A900 PRICE REDUCTION (U.S.)

<p>On the Sony Style web sight, the A900 is listed at $2699. The previous price was $3000. Good news. </p>

<p>Perhaps they could add some better high-ISO noise reduction to go with the price reduction.</p>

<p>On the other hand, a number of lenses have gone up in price. Bad news.</p>

<p>The full frame quandary goes on and on for me. I have been reading Shutterbug, Popular Photography etc. All are touting the new full frame offerings. The A 900 is usually featured last or on the bottom of the stack (as on the cover of Pop Photo) (a subtle review). Then, somewhere in Pop Photo a reviewer of new lenses stating that using older 35mm lenses on a full frame digital is defiantly inferior. He said, "you can easily see the difference". I have a good selection of 35mm a/f lenses.</p>

<p>It seems a never ending trap to me. I waited for the 900, reviews and posts here have been in my estimation less than stellar on it. I can't (according to some reviewers) obtain top quality images with my lenses. Then new flash requirements, have to upgrade those. On and on. I'm not getting into a new camera for $6000.00/$7000.00 or more, by the time I am done.</p>

<p>I know a lot of this is hype on reviews is Cannokon fever. But, at any rate, I'm sticking with the Maxxum 7. I'm not getting caught up in this BS. I might buy a 700 though, just for digital convience. The APS change with my lenses might work to an advantage to make it worth while.</p>

<p>Sam, I shoot with two A700's and it's more than enough for my wedding work. The 900 for me is simply overkill. Nice, but overkill. I just don't need RAW files that hit nearly 30 megs each and JPEG files that hit close to 20.</p>

<p>Sam Norris said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Then, somewhere in Pop Photo a reviewer of new lenses stating that using older 35mm lenses on a full frame digital is defiantly inferior. He said, "you can easily see the difference".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While it's certainly true that very few of the older Nikon and Canon lenses work well with their newer cameras, the same is NOT the case with the older Minolta lenses. I certainly wouldn't try to claim that every old design is a great choice for an Alpha 900, there are certainly a fair number that work beautifully.<br>

<br /> There are a few cases where old Minolta designs are probably the first choice in their ranges, such as the 28/2.0 (clearly better than the Sony 28/2.8), the 100/2 and the 28-135/4-4.5 (still crazy-sharp after all these years).</p>

<p>There are a whole lot of cases where the Sony lens is either nearly identical to, or virtually no improvement over the older Minolta design: 28/2.8, 35/1.4G, 50/1.4, 50/2.8 macro and 100/2.8 macro, 84/1.4G & CZ 85/1.4, 135 STF, 300/2.8G, 500/8 reflex, 600/4G, CZ 24-70/2.8 & Minolta 28-70/2.8G, CZ 16-35 & Minolta 17-35G. A lot of these are essentially identical designs, and the few that have changed give little real improvement (e.g. the CZ 85/1.4 is sharper at the corners than the 85/1.4G, but only marginally). In some cases, it depends on what you need/want: under some conditions the Minolta 28-70/2.8G works just as well as the CZ 24-70/2.8 -- but the CZ has <strong>fast</strong> , silent focusing and better flare resistance. For a lot cases, neither will matter, but in a few cases they might matter a lot.<br>

<br /> <br /> Of course, there are a few cases where the Minolta glass is fine, but the Sony glass is drastically better. The Minolta 135/2.8 is small, light, reasonably fast, and quite sharp -- but the CZ 135/1.8 is faster and still sharper, even wide open. The Minolta 135/2.8 is reasonably competitive with most of the market, but if you can live with the size, weight, and expense, the CZ 135/1.8 just blows away any other 135 you can get. Likewise, the Minolta 100-300 APO is a decent lens -- but the Sony 70-400G is nothing short of superb (though, again, the Minolta is a lot smaller and lighter).<br>

<br /> <br /> There are undoubtedly Minolta lenses that won't work very well on an Alpha 900 either. You probably wouldn't like the results of using an old kit zoom on an Alpha 900 -- but then again, you probably wouldn't like the results of using a current kit zoom on it either.<br>

<br /> <br /> New glass isn't required to get good results from an Alpha 900, and is only really a major improvement in a fairly small number of fairly specific cases -- but in probably about the same number of cases, older Minolta designs are better by at least as great a margin.</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>Well, here's an opportunity to discuss that <strong><em>the Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 is more than a sensor</em> </strong> -- full frame and 24 million pixels -- but <strong>it is a <em>total system</em> </strong> including ergonomics, viewfinder, and a whole raft of <em>features and benefits</em> .</p>

<p><-- begin rant --></p>

<p>Thank you, Jerry, for acknowledging that "older" lenses that fit and work, well, <em>fit and work</em> ! </p>

<p>Others seem to have been saying that you can't even <em>use </em> older lenses because ... what? Because the fashion police would arrest you for using a lens whose penultimate resolving power was not <em>superior </em> to the penultimate resolving power of the antialiasing filter in the camera? Like ANYONE registering such a complaint, including David Kilpatrick, DEPENDS on penultimate resolving power as the sole criteria of success in every single shot they capture, and in every single shot in their portfolio, and so kicks to the curb any image capture practice or resulting picture where you can't read a newspaper from a quarter of a mile away when the photo is enlarged and printed at 75 dpi! Geesh! See, thankfully:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong><a href="00SunB" >a couple of pics from the A900</a> </strong> by <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=551255">Wayne Naughton</a> 2009-03-30<br>

<a href="00SunB">http://photo.net/sony-minolta-slr-system-forum/00SunB</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>... for proof of the opposite.</p>

<p>Y'all should be exiled to the Canon and Nikon lists for a month as punishment for forgetting that <em>Alphatography is all about <strong>Photography</strong> </em> , not MTF modulation transfer function curves and DN dynamic range and S/R signal over noise and DxOMark inanity. It's all about well-thought-out, ergonomic, easy to use tools with features, and more importantly, with BENEFITS that are the result of photographic engineer's personal photographic field experiences, experiences that translate into successful and intuitive, well-controlled image capture, brought to us <strong>Only From The Mind Of Minolta</strong> ... or at least the reportedly 100 Minolta Alpha employees who went over to Sony, and apparently the Minolta factories still cranking this stuff out.</p>

<p>----------</p>

<p>Why am I writing this? Because, just like you all, I search, sort, and select from what's available to find support for my photographic goals, and I hit a wall a few years back where Minolta and Sony stopped making gear that was <em>an appropriate match for me</em> . No one <em>else </em> made new stuff that was a better match, <em>either</em> , so, as some of you have noted, I'm "stuck" in time. </p>

<p>Apparently the manufacturer's are watching each other to see what they should design, more than they are watching their customers to see what we want. </p>

<p>I already have an older Alpha SLR that has features and benefits that no current Alpha SLR has, that especially the A900 is missing, like not burdening the photographer with in-built flash -- oh, wait a minute, if the A900 was a digital Alpha 9-clone, I'd have bought one immediately!</p>

<p>If only Sony was less afraid of appearing as not the premier high tech chip maker in the world, I'd have bought a 12 million pixel full feature full frame Alpha DSLR. Heck, thinking of the original Contax N Digital, I'd have bought a 6 million pixel full feature full frame Alpha DSLR. For me, <em>full features</em> and <em>full frame</em> were the only reason to buy an Alpha DSLR, and the A900 isn't it. </p>

<p>While I appreciate those among us who believe in-camera flash is crap, please do not write in againand again to reiterate that, I've heard it all before, and since the 1988 Minolta i-series, we Minoltians have been uniquely touting in-camera flash savvy (a Pentax first in an SLR, by the way) <em><strong>for the past 21 years</strong> </em> , so sudden turn-arounds are not compelling, folks! It's a feature whose benefits I treasure and already have in <em>my</em> Alpha, and I just don't feel like getting a bigger, heavier camera without it, requiring even more crap to be slapped on board (and paid for) just to try to come close to what I had in a smaller, lighter Alpha years ago. </p>

