Tariq Gibran wrote:
So, I guess I will be the Guinea Pig as I just placed my order for the Sony A900! Sony does need to get their act together with the availability of the Zeiss 24-70 2.8. It's out of stock everywhere at the moment. Not really too smart on their part to not have stock of this lens(I would have ordered one!) as its about the best overall lens available for the A900 at the moment.
Well, good luck with this. I'm sure you'll let us know all the gnarly details.
I know you're not interested, but it doesn't come as a kit. That's surprising.
Mel Gross wrote:
Well, good luck with this. I'm sure you'll let us know all the gnarly details.
I know you're not interested, but it doesn't come as a kit. That's surprising.
Ya, Sony could have made more $$ on me upfront. Instead, I will mostly be using my screw mount ALT lenses on it which is a less expensive proposition anyway.
There are more and more decent samples coming up on the DPReview Sony SLR forum. Some people coming form Kodac SLR's and some running dual systems from both the Canon and Nikon side.
goodwrench wrote:
There are more and more decent samples coming up on the DPReview Sony SLR forum. Some people coming form Kodac SLR's and some running dual systems from both the Canon and Nikon side.
Thanks for the link. Some very interesting stuff. The noise at iso 800 does look like my 1Ds2 at iso 3200 , but the AF seems to be extremely reliable even with moving subjects and the colors look very very nice, much more to my liking than Canon's.
I'm still trying to delay the purchase but I know I'm not going to be able to resist.
Thinking to keep my 1Ds2 and my Zeiss primes and buy the A900 for the Zeiss zooms.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Well, they you haven't been paying close-enough attention. ;-)
I would not be considering it if there weren't positive things about it. I currently have a 5D (among others) with a raft of alternative (mostly Zeiss) lenses (ans 2 Canon lenses -- 70-200/4L + 300/4 ISL -- that I don't really use).. So, the a900 has to be sufficiently better than a new 5D MkII, in ways that matter to me, to get me to switch.
Clearly positive things about the a900 (generally speaking, relative to my 5D system):
* better spec-ed body (VF, speed, etc.)
* in-body IS (would like to see test results on this, however)
* Zeiss 24-70/2.8 (but how much more relatively attractive is it, is the open question)
* Zeiss 135/1.8
* can consolidate lens holdings, potentially holding fewer lenses
Preliminarily positive things about the a900 (again, relatively speaking) -- need to get my hands on one to try to know for sure:
* ergonomics, handling and user interface(?) -- IMHO, the 5D sucks in this area, but it is not clear that the a900 is really any better
* build quality -- the 5D never impressed in this area
* Zeiss 16-35/2.8 -- might not really be significantly better than my Zeiss N 17-35/2.8
Toss-ups
* Zeiss 85/1.4 (no conclusive evidence that it is better (in that matter) than either my Zeiss N
85/1.4 (which is a lovely performer) or the Zeiss ZE 85/1.4 option
* 24mp vs 21mp
Negatives:
* limited, high quality prime lenses (rumours that 2 Zeiss primes are coming -- but when, how much longer do we have to wait)
* no Zeiss Makro (except, perhaps a completely manual, adapted ZS 100/2.0 M-P), I'm addicted to my Zeiss N 100/2.8 M-S.
Inconclusives, waiting for conclusive tests:
* noise (but preliminarily, it doesn't look positive, but we will reserve judgment)
* dynamic range
* reliability?
Very well said, and great overall synopsis I agree that the ZA 85mm vs. N and ZE is up in the air. For me, the AF is important, although I could get by without it. I certainly wish that Zeiss made the ZF/ZE line available in A mount as well, but I'm doubting that will happen. I have a chipped m42 adapter, so I guess the ZS lenses are an option.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Thanks for the link. Some very interesting stuff. The noise at iso 800 does look like my 1Ds2 at iso 3200 , but the AF seems to be extremely reliable even with moving subjects and the colors look very very nice, much more to my liking than Canon's.
I'm still trying to delay the purchase but I know I'm not going to be able to resist.
Thinking to keep my 1Ds2 and my Zeiss primes and buy the A900 for the Zeiss zooms.
You do know that color out of the camera is of little importance, esp. when shooting RAW? For jpegs, the color is just a matter of setting your own preferences in camera.
But all can be adjusted later.
There are things about all cameras to like, but basing it on that, is one of the shakiest of reasons.
Mel Gross wrote:
You do know that color out of the camera is of little importance, esp. when shooting RAW? For jpegs, the color is just a matter of setting your own preferences in camera.
But all can be adjusted later.
There are things about all cameras to like, but basing it on that, is one of the shakiest of reasons.
You seem to assume many things. The Zeiss lenses are the main reason. Out of the camera colors are a plus. Anyway, I won't buy it with your money so don't worry.
edwardkaraa wrote:
You seem to assume many things. The Zeiss lenses are the main reason. Out of the camera colors are a plus. Anyway, I won't buy it with your money so don't worry.
I doubt, from using Zeiss lenses, that their contribution to color is all that great. Even so, it can be optimized.
Oh, and thanks for not using my money. I was worried for a bit.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
So, I guess I will be the Guinea Pig as I just placed my order for the Sony A900! Sony does need to get their act together with the availability of the Zeiss 24-70 2.8. It's out of stock everywhere at the moment. Not really too smart on their part to not have stock of this lens(I would have ordered one!) as its about the best overall lens available for the A900 at the moment.
Yes they were taken by surprise, didn't expect such high demand.
Mel Gross wrote:
You do know that color out of the camera is of little importance, esp. when shooting RAW? For jpegs, the color is just a matter of setting your own preferences in camera.
But all can be adjusted later.
There are things about all cameras to like, but basing it on that, is one of the shakiest of reasons.
Getting the colours right from the camera is a high priority for some of us. I've been using Fuji and Olympus for years for that reason. Post processing is mostly boring, it costs time and it slows down the whole photographic process. If Sony has got that right with the A900, and the more samples I see, the more it looks like they have, that's a big plus in my book.
Then of course, opinions may vary with regards to what are the right colours.
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
Getting the colours right from the camera is a high priority for some of us. I've been using Fuji and Olympus for years for that reason. Post processing is mostly boring, it costs time and it slows down the whole photographic process. If Sony has got that right with the A900, and the more samples I see, the more it looks like they have, that's a big plus in my book.
Then of course, opinions may vary with regards to what are the right colours.
You don't do post processing? How do you get the RAW images to finished form?
You must do some post. Unless you shoot jpegs.
I often batch pics together. It doesn't take much time. I glance at them first, quickly. Only if an image needs special work does it get selected out from the other finals.
Of course I do post processing, but the less I need to do it the better, and with the files from the S3 and the E-1, the need for colour adjustments are rare. I also find batch processing a lottery, since images with different exposure will often react differently to the same processing, which again means I have to inspect each photo anyway.
In addition, with the S3, I still shoot a lot of jpeg. The quality of the jpegs is one of the advantages of that camera. Unfortunately, it's often also a necessity, since the there's only room for three RAW files in the buffer.
Since colour quality is difficult to quantify, this will always be a matter of opinion, and I sometimes ask myself if my clients notice. But for my own satisfaction as well as time consumption, getting it right straight out of the camera will always be an advantage.
It's not just changing the white balance, it's how the camera renders colours, Nikon facial tones are a lot better than those from my 5D for example to the extent that I used the new Adobe DNG Profile Editor to map the D700 profile onto the 5D profile (it's a feature of the program). The difference is subtle but definately there. I doubt clients will notice but if I have to work less to get realistic facial tone colours then that is a big plus for me given that of all the corrections in the RAW coverter, the 5D requires the most time for natural facial colour.
Beni wrote:
It's not just changing the white balance, it's how the camera renders colours, Nikon facial tones are a lot better than those from my 5D for example to the extent that I used the new Adobe DNG Profile Editor to map the D700 profile onto the 5D profile (it's a feature of the program). The difference is subtle but definately there. I doubt clients will notice but if I have to work less to get realistic facial tone colours then that is a big plus for me given that of all the corrections in the RAW coverter, the 5D requires the most time for natural facial colour....Show more →
It brings in the saturation (and hence brightness) of the more highlight parts of the facial tones just enough to make them look more natural, slightly more film like. Still not the same as a native D700 file and certainly not as drastic as the sledgehammer changes that Adobe made with their Standard Beta Profiles, but side by side just that little more natural.
For those interested, a Nikon D3 and D700 owner purchased the A900, and he has posted some high ISO shots. He seems relatively happy with the high ISO performance of the A900, considering it's twice the megapixels of his Nikons, and claims that prints come out very clean.
I agree that the ZA 85mm vs. N and ZE is up in the air. For me, the AF is important, although I could get by without it. I certainly wish that Zeiss made the ZF/ZE line available in A mount as well, but I'm doubting that will happen. I have a chipped m42 adapter, so I guess the ZS lenses are an option. 