philippartridge

<p>This Sonnar, the first such design in the ZE/F lineup, will very likely prove to be the best 135mm made, if the MTF are anything to go by. CZ are on a roll, with recent successes - the 15/2.8, 25/2 and the 35/2 Sonnar in the RX1, and the E mount 24/1.8 for NEX.<br>

More coming for NEX this year, plus three very special high end lenses for ZE/F, costing around $4000, good enough to get the best out of tomorrow's sensors starting with the D800 series. <br>

CZ need no marketing blurbs to sell this 135/2 APO Sonnar to its target audience, not many of whom are p.net members ;-), especially at the good price of $2000. They are quite bad at it I agree.<br>

http://lenses.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/downloadcenter/datasheets_slr/aposonnart2135.pdf</p>

<p>Yes. You would win in several way besides the obvious weight/bulk advantages. Sony make the best sensors and both the 5N and 7 are wonderful - see all the awards they have won. No mirror, a short registration distance, loads of accessories, and focus peaking and a fine LCD/EVF. A huge proportion of advanced users are now replacing their DSLRs with especially the NEX7 - 24Mp with a great DR and Sony's colour advantage (Canon went for high ISO with sad consequences for colour integrity, and listless and flat images are the result).<br>

You can use almost every lens ever made, and that opens a lot of doors.<br>

Now for landscape work, lenses are of course key and where you need to focus your efforts. The finest are Zeiss and Leica, and both make old film lenses that are both affordable and extremely sharp with excellent micro-contrast. Examples include: Contax G lenses of 28mm, 45mm and 90mm; Zeiss ZM, Leica M lenses, plus pretty much any SLR lenses - all with adapters. Many old Contax and Leica SLR lenses are small and balance well on a NEX body, e.g. 28/2.8 Distagon, 50/2 R Summicron, 50/1.4 Contax Planar, Contax Sonnar 85/2.8 (and the new cheap Sony 85/2.8 is based on this design). The new Sigmas are reportedly excellent: 19mm and 30mm, but will lack the german optics presence/quality. Wide angles include the Voigtlander 15mm and the porky Samyang 14mm with huge distortion. The Minolta lenses - the best of them are either very long (135, 200) or very expensive and hard to find (the 'f2' series (28, 35 and 100). <br>

The 7 is a better buy, it's a more rounded camera with well-integrated EVF and ergo controls. Worth the extra IMO. If I did not need a true 21mm AOV, I would have gone this way also, and I am very fussy. Read more at Luminous Landscape, Fred Miranda Alt forum and getdpi.com/sony. Many people find they do not need a dSLR at all...after peering through the cramped tunnel of any APS-C viewfinder, using fine manual lenses on the LCD/EVF is a real pleasure. Only the best Canon lenses are much chop in my view, very few get close to these I have noted above. They are the reason for the Alt lens movement in the first place, their wide angles were truly poor for so many years, and now the best ones are ultra pricy Tilt Shift efforts (17,24)! And get this: Sony did not even seriously consider alt lenses when they released the first NEX...they do now. The kit lens (18-55) is surprisingly good for walkaround, but do consider better lenses for serious work.<br>

To get started:<br />http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/969329/344<br />http://photozone.de/Reviews<br />http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nex_7_six_month_on.shtml</p>

<p>LR4 has a few changes, mostly evolutionary in nature, plus a few perhaps marginal inclusions - basic bookmaking etc. The Develop module is a little more intuitive from all accounts. The changes will be incorporated in CS6 and indeed you can use the beta version accessible at Adobe's website. <br>

The engine (in software as in cars it's the part that matters) is identical between LR3 and CS5, the big strides were made in demosaicing, capture sharpening and noise handling at that vsn, and tonal range manipulations were made much easier with Recovery, a great tool; WB is very good also. But, you still have quite coarse controls for some characteristics of great interest. Setting end points is pretty good, but increasing luminosity at the bottom end (Fill Light I think they call it) and using Brightness to work the midtones are quite limiting, as compared with tightly targetted tone ranges available with luminosity masks in PS. <br>

Colour controls are also lacking in both strength and finesse, another strength for PS, as is the acceptability/use of alternative colour spaces. PS sharpening controls have also moved with the times nicely, and both Sharpen and Smart Sharpen are now very good at what they do. <br>

But overall, it's true that LR/ACR can now (at last) do much of what the serious image preparer needs, and they do it at the best (parametric) stage. For this reason most broad work should be done in LR/ACR before making a file of the image.<br>

The big thing with PS is the vast array of plug-ins, the makers of which earn their money be being a step ahead of Adobe from version to version. I have 3-4 utilities which are nowhere near being available in PS/LR/ACR at the same level of excellence and I am a light user of such software. So that plus the colour handling keeps me in PS - that plus the things that a pixel editor can do that no raw converter can manage well, like content-aware fill, and I doubt LR has blend modes, which do proportionate self-editing on images with very little image damage.<br>

Layers were wonderful technology when they came along in 16 bit, and they remain as good as what can be done in LR I am sure, regarding reversibility and finer adjustment, not that one needs them much for digital files much with the excellent front end of LR/ACR. CS5's interface is a backward step in affordance compared with CS2, tiny clickable surfaces make big demands on very fine motor skills, but then again new cars don't have much rearward window visibility and are much safer, so it's a trade-off I guess. Win7 is horrible in this regard too, as MS tried too hard to make it look like a Mac, and lost a lot of everyday functionality in the process!</p>

<p>I have one on order for a new PC, and use a 2490 wuxi at present...from my research, these are great monitors for the money - especially used with SpectraView II. NEC are eating away at Eizo's market, rather than Dell's.</p>

<p>There is so much more to say about the decision, but I will summarise: Sony has an enormous colour advantage, a trade-off for slightly more chroma noise at mid-high ISO. RAW shooters who can use NR apps wonder what the fuss is about, and the noise has a pleasant character in any case, a little like film grain, and does not generally trouble prints in any case. Canon went the other way, and ended up with a dysfunctional red channel and flat colour, especially in its strength area of high ISO. There is a reason so many 5DII shooters are moving to the Zeiss ZE range.</p>

<p>The A900 has great ergonomics, very practical menu system, controls where you need them. It's also very reliable. Sony, as well as forging ahead of Canikon in innovative designs for APS-C, is in FF to stay - they have said as much recently, and the (FF) ZA 24mm was just released a few months back. The A850 is fabulous value. The SS body is a big advantage, and I doubt the Canon even approaches the A900 VF. </p>

<p>Lens lineup include the legacy later Minolta range, with some truly excellent lenses such as the 100/2, 35/2, 28/2, 200mm APO HS and the 135mm STF. There is then 5 ZA (AF) CZ lenses: 24mm, 85mm, 135mm, 24-70mm and 16-35mm. There are apparently more ZAs in the pipeline. Would you imagine they would do so if they were exiting FF? Truth is there is little sales activity in FF, the hot territory is high end APS-C; Sony have a new A77 appearing this year, reputed to be very high tech indeed. Sony are industry leaders in sensor tech, think Nikon D3X, Pentax K5 and Sony A55/580, and NEX5.</p>

<p>You can also use the good to excellent Sony G range, and many after market decent lenses from Tamron etc. I use mount-converted Contax lenses on an A900 and A700: 21mm, 28mm, 35-70mm, 100mm and soon 100-300mm as I need light weight, high resolution and MF is a bonus for me. They are very reasonable to buy and great to use - not good, but great, on 24Mp. I use Leitax mounts on these, and these mounts are also available for Leica R lenses, some of which are peerless: 100/2.8 APO and 90/2 Asph esp.</p>

<p>Wedding specialist Marc Williams shoots an A900 and much prefers it (with the magic ZA lenses) to the pro Canons he used to use - he posts over at getdpi and here. Most non-photographers and clients also prefer Sony output, a point often overlooked in all the ISO/noise/DR etc. blab. The Sony makes very attractive images, Canon output seems to be flat and lifeless in comparison, say many former Canon users. A lot of A900 users are ex large film guys (like me), industry insiders like Reichmann, landscape people and studio shooters, so a pretty eclectic bunch. LR/ACR now work Sony RAW files very well.<br>

Web Resouces:<br>

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=45<br>

http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forums.html<br>

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/<br>

http://www.leitax.com/Zeiss-Contax-lens-for-Sony-cameras.html</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hello Ilkka,<br>

I agree for the most part. We all have our lens grievances, and as you have shown, once people consider the Sony, Minolta AF, CZ ZA, the complaints looks considerably less well-evidenced. Plus Tamron et al, some of which are very good, like the 17-50 for APS-C and the 28-75 for FF. Samyang to come.</p>

<p>And they do have some that Canikon cannot offer, the STF and 70-400mm, for example.</p>

<p>If readers are not totally wedded to AF, consider Leitax mounts for many/most Leica and Contax Zeiss primes and some zooms. I have Contax 21mm, 28/2.8, 50/1.4, 35-70/3.4 and 100/3.5. All are well-priced (bar the 21mm) and truly exemplary! Or the Mirex TS adapter for the cheap and very sharp Mamiya 645 lenses.</p>

