Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

[Terry]

While all three are produce great images, for me (and I would guess many other women), the 1D's and D3's are just too big to comfortably handle or tote around.


terry

 

[ptomsu]

Yes, As I mentioned before, the D3x is a much more rugged camera and has additional features. Thus as a mechanical beast I would definitely class it better than the A900. However, the A900 build is very very good and offers weather sealing at a fraction the cost of a d3x. We have all been there and seen this argument so I wont revive it.

As far nikon pitiful lenses go the 14-24 and 24-70 are indeed good lenses and i have owned both. In fact, I have owned evey single Zeiss ZF lens made and used them on my d3, d3x, d700 and F6 because all the other primes by Nikon were just rubbish. even the highly regarded 84 1.4 was worthless when compared to the zeiss 85 or anyother 85 in its class. I tried 3 nikon 85's and never achieved good color or contrast and for the most part fairly soft. Some will argue that the lens is tac sharp but the 3 I had never performed. In fact when people would post their nikon 85 images that looked sharp the minute you saw a decent crop of an area you would see how soft it was. So, all said, I gave up all my Zeiss ZF glass cause I wanted AF and managed to get some pretty nice Sony mount Zeiss. Oh, yes I had the 200 f2 and loved it but it did not come close to the Canon 200 f2. The images out of the Nikon look great but when you put them side by side with the Canon version you can see the lens is not as good as the Canon.

I hope I have not ruffled too many feathers here but so far the Sony meets my needs and at a very attractive price.

The one exception is my Leica M glass just blows anything out of the water. But we all knew that already.

Yes. Thank you Nikon Canon and Sony. You all make wonderful cameras and each one has its unique advantage over the other.

Could not agree more!

I always viewed the Nikon as a kind of least problem camera replacement for a not available Leica R DSLR. And always in most cases superior to Canon. Having said that it is only true for their top Pro DSLRs. And these are heavy and come with a set of features which might be needed to sell such a camera in the Pro area, but definitely not in normal day to day shooting of a semi pro or demanding amateur as I would consider myself. In this regards the Leica R system fitted much better my needs, but as we all know without AF and without any decent DSLR solution - and now it is DEAD.

The second system which came close to Leica and even was superior in many areas was Contax. Owned that as well, burned lot of money with it and can still remember the beautiful IQ results from the Zeiss lenses, although all analog.

NOW we have the Sony Alpha and they have these wonderful Zeiss glass again! What can I say, I am almost in photographic heaven and very happy I did the move towards Sony.

Is the A900 better than the D3X? This cannot be answered as such, because there are different philosophies for both. For my needs the A900 and all the Zeiss glass is better than a D3X with all Nikon glass and Zeiss glass for Nikon is a NO GO for me as I find it kind of sick - sorry to say that - to put MF lenses on an AF body. But there are folks around who love that but obviously I am not in this group

One example why I love my A900 so much in addition to the perfect IQ: the AF system - a real relief from what the Nikons and Canons top models come up with today. 9 AF pints, easy and accurate to operate and not these 50 or so AF point fields where you never know what that bloody camera is doing or how it was programmed by a crowd of freaks to do some things automatically in a way which suits maybe 5% of all needs and neglects the rest. I spent far too much time fooling around with these advanced AF systems and finally finding I would get more accurate and faster results by using the central AF point. Maybe it's only me but this is what I feel - well I am coming from MF and used to be able to get things right and sharp even with non AF cameras as the R system and Contax RTS

 

[fotografz]

Yes. It's all about the Glass!

If it was just about the glass, then the Nikon with Leica R optics would be the answer. Unfortunately, there is more to it than that.

BTW, no ruffled feathers because it's just your subjective opinion, not some imperial fact. It is clear then that we simply disagree, especially concerning the C/N 200mm lenses ... both of which I have used on FF, high meg bodies and have compared files ... the Canon lacks the snap of the Nikon and produced that typical Canon pastel feel ... which I subjectively do not favor. And there is no Sony 200/2.

I also have used all the Nikon cameras you mention and most all of the ZFs. My migration to Nikon & ZFs was from Canon IDsMKIII with Contax optics like the 50/1.2, 85/1.2 and 21mm ... and Leica R APO optics ... all of which kill the ZAs but required slow stop down metering and shooting ... but in the end, even the slowness of Manual Focus for my work then led me to sell the ZFs and move to the Sony and AF ZA optics. There ARE practical considerations beside just the glass.

