Sony FF system

[fredjeang]

Hi,
I'm quite "disappointed".  
I want to both improve my technic and start to work in big prints. In a world, I'm upgrading.
I just came back from the Medium Format room where asked users to give me some advices as
a beginner who plan to embraced MF. The majority just  dissuaded me to do so, and recommend me
a FF Canon or Nikon as a better choice nowdays.
I thought of a move to fullframe or MF for awhile.
As I come from Pentax, and doubt that this company is willing to produce in the close future a Full Frame
camera ( that would suits me because I have a vast range of vintage Pentax lenses ), a move to Canon or
Nikon seems the most appropiate. (and sadly Pentax will probably not produce the digital version of the 645 either
wich would have been my first choice). So, Canon or Nikon...but

there is also, and in TLL it has been reviewed quite a lot (for a good reason I guess), the Sony option.
What do you think about the Sony FF cameras? What about vintage Minolta lenses? (I like MF).
I read all the useful Michaels reviews about it, he seems to like it a lot which is a sign, but it is always good to hear more voices.
Any Sony users to comments his impressions?
Do you think Sony will be a dead-end system/investement?

Thank you.

Fred.

[Kenneth Sky]

Comparing Pentax to Sony is like cpmparing David & Goliath. Sony has the staying power in terms of "deep pockets", R&D, and desire to excel in the DSLR market. They are the first to offer FF under $3K and now $2K. Their range of lenses is smaller than C& N but the Carl Zeiss and G lenses are very good. This range is likely to expand in 2010. The Alpha 850 or 900 may well fit your needs. It has mine.

[Plekto]

Also, Sony has pretty much let Minolta operate as its own division.  Despite the name change, almost all of the major employees and operations are the same or similar to how they were before Sony got involved.  So the new stuff works with the old stuff and that gives you a long list of good lenses to chose from if you don't care about the name on the side of the lens not saying "Sony".

It's a good camera, to be honest.  Bit pricey, but it's certainly not insane like the 3Dx in terms of price.   My favorite feature is the sensor-based IS.  Putting it in the lens might have been a good idea when you had film, but in-body is fantastic as it makes even old manual-focus telephoto lenses a very good option.

[K.C.]

It's a good camera, to be honest.  Bit pricey, but it's certainly not insane like the 3Dx in terms of price.   My favorite feature is the sensor-based IS.  Putting it in the lens might have been a good idea when you had film, but in-body is fantastic as it makes even old manual-focus telephoto lenses a very good option.

Nah, the best value out there actually. You state one of the main reasons, body based IS.

The CZ glass is amazing and the cameras are a pleasure to use.

[fredjeang]

I'm using the A900 professionally since it came out and it has served me very well. I chose Sony because I had a lot of Minolta glass from the time I used 35mm film. There was no love, nor fan-boyism in my choice, but I have not regretted it. I am still a medium format user (6x6), especially for portrait and personal work. What I like a lot about the A900 is that it is a very "photographical" camera. The colors are the best I have seen when compared to all other 35mm digital systems. The handling is very convenient and intuitive for a PHOTO camera. It is not a video camera, although I would like to experiment with video in a photo camera since I am a film maker as well. But for now I still use a true video camera for that, which is much more comfortable than a photo camera that can shoot motion.

I started out with my old Minolta glass, but soon started buying newer glass too, because I refound a lot of joy in shooting a 35mm system. So now I have a vast collection of fantastic Minolta and Sony G-glass and some really nice Zeiss pieces. I just love the look of the "softer" large aperture lenses (including the Sigma 50mm 1.4, which I prefer over the Sony/Minolta versions.)

The attached pics are from a recent night shoot (documentary) without flash. Even under such circumstances the A900 keeps up very well, despite what some people might claim about noise. I developed the RAW files in Apple's Aperture.

Thanks for these informations. I have to say that I'm very happy to see a serious alternative to C & N in the FF world. I was very impressed years ago by the design and "serious-tool-feel" of the Minolta 7D and beleive that the Sony are in the same league if they still work with Minolta's staff.
I also share whishes for integrated video capabilities because I think it is going to be an "obligation" in the close future, but no doubt Sony will go on to it soon or later.
Ps: I love the first picture.

Cheers,

Fred.

[pascal]

May I add one improvised personal work of an other fire-brigade : near Paris France (the apartment burning was "just" nearby mine !!!)

Taken with A900 + Sigma 24 f1.8

Interesting experience... Hopefully nobody was hurt.

http://www.pascalbarreiro.com/ftp/Feu_22_av_Gal_de_Gaulle/

Pascal
www.pascalbarreiro.com

[squarehead]

Does anybody happen to know if there are any plans by Sony to upgrade (new flag ship model) the A900 in the near future?
Or how about Tilt+Shift lenses?

Thanks.

[Theresa]

Does anybody happen to know if there are any plans by Sony to upgrade (new flag ship model) the A900 in the near future?
Or how about Tilt+Shift lenses?

Thanks.

Ignoring price, you can get a manual focus, non ae, tilt and shift adaptors for Sony.  I would not abandon Sony for such a lens, I'd just get the third party.  My own need for perspective correction is well served by "keystone" correction with software.  You lose a bit of resolution because a crop is required but what with >24 MP cropping is not too much of a problem.

[Dave Gurtcheff]

I have a very complete 1DSIII system, with lenses ranging from 17mm to 500mm IS. In late 2009 I bought an A900 and several lenses. I now have 11 lenses, and have not used my Canon gear since. I keep it because of my 400mm 5.6 L, and 500mm f4 IS, as there is no comparable Sony lenses. I use it because of its (comparitively) small size and weight. It is also more like my film days, as there are MINIMUM buttons/menues/sub menues. In camera stabilization is wonderful. I bought VERY cheaply on ebay Minolta 20mm f2.8, and 50mm f1.7 lenses. I even bought for a knock-around lens the Minolta 35-70mm f4 for $28!! No kidding. I also have the Zeiss 16-35, 24-70, and Sony 70-300 G lenses and they are, in a word, superb! Also I bought a used Minolta 500 f8 mirror and it is amazingly sharp (with auto focus and image stabilization).
You can't go wrong! Also worth exploring is the feature of multiple DR images prouced simultaneously. You take one shot and the camera produces three brackete images. I have not playe with this yet.
Very best, and good luck!    
Dave Gurtcheff in NJ

[lluis]

Thanks for these informations. I have to say that I'm very happy to see a serious alternative to C & N in the FF world. I was very impressed years ago by the design and "serious-tool-feel" of the Minolta 7D and beleive that the Sony are in the same league if they still work with Minolta's staff.
I also share whishes for integrated video capabilities because I think it is going to be an "obligation" in the close future, but no doubt Sony will go on to it soon or later.
Ps: I love the first picture.

Cheers,

Fred.

I started photography in the film days, and I bought a Minolta x-300, exactly in december 1987. When switching to digital it was obvious to take a look to what (then) KonicaMinolta had to offer. It was the Dynax 7D. Two things caught my attention: 1. It was a tool designed for and I think by photographers, 2. Stabilization system meant any lens would be stabilized.
I've been very happy with this camera, capable of great image quality. Now is quite outdated and I want to change to a full frame (when time ago put my eye on my old minolta through the viewfinder I realised how a FF can change the way you look through a DSLR compared to an APS-C). I don't hesitate: I'll go for Sony, for reasons already exposed in this thread: it's the same old team from Minolta times and the cameras, at least a700, a850 and a900, have inherited the Minolta photographic spirit.

And its true the catalogue of lenses is small compared to Canon or Nikon. But there is all you may need! (at least in a 95%). And more lenses will come.

Best Regards and comment your experience if you buy.

Lluis

[douglasf13]

After shooting Hasselblad with a Leaf Valeo digital back, I've been shooting the A900 for over a year and think it's a great 35mm cam.  Great lenses, great color, IS, well built, and nice price.  Plus, the viewfinder is great in this segment.  The main niggle by most is high ISO, but, that's the trade off of the good color, and it'll still be better than your Pentaxes in that regard.

 
p.s. just so you know, the older MF Minolta lenses don't fit natively on the Sony/Minolta AF mount.  Only the AF lenses from the mid-80's on work.

[MBMPhotography]

I have been shooting for many years with Minolta so had a lot of lenses then moved towards the digital era with Konica Minolta D7D. Honestly speaking I had some doubts when Sony took over the Minolta photo department but I did buy the A700 (now my backup body) and later on A900. I have the marvelous Zeiss 16-35 and 24-70 as well as the 70-200 and one of the best lenses I have ever had the Minolta construction that Sony took over -> 135 STF the world master in bokeh. I would say for these lenses it is worth to stay in the system. As regards the TS lenses just use the adaptors

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I have no experience with MF but I'd second everything Douglas said.

Old lenses work fine, I have a few Minolta AF lenses from the late 80-es (80-200/2.8 APO, 20/2.8, 100/2.8 Macro) all of these work fine. Add to this some more recent Minolta glass 300/4 AF-APO and 400/4.5 AF-APO + extenders.

