Georg Baumann
Subscriber Member
Since how long do you work with it Quentin?
Any firmware bugs or generally negative points you came across for landscape work?
Any firmware bugs or generally negative points you came across for landscape work?
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!
jonoslack
Active member
Hi Georg
I'm sure that Quentin will answer for himself.
I had previously been using Nikons (D3/D700 and most predecessors) including Landscape work.
I could also afford a D3x if I wanted, but I find the mid range colour on the A900 especially in evening light, to be so much better than the Nikon that I never want to go back there again.
Added to which I find I'm getting a much higher proportion of sharp pictures, whether this is because of the IS on the sensor (I was mostly using the 24-70 on each camera), or because of mirror vibration in the D3 or what it was, it does seem to be borne out by current D3x users who seem to feel that you must use a tripod. Hand holding with the A900 is a snap.
Basically, if someone offered me a D3x and the equivalent nikkors to replace my A900 for landscape, I'd only accept so that I could sell it all, make some money and get another A900.
If the cameras cost the same, I'd still have the A900. Of course, we're talking landscape and general nature here, I'm not claiming that the A900 is a better camera in all conditions.
If you haven't tried one, you really should. (Even if it's to prove that we're all mad here
Georg Baumann
Subscriber Member
I think the D3x also lacks the dust shaker on the sensor, something I never understood for a camera in this price class.
As for landscapes, I assume you would not use the inmage stabelizer at all and rather switch it off, using tripod and mirror lockup to avoid blur in high frequency areas.
Having said that, for occaisonal handhelds, this is very "handy" of course.
So you are not missing the 14-24 Nikkor?
As for landscapes, I assume you would not use the inmage stabelizer at all and rather switch it off, using tripod and mirror lockup to avoid blur in high frequency areas.
Having said that, for occaisonal handhelds, this is very "handy" of course.
So you are not missing the 14-24 Nikkor?
Quentin_Bargate
Well-known member
Hi George,
I have used the A900 for some months. for landscape work it got a major outing a couple of weeks ago in Dorset and it performed well
The mirror is a big mutha, and mirror slap should be avoided for sharpest results. That means using MLU, which is one area the Mamiya ZD excelled in (great big MLU button that works in any mode). With the A900, its one of several drive alternatives which is fussier, but its not a huge problem.
Also if you use the 24-70mm Zeiss, beware all but the thinnest filters vignette in the extreme corners - even the Lee filter system, which suggests they should have used a bigger filter thread, say 82mm instead of 77mm.
Quentin
jonoslack
Active member
HI Georg
Well, most of my landscape is in good light, and mostly I handhold with IS on, and I'm not getting any blur in high frequency areas. Even at shutter speeds down to (and below) the old conventional wisdom (i.e. equal to the focal length).
Quentin is right about the mirror being loud, but I'm not convinced there is any shake involved until after the shutter has closed.
Quentin, does that include the LEE W/A 77mm adapter ring that reverses back on itself?
Hmm, I have one of those, and the LEE W/A Shade/Filter Holder so maybe I should give it a try when I get a minute.
-Marc
Same here. Was working with a D3 and D700 ... waiting for the D3X. When the D3X hit the street at $8K with the only improvement being the higher meg sensor and virtually little else, I thought it a bit much.Its probably the other way around
Maybe just as importantly, Nikon seems to avoid fast aperture, high spec Primes like the Plague ... finally replacing the toy like 50/1.4 with more capable AFS model, but no nano crystal coating ... and still no replacement for the aging non-AFS 85/1.4 or 135/2 ... two very important focal lengths for my work. The two best Nikon lenses I currently use are the 12-24 and incomparable 200/2VR ... but both are very specialized in terms of applications and as result see less use than the spread from 24mm to 135mm.
Frankly, were it not for those two lenses and maybe the not often used 100VR macro, and the fact that the D3 is so fast, and the D700 is such a good low light performer, there would be zero reason for me to have any Nikon gear.
As I am learning to work with the A900, I'm finding high ISOs are there to use for my applications, further endangering the Nikons. If Sony releases a full-frame, fatter pixel 12-16 meg camera that's better optimized for low light work, then the Nikon's will be history.
