So

[Greg Beetham]

If on the 14th and the new FF Alpha is announced,
who is going too get one, and what will you use it for
I wouldn't mind one for scenery, venues (museums galleries etc), "some" daylight events, and family shots myself.
Greg

[Javelin]

I won't. the A700 was expensive enough for me and I still have a lot to learn. I do want to go back to full frame inthe future thogh. so maybe the a900 willl be something I can get used in a year or 2

[Winston]

I might if there is a compelling reason. I can't imagine what that would be.

[David Kilpatrick]

Bold assumption! On the 14th, a Sony digital camera will be announced. On Sept 9/10th, the Alpha 900 will definitely be in the hands of European (and worldwide) press as Sony is arranging their usual launch-type shindigs. It is highly unlikely to be anything except the A900 or A900 plus lenses, or A900 plus a-n-other DSLR plus lenses - whatever combination.

But we do not know that the Alpha 900 will be unveiled on the 14th as so far that seems to be a UK only date. The Sept 9/10 event is being organised by Sony Europe; the Aug 14th by Sony's UK PR agency.

David

[Greg Beetham]

Bold assumption! On the 14th, a Sony digital camera will be announced. On Sept 9/10th, the Alpha 900 will definitely be in the hands of European (and worldwide) press as Sony is arranging their usual launch-type shindigs. It is highly unlikely to be anything except the A900 or A900 plus lenses, or A900 plus a-n-other DSLR plus lenses - whatever combination.

But we do not know that the Alpha 900 will be unveiled on the 14th as so far that seems to be a UK only date. The Sept 9/10 event is being organised by Sony Europe; the Aug 14th by Sony's UK PR agency.

David

Well David, I did say "If"...in any case I thought it might be interesting to see who is up for one.
Sony could always just announce the specifications and the pre-order date in the UK for example, and the later European shindig is the actual "hands on" deal...maybe.
Greg

[springm]

So... for me it is not something I will try to buy sooner or later: First of all it has to be seen on which fields it beats the A700 other than sheer amount of pixels. And if there are many, I will have to think if it's worth not only upgrading a camera body, but with it at least one lens and one computer. The additional time the raw file conversion of A700 files in comparison to the 7D is hassle enough with the computer I use.
As and amateur, no additional income will compensate for the costs. What I like in the idea of a full frame camera would be less noise - Nikon D700 should be great in this - and shallow depth of field, which I see as a great tool for composition of images. But 24 megapixel alone will not make me open my wallet, a full frame 12 megapixel camera might do. Of course for professional work the A900 can be an incredibly valuable tool, no doubt that it will make some medium format systems retire.
But for an amateur like me, I do not see sufficient benefit.

Just my 0.02 € - Markus

[David Kilpatrick]

On the 14th there is definitely no new Alpha, just two Cybershots, sadly. The planning is still on for their Sept 9/10 conference where we are absolutely sure the Alpha 900 will debut.

David

[Greg Beetham]

So... for me it is not something I will try to buy sooner or later: First of all it has to be seen on which fields it beats the A700 other than sheer amount of pixels. And if there are many, I will have to think if it's worth not only upgrading a camera body, but with it at least one lens and one computer. The additional time the raw file conversion of A700 files in comparison to the 7D is hassle enough with the computer I use.
As and amateur, no additional income will compensate for the costs. What I like in the idea of a full frame camera would be less noise - Nikon D700 should be great in this - and shallow depth of field, which I see as a great tool for composition of images. But 24 megapixel alone will not make me open my wallet, a full frame 12 megapixel camera might do. Of course for professional work the A900 can be an incredibly valuable tool, no doubt that it will make some medium format systems retire.
But for an amateur like me, I do not see sufficient benefit.

Just my 0.02 € - Markus

I saw some scenic images taken by an 1D MkIII and they were drop dead stunning, honestly I think you would forget about APS-C when it comes to scenes, IMHO there is just about no chance that any APS-C cam would come close to a FF 25MP camera with the right lens, the contrast, sharpness, density that was there was awesome.
I'm not kidding either,
seriously,
this is no drill.
Greg
ps Computers a reasonably cheap these days, if you already have a nice monitor you can pick up a nice fast box for less than $1000, the main expense is making sure you have anough memory (lots is good)....thats' the only killer really.

[Greg Beetham]

On the 14th there is definitely no new Alpha, just two Cybershots, sadly. The planning is still on for their Sept 9/10 conference where we are absolutely sure the Alpha 900 will debut.

David

Oh well easy come easy go we'll just have too wait a little longer to find out the exact specs, I have to admit I'm getting quite interested in this camera despite myself.
btw I think everyone is watching the Olympics, there is a ripper game of netball between Japan and the USA on at the moment that's hard to not watch, and also it's my nightcap time, but I only have Johnnie Walker...not quite in your class David, but it'll have to do.
Regards
Greg

[Vidgamer]

To answer the original question, I'm not interested in the new FF camera at all. Or any FF camera. There, I said it.

I saw some scenic images taken by an 1D MkIII and they were drop dead stunning, honestly I think you would forget about APS-C when it comes to scenes, IMHO there is just about no chance that any APS-C cam would come close to a FF 25MP camera with the right lens, the contrast, sharpness, density that was there was awesome.

I'm sure that any APSC-C cam would come close... if comparing prints at 4x6 or 5x6 instead of examining pixels at 100%. Or probably even 8x10. My 11x14 prints look great. If I used a FF 25MP camera, is it really going to make 11x14 prints that much better? $3000 better? I can't imagine.

I'm not kidding either,
seriously,
this is no drill.
Greg
...

I know, there is a subset of Alpha owners just dying for this upgrade. I think it'll be great for the future success of the line. If it makes an individual happy, that's great too. But I don't think there's any point in my having it, nor do I think it'll be necessary even for most DSLR owners. It's overkill.

In a few years, maybe the cost will be near the cost of the APS-C cameras, and it'll be an easier choice.

[Greg Beetham]

To answer the original question, I'm not interested in the new FF camera at all. Or any FF camera. There, I said it.

That's cool

I'm sure that any APSC-C cam would come close... if comparing prints at 4x6 or 5x6 instead of examining pixels at 100%. Or probably even 8x10. My 11x14 prints look great. If I used a FF 25MP camera, is it really going to make 11x14 prints that much better? $3000 better? I can't imagine.

I don't think there would be any difference in prints up to 8X10 or even 11X14 either, with most printers that I know of, unless there is something new out there, what I saw was on screen and they definitely had something extra, what I don't know is if this would be apparent in photo gallery thumbnails at web size.

I know, there is a subset of Alpha owners just dying for this upgrade. I think it'll be great for the future success of the line. If it makes an individual happy, that's great too. But I don't think there's any point in my having it, nor do I think it'll be necessary even for most DSLR owners. It's overkill.

In a few years, maybe the cost will be near the cost of the APS-C cameras, and it'll be an easier choice.

Yes the cost is the big issue for me as well, if I want one I'll have to wait for a while untill the price moderates a good deal, but I would still love one just the same.
Greg

[David Kilpatrick]

I will be obliged to get one. I don't really want to, as I know my full frame lenses are unlikely to deliver the right results. The 17-35mm D is already running out of quality towards the corners of the DT (Sony APS-C) format; the 28-75mm D though very even in coverage has always seemed a bit soft wide open. I have my 70-300mm SSM but I have now made some simple tests on full frame film, and the lens has big pincushion distortion at the long end; unless the A900 incorporates some lens-related onboard corrections like Hasselblad use, it's no better than using an 18-200mm on DT at 200mm, for geometry. I am sure my 200mm f4 macro is good enough, but I never use this lens as it's far too big to travel with. I am not sure the 70-200mm f2.8 G SSM is good enough (I know this sound like heresy) as it has curvature of field issues at close distances and wide aperture. The 50mm f1.4, 50mm f2.8 macro and 100mm f2.8 macro have all proved sharp enough but prone to focus errors and internal reflections from the sensor even on DT. The 28mm f2 has been one of my best lenses on the Alpha 700 and could end up being my main lens on the 900. My 24-105mm D, which would be the most natural choice of all-round zoom on the A900, is not a bad performer on the A700 but can show hints of 'dirty' softness wide open and also has strong distortion at both extremes of its range. My 100-300mm APO D is already slightly challenged by 12 megapixel DT. It's not being sold until I test it on full frame though.

Yet - I don't really want to sell a lot of these and just end up with a 24-70mm SSM and a (not yet released) 16-35mm. Because of the way I work with wide-angles, a really high quality fixed focal length 17mm would be all I need at that end, and I would put up with a much smaller aperture (say f/3.5-4.5 variable) to get a more compact lens than the 24-70mm.

Then again, in the cupboard I have a vintage 35-70mm f4 and a 70-210mm f4 beercan. I already know both of these can produce the highest quality of result when stopped down to f8 even on 14 megapixels. I also have a 35-200mm xi which despite strong distortion at 200mm (slightly worse than the 70-300mm SSM at 300mm) has always proved superb on the smaller digital formats.

David

[Alain]

... I have my 70-300mm SSM but I have now made some simple tests on full frame film, and the lens has big pincushion distortion at the long end; unless the A900 incorporates some lens-related onboard corrections like Hasselblad use, it's no better than using an 18-200mm on DT at 200mm, for geometry. ... I am not sure the 70-200mm f2.8 G SSM is good enough (I know this sound like heresy) as it has curvature of field issues at close distances and wide aperture. ... My 24-105mm D, which would be the most natural choice of all-round zoom on the A900, is not a bad performer on the A700 but can show hints of 'dirty' softness wide open and also has strong distortion at both extremes of its range.

...

David

Hi David,

Do you have bad experiences with geometry correcting software? I'm thinking software like PTLens or the things that DXO and Bibble has built in to correct lens distortions.


Alain

[David Kilpatrick]

My main bad experience is that DxO Optics Pro, which will do corrections during raw conversion, is updated at such rare intervals that it could be 2010 or NEVER before we get the Alpha 900 plus 70-300mm SSM on the list. They have just managed to include the 16-105mm and 16-80mm on the A200, A350 and A700 - and the 18-200mm. But the one lens which really needs DxO correction, the 18-250mm, is missing. And the new lenses are not matched up with the KM5D or 7D either, so you are still limited to which lenses can work with which cameras.

I don't have time to do PTLens stuff with every shot. What I prefer is a lens with good geometry to start with. I thought the 70-300mm SSM might have perfect geometry, because it has been made so large and with apparently no restrictions placed on how they design the glass. But in fact it has quite poor geometry at 300mm:

70-300mm SSM at 300mm

This is just an initial test, and I need to rig the camera up with a reasonable test target and do something more controlled. This is on Velvia using my Dynax 7.

David

[Greg Beetham]

That would be a bit of a bummer David, after purchasing a FF camera then finding that most of the lenses in one's collection aren't up too scratch, but isn't 25MP about even with good film? say Kodachrome 25 or 64, but then there's still the reflections problem...hmmm I wonder if the Sony version of the 50 f1.4 is any better than the KM version for internal reflections, maybe they did something more with the coatings for digital use.
It would be interesting too see some scenic shots with the 35 f1.4G on the FF camera some time in the future, that's one lens that should be in it's class, but expensive, that's probably the big problem with the FF, not just the cost of the camera but outlaying for the high class lens upgrades as well, if indeed that proves to be necessary too get decent results.
I'm a little surprised that the new 70-300 has distortion problems, but then, building a "totally" fault free 70-300 was always going to be a touch ambitious, personally I would have liked a fully modernized for digital (if necessary) 100-300 APO f4.5 but not SSM (too much extra bulk).
I don't think the phantom 24-105 f4G SSM will be any less bulky or expensive than the 24-70 f2.8 SSM is either, (if it is actually a real lens), but it might be a very good lens just the same, anyway at least it stands a chance at keeping the reflections under control, being an f4.
Greg