Any DMR users now shooting the Sony A900?

[apocolibri]

In a quandary as to whether to buy a backup DMR or go with the Sony A900. Am looking for opinions from any and all who have shot with the DMR and now shoot with the Sony. I need bigger files. I also need the SSS (image stabilization) that the Sony provides as a coded Leitax adapter will enable using my big APO glass on the Sony WITH image stabilization.

The problem is that once I have the lenses converted I won't be able to use them on the DMR unless I go through the hassle of pulling the adapters off.

I know Marc Williams has the Sony and formerly shot with the DMR. Would love to hear you impressions, Marc, especially with respect to how you think the Sony sensor might render the hummingbird feathers on my preferred subject. I posted a few images over on the DMR image thread here: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=766&page=13

The big question is: does the Sony sacrifice tonal range when compared to the 16 bit files of the DMR?

Any comments from those who have shot with both cameras would be much appreciated.

Lawrence

 

[dhsimmonds]

Hi Lawrence

I used a DMR for several years before changing it for the Sony A900. I bought the A900 with Zeiss 24-70 and compared it with the DMR and R 28-90 as it's nearest equivalent. Suffice to say that I put the DMR, R9 and 6 lenses up for sale immediately!

Probably the only lens I regret selling is the R100 macro. Whilst the Sony/Minolta 100 macro is good for most things at 1/1 macro the Leica beats it hands down.

As far as DR and the 16 bit files are concerned, no I do not miss the DMR as the A900 can provide 12 stops of DR. I much prefer the colour rendition of the A900 files which are of MF quality definition, especially when used with Zeiss lenses.

I changed camera platform in January so I have 6 months experience so far. The sensor anti-dust system works well enough for me not to have claened the sensor yet although I change lenses more freqently than with the DMR. I know it won't be so easy to clean as the DMR though when I do need to do it.

My main reason for changing was to get AF as although I could focus the DMR for landscapes and most macro work, I was taking far too long to nail it with people and animal subjects! My biggest fear was that the Sony AF system would fail me....but it hasn't once. I usually get 100% in focus subjects when using the AF central focusing system. This is another huge plus for me over the DMR.

I have the vertical battery grip which gives me enough battery power for a one week holiday shooting extensively every day without charging! The grip adds just one standard battery and automatically changes over when needed.

The A900 viewfinder is renowned as the biggest and brightest....and it really is! I do not need any other focusing aid when manually focusing macro subjects althogh Sony do have other focusing screens available.

The Sony section of this forum has provided me with much advice and assistance in getting the best out of the system and setting up the camera so if you decide in it's favour it is worth perusing the posts over recent months. Also you will find quite a few familiar names and faces over there if you are also an LUF member!

Good luck whichever way you decide.

 

[Bill_Green]

I'm moving that way, but no experience yet. My biggest reasons for the switch were weight, better battery economy, bigger files and speed of use. To minimize the pain of transitioning I will be using most of my Leica lenses on the Sony with adapters, and slowly adding Sony lenses as needed. The Zeiss zooms are out of the equation for me because of cost and bulk.

I've been looking at the files people have been posting online for a while, but I don't have any of my own yet. Personally, I think the Sony is unlikely to match the clarity and color depth of the DMR as I have yet to see any images posted online to suggest otherwise, but I hope I'm wrong. Going from 16-bit to 12-bit is a little nerve wracking for me, but I'm hoping it is irrational fear.

Horses for courses. For me, the DMR no longer fit my needs. I don't think the Sony is a perfect match either, but I think it will be a step in the right direction. For you I'm not so sure.

 

[dhsimmonds]

Lawrence, I didn't answer your question about the Steady Shot. It is worth in my opinion at least two stops (Sony claim three) and great to be able to put any lens on the camera and have that feature.

I even keep it switched on when using a tripod without activating the mirror lock-up switch. I would turn off though if using mirror lock up for long exposures. To be able to use low shutter speeds such as 1/30 when hand holding relatively long lenses is a revelation after the Leica.

 

[apocolibri]

Thanks Dave and Bill,
I appreciate your input. With it's SSS and sensor cleaning (not to mention the beautiful color rendition of the sensor) it looks like the A900 may be my replacement for the DMR. I'll also need a new computer as my old G5 has a very slow video card and my MacBook Air that i use for traveling is barely adequate for the DMR files when processing them with Aperture.

