DPReview has the details:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08090902sonyalpha900.asp

And a sample gallery. Not real sure how to judge a 24.6mp camera's output but it looks pretty noisy to me.

Sample galleries are perhaps the worse way to judge a camera's potential output. Here's a DPR gallery sample of the 1Ds MkIII at ISO 200: http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos...t7h0942_acr.jpg I didn't see any A900 samples at DPR that looked that noisy at ISO 400 or lower

MAN! what an ugly camera!!! can't belive it. is this designed by Lada?


http://www.akvarij.net/forum/uploads/ZEC/Lada.jpg

Nick Rains has a hands-on report under the "What's New" section here on L-L.

I was just looking at chroma noise.

Anywho, here's my question - how do they print? I've never printed a file that gigantic. How big do you have to go before any of that stuff shows up in a print?

Now I only hope Canon has the guts to answer with a 5D/3D/7D (or whatever the name will be) offering us the full 21Mp for a price around 3k.

Ahahahahaha, good one :-) I didn't like the design either. What's the deal with the pyramid top? Maybe some sort of Zen device to calm down the electrons and reduce noise?

Luis

It's the shape of a solid glass penta-prism, which gives you the full-field bright view found in SLR's before they turned into plastic blobs with mirror assembly finders. Form follows function.

It works well but may not impress the neighbors.

I only hope they don't! I want my ef mount d700.

Sony's viewfinder may turn out to be the nicest around with this chunk of glass:
http://a.img-dpreview.com/previews/SonyDSL..._pentaprism.jpg

If this camera will cost only 3000$ it will shake up the market-

Wonder how much a Nikon D3x will cost with the same 24mp chip...

[quote=kers,Sep 9 2008, 06:25 PM]
If this camera will cost only 3000$ it will shake up the market-

I agree, and would not underestimate Sony's ability to continue it's penetration of the DSLR market, based on an ability to manufacture high quality imaging products with many innovative features. As far as the new Sony being an ugly camera, I don't recall the Nikon F3 and F4 SLR's, with their large high eye-point viewfinders being so named. If it performs as well as the specifications suggest, it may give the Nikon D700 and Canon equivalent a run for their money.

[quote=cricketer 1,Sep 9 2008, 07:06 PM]
[quote=kers,Sep 9 2008, 06:25 PM]
If this camera will cost only 3000$ it will shake up the market-

I agree, and would not underestimate Sony's ability to continue it's penetration of the DSLR market, based on an ability to manufacture high quality imaging products with many innovative features. As far as the new Sony being an ugly camera, I don't recall the Nikon F3 and F4 SLR's, with their large high eye-point viewfinders being so named. If it performs as well as the specifications suggest, it may give the Nikon D700 and Canon equivalent a run for their money.

[/quote]


Well it will sell under 3k, street price.

Thanks LL for the timely review.

The DP'ers are going nuts reviewing sample jpg's - and forming some rather strong opinions!

I'll wait for more raw files and processing options . . . .

I will note that the sony looks good in the comparison of the building under construction. (look at the 95 sign and lettering)

The major drawback I see is the close spacing of the focus points - my main criticism of the 5d. Curious how accurate and usable the screen is for manual focusing.

Comprehensive first test with lots of detailed samples here:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA900/AA900A.HTM

This is of major concern to those who like to wear fine jewelery. It could be quite upsetting to feel compelled to wear an ugly necklace in the interests of fine art .

The camera might be a bit on the ugly side but those sexy Zeiss lenses make up for it. Going to see if we can get a copy of the camera in the studio this week to make my own comparisons as we are supplying the studio lighting for the launch in Shanghai today.

It would cost more, same as the D3 costs more than the D700 (think features and performance). However, a D3x (or whatever Nikon calls it) may not use the same sensor, it might use a better one.



Sony DSLR-A900
-2 to +2 EV in 1/3 EV steps
5 fps
100-1600, (up to 6400)
24.6 million pixels = 2.9 MP/cm²

Nikon D700
-5 to +5 EV in 1/2 or 1/3 EV steps
8 fps (with battery pack)
200-6400 (100 - 25600 with boost)
12.1 million pixels = 1.4 MP/cm²

I like oranges better than apples; I have never considered if I could get more apples for my money.



