Lunchtime with the A900 and Zeiss 135

[jonoslack]

What I would like to see next from Sony is some more Zeiss primes like a 25, 35 and a 50

What are the chances of that happening?

So would I!
and as far as the Sony / Nikon autofocus is concerned, of course, the Nikon is much faster, and the Sony may hunt in low light :cussing: and it's slow :sleep006::sleep006: however, I get less out of focus shots than I used to with the D3 . . . but that doesn't alter Marc's point that under stress, the Nikon is more likely to get that crucial shot. What it does mean is that if your photographing that mountain / flower / sleeping dog, the A900 (it seems to me) is less likely to make some smart *** (apparently I'm not allowed to use a word denoting bottom) decision and focus on something quite different.

 

[douglasf13]

Sony had been showing these two prototypes up until last August, so I'm HOPING that they spring them on us this year. Who knows? The first one is definitely Zeiss, the second may or may not be, because the focus hold button looks more like a "G" lens.

 

[fotografz]

A couple of fast aperture Sony primes would be most welcome to join this photographer's roller bag. Chief among those would be a Zeiss 28/2 and/or 35/1.4 ASPH with a floating element. A refreshed 85/1.4 IF APO would be most welcome also (the Leica R90/2 APO is sorely missed every time I shoot the current 85/1.4 against back light). A Zeiss 180/2.8 APO wouldn't hurt either.

Personally, I would pay almost any amount of money for a Zeiss 55/1.2 and 85/1.2 in AF versions. :thumbs: Those lenses are the ONLY reason I miss Canon at all.

I never saw the A900 as a replacement for the Nikons. To some degree, it was the camera Leica should have delivered (with added Leica design touches and AF) ... frankly, that was exactly how I saw it ... so I sold my DMR/9 and all those fine but manual focus Leica optics. (The DMR also delivered at lower ISOs and struggled with higher ISOs.) That is a decision I do not regret in the least. Nor do I regret off-loading the ZF collection, since that was just a stop gap prior to the Sony/Zeiss solution.

BTW, I do not have any issue with miss focused D3 files. I had the camera calibrated by Nikon service which took 4 days door-to-door, and then zeroed in each lens individually. As far as selection of what to focus on, all I can say is practice makes perfect. Shooting 1000 images in 8 hours every single weekend tends to make for fast hands and a sure eye as to exactly where and how to place the focus point. Just because there is automation doesn't mean it does ALL of the thinking

I've used the D3 AF in studio with the Profoto high speed strobes for fashion stuff and had zero misses, so missing shots there makes no sense to me.

I'm not into trashing one system to engrandize another. Each has it's place and ways to earn its keep. I have a couple of high-end outdoor weddings coming up where I will have a second primary shooter as back-up, and will be most delighted to carry the A900s to those. But, trust me, the Nikons WILL be in the Volvo just in case the sun goes down :ROTFL:

 

[woodyspedden]

A couple of fast aperture Sony primes would be most welcome to join this photographer's roller bag. Chief among those would be a Zeiss 28/2 and/or 35/1.4 ASPH with a floating element. A refreshed 85/1.4 IF APO would be most welcome also (the Leica R90/2 APO is sorely missed every time I shoot the current 85/1.4 against back light). A Zeiss 180/2.8 APO wouldn't hurt either.

Personally, I would pay almost any amount of money for a Zeiss 55/1.2 and 85/1.2 in AF versions. :thumbs: Those lenses are the ONLY reason I miss Canon at all.

I never saw the A900 as a replacement for the Nikons. To some degree, it was the camera Leica should have delivered (with added Leica design touches and AF) ... frankly, that was exactly how I saw it ... so I sold my DMR/9 and all those fine but manual focus Leica optics. (The DMR also delivered at lower ISOs and struggled with higher ISOs.) That is a decision I do not regret in the least. Nor do I regret off-loading the ZF collection, since that was just a stop gap prior to the Sony/Zeiss solution.

