W
Westvleteren
Guest
I agree, the a900 images are stunning whereas the Canon feels flat to me. Can't wait to get one and share on this thread.
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!
HI Shelbywow... i can't believe how so many people can be so negative without even knowing how these were post processed. The studio i shoot for often uses the "direct positive" preset (for some reason) in lightroom which pumps the contrast up and pushes color towards blue... those of you who know my work know what I'm capable of. This was an example of a couple in love... as well as how the 5d can indeed produce photos with nice amounts of detail and dimension.
Different... not bad.
Oh well, I guess I read the attitude of the Sony fan club (which I've enjoyed) with a bit of naivete... People forget that reality (like getting an action shot in extreme low light) often dictates things other than zeiss lenses and good color separation.
Later.
I would say that most of the difference, 3-d quality, color separation, and less muddying of color is due to the drawing style of the Zeiss lenses vs. the Canon. Put a Zeiss ZF lens with adapter on the Canon and the rest is a small difference in hue and saturation of greens which you could do in post. Of course everyone here is anti-canon and will flame me for this but I don't care.I like the Sony-Zeiss platform and don't need to trash it like a lot of people here have to do with Canon. I get tired some times of the anti-canon sentiment here which is overplayed vs. the skill and the art of the picture itself but that is how forums work.Hey guys... sorry to be hot headed. The truth is that there are some things the 5d does better... but I'll be the very first to admit that the files @ 100% are nothing near as nice as the a900... and I already miss the 3d quality to the files.
That's probably why I moving into medium format as soon as I can get the capital.
5D for the meat and potatoes wedding work... MF for the "sony" stuff, lol.
I am going to try something though, as I believe it will make a difference... the canon files need a lot of initial sharpening (something I didn't do here). I do wonder what they'll look like if I start from a sharp 100% file. Anywho... i do thank you all for the words about my work... I guess I'm a bit disappointed that the difference in the cams is so apparent (something I was trying to convince myself wasn't true).
Fine, can I see some side by side comparison shots with the same lens and then we can go from there to see the differences rather than saying well I prefer the beauty of this camera's shot over this one. First, of all I think Shelby takes great images no matter what camera system. And the drawing style of the sigma is different than the Zeiss lenses and I can see that difference whether on a Sony or Canon camera.Wayne: "due to the drawing style of the Zeiss lenses vs. the Canon"
Wayne, does this observation also explain the great images that Shelby posted with his 50mm SIGMA on the a900?
At one time, I was using 5 different focal length Zeiss ZF's on a Canon MarkIII - I never experienced (with the MKIII/Zeiss combo) the beauty of the files generated by the A900.
No offense towards you as a photographer. As I said initially, I like the composition and depth. When you say that the studio's pp tends to go towards blue, it's a bit more understandable, because my first reaction was the lack of warmth, particularly to the skin colours. As you point out, I should be careful when theorizing about this photo, since I don't know the whole story, but if this is typical for your "Canon work", I still maintain that I liked your "Sony work" much better.wow... i can't believe how so many people can be so negative without even knowing how these were post processed. The studio i shoot for often uses the "direct positive" preset (for some reason) in lightroom which pumps the contrast up and pushes color towards blue... those of you who know my work know what I'm capable of. This was an example of a couple in love... as well as how the 5d can indeed produce photos with nice amounts of detail and dimension.
Different... not bad.
Oh well, I guess I read the attitude of the Sony fan club (which I've enjoyed) with a bit of naivete... People forget that reality (like getting an action shot in extreme low light) often dictates things other than zeiss lenses and good color separation.
Later.
Hope the firmware part is true. I don't want yet another camera.Shelby, we all love you - don't take offense. It was just a shock to see the difference.
Sony will be introducing (August/Sept) some new bodies (850, etc) that are designed specifically to address the low light issue - in fact it appears to be a MAJOR announcement. We might also see a firmware update shortly for the 900.
Best to you and good luck with your new gig!
YuppHmmm, a thread titled "Fun Pictures with Sony" ... er ... are we having fun yet?
All this "my camera is better than your camera" is sucking the fun right out of photography...
I was using 13 Zeiss Contax lenses on a 1Ds2 until January 2009. I share the same conclusions.At one time, I was using 5 different focal length Zeiss ZF's on a Canon MarkIII - I never experienced (with the MKIII/Zeiss combo) the beauty of the files generated by the A900.
Guess I'm to blame for "muddying the waters", lol.Hmmm, a thread titled "Fun Pictures with Sony" ... er ... are we having fun yet?
All this "my camera is better than your camera" is sucking the fun right out of photography...
Hey now mister! I did post pictures and I did it with YOUR camera.Someone post something, please... or else I'll put something else up. :ROTFL: