mawz wrote:
Yep, and I personally probably would (I expect to end up shooting Sony FF at some point). But you simply can't say two systems are comparable when you have to go searching seriously for used copies of lenses in one system which are commonly available in most stores for the other.
They *are* comparable in that for most lenses in the Nikon lineup, you *can* get equivalent lenses in the Sony lineup. I do consider Minolta lenses part of the Sony lineup. I don't care if they are not in production... these can be found... As I said, if you don't feel like looking for them, that's fine... but they are available if you choose to look.
The 200-400 is critically sharp wide open and with a TC14E mounted, it's better at f4 and 400mm than the 70-400G is at 400 and f8 (and that's saying something, as the 70-400 is a superb lens). It's an absolutely stunning lens. But it's huge and expensive. I'd agree that a 70-300 type zoom is bread & butter, but the longer 70-400's are specialist lenses (as the price difference between the two attests).
I haven't tried the 200-400... it's obviously very sharp and is likely sharper than 70-400, but "blows out of the water" sounds a touch bit hyperbolic.
Once again, these lenses are NOT in Sony's lineup. They're available used if a dedicated person goes looking for them but that does not make them part of the lineup. A lens lineup is what one can actually order. And the 300/4 is once again somewhat hard to find.
That's the same as saying that Nikon doesn't have the 80-200 AF-S 2.8 lens available in its lineup or some older Nikon primes are not part of the lineup either simply because it's not in production... your definition of a lens lineup seems to only extend to what is currently in production vs everything else that's available on the used market, no matter how common it might be.
mortyb wrote:
Nah, same results. Ony changed to 'Spot'. Using -20 it's about there, although I'd guess a couple of clicks more would have been even better. Anyway, I've lost confidence in these two, and they are going back.
I'd venture to guess that the lens is at fault. Or the camera. Best way to find out is to either exchange the lens or easier yet; try another camera in store.
As for Sony build quality it is better than most I have seen, coming from years in the biz of selling cameras. At the fair I asked two of the major players on the market that sell Nikon/Canon/Sony/Oly if they have had any QC issues with Sony. One of them could think of ONE Sony camera that came back with the pop-up flash broken. But he was pretty sure the flash got dinged. And they sell Sony like hot cakes.
Sony ain't perfect but if you gave up on it because of a fault you haven't tried to narrow down to either the lens (most likely) or camera I think you aren't fair. I can relate to the feeling of not trusting a camera but you are missing out on a great piece of kit sending it back.
Knowing Canon 5D's track record I would also urge prospective buyers not to judge the camera/brand from getting a lemon (or in the Canon 5D's case; a crate of lemons). I have been on a lucky streak the last few years and haven't received a dog yet. Just purrrrring cats. Meow.
Nikons QC on the pro cameras seems great - I hardly ever saw one come back.
I talked to a guy just yesterday that have a Nikon D3 and he changed the shutter and mirror assembly - after 300 000 exposures in less than three years (!) and it did not cost him more than around $550. Nikon lower end cameras were of so appalling quality that I stopped recommending them to customers that were outbound on a trip - the risk of the camera giving up on them on the first week was far too high!
why nikon over canon? Is it due to imaging quality of bodies; lenses or just personal preference?
Briefly: I owned the 1Ds (Mk I) and 5D (both used with a very expensive collection of Leica and Zeiss glass. Neither have Live View. I switched to Nikon when the D3 and the 14–24/2.8 was released). Bought both and was extremely happy with this combination (at that time, Canon's wide angle lenses were less than impressive, which is what got me into the Leica and Zeiss wides and UWAs originally).
But all these Alt. lenses have to be used in manual stopdown mode, and that is not practical for many applications (think events). And all are MF lenses. Very suitable for some work, and not for others.
I very much do like the new TS Canon lenses and have written about this elsewhere (the independent T and S axes are a true blessing for the architectural and product photographer). Nikon's PC-E lenses tilt and shift are fixed at 90 degrees to each other, though can be changed (four screws) to same axis (I have done this on the 24).
Canon's new 5D II looks much better in this context, if only for being able to use the new TS lenses natively (the 17mm alone would be enough for me to switch back) but the 5D II's Live View is not as well implemented as Nikon's (90% of the sensor area only can be used as focus points vs. 100% of the Nikon's) and the 5D II will not allow the pixel level (and even sub-pixel) magnification that Nikon does. And I would have to sell all my Nikon glass and re-buy the Canon equivalents; a very expensive exercise.
Lastly, I find the ergonomics of the Nikon pro bodies suit me better (but add that you get used to any body that you use all the time, so not a big factor), and unlike some of the other posters here, I find the files perfectly adequately sharp (I used PK Sharpener in my workflow and only shoot Raw), and as for colour—I find that excellent and, again, if shooting Raw, really a matter of personal preference. I use Adobe CS4 and Capture One 5 for processing.
I do not need 20+MP in my work. It would be an interesting exercise to do a poll here and ask posters how often they personally print images, and how often they really need more than 12MP, assuming high quality pixels. The D700 files can be enlarged beyond native resolution if necessary using Genuine Fractals, but the majority of my work ends up as printed images smaller than 10 x 8 in brochures, and/or in some web-based form.
If/when the D3x sensor makes it into a D700-like body, I may consider getting that and selling one of the D700s. I just can't justify paying the $7,000-8,000 USD for either the D3x or 1Ds Mk III when the D700 does such a good job, and I can't see the 5D II being revised for quite some time. hth, kl
Just as an end note to this thread, I should note that almost unexpectedly (long story), a Sony a850 turned up on my doorstep today. I know that will surprise a few of you, given some of my comments in this thread and over time. But as I said, I was on the fence, and basically, accidentally fell to one side. ;-)
I don't have any lenses I can use on it, so I'm not sure what I'm going to do with it. But I got a decent price on it so I'll probably keep it, at least for a while. To bad I can't just use my ZF lenses. How hard are c/y conversions? I'll pick up an M42 adapter in the short run so I can use something.
If I can get my hands on a 5DII, maybe I can do the comparison I was suggesting. ;-)
Enjoy the new camera, Lotusm50. I too will be interested to see side by side samples from the A850 and 5Dii if you get a chance. Interestingly enough, it appears that the A850 and A900 aren't identical IQ-wise. Andrey Tverdokhleb, the RPP guy, had this to say last week about the A900 vs. A850:
"I don't think that they significantly changed "the look" [of the A850], not to my eyes at least based on those samples which I have. It looks like they produce different white balance coefficients though on the same target (f.e. blue channel is about 0.3 stop less sensitive) and this means at least different per-channel gain, different profile with different gamut and noticeable difference with at least some saturated colors reproduction."
Hopefully that bodes well for the camera in the noise department. For RAW, stay from anything Adobe outside of LR3.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Just as an end note to this thread, I should note that almost unexpectedly (long story), a Sony a850 turned up on my doorstep today. I know that will surprise a few of you, given some of my comments in this thread and over time. But as I said, I was on the fence, and basically, accidentally fell to one side. ;-)
I don't have any lenses I can use on it, so I'm not sure what I'm going to do with it. But I got a decent price on it so I'll probably keep it, at least for a while. To bad I can't just use my ZF lenses. How hard are c/y conversions? I'll pick up an M42 adapter in the short run so I can use something.
If I can get my hands on a 5DII, maybe I can do the comparison I was suggesting. ;-)
L50, The Leitax CY-Alpha conversions are quite straightforward, given the right mindset, attention to detail and steady hands. I use an eye magnifier (3x) to help see it all in good detail. Locating the ball bearing for final mount placement is the only tricky part, besides ensuring that your screwdriver is centred over the screws and that you get sufficient torque on them while pushing down firmly. Some may have residual loctite or similar. I used David's driver that he sells.
I'll start using the re-mounted CY 28/2.8 and 50/1.4 in earnest now for landscapes, but from the 2 zooms I took, Sony's 70-300G and Tamron's 28-75/2.8, the Sony film-like colour rendition is very attractive. Colour is highly subjective of course, but from the first frame I was sold on that front - I used to think that what I was seeing from my D200 NEFs via Capture NX was just 'digital colour'.
Re lens choice, yes, a wide Zeiss TS (not just shift) would be of tremendous value. The two viable options I am aware of, the CY 35/2.8 Distagon-PC and the Leica (Schneider) PC 28/2.8, are quite rare and/or expensive in EC. Other than that, A mount versions of the ZF/ZE series or something similar would be fine for a few wide primes. To speculate, Sony are taking FF to main street much more than the others, so it makes sense that their lens development program (if you can call it that!) target the needs of A850/900 users.
I've ordered an A850 as well, and the Zeiss 24-70 and 135/1.8. I'll use it in addition to my D700. I'm really excited to get it, and can't wait to try it out!
This thread has turned out to be expensive for some of us To fill in where I left, the lens and body that didn't focus correctly both went back, and I picked up new ones from my local store yesterday. A nice reminder to myself of why I normally pay a tad more locally, and in return get easy, great service and warranties if something should come up. Looking VERY forward to giving it a go - again
mortyb wrote:
This thread has turned out to be expensive for some of us To fill in where I left, the lens and body that didn't focus correctly both went back, and I picked up new ones from my local store yesterday. A nice reminder to myself of why I normally pay a tad more locally, and in return get easy, great service and warranties if something should come up. Looking VERY forward to giving it a go - again
Sorry about your bad experience, Morty. After a few bad experiences mail orders are completely out of question as far as I'm concerned.
I bought all my Sony gear from the main Sony showroom in Bangkok. My 16-35 was slightly decentered and they immediately replaced for me, no questions asked. And A900 owners always receive a VVIP treatment
We haven't seen a pic in this thread in quite a few pages... just sayin'. I know it's winter for most of us but would the new Sony owners find something to upload?
Sam N wrote:
We haven't seen a pic in this thread in quite a few pages... just sayin'. I know it's winter for most of us but would the new Sony owners find something to upload?
Well, I have posted these to the alternative image thread recently.
Is my monitor acting funny? Sony A 900/850 is praised for its colour rendition, but I am unsure about what I am seeing. Edward, your pics 2, 3, 4, 5 seem to have a green/yellow cast, and I know that temple fairly well (in BKK, right?), because I have been there and shot it 3 times. Help!
