Is a A850/A900 still a good buy today?

It's an excellent buy. There is no comparison between the texture of a half frame and a full frame camera. And be careful moving to Sony/Maxxum because once you get used to the feature sets of the design philosophy you'll never be able to use anything else.

I've used them all. But one feature that gets practically no press whatsoever is the Spot Meter Lock. It's even better now with the Toggle option. I cannot live without it.

My Olympus OM-4's had spot meter lock. So did my Contax RTS III for ambient and flash metering. My Leica R8 had it for flash. I've been using this feature exclusively for my metering since the Maxxum 9xi.

It's one of the biggest reason that I do not shoot with CanNikon or anything else. With those cameras, the meter holds for only as long as you have your finger on the button. But with Spot Lock, you can set it and forget it. It's like a hyper manual exposure mode.

So for fashion and portraits, I set the EV to +1 or so depending on the model skin color, then lock the spot meter right on their face. I can shoot a thousand photos with the exact same values... all in automatic. Very quick and pliable metering.

And of course the biggest reason that Sony is a great value is because of the clarity, color, compactness, and extreme corner sharpness of the prime lenses, both Zeiss and vintage Maxxums. I prefer the Maxxums because of size and I'm one of the few people in the world who actually prefer the super smooth undamped tiny little metal focusing rings that can be operated with one finger.

There are numerous other subtle nuances to the Sony Maxxum design philosophy. Ones we never hear about. But once you get them in your blood, you'll die without them.

Thanks, everybody. Many good aspects to think about.

My approach to the situation is this. First, changing a camera system really makes no sense in my case. I don't make a cent in photography and my APS-C system exceeds my skills by far. But I just can't help lusting for something better. Human nature, I guess. Having read about the cameras in question, I have somewhat of an understanding about where A850/A900 really shines: low ISO and high resolution. But while they're not the peak of high ISO, according to DxO Mark they still exceed the new batch of APS-C cameras in this regard. What mostly tempts me in these Sonys is the landscape photography, possibly with older cheaper lenses. As the only system, it would probably be much too big.

JensR, I remember you well from the Pentax forum - and actually from email since almost all of my little Sony FF - M42 knowledge actually comes from you! I'm also fairly well up to date with the German prices since I shop a lot from German webstores. Stuff tends to cost hundreds more here in Finland. If one considers the "kit" zoom too, Sony is still usually hundreds cheaper than the equivalent N & C combos.

So to conclude, this is mostly about the new toy syndrome for me. A better toy than the previous one. But considering the technological development and my current investment (if you can call something with zero revenue that) I suppose I'll eventually get a K-5 once they sort out some of the lately reported teething problems. Then again, I figured that selling all my current gear would provide me a nice shiny new FF camera with a 24-70 f/2.8 lens. Nothing wrong in playing with the thought, is there?

The A850 is a fine camera with very good colour & fantastic resolution. Don't worry about comments about dynamic range , they are not really a practical consideration. The FF has an excellent cropping ability which means that there are no worries about selective cropping.

It shines less at ISO's over 800 & has 3 fps which means that some other cameras are better suited to sports shooting but for landscapes & other regular shots is more than adequate. It still has one of the best VFs around which makes it a pleasure to use.
--
Keith-C

I'd say newer sensors are different, and maybe also better.





Yes , the slt-a55 is clean, but where is all the details that the C shows?

Without having them, the a-700, 850 and 900 seems to be leaning more towards detail than the newer cameras which seems to be terrified about noise, no matter what else we loose inte the cleaning process.

I've seen similar picture where I would choose the a-700 picture any time of the day, because of detail handling.

--
Cheers
Erland

m_appeal said:

m_appeal said:

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".

Click to expand...

"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

Click to expand...

One may think that a 16mp APS-C camera can outresolve a 12mp FF. That is not correct. That is because of a phenomenon known as diffraction. At f/11, the maximum resolution an APS-C sensor can resolve is 7mp because of diffraction, regardless of how many pixels are on the sensor. The FF sensor can resolve a maximum of 16mp at f/11. Medium format can resolve even more at the same aperture. So, if you are shooting landscapes and stopping the lens down to f/11 for depth of field, you will get a maximum of 7mp maximum. You can see the lack of detail in a print.

Cheers.
--
Michel J

Michel J said:

Why “today”?

Click to expand...

Well, because the technology has evolved. An A850 is today the same camera it was a year ago in absolute terms, but not in relation to the whole camera field.

You could do it even cheaper with better quality by dropping the 24-70 in exchange for the legendary Maxxum 28-135... Now there's your landscape lens, at one fifth the price, and at a quality mark surpassed by no one... ever.

a900/850 with 28-135mm is an evil combo for a wide variety of situations. Throw a 50mm 1.4 in your pocket for low light.

Enjoy trimming the fat on your current system and getting stealthy with a hard core blue chip shooting experience like no other... and certainly like nothing CanNikon can come close to offering.

Rand47 said:

m_appeal said:

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.

Click to expand...

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..

Click to expand...

I'm with you on this. I think it can be seen even on the web. I don't buy into any "magic" or "mojo" etc. when it comes to anything in life really, but there's definitely something going on with FF that makes a big difference.

Are you sure it's detail rendering? That implies resolution?

I had started a thread awhile back trying to get to the bottom of the issue, but didn't really get any solid answers. I started the thread because I don't believe it's "magic" and there's got to be a proven technical explanation. To me, it's more like the "3D" effect you hear people mention.

Trust me, I'm a big skeptic, but I encourage anyone who doubts it to go check the best APS-C output against FF. There are plenty of people who can't see it, but there's plenty of people who think random cat, duck and squirrel pics are something to ooh and aahh about as well.

I sure hope so, I just bought a second one.
Dave
--
davidsdigitalphotography.com

You haven't stated why you feel you need a FF camera.

If you simply want better DR, resolution and low light performance, then the K5 will knock the pants off your *ist or K100D or whatever Pentax you own from three generations ago. Even a K-x would be a huge step up.

You mentioned that you "don't make a cent from photography?" Which implies you are on some sort of budget, since this is only a hobby.

Do you realize that once you get a FF camera you will next need FF lenses?

Pentax makes some very nice cameras and lenses, and so does Sony. I just think it would be foolish to switch from one to the other without a pressing need to do so.

And I don't use either system, so I have no horse in this race.
--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/
Olympus E-30
Olympus E-P1

Anastigmat said:

One may think that a 16mp APS-C camera can outresolve a 12mp FF. That is not correct. That is because of a phenomenon known as diffraction. At f/11, the maximum resolution an APS-C sensor can resolve is 7mp because of diffraction, regardless of how many pixels are on the sensor. The FF sensor can resolve a maximum of 16mp at f/11. Medium format can resolve even more at the same aperture. So, if you are shooting landscapes and stopping the lens down to f/11 for depth of field, you will get a maximum of 7mp maximum. You can see the lack of detail in a print.

Click to expand...

If you want to make seemingly silly statements, you should provide some links in support, or at least go into some detail outlining your personal anecdotal evidence. Otherwise, people might think you flutter around the various forums dispensing FUD.

The following is my anecdotal rebuttal, but my observations closely parallel Bob Atkins ( http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/diffraction.html ).

While I agree that diffraction is a factor, my own personal observations don't agree with yours. I regularly print images from my a850 at 16" x 24" on my Epson 3800. While I normally limit aperture to f/11 for my landscapes, I see little degradation at f/16. By f/22, things are starting to become noticably soft. Generally speaking, the performance of my a700 is about 1-1.5 stops of the a850. I don't normally exceed f/8, and f/16 is the limit.

Your generalization doesn't factor in lens variations (a good lens will have better sharpness than an average lens), different COF between manufacturers, or any post processing to increase mid-range contrast or sharpening. The ppi. of the image sent to printer, the paper and profile used and the general skill of the print-maker will influence the final print far more than diffraction encountered between f/8 and f/16 (on a Sony fullframe).

--
Regards,
Graham

'I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed.' -Garry Winogrand

I'd agree that image deterioration due to diffraction is sometimes over emphasised but it is also worth reiterating that not all lenses are equal when it comes to diffraction issues
--
Keith-C

euphotos said:

But while they're not the peak of high ISO, according to DxO Mark they still exceed the new batch of APS-C cameras in this regard.

Click to expand...

Dxo Mark isn't some holy grail. I would take the latest APS-C over A850/A900 for high ISO if that's what I wanted to shoot.

Graham Best said:

Anastigmat said:

One may think that a 16mp APS-C camera can outresolve a 12mp FF. That is not correct. That is because of a phenomenon known as diffraction. At f/11, the maximum resolution an APS-C sensor can resolve is 7mp because of diffraction, regardless of how many pixels are on the sensor. The FF sensor can resolve a maximum of 16mp at f/11. Medium format can resolve even more at the same aperture. So, if you are shooting landscapes and stopping the lens down to f/11 for depth of field, you will get a maximum of 7mp maximum. You can see the lack of detail in a print.

Click to expand...

If you want to make seemingly silly statements, you should provide some links in support, or at least go into some detail outlining your personal anecdotal evidence. Otherwise, people might think you flutter around the various forums dispensing FUD.

Click to expand...

Ad hominem is so childish.

Graham Best said:

The following is my anecdotal rebuttal, but my observations closely parallel Bob Atkins ( http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/diffraction.html ).

While I agree that diffraction is a factor, my own personal observations don't agree with yours. I regularly print images from my a850 at 16" x 24" on my Epson 3800. While I normally limit aperture to f/11 for my landscapes, I see little degradation at f/16. By f/22, things are starting to become noticably soft. Generally speaking, the performance of my a700 is about 1-1.5 stops of the a850. I don't normally exceed f/8, and f/16 is the limit.

