Lenses for A900

[rongarrett]

I don't have a problem springing for the soon available A900. What I am most concerned with is the availability of lenses. Canon has stated that their 21 mp cameras must have only their best lenses to utilize the increased resolution. Naturally I sorta discounted the many Sony / Minolta lenases out there. I have heard rumors that some of these old lenses are giving stellar results to those testing beta versions of the A900.

It would help me greatly, and hopefully others as well, to maybe use this thread to post any info you run accross concerning lenses for the A900.

There is a growing idea in the back of my head to make a change to Sony. I shoot both Canon and Nikon as well as Sony. In the past both Nikon and Canon have laid some eggs that the consumer ended up the short stick. So far Sony has not laid any eggs? I want a camera company I can trust so I can order new technology with confidence One that has parts and accessories as well as new cameras available when they are promised. One that prices their products so most can afford to buy. One that is always on the cutting edge of technology.

[NoKnees]

I've been reading a lot from people testing their new a900's and so far, yes, some of the good old Minolta lenses are keeping up just fine here. The only areas that might show any trouble is in the corners of some of the wide angle lenses, but even there it doesn't really appear to be a big problem. Besides, look at all the people who dodge and burn photos and add vignetting to draw you to the center of the shot anyway... Why worry? ;)

One reviewer over at photoclubalpha has done a bit of testing with some of the better known Minolta classic lenses. 17-35 D (f2.8-4), 28-75 (f2.8), the "Beercan" 70-210 (f4) all giving good results. Even better results have been seen with the great primes, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4, 100mm f2 & 2.8 and 135mm lenses, all showing very, very good results that do the resolution of the a900 justice.

However, the sample shots I've seen with the Zeiss 24-70 f2.8 have blown me away. That lens was nice on the a700, but it really shines on the a900. Even some recent shots with their newer 70-300g SSM lenses are looking amazing for action shots...

In general though, the lens system is just now starting to fill out better against the top two... There are a lot of older lenses from Minolta to give you a complete line, but those are going to be found only used in most cases. Sony, with the help of Carl Zeiss lenses has started to really fill out their higher end lenses now. There is a 16-35 CZ, and another 70-400g SSM lens coming out by January which should really help their high end glass selection. The only things missing are some new fast 300 or 400 primes...

Keep in mind, every lens, old or new, is a stabelized lens in the Sony system. Their sensor shift method really does work adding 2-4 stops on anything mounted. Even an old m42 classic like the Pentax SMC Takumar 50mm 1.4 with the correct adapter.

One lens sorely missing from Sony, Tilt/Shift. Hope they come up with at least one lens in this area, although computer software is helping eliminate perspective control through good post processing, but it's just not the same.

[rongarrett]

You mention adapters. Are there adapters available to use Nikon or Canon lenses on the Sony mount? Will anti shake work with an adapter? Auto focus?

Are there any offical reviews available yet? Camera body? New lenses?

This might be a good place to list all of the above.

[NoKnees]

I'm not sure the about rules here for linking to other sites, so forgive me if shouldn't be doing this... But... ;) There's an good website for Sony/Minolta digital cameras called PhotoclubAlpha that I mentioned above. The guy there wrote a quick review when he first received his a900, and he will be doing a more thorough one later. He's the one that tested a lot of the older Minolta lenses as well. The short "first impression" is at: http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/0...tokina-part-1/

Go to their forums to find his reviews/comments on the camera with different lenses, etc...

Another place that has a lot of early users of the a900 is over at dpreview in their Sony DSLR forum. There are a lot of image examples buried in there, and some other first impression posts by users. The forum is very active and can be pretty opinionated at times... But, if you can wade through all the posts (many good and bad, a few pages worth per day) you'll find some good info on the a900 as it's been tested up to this point, and compared to the a700.

As for adapters, etc... The only working adapters I'm aware of are for the old Minolta MD lenses (full manuel focus & aperture) and m42 (screw mount) lenses, all manul focus manual aperture... Nothing for Canon or Nikon to Sony/Minolta.

There are cheap "dumb" adapters that just allow you to mount up the m42 lenses, and these work only with the a100 and a700, as the camera doesn't realize there is a lens attached. For the a100 and a700 there is a setting to allow the camera to fire the shutter without sensing a lens. For the other Sony cameras, including the a200, a300, a350 & a900, you'll need to pick up a "chipped" adapter that tells the camera there is a lens attached. These adapters also allow the focus confirmation light to work, assisting greatly in the manual focus process. The other bonus is that it enables the anti-shake to work as well. There are a few different "chipped" adapters out there, some better than others. The better ones are programed for a few common types of lenses, in theory allowing for better anti-shake affectiveness... Not sure what else they do for you, other than come with better build quality... My cheapo hong-kong special for $20 bucks or so off ebay seems to work fine for me after a few days of recent testing.

