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!

Recommendations sought from Sony [i]cognoscenti[/i]

douglasf13

New member
Just to avoid confusion with the OP, the color differences of the Sony don't come down to liking or not liking them vs. the competition. That is simply a critique of the color profile in the raw converter, not the camera itself, and this can be changed. The Sony color advantage is in regards to actual resolution differences in a particular hue.

For example, in comparison to the D3/D700 and, even more so, the D3s, the A900 will resolve more detail in green hues at low ISO, like in foliage for landscape shots. Compared to the 5Dii, the A900 will resolve more detail in skin tones. However, most of these color differences probably require a pretty outstanding workflow to really see. Of course, the downside to this Sony CFA design is that it lets less light through to the silicon, so more amplification is required in lowlight, thus causing more noise.
 

Braeside

New member
I must say I don't recognise my A900 from some of the comments here. :)

Bad colours - no
Thin Colours - no
Need a tripod - no
Have to turn off antishake - no
Poor ergonomics - no

Sorry :p
 

Rand47

Active member
I must say I don't recognise my A900 from some of the comments here. :)

Bad colours - no
Thin Colours - no
Need a tripod - no
Have to turn off antishake - no
Poor ergonomics - no

Sorry :p
+1 Same here. Short of MF high MP back, the 900 & Zeiss glass serve extremely well. Horses for courses. Since LR3, I've found ISO 1600 perfectly usable, neutralizing for the most part the only real down side to the 900 as a broad mission system.
 

kit laughlin

Subscriber Member
What a wealth of good advice here. I have decided to hang on to the D3s, but will keep looking for a nice A900 body, and pick up a lens or two here and there.

And I will wait for Photokina, too.

Sincere thanks to all who replied and commented; it has been extremely helpful.
 

Eoin

Member
Strange, I also haven't needed to clean the sensors of my a900s in over 2 years.
But I would say the 24Mp does require more care (better technique) when hand held with low/medium shutter speeds.

Other than that,
Best colours of a dSLR I've seen
Files need the least amount of processing.
Small & light body with excellent ergonomics.
Wonderful Zeiss lenses. But large & heavy is price you pay.
Value for money is unequalled.
 

peterv

New member
Best colours of a dSLR I've seen
Files need the least amount of processing.
Small & light body with excellent ergonomics.
Wonderful Zeiss lenses. But large & heavy is price you pay.
Value for money is unequalled.
+1 from me too, Eoin hit the nail on the head with the points he made.
Been using two A900's for two years now, and I'm quite content with these camera's.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
The Sony Alpha 70-200 was the best Alpha lens I had. Topped easily the new Zeiss zooms! But no wonder, this is the good old Minolta design and this was always known for its IQ and build quality!

Sorry if I have a slightly different view - but I really did not like the new designed Alpha Zeiss zooms, actually the major point why I sold the Sony stuff.
 
I was going to let this one go, but I just can't.
I must say I don't recognise my A900 from some of the comments here. :)

Bad colours - no
Thin Colours - no
Really? Go compare the shots you get from your Sony to any of the shots in the Leica M9 or medium format galleries/threads. I suppose it depends on what you consider to be your reference, but compared to any camera that shoots true 16-bit color with no AA filter, there is no comparison.

Need a tripod - no
Have to turn off antishake - no
Take a portrait of someone with SSS on and off. Compare the fine detail in the eyes. Let me know how that works out for you. I almost sold my A900 before I realized how much detail I was loosing to SSS. That said, below 1/30th, it is a godsend and I can get acceptably sharp photos down to about 1/15th. Of course I could get sharper photos down to 1/6th on a film based, leaf shutter rangefinder, but we won't go there. Acceptably sharp at a 1/15 is good enough for me.

As for the tripod comment, I'm definitely not as steady as I used to be so we can chalk that up to user error if you like.

