a77 image quality advice, how do I get the best from it?

[David Kilpatrick]

Because I don't go to TIFF, I go to 8-bit JPEG and use scaling both up and down along with crop and rotate as needed. All my pp work is done in ACR, very little in Photoshop. The export from ACR is my finished product and it is always a level 10 or 12 JPEG.

David

[agorabasta]

David, but then Lr seems to be better suiting your workflow... non?

[David Kilpatrick]

No, because I adjust each image individually and prefer the way the controls are laid out in bridge. Also, I prefer the Bridge interface for browsing the many hundreds of folders I use, and I do not want to create any kind of catalogue/library function. I found the export of images from LR to be inferior to ACR's fixed values - a batch process using LR was responsible for one of my few Alamy QC failure episodes.

I have not bothered to investigate LR fully and I may have missed some functions. But I use Bridge like this:

The folders from the camera, in date form, are all stored separately within a year, month or shoot folder.
Each one is checked by letting Bridge build full size previews (takes time) in the background. I step through the images using the arrow keys, and have a large preview pane about 2/3rds of a 27 inch screen; to the left, metadata info and two rows of thumbs vertically.
Each image may be Ctrl-Backspace deleted on first view if I don't like it (gone for good). If it's a possible, I hit the spacebar. This immediately opens the image in the full 27 inch screen, additional magnification. If I can see any problems, hit delete; this has the effect of stepping to the next image, but at full screen. If I have a few similars, I just arrow key back and forth through them rapidly to pick the keepers.
For each potential keeper, I click the mouse on the point I want to check. This instantly zooms to 100% pixel view at that point. Magic mouse finger-touch can scroll round, or zoom further up to 800% if needed, or back to full screen.
If I have several images identical, but need to find the sharpest, after doing the mouse click zoom, using the arrow keys then navigates me through the shots all at 100% all at exactly the same position in the file.

All these processes seem, to me, to be much faster than LR and are far more efficient than using the loupe function in Bridge. They enable me to make sequential comparisons not side-by-side compare, and very quickly identify my final edit.

From this I just go through the files in order, but if I have a small folder say ten images, I can just do an Open All into ACR, adjust each one in turn, then export the lot. For single images I usually do a check in Photoshop.

David

[lonewolf16x9]

http://www.samyang.pl/product,178,categ ... lable_soon
Well the 14mm is good!

[lonewolf16x9]

Or ?
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? ... 2497105002

[agorabasta]

No, because I adjust each image individually and prefer the way the controls are laid out in bridge.

David,

Lr could be of use to you only working along your normal workflow as Lr is painfully slow at any image browsing since it's recalculating the preview each time at that. So you could use Lr just for final exports having it to apply the adjustments stored by ACR in the metadata. I'd rather have the metadata stored as individual XMP files.

Adobe has always claimed that Lr is a non-pixel-based editor. Ideally, that should mean that every output pixel data is calculated directly from the raw data, and the programme is doing high-precision calculations for the transformation matrix that derives a point value for the output pixel instead of using some intermediate developed bitmaps reducing precision at every adjustment step. The ACR+CS actually does more of the latter, as the CS is exactly a pixel-based editor.

I don't exactly know if Lr really is a true non-pixel-based editor, but looking at the results of its geometry/CA and scaling quality strongly implies as much. It has a sub-pixel precision hugely above the ACR+CS process capabilities. And you really get more real detail in a bitmap exported with x2 pixelcount of the original raw.

[Simmondsphotography]

David

I know the problem with reference to air travel hand baggage weight restrictions. So far after three years of flying around the world to various out of the way destinations, often using small singe engined aircraft in Africa for example, I have managed to pack my A900, A700 bodies and several very heavy and large telephoto lenses including the Sony 70-400G and Tamron 200-500, ZA 135 prime plus a wider light lens such as the MInota 28-105 zoom. I have not once ever had to weigh my hand baggage, just so long as it will fit in the "cage"that proves overall dimensions, which it does. I do have a fall back situation however, as I always wear a photog type jacket with lots of large pockets that will secrete even the largest lens! You can be as heavy and fat as you like and will still be allowed on board! Never had to use this though!

Regarding the Medium format solution, just sell the lot and buy the Leica S2! Much easier to carry around than any other MF solution in my view with resolution and lenses to die for!

[Dusty]

Regarding the Medium format solution, just sell the lot and buy the Leica S2! Much easier to carry around than any other MF solution in my view with resolution and lenses to die for!

Well, at $23K USD for body alone, I think you could buy a complete Hassy H4D-40 system for less. I'd also like to get my hands on a Pentax 645D. Yes, only down to 100 on the ISO, and 14 bit vs 16 bit RAW, but a real 'bargain' at $10K for a 40MP MF body.

Dusty

[David Kilpatrick]

My hand bags have been weighed on all recent flights except BA, and whatever flight I took to Croatia for Sony's NEX launch, I had to unpack the bag and wear my Sideshooter belt. I can certainly manage with A900 and three lenses, but I can't also take A77 and NEX kit etc. There are so many reasons why the A77 is a better travel camera, main one being the 16-80mm - there just is NO 24-120mm CZ for full frame!

Medium format - I tried to see if I could return the Mamiya 645 ZD kit, but too late, it was a commission sale and after 10 days they pay the original owner. No hassle. I had not realised how unique the 1.1X factor Dalsa sensor was, the only other way to get a 36 x 48mm sensor (short of sa very expensive true full frame i180 or similar) is the Leica. I have been ill-informed enough to assume the Hasselblad was similar the ZD, but it's a 1.3X factor and the 28mm for Leica is only designed to cover this - and needs software correction. So in practical terms my combination of a 35mm lens on 36 x 48mm is the widest you can get without spending a real fortune.

So... I think I may well go for an AF 35mm (much better optically) for Mamiya and even get a second back as well as a film back. The higher res 40 megapixel back I could afford on the second user market is again a 1.3X factor. That almost makes it two cameras - a bit like having an A900 and being able to switch to an A77 sensor in the same body.

I'm not convinced that MF actually produces anything better than the A900, so I'll keep that. MF is for a different reason - the client and competing tenders. The ability to get 24 megapixels from three entirely different formats, with different looks, interests me as well.

Then there's that Mirax tilt-shift adaptor for Mamiya. The only issue I can see is that I don't think it will control the aperture of Mamiya AF lenses, and it might need to use MF only. But either the A77 or the A900 (or the NEX-7 via LA-EA1) equipped with the Mirax tilt-shift becomes an amazing tool. I've already ordered a Pentacon to Mamiya adaptor to allow my 50mm Flektogon to be used.

Finally, I had totally forgotten that the Mamiya works tethered and I have a spare Mac G4 laptop with the right OS installed - not only that, I also have Skyport USB and can control the three Elinchrom BXri studio flash heads individually by USB dongle from the Mac. I just have to FIND it...

David

[InTheSky]

Your story remind me that a few months ago I almost buy a Backscan full format, hungry of pure too many pixels ... The only thing that really stop me was that the scanner needed a specific software running on old Mac OS ... an still very expensive. Even if the subject need to be fix, I was kind of very interest to use it for stock photo with and old lens bellow kit one of my friend has.

David, do you recommend good tilt and shift lens for the A900 other than MF lens couple over a tilt/shift adaptor ? I have read too many mixt review about expensive lenses that I'm afraid to invest.

Regards,

Frank

[David Kilpatrick]

There are only three or four 'good' TS lenses. Two of these are made by Arsat or Hartblei, in 35mm and 80mm focal lengths. Finding one with a rotator TS mount is not cheap or easy. One at least is made by Schneider, and is a 50mm f/2.8 macro of massive size which will cost you around $5000 as far as I know; they also had a shift-only PA Curtagon 28mm f/4.

If I decide to buy a Mirax tilt-shift adaptor for Mamiya (which could therefore also take Hasselblad V, Pentax 6x7 and Pentacon/Kiev lenses using a further adaptor) I will sell my separate tilt and shift Arsat adaptors, and the 50mm and 80mm lenses I have for them.

David

[Simmondsphotography]

David

Can you advise anywhere in the UK that offer a removal service of the AA filter for the A900? I know that there is a company in the US that will do it. I might consider this with my A900 after I have bought the A99 next year!

[David Kilpatrick]

If anyone can do it these people can - they do infra-red conversions:

Advanced Camera Services
www.advancedcameraservices.co.uk

David

[Greg Beetham]

Actually looking at the prices of Schneider T/S lenses just to get some idea what they charge for them, (they make one for E-mount, PC-TS 50 f2.8 $3365, and one for A-mount PC-TS 90 f4.5 $3180) Don’t have any idea how good Schneider lenses are, I see they make one for the Mamiya and Phase One 645 system ($4643) so I guess they would be up to snuff, put it this way, for the price they charge they would want to be.
I had a read of a Leica S2 review just for kicks, and came away not overly impressed, severe noise sets in at ISO640 (it’s got the A77 problem ha ha), it has acres of room on the body but virtually no direct controls (by comparison to what we are used too), not even a four way controller with centre button, the AF is slow by DSLR standards, if you take a picture with it you have too wait for about 10 to 15 seconds before you can take another one, if you want to review the one you just took, that is, on the low resolution rear screen, and there are only a handful of lenses available for it at the moment, certainly no equivalent to a 70-400G that I could see, something one would need on an African trip, and if there was it would be a monster. But the best part is the price, about 20000 Stirling for the body and standard lens. I wonder how they’re selling, probably not like hot cakes.
Greg

[Simmondsphotography]

I can totally understand the frustration with the A77 or A700 for serious landscape work. Frankly, it is not lenses that are the problem for not resolving fine detail with the APS-C cameras but the sensor. It is an area of photography where the large format camera wins handsomely.

Medium format also produces fine detail in good light. The A900 might just about get there with a cracking lens such as the ZA135. The A99 will be interesting as this just might give the 40 Mpx medium format stuff some competition but I suspect that the pixel size and 16 bit image capture will still clinch it for the bigger, bulkier camera. At least for serious landscape work.

David as you are already using Capture One Pro for the ZD back, why not use it for processing A900 and A77 files? It is a super processor IMHO.