Totally Love the scarecrow series Johnno..
one question re the Sony - is it as ugly to look at in hand as it seems to be in screen shots? I made a new years resolution ( sic) to not buy UGLY cameras..:ROTFL:
Absolutely not - I quite agree that it looks ugly in photos - mainly because it tapers in at the base (I think the square base is one of the reasons the S2 looks so beautiful).
That tapering makes the corners fit really beautifully in your palm when holding it. In 'real life' I think it's actually rather nice looking - chunky and a bit retro, but certainly not ugly.
I'm right with you on ugly cameras - - - the only thing for you to do is to go into a shop and play with one.
all that aside - I am very tempted to buy one because of te einbuilt IS..and the Zeiss lenses ( of course)
woudl love to hear some considered views on how they rate versus CaNikon equivalents - I would like autofocus fast primes donrt even knwo if there are any specifically a 28/50/80 @ 1.4 ? any plan for thes eon horison?
There is a nice 50 f1.4, and then a huge legacy of old Minolta lenses which were very well thought of.
Lots of information here
Of course, I couldn't compare it with the D3x (haven't used one) but I've owned a D3 and a D700 in the past year, apart from the obvious resolution difference, I'd say the following:
Image quality:
A900 has better per-pixel sharpness than the D3/D700 (presumably a less aggressive AA filter - this is quite obvious comparing at 100%
A900 has really excellent highlight recovery
A900 is much noisier above 800 ISO, but is quite useable up to 3200 as long as you really really don't underexpose
A900 seems to have much better tonal subtlety and roll-off from the highlights
A900 has much nicer colour for early morning and late evening shots (I've always found Nikon to be too yellow here - I suspect they're optimised for skin tones)
Autofocus:
It's slower - quite noticeably, on the other hand I'm getting far far fewer out of focus shots - especially it seems to be better at distance shots.
Tracking is okay, but not really in the same league (you wouldn't use it for sports instead of a Nikon). There are fewer focus points too.
Many of the lenses don't have silent wave motors (even some of the modern ones like the Zeiss 85 and 135 and the Sony 100 macro).
Still, I have no problem focusing, and it does seem to be very accurate.
Handling:
A900 has lots of big buttons on the outside, a big mode dial with very distinct click stops which has 3 user settings - everything falls to hand, it's comfortable, the viewfinder is just the best I've ever seen.
Basically it wins hands down.
Menus & options:
The Nikon system has many more options - it's a double edged sword however, as it's much harder for people with a small brain like me to remember it all. The relative simplicity of the A900, together with the small elegant menus makes it feel more like a camera and less like a computer (but, as I say, there are lots of missing features).
Does that help?