<p>The 200 f2.8 APO I found quickly, so no, don't 'rule it out'. Good luck finding the 28/2 or 35/2.</p>

<p>The CZ 16-80 is considerably better than the Nikon 16-85 VR, but CZ should release a 17-45mm of ZA quality rather than play in Sigma/Tamron territory.</p>

<p>The current and near future sales battleground for DLSR class cameras is the high end APS-C market, where the A77 will compete. Sony (and the others) really need to wake up to this and provide high end (Z standard) lenses that stand up to the high Mp sensors coming our way very soon. In actual FLs, something like the ZE range but in APS-C suitable focal lengths, especially wides. This omission in favour of all AF ZAs was a mistake in my view. If you talk to Nikon users, many love the AIS series...</p>

<p>Get (or permit) Zeiss to offer the ZE/ZF lenses in A mount, and Voigtlander while they are at it. That alone would give the mount a big kick along, the advanced Canon guys love them, who would not. In fact, Leitax now offers a mount change (reversible and easy to fit) for ZF lenses, so all you lose is auto stop down. So there are some more ideas for these fabulous cameras.</p>

<p>I think people just like to moan and want it all served on a plate for them. But look at the others...Nikon had that pricey 70-200 VR that did not cover FF when they finally got around to making one, and Canon has had god-awful mid zooms seemingly for ever, plus ghastly wide zooms and ancient primes until recently when they decided to make great ones for the pro market for a kings ramson; ditto Nikon, who made that ridiculous 14-24 no filter kilo heavy zoom. No joy there for most advanced amateurs. Neither has anything like the ZA 85/135, with SS/VR. I think Canikon have divided their lens market into two camps: pro, which they cater for lavishly, and hack consumer, which they treat with contempt. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>"And if price is no consideration, all of the longer Minolta tele apo's are top notch, unfortunately in straight $ numbers none have significantly depreciated from the days of production (some have actually gone up a bit)"<br>

I have a 200mm HS APO, and it (just about) puts my Zeiss lenses...no, can't say it, sorry. Let's say it draws very differently but my word, what a lens - all the resolution you could want in a lightish package.<br>

Many of them are much better than expected, the Minolta lenses, and very consistent across the range. The 20mm is another good one.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The Mamiya 645 series lenses are reasonably popular on DSLRs these days courtesy of the Mirex TS adapter; the one I am most familir with is the 80mm f1.9N, which makes busy but sometimes decent bokeh, perhaps better for B&W than colour. The portrait lens that would be best to chase up is the 110mm f2.8. Most all of the N series are very sharp, even on 24Mp DSLRs...</p>

<p>Hi Yakim, I want to focus on some other matters. My first India/Nepal trip was in 1978, when Lonely Planet had just two books published...I used Across Asia on the Cheap, it did from Burma to Europe in 300 pages or so. I think I am up to 11-12 visits since then, it adds up to over 2 years in all. The changes are now stupendous, and accelerating. India is now a major tourist destination and that is half the problem. Go with a good idea what you want to shoot, work through this carefully, look at other work, and let that and that alone determine your gear choice. Minimal is best. Light is best. Small is best.<br>

I think the best for a Canon person is the 5D and a 24-105. Lower cost, great colour, and less nervousness for theft/damage. Excellent IQ, good enough everything else stated above. 24mm is wide enough for most subjects and 105mm is a great top end for a walk around lens. AF for speed.<br>

Long lens - useful but a zoom is best for framing. I would look into the 70-200/4IS if affordable to you. Good enough for a crop if need more than 200mm, which is rare. Another 5D for backup. No PCs, just enough CF cards, which are quite cheap. That way, you either shoot wide to normal tele, or longish, with few lens changes.<br>

Trip details: if you want non-modern India, stay away from the tourist trail, which is very well-trodden into a deep rut these days and whose subjects redefine the term 'cliche' in photography...for a first time visit in this surprisingly giant country (as big as Western Australia) I suggest what many others do, but with some twists:<br>

Rajasthan is a must see...more for the people, and ancient cities than the brochure images. The further away the town the better. Look into: Jaisalmer out at the edge of the Thar desert, Pushkar, Jodhpur and surrounds, Udaipur and surrounds, and the animal sanctuaries. The countryside and out of the way forts and religious sites are fabulous, and the tribal societies still quite intact. India is still predominantly rural, remember, despite the bustling cities. Avoid Golden Triangle 'attractions' like Jaipur, a smelly filthy overcrowded hole with few appealing (and even then over-hyped) sights. All the decent guidebooks detail the better out of the way places.<br>

Varanasi/Benares - fantastic and photogenic ancient Hindu city, narrow back streets, the Ganges, festivals, fine eateries, the ghats, great atmosphere and an authentic experience even today.<br>

Sadly, Kerala and Tamil Nadu are sorely overrated. Most Indians are clueless about garbage, and it is everpresent, as are rats and sewers. It can get you down, seeing old colonial masterpieces like Pondicherry or Fort Cochin dying in front of your eyes. The major towns are now tourist traps, and nasty ones at that, full of gormless Europeans, who arrrive by charter flights. Cultural attractions here are thin on the ground, but there are some charming towns in the hinterlands, and the robust wildlife is doing quite well. The beaches are horrible even by Israeli standards, and all tout-infested.<br>

Many regions of interest near to Bombay (yes, many Indians call it that still) incl Gujarat state and of course the beautiful old Portuguese state of Goa, especially the old ruins and old quarters of Fontainhas. The beaches are overrun with partying English fly-in/fly-out types looking for all night rave parties. The beaches look tired and dirty, with a few coconut palms thrown in for photo interest.<br>

Even in winter, Himachal is worth a trip, a short trip it is from Delhi, to places like McLeod Ganj, Simla, etc. Very pretty countryside. If you feel like a once in a lifetime experience, fly to Leh for 4-5 days. 50 short minutes in a 737 over the Himal range, into the Tibetan buddhist mountain paradise, one of the best mountain flights anywhere, apart from Pakistan.<br>

Agra - two major sights that no one should miss: the Taj, better than anyone expects, perhaps the best thing humankind ever made, and the Red Fort, which has fine views back down the river. For non-cliche shot of the Taj, head to the other side of the river. Try to see the Taj very early or late. Nice cheap GHs in Agra also, which make great retreats from this noisy, polluted, nasty industrial city. Fatehpur Sikri if you have a spare half day. <br>

Other: learn how to deal with touts. Be firm with them, and hold onto your gear. Learn a few choice Hindi phrases. Take a decent padlock, a mid-size Master is what we use, and use it religiously. If the GH or hotel is OK, you have nothing much to worry about. The markets, like say in Old Delhi, are places to take care. Pay attention as you waltz around, always check your wallet pocket and gear bag when you have a meal or coffee. We use clips or even safety pins for trouser pockets. Use a small pouch around the neck for passport, cash and contact info. Make a copy of all main paperwork and lock it in a pocket of your backpack. The water is horrible, even bottled water, you can buy it in large bottles in the big cities. Food is great and safe everywhere but where tourists are (!) Eat where Indians do, but be careful of street food unless an Indian advises it. Learn how to pronounce English with an Indian accent - Indians are less good at English than 20 years ago, sadly.<br>

Trains are great ways to get around on main routes, sleep on your gear bag as a pillow. Train food is safe. Planes are cheap, but book ahead if possible. Long distance taxis are also a great way to see far away places, and meet local people. Good GHs are wonderful, and can arrange everything for you these days - so use them. For auto rickshaw rides, ask any local how much to pay drivers.<br>

Buying - markets are good for bags, buy fabrics from highend places that funnel money back to villagers, like Fab India. India has cheap books also, many that are simply unavailable elsewhere.<br>

Resources - my favourite is IndiaMike.com, and the Thorn Tree run by LP.<br>

Nepal - great for a break if/when India oppresses you - and a good time of year if you want a short trek or even a drive around. KTM is easy to reach by both plane and bus, from say Varanasi. It is crowwed and these days, another tourist trap, but the countryside! You can take flights to Lukla or Jomson (from Pokhara) or even drive up towards the Tibet border.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Use a tripod or handhold using a SS of over 1/250 or so; shoot at f5.6 or f8 (for DOF and to allow for focus error), make AF the last thing you do, shoot something around 20-30m away (same reason as above); set sharpening in-camera to high; use a cable release and mirror lock up if on a tripod, or SS if not; hold the body still while squeezing the shutter in a steady motion.<br>

Or do like I do - shoot a handlful or RAWs using this technique, d/load to IDC, pixel peep!<br>

Any 50mm lens will be sharp shot this way. Betcha the camera is fine.<br>

Add that you, like all of us, should read the manual over a day or two, set up IDC on the PC, even if you want to use LR3 or something else - it is very useful to check colour accuracy and white balance - Sonys make the best colour of the 3 major brands, not even close, and IDC gives it to you perfectly. So good for any checks.<br>

Other: position your eye over the centre of the VF; only use the centre AF point unless shooting moving targets, look around the forums for tips (getdpi.com/sony, dpreview/sony DSLR, dyxum.com)... </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have the Mirex TS adapter, a nice piece of gear. One of the purposes I have for it is easy stitching of panos...the 35/3.5N Mamiya lens is actually close to a 22mm horiznotal AOV while remaining a 35mm vertical AOV. So a three frame stitch works out great, since the sky and close foreground are often undesirable extras for my needs.</p>

<p>You can of course do the same for stitching two (or three) vertical frames. I agree that tilt is more useful for general landscapes, for one frame shots that need a little tilt to control the focal plane. This is all on an FF A900, I would not bother for APS-C cameras, which (generally) tolerate smaller apertures much better. </p>

<p>Dedicated TS lenses are outrageously priced, and the Mirex is a very cost-effective alternative when used with very sharp elegant and cheap Mamiya 645 MF lenses, which of course have a giant image circle of over 70mm.</p>

<p>For me at least, highly individual.<br>

Creativity is not a groupthink process. I'll go further, as I have read an enormous amount of Jung's work: everything worthwhile in the world begins with an individual. Institutions are unethical entities because all morality resides in the individual as a personal attribute. The larger the institution, the more repressed is the individual, and the less moral is the institution. Twas ever thus. Society turns its back on the individual at its peril.</p>

<p>I guess overall you can overdo it, if you use it for its own sake in an undisciplined way. I have to reshoot msot images to get the colours of the main subject where I want them, so I would be better served with a RAW histo that covered the whole LCD, preferably with configurable R-G-B display settings. In bright sun the thing is hard to see, and you can usually be sure about composition. At presetn I emulate ith with in-camera menu settings. I can see LV being great for set pieces.</p>

<p>So I think it is a great asset, if only for exposure control. And I really want to know I got the shot, for remote locations it is a must I feel.</p>

<p>Kev, if the intended usage is portraiture or for use in iamges that work well with excellent bokeh, consider the Rokinon 85mm f1.4, also known as Samyang and a handful of other names - kind of like a world car in a lens!</p>

<p>Will cost you way less than the options shown above, from memory around $US300 or so - new.</p>

<p>Here is a recent thread over at Fred Miranda comparing it with another fantastic lens if you are partial to alternatives, the mighty Leica Summicron 90mm f2:<br>

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/896425/0?keyword=rokinon#8440599 <br>

Which can also be bought for quite reasonable prices (not the AA version), certainly less than what I see listed above. YOu use this one with a Leitax mount, an easy change.</p>

<p>Another set of images shot with my choice for all round fabulous images, the Summicron (images identified in this Leica thread as such): http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/895186/5<br>

Good luck with it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>A tiny body that uses ridiculously large lenses that unbalance the thing? That uses a dumb ass LCD for framing? I can hardly see the stupid things in bright light on a DSLR. With no viewfinder? And no optical viewfinder?</p>

<p>Marshall McLuhan was right when he said 'the human race was a sucker for a hard sell.' Some people want to buy evey new thing released, and I am guessing a lot of people are more interested in social photography than serious photography - you know, the old-fashioned kind that is best suited to making great images, or does that count less than being able to flash something in public that looks more like a cigarette case than a camera.</p>

<p>But hey, whatever...</p>

<p>All these companies are dragging the chain on lens releases...they have so many irons in the fire with different formats for new cameras, and understandably focus on consumers who buy the greatest numbers of lenses, the kind of people that will never read photo.net - hence all the ubiquitous wide range plastic fantastics out there!</p>

<p>We see less of a lineup than Canikon, and that is also to be expected. They have a pretty good set of primes then the heavy Zeiss artillery for high end users. I think they are doing 'OK' but as number three, let's see more! Having said that, several of the older Minolta lenses are truly world class and have no counterpart in Canon/Nikon lineups, like the 135mm STF, and the 200mm APO is another excellent lens.</p>

<p>I feel they need 2-3 more Zeiss primes to counter the ZE/ZF series...a Zeiss 24mm f2 is due soon, it better be good as it will be expensive. A great 35mm and a great 28mm are also needed, and a Zeiss 50mm would not go astray. The Sony G zooms are first rate, it must be noted. So they are not far away, but have no fancy lenses like Canon's wide TS or Nikon's 14-24mm f2.8. Overall, not bad.</p>

<p>Doesn't affect me - I use decades-old manual focus Contax primes and a 35-70 f3.4 zoom on Leitax mounts, but for those wanting native mount lenses, it would be nice to see more high-end primes. The full frame cameras can really use the extra resolution they offer.</p>

<p>Well, here is another data point for you. I used Nikon for 3 years (D200 and 6 lenses) then went to an A900. I did 6 months of research (references later on in thsi post) and decided for my needs (landscapes of wilderness and mountain scenery, and travel/culture) the Sony was the one for the long term. I have used the A900 for around a year now and could not be happier. The jump from a good APS-C camera was akin to that from 35mm film to 645 film. I agree with Carl Zeiss that we need more pixels, but the results are frankly surprisingly good - and my comparison is a Mamiya 7II.</p>

<p>The Sony is about one stop behind on noise (generally defined) but this over-marketed issue is swamped by the gain in image quality. I use Contax lenses on Leitax mounts (28/2.8, 35-70/3.4) and Mamiya 645 lenses on a Mirex tilt-shift adapter. All are reasonable prices and get the best from the big MP sensor.</p>

<p>"...you need to have quality lenses or this resolution is wasted"</p>

<p>Allow me to address the popular but incorrect belief that one needs the best of lenses to use high MP DSLRs well. In fact the exact opposite is true, as Carl Zeiss engineer Dr Hubert Hasse made clear recently in a white paper by Zeiss. You can look it up if science and evidence matters more to you than received wisdom and prejudice ;-) It is called 'How to read MTF Curves Pt II'<br>

link: http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_31_MTF_en/$File/CLN_MTF_Kurven_2_en.pdf<br>

Part One is well worth a read too.<br>

As high MP sensors have a much higher MTF than small MP sensors, and because final image quality (IQ) is a product (multiplied factors) of sensor MTF and lens MTF, less processing system losses - the A900 and D3X are the most forgiving DSLRs of all with respect to lens quality! Again, this finding is evidenced in Hasse's paper. A D700 with a stellar lens (say a CZ ZF 100 Macro-Planar) will approximate the same total MTF as the A900 and a lens that does not even match its sensor MTF, let alone something like Tamron's 28-75/2.8. So much for that myth. A related myth that also goes therefore is that you need expensive lenses, like Sony's Zeiss AF lenses. All my alternative lenses were just a few hundred dollars each - if that much.</p>

<p>LiveView may be good for exact focus compositions but that is not typical for landscape work, where f8 to f11 are the norm - for decent DOF. So you can save time squinting at the LCD and twiddling buttons - and learn how to focus properly, if you have not learnt that yet in life. I can never see the LCD clearly in open conditions in any case so I just use for the histo mostly. OK, what else? Cropping becomes very much a viable strategy to obtaining the correct aspect ratio for the individual image, rather than trying to preserve every last pixel.</p>

<p>The A900 is a landscaper's dream - wonderful colour rendition, better hue resolution (colour separation) - ironically the reason for the slight high ISO disadvantage Sony incurred in their design. The noise thing is frankly ridiculous, these bodies turn out great output, which is why a lot of seasoned shooters like them. The newer converters do a good job of noise handling, IDC was just updated for this issue, and LR3 is much better for Sony now also. The high MP count works with the 3D effect ('contour definition') of many Zeiss lenses to impart a highly photorealistic to images. Landscapes are the toughest challenge to system resolution whether film or digital, hence a lot of pros use medium format (either film or digital) or large format film. Those making the case for small MP sensors seem not to recognise this resolution advantage, as though 4/3 is as good as 4x5 for 'most uses'. You are entitled to your own beliefs but not to your own facts.</p>

<p>The viewfinder is the best in class so manual focusing is much easier, the in-body stabilisation negates the need for high shutter speeds for portrait length lenses, and the ergonomics are far ahead of Nikon - no crazy 'banks' of different types of settings. The body is light and solid, and has been totally reliable in a mix of conditions from monsoonal Sth India to Himalayan cold.</p>

<p>I use the Leitax mounts. I have a Contax 35-70mm f3.4, a Contax 28mm f2.8, a Contax 50mm f1.4 and a Contax 100 f3.5 (rare, that last one). An hour or two is all it takes, with care and patience (not the zoom - experts only).</p>

<p>Either use in M mode, or you can buy chips to use these in A mode and give you accurate in-body stabilisation and exif, if you wish. Imagine using the best lenses with IS/VR for less than the OEM gear! They work by focusing and metering at full aperture, then stop down for shooting. For many lenses of course just shoot wide open, for portraits etc, with wonderful bokeh.</p>

