Some info on the 24 MP Nikon - from a Sony engineer

Started Oct 29, 2008 | Discussions
Bernie Ess Veteran Member • Posts: 7,147
I guess A900 IS much more than a sensor

Event_shooter wrote:

There's a WHOLE lot more behind a great camera other that a great
sensor, or body, or lens, or feel, or price etc. It all has to work
perfectly and Nikon does that better than anyone. CAnon is still
playing catch up with Nikon, as all the others are, Sony will take
another 50 years before they are there.

Sorry, but this is a typical fanboi statement.

Yes a camera is much more than just a sensor, like: a solid built, at least basically sealed body with the biggest and brightest possible viewfinder. Sony A900 has it, it also makes every single lens a stabilized lens - something Nikon and Canon still have to do. The colour output I have seen from the FF Sony is nicer and more filmlike than anything I know from Canon and NIkon. I like that a lot....

High ISO may be worse than the 1ds Mk III and, but let's first wait for the high rez Nikon and the 5d Mk II, and, BTW, it always amazes me to see more and more people who seem to judge a camera solely on extreme ISO performance.

I still shoot 95% of my pics at ISO400 and lower. And I don't want to fool around with video at all.

So from my standpoint, having seen some of the better samples from the A900 in full rez, I am quite impressed indeed!

regards
Bernie

 Bernie Ess's gear list:Bernie Ess's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3
Lasse Eisele
Lasse Eisele Senior Member • Posts: 2,027
Re: Let's make it

Iliah Borg wrote:

High resolution in a small format even if it is achieved will be
strongly compromised in real world shooting by camera shake alone.

Common misconception. The effect of camera shake is format independant. Easy to prove.

Iliah Borg Forum Pro • Posts: 28,639
Re: You do not need the concept of ISO here

A problem often arises from misuse of terms; but misuse of terms often indicates that something is wrong in understanding.

Your argument basically was that Nikon are now better sensor designers then Canon and SONY, like you stated "A good reason for Nikon not to use the A900 sensor in a flagship model is that it has become better at designing sensors than Sony (or Canon, for that matter)." To which you were pointed out that yes, some sensor characteristics in the sensor found in D3/D700 are better but some are worse then what SONY and Canon currently have. That is true.

-- hide signature --
Iliah Borg Forum Pro • Posts: 28,639
Re: Let's make it

Lasse Eisele wrote:

Iliah Borg wrote:

High resolution in a small format even if it is achieved will be
strongly compromised in real world shooting by camera shake alone.

The effect of camera shake is format independant.

Not in my experience. Larger cameras are heavier, longer lenses with much longer hoods are more affected by the wind, heavier tripods are needed, and so on.

-- hide signature --
Iliah Borg Forum Pro • Posts: 28,639
Re: Let's make it

Yes, MF sales have decreased at a steady 40% per year for the last 20
years.

It maybe also because of the same reasons wedding painting is
shrinking to nearly null

What the new trend where every table at the wedding reception has a
canvas and oil paints so the guests can capture the candid moments?

It was not done like that

and shooting raw shrinking last 3 years
dramatically.

Interesting. Do you mean as a percentage of the total number of
photographs taken?

Only high end dSLRs are considered here. Also I know quite a lot of people who were dye-hard raw shooters and switched to jpgs during 2008.

-- hide signature --
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 69,795
Re: expensive strategy

FrankG wrote:

So you are basically supporting my point which is that for all
intents and purposes at base ISO (at least) "High Density" cameras
such as the new Sony A900 can easily stand up to 100% scrutiny.

That statement is broadly right. The issue is, what is the point of 100% scrutiny.

No-one said anything about downsizing the output. We invariably
upsize it, since no-one's keen looking at images 24x36 mm.

?
Who said anything about viewing or printing at 24x36mm?
When referring to "downsizing" I am of course talking with reference
to comparison to 100% view. Effectively if you print both 12 and
24Mipix image at, say, 19x13 you have effectively downsized the
24Mpix image with reference to 100% significantly more than the
12Mpix image.

The use of the phrase 'of course' assumes that the pixel centric view is natural. I submit that it's not. For all practical purposes (apart from index prints) we upsize the image from the sensor (using the word 'size' literally). We may also upsample or downsample, depending on the output medium. Unless one wants to insist on a rule that there will be pixel for pixel correspondence between input and output (which is almost undoable in the real world, anyway), 100% has little relevance to anything, so why should it be used as a reference for 'upsizing' or 'downsizing'?

The issue is, what do you lose by increasing pixel density? The answer is
nothing (except file size and processor capacity).

Purchase cost!

Nothing intrinsic about high pixel density that increases purchase cost (apart from the already mentioned memory and processor requirements). the manufacturers may decide that it is a desirable enough feature to charge a price premium.

That is true for very Low ISO range pictures. In fact we ought to be
able to do prints of double the size from 24Mpix - but it is a case
of how big do we need to go when we can already get large prints of
extremely high quality from 12Mpix?
...

Why 'ought' we. The extra pixel density brings demonstrably extra detail (in terms of more contrast at high spatial frequencies) even at A3 size.

However as for the A900 being only "one third of a stop" worse noise
than the D700 "at equal output sizes" - would you mind pointing to
your evidence for that?

First look at Emil Martinec's tables
( http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/posts/tests/D300_40D_tests/ )

  • the D300 has to stand in for the A900, and adjust for area. This

might not be completely accurate, but since sensor efficiency seems
to go across sensor families (look at the Canon ones) it's a fair
assumption. Now look at Clarkvision

( http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary/index.html ) again letting the D300 stand in for the A900. On the sensor efficiency side (from Emil), we find that the D3(or D700) has about 1/3 stop advantage in area efficiency. Since the sensors are the same size, that translates to overall efficiency. Now look at the read noise figures (from Roger) and we find an advantage (more than a stop) to the A900 at low ISO's, with them being about even at high ISO's. This suggests that if anything the A900 will have a slight advantage at low ISO's. this actually triangulates with real test results, where the A900 seems to have a measurable DR advantage over the D3/D700.

I quote:
"Measured noise as you move up the ISO range is broadly the same for
all cameras, though one glance at the crops above should be enough to
tell you that Sony is making increasingly desperate attempts to
control noise through pretty brutal noise reduction as you head up
the scale. By ISO 3200 the result is a blurry mess with little fine
detail - with the added insult of visible chroma noise in the shadow
areas. I think it's fair to say that ISO 3200 and 6400 are firmly in
the 'emergency use only' bracket (of course with 24MP to play with
you shouldn't have many problems at small print sizes).

That's a long way from your third of a stop estimate.

It's also evaluated at a per pixel level in JPEG. I referred you to the thread where a comparison has been done in raw at equal output size. That, as I said, looks to within 1/3 of a stop. You need to be aware that DPReview has a definite party line here, and the text of their reviews consistently reflects this. Many other reviewers are using similar methodologies, and failing to compare at equal output sizes. The consequence of this is that manufacturers are trying to square the circle, producing the extra pixel density that the market sensibly wants, and trying to avoid being slammed in 100% jpeg noise tests by going for absurd amounts of NR by default. Sony does this, and now Canon is too. Only Pentax seems brave enough to go for the pixel density without heavy NR, but their products are getting criticised in reviews and on these forums as a result.

The other thing we don't know is how the read noise of the Sony fares above 1600. If it's poor that could produce poir noise at high ISO's but that woulnb't be a result of high pixel density or a poor sensel design, but poor read chain design - however, the D300 seems to do OK on the same read chain.

Show me an equal output size raw test that backs up your contention that the noise at high ISO's is much worse, and I will concede, but certainly not on the basis of per pixel noise measurements and 100% crops.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Lasse Eisele
Lasse Eisele Senior Member • Posts: 2,027
Re: Let's make it

Iliah Borg wrote:

High resolution in a small format even if it is achieved will be
strongly compromised in real world shooting by camera shake alone.

The effect of camera shake is format independant.

Not in my experience. Larger cameras are heavier, longer lenses with
much longer hoods are more affected by the wind, heavier tripods are
needed, and so on.

That is true (and it contradicts your original statement). I just wanted to make clear that the same amount of camera shake will have the same effect on a small format camera as on a large format camera with similar pixel count/resolution (at the same field of view). Many people believe that small format cameras are more sensitive. They are not.

Regards
Lasse

Iliah Borg Forum Pro • Posts: 28,639
Re: Let's make it

High resolution in a small format even if it is achieved will be
strongly compromised in real world shooting by camera shake alone.

