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!

A900. Your Best Set Of Lenses

BobDavid

New member
I guess I must be from another planet. I use the a850 with the ZA 24-70 almost exlusively. This combination kicks the #%?! out of the 5D II and the Canon 24-105L and the 17-40L -- micro contrast, color, sharpness, linearity, CA, etc.
 
M

memories

Guest
I'm pretty sure. Actually I thought is was Maxmax. Do a search on LuLa, there was a company mentioned there...
I do not find it. Has anybody a link or name for removing the AA filter from the Sony a900/a850?

I would be highly interested
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
This is a recent ad shoot using the 24-70mm Zeiss... Although web photographs @72dpi, don't show the rich detail, this lens surprised me by how useful it is!
 
Last edited:

kit laughlin

Subscriber Member
Maxmax is the company; here's the LINK. Not sure that they do Sony, but they always respond quickly, so ask and 'you never know'.


Cheers, KL
 

surfotog

New member
MaxMax doesn't list any Sony DSLR's for AA removal. This is probably due to the much smaller market share Sony holds in this segment. However, I seem to recall someone at the Dyxum forums contacting maxmax about AA removal on an A900, and they responded that it could be done, but that the process would take longer than usual.
If you're really intent on doing this contact them, as Kit said, they respond promptly.
 

douglasf13

New member
I emailed MaxMax a long time ago, and they told me that they couldn't do Sony AA filter removal because of the way the sensor glass was epoxied onto the sensor. I don't know if that was a legitimate reason or not, though. I've seen someone remove the IR/AA filter from the NEX-5 before.
 

edwardkaraa

New member
I don't think so, really. I believe the issue may be that one needs to install a plain glass cover to the sensor after the AA is removed.
Yeah, forgot about the replacement cover. I might try to ask my local technician though. He used to be the main guy at Canon repair so he must know something about it.
 

Jan Brittenson

Senior Subscriber Member
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.
The AA filter definitely kills a lot of fine detail. In the end there's not much more, if any, in the files than I get with the M9. So yeah, 16MP sounds close to the mark. Maybe slightly more, like 18-20. I don't really mind that much though, choosing to accept it for what it is. That's not a poor showing by any means. It's also one of the weakest AA filters out there - this was actually a key factor when I chose the a850. I looked at technically well-executed images from a variety of DSLRs and felt the Sony lost the least.

The AA filter contributes to noise filtering; noise tends to be spurious single-pixel detail (which can be formally expressed as an edge response), with its spread diminishing rapidly, meaning just about all noise can be identified as something that wouldn't have passed the AA filter. It can be removed before the raw file is even output, regardless of menu settings.
 

douglasf13

New member
I would contend that using a raw converter with floating point processing, like RPP, would be a better move before going through the effort of removing an AA filter off one's camera. Detail is a combination of a whole chain of events, and the quality of a raw converter is an often overlooked, yet highly variable and important part of that chain. Compared to even the industry standard, ACR/LR, I get more detail out of RPP with my Sony files without any sharpening than I do with LR3 WITH standard sharpening settings. It's pretty remarkable.
 

Jan Brittenson

Senior Subscriber Member
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.
I like mine a lot as well. In fact, I got the a850 explicitly to use either the 70-300G or the 70-200 and ended up sticking with the latter. The f/2.8 and tripod foot together are more valuable to me than the additional reach. I'll attach a strap (with QR clamp) to the foot and throw it over a shoulder as a complement to the M9. For me the 24-70 is really a backup in case something happens to the M9. Ideally I'd rather carry a spare M9 body and probably will one day (maybe once there's an M10), but for now the 24-70 is my security. (Another option I'm contemplating is a NEX with an M adapter. In that case I'd probably sell the 24-70 since I also have an assortment of M42 and M645 lenses.)
 

Jan Brittenson

Senior Subscriber Member
I would contend that using a raw converter with floating point processing, like RPP, would be a better move before going through the effort of removing an AA filter off one's camera.
I've been meaning to take a look at this sometime... Especially since it can be run as a plugin from LR3. So LR3 can be used to crank out quick proofs and web stuff, but for a print 16x24 and up where detail starts to make a difference RPP can be used for the initial conversion, then the TIFF from RPP is used with Silver Efex or other LR3 processing plugins.
 

douglasf13

New member
I've been meaning to take a look at this sometime... Especially since it can be run as a plugin from LR3. So LR3 can be used to crank out quick proofs and web stuff, but for a print 16x24 and up where detail starts to make a difference RPP can be used for the initial conversion, then the TIFF from RPP is used with Silver Efex or other LR3 processing plugins.
That's what I do. I export anything of importance out of LR3 into RPP, and then the TIFF from RPP imports right back into LR3. From there I can adjust the image more if need be and then print/export.
 
M

memories

Guest
FWIW, I will be completing my Zeiss line up with a 35/1.8 equivalent. That would be the Nex 7 with the Zeiss 24/1.8. ...
I would not buy the e-mount 24/1.8 in your case. You could use your ZA 24/2.0 with the LEA-2 adapter on the NEX. This is a lot cheaper and I guess at least the same image quality ;)


Yeah, forgot about the replacement cover. I might try to ask my local technician though. He used to be the main guy at Canon repair so he must know something about it.
Any news on this?
 
R

Ron Huff

Guest
AA removal

I emailed Max Max about removing the AA on an A900, and Dan Llewellyn, president of the company, replied that they can do this, that he had done several A900's before. Same price, turnaround time 1-2 days. I know several of you were asking about this.

Ron
 

FlypenFly

New member
I haven't found anything close to what people are saying here about the full frame Sony cameras producing 16mpx files.

Mostly because I also have a Nex-5N which is a 16mpx camera with a very weak AA filter. When I actually do prints, the A850 files easily have more detail than the 5N and this is with the 5N using technically better lenses at least according to the Zeiss MTF data.
 

Jan Brittenson

Senior Subscriber Member
I haven't found anything close to what people are saying here about the full frame Sony cameras producing 16mpx files.

Mostly because I also have a Nex-5N which is a 16mpx camera with a very weak AA filter.
You need to compare it to a 16MP camera or back with no AA filter.
 
Top