p.4 #2 · Sony A900/850 users jumped ship to Nikon D 800/E?
Have a 5D2/D800/D800E here (or around...), but no 850/900 for the moment. :-/
The review sites often use 70+mm lenses at medium-high aperture values. Not very "demanding" circumstances.
But for the thread-owner... (the original question in the thread!)
I went from D700/D90 to A850/D7000 and then back to a fully Nikon system again - because I never found a suitable APS-crop Sony camera to go with the A850.
I was very happy with the A850, and it was mainly the lack of lenses (for me, not as a system!), and a suitable APS companion that made me go back to Nikon now. I have quite a lot of Nikon gear "nearby" if you put it that way... And even though I held out for the NEX-7 (the 5 never really caught on, I never really got to grips with it even though I had a loaner 5N for almost two months) it was kind of a disappointment when I got it. The controls felt kind of awkward, and I didn't like the grip - even though it's better than the smaller 5- and 3-series NEX bodies. I don't like EVF, and that's maybe a big part too.
When I need fast AF I can always get a camera / lens to do that for me, so that wasn't a problem. My personal cameras are for 99% of the time used at a leisurely pace, in nice weather. So the AF in the A850 wasn't an issue, it worked just fine for me and the fairly low demands I put upon it.
Reasons to leave the Sony camp (again...)
*I can borrow most Nikon/Canon lenses at "occasional need". Anything from 400/2.8 down to the 14-24.
*Even though you get used to it, mixed systems are a pain... Three-part mixes are even more of a pain.
Nothing except for the higher ISO performance (compared to the best of the competition) did ever feel "lacking" in the A850 though. If it was just about image quality, the 850 would still be more than enough for me.
p.4 #3 · Sony A900/850 users jumped ship to Nikon D 800/E?
Well, thanks for the enlightening information that the dud Sony A900/850 series is markedly inferior to its competitors in the key aspect of micro-contrast. One question arises: How large is a notch?, must be a new scientific term not in general use just yet...
I would never have guessed from the hundreds of positive articles, reviews, reports, comparisons and thousands of startlingly fine images the camera has produced! Note to self: better sell fast before the rest of the photographic world catches up...
p.4 #5 · Sony A900/850 users jumped ship to Nikon D 800/E?
I have to say that my humble observations based on experience coincide so well with Joakim's. For instance, I knew that the AA filter was quite thick, because the dust spots on sensor, which are microscopic and should not normally exceed 3-5 pixels in diameter are usually at least 15 pixels in diameter or bigger (sometimes much bigger). This is how I realized that the dust on the AA filter is quite distant from the sensor, which means thick filter/glass cover. The blurry corners with all wide angles, even manual focus Zeiss glass, also denotes a thick filter that distorts the light rays coming at an acute angle. The micro contrast is of course more subtle as what can be low for me can be high for someone else, but I was pretty sure after using the camera for the first 6 months or so that something was not perfect at the micro detail level. And since then, more than 3 years ago, I have criticized the AA filter completely overkill strength/thickness on forums like getdpi.
p.4 #6 · Sony A900/850 users jumped ship to Nikon D 800/E?
Fly, I don't have any great examples at hand of the 5D2's higher MC (which is only my personal view) and I don't bother digging up some. It's just an overall impression I have. I owned the 5D2 and A900 at the same time, and I just couldn't get the same pop and wow with the very same Zeiss lenses on the A900. I tweaked my resize scripts and did everything I could, but it just wasn't the same. But I will say this, the A900 files did have a very nice color and kind of depth/heavyness/calmness to them that were very nice. This probably sounds ridiculous, but I'm sure someone know what I mean.
p.4 #8 · Sony A900/850 users jumped ship to Nikon D 800/E?
I honestly have no idea what you guys are talking about in terms of the corners? At infinity, they seem as centrally sharp on good lenses as any other DSLR.
