# Sony fights back with the mighty Alpha 900



## IGADIZ (May 21, 2006)

The 25 megapixel beast is here at last.
Read all about it here.
A field report can be found here


----------



## jamest (Apr 8, 2008)

Didn't read it all, but the Canon looked better.


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

Had a look at this earlier seems to me that they have crammed it with 25mp at the expense of some pretty bad noise. ISO 1600 is very poor compared tothe D3/D700!

Would make a good studio or landscape cam though!


----------



## IGADIZ (May 21, 2006)

jamest said:


> Didn't read it all, but the Canon looked better.


Yep.. I am pretty happy with mine, so I won't be changing brands in a hurry.
But there are a few Sony users here that maybe interested.

@ Morgan.
The 1DsMKIII is much better pass ISO 800. 
But.. considering the Sony offering cost halve the money, it is very good value indeed.


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

IGADIZ said:


> Yep.. I am pretty happy with mine, so I won't be changing brands in a hurry.
> But there are a few Sony users here that maybe interested.
> 
> @ Morgan.
> ...


yeah but the flip side is you've got half the number of compatible accesories and lenses. Good value cam but not yet the complete system!


----------



## IGADIZ (May 21, 2006)

Agree.. Like I said not tempting for me. Although I could use some of those wonderful Carl Zeiss lenses (if only they came with an EOS AF mount).


----------



## jamest (Apr 8, 2008)

I always thought a catalogue of lenses was just as important as the body.

You could have a 30MP camera but that doesn't mean it will be better than a 20MP.

Cameras have always confused me though so I am probably talking a load of crap.


----------



## IGADIZ (May 21, 2006)

jamest said:


> I always thought a catalogue of lenses was just as important as the body.
> 
> You could have a 30MP camera but that doesn't mean it will be better than a 20MP.
> 
> Cameras have always confused me though so I am probably talking a load of crap.


If on a tight budget...A good set of high quality lenses are more desirable than a high end Digital Camera body. You can always get a cheap film body and digitise after developing. In fact, a brand new EOS 3 (which is a very nice body)cost just £270. Most film processing companies offer free digital scans of your film, so there is no reason why not to use film.


----------



## ADZphtg (Mar 23, 2008)

Looks pretty but i'll stick with real camera's, it's gonna take a long time for relative newcomers to Photography to catch up with the established brands, Could have it's uses in certain markets tho i guess.


----------



## wayne_w (Jan 25, 2007)

Surely though, once the pixel count starts to get to this sort of range it's more gimmicky than anything else?
For an amateur 10 or 8 or even 6 megapixels is more than enough?
The body is one thing but, my understanding is, it's the lens quality that makes or breaks a good picture,
Can someone elaborate on this more?


----------



## IGADIZ (May 21, 2006)

wayne_w said:


> Surely though, once the pixel count starts to get to this sort of range it's more gimmicky than anything else?
> For an amateur 10 or 8 or even 6 megapixels is more than enough?
> The body is one thing but, my understanding is, it's the lens quality that makes or breaks a good picture,
> Can someone elaborate on this more?


Err.. not quite.
While a good quality lens helps; Good quality exposure, light, and composition skills, makes the killer image.
Further, more pixels don't necessarily mean better pictures, in fact, it can make things very tricky.
The sensel pitch will be smaller, creating problems ranging from increased noise levels, to premature on set of Diffraction blur. Add a limited dynamic range to the equation, and pretty soon, the advantages of higher megapixel counts becomes dubious.


----------



## 190Evoluzione (Jun 27, 2007)

The day Sony Alpha cameras enter the Pro Rental market, I'll take 'em seriously.
GF's dad asked me to recommend an Alpha body as he has a good few Minolta AF lenses from the Dynax days, I ended up getting him an A350.
Nice enough, but my god they're flimsy.
A700 looked more like the old Dynax 9 (a stunning camera let down by cr*p marketing) so I don't doubt the A900 is up to the job, it's just that the system is not in the Pro arena yet. Nobody in London rents Minolta lenses either, so the outlook ain't good.


----------



## Big T (Mar 20, 2007)

IGADIZ said:


> The sensel pitch will be smaller, creating problems ranging from increased noise levels, to premature on set of Diffraction blur. Add a limited dynamic range to the equation, and pretty soon, the advantages of higher megapixel counts becomes dubious.


I didn't understand a single word of that:tumbleweed:


----------



## IGADIZ (May 21, 2006)

Big T said:


> I didn't understand a single word of that:tumbleweed:


Diffraction blur is explained HERE.
Dynamic range and pixel size is described In this site.
Click Me for tutorial on Signal to noise ratio . 
I hope this helps.


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

Big T said:


> I didn't understand a single word of that:tumbleweed:


Don't worry mate i've been quite seriously in to photography for about 3 years now and i still learn new stuff all the time. I think photography can be one of the most complicated hobbies ever.

But the key is not to get bogged down with it all! Just enjoy taking snaps!


----------



## Big T (Mar 20, 2007)

Cheers Guys


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

issue is blend of skills with light, composition and NOW technology = complex...

Been serious into photography for 20 years and now the technology stuff makes it crazy.

VERY simply, MP = SIZE, so if you want to create large images without loss of detail then you need lots of MP. Thats why many people say you dont need them as an amateur, as most people dont print at all and if they do its rarely bigger than A4 'ish.

One key attribute of good lenses is that image quality deteriorates less at the EDGE of the glass in the lens. Most DSLR's use a sensor that is smaller than a negative on an old 35mm film, so only use light projected through the centre portion of most lenses - where its easier and cheaper to get a quality image. Once you move to cameras with 'full frame sensors' you use every last bit of light (and image) coming through the entire lens, pretty much edge to edge, and if you have cheapo lenses then you will find lots of weird stuff happening in the edges of your pictures - distortion, colour issues etc etc put simply.

I think in the 'old days' it was more important to have quality lenses, as the body was really only a film holder, but nowadays the quality of the sensor, electronics, processing etc is much more relevant as well. I think it balances out much more these days.


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

Bigpikle said:


> issue is blend of skills with light, composition and NOW technology = complex...
> 
> Been serious into photography for 20 years and now the technology stuff makes it crazy.
> 
> ...


Some of the top commercial photographers are still taking a mobile dark room with them for top clients too see the results there and then because digital (despite the apparent advantages of not having to develop) is too complicated to colour manage!


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

colour management certainly s a BIG can of worms... :wall:


----------



## m500dpp (Feb 17, 2006)

yes but when you have developed and printed pictures from film, taking an hour for a single print (and then to realise the colour /exposure is wrong!) the benefits of digital are obvious!

I was asked to do some wedding photos (informal only) at a very big wedding (total cost £40k!) and was able to produce a number of A4 prints within an hour of the event, not possible in the old days of film!!!

once you have developed the old way you realise how good modern cameras/software/printers really are.


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

m500dpp said:


> yes but when you have developed and printed pictures from film, taking an hour for a single print (and then to realise the colour /exposure is wrong!) the benefits of digital are obvious!
> 
> I was asked to do some wedding photos (informal only) at a very big wedding (total cost £40k!) and was able to produce a number of A4 prints within an hour of the event, not possible in the old days of film!!!
> 
> once you have developed the old way you realise how good modern cameras/software/printers really are.


yeah but photographers at the level we're talking about nail the exposure 999times out of 1000.

Thwy have assistant running around with ligth meters etc so the number of times they develop an poorly exposed image is very rare!


----------

