D3 vs A900 vs A700, High iso

Today me and Maffe printed several images taken with D3+Nikon 50/1.4, A900+Minolta 50/1.7 and A700+Minolta 35/2. We shot two different scenes at f/8, ISO1600 and 3200. D3 and A700 files were upprezzed to 30*45 cm 300dpi and A900 files downrezzed to the same size before printing. Unfortunately silly me forgot to turn off High ISO NR in my A900 so it was set to "Normal".

Our findings when looking at the prints were very interesting indeed! Both the D3 and the A900 completely trounced the A700 at both 1600 and 3200 when it comes to visible noise in the print. (Remember that I had High ISO NR at Normal though...) The A700 ISO3200 was very bad indeed and the ISO1600 was not very good either. A700 files treated with Noise Ninja had much less noise but lost quite a bit of detail at this print size.

At ISO1600 the A900 produced a printed image with more detail (just) and about the same level of visible noise as the D3.

At ISO3200 heavy NR artifacts were showing in the A900 print and the D3 print hade more detail AND less noise.

Maffe can probably give you the details of how the images were processed, but they were all shot in RAW and manual mode and then minimal processing in LR.

Not a 100% scientific test of course, especially since I didn't turn off High ISO NR, but still very interesting!

Edit:
Updated topic

Edited by Maffe - 11 December 2008 at 18:57

This is one of the most practical and useful test I have heard of so far :)

I sure there will be squabbling over the details and results, but overall we have to say dSLRs at the A900/D3 level are pretty incredible machines!

Thanks for doing the test.

Listen, until I see 300% crops of the darkest out-of-focus shadows I will stand by my findings that Sony sux at noize and could not possibly compete with the elegance of a CaNikon. That is all........   


On a somewhat more serious note, I was blown away by the noise (or lack thereof) up until 1600. Using DKilpatrick's jpeg settings, I was able to get quite nice ISO3200 @ 12MP jpegs. I know developing raw is the way to go, but Bibble isn't playing nice with my new, huge ARWs.

Edited by lattiboy - 05 December 2008 at 18:00

Didn't everybody know, High ISO performance is the ONLY worthwhile feature on a DSLR ;)


[BTW, a worthwhile test IMO - it's what the images look like printed that counts]

Edited by springtide - 05 December 2008 at 18:12

Without reading the outcome I would have guess the D3 as winner and A900 behind.... at high iso.

But it would be interesting to see it at low iso.

Edited by Sanjuro - 05 December 2008 at 18:26

Silly question perhaps...but is the A700 upgraded to v4 software?

marlon127 wrote: After all, most photographers try and shoot at the 100-400 range, if at all possible on any shoot.

But, *enough* photographers have to shoot *enough* of their work at higher ISO's for the high-ISO tests to be relevant.

Yeah, a900 vs D3 at high-ISO's looks like a test slanted to favor the D3... But, isn't it remarkable how WELL the a900 does, even vs. the King of high-ISO's? And, it's still got that a900 Goodness at ISO's 100-400...

Or, as someone else has remarked: what this REALLY shows is how good the top-tier cameras are, WHATEVER the maker!

Same-same downmarket, for that matter... these days, at virtually all price-points, there don't seem to be many (any?) "bad" camera choices, only slight advantages in one area or another. Always allowing for the fact that CaNikon are vile hellspawn, of course. ;-)


- Steve S.