Sony A900 announcement

[Travis]

Sure it can. Shoot text at 80 feet with a focal length of 450mm. Zoom in on the computer image at 12 meg and 24.6 meg. The one at 24.6 meg will be 20% sharper and visibly more readable.



Not when you are talking about a full frame sensor. It is not the same size.



Perhaps on the Nikon but not on the Sony. Nikon has a post approach to dynamic enhancement. With Sony it takes place before the shot. It is more along the lines of selective metering and varying the exposure for different sections of the photo.



Yes, but the Nikon process is post shot and totally different. There are also 5 levels in the dynamic range of the Sony system. Probably not in the Nikon.



But they will probably have their compressed RAW format option which anyone interested will have to study, as to its value and convenience. Reviews about the format have been positive.

Tegan

(a)Shoot text at 80 feet with a 450mm and then magnify on a monitor? okay... whatever..

(b)Standard full frame DSLR sensors are 24x36 what size is the sony a900? i don't think it will be any different

(c)Nikons dynamic range modify (d-lighting) makes tonal adjustments before processing. The user may select several levels of tonal adjustments. A lessor version is also offered post processing if you forgot to activate it. Correct me if I`m wrong but they pioneered this process.

A digital sensor is limited to about 10 stops per image. Processes like d-lighting can maybe squeeze out an extra stop. A 5 stop HDR effectively blends 50 stops(or 14 unrepeated stops) of tonal range to manipulate. I`m not saying either is better.... a monitor or print film is unable to show you 14 stops of range... d-lighting can be more convenient handholding single frames and less time consuming processing the image but it can`t touch the tonal range of an HDR

[tegan]

(c)Nikons dynamic range modify (d-lighting) makes tonal adjustments before processing. The user may select several levels of tonal adjustments. A lessor version is also offered post processing if you forgot to activate it. Correct me if I`m wrong but they pioneered this process.

Apparently that is only true on the Nikon D300 and the D3. On the other Nikons such as the D40 and D80, it is a post process.

Tegan

[tegan]

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

Tegan

[tegan]

Originally Posted by Travis
more meg pix on the same size sensor means smaller photo receptors and often poorer iq.

I am not aware of any camera with substantially more megapixels than another one and yet at the same time poorer IQ due to "smaller photo receptors".

Tegan

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Travis
more meg pix on the same size sensor means smaller photo receptors and often poorer iq.

I am not aware of any camera with substantially more megapixels than another one and yet at the same time poorer IQ due to "smaller photo receptors".

Tegan

more megapixels crammed on the same size sensor means they have to be small... smaller photo receptors are less able to absorb light and the result is NOISE... the noise in the sony is so great it has to processed in two stages.. you lose detail in this processing because information is borrowed from neighboring pixels that are deemed to be accurate... this is also why the top canon is also crap at high ISO...

Why do you think there is no rival to the Nikon D3 (12.1meg pix) pertaining to noise? Big fat photo receptors!

These kinda high meg chip sensors are great if your in the studio with strobes, or well lit landscapes... but it really doesn't matter because you will never see the advantage of higher megapixals on prints or monitors unless you are viewing at billboard size. That is what medium format is for.

Wedding photographers, Macro photographers, Sports and photo journalists need ISO performance not megapixals.

The author of your attachment also references the lack of selection in the Sony system. No tilt shift, macro, extended tele's, a small handful of pro glass.

No serious professional photographer would use the Sony system. It's too early in development.

[tegan]

Bottom line is that many reviewers are comparing the Sony A900 favourably with the Canon ID Mark III which one reviewer said was 2 and one half times the price of the Sony.

Many of the Minolta film lenses tested out better than Nikon's by Popular Photography labs which is no surprise since some of them were produced during their partnership with Leica. Many of these lenses were remanufactured to fit the Maxxum and can be used on the Sony Alphas. They are still around and when combined with the Sony G lenses and Zeiss lenses there is quite a lot of pro quality glass out there that is compatible.

As to the chip, it comes down to, Do you want 2,000 lines of resolution from the Nikon D3 at ISO 6400 (Popphoto test) or 3,200 lines from Sony reduced to perhaps 2,900 lines due to noise reduction technology? The Sony option gives you film quality even in low light and despite noise reduction. The Nikon is not there yet.

Tegan