Do I really need an a900?

[Mr_Canuck]

With the unavoidable buzz about the rumoured imminent release of the FF a850, I'm asking myself, should I go full-frame?

I re-read DK's article "Do you really need an a900?" and the apparent compromises of upgrading don't seem to apply to me.

Most of my glass is quality legacy Minolta full-frame. I don't shoot much at over iso1000 on my a700. And I didn't feel the a900 was that much larger in feel than the a700 when I held it at a camera shop recently. I shoot a lot of portraits and landscapes and tend toward the artistic. I have ample computer power and storage space.

My main considerations with Full-frame are the larger viewfinder and making better use of the outer edge of my nice Minolta lenses. I also like the concept of actually shallower depth of focus. I shoot with the likes of 35/2, 50macro, 100/2, 28-135 and 200apo.

Somebody who has an a900... please tell me, is it THAT much better than the a700 in use?

[David Kilpatrick]

Yes. I'm afraid that the A900 has won all mental battles about what to take when travelling. I kept my A350 thinking it would be so much easier to do travel shoots with that. Six months with the A900, and no such thoughts. A few things have changed - I started out using the 28-105mm, but I have switched to the 28-75mm D because of the considerably more accurate focusing. The 70-200mm range, which I never really liked on the A700, turns out to suit me well on the A900. And although I got a Sigma 12-24mm, I actually like using the 17-35mm D much more, and I have found that the A900 full frame creates a really good de-fisheyed wide angle from a 16mm fisheye.

David

[SLUFDRIVER]

For me, after shooting with the A700 for just a bit over 1 year, I had the opportunity to use an A900 and was immediatly enamoured of the camera. I also read David's piece debating the personal need vs want of the A900 and after agonizing for some time, I made the jump. Yes, I did need to swap out a lens or two, but by selling the DT format units I was able to defray some of the cost. I have found myself using the A900 more and actually looking for reasons to shoot simply for the pleasure of viewing the results. Yes, it can be heavy when certain pieces of glass are hung onto it, but I seem to forget that when afield. In short, in no way do I regret moving to the A900.

[destrianlives]

No what the counter argument will be... I really believe that the A900 offers the highest image quality in the A mount to date. Also speaking of needing an A900... is it me or is there some real reason that bandhphotovideo.com is all out of stock of the A900... dont tell me the rumors are totally true that the A850 will replace the A900!hiccup! Good and bad.... just tell Sony to release a 6fps A950 thats an R sensor and collects 16 raw images on a single burst with wifi! Screw VIDEO!hiccup!

[braeside]

At first I thought I would miss the A700 and 16-80 ZA, as this was a perfect range for me on walk about. The 24-70 ZA seemed rather short at the long end at first, until I realised that with 24Mp I could still crop a lot and get a very useable shot on the A900 at 70mm. I have a 28-105mm for lightweight use if I want.

I have also got a Tamron 17-35mm which works so well that I no longer lust over the expensive and heavy 16-35mm ZA. I find the 17-35 is better than the Sony 11-18mm I used on the A700, much less CA and the centre is very sharp, the corners are also good if well stopped down (f/11).

I managed to get an almost new 135/1.8 ZA at a good price and that really shines on the A900. Only annoyance is that mine has now started to suffer from the loose front ring problem that has been reported by so many others. It doesn't affect optical quality fortunately.

Lastly, I recently replaced my Sony 70-300G, (which was excellent on the A700 but showed some deficiencies on FF), with the huge silver Sony 70-400G. I will use this mainly for wildlife where I need the longer reach, this is the one place where a high pixel density APS-C camera would make more sense.

Having micro-focus AF adjust in the A900 has been a great benefit, saves having to return cameras and lenses for AF re-calibration or use DIY screw adjustments that may invalidate warranties.

There is no going back to APS-C for me, though I would still like a decent small digital camera for my pocket. Something like the Olympus Pen but with an optical VF, as I just cannot abide having to hold a camera at arm's length to compose a photo.

[artington]

While the a700 is a fantastic camera, particularly for long shots, the a900 has been a revelation. My a700 has seen little use since I bought one and my Dynax 7s are now boxed - I suppose i should sell them but I sense they may become collectable some day, such is their quality and innovation.

