Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Sony A900  (Read 47653 times)
ziocan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 427


« Reply #100 on: December 17, 2008, 01:17:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Slough
Here is what you said:

"The advantage here is that these are all ultra-modern 2008 designs, with all the design advantages that go with it, unlike competitive products whose mainstay are relatively older designs/products who are starting to show their age, under the unblinking glare of high resolution FF sensors, especially in the areas away from the peachy center."
I wish I could write in English that well.
It was someone else writing those lines.
Check it again.
Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #101 on: December 17, 2008, 03:02:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: aaykay
Sorry, you seem to be mixing up 2 users.  Several of the above are my quotes and I am not the one you are replying to.  

Oops. Sorry.
Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #102 on: December 17, 2008, 03:03:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ziocan
I wish I could write in English that well.
It was someone else writing those lines.
Check it again.

Hi ho!  
Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #103 on: December 17, 2008, 03:06:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: aaykay
If you are willing to do manual-focusing, then yes, you have access to these Zeiss lenses, where Zeiss plays the part of a 3rd party supplier (a higher-end version of a Sigma or a Tamron).  Obviously without any manufacturer blessing or support.

The difference with the Zeiss lenses in the Sony range, is that these are natively made for the mount, have full Auto-focus capability and are promoted/blessed by the camera manufacturer.  They are designed by Zeiss in Oberkochen, employ the Zeiss Schott glass and T* coating,  and the pro-grade Zeiss lenses (which does not include the CZ 16-80 APS-C lens) are manufactured in Japan in a specialized area within a high-end Sony (former Minolta) "G" lens plant, employing proprietary Zeiss equipment and re-inforced by the Zeiss 135-point quality checks, done directly by Zeiss staff.    

Every single one of these Sony/Zeiss lenses, also have a unique Zeiss serial#, in addition to (and different from), the unique Sony Serial#.  

Thus "access to" Zeiss products and Zeiss functioning as an in-house designer, are two completely different things.

I don't see too much to gain from this 'discussion'. Points you have made (and I have made) are fairly obvious. All I wanted to say was that at present the Sony system is rather limited, though it is hoped that will change for the better. Enjoy your camera, whatever the make.
Logged
aaykay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 359


« Reply #104 on: December 17, 2008, 08:54:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Mike Johnston compares the A900 vs the Canon 5DII vs the Nikon D700 as below:'

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/t...vs-nikon-v.html

Reading between the lines, he seems to really like the A900.
Logged
aaykay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 359


« Reply #105 on: December 17, 2008, 09:02:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Here is a test from a Polish journalist, who compared the output from  the A900 with the Hasselblad H3 and the Mamiya AFDIII:

http://www.swiatobrazu.pl/_and_they_compar..._900_821.html,1

You will need to scroll down to read the review and to switch to the next page, the link is towards the bottom.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2008, 09:05:15 PM by aaykay » Logged
Marlyn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 253


« Reply #106 on: December 17, 2008, 11:13:56 PM »
ReplyReply

It is an interesting review/commentary, and there is no doubt the A900 is a NICE camera.  But, for me,  the 1Ds mk3 is still the winner, for all sorts of reasons.    
I will however be following the Alpha line up with Interest.

All these advances can't be anything but good for the whole industry.   Especiallyu the Zeiss Lenses comming for the Nikon and Canon mounts.

Now, would Canon please make a 200-400f4 and I'll be MUCH happier !

Mark

Logged
ziocan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 427


« Reply #107 on: December 18, 2008, 10:48:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Slough
I don't see too much to gain from this 'discussion'. Points you have made (and I have made) are fairly obvious. All I wanted to say was that at present the Sony system is rather limited, though it is hoped that will change for the better. Enjoy your camera, whatever the make.
yes it is limited, but it is growing at a pace that others manufacturer cannot keep up (or they do not need to keep up with). In any case, who is interested on the sony mount, can get almost any lens they want. of course he/she may need to go to the used market for certain lenses (and very few lenses do not exist), but it is not that with other manufacturer all the lenses are from last year design. IMO getting an older minolta is not much of a difference of using an equivalent from another manufacturer.
And again on the focal range between 20mm to 135mm (also 200mm with the used market) for primes, Sony is well covered and on a better shape than N and C.

