p.1 #1 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
The camera arrived yesterday and I had to wait a day for lens adapters and other lenses before I could even shoot. Initial impressions are very positive. Ergonomically, the A900 feels better in my hand than a gripless 5D and this is as I expected after holding an A700. The grip is longer compared to the 5D which allows all three fingers below the index finger(which rests perfectly on the shutter button) to rest on the grip. The notch on the grip is deeper compared to a 5D and the bulging area in the rear where the rear control dial is located also come out further. This gives the thumb a better grasp. I have to say that I also much prefer the front and rear control dial layout to the Canon. So, I do not plan on getting the vertical grip for the A900 and I don't think its as necessary from an ergonomic point of view compared to the 5D.
The Viewfinder also lives up to the hype. It is definitely crisper than a 5D. One area where I think the 5D finder might be better is in eye relief. You really have to put your eye right against the A900 finder to see the whole screen at once. Manual focus is so much easier with the A900 and I think that must be down to the higher definition of the finder/optics.
The feel and release of the shutter feels more natural and predictable than my 5D did. Not sure if mine was the norm but I sometimes could not predict exactly how much pressure was required to release. The A900 release is much better.
The body overall feels better build/more substantial than a 5D. This goes for everything, from the hinged rubber doors that cover all ports to the ruggedness of the top left main control dial which feels very Pro Nikon like. I don't think the A900 is quite Nikon D3esque in this regard but its certainly closer than a 5D.
When I first shot the camera, I was surprised at the sound of the shutter. It sounds very solid and unlike any other 35DSLR I have heard. It's a much closer sound to say a Mamiya 645 AFD. It takes a while to get used to after the very soft sounding 5D shutter.
Operationally, the A900 is much faster than the 5D. Focus locks on instantly when using AF lenses and the High Speed Drive setting just feels faster than 5FPS. It may not be but it certainly feels that way.
A few negatives. I have just started playing with the RAW files but my initial feeling is that they are not as "elastic" as a 5D file. By that I mean that I can't dig into the shadows with an underexposed file like I'm used to doing with the 5D. Per pixel resolution is close to a 5D and better than I actually anticipated. The out of camera auto WB appears to be spot on, which was surprising. I have not tested high ISO quality in poor lighting but I really don't expect much there. I will say though that I have not seen any bad noise yet at anything below ISO 400. Below are a few 100% crops taken out of an image processed in Raw Developer. The lens is the 35mm Flektogon shot at F8 - ISO 320 (which was an accident! and still there is no noise to be seen).
p.1 #6 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
That's because it is posted in the forums at dpreview. Notoriously unreliable -- full of fanboys, people with agendas, and people that don't know what they are doing or even what they are talking about. Almost impossible to separate the valid posts from all chaff. It didn't look all that impressive to begin with.
I'll wait for information that I know I can rely on, from sources that are reasonable and responsible, like Tariq.
p.1 #7 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
While I agree with your view of dpreview generally, the particular member that posted those images is one of the more respected posters in lots of forums, and he owns a Leica M8, Olympus E-3, a Nikon D3/700 (until a few days ago,) and the A900. In fact, I'd probably put him in the upper echelon of "reliability" in any photo forum....especially of one that is dominated by Canon and Nikon users like this forum. If you don't find those results acceptable, then fine, but I'd say they're pretty reliable.
p.1 #8 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
A few quick high ISO shots. All in camera noise reduction off and a straight ACR conversion at default settings. AWB set in camera. Lens is the Minolta 50 1.7 and Super Steady Shot was on. The lens does not seem to be as good as the Canon 50mm 1.8 I owned in general. F4@1/30sec for the ISO 6400 and F2.8@1/40sec. for ISO 3200. I did have an issue with the AF hunting a few times at this light level. Anything above 3200 on this camera is considered an "extended" range.
p.1 #10 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
Lotusm50 wrote:
Thanks, Tariq. Very helpful. 3200 looks like it would be quite usable.
Yes, I was actually surprised it was that good. I have a job coming up sometime in the next week or so where I will most likely be shooting under theatre lighting. That will be the real test. Super Steady Shot seems to actually work up to about two stops or so. If I'm able to easily shoot hand held at 1/15 or 1/30 sec. with a 100mm lens at ISO 3200, I will be very happy.
