K
kelvin
Guest
Thank you Jono and Eoin, I updated Aperture and it worked! Now I have to get busy and learn how to use the software.
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!
As Eoin said (this time he beat me to it!)Thank you Jono and Eoin, I updated Aperture and it worked! Now I have to get busy and learn how to use the software.
Yeah, the A900 really responds to getting the WB correct. The color right out of the camera was really a pleasant surprise.Now that I have a uniWB set for the camera, I've been pretty amazed how much more red and blue channel exposure latitude has been available in my shooting. I agree with fotografz that the noise in the A900 files is very pleasing.
Here's my take on the A900 and ISO performance.
I'm in agreement that this is more like any high meg camera ... except my previous Canon 1DsMKIII wasn't much better ... in that it smeared detail above ISO 1000, and IMO was a decent ISO 100 to 800 camera.
Here's the difference that I see ... the nature of the A900 noise is that it's cleaner ... more like film grain ... but more importantly it looks worse on screen than in a print ... where the Canon looked better on screen, but looked plastic in print. Since I sell prints that was a VERY important discovery.
I use the A900 @ 640 and 800 all the time (for paying work). I like the look of it a lot ... but then, I've been searching for the Holy Grail ... a digital camera with files that look more film like. If exposed correctly, I've not seen bad grain at all ... because it reminds me so much of what scanned film looks like when printed. I've even had to lift underexposed 800 shots where my flash had not powered back up enough, and I got better results than from my other high meg cameras. But, again, I don't want plastic digital look that's so popular with many folks. If I want smooth, I shoot MFD at ISO 50.
I use a D3/D700 for obvious low ambient light shots, and would no more use the A900 for that than I would a MF digital camera.
Different strokes for different folks.
Here's one of the ISO 800 wedding shots where the flash underfired, and I had to lift it by at least 1.5 stops ... it's a picture I wanted to save because of the letch subject matter : -) Shot with the A900 and Zeiss 24-70/2.8 @ 70mm.
I agree, this is the closest thing to the ND so far. Remember Irakly from the Contax forum? He said the same thing the minute he picked up my A900. As far as noise, you are more of a Pixel Peeper than I am This camera is fine for my applications up to ISO 800, and even 1250 if the exposure is good. The example I showed was a torture test of being able to recover a badly underexposed ISO 800 shot ... the location was lit with all kinds of mixed colored lighting like blue green overheads washing the room accented with magenta and red spot lights.Hi Marc,
Nice to see you here after the Contax info forums It seems Contax people are finding the new Sony/Zeiss system quite attractive.
In the picture you show, and it is a very nice "moment" to say the least there is pleanty of blotchy chroma noise visible even at this very small size. You can look at the girl's hair in the middle and above the 2 lamps on the wooden wall. I'm sure it's easily removable but I find impressive that I can actually see it at this size. Anyway, I shoot mostly at ISO 100, one stop below the native sensitivity, because it seems to produce the cleanest files and not so much loss in DR. Between 100-400 the colors of this camera are simply amazing.
I agree, this is the closest thing to the ND so far. Remember Irakly from the Contax forum? He said the same thing the minute he picked up my A900. As far as noise, you are more of a Pixel Peeper than I am This camera is fine for my applications up to ISO 800, and even 1250 if the exposure is good. The example I showed was a torture test of being able to recover a badly underexposed ISO 800 shot ... the location was lit with all kinds of mixed colored lighting like blue green overheads washing the room accented with magenta and red spot lights.
I've done a few shots in the studio using strobes, and at ISO 100 it's quite amazing. So far, I have 2 non-Zeiss lenses and have been pleasantly surprised. The 50/1.4 is better than the Zeiss N50/1.4 which exhibited horrible Bokeh, and the Sony 70-200/2.8G APO is every bit the campanion to the Zeiss 24-70/2.8 ... easily the best zoom in this focal range I've ever used.