a900 trashed WHy

Anastigmat wrote:
. . . .

Anastigmat said:

The whole idea of a high eyepoint viewfinder is to let you see more
of the viewfinder when wearing glasses. You would need to try it
yourself to see if it is high enough for you. . . . .

The high ISO noise level is also a sore spot. . . . simply cannot match the Canon > sensor's low noise levels,
But then again, no other brand can boast Carl Zeiss AF
lenses . . .

Click to expand...

• two things, then i'll go back to being invisible - i'm really interested in pictures rather than gear, and i find specific gear forums a bit iffy at times, but useful and interesting too -

1. i wear glasses and i find the viewfinder perfect -

2. i really am not concerned about hi iso, but as everyone and his dog keeps on about it - i have checked for myself by processing myself hi iso shots on both the 900 and the 5d2 and imo, correctly processed, the 900 is cleaner than the 5d2 and shows less artifacts when both camera's results are processed to give the same sharpness (ie. when the 900 is softened to equal the 5d2's result or when the 5d2 is sharpened to equal the 900's picture} - for me the difference is in the raw processing - see my answer above -

lastly, except for t/s the sony lens selection is perfect for me - every lens either normal (macro, fisheye), G (70-300), and zeiss (24-70) that i have is excellent - and i've just brought their miniature 500 reflex and so far it looks fine too, but without a complete accurate check out (no time yet)
--
keith

thanks for the input makes me fee a lot better
your right about trash taking fan boys.

I see a lot of that on the Nikon site, but I known Nikon gear and just let the fan boys rant and don't pay any attention to it.

But adding another high end camera to the collection makes me worry, I have a Sony a100 and it works better than the reviews I have read at least the early ones, in an nut shell
I like the camera in fact I sold my Nikon d80 and kept the a100

my 1st feeling was the D700 Nikon but I do like the anti dust and the in body anti blur on the Sony. the View finder is a big plus,

I do have eye ( strongly back lit there is a big glare between the finder and my glasses trifocals! ) problems with d300 and was hopeful the Sony was some what better.

alas I drove around a bit yesterday trying to find a A900 to look at, none to be found
in my neck of the woods

In your situation, I would honestly recommend looking at the d700 for the simple reason that with it, you and your wife can share lenses, flashes, etc.

The d700 has a 95% viewfinder I think, and on full frame, that's really not bad at all.

The a900 is an apples and oranges camera to the d700, its strengths are the d700's weaknesses and vice versa. Basically the high resolution of the a900 is traded off for the excellent iso performance of the d700.

The frame rate on the d700 is higher, the images use less space, and the auto-focus system is second to none.

That said, the a900 has very decent auto-focus, 5 fps (which is pretty impressive for considering they're 24.5 mp images), excellent lenses and the steady shot built in.

i am sure sensor-wise Sony will catch up with Nikon & Canon in 1 or 2 generation.. they manufacture Nikon sensors too for godsake ! ..so they wont be shaking their legs till they get it as goodl as Nikon....I am very much eager to see the launch of their next line of camera like the A800 or A950....see how well is their high iso capability....i really like sony's built it steady shot....for a serious hobbyist I would get myself a budget fast third party lens set up.........slower AF but keep your wallet thick...

A900
Tamron AF70-200mm F/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro
Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM
Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG ASPHERICAL HSM

Sony would need to either completely change their on-chip AD technology, or getting working on the backlit FF sensor for them to jump much in high ISO. Low read noise at low ISO is inherent in the Sony design, and lower megapixels won't change that. What's funny is that no one is talking about how much better the A900 is compared to the 5Dii at low ISO.

OldScotch said:

In your situation, I would honestly recommend looking at the d700 for
the simple reason that with it, you and your wife can share lenses,
flashes, etc.
The d700 has a 95% viewfinder I think, and on full frame, that's
really not bad at all.

The a900 is an apples and oranges camera to the d700, its strengths
are the d700's weaknesses and vice versa. Basically the high
resolution of the a900 is traded off for the excellent iso
performance of the d700.
The frame rate on the d700 is higher, the images use less space, and
the auto-focus system is second to none.
That said, the a900 has very decent auto-focus, 5 fps (which is
pretty impressive for considering they're 24.5 mp images), excellent
lenses and the steady shot built in.

Click to expand...

You may be right ! I shoot storm fronts high the rocky mountains
the wife shoots every thing else, grand kids, flowers etc

so we don't share lens and I have a top of the line Flash for both the Nikon and then Sony.
plus one prime for the Sony.

number-- frame rate matters to me not , the landscapes very seldom move very fast LOL LOL

I hang out in the Nikon sites mostly and honestly I have hear little to no complaints about the a900 there

I see very little different s in the d300 and d700 with good glass for my purposes detail and color are close.
May the Sony would better or may be not

at any rateIi was surprised to see so much trash talking , I would like to think its all nonsense

headofdestiny said:

Sony would need to either completely change their on-chip AD
technology, or getting working on the backlit FF sensor for them to
jump much in high ISO. Low read noise at low ISO is inherent in the
Sony design, and lower megapixels won't change that. What's funny is
that no one is talking about how much better the A900 is compared to
the 5Dii at low ISO.

Click to expand...

hey thats a good point

binky said:

I have my eye on a new A900 and giving my d300 Nikon to my wife
I have read some really nasty things --Very hard for me to believe

so it it hate Jealousy of just fan boy trash---
I just love the high point view finder, last week on another site
this one person says its it hard to see through if you have glass's on
I have eye problems so this caught my attention

whats up with all the bad stuff??
fill me in you you can

Click to expand...

Hi.

I have the A900 and have absolutly no problem with my glasses and the viewfinder. I can see the whole frame.
I am so nearsighted that i can't use the diopter adjustment (-3,25).

A Danish photo magazine zoom said last year when they tested the A900 that it was the best camera they ever tested and that includes canon 1Ds MK III. Nikon D3 and D700.

My personal view is that its a fantastic camera with very little noise at iso800.

You should check out michael reichmans test and comparing of A900. D3x. And 5D MK II. http://www.luminous-landscape.com

Kind regards

David Bo --

Maybe that person really did have a hard time seeing through it. Ive owned 3 different DSLRs and i have a hard time using any of them with glasses.

binky said:

I have my eye on a new A900 and giving my d300 Nikon to my wife
I have read some really nasty things --Very hard for me to believe

so it it hate Jealousy of just fan boy trash---
I just love the high point view finder, last week on another site
this one person says its it hard to see through if you have glass's on
I have eye problems so this caught my attention

whats up with all the bad stuff??
fill me in you you can

Click to expand...

I have one that I don't care for the viewfinder because I have glasses and compared to my D3X and 1Ds Mark III it isn't as comfortable to look through---you do need to be close as the eye relief is pretty limited.

I also don't care for the limited lens offering. The Zeiss stuff is really just the zeiss name being made by a third party and is very limited. Some of my old Minolta lenses are better than the Sony replacements and they are quieter focusing.

I don't really care about the limitations on the ISO as 400 is fine for my high megapixel shooting. I rarely go over 800 on my D3X and 1Ds Mark III, but at that ISO the Nikon and Canon are clearly superior as far as noise. But it isn't the deal breaker for me.

Sony is pretty tough to get technical help and repair compared to Nikon and Canon. Nikon and Canon are slow to service but it does happen with quality. I have had to return sonys several times for the same problem with their dslrs.

As a result the camera gathers dust while I use my D3X and now 5D Mark II for high megapixel shooting----mostly wildlife, flowers, landscapes.

Why do you have so many systems?

John said:

I have one that I don't care for the viewfinder because I have
glasses and compared to my D3X and 1Ds Mark III it isn't as
comfortable to look through---you do need to be close as the eye
relief is pretty limited.

I also don't care for the limited lens offering. The Zeiss stuff is
really just the zeiss name being made by a third party and is very
limited. Some of my old Minolta lenses are better than the Sony
replacements and they are quieter focusing.

I don't really care about the limitations on the ISO as 400 is fine
for my high megapixel shooting. I rarely go over 800 on my D3X and
1Ds Mark III, but at that ISO the Nikon and Canon are clearly
superior as far as noise. But it isn't the deal breaker for me.

Sony is pretty tough to get technical help and repair compared to
Nikon and Canon. Nikon and Canon are slow to service but it does
happen with quality. I have had to return sonys several times for
the same problem with their dslrs.

As a result the camera gathers dust while I use my D3X and now 5D
Mark II for high megapixel shooting----mostly wildlife, flowers,
landscapes.

Click to expand...

--
Review his posting history, and then proceed to ignore his post.

Jogger said:

John said:

I have one that I don't care for the viewfinder because I have
glasses and compared to my D3X and 1Ds Mark III it isn't as
comfortable to look through---you do need to be close as the eye
relief is pretty limited.

I also don't care for the limited lens offering. The Zeiss stuff is
really just the zeiss name being made by a third party and is very
limited. Some of my old Minolta lenses are better than the Sony
replacements and they are quieter focusing.

I don't really care about the limitations on the ISO as 400 is fine
for my high megapixel shooting. I rarely go over 800 on my D3X and
1Ds Mark III, but at that ISO the Nikon and Canon are clearly
superior as far as noise. But it isn't the deal breaker for me.

Sony is pretty tough to get technical help and repair compared to
Nikon and Canon. Nikon and Canon are slow to service but it does
happen with quality. I have had to return Sonys several times for
the same problem with their SLR.

As a result the camera gathers dust while I use my D3X and now 5D
Mark II for high megapixel shooting----mostly wildlife, flowers,
landscapes.

Click to expand...

--

LOL funny I received my 1st camera at the age of 10 or so My father was an avid camera buff.

Click to expand...

I am 65 now and I have own all most every brand there is you see I am not a Fan boy but I am a camera Junkie. I will use what works for me , I am not hooked on any brand I love them all

Me too. I have Canon 35mm film, Olympus rangefinder, Hassleblad mf, etc. My goal is usually to show others that Sony is just as good as other stuff, and rarely is it about saying other cameras aren't good enough.

headofdestiny said:

Me too. I have Canon 35mm film, Olympus rangefinder, Hassleblad mf,
etc. My goal is usually to show others that Sony is just as good as
other stuff, and rarely is it about saying other cameras aren't good
enough.

Click to expand...

good for you! your a photographer after my own heart

cgarrard said:

My opinion on this subject, if I may.

Insecurity just feeds insecurity.

I mean, dude.... the world is teetering on some major issues right
now and trashing a camera is what is important?

--
http://www.CarlGarrardPhotography.com

Click to expand...

Its what's important if its YOUR $3000 being spent.

The only serious doubts I have come across are Pro support, which is currently an unknown quantity.

Lens wise their Zeiss range is probably as good as anything out there and some of the older minolta glass is very good. Minolta always had a "German" approach to it's lens performance, they even manufactured for Leica. By German I mean they weren't so interested in high contrast type output favoured by Nikon, Canon etc.

It's a personal thing but I shot on Contax, way back when and have always missed the Zeiss look. I've since been through Canon, Olympus and currently Nikon but the lure of the Zess 135 f1.8 is becoming overwhelming. Nikon don't do anything like it and I just don't like Canons sensor output, not to mention their flash and AF issues although they do have a nice 135 f2. This is personal preference and I'm not insulting anything here.

If your not a pro needing the back up support the big two offer (But for how much longer that will be the case is also an unknown factor) then give Sony a go. If they had a 16mp full frame a900 I'd get one tomorrow, well Monday when the shops open.

All the talk about systems is from the past, things are changing as the world goes broke. So the first one now may later be the last, for the times they are a changing.
david

binky said:

thanks Chris
I need to wait for income tax return
so I will waiting to here your review

Click to expand...

I can do a bit of a review now. I have had the camera for a while, but only had time to use it a little today. Firstly, with the 7D I always had to remove my sun glasses to see the full field of the viewfinder. With the A900 I can comfortably see all the field of view without removing my sun glasses.

As for the rest of it, well I am deeply impressed. The camera is fast, responsive, autofocus is very accurate, consistent and does not dither. The image resolution is impressive, but the more impressive thing for me is the ability of the camera to handle wide brightness ranges. The DR is big. The metering seems to be very consistent. It stays a little safe, in my estimation it is often underexposing be 1/3 of a stop, but I will get to know it better with time.

So far I am more impressed with this camera than I thought I would be. Get one, you will love it!

Chris

I'm using the A900 since Oct 2008, I'm wearing glasses, and I never had problems at all seeing the entire frame.

As some have mentioned before, Minolta has produced quite interesting glass. Usually the high-quality lenses were designed to deliver extremely high resolution at a somehow lower (micro-)contrast. Others preferred to optimize micro-contrast, at the cost of resolution.

In digital times the Minolta approach (high resolution & lower contrast) is more useful than the "vice versa" approach: increasing micro-contrast by PP is no problem, but you simply can't increase missing detail resolution by PP.

I am trying to publish information on Minolta legacy glass on my website:
http://artaphot.ch/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=133&Itemid=43

You may find also comparing information "Minolta vs Zeiss/Sony":
http://artaphot.ch/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=9&Itemid=43

Stephan

...
Illusion is the first of all pleasures.

Lenses: 24/2.8, 50/1.7, CZ 85/1.4, 100/2.8 Macro, 200/2.8 APO G
17-35/2.8,4, 28-70/2.8 G, 70-210/4, 70-300 SSM G; 2x TC.
Camera: A700