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: a few questions

Georg Baumann

Subscriber Member
Greetings,

I did not have a chance to work with the alpha yet, and I am pondering about a couple of things. May be some of you can say something about it.

I
How do you A900 owners find the IQ when shooting long exposures? Anything to complain about?

II
The Zeiss 16-35 corner sharpness, does it need a postprocessing correction?

III
A question about the RAW files. I expose to the right most of the time, then open shadows in Lightroom, eventually add blacks before as well. Is the data in shadows clean at ISO 100 once opened up?

IV
I understand the system is somewhat weather sealed, is that true for the Zeiss lenses as well? Do you trust it to walk around in rain for longer?

A personal observation, from reading the specs, I wondered, it states these modes for exposure bracketing: 0.3 EV / 0.5 EV / 0.7 EV / 2.0 EV, the gap from 0.7 to 2.0 is quite large. <shrugs>

Thanks for looking at it.

Best wishes
Georg
 

carstenw

Active member
Re. IV, here is an interesting link (translated from Polish):

http://bit.ly/qCiBm

Re. personal observation, not only is the jump large, but 0.3, 0.5, 0.7 can use 5 shots, but 2.0 can only handle 3. This is one of my reservations about the camera.

I will add a question: the base ISO is listed on dpreview as ISO 200, but 100 isn't listed as an extended ISO... What does it mean? Does anyone know if ISO 100 or 200 gives better DR?
 

edwardkaraa

New member
I will add a question: the base ISO is listed on dpreview as ISO 200, but 100 isn't listed as an extended ISO... What does it mean? Does anyone know if ISO 100 or 200 gives better DR?
According to my own experience, ISO100 has a bit less DR but better shadow noise. I use ISO100 99% of the time, because I couldn't care less about DR, coming from a 5 stop reversal film latitude. Usually shots that require more than that are not esthetically worth it. Highest IQ is more important to me and it is delivered at ISO100. I always wonder why would some photographers take a shot under crappy lighting conditions, and spend hours trying to fix it in PP, instead of waiting a few hours on site, and take a much better shot when the light improves :LOL:
 

douglasf13

New member
Georg, ISO 100 on the A900 is simply ISO 200 with a +1ev compensation. There isn't much reason to use it unless you're shooting JPEG. It appears less noisy because the A900 has very conservative metering, and most shooters could use the extra stop of exposure. That's why it appears to shift the DR from highlights to shadows. ISO 320 is the ideal setting for shadow detail, because the A900 shadows are usually a little blotchy due to the ADCs clipping, and adding a little preamp gain to them improves things.

Your biggest issue will be with Lightroom. Lightroom deals with cameras with good color separation poorly, and A900 is near MFDB in this regard. For some the issues are ok, but, judging by your questions, I have a feeling you won't be happy with the LR/A900 combo. I switched to C1 pro because of this.
 

jonoslack

Active member
HI Geor
Most of your questions are too difficult for me :eek:

Greetings,

I did not have a chance to work with the alpha yet, and I am pondering about a couple of things. May be some of you can say something about it.

I
How do you A900 owners find the IQ when shooting long exposures? Anything to complain about?
I haven't even tried (sorry)

II
The Zeiss 16-35 corner sharpness, does it need a postprocessing correction?
I chickened out on the purchase and I'm still using the sigma 12-24 for ultra wide.

III
A question about the RAW files. I expose to the right most of the time, then open shadows in Lightroom, eventually add blacks before as well. Is the data in shadows clean at ISO 100 once opened up?
Like Douglas says - I really don't think you should expect to use Lightroom or ACR with the A900 - maybe that's the deal breaker. I like lightroom (although I prefer Aperture), it's good for lots of cameras, but it doesn't seem to do at all well with the A900

IV
I understand the system is somewhat weather sealed, is that true for the Zeiss lenses as well? Do you trust it to walk around in rain for longer?
I'm beginning to trust it more and more - I haven't seen any nasty stories, and It's not suffered when I've shot in the rain.


