Sony launches the A900 full-frame DSLR

Sony's been showing off the full-frame Alpha A900 DSLR since February, and after popping up in ads and in the wild last week, it's official today, right on cue. Same basic specs you've known forever: 24.6 Exmor CMOS sensor, dual BIONZ image processors, ISO 6400 sensitivity, 3.0-inch LCD, 5fps shooting, and SteadyShot INSIDE in-body optical image stabilization. Sony's also launching a few new Alpha lenses to complement this beast, including a Carl Zeiss 70-400mm f4-5.6 zoom. Early impressions from CNET are that it's a bit slow to autofocus and didn't wow with image quality, but dpreview was impressed overall, so we'll wait for some in-depth reviews to hit before making a final judgment. You're looking at a $3,000 outlay when this thing goes on sale in October -- check out more pics in the gallery, and a quick video after the break.

Read - Sony A900 press release
Read - CNET hands-on
Read - dpreview hands-on

Gallery: Sony A900

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

[who? @ Sep 9th 2008 10:18AM]

Everyone is releasing things today! Maybe the world really is going to end tomorrow...

[schmitty338 @ Sep 9th 2008 10:20AM]

...daaaammmnnnn dat's snice....

[Michael E. Wadddell @ Sep 9th 2008 10:26AM]

I have seen the future through a 3.0-inch LCD screen. Great camera.

Michael E. Waddell

co author of "Toy Box Leadership: Leadership Lessons From The Toys You Loved As A Child"

[loosely_coupled @ Sep 9th 2008 6:16PM]

- Dr. Hugh G. Rection

co author of "Shameless Self-Promotion on Internet Blogs"

[Mp3 @ Sep 9th 2008 10:29AM]

Beautiful. Now where am I gonna come up with $5000 from?

[wes @ Sep 9th 2008 10:32AM]

This camera is a milestone cam. Canon's been holding a monopoly with fullframe high MP (>12MP) cams for the longest time. Sony's 3k FF 24MP is definitely going to rock the boat in the highend market.

[Corey @ Sep 9th 2008 1:46PM]

Um, or not.

The A900 is a prosumer camera that is more likely to compete with the D700. Image quality, autofocus performance, lack of weather sealing, mini body, 100K shutter actuation, lack of live view (big for product shooters), etc.

There's no way this will compete with a 1Ds Mark III. Even if it did compare, you can't expect pros to jump ship too quickly. They're more worried about obtaining and retaining clients than they are about switching to another system when theirs gives them everything they need. Of course, this isn't mentioning the tens of thousands of dollars worth of glass they'd have to replace.

[Temple @ Sep 9th 2008 3:28PM]

Basically the A900 is comparable to the $8,000k 1DsIII, Its not a D3/D700 competitor in the fact it doesn't do low-light as well as the 12MP D700 and is AF isn't nearly as good but it does produce amazing IQ.

But its a 'poor-man's' 1DsMarkIII, Imaging-Resource has already done a comparo.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA900/AA900A.HTM

"First, the Sony A900's image quality is truly awe-inspiring. Opening a file in Photoshop and hitting Command + to get to 100% reminds me of that scene in Blade Runner when Deckard uses the Esper photoanalysis machine. If you know the film, you'll remember that he finds tremendous detail in the photograph: "Enhance 57 to 19. Track 45 left. Stop. Enhance 15 to 23. Give me a hard copy right there." In the end, he's found a reflection in the mirror that gives him an important clue."

"Now let's compare the Sony A900 to the Canon 1Ds Mark III. I shot both with a Sigma 70mm f/2.8, the lab lenses we use for SLRgear.com testing to get more reliable results. In terms of JPEG shots, the Sony produces larger images that are sharper, especially with the defaults from both cameras, but if you bring both to 100 percent and move around in the images, you'll find they're nearly the same."

"We've done a more extensive analysis with comparison shots in the Exposure section, and delved deeper into the Sony A900's High ISO noise reduction versus that of the 1Ds under the sub-tab titled High ISO NR. Overall, the 1Ds comes out on top with greater detail, but it's darn close.

What's sure is that the Sony A900 is a fit rival for Canon's best camera, which costs $5,000 more."

[wes @ Sep 10th 2008 3:50AM]

corey > believe me. some pros will use even 5Ds vs 1Ds3s coz they are cheaper and more replaceable, etc. if a cam is cheap enough and has a certain performance level with good reliability, why not right?

[David Vogt @ Sep 10th 2008 12:38PM]

@ Corey

Actually, the a900 does have weather sealing. You also fail to mention built-in image stabilization.

[csmitty @ Sep 9th 2008 10:36AM]

Wow, if thats not the cheesiest backdrop picture i've ever seen. You'd think launching a full frame high end camera you could atleast take some good advertisement pictures.

[revaaron @ Sep 9th 2008 10:41AM]

man... I hate the minolta design.
nice sensor though. I wonder how it will compare with my nikon D3.
oh well, off to get a Phase One 65+ digial back.

[Daniel Cormier @ Sep 9th 2008 10:42AM]

The press release at the URL below says $3000 (all the way at the end):

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08090902sonyalpha900.asp#press

[Daniel Cormier @ Sep 9th 2008 10:44AM]

Never mind. The version of the article my RSS reader picked up didn't have the price...

[Jason @ Sep 9th 2008 10:50AM]

That's one nice ass camera.

[Mike B. @ Sep 9th 2008 10:59AM]

can't wait to see what RED comes out with for their camera that's aimed directly for the DSLR market. Hope it's as affordable as the RED Scarlet 3k digital video camera.

[Stan Winsome @ Sep 9th 2008 11:06AM]

Would be 10 times more interested if they'd included a movie mode like the Nikon N90. In general the Sony Alpha line has been totally uninspired. Or I should say not inspiring enough to turn me away from Canon or Nikon as my DSLR. Maybe next year?

[Craig @ Sep 9th 2008 11:11AM]

Um, I'll wait for reviews from the big photog sites. The day I rely on CNET to tell me what's good is the day I should just commit myself to a retirement home.

[billy bob thorton @ Sep 9th 2008 11:41PM]

yea seriously. there are no pro photographers working for cnet so I don't know why they think they offer credible advice. same goes for their video camera reviews.

kind of surprising the image quality doesn't impress them since they have been making sensors for Nikon for years. they should be able to put a half way decent sensor in their own body by now.

you can't do a camera review without taking the camera out in the field to shoot.

[nathan.wong @ Sep 9th 2008 11:15AM]

So the guy in the picture with the nice scenery in the background has his back to the lake and instead is taking a picture of ______. You fill in the blank.

[michas_pi @ Sep 9th 2008 11:51AM]

Duke Nukem Forever in the wild.

[John @ Sep 9th 2008 12:26PM]

Can Sony really compete with the Nikon D700 ??

[distordz @ Sep 9th 2008 12:08PM]

you can see another video of the Sony A900 full-frame DSLR on http://www.ilogan.info/?p=890

[Eric @ Sep 9th 2008 12:13PM]

Well, it's a big jump for Sony, but the camera won't really compete with Nikon or Canon any more than Minolta ever did.

The only thing compelling there is the Zeiss 24-70 2.8. Now that's going to be one nice lens coming from the second-best lens designer on the planet. (Leica being first.)

[jas @ Sep 9th 2008 12:27PM]

Err. seems like a okay camera.. but I would not buy only becuase of the rate in which it takes photos.
The accessories are intersting, I wonder if we will see more flashes like that soon, from other distrubuters.
cheers
jas

[jekoln @ Sep 9th 2008 12:41PM]

i can't stand these hardware reviewers that only do little grab shots around the house of thing, taking pictures of things around their desk or cats or something. this isn't the way that people who really use them use them.

[Ihar `Philips` Filipau @ Sep 9th 2008 5:59PM]

DPReview does good and in-depth reviews with extensive comparisons.

Unfortunately, writing such review takes several months. Consequently, only few bodies/lenses gets reviewed.

Wait half of an year - I'm sure DPReview would put up a review. Today they have only "hands-on."

[MJ @ Sep 9th 2008 5:48PM]

thats one UGLY camera, canon 1d mark II ftw!

[ehisforadam @ Sep 9th 2008 6:35PM]

Why does it matter what it looks like? All that matters is that it works.

[Cassini @ Sep 9th 2008 9:55PM]

Ehisforadam: "Why does it matter what it looks like? All that matters is that it works."


Every time I read these types of questions/comments, they completely perplex me. Since when do looks not matter? It seems ironic that you'd think being a photographer - which is all about using one's eyes - shouldn't involve caring what your equipment looks like (which you'd look at every time you use it).

People care about those things because they have eyes and minds that function and it's in human nature to appreciate beauty. That's the way God created us to be. And so it's in our nature to want what we buy to look nice. Clothes, and cars, and food (among a million other things) all serve a function, too. Does it not matter what they look like, either? No one builds or buys a product without considering its aesthetics. If we were talking about a sink pipe or a monkey wrench, I could understand; but aside from something like that, most everything in the world should look nice... no one can fault beauty or the desire for it, and who takes the time to pursue "ugly"? It's actually a very pleasant thing to relax and take time to look around - to be mindful of the aesthetics in everything around you (whether organic or man-made), instead of shunning its value and importance. Beauty is one of the greatest gifts God ever gave mankind.

And I have to say, when dropping thousands of dollars on anything - let me tell ya somethin' - it *definitely* better look as good as it works!

Personally, I've handled the Sony A-series cameras, and I don't like the build quality. I'll stick with Nikon (or Canon) any day.

[Mike V @ Sep 9th 2008 7:51PM]

Thankyou Sony!

Now Canon HAVE to make the 5D MkII high res and HAVE to make it around $3K and HAVE to release a 24-70mm f2.8 IS.


I'm leaving my image quality judgements on the Sony to after ACR can open the RAW files.

[amit @ Sep 10th 2008 2:20AM]

As usual, you're welcome to follow this camera's reviews as they stack up, at http://www.dprguru.com/?model=a900&mfg=Sony.
(imaging-resources.com were the first to post a full review, IMO)
Thanks

[tm @ Sep 11th 2008 3:17AM]

I cant stand that ho hum 1970's prism head on that camera.I like minolta equipment but I have always said that they should fire the entire design team.when you make a flag ship camera you at least have to make a camera that is apealing to people and which would evolve slowly from year to year.Minolta in the past has made some nice looking cameras but they have also made some strange dogs.nikon for the most part has their squarish head traced back to the f3 and canon space age like head from the eos1 to the current mark3 has remained basicaly the same. and here comes minolta, let us put a triangular head like an old olympus om1 and market that as our flagship.I know some people will say its not the design so much as the perfromance of the camera itself.That is a very good point..but let me ask Minsony fans like myself a question, If you were going to plunk down alot of cash for a ferrari, would'nt you have second thoughts if the car looked like a garbage can? Looks arent everything, but..the first thing that appeals to anyone are " looks"