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!
I do not find it. Has anybody a link or name for removing the AA filter from the Sony a900/a850?I'm pretty sure. Actually I thought is was Maxmax. Do a search on LuLa, there was a company mentioned there...
I don't think so, really. I believe the issue may be that one needs to install a plain glass cover to the sensor after the AA is removed.Does removing the AA filter require any special skills that are beyond an average camera technician's abilities?
Yeah, forgot about the replacement cover. I might try to ask my local technician though. He used to be the main guy at Canon repair so he must know something about it.I don't think so, really. I believe the issue may be that one needs to install a plain glass cover to the sensor after the AA is removed.
The AA filter definitely kills a lot of fine detail. In the end there's not much more, if any, in the files than I get with the M9. So yeah, 16MP sounds close to the mark. Maybe slightly more, like 18-20. I don't really mind that much though, choosing to accept it for what it is. That's not a poor showing by any means. It's also one of the weakest AA filters out there - this was actually a key factor when I chose the a850. I looked at technically well-executed images from a variety of DSLRs and felt the Sony lost the least.I keep threatening to send my A900 off to have the AA filter removed. Coming from a CCD camera without an AA filter, it has been a tough pill to swallow. While the A900's 25mp shames my previous camera's 10 mp, I have a hard time seeing much actual difference. Your estimation of 16 mp of actual detail seems about right.
I like mine a lot as well. In fact, I got the a850 explicitly to use either the 70-300G or the 70-200 and ended up sticking with the latter. The f/2.8 and tripod foot together are more valuable to me than the additional reach. I'll attach a strap (with QR clamp) to the foot and throw it over a shoulder as a complement to the M9. For me the 24-70 is really a backup in case something happens to the M9. Ideally I'd rather carry a spare M9 body and probably will one day (maybe once there's an M10), but for now the 24-70 is my security. (Another option I'm contemplating is a NEX with an M adapter. In that case I'd probably sell the 24-70 since I also have an assortment of M42 and M645 lenses.)The sleeper lens in the Sony system is the 70-200/2.8APO ... which I found better than both Canon and Nikon IS and VR zooms ... however, I admit that I may have lucked out with my sample.
I've been meaning to take a look at this sometime... Especially since it can be run as a plugin from LR3. So LR3 can be used to crank out quick proofs and web stuff, but for a print 16x24 and up where detail starts to make a difference RPP can be used for the initial conversion, then the TIFF from RPP is used with Silver Efex or other LR3 processing plugins.I would contend that using a raw converter with floating point processing, like RPP, would be a better move before going through the effort of removing an AA filter off one's camera.
That's what I do. I export anything of importance out of LR3 into RPP, and then the TIFF from RPP imports right back into LR3. From there I can adjust the image more if need be and then print/export.I've been meaning to take a look at this sometime... Especially since it can be run as a plugin from LR3. So LR3 can be used to crank out quick proofs and web stuff, but for a print 16x24 and up where detail starts to make a difference RPP can be used for the initial conversion, then the TIFF from RPP is used with Silver Efex or other LR3 processing plugins.
I would not buy the e-mount 24/1.8 in your case. You could use your ZA 24/2.0 with the LEA-2 adapter on the NEX. This is a lot cheaper and I guess at least the same image qualityFWIW, I will be completing my Zeiss line up with a 35/1.8 equivalent. That would be the Nex 7 with the Zeiss 24/1.8. ...
Any news on this?Yeah, forgot about the replacement cover. I might try to ask my local technician though. He used to be the main guy at Canon repair so he must know something about it.
You need to compare it to a 16MP camera or back with no AA filter.I haven't found anything close to what people are saying here about the full frame Sony cameras producing 16mpx files.
Mostly because I also have a Nex-5N which is a 16mpx camera with a very weak AA filter.