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!
Could not agree more!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.
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.Yes. It's all about the Glass!
Well -now I NEED to answer!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
Hi ShelbyFrom 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?
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.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.
Nothing wrong with coming up with autofocus versions of the old lenses I'd have thought (not too many complaints about them).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
Hi thereWell, 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.
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.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
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.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.
That's exactly the point.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.
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.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
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.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.