BTW, I do not have any issue with miss focused D3 files. I had the camera calibrated by Nikon service which took 4 days door-to-door, and then zeroed in each lens individually. As far as selection of what to focus on, all I can say is practice makes perfect. Shooting 1000 images in 8 hours every single weekend tends to make for fast hands and a sure eye as to exactly where and how to place the focus point. Just because there is automation doesn't mean it does ALL of the thinking

I've used the D3 AF in studio with the Profoto high speed strobes for fashion stuff and had zero misses, so missing shots there makes no sense to me.

I'm not into trashing one system to engrandize another. Each has it's place and ways to earn its keep. I have a couple of high-end outdoor weddings coming up where I will have a second primary shooter as back-up, and will be most delighted to carry the A900s to those. But, trust me, the Nikons WILL be in the Volvo just in case the sun goes down :ROTFL:

Marc

If you loved the Canon 55 and 85 1.2's you should have seen results from the same pairing from Contax! Add the 21 2.8 to this pair and you have a system for life. I still have the 55 and 85 1.2's and the RTS III body. Long sold the 21 because I just wasn't going to get the use from it that it deserved! But man these three lenses covered 90% of my shots! For weddings it was killer. Only the telephoto stuff was missing and the 200 2.0 could cover all of those! Surely Contax, in the right business hands (certainly not Kyocera!! LOL) could have done very nicely in the 21st century world.

Very sad to see some of the best optical technology ever go down the drain because of lack of vision. DAMN!!

Just my lost thoughts perishing in the hell of a photographer's needs

Best

Woody

 

[edwardkaraa]

So would I!
and as far as the Sony / Nikon autofocus is concerned, of course, the Nikon is much faster, and the Sony may hunt in low light :cussing: and it's slow :sleep006::sleep006: however, I get less out of focus shots than I used to with the D3 . . . but that doesn't alter Marc's point that under stress, the Nikon is more likely to get that crucial shot. What it does mean is that if your photographing that mountain / flower / sleeping dog, the A900 (it seems to me) is less likely to make some smart *** (apparently I'm not allowed to use a word denoting bottom) decision and focus on something quite different.

Totally agreed. I have actually done tests with the old 1Ds where I specifically selected the center point to focus on a high contrast subject (camera on tripod), and the camera invariably used some adjacent AF point to focus on the background. I found this inacceptable at the time that even when I override the AF point selection and force the camera to use the center point, it was still cheating, probably because it thought I didn't know what I was doing

I'm sure that 9 AF points cannot compete with speed to pro bodies with 20-40++ AF sensors. But it is much more accurate than comparable bodies with similar AF point numbers.

I don't believe that the fact that an 800$ Nikon got 1 shot while the A900 didn't is meaningful here. It could have been the other way around.

 

[Shelby Lewis]

I don't believe that the fact that an 800$ Nikon got 1 shot while the A900 didn't is meaningful here. It could have been the other way around.

Let me preface this by saying I'm a huge fan of the a900.

That out of the way... from my experience marc's remark is meaningful in that it has over time been born out as a truism in my experience. Hitting a moving target that is coming toward or away from you, especially in lower light... even with af focus assist takes just luck with the a900... ESPECIALLY if you are using the fine zeiss optics @ or near wide open. Add to that the fact the SSS tends to lull us into using slower shutter speeds and you have a wedding disaster in the making. Bad af, thin DoF, slow shutter speed. arggg...

I've never used a camera... in my life... with more accurate af on still subjects in good light. I can shoot the 135 @ 1.8 at any distance using any af point and get fantastic results. Keeper rates are very, very high.

Once targets are moving... terrible. Like it's a different camera. Even my old canon rebel xti, canon 10D, canon 5d, nikon d300, and nikon d100 had better servo-af performance. Now THAT is disappointing.

Still love it though... although I sure could use a d3x by the end of the summer when weddings start getting dark again... or a new sony sports camera like the d3 (ain't gonna happen).

 

[fotografz]

Totally agreed. I have actually done tests with the old 1Ds where I specifically selected the center point to focus on a high contrast subject (camera on tripod), and the camera invariably used some adjacent AF point to focus on the background. I found this inacceptable at the time that even when I override the AF point selection and force the camera to use the center point, it was still cheating, probably because it thought I didn't know what I was doing

I'm sure that 9 AF points cannot compete with speed to pro bodies with 20-40++ AF sensors. But it is much more accurate than comparable bodies with similar AF point numbers.

