Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: feppe on December 26, 2009, 01:47:15 pm
-
Nice update, which are always welcome as most reviews concentrate on marketing points and highlight incremental improvements, rather than reporting how the camera performs in real use. It shows that A900 is stll a compelling product, especially given its price.
I was looking at A900 seriously a year ago before I paid for a 5DII (which I'm finally getting a refund for, long story), but decided against it. The A900 lacks Live View - I wonder if they're going to fix that. Also, I'd have to sell my Canon lenses at a considerable loss, which would make a chnage even more expensive, eliminating the price difference of the body. And the lack of good wide lenses was the final straw.
Since the 7D doesn't offer much (if any) IQ improvement over my 450D and I'm not willing to pay several hundred euros for UI upgrade and video, I'm skipping that. The follow-ups to Sony A900 and Canon 5DII are obvious competitors with probably a significant jump in IQ.
-
I also appreciated the post. Been giving serious consideration to an A900.
Mike.
-
The 300G should autofocus with both TCs - the 1.4x and the 2x. That his doesn't is a mistake - something is faulty.
One possible explanation is that he's using old Minolta TCs instead of Sony ones or later Minolta ones. If his TC has 5 contact pins instead of 8 it won't auto-focus with SSM (USM) lenses - the extra 3 pins control the SSM. It's only the original, 1985 Minolta TCs that have 5 pins, both the later Minoltas and all of the Sonys have 8 pins.
Assuming he is using compatible TCs then something is faulty and he should take the lens and TCs into his dealer.
Apart from this, nice article.
-
The 300G should autofocus with both TCs - the 1.4x and the 2x. That his doesn't is a mistake - something is faulty.
What's a TC?
-
What's a TC?
Tele-converter (or extender).
-
I can only add about the reliability of the body and 24-70 lens. I am just finishing a 6 week stay in New Zealand and have "shlepped" it from sandy beaches with high humidity to mountain crossings with high cold winds and have experienced no problems.
-
The 300G should autofocus with both TCs - the 1.4x and the 2x. That his doesn't is a mistake - something is faulty.
One possible explanation is that he's using old Minolta TCs instead of Sony ones or later Minolta ones. If his TC has 5 contact pins instead of 8 it won't auto-focus with SSM (USM) lenses - the extra 3 pins control the SSM. It's only the original, 1985 Minolta TCs that have 5 pins, both the later Minoltas and all of the Sonys have 8 pins.
Assuming he is using compatible TCs then something is faulty and he should take the lens and TCs into his dealer.
Apart from this, nice article.
Several people have kindly pointed out to me that the TCs should autofocus with the 300/2.8. They are right, and they do.
What I should have said is that the TCs won't permit autofocus with the 70-400 or the 70-300, or any lens when the resulting effective aperture is smaller than f5.6.
My apologies,
Bill
-
Hi,
I'm quite happy owner of an Alpha 900.My experience is mostly positive. What I lack is "live view".
Regarding lenses I have a few old minolta lenses and a few new ones. I own the 24-70/2.8 ZA and the 70-300/4.5-5.6 G and both are quite good. I also own an old Minolta 20/2.8 and it works very well on the Alpha 900. On the extreme wide angle side I have the 12-24/4.5-5.6 Sigma and it's not really a good lens, but I have taken some nice pictures with it. I'm not really a wide angle shooter so I didn't want to invest in the 16-35/2.8.
I have an old Minolta 400/4.5 AF APO, a good lens that works fine with the Minolta 1.4x APO extender. Autofocus is quite slow and not using SSM. I also have a 2X APO converter but that's MF on the 400. Live view would be most helpful.
My guess is that the Alpha 900 is about in the same league as the Canon 5DII at low ISO. Regarding lenses it's more about sample variations, in my guess, than real differences. Regarding user interface the camera is nice.
I have published some early tests here: http://www.pbase.com/ekr/a900_test (http://www.pbase.com/ekr/a900_test)
Best regards
Erik
Nice update, which are always welcome as most reviews concentrate on marketing points and highlight incremental improvements, rather than reporting how the camera performs in real use. It shows that A900 is stll a compelling product, especially given its price.
I was looking at A900 seriously a year ago before I paid for a 5DII (which I'm finally getting a refund for, long story), but decided against it. The A900 lacks Live View - I wonder if they're going to fix that. Also, I'd have to sell my Canon lenses at a considerable loss, which would make a chnage even more expensive, eliminating the price difference of the body. And the lack of good wide lenses was the final straw.
Since the 7D doesn't offer much (if any) IQ improvement over my 450D and I'm not willing to pay several hundred euros for UI upgrade and video, I'm skipping that. The follow-ups to Sony A900 and Canon 5DII are obvious competitors with probably a significant jump in IQ.
-
The 300G should autofocus with both TCs - the 1.4x and the 2x. That his doesn't is a mistake - something is faulty.
One possible explanation is that he's using old Minolta TCs instead of Sony ones or later Minolta ones. If his TC has 5 contact pins instead of 8 it won't auto-focus with SSM (USM) lenses - the extra 3 pins control the SSM. It's only the original, 1985 Minolta TCs that have 5 pins, both the later Minoltas and all of the Sonys have 8 pins.
Assuming he is using compatible TCs then something is faulty and he should take the lens and TCs into his dealer.
Apart from this, nice article.
Actually the 1985-1988 TCs that 5 contact pins were meant for non highspeed autofocus lenses.
The 1988-2003 TCs also had 5 contact pins and were meant for highspeed autofocus lenses (200 HS, 300/2.8 HS, 300/4 HS, 400/4.5 HS & 600/4 HS).
The 2003-2006 TCs had 8 pins & were meant for SSM lenses (of which there were only two: the 300 SSM & 70-200 SSM)
http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/amount-telecon..._topic2100.html (http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/amount-teleconverters-guide_topic2100.html)
-
... a year ago before I paid for a 5DII (which I'm finally getting a refund for, long story)...
Hey, good to hear that. I remember your thread about the initial troubles with the refund. Nice to know stories like that could have a happy ending too.
-
+1 on Bill's report, very happy user here as well, since July 08, using Zeiss 24-70 f2.8, 135 F1.8, Sony 70-400G and 16mm fisheye. On the latter, the lense cap is a pest, made from leather and really not useful!
Yeah, a new TC that works with autofocus on the 70-400 would be great in deed. As for the 70-400, I also was more than surprised on the sharpness of this somewhat ugly finished lense. Then again, there are rather expensive camouflage covers on the market to deal with that silver finish.
Funny how you mentioned the thing with the red dot when changing lenses, it was always bugging me like crazy.
My biggest concern when buying into this system was on reliability, but luckily, I also have zero complaints in this department.
Looking forward to a next generation model in 2010, could be an interesting step up or not, remains to be seen. I for one, have zero interest in build in video applications. A few more Zeiss or G grade lenses would be nice as well.
Best wishes
Georg
-
Hey, good to hear that. I remember your thread about the initial troubles with the refund. Nice to know stories like that could have a happy ending too.
Thanks! I'm posting the results and lessons learned from that debacle after I'm finished with it, hopefully within a month or two. Main learning: never pay by bank transfer on eBay even to reputable professional resellers with good feedback scores.
Looking forward to a next generation model in 2010, could be an interesting step up or not, remains to be seen. I for one, have zero interest in build in video applications. A few more Zeiss or G grade lenses would be nice as well.
Good point: it might very well be that the next model introduces video, while still photography improvements take a back seat. Too bad if that happens, as video would be a nice-to-have novelty for me.
-
Hi,
Just a few comments...
1) The 300/2.8 lens is way to expensive, at least here in Sweden (about 9000 €), twice the Canon lens
2) I'm a happy owner of a Minolta 400/4.5 APO, but I considered buying the Sigma 500/4.5 APO before I got my 400/4.5. The Sigma lens may also be an option.
3) The 400/4.5 works well with the original Minolta 1.4 APO converter with full autofocus
I actually have a Minolta 300/4 APO and that lens also works with the 1.4X APO converter with full AF. I have not used it for quite long, so it may go to EBay, sooner or later.
Best regards
Erik
-
I too am a happy owner of the A900. However, I am not a wildlife shooter and my interests are on the wider and mid-range FLs. The lenses I shoot with being the Carl Zeiss 16-35 f/2.8, CZ 24-70 f/2.8, Sony 50mm Macro, CZ 135mm f/1.8 Sonnar, CZ 85mm f/1.4 Planar and the Sony 16mm f/2.8 Fisheye. I have the Sony 70-300G SSM too, but that is VERY seldom used.
I truly wish Sony had gone with providing live-view in this model and that would have removed my last complaint about it. I have no desire for video, however. In fact, there is hope that the hardware/circuitry in the A900 is already capable of live-view (main-sensor liveview and not the secondary sensor based liveview like in the A300 or A500 series) and all that would need to be done is to turn it on via a firmware upgrade. A firmware upgrade of the A900 is long overdue, having been moved forward several times.
PS: A reliable source on dyxum has already indicated that a 500mm f/4G SSM is on the way in 2010. In fact, 2010 is supposed to see around 10 Sony lens introductions (some of them being Zeiss designs), which will fortify the system considerably.
-
Hello,
being owner of the more expensive Nikon D3x that came out a little later, I am glad to hear Sony made such a good product at such a low price.
It is good for the competition that Sony stept in the way they did and for sure they know how to put video in the camera. ( better than Nikon i guess)
I would like that the D3x would have the viewfinder of the A900, wich i find a important part of a camera. It seems the shutter makes just as much noise as the D3x shutter ( mirror) does, wich rules out violin concerts...
I would like an option for not using the mirror (semi-permanent lockup)
What I would miss in the A900 is Live view, that i first thought to be a novelty of low importance but at 24mp it turns out to be the only way to really find sharpness.
Furthermore I would miss Tilt lenses that they do not have ( yet)
regards,
Pieter Kers
-
Furthermore I would miss Tilt lenses that they do not have ( yet)
regards,
Pieter Kers
They desperately need a decent tilt-shift lens. Much as I like my A900, the absence of any affordable tilt-shift options is the most likley reason why I might reconsider staying with Sony.
Quentin
-
Hi,
There is a TS-lens from Arax in the Ukraine.
http://www.araxfoto.com/specials/tilt-shift-35/ (http://www.araxfoto.com/specials/tilt-shift-35/)
They have also a tilt adapter for older Pentacon & Kiev lenses, these can be found on E-BAY.
I have a tilt adapter and a 40/4 (I believe) lens it's usable and optically quite OK.
Sony would have difficulty producing a auto aperture lens, however, as it is mechanically connected.
We have to wait and see what the nest decade brings...
Best regards
And A Happy New Year!
Erik Kaffehr
They desperately need a decent tilt-shift lens. Much as I like my A900, the absence of any affordable tilt-shift options is the most likley reason why I might reconsider staying with Sony.
Quentin
-
They desperately need a decent tilt-shift lens. Much as I like my A900, the absence of any affordable tilt-shift options is the most likley reason why I might reconsider staying with Sony.
Quentin
I think the problem for Sony (zeiss) is that the development of a serie of tilt lenses is very expensive because only few will buy them.
Even for Nikon and Canon it is hardly profitable I can imagine. They are made to complete the line-up.
The Nikon serialnumbers of my PCE lenses indicate only few thousand are made.
-
AFAIK, the Schneider 28 PC or a Mirex with 645 Pentax 35mm is about as wide as your gonna get with tilt or shift from the A900. There are more options for standard and tele lengths.
-
I think the problem for Sony (zeiss) is that the development of a serie of tilt lenses is very expensive because only few will buy them.
Even for Nikon and Canon ...
Low volume is always a problem for more specialized lenses from any except the one or two market leaders: Sony (and Pentax and Olympus) also lack in high end super-telephoto options, and what is offered (like 300/2.8) is far more expensive than Canon and Nikon equivalents. Offering a wide selection of high end lenses will probably be the greatest problem for a company that wants to challenge Canon and Nikon for "all around professional level systems". Sony probably needs something of a "niche" approach to 35mm digital ... and maybe is doing that already.
-
AFAIK, the Schneider 28 PC or a Mirex with 645 Pentax 35mm is about as wide as your gonna get with tilt or shift from the A900
Both of these are shift-only options though, and the Schneider 28 PC is an over-priced dud.
-
My only complaint would be the lack of 14bit files. Open Skies with subtil transitions really sing when you have 14bit. And as landscape photographers our skies often benifit from that extra data.
Roman
-
My only complaint would be the lack of 14bit files. Open Skies with subtil transitions really sing when you have 14bit. And as landscape photographers our skies often benifit from that extra data.
Roman
I'm not with you on that one, Roman. I have thousands of landscape images from the D3, D700, and the D300 (less the D3x) and I find the transitions, true color and subtle tone to be much better in the A900 . In fact I kept the D700 and glass, while I warmed to the Sony, thinking a D700x was around the corner. Well, after I nailed a Sony workflow the 700 turned into a dust collector.
I still own some great Nikon glass though... we'll see what this year brings
david
-
Hi,
My impression is that the two extra bits matter in shadows/darks. Highlights are limited by the "well capacity" and of course how much "to the right" the exposure is made.
