Steadyshot has certainly improved over the years for aps-c. The A900/A850 is the first ff version, and it may slightly behind due to the sheer size of the mechanism, although I don't noice too much of a difference. I did notice an improvement from the A100 to the A700, and Sony claimed that the A700 had around a 1 stop improvement, if I remember correctly.
douglasf13 wrote:
I did notice an improvement from the A100 to the A700, and Sony claimed that the A700 had around a 1 stop improvement, if I remember correctly.
I believe they claimed up to 4 stops improvement for the a700.
Craig Gillette wrote:
Where the A850 and A900 really shine is at making Canon and Nikon guys squirm.
I would hope it does more than that! I really don't think most Canon or Nikon shooters give much thought to Sony. Switching brands is very expensive and not something most go into without very good cause. Of course, there are switchers who are never happy. They always live on the wrong side of the fence. I've followed some FM'ers who have gone through all three brands and ended up back where they started.
Yeah, lotusm50, I think that was up from 3.5 stops from the a100. So, it was only a half stop improvement, not a one stop improvement like I originally thought.
JamesR, I'd be curious to read some threads about why someone sold the A900 to go back to Nikon or Canon. I would imagine it's for high ISO. Can you give some links to who your speaking of?
James R wrote:
Switching brands is very expensive and not something most go into without very good cause.
For the person heavily invested in the manufacturers lens system, yes. For a number of alt users though, that is not the case. I lost the use of two lenses when I switched. The rest of my lenses were easy to move over to the Sony as they were M42's. Even if I had C/Y Zeiss or Leica R glass, I could have moved those as well. Of the two lenses I loss use of, the 85 1.8 Canon was easily replaced with a better lens but the Olympus 24 2.8 was more difficult to replace. Had I had a bag full of Canon glass, I certainly would have thought twice before switching.
douglasf13 wrote:
JamesR, I'd be curious to read some threads about why someone sold the A900 to go back to Nikon or Canon. I would imagine it's for high ISO. Can you give some links to who your speaking of?
Doug,
First, I wasn't specifically referencing an A900, just Sony in general. I can't recall specific names. I only remember the forum names of a few--probably 30 or 40 participants. Generally, what brand of camera they shoot doesn't interest me much. But, I do recall general posts by people who have changed multiple times and discuss shooting with all brands. Now most comments on forums are anecdotal at best, so how much credence you give them is problematic.
I can't tell you why somebody would sell their A900, but, ISO performance would make sense. This past November, the OP put his A900 system up for sale on the Buy/Sell forum. Apparently he didn't get his price or has changed his mind. You might ask him why he considered selling.
Finally, I hope you don't think that Sony has produced a camera that is the end-all in photo equipment. Bottom line is people change equipment and will always change equipment. It keeps greasing the camera manufacturers' gears. IMO, Nikon and Canon both have made the mistake of thinking they were the end-all camera and the competition bit them in the butt.
douglasf13 wrote:
JamesR, I'd be curious to read some threads about why someone sold the A900 to go back to Nikon or Canon. I would imagine it's for high ISO. Can you give some links to who your speaking of?
I sold off a bunch of stuff and still have the a900 with the 135 and 35. I was going to switch to Nikon but decided the A900 really does well in certain areas esecially with the 24mp sensor. I have been shooting film lately again with an F6 and plan on building up a collection of zf lenses once again for the Nikon camera.
I have reached the conclusion that when I sell a camera, I will end up keeping the glass regardless of switching to a different camera or not. The camera tends to be much more affordable than the glass and quite honestly, the glass does not get old in technology like the bodies do.
Here is an a900 pano i did on wed with the sony 35 and a900.
BTW, this was handheld multi snapshot with no special setup. I was just tired wanted to get a picture and ski back to the car. Having said that, dont look for anything special in this shot other than the great northwest is a beautiful place to live.
I really don't think most Canon or Nikon shooters give much thought to Sony. Switching brands is very expensive and not something most go into without very good cause. Of course, there are switchers who are never happy. They always live on the wrong side of the fence. I've followed some FM'ers who have gone through all three brands and ended up back where they started.