Lawrence

 

[dhsimmonds]

I snapped this yesterday in pouring rain using what I consider is the poorest of my Sony lenses.....the 100F2.8 macro...........but it really is rather good at this focal distance!

[/url] Click on image to see the larger picture. The older Minolta lenses (of which the Sony 100 macro is one) should not be sniffed at as Leica used some Minolta lenses badged Leica in the earlier days of building the R system.

I can also vouch for the sealing of both the A900 and lens!

 

[apocolibri]

Dave,
Apart from the SSS, sensor anti-dust and AF capabilities: did you ever have occasion to compare two side by side images (A900/DMR) which had very fine detail? With no antialiasing filter, logic would tend to favor the DMR's sensor for sharpness straight of the sensor. Yes, you can sharpen images shot with CMOS sensors, but you can't get as "natural" a look as something that doesn't require sharpening in the first place. See post #254 in the DMR image thread for an example of this.

I don't mean to be contentious here. Just trying to nail down the qualities that are important to me before I make the switch. You mention above "I much prefer the colour rendition of the A900 files which are of MF quality definition, especially when used with Zeiss lenses." Color rendition and MF quality definition have little to do with each other. One term deals with how the spectral transmission of optics is rendered and output from a given sensor. The other term (definition) has to do with sharpness or resolution. Though the Sony sensor may have a similar number of pixels as a medium format sensor, the fact that it is an Exmor CMOS sensor distinguishes it from any true medium format sensor. If I remember correctly (and I may be mistaken here), the DMR sensor is a medium format sensor that is cut down to the dimensions required by the DMR. The 16 bit capture and lack of an anti aliasing filter are perfectly in line with that. And I would not think it cost effective for Leica to order just 3000 DMR sensors for their first (and only) production run of the DMR.

I can't even begin to speculate as to how the A900/DMR images might compare with a subject like hummingbirds and that's why I ask for an opinion on how an image which has fine detail and high microcontrast might appear on each of the two sensors. For my needs this is where the rubber meets the road... as bird feathers are all about fine detail and microcontrast.

Being able to make larger prints would be of great benefit to me, but only if the A900 sensor would not be sacrificing any of the fine definition that the DMR sensor makes possible. The DMR's capacity to hold fine highlight detail where other sensors wash out is part and parcel of those qualities I value as well.
Respectfully,
Lawrence

 

[dhsimmonds]

Yes I did! In fact I posted the pair on this forum somewhere...I will try to find the link. In fact though, better still you should compare the Raw (DNG for Leica files as by the time the 16 bit images........yes I convert to 16Bit Tiff's with the Sony..... and then converted again to sRGB and then to 8 bit small jpegs for web, both files lose quite a lot. If you care to send me a PM with an email address I will send you the original RAW images assuming that you are on fast broadband internet connection.

I general though, the file quality of a 16 bit per colour file will always be better than that of a 12/14 bit file, but resolution is so important particularly if you need to crop. A full frame camera takes some getting used to even after the modest 1.37 crop of the DMR. Like MF, depth of field is very shallow at or mear max aperture. I actually like it but it takes you by surprise at first.

I do not know of any integrated digital camera MF or 35mm size that produces 16bit files. The Mamiya ZD is 14 bit whereas virtually all MF backs produce 16bit files. I have yet to see a full spec of the integrated S2 but I imagine that will also be a true 14 bit with 2 bits used for noise control which is quite normal on 14 bit cameras. If 16 bits is so important for you then I suggest that you stay with the DMR or move to a digital back MF. A bit bulky for wildlife stuff though!

When looking for an alternative to my DMR, I also thought that I needed 16bit files and was prepared to go MF to get there. In fact I had sized up a Contax 645 with a Phase DB and Zeiss AF lenses which would have filled my spec admirably, until I tried the A900! This gave me more speed, lightweight, terrific viewfinder, flexibility and access to the excellent AF Zeiss and Minolta lenses and surpisingly for me also produced all the image quality I needed.

As another check as I see that digital storage may be an issue for you, the Sony RAW files are approx. 36.7MB (DMR 19.7) converting to an average of 141Mb 16bit Tiff files (DMR 68.1) using C1. I use a dRobo with 4gb storage expandable to 6gb.

