Sony a900 vs. Nikon d700?

genchi

genchi

Messages
210
Edit My Images
Yes
Hey there,

i know there is lots of similar threads or those dedicated to both cameras mentioned. But i`d love to hear from people who have had the chance to try both of them and compare pros and cons.
The thing is, i have a350 at the moment and, honestly, i`m not very happy with it. Probably because i see now limits of this camera and need to move on. Somehow, although i`ve never tried Nikon, i fancy d700 after reading different reviews and tests.
But, on the other hand i keep thinking about a900 because of the mpx and CZ lenses. I know what is the price of them but when compared to top Nikon glass, it`s nearly no difference.

I should probably mention that i find myself more and more interested in fashion/studio photography, thinking about weddings too so camera would be used for this kind of photography mainly.

I should say i don`t have much experience with studio shooting yet as i don`t want to ask anyone for posing until i have decent camera.

Now i think i would go for a900 with new model coming sometimes next year so if necessary i can upgrade but really would be thankful for any suggestions or opinions, mainly about a900 being acceptable camera for weddings? (in future)!

Any comments much appreciated!
 
Do you have any extra lenses for the a350 other than the kit lens?
You may find that it's the glass that is limiting you rather than the body.

If it is the body that's limiting you then although you are familiar with the Alpha system, there are probably more benefits with going for Nikon.

More second hand glass & equipment available, not to mention the ability to hire Nikon lenses from multiple companies in the UK (nowhere hires out sony gear).

If you can find any one willing to let you play around with a Nikon for a while that would be a good start as you can familiarise yourself with the Nikon system and see if you like it.

Steven.
 
No experience of the sony, so can't help you there. I will however substitute the D3X for it just to illustrate a point.

Studio and Fashion? D3X hands down (imo). Monster MP, stunning IQ, its a BEAST of a camera, and I would love to indulge in one. It's too close to the H3DII price for me to give it serious thought though.

Weddings? The D3 / D700 without a doubt. Absolutely top drawer ISO performance and for that reason alone, it would be my choice. There are probably 100 other reasons too, I just can't think of them.

Gary.
 
From memory he said that was due to the cost of the lenses he would want to do the camera justice.
 
Do you have any extra lenses for the a350 other than the kit lens?
You may find that it's the glass that is limiting you rather than the body.
Click to expand...

I have 75 - 300 and Minolta 50mm f1.7. Love bokeh on KM. Don`t think i`d be able to get MUCH better results with better lenses. Don`t think i`d be brave enough to ask somebody to pose for me using this camera :cool:.

Weddings? The D3 / D700 without a doubt. Absolutely top drawer ISO performance and for that reason alone, it would be my choice. There are probably 100 other reasons too, I just can't think of them.
Click to expand...

Yep, i`m somehow amazed by Nikon cameras, really love processing that Nikon does, but when i see pictures from d700/d3 and compare to a900 sure i like Nikon`s processing but i just love amount of details in Sony`s pics.
I know there is D3x, read review, saw pictures and had to pick up my jaw from the floor :D but it`s just way too expensive.
I don`t even know if i`ll eventually get something back from this investments and it`s possible that it`s just gonna be quite expensive hobby. I mean, i`d love to try some studio shoots, maybe some wedding as backup photographer but rather than be dreaming about success, i`ll be realistic and consider that i can possibly end up only with shooting for my own pleasure... With very expensive camera and top glass :D

So ok, i`ll put it down this way. Would a900 be acceptable for weddings or is there something about it that i should know that makes it not worth considering??

Thanks guys and sorry for boring you with my thoughts :bonk: and my very very poor english (as it`s not my native language, if you haven`t noticed yet) :p
 
Genchi,

My only advice would be to read lots of reviews, and check flickr for wedding shots taken with the A900. I am gonna go and see if I can research the ISO performance of the A900 - it sure sounds like a nice camera.

Gary.
 
EdinburghGary said:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA900/AA900A.HTM

Read that page. In the list of CONS it would suggest that ISO noise becomes an issue even at ISO200. That would scare me. Otherwise? Looks awesome.

Gary.
Click to expand...

Glad to see i`m not the only insomniac :)
Thanks Gary, appreciate that you`re spending your time on research :) . I`ve done a lot of research myself, read all reviews, saw all photos. Yes, Sony is noisy. It`s annoying on my a350 and i can see that noise on a900 pictures even at ISO 100. That`s why i`m struggling and haven`t ordered it yet. On the other hand, i still could have 350 as a backup (not very good but it`s there) but if i`ll swap for Nikon, i`ll have only one camera.
My thinking is that until i get more experience, new alpha will be released and would hope for much improved ISO performance. Plus i really like pictures made with CZ glass.
 
genchi said:
Glad to see i`m not the only insomniac :)
Thanks Gary, appreciate that you`re spending your time on research :) . I`ve done a lot of research myself, read all reviews, saw all photos. Yes, Sony is noisy. It`s annoying on my a350 and i can see that noise on a900 pictures even at ISO 100. That`s why i`m struggling and haven`t ordered it yet. On the other hand, i still could have 350 as a backup (not very good but it`s there) but if i`ll swap for Nikon, i`ll have only one camera.
My thinking is that until i get more experience, new alpha will be released and would hope for much improved ISO performance. Plus i really like pictures made with CZ glass.
Click to expand...

Sleep sucks :D

In my opinion, that noise is the killer blow. Awesome glass, and awesome camera otherwise. How much have you invested on Sony so far (£££)?

Gary.
 
You really need puddleduck on this one as he's owned both cameras side by side......

I do know he got rid of the A900 due to the cost of the CZ lenses, but I'm sure he mentioned a few days ago that he was thinking of buying an A900 again!
 
EdinburghGary said:
Sleep sucks :D

In my opinion, that noise is the killer blow. Awesome glass, and awesome camera otherwise. How much have you invested on Sony so far (£££)?

Gary.
Click to expand...

Yes it does, except that i`m waking up my missus by typing :nono:
Not much, 800 i`d say. Few months ago i was decided to go Nikon :D and now look what couple of reviews can do to me :LOL:

I do know he got rid of the A900 due to the cost of the CZ lenses, but I'm sure he mentioned a few days ago that he was thinking of buying an A900 again!
Click to expand...

Thanks, will try to contact him. I think that prices are not that different on top glass.
 
EdinburghGary said:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA900/AA900A.HTM

Read that page. In the list of CONS it would suggest that ISO noise becomes an issue even at ISO200. That would scare me. Otherwise? Looks awesome.

Gary.
Click to expand...
it's fine upto ISO800 & plenty of people even seem happy with ISO1600.
You need to shoot RAW & pp though as Sony's jpeg engine traditionally has sucked at high ISOs (the new A500/A550 look to have made significant strides though).

really the D700 & A850/A900 are optimised for different things - if you need resolution at a reasonable price (there's always the D3X if money no object), great detail & colour a Sony, if you want high ISO, a better AF & flash system the Nikon.
be interesting to see if Nikon do bring out a D700X with the same sensor as the Sony & how much it will cost.
 
heidfirst said:
it's fine upto ISO800 & plenty of people even seem happy with ISO1600.
You need to shoot RAW & pp though as Sony's jpeg engine traditionally has sucked at high ISOs (the new A500/A550 look to have made significant strides though).

really the D700 & A850/A900 are optimised for different things - if you need resolution at a reasonable price (there's always the D3X if money no object), great detail & colour a Sony, if you want high ISO, a better AF & flash system the Nikon.
be interesting to see if Nikon do bring out a D700X with the same sensor as the Sony & how much it will cost.
Click to expand...

I would not discount the 5D MKII, it has awesome noise and a monster MP too...the noise as far as I can tell that it produces is as nice as the D3 and D700...which is amazing considering the massive leap in resolution.

Gary.
 
I didn't but the op has never mentioned it ... ;)
The 5DMkII again does something different - it's kind of the jack of all trades in the middle which may well suit more people more of the time.
 
Somehow i don`t think about Canon at all.
Probably best think will be to go to shop and try them both. And it`s gonna take some time as i`ll have to go up to Belfast... goddamn Ireland, no camera shops here and if there are some, they have 3 compacts and 2 DSLR and they won`t let you touch it unless they swipe your credit card.

Anyway guys thanks for help. I think i`ll go Sony. If i found used one with 24-70 that would be great so that if i`m not happy i can swap for Nikon and not to loose too much.
 
A personally dislike questions posed a "vs" as its not a battle to the death.

I've owned both, as it depends what you want to shoot. For low ISO work, the A900 absolutely trounces the D700. For high ISO, the winner flipps over, and the D700 is the clear winner.

I did a fairly controlled test of both for actuity in a landscape scenario.

A900 is on the left, D700 on the right:

http://www.odysseus-software.co.uk/A900/sonya900-d700.jpg

100% croppage:

http://www.odysseus-software.co.uk/A900/sonya900-d700-crop.jpg

This is the sort of detail the A900 produces from a tiny crop:

http://www.odysseus-software.co.uk/A900/a900-c1.jpg

100% croppage:

http://www.odysseus-software.co.uk/A900/rtcrop.jpg

I actually just ordered another A900 today as it happens :)
 
Impressive results Puddleduck. Have you not been tempted by the D3X yet? I can understand anyone ignoring it due to price point, but I would love a go.

Gary.
 
EdinburghGary said:
Impressive results Puddleduck. Have you not been tempted by the D3X yet? I can understand anyone ignoring it due to price point, but I would love a go.

Gary.
Click to expand...

The D3X doesn't tempt me at all. I don't like honking great bricks (hence why I've never wanted a D3)

I could afford it quite happily in all honesty, but I think that Nikon are just hoping passing mugs will pay for it, as the price is indefensible, compared to the A900 and Canon 5D MKII.

