Sony A900 - a Disappointment?

specialman said:
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...
Click to expand...

I won't rely on the magazine review as the most important factor in making a decision on the camera. What I hope the magazine provides is a like for like comparison on an objective basis. People have the right to express opinions and do so - I do everyone the honour of treating their opinions as valid as anyone else's, but no more so. However, opinion is subjective and of no help in making an objective decision.
 
IMHO if you want to make an objective decision you need to try the camera for yourself and take some shots. Its a £2k camera, so leaving the decision making for others is a really bad idea!

I've yet to see any credible review or user opinion that says this is a disappointing camera.

There is no other 24 megapixel camera out at all - so what are you actually asking from a comparison here? And is it realistic? Its in a resolution class on its own right now, and the price isn't bad either.

Why not just try one?
 
rh1944 said:
What I hope the magazine provides is a like for like comparison on an objective basis.
Click to expand...

That's just it Russ mate, I strongly feel that most magazines can't even offer a reliable or fairly balanced side by side comparison.
It is a pretty hard task considering that there are so many variants of individual preferences and requirements, this combined with sales biases/endorsments and hype makes the magazines a waste if time for me personally. It's just summatt to flick through while answering the secondary call of nature IMO.

Not that this is of too much importance but here's my onion peel:
Budgets aside, if I was in your boots, I would by a 24-70mm f/2.8 and if it's full frame you fancy then a D700. If your feeling rich then splash out on some more glass, maybe a 14-24mm f/2.8 :thinking: That's just me.

T.

puddleduck said:
Why not just try one?
Click to expand...

Indeed. Maybe have a look and see if there are any expo's or trade fairs coming up in the near future, we just had one this weekend over here, maybe there's one around the corner in the UK? I dunno, I haven't been around the UK for the last 2 years but an Expo or trade fair would be ideal for you Russell.

You could getcha mits on a bunch of different brands and models, that would certainly help make a more comfortable decision.

T.
 
rh1944 said:
EG says "Nikon D3 - end of". Does it really offer a value for money improvement over the D700?
Click to expand...

There is £1,000 difference, so probably not. But if money really is not the largest of concerns, then you would benefit from better battery life (compared to a D700 with additional battery and grip - based on experiences with a d700 owning friend), you would have two memory card slots which is useful for backing up and overflowing to, and I heard but cannot confirm, that the D3 has much better weather proofing. Also, I read its good for 300,000 shutter counts, compared to 150,000 on the D700. Dunno how this was tested.

Gary.
 
puddleduck said:
IMHO if you want to make an objective decision you need to try the camera for yourself and take some shots. Its a £2k camera, so leaving the decision making for others is a really bad idea!

I've yet to see any credible review or user opinion that says this is a disappointing camera.

There is no other 24 megapixel camera out at all - so what are you actually asking from a comparison here? And is it realistic? Its in a resolution class on its own right now, and the price isn't bad either.

Why not just try one?
Click to expand...

You may well be right. The camera may not be disappointing, I am disappointed that it did not rate higher in what I would hope would be an objective comparison. I trust Which? magazine as an objective source for comparing similar, but different, objects. I don't mind how good the reviewing process is - what I attach value to is the rigorous application of the reviewing method.
 
I would never have put all my eggs in the sony basket they are a company that has a long history of style over substance electronic's gear and have exactly no track record of producing world class professional camera's.

If money is no object and that seems to be the impression, have you considered a 1ds III? Also all this talk of bodies is all well and good but you really need to take into account the lenses available to you and your prefered subjects to make an informed decision when starting out from scratch.
 
(Nikon only, can't comment on the A900)

Get the D3 if you want a pro body, in-built grip, and 9fps. 300K shots and longer battery life are additional benefits.

If 5fps is acceptable, and the in-built grip is of no use, get the D700. It's also built very, very well. The grip can take AA batteries which will extend the battery life by a considerable margin. As mentioned, you'll be able to pick up another top Nikkor lens with the saving. D700 also has automatic dust removal.

If you have loads of cash, then the decision is more about usability. Hold them both and see which one feels nicer to use.
 
I think it would help to know what rh1944 wants from a camera instead of everyone just agreeing that the d700 / d3 is a great camera. I doubt anyone in their right mind is going to say that they're not. D3, D700, D300, D90, D80, 50D, 40D, 5D, 1Dm3, 1Ds m3, are all great cameras. Bloody fantastic in fact. Can anyone here say which is best for rh1944 from the responses to this thread, besides just saying the top of the range models? Have you looked at a Hassleblad H3DII-50? Brilliant camera. Right camera for you? Not a clue.

This forum is here to help its users and that all starts by asking questions. What are you looking to photograph? That will then aid in what body is best for him and whether he needs to spend that much money or would he be better off with a cheaper body and the ability to spend the savings on better lenses.

What are you going to photography?

What do you need from a camera to do so?
 
a1ex2001 said:
I would never have put all my eggs in the sony basket they are a company that has a long history of style over substance electronic's gear and have exactly no track record of producing world class professional camera's.
Click to expand...


Neither did Canon or Nikon when they first started out in the 'business'. A company has to start somewhere
 
a1ex2001 said:
I would never have put all my eggs in the sony basket they are a company that has a long history of style over substance electronic's gear and have exactly no track record of producing world class professional camera's.

If money is no object and that seems to be the impression, have you considered a 1ds III? Also all this talk of bodies is all well and good but you really need to take into account the lenses available to you and your prefered subjects to make an informed decision when starting out from scratch.
Click to expand...

They do have a history of producing high quality electronics (I and others I know have had a lot of Sony products and never had one fail). Sony have a long history of producing professional video cameras so they're not exactly new to optics. Also, given that they bought out Minolta, they're not exactly starting from scratch!
 
Agreed - I think out of the "other" manufacturers Sony have got the best chance.

They are doing all the right things at the moment. They are hardly new kits on the block.
 
If you are thinking of a A900 here is a real world review from a working pro, who also owns a D3 etc, I'm sure I've read a more comparative review from him somewhere, but can't find it.
 
Cameras with massive megapixel sensors don't necessarily give the best images. The more pixels you cram onto a chip the smaller they are. That also means they don't collect as many photons as chips with smaller pixel count, but larger photosites. This means that to get sufficient sensitivity you have to further amplify the signal, which in turn gives more noise.

OK this is a generalisation, as chip design and cameras processors have to be taken into account.

But I wonder just how many pixels do we need. Camera manufacturers seem to be hooked on the megapixel count rather than on overall image quality. You can quantify pixel count, but IQ is a different thing altogether.
The Luminous Landscape has a field review of the A900, which may make interesting reading. It was pitted against the 1Dslll

As far as I am aware all the pictures were shot RAW and processed to get the best out of each system

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a900-nr.shtml
 
An advantage of a high resolution camera is often lost in arguments about quality. A high resolution camera like the A900 will give you the benefit of cropping . Just like the old 6x6 film camera . You can crop 50% of the image and still have a 12million pixel image. Brilliant images were produced on 6x6 with an iso of no more than 400 . Why all of a sudden the benchmark is ISO 1600 . For the record I do not have a Sony camera and use a Canon 40D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top