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!
Other FF cameras used: Contax ND, Canon 1Ds/1DsMKII/1DsMKIII, 5D (have used a friend's 5DMKII also) ... Nikon D3S, D700.A900 users - what do you like about the camera, what other full-frame DSLR cameras have you used, and how do you like the viewfinder for manual focus?
I did some very careful testing, and the error is less than my ability to line up an edge of the viewfinder with a straight line. In other words, less than the system's ability to resolve an edge (including my eye). About 5-10 pixels on the image. For all practical purposes the viewfinder is 100%. It may be optically inferior to the a900, but there's no error in coverage to speak of.I do not include the A850 because the viewfinder is not 100%
There's actually pretty fair evidence that the sensors are (every so slightly) different between the two cameras. In particular, that the version in the A900 has slightly denser R/G/B filters.[ ... ]
The Sony A900 sensor is the same as the Nikon D3X except the way Sony applies their proprietary in-camera processing produces an easier to manage mid-range color response and requires far less fiddling in post (I abandoned Nikon because post production took way to long). Conversely, the Nikon produced easier to manage B&W conversions compared to the flatter Sony A900 conversions. (Software solutions have since mitigated that issue somewhat with the A900).
[ ... ]
-Marc
Agreed!There's actually pretty fair evidence that the sensors are (every so slightly) different between the two cameras. In particular, that the version in the A900 has slightly denser R/G/B filters.
This a probably responsible for the slightly better color (especially highly saturated colors) and is probably also responsible for the slightly higher noise at higher ISOs (the denser filtration cuts the amount of light entering each sensel). I hadn't considered it before, but it's probably also responsible for the slightly increased difficulty in monochrome conversion (the Nikon is starting out with something just a tad closer to monochrome).
Doug, I was referring to the user interface of the camera, not necessarily the file colors. I have not used a DMR but I have heard and seen some excellent results from people (you especially).Have you used a DMR? The photographer I bought a DMR from replaced it with the A900 and said he liked the DMR colors better. It may be subjective but the DMR's files really are superb. I also question whether there's much that can out-shine the 280mm f/4 APO and if at all possible I want to retain the 280's auto-diaphragm function, which means the DMR would be the primary camera.
The responses here are quite encouraging and thanks to everyone, keep them coming!
Understood, my questions are aimed at understanding what compromises there are along with the benefits.However, I think that you need to accept that any camera change will result in changes and compromises...
Where would one find that evidence? Seems odd that the physical properties of the Sensors would be altered in actual production and reduce production efficiencies. ... verses each company's in-camera proprietary electronics accounting for the different responses. Sony makes the sensor for both cameras, but it seems to make more sense that each company then takes it from there with their own approach. Also, perhaps I'm wrong, but it is my understanding is that the Sony A900 is a 12 bit camera and the Nikon D3X is 14 bit.There's actually pretty fair evidence that the sensors are (every so slightly) different between the two cameras. In particular, that the version in the A900 has slightly denser R/G/B filters.
This a probably responsible for the slightly better color (especially highly saturated colors) and is probably also responsible for the slightly higher noise at higher ISOs (the denser filtration cuts the amount of light entering each sensel). I hadn't considered it before, but it's probably also responsible for the slightly increased difficulty in monochrome conversion (the Nikon is starting out with something just a tad closer to monochrome).
That would be me and I still stand behind that statement. The DMR does more with 10 MP than the Sony does with 25. The Sony may well have the best color of any currently available DSLR, but it can't stand up to the DMR's 16-bit CCD color. I don't give a rat's patoot what charts and graphs and color theory say. My prints (with the same lenses used on both cameras) from the DMR just have more depth, more "something" to them. If you are looking for a backup to the DMR, it would have to be a Canon 5DII so you could use your lenses with an adapter. Swapping mounts, as required with Sony and Nikon doesn't make sense.Have you used a DMR? The photographer I bought a DMR from replaced it with the A900 and said he liked the DMR colors better. It may be subjective but the DMR's files really are superb.
Dave, which 400mm and 500mm lenses are you using? The body-based anti-shake is very appealing to me. Which 280mm Leica lens were you using?On the A900 and A700, all my long lenses 400, 500 etc are far superior to the R280 I used with the DMR...
Right or Wrong, those are pretty SUBJECTIVE statements, and more reflective of ones PERSONAL taste than anything else. It's like ghost hunters, seeing what they want to see...That would be me and I still stand behind that statement. The DMR does more with 10 MP than the Sony does with 25. The Sony may well have the best color of any currently available DSLR, but it can't stand up to the DMR's 16-bit CCD color. I don't give a rat's patoot what charts and graphs and color theory say. My prints (with the same lenses used on both cameras) from the DMR just have more depth, more "something" to them.
Doug, As I thought that this was a continuation of your similar post over at LUF, I tended to "shorthand" the lens descriptions that I gave you there, Sorry!oke:Dave, which 400mm and 500mm lenses are you using? The body-based anti-shake is very appealing to me. Which 280mm Leica lens were you using?