A personal observation, from reading the specs, I wondered, it states these modes for exposure bracketing: 0.3 EV / 0.5 EV / 0.7 EV / 2.0 EV, the gap from 0.7 to 2.0 is quite large. <shrugs>
Oh dear - I never use exposure bracketing with digital - I always feel that if I've got the time, then I've got the time to get the exposure right, and if I haven't . . . then I haven't !
Certainly, getting good exposure with the A900 is no problem (getting 'best' exposure may be a little more so).

I love mine . . .
 

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
Georg, ISO 100 on the A900 is simply ISO 200 with a +1ev compensation. There isn't much reason to use it unless you're shooting JPEG. It appears less noisy because the A900 has very conservative metering, and most shooters could use the extra stop of exposure. That's why it appears to shift the DR from highlights to shadows. ISO 320 is the ideal setting for shadow detail, because the A900 shadows are usually a little blotchy due to the ADCs clipping, and adding a little preamp gain to them improves things.

Your biggest issue will be with Lightroom. Lightroom deals with cameras with good color separation poorly, and A900 is near MFDB in this regard. For some the issues are ok, but, judging by your questions, I have a feeling you won't be happy with the LR/A900 combo. I switched to C1 pro because of this.
I must agree with you, Douglas, ISO 320 has become my second choice when ever I can't use slower ISOs.

And I emphatically agree with you on LR - it just doesn't cut it for RAW conversion of Sony (or Phase) files. In fact, I've been going back to view some of my old 1Ds II files and they look better in C1 too. For me, C1 rules - I move into LR for some of its developing tools and its Web and Print modules, but basic developing is best in C1.
Bill
 

Eoin

Member
II
The Zeiss 16-35 corner sharpness, does it need a postprocessing correction?
Depends what you mean by this, perspective correction is necessary at the wider angles for sure. What 16mm lens doesn't need it. Corners are soft @16mm until beyond f:/5.6. 35mm is good by f:/5.6.

Attached find some quick and dirty close up shots, 16mm at f:/2.8, 5.6 & 11
and at 35mm at f:/2.8, 5.6 & 11.

You won't see much in web samples but it might give you a quick idea what to expect.

First 3 are at 16mm
 

Eoin

Member
I don't use the auto bracket function at all, so really can't comment other than I never looked into the ranges allowed. If correct 0.7 - 2.0 it seems rather excessive.

Base ISO is 200, Sony say ISO 100 will lead to a loss in DR, but I tend to shoot everything at 320 or 800 as needed. 1600 at a push with very acceptable results if I expose for the shadows rather than highlights which I recover in post.

With regard to weather sealing, if you have seen the post of the photographer who covered the paris-dakkar rally with an a900 and ZA 24-70 which received some abuse, I have no qualms about getting caught in a shower or using it in wet conditions. I wouldn't be out photographing in downpours in any case regardless of weather sealing or not.
 

Georg Baumann

Subscriber Member
Thank you Gentlemen, very usefull information!

I am somewhat torn between the Nikon and Sony. Fully aware about the premium price of the Nikon, it is diffcult to come to conclusions. Nikon offers a professional service NPS, I am not aware that Sony has such. Without the Zeiss Option, I would not even consider the Sony. Another downside for me is that there is no comparable T\S glass available Nikon has the 24mm, 45 and 85 T\S.

Then again, for the money spared when buying into a Sony, one can get nearly 2 more first class lenses.

Not easy.... not easy....

The 500mm, while not a top of the range performer and slow glas, certainly is a tempting offer for relatively little money for the Alpha.

Lightroom is not a problem, as I would do the basics in C1 and then transfer to LR as DNG.

It is amazing if you think about it, the Sony for reasonable money offers a whopping 25 MP walk around system. What a brilliant time to do photography. :)

@Eoin, thanks a lot for goingt hrough the trouble to post some examples. I am curious about your shooting technique, you expose for shadows? Why is that?

