Sony A900: A Closer Look at 24.6MP Resolution and Noise
by Wesley Fink on October 27, 2008 2:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Digital Camera
Samples
Click on any image below to bring up the full Sony A900 24.6MP image complete with EXIF data. Note that image sizes range from 5.1MB to 10.7MB.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
The sample images should make it very clear that 24.6MP is capable of capturing an astounding amount of information. This resolution also demands the absolute best in lenses and any fault, no matter how minor, will clearly be an issue in high-resolution images captured with the A900.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
45 Comments
View All Comments
LTG - Monday, October 27, 2008 - link
Ok I'll eat a shoe then :).I know it's not unlikely that opinions can be similar looking at the same product (if a car is 0-60 in 30 seconds is any reviewer not going to say it's slow?).
But I just kept getting deja vu while reading it. Maybe they read your preview article.
Thanks for the article in any case, I did read it after all :).
TechLuster - Monday, October 27, 2008 - link
Wesley, I think the ISO 12800 and 25600 crops on page 3 are just repeats of the ISO 6400 crops (they don't seem to match what's in their respective full-size images).JarredWalton - Monday, October 27, 2008 - link
Sorry - that was my error when I put together the HTML code for the tables. Lots of copy/paste in there, and the linked images were correct but had the 6400 thumbnail still. (Had to change 64 to 128 and 256 after pasting.) The correct crops are now in place, which show that ISO 25600 on the D600 is about the same as the 6400 on the A900.Heidfirst - Monday, October 27, 2008 - link
Sony's JPEG engine still isn't the best, you really need to shoot RAW & convert (& again ACR still isn't very good with Sonys).http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/10/23/the-alpha...">http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/10/23/the-alpha... is worth a read.
twistedlogic - Monday, October 27, 2008 - link
We get your point, no need to triple post. Just playing, :).I really don't see the point of buying a $3000 body and then shooting in JPEG. Unless your doing studio work, newspaper work(overkill), or just snapshots.
I do like its low light capabilities coming close to the D3, I just hate Sony as a company for its lackluster customer service and shady business practices. Competition is good though.
Heidfirst - Monday, October 27, 2008 - link
Sony's JPEG engine still isn't the best, you really need to shoot RAW & convert (& again ACR still isn't very good with Sonys).http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/10/23/the-alpha...">http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/10/23/the-alpha... is worth a read.
Heidfirst - Monday, October 27, 2008 - link
Sony's JPEG engine still isn't the best, you really need to shoot RAW & convert (& again ACR still isn't very good with Sonys).http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/10/23/the-alpha...">http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/10/23/the-alpha... is worth a read.
araczynski - Monday, October 27, 2008 - link
is it my untrained eye or were all shots but the 2 ducks just fuzzy as all get go? is that a benefit of an oversensitive camera? or the photographer?Wesley Fink - Monday, October 27, 2008 - link
Please pixel-peep on the large image. The ducks themselves are sharp and a small crop from the larger image. With a full-frame and high resolution the depth of field is shallow and the background and foreground are less sharp in this image.The lens that was used for this photo also looks like it could benefit from a micro-adjust for focus, which is a feature available on the A900.
wheel - Monday, October 27, 2008 - link
Good to see the DSLR camera reviews on AT are slowly getting better :)But, can't you find something more interesting to test other than just the one picture of an SLI logo on a nVidia box? For instance, something that shows fine detail (in addition to flat areas of solid color)