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!
Not being a pro myself, but even as passionate non pro photographer I would not consider carrying 2 different DSLR systems at the same time, simply because operating these systems is so different that it just can be the source of failure.
That's about what you'd have to do to get two of them douglas. :wtf: I got one of the first 20 into the USA, then I dropped to the bottom of the list for the second one. So, until I get the M9 back-up, I'll have to drag the Sony bag of bricks to every wedding. A M8 is not an option, been there, done that.
Well, the Zeiss 24-70 is not "great" at 24mm, it has soft corners (not just vignetting, but completely smudged detail). The problem on the two copies I had was so bad that I'm on the fence about abandoning the 24-70 entirely and replacing it with primes. I can see doing 98% of my people shots using just two primes, the 24/2 and the 85/1.4, and that makes the 24-70 unnecessary weight.
The Nikkor 24-70 is really a winner, I had this lens and if I had known how good it is compared to the Zeiss I would have never switched from N to S a year ago - almost sure.
The Sony colors (camera) are great indeed. But what happened since the D3 that the Nikon colors out of the camera are at least as good. So the difference is the optics. I must say I really like Zeiss and I liked all my Hasselblad and Contax optics from Zeiss just because of the IQ they produced. But I cannot see this difference any more with the current Sony-Zeiss lenses. I am not saying the IQ and colors are better or worse than Nikon but I see mainly no more difference.I certainly wouldn't say that the Nikkor 24-70 is a better lens than the Zeiss. Just different strengths/weaknesses. I'm not sure I've ever seen another zoom that has a better "look" to the pictures than the Zeiss.
I guess we should take your opinion with a grain of salt though, because two of the things that you mentioned that you disliked about the Sony, handling and color, are two of the major reasons most buy the camera in the first place.
Agreed! My M9 lust is pretty high.
My RAW converters were (are): C1Pro, Aperture 2 and 3 as well as LR2 and of course PS CS3 and 4. I have calibrated displays, one being an Eizo 24" latest generation which comes with a calibration device.Agreed! My M9 lust is pretty high.
As for colors, I have to disagree. On technical terms, the A900 is able to resolve more green hues than any Nikon since the D2x, and the D2x still wasn't quite up to the A900 in this regard. Now, whether you see that or not is, of course, another issue, but I suggest you reconsider your raw converter, profiling, etc. to maximize your A900 files before moving on to another brand, as it seems you may have not been getting the most out of the A900.
I see a big difference between the colors coming from my D300 and A850, and I am much more impressed with the A850 colors.
It's about resolving colors, not about rendering them.
It is not the end result, it is the process to get there. With effort I can make most any RAW file from a 20+ meg CMOS camera look as good as another ... and did so with the D3X ... which is notorious for relatively flat colors initially. Fine for those who wish to sit at a computer screen forever and a day. I prefer shooting to doing that : -)
Nothing is really better than the next is it?
I agree that a good Zeiss or Sony G 200 mm F2.0 macro would be a killer of a lens on the A900/850. I have seen some excellent results from the vintage Minolta versions which are now virtually unobtainable.
