The GetDPI Photography Forum

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!

Trying out the Sony A900 and Zeiss 24-70

A

asabet

Guest
Hi Jono,

I agree the flower shot is beautiful with a pleasing background blur and transition from sharp to out of focus. Again, I wasn't saying the lens had poor bokeh rendering, only that some give it that rap and that I had insufficient data to have an opinion. I feel that the coexistence of balanced sharpness across the frame and consistently pleasing bokeh rendering is a major strength of Nikon's top standard zoom. It sounds like you've done due diligence in evaluating the Zeiss to see how it stands up, which is all I was recommending.

With regards to comparing crops, you make a good point. The nice thing about evaluating bokeh is that (unlike the evaluation of sharpness) significant problems are generally evident even after resizing whole images for the web. Some of the "bad bokeh" examples I've seen from this lens show minute OOF areas at 100% in the corner of the frame. That's just silly IMO.

Hi Amin
I took around 100 shots with the lens around Norwich, and although I did detect a little 'busyness' in some shots, I thought that the shot of the flower (above) was rather nice.

One thing one needs to be really careful about here is comparing 100% crops from the A900 and the D700 - because they represent a radically different proportion of the file.

As for general observations on the lens - It seems to be very sharp, right down to f2.8, certainly in the same ball park as the Nikon. At first sight there might be a tiny bit more barrel distortion at 24mm, but it is SIMPLE, and not the wiggly stuff Nikon tends to dish out, so, if necessary it's easy to correct.

The whole package (body and lens) is about the same size as the D700, but the lens is short and fat rather than long and thinner (like the Nikon). It's also very slightly lighter (but so little as to make no significant difference).
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hi Jono,

I agree the flower shot is beautiful with a pleasing background blur and transition from sharp to out of focus. Again, I wasn't saying the lens had poor bokeh rendering, only that some give it that rap and that I had insufficient data to have an opinion. I feel that the coexistence of balanced sharpness across the frame and consistently pleasing bokeh rendering is a major strength of Nikon's top standard zoom. It sounds like you've done due diligence in evaluating the Zeiss to see how it stands up, which is all I was recommending.
I quite agree about the Nikon, and whether the Zeiss will be that good is a moot point, and we all know that lenses can appear really good in some circumstances . . . and really bad in others.

One of my frustrations with Nikon is to find good enough 'supporting' lenses for more casual use, but of course, that may be a problem with Sony as well!

With regards to comparing crops, you make a good point. The nice thing about evaluating bokeh is that (unlike the evaluation of sharpness) significant problems are generally evident even after resizing whole images for the web. Some of the "bad bokeh" examples I've seen from this lens show minute OOF areas at 100% in the corner of the frame. That's just silly IMO.
I haven't seen those, but I'm afraid I'm really bad at drawing conclusions from other people's experience!

Certainly, this is the most effort I've made in trying to do a proper evaluation before getting a new camera . . . the 24mp is certainly seductive though!
 
A

asabet

Guest
I quite agree about the Nikon, and whether the Zeiss will be that good is a moot point, and we all know that lenses can appear really good in some circumstances . . . and really bad in others
I guess we differ on that, as it isn't a moot point for me. It's absolutely true that each lens will shine in many circumstances and not fare as well in others. However, I'd want to have a sense for how often each lens did well compared to the other. Ie, you mentioned "busyness" in some of your Zeiss shots; do you note this finding in a similar proportion of your Nikon photos?

I don't shoot as many scenics as you. For my purposes (mainly candid people photos), I wouldn't consider choosing more resolution if it came with an overall less pleasing due to inherent lens characteristics.

One of my frustrations with Nikon is to find good enough 'supporting' lenses for more casual use, but of course, that may be a problem with Sony as well!
Yes, I think outside of Olympus, Canon probably has the best "casual" use lens choices.
 

Arne Hvaring

Well-known member
Hi Jono
interesting to see your thoughts on the Sony 24mpx. While I have no doubt as to the resolution of the camera (or the Zeiss lenses for that matter) I wonder how you find the colour and DR compared to the Nikon.

I hear you when it comes to printing big. I've found that my 10 to12 mpx cameras (of different flavors) print well up to A3+ (provided minimal cropping) but above that size I need a higher resolving camera. Which is one of the reasons I keep the 1DsIII. What I would *really* wish for though would be a 22-30 mpx camera without the AA-filter. Unfortunately there are no candidates on the horizon yet, unless of course herr Kaufmann has a surprise in store...
 

Jonathon Delacour

Subscriber Member
The question really is whether I want to sacrifice good high ISO for better resolution.
Canon would say that, with the new 5D Mark II, you can have both high ISO and better resolution! ;) Admittedly, the 5D Mark II won't ship until November but would you not consider waiting to see how it performs?

Or have you already eliminated the 5D Mark II because you like to use sharp, ultra wide angle lenses (and that's a widely-acknowledged deficiency in the Canon lens lineup)?

Speaking of sharp, ultra wide angle lenses, assuming you switch to the Sony A900, would you plan to replace your Nikkor 14-24 with the Zeiss 16-35?

Apologies for all the questions but I'm on the brink of buying a D700 and there's much to be learned from other people's choices.
 

jonoslack

Active member
HI Jonathan

Canon would say that, with the new 5D Mark II, you can have both high ISO and better resolution! ;) Admittedly, the 5D Mark II won't ship until November but would you not consider waiting to see how it performs?
I certainly had considered it, but I like zeiss glass, and I'm not really a fan of the Canon behemoth (childish, but there it is).
Or have you already eliminated the 5D Mark II because you like to use sharp, ultra wide angle lenses (and that's a widely-acknowledged deficiency in the Canon lens lineup)?
You've got it - and although I really like the Zeiss ZF lenses, I know from experience that they don't get enough use.

Speaking of sharp, ultra wide angle lenses, assuming you switch to the Sony A900, would you plan to replace your Nikkor 14-24 with the Zeiss 16-35?
I'm not sure about this - again, the Nikkor was excellent but very large. If, as seems to be the case, the much lighter AA filter on the A900 makes it kinder to lesser lenses than the Nikon, then I may not.

At any rate, the Zeiss isn't there yet, so I think I would probably grab a Sigma 12-24 (I used to really like it on the Kodak 14n) - the extra 4mm gives quite a bit of room for cropping if it's vital.

If it works well then it saves a lot of money, a good deal of weight and is a good deal wider . . . and I'm really not interested in using f2.8 for ultra wideangle.

Apologies for all the questions but I'm on the brink of buying a D700 and there's much to be learned from other people's choices.
Keep them coming - these are important decisions, and there aren't so many places on the web where you can discuss them without emotions getting high!
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
Jono,

I'm holding you personally responsible for my joining this excellent forum :).

What concerns me most about the Sony is its dynamic range. Resolution is clearly there, good lenses, etc, but a blown highlight cannot easily be recovered if the sensor clips.

I am approaching this from the perspective of someone who, as you already know only too well(!), is used to using dslr's with much better than normal highlight recovery capability - Kodak 14nx, Mamiya ZD and most recently a Nikon D700. You, of course, have done the Kodak and still own a D700, so your perspective on dynamic range would be valuable, old chap.

How does it look to you?

Cheers

Quentin
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
From the looks of the first several photos Jono posted looks pretty good to me. i live in very very bright light in the Southwest and looking at the images he shot which looks like in full sun. i can see plenty of detail in the shadows with still very good highlights. also that shadows are not pitch black either , so it looks fairly good
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
These area's that i highlighted especially the far left which seems to in a area that no light is bouncing back looks really good. The other area there is some light coming back but I am impressed by the very left side to hold well and the white wall is not blown and holding detail very well. This actually looks better to me than some other 35mm DSLR's out there
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hi Guy
You should get Q in your sites quickly - he's a fantastic bloke, and has a ZD, which he really ought to update to something MUCH MUCH bigger and MUCH MUCH more expensive (Just ask Glenys, she knows):ROTFL::ROTFL:

You're quite right though, the A900 files have plenty of DR (shot raw - jpg may be different, buy why would you buy a camera like this and shoot jpg?).

