This is a good thing for consumers. I hope Canon, Nikon, and others join in on the $2000 full frame market.
The consumer is the one who wins in this war.
Just to put this camera into perspective, the Nikon D100, released early in 2002, was a revelation in digital photography in that it was the first "reasonably priced" serious dSLR with a fairly large pixel count of 6 MPix, and a price tag of $2000.
The Canon D60, the second of the "inexpensive" Canon built digital SLRs, was around $2000 at its introduction later in 2002. Another 6 MPix imager, this gave advanced amateurs and professions a choice for quality digital images.
The $2000 price point has also proven pivotal for the video industry so, for a FF 35mm digital camera to finally hit this price point we have struck a significant hallmark in the history of digital photography, and Sony hit it first.
Make no mistake, Canon and Nikon are paying attention.
At list price $1999 it's not that great of a deal. D700s and 5DMkIIs can be had lighty used for about $200-300 more, maybe less. Both offer a little more in their own way.
When the price comes down to about $1699 then Sony will have something IMO. At $2K it's not enough less to make it worth the added expense of switching or adding it.
I'd be interested to see if Sony changes their approach to noise reduction, given that this camera is presumably aimed at pros and semi-pros. I know they've caught a lot of flack for their aggressive noise (and detail) reduction in the past ...
Sony Sorry you guys were not impressed. Some of the better known guys here started off in Sony land, and though they are in Canon and Nikon now, (and doing quite well I might add) they have never disparaged where they came from. The competition cannot but be of help to all of us, feature and price wise.
Most all of us are concerned with image quality above all. When I put on the CZ 16-35, 24-70, the detail quality is stunning. Minor downgrades for $700 off is a very thoughtful expansion of the FF opportunity for many, offering easier upgrade path.
Many are not happy that the movie has not been included yet, but do you doubt that Sony will leave it that way? Their single minded concentration on the DSLR has brought them a long way in a short time.
Mind you, I am a strong believer in convergence, and do not want 2 or 3 when 1 will do. That's why I have a cell phone that has an 8MP camera with flash, that can play music and connect to my car stereo.
Still, another milestone. And thanks for Ziggy to promote this post.
Dave.
I'd be interested to see if Sony changes their approach to noise reduction, given that this camera is presumably aimed at pros and semi-pros. I know they've caught a lot of flack for their aggressive noise (and detail) reduction in the past ...
They have. The 850 (as well as the 5xx cameras) include Sony's new noise-reduction processing.
Just so everyone knows...
Andy Biggs (http://www.andybiggs.com/), an expert wildlife photographer, has been using the Sony A900 on several of his recent safaris in Africa. Here is a report on using the A900 during his recent trip to Nambia:
In defense of the Sony sensor - and to address the common CaNikon response of "noise isn't handled as well at high ISO by anybody else", all the reviews of the A900 show it to be superior in dynamic range to any other DSLR ever made. For a photographer that works primarily outdoors such as landscape and wildlife photographers, the A900 and A850 may actually produce the highest quality image output possible. I applaud Sony for making some great progress in areas others haven't mastered.
In defense of the Sony sensor - and to address the common CaNikon response of "noise isn't handled as well at high ISO by anybody else", all the reviews of the A900 show it to be superior in dynamic range to any other DSLR ever made. For a photographer that works primarily outdoors such as landscape and wildlife photographers, the A900 and A850 may actually produce the highest quality image output possible. I applaud Sony for making some great progress in areas others haven't mastered.
Dxo labs gave the nikon D3x a greater measurable dynamic range in raw images than Sony. I am curious what tests the other reviewer's used to make that claim.
The 5D mkII is the camera that matches up to this in some ways, but even so the A850 as a through the viewfinder camera beats the Canon in some ways.
The viewfinder change from the 900 to 850 is equal to that on the 5D mkII.
The reduced burst speed at 3FPS is close to Canon's 3.9FPS
The Sony has 4 more "assist points" for the AF but I am not sure how it does overall.
Weather sealing I believe is in the Sony's favor but not 100% sure on that one (this is based on the 5D issues I have heard about and a few minutes of Google-ing on the Sony A900 which for the most part should be the same as the A850)
The great thing about the full frame market right now is the 3 cameras in this class have very different strengths.
The D700 is the best "camera" with a pro-AF, great body, and great high ISO, just lacking in resolution next to the other 2.
The 5DmkII is a compromise between resolution and low light, you still get great high ISO performance (not as good as the D700 but still great) and lots of resolution, plus HD video but it is lacking in the AF and toughness.
The Sony was all about lower ISO's and amazing quality down there. But it has the best resolution, and what seems to be a sturdy body, plus built in stabilization which is a great feature. The A900 was a great camera and I would have been seriously interested in it over the D700 I bought if their ergonomics fit with my hands. But even as a Nikon fan if I got into the position where I needed to do lots of studio work the A850 is just a bargain, 2,000 for the body, and a great sharp used prime and you are in business.
Back to the point of the post I quoted, I can't think of much Canon could do, they can't reduce FPS much, the viewfinder is already a crop, and the video feature while adding some money is no where near the price difference.
In defense of the Sony sensor - and to address the common CaNikon response of "noise isn't handled as well at high ISO by anybody else", all the reviews of the A900 show it to be superior in dynamic range to any other DSLR ever made. For a photographer that works primarily outdoors such as landscape and wildlife photographers, the A900 and A850 may actually produce the highest quality image output possible. I applaud Sony for making some great progress in areas others haven't mastered.
Comments
http://www.examiner.com/x-17188-Columbus-Photography-Examiner~y2009m8d27-New-Sony-A850-The-most-affordable-Full-Frame-DSLR
http://www.ubergizmo.com/15/archives/2009/08/sony_a850_unveiled_among_others.html
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09082705sonya850.asp#press
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Ron
http://ront.smugmug.com/
Nikon D600, Nikon 85 f/1.8G, Nikon 24-120mm f/4, Nikon 70-300, Nikon SB-700, Canon S95
http://www.jonathanswinton.com
http://www.swintoncounseling.com
The consumer is the one who wins in this war.
Alpha 99 & VG, 900x2 & VG; 50mm1.4, CZ135 1.8; CZ16-35 2.8, CZ24-70 2.8, G70-200 2.8, G70-400, Sony TC 1.4, F20, F58, F60.
The Canon D60, the second of the "inexpensive" Canon built digital SLRs, was around $2000 at its introduction later in 2002. Another 6 MPix imager, this gave advanced amateurs and professions a choice for quality digital images.
The $2000 price point has also proven pivotal for the video industry so, for a FF 35mm digital camera to finally hit this price point we have struck a significant hallmark in the history of digital photography, and Sony hit it first.
Make no mistake, Canon and Nikon are paying attention.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
When the price comes down to about $1699 then Sony will have something IMO. At $2K it's not enough less to make it worth the added expense of switching or adding it.
Gene
http://www.youtube.com/user/NYCFilmmakersGroup
http://www.meetup.com/NYC-Filmmakers-and-Actors-Meetup-Group/
Most all of us are concerned with image quality above all. When I put on the CZ 16-35, 24-70, the detail quality is stunning. Minor downgrades for $700 off is a very thoughtful expansion of the FF opportunity for many, offering easier upgrade path.
Many are not happy that the movie has not been included yet, but do you doubt that Sony will leave it that way? Their single minded concentration on the DSLR has brought them a long way in a short time.
Mind you, I am a strong believer in convergence, and do not want 2 or 3 when 1 will do. That's why I have a cell phone that has an 8MP camera with flash, that can play music and connect to my car stereo.
Still, another milestone. And thanks for Ziggy to promote this post.
Dave.
Alpha 99 & VG, 900x2 & VG; 50mm1.4, CZ135 1.8; CZ16-35 2.8, CZ24-70 2.8, G70-200 2.8, G70-400, Sony TC 1.4, F20, F58, F60.
They have. The 850 (as well as the 5xx cameras) include Sony's new noise-reduction processing.
http://tiny.cc/UF6sK
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Andy Biggs (http://www.andybiggs.com/), an expert wildlife photographer, has been using the Sony A900 on several of his recent safaris in Africa. Here is a report on using the A900 during his recent trip to Nambia:
http://andybiggs.squarespace.com/the-global-photographer/2009/8/11/sony-a900-and-lenses-namibia-trip-summary.html
I agree that Sony jumping into the game is definitely going to keep Canon and Nikon on their toes.
Dwayne
http://www.jonathanswinton.com
http://www.swintoncounseling.com
http://www.youtube.com/user/NYCFilmmakersGroup
http://www.meetup.com/NYC-Filmmakers-and-Actors-Meetup-Group/
The 5D mkII is the camera that matches up to this in some ways, but even so the A850 as a through the viewfinder camera beats the Canon in some ways.
The viewfinder change from the 900 to 850 is equal to that on the 5D mkII.
The reduced burst speed at 3FPS is close to Canon's 3.9FPS
The Sony has 4 more "assist points" for the AF but I am not sure how it does overall.
Weather sealing I believe is in the Sony's favor but not 100% sure on that one (this is based on the 5D issues I have heard about and a few minutes of Google-ing on the Sony A900 which for the most part should be the same as the A850)
The great thing about the full frame market right now is the 3 cameras in this class have very different strengths.
The D700 is the best "camera" with a pro-AF, great body, and great high ISO, just lacking in resolution next to the other 2.
The 5DmkII is a compromise between resolution and low light, you still get great high ISO performance (not as good as the D700 but still great) and lots of resolution, plus HD video but it is lacking in the AF and toughness.
The Sony was all about lower ISO's and amazing quality down there. But it has the best resolution, and what seems to be a sturdy body, plus built in stabilization which is a great feature. The A900 was a great camera and I would have been seriously interested in it over the D700 I bought if their ergonomics fit with my hands. But even as a Nikon fan if I got into the position where I needed to do lots of studio work the A850 is just a bargain, 2,000 for the body, and a great sharp used prime and you are in business.
Back to the point of the post I quoted, I can't think of much Canon could do, they can't reduce FPS much, the viewfinder is already a crop, and the video feature while adding some money is no where near the price difference.
Dxo lists it as 12.3 for the A900
The Fuji S5 Pro is 13.5
D3X is 13.7 :jawdrop