The effect of camera shake is format independant.

Not in my experience. Larger cameras are heavier, longer lenses with
much longer hoods are more affected by the wind, heavier tripods are
needed, and so on.

That is true

Good enough

Many people believe that small format cameras are more sensitive. They are
not.

They are, all thing considered.

-- hide signature --
Lasse Eisele
Lasse Eisele Senior Member • Posts: 2,027
Re: Let's make it

Iliah Borg wrote:

High resolution in a small format even if it is achieved will be
strongly compromised in real world shooting by camera shake alone.

The effect of camera shake is format independant.

Not in my experience. Larger cameras are heavier, longer lenses with
much longer hoods are more affected by the wind, heavier tripods are
needed, and so on.

That is true

Good enough

Many people believe that small format cameras are more sensitive. They are
not.

They are, all thing considered.

Many things may affect camera shake. Like mirror/shutter slap, weight, grip etc. But a 1 mm movement with a 12 MP P&S camera will have the same blurring effect as a 1 mm movement with a 12 MP FX camera.

Iliah Borg Forum Pro • Posts: 28,639
Re: Let's make it

Many people believe that small format cameras are more sensitive. They are
not.

They are, all thing considered.

Many things may affect camera shake.

All things considered is also taking into account that 1mm shake for some pixel density does not affect next pixel while it does affect it for a different pixel density. This is especially important for Bayer-type sensors.

-- hide signature --
Bernie Ess Veteran Member • Posts: 7,147
Re: Let's make it

Iliah Borg wrote:

All things considered is also taking into account that 1mm shake for
some pixel density does not affect next pixel while it does affect it
for a different pixel density. This is especially important for
Bayer-type sensors.

Some think only theoretically. In practice it becomes quickly evident that larger formats are less sensitive to sharpness issues.

When I bought my first FF (the EOS 5d) I discovered - despite almost the same weight - that I could go down to 1/90 or even 1/60th without big problems with a normal zoom. On the Mamiya ZD (which I tried out once) I shot quite slow (around 1/100th) handheld and got an incredibly sharp and detailed file. Lens was a 200USD manual Mamiya lens.

On the other hand both the 1ds Mark III and also the other 2 new 20+MP DSLRs show that without a tripod and the very best lenses the resolution advantage compared to 12MP cameras will be small to zero.

It may be a combination of several factors: Lens resolution issues, camera shake, per pixel quality of the sensor etc.

But it is real.

regards
Bernie

 Bernie Ess's gear list:Bernie Ess's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3
Iliah Borg Forum Pro • Posts: 28,639
Re: Let's make it

It may be a combination of several factors: Lens resolution issues,
camera shake, per pixel quality of the sensor etc.

In some situations I even do not want to think why.

But it is real.

Most important thing.

-- hide signature --
Joseph S Wisniewski Forum Pro • Posts: 34,390
BRJR is that which seeks the creator...

BRJR wrote:

Would you be so concern about what a Sony Rep says about "Some info
on the 24 MP Nikon - from a Sony engineer" ???

I have no idea.

But on a totally unrelated (and I mean it really doesn't get much more unrelated than this) topic...

Every time I see your user IR, it reminds me of the old "Star Trek: The Motion Picture".

If you don't remember, or if you never saw it, it dealt with the Enterprise encountering an enormously powerful entity named "V'Ger"

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/V%27Ger

V'Ger was a contraction of "voyager", it had its origins in a voyager space probe. A particularly deep and/or silly bit of dialog went like this...

What is V'Ger?

V'Ger is that which seeks the creator.

What is the creator?

The creator is that which created V'Ger.

So, live long and prosper, B'Jer!

-- hide signature --

Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list:Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list
Nikon D90 Nikon D2X Nikon D3 Nikon D100 Nikon Z7 +45 more
nickram Regular Member • Posts: 194
Re: Let's make it

Iliah Borg wrote:

It is not a hybrid, and it is in the works. Like with Fuji S6, we do
not know if it will finally be on the shelves.

Sorry, but this is exactly what's wrong with every prediction on this board. You say "it is in the works" and I know you are just guessing, then you say no one knows when it will be on the shelves. You might as well say Nikon is going to make everything, eventually, so tell me, how does that kind of statement help anyone here with a real world decision to make? It doesn't.

