Terry
New member
Well it also would get rid of the vignetting that really bugged me at the wide end (and better allow for the use of polarizing/ND filters).
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!
Sony A77
- Thread starter dhsimmonds
- Start date
dhsimmonds
New member
You are right about the vignetting at the wide end on the 24-70, I very much hope that goes away when used with the A77. It should as it will be using the sweet spot of the lens.
In fact the A77 will give a new lease of life to many of my A900 lenses, just as the A700 did. I hope to take the 70-300G with me to India as the corrected 450 reach it should give me at the long end should be ideal for wildlife in the national parks. Using the sweet spot of the A77 might perk up this otherwise dull lens. It would save the weight and bulk of taking the 70-400G.
Just hope that Sony deliver the A77 + 16-50 in time!
Another lens that should excel on the A77 is the ZA16-35 providing another 24-50 lens. It might be interesting to compare the two...Zeiss v Sony!
I only bought the Sony 16-50 because it was cheaper by buying the package, it is also lighter and dust/water proofed.
In fact the A77 will give a new lease of life to many of my A900 lenses, just as the A700 did. I hope to take the 70-300G with me to India as the corrected 450 reach it should give me at the long end should be ideal for wildlife in the national parks. Using the sweet spot of the A77 might perk up this otherwise dull lens. It would save the weight and bulk of taking the 70-400G.
Just hope that Sony deliver the A77 + 16-50 in time!
Another lens that should excel on the A77 is the ZA16-35 providing another 24-50 lens. It might be interesting to compare the two...Zeiss v Sony!
I only bought the Sony 16-50 because it was cheaper by buying the package, it is also lighter and dust/water proofed.
ptomsu
Workshop Member
It is one of the well known weaknesses that the 24-70 is vignetting on the wide end on FF. Plus there are some more flaws I would have never thought a Zeiss lens would deliver. This lens was one of the main reasons I got out of the Alpha system.
On the A77 with Crop sensor it should work pretty fine IMHO.
On the A77 with Crop sensor it should work pretty fine IMHO.
dhsimmonds
New member
Jan Brittenson
Senior Subscriber Member
I ended up ordering a Nikon D7000 and 80-400 VR. It's not so much for image quality or OVF/EVF, or any of the other 'usual suspects'. What drove me is: 1) the availability of long Nikon glass; 2) the availability of third-party QR plates and L bracket (with or w/o grip, small, big, etc); 3) the availability of third-party accessories like remotes, cables, viewfinder magnifiers, etc; 4) the standard flash socket; 5) underwater housings. But in truth, the long glass selection is what really drove this, the other stuff listed just kind of drives the point home.
I plan to keep my a850 for now since I don't feel the D700 is a replacement. Instead I'll preorder the D800 immediately when announced and shoot them out side by side and make a decision based on that. Plus at that point I'll have at least 3-6 months of experience with the D7000.
Anyway, just in case anyone cares...
I plan to keep my a850 for now since I don't feel the D700 is a replacement. Instead I'll preorder the D800 immediately when announced and shoot them out side by side and make a decision based on that. Plus at that point I'll have at least 3-6 months of experience with the D7000.
Anyway, just in case anyone cares...
ptomsu
Workshop Member
++1 for this decision.I ended up ordering a Nikon D7000 and 80-400 VR. It's not so much for image quality or OVF/EVF, or any of the other 'usual suspects'. What drove me is: 1) the availability of long Nikon glass; 2) the availability of third-party QR plates and L bracket (with or w/o grip, small, big, etc); 3) the availability of third-party accessories like remotes, cables, viewfinder magnifiers, etc; 4) the standard flash socket; 5) underwater housings. But in truth, the long glass selection is what really drove this, the other stuff listed just kind of drives the point home.
I plan to keep my a850 for now since I don't feel the D700 is a replacement. Instead I'll preorder the D800 immediately when announced and shoot them out side by side and make a decision based on that. Plus at that point I'll have at least 3-6 months of experience with the D7000.
Anyway, just in case anyone cares...
One of the most driving factors for me is also availability of lenses and accessories. And as I am currently still locked into Olympus E system, I know what I am talking about. The D800 might become a really great camera if the rumors are finally true.
Enjoy your D7000!
jonoslack
Active member
Of Course Jan - we all care.I plan to keep my a850 for now since I don't feel the D700 is a replacement. Instead I'll preorder the D800 immediately when announced and shoot them out side by side and make a decision based on that. Plus at that point I'll have at least 3-6 months of experience with the D7000.
Anyway, just in case anyone cares...
. . . and some of us understand deeply, having done something similar myself on at least 3 occasions (going back to Nikon) . . . . . however, in the end, it's always been the colour and the post processing which has driven me away again . . . don't sell your A850 yet! That and the real difficulty in getting any light(ish) lenses of any real quality (but all this may have changed - I'm just not taking a chance on it again!).
all the best
Jan Brittenson
Senior Subscriber Member
Everything I read about the D7000 is positive, except the occasional AF complaint. Color is supposedly improved. Even that online curmudgeon, Ken Rockwell, is all bouncy over it and has to mention color: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d7000.htm And he's not exactly the type to jump on the subtle, so if he brings it up it's certain to be a real difference.
If the D7000 has improved color, then hopefully the D800 is even better! If the rumors are even half true it's phenomenal. But it would also make the D3X impossible to sell. Perhaps a D4 will be introduced as well.
Between cameras like the NEX, a77, D7000, D800, a99 (?), S2, IQ backs, etc, it's great to see so much exciting innovation and products that don't just add X% AF sensors, or Y% pixels and call it a day. There's some really new cool stuff happening. Of course it's not all going to turn out great, but some of it is gonna stick for sure.
Jono: no worries, the a850 is going nowhere until there is a proven upgrade in my bag... (The D7000 by virtue of it being a crop camera with a reduced size viewfinder isn't going to be a substitute.)
davemillier
Member
Hi Jono
I don't really understand your complaints about Nikon colour. Cameras and sensors don't have colour, they are monochrome devices. It's the raw conversion software that determines the colour. If you are unhappy with Nikon colour, blame the software not the camera - tweak the software and you can have any colours you want. Why not invest in a colour checker card and some profiling software. I did this to cure the rubbish colour coming out of my SD14 (green cast on everything) and using the colour checker passport, I was able to fix it up nicely. And this was without doing any specific tweaking, just producing straight noon, afternoon and evening dng profiles. If I'd wanted to get silly about it I could have made the images look like they were shot on a Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Kodachrome or Velvia. I could have made the greens pink if I'd wanted to. Colour its just look up tables, it can be what you want it to be.
Hi Dave ... I am NOT Jono, but I sometimes play him on TV : -) I am of the same exact opinion ... I worked with Nikon D300/D700/D3/D3Xs, and both the nano coated lenses as well as some of the Zeiss F mounts for years, and the Sony A900 color right out of the camera was a revelation ... and quite frankly, a relief.
You are correct in that it is the post processing regimen that determines the final image, but compared to the Sony, the Nikon process was too lengthy to just equal the Sony files with just a minor amount of time in post. The D3X in particular was relatively flat out of the camera ... which is a good thing if you want to put your own spin on everything in post ... but it is very time consuming.
Not all that important to everyone, but I process a LOT of images for my wedding and portrait business ... and time is money.
-Marc
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Well, I need to chime in here! I was moving from the A900 to Nikon, and this was a relief WRT colors for me. Note I shoot only RAW, but even RAW was significantly different from colors and for me Nikon was (and is) much better. I must admit I do not know the real colors out of the A77 as I did not shoot one so far, but I assume that they will be pretty close to A900.
So issue here is that because some folks are very vocal about for example colors, this does NOT mean that a camera is producing bad colors. Tastes are different - thanks god! And comparing color results based on web published images which in most cases were not even controlled on calibrated screens - well I do not know if such discussions are even going anywhere to make sense!
