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 shooters having fun while D3x users are not

Jonathon Delacour

Subscriber Member
It's unfortunate that this thread took a brief detour into DPReviewLand -- for which we can probably blame the unnecessarily divisive title -- so it was good to see things get back on track. Even though I'm a Nikon shooter, whenever I visit GetDPI there are always two forums I check before I look at the Nikon forum: 4/3rds Cameras and Sony. Why? Because I'm waiting for Panasonic or Olympus to release a small Micro 4/3rds model and a fast 20mm prime and because I'm genuinely interested in the Sony DSLRs and what you guys are doing with them.

I currently use a variety of AF and MF Nikkor lenses, MF Voigtlanders, and a Zeiss 28/2 ZF on a D300 and a D700. So I guess you might say I have an "investment" in the Nikon system. Except that wouldn't be true. I actually have an investment in lenses of particular focal lengths: 28mm, 40mm, 58/60mm, and 85/90mm. If it's wider than 28mm or longer than 90mm, I'm not really interested. I can get my favorite focal length (around 40mm) with the Voigtlander Ultron on the D700 or a 28mm lens on the D300. The 28mm Distagon on the D300 is magical but sometimes difficult to focus.

What I most envy in the Sony system is the same thing that appeals to most everyone in this forum: the AF Zeiss lenses. I think the likelihood of a 40mm ZA lens is about the same as that of a 28-90/2.8 ZA zoom: no chance at all. But a 28mm ZA Distagon on a 15-18 megapixel A700 replacement would be enough to bring me into the Sony camp. Yet somehow I feel as though I might be waiting a long time -- for the 28mm Distagon anyway -- since there is probably more demand for the 21mm, 25mm, and 35mm Distagons, the 50mm Planar, and the 50mm and 100mm Makro-Planar lenses. Still, one can hope...
 

fotografz

Well-known member
It's unfortunate that this thread took a brief detour into DPReviewLand -- for which we can probably blame the unnecessarily divisive title -- so it was good to see things get back on track. Even though I'm a Nikon shooter, whenever I visit GetDPI there are always two forums I check before I look at the Nikon forum: 4/3rds Cameras and Sony. Why? Because I'm waiting for Panasonic or Olympus to release a small Micro 4/3rds model and a fast 20mm prime and because I'm genuinely interested in the Sony DSLRs and what you guys are doing with them.

I currently use a variety of AF and MF Nikkor lenses, MF Voigtlanders, and a Zeiss 28/2 ZF on a D300 and a D700. So I guess you might say I have an "investment" in the Nikon system. Except that wouldn't be true. I actually have an investment in lenses of particular focal lengths: 28mm, 40mm, 58/60mm, and 85/90mm. If it's wider than 28mm or longer than 90mm, I'm not really interested. I can get my favorite focal length (around 40mm) with the Voigtlander Ultron on the D700 or a 28mm lens on the D300. The 28mm Distagon on the D300 is magical but sometimes difficult to focus.

What I most envy in the Sony system is the same thing that appeals to most everyone in this forum: the AF Zeiss lenses. I think the likelihood of a 40mm ZA lens is about the same as that of a 28-90/2.8 ZA zoom: no chance at all. But a 28mm ZA Distagon on a 15-18 megapixel A700 replacement would be enough to bring me into the Sony camp. Yet somehow I feel as though I might be waiting a long time -- for the 28mm Distagon anyway -- since there is probably more demand for the 21mm, 25mm, and 35mm Distagons, the 50mm Planar, and the 50mm and 100mm Makro-Planar lenses. Still, one can hope...
My hope is a Zeiss 28/2 ... or 35/1.4. Since Sony makes a 35/1.4 there's less chance of that. But the Zeiss 28/2 is a stellar lens and was stellar on the Contax system, and now as a ZF mount. The only thing that would be better would be a new Zeiss 28/1.4 ... now wouldn't that take the cake?
 

Lars

Active member
Lars, I believe your color science standpoint is absolutely correct, but you are also ignoring the equally scientific facts that the filter array density plays an improtant role in the color separation ability of a certain camera, and the noise reduction applied at the hardware level is irreversible and does have an effect of the signal.

It is no coincidence that the MFDB with the best color separation in the digital world, are quite noisy, even having noise at the base ISO.
Not ignoring just viewing it as a separate issue. Of course filtering can make all the difference in the world.
 
D

ddk

Guest
It's unfortunate that this thread took a brief detour into DPReviewLand --
Hi Jonathan,
The title was alluding to the the Fun Threads here which are basically image threads, nothing more. It you look there's a lot more images in the A900 thread than the D3x one. If you think about it, the D3x user come from a Nikon background and one would think that because of their background they should have taken to the camera easier that what is being reported. On the other hand the A900 is the new kid on the block and its user base are mostly new to the system, yet they seem to get along with it just fine.
 

