Fun Pictures with Sony . . . .

[Westvleteren]

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.

 

[Shelby Lewis]

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.

Later.

 

[jonoslack]

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.

Later.

HI Shelby
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.

 

[Tex]

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!

 

[edwardkaraa]

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.

 

[ecsh]

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.
Joe

 

[douglasf13]

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.

 

[Shelby Lewis]

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).

 

[dhsimmonds]

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!

 

[wayne_s]

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).

I would say that most of the difference, 3-d quality, color separation, and less muddying of color is due to the drawing style of the Zeiss lenses vs. the Canon. Put a Zeiss ZF lens with adapter on the Canon and the rest is a small difference in hue and saturation of greens which you could do in post. Of course everyone here is anti-canon and will flame me for this but I don't care.I like the Sony-Zeiss platform and don't need to trash it like a lot of people here have to do with Canon. I get tired some times of the anti-canon sentiment here which is overplayed vs. the skill and the art of the picture itself but that is how forums work.
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?

 

[Tex]

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.

 

[wayne_s]

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.

Fine, can I see some side by side comparison shots with the same lens and then we can go from there to see the differences rather than saying well I prefer the beauty of this camera's shot over this one. First, of all I think Shelby takes great images no matter what camera system. And the drawing style of the sigma is different than the Zeiss lenses and I can see that difference whether on a Sony or Canon camera.
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?

 

[Bill_Green]

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.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

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.

Later.

No offense towards you as a photographer. As I said initially, I like the composition and depth. When you say that the studio's pp tends to go towards blue, it's a bit more understandable, because my first reaction was the lack of warmth, particularly to the skin colours. As you point out, I should be careful when theorizing about this photo, since I don't know the whole story, but if this is typical for your "Canon work", I still maintain that I liked your "Sony work" much better.

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...

 

[fotografz]

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!

Hope the firmware part is true. I don't want yet another camera.

 

[fotografz]

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...

 

[Dale Allyn]

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...

Yupp

Somebody post another purdy pidjure please.

 

[edwardkaraa]

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 was using 13 Zeiss Contax lenses on a 1Ds2 until January 2009. I share the same conclusions.

 

[Shelby Lewis]

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...

Guess I'm to blame for "muddying the waters", lol.

Someone post something, please... or else I'll put something else up. :ROTFL:

 

[Bill_Green]

Someone post something, please... or else I'll put something else up. :ROTFL:

Hey now mister! I did post pictures and I did it with YOUR camera.