through some stroke of luck (sony a850)

emraphoto

emraphoto

Veteran
Local time
6:03 PM
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
3,773
i have been loaned a sony a850 for a while. never been much interests in high megapixel count dslr's it never occurred to me that they may be at a point where the medium format film question became complicated.

well, after a few days the medium format film question has become complicated. Raw files from this camera with the 35mm f1.4g, 50mm f1.4 and 28mm f2.8 exceed any expectations i had.

the camera has excellent dynamic range, when shooting raw, with mind boggling rendering power and requires very little post work to arrive at print ready files. the iso performance up tp 1600, which is as far up the ladder as i have interest in, is easily the equal of scanned 120 (on a coolscan 8000). high iso being an interesting point for me as i am not a fan of super clean files. i like a bit of 'texture' and prefer the files of a 5d mk1 over those of the mk11 for illustration (please, no efforts to convince me otherwise are needed).

weather sealed, 24.5 megapixels, decent battery life (and size) and a beautiful finder. i know huge megapixel counts have their detractors, often justifiably so, but i am thinking large prints here with a particular project in mind. i am pleasantly surprised to say the least!

i will begin work on something within the next week and will offer up thoughts on the files and their viability for large prints. if you want to see raw files please feel free to drop me a line.

any other thoughts on some of these megapixel beasts and the resulting images are more than welcome.

i still shoot film rangefinders and this isn't about declaring anything the best/champion/winner/only choice/etc/etc/
 
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the A850; that model has interested me, and for a while I'd dig some more on the internet for info on it. It has some very attractive characteristics.

But what about lenses? I thought there was to be a full range of Zeiss lenses for it, but it seems that hasn't happened. The more desirable of the Minolta lenses have become hard to find, I hear.

And if it comes to Minolta glass, then is that "better" than Pentax... I'm big on Pentax and like their lenses for 35mm, dSLR, 645, and 6x7. Tough to break into a whole new system, but the attractions of the A850 are strong too.

As to resolution, even with the M9 at 2/3 the pixels, I see it making stronger demands on the quality of the lenses, and on focus accuracy. But when you get it right it can be eye-popping! While the high resolution doesn't guarantee a good pic, it can make a good pic even more satisfying and useful.

Have fun, and I hope to see some of your results. :)
 
the lens question is certainly a consideration. i am usually quite happy with a 35mm for 95% of what i do. the 35mm f1.4 seems capable of matching the resolving power of the sensor.

the lens question, with the full frame Sony cameras, becomes more about $ than anything. the glass one needs to realize the ability of the camera is not cheap by any standards. the minolta primes seem plentiful on the used market and by all accounts are star performers for little money. the current stable of zeiss branded lenses are interesting and their performance is said to be excellent. i may take the 24mm for a spin in the next week.

i think the pentax k5 is a brilliant camera and a very strong contender for a reportage camera. my interest currently lays in large prints and maximum resolving power (which is normally not high on my list of interests) so thus the a850 was placed in my hands. previously i had been committed to medium format film.

the package itself, body and three primes, is quite compact and the files it is producing are nothing short of astounding! the in body stabilization is also a compelling feature.

well, if for no other reason, i will continue to add my thoughts to help inform you Doug. i have been commissioned to shoot something that will be printed large scale so viewing final prints is an option should you have the interest.

cheers
John
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your thoughts and experience. I look forward to hearing more from you as you continue to try out the camera.
 
Very interested in your developments and some examples!
The a850/a900 is a real photographers camera - nice ergos, no bull****.
 
I've got the a850 about a year back, as I wanted to use a DSLR again. Got my Nikon Makro Planar 100 leitax'd and now have a couple of other lenses, mostly primes.

I can't really compare it to modern DSLRs, as I haven't used any recently. Lightroom 3's noise reduction is very efficient until ISO 1600, which is enough for me. The RAW files got nice color and incredible detail. The camera has got AF adjust, which is really what all AF cameras should have, I guess.

What do I enjoy most? The Finder, Zeiss glass avail (even if it's expensive and large ;) ), the ergonomics, the finder, ... did I mention the the finder?

The a850 has got a JPEG processing which deals with high dynamic range. If I understand it correctly, it raises exposure locally in the image where the algorithm believes it makes sense. Can be set to different levels. Sometimes this really gives great results.

I never thought I'd buy a camera from a company which invented the walkman.

Ivo
 
I hope you realise you are setting a precedent here - balanced, informed comment on a camera experience! :)
 
sorry Chris, i'll keep it on the DL (down low)

some thoughts.

the viewfinder is a beauty. big, clear and it can be set up to taste. i have always been a single af point smack dab in the middle and leave the finder uncluttered sort of fellow. set up that way and the view is smashing. one of the best i have seen through a dslr.

shot some work the other evening and the camera performed well within the focus aid range. a few misses af wise but truthfully i am easy to please that way. only issues seemed to be fairly predictable, low contrast in super dodgy lighting.

ran the iso up to 2000 and the files seemed to show very little noise? there is an internet myth going about that this camera is not a great performer up there but so far it seems unfounded. i actually prefer a little 'texture' (aka noise) to my files so keep this in mind. i suppose compared to some of the high iso wonders out there the a850 could be considered behind the curve.

have a manual focus screen and an m42 adapter coming in the mail and will report on that experience as things unfold. captioning and scanning all day today so samples will have to wait.
 
If you happen to have a chance to play with a D700 I'd love to hear how it compare viewfinder wise Emra.

Real test for ISO is 3200 and up these day, I regularly shot at the level on the D700 because it's clean so looking forward to some sample.

BTW you still have the Mamiya 7?
 
The viewfinder on the A850 and D700 (I've used both but not side by side) are both wonderful. I can't recall a difference.

The A850 is a fantastic camera. It is heavy, however, and add some Zeiss zooms and it doesn't get any lighter. I would use it up to 3200 with LR3's color noise slider...but I don't mind noise if it isn't of the chroma variety. The files were great to work with.

I don't like Sony's JPEG engine and I don't prefer shooting in RAW, so that was a downside for me. It saves me a lot of time if I can get satisfying JPEGs from the camera. Few provide that. Nikons are decent, the R-D1 is proving to be excellent, and Olympus's JPEGs are as brilliant as the crash and burn of that corporation! But Sonys are more RAW cameras. Since lots of people would get the A850 to squeeze out every bit of detail, that makes sense.

I found that Classic maxxum glass worked very well on the A580. The beercan is a solid, sharp, cheap zoom. I love the fast-fifties from Minolta. So spend a bit for a wide, fast Zeiss, and fill in with a nifty-fifty from the Maxxum days (their build is quite nice, too, better plastic than what you see today) and a beercan, and it's actually not such an expensive proposition.
 
The medium format film versus digital thing became a non-issue for me after my very first gig with my first digital camera. The gig was a bridal portrait, which I planned to shoot with my standard rig at the time, a Pentax 6x7 with the 105mm lens. I didn’t yet know or trust my shiny new Canon 10D, but thought I would make a few shots with it just just to see how it did.

The 10D files showed promise, even though only from a six-megapixel camera, so I had 16x20 prints made, one from a 10D jpeg and the other, of the same pose, printed from a professionally scanned 6x7cm NPH negative. The lab owner was greatly surprised by the results, and when I showed the prints to a number of my fellow commercial photographers and several of the art directors I work with, only one was able to identify which was which.

Some of you guys say you can tell the difference between film and digital. Maybe you can, but I can tell you that a bunch of experienced professional photographers and art directors in my city couldn’t. And neither can I, except that digital usually looks better.

I will concede one thing, though. Even though digital is better in almost every way, film was more fun. Or maybe I’m just waxing nostalgic.
 
Last edited:
dreilly said:
The viewfinder on the A850 and D700 (I've used both but not side by side) are both wonderful. I can't recall a difference.

The A850 is a fantastic camera. It is heavy, however, and add some Zeiss zooms and it doesn't get any lighter. I would use it up to 3200 with LR3's color noise slider...but I don't mind noise if it isn't of the chroma variety. The files were great to work with.

I don't like Sony's JPEG engine and I don't prefer shooting in RAW, so that was a downside for me. It saves me a lot of time if I can get satisfying JPEGs from the camera. Few provide that. Nikons are decent, the R-D1 is proving to be excellent, and Olympus's JPEGs are as brilliant as the crash and burn of that corporation! But Sonys are more RAW cameras. Since lots of people would get the A850 to squeeze out every bit of detail, that makes sense.

I found that Classic maxxum glass worked very well on the A580. The beercan is a solid, sharp, cheap zoom. I love the fast-fifties from Minolta. So spend a bit for a wide, fast Zeiss, and fill in with a nifty-fifty from the Maxxum days (their build is quite nice, too, better plastic than what you see today) and a beercan, and it's actually not such an expensive proposition.
Click to expand...

i have been given a 28mm f2.8 and 50mm f1.4 to toy with and plan to add a manual focus 35mm in the near future. some family challenges have kept me pretty tied up the past few days but hopefully i will get back at it in the coming week!
 
Dave Jenkins said:
The medium format film versus digital thing became a non-issue for me after my very first gig with my first digital camera. The gig was a bridal portrait, which I planned to shoot with my standard rig at the time, a Pentax 6x7 with the 105mm lens. I didn’t yet know or trust my shiny new Canon 10D, but thought I would make a few shots with it just just to see how it did.

The 10D files showed promise, even though only from a six-megapixel camera, so I had 16x20 prints made, one from a 10D jpeg and the other, of the same pose, printed from a professionally scanned 6x7cm NPH negative. The lab owner was greatly surprised by the results, and when I showed the prints to a number of my fellow commercial photographers and several of the art directors I work with, only one was able to identify which was which.

Some of you guys say you can tell the difference between film and digital. Maybe you can, but I can tell you that a bunch of experienced professional photographers and art directors in my city couldn’t. And neither can I, except that digital usually looks better.

I will concede one thing, though. Even though digital is better in almost every way, film was more fun. Or maybe I’m just waxing nostalgic.
Click to expand...

certainly not meant as a contest to what you have written but the a850 is the first time i feel as though a digital camera has matched what i can get out of medium format film for large gallery prints. all of this is subjective though so neither of our experiences are wrong.
 
Ah the FF DSLR. I've looked at the Sonys a hundred times but can't make them work financially versus the MF film gear I have now.

But they look like great cameras. I have a feeling Sony may screw them up in the next round.
 
Paddy C said:
Ah the FF DSLR. I've looked at the Sonys a hundred times but can't make them work financially versus the MF film gear I have now.

But they look like great cameras. I have a feeling Sony may screw them up in the next round.
Click to expand...

it is financial reasoning that has me trying one out right now Paddy.
 
Not speaking for John, but I would say that if the files are that good, then the savings of time and effort involved in both developing and scanning is a significant consideration.
 
Paddy C said:
Do you mean that you are considering the cost of film and development vs the cost and results of the Sony?
Click to expand...

yes. to get competitive prints out of 120 i need to have drum scans done. the cost is considerable when putting a show together, like in the the $8,000-$10,000 range, so any way i can chip away at these costs i am game!

i am hoping to shoot some 4x5 in the coming weeks so i will reserve final decisions until then;)
 
Trius said:
Not speaking for John, but I would say that if the files are that good, then the savings of time and effort involved in both developing and scanning is a significant consideration.
Click to expand...

well for me it has proven a serious consideration. scanning for web use and filing alone is a mountain of work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom