A900 and D3X studio comparison

[KevinBarrett]

Lets suppose Sony suddenly introduced a camera that could match the performance of the Nikon D3x, ISO, noise, DR, at 14 bit A/D conversion, etc., even has the integrated vertical grip and SSS... we'll say it costs $8000

For how many of us would that camera actually make a difference? I know I couldn't hope to afford one until it was made obsolete by the a1000 (remember that one?).

[KevinBarrett]

Sony has little enough market share that they'd go bankrupt trying to offer as many cameras. Who knows which is the best way to get the market share they need to get competitive? Should they offer enough value that they gain a lot of beginners to grow in the Sony system? Or should they target the pros with an untouchable "halo" camera, hoping that the mass-market amateurs will flock to the system thinking "someday?" I think Sony is being competitive the best way they know how, given their market share and resources. It may be a long time before they have a whole system that is toe-to-toe with Canon or Nikon...I'm thinking 1-2 more flagship product cycles, being optimistic.

[KevinBarrett]

I stand corrected! I should have said "Sony's D-SLR division would get axed for decreased profitability if it spent enough on R&D to offer as many bodies as Nikon does." Sony the company has many more mouths to feed than D-SLRs.

[KevinBarrett]

Sony should be saving money and on the sensor, design, component, and other ends of the business beings they are deep into pro video and building sensors. This is an easy task for Sony...all they need to do is chart the right course. If that course is high MP pNs style cameras you can count me out real soon. I want more than just more MP alone.

-Sonolta

Here here!

[Greg Beetham]

Oith to Don, come in Don....put it this way, let's compare the $3000 FF Nikon with the $3000 FF Sony, when they build one that is...one day, and stop comparing an $8000 camera to a $3000 one, except of course if the A900 happens too be pretty good at taking photos anyway..ie in most "normal" use type photography you wouldn't know the difference, so it's actually a credit to the A900 that it's being compared to a camera that is nearly three times it's price.
Greg
ps. By the way the sensor pixel density of the FF Sony is about the same as the sensor in the A700....so I would'nt say the A900 is overloaded.

[Dusty]

I don't care...as I have shown numerous times the performance of the D700, the D3, and the 5DMkII, is better than the a900's in many imaging areas! Even the D90 is better than the a900 in a couple areas! Not to mention LV, video, feature sets, etc, etc...

I won't spend 8K but that's not the point. The point is the D3x is a great camera and Nikon has many great cameras designed for all types of shooters. The D90, the D300, the D700, the D3, and the D3X and others are all current! Unfortunately, realistically, many of us have only the a700 and the a900 to chose from...Wow, I'm thrilled. NOT!

-Sonolta

Well, Don, there's the problem. You want more features, you want more performance, you want everything except more price. You want the $8k camera, but you don't want to spend $8k on it, so you beat up Sony for 'not doing enough'! The feature sets and performance you want is all available....AT A PRICE. Get a clue, will you. I'm not, and I don't believe anyone else here, is saying that Sony makes the greatest cameras around. I am saying that the money spent for Sony DSLRs brings you more bank for the buck than the others do.

Dusty

[Dusty]

Notice the D90 and the D700 are selling well amoung the lower end entries (and the D300) ...One is a great FF camera and the other is an excellent camera with LV, HD video and high DR. Sony needs to at least match or better those two offerings...More MP alone ain't gonna get it done.

-Sonolta

Note how the A350 is outselling all of those. Even with no video capability and those lousy Sony feature sets, the higher MP camera is beating your favorites. Damn that buying public, buying what they want instead of what you want them to!

Dusty

[Dusty]

Sony has little enough market share that they'd go bankrupt trying to offer as many cameras. Who knows which is the best way to get the market share they need to get competitive? Should they offer enough value that they gain a lot of beginners to grow in the Sony system? Or should they target the pros with an untouchable "halo" camera, hoping that the mass-market amateurs will flock to the system thinking "someday?" I think Sony is being competitive the best way they know how, given their market share and resources. It may be a long time before they have a whole system that is toe-to-toe with Canon or Nikon...I'm thinking 1-2 more flagship product cycles, being optimistic.

Sony is doing a fine job of capturing market share. For a company that only started in the DSLR market 3 short years ago, they're doing fine. And they're doing it like Minolta did before them, great products at a great price, and add in some good innovations that the others will copy.

Don's chart is only Japan, but 8.5% against the established giants ain't bad. Give them a few more years of tweaking and innovating, as well as producing more bang for the buck, and that market share will climb. Sooner or later those companies with under 2% market share will get out of the business. That's more opportunity to expand a few more points.

Dusty

[Dusty]

Well, Don, there's the problem. You want more features, you want more performance, you want everything except more price. You want the $8k camera, but you don't want to spend $8k on it, so you beat up Sony for 'not doing enough'! The feature sets and performance you want is all available....AT A PRICE. Get a clue, will you. I'm not, and I don't believe anyone else here, is saying that Sony makes the greatest cameras around. I am saying that the money spent for Sony DSLRs brings you more bank for the buck than the others do.

Dusty

The price is not 8K is it 2.7K. The Sony high end cameras (a700 and a900) are missing live-view, video, and great low light performance (the a700 isalso missing af fine-tune as well). The Nikon D700 and Canon 5D deliver on all counts for $2699.

How many times do I need to tell you the 5DMKII and the D700 both offer what I need at $2699? Please pull your head from your a$$ and smell the coffee as I have needed to repeat this to you several times already!

-Sonolta

So there you go! What you want is available for 2.7 times the cost of your A700. Funny, but before you hijacked this thread, we were comparing a Sony camera with a similar one that cost 2.7 times as much!

So it seems like Sony delivers just a bit less performance than similar cameras that cost 2.7 times as much. That's good enough for me. If it's not for you, then open your wallet and shut your mouth!

Dusty

[Greg Beetham]

A leetle problemo Don, the D700 is a FF of only about 12MP if I remember correctly, so it's not cosher too compare a camera that is going too be excellent at low light high ISO anyway, like the D3 is, against basically what is a scenic camera (A900) by comparison, the 5D MKII has been noted to have the odd issue with banding and black spotting, not that I really give a rat's ass one way or the other, but mate go ahead, make our day go buy one, and after you use it for a while report back....
Greg

[Bodak]

"Sigh"

[Greg Beetham]

"Sigh"

I understand where you're coming from Bodak/Stephen, with your "sigh," but sometimes there is only one way forward, and that is, get in there and get your hands dirty, there is a whole bunch of people standing around here watching, wile a few do the heavy lifting.
Greg

[Greg Beetham]

Yep, the D700 is the go, excellent choice for a fronline high ISO cam, a D90 or D300 backup would be great as well, but I'm betting neither of those will be quite as good as the D700 at what you do.
Greg

ps. Hey lay off Dusty and "drinking", I've got a lot of time for someone who likes a beer on a hot day....or any sort of day actually.

[David Kilpatrick]

The D700 or D300 with 70-200mm HSM Sigma 2.8 or new 100-300mm HSM f4, new or recent Sigma 24-70mm and existing Sigma 15-30mm or 12-24mm (full frame ready) makes a good lineup. Having used both the new Nikon 70-200mm VR and the old 80-200mm f2.8 AF-S, there is no contest - the older Nikon wins outright on full frame, it's simply a much better lens despite the lack of VR. But the s/h prices reflect this, the 'beercan effect' has happened in the Nikon world once word got round about the 80-200mm.

I've had two copies of the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8, in Nikon and Canon (just sending them back today) and the micromotor focusing would not be fast enough for Don, though the optical quality is excellent - better than the Nikon 70-200mm for distant views (edge to edge on full frame) and better than the Sony/Min 70-200mm for close-ups (nice flat field, focuses down to under 1m). But - the focus is really slow, there's no limiter, no lock button on the lens, and no AF-MAN over-ride - in fact, there is a warning in the manual that you must not 'interfere' with the focusing ring while the camera AF is active or you may damage the lens. All this adds up to serious limitations for the Tamron despite its quality.

I have not yet tested the Sigma 70-200mm, Richard has just bought one of the last old price new HSM ones for his D3. I'm just asking Sigma if there's any chance of a similar deal. I do not use that range much at all, but with the Sony going up in price, the 70-400mm looking very expensive, and the Sigma going up to almost £1000 I guess I should have one in the cupboard.

Nikon lenses 14-24, 24-70 and aforementioned 80-200 (though the 70-200mm VR is excellent on the D300) would be expensive.

David

[Greg Beetham]

I reckon Don would ferret out every single Nikon lens for sale on the planet inside a week.
Greg