Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Kenneth Sky on December 03, 2008, 09:19:09 am
-
As usual, Michael has hit the nail on the head. As one of the first Canadians to have obtained the A900 retail, it's nice to have your decision confirmed by an expert. But who'd have thunk MR was a psychologist! Yes, I'm one of those "contrarians" that he speaks of. I'm also one of many, who have hung onto my Minolta prime lenses through Sony's earlier DSLR models that were far from pushing the envelope. What Sony continues to offer is enough Minolta DNA to make the user believe the camera was designed by & for photographers as opposed to engineers or marketing strategists. As for legacy lenses, some of my old primes such as the 35mm 1.4 & 85mm 1.4 are now giving me results better than when I used them on a Maxxum 9 (film camera for you youngsters). Another unique Minolta lens - the 500mm f/8 AF is hand holdable with the built-in stabilization offering oportunities other systems could only wish for. Thanks for the review Michael. Now, where do I pay for my psychiatric consultation?
-
Ken,
Thanks... you can leave payment with the receptionist on the way out.
BTW, I picked up the 500mm Mirror Reflex lens the other day and I'm quite impressed. Having autofocus in such a lens is a first, and when you add stabilization it really is quite unique.
No, it's not a sharp as a 500mm prime, but then again the size and weight are negligible, and the money you save in not having to have a Sherpa on staff is considerable.
I've only done a few quick tests, but results seem reasonable for what it is. I'm looking forward to some testing and use in the days ahead.
Michael
-
My favorite is the KM 400/4.5 APO. It's not to heavy and works well with 1.4X extender. I hope that Sony reintroduces it.
Very nice review, BTW. Much appreciated, now I just wait for RRS to develop an L-plate for it.
Best regards
Erik
Ken,
Thanks... you can leave payment with the receptionist on the way out.
BTW, I picked up the 500mm Mirror Reflex lens the other day and I'm quite impressed. Having autofocus in such a lens is a first, and when you add stabilization it really is quite unique.
No, it's not a sharp as a 500mm prime, but then again the size and weight are negligible, and the money you save in not having to have a Sherpa on staff is considerable.
I've only done a few quick tests, but results seem reasonable for what it is. I'm looking forward to some testing and use in the days ahead.
Michael
-
"was designed by & for photographers as opposed to engineers or marketing strategists. "
As an ex-engineer and current marketing strategist (bigger game than cameras, though,) I resemble your remark...
However, as my photography trajectory goes X300 - A100 - ???, I'm having a good month. We all are. Sony aren't heros or villains, neither are the other two firms. But with a thumping serious camera like the A900 coming out and receiving a solid review from someone who's widely listened to, a little bit more competition and innovation in the marketplace can do no bad thing. And for me personally, the thought that my gear is unlikely to get orphaned in the near future is very, very pleasant.
Good days to all of you,
Y
-
Some remarks on the Noise/DR/Resolution section of the article:
Resolution vs pixel level noise is always the tradeoff, if one's criterion is noise at the pixel level. That is simply because noise power rises with increasing fineness of scale in the image. All other things being equal, decreasing the pixel size to increase resolution simply samples the scene at finer scales, and noise at those finer scales is necessarily higher due to the physics. For instance, here's a plot of noise power vs image scale (spatial frequency) for a 40D and 50D (test images from Imaging-Resource; ISO 1600, converted from RAW in DPP):
(http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/posts/tests/Noise/40d-50d_noisepower-norm.png)
The horizontal axis is scale in the image, the vertical axis is noise power; so each data point is a measure of the amount of noise at a particular scale. The somewhat arbitrary units for the horizontal axis put the Nyquist frequency (the limit of resolution) at 256 for the 50D, and at 209 for the 40D. The two cameras are more or less the same up to the point where the 40D stops resolving, while the 50D climbs a bit higher. So, the pixel-level noise in the 50D is higher than that of the 40D, simply because it resolves more. If one were to downsample the 50D image to the 40D pixel dimensions (I have done this and shown results in some threads over at DPR), the 50D plot would look like a clone of the 40D one -- the fine scale noise is thrown away together with the extra resolution upon downsampling. So the noise and the resolution come hand in hand -- one simply has to decide what one wants.
As for the noise being less "grid-like" and more "stochastic", that is a property of the way the RAW converter is interpolating the Bayer data, and has little to do with the capabilities of the camera. For some reason, Adobe products (ACR/LR) are extremely variable in the way they treat different cameras. However, it should be said that with ahigh MP file, interpolation artifacts will be at a very fine scale regardless.
At high ISO, the DxO data does seem to indicate that the A900 is a poorer performer than the 1Ds3 and D3/D700, even when compared fairly by compensating for the scale dependence of noise. It seems that Sony has some work to do in reducing the electronic noise of the sensor, in order to catch up with C/N. I've not done any tests myself, but the DxO data seems to indicate that the S/N performance is poorer than the competition at high ISO, and better than the competition at low ISO (one might speculate that this is due to the column-wise parallel processing of data coming off the photosite array). Since dynamic range is determined by S/N performance, that too is worse at high ISO than the competition and perhaps a bit better at low ISO than the competition, as Michael seems to be observing.
Bits -- the camera doesn't need 14 bits! According to DxO, there are only 11.5 stops of DR maximum, so 12 bits is ample. This will be more and more true as pixel counts grow, since the pixel level DR will go down as the pixel level (but not image level) noise increases; see above. Less DR means fewer bits needed to encode it.
-
Michael
As posted on another thread by someone else, my experience with high ISO arw files from both the A700 and the A900 are handled best by Aperture as opposed to LR. This is most noticeable with the chroma noise.
Ken
P.S. If you would like to try out any of my lenses, I live close enough to you to drop them off for a week or so. Just e-mail me.
KS
-
I picked up the 500 mm mirror Reflex lens the other day and I'm quite impressed. Having autofocus in such a lens is a first, and when you add stabilization it really is quite unique.
It indeed is. With the Minolta AF Reflex 500 mm on the Konica-Minolta Dynax 7D, with Anti-Shake on I routinely get perfectly sharp shots hand-held at 1/125 s (at 750 mm equivalent!). When trying hard, you can also get away with 1/100 s or 1/80 s most of the time.
I'm looking forward to some testing and use in the days ahead.
The AF Reflex 500 mm will often show a hot-spot at the image's center---as most catadioptric lenses do---which will appear more or less pronounced depending on lighting conditions, exposure, and image content. Also contrast is not the highest, which again is a common flaw with most mirror lenses. But it's virtually free of chromatic aberrations due do the catadioptric principle, and pretty sharp. However to appreciate the sharpness, you'll have to make sure focus is accurate, and then crank up contrast a bit. In Camera Raw, using the "Strong Contrast" tone curve rather than the default "Medium Contrast" provides a good starting point.
To reduce the hot-spot and increase contrast---at least to a degree---, a decent lens hood will help significantly. The hood that comes with the lens is ridiculously short. I made a simple tube from black cardboard paper about the length of the lens with just slips over the original hood. Unfortunately, such a cardboard tube is delicate and hard to carry without smashing it in the bag; it will take a lot from the lens' own compactness. But the results are worth the hassle.
By the way, the rear-element filter drawer from the Minolta AF Apo G telephoto lenses will also fit the AF Reflex's filter slot exactly---and this does include the (elusive, expensive) integral polarizer filter unit.
-- Olaf
-
Overall I like the review; although I'm dubious of DxOMark references (I've corresponded with Thom Hogan about the DR claims DxOMark makes about the DR of the D90, and there's no way it exceeds the D3 or D700). Reading MR's review though convinces me that carefully exposed images with best quality lenses will produce the landscape results I'm looking for; now all I need to finalize my decision about this camera is to see how the Sony 16-35/2.8 ZA compares to my Nikkor 14-24/2.8, right now it looks like Nikon is about to lose me fas far as any future purchases are concerned, but I will keep my D300 and a couple of my favorite Nikkors since I love those and I also have a D200 IR and may soon get a relatively unique D200 B&W (no AA or CFA filters).
Does anyone know how much those Hartlbei TS lenses are going to cost? Does anyone want to buy a couple of modified Nikkor PC-E lenses? No, I'm not really soliciting a sale here, I'm trying to make a point, because this is where Nikon will really lose me for good. Once I sell off the Nikkor PC-E lenses and start buying those Hartlbei lenses, I will be more vested in the Sony system than the Nikon system; and switching back simply isn't going to happen. For Nikon this is a critical moment, I believe they just might slip to third in DSLRs over the next two years if they don't deliver a reasonably priced "D700x", and deliver it fast because for a lot of us the clock is now ticking.
-
I collect my A900 and Zeiss 24-70 F2.8 tomorrow. The A900 really seems to be gaining traction in the market. A long time Nikon user friend of mine has just purchased an A900 and is thrilled with the results he is getting. I can hardly wait to try it out.
Quentin
PS the review is also the most thorough I have seen of the A900.
-
Bits -- the camera doesn't need 14 bits! According to DxO, there are only 11.5 stops of DR maximum, so 12 bits is ample. This will be more and more true as pixel counts grow, since the pixel level DR will go down as the pixel level (but not image level) noise increases; see above. Less DR means fewer bits needed to encode it.
False.
If you take a meter stick and divide it into decimeters, then take another meter stick and divide it into centimeters, which one will give you more accurate results?
That answer should be obvious, and equally obvious is the fact that the meter stick is still a meter long, even though we've carved it into more chunks. The advantage in 14 bit a/d conversion over 12 bit is identical. The bit depth doesn't relate to dynamic range.
-
Ken,
Thanks... you can leave payment with the receptionist on the way out.
BTW, I picked up the 500mm Mirror Reflex lens the other day and I'm quite impressed. Having autofocus in such a lens is a first, and when you add stabilization it really is quite unique.
No, it's not a sharp as a 500mm prime, but then again the size and weight are negligible, and the money you save in not having to have a Sherpa on staff is considerable.
I've only done a few quick tests, but results seem reasonable for what it is. I'm looking forward to some testing and use in the days ahead.
Michael
Wonderful review, Michael. I wanted to mention to you that the $10 Minolta hotshoe adapters on ebay are an easy solution for pocketwizards and such. I keep a few of them around at all times, or I use the PC sync
I agree with the above that, unfortunately, Lightroom/ACR is the worst RAW converter I've seen for the A900 in regards to noise. I'm debating switching to the new Bibble 5 when it arrives, although I don't shoot high ISO too much, so I may just deal with it. Capture One, Bibble and Aperture do a much better job with the A900
-
I collect my A900 and Zeiss 24-70 F2.8 tomorrow. The A900 really seems to be gaining traction in the market. A long time Nikon user friend of mine has just purchased an A900 and is thrilled with the results he is getting. I can hardly wait to try it out.
Quentin
Good luck with it. I've started buying some used Minolta glass for an Alpha 900 purchase in January.
I picked up the 28-135/4-4.5, 50/1.4 and 70-210/4 (beercan). All have been raved about on the 900, and I got them for $200 each on ebay. For landscapes they should perform superbly (well the 50 is for occasional event photography).
