Confirmation I am doing the right thing

[warren_sheng]

<p>Hi everyone,<br>

After years of (enjoyable) research also known as procrastination and fear of spending 000s, I am about to take the plunge into dSLR and wanted to check that I am not (completely) insane.<br>

Background: semi-pro who would like to do more paid photography. Humble 24 yr old (!) manual Pentax MX with 35mm F2.8 & 100mm F2.8, Metz 60 and Braun flashguns, shooting Fujichrome and the occasional wedding.<br>

The Sony A900 is actually cheaper than any other full frame dSLR in the U.K. and there's a special offer, so it will sell for £1500 pounds (~US$2260 inc. taxes) until tomorrow (6-May). There's a low priced, used Minolta 24mm f2.8 lens with warranty on sale, which, if still available, is good value for just £120. If not, I'll have to go for the 16-35mm f2.8 which is not too expensive here (and would re-sell easily with minimal loss). For portraiture, I would go for the Zeiss 85mm f1.4. This appears slightly inferior to the 135mm f1.8 but is lighter and more versatile. Or perhaps the nearly as good but much cheaper Tamron 90mm f2.8. I would add the 50mm f1.4 later on and try to use my Metz using the external flash scoket.<br>

Originally, I wanted the Zeiss 24-70mm but it's not great for portraits and rather heavy to walk around with.<br>

(I did consider the Pentax K20D but my lenses are not that good for cropped sensor. I think Sony has a stronger 35mm SLR future than Pentax. The Nikon D700 is nice but as the A900 is cheaper with twice the pixels, I have gone against it. I do like the Canon 5D II but their top lenses have now shot up because of the weak pound. Sony have not really increased their U.K. prices, whereas Canon & Nikon have.)<br>

Comments?</p>

[warren_sheng]

<p>P.S. I have a wonderful Nikon Coolscan 5000 but I think it would be too cumbersome to shoot Fujichrome and then scan slides a week later.</p>

[joe_oliva]

<p>Semi-pro? At what, oil painting? If you ask for confirmation you are doing the right thing, perhaps it would be helpful to share with us what exactly you propose to do instead of an endless range of possibilites.<br>

Since you mention the Sony A900, the only possible useful comment I can offer is that I own one as well as all the Carl Zeiss glass, to replace a Pentax 67 system. Yesterday in a museum, I shot an amazingly sharp hand-held pix at f/ 2.8 and 1/10th second with the 24-70. Needless to say I was extremely impressed with the lens and the in-camera image stabilization.<br>

All the best.</p>

[warren_sheng]

<p>No good at oil painting. The photography I intend to do more of than I am now include:<br>

Portraits of individuals and small groups; corporate photography to improve websites and brochures; the occasional wedding and event photography; no sports photography and minimal macro photography.</p>

[steve_c.5]

<p>The A900 would be a good bet for you. If you can't afford the CZ glass, Sigma has some good alternatives that are cheaper.</p>

[ricardovaste]

<blockquote>

<p>corporate photography to improve websites and brochures; the occasional wedding and event photography</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The A900 resolution (the big selling point) seems a massive overkill then, no? I would wait a few months. At the moment, the A700 seems more than adequate, but seeing as it is about to be replaced you could save some money waiting for the replacement to appear, or may prefer the replacement camera.</p>

[peterblaise]

<p>.</p>

<p>How can full frame 35mm not be thought of as overkill, but full frame digital is? =8^o</p>

<p>Warren, enjoy capturing the highest quality images you can for your archives, useful whenever you want the most you can get from image capture today any future day you revisit the files.</p>

<p>The Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 Alpha Mount Camera system should not let you down -- just get a flash soon for supplemental lighting on demand. I've never regretted any Minolta or Alpha camera in my collection.</p>

<p>.</p>

[steve_c.5]

<p>Uh, Peter, because full frame 35mm film cameras no longer cost three grand, you can pick them up for 100 bucks. Or less.</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>Did I say anything about film :S. Minolta 'OR' Alpha - too different things? So you do own a Sony Alpha Peter. Please share some photos with us.</p>

[John Seaman]

<p>Warren I acquired an A900 soon after they were introduced, after owning an A100 for a couple of years and have absolutely no regrets.<br>

One lens I have found very good is the Konica Minolta 17-35 F2.8-4, basically a Tamron lens I think but good sharpness and colours. Another pleasant surprise is the little 35-70 F4 which can be picked up quite cheaply, also the 24-85. The early Minolta AF lenses such as the 50mm F1.7, 28-135 F4-4.5, and 70-210F4 Beercan all work well on tha A900 (and A100).</p>

[peterblaise]

<p>.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Opening poster: <em>35mm full frame experience, looking for DSLR 35mm full frame</em> .</p>

<p>Response: <em>Massive overkill, no</em> ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My point, and I do have one, is that if there were no digital today, and the opening poster had the same criteria in film days, we probably would not have denigrated any decision to base their image capture on 35mm full frame, instead suggesting APS film is a better match, for instance. Now, somehow, because APS 66% crop has made some many people happy, we denigrate full frame as "overkill"? I don't get it. Please explain.</p>

<p>"Oh, but I was only mentioning the resulting <em>humongous file size</em> from 24 megapixels," one might suggest. "Fine," I respond, "then either capture JPG or open at Raw 50% to deal with smaller files today when manipulating anything, but you'll have full frame 24 megapixel master forevermore to make you happy in the future."</p>

<p>I, by the way, scan my full frame 35mm film to <strong><em>46 megapixels, 241 megabytes</em> </strong> , and I cannot imagine anyone suggesting that owning a Minolta dedicated film scanner that can do that is "overkill".</p>

<p>So, rather than miss the point</p>

<ul>

<li>-- Used full-frame 35mm film SLR camera bodies are cheap, </li>

</ul>

<p>... or miss the point:</p>

<ul>

<li>-- The opening poster is considering entering the Minolta Alpha market, and I'm just sharing my successful and happy experience with my Minolta Alpha purchases so far as a reference for such a decision. Yes, Sony is the logo on the front of today's Alpha Mount Cameras, but don't forget the 100 Minolta Alpha Mount Camera employees Sony incorporated from Minolta during their take over / transfer, and the 20+ years of Minolta Alpha Mount Camera used gear and hard-won experience and expertise informing any response to an inquiry. "Minolta Alpha" is unambiguous, and is MY experience. No one is cross examining your experience, so feel free to share and share alike.</li>

</ul>

<p>... please either respond to my inquiry:</p>

<ul>

<li>-- How can full frame 35mm film <em><strong>not</strong> </em> be thought of as overkill, but full frame digital <em><strong>is</strong> </em> ? =8^o</li>

</ul>

<p>... or let it be.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for sharing your clarification of your comments -- for telling us more.</p>

<p>----------</p>

<p>Also, once again, please remember that the <em><strong>Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 Alpha Mount Camera</strong> </em> is more than a mere 24 megapixel sensor, but is also a great viewfinder and fast auto focus and ergonomic and quick controls and in-built antishake, and many other features and benefits not available in total via other cameras.</p>

<p>.</p>

[peterblaise]

<p>.</p>

<p>"Oil painting" -- I get it -- hahahahah. Oh Joe!</p>

<p>But it's great to see such a variety of A900 shooters report in -- <em>happy </em> A900 shooters.</p>

<p>.</p>

[robert_paul1]

<p>Peter, when you talk about your "Minolta Alpha" purchases, are you talking about an AF Minolta <strong>film</strong> camera, or a Digital one? And which which model do you own? You've shown a picture of yourself with a X-700 in your hand, but it is not an Alpha. Please enlighten us, as to which AF Alpha you own.</p>

<p>How can you try and pass on your experiences with a digital DSLR, when you don't own/use one? The OP is talking about a DSLR and you're trying to talk about film.</p>

[peterblaise]

<p>.</p>

<p>Well, Robert, what relevant experience do you have to share with the opening poster?</p>

<p>.</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>Warren,<br>

If money is an issue, both the A900 and D700 are significantly more expensive than their closest aps-c sensor counterparts, the D300 and A700. The idea of either being "overkill" is that if you are looking at a limited use range or need to consider buying compatible lenses and flashes, etc., that extra money might better be spent elsewhere - if you haven't got a clear need for what the full frame bodies bring to the table. One thing the ff cameras bring is a bright and large finder. Aps-c cameras are sometimes a downer for those used to film finders, etc. </p>

<p>The A900, due to it's higher pixel count potentially will support larger image sizes when prints are made. If you aren't doing or expecting to do large prints, the pixel count difference may mean very little, it's just an easier to see through camera. The D700, with it's count similar to many aps-c cameras, gains the advantages of lower noise and a broader useful iso range. It won't support images any larger than any other camera with the same pixel count. (For many users, this is all off in the realms of the theoretical because they aren't working at the cutting edge of resolution/image size or fast moving subjects in low light.) The A900 with it's larger pixel count also demands somewhat more computing power for dealing with larger file sizes. Again, this may not mean much of you aren't driven by a need to deal with dead-lines, don't shoot a lot of pictures.</p>

[ricardovaste]

<blockquote>

<p>I've never regretted any Minolta or Alpha camera in my collection.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Seeing as a Asian market Minolta would still be called a Minolta Alpha, it would be logical to think that as Peter says 'Minolta <strong>or</strong> Alpha', he has a Sony Alpha DSLR. He must be ashamed of it, as he never mentions anything other than a whisper, which is quite a rarity ;)</p>

[peterblaise]

<p>.</p>

<p>Richard, I have Minolta cameras from 1959 on, and was offering the opening poster testimony as a long-term satisfied Minolta photographer, beyond the Alpha Mount Camera gear in my collection. My intent (happy to explain if I was not unambiguously clear) that my investments in Minolta-based gear has never been a regret nor felt like an expense, so perhaps a Pentax user (I have much Pentax gear experience, also) considering an Alpha Mount Camera system can feel that buying into a 25 year old Minolta-based system is a good value, well received, and well supported.</p>

<p>But thanks for your contribution of your own relevant experience to the thread in support of the opening poster's inquiry -- that the camera under consideration is overkill and the opening poster should wait for a lesser camera in order to make you happy. I suppose that all we can offer is our experience and our insight, "what would we do". Thanks for your empathy.</p>

<p>----------</p>

<p>Warren, you'll also find a great deal of Alpha Mount Camera experience in other venues. Other popular ones:</p>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/alphausers/">http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/alphausers/</a> </li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forums.html">http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forums.html</a> </li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/sony_alpha/">http://www.flickr.com/groups/sony_alpha/</a> </li>

</ul>

<p>As well as some great blogs on the Alpha Mount Cameras:</p>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.photoclubalpha.com/">http://www.photoclubalpha.com/</a> </li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.alphamountworld.com/">http://www.alphamountworld.com/</a> </li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sonolta.com/">http://www.sonolta.com/</a> </li>

</ul>

<p>Please follow up here and let us know how your decision goes! Thanks!</p>

<p>.</p>

[rickeselgroth]

<p>websites and brochures;<br>

Definitely over kill if you are doing any or either of these. You could get buy with a hole lot less camera than an a900 for sure. I think I would just pick up a A100 and spend your extra money on CZ, and G lenses, untill you really need such a serious camera as the a900. Then when you need it you got the best glass for it. Or iust rent a 900 when you need the extra high res stuff.</p>

[peterblaise]

<p>.</p>

<p>Interesting, our fear of the A900 as "too much".</p>

<p>And all along, without an in-built flash, I thought it was "not enough"! =8^o</p>

<p>Get the camera, Warren, and select a better support group! ;=)</p>

<p>.</p>

[steve_c.5]

<p>Peter, we're not in the film days, like your hypothetical above suggests in example. We do have these A900's, so I will deal in the realm of the here and now, as it relates to the original poster. Whether the camera is 'overkill' for a particular person has to do with how they wish to use the tool, and how well they're equipped to live with it on a daily basis. And each of us here is different, in our needs, in our capabilities, and in our photography work. So, whether a particular camera is overkill or not is a decision we must make for ourselves.</p>

<p>For ME and me alone, the A900 is simply overkill. Nice, but overkill. It costs more money than I wish to spend at this time. I simply can't justify buying one, because all my glass is optimal for APS-C cameras like my A700. It generates too much data for me to have to push around (assuming one uses the highest res setting in the menu, otherwise, what's the point of having the camera in the first place?). I simply don't need to generate files that big, even in JPEG mode, and surely not in RAW mode. If I were a studio portrait shooter, it would be great. But as a wedding shooter, I generate 800 to 1200 image files per event, and I don't need files that huge to process. I've got a fast machine, but if I had to post-produce 1000 files that large, it would take too long in processing time, even using batch processing. And, storing/backing up all that data becomes a larger problem than with my A700. I know hard disks are cheap now, but where does all this end? It never does, and the demands of that level of storage are more than I need to deal with. And, to buy all new full frame lenses fine enough to be used on that camera is yet another expense I can't justify.</p>

<p>So, where full frame film cameras are all but dying out these days, when you introduce full frame digital in the form of an A900 or a D3X, you create both new technological possibilities, and new complications in using one. They're two completely different animals, with the full-frame part being the main commonality. Yes, the A900 is a sweet camera, but way more than I need.</p>

[jiun_der_chung]

<p>I agree with Steve, I think for most situations in wedding photography, the A900 is probably overkill. Add to that the fact that the A700 has better performance at high ISO and is cheaper. The only thing you really gain is wider lenses for the A900. If you really need large prints, just use your film body (you'll prob want a backup anyway) especially for B&W film.</p>

[peterblaise]

<p>.</p>

<p>Please re-read the opening post:</p>

<ul>

<li><a href="00TGQn">http://photo.net/sony-minolta-slr-system-forum/00TGQn</a> </li>

</ul>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Earlier: "<em>... The Sony A900 ... cheaper than any other full frame dSLR in the U.K. ... Minolta 24mm f/2.8 lens ... for just £120 ... the 16-35mm f/2.8 ... is not too expensive ... the Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 ... perhaps the nearly as good but much cheaper Tamron 90mm f/2.8 ... add the 50mm f/1.4 ... </em> <em>I think Sony has a stronger 35mm </em> [based full frame digital]<em> SLR future than Pentax. The Nikon D700 is nice but as the A900 is cheaper with twice the pixels, I have gone against it. I do like the Canon 5D II but their top lenses have now shot up because of the weak pound. Sony have not really increased their U.K. prices, whereas Canon & Nikon have</em> <em> ...</em> "</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hello? </p>

 

<blockquote>

<h2>The opening poster <em><strong>wants</strong> </em> full frame digital with high pixel count, and finds it affordable, and is happy with the full frame lens choices available, new and old, Minolta and non-Minolta.

 

</h2>

</blockquote>

<p>Have we missed this in our "the A900 is overkill" responses?</p>

<p>The A900 is not in and of itself "overkill". Perhaps the pixel count or cash outlay is overkill <em>for some of us</em> , of course. <em>But not for the opening poster!</em> But, somehow, we allow toss-off dismissal of the <em>entire</em> A900 as "overkill" as if the <strong>Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 Alpha Mount Camera</strong> was a <em>sensor</em> alone, or perhaps as a <em>price tag</em> alone, and we forget to consider it as a total package of features and benefits not available any other way. </p>

<p>If the other features, aside from pixel count and cash outlay (and remember, <em>neither</em> of which were a put-off for the opening poster), are considered, the A900 is not "overkill", but uniquely a photographic support tool, not available elsewhere in the Alpha Mount Camera line.</p>

<p>The first thing I noticed <em>for me</em> about the A900 was the viewfinder blew the A700 away, as the A700 viewfinder blew the A350/300 away, as the A350/300 viewfinder blew the A200 away. And so on. There is nothing in the opening poster's exploration that suggests they they do not need to see their photographic subject as clearly and brightly as possible, so therefore the A900 would be "overkill".</p>

<p>Nice to mention the full frame, that's not available elsewhere in the Alpha Mount Camera line -- except ALL non-digital Alpha Mount Cameras were full frame, so THIS is why I wonder why there's a knee-jerk reaction to discredit a full frame <em>digital</em> Alpha Mount Camera as "overkill", but full frame <em>film </em> Alpha Mount cameras never were were considered "overkill" even though APS was also available throughout the terminal decade of Minolta 35mm film SLRs, and no one called those 35mm film SLRs "overkill" during APS film days. No, we're not in film days now, but we can get some of the features and benefits of our 25+ years of lenses from that era with a digital camera that bears just a little more resemblance to 35mm film days than our 1/3rd crop-off APS sensor-based Alpha Mount Cameras.</p>

<p>Ahh, but we fear the file size. So, on post processing, immediately resizing copies to 12 megapixels would make the camera capture 1:1 with the A700 AND permit all the A900 features and benefits -- oh, wait a minute, then we loose the in-camera flash. Oh well, I guess the A900 is underkill after all! ;-) Though not important to the opening poster:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Earlier: "<em>... use my Metz using the external flash socket ...</em> "</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"<em>Not in the film days</em> " means more to some of us than to others, with the proliferation of APS-dedicated lenses. Heck, then the A900 offers <em>smaller </em> files than the A700 right off the bat -- so why the complaints about A900 versus APS lenses versus files sizes? With APS lenses, the A900 offers <em>faster</em> file processing than the A700 does.</p>

<p>Then the fear that just because the A900 sensor is so great (THERE'S another reason to run from it!), we just can't use any old lens on it now, can we? Heck, the 25+ year compatibility means nothing? Not to the opening poster who immediately suggested acquiring an old 24mm f/2.8 (one of my favorites) and a 50mm f/1.4 from somewhere. Why does anyone think we can only use modern, expensive Zeiss lenses, otherwise, there will be ... what? An explosion? We will be arrested? Doesn't anybody even <em>read</em> Zeiss's protestation to the <em>contrary</em> ?</p>

<ul>

<li><strong>Zeiss: on MTF, their 85mm f/1.4 ZAlpha mount lens, the Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 camera, and more </strong> <br /> <a href="00Szc3">http://photo.net/sony-minolta-slr-system-forum/00Szc3</a> </li>

</ul>

<p>I'll summarize for the lethargic:</p>

<ul>

<li>-- A lens's behavior on better sensors is better than that lens's behavior on lesser sensors. </li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>-- A lens's behavior on any digital sensor is not predictive of that lens's behavior on another digital sensor. </li>

</ul>

<p>Zeiss themselves said and showed waay more in their two white papers, but I share the above two points in opposition to the baseless superstition and fear that we need "<em>to buy all new full frame lenses fine enough to be used on that camera</em> ", when we have 25+ years of lenses that will do just fine (pun!).</p>

<p>----------</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Earlier: "<em>... I did consider the Pentax K20D but my lenses are not that good for cropped sensor ...</em> "</p>

</blockquote>

<p>By "good" do you mean the crop reduces angles of capture you want to maintain?</p>

<p>.</p>

[warren_sheng]

<p>Thank you very much to all who responded (but I just don't get the "oil painting" comment or was it a joke on OLYmpus?).<br>

Peter: My current Pentax 35 f2.8 isn't that great a lens even though I like its focal length on film and use it for 90% of my shots. The 100m f2.8 has higher IQ but is not optimum on a cropped K20D for portraits.<br>

The biggest obstacle to full frame dSLRs is the cost--but they retain their value well. (Even the old Canon 5D is still selling well on eBay.) Crazy though it sounds, I have enough cash for the A900 and it would retain its value probably better than a cropped sensor dSLR.<br>

That Minolta 24mm f2.8 is in mint condition and is a ~1985 model! Good lenses last a long time. My Pentax lenses are still in good condition (circa 1984).</p>

[steve_c.5]

<p>(Peter-sidenote:) But the A900 lacks your beloved pop-up flash, which most of us aren't attached to.</p>

<p>To be clear, I did not make the initial "overkill" comment, I merely said it was overkill for me. I only speak for myself around here, ever, lest anyone wonder...</p>

<p>As for lens quality, I was only opining that the A900 has fine enough resolution that my $500 Sigma lenses might not compare with the CZ models, and certainly the mag factor would require me to restock my whole kit.</p>

[steve_c.5]

<p>(Peter-sidenote:) But the A900 lacks your beloved pop-up flash, which most of us aren't attached to.</p>

<p>To be clear, I did not make the initial "overkill" comment, I merely said it was overkill for me. I only speak for myself around here, ever, lest anyone wonder...</p>

<p>As for lens quality, I was only opining that the A900 has fine enough resolution that my $500 Sigma lenses might not compare with the CZ models, and certainly the mag factor would require me to restock my whole kit.</p>