24-Megapixel Sony A900 Announced

[Photo-John]

Sony announced their pro DSLR this morning. They're not messing around. It's a 24-megapixel, full-frame digital SLR with built-in image stabilization (of course), and it can capture 5 frames-per second at full resolution.

Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 Announcement & Specs

[Canuck935]

Absolutely amazing. Sony has done the unthinkable. In just 2 short years they took a seemingly dead system and completely turned it around, sending it up into the top ranks of the industry.

In just 2 short years..

Bodies:
a100
a200
a300
a350
a700
a900

In addition to the re-badged Minolta line:
Zeiss 16-80 f/3.5-4.5
Zeiss 85mm f/1.4
Zeiss 135mm f/1.8
Zeiss 24-70mm f/2.8 SSM
Zeiss 16-35mm f/2.8 SSM
70-300mm f/4-5.6 G SSM
70-400mm f/4-5.6 G SSM
HVL-F42AM Flash
HVL-F58AM Flash

[Anbesol]

I read everything this morning. I am amazed, and at $3000! This is going to profoundly move the direction of the industry. Canon better work on their next iteration of their 5D, and Nikon, what can they do? Beg Sony to use the same sensor, so they can compete? Sony just rendered the D700 obsolete.

I knew Sony was going to release a 24 mp full frame, but at $3000?! With Anti-shake!? Incredible!!!

Slightly too expensive for me now though - if I got it, I'd also have to upgrade my computer, which is maxxing out on my 12 megapixel shots as is. Perhaps another year or so.

[Photo-John]

You're making some pretty bold statements, there. Saying the D700 is obsolete is a bit short-sighted. If it was all about the latest and greatest technology, that might be the case. But it's not. It's about the system, and what people are used to and comfortable with, what they're already invested in - and for pros, it's also about support. I am doubtful that there will be many invested Canon and Nikon photographers who are going to bail on their systems because of this camera. Beginning to mid-level photographers with entry-level SLRs and a couple of lenses, they seem like the prime target. And as always, you have to ask yourself, "what do I really need?" Do you need 24-megapixels? We keep being lured into thinking we need more. I thought I was good at 8-megapixels. And I really thought I had enough at 10. Now I'm up to 12 and I'm thinking of moving to 15. But is it really going to help my photos? Maybe. I can think of reasons it will. But the truth is, I do pretty well with what a lot of people consider to be a sub-par 10-megapixel DSLR.

So yeah, it's an awesome camera. no doubt about that. Sony has done a very, very impressive job with the KM technology they bought. I'm definitely excited about the A900 and look forward to testing one out. But although it's a step in the right direction for Sony - they need a real pro-level body and this is a doozy - I don't think we're going to see mobs of Canon and Nikon owners selling their D300s, D700s, D3s, 1s Mark IIIs, etc to get an A900. However, it will put some pressure on Nikon, Canon and the rest and I am very interested to see how they respond. They are paying attention. Image-stabilizaed kit lenses with the XSi and D60 are the evidence that they care what the other guys are doing.

[SmartWombat]

$3000 used to be £1500, a little more now perhaps.
As an alternative to the 1DSmkIII it is worth a serious look.

Not that I'm personally likely to ditch the Canon system, but for a new purchaser they're right up there, particularly with in-camera stabilisation.

I saw a second hand 1DmkIII for £1700, maybe those used prices will fall too later this year with this kind of competition.

[Anbesol]

John, excuse my hyperbole, I was looking at this strictly from a technological standpoint - not a practical one. And yeah, I'm at 12 and its doing great, I can't do 24 until I get a whole new system, on a first generation Athlon dual-core, 24 megapixels would make this machine scream in agony, I can only imagine waiting for filters and adjustments to process... I will certainly need a new system before I invest in something like this.

[shootme]

Camera body is one thing but don't forget the lenses. Personally I'm keeping my Nikon and when Nikon bring out their 24.4 MP thanks to using and adapting (improving) the Sony sensor, then I'll get the Nikon. I got this interesting link today:
http://www.roumazeilles.net/news/en/...l-photography/

[Canuck935]

I wouldn't be surprised if we did see the 24mp Sony CMOS in a future Nikon. I also wouldn't be surprised to see the FF 12mp currently in the Nikon make it's way into a Sony body..

[shootme]

I wouldn't be surprised if we did see the 24mp Sony CMOS in a future Nikon. I also wouldn't be surprised to see the FF 12mp currently in the Nikon make it's way into a Sony body..

I think your probably on the dollar there, from what I understand they both have a good relationship.

[Photo-John]

I think your probably on the dollar there, from what I understand they both have a good relationship.

This is an interesting subject and one that was definitely discussed at PMA in January. Nikon sources sensors from Sony and it's expected that there will be a 24-megapixel Nikon model with a version of the sensor the A900 is using. But at what point might Sony decide they want to cut Nikon out of the loop and keep their technology to themselves? And what would that do to Nikon? Of course, Sony has a good revenue stream selling Nikon sensors and letting them do the marketing. But it's possible that they will reach a point where they want to leverage a bigger chunk of the market by cutting Nikon out. That would be interesting. It's not like Nikon couldn't get sensors elsewhere (Kodak, Samsung). But it would limit their options and might mess up their production as I'm sure they currently have a good development and production relationship with Sony. Canon, on the other hand, is sitting pretty, with their own sensor development and production.

