Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Sony 900 vs D700/D3  (Read 7213 times)

OldRoy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 470
    • http://
Sony 900 vs D700/D3
« Reply #20 on: December 17, 2008, 03:50:33 pm »

Between you I think most of the criteria for this decision are covered in sufficient detail for me - just short of actually handling both cameras and shooting a few high iso shots in a camera store. I'd like to take a look, in the most unscientific way, at what the A900 produces.

Right now I'm leaning heavily toward getting a D700. partly on the "nobody got fired for buying IBM" principle - which dates me, I guess - and partly because everyone who owns the D700 seems to love it. My thinking is like this: I have a backup D200 body and some additional MF lenses plus my AF 85 1.8. The shaved 10.5 FE will enable me to shoot the VRs with a reduced number of shots (nominally 4-5) on an FF body, to a quality perfectly adequate for web use. This represents a saving of 400. BTW when stitching for VRs there's no need to "defish" the images; they're remapped onto a virtual sphere by the application, in my case PTGui. Most of the regular landscape that I've shot has been successfully stitched from multiple portrait format shots, so maybe the resolution isn't such a big criterion.

If I buy the set of three 2.8 Nikon lenses mentioned above - which are as good a selection of zooms as I've ever seen reviewed, and represent the about 60% of the cost of re-equipping - I have the possibility at some time in the future, other things being OK, of adding a high resolution Nikon prosumer body, the D700x, or whatever they decide to name it: I feel certain it's bound to arrive, probably long before I'm ready to buy one, assuming I can still afford it. Society may have collapsed completely by then. When the chairman of the Nasdaq is caught operating a Ponzi scheme which has vaporised $50Bn - with major banks amongst its investors - anything is possible. These are the same people who badger entrepreneurs about how they propose to manage their businesses...

I'm going to take a couple of cards off to a dealer and handle both the cameras. I know this won't be a proper test, but it's something I need to do: I just wish that my local dealer filled me with a little more confidence. And I'm going to walk away, take a look at the test shots and think carefully before I spend nearly 5K.

Thanks again to everyone who has taken the time and trouble to offer their insights.
Roy
Logged

Tony Beach

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • http://imageevent.com/tonybeach/twelveimages
Sony 900 vs D700/D3
« Reply #21 on: December 17, 2008, 10:00:08 pm »

Quote from: aaykay
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.

Not at all, you are comparing apples to oranges; the most notable difference between Elements and Photoshop is the ability to work in 16 bits -- but the economy version of Capture One does 16 bit conversions.  The version of Capture One I linked to is a renamed version of what I use on my computer (it used to be called Capture One LE).  This is a very capable version of the software as far as conversions are concerned and the differences to the Pro can be seen here:  http://www.phaseone.com/4/ (at "4 vs Pro").  As far as conversions of Nikon files are concerned, this economical version is noticeably better than ACR conversions be they from Elements or Photoshop.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up