Lars

Active member
On the other hand the A900 is the new kid on the block and its user base are mostly new to the system, yet they seem to get along with it just fine.
They seem to. I know that if I actually invested in a D3x for $8K I'd be a lot more discerning than if I got an A900 for $3K. I'd be brand loyal with my wallet (since 'm already invested in Nikon glass) but a much more vocal critic. That wouldn't mean that either camera gives better results, by some objective or subjective standard.
 

carstenw

Active member
As far as low ISO specific work, that is a catagory I leave to MFD ... which I can only say outstrips the A900 by a good margin. The advantage of the Sony is the same advantage any DSLR has over MFD, but it'll never be an advantage in the low ISO area of IQ ... which is just the same physics as it was with film ... size matters.
Marc, did you own any of the earlier 16MP backs, like the Kodak 645 Pro or a P20? Could you compare IQ of the A900 with one of those? I know that the current Phase et al backs will knock the A900 into a cocked hat, but they don't cost the same :)
 

Arne Hvaring

Well-known member
This interesting thread has convinced me that I have to get my hands on a A900 and do a serious comparision of the colour response/tonality vis a vis my Canon and Nikon gear. At least for my own peace of mind:eek:
Hmm, that could get expensive..
 

jonoslack

Active member
This interesting thread has convinced me that I have to get my hands on a A900 and do a serious comparision of the colour response/tonality vis a vis my Canon and Nikon gear. At least for my own peace of mind:eek:
Hmm, that could get expensive..
Hi Arne
surely you have a tame dealer? I had an A900 thrust into my hands and was told to spend an afternoon and come back with comments . . . . that was an expensive afternoon :ROTFL:
 

Arne Hvaring

Well-known member
Hi Arne
surely you have a tame dealer? I had an A900 thrust into my hands and was told to spend an afternoon and come back with comments . . . . that was an expensive afternoon :ROTFL:
Hi Jono,
"tame dealer" :ROTFL: , sure, he eats out of my hand, problem is he doesn't carry Sony. This brand has tradtionally been marketed through the big chains that sell TV, kitchen appliances etc. Probably good enough for P&S, but a distinct disadvantage for DSLRs and high-end stuff. But we have a "Sony Center" nearby which has the A900 in stock, I'll have a look there....
 

Lars

Active member
This interesting thread has convinced me that I have to get my hands on a A900 and do a serious comparision of the colour response/tonality vis a vis my Canon and Nikon gear. At least for my own peace of mind:eek:
Hmm, that could get expensive..
Yep that's the best way. I spent a few hours downloading an examining A900 raw files, but I counldn't conclude anything beyond "Looks nice".
 

MoJo

Registred Users
Back to the OP's first post, it may be that the answer lies in the economic demographics. The Pros able to afford an $8000 camera are probably not spending time posting "fun" pictures on these forums........The Sony camera is more affordable to Advanced Amateurs and hobbyists who are able to have more time to play around, in general.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Back to the OP's first post, it may be that the answer lies in the economic demographics. The Pros able to afford an $8000 camera are probably not spending time posting "fun" pictures on these forums........The Sony camera is more affordable to Advanced Amateurs and hobbyists who are able to have more time to play around, in general.
Are you sure? That would be sad :(
All work and no fun makes Jorgen a very dull boy.
But then, I have neither camera. Can't afford it. I probably work too little and have too much fun :D
 

Lars

Active member
Back to the OP's first post, it may be that the answer lies in the economic demographics. The Pros able to afford an $8000 camera are probably not spending time posting "fun" pictures on these forums........The Sony camera is more affordable to Advanced Amateurs and hobbyists who are able to have more time to play around, in general.
I'm not sure if that reasoning holds, there are some pros on this forum as well as amateurs. I'd say it's more likely that A900 outsells the D3x by a huge margin, in terms of units sold, so there are simply many more A900 users.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I'm not sure if that reasoning holds, there are some pros on this forum as well as amateurs.
. . . . and judging by the amateur expenditure on expensive MF gear around here, I'd suggest that a D3x would be a mere nothing (present company excepted!).
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
Back to the OP's first post, it may be that the answer lies in the economic demographics. The Pros able to afford an $8000 camera are probably not spending time posting "fun" pictures on these forums........The Sony camera is more affordable to Advanced Amateurs and hobbyists who are able to have more time to play around, in general.
Its probably the other way around :rolleyes: Pros can't afford to waste money on an overpriced camera. Jono and I have a mutual full-time pro friend who baulks at the price of the D3x. I could afford (and had on order) a D3x, but thought Nikon were takin the p*ss when the price was announced. So I cancelled the order and went Sony and don't regret it.
 
Top