Did Sony make a mistake: A900 no built in flash?

bfitzgerald · Unread postby **bfitzgerald** » Sat May 30, 2009 1:34 pm

Enjoy! Be interesting to see how folks feel about this.

Feel free to add comments, a simple yes or no on this one..
The main argument for the flash built in is of course acting as a wireless controller.

Javelin · Unread postby **Javelin** » Sat May 30, 2009 2:06 pm

I think their mistake was not releasing some other trigger mechanism to go with it. not so much that they didn't put a flash on the camera. If it was going to be a studio camera they missed an opertunity to be a little more innovative and have the thing integrate with regular studio lighting equipment. with RF or infra red or whbatever. i'm sure there was 100 other things they could have done.

bakubo · Unread postby **bakubo** » Sat May 30, 2009 3:14 pm

Back in 1991 when the Minolta Maxxum/Dynax 7xi came out with a built-in flash I was initially skeptical about it, although I went ahead and bought one. Since that time I have come to like having one in the body though since it is great when you need just a touch of fill-flash outdoors and it can act as the wireless flash controller. Every FSLR/DSLR that I have bought since that 7xi has had one. Back in the early 1990s when I started to be for having them included I was pretty lonely because many other people opposed them. Lots of controversy when Minolta included one in the 9. Personally, I would like the A900 better if it had one and that is one of the reasons I have not bought one. For the way I photograph I want to minimize size and weight and always having to carry a flash just for the rare occasions I want a bit of fill-flash would be a no-go for me. Maybe if there is a FF A800 that includes a flash and is a bit smaller, lighter, and cheaper then I would consider it.

Having said all that, I don't consider it necessarily a mistake not to have one in the A900. There are lots of luddites out there who bristle at *any* innovation.....until they too start to use it and like it (color, TTL metering, AF, digital, etc.) and then they turn their attention to bristle at something else.

Dr. Harout · Unread postby **Dr. Harout** » Sat May 30, 2009 9:06 pm

I think future cameras will tell if right or wrong. E.g. if future flagship would be with flash then A900 not having a built in flash was a mistake and vice versa.
Somehow I think those future flagships will not have one, but instead an infrared or something similar will be triggering off camera flashes :roll:

01af · Unread postby **01af** » Sun May 31, 2009 12:52 am

What'd you rather have?

An extraordinarily clear and bright viewfinder with a glass prism, a condensor lens between focusing screen and prism for near-perfect illumination, and distortion-free coverage of virtually 100 % at 0.74× magnification?

Or a built-in flash?

-- Olaf

bakubo · Unread postby **bakubo** » Sun May 31, 2009 1:01 am

01af wrote:What'd you rather have?

An extraordinarily clear and bright viewfinder with a glass prism, a condensor lens between focusing screen and prism for near-perfect illumination, and distortion-free coverage of virtually 100 % at 0.74× magnification?

Or a built-in flash?

I would rather have the built-in flash. Others may go the other way.

Javelin · Unread postby **Javelin** » Sun May 31, 2009 1:17 am

<groan> I was going to write that i'd rather have the flash but that VF on the A900 would be a huge sacrifice. I already have a hard time detecting the sharp focus area on my A700 as it is, and am coveting the VF on the A900 and it's user change focus screens. So in thinking about this now, I think I would actualy give up my A700's flash for the A900 VF and be pretty happy with it. I have flashes, but even if I didn't, I think I wouldn't have a problem buying the HVL-25am if I had to to keep the VF

pakodominguez · Unread postby **pakodominguez** » Sun May 31, 2009 1:23 am

01af wrote:What'd you rather have?

An extraordinarily clear and bright viewfinder with a glass prism, a condensor lens between focusing screen and prism for near-perfect illumination, and distortion-free coverage of virtually 100 % at 0.74× magnification?

Or a built-in flash?

-- Olaf

The 100% viewfinder AND the HVL-F20AM as part of the package.
;-)

bakubo · Unread postby **bakubo** » Sun May 31, 2009 1:24 am

Javelin wrote:<groan> I was going to write that i'd rather have the flash but that VF on the A900 would be a huge sacrifice. I already have a hard time detecting the sharp focus area on my A700 as it is, and am coveting the VF on the A900 and it's user change focus screens. So in thinking about this now, I think I would actualy give up my A700's flash for the A900 VF and be pretty happy with it. I have flashes, but even if I didn't, I think I wouldn't have a problem buying the HVL-25am if I had to to keep the VF

Seems like you are making a false choice. Having a built-in flash on a FF DSLR doesn't mean, I think, that the only choice would be an A700 vf. I suspect there could be a vf that is in between the A900 and A700 and much closer to the A900 one. Take a look at a Minolta Maxxum/Dynax 9 or Nikon D700 vf -- FF with built-in flash. They are not even close to an A700 vf.

Javelin · Unread postby **Javelin** » Sun May 31, 2009 3:08 am

AHHH! but Olaf didn't offer me option 3 just one or the other.. of course I would have both if available. would I pay for both.. well I guess I would if I would buy the HVL-20am flash.

/me sits back and wait patiently for Sony to come out with a LV DLSR with.... no viewfinder at all.

Whassat? Did Barry just fall off his barstool?

KevinBarrett · Unread postby **KevinBarrett** » Sun May 31, 2009 3:12 am

I use wireless flash triggering from time to time, but I use the viewfinder ALL of the time. If I could spend $500 to upgrade my a700 into having a OVF equivalent to the a900's, I'd do it. That the a900 starts with a perfect viewfinder and can control flashes wirelessly for either $130 or $500 more (depending on your demands), I am sorely envious.

bakubo · Unread postby **bakubo** » Sun May 31, 2009 3:35 am

KevinBarrett wrote:I use wireless flash triggering from time to time, but I use the viewfinder ALL of the time. If I could spend $500 to upgrade my a700 into having a OVF equivalent to the a900's, I'd do it. That the a900 starts with a perfect viewfinder and can control flashes wirelessly for either $130 or $500 more (depending on your demands), I am sorely envious.

You are in heaven then. The A900 with everything you desire has been available for months! No waiting for you!

KevinBarrett · Unread postby **KevinBarrett** » Sun May 31, 2009 3:45 am

bakubo wrote:You are in heaven then. The A900 with everything you desire has been available for months! No waiting for you!

Ah well, not EVERYTHING...too many megapixels and not enough main sensor liveview. Besides, in heaven I'd have $2700 earmarked for a new camera body. I am most definitely not in that heaven.

peterottaway · Unread postby **peterottaway** » Sun May 31, 2009 8:03 am

The A900 doesn't need a built in flash as long as Sony provides decent controllers that don't require photo enthusiasts to take out a second mortage to get one.

I say controllers as I don't see any need in a general purpose controller to include an ability to manage a studio flash system. However if you produce cameras that will attract pro buyers I think there is an obligation to produce a controller that does or arrange for a third party to do so for you.

jcoffin · Unread postby **jcoffin** » Sun May 31, 2009 2:37 pm

01af wrote:What'd you rather have?

An extraordinarily clear and bright viewfinder with a glass prism, a condensor lens between focusing screen and prism for near-perfect illumination, and distortion-free coverage of virtually 100 % at 0.74× magnification?

Or a built-in flash?

-- Olaf

If I'm forced into a choice, I'd pick the viewfinder. A flash can be added easily, but you can't do much to improve the viewfinder after the fact.

Photoclubalpha