Would you not give up a lot of valuable image data which is held in the highlights, and not in the shadows. Would it not be better to expose to the right and open shadows via fill light afterwards?
 
Last edited:

Eoin

Member
Georg, "fill light" sounds like you use Lightroom, I'm an Apple Aperture fanatic and I won't change :lecture:. In general there seems to be enough dynamic range to hold both within the histogram. But in situations where I want clean shadows without noise I tend to expose for the shadow I want at exposure and recover the highlights if necessary. This, I have found to yield less blotch and noise.

But as they say, your milage may vary, raw developers are equal to yesterdays films in terms of a photographers individual preference. I use Aperture with a slew of plugins for 99.9% of what I need, something different may require a trip through C1 or Lightzone.

By the way Guys, lightzone 3.7 has added support for the a900, worth a look!.
 
S

Shelby Lewis

Guest
Thank you Gentlemen, very usefull information!

I am somewhat torn between the Nikon and Sony. Fully aware about the premium price of the Nikon, it is diffcult to come to conclusions. Nikon offers a professional service NPS, I am not aware that Sony has such. Without the Zeiss Option, I would not even consider the Sony. Another downside for me is that there is no comparable T\S glass available Nikon has the 24mm, 45 and 85 T\S.

Then again, for the money spared when buying into a Sony, one can get nearly 2 more first class lenses.

Not easy.... not easy....

The 500mm, while not a top of the range performer and slow glas, certainly is a tempting offer for relatively little money for the Alpha.

Lightroom is not a problem, as I would do the basics in C1 and then transfer to LR as DNG.

It is amazing if you think about it, the Sony for reasonable money offers a whopping 25 MP walk around system. What a brilliant time to do photography. :)

@Eoin, thanks a lot for goingt hrough the trouble to post some examples. I am curious about your shooting technique, you expose for shadows? Why is that?

Would you not give up a lot of valuable image data which is held in the highlights, and not in the shadows. Would it not be better to expose to the right and open shadows via fill light afterwards?
Hey Georg,

I few opinions from someone new in the system.

First... the value. 'nuff said :D

As far as pro services. This is a valid concern. I was canon and really appreciated the CPS fast turnarounds and priority services. This is something that sony just doesn't offer... so you just need to weigh how important it is to you. Same with t/s lenses. I really could use one, but given the resolution you can get away with post-processed perspective correction, but it's still not the same. And visualizing a perspective corrected version in your mind (and the associated crop in post) isn't easy.

500mm... can't comment.

LR and ACR are not problematic at low iso or smaller reproduction. They just can't compete when you want maximal detail and maximal color accuracy (and "pleasantness"). Everything I've put up on this board has been ACR based... so it's not THAT bad as long as it's not super color critical. That said, I am definitely moving towards C1.

As far as exposing for shadows... i think you guys mean the same thing. With the color filter array on the sony, it is prone to shadow noise if underexposed, as well as the fact that it has great DR and highlight latitude. Much like medium format digital. Most of us are finding that maximizing the histogram to the right (but not blowing channels badly) and then bringing it back in post offers extremely satisfying results. I actually am using UniWB in combination with the intelligent preview feature to push histograms as far as I can to the right and finding the results extraordinary. VERY low noise and maximum color fidelity and accuracy.

Lastly... the camera is imminently hand-holdable. It's not a fluke. Sure, for maximal detail a tripod and stiff head are a plus... but I'm finding I don't need them most of the time, even at slower shutter speed. It really is amazing what the IS can do.

Hope this helps.
 

edwardkaraa

New member
By the way Guys, lightzone 3.7 has added support for the a900, worth a look!.
Hi Eoin,

Nice photo of the little one :) Your son?

I'm interested to know your opinion about Lightzone. I downloaded a trial version a while ago but there was no support yet for the A900.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I have a 17" X 22 Print from this weekend's wedding coming off the Epson 3800 as I type this.

