Sony A900

[printedspace]

What do you think of the Sony A900?

[parv]

It is an old camera, with near a stop of better noise characteristics than Sony A700. It is also heavier & larger than A700. I would have bought if I could have justified the cost 2-3 years ago. Now I would find lacking in terms of noise performance compared to current cameras (Pentax K5 for example).

 

As such I will buy it only if I could get one for US$ 1000 or less in (KEH) EX+ condition. That price point seems unlikely this year. OTOH, if Sony cameras of recent past are anything to go by, people would be leaving Minolta A mount "soon" enough, which just may bring the price to the desired level.

[john_tran14]

<p>I think the Sony A900 is one of the best DSLR ever made. It's really the best if you are not rich and nobody (like your employer for example) supports you because you don't have to pay for very high prices of the VR and IS lenses. If you don't worry about the costs at all, then maybe the Canon 1Ds is better</p>

<p>Between the A900 and the K5, I'll take the A900 right away (considered that I already have a lot of lenses for both of them)</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>I would choose the Sony A900 (or A850) over the 5d2 and d700 if I wanted FF and starting from scratch. The upsides are IBIS, 24 MP and low price (for A850). The down sides I see are lens selection and high ISO noise. Canon and Nikon both have more lenses available new or in the secondhand market or even for rent. The high ISO noise a bit lousier than both nikon and canon.</p>

<p>So, the bottom line, I think would be...if you don't shoot lowlight often and if you are not a lens hog, A900 or A850 would be excellent. Oh and if video isn't in the equation, of course. If you shoot video, the 5d2 (for FF) is the only choice...</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>The A900 didn't impress me, even when it was a new camera.</p>

<ul>

<li>It lacks liveview. One thing I've learned from the D3 is that liveview isn't a "gimmick", it's the best advance in macro and product photography since digital itself.</li>

<li>It's got literally half the AF zone coverage of a Nikon D3 or D700. The Nikons give you a rule of thirds rectangle, with a couple of points outside that rectangle. You can drop an AF point right onto a subject's eye, or a "point of interest" if you're doing rule of thirds in landscapes, still lifes, etc. The Sony has a diamond that only hits ROT on the points, not the corners of a rectangle. (The Canon 7D pattern is somewhere in between Nikon and Sony).</li>

<li>The high ISO performance just isn't there. Although, as Leslie mentioned, in body stabilization is nice (I wish I had it for using my 85mm f1.4), good high ISO is nicer. Stabilization helps with camera motion, but better high ISO capability helps with both camera motion and subject motion. Who cares if the stabilizer lets you shoot a 50mm at 1/12 second, if the subjects are always blurry at 1/12 second?</li>

</ul>

<p>But, as Pav pointed out, the A900 isn't a new camera. And it appears to be the end of the line for FF at Sony. The rumors for the last 12 months have been bad enough, but the published interviews from CES with Sony management last week pretty much nailed the coffin shut on FF.Even if you[re a slow upgrader, skipping a generation or two, with a Nikon or Canon, you know that 506 years from now, you can buy a new camera, and that's 2 generations and the progress will amaze you.</p>

<p>I don't get where John Tran is coming from, about the "very high prices of the VR and IS lenses". Yes, there's some examples of lenses like the 70-300mm f4-5.6, where the Sony is cheaper, but is theat why people buy full frame? In big stuff, 70-200mm f2.8, 300mm f2.8, 200mm f2, 100mm or 105mm f2.8 macros, etc. the Canon stabilized lenses are cheaper than the Sony non-stabilized. The Nikon are competitive, the old 70-200mm VR was cheaper than the Sony, the new VR II is more expensive, but it's also arguably the most sophisticated and optically best (highest sharpness, center to corner, best contrast) of any 70-200mm f2.8 out there.</p>

 

[john_tran14]

<blockquote>

<p>In big stuff, 70-200mm f2.8, 300mm f2.8, 200mm f2, 100mm or 105mm f2.8 macros, etc. the Canon stabilized lenses are cheaper than the Sony non-stabilized</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you kidding? The Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS is about $2500 and that's cheaper than Sony 70-200mm F2.8 for $1800? but I am not gonna argue more about this because it's not my money that will be spent. If you want to know more about A900 and their lenses, go to dyxum.com, they know more than I do about that</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i'm with joe on this. the fact that sony has abandoned FF would be a serious damper to picking up a Alpha FF system for me. with digital, the idea of having one body for a very long time just doesn't meet realistic expectations. so in effect, you would be buying a dodo. plus you have to factor in the cost of buying lenses for it. probably a nice camera, especially if you get one at closeout prices, but once it's extinct/obsolete, there's nowhere to go. eventually you'll have to dump your gear and sell at big losses. IMO you are better off with a 5dmkII if you need high MP right now.</p>

<p> </p>

[scottelly]

<p>Kristian, what you're shooting does not need the higher resolution. If you need ridiculously high res., you might consider going the way I'm heading (Sigma). They are coming out with their new 46 megapixel camera in a couple of months (hopefully). I'll still be buying the Sony A55 for live-view shooting (with the fold-out screen - like my Nikon D5000 had) and video (because it auto-focuses well as it shoots, just like a "real" video camera), but I want ultimate quality, and I can't afford a Leica S2 or a 60 megapixel Hasselblad and those ridiculously expensive lenses they take. I would love a scanning back for a large format camera, but I want something cheaper than that, and I really do want something that has more in common with SLR cameras.</p>

<p>The Sony A-900 is a really really nice camera though. It feels better than my Canon 5 D did, akin to the Nikon D700. It's big, robust, and shoots incredibly good quality images at ISO ranges from 100 to 400. I don't like its performance at ISO 1600 or above. Of course, I also don't like any APS-C size sensor camera's performance at ISO 1600 or above. I doubt I'd like the performance of the Nikon D3x at those ISO ranges either. Of course, the only alternative value to the Sony is the Canon 5 D MkII. I can tell you from experience that the Canon is an excellent camera, and it has live view, where the Sony doesn't. The difference between 21 and 24 megapixels is totally insignificant. The Canon shoots faster than the Sony A-850, and the Sony A-900 costs more than the Canon.</p>

<p>One of the things you should consider are the ultimate limits of your system. Canon currently has the best overall system in the business. Take that from someone who just moved away from Canon to get an articulating screen on a camera with live-view. Now that Canon has that in the 60 D, I have considered switching back, but I have decided the continual auto-focus, lower price, and speed on the Sony A55 are enough to keep me away from Canon for now. Ultimately though, I would buy Canon, if I had an unlimited budget. I would also buy Leica, the Sony A55, a Seitz (160 megapixel high-speed scanning camera for about $40,000), and eventually the Sigma SD1. I would probably look into what Red is offering too (red.com). I don't know what I would settle on in the end . . . maybe all the above, because they all have their advantages for specific situations. I might even get myself an 8x10 with a Schneider 110mm SAXL and a couple of convertible lenses for the longer focal lengths.</p>

<p>I hope that helps you make your decision Kristian.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>the fact that sony has abandoned FF would be a serious damper to picking up a Alpha FF system for me.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Is this true, Eric? They just came out with a couple of FF lenses and I hear that they are coming with a FF later this year...</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>leslie, i'm just going off of what Joe says above (which i've heard elsewhere too). if they haven't abandoned FF, then my comment is null/void, because there would be an upgrade/update path, which could justify the investment in lenses over the long run. no such worries with Nikon/Canon, and even Pentax is looking more robust, although they have yet to make a FF DSLR.</p>

<p><em>If you need ridiculously high res., you might consider going the way I'm heading (Sigma). They are coming out with their new 46 megapixel camera in a couple of months (hopefully)</em></p>

<p>Scott, you do realize the SD1 will give you more resonant/saturated colors than a Bayer sensor but actual resolution is closer to 14 mp, not 46, right? that's high res but not ridiculous like the Digital medium format cams. the SD14 and 15 files are 4.6 megs, not 14 mp as advertised in the marketing hype. that wouldnt stop me if i had my heart set on one, but i wouldnt want to be under any misconceptions.</p>

<p> </p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>I think it's a great camera. Performance wise it's about the same as the Nikon D3x for about 1/3 the price. It has a very good viewfinder, better than most cameras. I doesn't have Live View (or is it really dead view) which is a big plus for me. It doesn'nt do video also a plus for me. If you think live view and video are so cool then Sony has the NEX 5 for you. The Nex 5 has very good live view and good video mode just doesn't have the gorgeus SLR viewfinder that the A900 has. Carl Zeiss lenses are very good also so there is no problem with lens choices there. Sony flashes is also a plus as I wouldn't buy either Nikon or Canon flashes but I would buy Sony flashes.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i wouldnt buy a nikon flash for a Sony camera. but nikon flashes for nikon cameras are pretty good.</p>

[scottelly]

<p>Eric I've done a significant amount of research on the SD SLR line, comparing the SD14 with the SD15 and learning as much as I could about the SD1. I've been wanting a Foveon sensor camera ever since I learned about them, so I will let you know what I think of the digital image files I can get out of the SD1 RAW files, when I get the camera and a lens or two (probably a 30mm f1.4 and a 50-150 f2.8 to start with - eventually I'll get the 8-16 EX and the 20 f1.8, then the 150-500, etc.). I expect to be able to do the same thing with the SD1 RAW files that I do with all the other RAW files I work with Eric - upscale to JPEG. I plan to create 100 to 180 Megapixel JPEG images from the Sigma RAW files, then sharpen. That's how I will start. Then I'll see what I want to try from there. Currently I export 10 and 12 megapixel RAW files to 24 megapixel JPEG files, and I get very good print results in 3 megabyte files (at sizes up to and including 20x30). I want to be able to crop to a quarter of an image and print at 20x30 with high quality results, and from what I see in the marketing hype, that may be possible. We'll see.</p>

[scottelly]

<p>Just to clarify my thinking Eric, I have read reviews of the SD15 where owners claim the photos look better than the photos from their Canon 5 D mark 2. Even if they were mistaken or I read it wrong, and they were talking about a 12.8 megapixel 5 D, and assuming they were being truthful and competent, the SD1 is about 3 times the resolution of the SD15, which would make it capable of shooting better photos than a full-frame camera 3 times the resolution of the 5 D (a camera which would have an almost 39 megapixel sensor). I would have to pay $7,000 for a Nikon to come even close to the performance of the Sigma SD1. Maybe I could get by with a Sony A900, but that camera costs about $1,000 more than the Sigma is supposedly going to cost, and I've been wanting to try one of these cameras for a long time. Just the fact that they use all the light instead of blocking two thirds of the light is one factor that I just can't ignore.<br>

-<br>

Here's an article that presents a little more information regarding resolution of the Foveon sensors compared to that of the Bayer pattern sensors. At first you will see it's a review of a Sigma camera, but read down and see the section dedicated to the Foveon sensor.<br>

-<br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sigma-dp1.shtml</p>

[scottelly]

<p>Hey Eric, not that the Sigma SD1 is close to realease, and now that they've released some more examples of images that were shot with an SD1, I have to say I am having second thoughts about the SD1. Maybe you should just wait and see what Sony comes up with next. Frankly, from what I've seen, the Sony 1.5 crop cameras that are coming on the market seem to be the best for image quality and value. They currently peak at only 16 megapixels right now, but there are rumors that there is a new 24 megapixel camera coming on the market. It might actually outshine the Sigma, and from this example I am not impressed with Sigma images from the SD1. Look at the blotchiness on her neck!<br>