Best regards
My only complaint would be the lack of 14bit files. Open Skies with subtil transitions really sing when you have 14bit. And as landscape photographers our skies often benifit from that extra data.
Roman
-
Hi,
My impression is that the two extra bits matter in shadows/darks. Highlights are limited by the "well capacity" and of course how much "to the right" the exposure is made.
Best regards
Correct, the D3x's 14 bit mode gives it better detailed shadows. The A900 actually has a smoother rolloff in the highlights, AFAIK.
-
With all digital workflows banding-visible stepping is one of the mayor problems.
If you do not work 16 bit and /or do too much in photoshop you soon you encounter that problem.
(as almost every action in photoshop is destructive)
The D2x had some problems even with Nefs developed in Nikon Capture NX to 16 bit tifs . With the D3x I have not seen it yet.
I like to underexpose a bit to preserve beautiful highlights since there is so much information in the dark parts...( so not expose to the extreme right)
-
I like to underexpose a bit to preserve beautiful highlights since there is so much information in the dark parts...( so not expose to the extreme right)
Why would you want to underexpose a digital capture? You're throwing away information, making for increased shadow noise with no gain whatsoever - except for less chance of blowing out highlights.
-
since there is so much information in the dark parts
*******
The only thing that I can pull out of "dark parts" is noise. I thought the whole idea about ETTR is to improve the S/N ratio. What am I missing?
Steve
-
A very useful review. Thank you.
I nearly jumped ship a few months ago to Sony, but bought a 5D2 instead as I wanted high iso performance, live view, a 70-200 f4 for the lighter weight, and the cost of swapping systems was just out of reach. Also I felt that if I couldn't make a Canon system work for me I should pack the whole thing in.
Going to full frame has been an interesting exercise. I've had to work more on technique. I find the 70-200mm f4IS is even better. This is a stellar lens. I just love it. But the 400 f5.6 is now not that sharp, but usable I guess. The other lenses are usable, that's all. Thinking about it, it's really the glass that's most important to me. Looking at the files from a friend's A900, the quality of the sharpness and contrast from the Zeiss and Sony lenses stand out straight out of the camera. Certainly Canon have a much greater range, but a lot of it is not is not that good.
Sony's entry into the market has really caused me to re-assess what I'm doing. I look forward to seeing what they bring out this year. May have to get a third job.
David
-
I was glad to read this review. It reinforced my impressions from working with the SONY.
Actually, I went both directions. I have the new Canon 7D and 5DII but I also bought a SONY A850 and the CZ 24-70.
Every time I pick up the SONY and shoot with it I'm relieved by it's ease of use. Everything function, every button is far more intuitive and easy to find. The image quality is tremendous.
-
Why would you want to underexpose a digital capture? You're throwing away information, making for increased shadow noise with no gain whatsoever - except for less chance of blowing out highlights.
Often I feel the almost white has a kind of 'flare' = i think it is caused by the microlenses? on chip ... - it has nothing to do with the lens itself ...
For that reason if highlights have important information I make sure everything is there and a bit more... Ususally I make about 5 exposures (-2...+2) to be sure everything is there-( architecture)
With portraits I really want to avoid overexposured skin so i choose the safe side - darker side.
I am aware that exposure to the right in theory yields more information- however noise is a non issue with the D3x at 100 asa - even enlarged as big as 2 meter wide....
-
I have used Nikon DSLRs and glass for 30 years. I currently own a D2X and a D3 and a lot of Nikon lenses. Based on the reviews written on Luminous Landscape and my frustration waiting for Nikon to introduce a high MP sensor for those who are not independently wealthy (or are professionals), I took the plunge and bought a Sony A850 and a Zeiss Sonnar 24-70 lens. It is difficult for Nikon devotees to consider that a consumer electronics company should be taken seriously when it comes to real photography but, truthfully, the raw images that come out of the Sony are incredible in terms of resolution, contrast, colour, and dynamic range. They require very little tweaking in Adobe LR2. The images most resemble those I obtained when I shot with a Pentax 67 system. The camera is incredibly easy to use with the best viewfinder I have ever encountered. This is the first time I have used Zeiss optics and it’s as good or better than any Nikon glass (I include the Nikon 135 DC and 80-200 D in this comparison) I have used. I am keeping my Nikon glass in the hopes that Nikon will “catch up” in the near future but, in the near-term, I will be shooting almost exclusively with my Sony A850.
