Sony's A900 now available for pre-order
By Joshua Topolsky 
posted Sep 15th 2008 1:04AM
posted Sep 15th 2008 1:04AM
[Thanks, Jose]
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
Or, if you were smart, you could get a 1Ds mark II on eBay for a similar price.
the smart choice is take nikon, no canon....
You're exactly right...it's a great deal for the savvy saver...I personally would rather get the good'ol Canon 5d. It's in the same price range on ebay yet packs in the full frame sensor, can't beat it.
Even a used Canon 1DsIII goes for around $5-6K on eBay regularly ($8k regularly)
Imaging-Resource did a comparo
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA900/AA900A.HTM
"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"
..."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."
But then I would have to spend several kilo-euro extra to replace the (excellent) Minolta/Sony glass I'm using. So far for smart...
So far, the sample photos from this camera look okay (JPEG) though a bit aggressive in the compression. However the RAW images look absolutely wonderful. It will certainly give Nikon and Canon some heavy competition in the latter.
great... I have been waiting for this since a long time
Yeah, the RAW files look outstanding, which is the most important thing, really. It means any lack of image quality you see in JPEGs is due to software, not the hardware. A company better equipped to process the images in-camera (such as Nikon), could do better than Sony using the same sensor.
That, or I guess the processing can be tweaked away from the default settings so that they look good to you.
Ordered! I need something to take better eBay photos with.
I think I'll just continue enjoying my good ol' cheap D60 in the mean time.
Minolta cameras have long been better than either Canon or Nikon. They have far superior ergonomics for the serious photographer. It's a shame that Minolta were so late out of the gate with digital SLRs. People who believe Canon and Nikon are better simply because so many people buy them are the same people who believe Ford and GM make the best cars. Ah, the power of marketing.
The A900 is particularly welcome because finally Sony have produced a camera that is better than the Konica-Minolta Dynax 7D (which I use) and this time they haven't thrown the baby out with the bath water. It looks as though they are listening at last to loyal Minolta fans. This camera will have current Minolta owners wondering whether they really need that 'spare' kidney.
Now if you already own a clutch of expensive Canon or Nikon accessories (or any other brand for that matter) then you might as well wait and see what your favourite brand produces next. For those who aren't already invested in a brand, take a close look at the A900 and by that I mean go and shoot some photography with it. Then tell me that Canon and Nikon are best :-p
I don't see how they would think Ford and GM are the best when they're not selling too hot.
I think a better example would be, Honda and Toyota. Ironically, they're really good cars.
So maybe, just maybe, Canon and Nikon are really good cameras for most people.
Let alone, I'm sure they're more popular simply because they carry a large selection of lenses and accessories than any other brand.
And affordable.
You know what's funny? I shot Minolta and ran screaming when Sony bought their camera division because I've had such incredibly lousy luck with. Every. Single. Sony. Product I've ever bought. So, superior or not, this isn't going to win me back into the fold from Canon.
But, the fact of the matter is, at this point dSLRs are all just so close to each other that it's hard to really brag too much about the superiority of one brand or another. Fact is, if your brand is up now, the other brand will be up inside of a year, such is the reality of 18 month release cycles.
I don't hate or like any particular brand. I just have a crapload of lenses for one now, and it's pretty much a deal that means I'm stuck with one brand of cameras. Since my camera hasn't broken in 3/4 years, at least I know the brand is reliable.
And sorry, but German cars are the best.
Ugh, why is Engadget following the a900 so closely? Sony makes terrible cameras and any professional even considering buying one needs to be shot.
In fact, Sony make crap everything. Have you seen the frequency response of some of their speakers?? And the refresh rate and their TV's (at least the one's in my country) are all well below 100Hz.
Sorry, Sony angst over.
Low-rank me all you like. See if I care.
Done. The pleasure is all mine.
sony makes the best cameras at the price points they are competing at. This is proven because the a900 isn't really compared to similar priced cameras but other maker's top end cameras. Even then it is only slightly less good.
Go fuck an apple. Sony rocks.
And I really do like the A700's ergonomics and image quality. It's a fantastic camera, and I always thought the A700 was better than the 40D. Ergonomically, the Sony A700 is fantastic, but whether it's better than Nikon's D300, Pentax K10D/K20D, or the Olympus E-3 is simply a matter of opinion. I agree that Canon's ergo isn't great, but don't hate everything Canon and Nikon just because they're top dog right now. Canon was king of high ISO, and I always liked Nikon ergonomics better than the rest.
That only covers ergonomics though. In terms of image quality, the quality from Canikon really are the best of the bunch, while Sony's bad noise reduction algorithm is killing the product from an otherwise excellent sensor lineup. I'm not even sure if that can be deemed a subjective opinion. It's just not as good. How Sony compares to Olympus and Pentax is a fairer comparison.
And then there's the issue of lens prices, which Sony fails at. I know there are used Minolta lenses, but if you need to go used to get a fair price, it's not a good sign.
I agree that the in-body High-ISO has been quite a bit on the heavy end, but with the firmware v4 that has yet to be released (although heavily leaked) there Are major improvements. Sony did a great job listening to their customers that were begging to have a NR off setting and Sony listened (albeit almost a year after initial release). The images, which still do not have proper software available to view and edit them do show up in some apps and are looking quite impressive and rival that of it's main competition, the Nikon d300.
Oh, by the way, I shoot Canon, and all of this brand love is a bit ridiculous. Trust me, I've had plenty of issues with my Canons over the year, and the mkIII has been a customer experience and professional-support nightmare. If only Cnon listened the way that Sony has.
um dia quem sabe eu compro uma camera dessas.
abraços
Diego
http://www.conexaovip.com/blog
I've ben using many cameras in the old days (Zenith,Nikon semi-automatic,Fuji,Canon..) .In the eighties i bought a Minolta 7000,one of the first (if not "the" first) AF cameras.Since then I've collected a lot of really good Minolta lenses (last ones on E-Bay).And Minolta ,and Sony now, have been the only manufacturers who's been using the same lens fit till today.My 35mm-50mm-85mm/1,4 or 50mmMacro-135mm-200mm/2,8 or Sigma14mm/2,8-105mm macro/2,8 works really well with an old Minolta 600 or Konica-Minolta 5D or Sony A 100 and they will be perfect with the full-frame A 900!Sorry for the Canikon worshipers but nobody's been so friendly with his customers than Sony-ex Minolta.More: the Sony anti-shake system is inside the camera:you've not to pay an AS every time you buy a new lens.But some people like to spend money 'cause they think that much money is better quality and that a bad shooter becomes good with an expensive camera...
hahaha its funny how a camera discusion can lead to which cars are better.as for German cars being better then japanese cars, well.. when your mercedes needs a part and it costs about 8 times more then a japanese counterpart..well then you'll know why its better.hahahaahahahah. in life you get what you pay for, it's a matter of wanting to pay for it or not. i mean lambos and ferraris are good cars too..if you have a milion in disposible income. ppl always say harleys are the best motorcylces and they slag other companies products.but do you really think that huge companies like honda or mercdes or toyota dont have the resources, tech and brains to make a better bike? the question is market share.If you were honda why would you plunk down big money to build the best motorcylces to make a handful of money when you can develope reliable family cars, sell them by the millions and make a mountain of cash? Bottom line, anything is good if its quailtiy built by anyone..but the key point is..how much do you want to spend my friend?