It could be an ergonomics issue for some:

http://a.img-dpreview.com/previews/nikond7...ges/inhand2.jpg

http://a.img-dpreview.com/previews/SonyDSL...ges/inhand2.jpg

Sony is using some major noise reduction at all ISO's, reminds me of the Kodak 14n. They might as well put those Zeiss lenses on a holga for all the good they are going to do for this ugly thing.

There are 3 slightly worrying issues about this camera that spring to mind.

(1) No Live View for ultra accurate manual focussing. However, I can see the reason for this. Without image stabilisation in the lens, Live View is not as useful unless the camera is on a tripod. That's one disadvantage of the anti-shake sensor compared to the lens image stabilisation.

(2) The f stop latitude due to the anti-shake sensor is described as 2.4 to 4 stops.

What do they mean by this? What causes such a variation in latitude? It is assumed that, whether or not anti-shake is activated, the final result will depend in part on the amount of camera shake present at the time the shutter is pressed, whether or not that degree of shake is due to a Parkinsons disorder or the motion of a moving vehicle along a bumpy road.

If the IS specification refers to a latitude, then that implies it is in relation to whatever camera-shake conditions apply at the time. If Sony means that the variation of 2.4 to 4 stops is dependent upon the focal length used, then they should say so. Perhaps at either 16mm or 400mm one can't expect better than a 2.4 stop latitude, whereas at 100mm or 150mm one might expect as much as 4 stops latitude.

(3) The noise at high ISO in the images I've seen so far, do not look impressively clean, even aty well below 100% magnification on the monitor.

I'm reminded from previous dpreview comparisons between the Sony A700, A200 and A350 that high ISO noise is not as good as the equivalent Canons. At ISO 1600 and 3200, if noise in the Sonys is as low as the Canon equivalent, it's usually at the expense of detail, and vice versa. If detail is on a par, then the Sony images are noisier.

This worries me a bit. First impression tend to confirm that this trend is continued in the A900. Nikon has already set the benchmark for low noise from a full frame sensor. It is expected (by me, at least) that the soon-to-be-announced successor to the 5D will match the high-ISO low noise performance of the D3 and D700.

I noticed that the A900 has the second largest viewfinder in a DSLR, EVER !

At 100% with 0.74x magnification, the viewfinder is larger than that in a Nikon D3 or D700. It is also larger than the Canon 1DSMKII or 5D.

Only the 1DSMKIII at 100% and 0.76x magnification is a bit larger.

Also, at 5FPS at its full 24.6MP resolution, the data pipeline architecture is SOLID and is a dimension apart from a camera with say a 12-14MP sensor at 5FPS. The sensor would be generating around 300MB per Second, if shot RAW+JPEG. That is very impressive for ANY price !

Also, since the camera comes with body-IS, all the 35mm primes, the 50mm primes, the 85mm primes, the 135mm primes are all stabilized. Also stabilized are the 24-70 f/2.8, the 16-35 f/2.8 and all other lenses in the range. The specs state between 2.5-4 stops of handholdability....applicable to all lenses.

I think this is a very competitive product and at the price, is a literal steal.

I noticed that Nick (who reviewed it here in LL), mentioned that there are no dedicated macros in the lens range. Actually, there are 2 macros: 50mm f/2.8 Macro and 100mm f/2.8 Macro - both dedicated macro lenses.

I also understand that there are a few other lenses going to be announced shortly.

Good question. Actually it is directly related to the FL of the lens mounted. The 400mm etc would have around 2.5stops of handholdability, while the 135mm, the 85mm, the 50mm, the 35mm etc would have higher stops of hand-holdability....upto 4 stops.

The A700 and the A900 use CMOS sensors, while the others (consumer bodies) use CCD sensors. As we know, the biggest advantage of CMOS is the ability to accomodate NR circuitry into the sensor itself, which is the key advantage that a CMOS has over a CCD, specifically at higher ISOs. A CCD cannot accomodate any on-chip NR circuitry. Thus the CCDs are arguably better than a CMOS at the lowest ISO, but quickly lose steam once the ISOs climb.