Personally, I maintain only gear that consistently delivers the goods in the broad range of environments and conditions I shoot in to make a living ... which the Sony does okay in but is limited when compared to the Nikons. Chief among these is speed ... AF speed, shooting speed, ISO speed. There is no high ISO Sony to match the D3, and my previous Canon 1DMKIII was no match for the D3 either. When the price finally dropped on the D3X, it was a natural addition so I can record to two CFs at once, and have that critical operational speed.

BTW, my Nikon 85/1.4 is razor sharp because I bothered to have Nikon service focus calibrated the body and then zeroed in the lens using Live View @ 10X (not available on the Sony).

I like the Sony, 2 bodies, battery grip, and all the ZAs + 3 other Alpha mount lenses sort of proves that. I'm a Zeiss/Contax guy from way back. Nice price point also. But it's no Nikon D3/D3X in terms of versatility, use of flash, operational speed, security of image capture, proven ruggedness in adverse conditions (jury is still out on the Sony).

Some people shoot in better conditions than I typically am forced to shoot in. Gun to head, and forced to choose between the two with my job on the line it would be the Nikon every single time. Pixel peeping isn't the criteria, getting the shots is.

One thing we do agree on is the Leica M optics ... which will be more evident when they get a camera the equal to the lenses ... or someone else does

 

[ptomsu]

If it was just about the glass, then the Nikon with Leica R optics would be the answer. Unfortunately, there is more to it than that.

BTW, no ruffled feathers because it's just your subjective opinion, not some imperial fact. It is clear then that we simply disagree, especially concerning the C/N 200mm lenses ... both of which I have used on FF, high meg bodies and have compared files ... the Canon lacks the snap of the Nikon and produced that typical Canon pastel feel ... which I subjectively do not favor. And there is no Sony 200/2.

I also have used all the Nikon cameras you mention and most all of the ZFs. My migration to Nikon & ZFs was from Canon IDsMKIII with Contax optics like the 50/1.2, 85/1.2 and 21mm ... and Leica R APO optics ... all of which kill the ZAs but required slow stop down metering and shooting ... but in the end, even the slowness of Manual Focus for my work then led me to sell the ZFs and move to the Sony and AF ZA optics. There ARE practical considerations beside just the glass.

Personally, I maintain only gear that consistently delivers the goods in the broad range of environments and conditions I shoot in to make a living ... which the Sony does okay in but is limited when compared to the Nikons. Chief among these is speed ... AF speed, shooting speed, ISO speed. There is no high ISO Sony to match the D3, and my previous Canon 1DMKIII was no match for the D3 either. When the price finally dropped on the D3X, it was a natural addition so I can record to two CFs at once, and have that critical operational speed.

BTW, my Nikon 85/1.4 is razor sharp because I bothered to have Nikon service focus calibrated the body and then zeroed in the lens using Live View @ 10X (not available on the Sony).

I like the Sony, 2 bodies, battery grip, and all the ZAs + 3 other Alpha mount lenses sort of proves that. I'm a Zeiss/Contax guy from way back. Nice price point also. But it's no Nikon D3/D3X in terms of versatility, use of flash, operational speed, security of image capture, proven ruggedness in adverse conditions (jury is still out on the Sony).

Some people shoot in better conditions than I typically am forced to shoot in. Gun to head, and forced to choose between the two with my job on the line it would be the Nikon every single time. Pixel peeping isn't the criteria, getting the shots is.

One thing we do agree on is the Leica M optics ... which will be more evident when they get a camera the equal to the lenses ... or someone else does

Well -now I NEED to answer!

Reading your posts one comes to the conclusion that nobody could do serious business before a Nikon D3 or D3X - at least this is the outcome for me!

I cannot believe that you mean this seriously! Actually I find the magnitude of possibilities and functions, which you call versatility, rather disturbing than helping! Sorry to say, but this cannot be true. A good photographer will always be able to do some work around if a camera system does not support certain features and I dare to say, if you really know and control your equipment (which I no second doubt in any direction), you can achieve at least the same results or even better ones if you are not limited b all this wonderful functionality.

I do fully agree, that sometimes it is convenient to have certain flexibility available, but also some 40 years ago one could get outstanding results without any AF and any fancy flash control etc etc etc .... I also agree that in daily business it might be good to have all this available, although I rather believe that less is more!