Poor ergonomics - no

Sorry :p
Ergonomics is such a personal preference. I have always like the pro-level Minolta ergonomics like the Maxxium 9. I shot with a Maxxium 9 once when it first came out, when I picked up the A900 it was instantly familiar. I have shot thousands of frames with consumer grade Cannons and I still can't figure out how to use my partner's 5DII, but I am instantly at home with a 1-series Cannon even though I haven't owned one in five years. Nikons are a mixed bag, even more so if you are left eye dominant.

My two critiques on the A900 ergonomics is I wish MLU was easier to access and I wish the hand grip bulge was a bit more pronounced. That's all I can come up with. I'm also a bit frustrated that I have to scroll through menus every time I need to format a card, but I think that is a bug in the current firmware.

In the end, I suppose it is all relative. The Sony is still a great camera, a great value and probably the only single camera that comes close to fitting my needs.
 

douglasf13

New member
MFDB 16bit is interpolated up from 12bits, and isn't true 16bits. Sony's CFA is very competitive with MFDB (A900 has the best color of any dslr,) but the AA makes a big difference (as well as sensor size and processing differences.)
 

Jan Brittenson

Senior Subscriber Member
The 70-200 is an outstanding lens. Mine front focused noticeably, so I had to dial in a +7 microadjustment for it. It's ever so slightly soft wide open around the outer third of the field, but sharp as a tack in the middle portions. And I mean tack sharp. This should make it a good people lens wide open, since usually this sort of shooting doesn't have a lot of content around the edges, or it's intentionally thrown slightly OOF anyway for separation. Stop it down and it's sharp all over on the A850. That makes it useful for landscapes. Color is lovely, bokeh looks good, though very fine detail near the focal plane has a tendency to double image - on a pixel level. On a large scale it renders beautifully. Contrast is a bit on the high side but nothing that can't be toned down a little in post. The field, on first check, seems very flat - I tested this by focusing on a ruler, then rotating the lens and camera on a tripod to move the ruler out to an edge and shooting. The focus shifts back a bit, and simple geometry shows it's as perfectly flat as the method allows measuring.

I also tested shooting on a bean bag with and without SSS and with and without 2s timer (MLU). The only difference I could find was that the stabilized shots were sharper or the same. In no case were they worse. (This is very different from what I found with the 70-300G.)

Build quality is like Canon L - metal barrel, lens mount, detents on the mount at 90 degrees, three AF lock/custom buttons 90 degrees apart. Heavy, but very well balanced with the A850 on a monopod. The vertical grip shouldn't affect it much (didn't try that). Hangs nicely over the shoulder with a Kirk strap attached to the tripod foot. Kirk has a plate for this lens and I think I'll order it; this thing is a keeper.

The last lens I owned in this range was the Canon 70-200/2.8L pre-IS. The Sony is vastly better. The first IS version of the Canon took a slight dip in contrast and IQ due to adding IS. There is a new design which I haven't tried. Haven't tried the Nikkor VR either.

I also got a type M screen and think it's a huge improvement.

Will go out and snap a few with it later.
 

Jan Brittenson

Senior Subscriber Member
While I was at it, I decided to check the A850 viewfinder accuracy. Looks pretty darn 100% to me! Whatever it deviates from 100% is splitting hairs - literally. It's more accurate than my ability to place a line exactly along the edge! Folks, it's 100%. Sony might say 98% but I think that's just market positioning.
 

Braeside

New member
Hi Bill,

I was going to let this one go, but I just can't.
Better in than out they always say.

As you probably guessed I don't have a MFDB or an M9, and I can't tell much from web sized screen shots, but I do have an M8 and much prefer the colours from the A900. Of course the M8 suffers from IR filters to a degree with certain lenses.

Regarding sharpness with/without SSS, I just have not noticed any difference at normal fast shutter speeds and at low speeds SSS is better for me. When I change from a tripod, I almost always forget to switch SSS on again (wish they had a big red light). Then I always notice the motion blur at medium speeds.

