Sony Alpha a850 Complete Instruction Manual Download

[Yagil Henkin]

Well, I wonder how many people would now pay additional 1K$ to get the better viewfinder and 5fps. For landscape shooters it seems the 850 would be no worse than the 900, and I really can't see the point here. Perhaps don's right about the "consumer electronics" thinking.

[PhotoTraveler]

We need to go into a holding pattern till we know the price. Right now it fall in 3 possible paths. Keep in mind right now the MSRP for the A900 is 2700 USD. It's also what it's selling for. But of course it's out of stock, which very well is a hint it's discontinued. Secondly the Nikon D300s MSRP is 1800 USD. Nikon D700 is 3000 USD, Canon 5DII is 2700 USD. So right now the A900 is the cheapest FF body out there. And within 800 USD of the highest spec APS body you can get.

So, onwards.

1) Sony prices it at 2600, or even a bit more. It's just a straight up replacement for the A900, goes on sale for less than the original 3k the A900 went on sale for a year ago. The world looses the a wonderful body in the name of saving a few bucks.

2) Sony prices the body in the mid 2ks as the changes only saved a couple hundred at best. People want the A900 over this, but it's discontinued all in the name of saving a few bucks. No real benefit from this body aside from Sony has room to lower the price more with time.

3) Sony prices the body at or near 2k. Impact on world is large. 200 USD more than a D300s gets you FF and more. No LV or Video or GPS support. But still a sick deal. A900 might survive for a little bit, it's fait dependent on sales. Further impacts are that it's so cheap that it may mean the semi-pro APS bodies are dead in sony's future. A500/A550 and maybe a new 7series are as high as they go. At 2k, Sony would sell a ton of bodies. But this will blow up in their face if they haven't come ready. They messed up the A900 because it didn't have a kit lens. The 4/24-105G never showed. Yes, we see the 2.8/28-75. That's not what is needed. What is needed is a 4/24-105G. Sony needs to have a batch of lenses to go with this. the 24-105, and something like a 4/14-24G or ZA to go with it. Not everyone wants F2.8 lenses, or wants to pay for a ZA. Some solid F4s are needed. A 2k FF body will be a near zero margin or negative margin body unless Sony has done something (like rolled the dice on a single pass capable stepper in the hopes of crushing everyone with cheap FF).


What I hope is Sony hasn't rolled the farm on this. With the idea of making a super cheap FF body at next to no margin with the hopes of getting market and selling lenses. If it doesn't work, they could be in real trouble.

So lets just hold tight till we get the price. I think folks are bound to be bummed. We might only need to wait till sunday night to find everything out.

[bfitzgerald]

I expected a new body design (possibly saving some cash)
Not sure this makes sense, esp with the lack of onboard flash again.
And how much cheaper will it be? A few hundred ££??

We shall have to wait and see. Good to see another FF around, but I am not a fan of Sony's multiple minor model changes, many cameras that share very similar designs and or specs. And where does this leave the A900??

Certainly suggests a newer A900 model (sooner than expected), with more beef, and this new A850 being the more mainstream model..and a newer flagship being notably more "high end" just a guess from my part.

[KevinBarrett]

If, as DK hypothesizes, the a850 has superior IQ to the a900, the two cameras might be positioned at the very same price point.

[bfitzgerald]

Why would you pay the same price for a camera that is not as good spec wise (fps is the obvious part)??

That does not make any sense at all. IQ, what are we talking about? Raw..or jpeg? I suspect the jpeg weaker points could be addressed via a FW update to the A900, have they really improved the sensor that much in such a short space of time?

What it says to me is, the A850 will be cheaper (but how much we don't know), and that the A900 might have a relatively short life span, with something more "pro end" coming along sooner, rather than later. You might be able to market very similar models with minor spec variations lower end (that is debatable in itself), high end wise or FF, I suspect that strategy is not one that is popular.
I wouldn't worry about the bionz processor, tech for processors moves fast, costs reduce in fairly short spaces of time, and more importantly, computational power increases.

The other options is they will run both models together for some time, sharing the sensor will reduce productions costs for both models as volumes increase.

[peterottaway]

If the A850 is an indication that Sony is serious about developing its FF DSLR range then I am quite happy even if its not what I was expecting. I am hoping that it comes out at a good price because that will mean that Sony is serious about developing the long pleaded for 3.5/4.5 or 4.0 series of lenses. It does not appear to be good business sense to market a $1800 to $2100 FF camera without filling in the medium price point with some decent digital glass.

Also in such a move, I don't see any proof that Sony is incapable of providing competive APS-C cameras to rival the performance/ price points to the Canon 50D, Nikon D90 or the D300s. Many partisans of particular positions are going to be bitterly disappointed whatever happens. To quote the reputed last words of Ned Kelly before he was hanged in Old Melbourne Gaol - such is life.

[David Kilpatrick]

I think you will see the Alpha 900 revert to its true price - £2000+, maybe matching the Canon 5D MkII at around £2400 retail discounted to £1995. There is room for the 850 to come in at £1895 RRP discounted to the same low £1495-1595 that the A900 has been. Remember, the lowest UK price for the A900 has been £1395. The lowest price for the Canon 5D (original) has been as far as I know £1295.

What may have happened is that Sony has identified surges in A900 sales when the price falls below say £1600. That might be unsustainable (unprofitable) with the A900, but viable with the A850. By re-using virtually the entire A900 from body to LCD to focus screen (hardly any parts change) they make it possible to switch to the lower cost camera rapidly, with the option to make just as many or as few A900s as the market demands.

I can imagine a production line where the manager tells the team, OK, today we are making the usual 100 850s and we need ten 900s. Pick up 10 900 circuit boards, 10 900 prism units, 10 body skins with 900 logo, assemble on the same line, do the additional manual calibration of the 100% finder, burn in 900 firmware, package in 900 boxes. All the rest is just standard 850 production.

David

[bfitzgerald]

DK might be right, though that will be rather disappointing in many respects.

Not convinced that the minor differences in the A850 will account for much cost saving. Now if Sony were making a high quality plastic body, or other additional changes, that would indicate a potential large price point break in the market. Removing a bionz processor and a slightly downgraded VF, and 9 point AF (if I read that right), isn't likely to save a lot of cash at all.

It might make sense to Sony, but it will be merely treading water for most of us. There has to be a notable price difference for the A850 to be a logical move. Simply increasing the price of the A900, just won't cut it at all (do we really think they have low margins on that product at current prices, I don't buy that myself)

[David Kilpatrick]

It's the identical weight specification which sort of seals the nature of the 850. They could have replaced magnesium with an identical casting or pressing of another material, but the camera would either have been heavier (any other metal) or lighter (plastic chassis). I understand that most of the cost of magnesium casting (or mag alloy casting) lies in the setup. Hasselblad rollfilm backs have been magnesium castings for almost 30 years now, ever since the introduction of the A12 back with the 500C/M - this was the generation where Hasselblad first used magnesium. I'm sure the technology is now so mature the costs are moderate. Same goes for pressed stainless steel camera shells, introduced by Minolta first in the Vectis 300, followed by the Dynax 9. Forming stainless steel into these shapes was a Minolta invention (or acquired patent) and they sold the idea to the whole industry, you can buy £49.95 digicams with stainless monocoque body shells these days.

Once something is designed and in production, it can be cheaper than almost any newly designed replacement.

David

[fastson]

There has to be a notable price difference for the A850 to be a logical move. Simply increasing the price of the A900, just won't cut it at all (do we really think they have low margins on that product at current prices, I don't buy that myself)

Pretty much. I'm interested in the camera, I hope they can deliver a good price.

[kingfisher]

what i know , is that the A850 a third lower price have than the A900

so in the netherlands the A900 cost about 1997 EURO that is 2822 DOLLARS or 1705 GBP

the A850 shall be about the 1350 EURO that is 1908 DOLLARS or 1152 GBP

so i think it`s a very good price for a FF CAMERA


gustav

[peterottaway]

Don, I'm not ignoring your queries but it is now after midnight here and I have have a busy week in front of me and so I'm going to bed.

All I will say say is that the past technological and business strategies of such companies as Minolta and now of Sony may provide historical context to judge and rate future performance. BUT it is not a definite indictator of what is to come.

[fastson]

what i know , is that the A850 a third lower price have than the A900

If that's the case then A1000 (Filmmaker) works for Sony as predicted. I won't purchase an 850 at 2K unless the unit performs way better than the a900 does.

-Sonolta

How so, did he hint at a price?

[bfitzgerald]

Funny how A700 users are pressing the panic buttons (with little hope of a fast replacement for that model)
Now you know exactly why A200-350 users were giving the "new stripped down" entry models such as hard time.
Truth is I don't know exactly what Sony plan to do, neither do any of us. Are sony on a cut down rampage? Maybe who can say.

I think the multiple models sharing the same body, is not a wise strategy in the long term. Entry point you have crippled, and more expensive crippled, A500 series we will see on that one, I expect something more consumer geared (and not that appealing to current users), A700 is now gone..two FF ones, hard to work things out. In reality we could be with 7 models, but yet still fail to hit specific target markets (D300 class, and upper entry level missing), that's not so clever if it turns out like that.