I do love the a900+CZ2470 combo (sometimes)...

S

springtide

Messages
488
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
A bit of a love hate relationship with the a900+CZ2470

In some ways it feels that the IQ of the a900+CZ2470 is hard to be topped on any dSLR, but on the opposing side it can be disapointing..

There's a poem that sums it up really:

There was a little girl
Who had a little curl
Right in the middle of her forehead;
And when she was good
She was very, very good,
But when she was bad she was horrid.

The a900 is very noisey in the wrong conditions. I mean, even ISO200 can look bad at 1:1 (in the print is obviously different). Same goes for the CZ2470 - in harsh lighting can make the bokeh appear poor.

But given the right conditions, the a900 really can shine.

Just a snap really from bedtime tonight...

3578904283_566804a64f.jpg

LARGE@ http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2447/3578904283_566804a64f_b.jpg

And 100% crop
3578904435_0695fe5153_o.jpg


Not sure if my expectations are low, but for a zoom shoot wide open (f2.8), it looks pretty sharp to me :)

I have other images shot with the a900 that show the dark side, but I guess that's maybe myself not understanding how to get the most out of it. But I can always just blame the camera I suppose :)
 
Simon,

Interesting. I know Sony are beavering away on a firmware update on the A900 for sure, Paul Genge told me last week. That combo is awesome. I suppose that shooting for the highlights as much as possible helps, though not always practical.


Pete.
 
Thanks for the reply Pete. There has been several discussions about an update to the firmware, but I had wondered whether this was just people asking rather than a plan from Sony.

I am not displeased with the a900 at all, far from it.

I've been thinking about this a bit recently and personally I think the main issue is ACR and my workflow. I pretty much use LR exclusively, and output to TIFF (and then PS) if more advanced editing is required. 99% of my images come straight out of LR.

My only real issue with the a900 is the noise in the shadow areas, even at ISO200.

Same photo, reasonable light, and 100% crop from the other side of the image.
3582749116_7b0a1db3fe_o.jpg


Note that this image has had the exposure boosted by approx 2/3 of a stop in PP (almost forgot, the a900 the majority of the time seems to underexpose, but not always)

Not sure if I'm being very critical, but to me that looks like far too much noise to what I'd expect from ISO200 - but also the pattern is slightly blotchy. What this actually reminds me of, is the a700 images when it was first released, and using ACR. I'd be interested in what people think of this noise and how it compares to other cameras.

I was trying to think back to what actually fixed this issue on the a700, whether it was just a gradual improvement in ACR for the a700, or whether it was updates to the a700 firmware. Doesn't seem that long ago, but I can't remember ???

Obviously you'd need to print huge to see this noise, which for me means it's really a non issue in real terms, since a bit of additional PP can clean this up.

I have seen images from DXO Pro and the noise and grain does seem much better. But to change my workflow to include a pre 'RAW to Post Demosaic DNG with DXO', means more hassle/time PP, more expense, and more data.
Not sure why, but almost all the RAW converters seem to do a better job at processing Sony RAW's than ACR, but when I switched from DXO Pro to LR with the a700, PP was much much quicker.
 
Mmmmmm,

My main concern is that you are worrying to much and we need to talk about this over a beer at the watershed.

Secondly, how does Sony's lightbox software output a raw file?

Thirdly, I honestly think that the A900 is more than acceptable. Not so long ago, when I was using Canon Mark II N's I always referred to ISO as a moot point as it was going into print at 72 dpi and as you say you need to pixel peep this to see it.

It will all come together nicely when the update is out.

Finally, I was told that the Sony A800 is coming this year and I for one cant wait for that camera....
 
If you feel the camera is always under exposing then why are you not setting it to overexpose.
If its the noise you have issues with then its easier to over expose and pull it back in PP.

General rule here is to expose from the right.
 
I shot a A900 and D700 side by side over the weekend, and I found there was often a clear stop difference in metering.

I felt the A900 was about 0.5EV too dark, and conversely I usually set the D700 to expose with a -0.7EV.

One thing is clear - the metering patterns are VERY different!
 
When can we possible expect an elaborate report on the A900, and CZ24-70?

You've raised a very good & logical point, with the price of the two being much less than the D3x ....

I am sure that I am not the only one who'd love to see your experience and read a report on the 2 (A900 vs. D700) against each other.
 
I am sure that I am not the only one who'd love to see your experience and read a report on the 2 (A900 vs. D700) against each other.

Resolution wise.. there is NO contest between the A900 and D700. Not even in the same ballpark, for low ISO landscape work.

The A900 is actually cheaper than the D700 let alone the D3X... :)
 
CraigF said:
If you feel the camera is always under exposing then why are you not setting it to overexpose.
If its the noise you have issues with then its easier to over expose and pull it back in PP.

General rule here is to expose from the right.
Click to expand...

I was doing this for a bit, but find that it doesn't always underexpose - and found that I was pulling back the exposure in LR (or worse still, clipping)

I'm used to the metering now so not really an issue, but it still does sometimes catch me out. I know a few people have requested the metering to be addressed by a firmware release.
 
Diego Garcia said:
Mmmmmm,

My main concern is that you are worrying to much and we need to talk about this over a beer at the watershed.

Secondly, how does Sony's lightbox software output a raw file?

Thirdly, I honestly think that the A900 is more than acceptable. Not so long ago, when I was using Canon Mark II N's I always referred to ISO as a moot point as it was going into print at 72 dpi and as you say you need to pixel peep this to see it.

It will all come together nicely when the update is out.

Finally, I was told that the Sony A800 is coming this year and I for one cant wait for that camera....
Click to expand...

I know, I know... :) Pixel lots of pixel peeping and not enough photography!
A cold beer sounds like a plan!

I've not used Sony's Lightbox for ages. It was a bit pants so have avoided it. I'm happy with the output from LR generally, and not unhappy enough to want to add another stage into the processing. I'd rather spend my time taking photos rather than processing, which I know doesn't seem the case from my little moan and post about pixel peeping.

I guess to put a bit of prespective on the noise from the 100% crop, 24" monitor displays at roughly 90dpi, and the image size from the a900 is 6048 x 4032. So looking at 1:1 on my 24", is like looking at a print 67" wide x 45" high.

I've printed a reasonable amount since getting the a900, and always loved the images printed - which is what counts.

So it's not a big issue, but I do feel like I've been here before when I had the a700. And looking a back at my a700 images, they were cleaner but obviously half the resolution.

Using the a900 is a real pleasure, but comparing it to cars, it does sometimes feel like it's an Alfa rather than an Audi ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top