Bill, a tip to get to the format menu easily:

First go into view a picture with the play button , then hit the Menu button, you will see you are on the page with format.


In the end, I suppose it is all relative. The Sony is still a great camera, a great value and probably the only single camera that comes close to fitting my needs.
Absolutely Bill, same here.
 

Braeside

New member
I also tested shooting on a bean bag with and without SSS and with and without 2s timer (MLU). The only difference I could find was that the stabilized shots were sharper or the same. In no case were they worse. (This is very different from what I found with the 70-300G.)

Jan glad you like the new 70-200G SSM, I haven't used one, but did have the older Minolta 80-200 HS G which was not as sharp wide open at 200mm, but had lovely out of focus area. I traded it for the 70-400G SSM eventually as I needed a longer lens after selling the 70-300G SSM which I did not find good on full frame (though it was fine on the APS-C).

After Bill alerted me to his findings with SSS causing problems, I just did a few tests handheld with my 85/2.8 with SSS on/off and in every case the SSS on was sharper at 1/80th second, with or without fill flash, so I cannot seem to reproduce that here, may be a function of how we all shake differently, but in general I just leave SSS on all the time except when on a tripod, and even then I have sometimes forgotten and results were more than acceptable.
 

kit laughlin

Subscriber Member
Jan, that's great to know (talking about the 850 finder), and thanks for posting your reactions to the 70–200, too.

Douglas, is there any difference in colours between the 900 and the 850?

Cheers and thanks everyone, Kit
 

peterv

New member
I was going to let this one go, but I just can't.

Go compare the shots you get from your Sony to any of the shots in the Leica M9 or medium format galleries/threads. I suppose it depends on what you consider to be your reference, but compared to any camera that shoots true 16-bit color with no AA filter, there is no comparison.
You know, I've been wanting to 'test' this myself for a long time so today I finally took the time and went to my dealer and took about 80 shots on both the A900 and the M9.
I still have nice Leica glass from my M8-days and I've been thinking about the M9 for quite some time now.

Here are my notes, YMMV, this is a very personal thing.


Leica

- Lightweight but hard to handle
- Expensive
- Difficult to handle: push this while turning that buttons (ISO) / I inadvertently pushed buttons (on-off) / less display information / exp. comp. and WB takes time to change
- Rangefinder window too small for me with long lenses and no accurate composition
- No image stabilization (but no mirror)
- Difficult focusing with MF, slow
- better color (with good Leica glass)
- better micro-contrast (with good Leica glass)
- better sharpness (if I get the MF set correctly, but for close to medium range this is difficult for me)
- fine (small, filmgrain-like) noise
- Feels good for me to work with a Leica


Sony

- Heavyweight but easy to handle
- Cheap
- Easy handling: quick and easy to reach all buttons / good ergonomics / clear display with good information / exp. comp. and WB easy to change
- 100% Excellent bright viewfinder
- Image stabilization (and mirrorslap)
- easy to focus by AF, relatively fast
- less deep and less saturated colors (though with Zeiss glass)
- less micro-contrast (though with Zeiss glass)
- less sharpness (but always in focus)
- blotchy noise
- Sony does not not give me special feelings...


I decided to stay with my two A900's because of ergonomics. Maybe wait for a mirrorless FF Leica that can take new M quality Leica AF glass - and S lenses ;-)

Note: these are merely my personal thoughts, not trying to start a looooong discussion :salute:
 
Peter, maybe I'm just being dense, but can you clarify what you mean by "though with Zeiss Glass"? You're saying you're basing your impressions on shooting with Zeiss glass? Which lens(es)?
 

Rand47

Active member
According to Sony the imaging pipeline etc. of 850 & 900 are identical. Cf dpr review. LL review etc. Announced differences in viewfinder & buffer size only - resulting in lower frame rate & nominally lower finder coverage as only differences along with cosmetic difference in body finish.

If there are claimed differences I'd like a quote on quantification from recognized source describing an actual technology change/difference rather than anecdotal comment.
 
Top