SONY Alpha A900 announced

[Padaung]

http://presscentre.sony.eu/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=274&NewsAreaID=2

24.6 megapixels - quite a beast!

[cube]

I don't know about the noise, but it certainly makes Minolta interesting again.

[Westside guy]

Interesting - I will be curious to see if a Nikon announcement follows in the upcoming week or two.

I'm very happy with a 12MP full frame camera; but I know some people have been screaming for this.

Addendum: There doesn't appear to be a price listed in that announcement...

[cube]

dpreview preview says $3000. And it has a 100% viewfinder and antishake!

[ChrisA]

24.6 megapixels - quite a beast!

24MP is about the right number for a full frame camera. The frame size would be 4000x6000 pixels over a 24x36 millimeter frame. The sensor should be able to properly sample the image projected by a good quality lens. There is not need for more pixels. Looks like the end of the "pixel race". (And no, they won't make better lenses they are diffraction limited much of the time already.)

It works out that the 24MP sensor has the same pixel size as a 10.6MP "DX" size sensor.

I've been scanning 35mm film and only the best film shot with good technique hold up to a 4000 DPI scan. With this camera digital finally has caught up to where film was 40 years ago in terms in image quality.

[CrackedButter]

24MP is about the right number for a full frame camera. The frame size would be 4000x6000 pixels over a 24x36 millimeter frame. The sensor should be able to properly sample the image projected by a good quality lens. There is not need for more pixels. Looks like the end of the "pixel race". (And no, they won't make better lenses they are diffraction limited much of the time already.)

It works out that the 24MP sensor has the same pixel size as a 10.6MP "DX" size sensor.

I've been scanning 35mm film and only the best film shot with good technique hold up to a 4000 DPI scan. With this camera digital finally has caught up to where film was 40 years ago in terms in image quality.

When talking in sensor sizes of 35mm right? You're neglecting MF size sensors or Camera Red.

[Edge100]

dpreview preview says $3000. And it has a 100% viewfinder and antishake!

DPReview has also posted images which look, well, not as nice as I was expecting (to put it mildly...especially in the high ISO noise department).

http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/sony_a900preview_samples/

[Techguy172]

I'm really glad sony has a full frame now i was waiting for this!

[Westside guy]

DPReview has also posted images which look, well, not as nice as I was expecting (to put it mildly...especially in the high ISO noise department).

At first glance I'd agree with you. Hopefully people aren't expecting D3/D700-level high ISO performance, though - it flat-out ain't gonna happen with a 24MP sensor.

[ChrisA]

When talking in sensor sizes of 35mm right? You're neglecting MF size sensors or Camera Red.

Yes, MF seems to have almost standardized on what we might call "double full frame" or 36x48mm frame size. For that format 48MP is about right

The Red Camera shoots what Nikon calls "DX" format. The motion picture industry shoots 35mm film as 24x14mm frames, same as Nikon's DX. The motion picture industry measures pixels not in MP but by counting the pixels across the long edge of the frame. The REd does 4K pixel images. that turns out to be exactly the same as Nikon's D40. Back when 35mm still cameras were new people used to call them "double frame" cameras because 36x24mm was two movie frames.

I used to shoot with a Mamiya 67. The frame size was 60x70mm those frames scan to about 100 megapixels but I really doubt we will be seeing digital sensors that size

[Edge100]

At first glance I'd agree with you. Hopefully people aren't expecting D3/D700-level high ISO performance, though - it flat-out ain't gonna happen with a 24MP sensor.

But I'd at least expect 1DsIII-like noise performance from this sensor, and it's not even close.

[Techguy172]

But I'd at least expect 1DsIII-like noise performance from this sensor, and it's not even close.

Your forgetting that the MK 1ds Mark III costs 8 thousand dollars while the sony is only 3 Thousand, not to mention the sony has more mega pixels.

[Westside guy]

Your forgetting that the MK 1ds Mark III costs 8 thousand dollars while the sony is only 3 Thousand, not to mention the sony has more mega pixels.

I guess it depends what market Sony is going after - do they really want to sell to pros, or just to well-off consumers (I suspect the latter)? For pro photographers, I think high-ISO performance may not matter much in this case because the obvious application is studio work. The well-off consumer demographic, on the other hand, is very fickle. They may scream bloody murder if the Sony doesn't meet their high-ISO expectations, even if they're being totally unrealistic.