I have found the link to my DMR/A900 test images etc. I am not a tester of cameras and lenses as you will see! http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?p=69461#post69461

 

[douglasf13]

Lawrence, there may be something to Dave talking about color rendition and definition in the same sentence. Iliah Borg has spoken very highly of the color separation of the A900. Essentially, the A900 less green channel overlap than Nikon and less blue channel overlap than Canon, resulting in more detail in those greens and blues, and, because of this, Iliah finds using the A900 over his D3xs in many situations. The A900 has spectral properties that are very near MFDB. Of course, this also results in the camera needing more amplification for high ISO, which leaves it a little behind in high ISO compared to Canon and Nikon.

 

[apocolibri]

Thanks for that explanation, Doug. I'm guessing we probably won't see side by side comparisons between the DMR and the Sony to resolve the issue as there are so many advantages to the Sony over the DMR that such comparisons were probably never made (in a critical manner) before DMR's were sold for the Sony.

It's a bit of a catch 22 for me as the Sony has SSS that I desperately need for my long glass but the depth of field is noticeably less for subject matter such as hummingbirds... which is what I'm currently working on. If it were possible to use an adapter I'd rent a Sony and do some tests. Having to buy a mount and replace the Leica bayonet is more $$ and involved so I'm a bit reluctant to take that jump.
Lawrence

 

[douglasf13]

Yeah, it's a tough call. You could always rent and just buy one Leitax conversion kit, and if the A900 doesn't do the job, I'd bet you could sell the Leitax kit on these forums. Here is a good rental deal: http://www.adoramarentals.com/ItemsDisplay.aspx?CategoryID=391

 

[fotografz]

In a quandary as to whether to buy a backup DMR or go with the Sony A900. Am looking for opinions from any and all who have shot with the DMR and now shoot with the Sony. I need bigger files. I also need the SSS (image stabilization) that the Sony provides as a coded Leitax adapter will enable using my big APO glass on the Sony WITH image stabilization.

The problem is that once I have the lenses converted I won't be able to use them on the DMR unless I go through the hassle of pulling the adapters off.

I know Marc Williams has the Sony and formerly shot with the DMR. Would love to hear you impressions, Marc, especially with respect to how you think the Sony sensor might render the hummingbird feathers on my preferred subject. I posted a few images over on the DMR image thread here: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=766&page=13

The big question is: does the Sony sacrifice tonal range when compared to the 16 bit files of the DMR?

Any comments from those who have shot with both cameras would be much appreciated.

Lawrence

This is a very difficult question to answer. There are so many variables.

I tend to type cast cameras based on what they do best, even though they can do more. The DMR is a difficult act to follow in it's own niche. My reasons for swapping were not specifically due to IQ. Unless AF and SSS are essential to the type of work you do ... or there is a need to make truely big enlargements ... then IMHO one has to think hard on a reason to swap systems and all that entails.

For me it was the A900 AF and SSS that could truly help in the work I do ... which changed a bit since I had bought the DMR. That, and the fact that I do use flash ... which wasn't one of the DMR's strong points ... and the A900 is fairly good at.

The A900 viewfinder is indeed big and bright ... more so than my D3X (not by much, but visibly so). For manual focus I think there needs to be a Bright Screen split micro-prism in the A900s future (hopefully).

Then there are the lenses. The Zeiss lenses are great. But they are not Leica APO. The Zeiss optics produce that 3D feel when all elements are right. I find them terrific for the portrait and wedding work I do.

The Zeiss lenses combined with the A900, produce a beautiful look that I would type cast as "pictorial" in quality. I feel that the D3X using the same focal length lens (like a 24-70/2.8) produces a more realistic look. So far, I've found the D3X set on 14 bit produces more DR than the Sony in harsh lighting I frequently find myself forced to shoot in. Things like more detail in the eye sockets in open sun, and no loss of detail in a fancy white wedding dress. If I expose the Sony to hold the whites, I find the mid-tones to be a bit to dark and lack a bit of contrast. This is very apparent when converting the files to B&W with a tone mapping technique.

The only other cameras I've used that consistently had DR of that quality was the DMR, and my 16 bit MF Digital Hasselblads. I have no idea if it is the bit depth or what, and frankly I don't care how it does it as long as it does it.

But frankly, we are splitting hairs here concerning 35mm type DSLRs

If you want the best IQ, go Medium Format digital. None of these cameras can compete when it come to flat out image quality. A Contax 645 with the Zeiss 120/4 Macro and even a 22 meg back will be a revelation for your Humming Bird shots

 

[douglasf13]

....If I expose the Sony to hold the whites, I find the mid-tones to be a bit to dark and lack a bit of contrast. This is very apparent when converting the files to B&W with a tone mapping technique.

