I wonder how Dpreview will handle....

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by RichA, Oct 13, 2008.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    ....the fact the Sony A900 is going to KILL the Canon 5D II when it
    comes to image resolution? It has already easily bested the
    1DsMkIII. My guess? If they even allow it to appear in the Canon
    review as a comparison camera, they'll hammer away at how "great" the
    Canon's noise supression is and they'll sidle away from any talk of
    resolution, if they can.
     
    RichA, Oct 13, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Maybe all you need to do is putting them on different shelves. If they
    can't reach each other, then there will be no cameracide.

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Oct 13, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Pete D Guest

    Probably won't care just like the rest of us.

    The 5DII is a consumer level camera and the A900 is a "Pro" level camera and
    so are not really comparable, oh yeah and resolution is not everything, just
    one thing.

    Cheers.

    Pete
     
    Pete D, Oct 13, 2008
    #3
  4. RichA

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    RichA added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
    Beats me, but then, I have no skin in this game. I do have two
    observations, though.

    1) Sony may not be able to break through the Canon-Nikon grip on
    the digital world no matter what they do or dpreview.com's take is.

    2) more importantly, once a DSLR owner makes a heavy investment in
    glass and maybe external flash, they are very reluctant to jump
    ship unless the perceived image quality advantage is so huge as to
    justify the big price hit.

    BTW, I know zip about Sony but what leads you to believe they've
    developed a better mousetrap than any of the other major players?
     
    HEMI-Powered, Oct 13, 2008
    #4
  5. RichA

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    Pete D added these comments in the current discussion du jour
    ....
    Pros make their living by their skill and their images, as least in
    theory. Those of us just playing with a camera are probably far
    more interested in specs than real image quality increases unless
    we routinely examine our prints with a jeweler's loupe, create huge
    prints, or just think they need vs. want higher quality. I mean,
    how much sharpness does one really need to take vacation pictures?

    I'm not shooting at you but I am curious as to your usage that
    makes you make such a strong statement about resolution. At any
    given sensor technology, image processing capability, and lens
    resolving power, how can mega pixels alone guarantee ever
    increasing quantitatively measurable image quality after some
    reasonable point from a given basic camera design?
     
    HEMI-Powered, Oct 13, 2008
    #5
  6. RichA

    Guest Guest

    I haven't seen the A900 results yet, but the A100, A200, A300, A350 and A700
    are all the noisiest cameras in their classes.

    By your benchmark, everyone should bow to Leica
     
    Guest, Oct 13, 2008
    #6
  7. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    It's the old story--Canon comes up with a model that outdoes Nikon,
    Nikon counters with one that outdoes Canon, now Sony wants to be a
    player and they've got the resources so now they're trying to come up
    with a model that raises the bar on both Nikon and Canon. But 24
    megapixels is not so much greater than 21 that I would say that a 24
    megapixel camera "KILLS" a 21 megapixel camera. If the tests at
    photozone.de are any indication then Sony does have some remarkably
    sharp lenses (apparently their relationship with Zeiss is more than
    badge-engineering) so they do have some potential there if they can
    actually develop it.

    For now they're on top of the pixel battle but they're playing
    catch-up in other areas.
     
    J. Clarke, Oct 13, 2008
    #7
  8. RichA

    RichA Guest

    And the interesting thing is that Sony has bucked the trend and
    produced (if it is one) a so-called "pro" level camera that is
    actually small.
     
    RichA, Oct 13, 2008
    #8
  9. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Just better when it comes to resolution.
     
    RichA, Oct 13, 2008
    #9
  10. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Noise = lack of noise reduction = higher resolution. Makes sense that
    Sony is noisy.
     
    RichA, Oct 13, 2008
    #10
  11. RichA

    SMS Guest

    They always talk about the noise levels, so of course they'll mention
    them. They'll do actual comparisons of photos to see what difference the
    higher resolution of the A900 actually makes. Both are consumer level
    cameras. More interesting will be the comparison against the 1DsMkIII,
    even though few pros would change to the Konica/Minolta/Sony system due
    to the lack of professional lenses and other accessories.
     
    SMS, Oct 13, 2008
    #11
  12. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    While Sony's lenses may lack range, the ones that they have seem to be
    superb and they've certainly chosen the right optics partner.