PS1: BTW, if you print then all this fancy discussion about colors is becoming pretty useless, as even in a calibrated workflow the printer will produce so much differences in colors that the differences coming out of different modern cameras are pretty much to forget.
Nice discussion anyway about colors, keep going
dhsimmonds
New member
I can confirm that the A77 produces colours very similar to the A900 whether in RAW, straight conversion (C1Pro6.3 for me) or JPEG. My first shots were set up to record both.
I am delighted about this as like many others here, I so much prefer Sony colour to either C, N, or yes even Leica which is so over saturated for my taste. :deadhorse:
The A77 meters very well indeed, I have now taken off the -1/3 stop exposure compensation that I use to set up every new camera. I had to do the same with the A900 but not the A700.
ISO 3200 is very useable, noise is present but very acceptable if one needs to use it to get the shot. AF is fast even with long lenses like the 70-400G.
The viewfinder has a very different look and one is definitely aware that it is a "TV" view at first but it is amazing just how quickly I accepted it without further question. Indeed the additional info that it provides more than makes up for a slight loss in brightness IMHO.
The 16-50 F2.8 lens is a little beauty allowing for focusing down to about 8" in old money so say 200mm possibly even less. It is also dust and moisture sealed like the A77 body itself.
So far so good I really like it and if the A99 is of this standard or better we are in for a real treat!
I am delighted about this as like many others here, I so much prefer Sony colour to either C, N, or yes even Leica which is so over saturated for my taste. :deadhorse:
The A77 meters very well indeed, I have now taken off the -1/3 stop exposure compensation that I use to set up every new camera. I had to do the same with the A900 but not the A700.
ISO 3200 is very useable, noise is present but very acceptable if one needs to use it to get the shot. AF is fast even with long lenses like the 70-400G.
The viewfinder has a very different look and one is definitely aware that it is a "TV" view at first but it is amazing just how quickly I accepted it without further question. Indeed the additional info that it provides more than makes up for a slight loss in brightness IMHO.
The 16-50 F2.8 lens is a little beauty allowing for focusing down to about 8" in old money so say 200mm possibly even less. It is also dust and moisture sealed like the A77 body itself.
So far so good I really like it and if the A99 is of this standard or better we are in for a real treat!
dhsimmonds
New member
An excellent warts and all review of the A77 from a working pro photographer and journalist here: http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2011/10/17/the-sony-alpha-77-tomorrow-today/
it is still work in progress but 10,000 words from a man that has lived and worked professionally with Minolta's, Konica Minolta's and now Sony Alpha's.
it is still work in progress but 10,000 words from a man that has lived and worked professionally with Minolta's, Konica Minolta's and now Sony Alpha's.
jonoslack
Active member
I'm not blaming the camera I'm saying I don't like it because of it. To my taste, early morning and early evening light have a yellow cast which I'm not competent to remove in PP - , as it needs different settings and adjustments for every image - it's tiring and irritating.
Actually, I don't think you're right either - I think it's a function of the camera, not of the raw software.
However, I do realise that it's my taste, and my problem, and lots of others really like Nikon colour (some don't, like Marc).
But you won't persuade me that the problem doesn't exist for me - I've sold and bought again a complete Nikon kit three times, each time full of hope, and then sold it again full of irritation. I still get a buzz of pleasure each time I look at an A900 file - the colour seems 'just so' and the general feel is splendid.
It's a bit like trying to persuade me that the Lancia Musa that we just spent 3 days driving around Tuscany is a perfectly good car - it may well be, but you can't persuade me to like it!
The jury is out (for me) on the A77 until it's supported in Aperture, but I'm pretty sure that the colour is like the A900, and the files look pretty okay to me so far.
Hope the family is all well - nice to hear from you - hugs all round
davemillier
Member
Hi Jono
Have you ever tried profiling? I know you are an Aperture user and I'm using LR but I would guess the procedures are similar. In LR, you have a choice of Adobe supplied profiles usually designed to mimic the built in profiles from Nikon (standard, neutral, landscape etc) but you can make your own custom ones as well. Shoot a colour checker passport under whatever light you like, feed that into the profile software and it should build you a natural colour balance. If you don't like it, you can correct. Think there is too much yellow? Dial it down in the profile. From that point on all your shots will be less yellow. This is completely different from fiddling the colours after the fact. My SD14 was an absolute nightmare colour-wise in LR but after I made a number of DNG profiles under different lighting, the colour is now beautiful and entirely too my taste. Gone completely is the green-yellow cast that overlayed everything. I have a nice kodachrome profile too ;-)
Have you ever tried profiling? I know you are an Aperture user and I'm using LR but I would guess the procedures are similar. In LR, you have a choice of Adobe supplied profiles usually designed to mimic the built in profiles from Nikon (standard, neutral, landscape etc) but you can make your own custom ones as well. Shoot a colour checker passport under whatever light you like, feed that into the profile software and it should build you a natural colour balance. If you don't like it, you can correct. Think there is too much yellow? Dial it down in the profile. From that point on all your shots will be less yellow. This is completely different from fiddling the colours after the fact. My SD14 was an absolute nightmare colour-wise in LR but after I made a number of DNG profiles under different lighting, the colour is now beautiful and entirely too my taste. Gone completely is the green-yellow cast that overlayed everything. I have a nice kodachrome profile too ;-)
I'm not blaming the camera I'm saying I don't like it because of it. To my taste, early morning and early evening light have a yellow cast which I'm not competent to remove in PP - , as it needs different settings and adjustments for every image - it's tiring and irritating.
Actually, I don't think you're right either - I think it's a function of the camera, not of the raw software.
However, I do realise that it's my taste, and my problem, and lots of others really like Nikon colour (some don't, like Marc).
But you won't persuade me that the problem doesn't exist for me - I've sold and bought again a complete Nikon kit three times, each time full of hope, and then sold it again full of irritation. I still get a buzz of pleasure each time I look at an A900 file - the colour seems 'just so' and the general feel is splendid.
It's a bit like trying to persuade me that the Lancia Musa that we just spent 3 days driving around Tuscany is a perfectly good car - it may well be, but you can't persuade me to like it!
The jury is out (for me) on the A77 until it's supported in Aperture, but I'm pretty sure that the colour is like the A900, and the files look pretty okay to me so far.
Hope the family is all well - nice to hear from you - hugs all round
jonoslack
Active member
Hi David
I spent weeks and weeks on it - with profiles, in Lightroom, in Aperture, in Capture 1 - If I made one which was roughly right in evening light (I never managed to get anything which would work in rapidly changing light) then it was wrong in mid day light - making one for daylight made evening light seem yellower still.
Using a colour checker under neutral lighting was fine - but it didn't solve the problems with dawn and evening light when you don't want everything returned to a standard grey (you want to see the characteristics of the light - not corrected colours).
It's all water under the bridge - it may be my fault, but I simply don't wish to go there again.
Images from:
Sony
Olympus
Panasonic
Leica
are all fine straight from the camera (as far as colour is concerned) - the Nikon ones simply weren't (as far as I'm concerned).
kit laughlin
Subscriber Member
and why I left Nikon (then DX) for full-frame Canons with Zeiss/Leica glass, then back again to Nikon when they developed their FX bodies, and then away from Nikon again—now completely happy with the A850 body I use now. I shoot for some very demanding customers (think John Deere's green) and I do no colour correction to the raw files.
I never was a fan of Sony colour in pro video days (and I use Panasonic cameras now for video) but IMHO they hit the mark perfectly with the A900/A850 sensor.
Shashin
Well-known member
Color from cameras is not neutral. Each camera/manufacturer will have different palettes which are both a product of the hardware and the CM of the manufacturer. I find Sony/Minolta color very yellow/warm. I prefer the colors out of Olympus m4/3 and Pentax over Nikon. I skipped Panasonic m4/3 over Olympus because of they way they rendered sky--the only Purple Hazy I enjoy is provided by Jimi Hendrix. Simply trying to change color balance won't be enough to make one into another. And as we say in Maine, "you can't get there from here."