I'll probably pick up a new Sigma 12-24 to cover the wide angles (I want to be able to exchange for a good copy) when I get the 900 and can make sure my 12-24 is up to snuff.
At some point I'll be able to justify buying some more expensive glass, but this should give me the best possible image quality for under $4500 using AF, bested only by spending $10,000+ for a Nikon D3x and a 12-24.
-
False.
If you take a meter stick and divide it into decimeters, then take another meter stick and divide it into centimeters, which one will give you more accurate results?
That answer should be obvious, and equally obvious is the fact that the meter stick is still a meter long, even though we've carved it into more chunks. The advantage in 14 bit a/d conversion over 12 bit is identical. The bit depth doesn't relate to dynamic range.
False. Dynamic range in stops provides an upper bound to the required RAW bit depth:
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/te...e/noise-p3.html (http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html)
I gave a better analogy than your meter stick, which takes into account the difference between accuracy and precision, in a discussion here a while back:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....mp;#entry202059 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=25937&st=120&p=202059&#entry202059)
-
Hi,
Bibble has support for Noise Ninja at the raw conevrsion stage, that's a good thing in my book. Regarding ACR/LR there is more to that then just noise reduction. LR has a pretty good workflow. LR is pretty good at extracting shadow detail, i don't know about the other tools. I tried to look at DXO but it doesn't seem to work with my DNG-based workflow. I would suggest that LR needs to do a bit more like automatic removal of lateral color and correction of distortion. What I would love to have would be DXO as a parametric edit.
If you shoot a couple of hundred pictures each day I would say that work flow considerations are pretty important.
Partly due to Michael's review I just put an order on a Alpha 900 with a 24-70/2.8 ZA and a Sigma 12-24 wide angle zoom.
Best regards
Erik
Wonderful review, Michael. I wanted to mention to you that the $10 Minolta hotshoe adapters on ebay are an easy solution for pocketwizards and such. I keep a few of them around at all times, or I use the PC sync
I agree with the above that, unfortunately, Lightroom/ACR is the worst RAW converter I've seen for the A900 in regards to noise. I'm debating switching to the new Bibble 5 when it arrives, although I don't shoot high ISO too much, so I may just deal with it. Capture One, Bibble and Aperture do a much better job with the A900
-
False.
If you take a meter stick and divide it into decimeters, then take another meter stick and divide it into centimeters, which one will give you more accurate results?
What is missing from your analogy is that the quantity being measured is subject to random errors of about 14cm (1/2 stop more than the 10cm scale of your decimeter ruler) so reporting the extra decimal place adds little or nothing to the accuracy of the measurement. The same is true for bits 13 and 14 with a 11.5 stop DR.
Unless the DR limit is actually a limitation of Sony's on-sensor column-parallel ADU's rather than of the signal coming to them from the photosites and pre-amplifiers. The modified version of this sensor used in the D3x with a different 14-bit (off-chip?) ADC approach might be informative here.
What is stranger though is that with no DSLR sensor (excluding some MF backs) offering a demonstrated DR of greater than about 12 stops (4000:1), some people are clamoring for 16-bit A/D conversion rather than 14-bit.
-
The bit depth doesn't relate to dynamic range.
Yes, it does for digital still cameras because they are linear recording devices. Emil's article has more details.
-
What is missing from your analogy is that the quantity being measured is subject to random errors of about 14cm (1/2 stop more than the 10cm scale of your decimeter ruler) so reporting the extra decimal place adds little or nothing to the accuracy of the measurement. The same is true for bits 13 and 14 with a 11.5 stop DR.
I was just simplifying it, probably a bit too much, in the interest of clarity. And so far no one's actually contradicted me, in spite of the attempted counter arguments, because the counter arguments are based on the fact that the current sensors are noisy, although I suspect that in Sony's case the noise that's limiting the accuracy of the a/d converters is coming from the amplifiers, based on the fact that Nikon is able to do better with pretty much the same sensors.
That doesn't change the fact that bit depth and dynamic range aren't actually related...
Emil's explanation didn't change that, he pointed out why the dynamic range places a limit on necessary or useful precision, which isn't the same thing, though you can build a camera without dealing with both issues.
What is stranger though is that with no DSLR sensor (excluding some MF backs) offering a demonstrated DR of greater than about 12 stops (4000:1), some people are clamoring for 16-bit A/D conversion rather than 14-bit.
That's not so strange; people want more resolution in the a/d conversion. They may not realize that it's beyond the capabilities of current sensor technology, though.
-
I was just simplifying it, probably a bit too much, in the interest of clarity. And so far no one's actually contradicted me, in spite of the attempted counter arguments, because the counter arguments are based on the fact that the current sensors are noisy, although I suspect that in Sony's case the noise that's limiting the accuracy of the a/d converters is coming from the amplifiers, based on the fact that Nikon is able to do better with pretty much the same sensors.
That doesn't change the fact that bit depth and dynamic range aren't actually related...
Emil's explanation didn't change that, he pointed out why the dynamic range places a limit on necessary or useful precision, which isn't the same thing, though you can build a camera without dealing with both issues.
That's not so strange; people want more resolution in the a/d conversion. They may not realize that it's beyond the capabilities of current sensor technology, though.
If you'd read my initial post in the thread, I stated that the A900 didn't NEED 14 bits. I didn't say bit depth and DR were related. In my second post, I stated that DR bounds the bit depth needed for data encoding. Again I didn't say that they were necessarily related. One bounds the other. The one time they are related is if the ADC has a bit depth less than the DR of the electronics that precedes it; then the bit depth and the encoded DR are equal.
If you're now saying that your reply to my post was unrelated to what I wrote, that's fine.
-
Great review that is uniquely perceptive.
I find both the Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8ZA and the 70-300G SSM, as excellent performers on my A900. The Zeiss 85mm f/1.4ZA is excellent too and so is my Sony 50mm f/2.8 Macro.
I will be adding the Zeiss 135mm f/1.4ZA Sonnar and the upcoming Zeiss 16-35 f/2.8 ZA to my list and I should be pretty much set as far as my lens requirements are concerned.
Maybe it is my imagination but the performance on the A700 with these lenses, never wowed me at all (even though they were terrific images) but on the A900, they are standouts, probably because the lenses are deploying their full optical signatures onto the A900 images.
-
The Zeiss 85mm f/1.4ZA is excellent too...
Maybe it is my imagination but the performance on the A700 with these lenses, never wowed me at all (even though they were terrific images) but on the A900, they are standouts, probably because the lenses are deploying their full optical signatures onto the A900 images.
I am still going to keep my D300, mainly so I can use my Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VR on it, the bokeh of that lens is top notch and it makes a beautiful portrait lens with the D300. Now my question for you is how is the bokeh on the Zeiss 85/1/4 ZA? Do you have any sample shots that would convince me to sell my Nikkor?
TIA
-
Hi!
I put an order on the Alpha 900 with 24-70/2.8 ZA, I buy a Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6 as WA lens because I'm not really a wide angle guy. I have some good Minolta glass, 80-200/2.8 and 400/4.5 which I keep. I would be interested in the 70-300G SSM, mainly because of the SSM.
Thanks for sharing experience!
I have a small question, when you are comparing the 24-70/2.8 on A700 and A900, are you looking at a pixel level or at prints? The Alpha 700 and the 900 should be pretty similar at the pixel level, theoretically.
Best regards
Erik
Great review that is uniquely perceptive.
I find both the Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8ZA and the 70-300G SSM, as excellent performers on my A900. The Zeiss 85mm f/1.4ZA is excellent too and so is my Sony 50mm f/2.8 Macro.
I will be adding the Zeiss 135mm f/1.4ZA Sonnar and the upcoming Zeiss 16-35 f/2.8 ZA to my list and I should be pretty much set as far as my lens requirements are concerned.
Maybe it is my imagination but the performance on the A700 with these lenses, never wowed me at all (even though they were terrific images) but on the A900, they are standouts, probably because the lenses are deploying their full optical signatures onto the A900 images.
-
I am still going to keep my D300, mainly so I can use my Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VR on it, the bokeh of that lens is top notch and it makes a beautiful portrait lens with the D300. Now my question for you is how is the bokeh on the Zeiss 85/1/4 ZA? Do you have any sample shots that would convince me to sell my Nikkor?
TIA
If you want bokeh you probably want the 135 STF which is the same on full frame as an 85 on the APS-C.
http://www.dyxum.com/columns/articles/lens...5F28_review.asp (http://www.dyxum.com/columns/articles/lenses/SAL-135F28/Sony-AF-135-STF-SAL-135F28_review.asp)
-
If you're now saying that your reply to my post was unrelated to what I wrote, that's fine.
It wasn't intentional, but my response wasn't entirely related because I misinterpreted yours.
-
What has me impressed by it isn't how it deals with low light, but the following areas:
Price. Honestly, Nikon is on crack if they think their new $8000 camera isn't going to rot on the shelves when this is $3000 and like comparing Honda versus Toyota - far more similar than the $5000 price difference would suggest.
Full Frame. Yes, it's nothing new to this type of camera, but no more crop factor and ability to use old film lenses makes for dead-simple utility if you are like me and tend to only use prime lenses. Sony finally has a contender here.
Wide range bracketing. Finally. +/- 0.5 is nearly worthless for HDR shots in actual practive, unless you shoot 5-7 shots and take the three that you want out of that mess. +/- 2.0 maximum and three shots is actually approaching what you would desire, especially for night time bracketing.
The only real negative is that it's heavy. But for the price, it's a monster and currently on my #1 spot after Nikon's massive failure. I was waiting to see what they were coming out with before passing judgment, but $8000 is just la-la land.
-
I am still going to keep my D300, mainly so I can use my Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VR on it, the bokeh of that lens is top notch and it makes a beautiful portrait lens with the D300. Now my question for you is how is the bokeh on the Zeiss 85/1/4 ZA? Do you have any sample shots that would convince me to sell my Nikkor?
TIA
I am on a trip currently and don't have any handy samples with the 85mm with me but will post some after I get back home. The bokeh is excellent with the Zeiss and I don't have any complaints about that. The Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 is another one of the exceptional lenses available for the Alpha mount, when it comes to portrait lens options. The 135 STF is a terrific option from a bokeh perspective, if you are willing to work with manual focus.
A couple of reviews/user-reports of the 85mm Zeiss lens are as follows:
http://www.dyxum.com/columns/articles/lens...14CZ_review.asp (http://www.dyxum.com/columns/articles/lenses/SAL-85F14CZ/Carl-zeiss-SAL-85F14CZ_review.asp)
http://www.dyxum.com/columns/articles/lens...inolta_85mm.asp (http://www.dyxum.com/columns/articles/lenses/SAL-85F14CZ/minman/Carl_Zeiss_Planar_85mmSAL-85F14CZ_Minolta_85mm.asp)
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Sony%20/%2...-zeiss_za_85_14 (http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Sony%20/%20Minolta%20Lens%20Tests/47-sony-alpha-aps-c/374-zeiss_za_85_14)
http://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta/onelens.php?id=af85f14cz (http://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta/onelens.php?id=af85f14cz)
Also, I would guess that the closest Nikkor to the Zeiss 85mm, would be the 85mm f/1.4 ? And the closest match to the 70-200 f/2.8 VR, would be the Sony 70-200 f/2.8 SSM G ? I personally like the flexibility afforded by the zoom, when it comes to portrait shooting, especially if you absolutely don't need to shoot at an extra large aperture.
