Photoclubalpha

Thanks for the link Don.

There is some confusion about battery weight or how weigh things or ?

If you guys/gals will allow me to say so. I would like to say this, and it is simply my opinion and mine alone.
My professional career of 31 years as a photographer has been made with Leica, Hasselblad and Minolta film and digital cameras. I think more than one had influence in this review. I believe Simon genuinely likes the Sony Product Line, but part of me thinks others had influence in the final conclusion or someone else wrote the final conclusion. They just had to put the “skin on the teeth” comment at the end.

QUOTED: "As it stands it will, I fear, struggle to make a serious impression on anyone other than the Sony/Minolta faithful." What is the meaning of this? Is this some left wing tactic to spin the truth and send newcomers into other camera systems? I was under the impression that Dprewiews was beyond reproach or with out any biased towards any manufacturer. Once again, it seems I have been proven wrong.

I simply think the review is fairly accurate and I implore Dpreviews for such an in-depth review on the Sony A900. With that said, I think Dpreviews is somewhat biased for other 35mm format cameras.

Much more commit should have been made on the RAW files than the JPG files. Sony will produce an update to the A900 software to correct

Suitable for professional use. This is the only claim Sony has made about body of the Alpha 900. Sony says it completes the Alpha system.

I have usually felt DPReview to be quite anti-Sony, although very subtly. I can't put my finger on the specifics or the phraseology, but it has been my impression. However, I felt this review to be fairly honest and straightforward. I agree with them and feel that Sony could have done more with the a900 to inspire confidence in the brand and sway some Canikon users.

is this right for the a900 "Noise reduction settings applied to raw as well as JPEG files - cannot be 'turned off for raw" ?

Cheers Stephen

It seems as thought they're kindly overlooking something here. NR is applied on chip at the A/D conversion, pre-RAW. So every file coming out of the camera is treated with some NR. The only "Off" switch is for the additional layer of "high ISO NR" applied to images at ISO 1600 or higher.

What do they mean by 'no in-camera vignetting control'?

The A900 has about the best built-in shading maps recognising focal length which I have yet seen. It gives great results even with the KM 17-35 and the Sony/M 20mm. Both are really well mapped for evenly illuminated output.

Where did dPreview learn that this was not so?

OK, the 70-300mm SSM G shows really bad vignetting, probably because the camera does not apply 17mm-correction to a 300mm-shot, but that is the fault of the lens, not the camera.

David

David Kilpatrick wrote:What do they mean by 'no in-camera vignetting control'?

The A900 has about the best built-in shading maps recognising focal length which I have yet seen. It gives great results even with the KM 17-35 and the Sony/M 20mm. Both are really well mapped for evenly illuminated output.

Where did dPreview learn that this was not so?

OK, the 70-300mm SSM G shows really bad vignetting, probably because the camera does not apply 17mm-correction to a 300mm-shot, but that is the fault of the lens, not the camera.

David

You should ask them. There are a few oddities in the review.

stevecim wrote:is this right for the a900 "Noise reduction settings applied to raw as well as JPEG files - cannot be 'turned off for raw" ?

Cheers Stephen

The full quote is this: "Noise reduction settings applied to raw as well as JPEG files - cannot be 'turned off for raw but left on for JPEGs' (as is normal practice)."

They do not mean that Noise Reduction can't be turned off for RAW, but rather it can't be turned OFF for RAW and left ON for jpeg at the same time. In other words when shooting in RAW + Jpeg mode. It's just poor phrasing and I'm sure that they realise it will be misinterpreted by some as 'NR doesn't turn off in RAW', they just don't care.

Incidentally 'as is normal practice' means 'on a Canon or a Nikon.'

Check this: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA900/AA900A.HTM

DPR is run by an industry known Canon nerd, nominated by Canon for a past PMA award for his bias pro-Canon site and tests.

These nerds even had the nerve to say in the conclusion that it was "just" highly recommended, and suggested selling price of $!.999.

This camera should be in tests compared to D3x, and in raw mode.

The antishake alone puts in a class by itslef. Put on a Sony F1.4 mm lens and then find, if you can one day, Nikon F0.5 mm lens to get the same performance on D3x. Shouldn't the Nikon sell for $1.999 too then?

Canons for nerds! Sonys for artists!