Like I said earlier, ALL the DSLRs except the D3x pretty much have the same quality of shitty filter on top of the sensor exhibiting the same levels of degradation.
I have never seen any samples where any of the ff cameras exhibited significantly better micro-contrast at a true level beyond each other.
IMO, the default Canon wedding photographer look has significantly more contrast and saturation but if you look at true fine resolved detail, its perhaps worse than Nikon.
Again, if you could provide some samples I think it would help the discussion.
p.4 #9 · Sony A900/850 users jumped ship to Nikon D 800/E?
I will say I had one really nagging issue with the a900 and every single lens I used on it for the over three years I owned the camera which lead me to believe there was an issue with the sensor covering. That problem was sensor reflection in critical copy work. Under very controlled studio conditions, there simply was no way to avoid it (and it never showed with previous cameras I owned). The only solution was correction in PP.
p.4 #10 · Sony A900/850 users jumped ship to Nikon D 800/E?
theSuede wrote:
I recommend you open them in their own tabs (or download them!) and flip between them to make the differences more obvious. image link - edit image link - original
That is quite a bit more obvious, what was the adjustment that was made?
The front rock on the right seems to look crisper but for me, the file looks a lot crunchier. Here is the same file again reworked a bit more from my side.
p.4 #11 · Sony A900/850 users jumped ship to Nikon D 800/E?
FlyPenFly agree with most of what you say.
"I have never seen any samples where any of the ff cameras exhibited significantly better micro-contrast at a true level beyond each other."
Ive seen, but its not today "mainstream". Original 1Ds has very weak AA filter. Contax N1 Digital is same (tho that thing is unique on a lot of levels). Well and Kodak bodies didnt have AA at all. Same goes to M9, but thats too different to even compare.
But otherwise, for mainstream bodies, its pretty much same for all of them..
Most ppl have issues that A900/A850 photos look "flat", well thats just processing, nothing more..
p.4 #12 · Sony A900/850 users jumped ship to Nikon D 800/E?
Mescalamba wrote: FlyPenFly agree with most of what you say.
"I have never seen any samples where any of the ff cameras exhibited significantly better micro-contrast at a true level beyond each other."
Ive seen, but its not today "mainstream". :D Original 1Ds has very weak AA filter. Contax N1 Digital is same (tho that thing is unique on a lot of levels). Well and Kodak bodies didnt have AA at all. Same goes to M9, but thats too different to even compare.
But otherwise, for mainstream bodies, its pretty much same for all of them..
Most ppl have issues that A900/A850 photos look "flat", well thats just processing, nothing more.....Show more →
If I may add another viewpoint, I owned the original Canon 5D, which was replaced by the Sony A900 (a different body to the A850 I now own). I'd say that the Canon always looked a tiny bit crisper at pixel level, but that it produced lots of jaggies to go with that crispness. The raws from the 5D also always looked considerably more digital, with harsher transitions (not a fault of the AA filter, probably 12MP combined with Canon sensor tech, but anyway). Now between that crispness at pixel level and the heavier, more balanced AA on the A900/850, I much prefer the second, as it's downside is easily dealt with in post. The two things that the A900/850 tends to produce a bit, the first of which is really annoying considering it likely has a stronger AA filter, are colour moire with stuff like mosaic at a distance or vent grids, and colour blotchiness with some surfaces that are close to black, like leatherette.
For me, these are the real downsides to the A900's sensor: this blotchiness, even when circulating between ISOs 100, 160 and 200, and the fact that shadow lifting is limited without incurring a heavy penalty. Loss of micro-contrast? We're splitting hairs.
As to weak corners because of cheap filtering, I've not used the same lens on different systems, but what I can say is that with the right lens there's absolutely no problem whatsoever right into the corners.
Tariq might be onto something though with reference to sensor reflections in a highly controlled studio environment: I do get a halo sometimes that doesn't seem to be attributable to lens flare, because it occurs regardless of the lens if the lighting and studio setting are the same.
p.4 #13 · Sony A900/850 users jumped ship to Nikon D 800/E?
