A900 programming your lenses

[Philip]

Likewise, I am suprised that the 70-300, having been designed and developed at the same time as the A900, doesn't do better . Look forward to seeing some images.

Philip

[David Kilpatrick]

Here I have my dilemma - the 70-300mm SSM is a fantastic lens on the A700. It's worth every penny. But now I have seen it on the A900, I am aware of its limits. It has strong vignetting compared to the 70-400mm which offers far better illumination into the corners, and the distortion is not a minor issue. Here is a direct A900 camera JPEG shot at 300mm on the 70-300mm:

sal70-300at300fullframe.jpg (46.95 KiB) Viewed 6620 times

This was literally the scene I had to photograph - a drab street outside a conference room window on a dull day. You can see the vignetting (that is not the natural shading of the building top and bottom!).

When I look outside right now on brilliant sunny conditions, and look over at a cabinet full of lenses including my 70-200mm, my old 100-300 Apo, the beercan, the wonderful 100mm f2.8 SF, all three macros (50/100/200), the mirror lens, the 28mm f2 - none of these went to Edinburgh with me, just the 17-35, 28-75, 24-105 and 70-300mm SSM - I'm pretty upset that they were not able to come through with the loan of a camera after the event ended. They took my mobile number to call me and let me know if it was possible. No call.

I can not publish a properly illustrated report on the camera, given the shots I was able to take; and I have not been able to get the camera itself into my studio for detail shots of the body.

David

[Philip]

Thanks for posting that pic David. It does demonstrate, all too well, that at 300mm the 70-300 isn't going to be much use for architectural work. Shame about the subject matter, as this doesn't show the vignetting particularly well. How well does the original stand up to correction (for vinetting and distortion) in Photoshop?

Philip

[pakodominguez]

I can confirm that the 50mm f1.4 and the 70-300mm SSM both produce exceptional results on the A900, the only downside being strong distortion on the long end of the 70-300mm SSM. The 70-400mm is much better for straight lines.

That's probably the reason of the difference on the price-tag...

I also got excellent results from my 28-75mm f2.8 - good enough for me to say, I don't need a 24-70mm CZ to start with.

Don't say that that loud: prices will rise suddenly on EBay...

And I got some unexpectedly good sharpness from the 24-105mm D, which has strong distortions. Not one of these lenses (or my 17-35mm D) failed to focus precisely - they all worked perfectly, no adjustment needed.

The 24~105 handled the A900? at any F stop? I guess not wide open... An yes, distortion at the wide esnd is very strong with this lens (the price to pay for a now "old design", but still a lens people with different systems envie because compact and light)

How about the 17~35D? Sharp enough? lot of distortion?

[David Kilpatrick]

17-35mm D - about as sharp as the new 16-35mm centrally, about the same level of distortion, but the corners die a sudden death - just like the same date Canon lenses, even when stopped down to f/8 etc. It is only the extreme corners which go soft very suddenly. I would say it is cleaner than the 11-18mm at 11mm over much of the frame, but the fall off is like the 16-105mm at 16mm, almost as if the imaging circle is a bit too small.

The 24-105mm is very sharp centrally (I've just rediscovered how good it is on the A700 too) but gets strong CA towards the edges, and of course has strong barrel distortion at 24mm - also, it doesn't really focus very close. But it's not an unusable lens and the existing 24-105mm Sony would not be a disaster to issue as a kit lens.

Prices are now £1995 for body only generally from UK dealers, less than I expected. No kits deals are being done by Sony yet. No 24-70mm plus body at a saving!

David

[pakodominguez]

17-35mm D - about as sharp as the new 16-35mm centrally, about the same level of distortion, but the corners die a sudden death - just like the same date Canon lenses, even when stopped down to f/8 etc. It is only the extreme corners which go soft very suddenly.

This softness on the corners happens all the long of the zoom range, or just at the wide end?

The 24-105mm is very sharp centrally (I've just rediscovered how good it is on the A700 too) but gets strong CA towards the edges, and of course has strong barrel distortion at 24mm - also, it doesn't really focus very close. But it's not an unusable lens and the existing 24-105mm Sony would not be a disaster to issue as a kit lens.

I saw "lots" of CA on the A900's samples available now online, photographs taken with lenses expensive enough to suppose you won't have this kind of issues (probably because most of this samples had been taken at large f stops). But I can see it even on the samples from the Sony Japanese website Sonolta shared on another post, taken with the CZ 85 @ f4.5. That make me think this sensor (more than just the lenses) is prone to CA...

[David Kilpatrick]

The softness is mainly at the wide end. If my pictures were not so bad (subject wise) I would put them all up for viewing, but they are huge files. I am preparing some of them, and you will be able to compare the 16-35mm and the old 17-35mm on the same subject - but I had only a matter of half an hour, and no time really to try many different settings. Even with the pictures I took - just 91 RAW+JPEG exposures - I filled one entire 4GB new Sony fast MS Duo card which they kindly gave out, along with some very good Sony Alpha clothing - a really expensive all-weather jacket, a baseball cap, a neat folding umbrella, and a plastic raincape in a pocket pack. I would maybe rather have had two memory cards - or another half hour with the camera.