The A900 is actually very nice anyhow - given that Nikon are really starting to take the proverbial price wise with pretty much everything lately, I think when the D700x comes along we'd be talking £3k+.

Its not really a money issue, just a point of principle!
 
I would love a D3X but I have always maintained, the price point is SOOOOOOOO much closer to the likes of the Blad H3DII, that it would (IMO) be worth spending double to have a go with a completely different beast. This is ignoring the cost of extra glass etc, so there are a few flaws in my thinking :)

Gary.
 
Or get one of the older Phase One backs... actually MF digital used isn't that onerous price wise. I suspect you could get a 25meg back for less than a D3X and lenses with the change.

For me, as I do a lot of walking / cycling / hiking MF is not good, as I need nimble and light.

Too be honest, a D60 size body actually suits me well and if I could have a D700 sensor in a D60 size body I'd be all over it :)
 
puddleduck said:
A personally dislike questions posed a "vs" as its not a battle to the death.

I've owned both, as it depends what you want to shoot. For low ISO work, the A900 absolutely trounces the D700. For high ISO, the winner flipps over, and the D700 is the clear winner.

I did a fairly controlled test of both for actuity in a landscape scenario.

A900 is on the left, D700 on the right:

http://www.odysseus-software.co.uk/A900/sonya900-d700.jpg

100% croppage:

http://www.odysseus-software.co.uk/A900/sonya900-d700-crop.jpg

This is the sort of detail the A900 produces from a tiny crop:

http://www.odysseus-software.co.uk/A900/a900-c1.jpg

100% croppage:

http://www.odysseus-software.co.uk/A900/rtcrop.jpg

I actually just ordered another A900 today as it happens :)
Click to expand...


Thanks for that. Shame that you didn`t use same shutterspeed as Nikon`s pic looks better exposed and more dynamic.
I was looking at test pictures here: http://www.dynaxexpedicia.net/uploads/A900/ taken with different lenses and think they are pretty good except in full resolution i still see some noise in them even at ISO 200.

Would you guys - Gary and Puddleduck, mind to check them in full res and try to compare, ISO-wise, with your pics from Nikons??? I`d be very thankful for that. I just want to know if i`m right and there really is some difference compared to Nikon at low ISO or i am just talking rubbish here.

Thanks in advance!
 
The metering between the Sony and Nikon is quite different - the Sony tends to be underexpose, the Nikon overexpose. Don't worry about colours - ACR / Lightroom is rubbish for Sony files, take a look at the second one I did in a different convertor.

The A900 does have noise creeping in at ISO200 if its not shot correctly. The workaround is to disable the "zone" setting - most reviewers are clueless and run things on defaults and don't do this. This setting biases the A900 into preserving highlights, and will underexpose by up to -0.5EV which isn't good for shadow noise even at ISO200.
 
puddleduck said:
The metering between the Sony and Nikon is quite different - the Sony tends to be underexpose, the Nikon overexpose. Don't worry about colours - ACR / Lightroom is rubbish for Sony files, take a look at the second one I did in a different convertor.

The A900 does have noise creeping in at ISO200 if its not shot correctly. The workaround is to disable the "zone" setting - most reviewers are clueless and run things on defaults and don't do this. This setting biases the A900 into preserving highlights, and will underexpose by up to -0.5EV which isn't good for shadow noise even at ISO200.
Click to expand...

"zone" setting? :shrug:
 
genchi said:
Anyway guys thanks for help. I think i`ll go Sony.
Click to expand...
Apparently the new A850 is shipping in some European countris with the full DxO Elite (£175 retail) as part of the bundle. It appears to be a far better RAW converter for high ISO with Sony than e.g. ACR .

Might be worth finding out if the UK is 1 of those countries.
 
DxO :puke:

Its being better than IDC is a back handed compliment at best.
 
genchi said:
Hey there,

i know there is lots of similar threads or those dedicated to both cameras mentioned. But i`d love to hear from people who have had the chance to try both of them and compare pros and cons.
The thing is, i have a350 at the moment and, honestly, i`m not very happy with it. Probably because i see now limits of this camera and need to move on. Somehow, although i`ve never tried Nikon, i fancy d700 after reading different reviews and tests.
But, on the other hand i keep thinking about a900 because of the mpx and CZ lenses. I know what is the price of them but when compared to top Nikon glass, it`s nearly no difference.

I should probably mention that i find myself more and more interested in fashion/studio photography, thinking about weddings too so camera would be used for this kind of photography mainly.

I should say i don`t have much experience with studio shooting yet as i don`t want to ask anyone for posing until i have decent camera.

Now i think i would go for a900 with new model coming sometimes next year so if necessary i can upgrade but really would be thankful for any suggestions or opinions, mainly about a900 being acceptable camera for weddings? (in future)!

Any comments much appreciated!
Click to expand...

If you pick up this month's Digital Camera magazine there is a test on the A900,D700 and the 5D MK2 in there.

Mike.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top