A900 / A850 Owners, answers please?

[steven_moseley1]

<p>Hi,<br>

I am currently pondering going full frame with the A850/900 or 5D mk2, could owners of the Sony cameras help out with my thoughts?<br>

1. Why did you choose the 850/900, what were the deciding factors for the Sony and what other cameras did you consider?<br>

2. What are the 850/900 really strong points & bad points?<br>

3. How many shots do you get from one battery?<br>

4. Which lenses do you use and which have you found to be especially good with the 850/900 and are any not so good with the full frame?<br>

5. Is the new Sony 28-75/2.8 really worth paying so much extra for compared to the Tamron 28-75/2.8?<br>

cheers Steve.M.</p>

[joe_oliva]

<p>You ask too many questions.</p>

<p>I picked up the A900 last year because I couldn't justify $8,000 for a D3X. The thing that sealed the deal was some really good quality Sony G and Carl Zeiss glass, which I own a lot of. The image quality is fabulous, and the A900-135/2.8 CZ has taken me to a place I can't describe, it is simply amazing.</p>

[kyoshi_becker]

<p>Although I don't own one I will say that out of the image quality of the big 3 sony fits right in the middle with canon at the bottom... Zeiss glass is also very good and retains it's value whereas tamron is crummy in both quality and value.</p>

 

[voets]

<p>I have the A900 for a year now. It replaced my A700. I have a lot of fine minolta/sony glass, so I am kind of hooked to sony now. The A900 is a superb camera, all the controls are placed in the right spots and very intuitive.<br>

I use the Sony 70-200 f2.8 a lot when I shoot pictures of my kids, image quality is excellent in that combination (starting from f2.8, razorsharp images with very nice colors)<br>

The carl zeiss 24-70 f2.8 G is also a great lens that I use quite often, same sharpness as its big brother.<br>

Battery life is very good, I never counted the shots on 1 battery, but I never have to recharge during a day of taking a lot of images (several hundreds)<br>

Other lenses I use: minolta 16mm f2.8 (yes you get the full wide angle on the A900)<br /> minolta 50mm f1.7, minolta 100mm macro f2.8 minolta 50mm f2.8 RS macro, minolta 300mm f2.8 HS G, minolta 400mm f4.5 G, minolta 85mm f1.4. All of these have great performance on the A900<br>

Strong points: full-frame, 24mpx at a very good price, Carl zeiss lenses<br>

Weak points: high ISO becomes noisy, I hardly shoot above ISO400, if you want to shoot in the dark, buy the nikon. AF is pretty fast, but I think for real fast action you''re better of with one of the high end canons (no personal experience with those)</p>

 

[r_scott_adams]

<p>Double post, sorry.</p>

[r_scott_adams]

<p>A900 Carl Zeiss 16-35, 24-70 and 135 1.8. Sony G 70-400. Sony 100 macro.<br />Other cameras considered:<br />D3x = way too expensive for something that is a generation old in a year<br />1Ds MK "whatever" = same as above<br />D700 = great camera, but lost to Sony in resolution & lenses (CZ's)<br />1Ds MK II = also a great choice, but I absolutely hate the idea of video in my still cameras and refuse to pay money for something I don't want.<br />A900 = Stunning detail rendering. Excellent DR. Excellent noise handling up to a very usable ISO 1600, using RAW (despite the reviews). Layout / ergos very much superior to others IMO (a very personal thing). Simplicity of function attractive, a "photographer's" camera. 3 dial selected owner presets is WAY good. HUGE BRIGHT viewfinder, I can manual focus with ease on this beast - like back to the good old days of MF on SLR's, and I use this much more than I thought I would. In-body image stabilization is excellent and puts the competition to shame - every lens you own is IS! Sometimes AF is just a pain in the butt on more static subjects. AF is very good in low light, which surprised me. AF is reasonably fast and very accurate. Tracking AF works GREAT - another surprise - you could easily shoot sports w/ this if you needed to (again if that was the "main thing" there are better options).<br />A900 Cons - MLU function is in same menu as bracketing options making MLU while auto bracketing not possible. A huge error IMO, by Sony. Really high ISO work suffers compared to the competition. If high ISO is "your thing" there are better options. No ISO visible in the viewfinder - not a big deal, but not state of the art. Those are my only gripes.<br />Lenses: Carl Zeiss are even better than your imaginings! Just absolutely superb. They are HEAVY. Even the hoods are metal. So, camera with V-grip and a CZ lens on there is not a walk about camera unless you're Hulk Hogan.<br />Biggest surprise in lenses? Sony G 70-400 zoom. This thing is stupid looking, but it is stupid sharp from 70 all the way to 400mm. I am continually blown away by, and drawn to using the goofy looking "silver ICBM" lens. I don't know if my example was just exceptional or what, but this is one of the best lenses I've ever owned of any focal length. It shouldn't be this good.<br />Profile: Primarily landscape shooter, still life, people. A900 is landscape shooter's dream, and as good as it gets - unless one wanted to spend "the really big bucks" and haul about a high res MF system.</p>

