Yeah Jono, I think they will like that one!
Here is a few service drawings relating to the problem and the fix consisting of some adhesive strips.
Last edited by Eoin; 14th July 2009 at 22:07.
A7II, FE 35, 55 C/Y 18, 28, 85, 100, 28-85
One from this morning... CZ135 f1.8 with Zeiss Softar #2
These are great! Two of my most favorite subjects
I just love old buildings & cabins. I always wonder who might have loved there
I wish I were more of an old car expert... but I would venture to say an old Ford... of what type I'm not sure.
Interestingly, as I was firing up the BBQ the other evening I happened to read the bio on the back of the Kingsford Charcoal bag.
It seems they (Kingsford) started their biz using wooden scraps from those early Ford interior frames. "And the rest" they say... "is history!"
Thanks for sharing!
Jono... great catch. They'll love that for sure!
Ok, I know I'm not supposed to post non-sony images here... but I love this community so I'm gonna muck up the water with a recent 5dmkii image... colors over-the-top as that's the look the studio I shoot for pushes. I'm actually impressed at the dimensionality of the file... especially seeing that it was shot with the lowly 85/1.8
I'll say it though... at 100% not near as nice as the a900
and one more (more like my usual work)... grain added by me.
Ok.. I'll get out of the way now
Welcome back shelby! Great shots nonetheless -avec ou sans- the A900.
Note to myself: Remember bot to buy a Canon
M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2
I agree, the a900 images are stunning whereas the Canon feels flat to me. Can't wait to get one and share on this thread.
wow... i can't believe how so many people can be so negative without even knowing how these were post processed. The studio i shoot for often uses the "direct positive" preset (for some reason) in lightroom which pumps the contrast up and pushes color towards blue... those of you who know my work know what I'm capable of. This was an example of a couple in love... as well as how the 5d can indeed produce photos with nice amounts of detail and dimension.
Different... not bad.
Oh well, I guess I read the attitude of the Sony fan club (which I've enjoyed) with a bit of naivete... People forget that reality (like getting an action shot in extreme low light) often dictates things other than zeiss lenses and good color separation.
but but but . . . whilst we all understand why one would use a 5dII, or a D700 or whatever, and also that it's possible to get great results in much trickier circumstances, it certainly screamed at me that these shots were simply in a different league from the wonderful stuff you've posted with the A900. Of course, that doesn't mean it's the camera.
The responses you've had don't seem even remotely like 'fan boy' responses.
As for 'different not bad'
of course - I do agree . . . . but I'd certainly say 'different and not as good'.
The revelation for me with the A900 has been the zeiss glass and the colour separation - you're pictures with it epitomised that more than anyone else's. These Canon shots simply seem to emphasise the point that you made so eloquently.
Just this guy you know
Shelby, we all love you - don't take offense. It was just a shock to see the difference.
Sony will be introducing (August/Sept) some new bodies (850, etc) that are designed specifically to address the low light issue - in fact it appears to be a MAJOR announcement. We might also see a firmware update shortly for the 900.
Best to you and good luck with your new gig!
Sorry Shelby if you misunderstood my post. I am talking about my own experience as a Canon 1Ds series user as well as the 5D for several years and my frustration of not being able to get the look I wanted from the files, something that the A900 gives me without effort. The photos you posted are great ones and photographically speaking they are on the same level as your previous work you posted here, but as Jono said, there is in the Canon photos a lack of depth in the colors that is not due simply to a specific post processing technique. I can see this as someone who have used Canon untill 6 months ago.
M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2
All that matters is that you are happy with the pic with the Canon, and your customers are as well. I am far from being a profesional, but, before i purchased the 900, i looked at pics from the pros from all the major lines to see what could be done. Not that i would be able to do the same thing, but, at least show what was possible with a given camera. The colors on the 900 especially the skin tones, seem to be better than the others. It has nothing to do with your abilities, which are top notch.
I sure wish that Shelby had done my best friends wedding photos a couple of weeks ago. My wife and I just saw the proofs, and then we immediately went to Shelby's website in order to cleanse our palates.
Hey guys... sorry to be hot headed. The truth is that there are some things the 5d does better... but I'll be the very first to admit that the files @ 100% are nothing near as nice as the a900... and I already miss the 3d quality to the files.
That's probably why I moving into medium format as soon as I can get the capital.
5D for the meat and potatoes wedding work... MF for the "sony" stuff, lol.
I am going to try something though, as I believe it will make a difference... the canon files need a lot of initial sharpening (something I didn't do here). I do wonder what they'll look like if I start from a sharp 100% file. Anywho... i do thank you all for the words about my work... I guess I'm a bit disappointed that the difference in the cams is so apparent (something I was trying to convince myself wasn't true).
Hi Shelby, good to see you posting here again. Boy am I glad that I don't have to make my living out of photography!! It must be tough shooting for another studio and towing their line on processing and gear.
All I have to do is please myself first and foremost and if exhibition and competition judges also like my work then that's a big bonus for me. Happily I enjoy using my a900, I love the images it produces and so far quite a few of the judges do too!
