The GetDPI Photography Forum

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!

A900 shooters having fun while D3x users are not

Lars

Active member
I bit the bullet after an afternoon with the A900, but it was actually neither because of the camera itself, nor the glass (although of course both are relevant), but for the colour - especially in evening light where I've never felt that Nikon did well . . but of course, colour is a very personal issue, and it might work in just the opposite direction.
It's not just a personal preference. Color is also a property of post-processing, just like paper in chemical prints. It would seem that Sony has dialed in color curves that look pretty good out of the box. Nikon seems to have moved in that direction with the D3x.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Yes, Cosina does a really nice job of manufacturing those lenses, don't they? And they do an even better job of engraving the Carl Zeiss name on them, thus impressing believers in the notion of the Aryan Optical Master Race...

...come on, people, seriously -- I'm glad you like your A900s, but this thread is getting positively fulsome.
They make some pretty good M lenses for Zeiss as well. You have to agree that at least part of lens characteristics are about design rather than the manufacturer. . . . . or perhaps you don't.

Maybe it's fulsome because people are pleased? This isn't allowed? Nobody's saying 'my camera is better than yours' - or indeed that the A900 is better than the D3x. Added to which, some of the fulsome contributors aren't owners.
 

Lars

Active member
Huh?

The selection was from 2 shots, since this is a wedding shoot and 2-3 is about all you get ... with other "decisive moment" work it's one shot. Period. The shot before and after are rarely the decisive moments ... as the demos with 5 FPS motor drives verses single well timed shots have consistantly proven.

What speed consistantly delivers? ... depends on the focal length and how many gallons of coffee I've had at the time :ROTFL:

While I am not 100% sure about anything on this camera yet, I am pretty confident that camera movement now plays a much smaller role than it has with any other camera used off a tripod. In fact, at a wedding where I used 3 different cameras (M8, D700 and the A900), I lost a few shots to camera shake, but none of them were A900 files. Maybe just lucky ... but consistant delivery like that seems to statistically argue in favor of something more than luck.
My point was that rather than chance, you are skilled photographer, I'm afraid that I tangled up my reasoning too much to get that across. sorry about that. I promise never to redefine the term "luck" again.
 

jonoslack

Active member
It's not just a personal preference. Color is also a property of post-processing, just like paper in chemical prints. It would seem that Sony has dialed in color curves that look pretty good out of the box. Nikon seems to have moved in that direction with the D3x.
I'm glad to hear that.
I could get the colour I wanted from my Nikons, but in evening light I needed to correct every shot differently - I never managed to sort out any kind of presets in Aperture which would do a consistent job - even for a set of shots in consistent lighting. A kind of grubby yellow cast was the normal problem. Custom curves didn't do it for me either. Clearly not everyone feels that way about it, which is why I say it's personal.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Yes, Cosina does a really nice job of manufacturing those lenses, don't they? And they do an even better job of engraving the Carl Zeiss name on them, thus impressing believers in the notion of the Aryan Optical Master Race...

...come on, people, seriously -- I'm glad you like your A900s, but this thread is getting positively fulsome.
Yeah maybe ... LOL!

Actually, the only thing "engraved" on the lenses is "made In Japan". ;)

Nothing new there at all. :eek: Carl Zeiss Institute in Japan has been overseeing production of lenses designed and engineered in Der Fatherland for decades, and anyone involved with using Zeiss lenses knows that. Most (not all) of the AE type manual focus Contax 35mm lenses were made in japan. All of the N mount AF lenses were made in Japan, mostly by Kyoceria (who also has manufactured lenses for Der Leica.) ... in fact the launch of the N 24-85/3.5 zoom was delayed because Carl Zeiss Institute QC refused the first attempt at making it. Then of course there are the lenses for the Contax 645, some of which still to this day set standards for MF lenses that remain unmatched ... like the Contax 120/4 Macro ... all manufactured in .... drum roll .... Japan!

They didn't earn their reputation for nothing, and it shows with these ZA lenses and some of the newer designed ZFs ... like the 50/2 macro. However, not everything with the Zeiss name on it is all that great ... that is for sure.
 