This is why I like the A900 as it is today, just the right amount of control and flexibility and not too much. And I seriously hope that future generations of Alpha cameras will not go down the Nikon and Canon path and try to automate everything

I also have to make a remark WRT Zeiss versus Leica glass: I have both I used both and I have done enough tests to know that certain (actually in my opinion many) Zeiss lenses draw better than their Leica counterparts. And not to speak about color, which is in my eyes in any case superior.

Give you one example: 10 years ago I owned the Leica 2/180 APO - a wonderful lens. And I compared it extensively to the Zeiss 2/200 which turned out to be superior - I mean clearly superior in all disciplines.

I could continue with such examples, not willing to bore people her.

Just my view on this part of the world

 

[jonoslack]

From everything I've heard... the R system is now dead and the s2 (and subsequent models) are going to be THE dslr for leica. I thought leica actually publicly announced that no further r-system cameras would be developed.

Anyone heard differently?

Hi Shelby
I heard quite differently (but I may be out of date). Leica did stop making R lenses and announced it recently. However, their other announcements slated the S2 for this summer and the R10 for next (using the basic tech of the S2) - with AF lenses, hence the stop in manufacture of the old lenses.

 

[ptomsu]

Hi Shelby
I heard quite differently (but I may be out of date). Leica did stop making R lenses and announced it recently. However, their other announcements slated the S2 for this summer and the R10 for next (using the basic tech of the S2) - with AF lenses, hence the stop in manufacture of the old lenses.

This is what they kind of communicated. Not sure if still true, but in my opinion this is suicide, they have to handle then 3 systems and are not even able to manage one system timely in my opinion. Having to develop another range of lenses, especially 35mm, is not easy, as competition is pretty tough there and they need to come up with a good lineup in order to be able to sell R10s.

I am puzzled for the moment

 

[jonoslack]

This is what they kind of communicated. Not sure if still true, but in my opinion this is suicide, they have to handle then 3 systems and are not even able to manage one system timely in my opinion. Having to develop another range of lenses, especially 35mm, is not easy, as competition is pretty tough there and they need to come up with a good lineup in order to be able to sell R10s.

I am puzzled for the moment

Nothing wrong with coming up with autofocus versions of the old lenses I'd have thought (not too many complaints about them).

Don't write them off yet!

 

[ryc]

Well, without taking this further all I can say is I am not a professional photographer who relies on his gear for a living so I cannot argue what works best for one photographer or the other. However, I can say what works best for me at this time is the Sony. That is not to demean any other system. It's just what I like for myself. Lets all enjoy what we have and get some good pictures. Preferably of nice curves on the beach No offense to the women here.

 

[jonoslack]

Well, without taking this further all I can say is I am not a professional photographer who relies on his gear for a living so I cannot argue what works best for one photographer or the other. However, I can say what works best for me at this time is the Sony. That is not to demean any other system. It's just what I like for myself. Lets all enjoy what we have and get some good pictures. Preferably of nice curves on the beach No offense to the women here.

Hi there
I'm in exactly the same position as you. I prefer the files from the A900, and I like the handling and ergonomics better as well, AND I like the lenses better too. It's a bit of a no-brainer really. If someone offered to give me a brand new D3x with the nikon equivalent lenses in exchange for my A900, then I wouldn't be able to say NO fast enough!

However, I have done enough weddings to know that 'getting the shot' is the most important thing there, and if I were in Marc's position I'd be using those Nikons to get the shot.

 

[fotografz]

Well -now I NEED to answer!

Reading your posts one comes to the conclusion that nobody could do serious business before a Nikon D3 or D3X - at least this is the outcome for me!

I cannot believe that you mean this seriously! Actually I find the magnitude of possibilities and functions, which you call versatility, rather disturbing than helping! Sorry to say, but this cannot be true. A good photographer will always be able to do some work around if a camera system does not support certain features and I dare to say, if you really know and control your equipment (which I no second doubt in any direction), you can achieve at least the same results or even better ones if you are not limited b all this wonderful functionality.

I do fully agree, that sometimes it is convenient to have certain flexibility available, but also some 40 years ago one could get outstanding results without any AF and any fancy flash control etc etc etc .... I also agree that in daily business it might be good to have all this available, although I rather believe that less is more!