-
This is the first time I have used Zeiss optics and it’s as good or better than any Nikon glass (I include the Nikon 135 DC and 80-200 D in this comparison) I have used. I am keeping my Nikon glass in the hopes that Nikon will “catch up” in the near future but, in the near-term, I will be shooting almost exclusively with my Sony A850. [/size][/size]
Using both Nikon and Zeiss lenses (1,4 50mm ZF and 2,8 25mm ZF) I can say the Nikon and Canon lenses are catching up so quickly that i find it hard to say what is best..
the 14-24mm nikkor is at 24mm is as good or better then the Zeiss ; the 24mm PCE nikkor is better than both...especially wide open
To make a long story short: The new lenses made by both Nikon and Canon are as good as the Zeiss.
-
This turns out to be an expensive thread, for me! I was still flipping coins between Nikon and Canon when Michael's initial A900 review made Sony a strong, new contender. Other reviewers seemed to agree. Bill Caulfeild-Browne's followup finally tipped the balance.
Purolator delivered my A900 48 hours ago. By the time the battery was charged, darkness had fallen. It's a cruel thing, shipping cameras with empty batteries! Then yesterday it snowed hard all day, gray snow under gray clouds with gray trees, so I didn't get to play much. But today was clear and bright sun, and out I went.
First, I can attest that the A900 works fine at -17C with a northwest wind blasting in all day. Even after a hundred shots the battery showed more than 60% remaining.
Second, I find that I can work ALL the controls while wearing my Burton leather snowboard mittens! Thanks to the large lens release button, I could even change lenses with the mitts on. This is important for me because I have Raynaud's syndrome that affects both hands.
Third, I'll just say that this camera reminds me very much of Sony's pro TV broadcast equipment. Solidly built, designed to be used rather than to be pretty, in my experience it always just worked, and worked reliably. The A900 has that same feel. Here's hoping...
A quick scan in LR shows that all appears to be well, so I'm on my way to Phase 2 of digital photography. And my son is dropping hints about my M4…
-
To make a long story short: The new lenses made by both Nikon and Canon are as good as the Zeiss.
But they don't look the same.
The Zeiss lenses still have a different image quality. One I feel is superior, though you may not.
You could argue that two comparable automobiles are as good as each other, but you prefer one for the way it feels. Same kind of discussion, matter of opinion.
The images from my CZ 24-70 on the A850 make not want to pickup my Canon 24-70 and 5DII. I just prefer the look of CZ/SONY.
-
I am curious as to why most of the posters in this thread have not mentioned noise issues with the A900? In early rounds of reviews including comps. with D3 etc. - the issue of noise always came up. I noticed that the "one year later" poster...said nothing of the issue. I love the feel of this camera in the hand-perfect, and like the Zeiss lenses...but am considering either the D700 or D3 for next cam. based on noise complaints.
-
I am curious as to why most of the posters in this thread have not mentioned noise issues with the A900? In early rounds of reviews including comps. with D3 etc. - the issue of noise always came up. I noticed that the "one year later" poster...said nothing of the issue. I love the feel of this camera in the hand-perfect, and like the Zeiss lenses...but am considering either the D700 or D3 for next cam. based on noise complaints.
Probably you don't hear much about it from actual users because most of them understand the camera was designed to excel at low ISO. Not every camera needs to be a high-ISO champ...
-
Hi,
The present version of ACR and Lightroom does not really work well with high ISO images from the A900. Lightroom 3 Beta is much better. According to DxO-mark the competition has about one stop advantage regarding high ISO. Also according to DxO-mark the Nikon D3X has significantly better DR at all ISOs.
I have the the Alpha 900 myself and I'm satisfied, with some reservations
1) I use it at low ISO normally
2) I would need to be desparate to go above 800 ISO (even if it may work acceptably at 3200 ISO with Lightroom 3), but I'm no high ISO shooter, "never" used more than 100 ISO in film days.
3) In my view there is a lot of "hype" about the Zeiss lenses, I only own the 24-70/2.8, which I'm satisfied with, and the 16-80/3.5-4.5 ZA for APS-C. I'd say that both are good lenses, but not necessarily better than the competition.
4) My understanding is that "live view" is a very good thing for accurate focusing and that is lacking on the Alpha 900.
Would I buy it again, yeah!
Best regards
Erik
I am curious as to why most of the posters in this thread have not mentioned noise issues with the A900? In early rounds of reviews including comps. with D3 etc. - the issue of noise always came up. I noticed that the "one year later" poster...said nothing of the issue. I love the feel of this camera in the hand-perfect, and like the Zeiss lenses...but am considering either the D700 or D3 for next cam. based on noise complaints.
