An adventure in Full-Frame

[Birma]

Hi Frank, useful tips on assigning the different buttons, thanks

Glad the A99 is working out for your portrait jobs.

[mikeriach]

Birma,

Have you tried any DT lenses in crop mode?
Just wondered how it compared to the A700.

My bonus is burning a hole in my pocket

[Birma]

Birma,

Have you tried any DT lenses in crop mode?
Just wondered how it compared to the A700.

My bonus is burning a hole in my pocket

Hi Mike. I've just done a very brief test using the CZ 16-80 (the only the Sony lens I have for APS-C!). Not ideal conditions so I won't post the shots, but in brief the A900 was auto cropped but seemed a slightly wider angle (will have to check again, perhaps I moved the zoom?). Auto ISO was 6400 on the A99 and 800 on the A700 . WB was better on the A99. The most significant thing was that the A99 files (raw and jpg) were only just over half the size of the A700 files.

On subjective terms, the A700 feels much smaller in the hand, but heavier! The OVF is a tiny, distant tunnel compared to the EVF .

I will try and do something outside, in a more precise way tomorrow.

(I hadn't compared the two cameras side by side before this evening, out of respect for the A700. It has changed how I feel about it - it is a bit sad really. Last time I felt like this was when I compared the A100 next to the A700. I feel fickle and disloyal .)

[mikeriach]

Andy,
Thanks for that, I was just curious but felt there was a good chance that the A99 file might reveal a slightly better image.

Know how you feel re older models. I shot my D7D and A100 side by side and was amazed at the difference. The D7D was softer but to be fair had a wonderful subjective quality. The A100 just felt flimsy by comparison.
The A700 is without doubt a lovely camera which handled very well but I sold mine. Simply can't keep all the cameras and there is still a market for such bodies at reasonable prices. I sold D7D, A100 and A700. The wife uses the A580 and I use the A77.

We'll see how long I can hold out.

Mike

[Dr. Harout]

Mike, go for it!
As for your question, whenever mounting a DT lens the camera automatically (if selected so from the menu) crops to a 10 MP shot.
Cannot make any comparison now with a700's IQ, but I guess it won't be worse (nor any better, perhaps).
If you can afford it, you won't regret it.

[Birma]

Ok Mike - slightly more scientific (but not much!). Here are two jpegs shot with the CZ 16-80 (DT) lens. Both at 80mm, ISO100, f/8, multi exposure, auto WB, etc. etc.

Test A700.jpg

(218.63 KiB) Downloaded 2141 times

Test A99.jpg

(212.8 KiB) Downloaded 2141 times

It was a blustery morning and so the light conditions were changing rapidly and this was hand held. These are the unprocessed OOC jpegs, only resized to fit the forum limit of 250k.

Obviously with different sensors, processors, as well as changing light conditions, they have quite different histograms.

The A700 produced a 19.5 Mb arw file and a 6.5 Mb jpg file, with 4272 x 2848 pixels.

The A99 (out-cropping) produced a 11.7 MB arw file and a 5.6 Mb jpg file, with 3936 x 2624 pixels.

A quick check of the two sets of files in LR left me unwilling to chose between them. The A99 RAW had a slightly more accurate (to my eye) WB. That was about it. The one handling advantage I didn't give the A700 yesterday was the speedy start-up time compared with the lackadaisical A99 start-up. If your shooting style requires you to switch on and shoot very quickly you may find the A99 frustrating.

Does this help any?

[Birma]

On with the FF adventure. 

Part III - The glass debate.

It has been few weeks since I last updated the rolling blog on my new camera.  This is mostly due to the need to shoot with the thing a bit. Luckily I had a holiday planned in my photography Nirvana; the Hebrides in Scotland. This would provide lots of opportunities to try out the A99 and  I was going to need some new glass.  So the planning commenced.

On APS-C I had settled at the CZ16-80, Tamron 60 f/2 macro, and Sigma 70-300 apo dg macro for 90% of my shots.  All of these would need to be replaced I thought (I mistakingly thought that the Sigma was an APS-C only lens!). I was determined to not skimp on glass otherwise I felt I would be diluting the upgrade to the A99.  First of all the wide angle zoom.

Researching new lenses meant hours on all of the usual sites (here, Dyxum, DPR) to look at reviews and the numerous "what lens should I buy" threads.  There was a lot of support for the CZ 24-70.  It is difficult to find a dissatisfied owner .  I was prepared to go this route,  if I was sure that I was going find better detail in the resulting images.  I had taken ages to get to the CZ16-80 over the previous 7 years and didn't want to make the same mistake again.  After much soul searching and studying images I decided to not go the CZ24-70 route, based on the conclusion that any advantage over its competitors we're mainly in build quality and perhaps in coatings, and it is very expensive.   The ideal competitor was the Tamron, KM, Sony 28-75 but I was concerned if 28 was wide enough on FF after enjoying the 16mm wide end of the CZ on APS-C.  The cheaper / slower  Minolta /KM 17-35 had come up a lot in my research and so I decided a two lens solution would be ideal, having the 28-75 and 17-35 lenses for the wide to normal focal lengths.  

I found reasonable KM 17-35 f/3.5-4.5 second-hand  and went for a new Sony 28-75 mainly as I found a good price and secondly to play with the AF-D on the A99.  This combination has worked well so far.  Very happy with both lenses.  The 28-75 is an ideal walk-around, and I'm enjoying the 17-35 on FF much more than I ever did with ultra-wides on APS-C. I'm not sure why; it just feels more 'natural' on FF. 

Next the macro and prime lens.  To keep the same field of view on FF as my 60mm macro on APS-C I would need something in the 100mm focal length. Once again there is plenty of choice and lots of Internet information to help/confuse you .  I did think about a longer focal length such as the Sigma 150mm.  In the end I decided to go with the every reasonably priced Tamron 90 without USD. This lens is ok.  The flower season coming up will tell if I grow to like it as uh as it's shorter sibling.  Then slightly odd pump-action AF to MF switch confuses the hell out of the A99 (and me) on occasion resulting on the need to reset by remounting the lens. I expect I will get the hang of it.  

I have a Minolta 50/1.7 already which satisfies my need at the moment for a shorter prime on the A99. 

Then to the telephoto end.  As I mentioned earlier, I at first thought that my Sigma 70-300 was not a FF lens.  I thought I may get by with my Beercan but I was expecting to have to but something big (and expensive) here.  I think the fact that the lens cost me £50 second hand had convinced me it couldn't be FF .  So far I'm amazed how good this lens is on the A99.  I've mainly been shooting images that use the centre of the lens but I'm beginning to reconsider the need to upgrade.  I had been thinking I would look for a 70-400 G but I'm having second thoughts.  

The new A99 set up; 17-35,  28-75, 90 and 70-300, performed admirably during my Hebridean trip, and I'm happy that this will form the basis of shooting on the A99 for the next few months. 

Following on from the basics I still have the normal lens lusts.  In particular the 135 STF is very tempting for FF .  Then there is the imminent Samyang 24 tilt/shift which would be great on FF!

Next on the adventure, lessons learnt. 

[David Kilpatrick]

Good summary Birma. I also use the 28-75mm because it's actually slightly better than the 24-70mm CZ in some respects, as well as much cheaper. I do have a 17-35mm KM but it's pretty soft compared to my Sigma 12-24mm HSM II so I prefer that. And I also have the Sigma Apo Macro DG 70-300mm, which is one of the best lenses ever made in this range optically (considerably better than the Sony 70-300mm SSM G, though it's extremely hard to get anyone to admit it). However... my 70-300mm does not like my A99. It's great on the A77 but the focus goes sort of jittery and is clearly encountering an error, on the A99. I can use it but only on AF-S with centre point.

I took this lens to Morocco and realised it was a big risk. I hardly used it in the end though, the subjects were not suitable and the main problem with 300mm even on full frame is that heat haze will wreck most shots. I also have the Sigma HSM 70-300mm OS, and this lens is fully compatible with the A99 in all modes except AF-D. It's a real pity this lens can not do the 1:2 macro or even anything like it (1.5m min focus which is very restricting).

I've done some shooting with the 50mm f/1.4 Sony and A99, as it's fully compatible with AF-D. But it really needs AF calibration to a better standard than I managed. I can see from some shots that it is stunning sharp wide open - just not on my subject, on the ground a few feet behind!

David

[Dr. Harout]

Now you've done it both of you...
So I have to get me a 28-75 ...

[bfitzgerald]

The push/pull on the Tamron 90mm macro is really mostly useful for Canikon users (unlike the Sony/Pentax versions) you can quickly go to MF with that design (I get along with ok and I've owned it on 3 mounts) The Pentax version has an aperture ring which can be set on it's own or set to A (auto)

The lens is more than ok IMO it is a lens I find essential for portrait work, it is light, has a deeply recessed element at the front (ie I don't use the hood no need more times) it is very good right from f2.8 across the frame, it's a bargain price and has super rendering for out of focus areas. The only downside I can think of is PF can at times be an issue on highlight areas (but this varies it's not a massive problem most times) You would have to pry this lens from "my cold dead hands" to coin the well known phrase. And yes 90mm is handy on FF and APS-C it's one of my favourite lenses. I know why this lens has a bit of a cult following among users it's really a very useful lens not just for macro work.

[pakodominguez]

On with the FF adventure. 

Part III - The glass debate.
...
The cheaper / slower  Minolta /KM 17-35 had come up a lot in my research and so I decided a two lens solution would be ideal, having the 28-75 and 17-35 lenses for the wide to normal focal lengths.  

I found reasonable KM 17-35 f/3.5-4.5 second-hand  and went for a new Sony 28-75 mainly as I found a good price and secondly to play with the AF-D on the A99.  This combination has worked well so far.  Very happy with both lenses.  The 28-75 is an ideal walk-around, and I'm enjoying the 17-35 on FF much more than I ever did with ultra-wides on APS-C. I'm not sure why; it just feels more 'natural' on FF. 

Really intelligent choice. I have the ZA 24-70, that I don't use that much, because the wide end is always handy if I don't want to change lenses all the time (when doing events). When traveling, the 28-75 is extremely good, and a good performer at close focus. The 17-35 f2.8-4 is quite good also, at f8 or f11 (at f5.6 is OK), on the A700/A900, but I have not tried it yet on the A99.
At the long end, I do recommend you the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 (the SP 70-200MM F/2.8 Di version, I can't tell about the new one) and, if you need more reach, a 1.4X or 2X teleconverter. This lens is also a good performer, corrected for macro and not that slow on A-mount since it is a screwdriver lens (CaNikon version have a built-in motor that is, apparently, slow and not that accurate)

Following on from the basics I still have the normal lens lusts.  In particular the 135 STF is very tempting for FF .  Then there is the imminent Samyang 24 tilt/shift which would be great on FF!

There is a rare Minolta gem, the 100 mm f2.8 Soft Focus. A good copy goes for about 700$ on eBay.

[mvanrheenen]

The only downside I can think of is PF can at times be an issue on highlight areas (but this varies it's not a massive problem most times)

I agree with all of what you're saying, except this bit. I've found the purple fringing on this lens very frustrating, especially when used for macro work. So much so even, that the LR correction slider for PF wouldn't go far enough to correct it, especially wide open.

As I didn't use it that much, I sold it yesterday.

Mark

[bakubo]

It sounds like you have put a pretty nice kit together with your A99. I see that you have been enjoying it because you have been posting many photos lately. Good going!

[mikeriach]

Mike, go for it!
As for your question, whenever mounting a DT lens the camera automatically (if selected so from the menu) crops to a 10 MP shot.
Cannot make any comparison now with a700's IQ, but I guess it won't be worse (nor any better, perhaps).
If you can afford it, you won't regret it.

You guys are conspiring to spend my well earned bonus not that I need much persuading.
I'm off to Norwich but may well give in on my return.

Like Andy, the Sony 28-75 was a target even for the A77 as I don't often need the short end.

Thanks for all the advice.

Mike

[mikeriach]

Does this help any?

All too well, I much prefer the A99 colour. I used to get a lot of prints back from labs with yellowish casts.

Thanks, glad the trip went well.

Mike