Some people are taking Sony as it was this small manufacturer that has hard time keeping pace with development, but they do not recognize the fact that Sony in about 2 years introduced almost as many new bodies and lenses as the competitors combined and they are all competitive product of fine quality.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5164


« Reply #108 on: December 18, 2008, 03:28:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ziocan
... Sony in about 2 years introduced almost as many new bodies and lenses as the competitors combined and they are all competitive product of fine quality.
How many new SLR lens designs has Sony introduced? (Not counting the numerous reissues under the Sony brand of Konica-Minolta or Minolta lens designs. Those reissues include some revivals of lenses previously discontinued by K.-M.)
Logged
Plekto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551


« Reply #109 on: December 18, 2008, 04:52:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: aaykay
Here is a test from a Polish journalist, who compared the output from  the A900 with the Hasselblad H3 and the Mamiya AFDIII:

http://www.swiatobrazu.pl/_and_they_compar..._900_821.html,1

You will need to scroll down to read the review and to switch to the next page, the link is towards the bottom.

****
For those that are thirsty for blood and equipment wars, I will not test whether AF will be able to manage the incoming cannonball. Is it possible to shoot a portrait of a Nigerian in a dark basement of a Norwegian hut in the winter behind the Polar Circle in the glare of his last three remaining white teeth? I will not check whether the forest rustles around on the location in Błędowska Desert and the sensor rustles along with it. I will not find out whether the Sony case is resistant to torching and drowning in the swamp. I will not answer the question whether an 18-month old neighbor’s son will intuitively handle the camera’s menu. I will not discover whether Sony Alpha 900’s LCD is resistant to screwdriver scratches or whether the sensor stabilization works during the camera’s fall from the third floor. I will focus on the issue that is mundane and unoriginal to many Internet users: picture quality.
****
Awesome intro on that article!  

EDIT:
To me the ranking seems to be the H3 by a tiny margin, the A900, and the Mamiya, well, it looks like the last generation - a distant 3rd, no maybe 4th or 5th place...

But 90% the quality of the H3 for such a small price is amazing.  And, yes, I know - the thing is, that most of the other 35mm full frame models also would probably do just as well in this test.  MF has some serious competition on its hands by the looks of it.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2008, 05:32:40 PM by Plekto » Logged
douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


« Reply #110 on: December 18, 2008, 05:20:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
How many new SLR lens designs has Sony introduced? (Not counting the numerous reissues under the Sony brand of Konica-Minolta or Minolta lens designs. Those reissues include some revivals of lenses previously discontinued by K.-M.)

  Remember that the K/M reissues still had updates with things like ADI and lens coatings.  But, regardless, the answer to your question is 11 Sony lenses are completely new.  In two years, 11 new lenses (along with the numerous K/M warm overs) and 5 new bodies (I'm assuming you consider the A100 a K/M redux as well) is very good.



Logged
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #111 on: December 18, 2008, 11:11:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I donīt know where your wisdom comes from....? but we are already selling the new 2nd. generation of Hartblei Superrotators see here: http://hartblei.de/en/index.htm
Ironically, I drew my conclusions after visiting your website and seeing the information there. There just didn't seem to be a lot of information to gon on there. Aside from the press release stating availability, the only ordering info I could see was for "prototype" lenses, without any clear definition of what makes them prototypes. To me the term prototype implies extremely limited quantities that may or may not be different from the final version and often lacks the polish and finish of the eventual final product. If that's not what you mean by "prototype" it might be a good idea to put a bit more information on your website.

