Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Sony 900 vs D700/D3  (Read 7210 times)

OldRoy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 470
    • http://
Sony 900 vs D700/D3
« on: December 15, 2008, 08:57:11 am »

I currently have a D200 which I've been using for just over a year. I have a few DX lenses, including a 10.5 FE which I use for VR panoramas. I also have an 85mm F1.8 and a selection of AIS lenses (50mm 1.8, 20mm 3.5, 80-200 F4, 28mm 1.9 and a few others of no great distinction but in good condition). plus numerous bits and pieces of associated hardware - an MC30 remote, NN3 pano head, SB 600 flash, and the inevitable bagful of bits and pieces. I also have some Nikon film bodies - an FG, an FM2n and an F100. I give these an occasional outing but digital has ruined it for me, despite the fact that I like the physicality of the mechanical bodies.

When I bought this camera I imagined it would meet all my requirements, if not for ever, at least for a few years. After a year I can see that whilst my own limitations are the ultimate limitation, the limitations of the hardware impose an additional, er, limitation... For example the af on my D200 isn't brilliant and my eyesight is worse. I don't really like using flash but shooting lots of dimly lit interiors (I like old buildings) means tripods which aren't ever convenient, and the D200's performance above ISO 200 is awful. I also like shooting exterior landscapes, and hope to visit many landscapes well worth photographing before I shuffle off the mortal etc.  I own an Epson R2400 printer which is capable of A3+ and roll-fed panoramas. The price of consumables is horrifying! I've had quite a lot of practice stitching panoramas of various kinds, which ups the effective resolution achievable with my current equipment.  But often the wind is blowing, which really causes problems with stitching - in fact it's a show-stopper. So I'm considering re-equipping.

As with most amateur photographers, money is a limitation. I'm a full-time carer with no significant income and not enough capital to feel secure - to put it mildly. So part of my thinking is "buy it whilst you can still afford it". In a year or two's time I will be even more expenditure averse. I realise that better hardware won't necessarily make me a better photographer, however if hardware specs were completely irrelevant there wouldn't be much to read on these forums would there? The current collapse in the value of the is worrying me almost as much as the fact that as one of those people who actually bothered to SAVE for an uncertain future, I am now getting almost no return on these savings - so why not spend some on non-essentials? Whilst I'm bitching about this I well recall the time in the 80s when I was running my small manufacturing business on bank overdraft facilities for about 7 years. Interest was 2.5% OVER the base rate which was constantly in double figures. When the bank got antsy in'88 they took me down for no good reason at all and practically destyroyed my future: no one proposed bailing me out as I recall. Banks are an informal cartel and operate on the very margins of fraud I believe...Actually, on reflection they frequently operate within those margins, as we've all seen recently.

Sorry about that.

Given that I already have quite a bit of Nikon gear, I'd been considering the D700 (I love the additional weather-proofing on the D3 on principle, but the weight, plus the additional 1K, are enough to make me discount it). Recent reviews of the Sony A900 have thrown a rock into the pool, as if it weren't already murky enough. I've read enough about all these cameras to have a theoretical understanding of their respective attributes. I haven't done the precise sums, but assuming I'm buying decent lenses for the D700 (14-24 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 70.200 VR 2.8) a similar setup replaced by an A900 comes out at a roughly similar price. One critical consideration (apart from the fact that there's an attractive continuity about buying Nikon - not least the retention of the D200 as a backup body) is the high ISO performance of the Sony camera. I've read and seen various reports and  tests, but I need to take some comparative shots with both cameras (available low-ish light) so that I know what I'm looking at. I bought my last system from Park Cameras in Burgess Hill (for UK readership!)  who are my nearest real camera store, and I have to say I didn't feel too comfortable with them. Just another customer; in fact one young woman working there almost had me apologising for interrupting her day.

Anyway, that's a lot of waffle. It should probably be in the "casual conversations" forum. Moderators please move if you feel that too. But I'd be interested to hear opinions about this. It's actually quite a big decision for me and I've been vacillating for months!