@ayler: Thanks for the elaboration. I am using the original 5D know what you mean with the "jaggies" that it can produce. It also does produce some colour moiré in things like fences, roof tiles etc. at distance, but it's minimal. I do find myself wishing sometimes that I had an additional 10 megapixels or so.
The more natural/less "digital" look (esp. highlight handling) of the A900/850 and the nice OVF appeal to me quite a lot.
p.4 #14 · Sony A900/850 users jumped ship to Nikon D 800/E?
The base ISO is 200, so maybe that's why you're seeing blotchiness? I don't really see it unless I'm pushing the file a lot like I did in the sample above. You can see a lot of blotchiness in the running water area.
p.4 #16 · Sony A900/850 users jumped ship to Nikon D 800/E?
douglasf13 wrote:
Depending on who you talk to, that shadow blotchiness may improve if you start at ISO 320, but I think that topic has enough threads about it.
It really depends on what the material is, to be honest. To give you a few recent examples that come to mind, it reared its ugly head when I was photographing a black leatherette covered Konica C35 and on a black Barbour jacket - it seems to appear on textured black or close to black surfaces, but strangely not on everything that is textured and black/dark (I did a telephone with textured pitch black surfaces the other day, and it came out clean). I usually try 100, 160 and 200 ISO in such circumstances in the studio, to see which comes out best, but 320 is a bit of a stretch for clean base ISO studio work - having said that, I might give 320 a go on a problematic object, just to test it out... Thanks.
p.4 #17 · Sony A900/850 users jumped ship to Nikon D 800/E?
AhamB wrote:
@ayler: Thanks for the elaboration. I am using the original 5D know what you mean with the "jaggies" that it can produce. It also does produce some colour moiré in things like fences, roof tiles etc. at distance, but it's minimal. I do find myself wishing sometimes that I had an additional 10 megapixels or so.
The more natural/less "digital" look (esp. highlight handling) of the A900/850 and the nice OVF appeal to me quite a lot.
You're welcome. I did find the A900/850 quite a step up when I moved from Canon to Sony a while back: more analogue looking, a lot less jaggies (although you do get them sometimes), better DR (particularly highlight roll-off), and not surprisingly better resolving power (12 vs 24MP). The viewfinder's indeed a beauty and the closest to a film SLR's I've tried. Surprisingly, I've found the 5D and A900/850 to be about equal in terms of colour moire. You should give it a go.
p.4 #18 · Sony A900/850 users jumped ship to Nikon D 800/E?
Interesting some find the 5D more "digital" or harsh than the A850/900 - I loved my 5D when I had it, faults and all. I never really had a fault with the 5D IQ and thought it looked a lot less digital than the 5D2. Granted, I knew the 5D has a weak AA filter, and I know this results in "crisp", but perhaps I bought into the "more organic" mindset instead
Then again I never really did a side-by-side between A850 and 5D, so perhaps then I would find something.
All this talk of Sony FF really has me wishing I still had the A850 - simple camera but awesome. I'd probably really miss LV and the rear articulating screen of my A77, though.
p.4 #19 · Sony A900/850 users jumped ship to Nikon D 800/E?
I dont think 5D has much weaker AA, it just has quite a bit less mpix than 5DMK2 for which its AA filter is highly unsuitable.. and quite crappy, especially compared to 1DsmK3. I might be wrong but I think 5D and 5DMK2 uses same AA filter or very similar, theres just that mpix difference.
I was always bit puzzled why Canon uses such heavy handed AA filter when it obviously doesnt have that much effect on moiré as it has on crippling resolution..
Tho when you compare 1DsMK3 and 5DMK2, it might be intentional..
Original 1Ds has very weak AA filter. Contax N1 Digital is same (tho that thing is unique on a lot of levels). Well and Kodak bodies didnt have AA at all. Same goes to M9, but thats too different to even compare.