New Review of the Sony A900 is Very Positive

[robsphotography]

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

[bfitzgerald]

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?

[bfitzgerald]

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

[Birma]

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?

[bfitzgerald]

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.

[fastson]

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.

[stevecim]

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

[robsphotography]

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)

[Lonnie Utah]

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

[rush2112]

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