Sony A900: First Impressions

[fotografz]

I've always had workhorse cameras like Nikon or Canon for my wedding business ... but also indulged in interesting DSLRs on the side. The Contax ND was one, and with the demise of Koycera's photo division I moved on to the Leica DMR. This induldgence was usually based on the optics ... Zeiss AF N lenses for the ND, and Leica R optics for the DMR.

I had always hoped one of these induldgences would evolve to lessen or eliminate the need for the workhorse system. The FF ND was a great idea for it's time that was poorly executed and supported. The DMR/9 was crop frame, manual focus and limited to lower ISO performance (plus the flash wasn't TTL and proved to be to irratic when set to A while shooting weddings.) As soon as they lowered the light, I had to put the DMR away.

Not until this A900 camera have my hopes been revived.

In fact, I suspect the A900 will be particularly suited to wedding photography. First and foremost are the selections for degree of DR ... which really DO work; the analog custom settings 1,2,3 dial is much better for that fast paced work than going into a menu. This allows me to program my basic indoor and outdoor settings and not fiddle around with the camera as I rush from one environment to another; the Intelligent Preview using the one touch joy stick to adjust settings is extraordinary fast compared to Live View and adjusting various settings on my previous Canon 1DsMKIII or current D3. The super simple WB adjustment which allows you to zero in WB and even add G/R filteration is so intuitive and quick compared to other cameras.

It's been written that he AF is a tad slower than it's counterparts from Canon and Nikon, but very accurate. Perhaps so, except the Zeiss 85/1.4 is no where as slow as the Canon 85/1.2MKII, and I haven't experienced any noticable difference from the 24-70/2.8 compared to my old Canon 24-70/2.8L.

Then, there is the internal IS ... which allows me to open up the backgrounds when using fill ... with any lens, including the Zeiss 24-70/2.8 ...(neither Canon's or Nikon"s is IS/VR) ... the same will be true for the Zeiss 16-35/2.8 when I get my mits on it. In fact, of the core focal lengths I most use for wedding work, none from Canon or Nikon are IS or VR.

My next wedding is Dec. 27th, and I have a portrait session this Sunday ... the real world will be the acid test.

 

[gtmerideth]

You would have to be a fool to argue with the experience in this thread.

I'm not. Just waiting for my A900 and the popular three lens kit. And I want to thank all of you contributors. Most fun I've had in a long time.

gary meridethhttp://forum.getdpi.com/forum/images/smilies/clap.gif

 

[jonoslack]

You would have to be a fool to argue with the experience in this thread.

I'm not. Just waiting for my A900 and the popular three lens kit. And I want to thank all of you contributors. Most fun I've had in a long time.

gary meridethhttp://forum.getdpi.com/forum/images/smilies/clap.gif

Hi Gary
congratulations on your new kit.
As for the 'popular three lens kit'. I know of two 'popular three lens kits'

There is Marc's variant:
Zeiss 24-70
Zeiss 85 f1.4
Zeiss 135 f1.8

excellent and enviable

Then there is Mr Reichmann's 'three lens kit'

Zeiss 24-70
Sony G 70-300
Sony 50mm f1.4

Perhaps there is an argument for a 5 lens kit?

 

[fotografz]

Hi Gary
congratulations on your new kit.
As for the 'popular three lens kit'. I know of two 'popular three lens kits'

There is Marc's variant:
Zeiss 24-70
Zeiss 85 f1.4
Zeiss 135 f1.8

excellent and enviable

Then there is Mr Reichmann's 'three lens kit'

Zeiss 24-70
Sony G 70-300
Sony 50mm f1.4

Perhaps there is an argument for a 5 lens kit?

Well mine will be 4 lenses once the 16-35 is here. I need really wide angle for some wedding stuff.

What would be nice for lens #5 is a Zeiss 2X for the 135/1.8 = 270mm f/3.6

 

[gtmerideth]

Well, I been following Marc around since the Contax N digital times, so I saw no reason to change my MO.

