Georg Baumann
Subscriber Member
Since how long do you work with it Quentin?
Any firmware bugs or generally negative points you came across for landscape work?
Any firmware bugs or generally negative points you came across for landscape work?
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Hi GeorgSince how long do you work with it Quentin?
Any firmware bugs or generally negative points you came across for landscape work?
Hi George,Since how long do you work with it Quentin?
Any firmware bugs or generally negative points you came across for landscape work?
HI GeorgI think the D3x also lacks the dust shaker on the sensor, something I never understood for a camera in this price class.
As for landscapes, I assume you would not use the inmage stabelizer at all and rather switch it off, using tripod and mirror lockup to avoid blur in high frequency areas.
Quentin, does that include the LEE W/A 77mm adapter ring that reverses back on itself?Hi George,
I have used the A900 for some months. for landscape work it got a major outing a couple of weeks ago in Dorset and it performed well
The mirror is a big mutha, and mirror slap should be avoided for sharpest results. That means using MLU, which is one area the Mamiya ZD excelled in (great big MLU button that works in any mode). With the A900, its one of several drive alternatives which is fussier, but its not a huge problem.
Also if you use the 24-70mm Zeiss, beware all but the thinnest filters vignette in the extreme corners - even the Lee filter system, which suggests they should have used a bigger filter thread, say 82mm instead of 77mm.
Quentin
Same here. Was working with a D3 and D700 ... waiting for the D3X. When the D3X hit the street at $8K with the only improvement being the higher meg sensor and virtually little else, I thought it a bit much.Its probably the other way around Pros can't afford to waste money on an overpriced camera. Jono and I have a mutual full-time pro friend who baulks at the price of the D3x. I could afford (and had on order) a D3x, but thought Nikon were takin the p*ss when the price was announced. So I cancelled the order and went Sony and don't regret it.
In all honesty, the 50/1.4 would benefit the least from better coating, as it has so few elements. I can't understand why people complain about this - it's the complex zooms and wideangles that really need the super coating.... finally replacing the toy like 50/1.4 with more capable AFS model, but no nano crystal coating ...
Maybe least benefited Lars ... but are you saying there would be "no" benefit? Get up into 24+ meg full frame, and lenses are going to need all the help they can get.In all honesty, the 50/1.4 would benefit the least from better coating, as it has so few elements. I can't understand why people complain about this - it's the complex zooms and wideangles that really need the super coating.
Of course it matters but the benefit is more marginal than for a complex lens design or for a wideangle lens. Nanocrystal coating reduces reflection and improves transmisson. It doesn't improve resolution. So it doesn't matter if you shoot one or 24 megapixels, the relevance of good coating is the same. What matters is the number of surfaces in the lens.Maybe least benefited Lars ... but are you saying there would be "no" benefit? Get up into 24+ meg full frame, and lenses are going to need all the help they can get.
Not arguing your point re Nikon's market positioning, Marc - Nikon really needs to broaden its line with pro primes."Marginal" means a lot ... we all pay dearly for "Marginal" gains with digital.
I guess I was mistaken ... I thought the coatings also helped increase contrast ... which is helpful with higher meg cameras because users of such gear are more inclined to be seeking every advantage to exploit.
No matter, they don't have it ... and apparently it's okay with some people that they don't.
I'm moving to Sony anyway. High meg, less money, much better work horse lenses. Glass is where it's at as far as I'm concerned ... and Nikon is asleep at the wheel in that regard IMHO.
Contradict away - although actually that wasn't quite what I said! Anyway, it doesn't make any difference around here, where there is no landscape - only plants, and it's always blowing at 100miles an hour! My point really was that one can get good sharp results with the A900 without using a tripod.And much as I hate to contradict Jono, using a tripod does make a difference to sharpness.
Totally agree about those lenses ... and the new FF cameras are great. Just a few stinking work horse primes ... pretty please!Nikon has come back by tooth and claw to outcompete Canon at the top, so I guess there is some hope that they will refresh their lens lineup sometime soon. The 14-24 and 24-70, as well as 200/2 give some hope.
Bizarre isn't it, there seems to be three of everything. But not a decent quality f4 zoom in sight (or the primes we would all like)Maybe Nikon is falling back on Zeiss here. I must say that I don't understand why Nikon are expanding their plastic mount lens range.
You'll probably want to hang on to your Nikon gear for a while, because Sony won't quite get there in the high ISO department...at least not for a while. Sony's high ISO performance isn't a matter of pixel size, but rather sensor design and color separation. The EXMOR processor is tailored for low read noise at low ISO, but, as we've all seen, gaining the ADCs up isn't the sensor's strong suit.** Nikon D3x has circumvented this a bit with its special 14-bit processing that appears to be taking multiple samples, and Nikon has a better starting point, because of their weaker color separation. However, the D3x still can't hang with the D3 (or 5dii, for that matter,) because the D3's sensor design is drastically different, and, while having higher read noise at low ISO, it has much lower read noise at the higher ISOs. Until Sony brings a different sensor design, a 16MP EXMOR won't really have any less noise than the A900, assuming you're viewing their files at the same size in print or on screen. Even if Sony does address this, they'll still be a bit behind Canon and Nikon, unless they begin putting weaker CFAs in their cameras, which IMO, would be too bad, because that's been a desirable thing about the line since the A100. People are just starting to notice Sony's color now, because the A900 has gotten their cameras in better photographer's hands.....As I am learning to work with the A900, I'm finding high ISOs are there to use for my applications, further endangering the Nikons. If Sony releases a full-frame, fatter pixel 12-16 meg camera that's better optimized for low light work, then the Nikon's will be history....
-Marc