Roy
Logged

idenford

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 128
Sony 900 vs D700/D3
« Reply #1 on: December 15, 2008, 10:45:20 am »

Quote from: OldRoy
I currently have a D200 which I've been using for just over a year. I have a few DX lenses, including a 10.5 FE which I use for VR panoramas. I also have an 85mm F1.8 and a selection of AIS lenses (50mm 1.8, 20mm 3.5, 80-200 F4, 28mm 1.9 and a few others of no great distinction but in good condition). plus numerous bits and pieces of associated hardware - an MC30 remote, NN3 pano head, SB 600 flash, and the inevitable bagful of bits and pieces. I also have some Nikon film bodies - an FG, an FM2n and an F100. I give these an occasional outing but digital has ruined it for me, despite the fact that I like the physicality of the mechanical bodies.

When I bought this camera I imagined it would meet all my requirements, if not for ever, at least for a few years. After a year I can see that whilst my own limitations are the ultimate limitation, the limitations of the hardware impose an additional, er, limitation... For example the af on my D200 isn't brilliant and my eyesight is worse. I don't really like using flash but shooting lots of dimly lit interiors (I like old buildings) means tripods which aren't ever convenient, and the D200's performance above ISO 200 is awful. I also like shooting exterior landscapes, and hope to visit many landscapes well worth photographing before I shuffle off the mortal etc.  I own an Epson R2400 printer which is capable of A3+ and roll-fed panoramas. The price of consumables is horrifying! I've had quite a lot of practice stitching panoramas of various kinds, which ups the effective resolution achievable with my current equipment.  But often the wind is blowing, which really causes problems with stitching - in fact it's a show-stopper. So I'm considering re-equipping.

As with most amateur photographers, money is a limitation. I'm a full-time carer with no significant income and not enough capital to feel secure - to put it mildly. So part of my thinking is "buy it whilst you can still afford it". In a year or two's time I will be even more expenditure averse. I realise that better hardware won't necessarily make me a better photographer, however if hardware specs were completely irrelevant there wouldn't be much to read on these forums would there? The current collapse in the value of the is worrying me almost as much as the fact that as one of those people who actually bothered to SAVE for an uncertain future, I am now getting almost no return on these savings - so why not spend some on non-essentials? Whilst I'm bitching about this I well recall the time in the 80s when I was running my small manufacturing business on bank overdraft facilities for about 7 years. Interest was 2.5% OVER the base rate which was constantly in double figures. When the bank got antsy in'88 they took me down for no good reason at all and practically destyroyed my future: no one proposed bailing me out as I recall. Banks are an informal cartel and operate on the very margins of fraud I believe...Actually, on reflection they frequently operate within those margins, as we've all seen recently.

Sorry about that.

Given that I already have quite a bit of Nikon gear, I'd been considering the D700 (I love the additional weather-proofing on the D3 on principle, but the weight, plus the additional 1K, are enough to make me discount it). Recent reviews of the Sony A900 have thrown a rock into the pool, as if it weren't already murky enough. I've read enough about all these cameras to have a theoretical understanding of their respective attributes. I haven't done the precise sums, but assuming I'm buying decent lenses for the D700 (14-24 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 70.200 VR 2.8) a similar setup replaced by an A900 comes out at a roughly similar price. One critical consideration (apart from the fact that there's an attractive continuity about buying Nikon - not least the retention of the D200 as a backup body) is the high ISO performance of the Sony camera. I've read and seen various reports and  tests, but I need to take some comparative shots with both cameras (available low-ish light) so that I know what I'm looking at. I bought my last system from Park Cameras in Burgess Hill (for UK readership!)  who are my nearest real camera store, and I have to say I didn't feel too comfortable with them. Just another customer; in fact one young woman working there almost had me apologising for interrupting her day.

Anyway, that's a lot of waffle. It should probably be in the "casual conversations" forum. Moderators please move if you feel that too. But I'd be interested to hear opinions about this. It's actually quite a big decision for me and I've been vacillating for months!