<p>The attached image below is 70-400 @ 400 mm. Tiny jpeg limit is a shame, notice person up on rocks! Taken at Death Valley, "The Grandstand" at the Playa.</p><div></div>

[r_scott_adams]

<p>Another double post.... hummm.... don't know what I'm doing to cause this. Not been a problem previously.</p>

[r_scott_adams]

<p>Forgot to respond to battery life. Grip holds two batteries. I can shoot all day no problem, with lots of chimping along the way. I shot in Death Valley for three consecutive days and never needed to put in my spare set of batteries. I'd say it is as good as the competition in battery life, ergo not an issue.</p>

<p>Man, it is too early in the morning. My post above should read "5D Mk II" not 1Ds MK II re other cameras considered. </p>

[brettdeacon]

<p >Hi Steven. You may find this link to be of interest: </p>

<p > </p>

<p ><a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a900-one-year.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a900-one-year.shtml</a>. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The a900 is a fantastic camera. I use it for low ISO, tripod-based landscape photography. Image quality with lenses like the Zeiss 24-70 and Minolta 100 2.8 macro is excellent. The resolution of this camera will quickly make you dissatisfied with lesser lenses. Answers to your other questions can be found in numerous reviews on this and other sites, like the one posted above at Luminous Landscape. If you’d like to see a few images made with the a900, I have some posted below. Good luck. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Brett</p>

<p ></p>

<p ><a href="http://www.brettdeacon.com/photo.php?id=526&gallery=GrandTetons">http://www.brettdeacon.com/photo.php?id=526&gallery=GrandTetons</a></p>

<p ><a href="http://www.brettdeacon.com/gallery.php?gallery=Wyoming">http://www.brettdeacon.com/gallery.php?gallery=Wyoming</a></p>

<p ><a href="http://www.brettdeacon.com/gallery.php?gallery=Digital">http://www.brettdeacon.com/gallery.php?gallery=Digital</a></p>

<p > </p>

[steven_moseley1]

<p>thanks guys, that was really helpful...If I buy one, I will come back...happy new year from a cold UK.....cheers Steve.</p>

[robinb321]

<p>I picked up an a900 over the summer..</p>

<p>1. Why the a900? #1 reason - Cost. It was half the price of the other units.<br>

2. I would say it's strong points would be the 24mpx 35mm sensor that pulls out a ton of detail. Also the automatic metering and exposure is spot on 99% of the time. It's fast. Great view finder. Very easy to handle.<br>

3. I have no idea how many shots per battery. I got a super high capacity battery on ebay and I have never had an issue with battery life. If I know I will be shooting all day I will take both the high capacity battery and the one that came with the camera. It has been rare that I have had to swap batteries.<br>

4. I only have one lens, the Zeiss 24-70 and I am continued to be impressed by it. I would like more, but no $$.<br>

5. I don't have any experience with Tamron lenses, but I will say the Zeiss lens is quality FTW.</p>

[carsten_kraut2]

<p>I still use a Minolta Dynax 7 (film) and it appears digital is now good enough/close enough to finally make the change. I was hoping to upgrade to the A900 - on account of my large collection of Minolta Glass. But it now looks as though the A850 will suit me equally well, at 2/3 the price! I shoot, mainly, slow landscapes and have no need for 5fps or high ISO. At the price, the A850 this year is now a certainty.<br>

If I were a new SLR photographer, without an existing lens collection, I would still find it very hard to go past Sony - full frame sensor, build quality, lens quality, internal stabilisation - for less than half the price of equivalent rivals. As far as I can tell, Sony have priced themselves so competitively because they do not have the history/recognition/track record of Nikon or Canon, not because their products are in any way lacking. To me, it is simply the best value-for-money. </p>

[carsten_kraut2]

<p>Sorry - Double post</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Sony A850 is a good price, but their lenses are not so keenly priced, no better than Canon or Nikon. I went through this process myself in early 2009 and decided on Canon 5DmkII. The in-body stabilization system is nice for the Sony as are the (few) wide-aperture Zeiss lenses, but in the end the better-known (to me) Canon lenses and their keen pricing combined with the easy adaptability of the EOS mount for third-party lenses made me pick Canon. I haven't been disappointed. I wish Sony well. Personally I think Sony need to strengthen their Zeiss links as AF Zeiss lenses are a big potential attraction.</p>

<p>The Sony's relatively poorer high ISO performance, it could be argued, somewhat negates the in-body IS advantage</p>

[ilkka]

<p>1. Why? I had a Minolta 7 and 7D before, and a bunch of lenses. That sort of settled it for me. But I did appreciate the simple operation, big viewfinder and excellent value for money. <br>

<br />2. Strong points & bad points? Best points are viewfinder, built in stabilisation and value for money. Bad points is somewhat small, and in some cases pricey, lens selection. But I have all the lenses I need or would really buy. Some people say that it is slower focusing than Canon or Nikon, and lacks the long lenses. I believe so. Some also say it is not as good at high ISO. Can be. For landscapes and architecture, either of these do not matter.<br>

<br />3. How many shots from battery? Enough. I have not counted. I carry one spare. If I run out, I switch. Normally I can do more than a day with one.</p>

<p>4. Which lenses? I have only one Sony lens, 2.8/16. I would have bought Minolta but could not find one anywhere. All my other lenses are old Minoltas with two Konica-Minolta zooms and two shift lenses (28 Schneider and 80mm Hartblei). Primes are good lenses. Minolta 2.8/24, Schneider 2.8/28PC, 2.8/50 macro, 2.8/100 macro and 2.8/200 are all very good. The 2.8/80 Hartblei is surprisingly good. 1.7/50 is not that good, but it is okay when stopped down. I bought the 50 macro to get a better normal lens. Of the zooms that I have or had, K-M 17-35 is so-so, 24-50 is poor, K-M 2.8/28-75 is okay, Sigma 70-200 is very good, Minolta 100-300 APO was poor.<br>

5. Is the new Sony 28-75/2.8 worth it? Can't say. I have the K-M version of it and it is okay but not stellar. If you need a zoom and need lighter and cheaper than the Zeiss, then go for it. If you need best image quality and can't afford the zeiss, then get couple of primes.</p>

[paul_de_ley]

<p>"their keen pricing combined with the easy adaptability of the EOS mount for third-party lenses made me pick Canon"</p>

 

 

On the subject of adaptability: here are plenty of adapters for using lenses in other mounts on Minolta/Sony Alpha bodies as well. In fact, for Sony alpha mount it is even possible to get chipped adapters with preprogrammed focal length that will enable sensor stabilization so your best manual focus lenses would benefit from SSS - not an option with the eos mount.

 

<br><br>

 

Note: what happened with the formatting tools for our posts, I don't see buttons anymore for quotes etc...? seems like something changed overnight in the mechanics of the PN web engine

[manuel_odabashian]

<p>The price considering nikon and canon was very encouraging plus i had quality minolta lenses. The full frame and 24.6 mg file size were the real factors. I bought the 135 f1.8 and 16-35 f2.8 before the price rises are great lenses. I do not go above ISO 400 unless the situation complells me to do so ie dance where you must capture the action and are not allowed to use flash. A bit heavy for me but now i'm used to it it's fine at the time there was no A850 so i may have gone for that had it been available, the 100% viewfinder is also helpful</p>

[jeremy_smith12]

<p>1) My A850 is on the UPS truck to me now, but here is why I chose Sony A850</p>

<ul>

<li>Always stabilized lenses, I enjoyed this when I shot Pentax K20D, will enjoy with Sony</li>

<li>Incredible resolution - Lots of images I've been seeing have blown me away</li>

<li>Color - I'm not sure *why*, but I prefer Sony color renditions slightly above Canon</li>

<li>The 58AM flash and the way it rotates to portrait is simply genious.</li>

</ul>

<p>1a) Other <strong>camera systems</strong> considered:</p>

<ul>

<li>Nikon D700 - I shot with this camera for a while (I'm a Nikon guy). It's very, very nice. AF is fast, high ISO is amazing, and wireless flash works excellent. However, I normally don't find myself going over ISO 1600...I value high resolution more (I print large), and the A850 wins. Another problem: They have an entirely too-crusty 80-400 zoom.</li>

<li>5DmkII - Too many complaints of archaic AF performance and build issues. I liked their color rendition behind the Sony but ahead of the Nikon, and the resolution is great. Don't care about movies. CZ 24-70 lens performance seemed better to me, and the 70-400 tends to review very favorably.</li>

</ul>

<p>2) From what I know so far (but haven't tested)</p>

<ul>

<li>Pros: Price, Great VF, resolution, color, decent AF speed, good AF accuracy, build quality, CZ lenses, in-body stabilized, ergonomics</li>

<li>Cons: Small lens selection, loud mirror slap, slow FPS, AF point spread, AF isn't as fast as a Nikon or Canon 1D series, no onboard flash, wireless control with their $130 pocket flash can't control flash intensities (wtf?)</li>

</ul>

<p>3) No idea<br>

4) I bought the A850 with the CZ 24-70, Sony 70-400G, 58flash. I know they work awesome because the sample shots have been amazing and the lenses review univerally well. I thought about saving some money, but decided this was a pretty permanent move to Sony, so I bought the best I could afford. (and a B+W Multicoated thin CPL to fit them both)<br>

5) No idea, I went with the CZ version. Personally if I were going for that lens, I'd just get the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 You lose the silent motor, but that Tamron is a very sharp lens, as I owned it in both Nikon and Pentax mounts.</p>

<p> </p>

[gregory_king1]

<p>Jeremy,</p>

<p>Good points. Same reasons I'm not getting an A850...I would value high ISO over high resolution, and I'll need better AF in a few years. Hopefully they'll fix all that, and put the lens check override feature back in.</p>

<p>Or Nikon makes all my lenses work on their cameras. ;-)</p>

<p>One question: What do you mean flash intensity can't be controlled with the pocket flash? You mean ratios? Flash compensation can be controlled at least in total, AFAIK.</p>

[mark_muse]

<p>Live view, live view, live view... Are you listening Sony? The lack of live view cost you a sale to me. I bought the 5D2 and have a love hate relationship with it. I have also used an a900 (a friend bought one), I see images from it all the time, and I have worked up a number of raw files from it. <br>

For landscapes I don't think there is a comparison—the a900 wins hands down. But for shooting interiors, weddings, or portraits I think the 5D2 does better. It is a smooth rendering camera, and the 14bit raw files come in really handy when you have to dig out the shadows. And they make Zeiss glass for EOS too. I bought the 21... egads its good! Would love to have the 100mm macro too, but as soon as Sony comes out with live view on a successor to the a900 I'm jumping ship. So I'm not investing seriously until then.<br>

On the other hand, Canon's quality control really sucks. I bought 2 L zooms, and they both were awful out of the box and had to go back for fixing. One has been back to Canon for adjustments twice in a year. My experiences here are not unique. While both are quite sharp, they both have serious chromatic aberration problems. Also, I seriously dislike Canon's approach to menus and physical interface. It is like they are designed by engineers who do not use the cameras they design. But, then again, their implementation of live view is quite good. Higher ISO settings are a little noisy, but the nature of the noise is well controlled and it cleans up nicely. <br>

The raw files from the a900 are quite resilient. I can pound them pretty hard for several rounds of sharpening without them getting nasty, but the 5D2 are much less so. Lens artifacts, where a sharp lens starts to go out of focus in fine and contrasty detail (a distant tree line or trees on the horizon), as is often necessary shooting landscapes, tend to get really nasty as you sharpen the file, sometimes with a magenta halo and often breaking into sections of RGB. Branches tend to get webby and coarse at their intersections under these circumstances, something I don't know how to deal with. If they are in optimum focus, I have much less of it, but that isn't always possible. I used to think it was just the lens doing it, but I have come to believe that it is a combination of lens and sensor, since I have seen the same kind of things coming from a 5D2 with a Zeiss 100mm Macro. But oddly, I don't have that problem with my 21mm Zeiss. It goes out of focus quite gracefully on the 5D2.<br>

That should give you some ideas. I miss my Sony R1. I always wished they made an instrument grade or pro grade version of that camera.<br>

Cheers, Mark Muse</p>