D

ddk

Guest
I don't think David owns either does he?
So possibly not only are you not psychic but you didn't read his post properly?
You're quite right Jono, I don't own either one, it was a comment on what I see going on here and among my own photographer friends. I have more than one friend with D3xs who're struggling to get better results than their D3s. The high iso issue is an enigma for me since I rarely go over iso 600 in my work. Even with a D3 or D700 while you might get acceptable results for some type of work at higher iso settings their prime quality files are still closer to their base iso, all that de-lighting processing and NR has a visible negative effect on the overall tonality which I don't find acceptable.
 

edwardkaraa

New member
It's not just a personal preference. Color is also a property of post-processing, just like paper in chemical prints. It would seem that Sony has dialed in color curves that look pretty good out of the box. Nikon seems to have moved in that direction with the D3x.
I do not agree with this statement. I would rather say that DSLR are more like different films, each with a different flavour. You can always interpret colors while printing film, or post processing digital file, but the original flavour remains. The A900 has been known so far for its exceptional color, but following your logic, it should only be with camra jpgs or raws converted with Sony's converter. It just happens that forum members are using all sorts of converters, each with its own color interpretation, but the color of the A900 is still exceptional. Some of the reasons given for the deep rich medium format like color all happen to be of analog origin, such as the filter array strength on the sensels, or the minimal analog NR, both elements affect high-ISO noise levels but produce exceptional low-ISO color.
 
D

ddk

Guest
Yes, Cosina does a really nice job of manufacturing those lenses, don't they? And they do an even better job of engraving the Carl Zeiss name on them, thus impressing believers in the notion of the Aryan Optical Master Race...

...come on, people, seriously -- I'm glad you like your A900s, but this thread is getting positively fulsome.
Ranger 9, this post is straight out of dpreview forums and it belongs there. You seem to forget that Japan is one of if not the industrial giants in the world for high end consumer goods among many other things, so to even imply lower quality manufacturing there is ignorant. 2nd if that's your attitude, you ought pick up some of your Nikon lenses and cameras and see where they were made, no disrespect to anyone here but "made in Thailand" is the last thing that I'd want to see on any of my expensive, precision products!
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I do not agree with this statement. I would rather say that DSLR are more like different films, each with a different flavour.
I agree with this, and it's problematic. I've been trying to tell myself that one system should do, and that anything beyond that would be sheer luxury. But in a way, that is like saying that Velvia is the only film I need.

Now, most digital cameras are more flexible than Velvia, but even the different results I get from camera bodies from the same supplier makes me stop sometimes.

When I first started lusting for Sony, the reasons were mostly very rational and technical. In-body IS and high quality lenses are easy to understand. But when I see the deep, saturated colours that you guys churn out in image after image, the equation gets a new dimension that can't be measured in yards or dollars. The combined competence of Sony, Minolta and Zeiss, combined with Sony's lack of old luggage from the film SLR era, has proven to be a very successful combination. And still, the results clearly resemble those of film.

It's very typical Sony: sometimes they win, and sometimes they lose, but they always do it in spectacular fashion. It's very refreshing :thumbup:
 

Lars

Active member
I do not agree with this statement. I would rather say that DSLR are more like different films, each with a different flavour. You can always interpret colors while printing film, or post processing digital file, but the original flavour remains. The A900 has been known so far for its exceptional color, but following your logic, it should only be with camra jpgs or raws converted with Sony's converter. It just happens that forum members are using all sorts of converters, each with its own color interpretation, but the color of the A900 is still exceptional. Some of the reasons given for the deep rich medium format like color all happen to be of analog origin, such as the filter array strength on the sensels, or the minimal analog NR, both elements affect high-ISO noise levels but produce exceptional low-ISO color.
Well from a color science standpoint, what I stated does - in theory - hold. It's perfectly possible to interpret the raw data from any sensor to get a linear response, and once you have a linearized sensor you can apply a set of curves to get exactly the same response from different cameras. Color primaries might differ due to different Bayer filters but that's about it. The rest is "just" interpretation of the raw data.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Well from a color science standpoint, what I stated does - in theory - hold.
Science is fine as long as we know and can control all the variables. But when I see how differently the RAW files from different cameras react to post processing, it becomes quite clear, at least to me, that there are elements included in the image data that I can neither control nor understand. Maybe there are too many variables, and maybe there are too many processing steps between the sensor and me, but the differences are clearly there.

Or am I seeing things :confused:
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
OK, next question, how well does the IS deal with panning? With my 24-105L I need to wait about a full second after focus recompose for the IS to realise that my movement wasn't shake (I'm glad I have this issue after years of shooting weddings, it's not just anticipating moments but also having focused and recomposed a second in advance, to be honest I enjoy the challenge!) and I have to turn it off completely for dancing and the like. The lens doesn't have the 'mode 2' that would allow for that kind of movement and IMO is sorely missed eventhough my copy is a gem of a lens for weddings and a really nice compliment to my primes. So how does the Sony cope with focus recompose/panning and is there a specific switch to turn it off on the body for fast switching?
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I'd say that in general this camera basically came out of nowhere for a lot of people. Yeah, it was announced well ahead of time and all that, but it was pretty hard to believe (sounded more like vaporware) ... and Sony hardly has a semi-pro or pro following ... given Nikon and Canon's dominance.

