Sony Alpha A900 Digital SLR

	$2660	Buy now
	$2699	Buy now

Name withheld

Tony Walker

8:20 PM on 19 June, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Tony Walker. Show Details Hide Details

Can you not bittorrent the files?

0

Score:

Name withheld

lifethroughalens

8:53 PM on 19 June, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore lifethroughalens. Show Details Hide Details

Good review :)

I have seen a few wedding snappers adopting these Sony's...for some reason or another. However I have to say that as a snapper myself, I find Sony's cameras ergonomically challenged and lacking in most areas where Canon and Nikon excel. Plus - they are VERY ugly cameras!

At the end of the day the camera is more or less irrelevant in all but the most specific of tasks, especially when they get to this spec level and image size / quality...it's ALL about glass. And Sony just don't have anywhere near the critical mass of lenses required to seriously challenge the big players, yet. But their continued involvement with Zeiss means they are on to good things.

Another point is the Noise of the Sony ain't too hot above 800 iso compared to say a 5D MK2 / D700 / D3 / D3x. Sony need to work on this.

Maybe in another 5 years they might be a consideration for some pro-snappers, in the mean time they are a serious contender for non-pro use and can only get better. One to keep an eye on :)

0

Score:

Name withheld

Darfuria

12:08 AM on 20 June, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Darfuria. Show Details Hide Details

I wondered where Cliff had run off to!

0

Score:

Name withheld

ericinoz

10:07 AM on 20 June, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore ericinoz. Show Details Hide Details

As an ex Nikon D2x owner and now a Sony A900 owner I do not find the A900 ergonomically challenged. In fact using the Fn button and the joystick to change the most used parameters is quick and easy. The only thing I miss is a decent histogram. I found the review to be well balanced and accurate. I always shoot RAW so do not use DRO, I believe that unless you shoot RAW you are missing a lot of the A900's capabilities.

0

Score:

Name withheld

Lee Marshall

12:42 AM on 21 June, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Lee Marshall. Show Details Hide Details

"It would suit any advanced enthusiast or a professional who wants a lighter alternative to a D3x or EOS-1D."

I agree it would suit any advanced enthusiast, but a pro? A pro will already be tied into a system, probably either Canon or Nikon. Also I can see how this is an alternative to a D3x or a EOS 1DS but a 1D? Seriously? Your typical 1D owner uses one because of it's incredibly fast speed, top draw tracking autofocus and virtual indestructibility. 5FPS is not fast (compared to a 1D or D3) and I seriously doubt it would look virtually brand new as my 1D does with over 600,000 shots recorded.

0

Score:

Name withheld

smc8788

10:27 AM on 21 June, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore smc8788. Show Details Hide Details

@ Lee Marshall

Any 'pro' has to start somewhere, so they do not necessarily have to be tied into either the Canon or Nikon system. Anyone looking to turn professional *now* will look at it on even ground with the Canon and Nikon models. This is particularly the case if they are a previous KM owner with a collection of Minolta AF mount lenses.

0

Score:

Name withheld

Digital Fury

1:26 PM on 21 June, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Digital Fury. Show Details Hide Details

Nice to see bodies other that Canon and Nikon being reviewed - I can appreciate that. However there's no way this A900 deserves these kind of scores, unless you rate Canon's 1D series and Nikon's D3s as 11/10 or better. I use a 1D Mark III myself, and there no way any "pro" would settle for things like a 9 points (+assisted) AF system - which covers only a small part of the frame, such a bad high ISO performance or very limited weatherproofing; you can shoot in a tropical forest or a dusty savanna with a 1D (or even with the new 5D Mark II in a more limited fashion).

I'm not a pro, I don't make a living out of it, but shooting in bad lighting conditions @1600 (or worst) is often required unless you do only portraits and landscapes. The A900 @ISO 800 is already unacceptable at this price range.

Which brings me to the subject of pricing and that value rating of 9, it should actually be a 7 or 8 at best.

It's priced sky-high and I checked the price of that Sony 24-70mm f/2.8, it's several 100s of € (like 400 or 500€ more in my area) more expensive than Canon already highly acclaimed and expensive 24-70mm f/2.8 !

What's wrong with Sony?

0

Score:

Name withheld

Lee Marshall

7:01 PM on 21 June, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Lee Marshall. Show Details Hide Details

@smc8788

Would have to disagree there unless they already have a very large range of Minolta equipment. Sony has nowhere near the amount of lenses, flashes and other equipment a pro uses. If a wannabe pro chooses Sony as there first pro camera they will be disappointed in the long term. Also something for the fledgling pro to consider is public/client perception. A lot of people consider Canon/Nikon to be "the" cameras which pro's use and don't consider that Sony (a general consumer electronics company) to have the appropriate experience to make pro quality cameras.

0

Score:

Name withheld

Ed

10:22 AM on 22 June, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Ed. Show Details Hide Details

@Lee Marshall: Most of the public don't know one end of an SLR from another. Their perception is utterly meaningless. They just want good photos. Also, in terms of branded kit that works specifically with one or other brand of camera (i.e. lenses, flashes, Sony has plenty enough compared to Nikon and Canon.

I think the key argument for this not being suitable for a pro is simply that if photography is your profession you're not going to care about the cost of the camera (within reason) in which case you're likely to go for the likes of a 1D or D3x.

@Digital Fury: As Cliff points out, all other fullframe DLSRs are much more expensive than the A900. While it may not compete with those higher end models, it doesn't need to consdiering that price different.

By no means am I saying it's perfect but if you just want the best pictures for the money then it seems like a good bet.

0

Score:

Name withheld

LuisNeves

11:27 AM on 22 June, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore LuisNeves. Show Details Hide Details

@smc8788, What you have to say about SONY lidering the Broadcast, blockbuster and all PRO analog/digital Videocameras markets? Its a matter of time to dominate the DSLR also. Anyone think it doesnt have kno-whow to do that?...

0

Score:

Sony Alpha A900 Digital SLR - Features Table

Best prices for Sony Alpha A900 Digital SLR

Awards