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

D

ddk

Guest
From what I'm seeing and hearing it looks like Sony has a real winner in the A900, every owner seems to be genuinely satisfied with the camera and the system lenses. On the other hand it seems like the D3x owners are finding it difficult to wrangle the goods from the camera. There are many reports regarding the quality of Nikkors not being up to scratch for the sensor or that they find hand holding the camera results in blurred images. Looks like Sony made all the right choices with internal IS and Zeiss glass. The difference is most evident in the picture threads, A900 shooters are thriving with regular great new image posts while the D3x is dwindling. The pickings are slim even on dpreview and their huge user base.

Way to go Sony, now please add some primes at the wide end so I can join the party too.

PS. Forgot to mention how right was Sony's pricing policy.
 
S

Shelby Lewis

Guest
You know... I can't speak from vast experience with nikon (even though I have owned several of their dslrs), but I still have trouble finding nikon samples of portraits/fashion/people in which I like the color. I've said it before... you can definitely profile the camera for a different look, but I find the color (right out of the box) of the a900 to be spectacular and the general look of the d3x to be flat and off-color a tad.

Now... I've seen some architectural work with the d3x and those great wide zooms and t/s lenses that really looks great, but people shots just lack something. Anywho, I find nikon to be a respectable company and if the d3x turns out to be problem-prone, I'd bet they'll figure it out and fix it.

Otherwise... welcome to high res!

More detail potential=more potential for flawed technique to be exposed.:D Same thing has been happening with the p65+ backs.
 
D

ddk

Guest
You know... I can't speak from vast experience with nikon (even though I have owned several of their dslrs), but I still have trouble finding nikon samples of portraits/fashion/people in which I like the color. I've said it before... you can definitely profile the camera for a different look, but I find the color (right out of the box) of the a900 to be spectacular and the general look of the d3x to be flat and off-color a tad.

Now... I've seen some architectural work with the d3x and those great wide zooms and t/s lenses that really looks great, but people shots just lack something. Anywho, I find nikon to be a respectable company and if the d3x turns out to be problem-prone, I'd bet they'll figure it out and fix it.

Otherwise... welcome to high res!

More detail potential=more potential for flawed technique to be exposed.:D Same thing has been happening with the p65+ backs.
Well, Shelby, I happen to agree with you regarding Nikon colors in the past, my first was a D70 that I returned the day after I bought it upon seeing its files, then wasted a month with a D2x and again gave it a go with the D300 and D3 cameras, none of which I ended up keeping. I haven't tried a D3x so I can't comment on its qualities but is seem like to get goods one has to work at it, which defeats the purpose of buying a dslr in the first place, might as well deal with MF.
 
R

Ranger 9

Guest
From what I'm seeing and hearing it looks like Sony has a real winner in the A900, every owner seems to be genuinely satisfied with the camera and the system lenses. On the other hand it seems like the D3x owners are finding it difficult to wrangle the goods from the camera.
Okay, don't tell me, let me guess... which of these two cameras do YOU own?

Yeah, I know. I must be psychic or something.

A few potential alternative explanations for these observations:

-- Happy Sony users' "seeing and hearing" are selective; they tend to hear comments that agree with them and not so much the ones that don't.

-- There are far more comments from Sony users than Nikon users because the A900 is more affordable, diffusing negative comments into a larger statistical pool; for example, one negative comment about Sony might be offset by 20 positive comments, whereas one negative comment about the Nikon might be 25% or 50% of the total comments about that camera.

-- Nikon's geezlouiseIcantbelievehowexpensivethisthingis pricing on the D3x means that the relatively few people who have bought them have very demanding expectations of what they should be getting for all that money. Sony users, on the other hand, are pleasantly surprised by how little they paid and are willing to overlook, um, high-ISO noise, for example.

-- Happy D3x users are out making money with their cameras rather than posting on photography forums.

Note that I'm not bashing the A900 or defending the Nikon (I don't own either one and am not in the market for either one.) You'll see this kind of effect ANY time you compare comments about a relatively widely-used camera vs. a relatively little-used camera.
 
S

Shelby Lewis

Guest
-- Happy D3x users are out making money with their cameras rather than posting on photography forums.
You had to go and say something snarky like that... conjecture... just like everything else we've all said. :)

C'mon, let us bask in the goodness that is the a900. Not all of us need d3-level high iso, but how about good skin tones and color?

Ok... gotta go to bed. There's money to be made tomorrow morning on my a900.
 

edwardkaraa

New member
Honestly, I'm usually against this kind of threads. I do care to know what other brands are doing and what models are successful but I wouldn't start a thread about it on a Sony forum. For me money is no issue, I could have easily bought a D3X but then I could have stayed with the Canon 1Ds series. The reason I moved to Sony is the availability and potential introductions of more Zeiss AF glass, that neither Canon nor Nikon offer. The A900 having IMO the best low-ISO performance is a plus but not the determining factor as this will change constantly with camera bodies being upgraded at a fast pace.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Okay, don't tell me, let me guess... which of these two cameras do YOU own?

