Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Down

Author Topic: A900 Update  (Read 46531 times)

Deep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 179
A900 Update
« Reply #80 on: October 09, 2008, 02:27:12 pm »

Quote from: Ray
It's not inexcusable. The excuse is very good. I'm not aware of any other options that are not too expensive and too heavy. The Canon 400/2.8 at F4 would no doubt be sharper than the 100-400 at F8. However, it simply doesn't fit my purposes because of its weight and its inflexibility because it's a prime.

None of the zooms in this range that have been tested at Photozone, whether Nikkor, Sigma or Tamron, are better than the Canon 100-400. They all have below par resolution at their maximum aperture of F5.6.

Like I say, Ray, you've got to look sideways.  My Olympus 50-200 on my E3 covers exactly the range of your Canon lens on a 5D (and with the dedicated 1..4 converter near enough to the range on a crop sensor Canon).  It's sharp wide open and gives the same depth of field at f4 that your lens does at f8 on a 5D.  It's also way lighter, cheaper and waterproof and focus is quick and accurate, even in the poor light that you photograph in.  Plus, that big Canon zoom sucks in dust, not a problem at all with the Olympus setup.  Olympus even make a 90-250 (=180-500 on 35mm) which is f2.8 all the way and also weather proof and sharp wide open.  This is just one example of keeping an open mind.

Don't forget that Sony is bringing out the 70-400/4-5.6G, which should weigh about the same as the Canon but could well be sharper and is more useful.  Or you could get the astounding 70-200/2.8G and stick a doubler on it and probably still match your Canon at 5.6.  Also, photos I've seen taken with the 16-35 Zeiss are very promising indeed and that is a much more useful zoom range than the Nikon 12-24, just less trendy.  If you have a 24" printer and Minolta lenses, the A900 must be your best option and does not cut you out of lens options at all.  In fact, it gives you some awesome options you do not get with other brands, especially if you want your Zeiss glass to come in autofocus.

Gotta give up on you.  You've contradicted yourself since the start of this thread and seem quite negative for no good reason.  Let's hope you sort things out over the next few months and can get back to being happy behind your camera!

P.S. I recently tried out a Canon 400/2.8 on a 1DIII.  Do you think I could get that thing to focus?  A huge, huge setup, needing a monopod to hold it up and just a pig to use.  I really had to wonder what all the hype was about and have to agree with you that it is not a serious option for photographing moving birds!
« Last Edit: October 09, 2008, 02:31:53 pm by Deep »
Logged
Don

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
A900 Update
« Reply #81 on: October 09, 2008, 05:13:20 pm »

Hi Ray,

Regarding old lenses I have some doubts. I guess that full format will make some stiff demands on the lenses. I have an Alpha 700, here is my experience of the lenses I have.

KM 11-18 (APS-C), corners awful
ZA 16-80 (APS-C) corners bad below 5.6, in practice OK at any aperture except at  16 mm. Better in practical picture taking than in tests.
KM 28-75/2.8 really good in tests, I prefer 16-80 in general because much more useful
KM 80-200/2.8 quite good. Some lateral CA
KM 75-300/4.5-5.6 (Big beercan), not really sharp but not really unsharp. Has some lateral or axial color, not obvious which.
KM 300/4 APO not as sharp as it should be
KM 400/4.5 quite OK if properly focused and stopped down to 5.6, works well with 1.4APO extender, OK with 2X extender if you can focus correctly.
KM 100/2.8 Macro, OK, not sharper than 16-80, 28-75 or 80-200/2.8

I'm considering the Alpha 900 but I guess I spent a few greenbacks to many recently on a good printer (the Epson 3800) and a hopefully good HD projector.
A2 prints are very sharp with the 16-80 at f/8 and also the 80-200 at all apertures I used with the Alpha 700.

I guess that I may invest in the Alpha 900 depending on lens tests. I'll probably would go for the following lenses:

Sigma 12-24 (It's decent if you get a good copy, I'm no wide angle freak)
I might keep the KM 28-75/2.8. It's not a pro optic but is supposed to very sharp and I have no evidence to the contrary
I might consider the Zeiss ZA 24-70/2.8 depending on tests
The 80-200 is an old favorite, I guess I had it for 15 years or so. Only disadvantage is that it is noisy.
I may consider one of the new G zooms 75-300 or 75-400

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Ray
Bernard,
Be as frank as you like. All I've got to go by is what I see and read on review sites such as Dpreview and Imaging Resources. If they have got things wrong, or, if I've misinterpreted their results, please feel free to point out my errors.

I've been considering the A900 ever since I heard about it because (1) I expected it to be more affordable than the 1Ds3, which it is, (2) I have a 24" wide format printer and would appreciate the additional detail provided by a 24mp sensor, (3) I already have a bunch of Minolta lenses.

Aren't those good reasons?

High ISO performance is not my only criterion. Availability of better quality lenses in the range that I currently use a lot, but feel is a bit inadequate, is an important consideration; specifically lenses in the wide angle range of 15-30 and the telephoto range of 100-400.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2008, 05:15:30 pm by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
A900 Update
« Reply #82 on: October 09, 2008, 05:21:06 pm »

Hi,

Regarding the Canon 100-400 there seems to be a lot of sample variation. If you get a good sample I guess it's an OK lens.

Regarding Oly lenses, Photozone tested a few and I think that all were well centered and of consistent quality.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Deep
Like I say, Ray, you've got to look sideways.  My Olympus 50-200 on my E3 covers exactly the range of your Canon lens on a 5D (and with the dedicated 1..4 converter near enough to the range on a crop sensor Canon).  It's sharp wide open and gives the same depth of field at f4 that your lens does at f8 on a 5D.  It's also way lighter, cheaper and waterproof and focus is quick and accurate, even in the poor light that you photograph in.  Plus, that big Canon zoom sucks in dust, not a problem at all with the Olympus setup.  Olympus even make a 90-250 (=180-500 on 35mm) which is f2.8 all the way and also weather proof and sharp wide open.  This is just one example of keeping an open mind.

Don't forget that Sony is bringing out the 70-400/4-5.6G, which should weigh about the same as the Canon but could well be sharper and is more useful.  Or you could get the astounding 70-200/2.8G and stick a doubler on it and probably still match your Canon at 5.6.  Also, photos I've seen taken with the 16-35 Zeiss are very promising indeed and that is a much more useful zoom range than the Nikon 12-24, just less trendy.  If you have a 24" printer and Minolta lenses, the A900 must be your best option and does not cut you out of lens options at all.  In fact, it gives you some awesome options you do not get with other brands, especially if you want your Zeiss glass to come in autofocus.

Gotta give up on you.  You've contradicted yourself since the start of this thread and seem quite negative for no good reason.  Let's hope you sort things out over the next few months and can get back to being happy behind your camera!

P.S. I recently tried out a Canon 400/2.8 on a 1DIII.  Do you think I could get that thing to focus?  A huge, huge setup, needing a monopod to hold it up and just a pig to use.  I really had to wonder what all the hype was about and have to agree with you that it is not a serious option for photographing moving birds!
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
A900 Update
« Reply #83 on: October 09, 2008, 06:13:30 pm »

Quote from: Ray
Be as frank as you like. All I've got to go by is what I see and read on review sites such as Dpreview and Imaging Resources. If they have got things wrong, or, if I've misinterpreted their results, please feel free to point out my errors.

I've been considering the A900 ever since I heard about it because (1) I expected it to be more affordable than the 1Ds3, which it is, (2) I have a 24" wide format printer and would appreciate the additional detail provided by a 24mp sensor, (3) I already have a bunch of Minolta lenses.

Aren't those good reasons?

High ISO performance is not my only criterion. Availability of better quality lenses in the range that I currently use a lot, but feel is a bit inadequate, is an important consideration; specifically lenses in the wide angle range of 15-30 and the telephoto range of 100-400.

