Sony Alpha 850 full-frame DSLR given the hands-on treatment
By Donald Melanson 
posted Aug 27th 2009 2:56PM
posted Aug 27th 2009 2:56PM
Sony debuted three fairly high-end cameras earlier today, but there's no question that the full-frame, 24.6-megapixel Alpha 850 is the flagship of the lot, and sure to garner the most attention (if not necessarily the most purchases). Thankfully, the folks at Pocket-lint have managed to get their hands on the DSLR, and have naturally provided plenty of pics showing it off from every angle (paired with Sony's 50mm F2.8 Macro lens). Hit up the read link for the complete slide show, and a bit more time to contemplate the $2,000 price tag it'll be sporting come September.
Given the noise levels at 400 ISO and higher of Fullframe Sonycameras, which are not good, to put it mildly. These cameras are more for the consumers market than for the real pro
Given that the pro have good lighting systems, it won't matter.
@neofolklore
So pro's would go for a camera sub-par sensor noise? Sorry but that's rubbish. Pro's can afford to, and do, go for the best equipment that does the job.
Also, do you think that maybe some pro photog's are not in a studio with perfect lighting? Sports photographers? Photojournalists? Heard of any of these?
granted, this is not for the real pro, but neither are canon 5d mk2 nor the D700 which is what this camera is trying to beat with its price point.
Did you bother to even click the hands-on from this article? The A900, which uses the exact same sensor, does fairly good for low-light photography, and if you bothered to look at the link in the above article, the A850 performs admirably well even at ISO1600-3200.
Keep in mind. A reworked version of this sensor is in the $8,000 Nikon D3x. The D3x is reworked for lower base ISO and sacrifices some low-light performance (due to it being a studio camera), the Sony Alpha850/900 is geared more toward all-round performance. ISO sensitivity is comparable to a Canon 1Ds MarkIII (which is in need of an update)
You also can get an idea of ISO performance from a review of the A900.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA900/AA900A.HTM
Canon user about to switch to Sony to go with my PS3 SLIM and PSP SLIM silver that I just got for $100 off of slickdeals.net
What in the world is a PSP SLIM?
How much do you want for your Canon ELPH? (...you big pro-sumer, you...)
But how well does it work with the DVD-player DIY macro lens?
Wasn't there a post a few months ago from the head of one of these Japanese firms stating something like 15 mega pixels is enough?
Have we blown past whatever his predicted cap was?
Well, that 1 darpa camera is like 1.5 gigapixels, so ya, I'd say we passed that mark.
Canon 1Ds cameras have been past 15 MP for some years. The resolution is useful on full frame cameras where the user typically wants very large prints / high quality. Of course you tend to pay the price for it too.
That's the advantage of different frame crop factors - pixel density can remain the same while resolution increases. Problem is that full frame cameras don't crop out the edge of the image the lens projects, and lenses are softer at the edge, especially the more open the aperture is.
Is that 1.5 gigapixels on *one* sensor? That would have to be one massive sensor!
Red 616 = has a 261 megapixel sensor and measures 168mm x 56mm
For 4/3 sized sensors. It's based off pixel density. This camera has a full frame sensor, same size as a 35mm negative. There are medium format digital format cameras with 40mega pixels...
Keep in mind this is a full-frame camera, relative to its massive size of the sensor, the pixel-density is ~10MPs if you made this into an APS-C dSLRs.
This means that this camera actually has larger photosites then say most dSLRs like the Canon 50D, Nikon D300s, etc.
To those talking about too much noise at high ISO, that's the trade off you get when you jam that many megapixels into a FF sensor. Lower the resolution to something more reasonable, and balance out the high ISO performance. You can't have both on that size sensor without moving into something very expensive and a medium format sized sensor.
If your application is to use this camera in low light conditions, forget it, unless you have alternate sources of light, but if on the other hand you are in a more controlled environment, mentioned in another post, Sports (Daylight / Artificial Lights), Studio, and that sort, there is nothing wrong with this system.
I've been researching my next camera, and for my purposes, I would sacrifice resolution in lieu of better high ISO performance. Something like the Nikon D3.
Yes, but 400 is not a high ISO!
I don't know Michael. True, 400 is quite low when cameras can shoot at 3200+ but I can't say I've used anything above ISO 200 in a long time. I ammume I am not the only one that can say that.
Aren't there only 3 companies that make sensors, Sony being one of them? Maybe it's not so much the sensor itself but compared to say the 5D MII or D700, it may have a lower end processor/ noise reduction software.
1600 ISO is usable for this camera for anything that's not large prints, check the dpreview.com image tests
Hey geniuses, there are plenty of pros using the A900 already, me included. This ISO 400 talk is absurd. The 5Dii and D700 only start pulling away at ISO 1600, and the A900's (A850) low ISO is better than both in DR and color separation.
x2
actually x2 for the iso part, i don't own a A900..... yet
I would have to say the comments for any DSLR posts are always the most annoying. People are always complaining about noise, video, lenses, why a pro would never buy something (trust them, they know). We must have about 2 billion pros on the planet who shoot nothing but Canon or Nikon. It's never the photographer, always the equipment. To be a pro photographer, you need pro glass. Get over it.
Agreed. And actually I think photographic equipment should not be reviewed/discussed on tech/gadget blogs. Geeks will only complain about tech-gimmicky stuff like lack of video recording and crap like that. Someone with a keen eye for photography will make stunning images with an old 2Mpx camera from 1999. Photography is an art, not a technology.
Does any one ever look up this info on the web? I did and this is what i found out. Q. How many megapixels would it take to equal a 35mm film maximum quality? A.The short answer is that a modern 24-megapixel digital SLR offers around the same level of resolution as a good film scanned in a modern minilab. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_megapixels_would_it_take_to_equal_a_35mm_film_maximum_quality
This discussion of resolution vs. noise is missing the point. You get high resolution and high noise. Low resolution and low noise. The lower resolution cameras have lower noise.
Lower the resolution of ANY camera and get lower noise. Most cameras go to lower resolution when you increase the ISO beyond a certain point...
That isn't necessarily the case. If you resize high resolution cameras down to match low resolution cameras, they become similar in noise. Essentially, high resolution cameras give you the best of both worlds, with slower speed and more storage space being the disadvantage.
Is it just me or does that lens look frickin badass??
Thats just you. To me, the lens look astonishing devoid of glass.
Thats just you. To me, the lens look astonishingly devoid of glass.
Oh haha okay