Yeah, I know. I must be psychic or something.
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?

A few potential alternative explanations for these observations:

-- Happy Sony users' "seeing and hearing" are selective; they tend to hear comments that agree with them and not so much the ones that don't.

Sony users, on the other hand, are pleasantly surprised by how little they paid and are willing to overlook, um, high-ISO noise, for example.


Note that I'm not bashing the A900 or defending the Nikon (I don't own either one and am not in the market for either one.) You'll see this kind of effect ANY time you compare comments about a relatively widely-used camera vs. a relatively little-used camera.
Well, In general terms I agree with you, but most of the people around here could have had either, and were absolutely aware of the high ISO noise before they bought in.

Like others here I've had a LOT of experience with Nikon, and the Sony files are refreshing in contrast (with respect to colour and general zing).

Maybe congratulatory threads on a Sony forum aren't much of a surprise, but it's a satisfactory camera - with very few gripes and irritations, which, for this hardened gearhead is an unusual and refreshing experience.
 

Lars

Active member
Actually I'm more excited about what comes after this first generation of 20+ MP cameras (not sure if Canons should still be called first-gen) - cameras as well as lenses.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I think "satisfaction" is relative.

I tend to stay pretty even keeled about all this gear mania because I have so many different systems right now, and used most others at one time or another ... making me a bit of a "maniac".:ROTFL:

Right now, I'm relatively "satisfied" with the A900 and some of the lenses. I doubt that would be AS true if the camera cost $8,000. rather than $3,000. Relatively speaking, the lenses are worth it since they aren't had at any significant premium over the Nikon counterparts. Specifically, were it not for IS and the Zeiss 85/1.4 and especially the 135/1.8, The lens gap wouldn't be justification enough to jump systems ... since the newer Nikon 14-24/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 that I have (along with very precisely calibrated D3/D700 bodies) are no slouches in IQ. And nothing I own in Sony yet matches my D700 with the AFS 200/2 VR. Plus, I have a slew of Zeiss ZF optics for the Nikons and a F6 which is the best 35mm film camera I've ever used. So for now, I'll maintain 2 systems and match them to the need at hand.

As far as low ISO specific work, that is a catagory I leave to MFD ... which I can only say outstrips the A900 by a good margin. The advantage of the Sony is the same advantage any DSLR has over MFD, but it'll never be an advantage in the low ISO area of IQ ... which is just the same physics as it was with film ... size matters.

All that said, I still contend that we haven't explored the depths of what this camera can do for us yet. As I have time, I'm trying all kinds of different processing programs and trying to figure out what it is that I think this camera can do better than it does now.

Give it 6 months and I'll bet a dollar to a donut the images from he A900 will get even better. Just my 2¢.
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
I was wondering last night whether the in body IS wouldn't just bring the handholdability down to the level of a camera like the 5D(original) or D700. I have little doubt that 25 megapixels needs at least a stop if not two more shutter speed to maximise it's potential. Is the fact that there is IS offset by the fact that it needs IS? (To the detriment of the other high megapixel offerings at least).
 

Lars

Active member
I was wondering last night whether the in body IS wouldn't just bring the handholdability down to the level of a camera like the 5D(original) or D700. I have little doubt that 25 megapixels needs at least a stop if not two more shutter speed to maximise it's potential. Is the fact that there is IS offset by the fact that it needs IS? (To the detriment of the other high megapixel offerings at least).
The math is pretty simple - assuming same ISO, acceptable shake radius is proportional to sensor pitch - going from 12 to 24 MP means 0.7x pitch so shutter speed needs to be half a stop shorter. So the difference isn't that huge.

Where D700 has a major advantage over the A900 is of course in ISO speed - 2 stops? - which adds to the half stop from larger pitch. IS likely compensates for some of that difference in speed. (Obviously ignoring the possibility of using IS/VR lenses on the D700.)

However: If I used an A900 I would try to maximize image quality which means staying at low ISO. This would make it seem less handholdable. With my D700 OTOH I'm happily firing away at ISO 6400 even though image quality is compromised a bit, as for me it opens up possibilities.

Also, the AA filter in the D700 softens slightly, which hides camera shake slightly. My guess is that the Sony is much more revealing in that sense.

Disclaimer: I have never used an A900 so I have no idea what I'm talking about. :D
 
Last edited:

fotografz

Well-known member
I was wondering last night whether the in body IS wouldn't just bring the handhold-ability down to the level of a camera like the 5D(original) or D700. I have little doubt that 25 megapixels needs at least a stop if not two more shutter speed to maximize its potential. Is the fact that there is IS offset by the fact that it needs IS? (To the detriment of the other high megapixel offerings at least).
Ben, good question and observation. But it's apples and oranges to compare a 24 meg sensor to a 12 meg one IMO. The comparison for IS advantages would be better between the new 5D-II or 1DsMKIII and this camera.

Since the main draw of this camera is use of IS with every lens, not just select ones, lenses like the Zeiss 16-36/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 85/1.4 and 135/1.8 have a distinct IS advantage at ISOs from 100 to at least 800 or 1250 ... which is the range I tend to work with-in for weddings regardless of camera or resolution. None of the Canon equivalent focal lengths offer IS.

