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 A900: First Impressions

douglasf13

New member
fotografz, thanks for the shots. I guess there is some CA at the higher apertures as well on the 85mm.

One thing to note about the 24-70 is watch out for bokeh in situations like speculars coming through trees. It can be pretty distinct and donut looking :(
 

jonoslack

Active member
Also folks what Raw software is working. Not sure C1 can see it yet
Hi Guy
Not sure about C1 - but pretty much everything else is on board:
ACR
Lightroom
Aperture
Bibble
Silky Pix
etc

I find 1600 okay if you expose to the right . . . but really, it isn't what the camera is about
 
G

gtmerideth

Guest
Guy,
Bad boy, I know but I have been buying the lenses from dealers in Singapore and Hong Kong. The freight is $40 but DHL gets it from there to Denver in
2 to 3 days. Amazing new world we live in. Saved half a G note on the A900 body.

gary
 
W

Wolfman

Guest
Guy,
Bad boy, I know but I have been buying the lenses from dealers in Singapore and Hong Kong. The freight is $40 but DHL gets it from there to Denver in
2 to 3 days. Amazing new world we live in. Saved half a G note on the A900 body.

gary
Any chance of recommending the place you bought the A900 from?
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Honestly from what i have seen of Jono's images posted on this forum , I just like the look of this system which has peaked my interest.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Thank you Guy.

I got hold of the 100mm macro today - it's noisy, and the focusing isn't that fast, but it's about half the size of it's Nikon counterpart, and the images certainly look sharp.

Unfortunately it was getting dark when I got home, but here are some tangerines on the kitchen table:

ISO 1600
f2.8
no processing or cropping beyond exporting as a jpg from Aperture.



not a huge depth of field at that range then :ROTFL:
 

sinwen

Member
Jono,

As you are owner of both A900 and G1, I would have a lot of questions for you but I am going to restrict myself :(

Could you take a picture of both cameras side by side to visualize the size difference ?
This is for one because I feel this A900 to be hudge and bulky (and somewhat very ugly but who cares).

Now if you go to this page here :
http://www.pbase.com/scho/panasonic_lumix_g1&page=2
I have been shocked by the 3D effect this little G1 is showing up, as Mark put it for the A900 "you swear you could shift to the side and see behind the in-focus object" I would add "you feel being right in the middle of scenery".
So two pictures of the same subject with each camera to get some comparable point of view would be interesting if you have the courage to do it.

Many thanks
Michel
 

jonoslack

Active member
HI Michel

Jono,

As you are owner of both A900 and G1, I would have a lot of questions for you but I am going to restrict myself :(
Why?
:)

sorry for the quality of this - I didn't have time to set it up properly

One thing - I don't think the A900 is even slightly ugly in 'real life' - a little retro perhaps, but it's tapering base does it no favours when sat on a table - quite different in one's hands. I think it's rather lovely (each to his own of course).

These were taken this afternoon, just for you :D
Straight from Aperture with no adjustments

G1 with Olympus 9-18


A900 with Zeiss 24-70

I'm not sure that you can tell anything very significant from a web size shot.



Of course, you can't really
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
My turn for a preliminary report on the A900 and Zeiss 24-70mm.

Here's a one para summary of the image quality: It's very good, but not quite as good as the Mamiya ZD. The A900 has very good dynamic range but not quite as good as the ZD, or Nikon D700 for that matter. But its still pretty good.

Sharpness from the Zeiss 28-70mm is very good, but bokeh is poor and somehow the lens seems to have less DOF than an equivalent focal length on the ZD. It should be the other way around of course, so I'm not sure what I'm seeing. I never completely trust zooms to match fixed focal lengths no matter how highly rated they are.

The image is of a sugar factory in Bury St Edmunds, Jono will know it well :toocool: It was decoded from raw in SilkyPix, where perspective correction was also applied.

No colour shifts or nasties, noise quite reasonable, but I have only shot at 200ISO so far. I will have a crack in the studio next.

