The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

  • We are looking for a committed forum member who would like to help with administration and moderation of our forum. Good communication and writing skills would be appreciated. Please message Olaf if you are interested.

How many A850/A900 shooters are going to hold on to their cameras?

kuau

Workshop Member
Lonnie,
For me i don't care if the A99 had 1000 AF points,
I am getting it for it's ease of manual focusing.
Like yourself I am using it for a light weight landscape kit, so I only own Zeiss and Contax manual focus glass..
I had an A900 when it came out because I couldn't afford the D3x at the time and the one thing I learned from shooting a FF 24mp camera is there is no room for focus error.
I have really learned this lesson even more with my D800E.

Keeping my fingers crossed that the IQ will be very good.


And you realize that the the "102 on sensor AF points" only work with selected lenses and that all the rest are limited to the other 19 AF points? That kinda defeats the purpose of on sensor AF points if you ask me.
 

Lonnie Utah

New member
For me i don't care if the A99 had 1000 AF points, I am getting it for it's ease of manual focusing.
Well I see the point, I really do, but again, for us landscapers, MF isn't really an issue either. When you start working out hyperfocal distances for wide angle lenses (16mm-24mm FF equivalent) at F/11 and smaller, you quickly realize that almost the entire frame is going to be in focus so long as you set the focus point within a distance relatively close to the camera (essentially, at those fields of view and those apertures, your depth of field is infinite).

Landscapers need Resolution and dynamic range, and I don't see enough improvement in this area to make the jump right now.
 
Lonnie,
For me i don't care if the A99 had 1000 AF points,
I am getting it for it's ease of manual focusing.
Like yourself I am using it for a light weight landscape kit, so I only own Zeiss and Contax manual focus glass..

Keeping my fingers crossed that the IQ will be very good.
Amen to that!

I adapted two of my C/Y Contax lenses - 28mm/2.8 and 50mm/1.4 and can't wait to use them on the A99. They work fine on the A900 as long as I don't try and shoot the 1.4 wide open and I trust the AF confirm to get me close enough to critical focus. But with peaking, it will be a whole other story. Using the C/Y versions also saves a ton of money compared to buying the ZF and ZE mounts.

The benefit of peaking on a FF DSLR cannot be underestimated. There is nothing else like it in Canon/Nikon land.
 

Lonnie Utah

New member
I love peaking in my nex, but I'm not adapting anything to my A-mount cams, and neither are most of the folks that own a-mount cameras. That's just reality. It's a wonderful feature, but not enough to make me jump right now.
 
I love peaking in my nex, but I'm not adapting anything to my A-mount cams, and neither are most of the folks that own a-mount cameras. That's just reality. It's a wonderful feature, but not enough to make me jump right now.
The C/Y Zeiss I have on the A900 are spectacular and come at a fraction of the cost of a new F or E mount MF version. You literally can buy 3 world class Zeiss lenses for the cost of one new Zeiss.

If the A99 takes off as a videographer camera (which Sony has positioned it to do) there will be demand for MF legacy lenses especially cheaper C/Y Zeiss lenses that can be adapted.

I also think that many more photographers will adapt on the A99 precisely because of peaking.
 

pegelli

Well-known member
I love peaking in my nex, but I'm not adapting anything to my A-mount cams, and neither are most of the folks that own a-mount cameras. That's just reality. It's a wonderful feature, but not enough to make me jump right now.
Time will tell, but sofar peaking has featured on very few A-mount cameras. As that number goes up and gets to higher end cameras I think more and more people will be thrilled to use more MF lenses using this technology.
So your reality might be true today, but I don't think it can be extrapolated to the future.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
The quality of the optical viewfinder on the A900 was the feature that clinched the deal for me. So I'll hold on to it for a while. Despite my attachment to the A900's optical VF I think Sony is going in the right direction with the A99. I expect I will get an integrated modern video/stills capture device at some point. The A99 looks like the perfect candidate.

There still might be enough demand for Sony to add a higher res optical VF studio camera in the future but I'd say the A99 was the right camera for Sony now. They don't have the legacy base of Canikon and should be looking to define the capture device of the future rather then build a me to DSLR.
I agree with this Hank ... yet at the same time I do wish Sony would cut back on the minor variations with-in a model line every thirty seconds, and had offered an A950 or something using the same OVF, activated the dual card slots to shoot redundant parallel capture, instituted live view, and upgraded the sensor with this new one for a better IQ and high ISO ... which seems to be a minimal R&D endeavor, and would have further amortized their existing investment possibly producing a better pay-out per camera with an existing user base that is still relatively satisfied with the A900.

I would have plunked down my money in a NY heartbeat for such a camera.