All that said, I'd like to try out the D3X for more than a few minutes at some dealer's counter, and explore the new set of T/S lenses for creative applications. It's just that the price is so staggering for what would again be specialized applications, I can't see it happening unless the nature of my work changes drastically.
-Marc
dhsimmonds
New member
I can confirm that care must be taken with filters when using the ZA24-70 with the A900. It is a just factor of the full frame sensor.:wtf:
However using a thin rimmed filter prevents vignetting so long as you don't attempt to stack the filters. When I first observed this problem it was after trying to use a polariser screwed into a UV filter which stays on the lens all the time! I could get away with this when I used a 1.37 crop sensor DSLR.
You can't get away with such a lazy approach with full frame sensors as the sensor is making full use of all the lens area. In itself this is a tribute to Zeiss, Sony G lenses and many of the older Minolta lens designs that perform brilliantly with the A900.
So yes, the answer then is to use step down rings and larger diameter filters if you need to stack filters. I could never get on with Lee or Cokin filter systems, preferring to stack B & W screw in neutral grad., polariser filters etc.
However using a thin rimmed filter prevents vignetting so long as you don't attempt to stack the filters. When I first observed this problem it was after trying to use a polariser screwed into a UV filter which stays on the lens all the time! I could get away with this when I used a 1.37 crop sensor DSLR.
You can't get away with such a lazy approach with full frame sensors as the sensor is making full use of all the lens area. In itself this is a tribute to Zeiss, Sony G lenses and many of the older Minolta lens designs that perform brilliantly with the A900.
So yes, the answer then is to use step down rings and larger diameter filters if you need to stack filters. I could never get on with Lee or Cokin filter systems, preferring to stack B & W screw in neutral grad., polariser filters etc.
Lars
Active member
In all honesty, the 50/1.4 would benefit the least from better coating, as it has so few elements. I can't understand why people complain about this - it's the complex zooms and wideangles that really need the super coating.
Maybe least benefited Lars ... but are you saying there would be "no" benefit? Get up into 24+ meg full frame, and lenses are going to need all the help they can get.
Based on that reasoning, I guess Zeiss should skip their T* coating on the "simple" primes.
I think Nikon did it because it would keep the lens more in line with Canon's non-L 50/1.4 in terms of cost. IMO, it's just an example of NOT providing top level primes, while offering 10,000 versions of consumer zooms from 18 to 2000mm at f/3.5-5.6.
And, IMO, it is why prime shooters are jacking around with Leica R primes to bolt them on a Nikon ... or buying manual focus Zeiss ZFs. Just like Canon users do with wide angles ... trying to make up for defencies in the manufacturer's lens line up.
Canon L kills Nikon for Primes from 35mm on up ... except for maybe the 100 VR Macro (but only because of the VR). Canon 35/1.4L, 50/1.2L, 85/1.2-IIL, 135/2L ... all top performing workhorse focal lengths with no real counterpart from Nikon, not one.
Lars
Active member
Of course it matters but the benefit is more marginal than for a complex lens design or for a wideangle lens. Nanocrystal coating reduces reflection and improves transmisson. It doesn't improve resolution. So it doesn't matter if you shoot one or 24 megapixels, the relevance of good coating is the same. What matters is the number of surfaces in the lens.
We could speculate on why Nikon does not use NC on all its lenses - perhaps it's an expensive process, perhaps the coating is too fragile for consumer lenses (the original nano particle coating used in steppers was), perhaps they just want to maintain the exclusivity of the brand name.
Quentin_Bargate
Well-known member
Marc,
Let me know how you get on with the Lee WA adaptor rign. I was using the standard 77mm ring which has proved fine in the past. But it vignettes slightly even with a screw in polariser
As for primes, most of the money is at the bottom end, lenses and cameras. Few buy the "exotic" primes so the development budget probably just isn't there.
And much as I hate to contradict Jono, using a tripod does make a difference to sharpness.
Let me know how you get on with the Lee WA adaptor rign. I was using the standard 77mm ring which has proved fine in the past. But it vignettes slightly even with a screw in polariser
As for primes, most of the money is at the bottom end, lenses and cameras. Few buy the "exotic" primes so the development budget probably just isn't there.
And much as I hate to contradict Jono, using a tripod does make a difference to sharpness.
"Marginal" means a lot ... we all pay dearly for "Marginal" gains with digital.
I guess I was mistaken ... I thought the coatings also helped increase contrast ... which is helpful with higher meg cameras because users of such gear are more inclined to be seeking every advantage to exploit.
No matter, they don't have it ... and apparently it's okay with some people that they don't.
I'm moving to Sony anyway. High meg, less money, much better work horse lenses. Glass is where it's at as far as I'm concerned ... and Nikon is asleep at the wheel in that regard IMHO.
I guess I was mistaken ... I thought the coatings also helped increase contrast ... which is helpful with higher meg cameras because users of such gear are more inclined to be seeking every advantage to exploit.
No matter, they don't have it ... and apparently it's okay with some people that they don't.
I'm moving to Sony anyway. High meg, less money, much better work horse lenses. Glass is where it's at as far as I'm concerned ... and Nikon is asleep at the wheel in that regard IMHO.
Lars
Active member
Not arguing your point re Nikon's market positioning, Marc - Nikon really needs to broaden its line with pro primes.
Of course we all want the best possible image quality. I'm just saying coating isn't why lenses are sharp. I use a 1970's Fujinon single-coated lens on 8x10 which is a hell of a lot more demanding WRT lenses than any SLR - that Fujinon resolves fairly close to 2000 dpi (which on 8x10 equals 320 megapixels). I'm really careful about always using a compendium hood though, as any stray light will bounce around between the lens surfaces a bit. Also, 24 megapixels isn't much of a challenge for the sharpest 35mm primes, like Zeiss' best performers.
jonoslack
Active member
Contradict away - although actually that wasn't quite what I said! Anyway, it doesn't make any difference around here, where there is no landscape - only plants, and it's always blowing at 100miles an hour! My point really was that one can get good sharp results with the A900 without using a tripod.
I once saw a guy in the botanical garden in Cambridge, with a tripod and a stepladder so he could look down into his hassy. He was taking a picture of a plant in a pot, the plant was waving gently around in the wind.
Of course tripods make things sharper, but there are points where they are useful, and points where they aren't (same kind of points as IS I guess).
I'm only fighting against the generally held opinion that you can't take landscape pictures without a tripod. Someone once told me that it wasn't worth bothering with a shutter speed less than 1/500th, even with a WA lens.
I've got loads of extremely sharp pictures which were taken hand held . . . could they have been sharper? possibly, but they probably couldn't have been taken at all.
Of course, for long exposures etc.
Totally agree about those lenses ... and the new FF cameras are great. Just a few stinking work horse primes ... pretty please!
jonoslack
Active member
Bizarre isn't it, there seems to be three of everything. But not a decent quality f4 zoom in sight (or the primes we would all like)
douglasf13
New member
You'll probably want to hang on to your Nikon gear for a while, because Sony won't quite get there in the high ISO department...at least not for a while. Sony's high ISO performance isn't a matter of pixel size, but rather sensor design and color separation. The EXMOR processor is tailored for low read noise at low ISO, but, as we've all seen, gaining the ADCs up isn't the sensor's strong suit.** Nikon D3x has circumvented this a bit with its special 14-bit processing that appears to be taking multiple samples, and Nikon has a better starting point, because of their weaker color separation. However, the D3x still can't hang with the D3 (or 5dii, for that matter,) because the D3's sensor design is drastically different, and, while having higher read noise at low ISO, it has much lower read noise at the higher ISOs. Until Sony brings a different sensor design, a 16MP EXMOR won't really have any less noise than the A900, assuming you're viewing their files at the same size in print or on screen. Even if Sony does address this, they'll still be a bit behind Canon and Nikon, unless they begin putting weaker CFAs in their cameras, which IMO, would be too bad, because that's been a desirable thing about the line since the A100. People are just starting to notice Sony's color now, because the A900 has gotten their cameras in better photographer's hands.
D3/D700 plus A900 sounds like a pretty sweet setup to me, Marc :clap:
**in some raw converters, never going past ISO 400, and boosting exposure in the converter can yield better results.