Topic: Sony a900 (Read 7673 times)

chrisD · « **on:** February 03, 2009, 12:18:51 am »

First time posting long time lurking. This is a great site. Thanks to MR and all who contribute to it.

After reading the comparison between the G10 and the Phase one I bought a G10. After reading the reviews and comments on the a900 I bought one with a 24-70 and 70-300. The new kit is less than the Nikon Dx3 body. Finally gave up on Nikon after years of waiting for them to catch up to Canon.

Now that I have my Sony I am no longer interested in the comparisons of quality between sony, canon and nikon. I want to know how best to use the new 25 mp beast I have.

After a brief and informal test I can confirm that antishake works on the tripod at 300 with a 25 sec exposure. The 80-400 VR Nikon does not like VR while on a tripod. So far, maybe just my technique and I need to experiment more, I would say the 24-70 is much sharper than the 70-300.

I have lots of questions:

1. Is there a source of detailed documentation on how the thing works from sony? The manual is fairly skimpy.

2. Is there a pro line to call with questions?

3. There are lots of options for processing the image and it's not clear to me how best to use them. For example, there is a noise reduction setting on or off. Is the image captured, then noise reduction is applied to it? Or is the nature of how the image is captured different? If it is strictly post processing then can I turn it off and use the best noise reduction software on the raw image and get a better result?

4. same question for creative setting. I shoot landscape and nature but should I set it at landscape or neutral? Neutral if I do all image processing in photoshop?

5. For the post capture processing options are they applied to the raw file in an unalterable way or as changeable setting?

I could go on but I will stop here for now. Anyone else shooting with a a900 let's compare tips, tricks and techniques. MR if you produce a DVD or video on all your techniques for getting the best possible results from the a900 I will buy it. Put me on the wait list for it.

OK, one more...

If you combine 3 bracketed shots to produce a 16 bit file how does that compare to the DR of a phase one? Anyone tried that?

I thnk I have uploaded an image that I took last night just as a sample. It is still a little rough (needs more PS work) but another a900 sample for people to look at.

BernardLanguillier · « **Reply #1 on:** February 03, 2009, 12:31:10 am »

Quote from: chrisD

If you combine 3 bracketed shots to produce a 16 bit file how does that compare to the DR of a phase one? Anyone tried that?

The A900 in itself is already very close to a MFDB in terms of DR.

Layering 3 images shot 2 stops apart from one another with any DSLR will take you way beyond what a MFDB could achieve.

In all 3 cases though (back, A900 or HDR), it is not always easy to get natural looking images when there is a lot of DR. The key is to understand the different scales where contrast has to be managed.

Cheers,
Bernard

ErikKaffehr · « **Reply #2 on:** February 03, 2009, 12:40:03 am »

Hi,

Some answers below

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: chrisD

I have lots of questions:

1. Is there a source of detailed documentation on how the thing works from sony? The manual is fairly skimpy.
No, I don't think so.

2. Is there a pro line to call with questions?
No, I don't think so. One of the reason the Sony is not really a pro camera.

3. There are lots of options for processing the image and it's not clear to me how best to use them. For example, there is a noise reduction setting on or off. Is the image captured, then noise reduction is applied to it? Or is the nature of how the image is captured different? If it is strictly post processing then can I turn it off and use the best noise reduction software on the raw image and get a better result?

There are two noise reductions, one is for long exposure that does "dark frame subtracttion", I suggest that you leave it on. High ISO noise reduction may be best to set to off, especially if you use Noise Ninja or similar.

4. same question for creative setting. I shoot landscape and nature but should I set it at landscape or neutral? Neutral if I do all image processing in photoshop?
If you use RAW creative settings don't matter. I think the spirit of this forum is "You Shall Use Raw".

5. For the post capture processing options are they applied to the raw file in an unalterable way or as changeable setting?
I think RAW is RAW, that is unchanged.

I could go on but I will stop here for now. Anyone else shooting with a a900 let's compare tips, tricks and techniques. MR if you produce a DVD or video on all your techniques for getting the best possible results from the a900 I will buy it. Put me on the wait list for it.

OK, one more...

If you combine 3 bracketed shots to produce a 16 bit file how does that compare to the DR of a phase one? Anyone tried that?

That's called HDR and never worked for me. My experience is that when I expose for highlights using in camera histograms and "Expose to the right" it is very easy to extract a lot of shadow information from "raw" using the "fill light" function in Lightroom. With HDR we need to do "tone mapping" an I never got the results I wanted.

One way is to open alternate exposure as layers and "paint in" details using layer masks. This often works very well.

Brammers · « **Reply #3 on:** February 03, 2009, 01:03:38 am »

I'll have a stab at some of these:

Quote from: chrisD

1. Is there a source of detailed documentation on how the thing works from sony? The manual is fairly skimpy.

No. There are several thriving community resources though. By far the best in English is www.dyxum.com. You could also search for Iliaj Borg's posts on dpreview - he's made some interesting observations about equalising the light hitting the various colour chanels using an 85 filter - leads to lower noise at low ISOs. He's a 100% sensor geek, but if you want every last pixel to be polished to perfection... If you speak French or German then let me know and I'll dig up some of those sites too.

Quote

2. Is there a pro line to call with questions?

Not that I know of.

Quote

3. There are lots of options for processing the image and it's not clear to me how best to use them. For example, there is a noise reduction setting on or off. Is the image captured, then noise reduction is applied to it? Or is the nature of how the image is captured different? If it is strictly post processing then can I turn it off and use the best noise reduction software on the raw image and get a better result?

Noise reduction will apply to RAW shots as they're saved to the card and it's not particularly good - most users reccomend you turn this to off. Keep long exposure noise reduction on though.

Quote

4. same question for creative setting. I shoot landscape and nature but should I set it at landscape or neutral? Neutral if I do all image processing in photoshop?

Creative settings are applied to jpgs only. Apply them to RAWs and certain processors pick them up (notably Sony's converter) and apply those settings - but you've still got the RAW information so you can ignore them if you like with no image quality penalty.

Where they DO count when shooting RAW though is while using the histogram - the histogram is calculated from a JPG from the RAW with any creative settings applied. There is a specific set of creative style settings you can apply to ensure that your histogram is very close to your RAW output - search for Kiklop's posts on dyxum.com.

Quote

5. For the post capture processing options are they applied to the raw file in an unalterable way or as changeable setting?

I don't understand post-capture processing options? The only thing that's irreversibly captured to the RAW file is the noise reduction - this is why we all turn it off. Everything else - WB, creative styles etc is just a tag - it'll default to this if the raw converter supports it but you can change these settings with no IQ penalty.

Quote

If you combine 3 bracketed shots to produce a 16 bit file how does that compare to the DR of a phase one? Anyone tried that?

Not a clue.

ErikKaffehr · « **Reply #4 on:** February 03, 2009, 01:03:38 am »

Hi,

I fully agree with Bernard on this (as usual :-). My experience is that pulling out all details in the shadows makes the image dull, so more contrast and saturation is needed.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: BernardLanguillier

The A900 in itself is already very close to a MFDB in terms of DR.

Layering 3 images shot 2 stops apart from one another with any DSLR will take you way beyond what a MFDB could achieve.

In all 3 cases though (back, A900 or HDR), it is not always easy to get natural looking images when there is a lot of DR. The key is to understand the different scales where contrast has to be managed.

Cheers,
Bernard

EPd · « **Reply #5 on:** February 03, 2009, 03:31:30 pm »

My number one tip:

The best RAW converter for A900 files I have found so far is Apple's Aperture. Also see this post for a noise evaluation:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....st&p=244226

Here is a shot developed in Aperture with no additional corrections in Photoshop. Note how well the camera (and Aperture) handle the huge DR of the scene.

[attachment=11353:Skating_..._Big_Sky.jpg]

A remark:

In Europe the A900 is sold with a Pro-User warranty (at no extra charge) of two years, including immediate camera swap when it breaks down. Does this make it a pro camera? I don't know, but I do use it for my income as a full pro photographer (next to an MF system). So to me it is a pro camera. I did put black camera tape over the Sony name though in order to avoid snearing comments from amateur Canikon fanboys. Sometimes it happens that I get to photograph these people in their working environment (mostly some dull office) and the last I need when doing my job is getting into a quibble about my choice of camera. It is unbelievable the unsolicited snotty comments one can get from these people. (Well, I have nothing with the Sony brand name myself, but I have always liked Minolta and these cameras do have the typical Minolta design DNA in them. I even think of it as a Minolta camera, although slightly stripped compared to my Dynax 9.)

Plekto · « **Reply #6 on:** February 03, 2009, 04:09:42 pm »

The best way to bracket, IMO, is to use a very tight grouping. So that it doesn't look like a cartoon or lithograph but is barely noticeable. The zero noise software (topic in another forum on this site) blends such shots very well and gets rid of noise at the same time. also, I've found that more than two shots is generally wasted for bracketing using this software.(thoug it will handle many if you want to blend them (7 or 8 last I checked)

douglasf13 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 03, 2009, 06:02:42 pm »

ChrisD, one thing to keep in mind is that you should turn of DRO if you're shooting RAW. DRO doesn't affect RAW, but having it on will affect the camera histogram, which will lead you to believe that you're shot is properly exposed, but in actuality it may be underexposed.

chrisD · « **Reply #8 on:** February 03, 2009, 11:44:45 pm »

This is great. Keep the suggestions coming. I will compile everything into a mini-micro manual for all A900 users and repost it here.

Any A900 users in Marin/SF area?

Another a900 sample for anyone interested. This one without anti shake on. Likely would have been sharper with it on. Again just a rough draft. It's the sony 70-300 and it does show some vignetting at 300 to my eye.

ErikKaffehr · « **Reply #9 on:** February 04, 2009, 12:16:07 am »

You also put tape over "Zeiss" ?

Quote from: EPd

My number one tip:

The best RAW converter for A900 files I have found so far is Apple's Aperture. Also see this post for a noise evaluation:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....st&p=244226

Here is a shot developed in Aperture with no additional corrections in Photoshop. Note how well the camera (and Aperture) handle the huge DR of the scene.

[attachment=11353:Skating_..._Big_Sky.jpg]

A remark:

In Europe the A900 is sold with a Pro-User warranty (at no extra charge) of two years, including immediate camera swap when it breaks down. Does this make it a pro camera? I don't know, but I do use it for my income as a full pro photographer (next to an MF system). So to me it is a pro camera. I did put black camera tape over the Sony name though in order to avoid snearing comments from amateur Canikon fanboys. Sometimes it happens that I get to photograph these people in their working environment (mostly some dull office) and the last I need when doing my job is getting into a quibble about my choice of camera. It is unbelievable the unsolicited snotty comments one can get from these people. (Well, I have nothing with the Sony brand name myself, but I have always liked Minolta and these cameras do have the typical Minolta design DNA in them. I even think of it as a Minolta camera, although slightly stripped compared to my Dynax 9.)

EPd · « **Reply #10 on:** February 04, 2009, 01:47:38 am »

Quote from: ErikKaffehr

You also put tape over "Zeiss" ?

I have only taped the Sony logo on the camera's prism as that is staring people right in the face. Yesterday I did have an interesting experience regarding the Zeiss name on my 135mm though. A weekend warrior came up to me asking what camera I was using as he couldn't read it on the front of the viewfinder (...). After staring at it for some time he asked if I was using a Minolta. I answered "sort of", after which he hastened to say: "Do they have Minolta mounts on Zeiss lenses???". "Yes", I said, and he: "Too bad they don't have autofocus or image stabilisation. Otherwise I might buy one too." I smiled understandingly and went off to shoot some more. Ignorance is bliss.

lattiboy · « **Reply #11 on:** February 04, 2009, 03:13:36 am »

Quote from: chrisD

First time posting long time lurking. This is a great site. Thanks to MR and all who contribute to it.

After reading the comparison between the G10 and the Phase one I bought a G10. After reading the reviews and comments on the a900 I bought one with a 24-70 and 70-300. The new kit is less than the Nikon Dx3 body. Finally gave up on Nikon after years of waiting for them to catch up to Canon.

Now that I have my Sony I am no longer interested in the comparisons of quality between sony, canon and nikon. I want to know how best to use the new 25 mp beast I have.

After a brief and informal test I can confirm that antishake works on the tripod at 300 with a 25 sec exposure. The 80-400 VR Nikon does not like VR while on a tripod. So far, maybe just my technique and I need to experiment more, I would say the 24-70 is much sharper than the 70-300.

I have lots of questions:

1. Is there a source of detailed documentation on how the thing works from sony? The manual is fairly skimpy.

Sadly, no. There IS a Magic Lantern Guide being released in the next month or so, so that should fill this void.

2. Is there a pro line to call with questions?

Nope. Sorry. www.dyxum.com is your "online" pro line

3. There are lots of options for processing the image and it's not clear to me how best to use them. For example, there is a noise reduction setting on or off. Is the image captured, then noise reduction is applied to it? Or is the nature of how the image is captured different? If it is strictly post processing then can I turn it off and use the best noise reduction software on the raw image and get a better result?

Well, for shots from ISO100-800, ACR/LR is quite good. Color can be a bit off, perhaps a touch softer, but nothing noticeable in the real world. One reason I use LR over all the others is the "recovery" slider. No other program isolates highlights so well without effecting the overall image. CaptureOne and Bibble have similar features, but they tend to really take the contrast down throughout the picture.

Once you venture past ISO800, ACR mangles the (fine, random, beautiful) noise into some kind of ugly looking, blotchy mess. CaptureOne, RAWTharapee (free), UFRaw (free), and the just released Bibble 5 are excellent in Windows. Everybody says Aperture for the Mac is unbeatable. Based on samples, I'd tend to agree. I'm thinking of picking up an older PowerMac off craigslist to try it out. Or, I might go the ol' hackintosh route. It's easier than ever.

4. same question for creative setting. I shoot landscape and nature but should I set it at landscape or neutral? Neutral if I do all image processing in photoshop?

I like vivid most. Standard is pretty "honest" and neutral (to my eye) is kinda green-ish.

5. For the post capture processing options are they applied to the raw file in an unalterable way or as changeable setting?

Only NR is applied "in camera", everything else is simply read by your raw developer and applied as a default. No harm in experimenting with the settings. It's how I found vivid.

I could go on but I will stop here for now. Anyone else shooting with a a900 let's compare tips, tricks and techniques. MR if you produce a DVD or video on all your techniques for getting the best possible results from the a900 I will buy it. Put me on the wait list for it.

I agree. Hope some video from MR pops up soon.

As far as "tips", I'd just say you're always better off exposing to the right by about 1/3-2/3EV. The highlight recovery with the A900 is off-the-charts great, but any kind of fill light gets noisy fast. As DPReview said, the DR is tilted very heavily toward the highlights.

OK, one more...

If you combine 3 bracketed shots to produce a 16 bit file how does that compare to the DR of a phase one? Anyone tried that?

Well, the only HDR program that supports A900 ARWs is CS4, and I've always hated that for the little HDR I've done. Theoretically, you're talking about 18-ish stops of DR with RAW headroom (my guesstimate), which is insane. Quite frankly, I haven't had a scene yet that the A900 can't handle. I'm sure they exist, but things I would've automatically bracketed on the A200/700 I'm just overexposing a bit and recovering the highlights in PP.

This is the best HDR shot I've seen with the A900:

THIS guy doesn't use HDR, but is able to surpass it using filters and some impressive PP work:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigsleep/

I thnk I have uploaded an image that I took last night just as a sample. It is still a little rough (needs more PS work) but another a900 sample for people to look at.

pegelli · « **Reply #12 on:** February 04, 2009, 04:11:50 am »

Another plug for www.dyxum.com. A big source of all kind of A-Mount information and a friendly community with good technical advice and a very active crowd posting all kind of pictures.

Also a good place to buy 2nd hand older Minolta glass from a trusted source. There's some real gems that do very well on the A900 that get offered once in while (i.e the old 28-135/4-4.5, the unique 135 stf or the very sharp 200/2.8 APO).

Another good source of information on DRO and other aspects of the system is from Gary Friedman. His book on the A900 is coming out soon, and from an operations perspective there's a lot of commonality with the A700. His e-books are excellent to learn all the nifty options. I've got the ones on the KM5D/7D and A700 and have learned a lot from them on how everything works.

Good luck learning your new system.

kiklop · « **Reply #13 on:** February 04, 2009, 09:41:39 am »

Quote from: chrisD

Anyone else shooting with a a900 let's compare tips, tricks and techniques.

Here is something every a900 owner should spend some time on (if one is using raw of course).
Take a series of images in different lightning conditions keeping the aperture and shutter speed unchanged while changing the ISO.
For example, take a camera and meter the scene using ISO 3200. Check the exposure; you may add something like +0.5 or +1eV correction with a900.
Now, make a series of images keeping the aperture and shutter speed unchanged but change the ISO.
For example, if you got something like 1/200 @f8 with ISO 3200, take additional frames with 1/200@f8 and ISO 1600, ISO 800, ISO 400, ISO 200, ISO 100. Yep, with this one will underexpose for 1-5 stops.
Repeat the same procedure while metering for ISO 1600 or ISO 800. And then again, repeat the whole thing in different lightning conditions.

Use you favorite raw converter and try converting the files compensating the exposure (EV sliders) as much as needed. You may be surprised with the results you may get even with significantly underexposed captures. Do you believe a ISO 3200 file will beat ISO 400 (underexposed by 3 tops) or ISO 200 file (underexposed by whole 4 stops!) ? Well, try it. Each of us should learn about this personally and not keep our faith in what common sense may tell us.

Of course, this is where RAW converter comes to play; some are excellent (RPP on mac or raw therapy on windows for example but you are free to try other as well) while some are quite bad for this kind of processing (ACR and lightroom for example).

You may think this is contrary to what ETTR technique suggest, but the whole point here is to learn up to which ISO setting ETTR (on the camera) is useful paying attention to.

But the whole hassle may be worth the effort since you will learn more about the camera and raw converter (raw converter should be really considered as an camera extension; it may be equally important as camera sensors are) and without knowing our tools we will never take advantage of their capabilities.

Happy shooting !

Author Topic: Sony a900 (Read 7673 times)