Sony Alpha A750 keeps with tradition, leaks out ahead of release
By Vlad Savov 
posted October 30th 2009 7:36AM
posted October 30th 2009 7:36AM
[Thanks, David G]
posted October 30th 2009 7:36AM
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.
problem is, when buying into a system it comes down to Canon or Nikon
sony has someway to go before it is considered viable from a system POV
those that only ever use the kit lens need not worry
You're not getting a mortgage. It's just a camera dude.
There are many more cameras out there than the crippled (in some ways) gear Canon and Nikon are putting out.
Yeah, I hear you. I like sony products, but, when I got my first DSLR, I had to go with Canon.
Yem,
The cost of multiple high-end bodies and lenses can become quite considerable
Please define what a viable system is, because there are pros out there who must be pretty stupid for buying into one that supposedly isn't. Sony doesn't have some specialized lenses in their line up but they also have some unique offerings. They've been making SLRs for 3 years and they're already number 3 in the market. Granted they started with Minolta's line up. They're still a viable option unless you're part of the extremely low percentage of photographers who need certain lenses for their work.
number three behind Canon and Nikon
that's not really saying very much
is it?
Sony is a strong #3 to the Canon and Nikon camps out there and is definitely a viable "system". Tons of lenses from the past 30 years or so (All A-mount Minolta lenses fit on the Sony cameras) and the Carl Zeiss lenses are among the best available from any manufacturer.
I am thrilled to see this leak... I *almost* bought a discontinued A700 today, but I have been on the fence between the A700 and A850. This is the perfect middle ground between the two. I will buy it the day it is released.
I think it says a lot when the #1&2 makers have 40% of the market a piece and Sony's the only other maker with a significant share. Get over the Canikon or nothing mentality.
Ah, Canikon fanboys. Gotta love 'em.
Sony does have a full range of lenses to choose from, and if you consider the Minolta lenses that are out there, there are plenty of options. They do have a few holes, but they are also bringing out new lenses every year. Their high end lenses are easily a match for anything from Canon and Nikon, and they already have the most inexpensive FF camera on the market. I strongly suspect that the A750 is NOT FF. If you compare the mirror boxes in the picture, the A850 and A950 prisms are far larger, while the A750 resembles the lower part of the line, implying APS-C (assuming, of course, that the picture is of the real A750 and not just a stand-in). If it IS FF, it would be a bombshell.
fanboy?
who's being a fanboy?
i merely stated a fact
as for old minolta lenses, they won't have been designed with digital sensors in mind; such as AR coatings on the rear side of elements. optical design to ensure light hits the sensor perpendicular. efforts to control light fall off at the edges
i never said what, if any system i use
the system i use doesn't matter
my camera is a tool to get the job done
and to get the job done a specific lens might be needed
i did do and look at the sony lens line up. there is no fast 85mm lens (f/1.2 or f/1.8), or a fast standard zoom (f/2.8)
i'm sony will get there, but for now there are, as stated holes in the lens line up.
some can "live" with these, other can't
@ ehisforadam: Please explain how the #3 have more market share than #1 and #2 combined? I think your math is flawed.
@SiG....
There IS an 85/1.4 and it is made by Carl Zeiss no less, not to mention there are SEVERAL f2.8 standard zooms including the 28-75/2.8 from Sony, and a 24-70/2.8 from Zeiss again. There is also the 16-35/2.8 Zeiss and a 70-200/2.8 Sony lens. Of course all of these are full frame lenses. And there is also a gorgeous 135/1.8 Zeiss lens as well as a 135/2.8[4.5] STF Sony lens that no other manufacturer has even come close to replicating.
Sony's camera lineup is definitely lacking in some areas, particularly AF tracking ability. And there is a gap in the lens lineup (no f4 zooms, and no 400/2.8 or 500/4, 600/4). But if you are shooting in a studio or doing landscapes there is nothing out there under $10,000 that a Sony couldn't keep up with to say the least.
Considering that Sony makes sensors for both Pentax and Nikon and has the one of the longest histories in the camera business, predating both Canon and Pentax with its acquisition of Konica-Minolta (c. 1873), your argument doesn't have the most merit. Also, Sony has the deepest pockets of any of the electronics producers (let alone camera makers), allowing it to put large sums of money into new product, R&D, and fab unlike any of the other camera makers (probably why Nikon and Pentax by sensors from them).
Yes, Canon and Nikon have a big chunk of the segment in making cameras (minus the sensor in a couple of cases), but that doesn't make them the best. Similar to how Microsoft has ~90% of the market segment but Windows isn't considered the best of the OSes.
magic words: Full Frame
wish it would be priced competitively, also hoping that IQ is better at high ISO's
"Full frame" isn't a magic bullet. It's nice to have for some shooting styles and entirely unsuitable for others.
Yem:
Exactly what shooting styles are full-frame sensors unsuitable for? The only one I can think of is "artistic noise"
cropped sensor cameras are "suited" to sports and wildlife
cropped sensors can offer "an advantage" with long lenses
for example a FF camera and 400mm lens will have approx the same effective field of view as a cropped camera and a shorter lens, say 300mm
the difference in price and weight between a 300mm and 400mm lens is quite considerable
the cropped camera also increases the effective subject to camera distance for a given framing with a given lens
---
for virtually everything else a FF sensor is the way forward
eventually, maybe, the camera companies will realise this
@SiG:
"for example a FF camera and 400mm lens will have approx the same effective field of view as a cropped camera and a shorter lens, say 300mm"
If you use a camera like the Sony A900 in cropped sensor mode, you get all the advantages that you mention that the APS-C cameras would have, so I don't see the advantage to an APS-C camera. I guess on the A900/A850 you only get 11MP instead of 12MP or 14MP that a lot of APS-C cameras have.
I've been waiting for the eventual successor to the a700. It's clearly the best Alpha DSLR ever made, but came just before they released some camera with live view and full frame. a750 might be the one that makes me finally upgrade from my a100, which I dearly love.
Anything over a Dozen overkill? Asking for noise trouble?
Last I checked my 5DMkII was nearer 2 dozen than a dozen and it has pretty darn good noise levels at the higher ISO's and at lower ISOs is amazingly sharp and detailed providing you have a lens that can resolve what the sensor can. Sony and Ziess Primes are more than able to resolve 14MP when stopped down to f/8 or so, some able even from fairly wide open!
Sony is getting better. Once they've got a good range of lenses then they'll be a perfectly competitive system. That sort of thing doesnt happen over a couple years, they are in this for the long haul.
Personally, I don't like the look and feel of their bodies and lenses. But thats more what your preference is.
If they price it right, could be quite a nice camera.
People who buy full frame are much more likely to need more than 12MP because they're the one who shoot the posters, the framed landscapes, the car mags... Really, almost by definition full-frame buyers want more resolution. Plus full frame cameras don't get noisy anywhere near as fast as even their APS-C cousins (nevermind compacts), so it's no biggie.
You probably need to try any camera and its quick navigation menu at least once. Minolta, i.e. Sony was always ahead of others in terms of convenience, easy-to-use and quality of UI. Just don't waste your time on fanboy forums, go out and try cameras for yourself. :P
A bit weird that the A380/A330 is missing from that screenshot...
Sony just need to release some new lenses at a prosumer level and it will be quite good... something like the new Canon 18-135mm which was just released - can't seem to find reviews for that lens anywhere but it seems like a good lens.
I had a 18-200mm and the barrel distortion and pin cushioning is totally wild. The 18-55mm standard lens is much better but doesn't do much though... so yeah, basically I'm hoping Sony will bring out some lenses in that range.
Seems like endless begging finally pays off! Hope they left the flash sync connector in place and put a back-illuminated sensor in...
...and a standard hotshoe
@SiG:
I think you make a lot of comments without having used an Alpha. The Minolta hotshoe design is actually really good compared to the standard hotshoe (except for the lack of compatibility). If you've ever had standard hotshoes on flashes break, you'll know what I mean.
If the range of Sony flashes is good enough for someone, then they can experience that hotshoe. If not, then the hotshoe adapter lets them use a flash where the hotshoe might break.
+1 on putting back the PC connector, that's way more important than the hotshoe.
I agree.. the minolta hotshoe is truely a well designed one. It is updated, and it is so easy to use. Fast and secure.
The A700 is APS-C, so it's unlikely the A750 would be full frame. 14MP APS-C seems about right, a bump from the 12MP A700.