Ray,

I am not saying that you are mis-interpretting what others have written. All I am saying is that if your interest for the A900 is conditioned by it being the best camera on the market for high ISO image quality - which very much seems to be the case looking at what you have written in this thread - then you are wasting your time considering it.

If it is not the case, then for somebody like you who is shooting often without tripod, the body IS of the A900 alone should IMHO be enough of a deal closer.

Cheers,
Bernard

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
A900 Update
« Reply #84 on: October 09, 2008, 08:54:25 pm »

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Ray,

I am not saying that you are mis-interpretting what others have written. All I am saying is that if your interest for the A900 is conditioned by it being the best camera on the market for high ISO image quality - which very much seems to be the case looking at what you have written in this thread - then you are wasting your time considering it.

If it is not the case, then for somebody like you who is shooting often without tripod, the body IS of the A900 alone should IMHO be enough of a deal closer.

Cheers,
Bernard

But my interest in the A900 is not conditioned by high ISO alone, Bernard. The anti-shake sensor is a big plus. I don't have the IS option with my Sigma 15-30 which I use a lot on my 5D, and I won't have it with the Nikkor 14-24 when I get that lens for my 5D, so the availability of a really good ultra-wide angle zoom for the A900, sharp from corner to corner and with the benefit of image stabilisation, would be something that would affect my choice. It's really a matter of weighing the pros and cons in relation to my purposes.

Basically, I'm searching for some positive advantages of the A900 which can counteract and actually overwhelm that disappointing high-ISO performance. When I see a comment (from Imaging Resource) that above ISO 200 noise begins to limit resolution, I get worried. Is this a one-ISO camera like early DBs?

I get the impression that Imaging Resource is doing its best to provide a positive spin here. They make a few comments that A900 image resolution and dynamic range is excellent at base ISO of 200, but are using out-of-camera jpegs to substantiate any resolution advantage compared with the 1Ds3 (with different default sharpening levels). Examining the A900 and 1Ds3 images on their comparator, I can see no resolution advantage of the A900 at base ISO that I would consider significant in any way.

There appears to be a half stop DR advantage in highest quality A900 RAW images at base ISO, compared with the 1Ds3, and a 1/2 stop is definitely worth having. But I'm not contemplating buying a 1Ds3. The 5D MkII is the alternative for me, a camera which it is claimed will have better image quality than the 1Ds3.

It might look as though I'm running down the A900, but I'm merely trying to be objective and impartial. I'm not interested in tying myself to a brand loyalty and then feeling the need to defend any criticism as though I'm supporting a football team.

Do we really want to make our camera purchasing decisions wearing rose colored glasses?
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
A900 Update
« Reply #85 on: October 09, 2008, 09:24:01 pm »

Quote from: Ray
Do we really want to make our camera purchasing decisions wearing rose colored glasses?

Certainly not.

We all have different glasses based on our different needs, but the key is to figure out exactly what pair to use (what the priorities are), and to use that given pair for all cameras you are looking at.

Cheers,
Bernard

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
A900 Update
« Reply #86 on: October 09, 2008, 11:01:42 pm »

Quote from: Deep
Like I say, Ray, you've got to look sideways.  My Olympus 50-200 on my E3 covers exactly the range of your Canon lens on a 5D (and with the dedicated 1..4 converter near enough to the range on a crop sensor Canon).  It's sharp wide open and gives the same depth of field at f4 that your lens does at f8 on a 5D.  It's also way lighter, cheaper and waterproof and focus is quick and accurate, even in the poor light that you photograph in.  Plus, that big Canon zoom sucks in dust, not a problem at all with the Olympus setup.  Olympus even make a 90-250 (=180-500 on 35mm) which is f2.8 all the way and also weather proof and sharp wide open.  This is just one example of keeping an open mind.