<p>I also use a set of Mamiya 645 lenses (way sharp with a beautiful medium format look) with a Mirex adapter, which also give me 10 degrees of tilt and 15mm of shift (horizontal to the tilt).</p>

<p>You cannot use rangefinder lenses on a DSLR, so that cuts out the Leica M lenses. But the R series are great and come at good prices. If these options were not available, I would not have bought into the Sony system with an A900.</p>

<p>Rather than rave on about how good (make that great) these *inexpensive* options are, let me direct you to the alternative gear forum at fred miranda - some serious expertise on lenses over there.<br /><br />Resources:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.leitax.com/Leica-lens-for-Sony-cameras.html">http://www.leitax.com/Leica-lens-for-Sony-cameras.html</a><br /><a href="http://www.leitax.com/Zeiss-Contax-lens-for-Sony-cameras.html">http://www.leitax.com/Zeiss-Contax-lens-for-Sony-cameras.html</a><br>

<a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/55">http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/55</a><br>

<a href="http://www.mirex-adapter.de/tilt_shift_adapter.htm">http://www.mirex-adapter.de/tilt_shift_adapter.htm</a></p>

<p>You can do better than these for perhaps $US300-400. You don't say what your subject matter is (so many never do, strangely) nor do you say what body, specifically crop sensor or FF (again many do not) . </p>

<p>For portraits, how about Leica's R 90mm Summicron f2 (either asph or not), or Zeiss's fabulous allrounder in the Contax 85mm Sonnar f2.8 or a Leica R Summilux 80mm f1.4, then again how about a Zeiss Contax 100 f3.5. Leica made a nice Elmarit 90mm f2.8 also, I believe. No on ever accused these select lenses of being a little soft...<br>

<br />All can be fited to any Sony with an easy and reversible mount change from Leitax for about 60-70 Euros. <a href="http://www.leitax.com">www.leitax.com</a><br>

Best of luck with your decision.</p>

<p>Forgot to add that there is an ideal compromise - Astia 100F. You can easily increase its contrast and colour if needed in post, it scans much more easily than any Velvia film and the extra stop has saved many a marginal image over Velvia. A great general purpose film also.</p>

<p>Take both Velvia and a neg film. Reala was hands down the best for what you intend. Disagree with Edward, I have never shot Velvia on anything but low contrast days - the DR is just too narrow. Colour is natural if blue in shadows, human eyes tend to see blue light very poorly in any case as less than 10% of our rods/cones are dedicated to blue definition. And how easy is it to remove it if you must?</p>

<p>Re exposure, check the lightest and darkest subject matter you want detail to show in, and expose two stops below the brightest reading, letting the shadows fall where they will. Shadow detail is overrated for this kind of landscape - look at the Brit photo mags for ideas on using high contrast well. </p>

<p>In the right circumstances and the right environment, like Scotland, Velvia shines brighter than anything else. I use it in Tasmania, which is very similar to northern Scotland - on those low light, 'ideal for photography' cloudy days and low light times of the day. In places where it rains that much, 'portrait' neg films give a very poor look and require a lot of post work, esp. now that Reala is gone. They are very useful for high DR days, however.</p>

<p>Always an interesting issue, no less in 2010 than in 2002.<br>

For highest quality landscapes with optimal technique that are within scope for low ISO medium format cameras (focal length lens, dynamic range of scene), output from Astia 100F or E100 is hard for any DSLR to match. Of course that still leaves a lot of ground for top-end DSLRs. The Nyquist limit for today's DSLRs is around that of colour negative film, and very very far behind black and white film.<br>

To claim the 7D is as good as any large megapixel DSLR is ludicrous. Higher Mp FF DSLRs have higher IQ (MTF), simple as that, and of course they also have better DR and are much more forgiving of less than perfect lenses because final IQ is the product of lens MTF and sensor MTF.<br>

21Mp versus 12 Mp is around a 35% increase in resolution, Eric. Well worth having, I think.</p>

<p>As is pointed out above, however, even 12Mp DSLRs with excellent lenses and with careful sharpening and file preparation can rival medium format film in some cases for MTF, but in best case preparation for both, MF is still ahead...and you get the luscious look of film, no CA, depth of image and a lot of pixels - all handy advantages. </p>

<p>To inject some science into the issue from an impeccable source, consider reading the recent Zeiss papers:<br>

<a href="http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_30_MTF_en/$File/CLN_MTF_Kurven_EN.pdf">http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_30_MTF_en/$File/CLN_MTF_Kurven_EN.pdf</a><br>

<a href="http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_31_MTF_en/$File/CLN_MTF_Kurven_2_en.pdf">http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_31_MTF_en/$File/CLN_MTF_Kurven_2_en.pdf</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>It was thought that a slight telephoto lens would impart a more attractive look to the most common subjects - people. Give photographers a little of the look you get in spades with an 85mm, which is double the true normal, and is widely accepted as the most flattering portrait lens focal length.</p>

<p>It was very different in the rangefinder world, where many mass market cameras (that cuts out the leica crowd) came with 35mm or 40mm lenses of high quality. Rangefinders have a natural advantage for wide angles of course, the opposite is true of SLR cameras.</p>

<p>Many medium format rangefinders carry wider 'normal' lenses, like the Mamiya 7 (80mm not true normal of 88mm), Mamiya 6 (75mm not true normal of 79mm), Fuji 645 various models (60mm not true normal of 69mm) and Fuji GW690 series (90mm not true normal of 99mm). Whereas Hasselblad and Mamiya 645 cameras used 80mm lenses as normal lenses. Don't know about the two big tanks of the medium format world: Mamiya 67 and Pentax 67, might have been 90mm. <br>

Another factoid: the 35mm FL is about as close to true normal as is the 50mm FL - 7 or 8 mms. And is a much better choice for all round photography, a fine blend of optical quality, size, design simplicity, DOF, angle of field. So you see a lot of photographers eschewing the humble 50mm FL for 35mm/FF DSLR work because it is 'too boring'... <br>

Today there are a few renegade lens makers, like Cosina Voigtlander, who make a range of amazingly good FF (D)SLR lenses in unusual FLs: 20,40, 58, 90; and made a 125mm and a 180mm. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I use it for my A900 ARWs; I have the opposite view to you regarding makers' raw converters - I used Capture NX when a Nikon user. No one knows the data and how to translate it as well as the maufacturer...and they are not dummies.<br>

IDC provides the best colour with minimal artifacts of the two RCs I used, the highly rated Raw Therapee being the other one. And of course colour is one of the Sony's strong points due to its better separation - denser CFAs. Makes Canon output look anemic, but I digress.<br>

The colour output, very important to me, is dead on with IDC. Most other RCs I researched were either very expensive or freeware, and most gave sauced up results. I also use a lot of alternative lenses so DxO was no advantage, though I like what they are trying to do with lens specific adjustments.<br>

Most post work I do in Photoshop, however...after the demosaicing and exposure levels.<br>

One thing to watch for in IDC - turn off noise reduction, it's rather aggressive and diminishes file quality - sharpness and detail. Much better to use a noise plugin in PS I feel. <br>

You might want to try LR3 beta, Adobe are reportedly getting there (at last) with Sony RAWs. And a lot of people like futzong around with presets and other space cadet stuff like 'clarity' and 'pop'. OK, I made that last one up, you get the picture.<br>

Others to try if you are so inclined: Raw Developer (Mac), Capture One (if you are loaded and like their s/w).<br>

In the end, you need to know what you want and how to get there. I have the feeling most people pretty much accept the default look of the RC. <br>

DRO is a jpeg only implementation option, but very effective in some cases. The just released update to IDC reduces noise in high ISO images (over 800 ISO) - no other change.</p>

 

<p>I use one for travel and mountain photography, where weight is paramount. Unlike the huge boat anchor 70-200 (1340 grams, sheesh, who would like to haul that sucker around), this one is a mere 790 grams, is very small and has its own set of high quality APO teleconverters and is as good as the Minolta lenses got back in the day.<br>

And it is APO, comes with its own filter and a stout case.<br>

The 70-200 has plenty of CA, since it is not APO - no suprises there; and is not stellar wide open. Pretty poor bokeh also. <br>

Pros often need fast focal length adjustment for quick shooting, which is why they put up with inferior zoom lenses, which suffer all kinds of issues: weight, variable performance over the focal length range, unbalanced handholding, confronting size, massive bulk, easy element disruption, lack of longevity, difficult carriage, etc.<br>

But there is a reason why discriminating photographers use lenses like: Leica 180mm f3.4 or f2.8, Voigtlander 180mm f4, Nikon 180mm f2.8 and so on. Not for everyone, of course. For once, Canon got the tele zoom right with the 70-200 f4 IS, a small gem of a lens for those used to, and happy with Canon's colour processing and flat look.<br>

If a Sony user and zoom fan, don't count out the undervalued 70-300G, if you can use the slowish aperture range.<br>

Lots of info re the 200/2.8 APO over at dyxum.com.</p>