Sony A900 resolution

The Sony A900 has the most resolution of any DSLR currently available {in 35mm format}. In Pop Photo's lab tests the A900 had slightly more resolution than the Nikon D3x.

Let the heated debate begin.

After seeing some of the Holga photos on this site, does it matter? - TF

I wouldn't confuse the number of pixels with the resolution.
The Sony and Nikon are identical.
5.9 micron pixel spacing
Both 24MP
Nikon 6080 x 4044
Sony 6080 x 4048

I see the possibly significant difference in bits per pixel on the sensor:
Sony 12
Nikon 14

According to DxO Mark the Nikon has better dynamic range.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/291|0/(appareil2)/287|0/(appareil3)/265|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Canon/(brand2)/Nikon/(brand3)/Sony

I can't afford either one of those camera's. :sad:

The a900 is $5000 cheaper than the D3x though. I think I'll just hang onto my a700 for now.

I'm just happy because this year I may jump into full-frame, I wouldn't expect that a camera at $3000 could compete with a camera at $8000, I am actually surprised by how minuscule the performance varies considering the huge price difference. $5 grand is a good chunk of lens change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anbesol

I'm just happy because this year I may jump into full-frame, I wouldn't expect that a camera at $3000 could compete with a camera at $8000, I am actually surprised by how minuscule the performance varies considering the huge price difference. $5 grand is a good chunk of lens change.

---

Resolution is only one specification.

Resolution IS only one specification. Neither resolution nor pixel size guarantees good images. However these two cameras are close enough in performance to expose Nikons five grand higher asking price as based solely on their opinion of what their name is worth.

It is becoming apparent that 12mp is prolly the limit of current technology that does not carry severe penalties in artifacts, mainly noise. I am sure that one day we will have 25mp cameras that equal the 12mp of today. I made the decision to skip any camera update this year and instead am going for quality lens {Sony}.

If Sony adds a couple of items:

1. Tilt shift lenses
2. Super tele primes
3. Tweener full frame camera, maybe 14 mp for under $2000.00, super low light capability.
4. Longer lasting, more powerful batteries

They will surely take their share of the market.

What is on your wish list for Sony?

More f4 constants in the G and Zeiss series, those f2.8's are mighty pricey and they've given me no reason to upgrade from my legacy glass. My other wishes have already come true, use of CMOS and Full Frame.

I like the 2.8's myself. You can always stop down to 4.0 and get even better performance. The 2.8's are more versatile, if you need more light performance it is there.

Being new to the Sony DSLR line, I am not fully versed on "legacy" lenses. Please enlighten me?

Well, sure I would love the 2.8's as well my self, but, they are A) much heavier, bigger than an f4 constant would be, and B) Much more expensive as well.

The legacy lens are the old 'Minolta' branded (not Konica Minolta) branded lens that were used in the film era. Minolta had some fantastic film lenses, and very well priced too!

How does one tell the difference in "legacy" lenses. Do they all just say Minolta vs Konica Minolta on the lens itself? Special model numbers? Serial numbers? Might like to try one out for myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rongarrett

How does one tell the difference in "legacy" lenses. Do they all just say Minolta vs Konica Minolta on the lens itself? Special model numbers? Serial numbers? Might like to try one out for myself.

---

Minolta AF. Minolta/Sony lens data base.

http://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta/lenses.php

TF

And for the ultimate in legacy lens reviews, don't forget dyxum.com's Lens database.

The KM f2.8 28-75mm isn't a bad KM one. Seems to hold up okay on the a900, as does the 17-35mm KM f2.8-f4?. Not exactly CZ quality, but great bang for the buck...

Top classic Minolta primes are: 100mm f2, 100mm f2.8 Macro, 135mm STF, 85mm f1.4 G are all great, although slower focusing than most modern lenses... Sony/Ziess has their version of the 135mm that is nice, if only an updated version of the old Minolta versions..

Minolta's 100-300 & 100-400mm APO's are good, but starting to show their age compared to the new Sony SSM versions that cover similar range. I'm waiting for some IQ comparisons between the 100-400mm APO and the new 70-400mm G SSM from Sony.

Others of quality are the old Minolta HighSpeed series of lenses, 200mm f2.8 G (very very sharp), 80-200mm f2.8 G, etc.... On the a700 and a900, these focus faster than the modern SSM G lenses, but are quite a bit louder... Not for the subtle shooter...

Oh yah, a900 resolution... Love it... Has a place for landscape... The Dynamic Range is only a hair off of the Nikon, but still amazing. My only concern is this added resolution slows the camera down a little for actual use. Not a big deal for landscape or studio work, but it bugged me a little when compared to the a700 shooting sports and other on-the-fly type stuff... I'm sure you'd get used to it though...

- Greg