Comments on: Do you really need an Alpha 900?

By: Puggs

Puggs — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:13:40 +0000

Great Article…

I got an A350 earlier this year and loved it, when i saw then a900 i also wanted one of those, but not at the orginal price. Then in October i seriously decided to get one. I tried all my lenses SAL16F28 SAL1680Z SAL70400G and all seem to work great. But at $AU3799 best price I still could not justify it, i was lucky to find one on eBay for $AU2200 just a few months old and when it arrived it had less than 500 clicks on it.

On my first shoot it was then i realised that the SAL1680Z is cropped to APS-C mode and there is no override. So i have a Minolta 24-105 AF D as a stop gap till sony brings out a 24-135Z.

As for the battery i have managed to shoot 650+ shots in one sitting (wedding) then a week later shoot another 200+ shots without a recharge. The battery was down to 1% and still managed to take a 5fps 10 frame burst before i turned it off, but i’m sure it could still take a few more.

Puggs

By: 12AMS

12AMS — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:49:48 +0000

Great article. Quite a bit to think about. One correction, however. You stated, “There never was such a lens as a 24-160mm* or a 42-450mm* for film…”, but the Tokina AT-X 24-200mm f3.5-5.6 was made in A-mount during film days. I have one right in front of me. Not a bad lens, not stellar, but not bad. Great walk-around lens.

Regards,
Rick

By: htalbert

htalbert — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 01:31:29 +0000

David – Appreciate the article and the numerous pros and cons. My a900 is in route and I was toying with the thought of parting with my 7D. I think I’ll try to find a way to keep for both formats for now, seeing that their may be some advantages the 7D can bring that the A900 can’t.

Cheers.

By: FramerDave

FramerDave — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 07:36:05 +0000

Good article and fair warning for those who are seduced by the power of the “bright” side.
I have been using Minolta since the first autofocus 9000 days (I resisted the 7000 and waited), my last film camera was the 7xi and jumped on the digital 7Hi 5 meg when it first came out.
I have enjoyed getting back into the SLR feel when Sony came out with the A100.
I thought I was getting an “upgrade” by getting the 900 but NOOOO. You are actually going for a full blown NEW system.(Think Sir Alec Guiness waving his Jedi hand)
You WILL put up with the cost and weight plus all the things Dave mentioned (but I must point out I am like Hobbitofny in my preference to shallow depth of field because my main subjects are people.
Dave obviously prefer living on the “wide” and scenic side.
You WILL let your alpha APS-C collect dust even when the 18-250 is SO convenient.
You WILL start to acquire 24-70 2.8, 70-200G 2.8 and the upcoming 17-35 2.8 once you realize what you saw through that magnificent viewfinder you can actually capture in high res file and if you have means to printers like the Epson 4880 or Canon ipf5100, you WILL make prints like Dave and remembered why you picked up that Canon A-1 or that Hasselblad 500C/M so many years ago.
I AM contemplating something like the Canon G10 on days when my shoulders refuse to co-operate but then again, this is the Alpha forum.

By: Hobbitofny

Hobbitofny — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 19:01:45 +0000

The one thing I miss about medium format is the shallow depth of field. I would not shoot the full frame A900 at stopped down more. I would leave it. Some subjects need the greater depth of field. However, when I photograph people, I prefer they are sharp and the background is not fully sharp. It tends to help the people standout in the photograph. The shorter depth of field is welcome for people. Now travel images of locations need more depth of field. So it is one less stop.

By: andyptak

andyptak — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 20:25:14 +0000

Excellent review as usual. I didn’t realise that a full frame sensor meant at least one stop less for shooting and that could make a differnence for me in deciding whether to upgrade from my A700, or not – depth of field and all of that.

My usual ISO is 200, if I used an A900 at ISO 400 to compensate, is the resulting shot still of superior quality to the A700? Thank you.

By: springm

springm — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 20:16:34 +0000

Ooh – I shouldn’t have read this… My lenses would match it, my back is still strong enough to carry it, my shooting style probably would match it…

Just for a hobbyist with a family I see no way to justify it. And therefore I will not take a look through the viewfinder.

Or will I?

By: Dr.Harout

Dr.Harout — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 17:30:14 +0000

Thank you David for this wonderful and important article.

By: braeside

braeside — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 13:56:34 +0000

Thanks David, just to clarify the Minolta 1800AF does not have a standard (non Minolta special) mount, but instead the first generation Minolta mount for the 7000 etc. I need to get hold of an FS-1100 (or possibly a HK clone).

By: admin

admin — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 13:16:13 +0000

Yes, the FS-1100 will trigger ISO mount flash. I tested it up to 1/250th, perfect. And guess what – I realised, after testing 1/320th and getting a slight edge shadow, that using the APS-C crop might just allow faster synchro-sun pix. It does. With a manual flash using crop mode 1.5X, you can sync safely at 1/400th of a second.

David