D700 or Sony A900 (same price)?

[lsisaxon]

Luminous landscape has posted a field report that suggests the IQ of the A900 is not very far from the much more expensive 1DsMkIII. One has to pixel peep to see a difference.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a900-nr.shtml

Naturally, the A900 will not be a low light camera of choice. But so long as its noise performance is at a level say between the D200 and D300, then I think it will appeal to many because: (i) flexibility, as you can always choose to downgrade image resolution but not raise it, (ii) you can use it for big group shots or make huge enlargements when the need arises, (iii) easier to crop. As for memory space, it is a function of technology, and it gets cheaper all the time. Just my 2 cents.

Based on the resolution test using the 135 lens, sad to say, I think the slightly lower MP count EOS1DSmkIII outresolved the Sony. I think both are limited more by the optics than the sensor. The focus is slightly different, so it's hard to tell if the focusing on the 1DSmkIII is off or the Canon lens is optimized differently.

I'd like to see a comparison with a D3 or D700 at 12MP. I'm not expecting a 1.4x drop in linear sensor resolution to affect the image quality a lot especially when I already feel that the resolution is optically limited.

Yes, I agree that with more MP count, it's easier to crop but if it's already optically limited, then there's nothing much you can do also, especially if it's plagued by fuzzy corner performance. Just consider that with the same storage space, you could store twice the number of images, PP time is also shorter with 12MP files at the expense of only 1.4x of the linear sensor resolution, which might be unrealistic in terms of real resolution unless you are using a very good lens.

At 12MP resolution (4256x2832) assuming printing at 200dpi, I'll be getting a size of 21" x 14". Compared to 24MP (6048x4032), that's 30" x 20". In film days, I rarely print 135 format film beyond 16" x 20" because of optical limits (not because the film could not resolve). That is very close to the 12MP at 200dpi figure, so I guess it's a good compromise. Nikon always seems to have a good reason for the things they do and don't.

 

[gymak90]

You can always downsize the pics. But it's 'wasting' money for a 24MP.
I guess 1TB hard drive will soon be very cheap.

Traditionally, nikon cams don't do well in high iso(before they switched to cmos sensors), still many people bought their cams. Maybe this will apply on Sony too?

 

[lunas]

I guess the way SONY market their camera is using the same old formula:

• High MP = :thumbsup::thumbsup:Camera

 

[lsisaxon]

I guess the way SONY market their camera is using the same old formula:

• High MP = :thumbsup::thumbsup:Camera

Everyone else except Nikon does that.. including mobile phone companies.. ;p They should have seen a larger than lifesize poster of a person shot using the 3MP D1X.

 

[doom102938]

yeah.. lol infact most of us probably wount use more than 6mp for those small prints... 24mp.. i guess it will be more of a specialised camera that you would use if you require the 24mp resolution..
personally would go for d700 because of the iso performance which makes it useable in low light conditions..
with more mp.. it would mean that should you shake the camera a tiny bit(more than what the image stabliser can compensate for).. it might show up in the picture way easier..

 

[bigpond]

Agree that at such high sensor resolution it is garbage in, garbage out -- ie, use only the best glass one can afford. Which is why the A900 and Zeiss optics offers a killer combination, IMO.

Apart from soft corners in some of the samples (eg, Tower Bridge photo in dpreview), I am not sure that the optics is really such a limiting factor. I've also not heard Canon users complain that Canon glass is not up to the standard of the 1DsMkIII. The sample picture of the man's face in dpreview has detail that is just stunning. One has to literally put a magnifying glass up close to his face to see such skin texture!

I suppose technique also matters a lot when we are talking about resolution at these levels.

 

[gymak90]

I guess the way SONY market their camera is using the same old formula:

• High MP = :thumbsup::thumbsup:Camera

Yup definitely. It is a tried and tested method to sell cameras. I bet most consumers don't even know what MP count really means to them.
"Heck care. The higher the better."

Everyone else except Nikon does that.. including mobile phone companies.. ;p

Hmm not always true. If you take a look at brouchers, to capture consumer's attention the 1st feature mentioned is usually the 'most important'. And Nikon, like all other manufacturers, will 1st state the MP count.

 

[lsisaxon]

You can always downsize the pics. But it's 'wasting' money for a 24MP.

That's not always true. It really depends on how much you downsize and the algorithm. However, once noise gets in, it's no longer that straightforward. You can do binning to reduce noise but otherwise the noise reduction may not be that significant when you just resample it down.

 

[lunas]

Everyone else except Nikon does that.. including mobile phone companies.. ;p They should have seen a larger than lifesize poster of a person shot using the 3MP D1X.

I agree. As an experienced Camera manufacturer, Nikon knows that a good camera will need to have a full system that comprises of Lenses, sensor and processor all integrate seamlessly as ONE.

Well, the MP, is just a measurement to tell the general public who knows nothing about digital imaging that this product with a high MP count is a more superior product over the other that has lower MP count. Simply increase the MP count by 2-3MP and they are ready to launch a new product...

 

[gymak90]

That's not always true. It really depends on how much you downsize and the algorithm. However, once noise gets in, it's no longer that straightforward. You can do binning to reduce noise but otherwise the noise reduction may not be that significant when you just resample it down.

Oh yea, I forgot about this. Well unless by downsizing, there is a significant improvement in noise reduction, otherwise most likely it would be done due to file size considerations.

I agree. As an experienced Camera manufacturer, Nikon knows that a good camera will need to have a full system that comprises of Lenses, sensor and processor all integrate seamlessly as ONE.

Well, the MP, is just a measurement to tell the general public who knows nothing about digital imaging that this product with a high MP count is a more superior product over the other that has lower MP count. Simply increase the MP count by 2-3MP and they are ready to launch a new product...

Maybe throw in some new body colours, rearrange buttons. Tada! Isn't that how pns cams are sold? A visit to PC Show/IT Show/Comex will you that salesperson tend to mention the MP count as no.1 when they describe the cam, to woo customers.

 

[lsisaxon]

Agree that at such high sensor resolution it is garbage in, garbage out -- ie, use only the best glass one can afford. Which is why the A900 and Zeiss optics offers a killer combination, IMO.

Apart from soft corners in some of the samples (eg, Tower Bridge photo in dpreview), I am not sure that the optics is really such a limiting factor. I've also not heard Canon users complain that Canon glass is not up to the standard of the 1DsMkIII. The sample picture of the man's face in dpreview has detail that is just stunning. One has to literally put a magnifying glass up close to his face to see such skin texture!

I suppose technique also matters a lot when we are talking about resolution at these levels.

I looked at the images shot by the Zeiss 85/1.4 and I think the Sony 135/1.8 performed better in terms of resolution. So I'm not entirely impressed by the statement that the A900 coupled with Zeiss optics would be a killer combination. It should be noted that Zeiss optics are traditionally designed for film use and so they are not designed for the kind of tolerances to meet the demands of today's high resolution sensors. :dunno:

 

[lsisaxon]

Oh yea, I forgot about this. Well unless by downsizing, there is a significant improvement in noise reduction, otherwise most likely it would be done due to file size considerations.

One more thing is that with a noisier image, a JPEG file would be larger because noise is statistically random. This would not affect RAW and spatially uncompressed formats though.

 

[lsisaxon]

I agree. As an experienced Camera manufacturer, Nikon knows that a good camera will need to have a full system that comprises of Lenses, sensor and processor all integrate seamlessly as ONE.

Well, the MP, is just a measurement to tell the general public who knows nothing about digital imaging that this product with a high MP count is a more superior product over the other that has lower MP count. Simply increase the MP count by 2-3MP and they are ready to launch a new product...

Yeah.. sometimes it's sad that marketing have to do that to woo the cash rich uninformed consumers who just buy expensive equipment for nothing else but just to show off. Sad.

 

[bigpond]

I agree. As an experienced Camera manufacturer, Nikon knows that a good camera will need to have a full system that comprises of Lenses, sensor and processor all integrate seamlessly as ONE.

Well, the MP, is just a measurement to tell the general public who knows nothing about digital imaging that this product with a high MP count is a more superior product over the other that has lower MP count. Simply increase the MP count by 2-3MP and they are ready to launch a new product...

Errr, I don't think the A900 is targeted at snapshot folks who would otherwise happily use their handphones.