    I don't think they're likely to take much market share right now, but
    they've certainly got potential. The question is how solid their
    commitment is--are they in DSLRs for the long pull or if it doesn't
    take over the market in 5 years are they going to just drop it like
    they did PDAs?
     
    J. Clarke, Oct 13, 2008
    #12
  13. RichA

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    J. Clarke added these comments in the current discussion du jour
    ....
    Yes, that is the nature of competition and innovation in ANY hard
    or soft commodities or even in the service sector. And, in between
    launches of better mousetraps, manufacturers will attempt to
    capitlize on their strengths and tout thing's like Canon's noise
    reduction which I found to be nothing short of fantastic moving
    from a Rebel XT to an XSi. My old Rebel was useless above ISO 200
    while the new one is quite usable even at 1600 which I love.

    You are also right, in my view, that incremental improvements such
    as 21 to 24 MP aren't worth an expensive changeover but maybe going
    from 12 to 24 would be. Again, now that I'm heavily into Canon
    glass and flash, and I like the small size and light weight of the
    Rebel, a new Nikon, Sony, Konica-Minolta or other fine brand/model
    would have to be a BIG improvement to jump ship.

    I won't go there but I suspect you and I would greatly disagree on
    the real vs perceived value of really large mega pixel images.

    Thanks for your comments and have a great evening.
     
    HEMI-Powered, Oct 13, 2008
    #13
  14. RichA

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    RichA added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
    OK, understood. That is not only of no use but of no importance to
    me. I shoot my Rebel XSi at only half it's 12 MP which is still WAY
    overkill for my requirements. I'm always curious though when people
    tout just/only resolution as a justification to make an expensive
    purchase or an even more expensive changeover to an all new brand,
    but I leave that to each individual to decide.

    Thanks and have a great evening.
     
    HEMI-Powered, Oct 13, 2008
    #14
  15. 5.616 x 3.744 versus
    6.048 x 4.032

    I don't think I'll get exited over 432 x 288 pixels.
    I don't think I'll get exited over 7% more pixels in each
    direction --- it's not even noticeable.

    Now, RichA would *MURDER* for 432 x 288 pixels, but he probably
    never used a camera ...

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Oct 13, 2008
    #15
  16. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Built-in meters for exposure mean far less today than before LCDs. I
    use a Nikon D100 for IR, it's been converted and you can't meter
    through the screw-on IR filters, but one shot taken and viewed on the
    LCD is enough to tell me where the exposure has to be. Of course
    you'd never use a meterless camera for sports, or other subjects you
    can't take more than one shot of, but it's possible to live without it
    in many cases.
     
    RichA, Oct 13, 2008
    #16
  17. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Blame that on the next to useless 3:2 ratio which I hope to GOD dies
    off at some point.
     
    RichA, Oct 13, 2008
    #17
  18. RichA

    Guest Guest

    the dpi tag makes no difference.
     
    Guest, Oct 13, 2008
    #18
  19. Because some programs erroniously choke unless this value is set to
    something and 72 became the default 'whatever'.
    Would have been far better to not include this meaningless value in a
    picture definition in the first place, but ce la vie, too late now.
    No, it is not. It totally depends on your output device and DPI doesn't
    make _any_ sense without a concrete, physical output device, be it a
    printer or a monitor or a maybe a beamer, a billboard or a microfiche
    printer.
    There is no such thing a 'native DPI for a picture'. The very term DPI
    has meaning _ONLY_ in context of a physical representation of a picture.

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Oct 14, 2008
    #19
  20. If _YOUR_ preference is for 300DPI on _YOUR_ output device, be it a
    computer monitor with Photoshop or whatever, then that is certainly
    fine.
    But don't you think that if _YOUR_ tools depend on that bogus setting
    then mabye _YOU_ should set _YOUR_ preferences rather than asking
    everyone else to change some meaningless value to suit your needs?

    After all, it is you who knows your needs, not that other guy. And it is
    trivial for you to run a simple command once you get a batch of pictures
    while that other guy may have no idea how to change it in the first
    place because his tools work fine without ever bothering about a
    meaningless entry.

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Oct 14, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.