Who thinks they would buy the Sony A900?

[d_g5]

Pretty good point. I gotta however pass on the A350. I'm almost drop dead certain the the noise levels on that thing'll be absolutely unacceptable for my purposes. I doubt I'd be able to shoot a wedding and feel secure with lots more digital noise than I had with the A100. I will admit that the A700 has done WELL at ISO 1600 and ISO 1250 for me. Enough for awesome 8x10's. I just dont see it being able to keep down the noise with any higher pixel count.

[francoisspenard]

AH! Noise, the devil lurking inside our digital camera!

But I'm wondering, wouldn't a 24mp with full frame bring down the noise problem, since the

captor will have a larger surface, and higher MP?

Second point, will the PRO all ready using Nikon or Canon, make the switch to Sony? We are

talking mega investment here ($$$$$).....

[d_g5]

I hear a few would rent it if they could and if it passed quality that they are looking for they would do it if there are no 20 mp full frame dslrs to choose from under 4k. this is from 6 pros who i know.

[._._z]

At what price?

 

With what specs?

[clives]

1) I went form 7D to the A700 and I have "decent" LD/APO glass, but am of the opinion that my lenses now limit image quality--not lack of pixels. Anyone considering a 24-MP camera will want to have the very best ED glass available to take advantage of the pixels. Francois said it well, "it's not the camera that make the picture but the lens."

 

2) Richard said it first...most people will also need a new computer or MAJOR upgrade. 3GB won't cut it anymore.

 

3) For the majority of us (I've been a Minolta SLR/DSLR user for 40 years now and sell commercially) a FF 24-MP camera is getting to be beyond our needs.

 

A few (damn few) high-end users may find advantages. For the rest of us, a FF 24-MP will merely satisfy an ongoing "pixel envy" weakness. :)

[voets]

I certainly would buy it for 2700.

I'm missing the wide end on the current APS-C sensors

A full frame will finally do my minolta 16mm right

[paul_gilbert3]

I shoot commercially for web site and graphic productions. (Please visit http://www.netqwik.com) My subjects are generally interior spaces and merchandise requiring extreme wide angles which are impossible with a CCD frame size so if I can swing it, I'll buy one but if they price me out of the market, I'll stick with an old Minolta film camera for my WA shots.

[kevin_nguyen4]

I'm considering A900 and Canon 5D mark II, and I will definitely choose the lower noise camera, I don't care about the freaking 24MP but the noise level, my bank account is ready for any price under 6k, cant wait to see release date for these 2 models

[jack_casner]

I absolutely WILL buy the A900. I own an A700, however, with the exception of my APS size Zeiss Vario Sonnar, my lenses are full frame designs. I already have the new 2.9, 24-70mm Zeiss Vario Sonnar and I am RARIN' to go. I will take all the Mega Pixels I can get - short of moving to medium format gear.

[peterblaise]

Maybe a used Canon 5D for my Minolta Rokkor Collection, and a used Sony A700 WITH ON-BOARD FLASH for my Alpha Mount Lenses ... until there's a Alpha full frame with on-board flash, otherwise, no go.

 

Pentax may be first one to have it all - full frame, on-board flash, anti-shake, and compatibility across an endless history of 35mm lenses - screw, manual focus and auto focus, and their 645 lenses, too.

 

... except. I want that lovely Minolta user interface and image color ... dang!

[henrikolesenphotography]

I am shooting Dynax 7 and 9. Living in Asia where 99% humidity is the norm most of the year the Dynax 9 performs exceptionally well - going digital at some point in time for me will require getting a camera body that's sealed and build like a tank ( like my dynax 9). Furthermore, I have over the past 15 years bought really good Minolta lenses (80-200 2.8 G, 200 2.8 G, 400 4.5 G, 600 4.0 G etc) hence the cost of moving on to Canon or Nikon would be huge. Thats the reason why I am going to buy the A 900 or whatever they are going to call it. Cheers!

[d_g5]

Wow... nikon today till show a 12mp full frame dslr to compete with the Canon 5D (said to cost about 3k) if Sony answers with a 12-14mp full frame sensor in the 2k range I'd skip the A900 all together and go for the lower noise 12-14mp lower priced system without a seconds notice!

[jim olsen]

I used to shoot a Pentax 67 and get scans done on a Nikon 8000. Those files were huge, but I only had the best ones scanned and it wasn't a problem with my cheap PC with 1GB ram. I now shoot a Canon 5D and I really miss the MF resolution, the big viewfinder and Velvia saturation, but I don't miss screwing around with film scanning and airport security film hassles. I have done numerous resolution tests and my 6X7 was about equal to 24MP. I now frequently rent a 90mm TS-E lens for my 5D and stitch 3 shots to get 24+MP, but its a hassle, and with moving objects, its impossible. I am looking forward to a 24MP camera, but it will probably be a 5D MK2. I used to have a Maxum 600si and a bunch of prime lenses. If I still had those lenses, I would seriously consider the Sony A900. I can print 6X7 scans to 24X30 and they look much sharper than a 5D print at 20X30. If you like big prints you need the resolution. The files sizes are not a big deal unless you shoot a lot of images, just to find the good one. Plan your shots carefully and you won't have that many.