Reading mode: Light Dark

So, if you wanted a second system

Go to last post
Louis_Dobson said:
How does it stack up against the D700?
Click to expand...
I must say I am neither a pixel-peeper, nor a person who enjoys testing cameras.

I do however try to find exactly what suits me for the work I do and go with that. Thus, I end up with different cameras for different purposes.

The Sony A-900 has replaced an A-700 (which replaced a Canon system) for high-res studio/commercial work. I had many unfortunate things happen while using the Canons, the Zeiss glass really convinced me and I never regretted the switch. The A-900 is a very nice camera, and since I shoot is exclusively at low ISOs, it gives truly satisfying results with more than enough headroom for any PP needed.

I ended up getting the D-700 only as I really needed/wanted something for low-light, and as the Sony system never leaves the studio, I thought, why not..?

They are completely different animals though. Both are easy to handle, though naturally I am more competent with the A-900 still. Ergonomically, the A-900 is fine, but I find the Nikon slightly better. YMMV, as I am one of those, who really like to hold an E-3 for example, it just fits my hand perfectly.

Controls are very logically placed on the Sony, and build quality is surprisingly good, but not as good as either the Nikon or the Oly. Image quality is most important though, and the A-900's low ISO high-res images are worth the admission fee.

Problem is, due to very recent development I will have to make a decision soon. I am getting out of the business, and for personal shooting 3 systems are a definite overkill...

--

E-3, E-510, ZD 7-14, ZD 14-35SWD, Leica D 25 f1.4, ZD 12-60SWD, ZD 35-100 f2, ZD 50-200SWD f2.8-3.5, EC20

A-900, A-700, 20 2.8, G 35 1.4, 50 1.4, Zeiss 85 1.4, Zeiss 135 1.8

D-700, 14-24mm, 105mm VR macro
 
give me a beep. Contact info in profile.

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'
 
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=30259001

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'
 
--
Olympus E-3 and E-420

Zuiko 7-14mm, 25mm pancake, 50mm, 14-42mm, 12-60mm, 50-200mm, and 8mm fisheye. FL-36R and FL-50R Flashes. HLD-4 Grip.
Canon PowerShot TX1
Ricoh GR-D
Sony DSC-V3
 
For my use the current Nikon FF bodies would serve me best (D700 or D3). I would want something that is ideal for low light, wedding/event photography, which really only requires 1xbody, and 1x24-70mm/2.8 lens plus wireless flash. High res is not a requirement for this work, in fact it's more of a hinderance. So I would prefer 12mp over 24 actually. Neither my customers or I, ever print large enough to require such resolution, and I would absolutly hate to have to manage the larger file sizes.

The D3, 24-70/2.8 & 70-200/2.8 would be my FF pick for image quality, speed and high ISO ability.
--
W.L. Clark Swimm
http://www.clarkswimm.com
 
Raist3d said:
since you do landscapes and low ISO work, I thought Sony was a great
match for you because they have uber-resolution and probably one of
the smallest full frame cameras in the market right now. Plus the
little I have seen on ergonomics/interface looks very promising. I
forgot where's the thread, but yeah, I told you to check it out :-)

To be frank, contingent on some big bonus I may get or not depending
on other market conditions, I thought about getting one myself. The
new lens that they made for it looks like it's very high quality and
quite capable of giving the resolution Sony promises. I thought at
first that the A-900 was going to pale in comparison to the Canon,
but the more I read about it, the more websites with real life
photographers were impressed by it and the great dynamic range it has
made me change my mind. I concluded if I needed to make a photo in a
pinch at ISO 3200 I could in that camera given so much resolution to
work with when resizing to the target sizes I would be interested in
using.
Click to expand...
Resolution equivalency is something people don't seem to be getting here and it doesn't help that dpr doesn't even mention or do any comparisons otherwise. There are some dual system users at the sony forum who have resized a900 images down to 12mp and posted them side by side with a d700 and the results are very comparable. People are or were(funny how nikon has made sony look good) essentially bashing the a900 because it has that insanely high resolution capability. If you find that the 24mp images are too noisy, you can always turn the "volume" down. Most users aren't even able to jam that loud in the first place.

A900 raws clean up extremely well btw and there isn't a trace of banding and it'll only get better as firmware gets revised and more software out there matures enough to handle the image files properly.
--
Oldschool Evolt shooter
 
it will effectively be my digital MF setup for still life and landscape/architectural/fine art work. i won't need the full complement of lenses that you suggest.

by far and away the most cost effective rig for the above work [probably have to add something for heavy guage architectural stuff---there are some options out there]. i handled one of these bodies at PDN, and i was really impressed. for what it is, basically the low threshold of MF, it is really compact---makes other options look ridiculous. and i'm not even a fanatic about small size. it just seems like a good size.

i have a friend who had been holding out for the pentax 645 [never happen], and now has an amazing offer on an M8, but i'm trying to get her to seriously consider this option.

i'm not much of a sony corp fan, but this by all objective criteria has to be considered a real winner at its MRSP---imagine when it's selling at sale prices.
 
Part of it is gut feel, based on years of excellent Nikon film service with my faithful old F3. Still working fine.

The D3x is absurdly priced, it will probably be followed by a more modestly priced D700x, when Sony starts selling more. Nikon didn't get Canon on the run by being stupid. That moment of hubris with the D3x will be tempered by the reality of global recession. Canon? They seem to be interested more and more in gadgets like video, rather than solid results.

Besides, I had an opportunity to compare my E3 shots to a 1DsII, shot at the same company event. I wasn't even remotely impressed with what the Canon turned out. Dull colors, not particularly sharp rendition. The little E3 with 7-14 and PL25 just left that mongo sized Canon in the dust.

I have a lot more faith in Nikon to support me with good glass than Sony. Right now, Sony is beholden to Zeiss to supply proper lenses. Nikon turns out the 14-24 and 24-70, for sure the equal of the best ZD in quality. Probably more, but those are the only two I'm familiar with. Sony has turned out... nothing but recycled KM film lens designs so far. And the price they charge for those antiques, they should use a gun if they're going to rob people.

If Olympus has taught me anything, it's the value of good glass. Look what they've done using that tiny sensor. As long as we're dreaming, it boggles the mind to think of what their optical prowess could do on a larger scale.
 
once they buy into FF, if they don't sell all of thier 4/3 completely. I see myself just having an e-4xx type body, the 14-54 and maybe the 50-200 to take advantage of that 2x reach whenever I need it(hopefully the next e-4xx camera will have a competant af-s for my motorsporting needs) It'll all fit into a tiny dare I say lady sized sack.
--
Oldschool Evolt shooter
 
They have the 24-70, and just coming are the 16-35 and 70-400.

A year ago I would have agreed with you. I've got no use for antique KM lenses and when buying my second system I went Nikon without even considering Sony for one second.

NOW I think things are a bit different. I'd very much like the A900 and lens set. If I could do it for free, I'd do it.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
 
If money were not a parameter, and a substantial need, I would look at Hasselblad, since the mantra is, the bigger the better. For the detail, for the DOF control, and the optical performance.

Otherwise, the 35mm sensor size seems getting a much deeper foothold into the market, so with still some competition (no oligopol yet until the share 33% each of the market), the price performance will become attractive. For the low light capability and DOF control. But again, choosing this sensor size requires a matching line up of lenses, f/4 should be banned for FF135! For making the investment required at all, here we are talking f/1.4 and f/2.0 only, anything else is a waste of the investment, and one rather should stay with APS-C or even with Four Thirds.

The upcoming µFT is another system, where size/performance is the main factor. Either utilize the small lenses throughout the whole ultrawide to telephoto spectrum, or proliferate with f/2.0 zooms (the short register mount frees from the need of Angenieux architecture).
 
I'd have to saddle up that Nikon D3.
I got to fondle one at Calumet with 70-200.
When I win the lottery...
--
bob naegele
san diego, ca
http://www.rjndesign.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top