Sony Alpha 850 leaked, looks exactly like the Alpha 900?
By Paul Miller 
posted August 15th 2009 11:17PM
posted August 15th 2009 11:17PM
posted August 15th 2009 11:17PM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
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.
If this is superior to the a900 shouldn't it be named a950, or something like that???
That's like how the enV was the VX9900, but the enV2 was the VX9100
I really have no idea why they do stuff like that.
it shoots slower (more like 5dmkii speeds) and other little crap I assume to shave the price down. So its slightly less powerful than the 900
its a a900 with something like 98% viewfinder (100% on the a900) and 3 vs 5 on the a900, thus a850. afaik so far.
The a900 is one amazing camera, so I would guess the a850 would be great because of lower price.
It's $2,000 for a full-frame 24.6 MP Camera, so it's a more affordable version of the A900, not an upgrade.
>>"The scary part is that the camera is listed for 1,999 Euro (about $2,833 US), so hopefully Sony is doing something a bit more wonderful under the hood than just those α900 downgrades that have been hinted at so far."
Typically Engadget. Absolutely clueless about the gadgets they write about.
Current "affordable" full-frame cameras like the Canon 5D Mark II/Sony A900/Nikon D700 go for around $2,700-$3,000. Cameras like the Nikon D3x and Canon 1Ds can be as much as $8k. Being that the Nikon D300s is going to be sold for $1,800 MSRP, this camera should be very competitive if you want a modern full-frame.
the article said it was $2,833 US.... more expensive. wtf? I don't even care lol
http://photorumors.com/2009/08/15/confusion-another-store-is-getting-ready-to-sell-sony-a800/
... So what happened to the A800 that they were supost to be releasing ???? I don't like the 850 or the 900 because the body is ugly.
Good point, cameras are like jewelry and we should only buy them if they have a nice design. Do you take photos or just hang a camera around your neck to look important?
Best thing you can do is taking pictures with it; while you're taking pictures you don't see the camera! (good thing that it doesn't have live-view)
Would you hold tightly with both hands something that was ugly and then bury your face into it?
Wow, there wasnt really any news today at all was there?
Wow. Slow comment day, huh?
Your comment sucks, kid.
Damn, that's ugly. Can't Sony do ANY better?
Yeah, it looks ugly. It's the big pentaprism. It looks like it's wearing a Mexican sombrero. But when you use it, it's greatest camera you'd ever have the pleasure of looking through it's viewfinder! The viewfinder is so big and so clear/bright, it doesn't feel like you're looking through a camera lens at all! It's incredible.
The moment I looked through the viewfinder, I wondered why I'd ever go through the trouble of squinting and moving my eyes all around to get a good view from the viewfinder. Anyone with glasses would think that huge pentaprism is a godsend! Plus all the high-end extras (particularly the full-frame) makes this one heck of a camera!
In terms of "bullet points" this camera obviously lacks, such as video, but it's an absolute joy to look through and take pictures with. It's very much a classic camera! I guess it depends on what consumers value most.
@ JRM
Try again. I know the values of a big and bright viewfinder very well. I have one on my old school film Canon T70 SLR camera which I very frequently use, and it's viewfinder is even bigger. I also wear glasses, does that make mine a godsend +1 then?
Also compared to the Original Canon 5D, a true classic that will absolutely go down in the history books, which is also 4 years the Sony's senior, it looks terrible. That's for the body as a whole, not just the viewfinder region. When it comes down to it in the looks department (not really that important to me but possibly very important to some others) I'm just asking for it to not be on par or ever so slightly better looking than my 25 year old camera. That's all.
Just a little constructive criticism to spur the industry, ya know.
Its retro looking, if you look back to the first pentaprism-cameras you will notice the same bulge. I would guess the pentaprism would be a tad smaller because of a less than 100% as the a900 has.
this camera looks way better than the canon and nikons, it looks like a camera and not a spaceship or whatever the hell nikon is going for. their design team just can't figure shit out.
I'll buy one if it has the back-illuminated CMOS sensor.
At least the flash-sync terminal is back. It would be of little use in the studio without it.
No, wait, a 35mm sensor at 14 Mpixels, now that would be a novelty.
I've never had the need for 24 Mpixels, and I guess I won't in the near future. Besides, while I'm perfectly happy with my Minolta glass, is it good enough for this resolution? Like Hasselblad is, for instance.
G glass will be fine. the beercan and prime lines will be ok across the board too.
What is it with that damn beercan everyone is raving about??
I have 2 copies, and yes it's a nice lens, but it's nothing like a G-lens.
All of a sudden this is THE hyped lens for Sony DSLR's, why really?
I repeat, it's a nice lens, but most Minolta lenses from that era are quite good.
You just can't compare this to the G-range.
First time I see a 2 page(!) section named "Representative plug of power supply cord of countries/regions around the world" in a consumer's product user manual.
Hopefully it also has video. Sony isn't exactly the market leader in SLR's, they need to join the hottest new SLR trend. That said 1080/24p with a nice codec and full manual controls would give this thing an advantage over the 5DII. Of course this is Sony we're talking about, a company that waited till last minute to include 24P on any of there prosumer vidcams when everyone else had been doing it for years already.
I'm sure you don't want a 1 kg heavy still-image camera to shoot video.
That 28-77 2.8 is a new, might be why the package is so expensive. 2.8 Zooms are never cheap unless they're from a 3rd party like Tamron or such.
If it's 1999 Euros, there's a very strong change it could still be 1999 USD (or near that) - cameras are always more expensive in the European market due to additional taxes and economies of scale. Usually the difference in number value between the USD and Euro price is a couple hundred higher on the US price - so not quite $2800.
I actually think it looks great. I like the big pentaprism and think it looks much better than the modern day Nikons. I'm going to hold off getting these higher end models though...still got a lot to learn! HAHA!