I am sure that you will also just love the MF images (a reminder of your a900 perhaps?) Your wonderful a900 images were an inspiration for all of us, so you see, you sort of set your own very high barrier.
Are we Sony fanboys? Yes, of course we are....we'd be mad not to be!
I assume (hope) most of the people are looking at the first picture when they are comparing to the Sony as the 2nd picture is what I would call a more processed picture which I can see Shelby is looking for a certain look, like he was doing earlier for his catalog work.
Shelby, I assume you were using the LR color positive preset for the 2nd shot only, right?
Wayne: "due to the drawing style of the Zeiss lenses vs. the Canon"
Wayne, does this observation also explain the great images that Shelby posted with his 50mm SIGMA on the a900?
At one time, I was using 5 different focal length Zeiss ZF's on a Canon MarkIII - I never experienced (with the MKIII/Zeiss combo) the beauty of the files generated by the A900.
I wish that Shelby could take some images with a Sigma 50 so we could compare that to his Sony one's. That would be an interesting comparison.
I guess I would like to see more comparison shots with the same lens to differentiate the lens effects from the camera effects.
What specifically do you mean by the beauty of the files being better?Can you show some examples?Shouldn't be that hard if there is such a big difference between the A900 and the Canon with the same Zeiss glass, right?
Photography is the study of brick walls and cats, insofar as psychology is the study of rats and college sophmores. Brick walls don't excite me and I don't have a cat, but I do have a daughter that is like herding cats. So there you have it.
The first two images are at ISO 800 with a broken 50 Summicron at f2, the other two are ISO 320 with a pre-APO 180 Elmarit shot at f2.8 or f4. All processed in C1. I'm new to the A900 and trying to get a feel for the camera. So far I love the feel of the body and chalk up the image quality to being unfamiliar with the camera.
EDIT: I suppose I should point out that this is a camera test, I'm not trying to be artistic here. Just get a feel for new gear.
The last two images were taken after a grape popsicle.
Last edited by Bill_Green; 23rd July 2009 at 15:17.
And mind you, I'm not a member of the Sony Club. The only Sony gear here is my father's old, broken Walkman Pro that I naively thought I could fix and use for something...
Hmmm, a thread titled "Fun Pictures with Sony" ... er ... are we having fun yet?
All this "my camera is better than your camera" is sucking the fun right out of photography...
Bill, that must have been a struggle with a lively (and pretty) little girl as your subject and using MF and stop down metering! Try begging or borrowing a Zeiss ZA 80/1.4 or a 135/1.8 AF lens as a comparison.........erh, you might not want to give it back though!
Last Saturday's wedding: the Bride's family was from Spain, and her Grandfather danced an energetic latin dance with the Bride ... he is 86 years young.
BTW, I'm a "United Nations" of cameras ... so for this one time upload I picked the photo to show, not which camera was used
Wayne, it's difficult to do comparisons with the same Zeiss lenses, as the ZF lenses are quite different from the Sony Zeiss lenses.
Douglas suggested that the difference was that while increasing the high ISO attributes the colour differentiation suffers.
Just this guy you know
What a Fantastic Wedding Series....
I love the Bride playing Seductress with the Fan
The next one of the Flower Girl and her boredom at having her done
Grandpapa Sruttin on the Dance Floor
Is it) The Groom Smoking a Cigar...Those are Stellar shots to my Eye...Cool
To Light & Love
Marc, the color image of the bride and flower girl (sitting) is outstanding.
wow marc... these are fantastic. I'm only saying this because I'm not familiar with a broader spectrum of your work, but these are a step up from anything else I've ever seen you post. Also... is your b/w conversion new? This one is so contrasty yet still very detailed in the shadows. That's a hard thing to accomplish.
from a wedding a few weeks back... not nearly as compelling a family as marc's post, lol. I was the second shooter, so mostly shot candids and details all day.
250D closeup lens on (i think) an 85/1.8... not very happy with the sharpness of this combo
guest of honor
Pretty much representative of my work Shelby. But your observation is a good one, and goes to the point of switching systems and the time it takes to nail the exposure settings and how to process afterwards ... which takes time IMO. I'm finally getting the 3 systems down better and syncing them to do what I want.
The M8 is a no brainer (cigar and hairspray shots, which are pretty much just straight conversions), the D3X converts pretty easily, and I'm getting better at the A900 which requires more work to make B&W ... the midtones that make for such great subtile color rendering flatten out in B&W unless the light is pretty contrasy ... then, in contrasy light I found I need to hold the highlights and the midtones/shadows get dicey. But it's coming together. Should have done this learning curve over the winter instead of during wedding season
I think you are in the midst of doing the same thing now with going back to Canon. Just take another peek at Jeff Ascough's 5D work if there's any doubt.
Oops, here's an edit showing a couple of A900 B&W conversions shooting with the ZA 85/1.4:
Last edited by fotografz; 24th July 2009 at 16:30.