Sony A900

Discussion in 'Non-Nikon Mirrorless' started by JohnR, Sep 9, 2008.

  1. Whoa, has anyone seen the price of this camera?? Will it affect the price of Nikon bodies??

    Key features

    * 24.6 MP 35mm format full-frame CMOS sensor (highest res in class)
    * SteadyShot INSIDE full frame image sensor shift stabilization (world first)
    * High Speed Dual Bionz processors
    * Eye-level glass Penta-prism OVF, 100% coverage, 0.74x magnification
    * 9 point AF with 10 assist points, center dual-cross AF w/2.8 sensor
    * 5 frames per second burst, newly developed mirror box
    * Intelligent Preview Function
    * 3 User programmable custom memory modes on mode dial
    * Advanced Dynamic Range Optimizer (5 step selectable)
    * 40 segment honeycomb metering
    * 3.0" 921K pixel Photo Quality (270 dpi) LCD display, 100% coverage
    * Direct HDMI output
    * ISO 200-3200 (ISO 100-6400 expanded range)
    * User interchangeable focusing screens (3 options)
    * CF Type I/II and MS slots, LI-ION battery, STAMINA 880 shots
    * Weight 850g (without battery, card, accs)
    * New Image Data Converter SR software (includes vignetting control)
    * New Vertical Grip
    * Supplied with wireless remote control
    * Magnesium Alloy body and rubber seals for dust and moisture resistance
    * AF micro adjustment
    * $2999.99 body price; available late October 2008
     
  2. giga

    giga Guest

  3. ah! Thanks for that because I didn't know the performance of the camera.
     
  4. Leif

    Leif

    Feb 12, 2006
    England
    It looks to have mediocre noise performance, but high pixel density, and good specs at a 'modest' price. Given that the D200 and D300 had sensors developed in collaboration with Sony, will we see a Nikon equivalent?
     
  5. I think that for the price, it has a lot going for it.
    I also feel that it has set the price for future high res sensor cameras......which will benefit us all.
     
  6. Phillip Ino

    Phillip Ino

    Nov 26, 2007
    Austin
    I for one am not impressed. Looks like the AF and ISO performance are rather inferior. 24mp wouldn't benefit me at all.
     

  7. More interesting will be the low ISO performance.

    I don't "get" the obsession with high ISO, its not the be-all and end-all.

    Lets see how the camera performs in more real world situations. No one pays $3000 to take pictures of ales bottles in low light :confused: 

    I'd like to see some ISO100 landscapes.

    To expect excellent high ISO performance at that sort of pixel density is naive.
     
  8. adrianaitken

    adrianaitken Guest

    Puddleduck - see the images on dpreview - including Tower of London pix.
     
  9. Phillip Ino

    Phillip Ino

    Nov 26, 2007
    Austin
    I guess it's specific to the individual person. You cannot be hypocritical by saying that what's important is only what matters to you personally. The people who are "obsessed" with high-iso shooting probably do just that. They probably prefer to use available light as opposed to flash. Just because it doesn't pertain to your style of shooting doesn't mean it's not valid. There is a reason why people praise high iso performance....probably the same reason why camera companies spend $$ on R&D to improve high ISO performance.
     
  10. Sorry, but its borderline insanity to look at a ISO6400 wine bottle crop and make IQ judgements. It not hypocritical, its just common sense.

    No one had ISO6400 even 12 months ago.

    Making snap judgement based on those samples in madness. Sorry.
     
  11. PeterRH

    PeterRH Guest

    I have to agree with the sentiment here - looking for clean high-ISO performance from a high mp/pix density body to rival the D3 is surely not a huge priority.

    Of course that may change when the bar somehow gets raised again by a manufacturer - but given the current conditions eyebrows will be raised by the A900 if it delivers equal lower ISO performance to the established main players.

    At which point existing bodies will hopefully drop in price (though more likely we'll just see 'added value' additions to hardware/firmware spec).
     
  12. giletti

    giletti

    170
    Jan 12, 2008
    Victoria, BC
    Thanks ! Totally agree and just what went thought my head.
     
  13. RFCGRAPHICS

    RFCGRAPHICS

    Apr 30, 2005
    This camera sounds very promising. For my type of work, I need a big raw buffer and megapixels, high iso capability is only a secondary concern. I believe this camera will cause other manufactors to start lowering their prices on their high end bodies.

    Congrats to Sony !
     
  14. I think it's a rather intriguing camera. I shot Minolta film cameras and loved them. Granted the high ISO performance isn't in the league of the offerings by Canon and Nikon but that shouldn't rule the camera out as garbage. I will say that some of those CZ lenses are pretty sweet!!

    Having owned the D2x and knowing its higher iso performance was nothing to write home about, the IQ at lower iso is still breathtaking when I review my older shots.

    I'll reserve judgment when the production samples are out and the RAW converters are up to date.
     
  15. I'm glad they're releasing this cheap, this means Canon and Nikon can no longer monopolize full frame prices. This is the first nail into the DX format coffin.
     
  16. Leif

    Leif

    Feb 12, 2006
    England
    That tower picture is superb, really. If Nikon produced an equivalent camera, I would have to ask someone to tie me to a mast to prevent me responding to its siren call.
     
  17. Leif

    Leif

    Feb 12, 2006
    England
    I agree. If you need high ISO, get the D700. If you need a studio/portrait/landscape/architecture camera, get the Sony A900 or similar, and stuff high ISO.
     
  18. True, but the D700 is hardly shabby ay lower ISO's either. It's not like we don't have capable cameras.

    For me a 24MP sensor isn't hugely appealing. It's always going to be a fairly noisy sensor natively, I could do without the huge raw files it's going to output and I'm more interested in mid to high ISO performance overall. Looking at the complete package I'm not so keen on the 2 stage NR Sony use IF it kills detail like I see in their other bodies. I'm also not hugely impressed by the look of the AF as I spend a fair amount of time using the outer AF points on my Nikons.
     
  19. But it's not insane to compare one camera's 6400 crop image to the a900's 6400 crop image.

    That being said, I think this camera, like the slower high megapixel D models from Nikon is designed around the portrait photographer who will keep the camera in its base ISO of 200 and use studio lights to take the place of high ISO. It's obvious that we've about hit the point of diminishing returns when it comes to megapixel count. You can only stuff but so many photosites into a given sensor size before the photosites get so small they're no longer able to remain noise free. I think the D3 and D700 are probably right at that point. Pulling from memory, I believe the a900 photosites are 5.2 microns while the D3/D700 are something like 9 microns. To add any more photosites means ya gotta make them smaller, and thus less sensitive. This sensor will most likely be in the D3x when it comes out, so you can probably expect similar noise characteristics.

    Edited to add: That vertical grip looks frickin' ridiculous (IMHO), but I do like how they've incorporated all the buttons from the camera's right side.
     
  20. Leif

    Leif

    Feb 12, 2006
    England
    It might at a pinch be usable outdoors ... (That was English irony by the way.)

    I wonder what ISO film Henri Cartier Bresson used?
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.