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!

Hassaelblad H3 / Mamiay AFdIII / A900 test

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Well the main reason I moved to MF or at least one really good one was quality of file. I have clients as Marc pointed out that do all kinds of things to my files. Like one big one is print wall size images and i mean wall size. Honestly been tired of getting caught with my pants down and hanging my lively hood in the wind. I have been embarrassed once to often when files are not holding up. So yes it is business to succeed and more important get those call backs from those type of clients. Honestly I was pinned against a wall to improve the output. But not everything you shoot and every client has those needs either so you have to walk a tightrope sometimes and that I did for many years with 35mm. I have the no excuses policy now and for survival you have to have that. But i like the A900 from all I have seen and it would be this or a D700 for more event style work.
Again it comes down to need versus cost but my MF system is actually cheaper than my M8 system when I had it. Now that is scary
 

Steen

Senior Subscriber Member
(...)
Ahh, if it were only true.
(...)
Emm ... if what were only true, Marc ?
To me it sounds like Bill Caulfeild-Browne in his 'second opinion' conclusion (on the LL) totally agrees with you, doesn't he ?
 
Last edited:

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
Interesting?

Ahh, if it were only true.

I have the H3D-II/39 and Sony A900 and all the Zeiss optics.

I guess some people have different evaluative standards than others.

Trust me, there's nothing I'd like better than to put 40K in my pocket and just get a second Sony A900.

Ahh, if it were only true. But trust me, an owner of both ... it isn't.
I agree absolutely. The A900 is a wonderful camera and I'm delighted with it. It will become my primary wildlife camera - high def, 5 fps, great (if currently somewhat limited selection) lenses, including that superb Zeiss 24-70mm. It will perform where an MFDB simply cannot.

But when you REALLY want detail in a 24 by 30 print with all the tonality I associate with 4 by 5 film, the MFDB truly delivers and the Sony makes a brave effort. I wish I could show you my prints!

As I said on L-L, my cold dead hands won't give up my AFDIII and its "D" lenses. For contemplative, methodological work on a tripod where the maximum quality is the goal, the difference is clear - to my non-photographer wife, not just to me who paid the megabucks for the system and might be accused of seeing what my wallet wanted me to see.

Bill
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I agree absolutely. The A900 is a wonderful camera and I'm delighted with it. It will become my primary wildlife camera - high def, 5 fps, great (if currently somewhat limited selection) lenses, including that superb Zeiss 24-70mm. It will perform where an MFDB simply cannot.

But when you REALLY want detail in a 24 by 30 print with all the tonality I associate with 4 by 5 film, the MFDB truly delivers and the Sony makes a brave effort. I wish I could show you my prints!

As I said on L-L, my cold dead hands won't give up my AFDIII and its "D" lenses. For contemplative, methodological work on a tripod where the maximum quality is the goal, the difference is clear - to my non-photographer wife, not just to me who paid the megabucks for the system and might be accused of seeing what my wallet wanted me to see.

Bill
There are 2 non-Zeiss lenses that have caught my attention Bill ... the 70-200/2.8G APO and 300/2.8G APO. From what I can tell from the info, they are true APOs ... so the 70-200/2.8 would be an interesting comparison to my Nikon 70-200/2.8 ... and if the Sony 300/2.8 was on par with the Canon ... (or maybe better since it doesn't need IS like the Canon) ... they could be welcome additions to the kit for wildlife work.
 

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
Yes, fotografz, I've had these on my radar screen too. I probably won't get the 70-200 as I'm covered by the 70-300 "G" which is a pretty nice lens if you can live with f4-5.6. But I have ordered the 300 f2.8 with the 1.4X for my bird/animal shooting. If Michael Reichmann still has his Canon 300 then we might do a comparison just for fun.

Then of course there is the pending 70-400 G...looks pretty portable so I may pick that up for "traveling light".

But I ain't giving up the P45+!

Bill
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
My dilemma:

I need a good high ISO DSLR solution, and megapixels are secondary to a very clean ISO 1600 file, and usable 3200. The files would mostly be used on the web and/or printed to a maximum of 12x18. Also, a relatively fast frame rate, say 5 or 6 FPS would be desirable. I want good glass in a fast 50, fast 85 and 70-200/2.8 with stabilization. A good fast 24 or 28 would also be desirable, but a secondary consideration.

So which to get, the Sony A900, the 5D2 or the D700 or even a used D3?
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Bud I would go either the Sony A900 which gives you a look that you like , looks DMR to me and they have a 24-70 zeiss and looks like a nice 70-200 2.8, 135 1.8 with 1.4 or 2x and they have a fast 85 or i would go D700 better at 1600 I would think and have a nice 24-70 85 fast and decent 70-200. The D700 you gain the stop but lose the look. I think A900 does a nice ISO 800 and i think you can work with 1600 . i will let the A900 guy's answer that because I have the same questions as you. I could use a nice PR camera with flash 24-70 would be great and something fairly long and the 135 might be perfect. I have a 4 day in March and the MF would do it but a 35mm would be better. But i am into as cheap as i can go here.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Hi ISO like 3200? ... probably a D700 Jack.

With some work the A900 can do 2000 depending on the application and how big you go. What we don't know yet is what we can squeeze out of the A900 files ... no one has worked with them long enough yet, or tried all different programs with custom settings.

I wish one of you guys would get one since you're so good at maximizing files:D

I have a wedding in a few hours and will give the A900 a good work out.

Here's a shot at ISO 400 ... but it was using the Zeiss 85/1.4 @ f/2 ... 1/30th shutter ;)
 

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
Very soon you'll see MR's promised comparison (Nikon, Canon, Sony) on the Luminous Landscape. I strongly recommend the article - still, keep in mind that Michael, for very good reasons which he gives, uses LR2. for Raw conversion. Sony high ISO files look MUCH better in C1 and I won't use LR for them.
But read the article...
Bill
 

fotografz

Well-known member
1.4X doesn't work with the Zeiss 135/1.8 Guy, Only the 70-200/2.8 APO, 300/2.8 APO and the Sony 135/2.8 defocus control lens.

The other one I'm on the list for is the Zeiss 16-35/2.8 ... if it's anything like the Zeiss 24-70/2.8, it'll kill the Canon and Nikon zooms in the same range.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Thanks Marc that helped knowing about the 1.4 converter. If I can get really clean ISO 800 than for me it works, 1600 would be nice but I can get by and yes i have to be able to process in C1 , reason is i want ONE raw converter only anymore that does it all.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Very soon you'll see MR's promised comparison (Nikon, Canon, Sony) on the Luminous Landscape. I strongly recommend the article - still, keep in mind that Michael, for very good reasons which he gives, uses LR2. for Raw conversion. Sony high ISO files look MUCH better in C1 and I won't use LR for them.
But read the article...
Bill
if you wouldn't mind Bill, can you elaborate on what differences you are seeing?

Unfortunately, I have never taken to C1 (which I have on my machine) and just can't seem to get the hang of it. I have always used LR2 because I am converting files to DNGs from multiple cameras and placing them by time shot into one file for processing.
 

mwalker

Subscriber Member
The Sony files look more leica-ish with the CZ lens which I like. I sold my d700 because I couldn't achieve that look....
I just brought me a a900 for christmas..I love myself :D
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I agree Mike and reason i am looking at this. Nikon is a very nice camera but does not have that DMR look that I really like. Maybe time for that gold embossed embroidery ski mask again . LOL
 

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
if you wouldn't mind Bill, can you elaborate on what differences you are seeing?

Unfortunately, I have never taken to C1 (which I have on my machine) and just can't seem to get the hang of it. I have always used LR2 because I am converting files to DNGs from multiple cameras and placing them by time shot into one file for processing.
I'm simply seeing much less noise in the C1 raw conversion. Roughly, ISO 800 looks like ISO 400 in LR, 1600 looks like 800 in LR and so on.

I too prefer the workflow of LR, so I'll often simply use C1 for the Raw conversion at C1 defaults and then export the file as a 16 bit TIFF to LR for further tweaking - the grad filter, for example, is a very good reason to go to LR.

For the record, I find the same advantage in noise reduction with my Phase One files - C1 simply does a better job, though this is to be expected as it IS their back.

The Luminous Landscape has some good recent articles and screen shots.

Bill
 
Top