Photoclubalpha

A new review of the Sony A900 was published on 19 June 2009:

http://www.trustedreviews.com/digital-c ... tal-SLR/p1

The “verdict” is very positive:

"The Sony Alpha A900 is an immensely impressive camera, equalling or surpassing its few rivals in almost every criterion with a combination of superb build quality, blistering performance and class-leading image quality. It would suit any advanced enthusiast or a professional who wants a lighter alternative to a D3x or EOS-1D."

The A900 was awarded a 10 out of 10 for both build quality and image quality. The reviewer, Cliff Smith, said that: “The A900’s colour reproduction is stunning, even in the default standard colour mode”.

Regards
Rob
http://www.robsphotography.co.nz/Sony-A900.html

I am sure the A900 is deserving of a good review. However I feel obliged to point out that the author did get a free A100 from Sony (and he was honest about that) Thus I have to question the impartiality of a review site, and it's ability to deliver reviews that are fair and honest.

This is what I like to see:
http://www.dcresource.com/about/about-dcrp.html

Quote:
"The longer answer is that I follow strict ethical guidelines when it comes to interacting with camera manufacturers, and have done so since 1997. First, I do not keep any cameras that are sent to us to review. After the review is done, the cameras are returned to the manufacturer. Second, and unlike most of our competitors, I never accept trips or junkets paid for by a manufacturer, which means that I've missed out on some nice vacations. And finally, I do not accept any gifts from manufacturers or advertisers -- they are given away."

I wonder how many review sites can say the same?

That review site gave the Fuji S9600 "camera of the year" award too. I have tried one, it's a nice camera, decent for what it is. Camera of the year? Nah..no way!

I know not every site can be ultra in depth, and it's nice to have a shorter review to read. On the other hand there isn't a whole lot to the trusted reviews (not just cameras other stuff, phones etc), not enough to really give a decent feel for a buyer about making an informed choice. It's not on my "good review" site list.

I wonder how many trucks of freebies Dp have got over the years

Sonolta wrote:Are these prices for real?

"Canon has its EOS 5D MkII (£2100), Nikon has the D700 (£1750), but perhaps the most interesting is today's review camera, the Sony Alpha A900, launched in September last year and currently selling for around £1500 body-only"

In the US many reputable dealers are at:

Sony a900 $2699
Nikon d700 $2699
Canon 5D MKII $2573

I did the conversions...1636, 1636, and 1560. So what gives with the 5DMKII price being way out of line?

-Sonolta

The UK prices do seem to be around this mark - I guess Canon UK are selling them at that price and so don't feel the need to bring the price down? I guess it does have HD video over the other two . I think the A900 £1500 price may have been a blip, and closer to £1700 again now.

I find this site very useful for Uk prices http://camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod727.html. It seems to be regulalry updated, and pretty reliable. It saves checking lots of site individually. It surprises me how much volatility there is in camera and lens prices. I wonder if this is individual retailers working hard to shift stock?

Canon prices are not so good in the UK, has to be said. Sony seem to be ok on body prices, but their optics have gone up a fair bit, esp stuff like the 70-300mm G, and all are up across the range. Though I think the 50mm f1.4 is a tad cheaper than the Canon one.

Now is not a great time to be buying UK wise, heck I even see folks scrapping over 28-80's and 28-100's on ebay, warp back 4 years or so you wouldn't even bother to list them. Lens market is insane for Minolta, 50mm f1.7 sold for £142, nice cond, not boxed..bit of a joke really.

I picked up a mag last month which is aimed at professional photographers (Proffsfoto is the name of the mag) and they had done a review on the A900 and on the Sony system as a whole from a pro POV.
The review was mostly positive, basically it came down to as of now Sony has few options for a pro, but the things they offer are of very high quality.

They said a "general pro-photographer" would find what he needs within the Sony-system, and what he finds will be of "very high quality". The A900 was mentioned to be a good professional camera. They were impressed by the OVF of the A900 and that Sony managed to get a full frame camera with image stabilisation, 100% coverage and a anti-dust system (they gave a little taunt to Nikon for not having it, when both Sony and Canon does).

They were impressed by some of the optics, like 24-70/2.8 CZ, 70-200/2.8 and the 300/2.8 Minolta, to name a few.

bfitzgerald wrote:Lens market is insane for Minolta, 50mm f1.7 sold for £142, nice cond, not boxed..bit of a joke really.

Wow, I paid US$35.00 new, for mine 12 years ago, was thinking of buying 2 of them at the time , one has a spare, since I would have to send it back to US if it had a warranty issues. but I didn't. ( At the time they where selling for AUD$230 + in Australia ) At least it good to see that some things don't change. we stil get done over with lens prices in Australia

Just to keep this thread up to date, I see that Carl Garrard has published a new review of the Sony A900. You can read it here:

http://www.alphamountworld.com/.../revi ... nal-review

This new review of the Sony A900 is also very positive!

Regards
Rob
http://www.robsphotography.co.nz/Wellin ... ill-2.html
(Example of amazing resolution of a Sony A900 image)

Having shot with the 900 for about a month now, I am in love. My only compliant(s) so far is sometimes the dynamic range of the sensor is a little too good. What I mean is that sometimes I get foreground lighted stuff that I don't want to be lighted. That is more operator error than a fault of the machine. Also, I shoot in the RAW/jpg mode alot. When comparing the two, the encoding of the JPG is vastly inferior to the RAW image (mainly the contrast and lighting). The RAW images are outstanding. If I had a faster network and image processing computer, I would shoot only raw.

the Image stabilization is beyond belief. I have managed greater than 1 second hand held images. That is amazing.

Just my $0.02.

L

Sonolta wrote:For sure many folks have been screaming at Sony to produce a better JPG....hopefully one day they will get the job done.

-Sonolta

Indeed on the A900, it can and should have been improved by now.

They have worked on jpegs for the A100/700 and the recently introduced cameras are a slight improvement in the look of the noise as well as white balance rendering. So they get a C- there in regards to paying attention to the lineup (just).

C