A900 and D3X studio comparison

Specifically for the discussion of the A-mount DSLR range
Forum rules
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
User avatar
Dusty
Emperor of a Minor Galaxy
Posts: 2215
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:04 pm
Location: Ironton, Missouri, USA

Re: A900 and D3X studio comparison

Unread post by Dusty »

Sonolta wrote:Notice the D90 and the D700 are selling well amoung the lower end entries (and the D300) ...One is a great FF camera and the other is an excellent camera with LV, HD video and high DR. Sony needs to at least match or better those two offerings...More MP alone ain't gonna get it done.

-Sonolta
Note how the A350 is outselling all of those. Even with no video capability and those lousy Sony feature sets, the higher MP camera is beating your favorites. Damn that buying public, buying what they want instead of what you want them to!

Dusty
An a700, an a550 and couple of a580s, plus even more lenses (Zeiss included!).
User avatar
Dusty
Emperor of a Minor Galaxy
Posts: 2215
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:04 pm
Location: Ironton, Missouri, USA

Re: A900 and D3X studio comparison

Unread post by Dusty »

KevinBarrett wrote:Sony has little enough market share that they'd go bankrupt trying to offer as many cameras. Who knows which is the best way to get the market share they need to get competitive? Should they offer enough value that they gain a lot of beginners to grow in the Sony system? Or should they target the pros with an untouchable "halo" camera, hoping that the mass-market amateurs will flock to the system thinking "someday?" I think Sony is being competitive the best way they know how, given their market share and resources. It may be a long time before they have a whole system that is toe-to-toe with Canon or Nikon...I'm thinking 1-2 more flagship product cycles, being optimistic.
Sony is doing a fine job of capturing market share. For a company that only started in the DSLR market 3 short years ago, they're doing fine. And they're doing it like Minolta did before them, great products at a great price, and add in some good innovations that the others will copy.

Don's chart is only Japan, but 8.5% against the established giants ain't bad. Give them a few more years of tweaking and innovating, as well as producing more bang for the buck, and that market share will climb. Sooner or later those companies with under 2% market share will get out of the business. That's more opportunity to expand a few more points.

Dusty
An a700, an a550 and couple of a580s, plus even more lenses (Zeiss included!).
User avatar
Dusty
Emperor of a Minor Galaxy
Posts: 2215
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:04 pm
Location: Ironton, Missouri, USA

Re: A900 and D3X studio comparison

Unread post by Dusty »

Sonolta wrote:
Dusty wrote:
Well, Don, there's the problem. You want more features, you want more performance, you want everything except more price. You want the $8k camera, but you don't want to spend $8k on it, so you beat up Sony for 'not doing enough'! The feature sets and performance you want is all available....AT A PRICE. Get a clue, will you. I'm not, and I don't believe anyone else here, is saying that Sony makes the greatest cameras around. I am saying that the money spent for Sony DSLRs brings you more bank for the buck than the others do.

Dusty
The price is not 8K is it 2.7K. The Sony high end cameras (a700 and a900) are missing live-view, video, and great low light performance (the a700 isalso missing af fine-tune as well). The Nikon D700 and Canon 5D deliver on all counts for $2699.

How many times do I need to tell you the 5DMKII and the D700 both offer what I need at $2699? Please pull your head from your a$$ and smell the coffee as I have needed to repeat this to you several times already!

-Sonolta
So there you go! What you want is available for 2.7 times the cost of your A700. Funny, but before you hijacked this thread, we were comparing a Sony camera with a similar one that cost 2.7 times as much!

So it seems like Sony delivers just a bit less performance than similar cameras that cost 2.7 times as much. That's good enough for me. If it's not for you, then open your wallet and shut your mouth!

Dusty
An a700, an a550 and couple of a580s, plus even more lenses (Zeiss included!).
User avatar
Greg Beetham
Tower of Babel
Posts: 6118
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:25 pm
Location: Townsville, Qld. Australia
Contact:

Re: A900 and D3X studio comparison

Unread post by Greg Beetham »

A leetle problemo Don, the D700 is a FF of only about 12MP if I remember correctly, so it's not cosher too compare a camera that is going too be excellent at low light high ISO anyway, like the D3 is, against basically what is a scenic camera (A900) by comparison, the 5D MKII has been noted to have the odd issue with banding and black spotting, not that I really give a rat's ass one way or the other, but mate go ahead, make our day go buy one, and after you use it for a while report back....
Greg
User avatar
Bodak
Heirophant
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 10:36 pm
Location: Somerville Victoria, Australia

Re: A900 and D3X studio comparison

Unread post by Bodak »

"Sigh" :roll:
User avatar
Greg Beetham
Tower of Babel
Posts: 6118
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:25 pm
Location: Townsville, Qld. Australia
Contact:

Re: A900 and D3X studio comparison

Unread post by Greg Beetham »

Bodak wrote:"Sigh" :roll:
I understand where you're coming from Bodak/Stephen, with your "sigh," but sometimes there is only one way forward, and that is, get in there and get your hands dirty, there is a whole bunch of people standing around here watching, wile a few do the heavy lifting.
Greg
User avatar
Greg Beetham
Tower of Babel
Posts: 6118
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:25 pm
Location: Townsville, Qld. Australia
Contact:

Re: A900 and D3X studio comparison

Unread post by Greg Beetham »

Yep, the D700 is the go, excellent choice for a fronline high ISO cam, a D90 or D300 backup would be great as well, but I'm betting neither of those will be quite as good as the D700 at what you do.
Greg

ps. Hey lay off Dusty and "drinking", I've got a lot of time for someone who likes a beer on a hot day....or any sort of day actually. :lol:
David Kilpatrick
Site Admin
Posts: 5985
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:14 pm
Location: Kelso, Scotland
Contact:

Re: A900 and D3X studio comparison

Unread post by David Kilpatrick »

The D700 or D300 with 70-200mm HSM Sigma 2.8 or new 100-300mm HSM f4, new or recent Sigma 24-70mm and existing Sigma 15-30mm or 12-24mm (full frame ready) makes a good lineup. Having used both the new Nikon 70-200mm VR and the old 80-200mm f2.8 AF-S, there is no contest - the older Nikon wins outright on full frame, it's simply a much better lens despite the lack of VR. But the s/h prices reflect this, the 'beercan effect' has happened in the Nikon world once word got round about the 80-200mm.