Don't forget that Sony is bringing out the 70-400/4-5.6G, which should weigh about the same as the Canon but could well be sharper and is more useful.  Or you could get the astounding 70-200/2.8G and stick a doubler on it and probably still match your Canon at 5.6.  Also, photos I've seen taken with the 16-35 Zeiss are very promising indeed and that is a much more useful zoom range than the Nikon 12-24, just less trendy.  If you have a 24" printer and Minolta lenses, the A900 must be your best option and does not cut you out of lens options at all.  In fact, it gives you some awesome options you do not get with other brands, especially if you want your Zeiss glass to come in autofocus.

Gotta give up on you.  You've contradicted yourself since the start of this thread and seem quite negative for no good reason.  Let's hope you sort things out over the next few months and can get back to being happy behind your camera!

P.S. I recently tried out a Canon 400/2.8 on a 1DIII.  Do you think I could get that thing to focus?  A huge, huge setup, needing a monopod to hold it up and just a pig to use.  I really had to wonder what all the hype was about and have to agree with you that it is not a serious option for photographing moving birds!

Deep,
I've been looking sideways for many years and have engaged in many debates on this forum about the merits of the 4/3rds system compared with APS-C and full frame 35mm. If you think the Olympus 50-200 on the E3 can produce better results than a Canon 100-400 on a 50D or 1Ds3 (in place of the 5D2), then show me some test comparisons. I've never seen any.

Not only have I never, never, never, ever seen any direct, controlled comparisons between the Oly 50-200 and the Canon 100-400 with the latest camera bodies, I can find no rational reason to expect any improved image quality from the 50-200, compared with the 100-400 with larger format sensors.

No reason to expect any 'significant' improvement plus no pictorial evidence demonstrating any improvement is not entirely conclusive I know, but is fairly and reasonably conclusive by my standards.

Let's consider what I believe to be the facts, rightly or wrongly. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

(1) Zuiko lenses are generally sharper than their Canon counterparts because they have to be in order to deliver the same resolution, due to the greater resolution demands of the smaller 4/3rds sensor.

(2) Out-of-camera jpegs from the E-3 appear to be sharper than jpegs from the Canon 40D, leading some people on this forum to claim that the E-3 produces sharper (or better quality) images than (even) the 5D. After the Dpreview tests of the E-3 we now know that RAW E-3 images are actually slightly less sharp than 40D RAW images, due to the stronger AA filter on the E-3. I would think a 50D would widen that gap.

(3) There is clear evidence in both the Dpreview and Imaging Resource tests that the 40D has lower noise and produces sharper images at high ISO than the E-3. There is other evidence elsewhere, and my own tests also confirm this, that the 5D has a significant high-ISO noise advantage over the 40D and 50D.

(4) Whilst it's true that smaller formats have a DoF advantage when used at the same aperture (comparing equal FoV images) this advantage appears to be completely wiped out by the lower noise and potentially better image quality of the larger sensor with its greater light-gathering capacity.

This is how the relationship works. Comparing the E-3's 17.3x13mm sensor with the 40D's 22.2x14.8mm sensor, we find that the E-3 has a DoF advantage of 1/3rd to 2/3rds of a stop depending on whether we're cropping the E-3 image to 35mm aspect ratio or cropping the 35mm aspect ratio to a 4/3rds aspect ratio.

However, the 40D has at least a one stop noise/image quality advantage over the E-3. If we were to pixel-peep comparisons betwee the E-3 at ISO 200 and F5.6, and the 40D or 50D at ISO 320 with lens at either F6.3 or 7.1 depending on cropping, we might find the 40D or 50D would still have the edge. But either way, it's merely a pixel-peeping edge we're talking about. I'm after something more substantial.

(5) Whilst I would not be surprised if the the Oly 50-200 were sharper at F4 than the Canon 100-400 at F5.6, a 1.4x converter will not get you even close to the FL of a 400mm lens on the 50D. You need a 2x converter. Converters always downgrade lens performance. It's unavoidable. A 2x extender also converts that maximum aperture of F4 into F8. I can't see any hope of improvement with this suggestion of yours, but thanks for trying  

Quote
Olympus even make a 90-250 (=180-500 on 35mm) which is f2.8 all the way and also weather proof and sharp wide open.  This is just one example of keeping an open mind.

