| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/27/2009 10:50:05 AM · #1 |
May have to consider this at some point. $1999 not a bad price-point for full-frame.
Sony A850 - Early review. |
|
|
|
08/27/2009 11:05:54 AM · #2 |
| Wow... I might even consider switching to Sony! Let's see what the reviews say, thanks for the link! |
|
|
|
08/27/2009 11:32:39 AM · #3 |
| i just bought the sony A700 its great but im bummednow they have brought this out :( |
|
|
|
08/27/2009 11:51:13 AM · #4 |
| Prior to purchasing the 5D2, I considered the the A900, but the low-light performance and the fact that the Minolta/Sony RAW file was not truly RAW were the deal breakers for me. I was a long-time Minolta user and I still use the 7D as a backup, in my quest to go full-frame digital, the 5D2's performance over the A900 made my decision to switch rather easy. With that said, my 7D still works great and the quality of build is excellent. |
|
|
|
08/27/2009 11:52:13 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by hojop25:
i just bought the sony A700 its great but im bummednow they have brought this out :( |
Don't be bummed. Enjoy your new A700! There's always something new around the corner and the price of the A700 is quite reasonable, plus it's still faster for sports shooting than the new A850 (pretty sure anyway).
To stay current on the Sony market check out the Dyxum website. Of course right now the forums there are all hyped up about the new releases, but in general it's a very informative place for Sony/Minolta shooters.
Sorry to say that had you been frequenting Dyxum you'd have known about the pending new releases. :-/ |
|
|
|
08/28/2009 04:23:39 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by signal2noise:
Prior to purchasing the 5D2, I considered the the A900, but the low-light performance and the fact that the Minolta/Sony RAW file was not truly RAW were the deal breakers for me. I was a long-time Minolta user and I still use the 7D as a backup, in my quest to go full-frame digital, the 5D2's performance over the A900 made my decision to switch rather easy. With that said, my 7D still works great and the quality of build is excellent. |
unfortunately a900's raw files are as raw as canon 5d mk2.
Any claims that NR is applied to a900's raw files is outright lie. (it does not mean that you are lying , it means that it is myth perpetuated over internet).
other than this, a900 does have 1 stop disadvantage over canon 5d mk2, but this is 90% cases not an issue because you would shooting at base isos mostly.
Anyway at base isos though a900 is a better cam than canon 5d mk2, which is said by many reputable sites so far.
I think you visit lot of canon forums and all these things that raw is nred and all is common on them.
canon 5d mk2 is not bad cam though.
Message edited by author 2009-08-28 04:33:02. |
|
|
|
08/28/2009 09:57:02 AM · #7 |
| 24.6 megapixels? That's insane. |
|
|
|
08/28/2009 10:44:13 AM · #8 |
| Someone over at Dyxum mentioned that dpreview is going hot & heavy in the Canon/Nikon threads about Sony's new FF release. I took a look at the Canon thread - OMG, what a fun read that was! Some serious brand defending going on. DPC is fairly tame in that regard, thank goodness. :-) |
|
|
|
08/28/2009 10:48:10 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
DPC is fairly tame in that regard, thank goodness. :-) |
Nah, here we have an ongoing Mac versus PC battle to distract us instead.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2009 12:01:35 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
DPC is fairly tame in that regard, thank goodness. :-) |
Nah, here we have an ongoing Mac versus PC battle to distract us instead. |
That's only because those Mac dorks don't know when they've been beaten. X-D
|
|
|
|
08/28/2009 12:25:34 PM · #11 |
| It's still a Sony, though. |
|
|
|
08/28/2009 02:36:33 PM · #12 |
Oh nevermind...
Message edited by author 2009-08-28 15:38:11. |
|
|
|
08/28/2009 03:45:37 PM · #13 |
Without even seeing a review, I am pretty sure that the image quality at or near base ISO is going to be great. The feature set looks very nice, and the price point is, well, aggressive. The competition can only do us all good.