Here is a recent available light example ... the groom shot hand-held with no flash @ ISO 800, using the Zeiss 24-70/2.8 @ 50mm f/2.8 ... shutter speed was 1/15th! The image IQ was such that I made a 17" X 22" print for the client AFTER cropping it some ... clear and sharp with no apparent motion blur even that big.
 

Lars

Active member
Here is a recent available light example ... the groom shot hand-held with no flash @ ISO 800, using the Zeiss 24-70/2.8 @ 50mm f/2.8 ... shutter speed was 1/15th! The image IQ was such that I made a 17" X 22" print for the client AFTER cropping it some ... clear and sharp with no apparent motion blur even that big.
It's always possible to shoot a sharp frame at any shutter speed - shoot enough frames and eventually you will get a sharp one. I recall reading about this Finnish wildlife photographer who used his 600/2.8 handheld back in the film days. Admittedly the guy was huge.

More interesting, at what speed do you get consistently sharp images that can be blown up to that size?

I'm not saying you were lucky - actually maybe I am, after all luck is the skill of taking advantage of statistical uncertainties. So the relevance of a single sharp image depends on how large selection it was picked from.
 

jonoslack

Active member
It's always possible to shoot a sharp frame at any shutter speed - shoot enough frames and eventually you will get a sharp one. I recall reading about this Finnish wildlife photographer who used his 600/2.8 handheld back in the film days. Admittedly the guy was huge.

More interesting, at what speed do you get consistently sharp images that can be blown up to that size?

I'm not saying you were lucky - actually maybe I am, after all luck is the skill of taking advantage of statistical uncertainties. So the relevance of a single sharp image depends on how large selection it was picked from.
HI Lars
I think that personal experience matters a bit here. What I can say unquestionably is that I have fewer instances of soft images with the A900 (now 6,000 or so shots in) than I ever had with any of my Nikon cameras in the past. I think that the IS is having an impact here, especially with lenses like the 135mm. I also think that the mirror action may have some effect. I also suspect that the rather ponderous autofocus is, if not more accurate, then more 'obvious' in terms of what it's doing.

There are so many variables, and of course other people's shooting habits may produce an opposite result - but the my experience is certainly the case for me.

I think I come back to the word Marc used 'satisfactory'. Every camera represents a set of compromises, for the sort of work I do, with the A900 and Zeiss lenses, Sony seem to have got it about right.
 

Lars

Active member
Sony seem to have got it about right.
Yep from what I have read and seen I have to agree. Zeiss glass was a stroke of genius, attracting the right kind of attention.

I think if I started from scratch with SLR (and didn't shoot large format) I would lean towards Sony, not for the camera which is short term but for the longterm investment in Zeiss glass. As things are now, my investment in Nikon makes it a costly proposition to replace used Nikon gear with new Sony/Zeiss gear. By doing nothing I maintain the illusion (real or not) that time will take me closer to a Nikon high-res SLR and good glass that I can afford. In the meantime, my D700 keeps me happy.
 
R

Ranger 9

Guest
Zeiss glass was a stroke of genius, attracting the right kind of attention...Zeiss glass...Zeiss glass oooh baby baby...Zeiss glass...Zeiss glass
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.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
It's always possible to shoot a sharp frame at any shutter speed - shoot enough frames and eventually you will get a sharp one. I recall reading about this Finnish wildlife photographer who used his 600/2.8 handheld back in the film days. Admittedly the guy was huge.

More interesting, at what speed do you get consistently sharp images that can be blown up to that size?

I'm not saying you were lucky - actually maybe I am, after all luck is the skill of taking advantage of statistical uncertainties. So the relevance of a single sharp image depends on how large selection it was picked from.
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.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Yep from what I have read and seen I have to agree. Zeiss glass was a stroke of genius, attracting the right kind of attention.

I think if I started from scratch with SLR (and didn't shoot large format) I would lean towards Sony, not for the camera which is short term but for the longterm investment in Zeiss glass. As things are now, my investment in Nikon makes it a costly proposition to replace used Nikon gear with new Sony/Zeiss gear. By doing nothing I maintain the illusion (real or not) that time will take me closer to a Nikon high-res SLR and good glass that I can afford. In the meantime, my D700 keeps me happy.
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.
 

Lars

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.
Not sure where that came from. From what I have seen here, the Zeiss-labeled glass on Sony seems to deliver image quality. My Nikon glass isn't spectacular, most of it was designed early 90's or late 80's. The Zeiss glass Sony sells is on average better than Nikon, I have no doubt of that. Where it's made or by what factory, I couldn't care less. Zeiss pulled out of the large format lens business a long time ago because it couldn't stay competitive (wasn't good enough or cared more about high volume markets). Nikon stayed in LF longer but its lenses from mid-70's and on are not that great, last lenses were made early 90's.
 

jonoslack

Active member
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.
I quite agree - these are exactly my feelings. There seem to be more sharp pictures - for whatever reason.
 
Top