Any Sony A900 users yet..

[puddleduck]

... seriously considering one, and running a dual Nikon / Sony system.

[badronald]

I want one mate . serious piece of kit by the looks of it.

[puddleduck]

For landscape work, I'm looking to replace my D700 (keeping my Nikkor DX stuff)

[JPS]

Let us all know once you get one what it's like. Personally from the previews, it only has a slight edge over the A700 - well the 24mp sensor is twice the 'size' of the A700 but there isn't much else it seems to make me want to rush out and buy one. Of course that may change if you guys come back and give it a glowing review......

[Craikeybaby]

If you google Tim Kemple, he is an action sports photographer in the US and he is running parallel reviews on the D90 and A900.

[ShawWellPete]

I'm sorley tempted. If it was just the camera I probably would do it now, but I I feel I would have to sell my Sigma 28-70 2.8 DG and 10-20mm and replace them with the CZ24-70 and the new 16-35 2.8. At least I already have the 70-200 2.8 G.

I guess we're talking about over £3,000 to upgrade...

[FranchiseJuan]

I don't think this camera is worth switching systems for, especially if you come from a system with a larger existing lens range. But if you do switch you should get the best lenses in the system. The sensor is able to resolve alot of detail (and I mean ALOT). To me if you are going to be switching systems, the 5D2 is a much better proposition.

[puddleduck]

Well I'm pretty convinced by what I'm seeing from the A900, so I'm looking out for one,plus the CZ 16-35 wide angle.

[fabs]

If you google Tim Kemple, he is an action sports photographer in the US and he is running parallel reviews on the D90 and A900.

Interesting comparison given one is a full frame 24mp camera the other is a crop sensor with a fair few less mp. :thinking:

Personally, as an A700 user, I haven't seen anything that would tempt me with that much cash. Am thinking of getting a 2nd A700 body instead.

[FranchiseJuan]

One thing I will say is that the files from the A900 (and to the same extent the 5D2 and 1DS3), if you don't have a quad processor computer, I would re-consider, as on slower computers the files are bordering on un-usable.

[JPS]

One thing I will say is that the files from the A900 (and to the same extent the 5D2 and 1DS3), if you don't have a quad processor computer, I would re-consider, as on slower computers the files are bordering on un-usable.

That's a point, my PC isn't the fastest (still single core) and it struggles a fair bit with big tif files as it is from RAW images converted from my camera at the moment. I spend more time cursing the computer for its slowness than processing images most days.

[russbates]

I only foresee one major problem with the a900.....there so bloody ugly!

http://www.wyofoto.com/images/Sony_flagship.jpghttp://www.geocities.com/totally_red_dwarf/kryten.jpg

[stan the man]

I'm sorley tempted. If it was just the camera I probably would do it now, but I I feel I would have to sell my Sigma 28-70 2.8 DG and 10-20mm and replace them with the CZ24-70 and the new 16-35 2.8. At least I already have the 70-200 2.8 G.

I guess we're talking about over £3,000 to upgrade...

pete..go on,do it..plus i may be tempted to take your 28-70 F/2.8 off ya,if it helps of course..;)

[spannerdude]

I only foresee one major problem with the a900.....there so bloody ugly!



Then you're doing it wrong Russ, you're supposed to look THROUGH it, not AT it :lol:

[puddleduck]

Don't really care what it looks like as long as I can make decent sized prints.

Well I've sold my D700 to get this, so it better be good :)

[fabs]

Don't really care what it looks like as long as I can make decent sized prints.

Well I've sold my D700 to get this, so it better be good :)

Was the D700 that bad you want to get rid of it s soon? :eek:

[puddleduck]

Was the D700 that bad you want to get rid of it s soon? :eek:

The D700 is fine, but its not a low ISO camera, and I shoot low ISO.

[fabs]

The D700 is fine, but its not a low ISO camera, and I shoot low ISO.

Just curious, but what makes it not a low ISO camera? :thinking:

[puddleduck]

Just curious, but what makes it not a low ISO camera? :thinking:

See here:

http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showpost.php?p=2127143&postcount=41

[neilyb]

I can't find any reviews of the lenses, so I would not switch at this point but having 24mp at 5fps is tempting, just need some decent glass (and yes Sony have a nice 300mm 2.8 but it is almost twice the price of the Canon!)

[fabs]

See here:

http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showpost.php?p=2127143&postcount=41

TBH that went over my head. I thought that all cameras produced their best quality at lowest ISO, but I'll bow to your knowledge on that front.

[russbates]

Then you're doing it wrong Russ, you're supposed to look THROUGH it, not AT it :lol:

Ahhhhhh thats where i have been going wrong all these years!

Had a play with the a900 and to me it all seemed so fiddly theres soooo buttons and controls seemed a but like overkill. Thats coming from a Nikon user!

[Craikeybaby]

Interesting comparison given one is a full frame 24mp camera the other is a crop sensor with a fair few less mp. :thinking:

Personally, as an A700 user, I haven't seen anything that would tempt me with that much cash. Am thinking of getting a 2nd A700 body instead.

It isn't a comparison, he's just got both to review at the moment.

There's a good post about the A900 on his blog -> http://kemplemedia.com/blog/2008/10/13/a-week-with-the-sony-a900/

[fabs]

It isn't a comparison, he's just got both to review at the moment.

There's a good post about the A900 on his blog -> http://kemplemedia.com/blog/2008/10/13/a-week-with-the-sony-a900/

Ah right, It was the word "parallel" which threw me.

[Raphdedge]

I think there have been strong rumours (if there is such a thing) of a Nikon D3X which would (probably) use the same sensor as the A900.

I've got an A900, but I've only had it for a few days and haven't formed a solid opinion yet.