I don't believe that the fact that an 800$ Nikon got 1 shot while the A900 didn't is meaningful here. It could have been the other way around.

Sounds like you had the wrong AF selector choice set in the Canon menu. Most Pro bodies provide a selection of amount and use of the AF points to match the specific job or conditions. That was NOT my experience with the 1Ds, 1DsMKII, and 1DsMKIII. Very reliable, extremely fast AF.

In the case like you describe with a static subject and current Nikon or Canon camera on a tripod, I'd manual focus using live view @ 10X for dead on focus.

As far as what camera got the shot or not at the wedding ... it IS meaningful when it's MY camera not doing the AF. The A900 hunts in low light and does it with all lenses ... and when it hunts it moves through the whole focus range absolutely assuring a missed shot unless I take over manually. Besides, it's no more antidotal than your example of the Canon focus experience, so that is also "meaningless here".

Again, this is ridiculous. I am a full blown owner of the A900 system. Understanding its strengths (there are many), and weaknesses (there are some) is part and parcel of sharing experiences. Someone else made the comparison to Nikon which has its own set of strengths and weakneses ... among which isn't the AF.

 

[fotografz]

Marc

If you loved the Canon 55 and 85 1.2's you should have seen results from the same pairing from Contax! Add the 21 2.8 to this pair and you have a system for life. I still have the 55 and 85 1.2's and the RTS III body. Long sold the 21 because I just wasn't going to get the use from it that it deserved! But man these three lenses covered 90% of my shots! For weddings it was killer. Only the telephoto stuff was missing and the 200 2.0 could cover all of those! Surely Contax, in the right business hands (certainly not Kyocera!! LOL) could have done very nicely in the 21st century world.

Very sad to see some of the best optical technology ever go down the drain because of lack of vision. DAMN!!

Just my lost thoughts perishing in the hell of a photographer's needs

Best

Woody

I owned those Contax lenses Woody. Wish I would have kept the 55/1.2. I wonder if the new ZF 21 is the same lens as the Contax version?

 

[fotografz]

Let me preface this by saying I'm a huge fan of the a900.

That out of the way... from my experience marc's remark is meaningful in that it has over time been born out as a truism in my experience. Hitting a moving target that is coming toward or away from you, especially in lower light... even with af focus assist takes just luck with the a900... ESPECIALLY if you are using the fine zeiss optics @ or near wide open. Add to that the fact the SSS tends to lull us into using slower shutter speeds and you have a wedding disaster in the making. Bad af, thin DoF, slow shutter speed. arggg...

I've never used a camera... in my life... with more accurate af on still subjects in good light. I can shoot the 135 @ 1.8 at any distance using any af point and get fantastic results. Keeper rates are very, very high.

Once targets are moving... terrible. Like it's a different camera. Even my old canon rebel xti, canon 10D, canon 5d, nikon d300, and nikon d100 had better servo-af performance. Now THAT is disappointing.

Still love it though... although I sure could use a d3x by the end of the summer when weddings start getting dark again... or a new sony sports camera like the d3 (ain't gonna happen).

Good to see a balanced POV. It's important to share all experiences good and bad for those considering different alternatives. Know what a tool can and cannot do well ... then use it's strengths while avoiding it's weakneses.

One AF technique I'm employing with the A900 is use of the single shot on moving subjects rather than servo ... I manually focus track by tapping the AF as the subject moves toward me so the AF doesn't have far to go when I actually take the shot. It's a technique I used sucessfully with the Contax N cameras which were similar to the A900. Not a perfect solution, but it does deliver a better success rate.

When I used to shoot the Canon 85/1.2 that is known for slower AF in lower ambient light, I used the STE-2 transmitter alone which significantly increased the speed and hit ratio with that lens. The STE-2 provided a much better focus assist than the assist of the flash units themselves.

I wonder if there's a way to get something like that to work with the A900? Even if you could use the assist on the Sony flash with the flash itself turned off. (????).

 

[jonoslack]

BTW, I do not have any issue with miss focused D3 files. I had the camera calibrated by Nikon service which took 4 days door-to-door, and then zeroed in each lens individually. As far as selection of what to focus on, all I can say is practice makes perfect. Shooting 1000 images in 8 hours every single weekend tends to make for fast hands and a sure eye as to exactly where and how to place the focus point. Just because there is automation doesn't mean it does ALL of the thinking

Perhaps I should have done that too (sent it in for calibration)- I'm only reporting my experience, and sophisticated AF is not my sphere of expertise.

However, the fact that I DID get missed focus in simple situations (usually focusing on something behind the point in high contrast situations), Although it reflects my lack of skill in setting up the AF properly (I left it at defaults) is not necessarily simply my fault.

Perhaps (like many other cameras) the autofocus should be foolproof out of the box, left at defaults; saying that you need to shoot 1000 images per weekend to learn to get it right doesn't actually prove me wrong.

 

[fotografz]

Perhaps I should have done that too (sent it in for calibration)- I'm only reporting my experience, and sophisticated AF is not my sphere of expertise.

However, the fact that I DID get missed focus in simple situations (usually focusing on something behind the point in high contrast situations), Although it reflects my lack of skill in setting up the AF properly (I left it at defaults) is not necessarily simply my fault.

Perhaps (like many other cameras) the autofocus should be foolproof out of the box, left at defaults; saying that you need to shoot 1000 images per weekend to learn to get it right doesn't actually prove me wrong.

Only that specific D3 needed calibration, my previous D700 did not, nor does it seem the D3X does either, but I've yet to bench test it (this weekend's tech project before I use it at a wedding).

Not saying anything is anyone's fault. With more sophisticated technical selections comes the requirement to properly select which is best for your application and learn to use it properly ... including practicing shifting the AF point around the viewfinder to avoid off-axis focus recompose errors which vividly show up with fast aperture longer lenses when used at max aperture.

These cameras aren't made for a single application, or it would narrow down the potential of who would buy them. There are a number of things I automatically set on my wedding cameras based specifically on how I use them. I don't change them unless what I'm doing with them changes. I almost never use Program settings nor AF defaults which tend to use adjacent AF points to assist ... okay for smaller max aperture lenses usually that have some wiggle room from DOF, but not so with fast max apertures I tend to shoot with moving subjects where an adjacent AF assist may grab a higher contrast point behind the subject. Even with single point AF you do learn what to focus on and where the potential for miss focus may be. Really no different than if you were manually focusing using focus assist.

 

[Shelby Lewis]

Marc,

How are you getting on with the d3x? I have this nagging sensation that it would make the perfect companion to my a900... and while I have been looking at digital MF for a long time, the d3x still haunts me a bit. TBH, I've not seen many files from it that I really liked... especially after using the sony/zeiss combination.

But the thought of having good servo-af, a t/s solution, and a wealth of high-performance flash options make it a compelling. If I knew I could get color/sharpness out of it like the a900 (which I bet you can get close), I'd move it to the top of my priority list (replacing MF for now).

As far as af-assist... yet another reason why I think the a900 is still not aimed at serious event photography (at least in low-light). I loved with canon the ability to turn on the af-assist while leaving the flash off via custom functions. I've yet to find a similar function with the 58 flash/a900 combo. Especially seeing that there is no "on" choice in the menu when referring to the on-camera af assist (only "off" or "auto").

I'm coming to grips with the af and I do "feather" the af button to try to keep good focus during processionals/recessions... but it just isn't speedy enough (for me) to offer consistent results.

Yeah... and the 135/1.8 in combo with focus-recompose is a sharpness nightmare, lol.

 

[fotografz]

Marc,

How are you getting on with the d3x? I have this nagging sensation that it would make the perfect companion to my a900... and while I have been looking at digital MF for a long time, the d3x still haunts me a bit. TBH, I've not seen many files from it that I really liked... especially after using the sony/zeiss combination.

But the thought of having good servo-af, a t/s solution, and a wealth of high-performance flash options make it a compelling. If I knew I could get color/sharpness out of it like the a900 (which I bet you can get close), I'd move it to the top of my priority list (replacing MF for now).

