I saw a few of those earlier and would love to see the 100% versions. There is definitely some pretty bad clipping going on in the whites but who knows if they were overexposed or not.
135/1.8 sharp from wide open, plenty of characters and built-in IS too... *wipes drool*
EF 135LII with IS is gonna cost as much as ZA135 I presume.
Regarding the samples, especially foliage shots hold quite a lot of details and good micro-contrast, but the DRO makes the color (green specifically) look like something out of CG, too punchy and too vibrant.
Lotusm50 wrote:
It seems to me that the lenses, the CZ 135mm first among them, would be the primary reason to switch.
I've been considering buying the A900 for that lens only. There's simply nothing like it anywhere. Add to that in-body IS, and portraits in available lack-of-light will become a totally new ballgame.
I've been considering buying the A900 for that lens only. There's simply nothing like it anywhere. Add to that in-body IS, and portraits in available lack-of-light will become a totally new ballgame.
Low light available portraits? Whatever happened to the fabled EF85L on a competent crop body like 50D? (I know the crop idea sounds weird but 85x1.6=136mm FoV equiv.) And that's 2/3 stops faster than the Sony too!
This is alternative crowds so the EF may have some nay-sayers, but shooting a Sony lens on a Sony body is not much more 'alternative' than shooting a Canon EF on a Canon body I think.
So "nothing like it anywhere" is not a conclusive way of putting it, the benefit mainly comes down to the lens' own characters and built-in IS.
"The net result was that the A900 JPEGs came in below those from most other DSLR models we've tested recently, but results from ACR processed RAW files were much better, only surpassed by the Nikon D700 at the highest quality level. An excellent performance."
From Imaging Resource. That probably explains all the blown out, clipped highlights in a lot of the posted A900 shots which are from jpegs.
I guess "Alternative Gear" could be interpreted as anything which is alternative to Nikon or Canon as those are the only two which have their own dedicated forums. That's the context of "Alternative" I believe that is meant on this site. If Leica, Olympus, Pentax, Sony or whatever had their own forum, then I guess it would no longer be considered "alternative". Does someone believe it means something different?
Leon Noel wrote:
This is alternative crowds so the EF may have some nay-sayers, but shooting a Sony lens on a Sony body is not much more 'alternative' than shooting a Canon EF on a Canon body I think.
pdmphoto wrote:
Maybe because the Canon 85/1.8 has CA fringing at f/1.8?
Depending on the Canon lens lottery I guess. My EF 85 1.8 has never exhibited bad CA fringing wide open and I shoot it wide open all the time. It does not have that Zeiss color or contrast though. Colors can be somewhat muted and it can give a fairly flat look. I have occasionally seen some strange Bokeh rendering from it as well.
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
I've been considering buying the A900 for that lens only. There's simply nothing like it anywhere. Add to that in-body IS, and portraits in available lack-of-light will become a totally new ballgame.
Not to forget the colors! Tariq believes it could be due to the Zeiss lenses, but I saw some shots with the 35G and 70-200G and they also feature the same colors. It may be just Sony's interpretation of ideal colors, and if this is the case, someone could come out with a picture style that emulates this interpretation. And the noise as well! Believe it or not, I kind of like the A900 noisy pictures (after chroma noise reduction). They seem to hold a lot of detail and do look film-like. I prefer a somehow grainy look to a "plasticky" look if you see what I mean.
My decision to switch to Sony is just hanging on a few points that we will surely know in the very near future:
ZA lenses: Any sample/QC variations as with Canon? How do the zooms compare to equivalent Canikon Zooms and to ZE/ZF primes? What other ZA lenses are planned?
It seems clear that the Sony Zeiss ZA 24-70 is probably best of class. I would expect the same out of the forthcoming Zeiss 16-35.
edwardkaraa wrote:
My decision to switch to Sony is just hanging on a few points that we will surely know in the very near future:
ZA lenses: Any sample/QC variations as with Canon? How do the zooms compare to equivalent Canikon Zooms and to ZE/ZF primes? What other ZA lenses are planned?