But Sony, in addition to the on-chip NR done to the A700 (like all other CMOS manufacturers including Canon does), was also applying NR to the RAW files, AFTER they got generated, unlike the Nikon D300 (which also used the same sensor), which did not apply this "second NR on RAW" in their files. Sony was taken to the cleaners for this (and the A700 sales suffered due to the bad rap from this), by every single site who tested the A700. That story was as of a couple of days back.

But as of YESTERDAY (just before the release of the A900), Sony completely revamped their image processing approach in the A700 (Firmware Ver.4) and using the Nikon playbook, completely removed the NR they were applying on RAW and also made several improvements to the treatment of the images, and the results have essentially proved to be stunning. In one move, they turned the clock back and equalized the image quality with the corresponding Nikon (D300). The dpreview Sony SLR forums are all on fire due to this but the news has not yet gotten to the reviewers.

The A900 uses the same sensor design as the A700/D300 but has slightly larger pixels, due to which the noise is expected to be better than the D300/A700. But the forthcoming detailed tests should reveal how much of an improvement is there.

It's not a whole lot different from the 1Ds, baring in mind that the Sony creates a raw with 12bits depth, and the Canon produces a raw of 14bits depth. In fact, after calculating it, they were practically on par (as far as data throughput is concerned)

That's what I thought was probably meant. However, it would be useful to know what the 'sweet spot' is for the 4 stops latitude. If that claim is not sheer hyperbole, then it's an amazing performance.

I consider that I could take a sharp shot with an 85mm lens at 1/160th second, without using IS. If 85mm is the sweet focal length for 4 stops latitude of exposure, then I should be able to get an equally sharp image at 1/10th second exposure using anti-shake. Amazing if true!

Even if I need a 1/320th sec exposure at 85mm for a truly tack sharp image, then the same tack sharp result at 1/20th with anti-shake enabled, is still amazing.

and ? you can take razor sharp images with a 70-200 @ 200 at 1/50th .... the only new nice thing is that you could use every lens.

This one is sure to appeal to the high res stock photo crowd, probably less to the everyone else.

Good to see sony have done nice work on a big OVF, sure to impress. Have to say, as a Minolta user, this isnt the direction I wanted them to take. 24mp is overkill for most, and the jpeg samples are not too impressive (ok you can shoot raw, but still) Imaging resource hints at less than spectacular DR as well. High ISO isnt as good as expected.

Another nail in the megapixel is the only judge of IQ coffin.

Still, least they did something, roll on that D700 esque sony!

Why? The optical viewfinder is not stabilized, but live view would be if it uses the actual sensor image, which would be the only way to get accurate focus information anyway.

Cheers,
Bernard

It's not reasonable to compare a 24mp camera to a 12 mp camera, except maybe to show that the technology for the 24mp isn't there yet. That however is disproven by Canon. The Mark 3 is the one to compare with the 900.

Think of it this way - with 12mp (d700) we're at least into 645 film quality. I think, now, we're just looking for 6x7 quality. So how fast film could we use without graininess?

Well, some want to compare a 24 MP DSLR to a 12 MP DSLR based on price and resolution alone while ignoring other considerations, and that's what prompted my comparison of some of those other considerations. I also do not think comparing a $7000 camera to a $3000 camera is relevant; indeed, factoring in the price, in my opinion the A900 is far and away a better value compared to the 1Ds MkIII based on the published specifications and features.

I do not think Canon has "disproven" that you can't equal the output and performance of a 12 MP DSLR with that of a 24 MP DSLR. The 1Ds MkIII still only gets 5 fps, the D3 gets 9 fps (11 fps if you don't need AF), and the D3 and D700 are the undisputed kings of high ISO performance. It comes down to what is more important to you: resolution or ISO performance.



Well I agree with you, I hope we don't drag a "film versus digital" debate into this discussion. In terms of graininess, there is no competition. I have an ISO 800 sample from one of the Imaging Resource shots converted by Iliah Borg, which according to Iliah is one stop underexposed (if you are thinking in terms of ETTR), and that suggests that you could have gotten the same results from an ISO 1600 shot. If you want to check it out (it's 8 MP), it is here: http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/myp...00hSLI0800.jpeg

Since Nick Rains mentioned in his review that he would like to have compared the 1Ds MkIII directly to the A900, he (and others) might be interested in this: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29267635

Tony, are you saying that when you downsize the A900 file to 12MP to match the D700, the D700 is still much cleaner?

As far as the live view is concerned, I think Sony did make a mistake in not including the mirror-up type. I have a feeling they are trying to draw a line in the sand in relation to what Sony thinks real live view is. AKA, the A350 type.

As an aside, the A900 actually has a feature I will use much more than live view: Intelligent Preview. Hit the DOF button (or focus hold button on lens if you choose,) and the camera takes a pic that is stored in the buffer. You can then change WB, Exposure and DRO, and the pic shows the changes. In M mode, you can actually adjust the Shutter speed and Aperture, and the exposure shows the changes, albeit without actually changing the DOF. I think this will be great for studio strobe shooting, personally.

I did compare to the 1DsM3, at least as far as was possible - what I need to see is the two camera's files processed through the same software. One independent RAW processor developer is looking at the A900 files as we speak so maybe I'll have some news on that front soon.

The Sony RAW software is shite, as is their jpeg engine.

There are some really impressive conversions linked at DPReview at ISO 1600, 3200 and even 6400 that look comparable to the 1DsIII, so hopefully the Alpha 900 will measure up to the other full-frame cameras when full RAW support becomes available

Bernard,
I'm glad you've picked me up on this point because I probably don't fully understand the issues and don't own any anti-shake DSLRs.

I've assumed that the normal anti-shake sensor design does not have any effect on the image as seen through the viewfinder. How could it, since the light path is through the lens, bounced off a mirror and into the viewfinder, completely bypassing the sensor?

For this reason, I have presumed that the anti-shake sensor is only active when the shutter is fully depressed, as opposed to the in-lens image stabilisation of Canon lenses which is active all the time during focussing, when shutter half-pressed.

I understand that the engineering problems in designing a full frame anti-shake sensor have been formidable. This is another 'first' for Sony. To also provide a Live View facility with real-time image stabilistaion during manual focussing, would result in that sensor bobbing around like a small boat in a storm for as long as it took to focus and take the shot. I think there might be an issue of durability in such a design.

So what's the excuse for the price differential?

http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/Sup...ed_cameras.html

The A900 has just been added as a beta version of this software, which was what I linked to above.

I think the fact that we are talking about this $2999 camera as "practically on par from a data throughput" perspective, with a $8000 camera is impressive all by itself. Not only throughput, but also the 100% viewfinder (bigger than the 1DSMKII and needs higher tolerances due to the 100%), in addition to the unprecedented I.S in the Full-Frame body, and the engineering around it (which none of the Canons have).

The A700 Full-RAW (not cRAW), is around 19MB in size. The A900 is twice the resolution, thus the RAW file size should be in the 40MB neighborhood. At 5FPS, shooting RAW-only, that is 200MB/Sec. Add another 100 MB/Sec, when shooting RAW+JPEG.

Now let us see what kind of data pipeline architecture Canon would provide the upcoming 5D replacement(s). If they make it comparable to the 1DSMKIII, I think that will seriously impact the 1DSMKIII market and create a firestorm among the unhappy 1DS owners who paid out $8000 for the body.

I think Canon will probably introduce 2 Full-frame bodies. One with the high-end architecture like the A900, but priced much higher and another cheaper body, with lower spec. Either way, good for the consumers, since it will drive down overall FF prices.

Yes I saw that and briefly checked it out. So far it looks very ordinary - slow and the results were average to say the least. To be fair though, I have not given it much of a chance yet. I'll try again when I get some time.

Courtesy Imaging Resource, ISO 3200, resized 1Ds MkIII on right and 100% D700 on left:

I'm not selling it, I'm just suggesting that you could make direct comparisons using the same RAW converter using it. I expect there are various settings that one would need to familiarize themselves with to get optimum use from it. I understand your ambivalence about learning to use a new program, the older I get the less patient I become with learning new things (heck, at 47 I have forgotten more stuff than my 19 year old son has learned, one more cellphone and I may just declare senility). Looking at the ISO 800 sample I linked to at post #31, the results looked pretty decent to me and a significant improvement on what Sony's software achieved.