This is why I like the A900 as it is today, just the right amount of control and flexibility and not too much. And I seriously hope that future generations of Alpha cameras will not go down the Nikon and Canon path and try to automate everything

I also have to make a remark WRT Zeiss versus Leica glass: I have both I used both and I have done enough tests to know that certain (actually in my opinion many) Zeiss lenses draw better than their Leica counterparts. And not to speak about color, which is in my eyes in any case superior.

Give you one example: 10 years ago I owned the Leica 2/180 APO - a wonderful lens. And I compared it extensively to the Zeiss 2/200 which turned out to be superior - I mean clearly superior in all disciplines.

I could continue with such examples, not willing to bore people her.

Just my view on this part of the world

Sure people did "serious business" before the latest crop of cameras. I did quite nicely with a Contax RX, Leica M4 and a Hasselblad 500 series camera.

That was when weddings were shot pretty much static with a few journalistic snaps thrown in. Mostly using film with excellent labs backing you.

That was then, this is now. I'm not shooting flowers in my backyard, nor mountains that just stand there. I'm shooting black cats in a coal mine at midnight ... and the cat isn't just standing there :ROTFL:

Frankly, my clients are oblivious to all the elitist ramblings about pixel peeping nano differences from one optic to another. Sure, it has to deliver in the upper strata, and anyone making their living from photography wants to give themselves any edge they can.

In my case its GET THE SHOT ... no focus hunting in cave like venues, no card failure that eats 4 gigs of once in a lifetime memories, no missed opportunities for available light creative options @ ISO 2000+ ... it's a brave new world, and the competition is absolutely ferocious. Publish or perish.

If you felt compelled to make the Nikon complex that is your approach. For me it is no more complex than the A900 ... when I want it to be that way. Sometimes I want more, and it's there.

So, it comes down to different criteria and priorities.

Fortunately, I am in a position to select and use either or both. It's just business. For pleasure I use the M and 203FE, and for commercial work a MFD system. If not for wedding work, I wouldn't even own a 35mm DSLR ... Canon, Nikon ... or Sony. Those pieces of gear earn their keep, or they are out of here. If, and when, the Leica R10 stands and delivers on all fronts based on my criteria, the Nikon and Sony will go bye-bye in a New York heart beat.

 

[Shelby Lewis]

If it was just about the glass, then the Nikon with Leica R optics would be the answer. Unfortunately, there is more to it than that.

Some people shoot in better conditions than I typically am forced to shoot in. Gun to head, and forced to choose between the two with my job on the line it would be the Nikon every single time. Pixel peeping isn't the criteria, getting the shots is.

I have to agree with Marc on this one. The a900 is a camera whose output, under ideal conditions, is unrivaled IMO... especially with regards to bang-for-buck.

But to be honest, it really falls on it's face in any circumstance that involves either action, low "ugly" light, or a combination of these. It also has a flash system that, although really consistently good as far as exposure, can't be "hammered" without going to pieces. I shoot with a lot of bounced flash in intensive lowlight situations and the 58 has overheated on me several times... sometimes at inopportune moments.

And don't get me started on the af-servo performance. Essentially, you can't expect the a900 to track objects moving either toward or away from you with any consistency... which takes me back to my canon days, ie shooting double or triple frames to ensure one is good as opposed to just trusting the camera to perform in the critical moment.

All that aside... I'm not primarily a wedding photographer... and outside that venue it is the perfect camera for me. For portraits and commercial work, the combination of color response, zeiss glass, and resolution are absolutely delightful.

... but in the face of the competition with regards to utility, it's not the greatest cam out there by a long shot.

Still... it's the only system I currently own, lol.

 

[douglasf13]

Agreed, Jono. I wouldn't trade my A900 setup for any other 35mm setup, but, for Marc, it makes sense to add the D3x. Not only does it have better AF and dual card functionality, but its RAWs are handled better by Lightroom as well, and I believe that Marc uses that program. If anything, I'm envious that he gets to use all of this sweet gear

 

[fotografz]

Hi there
I'm in exactly the same position as you. I prefer the files from the A900, and I like the handling and ergonomics better as well, AND I like the lenses better too. It's a bit of a no-brainer really. If someone offered to give me a brand new D3x with the nikon equivalent lenses in exchange for my A900, then I wouldn't be able to say NO fast enough!

However, I have done enough weddings to know that 'getting the shot' is the most important thing there, and if I were in Marc's position I'd be using those Nikons to get the shot.

That's exactly the point.

Here's one from last weekend. The church was an absolute cave, lit by a few candles along the aisle. I cannot miss a single shot of the procession ... and more importantly, it has to be defining shots not just a snap shot that any guest could get with their P&S or digital Rebel. I can't blow out the wedding dress, or in this case satin dress of the flower girl or the white satin pillows of the ring bearers.
It's shots like this that sell ... maybe not up to the elitist POV, but most certainly endearing to the clients who could give a crap what I used to get it as long as I got it. BTW, I tried using the A900 to shoot the bouquet toss and missed it while the AF was hunting in the dark. A guest got it with her $800. Nikon. Last time I try that, trust me.

 

[ryc]

No arguing the AF capabilities of the Nikon. It is the best on the market. For the most part my subjects are pretty easy to follow and focus on and the mountains in my landscapes move very slowly, I think they know I am trying to photograph them Anyway lets see what tomorrow brings. But for now it's the A900 for me.

 

[etrigan63]

Sadly, the A900 lacks the lowlight capabilities I need for my photo work (stagecraft/dance), the rumored A800 may be more useful to me, but I am awaiting the D3 refresh as well.

 

[douglasf13]

Aye, the D3 sounds like the ultimate camera for your uses, Carlos. I wouldn't imagine there being a replacement for at least another year for that fine camera. FWIW, I wouldn't hold out for an A800. IMO, I don't think Sony is planning a lowlight, high fps shooter yet. If they are, then it will require them to both change their CMOS ADC design and change the way they deal with color in order to compete in lowlight to the D3. I hope that I'm wrong

 

[ptomsu]

Aye, the D3 sounds like the ultimate camera for your uses, Carlos. I wouldn't imagine there being a replacement for at least another year for that fine camera. FWIW, I wouldn't hold out for an A800. IMO, I don't think Sony is planning a lowlight, high fps shooter yet. If they are, then it will require them to both change their CMOS ADC design and change the way they deal with color in order to compete in lowlight to the D3. I hope that I'm wrong

Why should this be so difficult for Sony? If any company pout there can do that it is Sony. Do not forget it is their sensor and Nikon is just using and fine tuning the Sony sensor in the D3.

So why should Sony not be able to do this better with their own product?

 

[ptomsu]

No arguing the AF capabilities of the Nikon. It is the best on the market. For the most part my subjects are pretty easy to follow and focus on and the mountains in my landscapes move very slowly, I think they know I am trying to photograph them Anyway lets see what tomorrow brings. But for now it's the A900 for me.

While I agree that the D3 / D3X AF is better than the A900 AF, I only can say I simply could bring the D3 AF to not perform correctly during good light studio portrait shots. It was simply not fast enough to follow the model's eyes and keep them sharp when I told her to move and turn around just in order to get away from these static and boring portraits.

I could get the shots doe by using MF, with some experience in focusing of course.

So this is what I mean by "over designed" AF solutions, they will for sure deliver in some certain areas where they were designed for but never can deliver everywhere - nobody could prove that so far to me - not with Canon and not with Nikon

 

[douglasf13]

D3 is not a Sony sensor. It is believed to be made by Renesas. D3x sensor is made by Sony. The D3 sensor, like Canon sensors, is optimized for low read noise at ISO 1600+. This comes at a cost to low ISO, although most reviews fail to show the low ISO differences, and choose to focus on high ISO. Sony's "EXMOR" sensor design, with it's numerous, column ADCs provides very low read noise at low ISO, but does not perform as well when gained up. It's two different sensor design philosophies, and Nikon was wise to incorporate both into two cameras with different focuses (no pun intended. )

Until Sony makes a non "EXMOR" CMOS sensor that uses more traditional, off-chip ADCs, or drastically improves the quality of the very numerous ADCs on the EXMOR chip (or brings some new tech,) then a 14MP "A800" wouldn't have better noise characteristics than the A900 sized to match the A800 file. The other issue is color filtration, since Sony is using a more "MFDB-like" CFA when compared to Nikon and Canon's current cameras. While advantageous at low ISO, this requires more amplification for higher ISO, and that's why Sony's cameras across the whole line tend to be a touch noisier than the competition. Trade offs.

All of this being said, I'm hoping that I'm wrong, and Sony makes a high ISO oriented camera with great AF, so great shooters like Marc have more options. I just haven't seen any evidence that it is happening soon. We'll see. :thumbup:

 

[ryc]

What I would like to see next from Sony is some more Zeiss primes like a 25, 35 and a 50

What are the chances of that happening?