I am so happy with this camera I could scream!

I judge anything and everything by print output. The color, detail, realism, 3D is all there without any effort ... using lightroom by the way ... I don't have time for slow software or using this and that. I've got 500+ images to correct, and 150 selects to nail down tight. These files are amazingly elastic and accept all kinds of treatment and manipulation without falling apart.

BTW, I pulled off a couple of shots at the wedding with the 135/1.8 @ 1/40th hand-held and it looks like it was shot on a tripod using a cable release ... and I am not kidding.

I likey!
 

Eoin

Member
Hi Edward,

I used lightzone when I was using the M8 and before the silver efx Pro plugin was available for Aperture. I found it is rather unique in it's zone system and found it's output quite good for monochrome. I was never able to use it with the a900's raw file until now. You need to download version 3.7 which I believe was released last week.

The array of plugins for Aperture makes it an unnecessary step in my workflow but others who are struggling to find a converter to suit their needs may find it interesting or worth a look. Like I said earlier, the raw converters have become such a personal choice, it's just another tool that now supports the a900 if anyones interested.

Yes, it's my little one, shot with the ZA 85. Still having trouble mastering depth of focus. Guess I keep needing to remind myself I need a further 2 stops of aperture to compensate for full frame over APSC.
 

edwardkaraa

New member
Thanks for the comments, Eoin.

I think the DOF on the photo looks perfect, exactly the right amount.

I downloaded the 3.7 version, and it is really impressive. Too bad my old laptop is too slow for this converter, but I can already see the creative potential. I'm not sure about the demosaicing algorithms though. I have to convert a few files and scrutinize them (as in pixel peeping :D).

Hi Edward,

I used lightzone when I was using the M8 and before the silver efx Pro plugin was available for Aperture. I found it is rather unique in it's zone system and found it's output quite good for monochrome. I was never able to use it with the a900's raw file until now. You need to download version 3.7 which I believe was released last week.

The array of plugins for Aperture makes it an unnecessary step in my workflow but others who are struggling to find a converter to suit their needs may find it interesting or worth a look. Like I said earlier, the raw converters have become such a personal choice, it's just another tool that now supports the a900 if anyones interested.

Yes, it's my little one, shot with the ZA 85. Still having trouble mastering depth of focus. Guess I keep needing to remind myself I need a further 2 stops of aperture to compensate for full frame over APSC.
 

Eoin

Member
You'll drive yourself crazy over this pixel peeping malarky. Mark is absolutely on the money, it's all in the printed output. A lot of these on screen imperfections transcend a printers ability on output, either that or I seriously need to consider retiring my aged Canon i9950 :ROTFL:.

Tell me I don't need to drop another wad of cash on a new printer PLEASE!.:D
 

jonoslack

Active member
Tell me I don't need to drop another wad of cash on a new printer PLEASE!.:D
Eoin
I've been thinking a lot about you and your workflow recently, and it's occurred to me that now is really the time to drop another wad of cash on a new printer
:ROTFL:
 

Eoin

Member
Jono, I know I need to do my little bit to keep the economy going but I've just had a google at the Epson 3800......and at £900ish for the printer and £425 for a full set of replacement inks, I can't help but feel there is plenty of life left in the o'l canon yet :ROTFL:.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Jono, I know I need to do my little bit to keep the economy going but I've just had a google at the Epson 3800......and at £900ish for the printer and £425 for a full set of replacement inks, I can't help but feel there is plenty of life left in the o'l canon yet :ROTFL:.
Well, the 3800 must be up for replacement any time soon . . . . I guess it's admission time here . . . I'm still using an Epson 4000, not much good for glossy paper, but I mostly print on matte anyway, and the dear old thing struggles on cranking out decent prints (for the last two years it's been coming up with an error message which means that it's dead, switch it off and then on again and it trundles on for a bit longer!).
 
Top