As far as af-assist... yet another reason why I think the a900 is still not aimed at serious event photography (at least in low-light). I loved with canon the ability to turn on the af-assist while leaving the flash off via custom functions. I've yet to find a similar function with the 58 flash/a900 combo. Especially seeing that there is no "on" choice in the menu when referring to the on-camera af assist (only "off" or "auto").

I'm coming to grips with the af and I do "feather" the af button to try to keep good focus during processionals/recessions... but it just isn't speedy enough (for me) to offer consistent results.

Yeah... and the 135/1.8 in combo with focus-recompose is a sharpness nightmare, lol.

Well Shelby, I haven't had the D3X long enough to really say anything about it except that it's fast and uses all the stuff I already have. Plus it's exactly the same ergonomics as my D3 so there's very little getting up to speed.

The first shots I did with the 14-24 were quite promising. Really nice color using 14 bit. Not plastic looking like my 1DsMKIII was. Let me shoot a wedding with it and I'll get back to you. I'm looking to get the 45 T/S after seeing some really cool wedding portraits done with that lens (I hate doing wedding portraits, so doing something with selective focus and live view interests me).

 

[douglasf13]

I'm betting that you may like the D3x's IQ even more for weddings, since it has slightly more DR than the A900, and the color separation on the A900 that I've gone on about (probably too much) is more of a foliage/landscape advantage, so the blue separation of the Nikon and Sony are similar, and skin tones should be roughly equivalent. The D3/D3x combo sounds like a dream wedding setup to me. I'm interested to hear your thoughts about how the "grain" of the Sony and Nikon cameras compare. We all know that the A900 has more of it, but I'm wondering if it's more "pleasing" like some say. I'm also looking forward to more pics, regardless of the camera used. -d

 

[Shelby Lewis]

I'm betting that you may like the D3x's IQ even more for weddings, since it has slightly more DR than the A900, and the color separation on the A900 that I've gone on about (probably too much) is more of a foliage/landscape advantage, so the blue separation of the Nikon and Sony are similar, and skin tones should be roughly equivalent. The D3/D3x combo sounds like a dream wedding setup to me. I'm interested to hear your thoughts about how the "grain" of the Sony and Nikon cameras compare. We all know that the A900 has more of it, but I'm wondering if it's more "pleasing" like some say. I'm also looking forward to more pics, regardless of the camera used. -d

Well, I can't speak for the d3x, but the one thing i dislike about the a900 is the chroma noise... the luminance noise is very nice imo, but the chroma is all blotchy.

Sounds like I'm attacking the a900... but just being a bit critical.

I love it!

 

[douglasf13]

Yeah, that's apparently part of the trade off of Sony using those dense CFAs. What converter are you using?

 

[edwardkaraa]

I have been getting great results at high-iso by removing only the chroma noise and leaving the "grain". Much much better than my 1Ds2. Compared to what I've seen on the forums so far, the A900 smokes every other camera including the D3X in terms of high-iso quality (not low noise). The Nikon files are completely washed out and lifeless, and the Canons are smoothed out and plasticky. The A900 has the best high-iso image quality to date, grainy as it should be.

 

[Greg Seitz]

I have been getting great results at high-iso by removing only the chroma noise and leaving the "grain". Much much better than my 1Ds2. Compared to what I've seen on the forums so far, the A900 smokes every other camera including the D3X in terms of high-iso quality (not low noise). The Nikon files are completely washed out and lifeless, and the Canons are smoothed out and plasticky. The A900 has the best high-iso image quality to date, grainy as it should be.

You mean you prefer this:

Sony A900 3200 ISO 100% crop

To this:

Canon 5D Mk II 3200 ISO 100% crop

Both processed in Raw Developer with the same settings - the same small amount of chroma noise reduced on both. Not seeing the plasticky Canon files everyone keeps talking about. I'd be happy to provide the raw files for both if you'd like to take a crack at them.

 

[ryc]

Wow, tahts disturbing I better not shoot at 3200 ISO.

How do you remove chroma noise only with LR and ACR?

BTW, go out and watch the movie "Drag me to Hell" If your a fan of the Evil Dead series you will love it!

 

[ryc]

I could not do much with that jpg but I did get rid of some of that horrible noise. However, it still looks horrible.