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!

Trying out the Sony A900 and Zeiss 24-70

jonoslack

Active member
I shouldn't have done this . .
Dave at LCE in Timberhill said - off you go, try it out. So I wandered around Norwich for 15 minutes banging away.

Look at this:


Zeiss 24-70 f2.8, at f2.8 1/2000, 70mm ISO 200

and a crop:




f5, 1/125th 45mm ISO 200

and a crop





F2.8 1/2000 24mm ISO 200
and a couple of crops





f2.8 1/500 70mm ISO 200



I think I might need saving here!
 

Riley

New member
seems to hold detail in the crops very well Jono, crumbling bricks and all, i bet this thing will put a huge dent in the s/h Minolta lens market. Surely the AF lens choices is one of the significant weaknesses, that is when you get over how the thing looks...
 

jonoslack

Active member
seems to hold detail in the crops very well Jono, crumbling bricks and all, i bet this thing will put a huge dent in the s/h Minolta lens market. Surely the AF lens choices is one of the significant weaknesses, that is when you get over how the thing looks...
You mean you don't think it's beautiful :ROTFL:
Actually, it does have a certain something about it in the flesh.
As for the lenses - I think there are a lot of good minolta lenses, and it seems that the weaker AA filter may be kinder to older lenses than those of the Nikon and Canon FF cameras (my old Kodak SLR'n rather liked soft old lenses)
 

Terry

New member
Jono they do look good although the last flower shot does give me a bit of a headache as my eyes are trying to focus all of the OOF areas :ROTFL::ROTFL:
 

Jonathon Delacour

Subscriber Member
I'm impressed. Particularly by the crop showing the newspaper rack.

So Jono, are you now thinking about running three DSLR systems in parallel: Nikon, Olympus, and Sony? In which case, no salvation for you my friend!

Or rather are you expecting the D3x/D4/D900 to match or exceed these results?
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hi Jonathon
Well, I'm dithering terribly about this!

I'm impressed. Particularly by the crop showing the newspaper rack.

So Jono, are you now thinking about running three DSLR systems in parallel: Nikon, Olympus, and Sony? In which case, no salvation for you my friend!

Or rather are you expecting the D3x/D4/D900 to match or exceed these results?
No - I certainly won't run three Dslr systems - the Olympus stays anyway - I was expecting to wait for the Nikon camera with this lens, and sell the D700 to buy it (contrary to what you might think, I don't have cupboards full of unused cameras!).

BUT

I suspect that the Nikon camera will be D3 sized, and that it will be a great deal more expensive than the Sony . . . added to which I have rather fallen in love with the Zeiss 24-70 lens used here.

So, if I buy this, then the Nikon kit will go - I've been offered a good price for the expensive stuff, and the few CV and ZF lenses should sell without too much trouble.

The decision is whether to jump now, while my kit is worth a fair amount, or wait for 6 months or so, in which case Nikon may bring out a huge and very expensive camera (like the 1Ds MkIII).

Ho and definitely Hum!
 

Riley

New member
well i guess you could wear dark glasses so you dont have to look at it, or put it in a paper bag....
 
A

asabet

Guest
Some folks knock the Zeiss 24-70 for its bokeh, but I've been unable to find many samples of poor bokeh from it. Photozone shows a few hard-edged areas in crops, but of course any lens can be made to look bad in a specific situation. At any rate, I'd want to see a lot more from this lens before considering a switch to Sony.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Looks good. Actually, I even like the styling of the camera. It reminds me of the great 70's and 80's camera designs, like the Nikon F3, the Canon F1 and even the OM-1.
 

Jonathon Delacour

Subscriber Member
I suspect that the Nikon camera will be D3 sized, and that it will be a great deal more expensive than the Sony . . . added to which I have rather fallen in love with the Zeiss 24-70 lens used here.
On the other hand, Nikon may decide that the best way to neutralize the threats posed by both the Sony A900 and the Canon 5D Mark II is to put a high-megapixel sensor in a D700-style body.

Regarding the Zeiss 24-70, am I correct in assuming that -- on the basis of a relatively brief trial -- you've found it superior to your Nikkor 24-70? If so, it'd be great if you could articulate why you prefer the Zeiss lens.

So, if I buy this, then the Nikon kit will go - I've been offered a good price for the expensive stuff, and the few CV and ZF lenses should sell without too much trouble.
There are lots of reasons that the GetDPI forums are excellent: well-informed members, wide range of viewpoints, civil discourse, no trolls... However one aspect I've come to admire is (what I would describe as) a ruthlessly pragmatic lack of attachment to any particular brand; in other words, the polar opposite to the fanboy-ism one finds in so many other forums. Instead, at GetDPI, if a piece of equipment doesn't meet or exceed expectations, it frequently gets kicked to the curb.

Jono, I suspect I won't be the only one to follow with interest the direction you decide to take with this.
 

Riley

New member
Looks good. Actually, I even like the styling of the camera. It reminds me of the great 70's and 80's camera designs, like the Nikon F3, the Canon F1 and even the OM-1.
some of those things grow on you in time, i think the Sony reminds me somewhat of the Sigma SD14, I dont mind how they look. I really havent seen a digital SLR that looks attractive to me though. The original Sony prototype had that similar OM prism roof, but that seems to have gone from the production model and only the somewhat distorted sentiment remains.

OM's look like jewellery compared with these things. Still, maybe thats not much of what its all about.
 
Last edited:

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
OM's look like jewellery compared with these things. Still, maybe thats not much of what its all about.
You can say that again. Last week, I was offered a mint, black OM-1 with a likewise mint 50mm f/1.2. Looks like jewellery? It IS jewellery. I would carry it around my neck at parties :p
 

jonoslack

Active member
well i guess you could wear dark glasses so you dont have to look at it, or put it in a paper bag....
:ROTFL:
I'd have to cut a hole in the end of the paper bag!
Truth be told, it looks better in the flesh, and there is a certain retro-ness about it. But I do take your point!
 

jonoslack

Active member
Some folks knock the Zeiss 24-70 for its bokeh, but I've been unable to find many samples of poor bokeh from it. Photozone shows a few hard-edged areas in crops, but of course any lens can be made to look bad in a specific situation. At any rate, I'd want to see a lot more from this lens before considering a switch to Sony.
Hi Amin
I took around 100 shots with the lens around Norwich, and although I did detect a little 'busyness' in some shots, I thought that the shot of the flower (above) was rather nice.

One thing one needs to be really careful about here is comparing 100% crops from the A900 and the D700 - because they represent a radically different proportion of the file.

As for general observations on the lens - It seems to be very sharp, right down to f2.8, certainly in the same ball park as the Nikon. At first sight there might be a tiny bit more barrel distortion at 24mm, but it is SIMPLE, and not the wiggly stuff Nikon tends to dish out, so, if necessary it's easy to correct.

The whole package (body and lens) is about the same size as the D700, but the lens is short and fat rather than long and thinner (like the Nikon). It's also very slightly lighter (but so little as to make no significant difference).
 

jonoslack

Active member
On the other hand, Nikon may decide that the best way to neutralize the threats posed by both the Sony A900 and the Canon 5D Mark II is to put a high-megapixel sensor in a D700-style body.
Of course, they might, but I've learned about holding my breath and expecting what I'd like!

Regarding the Zeiss 24-70, am I correct in assuming that -- on the basis of a relatively brief trial -- you've found it superior to your Nikkor 24-70? If so, it'd be great if you could articulate why you prefer the Zeiss lens.
No, I haven't found it superior, I think I prefer the handling, but in terms of results I think it's probably a wash (as one would expect) - The question really is whether I want to sacrifice good high ISO for better resolution.


There are lots of reasons that the GetDPI forums are excellent: well-informed members, wide range of viewpoints, civil discourse, no trolls... However one aspect I've come to admire is (what I would describe as) a ruthlessly pragmatic lack of attachment to any particular brand; in other words, the polar opposite to the fanboy-ism one finds in so many other forums. Instead, at GetDPI, if a piece of equipment doesn't meet or exceed expectations, it frequently gets kicked to the curb.

Jono, I suspect I won't be the only one to follow with interest the direction you decide to take with this.
I quite agree - good isn't it!
As far as my decision goes (I still haven't decided). Rather ironically, what has pushed me in this direction is the fact of having taken the Olympus 4:3 gear on a 2 week trip to Crete - it performed really well, and was small and convenient. I'm happy to have two dSLR systems, but high ISO is a luxury I don't often use, whereas printing large is something I do quite often.

The files from the D700 are certainly better than those from the E3, but they aren't better enough to take it with me on a trip - especially one where I won't be dealing in low light. The Sony files really are rather a different thing altogether.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hi Riley
some of those things grow on you in time, i think the Sony reminds me somewhat of the Sigma SD14, I dont mind how they look. I really havent seen a digital SLR that looks attractive to me though. The original Sony prototype had that similar OM prism roof, but that seems to have gone from the production model and only the somewhat distorted sentiment remains.

OM's look like jewellery compared with these things. Still, maybe thats not much of what its all about.
I always liked the old contax cameras - mind you, if it's looks, then the Zeiss 24-70 is a beauty compared to the Nikon.


You can say that again. Last week, I was offered a mint, black OM-1 with a likewise mint 50mm f/1.2. Looks like jewellery? It IS jewellery. I would carry it around my neck at parties :p
Yes - I actually do mind about how things look - the S2 for instance makes me swoon with delight (but not my bank!).
 
Top