This is an interesting point. The A900 has about 3.2 EV between mid point and green channel saturation. This metering gives the A900 the smooth highlights we all like, but the camera pays on the low end. I usually end up having to bump up my midtones a bit, too.

Iliah Borg has apparently come up with an algorithm to get the A900 similar to the d3X in DR. I know that he talks to engineers Sony a bit, so hopefully they listen.

 

[fotografz]

This is an interesting point. The A900 has about 3.2 EV between mid point and green channel saturation. This metering gives the A900 the smooth highlights we all like, but the camera pays on the low end. I usually end up having to bump up my midtones a bit, too.

Iliah Borg has apparently come up with an algorithm to get the A900 similar to the d3X in DR. I know that he talks to engineers Sony a bit, so hopefully they listen.

From your lips to Sony's ears Douglas. :thumbup:

It's okay when doing a couple of images, no big deal ... but 500 B&Ws is a real PITA. No way to batch them either because they're all in different lighting.

It definitely is interesting shooting the 2 cameras side-by-side in the same lighting conditions ... but not really apparent until you start processing. I love stuff from both of them. You really can't go wrong. Use the strengths and avoid the weaknesses.

 

[douglasf13]

Aye, I'd surely love to have the pleasure of owning both cams...although now that new 39MP back for my Hassie V cams has me up at night Anyways, I'm flying off topic!

 

[fotografz]

Aye, I'd surely love to have the pleasure of owning both cams...although now that new 39MP back for my Hassie V cams has me up at night Anyways, I'm flying off topic!

Yep, been rummaging around the studio gathering stuff to sell to get that CFV/39 ... might have to let some of the Sony stuff go to get it.

 

[Bill_Green]

I sent this to Lawrence as a PM earlier, but decided to post here too. Take this for what it is worth, as someone who has about 200 frames experience with the A900.

Initial thoughts:

* It is the easiest to use, most straight forward DSLR I have seen, but the DMR combo of a manual camera and dedicated back beat it.
* Instant on! Hallelujah
* I'm not sure how this is possible, but the Sony seems to have less shutter lag than the DMR. It must be just a more direct feel and faster mirror, but it was something I noticed.
* Back to the realm of $50 remote releases
* Colors do not match the DMR, at least not yet, neither in depth or separation, which makes me think there is a big difference in color depth and separation between 12-bit and 16-bit
* So far not impressed with the Leitax adapters and may be sending mine back
* The view finder is amazing, like an old F3
* I'm not sure how you process your DMR images, but C1 seems to be the overall best/fastest for Sony. Raw Photo Processor extracts the most detail by a noticeable amount
* You can do a lot of work on files from a DMR without them falling apart, but they really are close to perfect straight from the camera. The Sony files need work and are much more fragile. I think this is because of the 16-bit depth on the Leica, and why DMR files are still a cut above the M8.
* Images from the DMR are smoother and lower noise. I would say the DMR kicks the Sony's butt at low ISO. Sony rules from 400 up.
* Despite all this, I do think that the switch to Sony was and is the right move for me, but still not convinced it is for you.
* I think the Sony is a camera that I will bring with me. The R8 was, the DMR was not.

I think I will sell my Leica 15/3.5 and buy a Zeiss 21/2.8. Also selling my 35-70 ROM, but otherwise keeping the same lenses for now.

Overall, and remember this is with very limited time on the Sony, I would say that the despite the 10 MP resolution, the DMR is simply a superior image-making machine. If you can be okay with its issues and limitations, I have not yet seen evidence that the Sony is better. This may change in time, but these are my initial thoughts.

 

[douglasf13]

Ouch, Bill. You may want to try generic releases on ebay! They work great. :thumbup:

 

[doug]

Lawence, in your hands APO-Telyt + DMR = magic. Don't change in the middle of a project.

I have a hard time believing that Leica will just abandon their R lens designs; that would be throwing away one of the company's major assets. I would not be surprised if we see a full-frame R-mount camera eventually. Meanwhile I've chosen the magic route. I bought my backup DMR from Bill Green.

 

[douglasf13]

Here is a comparison, FWIW

http://forums.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4506&highlight=Dmr