Check out the 18-250mm from Sony. It's very highly regarded as a compact travel zoom. I think Tamron has a version as well.
Stupid browser...last comment was directed at Jon (Aussie)
Hey SiG, what are you talking about? There is a Sony ZA 85 1.4, a ZA 135 1.8, a ZA 24-70 2.8, and ZA 16-35 2.8 lens, and all are stabilized. For studio work, there isn't a better 35mm setup than an A900 and some of these Sony/Zeiss lenses, and many pros are getting on board.
Sony has some great lenses, and some of them are the best in their class -- better than canon/nikon versions (like all AF Zeiss lenses, and that includes ZA 85mm 1.4 that SiG claimed doesn't exist). Also, 70-300G is rated best in it's class. Also, there are third-party alternative (such as Tamron 17-50 F2.8), so you pretty much have everything you need.
This is like the only time on Engadget where some of the comments are actually FOR a Sony product.
Of course, the anti-Sony camp is still making an appearance.
I suggest you skip the Sony lineup altogether. No HD Video recording capabilities, limited selection of lenses currently available on sale, and notoriously disruptive noise reduction algorithms -- hallmarks of a Sony Alpha DSLR system. No wonder they are behind Canon, the leader in pro photography. My uncle who is a wedding and sports photographer has Canon "L" series lenses (that's L for Luxury) and he said that it's the best photographic system out there. No one should settle for less.
I do not think Canon is the best. Any camera can do wedding/sports. It is your skill, not the gear. There are many other wedding/sports photographers out there uses other systems and I know some pro wedding photographers who uses Sony and they capture wonderful shots too. as good as any pros out there or even better than them imo.
No one should settle for less in their skills and creativity.
First of all, you don't need L lenses for weddings. Second, Sony has a good variety of CZ lenses that are perfect feet for portraits and wedding work in general too. Where Sony actually lacks is long focuses stabilized lenses. So sports is not where its strength is. As for noise, it's not worse or better than Nikon which is using the same Sony's sensors, though Sony intentionally skips low pixel FF sensors in its own cameras because of agreement with Nikon. HD Video? Who cares!? IQ and Dynamic Range are best on the martket.
I was clearly wrong about the lack of fast primes
I'm not anti-sony
a camera is a tool, i don't care what badge is on the front
Good news it's coming. If it's going to be FF with low ISO capabilities, I would consider buying it. CZ lenses plus FF is a killer combination as A900 experience tells. By the way, Sony's RAW files from A900 shows best results than any N or C in terms of Dynamic Range and details (just don' use Adobe ACR for conversion). Anti-shake - 2 thumbs up. Very good implementation. Only downside is lenses prices. :(
> SLRs for 3 years and they're already number 3 in the market
Actually it's more like 80 years on the market. :)
http://www.photoclubalpha.com/useful-and-vital-links/minolta-history-seven-decades/
Minolta got into camera business even before Canon and Nikon. Also it was the first on the market with Auto Focus SLR's which actually killed company eventually (see Minolta vs Honeywell case).
I know they started out as Minolta, I've used Minolta SLRs since I was a kid and own several Minolta AF film bodies, but Sony started off in the market with 1 camera and a lot of unknowns and no name in the general SLR market and they never put a lot into stressing they can use Minolta lenses.
Mm, 14 megapixel full frame. Can't wait to see some low-light shots with this. Pity Sony's got sorta cruddy image processing. Wonder if it's a backlit sensor too.
ive been shooting with a canon xsi, and not having IS on a 60mm macro or 10-20mm is pretty annoying in low light. a FF with inbody IS would mean I could shoot 1600ISO and also have 2-3 stops of usable IS... so a helping of 3-4 stops overall. 1/60 instead of 1/3 or 1/4 of a second is huge. shooting 10mm, getting 1/10s vs 1.5s.
I don't know if anyone else mentioned this because I couldn't be bothered to read all the posts; but I take issue with your line "If you ask us, anything over a solid dozen million pixels is overkill and just asking for noise trouble and processing lag, so in fact chopping a third off the A850's pixels could turn out to be quite a boon for overall image quality" As the a850 is Full Frame it has around the same pixel density as the a700 at 12mpx so noise issues should be comparable. Further; some people want more pixels in order to make larger prints, Sony is bringing their fight to the door of medium format here.