Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Mel Gross wrote:
This looks like what I've been saying here all along.
If Sony had come out with this camera a year ago, when we first began to hear rumors about this sensor, it would have been a *great* camera. Because, the top cameras of a year ago look to be what Sony was trying to beat, or equal.
But, it didn't come out a year ago, it's come out now. And now, either those cameras have been discontinued in favor of better ones, or are about to be discontinued in favor of better ones.
In light of that fact, the a900 is no longer a *great* cameras, it's merely a *good* camera.
One has to live with that fact.
If Canon and Nikon both come out with new top line models early next year, as it's supposed they will do, does anyone have real doubts the IQ won't also be improved?
Where does this leave the a900?
...Show more →
Probably still in a very strong position given that the forthcoming Nikon and Canon "Pro" models will sell for thousands more than the A900. Nikon could release a 24MP D800 at some point at a cheaper price point like the D700, but I would not expect that for at least another year or so. They will wish to milk the more expensive D3X as long as they are able.
Mel Gross wrote:
Sony is trying to position this as their "pro" camera, but compared to the so called "real" pro cameras from Canon and Nikon, it's not competitive.
Sony have not claimed the A900 as being a "Pro" camera. They seem to go out of their way to not claim that in fact. It's positioned just like the 5D according to them. As such, it has some features lacking in the 5DII and lacks others.
Mel Gross wrote:
Many pros who do buy Canon and Nikons pro models will buy the next down as well, so that area is off limits to Sony.
None of those pros who buy a less expensive, lighter, smaller body for their second, or third body, will buy the Sony, AND new lenses as well.
And Sony doesn't have the cameras to compete at the high end to get the pros to buy this as that second, or third body.
People who own Canon and Nikon, for the most part, are not going to buy into this. A few will, to be sure, but not many.
...Show more →
I think that is pretty much true in that buying into the A900 would mean your either changing systems completely if you were heavily invested in Nikon or Canon with multiple bodies and lenses. A few of us here do not actually fit into that stereotype, shooting with mostly Alternative lenses and even various systems. Mainstream though, you are probably correct.
Mel Gross wrote:
The more tests that people here have been demanding we need to see before dismissing this as being one of the "best", are now coming out. They are backing up most of the early field reports on the camera, which is to say that this is good, but not up to the new models.
So, again, where can Sony position this? They might have to drop the actual MSRP. The Canon 5D mkII lists for $2,700, and will be selling for less in a few months, once initial heavy demand is satisfied, possibly around $2,500. The Nikon D700 lists for $3,000, but is already selling for $2,700, and will likely come down from that.
How much, then, is the Sony worth? It lists now for $3,000, but what will the initial street price be?...Show more →
I for one would be extremely happy paying $3K for an A900 if it were to live up IQ wise to the Canon 1DsIII. I don't think you can buy a used 1DsIII for that amount and the replacement will likely be twice as much. So, if the IQ is at least at that level, the other features such as the viewfinder and in body IS matter more to me than ultimate high ISO quality. It simply comes down to feature priorities for each buyer.
|
