sony HiFi stuff too). Actually we have more Sony items than Nikon (in EUR) here. That has nothing to do with the quality of the a900 in RAW ISO100. I read here all the time that it is as good as any other 24 MP or that it is fine. I have not yet seen a single fine sample from a900. I think many here are either blind (vision) or blinded (24 is bigger number than 12 or 6) and do not value at all quality in detail and do not want to see problems in a picture that has nothing else but technical problems.

--
Osku
 
MCromer said:
I will take 10 images with the Alpha 900 and Nikon D3x of the same
scene using the same lens type (perhaps the Sigma 50/1.4) at base ISO
in RAW and convert to JPEG. I will then strip the EXIF data from the
jpegs.

If you can identify at least 18 out of the 20 correctly, you win
$1000, otherwise I win it.

It should be easy since the Sony images are "mush", right?
Click to expand...
I do not make bets, no reason to. But if you will make such a test and will use latest Nikon RAW converter and best converter for a900 RAW files too and then will post the samples somewhere I am eager to do it and would be surprised if the result is less than 90% accurate (and a little surprised if there would be a single mistake since I can not understand how such could happen with that kind of files).
MCromer said:
We'll wait until February or whenever I can get ahold of both bodies
for making the image comparison shots.
Click to expand...
I have no problems with a test (no bets though since I do not like that kind of attitude, I prefer more scientific approach).

I would be best if the test could be done with TIFF or level 11 or 12 PS JPGs and same lens for both bodies (preferably a Nikkor that is in D3x database for automatic correction) and that there would be limited time to examine each pair (first download files, then view 2-5 minutes per file or pair, then decision what was what). No tools what so ever used (no calculations of any noise or such is needed, just visual impression).

PS

I did not mean to bash a900 or Sony, it just is not IMO a tool for me in the light of the samples I have seen. I feel that I would rather use almost any other product instead (D700 shines in comparison).

--
Osku
 
Sensor is obviously same as Sony A900
it's the processor and other IQ that is different.

What are the odds Nikon and Sony would design sensor with exactly same size, and same pixel count. Nikon PR naturally has to say it's unique, bla bla bla.
Important however it is how good pictures come out of the camera.

Same as D300 and A700 same sensor but output not in the same class.
 
lizardmech said:
Chikubi said:
m_appeal said:
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2008/10/30/9529.html
Click to expand...
Oh yeah. Here's a 100% from the title image. 100 ISO and look at all
the artifacts. You've got to be joking.



--
Click to expand...
Be realistic, if you take a dark out of focus crop of the d3x samples
they are just as bad. Epic trolling in here tonight.

Click to expand...
Those do not even nearly compare. The D3x file has just dark water (intentionally). The a900 file has mushy water. D3x file shows the water as it is, better than any film scan I have ever made with my Coolscan and pro slide film (D700 can not do that - it has less noise but I prefer the film scans if I had the time and money). I was suggested to take a bet that I would not be able to identify a900 and D3x files from each other. You crops are so easy that it is unlikely that I would make a single mistake in 100 pairs. (But I still do not bet).

--
Osku
 
you might not see a difference on screen but definately when you began to post process the photos and printing them. The post processing will reveal the true core of the files.

Instead of posting files, post raws for people to download. They say that D3x utilized an even more improved sensor over D3,(according to Thom Hogan) and the Dynamic Range of the D3x, blows D3 out of the water. We know how good D3 dynamic range already, but that is a bonus to D3x IQ. D3x images also look sharper.
 
hi

how do u consider he mamiya zd back? i have read opposite review. What lens do you use?
Bernard Languillier said:
Hans Giersberg said:
I've been bashing Nikon about the D3X price in other threads, but I
was expecting to be wowed by the D3X IQ, nontheless. I've been
shooting Nikon for almost 30 years, so I admit I'm biased in their
favor. Unfortunately, now that I've downloaded the two landscape
samples, I'm not that impressed. They are good, but not stellar. I
certainly don't see anything that I wouldn't expect to also see from
a 1DsIII, 5DII, or A900.
Click to expand...
The landscape samples posted by Nikon are average at best. The micro
detail is pretty poor IMHO.

I agree with Thom that this might not be representative of what the
camera can deliver, but I have for sure not be wowed the least bit by
these samples. They are clearly behind what my Mamiya ZD can deliver,
and I find the pixel quality to be inferior to what I am seeing with
my D3 as well.

If this is the best it can deliver, then MF manufacturers need not
worry too much and the price is indeed way too high.

Cheers,
Bernard
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/jon1976
 
Andrea, anybody not blinded by brand loyalty can see that your shots are showing more detail.It's really like pi$$ing in the wind trying to convince someone who has thousands of dollars wraped up in nikon glass.

I look foward to seeing more of your images with the a900 and 135mm.
--
jeff
 
MCromer said:
MCromer said:
I did not mean to bash a900 or Sony, it just is not IMO a tool for me
in the light of the samples I have seen. I feel that I would rather
use almost any other product instead (D700 shines in comparison).
Click to expand...
I'm very curious what you think of this comparison of the Alpha 900
and Nikon D700:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1037&thread=29804929&page=1

I don't see any better IQ from the D700 at ISO 3200, in fact the
Alpha 900 shows more detail.
Click to expand...
MCromer said:
MCromer said:
These samples are mushy IMO, see e.g. these:
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_link/155232-9529-13-1.html
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_link/155124-9529-7-2.html
Click to expand...
So if I post a mushy image from the D3x that proves it has IQ problems?!

Osku, I posted a decent in-camera jpeg landscape image and Andrea
posted a few excellent studio portraits in this thread.

So what is your problem with those images, exactly?
Click to expand...
I think you confused him.:)
 
rospotte said:
Andrea, anybody not blinded by brand loyalty can see that your shots
are showing more detail.It's really like pi$$ing in the wind trying
Click to expand...
Many of the Nikon sample images were shot at really small apertures. Normally with high end glass one shouldn't go below f/5.6 or f/8 for best detail. f/13 for the landscape - it's heavily affected by diffraction.
 
I had exactly the same impression when I looked at thiem at 2AM this morning. You would think that Nikon would have the BEST possible images---the best samples from photographers who know how to make zingers. It makes me wonder if nikon marketing had any anticipation that they might need to justify the D3x price. I mean, it's not like guys got together over the weekend and decided to release a new product. They had months to prepare.

Michael
m_appeal said:
I'd like to see good landscape samples please.
Click to expand...
--
Michael

http://www.michael-newberry.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