Now the body may be inexpensive, but once you look equip it with high-quality glass, your wallet will be a *lot* lighter. there's also not nearly the range of glass available as for C or N.
If I were buying into a system today, with no pre-existing equipment to worry about replacing, I'd have a hard time deciding between Canon & Nikon, but I don't think I'd seriously consider Sony, even without considering my dislike of Sony's "proprietary everything" and heavy DRM attitude. |
|
|
|
08/28/2009 05:18:43 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Without even seeing a review, I am pretty sure that the image quality at or near base ISO is going to be great. The feature set looks very nice, and the price point is, well, aggressive. The competition can only do us all good.
Now the body may be inexpensive, but once you look equip it with high-quality glass, your wallet will be a *lot* lighter. there's also not nearly the range of glass available as for C or N.
If I were buying into a system today, with no pre-existing equipment to worry about replacing, I'd have a hard time deciding between Canon & Nikon, but I don't think I'd seriously consider Sony, even without considering my dislike of Sony's "proprietary everything" and heavy DRM attitude. |
lenses from sony are slightly expensive but this rule does not hold for all lenses. There are some lenses more expensive in canon nikon.
So ultimately it comes down to what lense you want.
For example i want a very fast lense, say f1.2.
Now sony does not have one.
Nikon has one but what i have seen of it, it is rubbish wide open.
Canon has a nice one but for more than 1500 dollars. (1000 dollars for second hand)
Pentax has one for around 800$ (200 - 300$ for second hand). Qulitywise similar to canon's lense.
So obvious choice in the end is pentax for me. (at least for low light photography, same reason someone thinks of buying canon).
Further sony historically has priced their product higher. They are only pricing agressively on bodies because of market share.
And other than that sony's main lenses are from zeiss which are usually higher priced but are better too and has pretty good reputation.
(so i think paying high in zeiss is just like paying high in L glass of canon).
|
|
|
|
08/28/2009 06:23:22 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Without even seeing a review, I am pretty sure that the image quality at or near base ISO is going to be great. The feature set looks very nice, and the price point is, well, aggressive. The competition can only do us all good.
Now the body may be inexpensive, but once you look equip it with high-quality glass, your wallet will be a *lot* lighter. there's also not nearly the range of glass available as for C or N.
If I were buying into a system today, with no pre-existing equipment to worry about replacing, I'd have a hard time deciding between Canon & Nikon, but I don't think I'd seriously consider Sony, even without considering my dislike of Sony's "proprietary everything" and heavy DRM attitude. |
lenses from sony are slightly expensive but this rule does not hold for all lenses. There are some lenses more expensive in canon nikon.
So ultimately it comes down to what lense you want.
For example i want a very fast lense, say f1.2.
Now sony does not have one.
Nikon has one but what i have seen of it, it is rubbish wide open.
Canon has a nice one but for more than 1500 dollars. (1000 dollars for second hand)
Pentax has one for around 800$ (200 - 300$ for second hand). Qulitywise similar to canon's lense.
So obvious choice in the end is pentax for me. (at least for low light photography, same reason someone thinks of buying canon).
Further sony historically has priced their product higher. They are only pricing agressively on bodies because of market share.
And other than that sony's main lenses are from zeiss which are usually higher priced but are better too and has pretty good reputation.
(so i think paying high in zeiss is just like paying high in L glass of canon). |
With Canon the 300 F2.8 is my go to lens, I shoot sports and its almost always with me and mounted sometimes with a 1.4 TC. The Sony lens in that range is over $6k same as the Olympus at the time I was shooting Olympus and went to Canon, Canon is 2/3 of the cost new and includes IS which the others don't. I bought mines used for less then $3500. I'm not really sure how anyone can say this camera is better then that camera without real world time behind the controls. A simple review won't tell the real story only time in the field will.
Matt |
|
|
|
08/28/2009 06:59:20 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by MattO:
With Canon the 300 F2.8 is my go to lens, I shoot sports and its almost always with me and mounted sometimes with a 1.4 TC. The Sony lens in that range is over $6k same as the Olympus at the time I was shooting Olympus and went to Canon, Canon is 2/3 of the cost new and includes IS which the others don't. I bought mines used for less then $3500. I'm not really sure how anyone can say this camera is better then that camera without real world time behind the controls. A simple review won't tell the real story only time in the field will.
Matt |
absolutely agree.
last few years roaming in various forums, my observation is that there are many people buy things on slogans they hear around. And make wrong choice (in end all brands have good slrs so there is no bad choice).
For example.
Sony's Raw are cooked.
Truth: All brands manipulate sensor data to make it presentable. Sony's A700 applied NR to raw. That could be switched off due to new firmware. Only one case extrapolated to full brand and all cameras.
Buy canon/nikon if low light is your concern.
True if you use same lense on all systems. Buy canon and use kit lense with f3.5 aperture would kill all the advantages. For example my 180$ f1.2 50mm plus 200 $ slr (both second hand) are either better or equal than good high iso cam with slow lense in low light.
Don't buy brand X because they have less lenses.
Well is someone going to buy all the lenses by that brand. One only needs the lenses he needs. Check their pricing (as you said).
Brand X is bad.
With todays technology until one is doing something specific or demanding like sports or weddings etc, one can do very good with any brand he/she picks. They are all good.
They are many more.
I feel lenses are more important decision than body.
Message edited by author 2009-08-28 18:59:51. |
|
|
|
08/28/2009 08:07:25 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
I feel lenses are more important decision than body. |
I tend to view it as a marriage. Both are important.
I agree that people get to wound up over brand names.
To my mind there are two questions each person needs to ask themselves when shopping for a camera. (Providing they do not already have a collection of glass.)
Which cameras/lenses will let me do what I want/need to do now, with the features I want?
Which cameras/lenses will let me grow where I want to go?
The answer to those two should give you the selection of cameras. Then go find a store that has them. Look them over, hold them, take some shots if they will let you, but at least play with the controls and get the feel of the camera. Which one feels best in your hands? Which one has the controls that seem most intuitive to you. Are the controls too small for your fingers? Does the camera feel to flimsy, too heavy, too unbalanced. Once you have the answer to these questions, and the last two are answered no, you have your camera.
Yes, one camera may be $500 cheaper than another. 10,000 shots from now... The awkward viewfinder, the balance that never seems right, the button that you alway press wrong, will make that $500 that you save and spent long ago, seem like cheap money if you could do it over again.
One more thing... After you spent the afternoon in your local camera shop, please patronize them. Otherwise they may not be there when you want to research your next camera, and you will have to buy it based solely upon the opinions of others.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2009 11:39:38 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by MattO:
... With Canon the 300 F2.8 is my go to lens ... |
Is this not a good lens (available in Sony, Canon, Nikon, and Pentax mounts), capable of capturing the same quality photos as the Canon lens you mention?
|
|
|
|
08/28/2009 11:46:14 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by MattO:
... With Canon the 300 F2.8 is my go to lens ... |
Is this not a good lens (available in Sony, Canon, Nikon, and Pentax mounts), capable of capturing the same quality photos as the Canon lens you mention? |
No its not even close to the same league as Canon. No IS, no distance limit switch, slower AF. I've shot with one this is not here say. I've also had the 120-300F2.8 Lens by Sigma, same issues with it. Heck I even sold my 300F2.8 NONIS Canon lens just to add the IS to the bundle, but without it you still have slower response AF and no AF limit switch.
Matt |
|
|
|
08/28/2009 11:53:43 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by MattO:
... With Canon the 300 F2.8 is my go to lens ... |
Is this not a good lens (available in Sony, Canon, Nikon, and Pentax mounts), capable of capturing the same quality photos as the Canon lens you mention? |
No its not even close to the same league as Canon. No IS, no distance limit switch, slower AF. I've shot with one this is not here say. I've also had the 120-300F2.8 Lens by Sigma, same issues with it. Heck I even sold my 300F2.8 NONIS Canon lens just to add the IS to the bundle, but without it you still have slower response AF and no AF limit switch.
