Sony's big gun....anyone been tempted?

Dave Wilkinson

Dave Wilkinson

Veteran
Local time
4:20 AM
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
2,289
Location
Hull, Yorkshire, U.K
View My Gallery
Sony's Alpha 850 ( and the 900 ) 24mp full-frame DSLR seems to me a viable alternative to the far more highly priced ff offerings from Nikon and Canon. I think that without the steadying hand of a good woman - I could easily be led into temptation on this one!, and keep telling myself that in a years time, the prce will be considerably lower!. Anyone taken the plunge yet? or seen some samples?......I wonder - is this the year that full-frame will become an affordable and plentifull option?.....I think it might - but IMO sadly only in SLR's.
Dave.
 
like you said, these are big guns. what would you use the camera for, birds or sports ? 😛

am hoping this year full frame become more common in smaller dSLR's than current 5D, D700 and Sony's.
 
Dave Wilkinson said:
Sony's Alpha 850 ( and the 900 ) 24mp full-frame DSLR seems to me a viable alternative to the far more highly priced ff offerings from Nikon and Canon. I think that without the steadying hand of a good woman - I could easily be led into temptation on this one!, and keep telling myself that in a years time, the prce will be considerably lower!. Anyone taken the plunge yet? or seen some samples?......I wonder - is this the year that full-frame will become an affordable and plentifull option?.....I think it might - but IMO sadly only in SLR's.
Dave.
Click to expand...

highly priced Canon?

Street prices in Germany: Sony A900 - 2200 EUR, Sony A850 - 1600 EUR, Canon 5D II - 2000 EUR.

All reviews say the A900 has a remarkable resolution but a noise issue beginning at ISO 400. Only thing I really like is the body stabilizer.
 
Thought never crossed my mind.

But, I got interested and read DPreview.com on the A900. That is, until I got to the part where it says 'frame coverage' 100%, magnification 74%.

Last DSLR I shot was a Nikon D300. Frame coverage 100%, magnification 94%. Now that was some camera.
 
CLE-RF said:
Thought never crossed my mind.

But, I got interested and read DPreview.com on the A900. That is, until I got to the part where it says 'frame coverage' 100%, magnification 74%.

Last DSLR I shot was a Nikon D300. Frame coverage 100%, magnification 94%. Now that was some camera.
Click to expand...

Read the conclusion: One of the best (biggest, brightest) optical viewfinders on the market, 100% frame coverage
 
The A900 is kinda noisy for digital, and although the body is cheaper, sure, but the lens is way more expensive. The pro-grade Sony lens anyway, is priced up there somewhere in the stratosphere. You can get more 2nd hand gear for Canon/Nikon, so you can save quite a bit in glass.
 
Concerning the viewfinder magnification: Yes the D300 has 94%, but when comparing to full frame you need to account for 1.5x factor so it ends up like 63% - that is the true magnification.
 
Last DSLR I shot was a Nikon D300. Frame coverage 100%, magnification 94%. Now that was some camera.
Click to expand...

94% of a small thing can be less than 74% of a big thing... The D300 has a 1.5x smaller sensor, works out the same size as a 0.64 mag full frame camera.
 
i have a bunch of old minolta lenses that i really like, so i've been looking seriously at the 900 - but then the 800 came out with almost identical features and about $700 less (i think).

the biggest complaint i've heard and read about the sony line is that relative to its competitors, they're noisy at high ISO. it's a pretty widely held opinion.

i'm waiting for them to correct that issue and then i'll pull the trigger.
 
Monz Ahmed said:
Didn't Amateur Photographer do a head to head between 5dmk2 and one of the Sony 24MP cameras last week? IIRC, both camera had an overall score of 81%.


EDIT It's the AP cover dated 16 Jan 2009:

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/magazine/current.php
Click to expand...
They did indeed - although I'm a afraid I've lost faith in a lot of magazine tests and reviews in recent years, they all seem to be afraid to upset their advertisers, and other biases seem to prevent an totally honest appraisal - just my two pennorth 🙂
Dave.
 
I have just had a look at these cameras in a shop (while I was waiting for my printer cartridges...) The Sony A900, Nikon D3 Canon MK something, plus the lenses - all this looked plastic, cheap, and hugely overdimensioned to be considered a camera one would like to seriously take around. For car driven cameras, probably Roger's Gandolfi 11x14 will beat them anyway in image quality... The first thought that crossed my mind when I was observing that, was that in 5 years time all these cameras will be melted into junk in some recycling plant.
 
mfogiel said:
I have just had a look at these cameras in a shop (while I was waiting for my printer cartridges...) The Sony A900, Nikon D3 Canon MK something, plus the lenses - all this looked plastic, cheap, and hugely overdimensioned to be considered a camera one would like to seriously take around. For car driven cameras, probably Roger's Gandolfi 11x14 will beat them anyway in image quality... The first thought that crossed my mind when I was observing that, was that in 5 years time all these cameras will be melted into junk in some recycling plant.
Click to expand...
They will - if you want them to be!....it seems we always return to the same old chestnut - " Do I just want to walk around with a piece of metallic precision engineering - around my neck".....or....."am I concerned with quality pictures taken efficiently". Of course "Roger's Gandolfi 11x14 will beat them anyway in image quality" - but by the time I had that set up - it would be dark again!. Yes - size is important, but even after a heart attack last year, and being nearly as old as god - I can still walk around with a Nikon F5 around my neck for a few hours before collapsing in the nearest bar room! 🙂
Dave.
 
I'm so... disappointed (for want of a more appropriate word) at the inability of so many people on this forum to accept the fact that others, myself included, can enjoy using modern 'cheap 'n nasty' plastic digital cameras, as well as trusty old metal examples of precision engineering. I seems that every new thread develops into film V.digital argument, or when will film die debate, there is also the increasing trend for 'pseudo-intellectual-psychological stuff' - and would-be professors - trying to out- do one another with multiple pages of boring nonsense, that establishes nothing. All in all - I think it's time I occupied more of my time in other directions - Hurrah! - I hear the cry!, but as Clarke Gable remarked - frankly my dear....I don't give a damn!
Dave.
 
Dave Wilkinson said:
I'm so... disappointed (for want of a more appropriate word) at the inability of so many people on this forum to accept the fact that others, myself included, can enjoy using modern 'cheap 'n nasty' plastic digital cameras, as well as trusty old metal examples of precision engineering. I seems that every new thread develops into film V.digital argument, or when will film die debate, there is also the increasing trend for 'pseudo-intellectual-psychological stuff' - and would-be professors - trying to out- do one another with multiple pages of boring nonsense, that establishes nothing. All in all - I think it's time I occupied more of my time in other directions - Hurrah! - I hear the cry!, but as Clarke Gable remarked - frankly my dear....I don't give a damn!
Dave.
Click to expand...
I share your disappointment Dave; it's a shame that there are some here that need constant self gratification at the cost of others.. I'd also feel sorry if that would make others give up on RFF..

Back on topic:
Considering the body price alone, the A850 is indeed tempting, although 1600 is still a bit steep. It also probably indicates that it's possible to make FF DSLRs at a lower price point still. Main obstacle for me would be the cost of changing brands. I've locked up too much in Nikon flashes and lenses to switch.. But if I were to start from scratch again, I'd certainly consider the A850.
 
The lens lineup of sony is a little bit disappointing, if you want to have fast prime lenses. Even the new zeiss manual focus lenses are not delivered with a sony mount.
 
Dave,
I just think these cameras are really ridiculously overdimensioned. If I had to take one, I would probably go for the Nikon D700 - it was the smallest, the plastic looked least ugly, and you can mount lots of great lenses on it, including Zeiss and CV.
 
Dave Wilkinson said:
I'm so... disappointed (for want of a more appropriate word) at the inability of so many people on this forum to accept the fact that others, myself included, can enjoy using modern 'cheap 'n nasty' plastic digital cameras, as well as trusty old metal examples of precision engineering. I seems that every new thread develops into film V.digital argument, or when will film die debate, there is also the increasing trend for 'pseudo-intellectual-psychological stuff' - and would-be professors - trying to out- do one another with multiple pages of boring nonsense, that establishes nothing. All in all - I think it's time I occupied more of my time in other directions - Hurrah! - I hear the cry!, but as Clarke Gable remarked - frankly my dear....I don't give a damn!
Dave.
Click to expand...

The assumption that non-metallic bodies are flimsy is incorrect. Many modern plastics are lighter, stronger and less prone to breakage than any metal used in old cameras.

If people like metal cameras, fair enough. But, to argue that non-metallic components can't be strong is wrong. Ask the people who make airplanes.

Besides, if we really wanted cameras that can't break when we drop them, we'd be lobbying for cameras encased in three inches of bouncy padding.
 
mfogiel said:
Dave,
I just think these cameras are really ridiculously overdimensioned. If I had to take one, I would probably go for the Nikon D700 - it was the smallest, the plastic looked least ugly, and you can mount lots of great lenses on it, including Zeiss and CV.
Click to expand...

What? D700 = small? It's bigger and more heavy than a 5D.
 
A lot of these high end DSLR's may have plastic exteriors but it normally surrounds a magnesium, or some type of composite alloy chassis, for thermal stability and rigidity.

They are well made and generally very reliable ... I don't see a problem here.

Not that I own one of course! 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom