A900, Convience me!

I need reasons to upgrade from my A700, my fiancee has been using my backup

A300 for events and shes really good, but I need either another A700 or myself upgraded to a A900. I love the viewfinder, and using pocket wizards, what else would this upgrade give me over my A700?
--
http://www.ryanhollowayphotography.com

http://www.flickr.com/rsplatpc

Convience me me too
--
http://www.photographybyknights.com
Sony a700, Sony a700, Sony a100
Sony VGC70AM Vertical Grip
Sony/Zeiss SAL16-80Z
Sony Sal 16-105 DT
Sony Sal 18-200 DT
Minolta 50mm 1.7, 70 - 210mm f4 - BEERCAN
Sony Flash HVLF56AM, HVLF42AM

MacPro
Samsung 22' Monitor
Macbook 2.4

Why? Do your own research. The information is out there for YOU to decide.
If you can deal with the short comings then great, otherwise look elsewhere.
Buck

rsplatpc said:

I need reasons to upgrade from my A700, my fiancee has been using my
backup
A300 for events and shes really good, but I need either another A700
or myself upgraded to a A900. I love the viewfinder, and using pocket
wizards, what else would this upgrade give me over my A700?
--
http://www.ryanhollowayphotography.com

http://www.flickr.com/rsplatpc

Click to expand...

Ignore BUCK's rude reply!

I don't know if I can convince you...? When I had the A100 I knew something was missing and that a better camera was required for FASTER AF, better FLASH, etc... Now that I own the A700, I've been very satisfied with it and don't have the desire/need to upgrade that I did with the A100...

Yes, the FF is nice and EVENTUALLY I will get one, but I don't think I'm going the FF route yet with the A900. Sorry, I know you need convincing for A900 purchase, but...

rsplatpc said:

I need reasons to upgrade from my A700, my fiancee has been using my
backup
A300 for events and shes really good, but I need either another A700
or myself upgraded to a A900. I love the viewfinder, and using pocket
wizards, what else would this upgrade give me over my A700?
--
http://www.ryanhollowayphotography.com

http://www.flickr.com/rsplatpc

Click to expand...

--
-Alex

From the minds of Minolta to the imagination of Sony, Alpha, like no other.

http://www.pbase.com/lonewolf69

LOL.
100% VF, the way the photo will be.
Your camera will use all a primes glass.

Depends on your shooting style, you may like the af point's wih 10 assist points.
FF Mat Quality.
In body SSS.
Lovely camera.
Double Bionz for your Low/Medium resolution shoots.
& last but not least 5FPS at 24.6 Megapixels.
--
Alex Q.

You'll love it.

Take a look at that VF! then you will be stuck

Lower DOF get more OOf area due to the FF sensor..

better ISO performance more then one step (when using the same scale 12MP)
http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/09/25/alpha-900-and-photokina-part-1/

Better AF, slightly better SSS.

--
-
A700 owner - Using the Cream machine - Minolta STF !

I've not had any real interest in the FF for myself, just idly browsed a few threads for interest.

I must say though that some of the user photos have changed my mind and I am now interested. Convincing me is another matter, and I will be waiting to be quite clear which lenses do and do not work well with it so that I know before I start exactly how much it will cost with the lenses it needs.

Only the very very very very cool guys use A900.

'Nuff said


--
My photo comic: http://outofplaceproject.blogspot.com
My Alpha blog: http://alphasight.blogspot.com

You can use studio flash wireless triggers just as well on A700 or any other SLR with Minolta flash shoe. In the days of Minolta there was FS-1100 hot shoe adapter (much like the new Sony one, except it did not have over-voltage protection circuitry, which by the way is not really that needed since all the IR and radio wireless triggers use trigger voltage way below of what the camera can manage and also new strobes themselves do not use high sync voltage for decades...). There are also several (I have seen at least two different) versions of after-market flash shoe adapters on eBay... which will cost you less than your meal.
So this is not a valid reason to upgrade.

My main reasons would be:

1) Full Frame sensor and all of it's benefits - better use of wide-angle lenses, bigger viewfinder, primes being useful for their intended purpose (85 and 100mm are too long for my liking on APS-C for portraits) to name few;

2) Higher resolution, which also gives more cropping possibilities and ability to downsample to improve high-ISO quality.

Buy it because you just WANT it!

Why do you have to justify to buy the A900?

The A900 is the A700 with more real estate.
(And the lovely viewfinder.)

rsplatpc said:

I need reasons to upgrade from my A700, my fiancee has been using my
backup
A300 for events and shes really good, but I need either another A700
or myself upgraded to a A900. I love the viewfinder, and using pocket
wizards, what else would this upgrade give me over my A700?
--
http://www.ryanhollowayphotography.com

http://www.flickr.com/rsplatpc

Click to expand...

--
Direct your eye right inward, and you'll find a thousand
regions in your mind Yet undiscovered. Travel them, and
be Expert in home-cosmography.
-H.D. Thoreau

Rationality must prevail ... if you can find no reason to upgrade, then perhaps you really do not NEED it. what you might actually need is a 2nd A700 body or simply get to exploit the full potential your A700.

