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!

Terry has a Camera system dilemma

R

Ranger 9

Guest
IIt's not so much the MPX it is the quality coming out and from what I have seen that Sony has mojo.
As measured by DPReview's Kyoritsu KM-4150 digital mojometer, no doubt...

...seriously, it sounds as if your mind is already made up and you've already worked out all the rationalizations you need for your decision, so why are we wasting our time here?
 

jonoslack

Active member
However if I was motivated to come back and print my files at 24x36 or larger then, no question, get the A900 and don't look back. Only downside is that now you have two systems (Sony + Nikon) and you will probably want to sell the Nikon. Then a year from now along comes the D700X and you may be buying those Nikon lenses back again.
HI Woody
When I bought the A900, I worried about this too. Now however, I'd no more dream of getting a D700x than flying to the moon. The combination of:

1. the colour on the A900 (for outdoor and landscape you understand)
2. sensor based image stabilisation (or whatever it is which allows all us A900 users to shoot handheld at silly slow shutter speeds . . whilst D3x users are insisting you need a tripod).
3. the Zeiss glass
4. the user defined settings and general 'easy to use' aspect of it.

means that for my mixed nature / landscape stuff (which is, what most of us amateurs shoot), I'm not even slightly interested in a D700 with the D3x sensor.

Of course, other people have different priorities.

In Terry's case, I'd recommend finding someone with an A900 + 24-70 and spending a couple of hours playing with it, then go home and process a few raw files.
 
N

nei1

Guest
Guy,this is a holiday no?Take a step away from what is normal for you,take a film camera,one lens and relax.You"ll come back with a clear head and some great images,you have my word.Have a great time,all the best...Neil
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
On a serious safari? MF and an M8
Going to have a good time (not terribly worried about telephotos) maybe an M8
If you think you need a dslr, I have shot the Sony, Nikons, and Canons.
D700-D3 (I hated the files) although the handling is great and the ergo is wonderful at least for me D3X files are looking better, but waiting for a D700x wore me out
Sony, considered, but short but nice lens list, very limited rental base, limited software support, new entrant, (a very young, impetuous immature and undisciplined company by Japanese standards)
Canon 5DII, handles like a pig, needs gaffer's tape to keep the idiot dial from turning, files are very good (not like MF, but not bad) not too heavy, good rental base, wide line of good lenses, all the ZF lenses can be used. AF not as good as Nikon, but files much nicer. ISO 800 cleaner than Sony, ISO 400 "normal"
So I picked up one, a 24-105 , a 70-200 zoom and a 35mm f/1.4
on the scale, not much heavier than my M8 kit.
I like the M8 better for walk-about, but I like the Canon (or the Nikon, actually) if I have to bring home the shot.
-bob
 
R

Ranger 9

Guest
Speaking (almost interminably, it seems) of "Zeiss glass" ... everybody knows the correct pronunciation of "Zeiss", right?





It's prounounced "ko-SEE-nah"...
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
As measured by DPReview's Kyoritsu KM-4150 digital mojometer, no doubt...

...seriously, it sounds as if your mind is already made up and you've already worked out all the rationalizations you need for your decision, so why are we wasting our time here?
Well I don't have to make the buy call. LOL
 

charlesphoto

New member
If it was me I would take an M8 and probably a Mamiya 7 (or 6). But then I have an Imacon scanner sitting on my desk.:D

All depends on what one's style/end purpose/etc is. I've done plenty of wall size pics shot with 35mm Tri-X and old Nikons that are stunning. And with good software and PS skills 12mp (or 10 in the case of the M8) can be plenty.

I think it should be about what one is comfortable with and what one can afford. All of this equipment jumping doesn't make one a better photographer. Finding something that works for you and sticking with it does.
 

Terry

New member
Wow,
I will write more when I get home and am not fighting typos on my iPhone. The M8 is completely out of the question as my main system. Yes I got lovely shots with it in Moab but some of the shots I was "seeing" were tele shots and not wide angle. That experience is precisely why I went out and bought a Nikon kit. Iceland as far as I can tell is a landscape ideally suited for some long lenses.

So, now we get to output, I do like large prints. I actually find my 17x25 prints feel small in my apartment where my other artwork is much larger. Actually right now I'm considering doing some images on canvas because I do want the larger. I do tend to live in apartments that are more wide open and loft like than traditional.

So right now I own:
D700
M8
G1

I will reply to some individual posts a little later.
 
Last edited:

Dale Allyn

New member
Hi Terry.

Well, if you are thinking larger than 17x25, Mpx start to factor more, though there are up-rezzing options. However, if you're thinking larger but on canvas, the added resolution may not be so critically needed. Canvas isn't usually chosen as the media of choice for "high-rez precision" so much as a "painterly" look or perhaps a softer and warmer piece of artwork. Now I'm sure others will see this differently (don't jump down my throat), that's just how I interpret the use of canvas for prints. :)

Soooooo... maybe that gives you an out. Long glass (Nikon and Canon) produces some great results. I find that the DSLRs struggle much more on the wide end. And if you're not shooting waves all the time, there will likely be times when a three to five shot stitch would offer you a big meaty file. Of course the same can be said of the Sony or MF kit, etc.