This option looks more promising. However, that lens would still need a 1.4x extender to match the 640mm equivalence of a 400mm lens on the 50D. With 1.4x extender, 250mm at F2.8 becomes a downgraded 350mm at F4. Factor in the small crop factor in relation to the 50D and you get something like 400mm, so the effective FL is roughly equivalent. But I'm very doubtful that a downgraded zoom lens at F4 and ISO 200 (for example) on the E-3 would exceed the quality of the 100-400 at F5.6 and ISO 400 on the 50D.

But thanks for your help. If there are any comparison images out there addressing this specific issue, I'd be very interested.



Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
A900 Update
« Reply #87 on: October 09, 2008, 11:17:02 pm »

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
...... but the key is to figure out exactly what pair to use (what the priorities are), and to use that given pair for all cameras you are looking at.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard,
Isn't that precisely what I've been doing? Where have I given the impression that I'm wearing different colored glasses for different cameras? I'm always searching for specific advantages that any new camera model might have that I would find useful. But I'm also wary of the exaggerated hype that often accompanies new cameras. There are a few advantages of the A900 which I would find useful, but given the choice between an ultra-wide angle zoom which is sharp from corner to corner but lacks IS, and a zoom which is not sharp corner to corner but has IS, I think I would prefer the former.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
A900 Update
« Reply #88 on: October 09, 2008, 11:43:22 pm »



Quote
What I don't understand of the DPReview comparison is the camera settings used for the comparison. All cameras had NR on, which will cover up any true comparison of the amount of real noise. Built-in NR of one camera might work better than the other, but when photographed in RAW and taken to after-NR in the computer all parameters would be the same. The other thing they did and which I didn't understand was that they used in-camera JPEG conversion, and at least for the Alpha 900 they didn't even choose the finest setting (extra fine). It might be that "fine" in one brand of camera is "extra fine" in another, depending on how the specs are translated into setting names by their respective makers. In standard mode (the mode used by DPReview) the Alpha 900 is set to higher color saturation, and I found color noise at high ISO to be considerably higher than when set to "neutral".

I agree, it can be misleading to draw conclusions from in-camera jpeg quality. Default sharpening and NR settings can be different in different cameras. However, in my experience from looking at many Dpreview comparisons over the years, there's usually a trade-off between noise and detail which is always fairly obvious in jpegs. If one image at high ISO looks impressively smooth and noise-free (like some Nikon D300 images), there's an obvious loss of detail. The camera which applies less NR to its jpeg images at default setting, often displays greater noise but also has more detail.

The characteristic which strikes me about the A900 jpegs at high ISO is that they lack both low noise and detail. There's no trade-off to be seen. They are simply noisy as well as lacking in detail.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
A900 Update
« Reply #89 on: October 10, 2008, 12:28:35 am »

Quote from: EPd
Here is a handheld sample shot at ISO 200 in extremely low light. IS was on of course. I added some vignetting in RAW conversion. The dynamic range of this camera is huge. Look at the brightest part of the lamp, which is still graduated. The JPEG version of the same shot showed full burn-out in the back and in the light lamp areas. In this version every level is conserved.

EPd,
There seems little doubt that the A900 is a fine camera capable of equalling, and in some respects exceeding, the image quality from the more expensive 1Ds, under the right conditions. It appears to have a 1/2 stop DR advantage at base ISO, compared with the 1Ds3 (according to Image Resources testing), and in certain situations the anti-shake sensor will prove to be an advantage compared with any equivalent Canon lens which happens not to have IS built in, and there are a few.

However, I would think it likely that the 5D MkII will also have at least a 1/2 stop DR advantage compared with the 1Ds3, so from my perspective, how the A900 compares with the 5D2 is more relevant.

