Hey - the Sony A900 is here!

Internaut · September 9, 2008

I know this is a relatively sedate (and civilized) photo forum, but I'm surprised to be first with this:

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/SonyDSLRA900/

Minolta system owners? I think your dream just came true!

JohnR · September 9, 2008

And at $2999, that's quite a bargain! wow.

swintonphoto · September 9, 2008

Hey Art, is Sony tempting you now?

ziggy53 · September 9, 2008

Good catch.

Should be an interesting camera to watch as it progresses into the marketplace.

Art Scott · September 9, 2008

swintonphoto wrote:

Hey Art, is Sony tempting you now?

Jonathon, as we know MP's aren't the only factor.....my 6mp cams do great 30x40" prints with the help of GF of course and yes a few more MP's could help with cropping.....but is sony's high iso as low noise as Nikon or canon and the dang thing doesn't have the gps capability of Nikon.....
The Numbers look good....BUUUUT.....I need to see pix and I need to see full size 100% crops at the highest iso's to know what I am up against in the low light market.....the price the same as a D3 and I have this afinity to have at least 2 of any SLR cam......and I really should have 2 of my KM A2 as it is truly my fine art and landscape cam......

I have seriously been looking at the E520 and E3 systems also

D:D......after seeing your work with the Oly system

thumb

bow

Now if the sony had the GPS capability and also the ability to turn on/off different grid crop lines (like the D300) then I would be sold.....maybe.....CArl Zeiss lenses are a fantastic plus....but so prices of even the mediocre sony lenses are quite high............

Since I found the D300 for just under $1300, I am really leaning towards it...........

Awais Yaqub · September 9, 2008

clap I like it amazing design

clap Always love to hear from sony

Manfr3d · September 9, 2008

And here is already a field report of this new camera:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a900-nr.shtml

Tee Why · September 9, 2008

Good for Sony.
It's a great price for a FF 24MP camera. Definitely undercuts Canon's 1DsMIII, although the AF and build level, feature set may not be at the same level it seems.

Now with 2 from Canon, 2 from Nikon, 1 from Sony, and one expected from Canon, prices will start to drop more.

Harryb · September 9, 2008

Looks like a good camera. One that I would have no interest in though. I would need a new PC and much more storage space to handle 24mp files.

Tango · September 9, 2008

so IS is not in lens, it is in camera, the sensor i would guess? IS is a hardware process right? so not a software process of IS?

might be just what i need since the 1dsmIII is out of reach...
but what they hay do i do with 7k in current canon & nikon stuff...hahahahah....man this may turn out to be interesting....
the only bad for me is there is no T/S lens from sony....

let me ask you guys, is the sony zeiss lens quality same as that from canon "L" lens?

Harryb · September 9, 2008

AaronNelson wrote:

so IS is not in lens, it is in camera, the sensor i would guess? IS is a hardware process right? so not a software process of IS?

might be just what i need since the 1dsmIII is out of reach...
but what they hay do i do with 7k in current canon & nikon stuff...hahahahah....man this may turn out to be interesting....
the only bad for me is there is no T/S lens from sony....

let me ask you guys, is the sony zeiss lens quality same as that from canon "L" lens?

check out the reviews http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests

swintonphoto · September 9, 2008

Can someone comment who really needs 24 mp? I use a 10 mp DSLR right now, and have never felt it was insufficient. I remember 3-4 years ago using a 6 mp DSLR and got great 16x20's out of it. Even then upgrading to an 8mp camera seemed like a tiny perk, but not necessary. Seems like this MP race has moved way past ridiculous.:bluduh

Tango · September 9, 2008

swintonphoto wrote:

Can someone comment who really needs 24 mp? I use a 10 mp DSLR right now, and have never felt it was insufficient. I remember 3-4 years ago using a 6 mp DSLR and got great 16x20's out of it. Even then upgrading to an 8mp camera seemed like a tiny perk, but not necessary. Seems like this MP race has moved way past ridiculous.:bluduh

i use Marc Muench as my example, just look at one of those 60in prints from that 1dsmIII in person and compare....once you see the difference you will never ask again....

the problem i mostly run into with my 12MP setup is trying to capture 9 exposures of one scene that the 1dsMIII will do in 2 or 4 if using the T/S...not to mention all in the limited time frame of light...which usually runs five minutes less than i need to do everything i need to do!

if i did not have the goal of large prints (60in) at high quality then 3MP would suit me fine...

swintonphoto · September 9, 2008

AaronNelson wrote:

i use Marc Muench as my example, just look at one of those 60in prints from that 1dsmIII in person and compare....once you see the difference you will never ask again....

the problem i mostly run into with my 12MP setup is trying to capture 9 exposures of one scene that the 1dsMIII will do in 2 or 4 if using the T/S...not to mention all in the limited time frame of light...which usually runs five minutes less than i need to do everything i need to do!

if i did not have the goal of large prints (60in) at high quality then 3MP would suit me fine...

Course we also need to consider viewing distance. 60 inch prints are not made to view with your nose on them. Plus, how many of us have ever made 60 inch prints on a regular basis?

Tango · September 9, 2008

swintonphoto wrote:

Course we also need to consider viewing distance. 60 inch prints are not made to view with your nose on them. Plus, how many of us have ever made 60 inch prints on a regular basis?

now if your trying to draw me into some sort of argument im sorry i dont have that kinda time or patience with the keyboard...you asked for someone to comment i did...i would not have if id known this was your intent...
i dont know one person that makes a 60in print with the intent of having the viewers nose on them...i find about three~four feet really just fine...
so i guess my answer to your original question : "who needs 24MP?" i guess those that dont want to put a line on the floor and say, "dont move anycloser than 6 feet to my work"...

as for how many make 60in prints on a regular basis? i dont know, i would hope not many because i know its not making large print photographers livelihood any better by having MP so much easier to get....

swintonphoto · September 9, 2008

AaronNelson wrote:

now if your trying to draw me into some sort of argument im sorry i dont have that kinda time or patience with the keyboard...you asked for someone to comment i did...i would not have if id known this was your intent...
i dont know one person that makes a 60in print with the intent of having the viewers nose on them...i find about three~four feet really just fine...
so i guess my answer to your original question : "who needs 24MP?" i guess those that dont want to put a line on the floor and say, "dont move anycloser than 6 feet to my work"...

as for how many make 60in prints on a regular basis? i dont know, i would hope not many because i know its not making large print photographers livelihood any better by having MP so much easier to get....

Sorry Aaron, I wasn't trying to get into a tiffy. Just chatting. Thanks for responding.

downhillnews · September 9, 2008

swintonphoto wrote:

Can someone comment who really needs 24 mp? I use a 10 mp DSLR right now, and have never felt it was insufficient. I remember 3-4 years ago using a 6 mp DSLR and got great 16x20's out of it. Even then upgrading to an 8mp camera seemed like a tiny perk, but not necessary. Seems like this MP race has moved way past ridiculous.:bluduh

GETTY images is who! They won't even accept my 1D MARK IIn files. They aren't big enough. Download the full sized files and they are like 18 by 11 at 350 DPI. The bigger images are just easier to work on both in stamping, cropping, and other manipulations commonly done in PS. There are 3200 ISO images on there and they look OK. the thing does 5 FPS. At $3K that is very good. Nikon D3 that the 5D surpasses in total IQ is about $1500 more and the Canon 1Ds MARK III is $5,000 more! It seems a good deal and if I could afford a P30 back for my Mamiya I would be rockin the 30MP files when able.

Tango · September 9, 2008

swintonphoto wrote:

Sorry Aaron, I wasn't trying to get into a tiffy. Just chatting. Thanks for responding.

no worries sorry back!

Furono · September 9, 2008

Art Scott wrote:

The Numbers look good....BUUUUT.....I need to see pix and I need to see full size 100% crops at the highest iso's to know what I am up against in the low light market....

http://www.alphamountworld.com/image-samples/sony-a900-sample-image-gallery

Steve

Tango · September 9, 2008

downhillnews wrote:

GETTY images is who! They won't even accept my 1D MARK IIn files. They aren't big enough. Download the full sized files and they are like 18 by 11 at 350 DPI. The bigger images are just easier to work on both in stamping, cropping, and other manipulations commonly done in PS. There are 3200 ISO images on there and they look OK. the thing does 5 FPS. At $3K that is very good. Nikon D3 that the 5D surpasses in total IQ is about $1500 more and the Canon 1Ds MARK III is $5,000 more! It seems a good deal and if I could afford a P30 back for my Mamiya I would be rockin the 30MP files when able.

you will need to start photomerging or go 24MP! i suppose only if your subject isnt moving photmerge will do...unless you get tired of merging like me.......

Art Scott · September 9, 2008

AaronNelson wrote:

so IS is not in lens, it is in camera, the sensor i would guess? IS is a hardware process right? so not a software process of IS?
IS is in the camera body....yes the sensor....this started with the Konica Minolta line of cameras that Sony took over.......I flip my switch to on and it has been on from the first day each of my KM cameras arrived....I leaved it one even when shooting from a 'pod and it has had no adverse effect on any of my images

might be just what i need since the 1dsmIII is out of reach...
but what they hay do i do with 7k in current canon & nikon stuff......Sell it off to buy more Carl Zeiss and sony stuff..hahahahah....man this may turn out to be interesting....
the only bad for me is there is no T/S lens from sony....You may find manual T/S from companies like Kiev......I have not looked at Kiev for any Minolta mount or you may have to get a Kiev T/S in an M46 and get and adapter......where there is a will there is a way

let me ask you guys, is the sony zeiss lens quality same as that from canon "L" lens?
Carl Zeiss lenses have been some of the most saught after glass in history.....I think even broken CZ (that is Carl Zeiss .....not Czech Republic) glass brings good money

MY answers are in bold above.............

Tango · September 9, 2008

thanks Art, though im not sure i would leave IS on using tripod...i would think it would sure bite if that expo was soft because you didnt turn it off....

i was looking and the lens i would get, it is $1700...holycow... so i guess the money saved in body gets made up elsewhere?

kinda seems like sixes in a way with Canon....

so with my line up of lenses to replace i might be looking at even more money spent, not to mention the loss on selling what i do have....

i really hope the new 5D has 20+ MP, or i hope the 1dsMIII drops in price soon.....

Art Scott · September 10, 2008

AaronNelson wrote:

thanks Art, though im not sure i would leave IS on using tripod...i would think it would sure bite if that expo was soft because you didnt turn it off....

i was looking and the lens i would get, it is $1700...holycow... so i guess the money saved in body gets made up elsewhere?

kinda seems like sixes in a way with Canon....

so with my line up of lenses to replace i might be looking at even more money spent, not to mention the loss on saling what i do have....

i really hope the new 5D has 20+ MP, or i hope the 1dsMIII drops in price soon.....

I have sole 30 x 40's to interior designers and I get thsoe of my 8mp KM A@ and my 6MP KM 7D's.....I take my nativve file and re do the DPI in PSCS to 300 dpi (on my A2 that is just about a perfect 8x10 and a little off with the 6mp 7D's) and then I do I once thru in Genuine Fractals to get the 30 x40" 300 dpi file.......I have never tried to changethat dpi to say 72 or even 100 to see what size print PS say it would make.....but since the college edgumaketed designers I have worked with do not understand viewing distance...this was my way to make everything more simpler in my life...rahter than answering questions like ....why is it so grainy if it was shot at iso 64 or 100.......so I took the easy road............

edit: the file I am refering to after GF4 is now living as a 618mb TIFF...... I supposed i could make it a jpg and save around 30-50% file size difference.
The jpg file that did not go to GF is only 4mb.....this is what is on my SM site.

BackToSlr · September 10, 2008

AaronNelson wrote:

might be just what i need since the 1dsmIII is out of reach...
but what they hay do i do with 7k in current canon & nikon stuff...hahahahah....man this may turn out to be interesting....
the only bad for me is there is no T/S lens from sony....

let me ask you guys, is the sony zeiss lens quality same as that from canon "L" lens?

Sony had "G" series lenses which are equivalent to Canon "L". Some of them are Minolta designs and are quite well regarded.

Sony Zeiss are a bit better than Canon L lenses for resolution and microcontrast. They have an advantage of being designed for the 24MP FF digital sensor.

So far all available CZ lenses test better than their equivalents Canon/Nikon, e.g. CZ 24-70 is sharper than the new Nikon 24-70 which better than Canon 24-70. You can check the MTF and resolution numbers at http://photozone.de
There are currently 4 CZ lenses available
135 f1.8, 85 f1.4, 24-70 f2.8, and 16-80 f3.5-4.5 (this is an APS-C) lens. The newly announced 16-35 f2.8 will be available Jan 2009.

Cheers,

N

Manfr3d · September 10, 2008

Also they are much more expensive than their Canon and Nikon equivalents.

Tango · September 10, 2008

after reading and reading some more sites (btw, thanks for all the relpies from all

) even articles of head to head 1dsMIII vs A900 i think the end result could be a even in IQ between the two set-ups....
1dsMIII better IQ sensor, Ziess better lenses, etc...

but look at the price?....a A900 with a $1700 lens is still cheaper than a 1dsMIII body.....

i will need to follow this whole Sony thing very closely..
so, if you see me over in the flea market selling Canon stuff you will then already know whats going on with me.....:D

that Zeiss 16-35 f2.8 due Jan 2009, whatcha all think about what is expected? soft on the edges like what you would find on canon L series same size?....

btw, sorry for the extra ignorance here, but if that 16mm is used on a FF would it be more equivalent to a 11mm ? or am i way off in my thinking?....

thanks all....

Manfr3d · September 10, 2008

AaronNelson wrote:

btw, sorry for the extra ignorance here, but if that 16mm is used on a FF would it be more equivalent to a 11mm ? or am i way off in my thinking?....

thanks all....

16mm on Fullframe is 16mm.
16mm on 1.6x Crop is eqivalent to 26mm on fullframe (16*1.6 = 26mm).

Tango · September 10, 2008

Manfr3d wrote:

16mm on Fullframe is 16mm.
16mm on 1.6x Crop is eqivalent to 26mm on fullframe (16*1.6 = 26mm).

BackToSlr · September 10, 2008

AaronNelson wrote:

Here is a teaser for you originally posted at dpreview image and 100% crop.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=29269330

Cheers,

N

kini62 · September 10, 2008

Imaging Resource has a very detailed "review" of a preproduction model.

some bottom lines:

1DsMkIII has better fine detail at ALL ISOs and once things go to 400 and beyond the Canon easily bests the Sony.

At 100 and 200 things are very close but Canon still has an edge.

Canon gives you faster overall operation (even though they both shoot at 5 FPS), 3 times the shutter life (rating), ability to write to both cards at once.

Canon has SD (not ideal) Sony uses MSPro Duo (even less ideal).

Canon is much better built.

Canon is actually smaller and lighter if yuo attach the grip to the Sony.

Canon has LV.

Canon for the most part has better lenses and more to choose from at lower prices too.

Sony has a nice LCD (the new 5D replacement will as well)

The only things Sony has going for it is price and inbody IS.

So for current KM or Sony owners this is a nice camera for landscape or controlled lighting studio work- nothing beyond ISO 400 for best results.

I'm sure the 5D replacement at the rumored 16-21mps will have equivalent or better detail at low ISOs (depending on actual MPs), MUCH better high ISO performance and be about the same price.

So like the police officer at the crime scene to the gawkers "Move along folks, nothing to see here"

Really nothing of interest to Canon shooters.

Gene

BackToSlr · September 10, 2008

Imaging Resource has a very detailed "review" of a preproduction model.

True but it is only a pre-prod camera and comparison is only based on in camera jpegs which suck. Look elsewhere for raw conversions of the same images

some bottom lines:

1DsMkIII has better fine detail at ALL ISOs and once things go to 400 and beyond the Canon easily bests the Sony.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a900-nr.shtml

At 100 and 200 things are very close but Canon still has an edge.

I would be surprised at that. So far Sony has much better IQ at lower ISOs than other cameras. They did a recent firmware upgrade for A700 and improved its ISO performance greatly (as much as 2 stops from some samples. That said the jpg engine in the beta (pre production) camera sucks!

Canon gives you faster overall operation (even though they both shoot at 5 FPS)

Dont know about this one. Since i have used neither. Specwise they are on par, Sony moves data much faster.
RAW 24MB*5 = 120MBps it can also shoot RAW+JPG giving close to 180Mbps off chip. Even in A700 it writes to UDMA card @37M/s (twice as fast as D3).

3 times the shutter life (rating), ability to write to both cards at once.

True.

Canon has SD (not ideal) Sony uses MSPro Duo (even less ideal).

Sony uses a CF card and second card is MSPro Duo. Unfortunately they wont write to them at the same time. Sony has demonstrated a very standardized approach to all their cameras from entry level to A900 they use CF cards every where, and same batteries, it makes it easy to carry backups without worrying about different cards, batteries, etc.

Canon is much better built.

Dont know but likely. I like Sony ergonomics better than Canons, but i have not handled 1Ds3 I have handled (5D 1D3).

Canon is actually smaller and lighter if yuo attach the grip to the Sony.

I dont know the weight of the grip, but standalone A900 weighs 895g. Same as Canon 5D. Sony tries to make it as light as possible, it is one of their design goals. One of the way they do it is they use as little plastic as possible. Even A700, is mostly metal (even on the outside). I would be a bit surprised if 1Ds3 lighter.

Canon has LV.

True, but it is not very useful. Sony has something called as intelligent preview which is more useful, IMO. You take preview image with "DOF preview" button and now u can vary exposure, DRO levels etc. Once you find the settings that you like you can select those settings and take the picture.

Canon for the most part has better lenses and more to choose from at lower prices too.

True, but many are older designs and could use upgrades of
Sony has a nice LCD (the new 5D replacement will as well)
There is nothing to beat Canon on telephoto end. On WA side Canon is not as strong.

The only things Sony has going for it is price and inbody IS.

Pretty big for all the lenses including third party lenses to be stabilized. Considering that it is almost $5000 less than Canon, you can buy all the lenses that you want :ivar

So for current KM or Sony owners this is a nice camera for landscape or controlled lighting studio work- nothing beyond ISO 400 for best results.

I'm sure the 5D replacement at the rumored 16-21mps will have equivalent or better detail at low ISOs (depending on actual MPs), MUCH better high ISO performance and be about the same price.

So like the police officer at the crime scene to the gawkers "Move along folks, nothing to see here"

Lol.

Competition is great, it will force Canon to act, it has basically been sitting on its butt for a couple of years. I switched from Canon 5D 2 years ago, and still no body. Hopefully this will cause Canon to react. I hope Nikon, Canon, Sony, and every other camera mfg gets into a price/feature war.

Cheers,

N

Hey - the Sony A900 is here!

Comments