Comparing the a900 with the a700, the first thing which hit me was image quality - the resolution uplift is quite noticeable and the latter is no slouch in this category.

Next, the ability to use good wide angle lenses. I recently splashed out on a 10 year old Minolta 17-35G and on a holiday last week in the Loire it was the only lens in the bag which was used, staying on the camera for the whole trip! In Dartmouth a few weeks ago I used this lens to get a wide view over the River Dart to Kingswear and was astounded at the resolution of the houses over the river on 100% crop. I reckon a good telephoto might have let me see inside the windows had I wished!

I have found that a900 jpgs in fine / superfine mode pretty well obviate the need for RAW although on a trip RAW is better for me because they load on my HyperDrive Colorspace UDSM much more rapidly than dense jpgs.

Strong contrast situations can fool the metering but that's a given for all cameras. I found the a900 really came into its own with the 17mm end of the zoom inside dimly let properties, like Tours Cathedral, with the SSS allowing exposures of 1/15 or less with comfort.

Finally, the beautifully clear 100% viewfinder really does mean that you can use this camera more like a range-finder than an SLR from the perspective of framing shots where there is activity outside the frame by keeping both eyes open - one for "extra-frame" activity and the other for the v/f. I found this particularly handy when photographing my son playing tennis a few weeks ago, even with a 300mm lens.

This is really an easy choice for any enthusiast lucky enough to have good legacy Minolta glass as the price is bargain basement for full frame digital. The only real caveat is that it does need said good glass to live up to its potential. The only factor which might make one hesitate now is the possibility of a FF 850, largely similar except for cutting back on continuous shot speed, as I really don't need this. However, unknowns such as spec, price and launch mean that there is really not much point in hanging around - life is too short and I doubt the saving would be moire than a couple of hundred or so.

[Mr_Canuck]

Next, the ability to use good wide angle lenses...

Of course, you mention the only range where I don't have a good FF lens, wide angle. This could get expensive...

Anyone have any experience using the Minolta 28-135 with the a900? That would be my default walk-around zoom. I've found it to be pretty amazing (minus the flare issues) on the a700.

[Mark K]

I have had my 2nd A700 for three months now, while awaiting anxiously for the A900's price to come down. I believe I need an A900 badly

[Winston]

I'm not convinced yet. But then I haven't had the misfortune of seeing one or looking through its viewfinder. I am also not prepared to give up the extreme convenience of having two identical bodies.

Can someone tell me how similar the A900 view is to that of an X-700? I imagine they are nearly the same.

[David Kilpatrick]

The A900 is better than the X-700 mainly because the focusing screen does not have such a strong effect, and there is no trace of fresnel rings. It looks most like the Dynax 9, or the XM with some magic extra bright screen that did not exist then.

It's a truly exceptional finder. The low distortion and CA correction of the eyepiece make a difference which goes beyond the magnification specs, and it is 25% brighter than any other finder made - ever.

David

[Winston]

Thanks, David. I'm truly sorry to hear that! How is it for the optically challenged? I wear glasses.

I can't see an A900 locally but I can look at Canikons. For viewfinder comparison purposes, which model would be most similar to the A900?

[Tom F]

One look through the viewfinder is what hooked me. It took almost a year but I now have my A900.

[David Kilpatrick]

Try a Canon 1Ds MkIII for the viewfinder comparison. It is a very slightly larger view (by a percent or two in scale) and slightly less bright, but similarly large and clear.

David

[Birma]

One look through the viewfinder is what hooked me. It took almost a year but I now have my A900.

A big welcome to Tom F. Glad to know that you are hooked and also now on Photoclublapha. Is that "hook, line and sinker"? I am sure you will enjoy your time here, ands I am sure we are all looking forward to some A900 pictures of Indiana.

[Dr. Harout]

BTW, why on earth aren't we answering straight to the original question: do I really need an A900.
IMHO, the answer should be:

Option #1:
No, as APS-C is satisfactory for all my needs, but still I need it to sleep well, and I'm saying no just because I can't afford it yet, or the wife won't let me buy it

Option #2:
Yes, yes and yes, I need it photographically and spiritually/mentally.

So, summing it we have a "Yes"