A900/Zeiss Acid Test

[jonoslack]

It's not so much the shoes as the wedding dresses that we worry about.:ROTFL:

Now Now David - I look very pretty in chiffon.

 

[dhsimmonds]

Now Now David - I look very pretty in chiffon.

Any photographers around to record the event Jono?!!!!!!!!

It would make a great addition to Quentin's stock library perhaps?

 

[jonoslack]

Any photographers around to record the event Jono?!!!!!!!!

No Dave
after the incident with the goat I keep myself very much to myself.

 

[fotografz]

Update:

I just ran all the prints from the "acid test" wedding. For me prints are the final test because that's what I sell. IMO, the internet is the great equalizer, but with prints there is no place to hide.

Well, as I was processing on screen I was wondering if the stuff was going to print better than my previous Canon 1DsMKIII system.

Here's my final impression: these wedding prints are some of the best I've been able to produce. There's just something about them that pops ... micro detail is excellent and reminds me of the Leica stuff from the DMR in that respect ... but I pulled off shots with this camera I could never do with the manual focus DMR without any stabilized R lenses. Also, the color (especially skin tone) is much nicer than I could produce with the same effort when using the Canons and L glass. But what is the real differentiator is that the A900 files don't exhibit that ever so slightly Canon smeared look (aka, plastic) look to them. The A900 detail is amazing.

The camera and Zeiss lenses are this wedding shooters dream come true.

I would also like to say that I used the Zeiss 16-35/2.8 for the first time on this job, and prints are really excellent ... matching the other Zeiss lenses in color, detail, etc, while doing a much better job of controlling distortion than my Canon 16-35/2.8L-MKII did. The lens is definitely a keeper.

 

[douglasf13]

Excellent, fotografz. I'm glad to hear that you had success. This little A900 is developing quite a following...at least on getdpi. :ROTFL:

I posted something on the Leica forum the other day that probably bares repeating here. According to Iliah Borg, the color of the A900 is near-MF quality, and that's why we get a little bit more high ISO noise. However, this noise doesn't seem to be much of an issue in print, and we gain quite a bit from the color, IMO. Both Nikon and Canon are trending towards high ISO performance and sacrificing spectral properties, and I think that is unfortunate. The plastic skin you talk about from Canon is partially a result of using a weaker filter on the blue channel, and the Sony hasn't gone that route. The A900 also does better in the greens than the D3x, so no mushy grass, either. Another factor responsible for the nice A900 images is the non-linear, "film-like" sensor response, which is unusual and gives that nice highlight roll-off. Iliah just stated yesterday that the D3x is his least used camera (he owns/has owned 1Dsiiis, D3s, A900s, Phase Backs, etc,) and he actually sold one of his two D3xs!

It's great to hear real-world reports from pros about how their cameras are performing. Thanks!

:clap:

 

[edwardkaraa]

Question remains if Sony will continue down this road or bend under the pressure of users demanding high iso performance. The next model from Sony might unfortunately have more in common with the 5DII and the A900 might be a one of a kind experience.

 

[douglasf13]

Yeah, that's a good question, Edward. Sony's Exmor is a unique design that specifically caters toward lower ISO in regards to read noise, so hopefully Sony doesn't become tempted and stays on course with the dense CFAs. FWIW, Sony has always seemed to have better color and slightly more color noise than it's competitors, although I don't have the means to measure such a thing like Iliah can. The backlit Exmor chips of the future may be a nice compromise. Who knows?

 

[jonoslack]

Question remains if Sony will continue down this road or bend under the pressure of users demanding high iso performance. The next model from Sony might unfortunately have more in common with the 5DII and the A900 might be a one of a kind experience.

Well Edward, they brought this camera out in the face of the move towards high ISO by Canon and Nikon - so here's hoping they realise where there advantage is and stick with it.

Marc - thanks for the work on this, I'm glad that the A900 is a success for wedding work.

I find it hard to put my finger on why I like things or not . . . . But after years of irritation with Nikon greens (especially) and late evening light, it only took me one afternoon with an A900 last October to convince me to get rid of all my Nikon gear. I've certainly never regretted that decision.

 

[Terry]

Marc - novice question
I assume these wee small prints for the bride and groom. What are you using to print a big series of small prints?

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

A question to those of you with experience from A900 as well as Nikon, the D700 in particular:
I tried the A900 again today (with the 24-70) for the umpteenth time. Everything about it feels perfect, even slightly better than the Nikons/Fujis that I use every day, except the grip. It feels a bit too thick for me, which makes the camera seem heavier than it really is. Is it me, or is there really a noticeable difference?

 

[jonoslack]

A question to those of you with experience from A900 as well as Nikon, the D700 in particular:
I tried the A900 again today (with the 24-70) for the umpteenth time. Everything about it feels perfect, even slightly better than the Nikons/Fujis that I use every day, except the grip. It feels a bit too thick for me, which makes the camera seem heavier than it really is. Is it me, or is there really a noticeable difference?

HI Jorgen
I think the grip feels 'thick' as well, it's odd to start with, but you get used to it fast, and all the other ergonomic features of the camera and menus were such a relief to me that it's easy to forgive the fact that it was made for people with big hands!

Have you taken a CF card with you and taken some shots?
My dealer thrust one into my hands last October and said 'take it away for the afternoon' . . . I was lost (and so was my Nikon gear).

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Thanks Jono. To compensate for the thicker grip, the vertical grip is the best ever, with all the controls placed exactly as on the camera. Somebody used their brains there

No, I haven't taken my CF card with me, and I don't need to. I'm rather convinced that the A900 would be the best upgrade for me anyway, at least this side of MF or S2. My only problem is that, realistically, I would have to start more or less with a complete setup, since this would be my work gear. The shopping list looks something like this: A900 plus A700 (backup) plus 24-70 plus 70-300 plus 70-200 plus 135/1.8 plus a macro. That's a lot of gear and a lot of money, but I have to do an upgrade within this year anyway, and the door is definitely open.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Yea if i had to switch i would go A900 A700, 16-35,24-70 , 138 1.8 and than something long in the 200 range or so. This system though needs to expand with more lenses though and one reason I have not yet jumped on one and money obviously plays a role here. Some fast wide angles and some T/S lenses and a great macro

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Yea if i had to switch i would go A900 A700, 16-35,24-70 , 138 1.8 and than something long in the 200 range or so. This system though needs to expand with more lenses though and one reason I have not yet jumped on one and money obviously plays a role here. Some fast wide angles and some T/S lenses and a great macro

They need to come up with at least one, preferably two or three T/S lenses rather quickly. One of the reasons for me to move to FF would be access to a wide T/S, and Sony doesn't have one. Then there's the colour of the 70-200. It's white, and I don't like it. When Nikon can make it black, it shouldn't be too much of a problem for Sony either. I like the size and weight though. Much lighter than my 80-200 AF-S.

 

[dhsimmonds]

Jorgen and Guy

I bought the A900 with CZ24-70 in January with the idea of using it alongside my R9, DMR and six Leica R lenses. Just one test with similar focal length Leica-v-Zeiss lenses convinced me enough to sell the entire Leica outfit in favour of the A900 outfit!

I have of course now added to the Sony/Zeiss lens collection, flash, grips etc as you do and I do not regret it one little bit.

I was prepared for it to have gone the other way, in which event the Sony would have gone instead of the Leica. Since then my A900 is now a very cherished tool!

 

[jonoslack]

I was prepared for it to have gone the other way, in which event the Sony would have gone instead of the Leica. Since then my A900 is now a very cherished tool!

HI Dave
I'm sure that there are people who aren't happy with the A900, and, like anything it isn't perfect, but they do seem to have a very high level of user satisfaction.

For me it was like a great sigh of relief.

 

[jdbfreeheel]

They need to come up with at least one, preferably two or three T/S lenses rather quickly. One of the reasons for me to move to FF would be access to a wide T/S, and Sony doesn't have one. Then there's the colour of the 70-200. It's white, and I don't like it. When Nikon can make it black, it shouldn't be too much of a problem for Sony either. I like the size and weight though. Much lighter than my 80-200 AF-S.

Agreed on the T/S. Hopefully that will come, but I worry not, as Sony seems to brand this as a "near-pro" offering in some ways rather than a "full-pro" offering. We'll see if that shifts (pun not intended) as more working pros adopt the a900 for their work.

Re: color. I initially had the same thought, "yuck, white/silver." It is definitely more silver than white (at least on the 70-400 lens which I just added to the stable, I don't own the 70-200, 2.8 yet), but the color seems fine and actually, I think it is Sony's attempt to 'brand' itself like Canon with the white lenses so that people differentiate Sony lenses from other brands. In essence, it makes sense. And, as someone else on another forum said, "I don't see the color of the lens when I'm looking through the viewfinder."

-Josh

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Josh,
The 70-200 is white... very white, not at all like the 70-400. I also suspect that it's a question of branding, but don't you think that those who care about things like that would confuse it with Canon?

I agree that I don't see the colour of the lens through the viewfinder, but to me, it's more a question about how the surroundings see me. I live in a part of the world, and often visit locations, where being discreet is important. Showing off with a big, white lens is simply not something that I would like to do under those circumstances.

 

[douglasf13]

Minolta was actually one of the first to use white lenses, and the Sony 70-200 and 300 2.8 are simply rebadged versions of the Minoltas. It seems that these will be the last two white lenses that we see, as Sony appears to have decided on silver for their newer telephotos. FWIW, the Sony white is a bit grey-white, whereas Canon's is more cream-white.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Minolta was actually one of the first to use white lenses, and the Sony 70-200 and 300 2.8 are simply rebadged versions of the Minoltas. It seems that these will be the last two white lenses that we see, as Sony appears to have decided on silver for their newer telephotos. FWIW, the Sony white is a bit grey-white, whereas Canon's is more cream-white.

You are right, of course. There you see how fast us old people forget...

It probably doesn't matter what colour it is. I probably won't remember where I've left the lens anyway, and if I do, I can't see it, since my glasses are.... where