A900. Your Best Set Of Lenses

[pegelli]

ptomsu, I know everybody is entitled to their opinion so if you think it's Marketing BS then so be it. Maybe you had bad copies or maybe you have different expectations but your emotional outbreak is not going to change my opinion on this matter. I think it's up to Zeiss to determine what are real Zeiss lenses.

 

[ptomsu]

ptomsu, I know everybody is entitled to their opinion so if you think it's Marketing BS then so be it. Maybe you had bad copies or maybe you have different expectations but your emotional outbreak is not going to change my opinion on this matter. I think it's up to Zeiss to determine what are real Zeiss lenses.

I am neither emotional, nor do I want to change anybodies opinion! I just thought it to be appropriate to share my findings as others share their findings.

Good luck with your Zeiss glass!

 

[ecsh]

Peter seems to be on a personal crusade to insult Sony whenever the chance arrives. Its not the first time, do a search and you will see other posts since he sold off his Sony gear some time ago.
Joe

 

[edwardkaraa]

You guys are true gentlemen. Can you imagine what would happen if one of you goes on the Nikon forum and says Nikon lenses are crap?
:ROTFL:

 

[ptomsu]

Peter seems to be on a personal crusade to insult Sony whenever the chance arrives. Its not the first time, do a search and you will see other posts since he sold off his Sony gear some time ago.
Joe

Joe,

I actually would love to have all this time to do a search on a specific forum to find out about statistics Really!

Good luck!

 

[ptomsu]

You guys are true gentlemen. Can you imagine what would happen if one of you goes on the Nikon forum and says Nikon lenses are crap?
:ROTFL:

If a specific lens is crap then no problem.

BTW I thought that this forum is a forum where it is possible to state one's opinion. Simply also because it is not a specific vendor forum.

I really hope that this stay's true also in the future.

 

[pegelli]

BTW I thought that this forum is a forum where it is possible to state one's opinion.
I really hope that this stay's true also in the future.

For me that's OK Peter. I can see the value of opinions on the quality of lenses. If you don't like the Zeiss ZA lenses I have no problem you saying so. It can be valuable information for others to check reviews and sample images to see if they agree or disagree with you.
However I see no value at all to call things "not a real Zeiss". It adds no value, and while still an opinion is clear humbug.
Since you already had to eat your words on the 135/1.8 it might even be better to further specify your opinions and not make broad sweeping statements. I saw on your website you're a PhD, so you should understand the value of providing precise and accurate information, opinions or otherwise.

 

[ptomsu]

For me that's OK Peter. I can see the value of opinions on the quality of lenses. If you don't like the Zeiss ZA lenses I have no problem you saying so. It can be valuable information for others to check reviews and sample images to see if they agree or disagree with you.
However I see no value at all to call things "not a real Zeiss". It adds no value, and while still an opinion is clear humbug.
Since you already had to eat your words on the 135/1.8 it might even be better to further specify your opinions and not make broad sweeping statements. I saw on your website you're a PhD, so you should understand the value of providing precise and accurate information, opinions or otherwise.

I will answer on this thread for the last time, believe me I was just telling my observations, nothing scientific, but the feeling I had while using my Sony 16-35 and 24-70 on my A900 for almost a year. So while I liked the 24MP of the A900 and even how it could handle higher ISO for that relatively high MP count, I was from the very beginning when I unpacked the lenses disappointed.

1) Mainly because of the feeling they gave to me when I held them. Felt for me like pure (and even worse) cheap plastic. Totally different as Contax lenses felt (both for RTS and 645 which I used to own) and not at all to speak about Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad, which I really loved to touch and handle. I fully agree that other might feel different, so this is why I say that this is very personal.

2) I was never really happy with the colors resulting of both of these lenses, far away from what I was used with Contax and Hasselblad. There you could literally see the Zeiss glow, not so from the Sony ZA glass. And yes, I tried different setting on the A900 and sure, after tweaking the images a lot in C1Pro I could get finally the results I wanted but it took me too much time. From my E5 and SHG glass I simply get the colors right as I have seen it from the beginning, using both LR3 or C1Pro as RAW converters.

3) Both, my 16-35 as my 24-70 were not sharper than what I am used to from Nikon and Canon counterparts, I actually have the impression that Canon and Nikon drew sometimes really sharper. And this was actually my biggest disappointment.