Your generalization doesn't factor in lens variations (a good lens will have better sharpness than an average lens), different COF between manufacturers, or any post processing to increase mid-range contrast or sharpening. The ppi. of the image sent to printer, the paper and profile used and the general skill of the print-maker will influence the final print far more than diffraction encountered between f/8 and f/16 (on a Sony fullframe).

--
Regards,
Graham

Click to expand...

Diffraction is independent of optical excellence. In fact, the figures I cited assumes a perfect lens without any aberrations. So, if you use an APS-C model, expect to get less than 7mp at f/11 in real world applications. So, your testimony is subjective and it shows ignorance of real scientific facts.

BTW, here is the link:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml

Go to table 3, column "APS-C, w=.55 micron" and row f/11. The figure underlined is 7, as in 7mp. Numbers don't lie. For a full frame the maximum resolution is 16, and for a medium format sensor, the figure improves to 31mp.

I hope so, since I just bought one (for a very good price). I have to admit that I only did so because I believe it now looks very likely that Sony will continue developing full frame cameras, and that we will perhaps even have one in 2011 (a900 then becomes second camera).

BTW I am a professional who has heretofore used Canon. My 5D is worn out (shutter is beginning to "stick" after 250,000+ actuations), and I am not wild about the MK II as an all-around choice. It could be that I am just bored, and need the jolt of a new system.

So far, so good. JPEGs from Sony are not good (but I don't like Canon either), particularly above ISO 200, but RAW files are great, and I only shoot RAW anyway. Color is great. Texture is great. Sony has a more film-like look, has creamy highlights (think cotton, to Canon's vinyl).

The camera body is a thing a of beauty - grip too. And any gripes about lens line-up is misplaced - especially with new 24mm Zeiss. We need a new 35mm f1.4 Zeiss (I'd even take f2), but otherwise what's missing? The exotic telephotos (longer than 300mm f2.8), but these are very specialized products that have nothing to do with the way I work - they are for sports and wildlife, really, and the a900 is not for either of those.

euphotos said:

Michel J said:

Why “today”?

Click to expand...

Well, because the technology has evolved. An A850 is today the same camera it was a year ago in absolute terms, but not in relation to the whole camera field.

Click to expand...

The full frame "camera field" is exactly the same now as when the a850 (or for that matter, the a900) was introduced. The only "new" full frame introduce since the a900's introduction is the Nikon D3s.

--
Regards,
Graham

'I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed.' -Garry Winogrand

Why do people who keep posting these crops not see that?

Henrik 1881 said:

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.

Click to expand...

From what I have seen/read/heard, the K-5 would be a pretty darned good way to go.

Yes, there is the "draw" of FF, and the Sony 850/900 give good bang for the buck, but

if you get a K-5 without the stain problem (which some of them seem to have), you
most likely would be very happy.

Still, if you are determined to go the FF way, the Sony choice is pretty good at ISO800

and lower..... especially with the latest firmware upgrade. I have seen some exceedingly

superb images with great dynamic range... which is one of the draws of the Sony choices.
The great viewfinder, especially the A900's, is second to none.

--
Gil
Sardis, BC
Canada

I wholeheartedly agree about the film-like look. That was the first thing that struck me when I saw the first shots from the a900. Could be due to the anti-aliasing filter (I read something about this somewhere), combined with the FF narrow DOF. I have an a700 I used for years and just bought the a900 - and I'm absolutely amazed. I KNOW that it's not a king at high ISO - that has been discussed to death. But it has a certain quality that makes me think about - film. Sort of vinyl vs CD. I also bought it even though I probably NEVER are going to print big posters...but I can see better details even at downsized web photos. This is a camera designed for shooting ART, if I may say so. I think it will be a classic - the next FF from Sony will probably come with video, LV, GPS etc. - things that I can do fine without. THAT'S why I bought it now, before it's getting sold out.

This is my non-scientific opinion...and hopefully, I soon will get some time to also USE the camera

--Poul

Jamie Watts said:

I hope so, since I just bought one (for a very good price). I have to admit that I only did so because I believe it now looks very likely that Sony will continue developing full frame cameras, and that we will perhaps even have one in 2011 (a900 then becomes second camera).

BTW I am a professional who has heretofore used Canon. My 5D is worn out (shutter is beginning to "stick" after 250,000+ actuations), and I am not wild about the MK II as an all-around choice. It could be that I am just bored, and need the jolt of a new system.

So far, so good. JPEGs from Sony are not good (but I don't like Canon either), particularly above ISO 200, but RAW files are great, and I only shoot RAW anyway. Color is great. Texture is great. Sony has a more film-like look, has creamy highlights (think cotton, to Canon's vinyl).

The camera body is a thing a of beauty - grip too. And any gripes about lens line-up is misplaced - especially with new 24mm Zeiss. We need a new 35mm f1.4 Zeiss (I'd even take f2), but otherwise what's missing? The exotic telephotos (longer than 300mm f2.8), but these are very specialized products that have nothing to do with the way I work - they are for sports and wildlife, really, and the a900 is not for either of those.

Click to expand...