-
There is one error in the review which I had hoped MR would have corrected by now. I'm sure it's just jet lag that caused him to overlook the PC cord connection on the front of the camera (just under the orange alpha logo but covered by a plastic cap) As for the proprietary flash shoe, there are some of us who feel it is more secure. But for those who wish to use other non-OEM flashes or levelers, e-Bay has a profusion of cheap ($5-$20) adapters that mimic the Minolta FS 1100 adapter. I would recommend anyone who is considering moving to the Sony system and wants a pro level flash to investigate the 58. It has a unique head rotation to compensate when rotating the camera from landscape to portrait mode. To my mind the biggest deficiency is a wide angle zoom. There is nothing to compare with Nikon's 14-24. I use a Sigma 12-24 but can't wait for the imminent release of the Zeiss 16-35. Oh well, that's what post-processing is for.
-
I have a small question, when you are comparing the 24-70/2.8 on A700 and A900, are you looking at a pixel level or at prints? The Alpha 700 and the 900 should be pretty similar at the pixel level, theoretically.
The comparison was done at the whole picture level and on prints....as we know, pixel level stuff matters very little, when it comes to the "effect" that a certain lens produces, primarily because a lens design is never homogeneous across the frame. The overall effect that the designer targets, includes a certain effect at the edges, certain other effects in the middle regions and certain other effect at the centre. The overall effect intended by the lens designer from the design (when it is a Full-frame lens design), is then captured by the Full-frame image. A central cropped region (that the APS-C camera captures), only considers what the lens designer, "designed" into the central portion of the lens, and thus does not capture the "optical signature" of the lens, that a FF imager does.
Also obviously, the A900 offers the ability to go really large with your prints, well beyond the point where the lower resolution models have given up and I have not printed larger than 12"x18", yet.
-
Thanks for the explanation! I'll also do some experiments once I get my Alpha 900 and 24-70/2.8, ordered yesterday.
Your comments, among others, were quite helpful when I decided to buy the 24-70/2.8. I'm going to share my own findings.
Best regards
Erik
The comparison was done at the whole picture level and on prints....as we know, pixel level stuff matters very little, when it comes to the "effect" that a certain lens produces, primarily because a lens design is never homogeneous across the frame. The overall effect that the designer targets, includes a certain effect at the edges, certain other effects in the middle regions and certain other effect at the centre. The overall effect intended by the lens designer from the design (when it is a Full-frame lens design), is then captured by the Full-frame image. A central cropped region (that the APS-C camera captures), only considers what the lens designer, "designed" into the central portion of the lens, and thus does not capture the "optical signature" of the lens, that a FF imager does.
Also obviously, the A900 offers the ability to go really large with your prints, well beyond the point where the lower resolution models have given up and I have not printed larger than 12"x18", yet.
-
This camera sounds like a tremendous bargain, but the low battery life (if it is true) is a deal killer.
J. Paul
I am still going to keep my D300, mainly so I can use my Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VR on it, the bokeh of that lens is top notch and it makes a beautiful portrait lens with the D300. Now my question for you is how is the bokeh on the Zeiss 85/1/4 ZA? Do you have any sample shots that would convince me to sell my Nikkor?
TIA
-
This camera sounds like a tremendous bargain, but the low battery life (if it is true) is a deal killer.
J. Paul
Michael's battery performance is odd. 500-600 shots a charge is the norm from everything I've seen. Sony rates it at 670, I believe.
-
Does anyone know how much those Hartlbei TS lenses are going to cost? Does anyone want to buy a couple of modified Nikkor PC-E lenses? No, I'm not really soliciting a sale here, I'm trying to make a point, because this is where Nikon will really lose me for good. Once I sell off the Nikkor PC-E lenses and start buying those Hartlbei lenses, I will be more vested in the Sony system than the Nikon system; and switching back simply isn't going to happen. For Nikon this is a critical moment, I believe they just might slip to third in DSLRs over the next two years if they don't deliver a reasonably priced "D700x", and deliver it fast because for a lot of us the clock is now ticking.
The PC-E lenses are the main thing keeping me with Nikon right now, although the lack of LiveView on the a900 would also give me serious pause, because for me it's critical for manual focusing. I don't really consider the Hartblei lenses an alternative, because they seem to be vaporware. They're also very expensive, at 9,000 Euros for the 3-lens set (which BTW includes 40, 85, and 120mm - is 40mm really going to be wide enough for you?).
-
The PC-E lenses are the main thing keeping me with Nikon right now, although the lack of LiveView on the a900 would also give me serious pause, because for me it's critical for manual focusing.
I've tried Live View a couple of times on my D300, and concluded that I was getting better results focusing with the viewfinder.
I don't really consider the Hartblei lenses an alternative, because they seem to be vaporware.
So is a "D700x", or whatever Nikon follows up the D3x with that is "affordable". What's worse, I have no way of knowing how much I will be paying for that lower priced alternative.
They're also very expensive, at 9,000 Euros for the 3-lens set (which BTW includes 40, 85, and 120mm - is 40mm really going to be wide enough for you?).
I found the price list: http://www.hartblei.de/en/pricelist.htm (http://www.hartblei.de/en/pricelist.htm) That's $8300 euros, which is about $10,000 (USD). That's a lot, but if the optics are better than the Nikkors and I get independent control of the alignment of the shift and tilt functions, then it wouldn't be unreasonable. My Nikkor 45/2.8 PC-E could just save the day for Nikon with me, it is the best lens at that focal length I have ever seen; but when I shift it the performance at the edges of the image circle recorded by my D300 takes a significant dive (oh my, that's not even all the way to the edge of the lens' image circle); so as I already stated, if the Hartblei can retain better image quality than it is probably worth the premium. As for 40mm versus 24mm at the wide end, I have to say that I am a little underwhelmed by the Nikkor 24/3.4 PC-E, but then I'm comparing it to my Nikkor 14-24/2.8, so that may not be fair.
Overall, I'm noticing a premium on a lot of the Sony lens prices compared to the very good Nikkors they would replace. As I start to add them all up, it makes a $500 or even a $1000 discrepancy between a "D700x" and an A900 look not unreasonable -- especially if the "D700x" has the better image quality that many are expecting from the D3x. I'm not going to be rash about this and will weigh my options; because I have several great Nikkor lenses in hand already my position is more complicated than many who might be pondering their options. I would say right now the A900 looks like a very good option for a lot of people and I wish my situation was less complicated so I could just go out and buy it now.
-
I've tried Live View a couple of times on my D300, and concluded that I was getting better results focusing with the viewfinder.
So is a "D700x", or whatever Nikon follows up the D3x with that is "affordable". What's worse, I have no way of knowing how much I will be paying for that lower priced alternative.
I think we can say with absolute certainty that there will be a D700 style camera with a D3x style sensor, at a price to compete head on with the A900 and 5D2. It is a case of not if, but when. In 2 years time I think we will see significant price drops, and such cameras will be much more common.
I found the price list: http://www.hartblei.de/en/pricelist.htm (http://www.hartblei.de/en/pricelist.htm) That's $8300 euros, which is about $10,000 (USD). That's a lot, but if the optics are better than the Nikkors and I get independent control of the alignment of the shift and tilt functions, then it wouldn't be unreasonable. My Nikkor 45/2.8 PC-E could just save the day for Nikon with me, it is the best lens at that focal length I have ever seen; but when I shift it the performance at the edges of the image circle recorded by my D300 takes a significant dive (oh my, that's not even all the way to the edge of the lens' image circle); so as I already stated, if the Hartblei can retain better image quality than it is probably worth the premium. As for 40mm versus 24mm at the wide end, I have to say that I am a little underwhelmed by the Nikkor 24/3.4 PC-E, but then I'm comparing it to my Nikkor 14-24/2.8, so that may not be fair.
Overall, I'm noticing a premium on a lot of the Sony lens prices compared to the very good Nikkors they would replace. As I start to add them all up, it makes a $500 or even a $1000 discrepancy between a "D700x" and an A900 look not unreasonable -- especially if the "D700x" has the better image quality that many are expecting from the D3x. I'm not going to be rash about this and will weigh my options; because I have several great Nikkor lenses in hand already my position is more complicated than many who might be pondering their options. I would say right now the A900 looks like a very good option for a lot of people and I wish my situation was less complicated so I could just go out and buy it now.
I recently bought the Nikon 24mm PC-E lens, and it seems to have comparable IQ to the 14-24mm which I also own. At least that is the case when stopped down. I was quite impressed with the close up performance.
Does Sony provide a sufficient range of lenses? 100mm micro? 200mm micro? 600mm? Wide zoom? 70-200 VR equivalent? Macro flash? The system is rather limited. And the Zeiss lenses look somewhat variable. The 18mm gets excellent reviews, and the 21mm might be a gem, but images on dpreview taken with the 24-70 F2.8 zoom are not overwhelming.
How big do you print? For A3 12MP is surely enough, or am I mistaken?
-
How big do you print? For A3 12MP is surely enough, or am I mistaken?
[/quote]
Well, Slough, I have a much more modest D200 and print within 25cm x 37.67cms limits on A3+ and that´s only - only? - around 10mp from the camera. I have to say that the results are very good indeed, and I wouldn´t be tempted to change camera for prints within that format. However, I am tempted to change up to FF and the D700´s reported quality at higher ISOs is the main reason, that and the relief of getting back to understood expectations for 35mm system lenses.
It would be pleasant to be able to use a digital camera like fast b/w used to be used...
Rob C
-
How big do you print? For A3 12MP is surely enough, or am I mistaken?
I would like to be able to print larger with minimal or no stitching -- perhaps even A1.
The Sony 16-35/2.8 ZA and a 50mm prime would cover most of what I want to do with the A900. I would still have my D300 and converted D200 cameras for many applications.
-
I've tried Live View a couple of times on my D300, and concluded that I was getting better results focusing with the viewfinder.
You must have super-human eye sight, if you can judge critical focus more accurately through a DX viewfinder than with LiveView zoomed in to 100%.
I found the price list: http://www.hartblei.de/en/pricelist.htm (http://www.hartblei.de/en/pricelist.htm) That's $8300 euros, which is about $10,000 (USD). That's a lot, but if the optics are better than the Nikkors and I get independent control of the alignment of the shift and tilt functions, then it wouldn't be unreasonable.
The $8300 Euros was a promotional price on the "prototypes" which I'm not sure they ever actually shipped. I think the final lenses will be priced somewhat higher. I call these vaporware because they announced them quite some time ago but apparently have made no progress towards actually shipping them. At least when know Nikon is capable of shipping a D700x if they want to.
My Nikkor 45/2.8 PC-E could just save the day for Nikon with me, it is the best lens at that focal length I have ever seen; but when I shift it the performance at the edges of the image circle recorded by my D300 takes a significant dive (oh my, that's not even all the way to the edge of the lens' image circle); so as I already stated, if the Hartblei can retain better image quality than it is probably worth the premium. As for 40mm versus 24mm at the wide end, I have to say that I am a little underwhelmed by the Nikkor 24/3.4 PC-E, but then I'm comparing it to my Nikkor 14-24/2.8, so that may not be fair.
My 24 PC-E is better than my other lenses at 24mm (24-70 AF-S, Tokina 12-24), although it's very close with the 14-24 (which has slightly better contrast, but I think the PC-E has the edge in most other regards).
-
I think we can say with absolute certainty that there will be a D700 style camera with a D3x style sensor, at a price to compete head on with the A900 and 5D2. It is a case of not if, but when. In 2 years time I think we will see significant price drops, and such cameras will be much more common.
I don't think the pricing or time frame is at all certain. I don't see how they can possibly release a D700x in 2009 that would be price-competitive with the a900/5DII unless they drastically reduce the price of the D3x. They can't sell a D3x for $8K and a D700x for $3.5K, it makes no sense.
-
I don't think the pricing or time frame is at all certain. I don't see how they can possibly release a D700x in 2009 that would be price-competitive with the a900/5DII unless they drastically reduce the price of the D3x. They can't sell a D3x for $8K and a D700x for $3.5K, it makes no sense.
It doesn't stop Canon doing likewise. In the UK the 5D2 and 1Ds3 are about £2200 and £4400 respectively i.e. a factor of 2. Canon justify this with lower performance AF and FPS on the 5D2, oh and no built in grip. And the 1Ds3 has been on sale some time, and was priced much higher before the 5D2 appeared, and about the same as the 3Dx at launch. The 3Dx will come down in price too, once initial demand (ha ha) has been satisfied. I would not be surprised were the price to drop as soon as stock appears. That is what happened with the D700 after all.
The question then is how will Nikon differentiate the D700x (or whatever it is called) from the 3Dx.
Of course these comments are no more than internet nonsense, and worth exactly what you have paid for them.
-
Does Sony provide a sufficient range of lenses? 100mm micro? 200mm micro? 600mm? Wide zoom? 70-200 VR equivalent? Macro flash? The system is rather limited. And the Zeiss lenses look somewhat variable. The 18mm gets excellent reviews, and the 21mm might be a gem,
They have a 100mm macro, no 200mm. 600mm is available only if you look at older Minolta glass at the moment. Wide zoom is coming from Zeiss (16-35) and already exist from KM/Sony in 17-35 as well as various 3rd party lens makers. 70-200 exist (and ALL lenses on the Sony system are effectively VR).
In flashes it supports wireless built in, with 2 external flashes, 1 ring flash and 1 twin-macro flash system plus flash cables and external battery packs etc.
There's no doubt they lack lenses compared to Nikon and Canon at the moment, but having teamed up with Zeiss and with access to all of Minolta's designs and existing lenses, plus 3rd party options then given a little time I would expect the lens options to grow nicely. At the moment, the only real shortcoming is at the very long tele end where you need to source old Minolta glass at the moment.
but images on dpreview taken with the 24-70 F2.8 zoom are not overwhelming.
Hmmm, this is considered by pretty much everyone who has used and tested it as one of the best lenses going around.
-
They have a 100mm macro, no 200mm. 600mm is available only if you look at older Minolta glass at the moment. Wide zoom is coming from Zeiss (16-35) and already exist from KM/Sony in 17-35 as well as various 3rd party lens makers. 70-200 exist (and ALL lenses on the Sony system are effectively VR).
In flashes it supports wireless built in, with 2 external flashes, 1 ring flash and 1 twin-macro flash system plus flash cables and external battery packs etc.
There's no doubt they lack lenses compared to Nikon and Canon at the moment, but having teamed up with Zeiss and with access to all of Minolta's designs and existing lenses, plus 3rd party options then given a little time I would expect the lens options to grow nicely. At the moment, the only real shortcoming is at the very long tele end where you need to source old Minolta glass at the moment.
Hmmm, this is considered by pretty much everyone who has used and tested it as one of the best lenses going around.
Yes, having checked the Photo Zone test, and sample images, the Zeiss 24-70 looks to be excellent.
I have to admit that Sony - with the help of Zeiss - are making a good attempt at a 35mm camera system, and could do quite well. It is interesting to see how a highly respected German optics company can team up with a well respected Japanese consumer electronics maker.
Still, no tilt shift lenses, no 200mm micro (my favourite lens), no D3/D700 class body (which is arguably appealing to a wide market than the A900), so they have some way to go yet.
-
Hi,
All Photozone tests are on APS-C or 4/3 so they little about corner or border performance on FX.
I'd think that Sony does not intend to compete head on with Canon/Nikon. They may be some day but not right now. Regarding Zeiss, Sony had a long relation with Zeiss having Zeiss-labeled lenses for digicams and video cameras.
Erik
Yes, having checked the Photo Zone test, and sample images, the Zeiss 24-70 looks to be excellent.
I have to admit that Sony - with the help of Zeiss - are making a good attempt at a 35mm camera system, and could do quite well. It is interesting to see how a highly respected German optics company can team up with a well respected Japanese consumer electronics maker.
Still, no tilt shift lenses, no 200mm micro (my favourite lens), no D3/D700 class body (which is arguably appealing to a wide market than the A900), so they have some way to go yet.
-
Hi,
All Photozone tests are on APS-C or 4/3 so they little about corner or border performance on FX.
Yes, of course, but in the absence of other tests on the full frame ...
I'd think that Sony does not intend to compete head on with Canon/Nikon. They may be some day but not right now. Regarding Zeiss, Sony had a long relation with Zeiss having Zeiss-labeled lenses for digicams and video cameras.
Erik
They are on record as wanting to make substantial inroads into the DSLR market i.e. very aggressive plans.
-
Does Sony provide a sufficient range of lenses? 100mm micro? 200mm micro? 600mm? Wide zoom? 70-200 VR equivalent? Macro flash? The system is rather limited. And the Zeiss lenses look somewhat variable. The 18mm gets excellent reviews, and the 21mm might be a gem, but images on dpreview taken with the 24-70 F2.8 zoom are not overwhelming.
Why do you say the Zeiss lenses look variable? As to your other queries:
100mm micro - yes, available new and several versions available 2nd hand.
200mm micro - yes, f4, 1:1 macro, 2nd hand only. (http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=100)
600mm - yes, f4, 2 versions, 2nd hand only (http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=24)
Wide zoom - on full frame several, from the el-cheapo KM 17-35 f2.8-4 through to the Carl Zeiss 16-35 f2.8. Several more on APS-C.
70-200 VR equivalent - yes, available new in f2.8 form.
Macro flash - yes - twin macro flash, ring light and ring flash all available.
That's all without going into 3rd party options of course.
Also maybe of interest - 1-3x macro zoom (http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=199) - I don't think Nikon has one of those?
135 STF lens (http://www.the135stf.net/) - not a soft focus lens - you'll find all the info you need at that link and it maybe of interest.
Autofocus 500mm f8 Mirror lens (http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=310) - all the normal drawbacks associated with mirror lenses, but also suprisingly high quality and incredibly compact for what you get. Not of interest to all, but certainly to some.
All provided FYI. Personally I'm a user because I like image stabilisation in the wider focal lengths.
-
Why do you say the Zeiss lenses look variable?
Because some appear to be real gems. Others seem to be no better than marque equivalents but they cost more.
BTW you did not mention the Zeiss macro lenses which are said to be excellent.
As to your other comments, to be a serious system with wide appeal they need lenses in production not just old used examples. I am sure we will see them in the next year or two.
-
The Sony 100mm macro is hardly up to Zeiss build quality standards but it turns in a decent performance on the A900
Here are a few from this AM when testing it out, all with the 100mm macro on the A900, decoded using SilkyPix.
(http://qdfb.smugmug.com/photos/431823495_GwVe2-O.jpg)
(http://qdfb.smugmug.com/photos/431899788_kgau7-O.jpg)
(http://qdfb.smugmug.com/photos/431823474_Dk6Yr-O.jpg)
The A900's colours are also excellent.
Quentin
-
Because some appear to be real gems. Others seem to be no better than marque equivalents but they cost more.
BTW you did not mention the Zeiss macro lenses which are said to be excellent.
Ah - we've got confused. You're talking about the Zeiss lenses available for all systems - I'm talking about those available in AF for A-mount. At present those are 16-35 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 85 1.4 & 135 1.8. We're expecting something around the specs of a 24/2 at PMA - apparantly it was supposed to be ready for Photokina but slipped. The other stuff, including the macros, isn't available in AF for Sony. Do you consider any of the Sony AF Zeiss lenses to be of variable quality, or are they the better ones? Optically I can't really fault my 135 1.8 - sharper than a 135L says it all really. Could do with a focus limiter & SSM though.
As to your other comments, to be a serious system with wide appeal they need lenses in production not just old used examples. I am sure we will see them in the next year or two.
Not sure to what extent I agree with you here. There's certain to be those who want to buy new and you seem to be one of them - nothing wrong with that. There's also those who will buy lenses 2nd hand and be happy. I'm a mix of the two - I'll buy my 24-70 2.8 new and my 135 1.8 was purchased new, but my 50 1.4, 58 f1.2, 17-35 & 35/2 were all 2nd hand. Regardless of stance, people should be aware that e.g. 200mm macro lenses in native mount are around. I'd say you're probably 3/4 right - a lot of people will be put off by having to scrounge certain stuff - most notably tele primes longer than 300mm - 2nd hand - however I have no stats whatsoever to back that up.
-
Still, no tilt shift lenses, no 200mm micro (my favourite lens), no D3/D700 class body (which is arguably appealing to a wide market than the A900), so they have some way to go yet.
Well, no D3 class body perhaps, but the A900 is in a similar league to the D700. Not the same, because its a more minimalist design in many ways, but similar size / build quality (I've just come from using a D700).
Fact is most photographers don't need a D3 type body. Photojournalism and sports, yes, but not much else. The huge pro-am market wants D700/A900 size and strength. I don't want to lug a D3 type camera around.
Quentin
-
Some people keep thinking of Sony as a flat screen TV company or relate them to consumer products like the playstation, but they forget or they are not aware that Sony has an history of professional products at the highest level:
http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-broadcastcameras/ (http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-broadcastcameras/)
http://www.cameraguild.com/index.html?tech...tml~top.main_hp (http://www.cameraguild.com/index.html?technology/Sony_Panavision.html~top.main_hp)
http://digitalcontentproducer.com/mag/pana...n_sony_genesis/ (http://digitalcontentproducer.com/mag/panavision_sony_genesis/)
-
There are a lot of deeply technical discussions here, way above my head. If I could bring it to the more mundane for a moment. I was puzzled at the choice of a non full-frame telephoto zoom for this evaluation rather than the full-frame "beer can" 70-200 telephoto zoom. Is there that much difference in using the 300mm zoom on the a900 to the a700? Seems that a lot of the advantage of the a900 would be lost here - ??
-
The Sony 70-300mm f/4.5-f/5.6 G is a full frame lens, and a very fine one at that. Fully the equal of anything from Nikon of Canon.
Michael
-
Thanks for the correction Michael. did I waste my money on the 70-200 then? There's a huge price difference between the two.
-
Thanks for the correction Michael. did I waste my money on the 70-200 then? There's a huge price difference between the two.
That can only be answered by you. You're paying for the constant f2.8 aperture with the 70-200. Some need that, some don't.
-
Is that the only/major difference? - Is the quality the same? Considering that the depth of field for any given f stop is very limited on a full frame, in comparison, I rarely shoot wide open anyway.
-
Hi,
Photozone has tested both lenses on a Alpha 700, so that test covers only the central part. The 70-300 was very good but there was a slight advantage to the 70-200/2.8. I don't know about full frame performance, however. I would be happy with the 70-200/2.8 it is known to be a very fine lens. The 70-300 seems to be a very fine lens, too.
Best regards
Erik
Is that the only/major difference? - Is the quality the same? Considering that the depth of field for any given f stop is very limited on a full frame, in comparison, I rarely shoot wide open anyway.
-
They're different animals.
The 70-200mm f/2.8 is one and a half to two stops faster, larger and heavier. The 70-300 is somewhat smaller but with a greater focal length at the long end.
The 70-200mm is a slightly higher quality lens, to be sure, but the 70-300 is more versatile - at least for me. Since I tend to shoot long much of the time I chose the 70-300.
Michael
-
While I have your attention Michael - I recently made the switch to Sony Digital after using my trusty Pentax LX's for about twenty five years. I shoot primarily Stock and the LX was such a great camera, as were Pentax primes. Those, plus Fuji Velvia were my bread and butter. When I decided to go digital, I wasn't impressed with Pentax - long downhill slope for them since the LX. I chose Sony rather than Canon or Nikon because of the Zeiss glass. My first digital was the a700 which I liked so much I snapped up an a900 as soon as I could.
In your opinion, are Sony becomng as serious a contender as I think they are? If you were starting all over, would you consider them?
-
Let's put it this way - I have now purchased two A900 bodies and 5 lenses and intended on using it as my main camera system for the next while.
It's what I'll be taking to Antarctica next month.
Michael
-
Let's put it this way - I have now purchased two A900 bodies and 5 lenses and intended on using it as my main camera system for the next while.
It's what I'll be taking to Antarctica next month.
Michael
Wow. That's an impressive vote of confidence.
What are you going to use for ultra wide angles? Is 24mm wide enough? Or have you managed to put your mitts on a prerelease CZ 16-35/2.8? If not, I wouldn't count on getting it in time for the trip as it is supposed to be released in mid January.
I'm probably going to slum around with the Sigma 12-24 as the CZ is out of my price range right now. Plus I love wide angles and am very interested to see what the 12mm FOV looks like. . .
-
I'm waiting for the CZ 16-35/2.8, but no, I won't have it in time since I leave Jan 6.
I'm thinking of the Sigma as a stopgap, but I don't shoot wider than 24mm most of the time.
Michael
-
I've used the Sigma 12-24 on the A900 and sold it. mushy, low contrast corners. the older Minolta 20/2.8 on the used market a better option on the A900.
-
How about the Sony (non Zeiss) 11-18 mm zoom. Apart from what I guess will be heavy vignetting, is it any good? Thanks.
-
Don't know. It doesn't interest me because it's not full frame.
Michael
-
Hi,
I have that lens in "Konica Minolta" guise. It's pretty bad on my A700. I certainly would not recommend it for the A900.
Erik
How about the Sony (non Zeiss) 11-18 mm zoom. Apart from what I guess will be heavy vignetting, is it any good? Thanks.
-
I've used the Sigma 12-24 on the A900 and sold it. mushy, low contrast corners. the older Minolta 20/2.8 on the used market a better option on the A900.
I agree it is a good lens indeed.
I have the new version made by Sony. It has one con though, which is a significant vignetting at wide open, which recede pretty much at f4. A part for that is a very good lens with good sharpness over all including the edges on FF and very little CA. Its AF is very precise as well. I think it is better than the Canon 20mm which is not as sharp at the edges and deliver a little more CA.
The vignetting wide open is very strong on the a900 e specially if the scene include white walls and it is bearable on the a700.
-
Hi,
I have some "first impressions" of the KM 28-75/2.8 on the A900 which I had about one day. Weather here is ugly and I work full time, need to earn some Swedish Kronor to pay for my stuff, so I just did some bookshelf shots. The 28-75 (which is essentially a Tamron) is pretty good. Great surprise was that the Minolta 20/2.8 I had on pasture for three years seem to be a very good performer. I'll post more info once I get around to take pictures for real. I have an SAL 28-70/2.8 ZA on order with promised delivery end of february (ouch!), glad that I have some old stuff. I have also an Sigma 12-24 on order but I may cancel, now that I found that the 20/2.8 is so good.
I would be interested to hear which lenses Michael Reichman bought and the reasons behind his choices.
Don't know. It doesn't interest me because it's not full frame.
Michael
-
I hope that your expedition to Antartica will be a great sucess! Good luck to all participants and crew!
Erik
Let's put it this way - I have now purchased two A900 bodies and 5 lenses and intended on using it as my main camera system for the next while.
It's what I'll be taking to Antarctica next month.
Michael
-
False. Dynamic range in stops provides an upper bound to the required RAW bit depth:
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/te...e/noise-p3.html (http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html)
The practicalities of analogue to digital conversion are, unfortunately, a little more complex. Although modern sensors have sophisticated normalisation circuitry, they're still subject to fluctuations in the trim of their voltage levels, because of temperature, age and other factors. Since none of the major companies ship their cameras with an engineer inside to check levels for you, this can be an issue. If you have a sensor capable of 11.5bits of DR feeding a 12bit recording format, then a small drift in the DC offset will lead to clipping and loss of DR. The extra headroom afforded by a 14bit format simply allows more leeway for the inevitable fluctuations that will occur in an individual sensor's performance under different conditions. At this level of performance, it's definitely desirable.
-
The practicalities of analogue to digital conversion are, unfortunately, a little more complex. Although modern sensors have sophisticated normalisation circuitry, they're still subject to fluctuations in the trim of their voltage levels, because of temperature, age and other factors. Since none of the major companies ship their cameras with an engineer inside to check levels for you, this can be an issue. If you have a sensor capable of 11.5bits of DR feeding a 12bit recording format, then a small drift in the DC offset will lead to clipping and loss of DR. The extra headroom afforded by a 14bit format simply allows more leeway for the inevitable fluctuations that will occur in an individual sensor's performance under different conditions. At this level of performance, it's definitely desirable.
Considering how most evidence of the D300/D3x 14bit mode is pointing towards oversampling of the sensor's 12bit ADCs, I'm not sure how your post applies to those cameras??
-
Michael-
Are you replacing your Phase One gear with the Alpha (is it that good?), or are you using it as your primary small-format system? I'm trying to decide ,as a landscape shooter, between making the jump to MF or buying into one of the super high-res FF systems. I have Canon gear now, which I'm not ergonomically that satisfied with (I have one hand, and I don't especially love the controls - bought into Canon when there was no other choice for image quality in a 35mm body), and I've pretty much decided to switch either to the Alpha, the D3x (I really love Nikon handling), or medium format. If the Alpha is good enough to cause you to put down your Phase system, that's a pretty strong endorsement to the small-format approach in general, and to the Alpha in particular.
-Dan
-
A good sample of the Sigma 12-24 is worth having. The design is brilliant - outstanding correction, hardly any CA - but in a poor sample, sharpness is not good. I don't have one for the A900, but I did use a decent sample for several years on a Kodak 14nx.
Quentin
-
Dan,
By no means am I replacing my Phase back. In fact I'll be upgrading my P45+ to a P65+ when it becomes available in a month or so.
The Sony A900 system is what I'll be using in the DSLR catagory, but for what I do it does not replace the H2 and Phase back.
I should mention for the umpteenth time that what I do in terms of equipment is not at all typical of what others may do. I review gear for my site and magazine articles for a living. This means long term testing. As a consequence when something interests me I will buy it, using it for a time, and then sometimes sell it. The subsequent loss is a cost of doing business. Think Consumer Reports.
Most other sites get a camera sample for a few days or weeks, and then they're gone. Not all, but most. I sometimes do that as well, but not always. Things are never simply black and white.
On the other hand when gear satisfies me, I buy it and then keep it for a long time. This allows me, I believe, a unique perspective when reviewing. I often have many months or years of experience with a product and ten of thousands of frames.
Right now I've had my Hassy system for about 4 years and I'm on my third Phase back. I may switch to a Phase camera in the months ahead, but I'm not sure of that at the moment.
Michael
-
Michael
It is my understanding that the reason you have purchased 2 A900 bodies is to take them to the Antarctic. It would be helpful if you could report on how well the "weathered" the in the field use. My use of the A900 with the CZ 24-70, G 70-300 and Sigma 12-24 has been limited to less extreme conditions with no untoward effects. Although the body is well sealed, I still have reservations about the resistance to moisture of the lenses. I know they're not made of sugar but it would be interesting to know how well the system fares in rain or when you wallow around in the snow and ice to get the right angle.
Ken
-
Michael-
Are you replacing your Phase One gear with the Alpha (is it that good?), or are you using it as your primary small-format system? I'm trying to decide ,as a landscape shooter, between making the jump to MF or buying into one of the super high-res FF systems. I have Canon gear now, which I'm not ergonomically that satisfied with (I have one hand, and I don't especially love the controls - bought into Canon when there was no other choice for image quality in a 35mm body), and I've pretty much decided to switch either to the Alpha, the D3x (I really love Nikon handling), or medium format. If the Alpha is good enough to cause you to put down your Phase system, that's a pretty strong endorsement to the small-format approach in general, and to the Alpha in particular.
-Dan
Dan, you should try handling the A900, as everything is adjustable on the camera with only the right hand.
-
Considering how most evidence of the D300/D3x 14bit mode is pointing towards oversampling of the sensor's 12bit ADCs, I'm not sure how your post applies to those cameras??
I think there's a little confusion here. I'm not talking about oversampling at all (though the benefits of oversampling in both the spatial and intensity domains remains an exciting prospect for future development). I'm talking about simply locating the dynamic range of voltage produced by the sensor within the window of the A/D converter. Ideally (as is the case in professional audio A/D conversion) this is done manually by adjusting the analogue gain on the inputs and ensuring that the DC offset is trimmed. Obviously that isn't an option for photography in the field, so the circuitry needs to rely on 'automatic' normalisation. Such systems are never perfect, though, so it makes sense to build in a leeway for error. The use of a 14bit format to record a 12bit signal affords enough headroom to ensure that the entire 12bit signal actually does get recorded properly even if the baseline voltage has wandered slightly at the time of recording.
The issue here is headroom, pure and simple. If you're trying to fit 11.5bits of analogue dynamic range into 12bits of digital recorded information then the signal needs to be calibrated to fit the A/D converter's input exactly. If you're trying to fit those same 11.5bits into a record that's 14bits deep then it doesn't matter if you're off by a bit (in both senses).
Headroom is cheap, we have 16 and 32GB flash cards, terabyte hard disks and quality brand-name DVDRs for backup that cost a quarter. Increased headroom is a cheap way of making sure that you won't be let down by momentary fluctuations in the state of the analogue data that comes off the sensor.
[EDIT]Perhaps I should clarify: any claims that using a 14bit recording depth leads to oversampling of the data coming off the D3/D700 are simply wrong (the same goes for Canon 14bit formats). The 14bit recording is merely a safeguard to ensure that the full dynamic range of which the sensor is capable is actually recorded. This data can then be renormalised at the time of RAW conversion. I have no doubt that in the majority of cases a 12bit recording format is quite sufficient (since the vast majority of current delivery formats can accommodate no more than 8bits and the majority of scenes fall comfortably within that range). But if you need to dig down into the file to recover as much data as possible through contrast manipulations then a 14bit recording format will make sure that you retain that data over a range of conditions.
-
Micheal - have you considered ebaying or otherwise sourcing a Minolta 17-35 f3.5 G lens to tide you over til the Zeiss 16-35? The feedback on FF so far is very good.
-
No, not really. I don't shoot wider than 24mm all that often. I can wait for the new Zeiss.
Michael
-
Charleski, I'm not saying that 14bit leads to oversampling. I'm saying that there is very, very compelling evidence to suggest that the D300/D3x don't have true 14bit processing like the D3, but, rather, Nikon takes the 12bit data off of the Sony sensor and resamples it to 14bit, thus resulting in the longer processing speed. The slightly less noisy shadow areas of these came in 14bit mode may be attributed to this oversampling, and not attributed to actual 14bit processing. There are tons of threads about this that likely explain it better than I can
-
False. Dynamic range in stops provides an upper bound to the required RAW bit depth:
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/te...e/noise-p3.html (http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html)
I gave a better analogy than your meter stick, which takes into account the difference between accuracy and precision, in a discussion here a while back:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....mp;#entry202059 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=25937&st=120&p=202059&#entry202059)
False.
DR is a function of the sensor and NEVER the A/D converter. DR is an analog metric, and NEVER a digital metric. Bit depth has nothing to do with DR. Bit depth simply defines the sampling of the DR, which is an analog metric.
The way DR and bit depth work is that bit depth determines how granular the conversion to digital is. For a given DR called X, X can be digitized to 8, 12, 14, 16 or 32 bits/channel, and deciding how granular the data is converted to has NO impact on DR.
For example of a Canon 10D offers 7 stops of DR, replacing it's 12 bit A/D converter with a 16 bit A/D will not change the DR. Now if you changed the sensor so that the new sensor provides 9 stops of DR, then doing this would change the DR (of course).
-
Charleski, I'm not saying that 14bit leads to oversampling. I'm saying that there is very, very compelling evidence to suggest that the D300/D3x don't have true 14bit processing like the D3, but, rather, Nikon takes the 12bit data off of the Sony sensor and resamples it to 14bit, thus resulting in the longer processing speed. The slightly less noisy shadow areas of these came in 14bit mode may be attributed to this oversampling, and not attributed to actual 14bit processing. There are tons of threads about this that likely explain it better than I can
Sensors are not digital devices. The output of a sensor is analog data. Not until the A/D processes the signal does the data become digital.
If you took a old D200, which currently uses a 12 A/D, and changed out the A/D with a new one that provides 14 bit depth, the resulting images would in fact be 14 bit images, eventhough the original sensor is used.
Bit depth is not about sensors. DR is a function of the sensor. Bit depth is a function of the A/D converter.
-
DR is a function of the sensor and NEVER the A/D converter. DR is an analog metric, and NEVER a digital metric. Bit depth has nothing to do with DR. Bit depth simply defines the sampling of the
Semantics aside, quantization to a given number of bits adds quantization noise to the signal, and if the bit depth is too low, it reduces the DR of the resulting digitized signal. A/D conversion has a quantization noise floor of about 1/2 the value of the least significant bit, and with 12-bit this is at least 1/2^13 of the maximum digital signal level, limiting DR to 2^13 or about 8000:1, no matter how high the DR was in the analog signal entering the ADU.
But with the analog signals of most or all sensors (all except maybe that of the D3 and D700 and some in MF?) apparently limited to DR of about 4000:1 or less, this 8000:1 DR limit imposed by quantization to 12-bits is probably low enough.
It has been said that ADU's can have noise levels significantly higher than the limit of quantization noise alone, so a particular 12-bit ADU might limit the signal to less than 4000:1. If so, this seems to be a problem with using the wrong 12-bit ADU (one giving less than 12 "significant" bits of output) rather than an inherent disadvantage of 12-bit A/D conversion: the solution is to use an ADU that gives at least 12 valid bits, which should be doable by a good enough 12-bit ADU, though a 14-bit ADU is another option of course.
-
Sensors are not digital devices. The output of a sensor is analog data. Not until the A/D processes the signal does the data become digital.
If you took a old D200, which currently uses a 12 A/D, and changed out the A/D with a new one that provides 14 bit depth, the resulting images would in fact be 14 bit images, eventhough the original sensor is used.
Bit depth is not about sensors. DR is a function of the sensor. Bit depth is a function of the A/D converter.
Sorry, I think we're just dealing with semantics, because the A/D converters are on the Sony chip, so let me say it a bit more clearly. I'm suggesting that the D300's signal is 12bit after the A/D conversion, and then Nikon simply oversamples. Therefore, it still gives a slight noise advantage in the shadows, and it also allows the camera to be called "14bit" for marketing reasons.
check this thread out for a better explanation: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat...essage=30240318 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&message=30240318)
Essentially, the D3x sensor looks to be the A900's with a different CFA and AA filter, and the 1.8fps, 14bit option that is achieved by "taking four samples from for each pixel (they can be read non-destructively) and adding together."
-
No, not really. I don't shoot wider than 24mm all that often. I can wait for the new Zeiss.
Very well. Which CZ prime did you pick up? I'm a huge fan of my 135, though it really should have SSM. Very strange that our lens lineups are almost identical now. Enjoy Antarctica!
-
Still, no tilt shift lenses, no 200mm micro (my favourite lens), no D3/D700 class body (which is arguably appealing to a wide market than the A900), so they have some way to go yet.
If you are willing to go used, then there is the Minolta 200mm f/4 Macro or if you go the 3rd party route, there is the Sigma 180mm APO f/5.6 Macro.
I think Sony will definitely re-release the 200mm f/4 Macro, sooner rather than later.
Also, in their 2007 PMA show, they indicated their upcoming lenses in prototype form, which included several long lenses and also several high-end primes. The bodies that were on display have already been released. Several of the lenses on show have already been released or on the verge of being released, including the Carl Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 SSM Vario-Sonnar, the CZ 16-35 f/2.8 SSM Vario-Sonnar, the Sony 70-400 f/4-5.6G SSM etc.
There are several lenses if you notice intently, that could be the re-release/update of the prior Minolta 600mm f/4, a 400mm f/2.8, 200mm f/4 etc., with modern designs and SSM.
(http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pma2007/Sony/IMG_4806.jpg)
-
The 70-200mm is a slightly higher quality lens, to be sure, but the 70-300 is more versatile - at least for me. Since I tend to shoot long much of the time I chose the 70-300.
Michael
If you don't mind the extra weight, then the upcoming (Jan '09) 70-400G f/4-5.6 SSM may also be a viable option.
But it will have twice the weight of the 70-300G SSM (which I own too) and obviously the 70-400 will stand out more, due to its light color (unlike the black-colored 70-300G).
http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores...552921665529564 (http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665529564)
-
If you are willing to go used, then there is the Minolta 200mm f/4 Macro or if you go the 3rd party route, there is the Sigma 180mm APO f/5.6 Macro.
I think Sony will definitely re-release the 200mm f/4 Macro, sooner rather than later.
Also, in their 2007 PMA show, they indicated their upcoming lenses in prototype form, which included several long lenses and also several high-end primes. The bodies that were on display have already been released. Several of the lenses on show have already been released or on the verge of being released, including the Carl Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 SSM Vario-Sonnar, the CZ 16-35 f/2.8 SSM Vario-Sonnar, the Sony 70-400 f/4-5.6G SSM etc.
There are several lenses if you notice intently, that could be the re-release/update of the prior Minolta 600mm f/4, a 400mm f/2.8, 200mm f/4 etc., with modern designs and SSM.
(http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pma2007/Sony/IMG_4806.jpg)
Nothing to argue with there, except to say that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
I hope the plans come to fruition as more competition is good.
-
Hi,
I'm having the 400/4.5 APO in my hand and I'm very happy with it. Why? Because it's tremendously useful with the 1.4 converter. I would love to have it released with SSM but I suppose I could not afford a new version.
Best regards
Erik
Nothing to argue with there, except to say that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
I hope the plans come to fruition as more competition is good.
-
Hi,
I'm having the 400/4.5 APO in my hand and I'm very happy with it. Why? Because it's tremendously useful with the 1.4 converter. I would love to have it released with SSM but I suppose I could not afford a new version.
Best regards
Erik
Ah yes, I have heard of that lens. Sometimes a Nikon user looks at Sony with envy.
-
Nothing to argue with there, except to say that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
True, but many of these "birds in the bush" are already available "in the hand".
Both of the camera bodies (A900 and A700), the 70-300G SSM lens, the 24-70 f/2.8 SSM Carl Zeiss lens, the 16-35 f/2.8 SSM Carl Zeiss lens, the 70-400 f/4-5.6G SSM lens are all now available.
PMA should see a few more. The system is building up strength like a gathering tsunami.
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.
The downside in the Sony system is that for folks who need specialized lenses like tilt/shift etc., there are none available (till date) in the Sony lens range, unless one is willing to shell out significant amounts for Hartblei T/S lenses available in the Sony/MinoltaMaxxum/Alpha mount.
-
Sorry, I did some searching and did find the T/S lenses in the Sony/Minolta-Maxxum mount, and the prices did not look outrageous at all:
http://kievcamera.net/catalog/product_info...products_id=191 (http://kievcamera.net/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=56&products_id=191)
http://kievcamera.net/catalog/product_info...products_id=190 (http://kievcamera.net/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=56&products_id=190)
I don't have a requirement for t/s lenses yet but folks who are interested, might want to check the above links out.
-
Jeff
I don´t 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 (http://hartblei.de/en/index.htm)
New Hartblei Range of Models available
München, 10.12.2008
We proudly present our new models with integrated Tripodmount/Stitchingclamp (parallaxfree Stichting even up to Macro) ,complete reworked mechanics Mechanik made of brass, new hardchromed Mounts to prevent wear and metal dirt on the sensor, Worldpremiere 2. Focusring with 120mm macro Closeup up to 75 cm and 1:5 ,further improved internal Antireflexcoating. The lenses are available immediately and can be rented at several of our dealers for testing. All Users of already sold (Zeiss)Hartblei lenses can have their lenses refurbished to the new status for 300 € each. And last but not least: We have a Christmas special again - all orders that reach us until the 31. of December 2008 will benefit with a 5% rebate on all prices.
The fact that we are still underepresentated in the US is 1. we stopped doing business with Kievcamera/Mike Fourman and 2. The distributors we contacted until today had some funny ideas about earnings
(one offered 65 % of the price before he would take the product. I thankfully refused ........)
So you can buy our lenses any time but by mailorder.
Stefan Steib CEO Hartblei Kiev-Munich
You must have super-human eye sight, if you can judge critical focus more accurately through a DX viewfinder than with LiveView zoomed in to 100%.
The $8300 Euros was a promotional price on the "prototypes" which I'm not sure they ever actually shipped. I think the final lenses will be priced somewhat higher. I call these vaporware because they announced them quite some time ago but apparently have made no progress towards actually shipping them. At least when know Nikon is capable of shipping a D700x if they want to.
My 24 PC-E is better than my other lenses at 24mm (24-70 AF-S, Tokina 12-24), although it's very close with the 14-24 (which has slightly better contrast, but I think the PC-E has the edge in most other regards).
-
Hi,
I think there is also a shift lens from Schneider in KM/Alpha mount.
Now that we are living in the digital era we may also consider digital solutions. It is possible to use panoramic techniques instead of shifting lenses and there is also a possibility to focus merge images. Software I have tried is "Helicon Focus" and "Autopano Pro" but there are others. These techniques work with all lenses.
Best regards
Erik
Sorry, I did some searching and did find the T/S lenses in the Sony/Minolta-Maxxum mount, and the prices did not look outrageous at all:
http://kievcamera.net/catalog/product_info...products_id=191 (http://kievcamera.net/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=56&products_id=191)
http://kievcamera.net/catalog/product_info...products_id=190 (http://kievcamera.net/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=56&products_id=190)
I don't have a requirement for t/s lenses yet but folks who are interested, might want to check the above links out.
-
True, but many of these "birds in the bush" are already available "in the hand".
Both of the camera bodies (A900 and A700), the 70-300G SSM lens, the 24-70 f/2.8 SSM Carl Zeiss lens, the 16-35 f/2.8 SSM Carl Zeiss lens, the 70-400 f/4-5.6G SSM lens are all now available.
PMA should see a few more. The system is building up strength like a gathering tsunami.
The Sony system does not have the lenses I need. Nikon does. Canon does. Period. No doubt for some the Sony system is the bees knees. But they have significant weaknesses.
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.
That sort of nonsense belongs on dpreview. To show you how silly that statement is, are you aware that many of the second hand Nikon lenses that go cheap on FleaBay are first rate performers on FX? Apparently the ~30 year old 75-150mm F3.5 zoom works very well on a D3x. They go for ~$100. I have one, and it is excellent. The 'old and past it' Nikon 17-35 F2.8 zoom performs very well on the Canon full frame cameras.
I could also mention that full frame is not new and high resolution fine grain B&W film has been around for decades.
And you clearly do not know that most Nikon pro grade lenses are very recent designs. Tilt shift: released in the last year or two. Long telephoto primes: released in the last year or two. 14-24mm zoom: released in the last year or two and with no equal from any other company. 60mm and 105mm micros: released in the last year or two.
And I hear that Canon L lenses are first rate including the supposedly old and hence past it ones.
I am sure Sony marketing like what you say but it is nonsense.
The downside in the Sony system is that for folks who need specialized lenses like tilt/shift etc., there are none available (till date) in the Sony lens range, unless one is willing to shell out significant amounts for Hartblei T/S lenses available in the Sony/MinoltaMaxxum/Alpha mount.
At present, no D700 class camera, no 200mm micro, no tilt shift, no 200mm F2, no long primes, no long pro zoom, those are massive gaps.
I hope that Sony fills those gaps so as to kick Nikon and Canon up the backside and keep competition alive.
-
The Sony system does not have the lenses I need. Nikon does. Canon does. Period. No doubt for some the Sony system is the bees knees. But they have significant weaknesses.
Agree. Your needs are met via Canon/Nikon. Good for you.
I could also mention that full frame is not new and high resolution fine grain B&W film has been around for decades.
True. Unfortunately, film and digital FF sensors behave differently, specifically when it comes to lens performance. In film, you might have some relatively harmless vignetting, if light does not hit it head-on. But with Digital sensors with their micro-lenses, light hitting obliquely will cause light-scatter, color-bleeding and vignetting and the edges/corners tend to become mush.....especially visible in FF sensors. A whole different reaction from film. Again, completely dependent on how the original lenses were designed and just because it works terrifically on film, does not automatically translate into high-performance on digital.
And you clearly do not know that most Nikon pro grade lenses are very recent designs. Tilt shift: released in the last year or two. Long telephoto primes: released in the last year or two. 14-24mm zoom: released in the last year or two and with no equal from any other company. 60mm and 105mm micros: released in the last year or two.
I am very familiar with the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 and also its companion released at the same time, the 24-70 f/2.8. Have even shot with them. The Zeiss 24-70 might have the image quality edge here, but the Nikon is not too far behind. But I am truly envious of the 14-24.
At present, no D700 class camera, no 200mm micro, no tilt shift, no 200mm F2, no long primes, no long pro zoom, those are massive gaps.
Again, no 200mm macro, unless you pick up a prior Minolta 200mm f/4 Macro. No tilt/shift, unless you pick up a Hartblei, Schneider or other excellent aftermarket tilt/shift lenses. No long primes either (like the prior Minolta 600mm f/4 or the 400mm f/4.5 APO), unless you decide to pick one up, used. Or you are okay with picking up products like the Sigma 500mm f/4.5 or the Sigma 800mm f/5.6 etc.
But I agree that Sony needs to speed up the introduction of their already announced lenses, than have their users rely on used or 3rd party products.
-
Jeff
I don´t 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 (http://hartblei.de/en/index.htm)
New Hartblei Range of Models available
München, 10.12.2008
We proudly present our new models with integrated Tripodmount/Stitchingclamp (parallaxfree Stichting even up to Macro) ,complete reworked mechanics Mechanik made of brass, new hardchromed Mounts to prevent wear and metal dirt on the sensor, Worldpremiere 2. Focusring with 120mm macro Closeup up to 75 cm and 1:5 ,further improved internal Antireflexcoating. The lenses are available immediately and can be rented at several of our dealers for testing. All Users of already sold (Zeiss)Hartblei lenses can have their lenses refurbished to the new status for 300 € each. And last but not least: We have a Christmas special again - all orders that reach us until the 31. of December 2008 will benefit with a 5% rebate on all prices.
The fact that we are still underepresentated in the US is 1. we stopped doing business with Kievcamera/Mike Fourman and 2. The distributors we contacted until today had some funny ideas about earnings
(one offered 65 % of the price before he would take the product. I thankfully refused ........)
So you can buy our lenses any time but by mailorder.
Stefan Steib CEO Hartblei Kiev-Munich
We need some wider field of view tilt / shift lenses - a 28m or 24mm would be good, provided the price is not too eye-watering... The Schneider 28mm does shift but not tilt.
Quentin
-
And you clearly do not know that most Nikon pro grade lenses are very recent designs. Tilt shift: released in the last year or two. Long telephoto primes: released in the last year or two. 14-24mm zoom: released in the last year or two and with no equal from any other company. 60mm and 105mm micros: released in the last year or two.
You forgot to mention all the other primes from 20mm to 135mm. circa 1985/1990.
But I know, photographers hardly use those. why bother....
-
You forgot to mention all the other primes from 20mm to 135mm. circa 1985/1990.
But I know, photographers hardly use those. why bother....
And your point is? If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that the manual focus 28mm F2.8 AIS is a superb optic with an excellent close focus performance. The 'old and past it' 35mm F1.4 AIS is also very good. The 50mm F1.5 AFS is brand new. The 85mm F1.4 is as good as the Zeiss and cheaper. Oh and Nikon users have access to Zeiss primes too.
-
And your point is? If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that the manual focus 28mm F2.8 AIS is a superb optic with an excellent close focus performance. The 'old and past it' 35mm F1.4 AIS is also very good. The 50mm F1.5 AFS is brand new. The 85mm F1.4 is as good as the Zeiss and cheaper. Oh and Nikon users have access to Zeiss primes too.
I did not say they were bad lenses.
We were talking how ancient the design was.
Of course they still work fine, but I bet, the finally long due but not yet available on shops 50mm 1.4, will works better than all those older ones.
All those good old lenses are long due for a refresh, that is my point, they are noisy and slow to focus, not optimized for digital. some of those primes still shows colors shifts from time to time on FF digital.
I had quite a few of them.
-
I did not say they were bad lenses.
We were talking how ancient the design was.
Of course they still work fine, but I bet, the finally long due but not yet available on shops 50mm 1.4, will works better than all those older ones.
All those good old lenses are long due for a refresh, that is my point, they are noisy and slow to focus, not optimized for digital. some of those primes still shows colors shifts from time to time on FF digital.
I had quite a few of them.
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 assumed from the above that you were referring to optical quality when you used the phrase "under the unblinking glare of high resolution FF sensors". Obviously not then.
FYI the 28mm AFD F2.8 lens is optically inferior lens to the much older 28mm F2.8 AIS lens. More recent does not necessarily equal better. Sometimes quality is reduced to produce a more affordable lens.
If you want a weakness in the Nikon system, think about small fast wide primes. No auto-focus lenses, and one manual focus one. Not that it bothers me, but some people change system for that reason.
-
Oh and Nikon users have access to Zeiss primes too.
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.
-
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 assumed from the above that you were referring to optical quality when you used the phrase "under the unblinking glare of high resolution FF sensors". Obviously not then.
FYI the 28mm AFD F2.8 lens is optically inferior lens to the much older 28mm F2.8 AIS lens. More recent does not necessarily equal better. Sometimes quality is reduced to produce a more affordable lens.
If you want a weakness in the Nikon system, think about small fast wide primes. No auto-focus lenses, and one manual focus one. Not that it bothers me, but some people change system for that reason.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I wish I could write in English that well.
It was someone else writing those lines.
Check it again.
Hi ho!
-
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.
-
Mike Johnston compares the A900 vs the Canon 5DII vs the Nikon D700 as below:'
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/t...vs-nikon-v.html (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/12/sony-vs-nikon-v.html)
Reading between the lines, he seems to really like the A900.
-
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 (http://www.swiatobrazu.pl/_and_they_compared_to_one_another_hasselblad_h3_mamiya_afdiii_sony_alpha_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.
-
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
-
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.
-
... 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.)
-
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 (http://www.swiatobrazu.pl/_and_they_compared_to_one_another_hasselblad_h3_mamiya_afdiii_sony_alpha_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.
-
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.
-
I don´t 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 (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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Michael
Can we hope the results of this test will be in terms of a print rather than 100% screen view?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
On many forums, high ISO processing always seems to be a hot topic. But for me, if I can't shoot at 200/400, I don't shoot. There seems to be less interest and info on RAW processing for more normal ISO's. Sony often seem to have quirky, proprietary formats (Betamax anyone?) that take a bit of a workaround with third party products. The basic question, for me, is, are Sony RAW and ACR a good match at even normal ISO's, or do folks like Capture One and Bibble have a point?
-
At normal ISOs (say under 800) there is little to see in terms of noise performance differences between raw converters.
There are always other visible differences though because each will do their Bayer decoding differently, each will choose a slightly different gamma curve, and each will likely use a different camera profile, either inbuilt or external. Many of these differences can be equalized by the user in post processing, some can't.
If you're the type of photographer who can see these differences and cares about extracting subtile nuances from your files then choose a raw processor based on your own tests with your own files. If you care more about workflow, convenience and such then use the one that you like best. There's no one simple answer.
Michael
-
For those of you not from around the Toronto area, the winter solstice has arrived with a series of major snowstorms. It's quite bleak outside. I guess that accounts for the delay in the release of this highly anticipated test. There aren't as many opportunities to photograph right now and you definitely have to wear gloves. So printing becomes the number one photographic preoccupation. That's why I raised this question. It's not to cut off scientific inquiry but rather to keep the test at a practical level.
-
Hi Michael,
Thanks for good input, as always!
For my part I'm really sold on parametric edits, AFAIK it means either Aperture or Lightroom. Lightroom is supposed to work on both Macs and Windoze, I had more than my share of problems on both platforms recently. I would like Adobe to:
- Make Lightroom stable and add some error messages telling the customer whats going on.
- Add distortion correction as a parametric edit.
- Add perspective correction as a parametric edit.
- Support a heavy weight noise reduction like "Noise Ninja" as a parametric edit with contour masks.
- Let Lightroom utilize all memory under 32-bit Windows. 32 bit Windoze may be an oxymoron, but one that is the only option on about 98% of the notebok PC sold.
I did try out Aperture but it doesn't seem to work with my files from the Apha 900.
Best regards
Erik
At normal ISOs (say under 800) there is little to see in terms of noise performance differences between raw converters.
There are always other visible differences though because each will do their Bayer decoding differently, each will choose a slightly different gamma curve, and each will likely use a different camera profile, either inbuilt or external. Many of these differences can be equalized by the user in post processing, some can't.
If you're the type of photographer who can see these differences and cares about extracting subtile nuances from your files then choose a raw processor based on your own tests with your own files. If you care more about workflow, convenience and such then use the one that you like best. There's no one simple answer.
Michael
-
There actually is a nice Sony hand-strap to be used with the battery grip. It is often out of stock in USA.
I was able to get mine during a trip to Tokyo.
It is called grip belt.
http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores...552921665295951 (http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665295951)
-
A word on the battery performance with the Alpha 900.
Have you had the chance to shoot in cold weather yet (like -10c or colder)?
Any idea how many images you are getting from a fully charged battery?
Thank you.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I think looking at the samples, on the A900 update, aka raw..it is very obvious what is going on.
I have raised this in the past, and will continue to do so. The reason ACR produces what appears to be, a larger grain pattern, or what I would call splodges..rather than a tight grain effect, is the apparent base level NR going on in the software. I see this effect in my MRW files too, though as they are less pixel dense, it's not as bad, but still present.
I find it easier to remove noise from a tighter grain pattern myself (if indeed you want to remove it), and I would suggest adobe consider allowing users to switch off the noise reduction effect. This extends further than pure pixel peeping, whilst it's no big deal for smaller prints, for larger ones it is.
-
Have you had the chance to shoot in cold weather yet (like -10c or colder)?
Any idea how many images you are getting from a fully charged battery?
Thank you.
Cheers,
Bernard
I've just "finished" my first fully charged battery. I got 732 shots before "Battery Exhausted" appeared on the LCD, though the yellow low battery warning was on from exposure number 500 or thereabouts! Sony obviously provide for a considerable reserve in their warning signal.
My shooting was about 50/50 indoors and out - though the "out" was in very cold conditions averaging around -10C.
I have Power save set at one minute and the LCD review at 10 seconds - though as I did a lot of chimping, magnifying the image and generally admiring the huge screen etc etc I suspect the LCD was on far more than 10 seconds.
I charged the battery for 4 full hours. My second battery is now installed and if it performs significantly differently, I'll post it.
Bill
-
I've just "finished" my first fully charged battery. I got 732 shots before "Battery Exhausted" appeared on the LCD, though the yellow low battery warning was on from exposure number 500 or thereabouts! Sony obviously provide for a considerable reserve in their warning signal.
My shooting was about 50/50 indoors and out - though the "out" was in very cold conditions averaging around -10C.
I have Power save set at one minute and the LCD review at 10 seconds - though as I did a lot of chimping, magnifying the image and generally admiring the huge screen etc etc I suspect the LCD was on far more than 10 seconds.
I charged the battery for 4 full hours. My second battery is now installed and if it performs significantly differently, I'll post it.
Bill
Thanks for the test, it's very informative. I would avoid draining the battery that much if possible though, the optimal amount of drain is around 60%, or about where Sony started telling you to recharge the battery.
-
Just wondering if anyone has any experience with the AF performance of Sigma lenses on the a900 (with the 70-200 for instance)? I like many of the lenses in the sigma lineup but always found AF to be rather bad on Canon..
cheers, Ulf
-
Just wondering if anyone has any experience with the AF performance of Sigma lenses on the a900 (with the 70-200 for instance)? I like many of the lenses in the sigma lineup but always found AF to be rather bad on Canon..
cheers, Ulf
This user, who uses the Sigma 70-200 HSM on the A700 feels the AF is fast:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=30133321 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=30133321)
The body he uses it on is the A700 and the A900 should only be faster.
-
Thanks for the test, it's very informative. I would avoid draining the battery that much if possible though, the optimal amount of drain is around 60%, or about where Sony started telling you to recharge the battery.
The Sony InfoLithium battery is supposed to be memoryless. Its longevity shouldn't be impacted by how much you drain it.
-
Lithium Ion batteries across the board don't have a memory. Nothing to do with Sony.
But you don't want to deep cycle them. The deeper you cycle them, the more often, the shorter the life of the battery. If you run a lithium cell deep. Depending on the specific chemistry of it, you might only get a couple hundred cycles.
The best thing to do is have multiple batteries, swap them before they get very low. And if you then run out, go back and use them more. By doing this you increase the life of a battery massively.
The Sony InfoLithium battery is supposed to be memoryless. Its longevity shouldn't be impacted by how much you drain it.
-
Lithium Ion batteries across the board don't have a memory. Nothing to do with Sony.
But you don't want to deep cycle them. The deeper you cycle them, the more often, the shorter the life of the battery. If you run a lithium cell deep. Depending on the specific chemistry of it, you might only get a couple hundred cycles.
The best thing to do is have multiple batteries, swap them before they get very low. And if you then run out, go back and use them more. By doing this you increase the life of a battery massively.
Right, as I understand it you could theoretically get a 1000 recharge cycles if you charge them only after using them about 10%, you might get 600 cycles by draining them 50%, and only a couple of hundred if you drained them 90%. Indeed, the fact that they have no memory gives you the option to take any of these approaches. What I did was calculate the total number of shots (based on a website I read on this topic a year or two ago) and figured that the optimum was around 60% drain -- for the D200 that works out to 40,000 shots over the life of the battery, and that camera is a battery hog. It should be noted that these batteries have a somewhat limited shelf life; so while I could get more total shots by recharging on shorter cycles, I would have to keep more batteries on hand and they would all end up being thrown away long before the 1000 charge cycles was attained since 1000 charge cycles is about 1.5 charges per day per battery over a two year period. Two to four batteries is about the right number of batteries to have for an A900, depending on how much you shoot before you can charge them up again.
-
Right, as I understand it you could theoretically get a 1000 recharge cycles if you charge them only after using them about 10%, you might get 600 cycles by draining them 50%, and only a couple of hundred if you drained them 90%. Indeed, the fact that they have no memory gives you the option to take any of these approaches. What I did was calculate the total number of shots (based on a website I read on this topic a year or two ago) and figured that the optimum was around 60% drain -- for the D200 that works out to 40,000 shots over the life of the battery, and that camera is a battery hog. It should be noted that these batteries have a somewhat limited shelf life; so while I could get more total shots by recharging on shorter cycles, I would have to keep more batteries on hand and they would all end up being thrown away long before the 1000 charge cycles was attained since 1000 charge cycles is about 1.5 charges per day per battery over a two year period. Two to four batteries is about the right number of batteries to have for an A900, depending on how much you shoot before you can charge them up again.
Thats good to know. I was running mine to about 10% before swapping it out.
I'll do the 60%, thanks.
-
Hmm, recharging at 60% seems to miss the benefit of a high-capacity Lion battery. You may get more recharge cycles, but you have to recharge more often and you're likely to need more backup batteries. I know you're not supposed to completely discharge them but I run them down to about 25%, sometimes maybe a little lower. The batteries I got at the time of my original D2x purchase (over 3 years ago) are still going strong so I don't think I'm harming their lifetime.
-
Hmm, recharging at 60% seems to miss the benefit of a high-capacity Lion battery. You may get more recharge cycles, but you have to recharge more often and you're likely to need more backup batteries. I know you're not supposed to completely discharge them but I run them down to about 25%, sometimes maybe a little lower.
I'm sure it's a bell curve in terms of whether you would drain the battery by 60% or 80%. Anyway, I actually just run with the battery I have in the camera and with my D300 I almost always use the same battery for two days of shooting before replacing it with a fresh battery and recharging the old one -- for me that often works out to about 70%, but knowing the actual amount of drain is probably similar to knowing how much gas is left in my car by looking at the gas gauge. Also, if we truly optimized two or three batteries then the shutter would probably give out first.
-
Thats good to know. I was running mine to about 10% before swapping it out.
I'll do the 60%, thanks.
by the time all the batteries come to an end, you may have saved 100$ and spent a few grands of wasted time, taking all those precautions.
-
You're not carrying more batteries, your just using what you have better.
Most of us probably do the same thing. Head out the door to go someplace with 2 batteries for the day, fully knowing 1 battery will be more than good. So you have 2 batteries. Instead of using the one all day and taking down to 20% SOC. Just swap it out around 50% with the other and go on with that one. You have used the same amount of energy, and carried the same number of batteries, but increased the life and reliability of the batteries a little bit. If you drain the second battery down to the same mark, just keep using it. It's not that your try to never go below a certain amount, that would be silly. You are just trying to spread your usage among the batteries, and not put the deep cycling on a cell if you don't need to. You may end up coming home with both batteries completely consumed. But more than likely you will come home with both batteries partially used. Which is a better situation than coming home with one dead, one un-touched.
by the time all the batteries come to an end, you may have saved 100$ and spent a few grands of wasted time, taking all those precautions.