AhamB wrote:
Something I'd like to know about the Sony A850/900 viewfinder: are the AF-points always visible, also if you use the M focusing screen? And those APS-C and 16:9 indicator lines? From the pictures on the net it looks rather cluttered to me.
The AF points and gridlines are so tiny and discrete relative to the huge VF itself, I've never even thought about them being distracting until reading your question. I cannot see how this can be distracting, so I'd say a clear 'no' to that. Edit: Sorry, I missed your question - yes, always visible.
The A900 has a lot going for it, first and foremost excellent IQ at low iso + the Zeiss ZAs that are exclusive to the Sony system. IBIS may also be a plus for some, I think in-lens is nicer, but certainly see the value of IBIS.
The two things that suck IMO are 1) lack of live-view and 2) shabby high-iso.
1) While the VF is huge and bright, there are situations where it just doesn't work well using VF only. Nailing focus with the ZF 100 MP wide open on a medium distance subject is hard. Often I need 4-5 shots. At this time there's no point looking through the VF as it looks the same anyways. Instead I adjust focus slightly and review the image at 100 % until it's acceptable. This takes time, is annoying and a hassle. BTW, the same goes for the ZF 35/2. The C/Y 50 1.7 works well. This is only my experience.
2) It's not the grain or noise itself, but more the lack of DR and color. The files become flat - fast. At least that's my impression. In B&W they might look "better". Maybe they also look better on print, I don't know.
Another thing, while it's great than one now can adapt Zeiss ZFs, you still have to set aperture manually on the lens. This may be a hassle for someone. I would certainly appreciate auto-aperture when shooing handheld and things that move.
All the above is IMO of course.
BTW, I've been thinking of getting an A3+ printer to get some of my stuff on the wall. Maybe the differences between the 5DII and A900 will be totally different on paper. I don't know.
My point is that we're splitting hairs here. A few hundred dollars here or there isn't a deal breaker for most.
Your profile says you have three Canon lenses: 16-35, 24-70 and 100-400. I priced those three, but I had to use the newer 16-35 version II to show what the cost would be buying into the system today.
For only $600 more dollars, I'd personally rather have the Sony/Zeiss version of those 3 lenses.
schristie11 wrote:
douglasf13,
Actually the Canon 70-200 MK II is now on B&H for
Price: $2,269.00
Instant Savings -$ 200.00 Offer ends 01/08/2011 You
Pay: $2,069.00
The current Sony G 70-200 is only slightly less, and it is a "old" design by your standards.
The new Canon lens is definitely sharper cleaner faster and better in all technical regards.
It also includes a 4 stop IS system that is incredibly good and works on even the cheapest Canon bodies, including the excellent 7D priced very nicely.
These features are definitely worth the small increase in price.
Oh yea, but you cannot buy the Sony since it is OUT OF STOCK! Small details.
Once again, just because Sony is promising a lens, does not mean you can have it in your hand, and if you cannot have it, how can you say it's better than any other lens?
In addition, the Sony 70-200 lens has the same features and IQ as the $1100 Canon 70-200 and the Sony is priced at set $1800 – $200 rebate = $1600 for some reason it is $600 more than the equivalent old technology Canon lens.
Can you tell me why?
Many of the Sony lenses in the lineup are not all that new - not new technology.
Besides, that does not make one of them either better or worse.
I wish sony priced their lenses similarly with the common technology standard they are competing against with of Canon.
Therefore, your suggestion that Canon lenses being old, was a reason for price point, is not a strong argument.
It does not cost significantly less today than it did 5 years ago.
douglasf13,
I have no idea how you came up with "my lenses total price".
How do you even know what my lenses are?
Please detail your results, so I / We don’t think your just off your rocker.. If your claim is legit, I / we want to know.
mortyb wrote:
2) It's not the grain or noise itself, but more the lack of DR and color. The files become flat - fast. At least that's my impression. In B&W they might look "better". Maybe they also look better on print, I don't know.
The superb DR, subtlety of tone and color at low ISO are what actually sold me on the a900 so I'm surprised to hear your experience.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The superb DR, subtlety of tone and color at low ISO are what actually sold me on the a900 so I'm surprised to hear your experience.
