Using Sony professionally/limits

Started Jun 10, 2010 | Discussions thread
OP vwgn Senior Member • Posts: 2,106
Re: @ vwgn: it's an engineering tradeoff

wow.. lots of responses.. I had 2 weddings this weekend and I come back to 4 pages lol...

I think ( and didnt intend to) this got into a gear war mentality more than it should have.. AGAIN, I am not jumping ship next week, and I still like Sony for EVERYTHING else other than high iso.

I rented an a900 a couple of times and with zeiss glass, i think it rivals MF digital in studio. I was not impressed by high iso enough to consider it over my a700 for the price.

Many of you are right, majority of my work is not high iso, and I have NO issues with Sony's noise, IQ, etc in even 30" long prints from a700 files. But I am increasingly getting more requests for larger prints from ceremonies. they wont be 20x30's, but I am surprised at the number of 16x20's and 17x22's im selling.

Again, its not really "my equipment is bad.. poo on sony", but more along the lines of, I have to spend a significant amount of time on a file in post to make it ready to print that big, when my competition can churn it out with MUCH less effort. that equals more profit, consistently. I COMPLETELY understand comparing aps-c to FF has its flaws, but its no different than ANY business, how can I make it more efficient and more profitable.

If I can either shoot for 3 hours and spend another 3 behind the computer, or I can shoot for 3 and spend 1 behind the computer because a tool allows me to use files with less work needed later, then I am going to want that for my business, not the one that makes more work for me.

One of the reasons I posed this question was to find out how others using Sony are dealing with the issue or if it wasnt an issue at all. I still know what I saw from the D3x and D700, and what I have tried in vain to get out of my a700. I am still open to the fact it could be some of my post technique, but even the several LR2 preset/settings I have received for this topic have not met MY satisfaction.

I am going to give LR3 a go in the next few weeks, and see if that improves anything.the best results I have achieved have been with custom creative style nuetral at +1hue/sat +1 contrast, -2 for whatever is after that, and -1 on zone. Anyone care to share settings that are yielding them good results and differ from these? Also, no matter what I do in LR, I get what looks like an image made up of "squiggly" lines more than pixels. I can run the same one thru IDC and its much better, albiet noise is bad...

yes I remeber that gold max film.. what a laugh. I came from film as a hobbyist then. and yes I shot 4x5 and 120 mostly. I can turn the display off on my camera and get images that are within half a stop of correct by simply guessing exposure based on meter readings (whats that!!!) and experience. It would be a safe bet that the contacts on my mode dial are oxidized over and wont work on P,auto and S modes...I NEVER use those settings. I shoot manual 99% of the time, and A mode when shooting action sports (but I know where the EV+ - button is too). I still appreciate the fact digital is a million times better than shooting film in MANY aspects, especially from an editing/turnaround issue, but I really did enjoy film...

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow