Sony A900, Canon 5DMkII, Nikon D3x Noise shoot out

[AndrewCCM]

You know, forever, I have thought the 1DS prices have been astronomically overpriced. Always figured it was due to lack of competition. Was kinda hoping that Nikon would pressure them with the D3X release.

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by AndrewCCM

You know, forever, I have thought the 1DS prices have been astronomically overpriced. Always figured it was due to lack of competition. Was kinda hoping that Nikon would pressure them with the D3X release.

I always thought the 1Ds series was somewhat overpriced. But it did have some exclusivity going for it in the past. Each new 1Ds broke new ground for resolution in a DSLR, and the 1Ds was always without peer in that regard. Being the only game in town allowed Canon to set the price however they wanted. But the Sony a900 was a game changer. In fact I have to wonder if the 5DII wouldn't have had either a higher price or a lower MP count if it hadn't been for the a900.

Now Nikon's coming into the game late, playing catchup. While the D3x may be incrementally better than the others, it doesn't break new ground and it's not a game-changer. It's an a900 sensor in a D3 body. If the D3x were truly revolutionary (say, some sort of full RGB sensor without Bayer filtering) I could maybe see it. But in the current market the $8K price is not justified, you can buy a D3 and an a900 for less than the price of the D3x. That's just not rational.

Some have pointed out that $8K was the initial price of the 1Ds3 and still is the list price; but the market has changed since the 1Ds3 was released.

[Pascal]

The $8k price tag of the 1Ds series body never held back a photographer who had a need for the high resolution. Now Nikon releases a body that is actually a bit better than the 1Ds Mk III and everyone seems to believe it is over priced.... gotta wonder why ?

The Sony isn't really a part of the equation as it is more of a 5D Mk II competitor.... it is not in the same class as the 1Ds Mk III or the D3x.
A camera is more than just sensor resolution (as we learnt from the Kodak SLR's). So how can you include the A900 in the comparison.... unless you are using sensor resolution as your benchmark for comparison. No doubt $8k for a pro body may be a tad bit overpriced - but that applies to both Canon and Nikon.

[groovyone]

As an A900 shooter I am very happy with the results, and this was a NOISE test only. I am very eager to see his writeup after the Antarctica trip with these 3.

The only features I wish the A900 had are a way to fire wireless flashes without mounting one, better dual card support, and a built in intervolmeter.

Other than those, for my uses I wouldn't trade my A900 + Zeiss optics for anything in the SLR market.

[ldelacruz]

Originally Posted by Pascal

The $8k price tag of the 1Ds series body never held back a photographer who had a need for the high resolution. Now Nikon releases a body that is actually a bit better than the 1Ds Mk III and everyone seems to believe it is over priced.... gotta wonder why ?

The Sony isn't really a part of the equation as it is more of a 5D Mk II competitor.... it is not in the same class as the 1Ds Mk III or the D3x.
A camera is more than just sensor resolution (as we learnt from the Kodak SLR's). So how can you include the A900 in the comparison.... unless you are using sensor resolution as your benchmark for comparison. No doubt $8k for a pro body may be a tad bit overpriced - but that applies to both Canon and Nikon.

I would say it is the fact that these are the 3 biggest players newest cameras and they are all full frame. Just because the Nikon is $8000 doesn't mean it is in a league of its own. What I read in the article is that the 5D and D3X were equal up to 6400 ISO and unless your pixel peeping it shouldn't even be a factor. I am sure you have a Nikon though?

The quote below is what I read.

"I see no significant noise difference between the Nikon D3x, Canon 5D MKII and Sony A900 up to and including ISO 800.

At ISO 1600 and higher the Sony falls behind the Canon and Nikon by about 1 EV. It's simply a noisier camera at high ISO.

From ISO 1600 to ISO 6400 the Canon 5D MKII and the Nikon D3x are neck and neck. I think that the visible differences on-screen at I00% are a quibble, and on prints are completely irrelevant."

[JohnT]

Originally Posted by groovyone

As an A900 shooter I am very happy with the results, and this was a NOISE test only. I am very eager to see his writeup after the Antarctica trip with these 3.