I've had two copies of the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8, in Nikon and Canon (just sending them back today) and the micromotor focusing would not be fast enough for Don, though the optical quality is excellent - better than the Nikon 70-200mm for distant views (edge to edge on full frame) and better than the Sony/Min 70-200mm for close-ups (nice flat field, focuses down to under 1m). But - the focus is really slow, there's no limiter, no lock button on the lens, and no AF-MAN over-ride - in fact, there is a warning in the manual that you must not 'interfere' with the focusing ring while the camera AF is active or you may damage the lens. All this adds up to serious limitations for the Tamron despite its quality.

I have not yet tested the Sigma 70-200mm, Richard has just bought one of the last old price new HSM ones for his D3. I'm just asking Sigma if there's any chance of a similar deal. I do not use that range much at all, but with the Sony going up in price, the 70-400mm looking very expensive, and the Sigma going up to almost £1000 I guess I should have one in the cupboard.

Nikon lenses 14-24, 24-70 and aforementioned 80-200 (though the 70-200mm VR is excellent on the D300) would be expensive.

David
User avatar
Greg Beetham
Tower of Babel
Posts: 6118
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:25 pm
Location: Townsville, Qld. Australia
Contact:

Re: A900 and D3X studio comparison

Unread post by Greg Beetham »

I reckon Don would ferret out every single Nikon lens for sale on the planet inside a week. :lol:
Greg
User avatar
KevinBarrett
Emperor of a Minor Galaxy
Posts: 2449
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 5:32 pm
Location: Seattle, Washington, USA
Contact:

Re: A900 and D3X studio comparison

Unread post by KevinBarrett »

Should we call him "Sonikolta?"
Kevin Barrett
-- Photos --
David Kilpatrick
Site Admin
Posts: 5985
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:14 pm
Location: Kelso, Scotland
Contact:

Re: A900 and D3X studio comparison

Unread post by David Kilpatrick »

Well, I just bought into the Nikon system this afternoon. Tamron will only send out Nikon sample lenses now, and the 10-24mm was on its way to me. Actually we have a Fuji S5 Pro on review, and I will use that, but when digging around for a cheap Nikon body I contacted a pro friend who had some Kodak gear for sale. So for £270 I will shortly be the owner of a 2001 vintage duo, DCS760C and DCS720X (but no lenses, so I'm also digging around for a decent s/h cheap lens). This purchase falls into a 'must be mad' category, as both are based on the Nikon F5 and weigh roughly twice as much as an A900. The 760 is six megapixels on 1.3X factor with quite superb ISO 80 quality/colour, and the 720 is 1.6X factor only 2 megapixels but ISO up to 6400 and shooting at 4.8 frames per second. Plus, both have interchangeable F5 viewfinders and removable IR/AA filters - the 720X was given free with the 760, because the IR filter got broken and has been removed, leaving a bare sensor (capable of IR shooting with a 72 filter etc).

They won't really be all that much use for testing lenses, but I am very curious to compare the ledendary F5 focusing and metering - plus total weather sealing etc - with today's F100 based offerings. And I'll probably recover the outlay by doing some comparisons between a £7,500 camera from 2001 with the current state of the art.

David
User avatar
Dusty
Emperor of a Minor Galaxy
Posts: 2215
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:04 pm
Location: Ironton, Missouri, USA

Re: A900 and D3X studio comparison

Unread post by Dusty »

David Kilpatrick wrote:And I'll probably recover the outlay by doing some comparisons between a £7,500 camera from 2001 with the current state of the art.

David
Am I ever glad I wasn't an early adopter! What was that, 10 or 12 K U$D at the time? OUCH!

Dusty
An a700, an a550 and couple of a580s, plus even more lenses (Zeiss included!).
David Kilpatrick
Site Admin
Posts: 5985
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:14 pm
Location: Kelso, Scotland
Contact:

Re: A900 and D3X studio comparison

Unread post by David Kilpatrick »

I published the first full page magazine repro ever done in Britain from one of those early models, along with a cover (which was a derivative treatment, so not as pure). My collaborator was John Henshall, who went on to start EpiCentre:

http://www.epi-centre.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I worked with John on digital imaging from 1990 to 1994, as his editor - the 'Chip Shop' title for his series of artiles was one of my suggestions, which lasted long after I departed from that particular magazine. It ran until he finally encountered an editor who did not understand digital imaging the same way he did, or maybe was jealous of the popularity of the column and the success it had brought John - I suspect the latter.

http://www.epi-centre.com/reports/9810ccs.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Canon version of the DCSx60 model which came two years before the Nikon, and was limited to 1fps - and cost according to this article $27,000!

John has sort kept his diary of models intact by doing this website. I have long ago forgotten most of the digital cameras I have used, but like John, we also had a Logitek Fotoman, and before that a Canon Ion (from which I removed the front mounted anti aliasing filter much improving the results).

David
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests