puddleduck
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,776
- Name
- Andy Drake
- Edit My Images
- Yes
... seriously considering one, and running a dual Nikon / Sony system.
If you google Tim Kemple, he is an action sports photographer in the US and he is running parallel reviews on the D90 and A900.

One thing I will say is that the files from the A900 (and to the same extent the 5D2 and 1DS3), if you don't have a quad processor computer, I would re-consider, as on slower computers the files are bordering on un-usable.
I'm sorley tempted. If it was just the camera I probably would do it now, but I I feel I would have to sell my Sigma 28-70 2.8 DG and 10-20mm and replace them with the CZ24-70 and the new 16-35 2.8. At least I already have the 70-200 2.8 G.
I guess we're talking about over £3,000 to upgrade...
I only foresee one major problem with the a900.....there so bloody ugly!

Don't really care what it looks like as long as I can make decent sized prints.
Well I've sold my D700 to get this, so it better be good![]()
Was the D700 that bad you want to get rid of it s soon?![]()
The D700 is fine, but its not a low ISO camera, and I shoot low ISO.

Just curious, but what makes it not a low ISO camera?![]()
Then you're doing it wrong Russ, you're supposed to look THROUGH it, not AT it![]()
Interesting comparison given one is a full frame 24mp camera the other is a crop sensor with a fair few less mp.
Personally, as an A700 user, I haven't seen anything that would tempt me with that much cash. Am thinking of getting a 2nd A700 body instead.
It isn't a comparison, he's just got both to review at the moment.
There's a good post about the A900 on his blog -> http://kemplemedia.com/blog/2008/10/13/a-week-with-the-sony-a900/