Iliah Borg Forum Pro • Posts: 28,639
Re: Let's make it

You say "it is in the works" and I know you are just
guessing

That's what is wrong. You say you know I'm guessing, but it is that you guess you know I'm guessing

then you say no one knows when it will be on the shelves.

"Like with Fuji S6, we do not know if it will finally be on the shelves."

No, you do not read. I'm saying we (as in you and me) don't know if it will end up on the shelves at all. Some other people must know

-- hide signature --
Thom Hogan
Thom Hogan Forum Pro • Posts: 13,660
Re: Let's make it

nickram wrote:

Thom, are you making a case for or against the possibility that Nikon
is working on an MF hybrid instead of a high MP 35mm?

At the risk of repeating myself, I don't think that Nikon can do a larger format INSTEAD of more pixels with FX, that would cause too much of a flap amongst users. But they could do both a high megapixel FX body and a MF body.

Here's another, MF is about bit depth,
putting 2 chips together does not create greater bit depth.

You need to look at how Dalsa makes MF sensors ; ) They put two chips together.

Usable bit depth is determined by several things, most notably well size, read noise, and ADC accuracy. The 39mp+ MF bodies actually have smaller well sizes than the D3 does.

-- hide signature --

Thom Hogan
author, Complete Guides to Nikon bodies (19 and counting)
http://www.bythom.com

BillCarr Veteran Member • Posts: 3,045
Re: Let's make it

A 20+MP ff camera is almost certainly coming in a matter of weeks, so that part of the equation (catching up to the competition) will be taken care of. But given that competition, hopefully not at the rumored US $6,000 mark.

One wonders where the D700 is going to fit in the market if it remains priced against the 5D2 and the A900, especially if a $1900-$2200 EOS 7D makes an expected appearance in February. They appear to be geting squeezed here and would have to drop the D700 price $600 from its initial price (and they're half way there already).

bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 69,795
Re: You do not need the concept of ISO here

Iliah Borg wrote:

A problem often arises from misuse of terms; but misuse of terms
often indicates that something is wrong in understanding.

Hardly misuse, loose use perhaps. I don't think you have established that my basic argument was wrong, and therefore I can't see that you're in a position to assert a case of poor understanding.

Your argument basically was that Nikon are now better sensor
designers then Canon and SONY, like you stated "A good reason for
Nikon not to use the A900 sensor in a flagship model is that it has
become better at designing sensors than Sony (or Canon, for that
matter)." To which you were pointed out that yes, some sensor
characteristics in the sensor found in D3/D700 are better but some
are worse then what SONY and Canon currently have. That is true.

'Some' is a pretty loose word. On the major factor of sensor design quality, which is efficiency, the D3 sensor is 15% better than the 1DIII (and still 13% better than the 50D), going by Emil Martinec's tables. By your estimation of the sensitivity (in arbitrary units of sensor sensitivity) the D3 is 1.8 times as sensitive. As you (and I) ponted out, part of that sensitivity derives from a choice of a smaller FWC. However, that only accounts for a 1.56 times gain. Adding the 15% in gets to 1.75. Again, these two figures triangulate well enough to suggest that the 15% gain is real. There is also a technical reason to account for the efficiency, in that the 1DIII has 86% (as I remember) microlens coverage, while the D3 has 100%. This would give a 14% gain, all else being equal, which is close enough to the measured 13%, to be believable.

So, Nikon, stacking this all up, Nikon makes a sensor which is measurably more efficient, area for area, than either Sony or Canon. To me, that suggests a core technological advantage. All the rest (pixel pitch, FWC, etc) is a design choice. It may well be that if Nikon produces its own sensor for the D3x that the FWC is increased to bring the base sensitivity nearer to 100 arbitrary units of sensitivity. This will not negate that efficiency advantage, so long as Nikon can scale the cell and maintain its efficiency. Canon can do this, so it should be possible.
Which sensor characteristics are worse for the D3, in your opinion.

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --

Bob

FrankG Senior Member • Posts: 2,242
Re: expensive strategy

bobn2 wrote:

FrankG wrote:

...

That statement is broadly right. The issue is, what is the point of
100% scrutiny.

I expect that will get debated again!
...

The use of the phrase 'of course' assumes that the pixel centric view
is natural. I submit that it's not. For all practical purposes (apart
from index prints) we upsize the image from the sensor (using the
word 'size' literally). We may also upsample or downsample, depending
on the output medium. Unless one wants to insist on a rule that there
will be pixel for pixel correspondence between input and output
(which is almost undoable in the real world, anyway), 100% has little
relevance to anything, so why should it be used as a reference for
'upsizing' or 'downsizing'?

Name me any digital imaging/processing software that does not use this approach (Photoshop, NX2 ...etc etc). Onscreen views are "resized" in terms of % size in pixel terms. There is no way that you can consistently reference resizing to output size (in conventional size terms) in the world of digital viewing on monitor screens where output real sizes are arbitrary in absolute terms. For example I happen to be using a 19" Monitor set at 1024x768 pixels res. There are a very large number of combinations of other Monitor size/resolution settings in use out there!

The issue is, what do you lose by increasing pixel density? The answer is
nothing (except file size and processor capacity).

Purchase cost!

Nothing intrinsic about high pixel density that increases purchase
cost (apart from the already mentioned memory and processor
requirements). the manufacturers may decide that it is a desirable
enough feature to charge a price premium.

Isn't there? Is the yield rate as good (I don't know - just speculating on this)?

If you make a product that intrinsically appeals to a smaller market niche then you lose economies of scale too. Will be interesting tio see how Nikon price their High Mpix camera whenever it eventually arrives - I'll bet it's more expensive!

That is true for very Low ISO range pictures. In fact we ought to be
able to do prints of double the size from 24Mpix - but it is a case
of how big do we need to go when we can already get large prints of
extremely high quality from 12Mpix?
...

Why 'ought' we. The extra pixel density brings demonstrably extra
detail (in terms of more contrast at high spatial frequencies) even
at A3 size.

"we ought to be able to" = "it should be feasible to" - make sense?
...

It's also evaluated at a per pixel level in JPEG. I referred you to
the thread where a comparison has been done in raw at equal output
size. That, as I said, looks to within 1/3 of a stop. You need to be
aware that DPReview has a definite party line here, and the text of
their reviews consistently reflects this. Many other reviewers are
using similar methodologies, and failing to compare at equal output
sizes. The consequence of this is that manufacturers are trying to
square the circle, producing the extra pixel density that the market
sensibly wants, and trying to avoid being slammed in 100% jpeg noise
tests by going for absurd amounts of NR by default. Sony does this,
and now Canon is too. Only Pentax seems brave enough to go for the
pixel density without heavy NR, but their products are getting
criticised in reviews and on these forums as a result.

  • but see the reference below

The other thing we don't know is how the read noise of the Sony fares
above 1600. If it's poor that could produce poir noise at high ISO's
but that woulnb't be a result of high pixel density or a poor sensel
design, but poor read chain design - however, the D300 seems to do OK
on the same read chain.
Show me an equal output size raw test that backs up your contention
that the noise at high ISO's is much worse, and I will concede, but
certainly not on the basis of per pixel noise measurements and 100%
crops.

Here you go:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra900/page34.asp
scroll down the page and check the section "ISO3200 processed RAW .."

again I quote:

"Although the Alpha 900's inherently noisier sensor means that it is struggling to produce usable results at ISO 6400, at ISO 1600 and 3200 the difference between it and the D700 can be reduced if you're prepared to shoot raw and do some noise reduction - and crucially, if you resize the Alpha's output to the same dimensions as the D700 (approx 12.1 megapixels).

That all said, even with some Photoshop noise reduction there's still a lot more chroma noise in the A900's end result, and if you try to get the noise levels down to match the D700 you end up with visibly less fine detail than the Nikon is delivering. And if you go one stop further (to ISO 6400) the D700 starts to pull well ahead of the Sony."

Hmmm!

  • Frank

 FrankG's gear list:FrankG's gear list
Nikon D500 Nikon D850 Nikon Z50
headofdestiny Veteran Member • Posts: 9,226
Re: expensive strategy

FrankG wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

FrankG wrote:

...

That statement is broadly right. The issue is, what is the point of
100% scrutiny.

I expect that will get debated again!
...

