Mel Gross
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Tariq Gibran 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?
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....Show more →
Pricewise, the Sony is delivered against the 5D mkII, and the D700. My point there was that Sony was challenging the top cameras in specs, but that they will be bettered shortly. As the D700 has much better noise characteristics, and the 5D mkII seems to have better noise as well, in addition to better resolution, the a900 is now merely a "good" camera. It breaks no ground, as it might have a year ago.
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.
Yup, you're right on that one. Sony isn't officially doing that.
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?
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.
...Show more →
I'm curious about that last one. While I should probably know this, at this time, I can't remember. Which system and camera(s) are you using now?
And, what are you not happy about with them?
What about this Sony model is so compelling, that you would want to switch?
|
