The term “cold feet” is of course often used in the context of marriage, and so it’s an appropriate term to use here, since a serious photographer is, in a sense, married to his/her camera. (I’ll set aside the further metaphor of camera polygamy for now). Investing thousands of dollars into a whole new camera setup (and committing to use it all the time as your go-to camera) is a big decision, and one that many photographers, including myself, dwell upon for far too long. At some point, you just have to either forget about it, or buy it and get it over with.
Last week I went for it, and bought a new Sony A900 full-frame 24mp digital SLR, along with the Zeiss 24-70mm and Sony 20mm lenses. After just a few shoots with the new camera, I’ve gotten cold feet and have returned it. I’ll explain why below. (Warning: don’t bother reading further if you’re not a camera gearhead).
My main reasoning for buying the A900 was that it would be a good compromise between an ultra lightweight small-sensor digital SLR setup (like my 4 lb. Olympus E-420 setup) and a heavy, large format setup (like my 20 lb. 4×5 field camera setup). I was thinking that the 24mp A900 with sharp lenses could potentially provide enough resolution to make prints up to around 50″ wide, from a camera setup weighing in at around 10 lbs, or half the weight of the 4×5 setup. (By the way, the Canon 5DII is the other option here, but this is irrelevant to my point, since the specs are so similar).
My first real shoot with the A900 was a bad wake up call, and the beginning of my “cold feet”. As I mentioned in that post, I just didn’t get along well with the camera interface, finding it to be frustratingly unintuitive. This was disappointing, because I really wanted to love this camera. I know that given enough time, you can get used to and comfortable with most any camera, but for the first time the thought popped into my head that maybe this was not the camera for me afterall.
That night as I was reviewing the photos, I decided to open up some 4×5 drum scans to compare. That’s when it struck me that the A900 is nowhere even close to the 4×5 in terms of image quality and resolution. Not even the same ballpark. Whereas the A900 files could indeed be upsized to a max size of around 50″ wide, this was pushing it, with some fancy sharpening techniques. Compare that to the 4×5 drum scans, which have a native resolution of about 50″ wide @ 300ppi, and can handle upsizing to 120″ wide. Plus, these comparisons don’t even take into account the full-frame SLR’s depth-of-field limitations from not having lens movements… meaning that it would be very tough to have perfectly sharp foreground and background, and any softness would be all the more apparent in the larger print sizes.
That got me to rethink my whole compromise strategy. With weight and image quality being my top concerns, I figure there’s an easy way to sort this all out and boil it down to a simple formula: a basic ratio of resolution/weight. If you compare it this way, the Sony A900 has a lower score than both the Olympus and the 4×5.
Also, for all the supposed benefits of full-frame sensors, I realized two subtle but important limitations, compared to smaller sensors. The first is the increased difficulty of obtaining enough depth of field, as explained here. Secondly, stitching photos together to make really large panoramas becomes more difficult with a full-frame sensor because of increased likelihood of vignetting at the sides of the images. Concerning these two issues, the 2x cropped sensor of the Olympus camera behaves much better.
Perhaps I am being overly analytical about this. But if I was going from my gut the conclusion is the same. I didn’t like the A900 interface, I never liked the 3:2 image ratio, and if I spend $5000 on a new camera I’d better be very stoked on it, and I wasn’t. Perhaps I haven’t given it enough of a chance, but I just had too many doubts, and I had to make a decision before my return period had expired.
I was excited about returning exclusively to digital shooting, but I realize now that there’s really no SLR substitute to the 4×5 field camera, and if I do shoot an SLR, it might as well be a really lightweight one.
So, what next?
I’ll be sticking with my current strategy of taking the 4×5 only on shorter backpacking trips where I’m camped out in one place for several days. For longer, more demanding treks, I’ll be taking a lightweight digital SLR setup, and currently Olympus is where it’s at.
I’m excited about the recently announced Olympus E-620, which is about the same small size and weight as the E-420, but with 12mp and a fuller feature set. The highly regarded Oly Zuiko 7-14mm lens would be a nice addition too, alongside my Oly Zuiko 12-60mm which is still my favorite lens I’ve ever used. I’m also very much interested in the upcoming Olympus micro-4/3 camera, which could potentially have an extremely high image-quality/weight ratio. It might be a while though before that camera is released, along with a set of suitable lens options.
One final note: This post obviously puts the Sony A900 or any full-frame camera in a negative light. Please keep in mind that there are a lot of great things about these cameras (such as the incredible viewfinder, for instance), but I didn’t mention any of this. After all this post is inherently a negative one, all about why I chose NOT to keep this camera. But for the purely digital photographer the A900 might be one of the best cameras ever made. Yes, this could be the perfect camera for someone, but not for me. How’s that for a good break-up line?
I’m not surprised. I read an article a year or two ago comparing the then top of the line Canon with large format. The large format image was dramatically better. The lenses accounted for part of this, but the Canon image was mud next to the large format image. I’m not sure that digital is ready for anything more than 35mm equivilent. I also believe that today’s DSLR lenses are not resolving enough for high megapixel use.
I recently upped my shooting with film and to my eye digital and film are different. You can get far more with less in film. A nice medium format image is a dream. There’s just the hassle of processing and scanning.
I think Olympus has it right. I have the new E30 and positively love it. The E620 looks like a dream machine for its price range, and you would likely love the swiveling LCD. Have you ever considered the Mamiya 7 II? It make have its quirks but a lot of landscapers like it for its low weight and size and high image quality. But you also have to deal with a rangefinder.
Sorry to hear about your short relationship with the Sony A900.
Just watch out for that “rebound” camera. 
That’s really funny Scott.
Doesn’t surprise me either, when it comes down to big prints. Your photography deserves big prints. I absolutely love shooting with dSLR, but then again I rarely need to go above 20 x 30 – and that’s more by choice these days. More importantly, I really love my camera. If you’re going to lug it around, you gotta like it.
Using your formula, sounds like the new Oly will be just the ticket. It’s an impressive sounding offering. I have always loved Olympus. Takes some balls to declare “12MP is enough”.
It doesn’t surprise me either, since I’ve seen the image quality that 4×5 film makes possible, and nothing in the world of single-capture digital is even in the ballpark yet. I’ve seen 20×30 prints made from digital SLR images, and they invariably looked pretty soft compared to the ones made from 4×5 film.
Jack,
Thanks for your report on the A900…sorry it hasn’t worked out for you. As an Olympus E shooter, I’m glad to hear a landscape/mountain photographer touting the advantages of their system, even with the smaller sensor. I currently have the E-520, but am about to sell it. I will either save for the E-620 or the E-3 (finally), but to be honest I am lusting for the 5D Mark II. I’m interested to see what you end up with in the coming months. At any rate, thanks for posting the pictures from the A900 while you had it.
Interesting post, Jack. It’s good food for thought as I consider my long-term plans equipment-wise. My shooting style is pretty similar to yours in that it often doesn’t even involve trails, let alone roads. Size is a major concern. It’s interesting to see a photographer of your caliber decide that the size of a full-frame DSLR outweighs its benefits. If you’re sticking with the Olympus for now, you must not feel that its 22.5″x30″ prints are disgraceful hanging next to your 4×5 work.
I think your observations are consistent with your ‘no compromise’ approach overall.
For most, however, compromise is a necessary part of decision making and whilst you have both of the camera options you have, and were looking for a third middle ground, many will be looking for only the middle ground! Put another way if you had to decide on only 1 camera and, say, 2 lenses, for the next 2 years your ‘conclusion’ might be somewhat different? On the no compromise front I’ll bet you will have an m43 body with the Panasonic 7-14 by the end of the year though!
No one should be allowed to witness all that beauty let alone capture it. I’m just glad it’s catch and release.
One of the reason of Olympus’s outstanding results despite their small sensor is to be found in their telecentric lens approach.
The next systems to watch going in this direction are the already announced Leica S2 and the long-time rumoured Nikon digital medium format MX. Off-course, they both lack objectives with the displacements a chamber offers.
http://www.s.leica-camera.com/
[...] for the new camera, so far so good! Unlike my last trial with full-frame digital, the Canon 5D2 felt great to me. Everything seems to be laid out nicely, and it seems to do what I [...]
Very interesting to follow your perspective on gear and how you are getting on with new choices – thank you for so being so frank and willing to share about it with the rest of us.
Having read you mention that one of the drawbacks of full frame sensors is the potential for problems when stitching photos, I wondered if you had ever come across Max Lyons (http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/index.html)?
He has taken this technique to extreme lengths but it’s interesting to read the claims he makes for image quality and resolution of his SLR digital pictures at print sizes of up to 40×60″ and beyond. He reckons that they rival or even exceed that obtainable with medium and large format. Check out his gigapixel image of Bryce Canyon (http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/PMAS04/1076707253.html)!
Obviously this would impact on workflow and result in more time at the computer which I imagine you wouldn’t be too keen on but it would seem like one possible option in your resolution/weight ratio criteria?
Sorry, mis-pasted the links in the previous post. Hope these work better.
http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/index.html
http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/PMAS04/1076707253.html (Gigapixel image)
Hi Jay,
This post about the full frame A900 is a bit out of date, especially considering that I recently purchased (and am loving) a full frame Canon 5D2! I think the difference there has to do with the interface and also the lenses. Whereas I struggled with the A900 interface for some reason, the Canon seems much more intuitive to me and just does what I expect from a camera. Also the live view is a huge bonus for manual focussing, and I use it all the time. As for lenses, I’m using the new wideangle tilt/shift lenses, which resolve much of the depth-of-field issues that bothered me with the A900, in particular with compositions using more drastic foreground to background range.
The huge image circles of the T/S lenses also allow for very easy stitching of side-by-side exposures (with the lens shifted either direction). Light falloff isn’t an issue for the stitch, and since the camera doesn’t move there is very little distortion correction required – the images line up together almost perfectly.
So between the Canon’s live view and manual focus T/S lenses, this setup feels much better to me, almost like a digital version of shooting the 4×5 camera. Another thing to consider about my decision to try full-frame again, in regards to my resolution/weight criteria, is that I came to the final conclusion this summer that the 4×5 system weighs too much to continue carrying around in the mountains. It is simply unhealthy. With that camera option increasingly off the table for me, the resolution/weight idea changes its dynamics.
Thanks for the links to Max’s work. I am sure the resolution he’s getting with his stitched images is great, but I don’t think that’s the way for me. I think it would be too difficult to do successfully in fast-changing light conditions, and also I don’t have the patience to put all those together on the computer! I have done quite a few single-row panorama stitches, which are easy enough, but the multi-row stitches seem to exponentially increase the difficulty/time required.