:lecture: Just when many of us have mastered the A900 and can get so much from it, the replacement comes along with a whole new approach and new technologies to master. :lecture:

Personally, I am sick to death of this distracting juggernaut of change, and cameras bristling with diversity, amateurish toys and entertainment devices. :banghead:

Oh well ... might as well be howling at the moon.

-Marc
 

picman

Member
I agree with this Hank ... yet at the same time I do wish Sony would cut back on the minor variations with-in a model line every thirty seconds, and had offered an A950 or something using the same OVF, activated the dual card slots to shoot redundant parallel capture, instituted live view, and upgraded the sensor with this new one for a better IQ and high ISO ... which seems to be a minimal R&D endeavor, and would have further amortized their existing investment possibly producing a better pay-out per camera with an existing user base that is still relatively satisfied with the A900.

I would have plunked down my money in a NY heartbeat for such a camera.

:lecture: Just when many of us have mastered the A900 and can get so much from it, the replacement comes along with a whole new approach and new technologies to master. :lecture:

Personally, I am sick to death of this distracting juggernaut of change, and cameras bristling with diversity, amateurish toys and entertainment devices. :banghead:

Oh well ... might as well be howling at the moon.

-Marc
Couldn't agree more!
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Personally, I am sick to death of this distracting juggernaut of change, and cameras bristling with diversity, amateurish toys and entertainment devices. :banghead:

Oh well ... might as well be howling at the moon.

-Marc
Really? I find the A and M exposure modes work exactly the same way on all cameras regardless of what the manufacturers add. It is really easy to simply ignore the bells and whistles and use a camera like I have always used a camera.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Really? I find the A and M exposure modes work exactly the same way on all cameras regardless of what the manufacturers add. It is really easy to simply ignore the bells and whistles and use a camera like I have always used a camera.
Yes, really.

Of course remedial functions work similarly one camera to the next. The question then becomes why pay for a bunch of stuff if the intention is to ignore all of it and just use the basics? More stuff you'll not use, and can break down. That was the point of my A950 post. Sony launches one camera after the next that really aren't all that different from one another ... clone upon clone upon clone, but doesn't recognize the stand-out gem they already had.

Besides, the A900 was already complex enough to learn until it became second nature and got out of the way when shooting. It took some time to figure out how to get back to standard basics if you accidentally pressed the wrong button at the wrong time or in the wrong sequence in the heat of shooting ... which is a disaster while shooting a wedding for example. Happened to me at the last wedding and in the rush/panic I couldn't figure out how to get back fast enough, so I had to grab the second camera, swap lenses and just made the shots. Keeping in mind that I am really well versed in using the A900.

Now there is no new Sony FF 35mm DSLR pro level camera that evolves the tried and true A900. So, one has to learn how to operate with an EVF with no better resolution than the A77, instead of one of the best OFVs ever made :thumbdown:, and re-learn the sequences of buttons and wheels in the heat of shooting, and how to get back to basics when shyt happens.

That is the distractions I find irritating, and were it not for the Zeiss optics I walk away immediately.

-Marc
 

MikalWGrass

New member
Don't howl at the moon; you might have crazy neighbors who won't understand why you are doing what you are doing.

The a900 is great now that I am getting the hang of it. Shot a bit of my kids' swim meet and then of my 7 year old practicing with a high school water polo team (the high school girls love him). The shots were dead on with the 85/1.4. I needed a bit more reach, but I can always crop the pics the way I want them to look.
 

Hank Graber

New member
I agree with this Hank had offered an A950 or something using the same OVF, activated the dual card slots to shoot redundant parallel capture, instituted live view, and upgraded the sensor with this new one for a better IQ and high ISO ... which seems to be a minimal R&D endeavor, and would have further amortized their existing investment possibly producing a better pay-out per camera with an existing user base that is still relatively satisfied with the A900.
Considering they had enough cash to fund the cybershot division coming out with an expensive very niche camera to compete with their own NEX devision you'd think they could have spared a few bucks to keep the OVF 900 line going with modest conservative improvements for another generation or two. While we all are waiting for the brave new world of integrated all digital capture systems to completely do away with the DSLR.

I finally gave in and sold the Plaubel Makina and film Hasselblad years ago, so I guess it's just a matter of time before the my OVF DSLR meets the same fate.
 
J

jcoffin

Guest
I'm tempted to say they'll pry my A900 from my cold dead fingers. That's probably not true though -- I'll still be hanging on so tight, it'll be easier to just bury it with me!

Seriously, given the quality of the A77 and the rate of improvement they're showing, I'm figuring I'll probably replace the A900 in something like 15 to 20 years -- but based on what I've seen so far, I'd be somewhat surprised if I'm even tempted with a newer model in less than 10 years.
 

picman

Member
I'm tempted to say they'll pry my A900 from my cold dead fingers. That's probably not true though -- I'll still be hanging on so tight, it'll be easier to just bury it with me!

Seriously, given the quality of the A77 and the rate of improvement they're showing, I'm figuring I'll probably replace the A900 in something like 15 to 20 years -- but based on what I've seen so far, I'd be somewhat surprised if I'm even tempted with a newer model in less than 10 years.
Same here, it all depends on what kind of photography you do. For me, the A900 is a dream, and I actually got me a second one, nicely tucked away so that I could easily bridge 15 years.
 

alphaman

New member
I sold all my Sony A mount stuff in favour of Nikon; the combination of my dislike for EVF and the allure of the D800 proved too much and my A900, etc had to go.

I don't regret this move but there are some nice things about the Sony system which I wish I could have in the Nikon. These are:

1) in body stabilisation (I miss that more than anything else),

2) The way the Sony flash can adjust the colour balance to match the ambient,

3) Zeiss AF lenses.

All of these things can be overcome and aren't enough on their own.

There were things which Sony still need to address to get my vote:

1) Noise, noise and noise! The Nikon using a Sony sensor handles this so very much better (sorry Sony, but they do),

2) The exposure meter works much better in the Nikon, I don't have to work quite so much to get reliably exposed images, particularly with flash. Flash underexposure being a particular issue.

3) EVF; whilst I think this may become good enough in time, OVF is so much nicer on the eye and gets my vote.

I've still got my NEX7 which I love and won't change (has an EVF - a necessary evil but an OVF would be impossible in this instance!). I don't dislike Sony, it's just that they aren't meeting my needs at the moment.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I sold all my Sony A mount stuff in favour of Nikon; the combination of my dislike for EVF and the allure of the D800 proved too much and my A900, etc had to go.

I don't regret this move but there are some nice things about the Sony system which I wish I could have in the Nikon. These are:

1) in body stabilisation (I miss that more than anything else),

2) The way the Sony flash can adjust the colour balance to match the ambient,

3) Zeiss AF lenses.

All of these things can be overcome and aren't enough on their own.

There were things which Sony still need to address to get my vote:

1) Noise, noise and noise! The Nikon using a Sony sensor handles this so very much better (sorry Sony, but they do),

2) The exposure meter works much better in the Nikon, I don't have to work quite so much to get reliably exposed images, particularly with flash. Flash underexposure being a particular issue.

3) EVF; whilst I think this may become good enough in time, OVF is so much nicer on the eye and gets my vote.

I've still got my NEX7 which I love and won't change (has an EVF - a necessary evil but an OVF would be impossible in this instance!). I don't dislike Sony, it's just that they aren't meeting my needs at the moment.
Time to change your screen name from Alphaman :)

Tastes vary and if you are happy with Nikon there is not much to say.

1) Personally, I do not like the way Nikon glass renders. Never did, probably never will. There is nothing you can do in post to change that. You cannot make Nikon look like Zeiss. You can put Zeiss on a Nikon, but it isn't AF ... which defeats using a 35mm DSLR for me. If Sony ceased to exist as a viable 35mm DSLR system for me, I would probably select a Canon 1Dx as a distant 2nd choice ... if any at all.

2) see number 1

3) see number 1

How the A99 handles noise and color at higher ISOs than possible with the A900 will be the determining factor as to whether I put up with an EVF.

-Marc
 

alphaman

New member
I tried to change my screen name TWICE and got ignored both times!

I don't like the OOF rendering of Nikon glass as much as Sony/Minolta, but that's life! The advantages outweigh the disadvantages for me.
 

Hank Graber

New member
1) Personally, I do not like the way Nikon glass renders. Never did, probably never will. There is nothing you can do in post to change that.
For me it's the lenses and the VF. Any of the major manufacturers puts out a good enough DSLR body to do the job.

The VF is what I look through so it's the most important UI element of the camera by far. The lens determines what the images look like (any modern high end digital chip will be good enough). I always preferred Canon to Nikon lenses but I've found I prefer the Minolta look to both. The availability of Zeiss AF lens are just icing on the cake.

That being the case I'm very happy with the A900.

When it comes to making an EVF that might be superior to OVF in low light focusing and not be an impediment to 'seeing' my subject I expect Sony will be very competitive. So I'm confident that my A900's successor will likely be a Sony. I'm anxious to have a look through the A99 VF. Maybe they are there already.
 

Ocean

Senior Subscriber Member
I really like the color and IQ produced by A900 in low ISO. I hope that the sensor on A99 has great improvements in high ISO over A900, and the A99 will have the same/similar color profile of A900. My experience with NEX-7 is negative in term of high ISO. And NEX-5N and NEX 7 have different color profiles. Sony seems constantly tuning their products.
 

MikalWGrass

New member
I am keeping the a900. After more than two years of ownership I am just getting the hang of the camera and really enjoy it. I would get another instead of the a99 but I am not sure my wife would permit me to get either.
 
Top