p.4 #1 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
goodwrench wrote:
Some shots with the 70-300 SSM G HERE
And some 24-70 2.8 ZA and 200G too
Garth
Garth, I believe I have seen where you have modified some older Minolta MD lenses in the past. Have you ever attempted to modify the MD Rokkor-X 24mm 2.8 for Sony/Minolta AF? I understand this older version is extremely good.
p.4 #2 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
rljones wrote:
i started collecting lenses last year when i realized the A900 would become a reality in the near future. a few that i'd recommend if you can find them:
the 35/1.4 G is excellent in any version (minolta or sony). some CA at 1.4 but by 2.8 there is almost no CA and the image is very sharp. because of these findings, i sold my zeiss 24-70. i prefer the quality of primes (less CA) and don't like having a monster lens to carry around all day. (it is bulky and heavy; similar to the zoom for the contax 645, which i also got rid of.)
besides the minolta 85/1.4 i mentioned earlier, the short tele is well served by the sigma 70/2.8 is also a great lens in the sony mount with no visible CA. (thus, with the 24/2.8, 35/1.5, 50/3.5 and 70/2.8 or 85/1.4, are better covered than by the zeiss.)
the minolta/sony 100/2.8 macro (which itself is wonderful, but the 100/2.0 is better at infinity) is a very good lens. next, a Voigtlander (cosina) 125/2.5. wow. what a lens. but they made only a few copies with minolta/sony electric contacts. with this lens, the zeiss 135/1.8 and the 135 STF are not necessary. the resolving power of this lens exceeds the 100/2.8 macro. but yet has a bokeh not so far off from the STF.
i had the 135 STF and this is a great alternative to the Cosina, which will be very difficult to find now. even wide open the STF is amazingly sharp with bokeh better than the zeiss 135/1.8. but it, like the cosina, is manual focus.
the 200/2.8 APO (again: wow) and the 400/4.5 APO are worth getting. (the minolta 300/4 is nothing special. the 300/2.8 APO is nice, but a large lens.)...Show more →
Thanks for the info. I have the 100 F2 which is incredible and today I just received the 50 2.8 Macro. Seems to be very sharp in the center at 2.8 but requires stopping down for the corners.
p.4 #3 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
Tariq, I have done a few alt lenses but not a Rokkor 24. I have Minolta AF 24 and have had/used most of the AF line lenses. I like the 24 but have really only used it extensively on the A700. I'm looking forward to getting the A900 but some current financial restraints have kept me from purchasing it yet.
If you haven't seen these two sites for Rokkor sites take a look.
p.4 #4 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
goodwrench wrote:
Tariq, I have done a few alt lenses but not a Rokkor 24. I have Minolta AF 24 and have had/used most of the AF line lenses. I like the 24 but have really only used it extensively on the A700. I'm looking forward to getting the A900 but some current financial restraints have kept me from purchasing it yet.
If you haven't seen these two sites for Rokkor sites take a look.
Thanks, I had seen the Rokkor Files site but not the other. I have an older MD Rokkor 24 2.8 on the way and I am planning on trying to convert it. Hopefully, I can get to infinity without mirror issues. I know its possible with the longer lenses but I'm not sure about the wides.
dpreview.com's own review indicates that it isn't. Here is the text from their test:
ISO 3200 Processed Raw: Alpha 900 vs Nikon D700
Although the Alpha 900's inherently noisier sensor means that it is struggling to produce usable results at ISO 6400, at ISO 1600 and 3200 the difference between it and the D700 can be reduced if you're prepared to shoot raw and do some noise reduction - and crucially, if you resize the Alpha's output to the same dimensions as the D700 (approx 12.1 megapixels).
That all said, even with some Photoshop noise reduction there's still a lot more chroma noise in the A900's end result, and if you try to get the noise levels down to match the D700 you end up with visibly less fine detail than the Nikon is delivering. And if you go one stop further (to ISO 6400) the D700 starts to pull well ahead of the Sony.
Further, the images in the forum posting were from another site. I looked at he same raw files and in contrast to this poster, and consistent with the dpreview test, found the D700 image superior (I think I actually posted about this a while back).
p.4 #7 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
Lotusm50 wrote:
dpreview.com's own review indicates that it isn't. Here is the text from their test:
ISO 3200 Processed Raw: Alpha 900 vs Nikon D700
Although the Alpha 900's inherently noisier sensor means that it is struggling to produce usable results at ISO 6400, at ISO 1600 and 3200 the difference between it and the D700 can be reduced if you're prepared to shoot raw and do some noise reduction - and crucially, if you resize the Alpha's output to the same dimensions as the D700 (approx 12.1 megapixels).
That all said, even with some Photoshop noise reduction there's still a lot more chroma noise in the A900's end result, and if you try to get the noise levels down to match the D700 you end up with visibly less fine detail than the Nikon is delivering. And if you go one stop further (to ISO 6400) the D700 starts to pull well ahead of the Sony.
Further, the images in the forum posting were from another site. I looked at he same raw files and in contrast to this poster, and consistent with the dpreview test, found the D700 image superior (I think I actually posted about this a while back).
p.4 #9 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
That link that moire posted is pretty impressive. Can you all tell which is which? I'd guess A900 on top, but it's really close IMO. Hopefully that poster gives us more examples, since he apparently has both cameras.
p.4 #10 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
moire wrote:
I know what dpr says ... they right alot of "crap".
Take a look for your self,with you own eyes! Can you tell A900 and D700 apart at ISO 3200?
As said, I DID look for myself using the same RAW files as the that poster did and came to a different conclusion. As for the actual dprreview test, it was done well and it one of more useful things they have done. It was quite reasonably done -- they way many have been urging them to do it.