[Anbesol]

Sony decide they want to cut Nikon out of the loop and keep their technology to themselves? And what would that do to Nikon?

That is exactly what I'm thinking, I would be very surprised if they gave their Ace to their competitor so quickly, if they do sell it to Nikon, I would be willing to bet it won't be for a very long time.

Can Samsung really make sensors that compete with Sony/Canon/Kodak though? And, if Nikon did go with Kodak, would they pursue CMOS or use the LMOS or NMOS that Kodak has been doing?

[Canuck935]

I don't think Sony is going to cut off Nikon anytime soon. As pointed out many times before people who are already invested in a system aren't likely to switch, so the only real competition is for new users at the entry level of the market.

It seems Sony and Nikon have a pretty good relationship anyway, and they both win with this deal. Actually the ultimate winners here are us, the consumers. I'm actually a bit surprised the 24mp isn't in a Nikon yet, and I'm sure the 12 will find it's way to a Sony once the a900 is established.

[physasst]

Well, a couple of thoughts...as a Sony user, I am excited, and happy that they have finally introduced themselves to the FF market...HOWEVER.....

The 12 bit depth is concerning, and is not as extensive as most other FF.

ALSO, the ISO performance on the samples shown on dpreview was not stellar. I was, suffice it to say, a little disappointed. That being said, I think there are more FF cameras to come from Sony, and I look forward to the next iteration.

[shootme]

Sony is a big company well diversified so they don't have everything riding on their cameras, camcorders etc & optics. Sharing technology and building alliances is more common these days as a means to business. Sony's platform in my opinion is also much more commercialized and priced that way for the masses. I see the relationship (I hope) thriving for a long time yet. As another (different) example you find Mercedes engines and gear boxes in Korean cars, but it doesn't undermine either the Korean car nor Mercedes, it's good for both.

[Canuck935]

Luminous landscape has a field report on the a900.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re.../a900-nr.shtml

[deckcadet]

Frankly, Nikon has done a better job with every single Sony sensor than Sony has.
Looking at the image samples posted on DPReview, I'm far from impressed. But then again, if I consider the improvement of the D300 versus the A700 in practical terms, I think this sensor has potential in the right hands.

The D700 is in no way shape or form obsolete. I do think its price will now have a chance of dropping a good $500 in the near future. I hope so, because I want one. All you have to do, though, is look at the speed, focus systems, and images. The A900's image quality at ISO 800 and above doesn't seem to hold up, while I can easily shoot ISO 6400 on the D3 and D700 with less detail loss and less noise than the A900 at 800. They also offer faster speeds and many more AF points.

I do think this is a big offering from Sony and will have big ripples through the industry, but I do think that we won't really see people switching to Sony from the Big Two for this.

[Canuck935]

I don't think you can directly compare high ISO noise from the a900 to that of the D3 or D700. With twice the pixel density, I wouldn't expect the a900 to compete directly with the D3/D700 in high ISO.

While Nikon did a stellar job with high ISO noise in the D300, Sony is finally catching on and their new v4.0 of fw for the a700 looks to be very D300 like.

[Canuck935]

Here's a pretty spiffy video ad..

[cr_mmurillo]

This is going to be an awesome camera. Been waiting for this to come out. Who is planning to get this camera?

[shootme]

OK so here is the announcement, Stock will land in Australia mid October and RRP will be $4499. I believe it will be going in the states for just under $3000.


http://www.dpreview.com/previews/SonyDSLRA900/

[Kajuah]

It looks great but that noise is concerning, maybe sony can crack a deal with nikon and in exchange for sensor technology they can trade for NR tech

[Anbesol]

Frankly, Nikon has done a better job with every single Sony sensor than Sony has.

The D300 and A700 were neck and neck up to ISO ~1250/1600. That was on version 1 firmware, with version 4, the A700 might even outdo the D300 all the way up.

Looking at the image samples posted on DPReview, I'm far from impressed. But then again, if I consider the improvement of the D300 versus the A700 in practical terms, I think this sensor has potential in the right hands.

This is just a tad bit of Nikon elitism, to say that the D300 outdid the A700 is far from being realistic, truthfully, the D300 did *slightly* better with noise at high ISO levels, or at least, that was the case. I think the D300 might even be bested by the A700 with new version. After upgrading to version 3 firmware, I'm even noticing better noise at 400-800 as well! In any event, the 2 cameras are so similar in image quality performance, its nonsense to pretend that there is any substantial difference. The A700 also costs $600 less.

[rongarrett]

IMHO, there are two things a manufacturer can do to actually make someone switch to their products.

1. resolution - not MP, {image IQ yes}.

2. Price

3. lens

Ok so that's actually three.

The 14 mp A350 ended up resolving the same lines as the 12mp D300. I for one was disappointed in that. However the lower price and availability of Zeiss lens, along with the better live LCD shooting function swayed the deal for me.

Canon may have trumped Sony with it's new 5D Mark ll if the Sony A900 doesn't resolve better. Price will be substantally lower for the new 5D as well. Image IQ isn't only resolving power, but is the first thing I look for, {ISO performance is second}.For me, a great image has to have the fine details, {devils in the details?}.

Sony still is far behind the big two in lens availability. I know there are lots of used lens around, but will they really do the A900 justice?

Sony does have a leg up on either Nikon or Canon when it comes to video. Will we see a killer video function in a future Sony DSLR?

Man these are exciting times ain't they?