-<br>

http://www.sigma-sd.com/SD1/sample-photo/img/SDIM0788.jpg<br>

-<br>

That's a HUGE .jpg file (very little compression, presumably), even though it's only 4704x3136 (about 15 megapixels). The quality is pretty sad, frankly, because I often make comparable quality 24 megapixel .jpg files from 12 megapixel RAW files. Those turn out to be just 3 or 4 megabytes, and they generally look about as detailed as that image of the girl in the woods.<br>

-<br>

Granted, to get an image this good from a 1.5 crop sensor with 15 million photo-site locations, the SD1 is doing a decent job. I just don't believe it's so far superior as the Sigma company is claiming it to be. Frankly, it seems to me that the lenses are more important, and will become even more important in the next few years. This is a reason to shoot with the best Nikon or Canon L lenses, and avoid Sigma completely. Sony is gradually building their collection of good quality lenses too, but I think you'll find that both Nikon and Canon have Sony beat . . . still (after years of opportunity to develop their line of lenses).<br>

-<br>

I myself in stuck in limbo somewhat. I am seriously considering the Sony A55, but the rumor is that there is an A77 just around the corner. If that is a 24 megapixel camera with weather shielding and similar features to the A55, I want that camera instead of the A55. The new Nikon D5100 is a good new offering. So is the new Canon 60 D, but I really like the Sony 16-105mm f3.5-5.6 lens, and from what I've seen of image samples, the Sony cameras just deliver better quality images than the competition (all else being equal).</p>

[scottelly]

<p>Eric, I did just read something interesting. A lady photographer who has been shooting B&W photos for years with film decided to try a camera with a Foveon sensor. She claimed that she tried a number of medium format digital backs (presumably these were backs with very large Bayer sensors in the 20 to 30 megapixel range), and they didn't hold a candle to the results she gets from her Foveon sensor camera. I found that quite surprising. It made me decide to take a closer look at my own 12 megapixel conversions. Here is an example of what I have done with a RAW file, by upscaling to JPEG, sharpening, and then downscaling. Frankly, I'm not sure this process is the best way to get a high resolution JPEG file, but I am quite impressed with the results from a Nikon D5000 with an 18-55 kit lens at f8, iso200, and 1/400 second shutter speed. I did adjust the exposure slightly.<br>

-<br>

Here's a link: http://ffphotos.zenfolio.com/img/v22/p710954792.jpg<br>

-<br>

Now look at a Sigma SD1 photo: http://www.sigma-sd.com/SD1/sample-photo/img/SDIM0788.jpg<br>

-<br>

You'll notice immediately that the photo from the Sigma is about the same size (in pixels) as my photo, but you will see it takes much longer to download (I compress my photos more). Still, I did not see a huge difference in quality between the two, and frankly, I would expect to see much more difference in quality, since the Sigma photo is not only compressed less, but probably shot through a lens that gives higher resolution than the kit lens I shot my photo with. Yes, I shot at f8, so there may not be a whole lot of difference between the resolution of the two lenses, and yes a 12 megapixel camera shoots photos almost the same quality of a camera that shoots 15 megapixel photos. But the Sigma SD1 is supposed to give better than equivalent quality on a pixel-per-pixel basis. These two images, though similar in their number of megapixels, should not look like they are similar quality.<br>

-<br>

They do to me. Maybe they don't to you. But is there "enough difference" between the two? Would there be almost the same difference in quality by switching from the 12 megapixel Nikon to a 24 megapixel Sony A77?<br>

-<br>

After this analysis and Sigma's outrageous new intro. price for their SD1, I've decided the difference just is not worth making the switch to a Sigma DSLR.<br>

-<br>

As far as color goes, I adjust color (temperature, saturation, etc.) in Photoshop (and other image editing programs), so frankly, I don't see a huge need for the "better color rendition" that the Foveon sensors are supposedly capable of producing. I'll stick with Bayer sensor cameras for now.</p>