4) When I looked into the future of FF Zeiss glass for Sony I saw actually not much of a future. At least I would still estimate that they are many years away from getting a similar pro grade lens lineup as Canon or Nikon. And one who likes that flexibility is clearly missing something if not available. I do still not understand why Sony does not get the rules of the game here. But maybe it is not even in the interest of Sony to do so.

As I said these are my last comments in this thread about Sony Zeiss, nothing scientific, just my experiences, anymore would be just waste of time!

I wish all of the users who believe in Sony Zeiss glass that they keep to be satisfied, great pictures and great fun!

 

[douglasf13]

Well, the Zeiss zooms and Zeiss primes are two different leagues in build, so I can understand the plastic sentiment with the zooms, but not the primes. My 24-70 had a creak in the focusing ring that needed repair, but my ZA 85 was rock solid...and certainly of Zeiss image quality.

We outta get Wayne Seltzer on here to talk about the 135/1.8, considering he shoots Canon and owns the 135L, yet went to the trouble of making a home-made mount with a card board aperture adjuster just to use the 135/1.8 on his Canon cameras.

 

[edwardkaraa]

If a specific lens is crap then no problem.

BTW I thought that this forum is a forum where it is possible to state one's opinion. Simply also because it is not a specific vendor forum.

I really hope that this stay's true also in the future.

Well, I was joking, but still, I don't consider your recent posts as good forum etiquette by any standards.

 

[edwardkaraa]

I have a few remarks on this subject, ZA not being truly Zeiss:

The 24-70 and 16-35 are direct descendants and improved versions of the 24-85 and 17-35 Contax N lenses.

The ZA primes and zooms are better than any equivalent lenses on the market, even when tested on the A900.

I have also wondered about the lack of fine detail and general Zeiss characteristics in the ZA, so I bought 3 ZS lenses. And guess what? No Zeissness there either.

So I thought this Zeissness is either only in my imagination or is it a problem (or feature) of the camera itself.

After a lot of head scratching, I realized the following:

The A900 has a very flat middle curve that kills the contrast in that area, which contributes a lot to the specific look of Minolta that is loved by all users. However, if micro contrast is what you're looking for, you're screwed because the camera kills it.

The A900 lacks in real resolution, making all lenses tested with it look bad, not only the ZA. It's real resolution is around 16 mp and the 24 mp files just look like uprezzed 16 mp files.

The reason behind it is not clear, but for sure, one of the culprits is the AA filter that is placed further away from the sensor, magnifying it's strength considerably. Sony did this to lessen the effect of dust, which works well IMHO. I can see in the specks of dust on my sensor. I just have a couple of very tiny specks but at f/8, they measure about 80-100 pixels in diameter, when normally they should not measure more than 40-50 pixels.

It is also possible that this could be the reason of the image deterioration in the corners of many wide angle lenses but I'm no expert on this subject.

Despite that, the ZA lenses have a very respectable performance as I mentioned, and many reviewers share this impression. Just read the enthusiastic reviews of all 3 ZA primes at slrlensreview.com.

We might even see the true performance of the ZA with the upcoming new generation of Sony cameras if the sensor issues were addressed.

 

[Bill_Green]

I have also wondered about the lack of fine detail and general Zeiss characteristics in the ZA, so I bought 3 ZS lenses. And guess what? No Zeissness there either.

So I thought this Zeissness is either only in my imagination or is it a problem (or feature) of the camera itself.

After a lot of head scratching, I realized the following:

The A900 has a very flat middle curve that kills the contrast in that area, which contributes a lot to the specific look of Minolta that is loved by all users. However, if micro contrast is what you're looking for, you're screwed because the camera kills it.

I think the choice of raw processor makes a lot of difference with the Sony. I don't know enough to explain why that is. Personally, the lack of microcontrast drives me insane, and it clearly is a lack of contrast rather than resolution as some of it is recoverable through careful sharpening and local contrast enhancement, but it sure takes a lot!

The A900 lacks in real resolution, making all lenses tested with it look bad, not only the ZA. It's real resolution is around 16 mp and the 24 mp files just look like uprezzed 16 mp files.

The reason behind it is not clear, but for sure, one of the culprits is the AA filter that is placed further away from the sensor, magnifying it's strength considerably. Sony did this to lessen the effect of dust, which works well IMHO. I can see in the specks of dust on my sensor. I just have a couple of very tiny specks but at f/8, they measure about 80-100 pixels in diameter, when normally they should not measure more than 40-50 pixels.

It is also possible that this could be the reason of the image deterioration in the corners of many wide angle lenses but I'm no expert on this subject.

Very interesting observations Edward. I have suspected as much, though I had not put the pieces together as you have. I keep threatening to send my A900 off to have the AA filter removed. Coming from a CCD camera without an AA filter, it has been a tough pill to swallow. While the A900's 25mp shames my previous camera's 10 mp, I have a hard time seeing much actual difference. Your estimation of 16 mp of actual detail seems about right.

For anyone who is lacking micro contrast, turn off steady shot. In my tests it makes a subtle but noticeable difference. Also, I have had my best luck processing the A900 files one of two ways -- either through RPP, or import into C1 ->export DNG -> import DNG into Lightroom and process normally. There is a specific look that I go for, and this gets me there, or as close as I have seen in a current DSLR.

We might even see the true performance of the ZA with the upcoming new generation of Sony cameras if the sensor issues were addressed.

I really hope they deliver something awesome with the A99.

 

[surfotog]

Bill,
Is there a company that will remove the AA filter from the A900? Maxmax doesn't list any Sony SLR's.

 

[Bill_Green]

Bill,
Is there a company that will remove the AA filter from the A900? Maxmax doesn't list any Sony SLR's.

I'm pretty sure. Actually I thought is was Maxmax. Do a search on LuLa, there was a company mentioned there. I'm slightly on the fence about my commitment to Sony (and its commitment to pro market). If I add an A99, I will likely send to A900 in for surgery to see what happens.

 

[edwardkaraa]

Bill, it's good to see that we are on the same wave length

But don't get me wrong. Despite the mentioned problems, I am quite happy with the A900 and I think I would have had to shed 8000$ for a D3X to be happier. But for sure a 5D2 or D700 would be out of question.

If the AA removal was available in Thailand, I wouldn't have hesitated to do it, but it's not feasible for me to send it to the US and ship it back.

But as it is, the camera is great and has so far given some of my best files ever.

 

[pegelli]

I will answer on this thread for the last time, believe me I was just telling my observations, nothing scientific, but the feeling I had while using my Sony 16-35 and 24-70 on my A900 for almost a year......

rest of post not quoted to save space

Thanks Peter, that was very useful information.

 

[ptomsu]

Well, I was joking, but still, I don't consider your recent posts as good forum etiquette by any standards.

Why is this? Because you do not want to discuss "true" things but rather talk everything nice? Or because you take these discussions personal? This is the wrong attitude, because I would never ever take such a discussion personal.

 

[ptomsu]

We might even see the true performance of the ZA with the upcoming new generation of Sony cameras if the sensor issues were addressed.

I would be interested in that! Let's hope it comes true!

 

[edwardkaraa]

Why is this? Because you do not want to discuss "true" things but rather talk everything nice? Or because you take these discussions personal? This is the wrong attitude, because I would never ever take such a discussion personal.

In the contrary, I am personally not offended or annoyed by your posts. It was just an observation, nothing more.

I am not sure how objective are statements that bash Sony or claim ZA are not real Zeiss...etc. These are your personal opinions but it doesnt mean that others share your feelings towards Sony.

 

[ptomsu]

In the contrary, I am personally not offended or annoyed by your posts. It was just an observation, nothing more.

I am not sure how objective are statements that bash Sony or claim ZA are not real Zeiss...etc. These are your personal opinions but it doesnt mean that others share your feelings towards Sony.

BTW 1: I share your findings that the A900 maybe cannot unveil the whole potential of the Zeiss glass even if it has 24MP. And I think the same is true for the D3X which basically uses the same sensor. The point seems to be the strong AA filter used in those cameras.

I can tell you that I get images with more resolution from my E5 with only 12MP than I got from my A900 with 24MP. This is mainly the almost non existent AA filter in the E5.

I really hope that in next generation FF DSLRs vendors will introduce weaker AA filters. That would even without increasing pixel count increase resolution significantly if done with the right SW.

BTW 2: understand me right, I would also love to see a Sony FF DSLR camera in combination with great Zeiss primes. Actually this would give me back somehow what I used to have with my Contax RTS III and Zeiss lenses. If this is going to happen then I might be back to Sony / Zeiss in a second. And maybe would even bother with a not so perfect Zeiss zoom lens, actually I found I am more a prime shooter lately. But I would love to get 1 zoom from Zeiss, which is kind of my standard setup for DSLRs - a 2.8/ 70-200 ZA. How would that sound?