David

[bossel]

...some very good Sony Alpha clothing - a really expensive all-weather jacket, a baseball cap, a neat folding umbrella, and a plastic raincape in a pocket pack.

Sigh - I used to get all these things from my employers, in the golden startup times. Now I am with some company for 4 years and I got a single t-shirt since Maybe I should become photo journalist

[KevinBarrett]

My hospital "Cook Children's Medical Center," gives the employees something two or three times a year. One of these things is always a T-shirt, and the other things vary...this year, one of the other things was a barbecue set. A BARBECUE SET, branded "Cook Children's."

EDIT: This was a really lame 100th post.

[Dr. Harout]

My hospital "Cook Children's Medical Center," gives the employees something two or three times a year. One of these things is always a T-shirt, and the other things vary...this year, one of the other things was a barbecue set. A BARBECUE SET, branded "Cook Children's."

EDIT: This was a really lame 100th post.

very nice, great. I had a big laugh.
And congratulations for your 100th post Kevin. But still a long way from a wise grand caliph. You have to deal with the mob, become an oligarch and then...

[OLSKOOL]

I have bad news for you.

Thank you for the explanation and your written experiences with other lenses.

You, and the other guys here have seen my line up of lenses and you now know I want to contribute to automotive magazines,
so...

What do I do in your (everybodies) opinion?

Buy a A700 and be happy with the upgrade from the A100 and get the full use out of my lenses and save myself the 2K of going to the A900 and use this money down the track on other accessories.

or

Do I try and use the A900 the best I can and look towards upgrading to the compatible lenses in the future.
This way I do own the 'top of the line' Alpha body.

I plan keeping all of my stuff anyway and keeping the A100 body as a back up.
I want to stay in the photo game for personal development rather than a money making experience.
(The cash I do earn goes straight into my equipment anyway)

Thanks again for making a newbie feel welcome here.

Jordan.

[David Kilpatrick]

My view is that the A900 is pretty hard to pay for from freelance fees. An outfit can cost you 1/4 of a typical year's salary - employed salary for many people - especially if you want three serious lenses. In the past it was not too difficult to cover high expenditures because fees for photos were high, but they no longer are. Commercially, I should still be using the A100 - it provided the quality needed, and it cost very little. I would say only go for FF and the A900 if you can afford to do so without any worry at all about the cost.

If I was not running this site and Photoworld magazine, I would not buy one. I will do so, and no doubt enjoy using and get better pix, but otherwise we would be getting a second A700 body instead and that would be end of our investment in DSLRs until they wore out.

David

[OLSKOOL]

^^^^
Thanks again David and I appreciate your honesty.
It looks like the A900 is off the shopping list at the moment.
It really comes down to the fact that I can't use my current group of lenses on that body, therefore, it is not really worth the bells and whistles it has.
To purchase a new bunch of lenses just isn't economically viable for me at this stage.

I think I will just finish buying my 3 HVL-58AM flashes and then purchase a new A700 body and be happy with that as an upgrade from the A100, remembering that I will keep the old body anyway.

I will just concentrate on furthuring my skills with this mid level equipment and be happy with my results.

Cheers,

Jordan.

[Javelin]

Jordan. you never know as you get more clients you may be able to build the glass collection you need to go full frame eventually. The A900 wil not be the last FF camera to come out with an "a" on it. I can see a large portion of future cameras coming this way. Also by then you will be set in how you want to shoot what you do for your clients and know for a fact which lenses you will need. Also in the mean time don't discount the old Minolta line. if you need a particular range or maybe a prime you may be able to find it there for a lot less money and nopt have to sacrifice in quality.


Thaks Doc. This must have changed because I swear I couldn't post anything that big here before. i'd get an error then I'd have to make a version to post here and another to post somewhere else if thats what I was doing.

The size limit is 1000px on any side as DK pointed in one of the recent posts.
As for the lenses you have the 70-300 G and 50/1.4 are FF. you still can use 16-80CZ but with the cropped version that the A900 will allow.
For the Sigma lens, you have to ask Sonolta as he knows quite well (personally I dislike Sigma due to its construction, but Sonolta is showing great pictures done with them).

[Dr. Harout]

Jordan. you never know as you get more clients you may be able to build the glass collection you need to go full frame eventually. The A900 wil not be the last FF camera to come out with an "a" on it. I can see a large portion of future cameras coming this way. Also by then you will be set in how you want to shoot what you do for your clients and know for a fact which lenses you will need. Also in the mean time don't discount the old Minolta line. if you need a particular range or maybe a prime you may be able to find it there for a lot less money and nopt have to sacrifice in quality.

Thanks Doc. This must have changed because I swear I couldn't post anything that big here before. i'd get an error then I'd have to make a version to post here and another to post somewhere else if that's what I was doing.

You're welcome.
Investing in A900 should not be regarded as investing in many things (lenses accessories...). One way or another if you are shooting you need lenses. Need more IQ? Then you are already investing in FF lenses (mostly).
So look at the investment as a sole 3000 USD/Euros.
I will do that, but not now.