This A900 really goes through some memory fast. Each raw file is about 36MB's, three times a 5D file! Time to buy some larger memory cards.
p.1 #11 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
Thanks for taking the time, Tariq. I agree with Lotus that ISO 3200 seems quite usable, and your findings echo some other examples that I've seen. ISO 6400 looks to be pretty messy, although at smaller print sizes it may be usable. I'll probably stay away from it when I get the camera, and I'm betting the 5Dii beats the A900 in this regard. I should mention that the link I provided above were ISO 6400, but they had around a +1 EV compensation, so that significantly improved their quality (effectively ISO 3200.)
As far as the memory situation, you may wanna experiment with cRAW. It is supposedly loss-less compression. I don't notice any difference between cRAW and RAW with my A700.
p.1 #13 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
douglasf13 wrote:
Thanks for taking the time, Tariq. I agree with Lotus that ISO 3200 seems quite usable, and your findings echo some other examples that I've seen. ISO 6400 looks to be pretty messy, although at smaller print sizes with some ACR NR, it may be useable, but I'll probably stay away from it when I get the camera. I should mention that the link I provided above were ISO 6400, but they had around a +1 EV compensation, so that significantly improved their quality (effectively ISO 3200.)
As far as the memory situation, you may wanna experiment with cRAW. It is supposedly loss-less compression. I don't notice any difference between cRAW and RAW with my A700.
Thanks. I will look into the cRAW format. Sounds like it is in fact a lossy compression method given how Sony describe it using the word "perceivable":
"A proprietary file format by Sony which is equivalent to the RAW file format. Using a complex algorithm, RAW files are compressed, making them 30% smaller than conventional RAW files with no perceivable loss of image detail often seen in other compressed file formats. "
The histogram for the ISO 3200 shot looks like this, both via the camera and via ACR. This is actually with a +.7 compensation, which it would need or else it would certainly be underexposed. My ISO 6400 shot is slightly underexposed but the noise, even in the highlight area, is more severe than I could ever deal with. 3200 is useable I think.
p.1 #14 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
douglasf13 wrote:
I hope it's ok with you Tariq, but I took the liberty of resizing your A900 ISO 3200 crop to show it's D700 and 5Dii equivalent. Thanks again.
p.1 #15 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
A test of a Quantary 24 2.8(re-badged Sigma) lens I picked up for $100 in Sony/Minolta mount. It's not really that bad. Some CA and a little uneven sharpness here and there and vignetting unless stopped down quite a bit. This is at F7. F11 would have probably been slightly better. I am finding that Raw Developer is giving me a slight edge in sharpness and much better color than ACR.
p.1 #16 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
I have had no chance so far to play with an A900, but there are two important factors (for me) that could be a deal breaker.
1. I borrowed a few days ago the EF 1.4/50 from a friend since I have no AF lenses whatsoever. I really hated the experience and I think I am unable to use AF lenses anymore. It's just a matter of personal preference, as there are millions of people who use AF lenses without problem but I really feel manual focus brings back to photography a lost element. So for now, my opinion is that ZE lenses with a 1Ds2 (and EC-A screen) or later body are more interesting than the AF ZA lenses that are not optimized for manual focusing.
2. I downloaded Sony's raw converter and played with raw files from the net. I would say this is also a big drawback. Nothing to compare to DPP. This could change in the future with updates, but I hate to buy or use an independent converter as I believe the camera manufacturer has a duty to provide you with a decent converter.
So for the time being, I am leaning towards remaining with 1Ds series and my Contax lenses, upgraded gradually to ZE, and do hope Zeiss will eventually add a few zooms to the manual focus series.
p.1 #18 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
douglasf13 wrote:
1. I have to ZA lenses and manual focusing is good with them, although it won't quite as good as ZE.
2. Agreed. You must use a 3rd party converter with Sony IMO.
You could always go ZS lenses with a chipped adapter for Sony.
It is unfortunate though that there are only three ZS lenses offered in the entire Zeiss line. The 25mm 2.8, the 35 2.0 and the 50 1.4. It does not look like Zeiss will be offering the 21 in ZS nor any of the other lenses which are already available in other mounts.
Fortunately, there are plenty of really nice M42 lenses out thee other than Zeiss.
