Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7   Go Down

Author Topic: Sony A900  (Read 64203 times)

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11249
    • Echophoto
Sony A900
« Reply #40 on: December 06, 2008, 09:57:19 pm »

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

Quote from: Slough
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.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Slough

  • Guest
Sony A900
« Reply #41 on: December 07, 2008, 05:04:27 am »

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
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 ...

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
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.
Logged

Brammers

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 89
Sony A900
« Reply #42 on: December 07, 2008, 07:29:06 am »

Quote from: Slough
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.

600mm - yes, f4, 2 versions, 2nd hand only

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 - I don't think Nikon has one of those?  

135 STF lens - 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 - 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.
Logged

Slough

  • Guest
Sony A900
« Reply #43 on: December 07, 2008, 11:02:23 am »

Quote from: Brammers
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.
Logged

Quentin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1222
    • Quentin on Facebook
Sony A900
« Reply #44 on: December 07, 2008, 11:21:41 am »

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.







The A900's colours are also excellent.

Quentin
« Last Edit: December 09, 2008, 06:07:40 pm by Quentin »
Logged
Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, Arbitrato

Brammers

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 89
Sony A900
« Reply #45 on: December 07, 2008, 11:51:47 am »

Quote from: Slough
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.

Quote from: Slough
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.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2008, 11:56:20 am by Brammers »
Logged

Quentin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1222
    • Quentin on Facebook
Sony A900
« Reply #46 on: December 07, 2008, 12:05:40 pm »

Quote from: Slough
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
« Last Edit: December 07, 2008, 12:06:57 pm by Quentin »
Logged
Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, Arbitrato

ziocan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 426
Sony A900
« Reply #47 on: December 07, 2008, 12:48:24 pm »

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://www.cameraguild.com/index.html?tech...tml~top.main_hp
http://digitalcontentproducer.com/mag/pana...n_sony_genesis/
« Last Edit: December 07, 2008, 12:48:58 pm by ziocan »
Logged

andyptak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
Sony A900
« Reply #48 on: December 08, 2008, 09:50:23 am »

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 - ??
Logged

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
Sony A900
« Reply #49 on: December 08, 2008, 10:05:57 am »

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

Logged

andyptak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
Sony A900
« Reply #50 on: December 09, 2008, 03:46:50 pm »

Thanks for the correction Michael. did I waste my money on the 70-200 then? There's a huge price difference between the two.
Logged

douglasf13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 547
Sony A900
« Reply #51 on: December 09, 2008, 04:50:47 pm »

Quote from: andyptak
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.
Logged

andyptak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
Sony A900
« Reply #52 on: December 09, 2008, 04:59:20 pm »

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.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11249
    • Echophoto
Sony A900
« Reply #53 on: December 10, 2008, 12:28:56 am »

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


Quote from: andyptak
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.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
Sony A900
« Reply #54 on: December 10, 2008, 08:58:10 am »

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

Logged

andyptak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
Sony A900
« Reply #55 on: December 10, 2008, 11:00:58 am »

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?
Logged

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
Sony A900
« Reply #56 on: December 10, 2008, 11:12:15 am »

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

Logged

MatthewCromer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 505
Sony A900
« Reply #57 on: December 10, 2008, 12:03:54 pm »

Quote from: 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. . .
Logged

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
Sony A900
« Reply #58 on: December 10, 2008, 12:15:10 pm »

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

Logged

rljones

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 94
Sony A900
« Reply #59 on: December 10, 2008, 01:07:39 pm »

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.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7   Go Up