Roy

Burgess Hill? One of my very good friends (Dereck Fernee) lives there.
Listen my man, I shoot with a D3, had a D200 and now have a D300 as a back up. Bollocks to  the higher res fiasco, Nikon is superb performance and unless you are going to make billboard size prints, you go get the D700 and you will not for one moment regret it.
And if you do not get the kind of service you want from the shop, go online, you might save a few pounds.
Good luck
Logged

douglasf13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 547
Sony 900 vs D700/D3
« Reply #2 on: December 15, 2008, 01:32:38 pm »

Quote from: idenford
Burgess Hill? One of my very good friends (Dereck Fernee) lives there.
Listen my man, I shoot with a D3, had a D200 and now have a D300 as a back up. Bollocks to  the higher res fiasco, Nikon is superb performance and unless you are going to make billboard size prints, you go get the D700 and you will not for one moment regret it.
And if you do not get the kind of service you want from the shop, go online, you might save a few pounds.
Good luck

Sorry, but the billboards arguement is simply untrue. With any of the 20+ MP cameras, you are going to have more detail even in medium sized prints.  If you live at ISO 3200+, the D700 is the way to go. If not, go high resolution.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2008, 01:34:11 pm by douglasf13 »
Logged

Tony Beach

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • http://imageevent.com/tonybeach/twelveimages
Sony 900 vs D700/D3
« Reply #3 on: December 15, 2008, 02:09:55 pm »

Quote from: douglasf13
Sorry, but the billboards arguement is simply untrue. With any of the 20+ MP cameras, you are going to have more detail even in medium sized prints.  If you live at ISO 3200+, the D700 is the way to go. If not, go high resolution.

Yes, but a D300 and a good lens will also provide more detail than a D200 and a poor lens.  I've been reading some discussion about this issue lately, and the consensus among those with experience is that for the size of prints Roy is doing 12 MP done properly is close to indistinguishable from 20+ MP.  A good article on this can be found here:  http://www.bythom.com/printsizes.htm  

FWIW, I felt that the D300 was a significant upgrade to my D200 -- the D300 delivers more DR (about a stop better ISO) and more acuity than the D200.  Exchanging the D200 for a D300 and upgrading lenses wouldn't be a bad interim choice while Roy waits for a possible "D700x" as it might be that a D3x sensor in a D700 body would deliver the best of both worlds (decent high ISO, higher resolution, and reportedly excellent spectral characteristic).  The A900 is an intriguing choice, but the Sony 16-35/2.8 is not available until next month and both the camera and most of the zooms Roy is considering cost a few hundred dollars each more than the D700 and the Nikkor zooms; my expectation is that the "D700x" will cost more than the A900 though -- after all, in the end we get basically what we pay for.
Logged

douglasf13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 547
Sony 900 vs D700/D3
« Reply #4 on: December 15, 2008, 03:04:20 pm »

It really is a tough call. Sure, a D300 and some good lenses would be an improvement, but then again, there will probably be a D400 soon, so maybe wait?   We probably won't see a D700x for a year, so I doubt it's worth the wait...especially if it doesn't have a 100% VF.  The op could sell his D200 and gear, and get the above Sony kit now. Plus, he could add an A700 as backup for little money.
Logged

Tony Beach

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • http://imageevent.com/tonybeach/twelveimages
Sony 900 vs D700/D3
« Reply #5 on: December 15, 2008, 03:58:43 pm »

Quote from: douglasf13
It really is a tough call. Sure, a D300 and some good lenses would be an improvement, but then again, there will probably be a D400 soon, so maybe wait?   We probably won't see a D700x for a year, so I doubt it's worth the wait...especially if it doesn't have a 100% VF.  The op could sell his D200 and gear, and get the above Sony kit now. Plus, he could add an A700 as backup for little money.

Well, the D700 doesn't have 100% viewfinder either.  I doubt there is much more to be gained in DX format than what a D300 offers; so I will not be jumping up and down over a D400 (although it will undoubtedly drive the price of the D300 down).  As for the "D700x" being a year out; I am betting it isn't, and I mean I'm literally betting on that as I just purchased a Nikkor 85 PC micro for $1000 instead of saving that money for a Sony 16-35/2.8 ZA that I would use on an A900 if I were to buy one.  I think if Nikon doesn't announce a "D700x" before this summer then they will really be shooting themselves in the foot.  Anyway, a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush -- so make a decision not based on what might be, but on what is now -- and with that in mind:  the Sony A900 kit runs about $8250 (USD, from B&H), the D700 kit runs just under $7000, and the D300 kit runs around $6000.  Roy might also consider having the D200 converted to IR for $500 (I recommend MaxMax), I love mine:



830nm converted D200 with Nikkor 14-24/2.8
« Last Edit: December 15, 2008, 03:59:28 pm by Tony Beach »
Logged

MatthewCromer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 505
Sony 900 vs D700/D3
« Reply #6 on: December 15, 2008, 04:32:58 pm »

You can get an Alpha 900 in the $2400 range in the US if you are willing to go grey market.

The Minolta "beercan" (70-210/4) and 28-135/4-4.5 are extremely well regarded and test very well on the Alpha 900 and can be picked up in the $200 range on ebay.

I also picked up a 50/1.4 for that same price.  At the wide end, I am looking at the Minnie 17-35/2.8-4 and the Sigma 12-24.

For top-notch landscapes at the lowest possible price, I don't think this kit can be beat.  You don't need to spend $$$ for the CZ 24-70/2.8 unless you really want the faster aperture and SSM focus.


Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12644
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Sony 900 vs D700/D3
« Reply #7 on: December 15, 2008, 06:57:00 pm »

I would personnally go with the A900 because of the high image quality/DR, best in class viewfinder and built-in IS.

How good the 16-35 f2.8 is going to be is still an open question, but we all assume that it is going to be at least as good as the older Nikkor 17-35 f2.8/Canon 16-35 f2.8.

The Sony is clearly the only camera offering stabilization for such lenses.

I am actually not really sure why you are even hesitating here.

Cheers,
Bernard

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11249
    • Echophoto
Sony 900 vs D700/D3
« Reply #8 on: December 15, 2008, 11:20:38 pm »

Hi,

The KM 28-75/2.8 is also known to be a very good lens, optically it is indentical to the Tamron 28-75/2.8. My sample of the old Minolta 20/2.8 is surprisingly good to. Test shots of both lenses on:

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

Note: these shots were done  without microfocus adjustment.


Best regards
Erik

Quote from: MatthewCromer
You can get an Alpha 900 in the $2400 range in the US if you are willing to go grey market.

The Minolta "beercan" (70-210/4) and 28-135/4-4.5 are extremely well regarded and test very well on the Alpha 900 and can be picked up in the $200 range on ebay.

I also picked up a 50/1.4 for that same price.  At the wide end, I am looking at the Minnie 17-35/2.8-4 and the Sigma 12-24.

For top-notch landscapes at the lowest possible price, I don't think this kit can be beat.  You don't need to spend $$$ for the CZ 24-70/2.8 unless you really want the faster aperture and SSM focus.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2008, 11:23:03 pm by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

OldRoy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 470
    • http://
Sony 900 vs D700/D3
« Reply #9 on: December 16, 2008, 03:44:51 am »

Thanks for the comments so far. A couple of points: selling the D200 + bits doesn't appeal too much given the low resale value with current developments, not to mention how much I hate having anything to do with eBay (not the only route, I know, but trade-in implies even worse prices). Also I have a project - to dignify the enterprise - which involves VR panoramas; the 10.5 FE 2.8 is indispensible for this which means replacing it with something <16mm on the Sony, so retention of the D200 makes sense: the resolution limitation is irrelevant for the eventual output in a browser. Better high ISO would be a big help here though. The IR conversion had already occurred to me BTW - intriguing.

I took a look at the www.dyxum.com site. I found it quite alarming that there was so much exchange about how to get round noise levels! Also threads about DR problems - shooting at minus 4 stops and pushing in RAW conversion... blimey, I'm very put off by reading this sort of horrible work-round. Is this serious? The implication also seemed to be that the A900 under-exposes by about -0.7 ev - but not always... Confusing.

On the print resolution considerations. I'd certainly like to be able to occasionally print larger than my current printer allows (A3+) but I'm still uncertain, despite quite a bit of reading on forums, (or maybe that should read because rather than despite) about what the actual numerical limitions are, given optimal lenses (I'm treating the current Nikon range I mentioned in the op as "optimal", despite widespread reservations about the 70-200 VR). What is the practical and/or theoretical limit for printing a single uncropped shot from a 12mp sensor?

BTW The KM used lens range is limited in the UK from what I've seen on eBay (groan) and I would imagine that the current surge of interest in the Sony bodies exerts upward pressure on the prices too. Edit. Just took a look at these lenses on eBay. Furious bidding on anything of interest, such as the "beercans". My idea of hell, I'm afraid.

And the continues to fall...
« Last Edit: December 16, 2008, 03:51:30 am by OldRoy »
Logged

douglasf13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 547
Sony 900 vs D700/D3
« Reply #10 on: December 16, 2008, 11:12:29 am »

Don't pay too much attention to that thread about underexposing and boosting in raw.  That technique works with nearly any camera at it's sweetspot.  The only issue with high ISO and the A900 you should be concerned about is if you're determined to use ACR/lightroom, as it truly mucks up Sony files. I've switched to C1 myself, and it's much better. The A900 noise at high ISO is very close to the 5Dii, and only around 3/4 stops worse than the D3 at like print size. At low ISO, the A900 is unbeatable....outside of maybe the D3x.   As far as metering, Sony doesnt tend to expose as "right" as Nikon, and, yes, I tend to use +.7 ev comp.  Unless you're a constant ISO 3200+ shooter, the A900 is wonderful, and Ive heard/read very little from owners that aren't thrilled with it. The VF is incredible, BTW. I'm afraid I could never go back to anything smaller.
Logged

ndevlin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 679
    • Follow me on Twitter
Sony 900 vs D700/D3
« Reply #11 on: December 16, 2008, 02:09:15 pm »

There is a real difference bw the A900 and the D3/700 in terms of enlargeability. The Nikons are amazing cameras and produce a very rich image at all ISOs up to levels most will never need to use.  These are just gorgeous files.

That said, however, they do not enlarge terribly well to really big sizes.  Michael shot almost exclusively with the Nikons in Botswana, and captured some spectacular images.  On big prints (20x24 and over), they look lovely from a distance, but really start to break down closer up (and I don't mean in a pixel-peep).  No fault of the system -- there just isn't enough info in 12MPs to render a very finely detailed subject at those sizes of enlargement.

The A900 (and the 1DsIII, 5D2 and D3x)  all have a lot more gas in this regard.

If you really only shoot for print (ie: magazines etc.), the 12MP FF sensor is just fine. But if you shoot for gallery display, you will find that the denser sensors suit you better.  There's just no real argument on this.  

The A900 is a very nice camera, for a very good price.  The finder is unmatched in the DSLR realm. The high-end lenses for the system are superb. The built-in stabilization works well. The camera fires FAST and very smoothly.  It's a fully 'pro' system that I would strongly consider myself if not already invested so heavily in the Canons. (This, incidentally, is why people are going nuts about the D3x pricing -- Nikon users now have no option for FF 20+MPs in the sub $3K range, and are feeling very left-out).

I would just add this: while I have not compared high-ISOs on the D700 and 5D2 side-by-side, I have shoot with each in extreme situations. I did wedding formals at 1600ISO on the Nikon, (which the couple prefered to the strobe-lit ones from a 1DsII at ISO 100) and a kids' swim meet at ISO 12,800 on the 5D2.  The latter results were stunningly good for what it was, but, with the level of noise involved, the resolution was nowhere near 21MPs. As such, I would not be surprised if the two systems generated very similar ultimate useable resolution at ultra-high ISOs.

Cheers,

- N.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2008, 02:10:52 pm by ndevlin »
Logged
Nick Devlin   @onelittlecamera        ww

idenford

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 128
Sony 900 vs D700/D3
« Reply #12 on: December 16, 2008, 05:46:47 pm »

Quote from: ndevlin
There is a real difference bw the A900 and the D3/700 in terms of enlargeability. The Nikons are amazing cameras and produce a very rich image at all ISOs up to levels most will never need to use.  These are just gorgeous files.