Also, a consensus appears to be emerging (I suppose, outside of the Sony/Minolta fan sites) that tis consistent with what I saw "with my own eyes", and with DPR's conclusion.
p.4 #11 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
Where did you get the RAW files? I'd like to try it myself with Capture One. Also, since the OP of the dpreview thread hasn't told us, which pic is the D700?
p.4 #12 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
Have to agree with Tariq here. The a900 requires more work at higher ISOs and the results aren't up to the D700/D3 at higher ISO values. The pro Nikon bodies make my job as an event photographer much easier but that is just work! I picked up an a900 because for my own enjoyment I shoot landscapes, and to my eyes at base ISO where I fire off 95% of my shots the files from the a900 require less work to get the look I'm after. Color and tonality are exceptional, and exposure is spot-on. At base ISO I prefer the a900's files over those of the D700 and 5D. If the soon-to-be-released Zeiss 16-35 performs anywhere near the Nikkor 14-24 I'll be set. The a900's files at ISO 1600 could look like those from the G7 at ISO 1600 for all I care. In the rare instance where I need to fire off an ISO 1600 shot with the a900 I've no doubt that with some work I can get a usable print. I view the a900 more like the medium format Hasselblad bodies, whose noise is worse at ISO 400 at 800, compared to the new Sony body. There is a reason landscape shooters choose a Hassy and could care less that the ISO values max out at a noisy 800. Here is a link over to a thread on dpreview where one guy who has both a Hasselblad system and an a900 does some interesting comparisons:
p.4 #13 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
forestmage wrote:
Here is a link over to a thread on dpreview where one guy who has both a Hasselblad system and an a900 does some interesting comparisons:
I made the mistake of checking that thread out a few days ago. Man, its amazing just how much bickering and juvenile posts show up on dpreview.
This guy who posted this I believe even said he was selling his Phase One P30 back because the a900 performs as good or better. Well, I downloaded his RAWs and none of his images are as detailed/sharp as either of these cameras/backs are capable of. No offense meant to him but I think he may have prematurely jumped to sell the P30 if these are the tests he is basing his decision upon. All gear at this level requires the absolute best in lenses(he has yet to test a lens on the a900 that takes full advantage of the sensor) and technique to shine and I know both the a900 and the P30 back are better then what we are seeing in that thread.
The more I shoot and test this camera, the more I realize that lenses which I thought were good are in fact not able to resolve the finest detail this sensor is capable of. Case in point, the Minolta 50 1.7 vs the Minolta 50 2.8 Macro. The 1.7 seemed decent enough until I shot the Macro against it. Now I'm seeing very fine detail resolved which the 1.7 could not show at any aperture.
p.4 #14 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
Dpreview is quite the place. More negative than positive forum-wise. That's good to hear about the macro, as I'm looking at that one as well Tariq. Kinda torn between the 50 and the 100. I didn't realize he had decided to sell his Phase One! Don't think I would do the same if I could afford both.
p.4 #15 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
forestmage wrote:
Dpreview is quite the place. More negative than positive forum-wise. That's good to hear about the macro, as I'm looking at that one as well Tariq. Kinda torn between the 50 and the 100. I didn't realize he had decided to sell his Phase One! Don't think I would do the same if I could afford both.
Neither would I!
Here is his quote on that:
"3. Your conjecture: "So hoping to have a camera with the A900 that is close to MF just because is has 24MP is a complete msjudgement." is not supported by my obervations. In the case that the user prefers a 3:2 aspect ratio (as used by a900), the test results at ISO100 are virtually identical. For users who prefer a 4:3 aspect ratio, the higher pixel count of the P30 will give a slight edge. By inference, all digital backs with lower pixel counts, such as Mamiya ZD, and Phase One P25 will be easily outperformed by the a900. Of course I agree that the 39 and 50 megapixel backs will still be the best. In my own case, I have decided to sell my Phase One P30 back."
p.4 #18 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
douglasf13 wrote:
That link that moire posted is pretty impressive. Can you all tell which is which? I'd guess A900 on top, but it's really close IMO. Hopefully that poster gives us more examples, since he apparently has both cameras.
p.4 #19 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
forestmage wrote:
Have to agree with Tariq here. The a900 requires more work at higher ISOs and the results aren't up to the D700/D3 at higher ISO values. The pro Nikon bodies make my job as an event photographer much easier but that is just work! I picked up an a900 because for my own enjoyment I shoot landscapes, and to my eyes at base ISO where I fire off 95% of my shots the files from the a900 require less work to get the look I'm after. Color and tonality are exceptional, and exposure is spot-on. At base ISO I prefer the a900's files over those of the D700 and 5D. If the soon-to-be-released Zeiss 16-35 performs anywhere near the Nikkor 14-24 I'll be set. The a900's files at ISO 1600 could look like those from the G7 at ISO 1600 for all I care. In the rare instance where I need to fire off an ISO 1600 shot with the a900 I've no doubt that with some work I can get a usable print. I view the a900 more like the medium format Hasselblad bodies, whose noise is worse at ISO 400 at 800, compared to the new Sony body. There is a reason landscape shooters choose a Hassy and could care less that the ISO values max out at a noisy 800. Here is a link over to a thread on dpreview where one guy who has both a Hasselblad system and an a900 does some interesting comparisons:
Yes and this is why a person with "PJ" needs shouldnt get a A900. it requires more work with raw to get good high iso performance. well if you dont need low res images that is.
then the jpegis good enough from a900.
p.4 #20 · Sony A900 initial impressions from 5D user
Images taken down for further experimentation. Also for some reason thought I had put this in the general a900 thread. Didn't intend to hijack Tariq's thread.
)