The high ISO is (as expected) nothing like the D700, but it has a much lighter AA filter, so that 100% pixel peeping gives more detail than the D700 . . . and that's half the area with respect to the whole frame.

I'm generally pretty impressed (see the other 'fun' thread for some more crops)
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
Hi Guy
You should get Q in your sites quickly - he's a fantastic bloke, and has a ZD, which he really ought to update to something MUCH MUCH bigger and MUCH MUCH more expensive (Just ask Glenys, she knows):ROTFL::ROTFL:

You're quite right though, the A900 files have plenty of DR (shot raw - jpg may be different, buy why would you buy a camera like this and shoot jpg?).

The high ISO is (as expected) nothing like the D700, but it has a much lighter AA filter, so that 100% pixel peeping gives more detail than the D700 . . . and that's half the area with respect to the whole frame.

I'm generally pretty impressed (see the other 'fun' thread for some more crops)
What ARE we going to do with you, Mr Slack :)

So much is going on in digital at the moment its hard to know what path to take. That A900 looks good, but then again, the D700 high ISO performance is intoxicating.

And I have that ZD with no AA filter if I need to go larger (or my 8x10 film camera if I can be bothered - not often these days).

And thanks , Guy, for the welcome to the forum. Looks like the place where sensible folk hang out (which kind of disqualifies Jono and me :ROTFL:)

Quentin
 

jonoslack

Active member
HI Q

What ARE we going to do with you, Mr Slack :)
erm. . . . . buy me a beer? Or, better still, a bottle of decent Meursault?

So much is going on in digital at the moment its hard to know what path to take. That A900 looks good, but then again, the D700 high ISO performance is intoxicating.

And I have that ZD with no AA filter if I need to go larger (or my 8x10 film camera if I can be bothered - not often these days).

And thanks , Guy, for the welcome to the forum. Looks like the place where sensible folk hang out (which kind of disqualifies Jono and me :ROTFL:)

Quentin
:eek: Speak for yourself ducky

I think you should go and have a proper look at the REAL cameras in the MF forum - you KNOW it makes sense!

Do stick around though - this is a pleasant place to hang out.
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
Hi Jono,

Beer? Meursault? No problem. Name your place.

MF is dropping in price - Your A900 is helping to see to that, as is the Canon 5DII. "35mm" digital quality is amazing now.

I'll bide my time on any furture MF upgrade - lot of life in the ZD, I hope.

Quentin
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hi Arne
Hi Jono
interesting to see your thoughts on the Sony 24mpx. While I have no doubt as to the resolution of the camera (or the Zeiss lenses for that matter) I wonder how you find the colour and DR compared to the Nikon.
Well, the colour is better (without a doubt) but then, I was never that enamored of the Nikon colour, I'm still sceptical of their evening foliage (as we have discussed).
Dynamic range is not as good . . . I think, but it is very very close.
On the other hand the A900 has a much lighter AA filter, so that looking at both A900 and D700 files at 100%, the A900 files are sharper (and noisier) . . . but of course, this is half the size relating to the sensor, so they really are much MUCH sharper from the A900 in the larger print
I hear you when it comes to printing big. I've found that my 10 to12 mpx cameras (of different flavors) print well up to A3+ (provided minimal cropping) but above that size I need a higher resolving camera. Which is one of the reasons I keep the 1DsIII. What I would *really* wish for though would be a 22-30 mpx camera without the AA-filter. Unfortunately there are no candidates on the horizon yet, unless of course herr Kaufmann has a surprise in store...
Well, perhaps Mr Kaufmann can sort you out. Still Sony have clearly settled on a very light AA filter for this camera - I've been doing some A2+ prints, and getting my 20 year old to look at them from 15cm - he always sighs with boredom, but he didn't think he could see any restrictions, and, of course, A2+ at 15cm is very VERY big if you look at it from 2 meters!
 
A

asabet

Guest
I don't think the A900 is ugly at all. The large "Sony" is a hurt, but the design and finish look good to me.
 

Cindy Flood

Super Moderator
I kind of like the retro-look (but I love my M5, too, and everyone thinks it is ugly:ROTFL:). I am happy to see that Sony might become a serious contender. It should shake things up and we will all benefit.
 
Top