Don't diss the Sony/Minolta grip until you've tried it. Looks wierd at first but handles brilliantly. That grip places your hand at the same relative position to the lens as when you're shooting normally, making for better handling.
Note the A900 will be more comparable to a FF D300 than a D3 or D3X, good but basic pro-level body without the size, all-out performance or indestructibility of a single-digit Nikon. Very high resolution though, but likely inferior noise control to what the D3X will have (Sony's noise control is good, but not quite there yet)
This is the real Canon 5DmII killer, similar cost and size, better build, better controls, faster AF, higher resolution and the Zeiss and G-series lenses are killer.
And yes, the silly point prism hump does look funny. A popup like the earlier Maxxum 9 and 9xi would have made more sense as Sony doesn't currently offer an IR flash commander like the SU-800.
Why the great support for the Sony camera. You guys react to any criticism of the camera, you think the Sony/Minolta camera should be in its own forum?
gee whiz, it's ugly and the grip sucks, check out the Sony forum now
Also, I was after that 135 sft lens when Minolta was selling it, pictures I saw taken with it had a special quality
Yep it's ugly, I mean reaaaal ugly (IMO of course). Yep I would have to buy a bunch of new expensive lenses to use one. As curious as I am, nope it's not going to happen.
I am partial towards Nikon but not a brand bigot. I have something against Sony as a company but there are some things they just can't be beat, I just try not to buy Sony whenever there is a reasonable alternative.
This all adds up to, highly unlikely I will be using a Sony DSLR anytime soon if ever.
For those that enjoy/support the Sony brand DSLR, I am glad you find it a suitable tool and by no means do I discount it as non legitimate product. It's just not a legitimate/practical consideration for me at this time.
just my thoughts on it, hope you can understand my perspective on the issue.
jamach wrote:
Why the great support for the Sony camera. You guys react to any criticism of the camera, you think the Sony/Minolta camera should be in its own forum?
gee whiz, it's ugly and the grip sucks, check out the Sony forum now
Also, I was after that 135 sft lens when Minolta was selling it, pictures I saw taken with it had a special quality
- Joe
Sony makes nice cameras and the A900 looks killer, especially since Nikon doesn't look to offer a similarly sized FX body in the near future. It's good for there to be a 3rd major player in the market, keeps Nikon and Canon both on their toes and gives us AF Zeiss glass to drool over.
The grip works, I'd love to see someone else do a similar grip. Best ergonomics I've run across, even if it does look funny.
Good for you, I was just expressing my opinion, no need for you to get excited over it. You don't know that I was a Canonite before being a Nikonite, and a Pentax 67 pro before, and a Nikon pro before, and a Minolta Pro before, and a Nikon pro before that. So, I have been fortunate to have worked with some of the best gear available. Sorry, I have not tried the Sony, the models I tried at the camera store felt too cheap and plasticky. Don't get excited again, that is my opinion. Hopefully Sony will improve that aspect of the system before commanding an investment in not only cash but also commitment. Jumping into a new untried system is not something I care to do.
I am glad you are drooling over the Zeiss lenses and that you find the Sony design to your liking. Also, you can purchase the STF lens readily online. Be ready because not everyone will agree with you!
In fact, you will probably increase your happiness by purchasing all the above now and communicating with your new Sony friends. Please post some of your pictures and be sure to share your experiences in the Sony forum!
The A900 is the first step in Sony's direction towards high end still cameras, but it will not be aimed at the top pro level, although I would bet that is coming in the future. For a long time, Sony has been the leader in making the most advanced digital cameras in the world.
jamach wrote:
Good for you, I was just expressing my opinion, no need for you to get excited over it. You don't know that I was a Canonite before being a Nikonite, and a Pentax 67 pro before, and a Nikon pro before, and a Minolta Pro before, and a Nikon pro before that. So, I have been fortunate to have worked with some of the best gear available. Sorry, I have not tried the Sony, the models I tried at the camera store felt too cheap and plasticky. Don't get excited again, that is my opinion. Hopefully Sony will improve that aspect of the system before commanding an investment in not only cash but also commitment. Jumping into a new untried system is not something I care to do.
I am glad you are drooling over the Zeiss lenses and that you find the Sony design to your liking. Also, you can purchase the STF lens readily online. Be ready because not everyone will agree with you!
In fact, you will probably increase your happiness by purchasing all the above now and communicating with your new Sony friends. Please post some of your pictures and be sure to share your experiences in the Sony forum!
Wow, you certainly seem to have your panties in a bunch, I was simply answering your question as to why some of us like Sony's.
Sony's made a couple choices some of us like (Like in-body VR, FTM focusing on all lenses, Zeiss glass and the choice of a compact FF pro DSLR coming soon). Doesn't mean we don't like Nikons (drisley I ain't)
Yeah, you've shot with a lot of good kit. You aren't the only one. Lots of people here can say the same, myself included.
And yeah, I already do hang around with Sony shooters (over at Dyxum.com). Don't tend to post pics there (or here) as I prefer to post them over at Flickr. And those pics were shot with my Nikon D300, which I purchased because it was a better choice for me than an A700. Doesn't mean I don't respect the Sony kit, and have enough experience to note that some of their choices that might look silly (like the weird grip design) actually do work well, and in some cases better than Nikon's choices (Software UI, AF-On vs AF/MF) and in some cases it works worse (metering, flash system, custom function layout) and other's it's just different (front wheel placement, physical control layout).
Good point. Nikon's 14-24mm is as good as it gets, and Nikon has a bit more options than Sony right now, but Sony's 3 fullframe Zeiss lenses are class leading, and 6 more lenses are expected this year. By 2009, tilt-shift will be the only real Sony gap, but Hartblei and Zeiss helps with this. Either way, I think the new lenses from both Nikon and Sony/Zeiss are upstaging Canon's stuff quite a bit.
The A900 may be very competitively priced but Sony's G-series lenses (the equivalent of Nikon ED and Canon L) are significantly more expensive than either Nikon or Canon. For example, their 300/2.8 (with no VR/IS) sells for $6,000.
The 300mm and 70-200mm G lenses are anomalies in the Sony system, and should not be the basis of price comparison. They are rebadged Minolta lenses, and are still hand made in small quantities....which probably gives a little insight on why Minolta struggled financially. lol. The price of the 70-200mm has actually been dropping like a lead weight over the last year. It has gone from $2400 to around $1800 street, and, based on interviews and inside info, the resounding feeling amongst Sony users is that the 70-200mm G is on it's way out for a cheaper Zeiss replacement.
Sure, Sony's lenses are a bit more, but not to the point of being ridiculous. Plus, if these Zeiss' outperform other lenses on fullframe, isn't it worth it? Here is a price snapshot from B&H:
85mm f/1.4 Carl Zeiss ZA $1285
Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D $1025
Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED $1700
24-70mm f/2.8 Carl Zeiss $1750
135mm f/1.8 Carl Zeiss $1385
Nikkor 135mm f/2.0D $950
Sony 50mm 1.4 $325
Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D $285
Sony 100mm f/2.8 AF Macro $580
Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G $760
Sony 35mm f/1.4G $1385
Canon 35mm 1.4 L $1180 (can't find exact Nikon equivalent)
There are some definite holes in the Sony line-up, but six more lenses are coming. Most notably, an expected Zeiss 24mm 1.4 and Zeiss 16-35mm 2.8. Nikon's lenses are awesome, but don't discount Sony's lenses either. Cheers!
I agree with most that this camera is unsightly and hopefully the finished product will look better then the prototype! I do think it's funny how people talk about this camera not competing with this one or that one when they've never even seen it....much less, spent any time shooting with it to actually see what it can do. Without doing so, every comparison's speculative and basically mute.
The Zeiss ZF lenses outperform both Nikon and Canon lenses. The only reason I would get the A900 is so that I can have a Zeiss logo on the side of the lenses. True, the ZA lenses are not in the class of the ZF lenses. The Sony logo would be an embarrassment for me, and would be the brunt of all jokes. Different strokes for different folks I guess!
jamach wrote:
The Zeiss lenses probably perform great, but a blue Zeiss sticker on the side does not do it for me either.
