liquidstereo

<p>The reviews are in my opinion not useful after the page 5 or so.<br>

They have no ability to separate useful from non-useful. Or they choose not to do so. Additionally, their reviews have the stains of the reviewers. I.e. they bring their own experience and biases and they don't acknowledge this.</p>

<p>Cheers!</p>

<p>I love the the "one lousy, unscientific article" bit. Good grief. And please try to not turn this into a Canon vs. anything else discussion.<br>

Cheers! Let's recap.<br>

(1) The article is not about reliability. Its one part in a series documenting a trip to Antarctica and the photographic experience. It began with the author's positive impression of the Sony A900.<br>

(2) It is not a scientific study.<br>

(3) The cameras were not particularly abused. <br>

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?s=3aa32eeb139568d6c09ad5575aa85226&showtopic=31851&st=20<br>

The top of this page documents a 5D2 failure<br>

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=31851&st=40</p>

<p>I haven't used the CZ but the 85/1.4 G is simply superb.<br>

http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/258/minolta-85mm-f14g-d-af.html</p>

Reading the Luminous Landscape hands-on/review (a short one) is quite informative.<p><p>

(1) There is no decent RAW converter yet. <p>

(2) With Sony's IDC (mediocre software at best), the user was able to obtain images that were very similar to the Canon 1DsM3.<p>

(3) Let's wait until ACR is able to process A900 ARW.<p>

(4) Let's wait for a production firmware/unit.<p>

I think the A900 will not be worse than the current competition.

No problem. The Luminous Landscape review/take is a considered one.

Here is a quote:

<p>

<b>The Bottom Line</b>

<p>

<b>The estimated price for this camera is AUD3999 for a body-only. Given that this is well under half that of the well regarded Canon 1DsM3,

and that the images are very close in quality, then this has to be a great deal. You could buy the body and two top Zeiss lenses for much the

same as the Canon.

As far as image quality is concerned, bear in mind that I had to look quite closely at the files – serious pixel-peeping really – to see the

differences. I always figure that if I have to look this closely then the differences are probably so close as to be insignificant. </b>

Imaging Resource has a nice "review." Theirs is much more extensive than dpreview. Interesting "conclusions" as well.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA900/AA900A.HTM

I'm a huge fan of DRO. I shoot 90% RAW but still I find it quite useful.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3033/2606557276_8097e20e1c_b.jpg

Yep. I have the 70-300 SSM G and its absolutely fantastic. The only thing I don't like is that I wonder if it will exhibit a bit of creep in a few

years. Optically, its sharp wide open and its almost impossible to induce CA/PF.

They're located in Minnesota but its quite a good outfit. All of my experiences have been positive.

Cheers!

I think you completely misinterpreted RH's comments/suggestions. I would ebay it or use

it as a paperweight.

Cheers!