The old MD lenses won't fit. Qulity wise the Alpha 900 is quite demanding, so weather new or old the lenses need to have good quality.


Here are some test images, normally full size, high quality JPEG. Klick on original to download full size image:

http://www.pbase.com/ekr/a900_test


Best regards
Erik

After shooting Hasselblad with a Leaf Valeo digital back, I've been shooting the A900 for over a year and think it's a great 35mm cam.  Great lenses, great color, IS, well built, and nice price.  Plus, the viewfinder is great in this segment.  The main niggle by most is high ISO, but, that's the trade off of the good color, and it'll still be better than your Pentaxes in that regard.

 
p.s. just so you know, the older MF Minolta lenses don't fit natively on the Sony/Minolta AF mount.  Only the AF lenses from the mid-80's on work.

[erick.boileau]

is there any good 24 or 28 mm TS lens for the Sony A900 ?

[ErikKaffehr]

No, none.

I wouldn't hold my breath for one either. So if you need one you probably need to look somewhere else. As a hint, what's wrong with the Canon 5DII?

On the other hand, if you don't need it it doesn't matter. I use Helicon Focus for extending depth of field and merge two or three shoots for vertical using Autopano Pro. Using these techniques works with every lens on the other side.

Best regards
Erik

is there any good 24 or 28 mm TS lens for the Sony A900 ?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I agree to a part. I have one of those adapters but my is tilt only, the same company also makes a shift adapter. Those adapters are for MF-lenses. Mine is a Carl-Zeiss Jena Flektogon 50/4 (it's a medium format lens).

My view at present is that most things TS lenses are used for can be done in software. I use Autopano Pro and Helicon Focus.

Best regards
Erik

Ignoring price, you can get a manual focus, non ae, tilt and shift adaptors for Sony.  I would not abandon Sony for such a lens, I'd just get the third party.  My own need for perspective correction is well served by "keystone" correction with software.  You lose a bit of resolution because a crop is required but what with >24 MP cropping is not too much of a problem.

[erick.boileau]

No, none.

I wouldn't hold my breath for one either. So if you need one you probably need to look somewhere else. As a hint, what's wrong with the Canon 5DII?

On the other hand, if you don't need it it doesn't matter. I use Helicon Focus for extending depth of field and merge two or three shoots for vertical using Autopano Pro. Using these techniques works with every lens on the other side.

Best regards
Erik

The 5D mark II is fine and my  TSE 24 II too but Canon is going a stange way ...

[LKaven]

Of course rumors of an affordable Pentax 645D in the first quarter of 2010 have been going around.  Waiting until after PMA might bring a new option or two to complicate your decision further.

[Theresa]

I started photography in the film days, and I bought a Minolta x-300, exactly in december 1987. When switching to digital it was obvious to take a look to what (then) KonicaMinolta had to offer. It was the Dynax 7D. Two things caught my attention: 1. It was a tool designed for and I think by photographers, 2. Stabilization system meant any lens would be stabilized.
I've been very happy with this camera, capable of great image quality. Now is quite outdated and I want to change to a full frame (when time ago put my eye on my old minolta through the viewfinder I realised how a FF can change the way you look through a DSLR compared to an APS-C). I don't hesitate: I'll go for Sony, for reasons already exposed in this thread: it's the same old team from Minolta times and the cameras, at least a700, a850 and a900, have inherited the Minolta photographic spirit.

And its true the catalogue of lenses is small compared to Canon or Nikon. But there is all you may need! (at least in a 95%). And more lenses will come.

Best Regards and comment your experience if you buy.

Lluis

I like my Sony a850.  I wish that there were more short telephotos for it at a more reasonable price.  I'm looking for an af 135 and maybe a 200.  I have been disappointed in tele zooms back in the early 90s using a non-af x700.  I took some shots in a snow storm back in December at iso 1600 but am disappointed with the noise level but that is just when pixel peeping.  Sony ff cameras have a lot to recommend them, a brilliant viewfinder, in body stabilization (a must for me), and great color and dynamic range at iso 800 and below.

[erick.boileau]

No, none.

I wouldn't hold my breath for one either. So if you need one you probably need to look somewhere else. As a hint, what's wrong with the Canon 5DII?

On the other hand, if you don't need it it doesn't matter. I use Helicon Focus for extending depth of field and merge two or three shoots for vertical using Autopano Pro. Using these techniques works with every lens on the other side.

Best regards
Erik

maybe soon

New Sony Alpha Tilt-Shift Lens patents. >> http://sonyalpharumors.com/new-sony-alpha-...t-lens-patents/