At the same time, I appreciate it must be gratifying for current owners of an A900 to learn that their new camera can outperform the much more expensive 1Ds3 in at least some respects.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
A900 Update
« Reply #90 on: October 10, 2008, 12:47:29 am »

Hi,

I isn't easy as that. Many lenses are quite soft in the corners at large apertures but may be OK at f/8 (or so). I'd suggest that we can live with a lens that's soft at large aperture with IS, because:

- When using maximum aperture DOF is very limited anyway
- We can stop down a couple of steps with IS

There is no question that sharper is better, but if we need to make compromises some compromises are better than others. I would also suggest that there is great advantage to using autofocus lenses. Modern cameras are not meant for manual focusing.  Check: http://www.slrgear.com/articles/focus/focus.htm

One interesting observation: I was photographing with my 400/4.5 in yellowstone. At one stage I saw something that may have been an animal or a stone, I couldn't say from the viewfinder. I took a picture and enlarged it on the display and could than see it was an elk with a very fine rack. Now, I don't have 20/20 eyesight but I use corrective lenses.

Best regards
Erik


 

Quote from: Ray
Bernard,
Isn't that precisely what I've been doing? Where have I given the impression that I'm wearing different colored glasses for different cameras? I'm always searching for specific advantages that any new camera model might have that I would find useful. But I'm also wary of the exaggerated hype that often accompanies new cameras. There are a few advantages of the A900 which I would find useful, but given the choice between an ultra-wide angle zoom which is sharp from corner to corner but lacks IS, and a zoom which is not sharp corner to corner but has IS, I think I would prefer the former.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
A900 Update
« Reply #91 on: October 10, 2008, 01:02:03 am »

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi,

Regarding the Canon 100-400 there seems to be a lot of sample variation. If you get a good sample I guess it's an OK lens.

Regarding Oly lenses, Photozone tested a few and I think that all were well centered and of consistent quality.

Best regards
Erik

Erik,
I can find only one review of a 4/3rds lens on the Photozone site, the Leica 14-50, and that certainly seems to have excellent performance. However, Photozone make a point of advising not to compare lens tests across different systems, because all their results are 'system' results which are to some extent dependent upon the camera body used. I believe that most (if not all) of the Canon lenses have been tested using an 8mp 350D.

I've heard also that there is sample variation in the Canon 100-400. But isn't there sample variation in all lenses? Generally, one can get an idea of the image quality of one's lens by comparing sharpness at various apertures. Good lenses tend to be sharper at F5.6 than at F8. Poor lenses tend to be sharpest at F16 to F11. Medium quality lenses tend to be sharpest at F8.

My own copy of the Canon 100-400 at 400mm is sharpest at F8, but only by a very small margin compared with F11. The difference between F5.6 and F8 is greater than the difference between F8 and F11, regarding sharpness.

I think the quality of my copy of this lens is a least average or typical. It would be too troublesome and difficult (not to mention time-consuming) to go around comparing different copies in the hope I might find one that is better.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
A900 Update
« Reply #92 on: October 10, 2008, 02:54:39 am »

Quote from: EPd
"Outperforming" the "competition" is a very relative concept to me. I think I should be a better photographer if I want to "outperform" in any way.

Indeed! There's a lot to be said for the concept, "The camera doesn't matter". One simply restricts one's activities to subjects that the camera can handle, or one uses what some might consider to be a deficiency, as an artistic effect, and hope it works.

The following shot has more noise by far than any other image I've taken and kept. I almost junked this shot because it was clearly excessively underexposed, but on second thoughts I decided I quite liked it. This is the 5D at ISO half a million   .