Oh, that makes more sense. One thing I noticed right away with the a900 files was that they required almost the complete opposite of dealing with my older 5D Canon files. All the headroom is at the highlight end of the curve with the a900 files whereas the 5D files had more headroom at the shadow end. Thus, underexposing 5D files a bit was never a problem but I often ran into clipped highlights. With Sony, I never get clipped highlights but underexposure can lead to a lot of noise. Anyway, YMMV.
mortyb wrote:
1) While the VF is huge and bright, there are situations where it just doesn't work well using VF only. Nailing focus with the ZF 100 MP wide open on a medium distance subject is hard. Often I need 4-5 shots. At this time there's no point looking through the VF as it looks the same anyways. Instead I adjust focus slightly and review the image at 100 % until it's acceptable. This takes time, is annoying and a hassle. BTW, the same goes for the ZF 35/2. The C/Y 50 1.7 works well. This is only my experience.
Thanks for the feedback, Morten. That's as much as I gathered. Focusing is bound to be easier than with the 5D1 that I have though.
@Edward: Maybe the Zeiss MP100/2 is more difficult to focus than the ZA 135/1.8. I've heard more complaints about focusing difficulties with the MP100 here on FM.
Luminous landscape has some interesting reviews on the A900. This side note describes one of the major things that attracts me to the A850/900:
But, be aware that by reducing the ISO below the camera's native 200 you are sacrificing one of the A900's great image quality assets, and that's its very broad highlight "shoulder". To my eye this gives the camera a very distinctive advantage in that highlights seem more film-like, with less of a tendency to clip, and to show more nuanced tonal and colour separation in lighter tones. For many current and prospective users, especially those with a sophisticated appreciation for the nuances of image quality, this highlight latitude may provide the camera's biggest appeal, so only switch to ISO 100 in situations where slightly lower noise and more shadow range are what's desired....Show more →
AhamB wrote:
Luminous landscape has some interesting reviews on the A900. This side note describes one of the major things that attracts me to the A850/900:
Yep, my experience exactly regarding the film like roll off in the highlights. I ran a number of tests when I first got my a900 a few years back and found the ideal ISO on my sample to be 160. That was the point below which DR began to suffer. Above that, noise increased. I know some advocate using ISO 320 or something but my own tests showed 160 to be ideal on my camera.
I agree totally with this. I haven't done as extensive testing as Tariq but I find one of the very strengths of the A900 is the film like highlight handling which is one of the things that won me over for sure.
The thing that would put me off switching from Canon to Sony is that Canon's sensors have been 14bit for some time now (your 1D Mark III is 14bit), but Sony is still 12bit. For the kind of work I do, that makes a difference. I don't know if it matters to you.
Tony Rogers wrote:
The thing that would put me off switching from Canon to Sony is that Canon's sensors have been 14bit for some time now (your 1D Mark III is 14bit), but Sony is still 12bit. For the kind of work I do, that makes a difference. I don't know if it matters to you.
I go by what I see, not the specs, and when comparing tonal gradations, the a900 comes close to many MF digital back files I have worked with.
I certainly would be interested if you could show a test involving the a900 where this 14bit spec advantage in a competing camera is demonstrable with real world images. I do a lot of reproductions of paintings and subtle pastels for other artists and I have not found an issue with color, hue or smooth tonal transitions. The other area where I am acutely aware of subtle tonal transitions is in B&W and here the a900 performs extremely well.
Yeah, 14bit has the potential to make a difference, but, in this case it doesn't. In fact, the 14bit 5dii has much more issues in low ISO shadows than the A900.
douglasf13 wrote:
Canon 12 bit being better than Canon 14 bit does not equal Canon 14 bit being better than Sony 12 bit.
Where do you see that?
From this?
"I wrote at length last week comparing whether the larger 14-bit files are actually any better than 12-bit raw, looking mainly at resolution as it relates to shadow and highlight recovery. "
Regardless, that test was Dated: January 13, 2008 (updated January 14, 2008)
The RAW converters have come along way since then.
14 bit files are more useful than ever at this point.
I cannot see how this can be distracting, so I'd say a clear 'no' to that. Edit: Sorry, I missed your question - yes, always visible.
I use the M screen as well.