Photoclubalpha

From my personal experience when i had the a900 for 3 days, i'd say it tends to underexpose about 1 EV...but NOT always, wich is frustating because you can't even dial constantly +1EV to compesate for this ... this in Matrix Metering mode...just like it says in a couple of reviews like in LL, Camera...

Maybe the A900 is just biased towards preserving highlights, it might do an exposure range evaluation of a situation and expose to try and save most of the brightest object in the exposure, figuring that things can be lifted/adjusted in PP. Greg But doing that increases the noise ...underexposed im...

Yeah...he really likes the a900. Seems to like it more than the Canon 8) Curiously he mentions also the Underexpose tendency that i noticed/ really disliked about the a900 (it thinks it works better in central /spot modes) ... but he uses +1EV always ??? :o Hum... When Sony (hope they do it fast...)...

Another Raw Comparison between the BIG 3 :

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/revie ... hree.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What's a bit funny about this is the fact that Sony claimed that a700 V4 was a result of a900 development. It's does seem just a wee bit peculiar, eh? :o -Sonolta not "peculiar" but really more "definetly weird" than anything else :cry: I wonder if some people "with Connect...

yeah....but they improved the a700...so they can take the "know how" they adquired, and apply it on the a900 i think...that considering that the a900 sensor is kinda similar in "architecture terms" to the a700 ... wich may be or not... The a900 is already out for a couple of mont...

But now the question, since the machine is out already for a couple of months ...is what Sony is thinking about this and when (1 year ???) / if they will do something Firmware wise to improve this ...

check this RAW comparison :

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E5D2/E5D2RAW.HTM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

at low ISOs it's pretty similar...maybe the d3x is a bit sharper and somewhat "vivid" but it's not a Huge diffenrence ...the lens could also provide a part on this ... not a 5000 us$ difference in my opinion. But of course at this level a small improvment will always cost more :) Regarding...

Well i have seen mention of the "new firmware for the a900" in a couple of foruns, but until now, nothing... What puzzles me, like DK said, is that nikon can deliver better images using the same (or similar) Sony sensor than sony itself...i mainly shoot RAW, so JPEGs are no big deal /impor...

Hi , i found thgis review : http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/camera/review/179/page_2.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Maybe this might explain why some people included myself, have mentioned that the a900 tends to produce Darker or Underexposed images than the a700 with ...

First of all thank you for all your answers and looking into this :D Anyway like i said in Dyxum "Anyway... i returned the a900 (i was under the Trial Period ) due to this "problems" ... In retrospective.... what you guys said about Light Falloff maybe due to Lens (70-300G the lens i ...

http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/5624/sony-alpha-900-camera-test.html Whatever the cause is, it's being mentioned in the reviews (cameralabs and now PopPhoto) "But that also means that it tends to underexpose" . From what they say i believe that's related to using Wide Metering ? The review...

Check this comparison between the a700 vs a900 (maybe he used JPEGs i don't know) : http://anandtech.com/digitalcameras/showdoc.aspx?i=3442&p=5 Once again the a900 is darker (underexposed???) than the a700 (or is it a White Balance issue ?? hum...) , maybe this explains the result (or used JPEG ...

"With the 70-300mm G SSM, there is at least one stop in density increase to the outer zone of the image. It has quite strong vignetting. The 24-70mm Zeiss has sharp corner vignetting but otherwise should have an even response. " Hum...is the 70-300 that bad in a FF body ? :roll: So to simp...