Just this guy you know
Only fools would buy into the MFD back myth. The weight of evidence as posted by Sony/canon/Nikon /olympus/pentax and Holga 'reviews' proves it time and time again. I can't wait for the Pntax Spotmatic review from Zimbabwe to add to thei weighty weightfulness.
The gravitas of it all is sucking me into a state of apoplexy. Now if I could only figure out how to attach one of these fine babies to my Alpa I would be in the 8th Heaven.
Cheers and Merry Christmas.
I read that test a while back. There is clearly something very wrong with the Mamiya shots, judging from the strange very obvious colour cast and colour balance issues. I suspect a serious hardware problem. So yes, the A900 doies brilliantly well, but the results are suspect, in my view.
Thanks Jono for the link.
It sure didn't ruin my day.http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/images..._dblthumb2.gif
Thank you for the heads-up, Jono.
I for one fully agree that it is indeed very interesting to see comparisons between the three >20 MP DSLRs and some of the Medium Format Digital Backs.
Of course I expect the MFDBs to be the winners since they have larger sensors with either more pixels or larger pixels. The interesting part is to see how much better they are. How big is the difference actually. And also to what degree does price reflect quality ? At the same time I insist to be prepared to be surprised now and then, to be openminded.
Of course Peter has a point that there are probably sometimes biased agendas behind some of the comparisons. Maybe even behind most of the comparisons we have seen so far.
That'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 .-)
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
Just this guy you know
I use a ZD camera and A900 (and my ZD works very well). At some stage I will do a comparison between the two.
I'm not expecting major differences. There is no law that says an A900 or 5DII or whatever inevitably has to be inferior just because it costs less. Interestingly Michael Reichmann has purchased 2 A900 bodies and 5 lenses for use on his next foreign shoot to use in place of his MF and other kit
I'm finding that quite often I'll open an A900 file on the computer and it gives me a sharp intake of breath . . . and it's STILL doing it a couple of months and 3000 images down the line.
Just this guy you know
I understand that shortness of breath.
I'm most impressed with the color rendition in three ways.
Accuracy, balance and the ability to record very subtle tones.
And I haven't even started to play with the creative button.
Tests are fun but with this camera all you have to do is use it
and it gets it's message across. my message now is "Aren't you
glad you bought me".
Agree it is also very DMR'ish. Which i loved that look
At the end of this short 'second opinion' on the Landscape Bill Caulfeild-Browne mentions a comparison of the A900 with his Mamiya/Phase system. Nothing surprising, just adding to our impressions and expectations.
Really now I have to really look at this. Merry Christmas
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.
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!
"Published Print" is my game and was for most my career as an Art Director and Creative Director. As our pre-press folks liked to say "the better going in, the better it comes out. We may use a shot for magazine print one day, crop the heck out of it the next, or make a wall sized display graphic.
So, you're right ... people have different criteria and different ideas of acceptability ... and have to weigh cost verses real world need.
Nothing personal or subjective. Just business.
I would say that the opposite is more true. People WISH that a small format could perform up to that of MF ... (and that is not historically confined to digital). That wish and hoping clouds their judgement.
Last edited by fotografz; 25th December 2008 at 16:11.
Well the main reason I moved to MF or at least one really good one was quality of file. I have clients as Marc pointed out that do all kinds of things to my files. Like one big one is print wall size images and i mean wall size. Honestly been tired of getting caught with my pants down and hanging my lively hood in the wind. I have been embarrassed once to often when files are not holding up. So yes it is business to succeed and more important get those call backs from those type of clients. Honestly I was pinned against a wall to improve the output. But not everything you shoot and every client has those needs either so you have to walk a tightrope sometimes and that I did for many years with 35mm. I have the no excuses policy now and for survival you have to have that. But i like the A900 from all I have seen and it would be this or a D700 for more event style work.
Again it comes down to need versus cost but my MF system is actually cheaper than my M8 system when I had it. Now that is scary
But when you REALLY want detail in a 24 by 30 print with all the tonality I associate with 4 by 5 film, the MFDB truly delivers and the Sony makes a brave effort. I wish I could show you my prints!
As I said on L-L, my cold dead hands won't give up my AFDIII and its "D" lenses. For contemplative, methodological work on a tripod where the maximum quality is the goal, the difference is clear - to my non-photographer wife, not just to me who paid the megabucks for the system and might be accused of seeing what my wallet wanted me to see.
Yes, fotografz, I've had these on my radar screen too. I probably won't get the 70-200 as I'm covered by the 70-300 "G" which is a pretty nice lens if you can live with f4-5.6. But I have ordered the 300 f2.8 with the 1.4X for my bird/animal shooting. If Michael Reichmann still has his Canon 300 then we might do a comparison just for fun.
Then of course there is the pending 70-400 G...looks pretty portable so I may pick that up for "traveling light".