BTW, I liked your review and I would not hesitate to save up and buy this camera if it were an F-mount. I expect something similar (price, resolution, performance, and features) from Nikon later next year.

Imaging Resource review

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA900/AA900A.HTM

They have much better shots than DPR which seems to mangle many cameras. They claim at low ISO it beats the 1Ds M3.

based on RAW maybe not just in low ISO:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29264436
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat...thread=29270850
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29256050

I have had a bit of a tinker around and whilst the results are not real good out of RPP, what I can see is there is a great deal of fine detail that the Sony RAW processor does not pull out. I'm convinced that a good RAW processor will be able to produce results that are right up there with, if not beyond, the 1DsM3.

I can't comment on noise yet but judging by the Imaging Resource results the noise is much the same as the 5D up to 800ASA, which is pretty good. Past that I'm not really interested - no camera is perfect.

Used as a tripod camera for max print quality this camera is awesome and the lenses are stunning.

This is not true.

Actually the variation in the quoted latitude of 2.5 to 4 f-stops (or actually, speed stops) is due to (1) the amplitude and frequency of the user's shaking (as always), and (2) the diameter of the lens' image circle. Longer lenses have wider image circles ... so a 400 mm telephoto lens will see a 4-stop advantage easily. It's the full-frame wide-angle lenses where the image circle is tighter---but on the other hand the amplitude of their shaking is smaller, too. So it's hard to predict which lens will see the least advantage from the in-body image stabilization ... and furthermore, image circles get wider at smaller apertures.

New Sony SAL lenses (including those which have been designed lately) will be designed with a few additional millimeters of image circle for sure. If issues arise (the operational word here being 'if') then it will be with older Minolta wide-angle lenses used in full-frame mode at full aperture. But I'm sure even those will benefit from the image stabilizer even if it may (MAY!) be only 2.5 stops here.

Don't be fooled into thinking that in-body image stabilization systems in general must be less effective at longer focal lengths. That's not true.

-- Olaf

I'm afraid it is. For the same angular shake, the sensor will have to move twice as
far for a 200mm lens as compared to a 100mm lens. There is a finite limit on how
far the sensor can be moved around inside the camera, and that limits how effective
in-body image stabilization can be for longer focal lengths.

Ronny

Not correct. The sensor moves only a few pixels, each about 6 microns. Even a 1 mm of movement would correspond to around 80 pixels.

C't, a German magazine did tests based on a special vibration rig with a Sony Alpha and it was among the best of the combinations tested, the scope of the test was limited to a single lens, a 24-105.

I think that in lens stabilisation has advantages, it can be optimised for each lens. One disadvantage is that one lens or lens group is getting decentered.

Erik

But you are wrong. Wherever your theoretical reasoning might arrive at---the proof is in the pudding, as the British say.



Everything you're saying is correct---but you are still wrong. You are falsely assuming the sensor will hit the physical limits of its moving range at the longer focal lengths. But it doesn't---at least not at those focal lengths you'd dare to hand-hold anyway.

As a matter of fact, the in-body image stabilizer in my four-year-old Konica-Minolta Dynax 7D gives me three stops of additional hand-holdablity at focal lengths of 400 mm, 500 mm, and 600 mm. The latest in-body systems give about one stop more than that, i. e. four stops, at the same focal lengths. And by the way, upgrading to the latest generation of in-body image stabilizers requires the purchase of just one new camera body.

-- Olaf

If in-body stabilization can do effective 4 stops for a 600mm it should have
enough movement latitude to do effective 7.5 stops for a 60mm lens.

Based on my own 300mm lens with IS, I would guess that the sensor would have to
move more than 1mm in each direction to get the same stabilization, and that would
leave a useless border of 1mm around the image. But I have never tried a body with
an in-body systems so I can't really compare.

Ronny

Close, but the thing the British say is this: the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Rob C (in pedant mode).