The only features I wish the A900 had are a way to fire wireless flashes without mounting one, better dual card support, and a built in intervolmeter.

Other than those, for my uses I wouldn't trade my A900 + Zeiss optics for anything in the SLR market.

I have found that being contented with what one has can lead to more creativity and happiness. Unless someone needs better ISO performance or ultra-fast 1.0 glass in order to produce more artistic images according to his vision, being satisfied is certainly less stressful. LOL

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by Pascal

The $8k price tag of the 1Ds series body never held back a photographer who had a need for the high resolution. Now Nikon releases a body that is actually a bit better than the 1Ds Mk III and everyone seems to believe it is over priced.... gotta wonder why ?

If you read my post, I explained why. The market has changed since the 1Ds3 was released.

The Sony isn't really a part of the equation as it is more of a 5D Mk II competitor.... it is not in the same class as the 1Ds Mk III or the D3x.
A camera is more than just sensor resolution (as we learnt from the Kodak SLR's). So how can you include the A900 in the comparison.... unless you are using sensor resolution as your benchmark for comparison.

I'm not blindly comparing just on MP count. But image quality is certainly a critical benchmark, don't you think? Yes, the D3x body is in a different class than the a900 and 5D2. But it's the exact same body as the D3, which is currently selling for $4100. Bottom line, when you factor in and compare the features, performance, and price points of the a900, D3, D700 and others, the price of the D3x just doesn't compute.

No doubt $8k for a pro body may be a tad bit overpriced - but that applies to both Canon and Nikon.

So you agree with me after all.

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by groovyone

As an A900 shooter I am very happy with the results, and this was a NOISE test only. I am very eager to see his writeup after the Antarctica trip with these 3.

True. For instance the a900 is reported to have class-leading dynamic range, I'm curious how the D3x compares (will it be the same, or do the same Nikon tweaks that seem to limit noise also reduce dynamic range)?

The only features I wish the A900 had are a way to fire wireless flashes without mounting one, better dual card support, and a built in intervolmeter.

To me the glaring omission is LiveView. It's critical for focusing accuracy, I'll never buy another camera without it.

Other than those, for my uses I wouldn't trade my A900 + Zeiss optics for anything in the SLR market.

The Zeiss glass is nice, no doubt. There needs to be more of it, though. Sony doesn't have a complete system when compared to Nikon and Canon.

[groovyone]

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

True. For instance the a900 is reported to have class-leading dynamic range, I'm curious how the D3x compares (will it be the same, or do the same Nikon tweaks that seem to limit noise also reduce dynamic range)?

Something I am interested to see as well.

To me the glaring omission is LiveView. It's critical for focusing accuracy, I'll never buy another camera without it.

It may be a case of me never having used it beyond playing with the XSi and A300/350, but I feel the 100% viewfinder (which is stunning) makes up for it. I wouldn't trande that for LV.

The Zeiss glass is nice, no doubt. There needs to be more of it, though. Sony doesn't have a complete system when compared to Nikon and Canon.

I agree here and hope to see more glass this year. Once I get my hands on the 16-35 f2.8Z I'll be good to go for my uses for quite a while, but I'd like more options. A T/S would be nice, but I always have the rare STF as an option. Not directly comperable, but still an interesting addition others seem to be missing.

[Joe_Lorenzini]

I got to use the A900 for a while and was truly impressed. They had some pretty cool tweaks (such as the menu system which rotates with the camera) and some not so cool tweaks (it took us forever to find out how to move the focus point - go figure).

Overall it was the usability which did me in but I can't complain about that since I've only used Nikon my entire career. I'm sure if I used the camera for a few weeks I'd be at home with it.

The impression I was left with (IMHO) is that the camera is a good value but that it is a generation or two away from being a Nikon/Canon killer.

I also imagine Sony will further integrate its other media machines with their cameras increasing its verstatility...

[groovyone]

Originally Posted by Joe_Lorenzini

and some not so cool tweaks (it took us forever to find out how to move the focus point - go figure)

Really? I thought the Sony method was much easier than the Canon I tried. You don't have to push a button first, just move the joystick.