The use of the phrase 'of course' assumes that the pixel centric view
is natural. I submit that it's not. For all practical purposes (apart
from index prints) we upsize the image from the sensor (using the
word 'size' literally). We may also upsample or downsample, depending
on the output medium. Unless one wants to insist on a rule that there
will be pixel for pixel correspondence between input and output
(which is almost undoable in the real world, anyway), 100% has little
relevance to anything, so why should it be used as a reference for
'upsizing' or 'downsizing'?

Name me any digital imaging/processing software that does not use
this approach (Photoshop, NX2 ...etc etc). Onscreen views are
"resized" in terms of % size in pixel terms. There is no way that
you can consistently reference resizing to output size (in
conventional size terms) in the world of digital viewing on monitor
screens where output real sizes are arbitrary in absolute terms. For
example I happen to be using a 19" Monitor set at 1024x768 pixels
res. There are a very large number of combinations of other
Monitor size/resolution settings in use out there!

The issue is, what do you lose by increasing pixel density? The answer is
nothing (except file size and processor capacity).

Purchase cost!

Nothing intrinsic about high pixel density that increases purchase
cost (apart from the already mentioned memory and processor
requirements). the manufacturers may decide that it is a desirable
enough feature to charge a price premium.

Isn't there? Is the yield rate as good (I don't know - just
speculating on this)?
If you make a product that intrinsically appeals to a smaller market
niche then you lose economies of scale too. Will be interesting tio
see how Nikon price their High Mpix camera whenever it eventually
arrives - I'll bet it's more expensive!

That is true for very Low ISO range pictures. In fact we ought to be
able to do prints of double the size from 24Mpix - but it is a case
of how big do we need to go when we can already get large prints of
extremely high quality from 12Mpix?
...

Why 'ought' we. The extra pixel density brings demonstrably extra
detail (in terms of more contrast at high spatial frequencies) even
at A3 size.

"we ought to be able to" = "it should be feasible to" - make sense?
...

It's also evaluated at a per pixel level in JPEG. I referred you to
the thread where a comparison has been done in raw at equal output
size. That, as I said, looks to within 1/3 of a stop. You need to be
aware that DPReview has a definite party line here, and the text of
their reviews consistently reflects this. Many other reviewers are
using similar methodologies, and failing to compare at equal output
sizes. The consequence of this is that manufacturers are trying to
square the circle, producing the extra pixel density that the market
sensibly wants, and trying to avoid being slammed in 100% jpeg noise
tests by going for absurd amounts of NR by default. Sony does this,
and now Canon is too. Only Pentax seems brave enough to go for the
pixel density without heavy NR, but their products are getting
criticised in reviews and on these forums as a result.

  • but see the reference below

The other thing we don't know is how the read noise of the Sony fares
above 1600. If it's poor that could produce poir noise at high ISO's
but that woulnb't be a result of high pixel density or a poor sensel
design, but poor read chain design - however, the D300 seems to do OK
on the same read chain.
Show me an equal output size raw test that backs up your contention
that the noise at high ISO's is much worse, and I will concede, but
certainly not on the basis of per pixel noise measurements and 100%
crops.

Here you go:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra900/page34.asp
scroll down the page and check the section "ISO3200 processed RAW .."

again I quote:
"Although the Alpha 900's inherently noisier sensor means that it is
struggling to produce usable results at ISO 6400, at ISO 1600 and
3200 the difference between it and the D700 can be reduced if you're
prepared to shoot raw and do some noise reduction - and crucially, if
you resize the Alpha's output to the same dimensions as the D700
(approx 12.1 megapixels).

That all said, even with some Photoshop noise reduction there's still
a lot more chroma noise in the A900's end result, and if you try to
get the noise levels down to match the D700 you end up with visibly
less fine detail than the Nikon is delivering. And if you go one stop
further (to ISO 6400) the D700 starts to pull well ahead of the Sony."

Hmmm!

  • Frank

-- hide signature --

ACR/Lightroom is commonly know to be lackluster at high ISO with A700/A900 files compared to other converters like Raw Developer, Aperture, Bibble, Capture One, etc. You'll notice that every rebuttal to the A900's high ISO noise is done by users of anything other than Adobe. Unfortunately, Adobe and Sony just don't seem to mix well with RAW conversion.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads