Sony Alpha 900 Previewed

[jpeyton]

A900 portrait

Luminous Landscape tests A900 vs. 1DsM3

 

[Heidfirst]

from what I understand these are all still done with preproduction firmware which they expect to improve upon (& the A700 V4 is a big jump in IQ pretty much matching the D300 now at high ISO so they appear to be learning).

edut: btw the Luminous Landscape report has at least 1 error:
he says that " no dedicated macro lens" but there are Sony 50mm & 100mm Macros (not to mention Sigma & Tamron) & 1 of the other lens believed to be coming from prototypes shown is the return/replacement for Minolta's 200mm Macro.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Having looked at the A900 reviews/previews now, I have to say that I'm rather impressed. Sony has done an excellent job of showing commitment to continuous improvement. The new firmware for the A700 is another great example of this, as they have clearly listened to the complaints about the camera and responded positively.

I don't think they are quite a full challenge to Canon/Nikon yet, but they are getting there and they are doing a good job of proving that they are serious about creating legitimate photographic tools. I hope that they continue to be as responsive to user feedback as they have been with the A700 firmware, that can only be positive for everyone. Competition is a beautiful thing.

ZV

 

[spikespiegal]

Chromatic noise is easily removed with very little detriment to final image quality.

Depends on how it's being removed, and if it's being done with after market software -vs- camera processing or optimized RAW converter.

Look at Proportional scale, the lines on 1DSmk3 are sharper/straight whereas A900 shows strong halo effects.

I'd rather look at the better detail in the cloth swatches from the Sony because it better represents real world subjects and skin tones. The sensor on the Sony *is* delivering more detail than the Canon, but the Canon is doing better processing.

If it shows strong halo effect due to default sharpness setting being to aggressive, it could be easily fixed by turning it down a few steps

I thought they were RAW capture? My mistake. I refuse to make image comparisons based on in-camera processing for any reason (cough* olympus users *cough). Until we see Apples to Apples RAW comparisons there's not much to talk about unfortunatley.

Canon is getting rid of AA filter and do all the necessary jobs within Digic 5. At least, that's what the engineer of Canon said recently.

We can only hope. 🙂

Otherwise, if I may be totally honest, I've never liked Sony capture of any sort because their dSLRs produce the most synthetic skin tones and colors of any of the major cameras. The portrait somebody linked above is yet another example of why I can't stand Sony processing. Can't tell if it's a mannequin or human being.

 

[Deadtrees]

Canon is getting rid of AA filter and do all the necessary jobs within Digic 5. At least, that's what the engineer of Canon said recently.

We can only hope. 🙂

Otherwise, if I may be totally honest, I've never liked Sony capture of any sort because their dSLRs produce the most synthetic skin tones and colors of any of the major cameras. The portrait somebody linked above is yet another example of why I can't stand Sony processing. Can't tell if it's a mannequin or human being.

[/quote]

Yeah, tell me about it. I just checked some sample of A900's RAW vs JPEG and the difference is just insanly huge; The gap is too big that the built-in JPEG options won't narrow it. Sony really needs to put a lot more efforts in their JPEG image processing sector. Seriously, WTF is wrong with that watercolor-like images when ISO goes up.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: soydios

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: soydios

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm a little baffled why there is no live-view. It's obviously a studio camera, and studio work benefits from live-view the most.

There's no way I'd do studio work with live view.

It's good for checking critical focus, composing from wierd angles, etc.

Not with strobes.

Explain?

Sorry, I misread your statement. I was responding to the notion that, "It's good for studio work." My point is that you cannot evaluate metering with strobes and live view in a way that is superior to simply taking a sample shot.

That being said, how many weird angles do many people do in studio work, when the camera is typically used on a tripod? I can see the need for critical focus, at least for product work, but that pigeon holes the feature to a VERY select few -- hardly worth mass market attention.

I haven't used LV with a DSLR but don't miss the feature from my prosumer days. I've subsequently talked to a handful of LV DSLR owners who've said they don't use the feature much. How many DSLR users, as a percentage of all DSLR users, ever shoot in a studio anyway? Of the total DSLR user population, only a small percentage ever use anything other than the kit lens. Of that small population, only a portion will ever use a studio. Fewer still would have a real need for Live View in the studio.

I equate the feature to something like GPS tagging of images. It's an interesting feature which I can see would be useful to a certain population of photographers. For me, it's not useful, and I certainly wouldn't base my decision regarding a camera on its inclusion or exclusion. Further, I wouldn't judge a manufacturer based on that sole feature. To me, it (either GPS or LV) comes down to marketing, and I applaud Sony for not cramming LV into a camera and instead concentrating on features that are more mainstream for photographers -- a huge viewfinder, simple ergonomics, a big and bright LCD, etc. That attitude from their designers bodes well for the future.

If they stopped trying to lead in megapixels, they might be on to something. 😉

 

[ElFenix]

sensor may heat up too quickly for live view.

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: soydios

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: soydios

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm a little baffled why there is no live-view. It's obviously a studio camera, and studio work benefits from live-view the most.

There's no way I'd do studio work with live view.

It's good for checking critical focus, composing from wierd angles, etc.

Not with strobes.

Explain?

Sorry, I misread your statement. I was responding to the notion that, "It's good for studio work." My point is that you cannot evaluate metering with strobes and live view in a way that is superior to simply taking a sample shot.

That being said, how many weird angles do many people do in studio work, when the camera is typically used on a tripod? I can see the need for critical focus, at least for product work, but that pigeon holes the feature to a VERY select few -- hardly worth mass market attention.

I haven't used LV with a DSLR but don't miss the feature from my prosumer days. I've subsequently talked to a handful of LV DSLR owners who've said they don't use the feature much. How many DSLR users, as a percentage of all DSLR users, ever shoot in a studio anyway? Of the total DSLR user population, only a small percentage ever use anything other than the kit lens. Of that small population, only a portion will ever use a studio. Fewer still would have a real need for Live View in the studio.

I equate the feature to something like GPS tagging of images. It's an interesting feature which I can see would be useful to a certain population of photographers. For me, it's not useful, and I certainly wouldn't base my decision regarding a camera on its inclusion or exclusion. Further, I wouldn't judge a manufacturer based on that sole feature. To me, it (either GPS or LV) comes down to marketing, and I applaud Sony for not cramming LV into a camera and instead concentrating on features that are more mainstream for photographers -- a huge viewfinder, simple ergonomics, a big and bright LCD, etc. That attitude from their designers bodes well for the future.

If they stopped trying to lead in megapixels, they might be on to something. 😉

Very good point about the strobes.

But I figured that using an LCD for Live View would free you creatively from having to put the tripod at a comfortable or workable height to use the viewfinder.

But, as I said before, the lack of Live View is by no means a deal maker or breaker. The A900 looks like it's a DSLR camera first, foremost, and only. I won't fault them for that. 🙂

 

[magomago]

ehh too many are being too hard on Sony...I'm quite impressed what they have so far. Just work on the algorithm a little more for high ISO (although i like the crisper fabric of the Sony vs the Canon) and it sounds like an impressive combination. FF in body IS? WOW! Especially considering how much crap I've read say that it was impossible and that the future is FF with in lens stabilization.

good job Sony Alpha!

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
sensor may heat up too quickly for live view.

I have a feeling it was more related to the viewfinder than anything, at least with respect to their LV on the lower end cameras. With the "standard LV" used by some of the other DSLR makers, Sony has already said they don't like that implementation because of the compromises, and I tend to agree. People buying the A900 are going to be photographers, not those simply upgrading from a P&S.

Incidentally, I've seen a few more shots from the A900 over in the DPReview forum, and I'm very impressed. Some of the shots floating around, purporting to show a great amount of noise, are from pre-production models without the final firmware. Also, it was pointed out that the Adobe products don't have full A900 support yet for RAW conversion.

Now Sony is apparently hinting at ANOTHER camera coming out -- possible A700 replacement? It's getting crazy out there!

 

[chiew]

can't wait until they get RAWs from cameras they are comparing into the same RAW converter. then we are talking! Oh, and I can't wait for Canon to release a full frame at the same price point that isn't three years old.

IMO sony is too lacking in lenses. I think Canon has the best selection...but then again I'm a Canon owner 🙂

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: chiew
can't wait until they get RAWs from cameras they are comparing into the same RAW converter. then we are talking! Oh, and I can't wait for Canon to release a full frame at the same price point that isn't three years old.

IMO sony is too lacking in lenses. I think Canon has the best selection...but then again I'm a Canon owner 🙂

What gaps do you see in their lens coverage? There's little redundancy, and if you consider the huge amount of Minolta AF lenses, there are no gaps whatsoever. In Sony's lineup with zooms, there's the following: 11-18, 18-70, 24-70CZ, 16-80CZ, 18-200, 18-250, 24-105, 55-200, 75-300, 70-200/2.8, 70-300G, 16-105, and a 70-400G coming plus the new 16-35/2.8CZ recently announced. In fixed focal length, there's: 16/2.8, 20/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/1.4G, 85/1.4CZ, 135/1.8CZ, 50/1.4, 50Macro, 100Macro, 500/8 mirror, 300/2.8G, and the unique 135/2.8STF (I think that's the name, it's the one with the amazing bokeh). There's a rumor that Sony is reintroducing the Minolta 200mm Macro.

The only missing lenses I can see worth mentioning are mainly primes: 50/1.7 and 400+ fast ones. I suspect Sony hasn't bothered to release a 50/1.7 because of the insane number of used Minolta lenses out there. That would be difficult to sell. Up until now, Sony hasn't had a camera that would perform well enough to merit large, fast primes for sports photography, but that could change with the A900. Sure, there aren't any T/S lenses, but those are truly niche products.

Lenses I'd like to see re-done from Minolta: 28/2 and 100/2 -- I have the first one, but it's rare and is exceptional. The second is highly sought after and is always priced at insane levels ($700-1000). They should release an update on the Konica-Minolta 17-35mm because the one that covers that range is $1500 (the new CZ one). They should probably also rerelease the KM 28-75/2.8, which is a fine wide aperture zoom at a good price (about $300-400).

Canon has a lot of legacy designs in their lineup, just like Sony does if you throw in Minolta. 😉

 

[ElFenix]

like sony would price a 28-75 like that. that's sigma and tamron pricing. no, sony would price it at 1.5x canikon's similar offering and then tell you you're saving money because you don't have to buy IS.


:evil:

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
like sony would price a 28-75 like that. that's sigma and tamron pricing. no, sony would price it at 1.5x canikon's similar offering and then tell you you're saving money because you don't have to buy IS.


:evil:

Considering that $300-$400 is what a used KM 28-75 f/2.8 will run, I'd say that you're right, a new lens will be more. 😛

ZV

 

[Heidfirst]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
no, sony would price it at 1.5x canikon's similar offering and then tell you you're saving money because you don't have to buy IS.

it's not quite that bad ... 😉
If you compare new Sony lens designs against new (not legacy designs) CaNikon equivalents there actually isn't much difference (e.g. check out the 24-70 2.8 Zeiss against the 24-70 f/2.8G ED Nikkor).
& as you mentioned they will all be stabilised.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Heidfirst

Originally posted by: ElFenix
no, sony would price it at 1.5x canikon's similar offering and then tell you you're saving money because you don't have to buy IS.

it's not quite that bad ... 😉
If you compare new Sony lens designs against new (not legacy designs) CaNikon equivalents there actually isn't much difference (e.g. check out the 24-70 2.8 Zeiss against the 24-70 f/2.8G ED Nikkor).
& as you mentioned they will all be stabilised.

still 1.5x canon's offering (though, no chance of IS with that setup. there is a rumor of an IS version coming).

 

[Heidfirst]

Canon's 24-70mm is an older design so cost less to develop & more time to write off costs.
It's also the worst performer of the 3 (because it's the oldest design).

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Heidfirst

Originally posted by: ElFenix
no, sony would price it at 1.5x canikon's similar offering and then tell you you're saving money because you don't have to buy IS.

it's not quite that bad ... 😉
If you compare new Sony lens designs against new (not legacy designs) CaNikon equivalents there actually isn't much difference (e.g. check out the 24-70 2.8 Zeiss against the 24-70 f/2.8G ED Nikkor).
& as you mentioned they will all be stabilised.

still 1.5x canon's offering (though, no chance of IS with that setup. there is a rumor of an IS version coming).

And meanwhile, Sony owners can enjoy stabilized photos in the intervening months/years. :evil:

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: ElFenix
like sony would price a 28-75 like that. that's sigma and tamron pricing. no, sony would price it at 1.5x canikon's similar offering and then tell you you're saving money because you don't have to buy IS.


:evil:

Considering that $300-$400 is what a used KM 28-75 f/2.8 will run, I'd say that you're right, a new lens will be more. 😛

ZV

I bought my KM attached to a Maxxum 7D for $930. Still one of the best deals I've ever found!

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

And meanwhile, Sony owners can enjoy stabilized photos in the intervening months/years. :evil:

for the premium i can hire a sherpa to carry the tripod

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: AndrewR

And meanwhile, Sony owners can enjoy stabilized photos in the intervening months/years. :evil:

for the premium i can hire a sherpa to carry the tripod

Or buy a carbon-fiber monopod.

In-body IS works fine at normal focal lengths, but isn't as useful at really long focal lengths like the ones that CaNikon's supertelephotos reach. At more than 300mm the problem for autofocus when handholding becomes focusing on a stable target.

 

[Heidfirst]

Originally posted by: soydios
In-body IS works fine at normal focal lengths, but isn't as useful at really long focal lengths like the ones that CaNikon's supertelephotos reach. At more than 300mm the problem for autofocus when handholding becomes focusing on a stable target.

it works on 500mm & 600mm at least.
but yes, by then often a tripod is generally advised if possible.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: soydios
In-body IS works fine at normal focal lengths, but isn't as useful at really long focal lengths like the ones that CaNikon's supertelephotos reach. At more than 300mm the problem for autofocus when handholding becomes focusing on a stable target.

I definitely agree about the problem with holding AF stable, but honestly, I still get about a 3-stop improvement from in-body IS on my A100 with a 300mm lens. Granted, that's not really "super telephoto", but it's no different than the improvements I see at shorter focal lengths. I haven't heard anyone using the 500mm Minolta/Sony lenses complain about a lack of IS effectiveness either, so it would seem to be working strongly up to that focal length as well.

I can imagine that if you're using an 800mm or something that you might see a decrease in the effectiveness of in-body IS but I don't know that for certain and in any case that's not going to be an issue for the majority of users.

ZV

 

[Heidfirst]

As I suspected Sony beats Canon to retail availability of their respective new FF models - A900 now widely available in the EU.
Hopefully we should now start to see some user reviews based on production samples.