Comments on: Sony A850, A900 & Canon 5D Mark II ISO Comparisons

By: Stve

Stve — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 12:18:07 +0000

I would have liked to have seen a Raw photo at ISO 3200 from the Sony processed in Lightroom with no noise reduction & then treated in Photoshop with a good noise reduction plugin. If you can get good results with a plugin in Photoshop or direct from Lightroom 3 or another raw converter
that is what really counts not the poor Jpeg conversions Sony provide in camera.

I enjoyed looking at http://markjrebilas.com/blog/?p=6975 the quality at ISO 5000 with the Nikon D700 is amazing & now there’s the D3s that can go maybe 2 stops faster.

By: Russ

Russ — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 16:14:10 +0000

I would like to see an ISO comparison between all four cameras using DxO Optics Pro Elite to suppress noise in the RAW image files. My own experience with DxO suggests that it is possible to obtain low-noise images at ISO 3200 with the A900. How do the Canon 5D Mark II and 7D compare to the Sony A850 and A900 under these conditions?

By: Eric

Eric — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:27:57 +0000

@alex – I really like the A850 and think it would be a great, cost-conscious choice. I wouldn’t have any problems using some of the better lenses from Sigma and Tamron. You have to start building a kit somewhere and I think the A850 body would be a great place to start.

By: alex

alex — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:04:48 +0000

I’m considering getting an a850 but wonder if I could use other full frame lenses that have gotten great reviews, like SIGMA or TAMRON which are cheaper too, without affecting the camera’s capabilities, since we all know one lens won’t do and there are plenty other things to get when you are starting but still want great results.

Any suggestions for this serious amateur but still financially concious?

By: Andrea

Andrea — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:08:07 +0000

Thanks for the test you did, as I am also deciding between those two.
But you test the Sony 50mm 1.4 on the fullframe. But this lense is not made for this fullframe body. Sony doesnt have a 50mm yet to get the best possible options. I belive if you take a Zeiss 85mm on the 850 I am sure the pictures would be different.

By: juancarlosvasquez

juancarlosvasquez — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:50:36 +0000

i will apreciate your help, this week i have to choose between sony a900 or a850 and ths canon 5d, help me thankss i need your feedback to take the best decision

By: Malik

Malik — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:13:17 +0000

What is the purpose of this test? The A850/900 aren’t made for high iso shooting.Why not compare the 5dII to a Hasselblad or Phase one back with their poor high iso performance i.e. anything above 400.You might want to also bash their lack of jpeg capabilities.The Sony bodies are the budget minded photographers digital medium format system.Same sensor as 8k D3x for 1/3 price!The D3x has been said to have poor high iso capabilities,but it’s not an available light camera.Get a tripod.Sony 24mp full frame with Zeiss glass.Can you say,”40×60 gallery wrap”?What’s not to like.And if you really want better high iso shots from the Sony bodies google Agorabasta settings.It’s on DPReview. Seems to work wonders.

By: Eric

Eric — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 02:29:34 +0000

@David – I appreciate your weighing in on the topic; however, to say that “No professional would intentionally shoot anything at ISO 800 or above unless it was for a relative’s baby shower” is a bit of a stretch. To the contrary, many professionals user higher ISO settings everyday.

For instance, look at Mark Rebilas’ recent NASCAR coverage: http://markjrebilas.com/blog/?p=6975

If you’ll take a look at some of his images and what ISO that he’s using, you’ll find that he’s taking publishable images at ISO 5000 in some cases, and is frequently using ISO 1250 and above on his Nikon D700 to get the shot. If you scroll to the bottom of Mark’s post, you’ll find that many of these images (intentionally shot at ISO settings well beyond what you would use) are published by USA Today, ESPN and Los Angeles Times. That’s a far cry from a baby shower…

While most portrait photographers won’t find these comparisons useful, many other photographers find them very relevant to the way they use a camera.

Finally, I agree with your sentiments toward the A850 (and the A900 for that matter). Both are excellent cameras and noise control at higher ISO settings is just one part of a very large equation in evaluating a camera’s worth and personal fit with the photographer. However, neither camera is quite ready to rival the Canon 5D Mark II and the equally great Nikon D700 in the high ISO performance category. I’ll have a more in-depth look at the A850 and A900 soon and delve into other points of concern with them.

By: David

David — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 21:41:45 +0000

As a professional, I have never and will never shoot above ISO 400 regardless of what camera I use. That’s what wide aperture lenses are made for…to shoot well in low light without having to increase ISO or manually increase shutter speed. I only use f/2.8 to f/1.4 lenses. No professional would intentionally shoot anything at ISO 800 or above unless it was for a relative’s baby shower. High ISO comparisons are ridiculous in nature. I would rather spend the enormous amount of money saved in purchasing a Sony Alpha 850 and spend it on lenses…which do not have to be image stabilized by the way. RAW images from the Alpha are absolutely breathtaking…JPEGS aren’t that bad either.

By: ossme

ossme — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:35:18 +0000

I only wish that the tests includes information about the firmware version used. This is a fairly recent test so I would suppose that all cameras have their latest firmware updates.