That said, however, they do not enlarge terribly well to really big sizes.  Michael shot almost exclusively with the Nikons in Botswana, and captured some spectacular images.  On big prints (20x24 and over), they look lovely from a distance, but really start to break down closer up (and I don't mean in a pixel-peep).  No fault of the system -- there just isn't enough info in 12MPs to render a very finely detailed subject at those sizes of enlargement.

The A900 (and the 1DsIII, 5D2 and D3x)  all have a lot more gas in this regard.

If you really only shoot for print (ie: magazines etc.), the 12MP FF sensor is just fine. But if you shoot for gallery display, you will find that the denser sensors suit you better.  There's just no real argument on this.  

The A900 is a very nice camera, for a very good price.  The finder is unmatched in the DSLR realm. The high-end lenses for the system are superb. The built-in stabilization works well. The camera fires FAST and very smoothly.  It's a fully 'pro' system that I would strongly consider myself if not already invested so heavily in the Canons. (This, incidentally, is why people are going nuts about the D3x pricing -- Nikon users now have no option for FF 20+MPs in the sub $3K range, and are feeling very left-out).

I would just add this: while I have not compared high-ISOs on the D700 and 5D2 side-by-side, I have shoot with each in extreme situations. I did wedding formals at 1600ISO on the Nikon, (which the couple prefered to the strobe-lit ones from a 1DsII at ISO 100) and a kids' swim meet at ISO 12,800 on the 5D2.  The latter results were stunningly good for what it was, but, with the level of noise involved, the resolution was nowhere near 21MPs. As such, I would not be surprised if the two systems generated very similar ultimate useable resolution at ultra-high ISOs.

I totally disagree. I am making Hi res prints on a Canon 6100 of all the landscape stuff I did this past summer in the UK. Perfect prints 24 x 36 on Gold Silk Fibre Ilford paper from a roll.

Cheers,

- N.
Logged

Tony Beach

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • http://imageevent.com/tonybeach/twelveimages
Sony 900 vs D700/D3
« Reply #13 on: December 16, 2008, 07:33:49 pm »

I'm not sure how you are using the Nikkor 10.5/2.8 fisheye, but if you are doing rectilinear adjustments to the files then you are reducing the diagonal angle of view to about 120; a D700 with a Nikkor 14-24/2.8 will get you to 114 with much better sharpness (mainly because of improved optics) and about a two stop gain in DR.  If the fisheye lens is indispensable, then the D300 is substantially less expensive and it will improve your sharpness noticeably and you will gain about one stop of DR; using that fisheye on a D700 is problematic as you need to saw off the lens hoods, you will go to 200, but you'll actually lose some pixel density.

The A900 is going to be a much more expensive option and I would argue that its advantages will represent a diminishing return on your investment -- you will be spending a lot for the improvement to relatively few prints (and probably none that you will be doing with your current printer).  As for learning optimum technique using the A900, this is an issue with all cameras and most photographers are not using optimal technique with their cameras regardless of brand and model.  If you familiarize yourself with the A900, I'm certain it will be a good camera up to about the same ISO you would be using a D300 at; the D700 will get you about a stop more usable ISO and DR when used properly.  Using two systems you are not sharing lenses, the UI and optimum shooting techniques are different, all of which makes using one as a back-up to the other problematic.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2008, 07:34:33 pm by Tony Beach »
Logged

andyptak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
Sony 900 vs D700/D3
« Reply #14 on: December 16, 2008, 08:05:22 pm »

@douglasf13 - Can you explain a bit more why you feel that C1 is better than ACR for Sony RAW? Thanks.
Logged

douglasf13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 547
Sony 900 vs D700/D3
« Reply #15 on: December 16, 2008, 09:12:17 pm »

Quote from: andyptak
@douglasf13 - Can you explain a bit more why you feel that C1 is better than ACR for Sony RAW? Thanks.

