A900 PRICE REDUCTION (U.S.)

peterblaise · April 6, 2009

.

Alpha means ...? In exploring the evolving pricing of new Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 cameras, I discussed the features and benefits I care about relative to that price, and many of those features and benefits are legacy Minolta Alpha derived, and some of which I feel are surprisingly and inappropriately left off the A900, causing the A900 to be missing features and benefits that I value and that are on (supposedly) lesser Alphas. Feel free to discuss the features and benefits of whatever you think are relevant to you.

Let's vote -- is the moniker "Alpha" ONLY a "Sony DSLR" moniker since 2006, or is it also a "Minolta SLR" moniker since 1985 ... in the minds of the audience here ... oh, wait a minute, in the real world outside of photo.net in which we all have lived in since 1985, Alpha has been a Minolta moniker, so changing history is probally the tail wagging the dog. So, we have:

<ul>

<li>- AARP -- Alphas According to RP = SONY Alpha only from 2006, exclusive of </li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>- Agfa/Konica/Minolta/Sony ActionCam/Alpha/Dynax/Maxxum for everyone else in the world from 1985 on.</li>

</ul>

... all are Alpha mount cameras anyway you look at 'em. Cool.

----------

Expensive means ...? "Too expensive" and "being able to pay for" something are not related or mutually exclusive. I can afford a $100 dollar watch, I'm happy with a $20 one. See? I can afford an A900, but for the money, unrelated to so called competition from other makers (makers of non-Alpha Mount Cameras), I think it's missing some important things that matter to me, so it's limited set of features and benefits are waay too expensive for me. I can get an Alpha DSLR with in-built flash under ~$200 used, ~$370 new, and so on. To each their own. Feel free to discuss the features and benefits of whatever you think are relevant to you.

All this seem on topic for considering the A900 pricing related to worth/value to each poster here. Feel free ...

Share some pictures! ;-)

----------

Peter Blaise said ... Sony said ... PS - If there's a SPECIFIC post I've written that someone wants to revisit, please do so in that thread since I subscribe to all the threads in which I post, and I can best respond in context, and please feel free to actually cut and paste my specific writing in your inquiry so I can look over your shoulder, see what you see, and of course I'm happy to re-explain in different words if possible, anything that is not clear to you.

However, I cannot and will not take responsibility for persistent and willful misunderstanding and misstatement such as "... the word 'Alpha' ... mean SONY DSLR products ... " especially when almost every week we have another thread that goes like this:

<ul>

<li>Q: "can I use my old Minolta lenses?"</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>A: "If they are Alpha mount Minolta (or other -- Tamron, Tokina, Sigma, and so on) lenses, then yes. And especially if they are Alpha mount Minolta, with a Minolta logo, then they are Minolta Alpha mount lenses."</li>

</ul>

Hey, Sony, please disengage your advertisements citing a heritage of millions of legacy Minolta Alpha lenses in circulation as a supporting reason potential customers should value the Sony Alpha product line -- RP objects to "Alpha" reaching back to it's 21-year prior Minolta origin!

Mark Weir, Sr. Technology and Marketing Manager for Alpha digital cameras <a href="http://electronicsblog.sel.sony.com/event_detail/?contentid=9223157316544538779">http://electronicsblog.sel.sony.com/event_detail/?contentid=9223157316544538779</a> "... We are particularly sensitive to the voices of Minolta users as we look forward to their acceptance of Alpha as a strong continuation of Minolta’s prestigious heritage ... " --

A gateway to inspiration awaits <a href="http://www.ecat.sony.co.jp/products/catalog/OVERSEAS_Alpha100.pdf">http://www.ecat.sony.co.jp/products/catalog/OVERSEAS_Alpha100.pdf</a>

