DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Sony 24MP A900 Details
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 20 of 20, (reverse)
AuthorThread
09/09/2008 03:04:35 PM · #1
Details about the new Sony 24MP Camera are up on DPReview.
09/09/2008 03:32:46 PM · #2
FF, nice. 9 point AF is fair for a $1200 camera but not in a $3000 camera IMO.
ISO 3200 with a push to 6400? That's a few steps behind nikon, and even with canon's new 50D...at $1200.
Micro AF and some other features are nice and a year ago would have been worth talking about. Now you get them standard in a $1200 camera...I want more for $3000.

FF? $2300 from Canon.

24Mp? First, who needs that much? Secondly is the costs associated with files that size - more hard drive space and slower everything when it comes time to process/edit those files. So tack on $1500 for a new computer!

Canon made a big deal about lenses and resolving power, especially at the edges of the sensor before it would go above 16mp on it's 1D line. It brought out new/updated lenses to work at the higher res of 21mp. So what does this say for all the old minolta lenses? Sooo many lenses have been updated to work with digital sensors (new coatings, CoC, etc) that I'd be very concerned about IQ with an old film era Minolta lens on a 24MP FF body.

Overall it's good for the industry and Miniolta-ophiles will no doubt form lines to buy it, but it at least a generation behind canon/nikon in many respects. I'm kind of disapointed is what I'm saying.
09/09/2008 03:58:41 PM · #3
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

FF, nice. 9 point AF is fair for a $1200 camera but not in a $3000 camera IMO.


That's 9 points with 10 assist points... so it's a little better than you describe. Plus, I think the trade-off is that you're getting a huge sensor in trade for some other niceties and a lower price point.

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

ISO 3200 with a push to 6400? That's a few steps behind nikon, and even with canon's new 50D...at $1200.


But ... at 24MP keeping the noise "in check" at ISO 3200 and even 6400 is pretty amazing. The sample pictures they posted look decent to me.

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

24Mp? First, who needs that much? Secondly is the costs associated with files that size - more hard drive space and slower everything when it comes time to process/edit those files. So tack on $1500 for a new computer!


lol ... I hear ya!

Still, I'm looking forward to and hoping Canon comes out with something similar at a similar price point. I paid $3000 for my 5D and thought it was a huge bargain at the time. I would be feeling the exact same way if Canon had something similar to replace my aging 5D. I'd absolutely love to get a 1Ds Mark III but the cost is just too far out there. So anything that brings similar technology down to the $3000 price range is going to be a hit (my opinion, of course, but the $$$ are sitting in my hand waiting).


09/09/2008 04:02:30 PM · #4
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

... I'm kind of disapointed is what I'm saying.

Eh, so what's your point? You're a Canon guy - keep your Canon and enjoy it. I think this Sony rocks!!! Of course. ;-P
09/09/2008 04:41:15 PM · #5
Here's a decent review from IR (//www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA900/AA900A.HTM) that brings up concern about noise, even at low ISO, when printing at size. Excessive noise is an issue and the main factor for me to stay with/leave Sony (Minolta user for 15+ years), but quality of image and build of this "flagship" model does deserve scrutiny. I am excited to try it out though... too bad it won't be out until November.

Oh, and did you see those new lenses?

Message edited by author 2008-09-09 17:33:40.
09/09/2008 05:34:36 PM · #6
The high iso samples were really not that great. The 1Ds MkIII is much better and it's been out for a while, and the D3/D700 really looks like it runs circles around it.

And what's up with these manufacturer's not including chromatic aberration reduction like Nikon does? It was pretty noticeable in a couple of the samples, and I've not once had a problem with it on my D300. It just seems like such common sense.
09/09/2008 06:09:59 PM · #7
Originally posted by Anti-Martyr:

And what's up with these manufacturer's not including chromatic aberration reduction like Nikon does? It was pretty noticeable in a couple of the samples, and I've not once had a problem with it on my D300. It just seems like such common sense.


They don't have to manufacture their cameras to make up for the quality of their glass? *snicker*
09/09/2008 06:37:27 PM · #8
Originally posted by Anti-Martyr:

And what's up with these manufacturer's not including chromatic aberration reduction like Nikon does?


Interesting. That's something that I missed reading about the D300. I'm glad to learn, however, that the camera doesn't attempt to remove the CA from the RAW files. See, the thing that's wrong with automatic CA removal is ... what if it wasn't really CA and you just removed it? I'd much rather have the option to remove it.

Now, it'd be nice if the raw processor had automatic settings that suggested a level of CA removal based on how wide the lens was... that could be interesting. :)


09/09/2008 07:27:06 PM · #9
24 MP in FF, hope the glass will be good enough to take advantage of it.
09/09/2008 08:49:57 PM · #10
Sony A900 High ISO Image Quality

The bottom of this page compares the new Sony against the 1Ds Mark III. Assuming you can trust the samples here, it appears the 1Ds is still well ahead of the Sony in terms of high ISO performance.

09/09/2008 10:01:16 PM · #11
Originally posted by dwterry:



Now, it'd be nice if the raw processor had automatic settings that suggested a level of CA removal based on how wide the lens was... that could be interesting. :)


Canon's DPP does that, among other lens-specific corrections. I don't use it much but it does keep me using DPP over something else. LR2 has my interest though...
09/10/2008 02:38:28 PM · #12
I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned the main innovative feature of the Sony A900 which is the image stabilisation on a full-frame camera.

If you combine that with decent (going from the DPReview article) High ISO performance, it should be awesome in low light situations.

Message edited by author 2008-09-10 14:45:24.
09/10/2008 05:51:09 PM · #13
Originally posted by JonathanJ:

I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned the main innovative feature of the Sony A900 which is the image stabilisation on a full-frame camera.


I do find this interesting... that's a mighty big sensor to be trying to stabilize. I'm curious as to how well it works and whether or not there might be a downside to having the sensor move.

09/12/2008 10:14:00 AM · #14
The alpha might be very attractive for serious hobbyists. For about 3000 $ (still very pricey), you can get a 24 MP FF camera, which is quite remarkable. Canon and Nikon would have to think about their prices soon! I always found the two famous brands too excessive in their price tag. New competitors are always good in the market, this is all very good for consumers.

When I look at the alpha 900 Body, I do not see the experience that both major brands have in making superb ergonomy, but Sony is getting there, there is still room for improvement though. If Sony is able to release lenses designed for a 24 MP sensor, then the competition is going to be harsh. At the moment, the two major brands excel in designing high quality pro lenses, is there any room for Sony? Time will tell...

Message edited by author 2008-09-12 10:14:40.
09/12/2008 11:22:41 AM · #15
Originally posted by msieglerfr:

The alpha might be very attractive for serious hobbyists. For about 3000 $ (still very pricey), you can get a 24 MP FF camera, which is quite remarkable. Canon and Nikon would have to think about their prices soon! I always found the two famous brands too excessive in their price tag. New competitors are always good in the market, this is all very good for consumers.

When I look at the alpha 900 Body, I do not see the experience that both major brands have in making superb ergonomy, but Sony is getting there, there is still room for improvement though. If Sony is able to release lenses designed for a 24 MP sensor, then the competition is going to be harsh. At the moment, the two major brands excel in designing high quality pro lenses, is there any room for Sony? Time will tell...

I'd say if "ergonom"ics is your biggest beef, then they're doing ok, eh? :-) That is a matter of personal preference for sure.

From linked article (Sony Alpha 900): ' . substr('//www.popphoto.com/assets/image/2008/W37/9920089303.jpg', strrpos('//www.popphoto.com/assets/image/2008/W37/9920089303.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
From DPChallenge Camera db (Nikon D700): ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_camera/full/1785.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_camera/full/1785.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

I like this quote from the early preview at Popular Photography: "The Battle of the Big Guns is on and escalating fast." Article here --> Sony Alpha 900: Hands On

Current lens line-up

Sony Press Release: NEW PREMIUM LENSES SUPPORT FULL-FRAME ALPHA DSLR CAMERA
10/22/2008 10:07:53 AM · #16
The sony A900 will be soon eclipsed by the 5D2 and the future Nikon 24 MP...

review Sony A900
10/22/2008 11:13:57 AM · #17
Since the A900 was announced last year, I've been debating a switch to Canon or Nikon, simply because I have a lack of confidence in Sony to build a camera at level of quality of a traditional Minolta camera and lenses. From the early tests and reviews it appears that Sony has introduced an adequate model into the FF market... albeit a bit late and a bit over-priced IMHO. The newly announced Zeiss lenses are certainly a big plus. Comparisons to the 1Ds MKIII seem a bit odd as the A900 seems a closer fit and competitor to the forthcoming 5D MKII. Unfortunately, based on specs, the 5D2 seems to exceed the capabilities and features of the A900 and at a better price point. Without getting too deep into the features, the obligatory NR applied to raw files is one issue that bothers me with my 7D and I shocked to find it in the A900. One thing that I always liked about Minolta cameras was the ability to adjust virtually any setting manually. Yes, this made them rather confusing for many users, but that was part of the enjoyment of shooting with Minolta.

I have not had a chance yet to try out that A900, but will before I make a final decision. At this point I am leaning towards the 5D2.

2¢ from long-time Minolta user.
10/22/2008 12:19:59 PM · #18
i had the a900 in my hands at the photokina fair this year and i must say i wasn't impressed! the body felt quite nice, but the IQ isn't on par with nikon's or canon's equivalents.
i did take a few sample shots and recorded them on my own cf, the results especially at higher iso's were disappointing. also color and dynamic range seem to lack quality compared to other high end dslr's.

if you want you can download some originals:
Here are a few high res jpg's
and a few original raw files (i couldn't open them in cs3 tho)

10/22/2008 12:33:33 PM · #19
I couldn`t buy a camera that ugly :)

Message edited by author 2008-10-22 12:33:43.
10/23/2008 10:04:07 PM · #20
Originally posted by signal2noise:

Since the A900 was announced last year, I've been debating a switch to Canon or Nikon


Just buy an Olympus and never look back :P
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/30/2021 07:03:50 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 07/30/2021 07:03:50 AM EDT.