Matt |
With Sony you don't need the IS. :-)
Some fairly good things said at Fred Miranda about the Sigma (although it may be the previous version), many in direct comparison to the Canon 300/2.8. |
|
|
|
08/29/2009 12:04:19 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by MattO:
... With Canon the 300 F2.8 is my go to lens ... |
Is this not a good lens (available in Sony, Canon, Nikon, and Pentax mounts), capable of capturing the same quality photos as the Canon lens you mention? |
No its not even close to the same league as Canon. No IS, no distance limit switch, slower AF. I've shot with one this is not here say. I've also had the 120-300F2.8 Lens by Sigma, same issues with it. Heck I even sold my 300F2.8 NONIS Canon lens just to add the IS to the bundle, but without it you still have slower response AF and no AF limit switch.
Matt |
With Sony you don't need the IS. :-)
Some fairly good things said at Fred Miranda about the Sigma (although it may be the previous version), many in direct comparison to the Canon 300/2.8. |
I don't believe everything I read on the internet, I believe what my images and own experience with the equipment tells me. :D
With the Sony I also don't get 10FPS, 1/300 flash sync, 1/320th with pocketwizards and strobes, or weather sealing to withstand rain like I shot in tonight's football game. Heck I might as well shoot with my 1DsMKII if I wanted to limit myself with a FF camera. :D
Matt
Edit to add, I don't want to give the wrong idea, I'm not a Canon or nothing kind of guy, heck I've shot Olympus, Nikon, Minolta, and Canon, for me there is only one choice right now. The combination of sports body and affordable lenses that perform for my needs is why I currently shoot canon. I'm not opposed to a full brand switch, heck I did it just over 3 years ago when I moved from Olympus. But each person has to look at the overall picture of what fits their needs and go from there.
Message edited by author 2009-08-29 00:15:02. |
|
|
|
08/29/2009 12:13:15 AM · #22 |
Yep. First-hand experience is certainly better than getting info from elsewhere I agree.
I was bringing up the 300/2.8 Sigma as an option for $$$. Those that like to point out how Sony glass can be expensive seem to point to that one lens. Anyway...
As for weather sealing I thought the Sony A900 & now the A850 bodies are weather-sealed. ??? I'm not sure as I've not really seriously considered/researched them for what I need with photography equipment. I read that Sony has not produced a weather-sealed line of lens yet. I suppose they'll get there soon enough. |
|
|
|
08/29/2009 01:05:51 AM · #23 |
I just hate Sony as a company. Their "proprietary" memory format that doesn't work with anything else, the proprietary file formats they have for their digital voice recorders that make them all but useless.
You'd think they'd have learned their lesson about having closed formats from the VHS vs. Betamax thing, but nooooooo. Whatever. |
|
|
|
08/29/2009 08:02:00 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I just hate Sony as a company. Their "proprietary" memory format that doesn't work with anything else, the proprietary file formats they have for their digital voice recorders that make them all but useless.
You'd think they'd have learned their lesson about having closed formats from the VHS vs. Betamax thing, but nooooooo. Whatever. |
Hear, hear.....I just hate Sony as a company. That's worth repeating for me.
I used to have a complete Sony system as my home entertainment setup.......as I watched one piece after another puke in a ridiculously early manner, with no interest in them taking care of the issues, they pretty much ran me off.
Even if you don't give a sh*t about your customers, at least pretend to, and talk nicely to them when they're frustrated because the junk you sold them dies horribly.
Don't even get me started on how many of those POS PlayStation IIs I bought for my kid.
They fried right and left, and they couldn't fill the demand because they were such junk.......they broke faster than they could manufacture them. The third one broke under warranty and it took them four months to replace it.
They just don't build good equipment from my experience......I shan't throw good money after bad.......they're just another Brand X to me.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2009 09:15:45 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Their "proprietary" memory format that doesn't work with anything else, .... |
you mean something like lense mount that is "proprietary" of many famous brands and that doesn't work with anything else, ...
:-D
|
|
