Why or Why not a Sony?

<p>From time to time I've reported on equipment experiences that may be of value to fellow wedding photographers.</p>

<p>Many of us have already committed to a specific system, so a new one may be of less interest. However, there are those on the cusp of upgrading or swapping systems from time to time, and wedding specific experience may be of value.</p>

<p>Not long ago I swapped out of my Canon 1 series cameras (1DsMKIII and 1DMKIII) and went with a Nikon D3 and D700. No need to discuss that personal decision or the reasons for it.</p>

<p>I have also secured a Sony A900 with 3 Zeiss lenses which will be used for wedding work. I did so for a number of reasons that may be of interest to those considering a new system, or keeping their eye on recent technological developments.</p>

<p>The Sony full frame file is as big as it gets (currently). It also has a proprietary IQ that I favor over what I was getting from my Canon's ... and provides 2X the file size of my D3/D700 cameras. The new Nikon would have been a consideration had it not been priced at $8,000. or 2.7 times the price of the $3,000. Sony A900.</p>

<p>The Sony A900 has image stabilization in the camera ... so ALL lenses used are stabilized, not just some lenses like with Canon or Nikon.</p>

<p>Despite those attributes, I would not have considered the Sony were it not for the Zeiss lens offerings. My current Zeiss line up is 24-70/2,8, 85/1.4 and a 135/1.8 ... with the impending 16-35/2.8 due in January. Sony also makes a 70-200/2.8G which is an APO optic that I may consider in future to replace my Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR. Suffice it to say that I am a Zeiss fan, and have used their optics whenever the opportunity presented itself. With the demise of Contax, there have been no Zeiss AF lenses available and no real digital camera alternative to use them on ... until now.</p>

<p>I have a wedding tomorrow and on New Year's Eve ... and will report back on real world application of this new kit. </p>

<p>marc,<br>

would love to see some examples of your work with the a900. from what i have seen and read, given good glass, it produces fantastic class-leading results. whether many of the pro guys would take the not so prestigious brand into consideration is a different matter, however, i think there is good reason for considering such a system. your do make a good case.</p>

<p>Oh, a few actual shooting experiences I failed to mention ... the Dynamic Range of this camera is already getting rave reviews, and my experiences with non-wedding work to date bear that out ... it's visably better than any other 35mm digital camera I've used to date including a Fuji. </p>

<p>Another aspect that I like is the ability to define 3 different user set-ups that you choose with the analog mode selector dial on the camera top, rather than having to access the LCD menu and scroll to them. So you can have your outdoor mode like AV and daylight WB, then a manual/Tungsten, and another with manual/flash WB for indoor. One click and you can move back and forth between them.</p>

<p>Draw backs depending on your needs? No live view ... (which I personally could care less about.) No movie mode which I do not want or need. And the high ISO performance is no match for either the latest Canons or Nikons ... but is quite good up to 1250 ... I tend to use any high meg camera at no more than around 800 or 1000 maximum supplimented with fill flash ... and leave the ocassional super high ISO ambient work to the D3 or D700. Also, Sony flash is quite accurate and on par with my Nikon SB900, but oddly uses a proprietary mount, so if you use Pocket Wizards you have to get an $30. adapter for the hot shoe. </p>

<p>Not a bad plan Marc.</p>

<p>I have considered the A700, before the 900 was intro'd. I liked the idea of all stabilized shooting and the available (or soon to be available) zeiss glass that they offer. I held off becuse I still have Canon glass and now a plethora of Nikon too. Not sure a third system would have gained too much.</p>

<p>However, this is a fascinating thought for a couple of reasons... Firstly, the 24mp for enlarged images is a pull and then the stabilized, great glass. I am all ears as to how it performs for you in the trenches.</p>

<p>I wonder if you have found the use of (another great move by Sony- NOT) their flash system a pain or wether it can off cam master as well as Nikons system does?</p>

 

<p>I, too, am very interested in what you have to say about it. I'd love to use Zeiss lenses. What happened to using Zeiss lense on the Nikon?</p>

<p>Hi Marc, I have the same interest as you do. I want to try this combo for shooting weddings. I know the cost is high but it just might be worth it. The Zeiss lense is appr 1800.00 and the camera is 3000.00 I dont shoot many weddings anymore but still do them as I choose to. I was thinking of using the A700 with the new firmware 4.0 and the Zeiss lense. This would lower my cost. I only use 800 ISO max so thats not a problem for me. I would like your opinion on my using the A700 instead of the A900. I know how important the glass is so I would use the Zeiss 24-70 f2.8. I shoot ittl with my canon 40D. I would have to sell my flash and get the Sony flash. How good is it compared to the canon EX 580II on a bracket. I Happen to love Zeiss lenses so thats my reason to switch. Thank you. I am looking foreward to see some images of the wedding. Can you email me when you have them ? rollsman4@yahoo.com Thank you, Dennis</p>

<p>Marc, I've used the A700 for quite some time now shooting weddings and really love it. I have two of them. I really appreciate the built-in stabilization in natural lighting and church weddings. I don't take tripods to weddings anymore. There's just no need.</p>

<p>I don't use the Zeiss glass because it's just too pricey (Zeiss is nice, though), but I've gotten excellent results with Sigma's offerings. I stopped in a Sonystyle store the other day and played with an A900. Apart from the bigger sensor, it felt and handled very much like the A700, which I find to be very user friendly and pro friendly. I love the dedicated buttons for ISO, WB, Drive, and the custom button you can assign to any function (I use mine for flash compensation). At this point, i just can't justify the investment in the A900 (for myself) just to wind up with even larger files to deal with. I'm already having trouble getting an entire wedding on a single DVD-R.</p>

<p>My only wish is for high ISO to be cleaner, but the latest firmware for the A700 has helped a lot, and it's MILES better than anything I've used so far. I've heard the high ISO in the A900 wasn't as clean as was expected, but I'd love to know how you do with yours.</p>

<p>I'm looking forward to a few postings from your NYE wedding. <br>

With the addition of the 16-35 & 70-200 who could ask for more? <br>

Best wishes on your last two wedding shoots of 08.</p>

<p>Hi Nadine, I do have Zeiss optics for the Nikons ... but I use them more for personal work (especially B&W film with an F6) because they are all Manual Focus primes.</p>

<p>These Sony Zeiss T* versions are all Auto Focus with swift silent wave motors which I tend to prefer for wedding work. I can say that the lenses themselves are the best build quality of any 35mm AF lenses I've ever owned including the Contax/Zeiss AF lenses for the N series. ... even the hoods are all metal with rubber on the ends so you can sit them down on a rough surface. They deliver typical Zeiss 3D snap, color and bokeh we Zeiss fans tend to favor.</p>

<p>David, I haven't any plans in the near future to get a second Sony flash for the A900. I bought a Sony module for my Metz 54 and will use it as a back-up. It appears that off camera slave flash works the same way as Canon or Nikon using one Sony flash in the hot shoe and another off-camera ... and as far as I know Sony doesn't offer an equivalent of a Nikon Commander or Canon STE-2 yet.</p>

<p>As David says, how it performs in the trenches will be the key. I've put it through it's paces enough now to have a pretty high level of confidence ... but a wedding is another thing altogether. We'll see.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks Marc,<br>

how's the ergonomics? Quick changes from Nikon to Sony present any issues?<br>

Must say the 3k tag for an A900 is attractive (esp. for the Zeiss) though my new 5D2 has close to the same price and pixels with better high ISO's.<br>

You think it would be worth dumping the last of my Canon gear for this set up as the formal/must have's cam? Of course, you're there already, so that may be a redundant question.<br>

Anyhow, thanks for your views.</p>

<p>Does the A900 have dual card readers? Thanks for the info.</p>

<p>Bob - it has a CF and a memory stick slot, but you can't backup one to the other, split raw vs jpeg, or anything. Just one or the other. Not both.</p>

<p>David, the ergonomics aren't much of an issue for me since I shoot with so many different cameras that I'm used to it. The lenses mount in the Canon direction which I'm very used to ... (I still try to twist the Nikon lenses off the wrong way ... LOL!) Dial directions can be changed like with most cameras. Generally, I like the ergonomics and control placement because they are a bit more retro and analog feeling and remind me of the Contax cameras I used to shoot with.</p>

<p>Generally, I like the feel and sound of this camera a lot more than I did the Canon 5D ... which is strictly personal preference ... I've never made a secret of how much I disliked that camera despite it's image making abilities. However, if you have a 5D-MKII this camera would be redundant unless you were after the Zeiss optics ... which is what the attraction was for me ... especially the 24-70/2.8 T* Zoom. </p>

<p>Yeah Bob, I don't see this camera as a replacement for at least one "Dual Card" camera that shoots to both cards ... or the use of 2 cameras to shoot some of the must haves that can't be repeated. However, Sony makes it pretty easy to toggle back and forth between memory cards (I'll have to see if you can use the user selection analog dial which would make it even easier). This camera will tend to replace the separate MF Kit I often carry to higher end weddings ... which doesn't shoot to 2 cards at the same time either. At higher end weddings, I always have a second shooter, and that usually covers the redundancy issue. Otherwise, I just use the D3. I do not go to any wedding without a dual card camera for certain shots.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I posted these images on the other Sony thread, but thought to put them here to illustrate the file quality and Anti Shake performance.</p>

<p> </p>

<p >Top image was done with the Sony A900 @ ISO 400 using available tungsten light provided by studio strobe modeling lights. (I did not use the strobes because I did not yet have the adapter to mount a Pocket Wizard on the Sony). The lens was a Zeiss 135/1.8 @ f/1.8 ...</p>

<p > </p>

<p >remarkably, the shutter speed was only 1/40th using a 135mm lens, which gives testimony to the anti-shake ability built into the camera.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >For comparison, the bottom shot was done with a Hasselblad H3D-II/31 @ ISO 100 using a H/C 150/3.2 lens with a 1.7X extender for a similar lens draw as the Sony/Zeiss 135 lens ... it was stopped down to f/16 because the strobes were triggered for this shot.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Here's an available light shot with the Zeiss T* 85/1.4 @ f/2 ... also remarkable in that the shutter speed was 1/30th! (not that I would tempt the Fates by using slow speeds all the time ... I was just seeing how well the Anti-Shake actually worked before trusting a wedding shot to it.<br>

Sony A900 aperture preferred, ISO 400.</p><div></div>

<p>Rarely in this industry does some dark horse make a permanent dent in the wall. Sony may be there having the equipment and the marketing power / staying power to make it happen. For some photographers, the Sony isn't yet a mature line meaning lenses for their specialty don't (yet?) exist. For many others, it's mostly a matter of FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) or the tyranny of the installed base.</p>

<p>Somewhat ironically, one of the last times a dark horse showed up (that I can remember) was about 4 years ago with the Konica-Minolta Maxxum 7D in the prosumer market. Some then felt it was a threat to the N/C dominion but it faltered and was subsumed by the Sony group to live again, more or less, in the Alpha line.</p>

<p>IMO, the problems the A900 will face isn't due to it's merits but that few newbies would be in the market for such a sophisticated and expensive camera. The ones who feel justified in spending A900 money generally are already heavily invested in specialized equipment (probably N or C).</p>

<p>It's analogous to computers. I was ready to switch from a PC to a Mac. What stopped me was that to get my programs in native Mac format I'd have to buy them entirely again. Frex, there is no upgrade from CS3 Windows to CS4 Mac. Instead I fork over about $700. Ditto Office and so forth.</p>

<p>Here we have the same thing. If lenses were standard across all product lines, the Sony would be a real threat to N/C, but as things are in reality? I'm not sure it can make signficant inroads. My comment has nothing to do with the merits of the Sony but the facts of the world we exist in.</p>

<p>I trust that you guys have read the comments over on luminous-landscape.com. This looks like a pretty solid camera. However, those Zeiss lenses are expensive. I don't see how you save money with this over the D3X for which you can get excellent lenses easily on the cheap if you know what you are doing. Anyway, Mr. Reichmann used Sigma lenses for a lot of his example photos. Interesting.</p>

<p>Marc, as I've said before, I don't take tripods to weddings anymore. I regularly shoot handheld at weddings with my A700's at 1/8, 1/10, 1/15, and manage ISO to get natural light details shots, cake shots in dim reception halls, and other shots with little or no movement. You can trust the stabilization in the A900. Just keep your eye on that little Steadi-shot meter in the viewfinder. You'll do fine.</p>

<p>Not a valid comparison. Marc Williams can make any camera look good. Let me test it. I can make even the best camera look bad.</p>

<p>I can give you one big "why not." I have to rent lenses occasionally and I've never seen any store offering lenses like I rent for a Sony. Canon, yes, Nikon, yes, but otherwise, nothing. I've never seen any store locally that rents Sony gear, nor would I expect to in the near future. For people that never rent equipment, that isn't an issue. But I don't want to pay to rent a camera I don't use regularly just to rent a lens.</p>

<p>Jeff, this may not be local for you, but you can rent Sony lenses here: <a href="http://www.alphalensrental.com/">http://www.alphalensrental.com/</a> and here: <a href="http://www.hypersensory.com/rent">http://www.hypersensory.com/rent</a></p>

<p>No, it's not as prolific as renting lenses for Canon and Nikon, simply by the virtue of sheer numbers, but there are options. The Sony line is compatible with any Minolta Maxxum AF lens ever made (millions and millions of them out there), and many of these lenses were excellent in optical quality. There are lots of Sigma lenses out there for this mount, and most are quite affordable. Sony actually owns stock in Tamron, and Tamron is making quite a bit of really nice glass in this mount. And then there's the Carl Zeiss connection with Sony.</p>

<p>I think the "big two" camera makers are being joined by Sony which will make it "the big three". Things are looking up for us Alpha mount users anyway.</p>

<p>Not local doesn't work for me. I do a fair amount of work on short notice. Last week I had a magazine assignment on Monday, which I had only known about since the Wednesday before and was confirmed on Friday. That's not enough time for anything not local.</p>

<p>Marc - intriguing thread. You really make the Sony platform tempting when you post those great photos.<br>

<br /> How does the AF stack up in a real world environment? Does it match the niceness of the Nikon D3?</p>

<p>It's funny that Sony has able to jump leaps and bounds in a couple of years where it took decades for other manufacturers(Nikon, Canon) to get where they are at. The whole idea is a little scary to me. </p>

<p>Sony didn't. It bought Konica Minolta and developed from there. It isn't a newcomer entering the market.</p>