Moving to Sony from EOS, 2 questions

[vahonen]

Hello!

My first post to getdpi-forum, so very short introduction: I'm 34 years amateur photographer from Finland. Pentax guy on film days, since 2002 moved to EOS digital. Mainly shoot with Contax primes on Canon body. Shooting style still life & landscape.

I have been considering to switch to Sony due to
- better colors (CLA or color filters what ever they are called are better than in Canon/Nikon)
- native mount autofocus Zeiss lenses, of which at least primes seem better than any earlier Zeiss lenses (personally I have not seen any Minolta based lens yet to draw the way I like, so for me alpha mount is 4 lenses)
- lack of interest to sport photography recently (no need for 1DmkIII+135L/300L kind of stuff)

Last week when I was travelling everything I own, except furniture and equipment like dishwasher etc., was stolen; cameras, lenses, flash equipment, TVs, computers, clothes etc. I only got back few lenses from police and 5DmkII, and it doesn't seem very probable to get back remaining stuff. So this makes EOS -> Sony switch "easier", thou easy is far from how I feel at the moment... :scry: :angry: :scry: :angry:...

Few questions:
1) Since there are no Zeiss primes for 50mm and 28/35mm the 24-70 has to pretty damn good, specially since due to too large DOF it more or less have to be shoot always wide open (at least f/2.8@50mm with Contax Planar T* 1.7/50 gives the effect I'm after) - What I'm looking is 3D look & background separation also when photographing subjects from 3-8 meters (9-24 feet) away, to get understanding see two examples at the end of this post taken with 5DmkII + Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2/35ZF in very bad light (very typical conditions I have to work in).
1.1) Please post/link to pictures which have background separation and 3D from subjects not very close [and yes I have browsed through the forum, specially the "fun with" threads]
1.2) Zeiss doesn't have PDFs (MTF, vignetting, distortion) for ZA lenses, where I can find or are they available at all?
[in my perfect world there would be Distagon 35/2 and Distagon 21/2.8 also for Sony Alpha mount and I would not be asking these stupid questions...]

2) A850 vs A900 - A900 is 1000EUR more and any of the specification sheet differences are not worth that, so I would prefer get A850 but since there may be are differences not apparent in specification sheet, I would like to ask if there is knowledge in the forum about the viewfinder difference:
2.1) There is small difference of viewfinders of A850 and A900, is it only the 100% vs 9x% or is A850 worse to be used for manual focusing etc?
2.2) Is there available Canon Eg-S /Ec-S equivalent or better screen for focusing, and if yes available for both A850 and A900?
2.3) If any of the specification sheet differences do not concern me in selecting between A850 and A900, is there something else I should take into consideration

Some samples what kind of look I would assume Zeiss, don't know about colours etc. since processed on my work laptop with DCRAW.exe

--
Samuli Vahonen
http://www.vahonen.com

 

[Shelby Lewis]

I'll answer more later... but I can tell you the zeiss 135/1.8 is the best medium tele-prime I've used. Period. Amazing sharpness, crisp drawing style at the in-focus area, and a smooth bokeh to die for. The most 3d-ish 35mm lens that I've owned. That probably doesn't help you, though, lol.

Viewfinder. I went from a canon 5D to the a900 and now shoot 5dmkii for wedding work. I'm going back to the a900 at the new year for many reasons... one being the viewfinder. It is VASTLY better than the 5dmkii. I actually couldn't believe how bad it made the 5dmkii viewfinder seem.

For me... after shooting with it... the vf would be worth the money over the 850. But that's me (and I've not shot the a850).

 

[vahonen]

Forgot to write but if I switch to Sony then 135mm and 85mm Zeiss lenses are "automatically" part of the kit, both of them seem to be same level as Makro-Planar 2/100, which I'm currently using (luckily one of the lenses which I got back from the criminals).

 

[Eoin]

Hi Samuli,

I'd suggest you need to look further a field for your a900. If you're being quoted €1000 difference in the price, someone is ripping you off.

For example in the UK the a850 is £1600'ish and the a900 is €1800'ish are you sure you're not comparing camera & lens packages.

Seeing as your in Finland (EU) I'd suggest you take advantage of the UK 15% Vat rate before it goes up at Christmas to 17.5%. No duty to be paid if your purchase originated in another EU member state.

PS, I want a cut on what this will save you......:ROTFL:

 

[vahonen]

Actually I'm quite limited what comes to where I can buy it, UNLESS I get a lot of freetime to sell remains of my Canon equipment. If I buy from the local store here, I can get it easily done, just dumb the old stuff there and buy new stuff. Local store has plain A850 for 1899EUR, and with Sony 50/1.4 1999EUR and plain A900 is 2999EUR. But those are just prices of from webpage.

However, I have not yet seen answer to my questions. I will not pay more than 5EUR for the 2% in viewfinder coverage and 3fps/5fps won't matter to me. I don't want to pay extra just for bigger number. So I would like to understand what for you would like me to pay £200 more for A900 assuming I could buy from UK?

Date of purchase will most probably not be this year, it takes quite long for police to write the report and then arguing with insurance company takes also time. So I doubt I could utilize the UK tax benefit.

 

[Eoin]

Well I can't blame you for saving money, when I bought my a900's there was no a850.
From what I've read, the difference comes down to viewfinder 100% in the a900, 5 FPS in a900 and a slightly different paint finish on the a850.

Beyond that they are supposed to be identical cameras AFAIK. So as you say why pay extra for what you don't need.

 

[douglasf13]

I would consider the Sony 50 1.4 if I was you. It is relatively I expensive, and, as some can attest to here, it has good pop and separation... it's almost a Zeiss "lite," with it's high center sharpness. That being said, you also have the option of Leitax conversions for your Contax lenses, or Zeiss ZS lenses as well. Be sure to get chipped adapters if you go this route, so you can use A mode and SSS works properly.

 

[nautilus]

For me... after shooting with it... the vf would be worth the money over the 850. But that's me (and I've not shot the a850).

What differences between the two viewfinders do you have in mind?

From what I know they are essential the same with the the minor difference of showing 98% area of the final picture compared to 100%.
This is sqrt(2%)=1,414% horizontal and vertical difference.
24mm-> 23,66mm ->difference: 0,34mm
36mm-> 35,49mm ->difference: 0,51mm
I can't see that, not to speek of a stable camera position when shooting.

Are there any other differences beside the size that I'm not aware of such as brightness or ability to manual focussing? I didn't have the chance to compare both cameras at he same time.

 

[douglasf13]

What differences between the two viewfinders do you have in mind?

From what I know they are essential the same with the the minor difference of showing 98% area of the final picture compared to 100%.
This is sqrt(2%)=1,414% horizontal and vertical difference.
24mm-> 23,66mm ->difference: 0,34mm
36mm-> 35,49mm ->difference: 0,51mm
I can't see that, not to speek of a stable camera position when shooting.

Are there any other differences beside the size that I'm not aware of such as brightness or ability to manual focussing? I didn't have the chance to compare both cameras at he same time.

I've not used the A850, so take this with a grain of salt, but I've heard the two VF's are virtually indistinguishable outside of the slight size difference.

 

[hardloaf]

A850 and A900 have different CFAs, i.e. if you like colors of A900 it doesn't mean that you'll like colors of A850.

 

[douglasf13]

Wow, Andrey, that's the first I've heard of this being confirmed. I'd love to hear more.

 

[Steen]

And Andrey, do you have a source of that information as well ?

 

[douglasf13]

I would imagine Andrey IS the source. Lol. He and Iliah Borg do color transforms for RPP, and there really isn't anyone more knowledgeable than Iliah in regards to the make up of these cameras. I just read the other day that Iliah actually removed the sensor from an A900 and put it in another camera body to test timings. Awesome.

 

[Specularist]

Hi vahonen (or Samuli?),

Sorry to hear about the theft of your stuff.

I am also interested in the differences between the A850 and A900, but it's very hard to find solid information on this. In fact, it's very hard to find any information on the Sony cameras and lenses! The various Sony websites are fragmented and useless (at least the English ones; the Japanese ones might be more useful). Nikon and Canon are vastly better at marketing their cameras to photographers. They understand the importance of websites devoted to the details of the cameras, PDF brochures with detailed information, "white papers", etc. Sony does not, or doesn't care.

I did manage to pick up a printed brochure of the A850 and A900 (one brochure for both) at a trade show in Paris. It's in French and doesn't seem to mention any differences that aren't in the specifications. However, it's not very detailed so it's hard to know if it's comprehensive. I have not yet found this brochure on the web.

I did find a brochure on the A900 (though not the A850) via Google's "filetypedf" search function. I could not find this on any Sony website directly, even though I looked, which shows how bad Sony's websites are. It's in English and may be of interest to you:

http://www.sonystyle.com/wcsstore/SonyStyleStorefrontAssetStore/pdf/Alpha_A900_Brochure.pdf

I think the viewfinder differences between the A850 and A900 are restricted to the coverage. Certainly they use the same focusing screens. And yes, there is an optional focusing screen to improve manual focusing. It's called the Type M: model number FDA-FM1AM. There's also a Type L focusing screen (FDA-FL1AM) which has grid-lines. Sony say the following about the screens:

"According to your preference or shooting needs, the standard Type G spherical acute matte focusing screen that comes with the A900 can be replaced with an optional Type L spherical acute matte screen or Type M super spherical acute matte screen. The L type features grid lines to enable easier framing, while the Type M is particularly well-suited to bright lenses with an aperture of F2.8 or greater, and features a high-dispersion screen that makes it easier to fine-tune the focus manually."​

Regarding other differences, I found the following YouTube video of an interview with (I presume) a Sony marketing guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogiMZHIiD4I

The video isn't very interesting, but at 1:51 the interviewee says this:

"...the frame-rate on the Alpha 900 is 5 frames per second; on [the A850] it's 3 frames per second. Now, that has been for us a considerable cost-saving, because the mechanical relationship is different between the shutter and the mirror-box assembly."​

Of course we all know that marketing people often don't know their product and/or lie about it. So I don't know what this means. If the difference exists, it could just mean that Sony managed to find a way to save money without harming performance. It might even mean that they improved the mechanics based on experience, but they're obviously not going to tell us that the A850 is better than the A900. It could alternatively mean that the A850 has poorer mirror damping than the A900, in order to save costs. We simply don't know. My own guess is that there is no difference and the Sony guy is simply misinformed.

I suspect that there is less cost difference between the A850 and A900 than the price difference would suggest, i.e. the A850 is simply a way to reduce prices without letting market forces drive the A900 price down. Sony is generally averse to letting prices rise and fall with demand, and they may want to keep a higher price point for the A900 replacement.

The A900 is unusually cheap in the UK because the value of the pound fell between the introduction of the A900 and the A850. The Nikon and Canon replacements for the D700 and 5D Mark II will cost a lot more than the A850 when they arrive in the UK.

With regard to your question about lens details, it's quite incredible how little information is available from Sony. This is perhaps the best resource that I have found:

http://www.sonystyle.com/wcsstore/SonyStyleStorefrontAssetStore/pdf/DILensGuide.pdf

It's very limited and the few MTF curves that are shown are obviously not achieved in real life (e.g. they claim 95% contrast transfer at 40 lp/mm for some lenses, which is obviously impossible). There is no information on distortion. The guide is so old that the two Zeiss zooms aren't even mentioned. This is nothing remotely like Canon's "EF Lens Work III". Even Nikon doesn't have anything like that.

Good luck!

 

[Specularist]

I should mention one more thing. Zeiss makes a few lenses for M-42 screw-mount cameras or adaptors. I don't know the exact operational details, but I do know that you can easily and cheaply find M-42 to Alpha-mount adaptors, which would allow you to use these lenses on an A850 or A900. These lenses are called ZS-mount in Zeiss-speak. In particular, there is a 35 mm f/2 ZS, which is optically identical to the ZF version (i.e. very good).

 

[hardloaf]

And Andrey, do you have a source of that information as well ?

This is my personal observation. I don't own A850 but after looking at samples taken in presumably controlled environment with same exposure I noticed that colors look different. Basically they produce different numbers and require different color profiles.

Probably some people here already have both and it would be rather simple to do quick test in a studio setup with same light, lens, exposure and target.

 

[edwardkaraa]

That is really interesting. Until recently, Sony DSLR have been consistent color wise, from the lowest end until the A900. So much that one could talk about the Sony look. Does this mean that Sony has changed the CFA density with the latest models, A850 and A500/550 in order to reduce noise? Certainly not good news. But at least for the A850 all reports seem to indicate it is identical to the A900, even Dxomark.

 

[hardloaf]

That is really interesting. Until recently, Sony DSLR have been consistent color wise, from the lowest end until the A900. So much that one could talk about the Sony look. Does this mean that Sony has changed the CFA density with the latest models, A850 and A500/550 in order to reduce noise? Certainly not good news. But at least for the A850 all reports seem to indicate it is identical to the A900, even Dxomark.

I don't think that they significantly changed "the look", not to my eyes at least based on those samples which I have. It looks like they produce different white balance coefficients though on the same target (f.e. blue channel is about 0.3 stop less sensitive) and this means at least different per-channel gain, different profile with different gamut and noticeable difference with at least some saturated colors reproduction.

 

[vahonen]

I am also interested in the differences between the A850 and A900, but it's very hard to find solid information on this.

I agree Sony websites suck - I checked the Finnish one as well, and it sucks too... Easiest way to compare is dpreview.com -> link

Zeiss makes a few lenses for M-42

Using ZS lenses didn't come to my mind. If I have understood correctly they focus "the correct way" (same as Contax, Leica, Canon - opposite direction than Nikon) - are Sony Alpha lenses focused which way? "Correct way" = moving top of focus ring towards left and focus going towards infinity. I have found using ZF lenses in Canon VERY annoying because ZF lenses focus to opposite direction than my Contax and Canon lenses.

Using ZS lenses would make possible to have all prime kit: Distagon 2.8/25+2/35, Planar 1.4/50+1.4/85, Sonnar 1.8/135, which would be split to the focal length range very nicely:

Personally I don't particularly like Distagon 2.8/25 (field curvature makes other usage than f/8-11 landscapes difficult - lens would be enough sharp at f/5.6 but field curvature would make corners unsharp - as a landscape lens perfectly OK and gives very crisp and 3D-like images) or Planar 1.4/50 (very hazy wide open and pretty bad focus shift, but good lens from f/2.2 if focused properly = focus shift taken into account). Therefore some I might even consider Vario-Sonnar 2.8/16-35, Distagon 2/35, Planar 1.4/85, Sonnar 1.8/135, but there is big gap between 35 and 85:

(Notice! "full frame" reference is different in the last chart, 16mm instead of 25mm)

Hopefully Zeiss and Sony soon figure out will there or will there not be more primes to ZA-system :banghead:

Now, that has been for us a considerable cost-saving, because the mechanical relationship is different between the shutter and the mirror-box assembly.

This doesn't sound good. As far as I have understood there have been no reports of that A900 focus screen would have needed shimming due to big tolerances of mirror box. At least on Canon 5D and 5DmkII this has been pretty common problem, where nobody has ever needed to shim 1D-series cameras... So again more user experiences with A850 are needed.

I don't think that they significantly changed "the look"

Thanks for the information, let's hope A850 is as good as A900. At least to me the A900 + Zeiss primes is giving the look to images I'm searching for.

 

[douglasf13]

Andrey, do the new WB coefficients improve the noise handling of the camera at all? Is it a good trade off in your opinion? Thanks.