Sony A900 - a Disappointment?

rh1944

rh1944

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,971
Edit My Images
Yes
What Digital Camera reviewed the A900 in its latest issue. Its overall score trailed behind the A700 and the A350. Its even further behind Nikon's D90, D300 and D700. It comes out level with Canon 450D and behind the 5D. I find that disappointing.
 
Unfortanately camera reviews seem to obsess about high ISO, and if you can't shoot pictures of your cat at ISO6400 they don't seem to do well.

Its a studio / landscape camera, and I doubt they used it in those scenarios.

Most reviews are bunk frankly, and gloss over or do not find real faults (ie Nikon D200 banding, Canon MKIII AF issue) and amplify the trivial and unimportant so they can differentiate enough to find a "Winner" and award it a logo.

Its just marketing driven garbage.
 
andrewc said:
What didn't they like about it?
Click to expand...

The review cites handling issues, noise across the sensitivity range and DT lens support as its dislikes. It does like the viewfinder, image quality, LCD intelligent preview control and effective stabilisation.
 
puddleduck said:
Unfortanately camera reviews seem to obsess about high ISO, and if you can't shoot pictures of your cat at ISO6400 they don't seem to do well.

Its a studio / landscape camera, and I doubt they used it in those scenarios.

Most reviews are bunk frankly, and gloss over or do not find real faults (ie Nikon D200 banding, Canon MKIII AF issue) and amplify the trivial and unimportant so they can differentiate enough to find a "Winner" and award it a logo.

Its just marketing driven garbage.
Click to expand...

You are right, the review warns against taking images at high sensitivities. The review does not have studio shots but does have landscapes. I guess that the magazine has an objective scoring mechanism that reviewers must use. That's a lot better than the IMOs and IMHOs which some people favour. While one review by one magazine is not the basis for making a decision, other objective reviews seem to be leaning the same way.
 
I had a flick through the magazine last night while out shopping, it's the first 'full' review in a mag that I've seen, the rest will be out later this coming week. Anyway, I was surprised to see they gave it a 'lowly' 89%. Lower than the score they gave for my A700, but then mine isn't a £2000ish 24mp camera. If Sony are serious about getting into the big time with their cameras, then they do need to get to grips with the ISO issue. Why Nikon can have the same (Sony) sensor in their high end cameras and yet produce so little noise compared to the machines from Sony beats me.

Sony have years of electronic gadget production behind them, they need to employ the knowledge in their computers in the cameras, the BIONZ processors etc etc to match the other players.

I bet the A900 is a very capable camera, but against the likes of the D3, D700, D300 and the top end EOS systems from Canon they just don't seem to be able to compete.
 
I'd look for some samples myself first.
Handling and noise issues can be subjective and vary e.g. due to image processing workflow. If they judged only the jpegs, then they could be right, but the raws at ISO 1000 don't seem to be that bad and I don't think people who this camera is meant for will go much above that.

Here's a sample raw:
http://raw.fotosite.pl/index-Sony_A900_Carl_Zeiss_85mm_f1.4_by_Ninik.htm

If you don't want to download it and convert it yourself, here's a hint of what it looks like:
dsc0868201smalljpgfu3.jpg


Here's a 100% crop of it (click to see a lossless version):


You can see quite a lot of noise in the black/dark area, but it's comparably faint in the skin area. Which is what could matter, as noise in the dark area can be rid of fairly easily.
 
Decembers DP pits the a900 against the Nikon D700. The outcome was that the D700 beat the Sony in all areas apart from the viewfinder coverage 95% vs 100%. The interesting thing was comparisons of prints at A2 and A3, where you would expect the a900 to blow the D700 away (24.6mp v 12.1mp) however at A3 there was no apparent difference in IQ and at A2 there was only slightly more detail in the a900. To reach A2 size the D700 had to be at 177ppi against the a900 at 240ppi......

I know which camera I would prefer :D
 
DPreview were also suprised just how much more detail the 5D captured against the A900, despite half as many MPs....its not about MPs, ,its about quality, micro lenses, filters and firmware (the 50D is proof that MPS don't make a camera).
 
DPReview are the last place I would go to for credible reviews tbh.

A review site who reviews a *Pro* camera using JPEG defaults, really should be reviewing P&S cameras, not Pro bodies IMHO.

I've got some ARW files from some landscape shooters, and the detail is superb. Certainly WAY better than the Nikon D700 - the acid test is far distance detail ie a tree line at infinity, the detail is awesome.

DPReview just shoot test charts and Baileys bottles at defaults - the reviews are pointless, unless you want to see what the menus look like.
 
neilyb said:
DPreview were also suprised just how much more detail the 5D captured against the A900, despite half as many MPs....its not about MPs, ,its about quality, micro lenses, filters and firmware (the 50D is proof that MPS don't make a camera).
Click to expand...

WhatDC had the 50D within one point of the A900. We'd expect the 5D mkII to beat them both.
 
The 5D MkII I think is going to be the best high megapixel bang for buck ultimately.

I've pre-ordered one. Wish Canon has some decent wide zooms though... they are all very "meh!" compared to the Nikkor alternatives :(

The new CZ 16-35 for the Sony looks great.
 
I have waited some time in the hope that I would buy an A900. Unless the reviews come up with some compelling evidence, it now looks like I will switch to buying either the D700 or the 5D mkII. I had hoped that Sony would put a dent in the Canon/ Nikon duopoly; it seems that Sony has missed its chance at the moment.
 
What are you seeing in the DPReview that makes you think its not a good camera?

While I disagree with their methods (when they do shoot RAW they use ACR which is well known not to handle Sony well)

Look at the difference between the D700 and D3 reviews. Same sensor - the D700 images are not even focused properly!!

Its sloppy reviewing. They use Sony A700 firmware rev 2 images as comparisions vs the Canon 50D. The A700 V4 firmware removes the A700 cooked RAW and massively improves IR. Sloppy using old images "on file"..

Its not a case that the results are, or are not to my liking. I take issue with the credibilty and the methodolgy behind the testing. Its flawed and lazy.
 
rh1944 said:
I have waited some time in the hope that I would buy an A900. Unless the reviews come up with some compelling evidence, it now looks like I will switch to buying either the D700 or the 5D mkII. I had hoped that Sony would put a dent in the Canon/ Nikon duopoly; it seems that Sony has missed its chance at the moment.
Click to expand...

Now don't take offence to this but from what I've seen from your level of photography you don't need a d700 or 5dm2. What I mean is that you never really post anything that would benefit from a full frame sensor or the ability to photograph in low light conditions. Personally from what I've seen your biggest issue is understanding light and how to use it. What I would do in your place would be to buy a 450D / 50D / D90 and save the money from the d700/5dm2 and put it towards some nice lenses. IMHO it was silly to sell your 400D in the first place and then wait for Sony to build a camera you knew nothing about.
 
rh1944 said:
What Digital Camera reviewed the A900 in its latest issue. Its overall score trailed behind the A700 and the A350. Its even further behind Nikon's D90, D300 and D700. It comes out level with Canon 450D and behind the 5D. I find that disappointing.
Click to expand...

Yup, sounds like it got slated. Time for a switch to the Dark Side Russ? :)
 
The irony of someone considering buying a Pro camera, then needing to buy a magzine called "What Digital Camera?" can't be lost on me alone surely?
 
rh1944 said:
I have waited some time in the hope that I would buy an A900. Unless the reviews come up with some compelling evidence, it now looks like I will switch to buying either the D700 or the 5D mkII. I had hoped that Sony would put a dent in the Canon/ Nikon duopoly; it seems that Sony has missed its chance at the moment.
Click to expand...

Nikon D700. It makes sense. Go for it :D
 
puddleduck said:
The irony of someone considering buying a Pro camera, then needing to buy a magzine called "What Digital Camera?" can't be lost on me alone surely?
Click to expand...

I have a D3, and there are people on this forum who could out shoot me using a mobile phone :lol: If you can afford the best kit, pro or not, go for it :D
 
rh1944 said:
What Digital Camera reviewed the A900 in its latest issue. Its overall score trailed behind the A700 and the A350. Its even further behind Nikon's D90, D300 and D700. It comes out level with Canon 450D and behind the 5D. I find that disappointing.
Click to expand...

Those kind of magazines/sites are not reliable for accurate or fairly balanced reviews.
There are far too many endorsements, ad campaigns to take them serioulsy IMO.
Also, some of the reviews seem to be written by folk who selectively regurgitate the user manual and rarely venture beyond what we have already learned from following links and reading various members threads here at TP.

Trust No One :suspect:

EdinburghGary said:
I have a D3, and there are people on this forum who could out shoot me using a mobile phone :lol:
Click to expand...

Hey stop that! Your top and that's final.

EdinburghGary said:
If you can afford the best kit, pro or not, go for it :D
Click to expand...

Indeed. If you can afford the best kit it means you've earned it. Pro or not you have a right to spend your money how you see fit, just do it wisely and not from off the coat tails on "What Digital Camera".

Russ, I would suggest to invest in either Canon or Nikon and spend the majority of your budget on good glass.

T.
 
EdinburghGary said:
Nikon D700. It makes sense. Go for it :D
Click to expand...

It does make a lot of sense. May I just wait for, dare I say it, an objective comparison of the 5D mkII? Others have offered opinions, with varying degrees of humility. I prefer some objective standard, which is why the A900 looks like a bad buy on the current evidence.
 
puddleduck said:
The irony of someone considering buying a Pro camera, then needing to buy a magzine called "What Digital Camera?" can't be lost on me alone surely?
Click to expand...

Have you read Walter Mosely, Raymond Carver and Dashiell Hammett?
 
petemc said:
It does? For you? Any comment on the points I made as imho what I said makes more sense, for you that is.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinions, however humble (marked by meekness or modesty in behavior, attitude, or spirit; not arrogant or prideful, according to The Free Dictionary). I am sure that your comments made more sense to you. However you are coming to the discussion with an imperfect understanding of my world and the baggage (whatever that might be) you carry in your world. While I thank you for and take note of your opinions, I must weight them in a way which makes sense in the context of my world.

petemc said:
Now don't take offence to this but from what I've seen from your level of photography you don't need a d700 or 5dm2. What I mean is that you never really post anything that would benefit from a full frame sensor or the ability to photograph in low light conditions. Personally from what I've seen your biggest issue is understanding light and how to use it. What I would do in your place would be to buy a 450D / 50D / D90 and save the money from the d700/5dm2 and put it towards some nice lenses. IMHO it was silly to sell your 400D in the first place and then wait for Sony to build a camera you knew nothing about.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your comments which raise a number of questions for me:
1) What criteria determine whether a photograph would benefit from a full frame sensor or not?
2) What is there about understanding the use of light that I cannot learn if I apply my talents and intelligence (whatever they may be) to the task?
3) Given that I buy a DSLR (make and model as yet undecided), what nice lenses would you recommend?

It is my view (however mistaken) that if I earn the money then I have the right to use it as I see fit. I have a greater awareness of my spending criteria than any third party. The details of the A900 were pre-announced before I sold the 400D which Matt is using to good effect. What was not known at that time was how would the A900 match up with its rivals. The current objective reviews show the D700 to be a better camera and the 5D mkI to be better as well. Sad for Sony that it has missed an opportunity to break the duopoly.
 
rh1944 said:
Thanks for your opinions, however humble (marked by meekness or modesty in behavior, attitude, or spirit; not arrogant or prideful, according to The Free Dictionary). I am sure that your comments made more sense to you. However you are coming to the discussion with an imperfect understanding of my world and the baggage (whatever that might be) you carry in your world. While I thank you for and take note of your opinions, I must weight them in a way which makes sense in the context of my world.
Click to expand...

Must just be me but I thought we were both on Planet Earth... :shrug:

Thanks for your comments which raise a number of questions for me:
1) What criteria determine whether a photograph would benefit from a full frame sensor or not?
Click to expand...

Can you answer that? I mean you seem to think that the d700 / 5dm2 is the camera for you, so can you answer it?

2) What is there about understanding the use of light that I cannot learn if I apply my talents and intelligence (whatever they may be) to the task?
Click to expand...

Nothing, if you learn how to use it. However, its not dependant on the camera you have. Light is just light. Happens without a camera.

3) Given that I buy a DSLR (make and model as yet undecided), what nice lenses would you recommend?
Click to expand...

That would depend on what you photograph, but going from what I've seen I would say a 24-70 f/2.8 would be a good lens. The £1000 you save from buying a d700 / 5dm2 you could get the very good Canon / Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8. Stunningly good lens.

It is my view (however mistaken) that if I earn the money then I have the right to use it as I see fit. I have a greater awareness of my spending criteria than any third party.
Click to expand...

Never said you couldn't spend it how you see fit. What I said was that based on the photos you've posted you won't benefit from spending £2,000 on a camera over a £1,000 camera. Your post still hasn't changed that opinion.

The details of the A900 were pre-announced before I sold the 400D which Matt is using to good effect. What was not known at that time was how would the A900 match up with its rivals. The current objective reviews show the D700 to be a better camera and the 5D mkI to be better as well. Sad for Sony that it has missed an opportunity to break the duopoly.
Click to expand...

I still feel that its a bad idea to sell a good camera for specs. You were left without a good camera and you waited to see what a company, with no real track record in the dslr market, would do. As you said, they didn't do well.
 
petemc said:
Must just be me but I thought we were both on Planet Earth... :shrug:

I still feel that its a bad idea to sell a good camera for specs. You were left without a good camera and you waited to see what a company, with no real track record in the dslr market, would do. As you said, they didn't do well.
Click to expand...

We may both live on Earth - that doesn't make our worlds at all alike. You are a Welshman who lives on the Wirral and, for the last five year years, has liked to go and take photographs in Liverpool. I was born and lived in Liverpool for more than forty years (from before The Beatles to when King Kenny was manager of Liverpool FC) and I have visited cities with more interesting buildings, better light and greater vibrancy than Liverpool.

It is not mandatory to own a good camera all the time; I chose to be without one. While without the good camera, I have learned a number of things - I don't regret being without the camera and Matt has used it well. I am disappointed with Sony's performance. However, the available objective evidence suggests that Canon and Nikon have come up with cameras that suit my buying criteria.
 
rh1944 said:
We may both live on Earth - that doesn't make our worlds at all alike. You are a Welshman who lives on the Wirral and, for the last five year years, has liked to go and take photographs in Liverpool. I was born and lived in Liverpool for more than forty years (from before The Beatles to when King Kenny was manager of Liverpool FC) and I have visited cities with more interesting buildings, better light and greater vibrancy than Liverpool.
Click to expand...



Thats a bit cruel, where Pete comes from has no real relevance on the issues being discussed. And I would say Pete has done a great service to the people of Liverpool, creating those images.

Chill guys, its awful hot in here...
 
I am in a similar position to the Op, I have an A700 with some ok lenses and one very good one (70-200 2.8G) and was looking forward to the A900, which, if I could justify to myself, I could afford.

I am a bit disappointed too that they sacrificed noise for megapixels and so have decided to hang back, particularly as I would need to sell my Sigma 28-70 2.8 and Sigma 10-20mm and replace them with the Zeiss equivalents (£1500 upgrade cost).

I have two options.

1. Sell all my kit and go for either the Nikon D700 or D3 or Canon 5DmkII with a line up of lenses.

2. Hang back and wait for Sony to bring out their next full frame sensor camera, which may be lower resolution, better noise and include HD video, something I would quite like.

At the moment I'm leaning towards the second option because, if truth be told, I enjoy using my A700 and don't find it that limiting, it's just that it would be nice to shoot at ISO 1600 and have usable colour images.
 
ShawWellPete said:
I am in a similar position to the Op, I have an A700 with some ok lenses and one very good one (70-200 2.8G) and was looking forward to the A900, which, if I could justify to myself, I could afford.

I am a bit disappointed too that they sacrificed noise for megapixels and so have decided to hang back, particularly as I would need to sell my Sigma 28-70 2.8 and Sigma 10-20mm and replace them with the Zeiss equivalents (£1500 upgrade cost).

I have two options.

1. Sell all my kit and go for either the Nikon D700 or D3 or Canon 5DmkII with a line up of lenses.

2. Hang back and wait for Sony to bring out their next full frame sensor camera, which may be lower resolution, better noise and include HD video, something I would quite like.

At the moment I'm leaning towards the second option because, if truth be told, I enjoy using my A700 and don't find it that limiting, it's just that it would be nice to shoot at ISO 1600 and have usable colour images.
Click to expand...

If you are not limited, you should just hang fire and wait a while, sensible. But if you can afford to jump ship into top end nikon or canon, and would not miss the money, then why not?
 
rh1944 said:
We may both live on Earth - that doesn't make our worlds at all alike. You are a Welshman who lives on the Wirral and, for the last five year years, has liked to go and take photographs in Liverpool. I was born and lived in Liverpool for more than forty years (from before The Beatles to when King Kenny was manager of Liverpool FC) and I have visited cities with more interesting buildings, better light and greater vibrancy than Liverpool.

It is not mandatory to own a good camera all the time; I chose to be without one. While without the good camera, I have learned a number of things - I don't regret being without the camera and Matt has used it well. I am disappointed with Sony's performance. However, the available objective evidence suggests that Canon and Nikon have come up with cameras that suit my buying criteria.
Click to expand...

You really do like to talk a lot of crap to get out of answering a question don't you. If you have a real issue with me, me being Welsh (that I never speak of ever and you have absolutely no clue about), me photographing Liverpool, me being me, then start up a new thread or send me a PM and we'll have it out like men.

Answer me this. How in the name of the god is that AT ALL RELEVANT TO WHAT CAMERA YOU ARE GOING TO BUY!?!?!
 
EdinburghGary said:
If you are not limited, you should just hang fire and wait a while, sensible. But if you can afford to jump ship into top end nikon or canon, and would not miss the money, then why not?
Click to expand...

Good question Gary and it comes down to the path of least resistance and I am being lazy! I'd have to sell 6 lenses, 2 flashguns (both in poor cosmetic condition but fine for my use), and buy all new stuff. The other thing I forgot to mention is the image stabilisation in the body is a handy thing to have if you, like me, have not got the steadiest hand.

I reckon if I wait 6 months I'll get the body that I want...

I am interested in what Russ decides though, as he seems to be in a similar boat.
 
ShawWellPete said:
Good question Gary and it comes down to the path of least resistance and I am being lazy! I'd have to sell 6 lenses, 2 flashguns (both in poor cosmetic condition but fine for my use), and buy all new stuff. The other thing I forgot to mention is the image stabilisation in the body is a handy thing to have if you, like me, have not got the steadiest hand.

I reckon if I wait 6 months I'll get the body that I want...

I am interested in what Russ decides though, as he seems to be in a similar boat.
Click to expand...

I am in a slightly easier position. I have no legacy lenses and so am free to adopt any of the approaches available to me. I have waited some time for the arrival of A900. It now appears that the A900 does not offer a value for money improvement over the A700 that you have. I will await some more objective reviews and try to assess the overall impression of the A900. I'm due to go to China at the end of January and would like to take a DSLR with me. I'm prepared not to have one if I can't find the right one. Deep down, I wanted Sony to succeed and now I would need compelling evidence to decide on A900.
 
rh1944 said:
I am in a slightly easier position. I have no legacy lenses and so am free to adopt any of the approaches available to me. I have waited some time for the arrival of A900. It now appears that the A900 does not offer a value for money improvement over the A700 that you have. I will await some more objective reviews and try to assess the overall impression of the A900. I'm due to go to China at the end of January and would like to take a DSLR with me. I'm prepared not to have one if I can't find the right one. Deep down, I wanted Sony to succeed and now I would need compelling evidence to decide on A900.
Click to expand...

Nikon D3 - end of :)
 
From PopPhoto...


"As we've seen before, Sony's noise reduction eats up a lot of resolution. But, since the A900 has resolution to spare, the result isn't bad. At ISO 800, the camera delivered 3010 lines. At ISO 3200, that number dropped to 2630 lines and by ISO 6400 it was 2440 lines -- still more than the Nikon D700's top resolution. Keep in mind that even though the Sony has resolving power at that high ISO, you will see noise in the image, so the overall image quality rating drops."
http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/5624/sony-alpha-900-camera-test.html

Believe me, the A900 destroys the D700 for landscape details.
 
I've edited the ignore list now, hopefully you two have had time to reflect on the prattle that's been spouted in this thread.

Dont bring personal details into this. If you dont like each other's posts you have an ignore function, please use it. If you have a problem with each other, like pete says, take it privately. we're sick of reading this tit for tat arguing.
 
EG says "Nikon D3 - end of". Does it really offer a value for money improvement over the D700?
 
rh1944, it's unfortunate but your post is just one of many that seems to attract the know-it-alls...
I wouldn't read too much into camera magazine reviews, or for that matter, what 'knowledgable' people on here say - it's usually a load of s*** anyway.

Try the camera out when it's released and see for yourself - I'm sure the good folks at Jessops will be more than happy to let you have a play if it means they pay their wages for another week...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top