When Nikon does come out with its D3x or whatever, I wonder how many would also claim that megapixels don't matter much. Personally, I use a Fuji S5 a lot, so I guess I have some appreciation that there is more to image quality than pixel count. But still, you cannot run away from the basic rule that it is ultmately the pixels that capture an image. I agree that cramping 12MP into a compact camera with CCD the size of a pinhead is just too much, and is counterproductive, but surely 24MP on a 24 x 36mm surface area has not exceeded all reasonable limits? If I am not wrong, the pixel density (or pixel size) of a 24MP FX sensor is about the same as 12MP DX.

 

[gymak90]

Yeah.. sometimes it's sad that marketing have to do that to woo the cash rich uninformed consumers who just buy expensive equipment for nothing else but just to show off. Sad.

To firms: It's making profits the easy way. Why not?
Anyway digress abit, here's a JPEG pic from A900 http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=413620
seems good to me. Maybe it's shot at iso100.

 

[psyk1]

If I were to buy in this segment of the market, I would really have to think if I really need the extra resolution.. Looking at the samples, the noise at ever lower ISOs in the A900 is a bit too obvious.. And personally I hope Nikon won't increase the resolution much more than the current sensors, looking at how the lenses are not able to resolve the details..

If Zeiss and L lenses are being outresolved, what more kit lenses, which majority of consumers are be using?

 

[psychobiologist]

Errr, I don't think the A900 is targeted at snapshot folks who would otherwise happily use their handphones.

When Nikon does come out with its D3x or whatever, I wonder how many would also claim that megapixels don't matter much. Personally, I use a Fuji S5 a lot, so I guess I have some appreciation that there is more to image quality than pixel count. But still, you cannot run away from the basic rule that it is ultmately the pixels that capture an image. I agree that cramping 12MP into a compact camera with CCD the size of a pinhead is just too much, and is counterproductive, but surely 24MP on a 24 x 36mm surface area has not exceeded all reasonable limits? If I am not wrong, the pixel density (or pixel size) of a 24MP FX sensor is about the same as 12MP DX.

when d3x comes out with that resolution i'll say the same thing too. that mp doesnt matter much for me at least.

but for those who are doing work that require good resolution then they can consider getting something along that line.

 

[lsisaxon]

Errr, I don't think the A900 is targeted at snapshot folks who would otherwise happily use their handphones.

When Nikon does come out with its D3x or whatever, I wonder how many would also claim that megapixels don't matter much. Personally, I use a Fuji S5 a lot, so I guess I have some appreciation that there is more to image quality than pixel count. But still, you cannot run away from the basic rule that it is ultmately the pixels that capture an image. I agree that cramping 12MP into a compact camera with CCD the size of a pinhead is just too much, and is counterproductive, but surely 24MP on a 24 x 36mm surface area has not exceeded all reasonable limits? If I am not wrong, the pixel density (or pixel size) of a 24MP FX sensor is about the same as 12MP DX.

It definitely has not. To get the same resolution as a 12MP DX, you can go to 26MP (2.25x). But again, the problem is optics. Lenses are usually sharper in the centre than the corners. If you look at MTF charts, the contrast of the lenses usually drops from nearly 90+% to around 50% or less at the corners. The saggital and meridional contrast traces also separates which suggest spherical aberration as you move away from the optical centre.

The thing about DX is that it uses the best part of the 135 format optics for imaging at the expense of angle of view. So using a 24MP imager for FX, you are only getting good resolution at the centre but at the corners, you are using more than enough resolution to capture fuzziness. I have tested several prime lenses on D3 and comparing it to just the 17-55DX on a D300 and posted the results. You can see that many of the older primes are not able to cut it for FX even at only 12MP.

Of course with the new lenses like the 24-70/2.8 and 14-24/2.8, I think they should be able to at least outresolve 16-18MP FX sensor corner-to-corner based on the MTF charts. We'll wait and see what's Nikon's answer to the higher resolution FF bodies by the competition.

 

[lsisaxon]

when d3x comes out with that resolution i'll say the same thing too. that mp doesnt matter much for me at least.

but for those who are doing work that require good resolution then they can consider getting something along that line.

It's definitely going to put a serious challenge to medium format. But for the most of us, I think 12MP is going to do fine for now..... until the prices start coming down.. ;p

 

[lsisaxon]

To firms: It's making profits the easy way. Why not?
Anyway digress abit, here's a JPEG pic from A900 http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=413620
seems good to me. Maybe it's shot at iso100.

EXIF says ISO200.