However, not for the wedding business but one of my favorite efforts is the botanic gardens trip and I have on order (now on BO) a 135/2.8 STF lens.
Dyxum has a fine review of this Minolta design. But the short of it is that it is called the "cream machine". The smoothest boke of any piece of glass known.
It was unknown to me but Minolta designers followed a concept of balance between boke and accutance. A parallel is the ZF, ZK, ZS pieces and the contrast with the Cosina Voigtlander SL, APO, Lanthar and Nokton stuff.

Exploring the legacy Minolta AF items as well as the capability of using M42 mounts which of course include Zeiss, Schneider, Rodenstock, Pentax as well as others promises to be a long time of enjoyment for a gearhead.

 

[asabet]

How is the Sony 35mm f/1.4G lens? If that one is a winner, it could make a great two lens kit with the Zeiss 85/1.4.

Hi Gary
congratulations on your new kit.
As for the 'popular three lens kit'. I know of two 'popular three lens kits'

There is Marc's variant:
Zeiss 24-70
Zeiss 85 f1.4
Zeiss 135 f1.8

excellent and enviable

Then there is Mr Reichmann's 'three lens kit'

Zeiss 24-70
Sony G 70-300
Sony 50mm f1.4

Perhaps there is an argument for a 5 lens kit?

 

[douglasf13]

How is the Sony 35mm f/1.4G lens? If that one is a winner, it could make a great two lens kit with the Zeiss 85/1.4.

The 35G lens is interesting. It doesn't look good in tests, because it isn't very sharp, but many swear by it because of it's "look.". I guess you could call it more of an artisan lens. The old 35mm f2 is supposedly sharper Www.dyxum.com has a wonderful lens database to read about this stuff.

 

[Vivek]

Marc, I know that you are one of the earliest "full frame" digital users.

While going from the Contax ND to A900, I wonder why you skipped mentioning the Nikon D3 (optics the sole reason or..?)?

I am leaning towards Sony. I want to explore if I can dump all my Nikon lenses and buy some Sony gear.

Oh, yes. I like Zeiss.

 

[fotografz]

I am not a "fan boy" of anything, and will also point out things I do not like about a new piece of equipment.

I can comment negatively on the camera in detail yet ... not until it is used for real, on the job. But so far, my impression is that it'll do very well.

But I do have an issue with the 85 and 135 Zeiss lenses ... both display some CA where hard edges meet high contrast bright backgrounds. Now for my applications and how the images will be printed, it's all but invisible ... but it can effect the impression of sharpness in those areas, and would be visible in really large prints. I'll put up with it because the 3D effect of these lenses trumps some small amount of color fringing ... and CA can be eliminated in critical applications, where a 3D feel can't be added ... it's there or it isn't.

Frankly, not what I expected at these prices, and something one rarely sees with Leica optics. Not terribly difficult to correct in post, but I don't like having to do that at all. Same thing I detected with the ZF 100/2 macro, where in contrast, there is little to none with my ZF 50/2 macro and ZF 85/1.4.

So far, I'm not seeing CA from the Sony/Zeiss 24-70/2.8 ... just some vignetting and a touch of barrel @24mm .... but it's the type of distortion easily corrected as opposed to the mustache type distortion which is all but impossible to correct. The creamy Bokeh, sharpness and consistent color rendition of this lens is pure Zeiss.

Just keeping it real.

Your thoughts?

 

[fotografz]

Marc, I know that you are one of the earliest "full frame" digital users.

While going from the Contax ND to A900, I wonder why you skipped mentioning the Nikon D3 (optics the sole reason or..?)?

I am leaning towards Sony. I want to explore if I can dump all my Nikon lenses and buy some Sony gear.

Oh, yes. I like Zeiss.

Actually, my trek included Canon full frame for years (1 series MKI, MKII, MKIII and 5D) ... and now the current Nikon D3/D700, both of which I still have, use and like. FF and fast primes was the reason I worked with Canon for many years.

The ND and DMR were side-line cameras chosen as a path to the optics available for them. While I liked the fast aperture speed of the Canon Primes, I always missed that 3D effect so effortlessly accomplished with the Leica and Zeiss lenses. I tried to adapt various Leica and Zeiss/Contax lenses to the Canons, but the inconvenience and manual focus limitations didn't suit my journalistic wedding work very well.