-
I agree with Jeff and Eric.
Having shot Nikon since the D1, finally giving up my Canon A1 and moving to digital around 2000. I followed the Nikon upgrade trail, jumping through the pro bodies, very happy with the low ISO images I was getting.
When the D3 was announced I was a little disappointed that it only had 12 mp as I had been shooting the D2x. People carried on about the super image quality being achieved with this new 12mp wonder saying that Nikon had somehow figured out a way to squeeze more image quality out of 12 mps.
I remember a well known sports photographer, Ed Betz or something like that, posting images of a quarterback and carrying on about seeing the veins in his eyes. I couldn't sell my D2x fast enough to get the new Nikon wonder. Well I was sadly disappointed.
No matter how I tried, different raw converters and or sharpening techniques, I could not achieve the micro detail I had gotten used to from the D2x at ISO's 400 and below. I really could give a rats a#$ about the high ISO. It doesn't effect my style of shooting.
Well I was contemplating buying a used D2x when winds of the new 24 mp D3x started blowing, I figured that that was my upgrade path till news of the $8000 plus price tag blew in right behind it. That's when I decided to give the Sony a try.
Three months later I decided to off my Nikon bodies, holding on to 3 lenses, the 14-24, 24-70 and the 70-200vr. A year now and I'm down to 2. Need I say more?
If High ISO is important, fully knowing it will never match the quality you get from lower settings, go for it. It's all about compromises.
davidbogdan
Actually paying a visit to Michael's studio in Toronto, early last year, really opened my eyes to even considering Sony . ... It's all his fault!
-
Probably you don't hear much about it from actual users because most of them understand the camera was designed to excel at low ISO. Not every camera needs to be a high-ISO champ...
Exactly. In my film days, I considered HP4 rated at 200 to be "high ISO". It was a dark day for me when Kodak discontinued Kodachrome II. I expect my A900 to spend 90% of it's time set to 200, which suits me perfectly.
-
I am curious as to why most of the posters in this thread have not mentioned noise issues with the A900? In early rounds of reviews including comps. with D3 etc. - the issue of noise always came up. I noticed that the "one year later" poster...said nothing of the issue. I love the feel of this camera in the hand-perfect, and like the Zeiss lenses...but am considering either the D700 or D3 for next cam. based on noise complaints.
The A900 has the best color in 35mm, and a dense CFA that requires more gain amplification because less light is reaching the sensor. So, it's a color trade off for high ISO. Granted, the A900 is still certainly usable at higher ISOs (if you don't use Adobe, outside of LR3,) and performs better than any aps-c camera at high ISO when compared at similar output sizes.
As for the Zeiss lenses, we can compare them all day to other lines and decide which has better sharpness, CA control, distortion, etc, but that really isn't what it's about. Here is a certain look that is relatively consistant across the Zeiss line, and some prefer it.
-
Thanks Jeff/Erik/David/Tom for comments! All fully understood. I typically shoot at low ISO - and of course know that high and low ISO images are apples and oranges...typically. I have two Oly E3's that I use on tripod for landscape and architecural...now. I also shoot a lot of agricultural scenes with animals. I primarily shoot outdoors in daylight and it's fine for 90 % of my work. Example. Recently I found myself shooting late on a very windy day (gusts 20 mph or so)...sun was going down. I had to bump up ISO to about 600 for shooting a pair horses e.g.. - to reduce chance of motion blur...especially in their manes and tails. I HAD to get fast shutter speed or it wasn't going to work. The E3 has always been a mixed bag in that instance and have learned to live with it...and I know ALL the reasons why (I happen to LOVE that cam. for a lot of other reasons) As it happened there was one particular shot that was great...except for some bad patches of noise in some dark/shadow areas...and there is not a thing ACR 5.6, Ninja or anything else that is going to fix it.
To wit. I am little tired of those instances ...and while there are relatively infrequent - I sometimes lose a really beautiful shot. I am moving in the direction being a "full time" photographer at present (I have my first photography show this coming April) and am considering updgrading to another camera(s) for future work(am presently arch. and arch illustrator). I want to try an reduce this problem to some degree in any new gear. This was not mentioned before, but I also want to add a PC control lens to the package on the next go round. As far as I know, this is not a "viable" option for the A900.
Again, thanks to all for very valuable and helpful advice...