"... Sony ALPHA mount compatible with Minolta A-type bayonet mount. All of Sony Lenses and Konicaminolta ALPHA /MAXXUM/DYNAX Lenses ... " -- Four lens families to expand your horizons <a href="http://training.b2b.sony.com/digital_imaging/cameras/dslr_training1.cfm">http://training.b2b.sony.com/digital_imaging/cameras/dslr_training1.cfm</a> "... Sony® Alpha DSLR-A100 camera accepts top-quality Sony zoom lenses, advanced Sony G-Series specialty lenses, new Carl Zeiss® precision optics, and legacy Maxxum®/Dynax/Alpha A-mount lenses dating back to 1985 ... " -- Sony's new SLR digital camera <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.learningcenter.sony.us/assets/di/cameras/alpha/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.learningcenter.sony.us/assets/di/cameras/alpha/index.html</a> "... Sony Global - Digital SLR Cameras ... Alpha ... Inheriting the legacy of the Konica Minolta mount system, [alpha ] (pronounced alpha ) is your connection to the over 16 million compatible lenses sold throughout the world to date ... "

</blockquote>

... ad infinitum.

I not only don't choose to ignore 21 prior years of Minolta Alpha heritage, I choose to celebrate it and keep on shootin' with it.

----------

Peter Blaise said ... Sony said ... II ... PPS - RP, for all your energy, a typical Google search for my web presence -- 1,000 or more posts to the legacy Minolta groups, 1,000 or more posts here, dozens of other Minolta groups web wide -- my Alpha appears in the first page of at least one search listing, and I'd hate to spoil the surprise and reward of the (re)discovery for you. You seem to have lots of energy in this matter, spend it wisely! I even used to sign off my posts with my camera model, but photo.net asked me to stop adding my own signatures to posts. Where's Clinton Abe when you need him? ;-) In fact, when Sony announced taking over the Minolta Alpha Mount Cameras in 2006, let me quote what I wrote in a thread here on photo.net (photo.net is a great archive which Google records quite well, bringing in many new photography enthusiasts all the time):

Sony Marks Entry Into Digital Single Lens Reflex Camera Market With New Symbolic Sub-Brand :

<ul>

<li>Alpha </li>

</ul>

Peter Blaise wrote: "... I see this as good news and bad, GOOD = Sony honors the Alpha name as the "alpha male" of Japanese (heck, world wide) cameras, honoring Minolta's legacy. This may mean other legacy Minolta and Konica Minolta "Alpha " designs and accessories may be included in plans for the future, such as KNOBS, HONEYCOMB METERING, and Minolta's locking FLASH with WIRELESS REMOTE. BAD = Sony does not understand the lack of penetration of the "Alpha" name in the rest of the world, and may fall like Minolta into a poor marketing understanding. Ever heard of Sony Qualia? Neither has most of the world, yet it is Sony's highest-end photo (and other) gear. Although this means the death of Maxxum and Dynax trademarks on new issue, it does mean a consistent name for the world market as a whole - no longer bifurcating the market with different marques on identical gear. Model numbers can still be unique for each area, but "Sony Alpha" is it world wide, now! Need examples of their marketing struggle ahead? Here from a supposedly "in the know" source, Digital Camera Resource at <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.dcresource.com/news/newsitem.php?id=3297" target="_blank">http://www.dcresource.com/news/newsitem.php?id=3297</a> they say, "... alpha (somebody probably got paid a lot of money to come up with that) ..." as if they have NO IDEA that "Alpha" has been used by YEARS by Minolta for their AF auto focus A-Mount SLR and DLSR cameras. I'll bet they don't even know about Dynax, either. I look forward to a lot of gear - I hope, I hope! PS - Where's the Mind of Minolta engineers? Anyone know? Wil they ever have control of a new camera design again? I hope, I hope!... "

</blockquote>

Nothing new under the sun ... just us ol' curmudgeons perennially trying to keep newbies and novices from thinking they discovered the photography universe, and it is flat, and they are the center of it. Grumble, grumble ... Price reductions are always a good thing, especially from companies like Sony who HATE to devalue their own product in the eye of the public. Now, let's keep putting the "A900 PRICE REDUCTION (U.S.) " in context. Feel free to discuss the features and benefits of whatever you think are relevant to you.