Remember, its not just the body, there's always the associated cost of lens , computer, storage , processing power, archival need and etc ... etc ...

--

• Franka -

"Buckaroo Bonzai" CHILL OUT! Your posts, are rude and argumentative... And you Don't Speak For The Rest of The Forum!

This is a legitimate question...and this is where forum is at it's best. I too am happy w/my A700,and wonder what advantages the A900 wiil be.

Jim inVt

If you take such great photos with the a700, then it will be easy for you to enter and win the Sony Challenge. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=29421327

If not, then maybe you need to do something to improve your shooting. Buying the a900 might be an option.
It's all about the pictures...
--
John Dunn

Portraits: http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/pictures?userid= {8B9B811D-AD1C-4A7D-923E-A4D0930BB5EE}

jrdu said:

If you take such great photos with the a700, then it will be easy for
you to enter and win the Sony Challenge.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=29421327
If not, then maybe you need to do something to improve your shooting.
Buying the a900 might be an option.
It's all about the pictures...

Click to expand...

There are different genres of photography and contests generally only represent a small subsection of those. Personally; I have very rarely entered any images into any contests, doing so only when the contests happened to have been about a field of photography which I am specialised in.

I take photos not to win prizes, rather to support cultural and performance groups. Besides; there are other prizes to be "won" other than these contests... mine include national publications and exhibitions. In particular I get a chuckle every time I see a performer using one of my photos on their myspace or facebook profile.

Whilst I always need to improve my shooting, I will never do so out of any desire to win those contests.
--
Stuart / the Two Truths
http://twotruths.net/

If you do photography as a business then you are the only person who is suppose to know why or if you need a camera like this. If you are asking such a question here and need others to convince you, than you don't really need it.

Cheers
Moti

--
http://www.pixpix.be

People mistakenly think the A900 is just a slightly larger version of the A700 with a LARGER viewfinder and 235% LARGER sensor size. The real fact is that a 35mm Full-frame is a whole different format (even though you can interchangeably use the lenses between the formats) and gives a completely different feel from an APS-C crop product. When it uses the entire 35mm imaging circle (when compared to using just a small cropped portion of it, like the APS-C crop products) its lenses perform differently, and when framed the same, it provides a totally different effect than an APS-C crop product and a variety of other factors that changes the way you photograph.

Bottomline, this is not the decision between an A100 (consumer-grade APS-C) vs an A700 (semi-pro APS-C). This is a lot more involving decision, that could change the whole nature of your lens portfolio.

I personally will move to the A900 as soon as I can. But whether you want to go there is completely upto you....it could be highly rewarding but it won't be cheap. My Canon friends who moved from the Canon 30D (APS-C) to the 5D (Full-frame), simply could not go back to shooting with crop bodies - but again, that is a very personal decision.

The A900 leapfrogs over its cheaper competitors like the 5D, by providing a 100% viewfinder that is larger than ANY other dSLR EVER, other than the $8000 1DSMKIII. Providing a 100% Full-frame viewfinder is a whole dimension different than a 95% or 97% viewfinder, since the manufacturing tolerances needed for 100% is a class apart. Also, body-based Anti-shake in a Full-frame body, is a world first - Sony's competitors were harping that it simply was not possible and provides Sony Full-frame users with the unique ability to shoot with Image stabilization, when shooting with their 35mm primes, their 50mm primes, their 100mm primes, their 85mm primes, their 135mm primes, their 24-70 f/2.8, their 16-35 f/2.8 etc. - not a single one of them is stabilized in Sony's competition. But these are the engineering advances of the A900 Full-frame over other Full-frames in the marketplace and thus has nothing to do with your specific decision. Just something for you to mull on.

rsplatpc said:

I need reasons to upgrade from my A700, my fiancee has been using my
backup
A300 for events and shes really good, but I need either another A700
or myself upgraded to a A900. I love the viewfinder, and using pocket
wizards, what else would this upgrade give me over my A700?
--
http://www.ryanhollowayphotography.com

http://www.flickr.com/rsplatpc

Click to expand...

I'm sorry I agree with Buck. ind the reasons by yourself or just let it be....

Absolutely a different format. This is not an upgrade but a change to a completely different system. If you already have the lenses for the format you will get a much wider field of view than you are used to so it is likely you will have to replace your existing lenses to cover the range you work in. The whole feel and build of the 900 is different too. Actually, if you can afford the body (and a couple of the excellent lenses which you will need to take advantage of that sensor) you will have something so much better than your cropped sensor camera it will make your eyes water. I have tried it and am quite overwhelmed by what this camera can do with one of the better lenses on it.

Oh yes, figure on investing in more hard drive space - it's possible to get 16Mb jpegs out of this puppy!
--
Don.

A Land Rover, a camera ... I'm happy!

Well I'm planning on buying one myself, but as some other people have said, if you're not sure you "need" it, then you probably don't. I think buying a camera is a personal decision, based on personal needs or wants, or in some cases, your requirements as a professional. I wouldn't ask anyone else to make the choice for me.