edwardkaraa
New member
Understood
We all want basically the same
We all want basically the same
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!
I seriously doubt you would have been "happier" with a D3X. Same sensor and based on using both cameras side-by-side, even flatter response. I never had a camera that required so much post to get to the end product ... at least where color work was concerned.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 .
1) Equivalent output:I seriously doubt you would have been "happier" with a D3X. Same sensor and based on using both cameras side-by-side, even flatter response. I never had a camera that required so much post to get to the end product ... at least where color work was concerned.
None of the CMOS sensor cameras deliver the full effect of micro contrast IMO. We got spoiled by the response of film, had hopes for digital with cameras like the Contax ND and Leica DMR, and see it realized to greater effect with the Leica M9 with FF 18 meg. All CCD sensor cameras BTW.
Of the CMOS sensor cameras, I prefer the A900 over all of the others. Not sure I totally agree that it is an effective 16 meg output, but that is neither here nor there for me, since it currently is the best of the lot, so it is a moot point.
I have zero idea what side effects you'd get by removing the AA sensor from the A900, but once someone else tries it I'd give it a go.
As to the lenses, which is a subjective view no matter how you present it: The 135/1.8 is without peer in any other system, and is A900 stabilized on top of that, which none of the others are. The 85/1.4 could be better and isn't quite the lens that the N85/1.4 was, exhibiting more CA than the N did, and isn't built quite as well ... but it still sure delivers a nice 3D effect. The ZA zooms are necessary evils that do their job in the same manner that the competition ... better in some areas and not in others. The type of distortion the ZA 24-70 produces is easily corrected compared to the aging Canon 24-70/2.8L, and the ZA color is superior to the Nikon nano-coated 24-70/2.8 but not quite as sharp to the corners wide open. I just use the ZA24/2 when shooting wider work anyway.
The sleeper lens in the Sony system is the 70-200/2.8APO ... which I found better than both Canon and Nikon IS and VR zooms ... however, I admit that I may have lucked out with my sample.
The biggest hole in the ZA line-up is a 35/1.4 ... with a 24/2, 35/1.4, 85/1.4 and 135/1.8 PLUS a 1.4X for the 135, I wouldn't even bother with zooms.
-Marc
Having used the 135mm f/2L USM extensively, I know that it is a great lens and is one of the sharpest of Canon's lenses....however, having used the Zeiss 135/1.8 on the A900, I can state unequivocally that the Zeiss will thrash the Canon optically, to kingdom come. Granted the Zeiss is larger/heavier, being an f/1.8 lens but optically there is not even a contest there. You can take that to the bank.But the 2/135 L from Canon is at least on par with that Zeiss lens.
I have used both the 24-70/2.8L and also the 16-35 f/2.8L (both I and II) and either of these don't compare optically or mechanically (AF performance etc) to the Zeiss equivalents. Have you used those Canon lenses ?But form the other lenses, especially the zooms, none of them comes only close to their Nikon and Canon counterparts.
I believe the Sony/Zeiss 85/1.4ZA Planar in particular, has a higher resolution than the Nikon mount 85/1.4 Planar, which in turn has a slightly higher resolution than the Contax version of the 85/1.4 Planar.that these new Zeiss / Sony lenses are far away from the quality and flare other (former) Zeiss lenses had.
It is true what they say that the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. We are never satisfied with what we already have, and somehow tend to forget the shortcomings of previous gear and why did we sell it in the first place.
After my rant about the A900 real resolution of the other day, a friend asked me to send him a copy of an old photo I have taken of him with my ex 1Ds2 and Contax glass a few years ago. After having processed the file in Canon DPP with quite a lot of frustration and disappointment, especially that skin tones looked horrible to my eyes spoiled with the Sony files, and resolution not exactly as good as I remembered it. Now I'm very happy again with my A900.
I've said many times that I don't expect Sony to bring a 135 sensor NEX camera (although I hope I'm wrong,) but if Sony can manage to bring an A55-ish sized SLT with a 135 sensor in it, that would be very tempting to me.Here is what SAR (SonyAlphaRumors), who mentioned about the 24MP APS-C sensor in October 2010 and also accurately predicted the upcoming announcement months back, tells about the future Sony Cameras (Full-frame related):
==============
One more thing: The future rumors: The same sources that gave me correct info about all the new Sony cameras are already sending me bits of info about the next DDAY in 2012. The event will be important for everyone seeking full frame cameras and lenses. And that will be the new rumor adventure we will have to go the next months. As I said, there are at least three new FF cameras coming and the new lens quantity is much bigger!
==============
Link below:
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/24-hours-from-sonys-dday-a-message-to-all-of-you/
Agree. We need to separate the Zeiss primes in the A-mount (135 and 85 and the 24mm) from the Zeiss zooms. The zooms are good performers as far as zooms go but the primes are certainly a cut above.At first I'm still convinced since many years that it doesn't make much sense to expect that zoom lenses deliver the same quality that prime lenses can demonstrate. A Sony/Zeiss zoom can't be as good as a Sony/Zeiss prime lens.
For absolute best performance on a high-resolution full-frame, the 85mm will need to be stopped down a bit, while the 135/1.8 is already outstanding, right at f/1.8.The Sony/Zeiss 135/1,8 is very good, visible better than other DSLR lenses from Sony, Minolta.
The Sony/Zeiss 85/1,4 is visible below the 135/1,8. I would say that there are a some other Sony/Minolta primes that are equally good or better, but have other focal lengths. It could be very well that Canon, Nikon, Zeiss have an equally good or better 85mm lens.
Except that the Sony version of the 85/1.4 Planar provides Auto-focus on the Sony bodies, while the other Canon/Nikon versions are less challenging manual-focus versions. Apples-and-oranges. I like having Auto-focus.I've seen tests that compared both 85/1,4, the Sony/Zeiss and the Zeiss for DSLR's. They both were roughly equally good.
I don't mind getting some of these ultra-wides (21mm Distagon for instance) in the A-mount but for the longer lenses, I like to have auto-focus.....not interested otherwise.I would be happy if Zeiss would offer it's DSLR lenses with the Sony mount since these lenses look much more beautiful and should be better mechanical wise.
Unequivocally, yes ! The Canon is smaller and lighter (which are certainly advantages in my mind), since it only has f/2 (f/1.8 in a 135mm lets in almost 24% more light than an f/2 version), and comes with SSM focusing (also an advantage) but optically, the Zeiss 135/1.8 will send it back to elementary school to learn to catch up with it.@roweraay
so you say that the 1.8/135 Zeiss is a better and sharper lens than the 1.2/135 L from Canon?
Not familiar with the Nikon 85/1.4 and hence can't comment.Also the 1.4/85 Zeiss for Alpha - would you say it is sharper than the Nikon 1.4/85G?
This part was funny to read.Unequivocally, yes ! The Canon is smaller and lighter (which are certainly advantages in my mind), since it only has f/2 (f/1.8 in a 135mm lets in almost 24% more light than an f/2 version), and comes with SSM focusing (also an advantage) but optically, the Zeiss 135/1.8 will send it back to elementary school to learn to catch up with it.