[attachment=8818:Temple_b..._Ayudhya.jpg]
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
A900 Update
« Reply #93 on: October 10, 2008, 03:28:22 am »

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi,

I isn't easy as that. Many lenses are quite soft in the corners at large apertures but may be OK at f/8 (or so). I'd suggest that we can live with a lens that's soft at large aperture with IS, because:

- When using maximum aperture DOF is very limited anyway
- We can stop down a couple of steps with IS

There is no question that sharper is better, but if we need to make compromises some compromises are better than others. I would also suggest that there is great advantage to using autofocus lenses. Modern cameras are not meant for manual focusing.  Check: http://www.slrgear.com/articles/focus/focus.htm

One interesting observation: I was photographing with my 400/4.5 in yellowstone. At one stage I saw something that may have been an animal or a stone, I couldn't say from the viewfinder. I took a picture and enlarged it on the display and could than see it was an elk with a very fine rack. Now, I don't have 20/20 eyesight but I use corrective lenses.

Best regards
Erik

Erik,
I find that soft corners are only a problem with wide angle lenses. Stopping down improves the situation. However, with a high resolution sensor, one doesn't want to stop down to F11 for the sake of sharp corners when F5.6 would give one sufficient DoF.

I also have some difficulty manually focussing through an optical viewfinder, which is why I find the Live View feature of Canon's latest models useful. The fact that the A900 doesn't have a Live View, I consider yet another disadvantage. The Live View feature on the 50D is a big step up with its higher resolution LCD. Lens image stabilisation also contributes to the ease of manual focussing when the camera is not on a tripod, although a tripod helps.

Manually focussing with a Nikkor 14-24 on a 5D2 will not be ideal using Live View without tripod, due to its lack of IS.
Logged

Deep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 179
A900 Update
« Reply #94 on: October 10, 2008, 04:01:13 am »

Ray, if you lens is limiting, it does not matter how good your sensor is.  A fantastic lens on a good sensor will outperform a poor lens on an excellent sensor in ANY normal scenario.  Full stop.  You can spend half you life dredging through test charts and fora and reading opinions and trying to sort facts from speculation.  It appears you are very diligent about that.  None of that can come close to matching the experience of using a camera/lens combination for a while and playing with the RAW files yourself.  It's amazing how, when you do that, the trees start to clear and you can see the whole forest.

I'm super happy with what I have now.  So is my rapidly increasing clientele, which is vitally important because they, ultimately, pay for my equipment.  Getting twisted into knots wondering what infinitesimal advantage I may gain in situation A or B by changing my whole system will take me away from that happiness.  I do read up whatever I can and take every chance to try new bodies and lenses from various manufacturers, not to get worked up about what I don't have but so I can keep an eye out towards the future when I steadily expand my kit.  The best way to treat this rapidly changing market is to start by counting your blessings and work on what you are really restricted by (I am way less restricted than your research seems to have suggested - phew!).  I recommend you consider a similar philosophy.

I promised myself I would leave this conversation alone but, hey, I'm a bit hyper and can't leave stuff alone.  So now I'll unsubscribe to this topic so I don't waste any more time.  Good luck and happy shooting!
Logged
Don

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
A900 Update
« Reply #95 on: October 10, 2008, 11:46:05 am »

Quote
You can spend half you life dredging through test charts and fora and reading opinions and trying to sort facts from speculation.  It appears you are very diligent about that.  None of that can come close to matching the experience of using a camera/lens combination for a while and playing with the RAW files yourself.  It's amazing how, when you do that, the trees start to clear and you can see the whole forest.

Deep,
What causes you to think I don't have experience using cameras or prefer to dredge through test charts of other copies of lenses? Like many people, I simply don't have the time to hire equipment and test all options. Competently carried out tests are very useful because they save time, trouble and expense and give one a good indication of what a particular camera is capable of.

Whenever I am uncertain about a particular principle, I'll take the trouble to verify it by doing my own tests, if I have the equipment. When buying a lens, I'll  usually test it first, taking my laptop to the store so I can compare the results with shots from a lens I already own, or with another brand of lens in the store.