.

robert_paul1 · April 6, 2009

Peter, you wrote-

"However, I cannot and will not take responsibility for persistent and willful misunderstanding and misstatement such as "... the word 'Alpha' ... mean SONY DSLR products ... " especially when almost every week we have another thread that goes like this:

<ul>

<li>Q: "can I use my old Minolta lenses?"</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>A: "If they are Alpha mount Minolta (or other -- Tamron, Tokina, Sigma, and so on) lenses, then yes. And especially if they are Alpha mount Minolta, with a Minolta logo, then they are Minolta Alpha mount lenses.""</li>

</ul>

I don't recall any reply on this forum, referring to the Minolta mount lens as "Alpha" lenses when such a question has been asked. They have always been referred to a 'AF' or A-mount lenses. You are trying to rewrite history. And, Sony in their ads have referred to the Minolta lenses as 'legacy' lenses, not 'Alpha' mount lenses. Even Minolta when they were in the photo imaging business never referred to their lenses as 'Alpha' lenses in any other market other than the Japan market. And none of my 'legacy' lenses have the 'Alpha' name on them, only the 'Maxxum' name, just as I'm sure they carry the 'Dynax' name in other parts of the world. As Japan only has a poulation of about 100,000,000 people, as compared to the world's population of 5 billion, I think it is the 'Alpha' name that is the 'tail wagging the dog'.

You also wrote-

"In exploring the evolving pricing of new Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 cameras, I discussed the features and benefits I care about relative to that price, and many of those features and benefits are legacy Minolta Alpha derived, and some of which I feel are surprisingly and inappropriately left off the A900, causing the A900 to be missing features and benefits that I value and that are on (supposedly) lesser Alphas. Feel free to discuss the features and benefits of whatever you think are relevant to you."

The features I can see are the 1) the built-in flash and 2) the lack of a panoramic mask. As I recall when Minolta released their Maxxum 9, which had a built-in flash, the critics said that the Maxxum was not a 'pro' level camera, because it HAD a built-in flash. Since the engineers that worked for Minolta were hired on by Sony, I believe that they deliberately left off the flash and even made the top of the A900 the shape it has, to show that there was a no built-in flash. (And by the way, I looked at the pictures on your site and I don't see any pictures that look like they were taken with the built-in flash. can you post some pictures that show how valuble a built-in flash is?

As for the 'panorama' mask. I don't have one in my Minolta Maxxum 9, nor whas there one in the Maxxum 7, Maxxum 7D, nor the Maxxum 5D. Minolta never used the 'panoramic' mask on any SLR, outside the lower end of the line-up. (Also, I can't think of any Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic, Samsung, Leica, or any other digital SLR, P&S, or single-use camera offerring this feature.) Apparently, Minolta realized even before the advent of digital photography that a 'panoramic' mask was a gimmick, just as tail fins on a car were a gimmick. The 'panoramic' mask became popular when they were first used in APS film cameras and soon they were found on 35mm film cameras. But, they soon faded from cameras, as more and more users realized that they only wasted film. Time has moved on, perhaps you should as well.

jiun_der_chung · April 6, 2009

Guys, guys guys, do you seriously have nothing better to argue about other than semantics? I think it is well established by now that PBM is referring to Minolta film bodies and RP is referring to Sony digital bodies. But arguing about the term "alpha" is not real helpful or interesting to anyone else.

I agree with RP in that panoramic masks are useless or next to useless on both film and digital cameras. I think most people accept that cropping afterwards achieves the same effect and I personally would prefer not to have my viewfinder cluttered with unnecessary stuff.

I agree with PBM that whilst the A900 is a pro grade camera, there are still times when on camera flash is useful. There are lots of times when I don't want to bring a shoe mount flash and whilst camera flash is not great, it is quite definately better than nothing. I would absolutely prefer to have the option.

I also agree that ability to pay and worth are not necessarily connected. I can personally afford the A900 but like PBM, I don't think it is worth it for the money. I will prob wait for the second generation A900 before upgrading to full frame digital. Why? Because the A900 doesn't give me quite what I want and given the cost, I can achieve something pretty similar with film bodies or other formats. I would also be looking for the A900 is achieve similar noise performances (or better!) to the A700 given that the sensor density is similar, before I would consider buying it. After all, one of the biggest reasons I have a digital camera at all is the high ISO/noise over film.

I note that not that many people on this forum have A900s yet. What I am more interested in knowing from the members who do have one, is whether they feel that the A900 is worth it despite the shortcomings and what improvements they would like to see in the future. I think that would guide the rest of us who are thinking about upgrading.

peterblaise · April 7, 2009

.

RP, you've convinced me -- I totally agree with you.

You might want to work on Sony next, as they call their Alpha Mount Camera Division the, well, the Alpha Mount Camera Division, meaning, just as Minolta did since 1985, that the A-mount as we've all been abberviating it has been the Alpha -mount all along, same same, so it is accurate to connect the 1985 Alpha Mount Cameras to the 2009 Alpha Mount Cameras , Alpha Mount wise -- it's at least one thing, and the most important thing they all have in common. It's critical information for someone looking for used lenses to fit. It's too late to work on Minolta, now out of the business of directly marketing photographic gear, but their internationally published 1985 Minolta Mirror magazine rather nicely introduces their revolutionary Alpha mount camera -- yes, explaining Maxxum in the US, referring to the "Minolta (Maxxum / Alpha ) 7000" on page 147, and we saw it as the Dynax in Europe and Africa -- all Alpha mount cameras nonetheless. Perhaps you can get them to send out errata sheets to make you happy now, 21 years later, asking Minolta to retroactively take back their own calling their Alpha mount cameras, well, their Alpha mount cameras! I suppose you'd like them to change their reasoning and say that they called it the A-mount because of the A in mAxxum and dynAx , right? Hahahahah!

By 1995, there was malaise in the camera industry over computerized controls, typified by the 1993 Minolta Alpha/Maxxum/Dynax 700si-series cameras. So, Minolta explored knobs once more, and eventually the 1998 Minolta 9 was released as a 1:1 features extension of an earlier re-pathfinding knobs-oriented camera that happened to have an in-viewfinder panorama mask, so it's hard to rewrite that history just because late arrivals find it hard to believe. I never expected the Sony A900 to have a panorama mask, and never criticized the Minolta 9 for lacking one, and never suggested tossing any collectable data, only using it as a compositional aid, as professional broadcast cameras do, and using it as an example of features and benefits once available, now lost. Not all are valuable to all customers, and as mentioned, even though Sony declines to suggest the A900 is a "professional" camera, we all get the "wink" that they'd like it to be considered as such anyway, and in-camera flash was looked down on by many except the world's largest imaging resource, Popular Photography magazine, who praised Minolta for including it in the 9, and denigrated Canon and Nikon for leaving out the the on-camera flash in their so-called professional models.

Jiun, you write "... camera flash is not great ... " when all I mean is that I find them appropriate when my expectations of them are accurate, and especially when I incorporate the Minolta CD-1000 Closeup Diffuser , now imitated by after market vendors left and right. Regarding the "greatness" of on-camera flashes, not the least of which benefit is remote control of off-camera flashes, but also as supplemental fill lighting on demand, especially to compensate for severe backlighting when I want to resolve subject detail. And, of course, focusing and exposing in the otherwise darkness.

Minolta On-Camera Flash Diffuser:

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/peterblaise/minolta-af/images/minoltaflashdiffuser.jpg">http://www.geocities.com/peterblaise/minolta-af/images/minoltaflashdiffuser.jpg</a>

I think anyone who complains about on-camera flash merely has no understanding and mastery of the tools.

Thank you for sharing your assessment of the differences between price and value for you in the A900. I imagine others have thoughts they can share on this regardless or because of the tangential explorations that wander away from but return to the A900 in historical context not only for Minolta and Sony, but for all Minolta and Sony photographers alike. As you ask:

"... interested in knowing from the members who do have one, is whether they feel that the A900 is worth it despite the shortcomings and what improvements they would like to see in the future. I think that would guide the rest of us who are thinking about upgrading ... "

</blockquote>

.

robert_paul1 · April 7, 2009

So, Peter, will you post a picture of your 'Alpha'? I'd love to see it. And while you're at it, please post a picture you've taken with the diffuser, so I can se how well it wooks. I would imagine it works okay with close-up work, but I'm curious how well it works with other types of shots. I normally use my ring flash, but am always looking for other options.

Please share your pictures.

peterblaise · April 7, 2009

.

The closeup diffuser from any maker works at any distance to subject by making the flash source larger, thereby reducing harsh shadows. Minolta suggests using it for closeups where such harsh shadows are strongest, but I like it for any shot. The Minolta version also articulates in front of the lens for ambient white balance capture / setting a la ExpoDisc - neat. Not much use on an A900 unless it has a really shallow lens, otherwise it can't reach down in front of it to white balance shield it.

<a href="http://www.ExpoDisc.com/">http://www.ExpoDisc.com/</a> is from Minolta Alpha Mount Camera Photographer George Wallace, former Ansel Adams / Minor White CSFA California School of Fine Art student, who happened to use the same Alpha Mount Camera as I eventually used, and influenced me greatly in selecting the camera, as well as personally advising on exposure techniques -- see Minolta List archives. I wish they made an easy adapter to make their RayFlash ring work with in-camera flashes -- <a href="http://www.expoimaging.net/product-detail.php?cat_id=8&product_id=15&keywords=Ray_Flash:_The_Ring_Flash_Adapter">http://www.expoimaging.net/product-detail.php?cat_id=8&product_id=15&keywords=Ray_Flash:_The_Ring_Flash_Adapter</a> -- perhaps a Dremel challenge some weekend.

All my photos are "out there" somewhere. If you find 'em before I do, share the links, okay? I probably ought to catalog even my photo.net uploads ... someday. Google found this:

<a href="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00C/00CqkL-24629684.jpg">http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00C/00CqkL-24629684.jpg</a>

<img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00C/00CqkL-24629684.jpg" alt="" hspace="5" vspace="10" width="120" height="160" /> Self Portrait in the National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, USA © Peter Blaise 2005-07-03

... diffuser on but flash not engaged, though it is a nice face-hider, and some people ask it it's a rain shield for the camera. Cool!

I'm constantly recovering hard drives and bringing computers back to life after Microsoft updates them into oblivion. I've only lost time, but no data yet ... said with fingers crossed! I look forward to growing my entire archive on my Flickr stream, only 2,413 items, at least half are black and white desaturations for tone/chrome slide shows, so where the heck are the other 10,000 or more, huh? So much for computer automation.

I can't believe all the manual work STILL extant in so-called computerized photography!

I see why Sony and Zeiss just want in-camera JPG to be IT, done, fini, and all that's left is a broadcast card to immediately send our stuff to the net and be done with it! Yeah!

Maybe the A900 II will have that?

.

peterblaise · April 7, 2009

.

Please enjoy Konica Minolta Sony Alpha Mount Camera (and DiMage) Photographer Gary Friedman's recent newsletter extolling the virtues of fill flash, and the A900:

<a href="http://friedmanarchives.com/newsletters/newsletter-09-04/index.htm">http://friedmanarchives.com/newsletters/newsletter-09-04/index.htm</a>

... and from there, download your own

<ul>

<li>FREE Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 camera with Sony Carl Zeiss Vario Sonar 24-70mm f/2.8 ZA lens :</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://friedmanarchives.com/~download/A900/A900_Paper_Model.zip">http://friedmanarchives.com/~download/A900/A900_Paper_Model.zip</a> </li>

</ul>

Free beats $2,600, even beats $1,600!

.

jiun_der_chung · April 7, 2009

I think I was agreeing with you PBM that I would like on camera flash as an option.Yes, I did say that on camera flash (by itself) is not great, but I also did say that it is better then nothing. There are also occasions when it is ok, like when there is no wall behind the subject for a shadow to be cast upon, or as fill flash outdoors. So therefore I don't think that my comment equates to me having no understanding of my tools, I was merely making the observation the observation that it is more limiting than a shoe mount flash.

I think I have the Wayne Naughton disease of buying so many accessories that I probably don't really need anymore! Of course you can fiddle around to improve the possibilities, but to be honest, looking at that diffuser attachment, for not much more effort I might as well just bring a bring a shoe mount flash and be able to bounce, so I doubt I would be interested.

robert_paul1 · April 8, 2009

Peter, I find it hard to believe that you don't have a couple of shots that you've taken with the diffuser. And with your digital Dimage, you shouldn't have too much trouble taking a couple of shots with the diffuser, and a couple of shots without the diffuser. I thought Minolta called the unit a macro diffuser (or close-up diffuser), and never bought it, so I'm interested inseeing how well it does in taking body shots of people against a strong backlight.

Perhaps you can kill two birds with one stone by taking some shots of your Alpha against a strong backlight using the diffuser, and another without it.

Sounds like a plan to me, doesn't it? What do you say Peter?

Anyway, I wish Sony came out a compact flash, like the one Minolta had. It had more light than the built-in flash, and therefore, more useful.

peterblaise · April 8, 2009

.

Jiun, I didn't write that YOU don't understand on-camera flash, I wrote that, specifically:

"... I think anyone who complains about on-camera flash merely has no understanding and mastery of the tools ... "

</blockquote>

YOU seem to understand on-camera flash just fine:

"... I ... like on camera flash as an option ... it is better then nothing ... there is no wall behind the subject for a shadow to be cast upon, or as fill flash outdoors ... it is more limiting than a shoe mount flash ... looking at that diffuser attachment ... I might as well just bring a bring a shoe mount flash and be able to bounce ... "

</blockquote>

Well, with the exception of bounce -- not available in the field! And, all diffusers fold flat so they slip in the side of my camera pouch and are with me all the time.

Robert, I can't believe it, either. Why, just the other day I know I uploaded some on-camera fill flash flash shots from my daily walkabout to one of my now crashed 1.5 GB drives (gotta love Microsoft XP SP3 auto update patch bulldozer install) and am doing data recovery in sequence as we speak. Drat! Yes, I'd LOVE to make some exemplary photos with which to reveal the pluses and minuses of particular photographic techniques ... have you ever tried to setup and make clear and unambiguous (and interesting and successful) example photos? It's a challenge!

But, since I'm the one who perennially raises the "Sony A900 is missing the in-camera flash" challenge, it makes perfect sense to show excellent examples of in-camera flash usefulness here. However, since it has no in-camera flash at all, ANY situation where in-camera flash is useful would be a good example: saving $500 on an accessory flash just to use it as a remote control is an example that needs no example. Fill flash as seen at Gary Friedman's:

<a rel="nofollow" href="http://friedmanarchives.com/newsletters/newsletter-09-04/index.htm" target="_blank">http://friedmanarchives.com/newsletters/newsletter-09-04/index.htm</a>

is another example. And so on.

So, I am not in a hurry at 3 in the morning to create and show what's obvious by looking at the entire Sony Alpha Mount Camera line -- the A900 is missing the in-camera flash -- and the ONLY model in the line that is missing an in-camera flash. And since 1989, the ONLY cameras in the Minolta Alpha Mount Camera line to arrive without an in-camera flash were the cheapies (and I gotta look that up to confirm that even those were sans flash), not the world-class top-of-the-line model 9 that set the precedent for the A900.

I appreciate some people think in-camera flash is superfluous or even somehow a detriment. I'm just asking them to ignore it and not use it, and I'm just asking Sony to include it for those of use who do value it.

.

robert_paul1 · April 8, 2009

Peter, I've had my Maxxum 9 for over a decade and I think I can count on one hand the number of times I've used the built-in flash. And since you hate the fact that the A900 doesn't have a built-in flash, why not buy one of the other Sony Alpha DSLRs that have a built-in flash? Or, you can always look for a used Minolta DSLR.

Oh, by the way, what Minolta AF lenses to you own?

peterblaise · April 8, 2009

.

All my Alpha Mount Camera lenses are full frame, so I've been waiting for a full frame Alpha Mount Camera.

I appreciate other people's lack of appreciation or opportunity to use in-camera flash, however, how many other features have people never used? I, for instance, almost never use the back LCD since I would need reading glasses, so distance focus through the viewfinder is required. Intervalometer? Self timer? Mirror lock up? DRO for Raw shooters? JPG for Raw shooters (I don't use in-camera JPG). In-viewfinder information? Custom white balance? Bracketing? High speed sequence capture? High speed sync? Second curtain sync? Spot metering? Fully manual exposure? Center weight averaging metering?

What other features can we strip off a top-of-the-line camera to prove that it's really top of the line?

.<div></div>

jiun_der_chung · April 8, 2009

RP would you have preferred that your Maxxum 9 not have an on camera flash (for the same price)?

PBM brings up a VERY good point which is that if it does nothing else, the on camera flash can be used to trigger slave flashes.

As I mentioned before, I sometimes don't take a shoe mount camera with me, one of the many occasions being when I go travelling/backpacking. Here are just 3 shots that I made with the on camera flash. Of course I could have gotten a better result with a shoe mount flash, but 2 of these shots would have been impossible without a flash and one of them is massively improve with the fill flash.<div></div>

jiun_der_chung · April 8, 2009

Taking shadows off peoples faces<div>

00T0R8-123103684.jpg.28dfb52bc025e1f256622a683956470b.jpg

</div>

jiun_der_chung · April 8, 2009

Try this one without a flash of any kind

jiun_der_chung · April 8, 2009

Whoops, lets try again<div>

00T0RE-123103984.jpg.cc5812db88ddb8d3d8ba1ec3eecfa7ed.jpg

</div>

robert_paul1 · April 8, 2009

Jiun, would I have minded paying the same price if the Maxxum 9 didn't have a built-in flash? Sure, the built-in flash isn't a big deal with me. In fact, I think it is the only SLR that I've owned that has a built-in flash. I've owned a number of Minolta MF and AF SLRs, too many to even remember how many, and I learned photography using cameras that didn't a built-in flash, so to me, it's not a big deal.

And, I don't think in all the years that I've taken pictures, that I have ever found myself in a situation that I wished I had a flash, as I always travel well prepared.

I bought the Maxxum 9 because I wanted a camera that was rugged, and not prone to showing every nick and gouge that occurs on a body made out of plastic. My earlier Maxxums and manual-focus Minoltas, all had some nicks in the plastic. My black SRT-101 had brassing, where the black finish wore away. My Maxxum 9, even though it is over ten years old, shows no sign of wear and tear. It's not like I baby it, it has been banged around, but the body doesn't show it.

While some photographers don't mind the nicks and scratches, as they are a badge of a photographer who 'uses' his equipment, I am not one of them.

peterblaise · April 8, 2009

.

Okay, wow.

So, resistance to brassing is a superior criteria of camera design than, say, control of supplemental lighting . Got it. Definitely a mixed Minolta legacy there!

<ul>

<li>The 1981 Minolta X-700 SR mount camera was plastic, micro coated with brass, then micro coated with silver or black expressly so that (a) it would be light weight, and (b) so that it would wear in as brass.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>The 1998 Minolta 9 Alpha Mount camera was stainless steel (then a later titanium model) so brassing was not even possible.</li>

</ul>

Thanks for ejecting any serious PHOTOGRAPHIC IMAGING RESULTS considerations from camera design here in the A900 pricing exploration.