The camera itself if nice to use and easy to understand. I tend to use pretty much the same settings so I don't need ludicrously complex menus and options. Its not quite as incredibly nice to use as the D700 is, but its close enough.

So far, I'm happy, in a balanced way, but looking forward to giving it a more thorough work out to determine if it will replace the ZD for most day to day photography. I guess the fact I'm even considering a small format digital camera replacing a medium format camera says a lot in favour of the A900
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hi Quentin
My turn for a preliminary report on the A900 and Zeiss 24-70mm.

Here's a one para summary of the image quality: It's very good, but not quite as good as the Mamiya ZD. The A900 has very good dynamic range but not quite as good as the ZD, or Nikon D700 for that matter. But its still pretty good.
As far as dynamic range is concerned, I'm always surprised at how much is in the hightlights - so it's worth exposing more to the right than you would with any other camera I've used.
I think it's as good as the D700, but different.

Sharpness from the Zeiss 28-70mm is very good, but bokeh is poor and somehow the lens seems to have less DOF than an equivalent focal length on the ZD. It should be the other way around of course, so I'm not sure what I'm seeing. I never completely trust zooms to match fixed focal lengths no matter how highly rated they are.
Bokeh is odd as well - I find it's usually really good, and then sometimes one gets a nasty. Dunno about depth of field. I do think that the 24-70 has it over the Nikon equivalent with micro contrast and sharpness, (and of course the use of IS) but the Nikon wins generally on bokeh, and possibly on corner sharpness wide open.

The image is of a sugar factory in Bury St Edmunds, Jono will know it well :toocool: It was decoded from raw in SilkyPix, where perspective correction was also applied.
I do know it. 2 points:
1. how did you get in - did you just drive in?
2. why on earth didn't you do the extra 15 miles and pop in for a glass of wine?

Have you tried RAW developer? Amin seems to think it does best with the A900 files. (I refuse to use anything but Aperture).

The camera itself if nice to use and easy to understand. I tend to use pretty much the same settings so I don't need ludicrously complex menus and options. Its not quite as incredibly nice to use as the D700 is, but its close enough.
Here I think you'll change your mind - I find the Sony a complete delight to use - the custom settings which override everything (even things like the exposure area and focus mode settings), together with the spot/hold AE lock button. It just means that you quickly understand exactly what the camera is doing. Hard to explain - with the Nikon I always felt that it had a superior brain which I didn't quite understand - the Sony seems to me like it's on the same side - definitely designed by photographers rather than engineers (or computer programmers).

So far, I'm happy, in a balanced way, but looking forward to giving it a more thorough work out to determine if it will replace the ZD for most day to day photography. I guess the fact I'm even considering a small format digital camera replacing a medium format camera says a lot in favour of the A900
Doesn't it just.
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
Hi Jono,

Actually the versatility of the A900 amazes me. It has one huge advantage (apart from portability) over the ZD: no xmas tree lights (unless thats what you are photographing...). Yay!

And yes, I just drove in..but by a "visitor" entrance round the back.

More soon :salute:

Quentin

PS thought about popping in but it would have been a tad rude of me to do so without announcing...
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Any comments on the sony flash system? predictability, accuracy, fill flash, accessories such as AA battery packs, etc.
Ben, I've goofed around with the flash and it seems accurate and consistent.

But I'm not saying anything one way or the other until I do a wedding with it ... as you know, that is a real acid test of versatility and accuracy.

BTW, the Sony cameras uses a proprietary mount, and to use a Pocket Wizard you have to get a $20. 3rd party attachment. If you use a Metz, there is a module for Sony/Minolta.

Don't know about AA battery packs, I rarely use them ... except occasionally a little Quantum Turbo SC.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Marc,

thanks for the report. Very informative and tempting.
Any system that lets me use Zeiss glass is interesting to me. I have previously seen images taken with the 135/1.8 - amazing. Just wish they would make it for nikon.

I won't switch though simply for the fact that I love film too much and there is no F5/6 equivalent with the sony mount - or is there?
IMO, there is NO other camera like the F6 ... so if that's what you are interested in, then you already have the best there ever was.
 
Top