I hope you have a great time. Iceland is definitely on my list (though I haven't labeled it "once in a lifetime" in my mind, as I would Antarctica, so maybe there'd be a chance to go more than once. ;)
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Having read everyone else's posts (always a good idea before you wade in). I'll refine my reason for the Sony.

Of course, the extra resolution and the Zeiss glass is not to be ignored, but in general terms, when I swapped my D700 for the Sony, it was like having a great weight lifted off my shoulders . .. not because of the weight (not much in it although the sony body is lighter) However:

1. for landscape I think the Sony colour 'out of the box' is in a different world
2. the camera menus are comprehensible, rememberable and good to use.
3. if you don't want high ISO, and you're shooting in high contrast light, then the Sony highlight characteristics are wonderful.
4. The lenses Mike suggested (24-70 and 70-300) both focus rather close (no need for a macro backup)

This is not meant to be a dig at the D700, it's better in lots of ways than the A900, but on a 'once in a lifetime' trip to Iceland it doesn't have so many advantages (IMVHO of course)
What he said!!!

If I were to ever decide to get another "BIG dSLR" system again at this point I would more than likely go with a Sony now.

The colors seem to be impeccable. I like their glass although the lens selection is somewhat limited for now. The usual lengths are covered and I like that the sensor is a very high quality and image stabilized one. I sold all my Canon stuff a little while ago and am not "attached" to any one company anymore.
 

Terry

New member
Still on iPhone....

I won't say once in a lifetime but getting two weeks back to back pretty much out of touch isn't always easy so chances are the next chance I get to do a trip like this won't be back to Iceland but to somewhere else.

Only reason I was thinking about doing some prints on canvas was size vs. cost. Last batch of stuff I got framed was incredibly costly and for the San Francisco space I'm currently living in some big canvases would be intersting an somewhat negate the need for more resolution (but at an esthetic cost). Also, my 3800 is back in NY !!!!
 
Last edited:

Dale Allyn

New member
Yepp. If we spend big bucks on new cameras with more Mpx to make big prints, there's no money left for printing and framing. Keep the old gear, and big prints aren't as good, so are walls look silly with the smaller prints. Catch 22!

;)

Actually, simple gallery style frames (mat black wood or walnut, etc.) and quality, archival mats aren't too bad if you buy a bit of quantity (4 or 10 kits) and mount and assemble them yourself. And it's kind of fun. Though I'm sure there's a size practical limit for the really big stuff if you're doing it yourself. And I imagine that if one is going really large, the canvas option would be a good option. Big walls are definitely a challenge.
 

Terry

New member
Yepp. If we spend big bucks on new cameras with more Mpx to make big prints, there's no money left for printing and framing. Keep the old gear, and big prints aren't as good, so are walls look silly with the smaller prints. Catch 22!

;)

Actually, simple gallery style frames (mat black wood or walnut, etc.) and quality, archival mats aren't too bad if you buy a bit of quantity (4 or 10 kits) and mount and assemble them yourself. And it's kind of fun. Though I'm sure there's a size practical limit for the really big stuff if you're doing it yourself. And I imagine that if one is going really large, the canvas option would be a good option. Big walls are definitely a challenge.
Actually there is a treatment that I really like and that is no frame but face mounted under plexiglass. I know Duggal in NY does it although they say you need c-prints but at ICP I've seen a lot of prints exhibited this way and they do say inkjet on the sign. Taking classes at ICP is great because they always have lots of student work hanging and there are a lot of creative interesting framing/display ideas that the students come up with.
 

Terry

New member
I have both set ups.

I'd say if the goal is sweeping scenics and general travel imagery the combination of 25 meg and Zeiss color and characteristics could make a difference. 16-35 and 70-200 are good choices ... you can probably get away with just those two since the files are so big you can crop a bit. Maybe add a 50/1.4 since it is pretty small.

If it is shooting more street stuff like you would in NYC, or in low ambient light ... the D700 would be my choice.

I don't agree that there is no difference. It's just whether you can take advantage of the differences. Given the choice where both will perform well, I would always choose a higher meg since it allows options like cropping, or is more resilient with modifications, and in general the tonal gradations and depth are a bit nicer as you take the image up larger.

Just my experience from using both. If it were my trip and I didn't want to lug a MFD kit, I'd select my Sony well ahead of my Nikon.
That's exactly what Guy and I talked about and the genesis of his post since either body I am still going to need more glass.....living in NY and needing higher ISO is why I bought and own the Nikon. Hearing all of you rave about the Sony and having the extra megs is nice for this sort of trip.
 
Top