But I ain't giving up the P45+!
For real detail with a Sony -- or other full frame DSLR -- how about a multi-row panorama?
I need a good high ISO DSLR solution, and megapixels are secondary to a very clean ISO 1600 file, and usable 3200. The files would mostly be used on the web and/or printed to a maximum of 12x18. Also, a relatively fast frame rate, say 5 or 6 FPS would be desirable. I want good glass in a fast 50, fast 85 and 70-200/2.8 with stabilization. A good fast 24 or 28 would also be desirable, but a secondary consideration.
So which to get, the Sony A900, the 5D2 or the D700 or even a used D3?
Bud I would go either the Sony A900 which gives you a look that you like , looks DMR to me and they have a 24-70 zeiss and looks like a nice 70-200 2.8, 135 1.8 with 1.4 or 2x and they have a fast 85 or i would go D700 better at 1600 I would think and have a nice 24-70 85 fast and decent 70-200. The D700 you gain the stop but lose the look. I think A900 does a nice ISO 800 and i think you can work with 1600 . i will let the A900 guy's answer that because I have the same questions as you. I could use a nice PR camera with flash 24-70 would be great and something fairly long and the 135 might be perfect. I have a 4 day in March and the MF would do it but a 35mm would be better. But i am into as cheap as i can go here.
Here are some lens links that I have been looking at
Not sure this would support the 135 1.8 Zeiss though and need to know this
Hi ISO like 3200? ... probably a D700 Jack.
With some work the A900 can do 2000 depending on the application and how big you go. What we don't know yet is what we can squeeze out of the A900 files ... no one has worked with them long enough yet, or tried all different programs with custom settings.
I wish one of you guys would get one since you're so good at maximizing files
I have a wedding in a few hours and will give the A900 a good work out.
Here's a shot at ISO 400 ... but it was using the Zeiss 85/1.4 @ f/2 ... 1/30th shutter
I do like the look to the Sony/Zeiss files!
Very soon you'll see MR's promised comparison (Nikon, Canon, Sony) on the Luminous Landscape. I strongly recommend the article - still, keep in mind that Michael, for very good reasons which he gives, uses LR2. for Raw conversion. Sony high ISO files look MUCH better in C1 and I won't use LR for them.
But read the article...
The other one I'm on the list for is the Zeiss 16-35/2.8 ... if it's anything like the Zeiss 24-70/2.8, it'll kill the Canon and Nikon zooms in the same range.
Thanks Marc that helped knowing about the 1.4 converter. If I can get really clean ISO 800 than for me it works, 1600 would be nice but I can get by and yes i have to be able to process in C1 , reason is i want ONE raw converter only anymore that does it all.
Unfortunately, I have never taken to C1 (which I have on my machine) and just can't seem to get the hang of it. I have always used LR2 because I am converting files to DNGs from multiple cameras and placing them by time shot into one file for processing.
The Sony files look more leica-ish with the CZ lens which I like. I sold my d700 because I couldn't achieve that look....
I just brought me a a900 for christmas..I love myself
website under construction
I agree Mike and reason i am looking at this. Nikon is a very nice camera but does not have that DMR look that I really like. Maybe time for that gold embossed embroidery ski mask again . LOL
I too prefer the workflow of LR, so I'll often simply use C1 for the Raw conversion at C1 defaults and then export the file as a 16 bit TIFF to LR for further tweaking - the grad filter, for example, is a very good reason to go to LR.
For the record, I find the same advantage in noise reduction with my Phase One files - C1 simply does a better job, though this is to be expected as it IS their back.
The Luminous Landscape has some good recent articles and screen shots.
Geez Bill i am starting to get excited about this, not good.
I think i moved up to the 16 step program. LOL
I also think I heard that Aperture does a good job.
If any of these RAW conversion options gain a stop in noise reduction over LR-2, then this A900 is definitely a contender.
Thanks to Guy and Cindy for their help, I just downloaded the M8 upgrade to C1 pro. I'm going to try this workflow with the sony files , I'll bet I'll also like it with the M8 files.
website under construction
C1 in almost every camera i have used does a better job with regards to noise than anything else I have used . This includes the M8 , DMR and certainly my Phase files. Would not surprise me the Sony files as reported would also be about a stop better than LR which is what I have found in almost everything. Now i would love to see a ISO 1600 files in C1 if anyone get's the chance
I use Aperture for the Sony files, and I'm getting very good results.
I actually convert them to .DNG files using the Adobe DNG converter - it makes them a little smaller, and I'm happier about archiving .DNG than 'proprietary' RAW - Aperture will use it's camera - specific demosaicing etc. even on DNG files - as long as it's a supported camera.
I've compared between the .ARW files and the .DNG, and I can't tell the difference.
Just this guy you know