<p>And so it sits, my full-frame Alpha with in-built flash. I can crank film through it and I can scan that image capture into the digital domain, and I am comfortable in the Minolta fold more than anywhere else because my scanner is a <em>Minolta </em> DiMage Scan Elite 5400 II, and if I use <em>Konica </em> film, then I'm true, true, true -- shoot me! How many here use <em>Sony </em> CF cards and memory sticks? <em>Sony </em> printers? I could use a <em>Minolta </em> printer -- David Kilpatrick wrote about using a Minolta color laser as a quick and inexpensive draft photo printer. How many of us use exclusively <em>Minolta</em> glass?</p>

<p>And I was Minolta-digitizing Konica-film that was captured through Minolta-SLR-glass via a Minolta-Alpha-SLR ... until I bought my Minolta DiMage 7/A-series DSL/EVF cameras, saw the immediate cessation of film lab headaches and bills and scanning headaches (except for my existing 40+ year film archive), and I never looked back. Sadly for Sony, the <strong>2008 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1</strong> looks like a better linear evolution of my Minolta Photography than the Sony Alpha. And I'm not talking exclusively about image <em>results </em> -- see Wayne Naughton's provocative images to confirm that results are miscible. I'm just saying that if I'm gonna carry big-and-heavy, I want full features and benefits, otherwise, I want small-and-light ... with full features and benefits, and Sony EVF cameras have gotten less-than the Minolta DiMage 5/7/A-series in many <em>processional </em> ways that I find to be unsupportive of my photographic <em>process</em> , and Sony Alpha cameras have always been critically compromised by my criteria in not being full-feature in some way -- no full frame, or no in-built flash, I've given up on hoping for a return to direct input and direct readout knobs.</p>

<p>As it was, both Minolta and Sony lost me and the heritage they had fought so hard to eke out over the years. <strong><em>All I ever wanted was everything.</em> </strong> Why take an advancement and stop production in the next model? Why take knobs from the 9000/507si/600si/650si/7/9 and drop them? Why loose TTL OTF live flash (what the heck was ADI anyway?)? And so on. </p>

<p>Rant? Yes. Marketing feedback? It's up to Sony to read these threads if they care. They're working on 900-pound boomboxes and rolling robotic music players while explaining that in-camera flash with a full frame sensor (let alone live view) is <em><strong>too hard</strong> </em> for the amazing mind of Sony to figure out ... using Only-From-The-Mind-Of-Minolta staff that once HAD that feature working just fine, thank you: http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665116955 http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665116955</p>

<p>----------</p>

<p>Nice that the A900 is coming down in price -- an indication of market adjustment considering it's probably waning in sales, or perhaps a new model is on the horizon. Personally, I think Sony should make a market demonstration of dropping prices processionally on all models to target 1/2 price over 18 months from introduction to admit that they are <em>computers</em> after all, and to move warehouse stock before this stuff becomes competitively unsalable antiques. You can still buy the <strong>2005 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1</strong> and all accessories for full price at Sony warehouse outlet stores, of all things -- after four years? C'mon! How can Sony make money keeping stuff behind the counter instead of in photographer's hands, instead of making sure that anyone who wants a camera in their hand has an overwhelming opportunity to consider a Sony as a competitive and persuasive alternative to the mass of other cameras out there? I guess they are smarter than me. (I look forward to the knee-jerk responses to THAT comment!) Heck, Sony is selling a bunch of high-speed Sony chips through Casio who now even has FC100/FS10 point-and-shoots that capture <em><strong>full-resolution 30 frames per second</strong> </em> via Sony chips! Wow.</p>

<p>Maybe you and I are not Sony customers after all. Like Microsoft selling to Dell and Gateway, Sony sells to Casio et all. What "customer service"? WE'RE not their customers, after all! Casio et all are!</p>

<p>To all those who might think that it's a good time to now suggest that I should get off the Sony Minolta SLR forum since I'm not a purchaser of <em>current </em> Sony SLR gear, <em>phooey on you</em> . I'm still a Minolta Photographer, and I'm still a Minolta SLR photographer, and I'm still a Minolta ALPHA SLR Photographer, and I still have Minolta gear inclusive from the <strong>1950s Minolta ·A·</strong> through to the <strong>2000s Minolta A</strong> , and I still capture, digitally, daily, using a <strong>Sony </strong> chip in <strong>Minolta</strong> gear, and I plan to keep using my perfectly working Minolta and Sony gear for my daily photography until something better comes along, until there's a more appropriate features-and-benefits match for my photographic criteria, my photographic goals, my photographic skill set, and my photographic resources.</p>

<p>Dang, Peter Blaise is full of himself again today!</p>

<p><-- continue rant --></p>

<p>.</p>

 

<p>Peter.....Peter....come....come with us into 2009.....come with us into 2009....it's nice over here.....we have cookies!</p>

<p>Sam, I shoot with two A700's and it's more than enough for my wedding work. The 900 for me is simply overkill. Nice, but overkill. I just don't need RAW files that hit nearly 30 megs each and JPEG files that hit close to 20.</p>

<p>Steve, I'm beginning to think you are right. I railed against the 700 because of the early reviews, but it seems to have evolved into a solid performer at a reasonable price. For the first time I can see an advantage to it account of the APS factor. I'm sure that the 900 is solid too. But besides the pixel overload, it is the price overload and the continuing positioning of all the manufactures to place the buyer in a must have continual upgrade. It's part of the commercial process I guess, but we don't all have to fall for it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>.</p>

<p>=8^o C-c-c-cookies? Mmmmmm ... but I'm supposed to stay off the sugar for a while ... are they sugar-free slavery-free free-trade natural locally-grown vegan vegetarian macrobiotic organic? ;-)</p>

<p>Thanks, but I AM in 2009, and so is my money, Sony. Listening? And my new printer is a thrill. Like Minolta Photographer William Eugene Smith, who never photographed again after his Minolta Photography at Minamata, Japan in the early 1970s, probably because he was assaulted and battered and was significantly disabled by that and earlier accidents, I could stop now and just print the rest of my life. I however, I want to capture more new, and print more new, and learn more, and as I said, whether I'm using Minolta gear from the 1950s or the 2000s, I'm somehow a Minolta Photographer through and through, even if the new boss, Sony, hasn't popped my wallet open yet themselves. Heck, I have the original Sony Walkman monophonic journalist's cassette tape recorded on which I recoded Lowell George's final 1979 concert -- heart-rending (literally). What more does Sony want from me?</p>

<p>What more has Sony earned? Sorry, but Sony does not yet appear to have learned every photographic thing that once already came Only From The Mind Of Minolta. Am I living in the past? Yes and no. My older gear still works, and I'm here today. Works for me. </p>

<p>Thanks for the tea and sympathy, the cookies and toleration. ;-)</p>

<p>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Peter.....Peter....come....come with us into 2009.....come with us into 2009....it's nice over here.....we have cookies!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>LOL!</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>it is a <em>total system</em> </strong> including ergonomics, viewfinder, and a whole raft of <em>features and benefits</em> .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're getting an A900, Peter? (joke!)</p>

 

<p>Actually, Peter, the cookies we have are delicious because they're full of saturated animal fats, sugar, and are cooked in a to-hell-with-this-global-warming-alarmist-nonsense oven belching out more CO2 than Al Gore and his powerpoint presentations by Honduran child laborers. And, they're delivered on high-carbon emission trucks, and wrapped in packaging from freshly deforested areas. Yummy!</p>

<p>CHECK THIS OUT !!! <a href="http://www.prophotonation.com/DIGITAL-SLR-PACKAGES/Sony-Packages/Sony-DSLR-A900-24-6MP-Digital-Camera-p30.html">Sony DSLR A900 24.6MP Digital Camera</a><br>

This has got to be the deal of the decade if it's for real.</p>

<p>Peter, since you brought it up- What <strong>ALPHA</strong> SLR do you own? You must not be proud to own it, as you refuse to name it. Can you download a picture of it showing the <strong>ALPHA</strong> name on it, so we can all admire it?</p>

<p>And while you're at it, since you're such a big fan of built-in flashes, cen you post a few pictures that you have taken with your <strong>ALPHA</strong> using the built-in flash? Do you own any accessory flashes? Or, do you only use the built-in flash of your <strong>ALPHA</strong> ?</p>

<p>Please share with us.</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>RP, listings of and examples through my Minolta gear are all over the net and have been for years. Not that I care, but how about you and yours?</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>Let's keep our terminology straight in the discussion, so there's no confusion. I think Peter is referring to his Minolta A-mount 35mm SLR that he loves (not sure the model), and he also owns a Sony A100, or Alpha DSLR if I'm not mistaken. When someone says "Alpha", I'm interpreting that to mean a Sony DSLR, which is compatible with the Minolta A-mount lenses. Perhaps the terminology is different in the UK, but at least that's what we call them in the US.</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>Steve, "Alpha" is Minolta's term and logo in Japan/Asia, for their A-mount SLRs since 1985.</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>No, you're right Steve, in the UK Alpha is recognised as Sony too. I'm sure even the Asian market (where Minoltas were called 'Alphas') would recognise 'Alpha' as meaning a Sony DSLR today. Just Peter likes to point out (in coffee driven, relentless form usually) these pointless Minolta facts as we all know. Much in the same fashion is it he asks everyone to share photos & 'Minolta experiences', but will rarely give you a straight answer if you do so to him. Sadly, I don't think cookies is the answer here ;)</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>Steve,</p>

<p>The <strong>1985 Minolta Alpha/Dynax/Maxxum AF 7000</strong> 35mm film SLR camera was the world's best selling camera of it's type in it's time, the third time Minolta accomplished such success. </p>

<p>Earlier, the <strong>1966 Minolta SR T-101</strong> and <strong>1981 Minolta X-700</strong> 35mm film SLR cameras also were the world's best selling cameras of their type in their time. The fact that the X-700 manual focus and 7000 auto focus were contemporaneous is incredible -- Minolta was making a great deal of money before Honeywell picked on them as the market king and pounced on them first in US court over AF patents! When Minolta lost big (too technical for the judge. Minolta's arguments were lost in translation), the other camera makers settled out of court. </p>

<p>Almost every Minolta model line won some kind of superlative accolade, leading up to the <strong>7</strong> being called the best camera of it's type <em>ever</em> , and the <strong>9</strong> being called the best camera of<em> any type</em> ever (<em>Photo Techniques</em> magazine). Neat. </p>

<p>Also note that the models had different maker names over the years, and different model names in different markets, hence my referring to <strong>Agfa/Konica/Minolta/Sony ActionCam/Alpha/Dynax/Maxxum</strong> . Agfa released a version of the <strong>1995 Minolta RD-175</strong> digital as their own Agfa ActionCam, by the way, hence including them in the possibility of Alpha-mount camera consideration, especially DIGITAL Alphas.</p>

<p>"Alpha" name wise, the <strong>1972 Polaroid Alpha SX-70</strong> was the world's first auto focus SLR, and my first auto focus SLR, too.</p>

<p>Back to A900 pricing anyone?</p>

<p>(PS -- FYI, click on my name for my current Minolta report -- hasn't changed since before Sony took over the Alpha line.)</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>Peter, I understand that in Asia and Japan, they called the old Minolta SLR cameras the "Alpha", but you're in the UK, and I would assume you would use the Dynax designation instead, which is more widely known and not confused with the current Alpha line.</p>

<p>I'm just sayin'.</p>

<p>More fun than a run-a-way pixel consuming, over priced, over goodie packed, titanium framed, full framed, full featured, live viewed, A/Dynax/Maxxum (without flash) monstrosity anytime. Well, maybe in the short term. Hmmm, I must be infected by some type of word disease gotten off of the "No Words Forum".</p>

<p>DID ANY OF YOU GO LOOK AT THIS ? a900 FOR 1699.99 USD, i THOGHT THIS POST WAS ABOUT THE DROPPING PRICE OF THE A900, NOT TO BICKER ABOUT THE ALPHA NAME AND ORIGIN.<br /> CHECK THIS OUT !!! <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.prophotonation.com/DIGITAL-SLR-PACKAGES/Sony-Packages/Sony-DSLR-A900-24-6MP-Digital-Camera-p30.html" target="_blank">Sony DSLR A900 24.6MP Digital Camera</a> <br /> This has got to be the deal of the decade if it's for real.<br /> By the way Peter is right . the Alpha name has always been part of the line up in Minolta's AF cameras since the early 80's. The 7000 was Alpha, SI was Alpha, Maxxum 7 was Alpha and Maxxum 9 was Alpha. Any way back to price drop, 1699.99 usd. WOW !!!</p>

<p>If it's too good to be true, IT IS. Try it if you like. Sony controls their pricing to their dealers. I'm sure they are not going to give some off the wall, unheard of seller the ability to undercut B&H, Sony Style, Adorama, Amazon and their local dealers. Bait and switch, maybe? It has been done many times before.</p>

<p><a title="Minolta 7000" href="http://photoclubalpha.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/7000.jpg" title="Minolta 7000"><img src="http://photoclubalpha.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/7000.jpg" alt="Minolta 7000" /> </a> <br /> <strong>1985 Minolta 7000 or Maxxum 7000 35mm AF SLR</strong> <br /> World’s first 35mm SLR system camera with integrated autofocus. Winner of the ‘Inter-Camera International’ award, ‘Camera Grand Prix 1985′, and European Camera of the Year 1985. All lenses and most accessories introduced with this new AF-mount lens system, completely changed from the previous SR/MC/MD mount models, remain compatible with today’s Konica Minolta and Sony DSLRs. Note the Alpha symbol on the photographs of these Japanese market models, which were all known as Alpha in that market. The 7000 body should also be fully compatible with all the full-frame lenses to be introduced by Sony, except those using SSM (supersonic in-lens motor focusing).<br>

This to was my first AF camera, before this I had A Hi-Matic 7.<br>

<a title="Minolta Hi-Matic 7" href="http://photoclubalpha.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/hi-matic-7.jpg" title="Minolta Hi-Matic 7"><img src="http://photoclubalpha.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/hi-matic-7.jpg" alt="Minolta Hi-Matic 7" /> </a><br>

<strong>1963 Minolta Hi-Matic 7</strong><br>

35mm Leaf Shutter Camera World’s first 35mm leaf-shutter camera with CdS photocell in the lens barrel. <em>Editor’s note: this was the start of one of the best performing lines of 35mm compact cameras made. For black and white users in the 1960s, the CdS cell placed inside the filter thread meant that no filter compensation was needed (in theory, had CdS not been highly red-sensitive). The lens hood when fitted also shaded the CdS cell. The coupled short-base rangefinder, rapid lever wind, auto meter coupled exposure and fast f/1.8 lens made this a highly desirable alternative to SLRs of the period.</em></p>

<p>Sam-Maybe they gave them a great deal on a lot of them so they can clear them ( A900 ) out of their warehouse to make a new A900, like Nikon did with the D3/D3x. No one saw that one coming till the day before it hit the market.</p>