I'm having serious doubts about A900 having SSS as efficient as the
one A700/A300/A350 etc. There are several reasons:
1) Computing power needed to manage a larger sensor stabilization is
incremented non-linearly.
Computing power is the same. 2 degrees of rotation is still 2 degrees and your hands don't know whether there is a FF or APS-C sensor in there, so your period of motion still occupies the same time span. Computing power for processing 24MP is much higher of course, and that is the reason some are hoping for a low-res A900 counterpart which we may or may not see. Computing for SSS specifically though is no different. Power drain from the more powerful motors MAY be an issue, but then we aren't talking about a change of mass in lbs here, we are talking about a difference in just a couple of grams for a FF compared to an APC-S slice of silicone. Yes there is a possibility of lower battery life as a result, we will have to wait and see.
2) Certain focal lengths are simply not going to be stabilized. And
if in case of A700 we're talking about macro (where, btw, it's a good
idea to shut SSS off because otherwise it might create motion blur
that isn't there) on A900 we might be talking about tele range above
a certain point.
Why wouldn't they be? This was argued continuously before Sony announced that their FF chip would be stabilized just like their APS-C units. This misconception I think stems from the incorrect notion that an image circle only covers the sensor exactly, when in fact someone else on here pointed out that the smallest FF lens image circle is some 6mm wider than the 35mm diagonal. Someone else pointed to Sony literature that showed that SSS rarely moves more than 2mm in a given direction so there is still room to spare. Until proven otherwise, I don't buy the conjecture that SSS can't work with certain focal lengths anywhere up to those that simply can't be hand-held anymore. If this were true, SSS would also NOT work with the APS-C lenses like the 16-80z, kit lens and several third party lenses that have an image circle 'designed for APS'.
As for your comments on the earlier post about noise, I don't think you fully understand its cause, nor the physics involved. You said that 'light will always have noise'. Not true, the noise in an image comes from the circuitry of the sensor itself, and the electro-magnetic interference that it causes. The reason that FF sensors come out with less noise is not that there is greater gap in the Bayer pattern and therefor more noise falls through those gaps. No, FF noise resistance comes from the fact that the theoretically bigger light wells (partly related to the density you talk about) are able to collect more light, and therefor generate a much stronger signal than the smaller pixels of smaller formats. The stronger the source signal, the less susceptible to EMF interference it will be en-route through the processing architecture. Yes it is true that future generations of technology will be able to further reduce the noise generated, as well as clean it out of the visible image. The thing to keep in mind is that any new technology that benefits APS-C and smaller formats, will also benefit FF. The benefits will be magnified even more so on FF because of its lower noise susceptibility to begin with.
As for you concern of lower overall resolution, you are partly right. Plenty here have been concerned that many good lenses might start showing poor results when subjected to that level of pixel count. As you demonstrated though, the actual lines per sensor height and width will not be significantly different from the A700. Therefor, I don't think we will see a marked performance difference between the center performance of any given lens on the A900 in comparison to the A700, at least in so far as resolution limits are concerned. The corners on some lenses, being used for the first time on digital, might show some weaknesses we did not know of before. Just the same though, there will be no lacking in detail if all else is assumed to be true.
But then the full frame might actually get more detail, despite the similarities in density. The first of this comes from the idea that FF develops more dynamic range. Because of the limited light collecting due to small pixels, APS-C sensors clip to light and dark faster than their more light collecting FF equivalents. The greater detail in the shadows and highlights that a smaller sensor would clip, while not being absolute detail, none-the-less enhances the overall detail captured in the image as a whole.
Now I don't disagree with your opinion that there are cons to FF as well. As with all things in life, there are tradeoffs to everything. I would never agree with the idea that FF is better just because it is bigger, with the noted exception that bigger light wells collect more light, and therefor are better. That is just straight out physics. With that being said though, there are some who need the advantages of FF, and I for one am glad to see Sony providing it. I could be one of those who needs it if I were to choose to start making my living from photography. If that ever becomes the case, I am glad that Sony will be allowing me the option unlike some of the other manufacturers who moved to smaller formats (4/3rds) or who are unlikely to have a FF any time soon, if ever. No, Sony isn't as diverse nor as complete in their system as Canon or Nikon yet, but they seem the most likely of the "littler guys" to become so in the foreseeable future.
--
-Dylan Anderson
))