For the most comprehensive list of lenses for the Sony/Minolta A-Mount (all autofocus) go to dyxum.com. They have a large lens database with reviews on all the lenses, old and new. This site is an invaluable resource when wondering about some of the used lenses out there, and how the new lenses work on various cameras, and compare to other similar lenses... They also have a forum section discussing the cameras, lenses, etc... They aren't quite as busy as depreview, but they have a much higher quality of discussion there I think. In the end you can get the right answers anywhere, but you'll get less opinion and garbage at Dyxum, if you can wait a little longer...

Enjoy! There's tons of info out there...

- Greg

[rongarrett]

Here's a link, www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dslr_a900-review . I downloaded some of the images made with a production A900 w/Zeiss 24 - 70 F/2.8 lens. If you are on dial up it camn take a long time to download these large files.

While downloading at native resolution and size chroma noise is very evident even at the ISO 200 the images were shot at. My monitor is a 24.0" Gateway HD. After downloading at native size my monitor automatically resizes to a fully viewable image, {which would be close to an actual 16 X 20. The pics looked fine there. I print often at 17 X 22. Not sure the A900 is going to be my choice. Reviewer also talks about noise present in images. I have Noise Ninja, but for three grand in this day and time, I expect better in camera control.

Anyone know what the actual pixel size on the A900 is?

[NoKnees]

I'll have to try to remember where I saw it posted, but it's bigger than the a700 by a small fraction.

As for the chroma noise at 200, I've heard peoples say they see it in some examples, and others say it's no where to be seen. Seems to vary shot to shot. I do know people who are using the a900 for studio work at ISO 200 over instead of a Nikon D3 that they already own, due to much better detail at equal noise. Others have just exported their RAW to 12mp instead of the native 24mp and compared that against the Nikon D3 and the a900 equals it in noise up to iso 1600, while still retaining better detail than the D3.

I really think you need to do you own hands on tests to figure out if this camera will work for you. There are so many different tests out there with people claiming victories for all camera makes, it's clear the quality is close enough where you are going to need to make your own decision.

So many people are comparing 100% crops of the a900 against 100% crops of the D3 or D700, or even old original Canon 5d and complaining about more visible noise. 12mp FF vs 24mp FF is a world of difference. When you downsize the a900 image to match the other cameras native resolution, it equals or exceeds it in most reasonable ISO's and detail tests.

Be sure all tests you do are with RAW. Now, if you plan on shooting only from jpeg, Sony, especially the a900 may not be the camera for you. You can improve from the default "soft" Sony jpegs by adding a bit of sharpening and contrast in camera, but most will agree Sony's jpegs are very average and show more noise than other manufacturers who seem to have a bit more NR built into their jpeg engines, even when in camera settings are "off" for NR. Canon is a good example here, always seeming to win out on jpeg tests. Check any review that compares RAW, and you'll see that the Sony's improve a ton in all areas over their jpeg versions of the same shot.

[NoKnees]

For some quality comparisons, DPReview recently wrote up a review on the Nikon D700. In the comparison section they have some examples compared to the a900.

First the jpegs: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond700/page24.asp

Then RAW: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond700/page27.asp

Unfortunately the ISO and Noise tests done in their review were with jpegs rather than RAW, and they confirm what you were stating. Chroma noise does become visible around ISO 400 in the Sony Jpegs, but still compares well up to 1600. Above that, the Nikon pulls ahead of everyone. However, you talking about a pixel density of twice that of the Sony, so I should really hope they show better noise control on the Nikon...
Link to ISO Tests, and the page after for resolution: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond700/page30.asp

Quote on Pixel Density (size) compared to Sony:
With 'only' 12 million pixels on a full-frame sensor the D700's individual photo sites are comparatively large (1.4 MP/cm² pixel density on the D700 vs 2.9 MP/cm² on the Sony A900) and the Nikon makes exceptionally good use of its large pixels' light gathering capabilities. Combine this with Nikon's sensible approach to noise reduction which tackles chroma (color) noise first and then applies relatively mild amounts of luminance noise reduction, and you get a camera that is an outstanding performer in low light.



Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what other field tests show... You can find faults and bonuses with all camera's in this range. And you can get great shots from all of them. You just have to figure out what works best for you, as there will be no answers that works for everyone...