Then it lands with a stomp and a snort and offers a nice user feel and these "have to be held to be believed" lenses. I mean come on, after all the jerking around with adapting MF Zeiss and Leica R lenses to supplement the Canon optics ... to suddenly have AF Zeiss stuff with full auto functions and SS motors and in camera IS for every lens is a wet dream come true for a lot of folks ... heck, if this were out a lot sooner I would've moved straight from Contax to this system with no detours. :)

It's got hackles up all over the place ... which makes it almost worth owning for that alone :ROTFL:

Frankly, that's why I personally want to push this camera to see what it's really capable of ... which is admittedly harder to do because there is no evolutionary reference point like with Canon (or to a lesser degree Nikon.) Hopefully more and more folks will join in, and our user data base will start feeding in new discoveries and techniques.

I have a boat load of wedding shoots coming up, so I'll get to play under pressure even more. Nothing substitutes for real world shooting.

Imagine more Zeiss lenses (Fast Primes & Macro please) and the 2010 A950 ... 14 bit, cleaner high ISO files, dual capture memory card slots ... not far fetched at all really. Wahoo! :thumbs:
 

LJL

New member
Here's a question for those not liking the Nikon colors.....do any of you ever shoot with a custom WB? I have started being a lot more diligent in trying to do that for all my closer in shooting with my Canons, and I will say that it makes a world of difference. Yes, you can do an adjustment to the RAW files in processing, but I have been seeing much nicer overall results by doing a custom WB before shooting the next series, where the light may change a bit. There is a lot going on in the tint that none of the camera settings ever seem to get right. So, if you are not doing a custom WB, at least toss in a proper gray card with each set of shots and balance from that. Remember, the camera settings are "averages", and the AWB is going to vary all over the place in a shot as the focus point moves over different areas. None are reliable, and the results are that folks wind up spending a whole lot of frustrating time trying to get a good WB later, and most resort to just accepting whatever the camera offers up. The tint is critical.

I do agree that the curves from the various cameras are also different, but I would bet that if folks were seriously doing a custom WB for each section of shots in changing light, they would be much happier with what they were seeing from the start.

Sorry if that is a bit off topic, but folks talking about the various colors and looks from the various cameras may be missing a big neutralizer from the start, and not being able or willing to make the tiny tint adjustments later. Just a thought.

On topic, I do think the A900 with some of that Zeiss glass is delivering some absolutely great looking color right out of the box, and that is has "come out of nowhere" as Marc says, catching a lot of folks scratching their heads. Sony appears to be on the right track with this thing.

LJ
 

douglasf13

New member
Sony lenses are designed by CZ and Sony, and the CZ glass is assembled into the lens by Sony. Here are some cool videos of Sony lenses being made:

http://www.sony.jp/dslr/products/tech-lab/index.html#Content_Area

As for the color thing, Sony has decided on a film like color sensitivity, rather than the more common practice of matching spectral response to human eye curves. The color separation of the A900 is near-medium format, and is higher than D3/D3x (which are similar,) and much higher than 5Dii. The A900 has more green separation than the D3x, and more blue than the 5Dii, specifically. This comes at a cost of high ISO performance. To see a visually represented graph of what I'm talking about, go to page 15 of this link. The A900 is more similar to the graph on the right side.

http://www.sekonic.com/downloads/Sekonic_Brochure_2008.pdf

Ben, as far as panning is concerned, SSS automatically adjusts for panning in real time, but I haven't done much testing on the subject to see its effectiveness compared to lens IS.
 
D

ddk

Guest
Here's a question for those not liking the Nikon colors.....do any of you ever shoot with a custom WB? I have started being a lot more diligent in trying to do that for all my closer in shooting with my Canons, and I will say that it makes a world of difference. Yes, you can do an adjustment to the RAW files in processing, but I have been seeing much nicer overall results by doing a custom WB before shooting the next series, where the light may change a bit. There is a lot going on in the tint that none of the camera settings ever seem to get right. So, if you are not doing a custom WB, at least toss in a proper gray card with each set of shots and balance from that. Remember, the camera settings are "averages", and the AWB is going to vary all over the place in a shot as the focus point moves over different areas. None are reliable, and the results are that folks wind up spending a whole lot of frustrating time trying to get a good WB later, and most resort to just accepting whatever the camera offers up. The tint is critical.

I do agree that the curves from the various cameras are also different, but I would bet that if folks were seriously doing a custom WB for each section of shots in changing light, they would be much happier with what they were seeing from the start.

Sorry if that is a bit off topic, but folks talking about the various colors and looks from the various cameras may be missing a big neutralizer from the start, and not being able or willing to make the tiny tint adjustments later. Just a thought.

On topic, I do think the A900 with some of that Zeiss glass is delivering some absolutely great looking color right out of the box, and that is has "come out of nowhere" as Marc says, catching a lot of folks scratching their heads. Sony appears to be on the right track with this thing.

LJ
It has nothing to do with WB, it has to do with the tonality and range of Nikon files; yes you could apply all kinds of curves to it or use different raw processors but in the end the nature of the beast remains the same. Its really something very subjective, since many people seem to love them.
 

edwardkaraa

New member
Well from a color science standpoint, what I stated does - in theory - hold. It's perfectly possible to interpret the raw data from any sensor to get a linear response, and once you have a linearized sensor you can apply a set of curves to get exactly the same response from different cameras. Color primaries might differ due to different Bayer filters but that's about it. The rest is "just" interpretation of the raw data.
Lars, I believe your color science standpoint is absolutely correct, but you are also ignoring the equally scientific facts that the filter array density plays an improtant role in the color separation ability of a certain camera, and the noise reduction applied at the hardware level is irreversible and does have an effect of the signal.

It is no coincidence that the MFDB with the best color separation in the digital world, are quite noisy, even having noise at the base ISO.
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
Yes, Cosina does a really nice job of manufacturing those lenses, don't they? And they do an even better job of engraving the Carl Zeiss name on them, thus impressing believers in the notion of the Aryan Optical Master Race...

...come on, people, seriously -- I'm glad you like your A900s, but this thread is getting positively fulsome.
Not sure you are right about Cosina, but the manufacture of Zeiss lenses under license or as part of wider joint ventures is nothing new. The Contax brand of 35mm cameras was owned by Kyocera, who also owned the Yashica brand. Kyocera manufactured Carl Zeiss lenses for Contax under license from Zeiss, who supplied the T* coating and supervised elements of manufacture and quality control, as well as designing the lenses of course. This helped keep costs down while maintaining quality. The same applies now to the new Zeiss partnership with Sony. If Zeiss made the lenses in Germany, they would cost double the price. It follows that if you intended to imply some criticism of Zeiss because they don't make the lenses in-house in Germany, you are somewhat out of date.

Regarding the respsective merits of the D3x and A900, I prefer to avoid brand wars, as I am a fan of Nikon, but much of the dissatisfaction probably stems from the absurd pricing of the D3x. Considering Nikon broke Kodak's stranglehold on pro dslr's when they released the original and affordable D1, it is surprising they are not more realistic in their pricing of the D3x.

Now, back to using an A900 down here in "sunny" dorset (pretty grey actually). More on that next week :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

jonoslack

Active member
Here's a question for those not liking the Nikon colors.....do any of you ever shoot with a custom WB? I have started being a lot more diligent in trying to do that for all my closer in shooting with my Canons, and I will say that it makes a world of difference. Yes, you can do an adjustment to the RAW files in processing, but I have been seeing much nicer overall results by doing a custom WB before shooting the next series, where the light may change a bit. There is a lot going on in the tint that none of the camera settings ever seem to get right. So, if you are not doing a custom WB, at least toss in a proper gray card with each set of shots and balance from that. Remember, the camera settings are "averages", and the AWB is going to vary all over the place in a shot as the focus point moves over different areas. None are reliable, and the results are that folks wind up spending a whole lot of frustrating time trying to get a good WB later, and most resort to just accepting whatever the camera offers up. The tint is critical.

I do agree that the curves from the various cameras are also different, but I would bet that if folks were seriously doing a custom WB for each section of shots in changing light, they would be much happier with what they were seeing from the start.

Sorry if that is a bit off topic, but folks talking about the various colors and looks from the various cameras may be missing a big neutralizer from the start, and not being able or willing to make the tiny tint adjustments later. Just a thought.

On topic, I do think the A900 with some of that Zeiss glass is delivering some absolutely great looking color right out of the box, and that is has "come out of nowhere" as Marc says, catching a lot of folks scratching their heads. Sony appears to be on the right track with this thing.

LJ
HI LJ
As Edward says, WB is not the problem, anyone using AWB for outdoor work in daylight deserves a good slapping. I don't generally use a custom WB either, in evening light I want it to look like evening light, so there isn't a great deal of mileage in getting a custom WB . . . and even if you did, would you do it in shade or sunlight?

I spent many many many hours trying to get colour right with my Nikon cameras, and, as I said before, I could sometimes do it on a shot by shot basis, but not for a shoot in evening light.

The A900 is simply not an issue - I shoot using 'daylight', and the colours are simply 'good' (right is a different issue!). . . . Mind you, it's not alone in this, the Olympus E1 also simply produced what seemed to me to be 'good' colour.

I think Marc has it - this camera came out of the blue. It's not perfect by any means, but a lot of the practical boxes get ticked.
 
Top