Is a A850/A900 still a good buy today?

[euphotos]

First, I'm from one of the enemy camps (a Pentax user) but I'm not here in order to troll or fight.

I'm using older Pentax APS-C cameras - as opposed to having the new flagship K-5. For a long time I've lusted for a nice full frame camera from either Canon, Nikon or Sony. Now the Sony models are cheaper (especially the A850) and are better suited for using older M42 glass with an adapter. So I'm somewhat tempted. But considering for example the much talked about DxO Mark results, it seems that the newest APS-C cameras (with sensors from Sony!) have in many ways come close to or even exceeded these previous generation FF cameras. Judging by those results it seems that FF cameras are still way better regarding high ISO, but in for example dynamic range the new cameras beat them. Of course there is still the DOF control and in the case of Sony and Canon, also the greater resolution.

But as tempted as I am, I wonder if a FF Sony is still a good purchase today in your opinion if one hasn't yet bought into the alpha mount system? It seems very probable that Sony will eventually bring a FF of some sort (SLT, SLR, whatever) with a sensor of the new technology and that may well outshine any FF or APS-C camera today.

Thanks.

 

[Henrik 1881]

The absolut latest aps-c sensors found in Nikon D7000, Pentax K5, and sony Alpha 580 is fantastic when i comes to high ISO and dynamic range.

To get great results with Alpha 850 and 900, shot raw and use good software - not the included. The best feature with the Sony FF models is their big an bright viewfinders.
--
Amateur photographer from Stockholm, Scandinavia, Europe.

 

[Leon van Bommel]

But as tempted as I am, I wonder if a FF Sony is still a good purchase today in your opinion if one hasn't yet bought into the alpha mount system?

Yes it is. The closest competitors are either very expensive or lower resolution. The mix of features Sony currently presents vs. the price is still very attractive to photographers, although certainly less than it used to be at the introduction of the A900/A850.

It seems very probable that Sony will eventually bring a FF of some sort (SLT, SLR, whatever) with a sensor of the new technology and that may well outshine any FF or APS-C camera today.

That is almost 100% certain. There still is room for improvement, and as long as that is the case there will be newer products that surpass the performance of the older versions. I doubt however the steps will be as huge as they have been in the past.

 

[m_appeal]

For low light, I think the A580 sensor would give better results.

 

[Kriekira]

Impossible to answer without more information. "Is it a good buy" is, respectably, a not very useful question. You certainly wouldn't be ill-advised to get an a850 today. I agree with Leon van Bommel, who responded:

Yes it is. The closest competitors are either very expensive or lower resolution. The mix of features Sony currently presents vs. the price is still very attractive to photographers, although certainly less than it used to be at the introduction of the A900/A850.

But a digital camera is a tool for capturing light and turning it into data. What light are you capturing, what data do you need, what end result are you trying to achieve? Does the a850 allow you to do that?

Keep in mind the a850 is just a digital camera body. You will also be providing or spending money on lenses, accessories, software, and (one way or another) computer hardware.

I have seen nothing which makes me think that Sony is going to introduce a new FF body in the next six months, or that the price of the current FF bodies is likely to fall significantly in the next six months. Sony's professional goal, of course, is to keep their release plans secret, so take my reading of their tea leaves with a pinch of salt.

 

[Rand47]

The thing that a FF camera and especially the 850/900 will do for you that no "C" sensor will do, is what I've come to call "detail rendering." The newer C sensor are very good, but they still don't come close to FF for the absolutly amazing ability to render fine detail. That is a function of both sensor size, and MP - IMO.

In addition you get a huge bright viewfinder that is really good for manual focus, composition, etc.

If you only shoot for the web, or for the computer screen, a FF camera is a waste of money and capability. If you make prints, especially in the "fine art" arena, then the FF cameras make very good sense and cannot be beat (except of course by MF cameras costing the really big bucks).

 

[m_appeal]

I would disagree with the notion that APS-C cannot match FF when comparing certain cameras. For example... compare the Nikon D7000/Sony A580 with the Nikon D700/D3 at low ISO... I doubt you would see a big difference if you are shooting landscapes at low ISO with those specific cameras.

 

[Rand47]

I would disagree with the notion that APS-C cannot match FF when comparing certain cameras. For example... compare the Nikon D7000/Sony A580 with the Nikon D700/D3 at low ISO... I doubt you would see a big difference if you are shooting landscapes at low ISO with those specific cameras.

I do a lot of fine-art printing for people. I can tell you that "in prints" you're just incorrect. There is a significant difference in detail rendering on prints... even starting at 8x10".

On the screen, you're right for the most part, but my eye can still see the difference where many would not. Noting "special" about my vision, just years of experience in looking, printing, evaluating..

 

[m_appeal]

I do a lot of fine-art printing for people. I can tell you that "in prints" you're just incorrect. There is a significant difference in detail rendering on prints... even starting at 8x10".

"Difference in detail" - between which cameras? Note I didn't say all full-frame cameras. I mentioned the 12 MP D3/D700 and the 16MP Sony sensor cameras. I was not talking about D3x/A900/A850/5dmk2

 

[m_appeal]

would be able to tell the difference. Sorry, it's just too small of a size for me to believe what you are saying. I do believe you can spot the difference, but most wouldn't be at that size

 

[Nordstjernen]

I have made 70 x 100 cm high quality prints from a 12 Mp aps-c (Sony A700) vs 24 Mp FF (Sony A900). Same scene and same crop, cameras on double tripod, Sony 70-200 mm G lens at f:8, focus checked and double cheched and locked, cable release, 2 sec mirror lock, etc, etc. Semigloss prints with an Epson 9800. Even professional photograpers struggle with telling which is which. And yes, the scene is full of fine detail (ship yard, cranes, wires, etc. etc.). My conclution is that for prints up to this size, or no need for tight crops, aps-c would do pretty well compared to FF.

I really enjoy my A900. But a FF system with top quality lenses is very expensive compared to a really good aps-c system. Also, add weight and bulk for the FF system, more need for tripod and mirror lock up etc.

 

[Kriekira]

Do you think you'd get the same results photographing objects (or people, or, for that matter, plants) in the 2m-5m range?

Not a rhetorical question -- I'm curious if the focus distance makes a difference in detail resolution (there is, I think, more detail to be resolved with closer motifs).

Thanks for your answer.

 

[JohnyP]

If you are after full frame and Sony does what you need - then it is still a good buy.

I have A900 and don't regret it - great, fast, stabilized, full frame camera

 

[Rand47]

"aps-c would do pretty well compared to FF"

If "pretty well" is what you're after, I don't disagree at all. All I'm saying is that one is generally better than the other. Heck, I've made "acceptable" prints from 4/3 cameras at those sizes.

I don't care to get into a debate here. I have 50+ years of fine art printing under my belt, and I know what I see. The difference is more than subtle. If it is fine for you, well, then, fine. Wonderful in fact.

All I'm saying is that if you poll fine art landscape photographers, you won't find many using C as opposed to FF or MF cameras.

I have some mighty fine images from a 5 mp camera that I owned a few year ago. I'd not trade my current FF camera for it today, however.

 

[JensR]

You might remember me from the Pentax forum...

I'm using older Pentax APS-C cameras -

I still have and use three Pentax *ist DS. One is on a very generous loan from a friend, one my infrared camera and one my go-anywhere camera with a scratched sensor.

as opposed to having the new flagship K-5. For a long time I've lusted for a nice full frame camera from either Canon, Nikon or Sony. Now the Sony models are cheaper (especially the A850)

Really? Around here the 5D is about 50 Euros more expensive and the D700 about 100 Euros.

If that money makes a difference to one's finances, I would honestly say that switching might not be such a good idea.

and are better suited for using older M42 glass with an adapter.

I dare say by my very own measure the Sony A850 is the best M42 body ever made.

No other solution provides you with this ease and flexibility - unless you are willing to modify lenses or cameras. You have to invest in chipped adapters to get stabilisation though - no manual entering of focal length like for Pentax.

Judging by those results it seems that FF cameras are still way better regarding high ISO, but in for example dynamic range the new cameras beat them.

I have to say, the Sonys are not high-ISO monsters. Their DR is very nice, though.

Of course there is still the DOF control and in the case of Sony and Canon, also the greater resolution.

And a nicer viewfinder and more weight and bulk and cost.

But as tempted as I am, I wonder if a FF Sony is still a good purchase today in your opinion if one hasn't yet bought into the alpha mount system?

Of course - but that is only generally speaking. Without knowing your specific needs, wants and bank account details it is hard to be more definitive.

It seems very probable that Sony will eventually bring a FF of some sort (SLT, SLR, whatever) with a sensor of the new technology and that may well outshine any FF or APS-C camera today.

Yes, that is probable. However, maybe their next FF camera will be an EVIL in 2013. No one here knows. Check the A700 replacement situation to get a feel how things run in Sonyland

--

'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
'I don't own lenses. I pwn lenses.' (2009)
My Homepage: http://www.JensRoesner.de

 

[mzd]

First, I'm from one of the enemy camps (a Pentax user) but I'm not here in order to troll or fight.

There's no enemy camp. There are just different brands and everyone use the brand that make a camera that can fit his needs.

--

When your current system does not satisfy you, it is better to switch than to cry and whine on the forums.

 

[GuyMcKie]

A good APS size camera + extreme wide-angle zoom is as or more expensive than the
Sony a850.

If you have already FF wide-angle lenses, the FF (5DII, a850) is the cheaper solution.
You don't need to buy extra tele-lenses to have the same reach of APS-C. Crop
to APS size format and you have the same result.

As a benefit you have more DR, more room to crop, beter high iso's at the same
print size, 100% OVF...

Gr.

 

[Jgraham]

I just purchased an A900 as I wanted a backup for my A700 and was not willing to wait any longer for the upcoming Aps-c model. After playing with the other APS models out there I didnt feel the same level of ruggedness that the A700 gave me.

I am planning to leave a 400mm lens on the a700 for the extra reach and use the A900 for everything else.

With Sony offering 24 months no interest and a price point of 1900 for an A850 I am not seeing a better choice right now.

The A55 is a fantastic camera that rivals the FF at 16mp, but when you fit it with an 70-200G or bigger lens its feels a little small. Just my opinion.

Jeff
http://jeffreygraham.smugmug.com/

 

[barri]

I think that the A850 or A900 are still very good cameras and right now the best choice in the FF market, if you want high resolution and good dynamic range.

However, there is no doubt that a next model (e.g. an A950) is going to be yet better.

My advice to you: If you want a camera within the next 6 months, then go for the A850. It is a great camera and comes at a bargain price compared to other FF cams.

A successor to the A850/900 will probably come in only a year from now and is surely going to cost more than an A850. So, if you can wait for some 12+ months and can afford paying a little more, then I would wait.

--
Sony Alpha 900 user...

see some of my images at
http://christianriedel.com



.

 

[tomtom50]

FF sensors are much bigger. That means that worse lenses (that resolve fewer lines per mm) have more millimeters!

For equal image quality you need a much better lens with APS-C. If you buy many lenses the lens savings will pay for the a850 body, and if you have one top rate lens you get near medium format results when you need it.

The a850 is big and does not have fast burst, but it has one of the best viewfinders you can get. If big is OK and you don't need fast burst it cannot be beat for the money.