I actually look forward to finding out more about these lenses, I hope you find a US distributor and also get some copies into the hands of reviewers.
Logged

andyptak
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 241


« Reply #112 on: December 20, 2008, 12:11:28 PM »
ReplyReply

This thread seems to have become about lenses and my particular interest about the a900 is in RAW processing. I've read a number of posts in various forums stating that ACR and Sony RAW are not the best match. I can't see Michael switching to a system that isn't supported by the best RAW processing available. What is he, or anyone else using and why? Thanks.
Logged
ziocan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 427


« Reply #113 on: December 20, 2008, 01:19:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: andyptak
This thread seems to have become about lenses and my particular interest about the a900 is in RAW processing. I've read a number of posts in various forums stating that ACR and Sony RAW are not the best match. I can't see Michael switching to a system that isn't supported by the best RAW processing available. What is he, or anyone else using and why? Thanks.
At 100/200 iso Lightroom/ACR is fine, and in my view it has the best color and tone control next to Silkypix and Aperture. Plus LR got the possibility of color calibrating your cameras and lenses via a color checker. C1 and Raw Developer got the best acuity, but their color control is not as easy as the other 3 and C1 has skin tones to reddish on the Sony cameras for my tatste. Yet LR, Aperture and Silky, if you process with sharpening completely off and "smart sharpen" on photoshop later can give a results that nearly match the acuity of C1 and RD. On print it will be indiscernible.
At high iso Raw Developer, Aperture and C1 do a great job.

IMO there is not a Raw converter that does everything better than all. Like with film you may need to plan the use different chemicals dependently by the kind of photo you are going to do.
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4903



« Reply #114 on: December 20, 2008, 03:57:17 PM »
ReplyReply

I'll have a fairly complete high ISO comparison available between some of the major raw processors for the A900, Sunday evening or Monday latest.

There's no one simple answer

Michael

Logged
Kenneth Sky
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 421


WWW
« Reply #115 on: December 20, 2008, 04:13:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Michael
Can we hope the results of this test will be in terms of a print rather than 100% screen view?

Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #116 on: December 21, 2008, 01:24:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Kenneth Sky
Michael
Can we hope the results of this test will be in terms of a print rather than 100% screen view?
Are you suggesting that one has nothing to do with the other?
Logged
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1631


WWW
« Reply #117 on: December 21, 2008, 02:00:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tony Beach
Are you suggesting that one has nothing to do with the other?

Well, all too often something is declared as noisy based on pixel level examination on a screen without checking the printed result (or a resized web result, for that matter).  Fortunately, Michael has a history of being more thorough and realistic and printing is something he certainly knows about in spades, so I doubt that'll be a problem here.

Of course it's interesting and useful to know what the pixel level noise is like - just as it was (and is) useful and interesting to know about film grain - but in and of itself it's not a simple guide to output performance.  Output still needs to be done and reviewed as real world testing.  My guess that is the point being made.
Logged

Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #118 on: December 21, 2008, 02:42:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Then will Michael print the results and photograph them so we can view them at 100% on our monitors?  That would obviously be pointless as he would then have to convert those photographs of the prints and it would be an endless loop of variables.  All I want to know is which converter does the best, and under what circumstances.  Just telling me they all look good when printed and it doesn't matter is a waste of my time and Michael's.
Logged
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1631


WWW
« Reply #119 on: December 21, 2008, 02:59:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tony Beach
Then will Michael print the results and photograph them so we can view them at 100% on our monitors?  That would obviously be pointless as he would then have to convert those photographs of the prints and it would be an endless loop of variables.  All I want to know is which converter does the best, and under what circumstances.  Just telling me they all look good when printed and it doesn't matter is a waste of my time and Michael's.

Gosh, Tony.  I have a lot of confidence that Michael can deliver an expert opinion on the quality of prints.  I've seen two of his prints first hand, thanks to a friend of mine who purchased them - they are beautiful prints.  I don't need to see the results on my monitor, which would be pointless, to accept his expert opinion as being highly valuable.

If in fact they do all look good when printed, it is hardly a waste of anyone's time.  That's great to know.  To what size do they look good, what colours are best represented, how much dynamic range is available, at what ISO do they print well.  There are many, many variables and the information will be very valuable.

Just posting 100% crops can often be misleading as to how the final result will look.  Some of us value the final result.  If you don't, that's fine.  I'm sure the 100% crops will be made available, too.

Why would you possibly be bothered about someone hoping to get such an opinion, in addition to the pixel level analysis?

Oh, and define best?  What look are you trying to achieve?  Does workflow factor into the overall equation for you?  What about cost of the software, support, availability, cross platform availability and consistency, performance with other file types?  We all want a simple answer, of course, but typically it's a rare case when there is one.  More information is good.
Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad