Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Sony A900 -Just delivered!  (Read 10991 times)
PLLove
Guest
« on: October 01, 2009, 03:10:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Just received my Sony A900, 135 f1.8 CZ, and 85 f.14CZ.  Overall, the build quality of the lens are 2nd to none!!  I haven't seen craftsmanship in 35mm for a long long time!  The build quality is much better than the much more expensive Mamiya/Hasselblad gear that I have used.  Excellent job Sony!  I can't wait to try it out this weekend.  I have a gig on Sunday, so I plan to give it a run then.    

Ok, one question.  Why in the hell can't my pocketwizards work on this w/o a $100 adapter?  That's horrible Sony!    

Hence, my mixed feelings!    

I will purchase the $100 adapter today, and give it a run in the studio before my gigs on Sunday.  Hopefully, the image quality will quickly make me forget about throwing money down the drain on this adapter.

Pat
« Last Edit: October 01, 2009, 03:11:21 PM by PLLove » Logged
alain
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


« Reply #1 on: October 01, 2009, 03:40:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: PLLove
Just received my Sony A900, 135 f1.8 CZ, and 85 f.14CZ.  Overall, the build quality of the lens are 2nd to none!!  I haven't seen craftsmanship in 35mm for a long long time!  The build quality is much better than the much more expensive Mamiya/Hasselblad gear that I have used.  Excellent job Sony!  I can't wait to try it out this weekend.  I have a gig on Sunday, so I plan to give it a run then.    

Ok, one question.  Why in the hell can't my pocketwizards work on this w/o a $100 adapter?  That's horrible Sony!    

Hence, my mixed feelings!    

I will purchase the $100 adapter today, and give it a run in the studio before my gigs on Sunday.  Hopefully, the image quality will quickly make me forget about throwing money down the drain on this adapter.

Pat
Hi

Some other solutions :

http://www.safe-sync.com/fs-1100_fs1100_FA-ST1AM.htm

A FS-1100 clone would be much cheaper.
Logged
PLLove
Guest
« Reply #2 on: October 01, 2009, 03:48:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: alain
Hi

Some other solutions :

http://www.safe-sync.com/fs-1100_fs1100_FA-ST1AM.htm

A FS-1100 clone would be much cheaper.

No difference in price for off-brand solution.  I heard that there was a solution in the $25 price point.

I'm getting the Sony....one time expense, and I know it works.

-PL
« Last Edit: October 01, 2009, 03:49:00 PM by PLLove » Logged
alain
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


« Reply #3 on: October 01, 2009, 03:55:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: PLLove
No difference in price for off-brand solution.  I heard that there was a solution in the $25 price point.

I'm getting the Sony....one time expense, and I know it works.

-PL

Just check first, there's a flah sync on camera:  a little bit above the lens release button.

There are $25 fs-1100 clones around, google a bit.

edit : The fs-1100 clones are usefull to get the remotes on camera instead of connected by cable.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2009, 03:56:28 PM by alain » Logged
Brammers
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 89


« Reply #4 on: October 01, 2009, 03:57:00 PM »
ReplyReply

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/New-Flash-Hotshoe-Ad...id=p3286.c0.m14

That's the alternative if you want it - at that price you can have a couple.  For versions wherever you are just google 'Minolta hotshoe adapter'.  Maybe get one even if you do get the Sony, just in case the Sony fails.  They (probably) don't have the isolation circuits in them that the Sony does, so no 1960s Vivitars on the knock-off hotshoe converters.

Only telephoto lenses?  What are you using for your normal shooting - or do you only do telephoto?  How do you find the AF on the 85?  I've not heard amazing things...  Got the 135 myself and it's acceptable, although I wish it was SSM.

Logged
douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


« Reply #5 on: October 01, 2009, 06:08:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I've had great luck with these generic hotshoe adapters.   link:


  The cheap ebay ones above have died on me.  Either way, for $10, you can get two or three to be safe.  I wouldn't spend the $100 on the Sony ones.  Rip off.
Logged
douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


« Reply #6 on: October 01, 2009, 06:09:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Brammers
Only telephoto lenses?  What are you using for your normal shooting - or do you only do telephoto?  How do you find the AF on the 85?  I've not heard amazing things...  Got the 135 myself and it's acceptable, although I wish it was SSM.

  The 85ZA AF isn't fast, although I guess it's faster than the 85L.
Logged
PLLove
Guest
« Reply #7 on: October 01, 2009, 06:42:22 PM »
ReplyReply

The 85mm is ok.  It's faster than all of my mamiya lens!
Logged
K.C.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 666


« Reply #8 on: October 02, 2009, 02:50:27 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm on the fence between the A900 and the A850. One of them will be in my hands soon so that I can use those wonderful Zeiss lenses.

I'm curious if you considered the A850 ?

Any chance you'll have an opportunity to compare the Sony/Zeiss 85 to the Canon 85 L ?
Logged
PLLove
Guest
« Reply #9 on: October 02, 2009, 06:44:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: K.C.
I'm on the fence between the A900 and the A850. One of them will be in my hands soon so that I can use those wonderful Zeiss lenses.

I'm curious if you considered the A850 ?

Any chance you'll have an opportunity to compare the Sony/Zeiss 85 to the Canon 85 L ?

I went with the A900 because of the better build quality.  Since I only have Mamiya and Nikon equipment, I can only compare with those.  I will say that the build quality of the 84 1.4CZ is better than the Nikon 1.4 version.

I almost feel like apologizing to Sony for sleeping on their equipment for sooo long!  I guess I never envisioned them as a major player.  That's what happens when you take the blinders off!!    

-PL
« Last Edit: October 02, 2009, 06:44:41 AM by PLLove » Logged
jasonrandolph
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 554


WWW
« Reply #10 on: October 02, 2009, 11:04:36 AM »
ReplyReply

A major factor in my decision on whether or not to switch when I move to full-frame is lens availability and cost.  I did some research last night, and it turns out that a Zeiss (not Sony) 70-200mm f/2.8 is cheaper than the same Nikon lens.  Considering that the A850 is significantly cheaper than a D3x, and I hardly even shoot above ISO 400, I think Sony is the way to go.
Logged

douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


« Reply #11 on: October 02, 2009, 12:15:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: PLLove
I went with the A900 because of the better build quality.  Since I only have Mamiya and Nikon equipment, I can only compare with those.  I will say that the build quality of the 84 1.4CZ is better than the Nikon 1.4 version.

I almost feel like apologizing to Sony for sleeping on their equipment for sooo long!  I guess I never envisioned them as a major player.  That's what happens when you take the blinders off!!    

-PL


 FWIW, the build quality of the A850 and A900 is identical.  There is only a slight difference in the finish.
Logged
PLLove
Guest
« Reply #12 on: October 02, 2009, 01:42:46 PM »
ReplyReply

The viewfinder is not the same.
Logged
K.C.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 666


« Reply #13 on: October 02, 2009, 04:04:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: PLLove
The viewfinder is not the same.

True, it's only 98% on the A850.

I'm still undecided because I have a feeling we'll see and A950 before too long with some refinements over the A900.
Logged
aaykay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 359


« Reply #14 on: October 02, 2009, 04:47:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: PLLove
The viewfinder is not the same.

Agreed.  The 100% OVF of the A900 is larger than even the 100% OVF of the Nikon D3X/D3 or the Canon 1DSMKII (the Canon 1DSMKIII's OVF is slightly larger than the A900).  

However,  I personally would have bought the A850 for a $1000 reduction in cost over the A900, if both of them were available when I bought my A900 almost exactly a year back.....even at the expense of losing that wonderful 100% view and going down to a 98% view.  I never use the 5FPS of the A900 either and the 3FPS of the A850 would serve my purposes.

I plan to add an A850 as a backup to the A900, by the end of the year.

Logged
douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


« Reply #15 on: October 03, 2009, 09:18:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: PLLove
The viewfinder is not the same.

Gotacha, I thought you were talking about the camera materials.

Aaykay, it should probably also be mentioned that the A900 vf, while minutely smaller than the 1dsiii's vf, is brighter with less distortion. Sony worked some magic with the lenses in the eye piece.
Logged
Alex MacPherson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292



WWW
« Reply #16 on: October 03, 2009, 10:47:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Even though I am sticking with Canon for the time-being, I am thrilled that there is
finally a worthy competitor to Canon/Nikon.

Kudos to Sony
Logged

Alex MacPherson

Visit My Website
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8031


WWW
« Reply #17 on: October 03, 2009, 11:55:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Sorry, where did you find that Zeiss 70-200/2.8 ?!

Never heard of it, but perhaps I missed som recent development.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: jasonrandolph
A major factor in my decision on whether or not to switch when I move to full-frame is lens availability and cost.  I did some research last night, and it turns out that a Zeiss (not Sony) 70-200mm f/2.8 is cheaper than the same Nikon lens.  Considering that the A850 is significantly cheaper than a D3x, and I hardly even shoot above ISO 400, I think Sony is the way to go.
Logged

douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


« Reply #18 on: October 04, 2009, 09:51:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi,

Sorry, where did you find that Zeiss 70-200/2.8 ?!

Never heard of it, but perhaps I missed som recent development.

Best regards
Erik

Yeah, the 70-200 is still Sony, and the 24-70 is Zeiss.
Logged
Paul Kerfoot
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #19 on: October 05, 2009, 06:31:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Patrick

Its the same old Sony proprietary mind set dating back to Betamax, its a marketing strategy designed to force you to buy only from them (at a much higher price) and thereby make your money their money.  The inkjet printer manufacturers are especially rapacious; they do it via very small chipped ink cartridges at an exorbitant cost per milliliter and waste much of that with cleaning cycles.   The latest wrinkle is to force customers to use only proprietary lithium batteries in their cameras.

Sorry to bum you out.

Paul
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad