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 There SteenThat's why I so much hope some of the members here on this civilized forum with access to both high megapixel DSLRs and MFDBs have the courage to make some neutral, non-biased comparisons, despite the risk to get shot down in flames. The more comparisons we see, the better. I think .-)
Jono, having bought an A900, surely you know how crap it really is already? :ROTFL:GUY - you'd better go buy yourself an A900 so that we can see how crap it really is
Honestly and I really mean this , this is about the best looking files i have seen lately in these new camera's coming out. I have not been impressed by much lately , the G1 is cute and represents some fun shooting and the thought of some leica or Zeiss or other lenses makes it a interesting tool. But This Sony I am impressed by the value of it first of all but more important i like the look of the images and to me if you are shooting 35mm this is the area that counts the most is the look of the images and the files i seen Jono take besides his great eye is some really nice clean looking files with a great feel to them. Maybe a tacky saying but if it don't have the feel it just ain't very real. Don't quote me on that one. Sounds weird but I think you understand my meaning, your really after the look at the end of the day. The Sony with the Zeiss glass has it and i like the price too. Just wish C1 could see the filesHI There Steen
I quite agree - nobody sane is going to expect the A900/D3x/5dII to be better than the MFDBs . . . but it's certainly interesting to see how much one loses.
Having looked at several such comparisons, it seems that it might not be as much as one would have expected.
But it would be great if someone around here did a sensible comparison.
GUY - you'd better go buy yourself an A900 so that we can see how crap it really is
I couldn't agree more Guy, it's such an intangible, and so few reviews really get to it. The M8 files have a good 'feel' to them, and these Sony files do as well, although in rather a different way.Honestly and I really mean this , this is about the best looking files i have seen lately in these new camera's coming out. I have not been impressed by much lately , the G1 is cute and represents some fun shooting and the thought of some leica or Zeiss or other lenses makes it a interesting tool. But This Sony I am impressed by the value of it first of all but more important i like the look of the images and to me if you are shooting 35mm this is the area that counts the most is the look of the images and the files i seen Jono take besides his great eye is some really nice clean looking files with a great feel to them. Maybe a tacky saying but if it don't have the feel it just ain't very real. Don't quote me on that one. Sounds weird but I think you understand my meaning, your really after the look at the end of the day. The Sony with the Zeiss glass has it and i like the price too. Just wish C1 could see the files
Evidently C1 does see the files Guy. Read the link below where the tester compared Aperture and C1 to process the Sony files.Honestly and I really mean this , this is about the best looking files i have seen lately in these new camera's coming out. I have not been impressed by much lately , the G1 is cute and represents some fun shooting and the thought of some leica or Zeiss or other lenses makes it a interesting tool. But This Sony I am impressed by the value of it first of all but more important i like the look of the images and to me if you are shooting 35mm this is the area that counts the most is the look of the images and the files i seen Jono take besides his great eye is some really nice clean looking files with a great feel to them. Maybe a tacky saying but if it don't have the feel it just ain't very real. Don't quote me on that one. Sounds weird but I think you understand my meaning, your really after the look at the end of the day. The Sony with the Zeiss glass has it and i like the price too. Just wish C1 could see the files
ahhh... but the real question is whether the the extra 35K is worth the difference in image quality.Interesting?
Ahh, if it were only true.
I have the H3D-II/39 and Sony A900 and all the Zeiss optics.
I guess some people have different evaluative standards than others.
Trust me, there's nothing I'd like better than to put 40K in my pocket and just get a second Sony A900.
Ahh, if it were only true. But trust me, an owner of both ... it isn't.
Well, first off the difference in price isn't anywhere near 35K. $40K was in reference to 2 H3D's and lenses. The Sony is mondo reasonably priced, but the lenses are not cheap, and none of them are APOs (not that I care.) IMO, it's just a better mouse trap than Canon offers, not competition for MF type work.ahhh... but the real question is whether the the extra 35K is worth the difference in image quality.
I can't answer that for anyone but myself... but I know for my work it wouldn't be. For high end architectural work and/or fashion, probably so. The thing I struggle with is that in published print, the differences are so minuscule.
Fine art print at large reproduction? That's a different story.
So, in the end, I think discussions about superiority of systems really has validity if we're all shooting the same thing. Good stuff all!
Of course, once you have spent the money, its logical to defend your decisionInteresting?
Ahh, if it were only true.
I have the H3D-II/39 and Sony A900 and all the Zeiss optics.
I guess some people have different evaluative standards than others.
Trust me, there's nothing I'd like better than to put 40K in my pocket and just get a second Sony A900.
Ahh, if it were only true. But trust me, an owner of both ... it isn't.
Ahh, if that also were true ... but in my case the A900 cost me more than the Hasselblad because I didn't pay for the Hassey, clients did via rental fees. The A900 is a camera I use for weddings where rental fees do not apply ... so I paid for it directly out of my profit margin. BIG difference.Of course, once you have spent the money, its logical to defend your decision
Not saying there is no difference, of course, simply that everyone has their own reasons for reaching the conclusions they reach. Subjectivity rules.
Quentin