  The always ON NR that ACR performs is particularly bad for the A900 by way of creating a very splotchy look to the noise, and I'd bet the ACR demoisacing is also part of the problem.  Using Capture or Aperture greatly cleans up the high ISO, and provides more detail in low ISO.  I saw a great comparison of this recently, but I can't find the darn link.  Ultimately, ACR is ok for low ISO, but C1 is better at low ISO, and much better at high.  I'm officially off of the Lightroom bandwagon after using it for over a year.  I'm sorry I don't have any examples for you    The A900 jpeg engine and ACR are responsible for quite a few skewed views of the A900 at high ISO, and while it's still not quite up to the 5Dii past ISO 1600, Capture One gets it closer.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2008, 09:14:34 pm by douglasf13 »
Logged

aaykay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 359
Sony 900 vs D700/D3
« Reply #16 on: December 16, 2008, 10:29:19 pm »

Quote from: OldRoy
I took a look at the www.dyxum.com site. I found it quite alarming that there was so much exchange about how to get round noise levels! Also threads about DR problems - shooting at minus 4 stops and pushing in RAW conversion... blimey, I'm very put off by reading this sort of horrible work-round. Is this serious? The implication also seemed to be that the A900 under-exposes by about -0.7 ev - but not always... Confusing.

Dyxum is a great site which includes users at all levels, from beginners to advanced users.  There is a treasure trove of information on the Alpha mount, including all legacy lenses, flashes, bodies and anything else related to Alpha.  However, things like "noise" etc., I would take with several grains of salt.  I personally have never experienced any "DR problems" with the A900...on the contrary, have been amazed at the DR the camera has.

Quote
BTW The KM used lens range is limited in the UK from what I've seen on eBay (groan) and I would imagine that the current surge of interest in the Sony bodies exerts upward pressure on the prices too. Edit. Just took a look at these lenses on eBay. Furious bidding on anything of interest, such as the "beercans". My idea of hell, I'm afraid.

I am not a big fan of ebay either and when I find auctions where there is "furious bidding", I tend to walk away.  I have seen people get into competitive bidding scenarios, and paying way more than they should.  However, depending on how you intend to use it, and assuming your requirements don't extend into long tele lenses, the Alpha system has some lenses (like the Carl Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 Sonnar) that are simply without any peer.  The super-long teles are lacking, which Sony is supposedly filling out, based on some mockups they showed a year or so back.

If I were in your shoes, I would stick with Nikon - but that is solely from the perspective of your being able to re-use your existing equipment on any new Nikon bodies.  Nothing to do with "noise" or lack of DR in the Alphas, since they should be comparable to any other high-end dSLR in the market.
Logged

andyptak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
Sony 900 vs D700/D3
« Reply #17 on: December 17, 2008, 07:34:49 am »

Thanks Doug. I just don't see some of the technial deficiences that others do - whether that's the fault of my eyes or my brain, I'm really not sure! I've become a huge fan of LR strictly from a workflow point of view, so this question is of more than passing interest. I only use low ISO, so is there much of a difference in this instance? C1 is expensive, so I'd hate to buy something for no apparent gain.
Logged

Tony Beach

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • http://imageevent.com/tonybeach/twelveimages
Sony 900 vs D700/D3
« Reply #18 on: December 17, 2008, 11:44:12 am »

Quote from: andyptak
Thanks Doug. I just don't see some of the technial deficiences that others do - whether that's the fault of my eyes or my brain, I'm really not sure! I've become a huge fan of LR strictly from a workflow point of view, so this question is of more than passing interest. I only use low ISO, so is there much of a difference in this instance? C1 is expensive, so I'd hate to buy something for no apparent gain.

For Nikon the Capture One colors are better than ACR.  The price of purchasing and updating is less than Adobe products:  http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5491..._One_4_RAW.html
Logged

aaykay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 359
Sony 900 vs D700/D3
« Reply #19 on: December 17, 2008, 01:28:46 pm »

Quote from: Tony Beach
For Nikon the Capture One colors are better than ACR.  The price of purchasing and updating is less than Adobe products:  http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5491..._One_4_RAW.html

Yeah, but the comparable software from Capture one, would be the Capture One 4 Pro, which costs around $400.   The regular Capture One 4 that you referenced above, is comparable to something like the Adobe Elements.


Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up