I consider cameras to be merely tools, but rather complex tools. It's necessary to understand the principles and relationships between DoF and format size, noise and resolution etc in order to make the right decision when buying a camera. I know what I want and my understanding of these issues is so good that I never need to test a camera before buying it. (Except on odd occasions when the claimed performance of a camera is so incredible that I just can't resist checking it out for myself, as I did with the D3, and found the claims to be somewhat exaggerated).

Lenses, however, are in a different category because of greater QC variability.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2008, 11:55:36 am by Ray »
Logged

aaykay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 359
A900 Update
« Reply #96 on: October 10, 2008, 04:35:47 pm »

Ray, based on what I have seen around, the opinion seems to be that the D3/D700 are great all-purpose machines with a FF sensors and due to its relative low resolution (for a FF), it is optimized for high-ISO performance and sheer speed (FPS).  

The A900 on the other hand, is equipped with a high resolution sensor and thus expecting it to have comparable high-ISO performance as the D3/D700 is not very realistic.   But for a person who needs that resolution, the lower resolution sensor is not an option at all.  

Just a matter of priorities.

Dpreview should really have tested the A900 with JPEG/"Extra Fine" instead of the "Fine" that they tested with.  Maybe it is a matter of terminology but 'Fine' in the Sony lexicon seems to be clearly positioned between 'Extra Fine' and 'Coarse', while in case of a competitor, 'Fine' is in reality the 'Extra Fine' of Sony.  So for apples-to-apples comparison, they should have ignored the terminology and employed Sony's "Extra Fine" in their JPEG comparison....just a side observation I had.

Quoting from dpreview's D700 review when referring to the A900:

============
However, the amount of detail that is rendered by the Sony's new 24MP sensor is quite simply astonishing. If resolution and detail at low sensitivities are high up on your priority list it'll be difficult to ignore Sony's new flagship.
============
Naturally the 24 MP Sony DSLR-A900 stands out in this test, offering considerably more resolution than its 12 megapixel competitors. The resolved detail is quite simply staggering.
============

"Staggering" and "Astonishing" are not terminologies that dpreview is fond of using, when it comes to cameras from Sony - based on past experience.

Bottomline, if you need ultra-high-resolution, then it would be impractical to expect stratospheric high-ISO performance and when you get extraordinary high-ISO performance, you will have to give up on ultra-high-resolution.  Just the "physics" of the situation.  

I think you made a statement earlier, that in the A900, detail is missing, while noise is present....dpreview seems to think otherwise, based on the above quotes.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
A900 Update
« Reply #97 on: October 10, 2008, 04:49:10 pm »

Quote from: aaykay
The A900 on the other hand, is equipped with a high resolution sensor and thus expecting it to have comparable high-ISO performance as the D3/D700 is not very realistic.   But for a person who needs that resolution, the lower resolution sensor is not an option at all.

I would argue that stitching makes it possible to shoot very high resolution images with the D3/D700, but that best quality high ISO shot will be harder with a A900, although its high ISO performance seems surprisingly good for me considering the single frame resolution.

The 130+ MP stitch of Pumori below should proof this point.



Cheers,
Bernard

aaykay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 359
A900 Update
« Reply #98 on: October 10, 2008, 05:02:10 pm »

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
I may consider one of the new G zooms 75-300 or 75-400

Just a small correction.  The new "G" SSM zooms are 70-300 and 70-400.  

In dpreview, there was a post relating to images from the A900 and the new 70-300 G SSM lens:




100% crop from the above image:



Logged

aaykay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 359
A900 Update
« Reply #99 on: October 10, 2008, 05:06:14 pm »

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
I would argue that stitching makes it possible to shoot very high resolution images with the D3/D700, but that best quality high ISO shot will be harder with a A900, although its high ISO performance seems surprisingly good for me considering the single frame resolution.

That is true, stitching will work, as long as the subject is static.  I would argue that if you are willing to stitch and the subject is static, even an extremely low-res APS-C camera can produce staggeringly high resolution images, as long as you stitch multiple takes.  
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Up