15.2 megapixel Sony Alpha A800 DSLR rumored
By Darren Murph 
posted Jan 22nd 2009 12:04PM
posted Jan 22nd 2009 12:04PM
[Via Photography Bay]
posted Jan 22nd 2009 12:04PM
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
At 12,800 ISO... You should be able to start seeing through walls...
12,800...That's...that's....over 9000!!!!
Try 25,600 on the Nikon D3. It's like travelling back in time.
If you can see anything through the noise. Having used a number of the Sony Alpha camera (and owning one) I can say they don't do too well at anything above 400 ASA.
Actually, the real news about the Sony A800 DSLR camera is the CMOS Xmor-R censor. This thing will revolutionize low light photography. It allows more light to fall on each pixel without moving up to a full frame sensor. Sony's new HDR-XR500V Camcorder also sports this same sensor technology. It's AWESOME!
kb2zuz,
Technology marches forward...
You will not notice the noise in the Sony Alpha Camera (A800) at higher ISO because of the CMOS Xmor-R censor. It removes the circuitry which in other sensors partially blocks the light from reaching the photo diodes.
good! slap all that hardware into a Nikon body so I can use the lenses I already own.
You do know Sony makes the sensors for Nikon right?
I think thats what he meant...
Back in '05 when I was working in camera's at Best Bizzle, I was so sure that this "Sony" DSLR would be here today, gone tomorrow. I'm amazed the staying power sony's had in SLR's, regardless of what little market share they may have.
I think the price will probably match the ISO...
The Alpha-700 is around $1,000, and A-900 is $3,000 retail, so it stands to reason that the A-800 would be somewhere in between.
It was a joke...just saying the camera was going to be expensive...just being sarcastic
Umm...what does amount of ISO mean?
"What ISO denotes is how sensitive the image sensor is to the amount of light present. The higher the ISO, the more sensitive the image sensor and therefore the possibility to take pictures in low-light situations."
http://www.photoxels.com/tutorial_iso.html
Sometimes I wonder how Sony's still camera division manages to make any money. Not that their cameras aren't fine, its just that I never see anyone shooting with them. They probably get a fair share of the low end market of people new to the SLR game, but I don't see any compelling reason for people with even a moderate investment in cannon or Nikon gear to make the leap (except for in camera stabilization perhaps... nah I like it in the lens). Do they really have the economies of scale to produce this stuff in multiple models and turn a profit?
in fact their cameras are really awesome... The stabiliser is great using old Minolta AF lenses. e.g: The "beercan" (Minolta AF 70-210mm/f4.0) becomes a full stabilised 100-300 Telezoom lens at the APS-C Alphas, but it costs around $200 at ebay. You would pay ~$1000 for a compareable lens for Canon or Nikon cameras
i owned 2 sony cameras
a dsc p73 (i think) wich wasn't waterproof (!) and i have a baby alpha (a200)
both are great
my alpha is very fast and is a huuuuuuge step up from my previous compact (samsung nv5 wich was shit).
i know a few people with sonys camera in fact, they work fine.
Sony's camera division makes money because it is one of the major suppliers of sensors in the camera industry. Sony supplies most of the CCD and CMOs sensors to Nikon (including their flagship D3x), and is a major supplier of CCD sensors to everyone from Samsung, Pentax, to even some Canon point-and-shoots.
> Sometimes I wonder how Sony's still camera division manages to make any money.
#3 in worldwide sales 2008. Not that they sell NEARLY as many as Canon or Nikon, but if you wonder about Sony, you've gotta absolutely marvel at Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic, etc etc etc... ;-)
> ... but I don't see any compelling reason for people with even a moderate investment
> in cannon or Nikon gear to make the leap
a900 - sharpest fullframe DSLR from *ANY* maker. Kills the best of Canon & Nikon, and the DR is as good or better. Oh... and it's LESS than half the price of the CaNikon models that are ALMOST as good...
24-70ZA - the best optics on a "standard zoom" from any maker.
Those, right there, make it the best fashion/portrait setup you can get below the medium-format level (and recently, several European portraitists got together and did a Mamiya/Hasselblad/Sony shoot-out... they admitted themselves fair shocked to discover that the Sony images were perfectly at home in that company (not "ok for a budget set-up" but on-par)).
I know of working Nikon pro's who've bought Sony, such as:
http://www.marlonrichardson.com/
Sure, the Sony only has half the FPS of the top CaNikon's. So the pro sports-shooters go that way, no quiestion. Similarly, those who NEED the best in low-light / high-ISO buy Nikon, no question.
But if resolution and dynamic range are your game... Sony's the top of the pack.
> (except for in camera stabilization perhaps...
> nah I like it in the lens).
Oh? You can buy a stabilized 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 135/1.8, or the like?
I can, for my Sony. Note the (many!) fast primes that AREN'T
stabilized from CaNikon... JUST when you'd most want stabilization!
Also note that even on the low-end Sonys, ALL lenses (even the low
end ones) are stabilized.
Tyler... Your response?
Fair enough steve... I was probably too harsh.
Let me expound a bit: First lets talk VR \ IS. I prefer on lens image stabilization because I find myself switching it on and off quite a bit and I like having an easy to get to dedicated switch as opposed to doing it in the menus (in fairness, I've never messed with VR on a Sony. Is it more economical to do it in camera? Yes. But I find it less convenient. I do have one lens that doesn't have it (my 50mm. 1.4) that I wish it did, so doing it in camera certainly has its merits.
A900 is sharper then the D3X? somehow I doubt it. Then again you could own a fleet of A900's for the same price, so maybe its not a fair comparison. Cannon's top end camera is several years old. I suspect when it gets an update it will be sharper than everything currently available (and they will all keep leapfrogging each other).
I'm not knocking Sony... They make great cameras. Its just that I don't ever see anybody shooting them. Then again, If I'm around other photographers, its usually at a red carpet or some such non-sense, which doesn't sound like its Sony's target market.
Note: I'm an amature, but I occationally haul equipment around for some Pro's... So I get lots of time to look at what \ how people are shooting.
I prefer to invest in musket gear myself. Cannons are quite unwieldy and I find the to be ergonomics pretty poor.
I see Sony Alphas all the time.
Sony is the best selling digital camera brand world wide and a brand familiar to many. So, they buy em and like em. Regular people in other countries are not so brand fanatical as the Nikon and Canon gangs in the U.S.
Sony also has former minolta users, as loyal customers, not just people new to the SLR game
Count me in as a loyal former Minolta and Konica-Minolta user. I have dozens of A-mount lenses that have been with me for years and I see no reason to switch to Canon or Nikon and find myself in a position to have to buy a whole new lineup of lenses just to get image stabilization. The in-camera solution is fantastic...especially when you consider that old Minolta glass can be found at a relatively inexpensive price point (although not as much these days as in past years I'm afraid).
Minolta "G" Series lenses run with the best of Canon/Nikon and their standard glass is very good as well. Third-party modern lense support is improving daily...Sony bought a very nice system when they picked up KM. I doubt they would be as successful if they hadn't...I'm just glad I have an upgrade path for my old glass. I will never sell my KM 5D or KM 7D bodies however...those are a piece of history as the final KM dSLR models.
Me too, there's an avalanche of Minolta second hand equipment which made my Sony body the best purchase of 2008.
i would say alpha brand has a history of over 20 years, starting from the world’s first 35mm SLR system camera with integrated autofocus, Minolta 7000 in 1985
That NaCl sentence belonged more to Slashdot than here. You guys are cool ;p
/\ \/
I recently acquired the Sony a350. I'd not had a dslr before, but I've been shooting film a looooong time, including with a Leica M3. What swayed me towards Sony over Nikon or Canon was the ergonomics of the controls, the intuitive menus, the live-view (no, it's not crap and it *does* have its uses). The *only* downside I have with the alpha series is the proprietary flash shoe. I do think that the shoe is better, but it is quite limiting in terms of inter-operability. Noise on high ISO, yes, a bit, but I haven't found it to be a problem, even printing poster size images.
.
Sony Alpha DSLRs are #3 in most markets, #2 in some markets.
Is this a FULL FRAME sensor, or are they cramming more into an APS sensor?
.
I'm saying its APS-C, and most likely going to compete with the 50D
this is the successor to the a700 after all
I cant wait for PMA...
I just hope to god Canon brings some bloody glass :( Its getting embarassing at this point with Sony and Nikon, and even PENTAX coming out with a lot of good interesting glass and Canon seems to be very "staying the course"
I will say I was critical of Sony, but to be honest, they have more modern and up to date optics that can actually match the needs of these pixel-hungry sensors where many of Canon and Nikon's lenses CANT [I'm not saying they're bad, its just that as of RIGHT NOW, there ARE a lot of very dated designs in Canon and Nikon's portfolio that dont hold up well on digital according to many tests]
Back on topic, its sounds to be good, I hope that new sensor is all its cracked up to be!
I have considered getting a Sony for a second camera sometimes, Mainly because I'd honestly love that Carl Zeiss 135 f/1.8 lens....
But I'm still a Canon shooter, and I have faith that my faith WILL be rewarded [Eventually, I'm just hoping for a bunch of new lenses for us Canon folk, like an updated 50mm f/1.4, and maybe some more affordable IS telezooms, I'd love a competetor to Sony's 70-300 G....and the 100-400 could use an update to its IS system!]
Jimmyink:
No reply needed from Tyler (IMHO). He asked "why" would someone go Sony. I answered him.
If you read my answer, you'll note that a good many folks *WON'T* have any incentive to get any of the Sony models. I'm guessing he's one of the ones for whom Sony offers no compelling features. He prefers in-lens stabilization, for example; Sony's in-body approach doesn't appeal (to him). And that's fine. More really *good* dSLR-makers means more competition to provide us, the buyers, with more/better choices.
All of us win this way! No single maker has "the one, best, ultimate camera" for all subjects/situations. But, courtesy of the several makers and the different strategies they have for differentiating their gear, we have some amazing choices available to us!
seems like waiting has finally an end and I can buy an upgrade for my KM 5D
I wouldn't mind if it would become a full frame but that would be too good to become true...
Having read almost obsessively the reviews of Canon, Nikon, and Sony DSLRs, and having used all three brands (and owning a Sony), I think the comparison among the three can be fairly summarized as follows:
All three brands are excellent cameras, and start at what might be called the Canon standard - an all around great camera. But the Nikon and Sony distinguish themselves as follows. The Nikon has the best high-ISO picture quality. They use Sony sensors, but seem to have an edge in signal processing, so if you do a lot of low-light, high-speed shooting, Nikon has an edge. The Sony has the best user interface, by far. Every control is right there on the surface of the camera (including a dedicated on/off switch for sensor stabilization, contrary to what was said in another post), in a very intuitive layout, with programmable settings buttons. The Canon's and Nikons, in my experience, require more menu hunting and would be more daunting to a person learning how to shoot with DSLRs. Sony has also partnered with Carl Zeiss, the legendary optics company, and offers some of the best quality lenses on the market. They don't yet have some of the specialized lenses (e.g., tilt-shift) that the other two offer, but unless one has very special technical demands, Sony's line covers everything a serious amateur is likely to want and then some. And they are quickly building out their lens line with new Zeiss designs.
I considered switching to Nikon due to the high-ISO noise advantage, but I don't do much high-ISO shooting, the difference isn't that great, anyway, and Sony has just announced a new sensor design that promises to reduce noise significantly. And they are obviously committed to challenging Canon and Nikon. It's hard to bet against Sony when they want to compete in a market. So I have stuck with my A700 and expect it will be the right bet.
the picture is a a700 with an 8 at the begining intead of a seven. http://cameras.webhostingoverview.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/18.jpg
Hmm as happy a350 owner total setup costs so far including the body under 1.5K
minolta 24mm f/2.8 prime AF
minolta 50mm f/1.7 prime AF
minolta 135mm f/2.8 prime (old mount MF)
minolta 35-70 f/4 ("small beercan") AF
minolta 75-300 macro
+ all the accessories
To dude complaining on stabilization in the menue
it is actually a dedicated switch on the body
I am soon going to get my first DSLR. The discussion on this post provided me with some really good info.
By the way, can anyone suggest me a resource to refer to in order to select the DSLR that best suit my needs?