.

wayne_naughton · April 9, 2009

I don't use incamera flashes and for that matter i don't use my cameras' wireless function very often either. my preference is to use flash with a cord attached to the camera....the point being that it's my preference, that's all.

I use all sorts of cameras to try and make money with, some of them 'pro', some not...i don't really care, as long as they do the tasks i set for them.

I bought the A900 to use as a multipurpose camera for the more 'commercial' part of my photography. unfortunately for me the camera's not particularly effective for some of my requirements, but, hey, the camera's deficiencies were written up in all the early reviews. so it's my fault, not the camera's that it cannot perform up to my expectations. anyway i would have had to spend twice as much to get a marginally better performance from another brand.money that i don't have.

The biggest advantage for me, is the large full frame sensor. and that means that i can make huge crops. and still make fair sized prints. that's a huge plus AFAIAC.

There's plenty of people on this list that use the a700 professionally. I've taken quality equestrian pics with a 7D and the beercan! To be quite honest i bought my a900 AND upgraded my lenses principally to make my picturetaking easier and less painstaking, less like hardwork if you like. well, so far, i've only managed to partially achieve that. but we'll get there. no doubt about that....

The A900 is most probably NOT that expensive for what you get. From what i could work out you would pay almost double to get a marginal improvement from the opposition. I guess if you want to remain a A mount user you just got to learn to compromise, should be used to that by now....grin

wayne

peterblaise · April 11, 2009

.

Perennial -- the two Garry's of Minolta in-camera wireless remote control flash:

<h3 ><a onmousedown="return clk(this.href,'','','','2','')" href="http://www.northnet.org/waltsman/great.html" target="_blank" >Photo Techniques, Gary Walts Photography, Minolta Flash System</a>

</h3>

I am about to embark on a rave review of the Minolta flash system. They have thought of everything. Mostly I rave about the wireless remote TTL ability of ... <a href="http://www.northnet.org/waltsman/great.html "><cite>http://www.northnet.org/waltsman/great.html </cite> </a>

<h3 ><a onmousedown="return clk(this.href,'','','','3','')" href="http://www.friedmanarchives.com/flash.htm" target="_blank" >Minolta's Wireless Flash </a>

</h3>

Minolta ’s Wireless Flash – A Primer. By Gary L. Friedman ..... About 9 years after Minolta introduced wireless flash , Canon introduced their own version, ... <a href="http://www.friedmanarchives.com/flash.htm"><cite>http://www.friedmanarchives.com/flash .htm</cite> </a>

.

scottelly · October 16, 2010

It's a simple matter of - Do you shoot a lot? and Do you need/want the extra flexibility/portability of digital?

If you shoot a lot, the digital camera will save you more than the cost of the new body.

If you travel a lot AND shoot a lot, while traveling, you may find that needing to only carry a spare battery and one extra 8 GB memory card will make your set-up so much more portable that you wonder why you didn't do it before! (Imagine having just a spare battery and a little tiny memory card, rather than 40 spare rolls of film?)

If you change ISO often, you may find that you waste a lot of film. With digital you can change ISO from shot to shot, until you get what is necessary, and you can review the shots, delete them right there, and voila! You also don't have to wait to get your film back from the lab, wondering if you really did get the shot, like you think you did.

-

If your lenses are good enough now, why do you think they wouldn't be good enough with a new digital camera? That is just a ridiculous thought process going on there. YES, you might be able to get even clearer photos with a new lens, but the A900 will get the best possible pictures from your current lenses, and over the years you can add a new lens here and there to replace your old lenses. No need to get a whole new set of lenses all at one time, if you already have a nice set of lenses!

Sign In

A900 PRICE REDUCTION (U.S.)

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in