 

[jonoslack]

I am not a "fan boy" of anything, and will also point out things I do not like about a new piece of equipment.

I can comment negatively on the camera in detail yet ... not until it is used for real, on the job. But so far, my impression is that it'll do very well.

But I do have an issue with the 85 and 135 Zeiss lenses ... both display some CA where hard edges meet high contrast bright backgrounds. Now for my applications and how the images will be printed, it's all but invisible ... but it can effect the impression of sharpness in those areas, and would be visible in really large prints. I'll put up with it because the 3D effect of these lenses trumps some small amount of color fringing ... and CA can be eliminated in critical applications, where a 3D feel can't be added ... it's there or it isn't.

Frankly, not what I expected at these prices, and something one rarely sees with Leica optics. Not terribly difficult to correct in post, but I don't like having to do that at all. Same thing I detected with the ZF 100/2 macro, where in contrast, there is little to none with my ZF 50/2 macro and ZF 85/1.4.

So far, I'm not seeing CA from the Sony/Zeiss 24-70/2.8 ... just some vignetting and a touch of barrel @24mm .... but it's the type of distortion easily corrected as opposed to the mustache type distortion which is all but impossible to correct. The creamy Bokeh, sharpness and consistent color rendition of this lens is pure Zeiss.

Just keeping it real.

Your thoughts?

Whilst we're getting real
I don't have the 135 or the 85, but I did spend some time with the 85, and agree about the CA on that.
I also agree about the vignetting and slight distortion on the 24-70, but, as you say, it's refreshing to have 'honest' distortion which can be corrected if necessary.

Other lenses I have tried:

70-300 Sony f4.5/5/6 SSM G lens
This is an excellent lens - sharp, quick focusing and silent. Of course, it's rather slow, but helped by the in camera IS

50mm f1.4 Sony
This has a 'rounded aperture', and has a nicer bokeh than it's Nikon equivalent - there is some vignetting wide open, and it also has a little distortion. It doesn't have SSM, but it is nice and small, and focuses reasonably quickly and quietly.


The above two lenses - together with the Zeiss 24-70 make up Michael Reichmann's triumvirate for his review.

20mm f2.8 Sony
I was disappointed with this lens to start with, it doesn't vignette a great deal, and the distortion is not too bad (not perfect either). But it does have soft corners in most situations, even stopped down (this may be to do with curvature of field).

However, looking back at pictures taken with it, it does have a nice 3D glow to it. Again, it doesn't have SSM, but it is nicely made.

Sigma 12-24.
I bought this lens as a wide angle stop-gap until the 16-35 arrives. It isn't that great at the edges, in fact, I think it performs less will than the equivalent lens on the Kodak 14n (perhaps this copy is not so good, although it doesn't seem to be decentred at all).

Experience with 'lesser' lenses on the D3 and D700 has made me cautious. I think that full frame of any MP is a hard taskmaster on cheaper lenses.
It would be lovely to have a high quality f4 walkabout lens . . . . but I wouldn't hold your breath!

 

[fotografz]

Whilst we're getting real
I don't have the 135 or the 85, but I did spend some time with the 85, and agree about the CA on that.
I also agree about the vignetting and slight distortion on the 24-70, but, as you say, it's refreshing to have 'honest' distortion which can be corrected if necessary.

Other lenses I have tried:

70-300 Sony f4.5/5/6 SSM G lens
This is an excellent lens - sharp, quick focusing and silent. Of course, it's rather slow, but helped by the in camera IS

50mm f1.4 Sony
This has a 'rounded aperture', and has a nicer bokeh than it's Nikon equivalent - there is some vignetting wide open, and it also has a little distortion. It doesn't have SSM, but it is nice and small, and focuses reasonably quickly and quietly.


The above two lenses - together with the Zeiss 24-70 make up Michael Reichmann's triumvirate for his review.

20mm f2.8 Sony
I was disappointed with this lens to start with, it doesn't vignette a great deal, and the distortion is not too bad (not perfect either). But it does have soft corners in most situations, even stopped down (this may be to do with curvature of field).

However, looking back at pictures taken with it, it does have a nice 3D glow to it. Again, it doesn't have SSM, but it is nicely made.

Sigma 12-24.
I bought this lens as a wide angle stop-gap until the 16-35 arrives. It isn't that great at the edges, in fact, I think it performs less will than the equivalent lens on the Kodak 14n (perhaps this copy is not so good, although it doesn't seem to be decentred at all).

Experience with 'lesser' lenses on the D3 and D700 has made me cautious. I think that full frame of any MP is a hard taskmaster on cheaper lenses.
It would be lovely to have a high quality f4 walkabout lens . . . . but I wouldn't hold your breath!

Actually, information of this type is invaluable to those just starting. I was also curious about the Sigma 30/1.4 (as a stop gap until I get the 16-35), and if it was decent, keep it for low light. Anyone with experience on this lens?

Irakly used to shoot Minolta, and said the 300/4 was excellent.

What about the Sony 70-200/2.8 G?

I agree about the D3/D700 .... but must admit that the 14-24/2.8 and 100/2.8 Macro VR with Nano Coating and all that are pretty good ... at least on those 12 meg FF cameras.
I also have the 200/2VR which barks with the big dogs!

 

[asabet]

Actually, information of this type is invaluable to those just starting. I was also curious about the Sigma 30/1.4 (as a stop gap until I get the 16-35), and if it was decent, keep it for low light. Anyone with experience on this lens?

I used to have the Canon version. The Sigma 30 is designed for APS-C sensors and so won't cover the A900 sensor. Optically it is an excellent performer except that the edges/corners lag more than I would like, and barrel distortion is also more than the Canon 28mm primes. Center performance is very good even wide open, and bokeh rendition is pleasing. QC is an issue with this lens. Lots of reports of misfocusing copies, at least in Canon land. I had two misfocusing copies myself before Sigma fixed one for me.

 

[fotografz]

I used to have the Canon version. The Sigma 30 is designed for APS-C sensors and so won't cover the A900 sensor. Optically it is an excellent performer except that the edges/corners lag more than I would like, and barrel distortion is also more than the Canon 28mm primes. Center performance is very good even wide open, and bokeh rendition is pleasing. QC is an issue with this lens. Lots of reports of misfocusing copies, at least in Canon land. I had two misfocusing copies myself before Sigma fixed one for me.

Thanks, check that lens off the list.

 

[fotografz]

Now here's something odd.

I just shot some "For Sale" stuff in the studio. I used the Sony and Zeiss 85/1.4 shooting lenses against a bright white background and there was virtually no CA at all? :wtf:

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Marc where are you finding the Zeiss lenses in the states. B&H only has the 24-70 from what I can see. Just trying to price out the whole setup. Love to know the ISO 1600 impressions on it.

Also folks what Raw software is working. Not sure C1 can see it yet

 

[Vivek]

Now here's something odd.

I just shot some "For Sale" stuff in the studio. I used the Sony and Zeiss 85/1.4 shooting lenses against a bright white background and there was virtually no CA at all? :wtf:

One possibility:

Quality of light. In the studio set-up you are in the dark. The perfect shade.
No light hitting the lens from the sides at all.

 

[douglasf13]

Marc, what apertures did you use for the studio shots? I find that the 85mm cleans up the CA around f2.8. Also, I'm assuming that you're not a UV filter user, but that can also cause major problems. My multicoated heliopan filter creates tons of CA with the 85mm/A900 combo when I tested it the other day.

 

[fotografz]

The 85/1.4 studio shots were done at f/11 (attached)... with no noticable CA

... but I did get some CA in contrasty shots outdoors with the 135/1.8 done at f/9 like this test image of my yard (also attached, including a close up of the CA)

The last shot is an uncroped demo of the close focusing ability of the Zeiss 24-70/2.8 and the Bokeh from this lens ... just for fun

 

[fotografz]

Hi Guy,

The 85 and 135 have always been in stock at B&H, but maybe since the camera became available they've been snapped up.

Try the Sony Store. The only problem with the Sony Store is that they charge sales tax per the State you're in.