For pros, however, the reported smaller dynamic range, and lack of saturation in the color output might be deal breakers IF it's due to shortcomings in the sensor and not just a software issue. When your livelihood depends on producing the best possible result, $3000 versus $8000 is basically irrelevant.

[Dan Lorth]

This camera really doesn't excite me at all because the ISO performance is absolutely awful; It shows signs of noise at 800 ISO. The camera I bought over 3 years ago showed too much noise at 800 ISO. Nowdays I want a camera that I can shoot at 1600 ISO and still get good results.

I honestly think this camera will be a dud because no consumer is going to want a 25 megapixel file to deal with and no professional is going to want the ISO impotantcy of this camera.



On a completely different note: You want to know which new camera does excite me? The nikon d90, they did an amazing job on that camera.

[Dan Lorth]

For pro photographers, I think high-ISO performance may not matter much in this case because the obvious application is studio work.

With all due respect, not even half of "pro photographers" are studio photographers.

[Westside guy]

With all due respect, not even half of "pro photographers" are studio photographers.

With all due respect returned to you - the majority of pro photographers interested in this camera most likely ARE studio photographers (in my opinion).

[Dan Lorth]

With all due respect returned to you - the majority of pro photographers interested in this camera most likely ARE studio photographers.

Ah I understand what you were getting at now....Regardless of the target audience I would still say that this camera won't be too popular. Too much of a proprietary system for not that much of a return in image quality.

How many studio photographers do you think would dump their mamiya or hassy or even canon systems for this sony system? There are not many reasons that I can think of. Can you think of any? (sincere question)

[Phrasikleia]

How many studio photographers do you think would dump their mamiya or hassy or even canon systems for this sony system?

Maybe not dump, but supplement?

Oh, and to answer your question about why pros would be interested in such a camera, I would answer: lens selection. The a900 is compatible with vintage Minolta and Konica-Minolta full-frame, Carl Zeiss, Sony G, and APS-C lenses. Not too shabby.

[Westside guy]

How many studio photographers do you think would dump their mamiya or hassy or even canon systems for this sony system? There are not many reasons that I can think of. Can you think of any? (sincere question)

I'm in agreement with you (not that I actually know much; I just enjoy speculating :p) - but the thing is, I really wonder who Sony is targeting. I'm sure their ads will talk about pro photographers, just like Canon's and Nikon's do - but with the $3000 price, I'd guess that's not their real target.

That's not meant as a slam on Sony at all. If honest-to-goodness pro photographers were the only ones to buy the 1Ds Mark III, the D3, or the A900... not that many would get sold. :D But marketing to the "pro photographer" is more effective than a campaign that basically says "Hey! Got $3000 to spend on a camera? Ours is coolest!"

Anyway, if I'm right about the real target market - those people are going to think exactly like you (per your 2nd or 3rd post back). Intrusive noise at ISO 800 is not going to sit well with them, I'd think.

[Edge100]

Your forgetting that the MK 1ds Mark III costs 8 thousand dollars while the sony is only 3 Thousand, not to mention the sony has more mega pixels.

Sooooo not the point. They should have been able to get much better noise control out of a FF sensor. The pics I've seen from the 50D and D300 (both of which have higher pixel density than the A900) are miles better than this thing.

Fair enough, re the price difference, but this thing had the chance to be a real game-changer; high-MP, FF, low price. But who's going to buy it with noise performance like this, esp. with Canon and (especially) Nikon doing so well with noise these days?

[Edge100]

When your livelihood depends on producing the best possible result, $3000 versus $8000 is basically irrelevant.

Well said. It's just a bigger tax write off. What matters is how the final images look, and this level of noise (from what I've seen) likely to be unacceptable.

[localghost]

hopefully the ultra high megapixel camera sales will plummet and those of the the high iso kings soar.

the next best thing to happen would be nikon, canon etc moving to medium format and develop entire systems with more flexibility than we have know.

nikon really did the right thing with the D-700, i am praying that canon has a good answer.

[Le Big Mac]

How many studio photographers do you think would dump their mamiya or hassy or even canon systems for this sony system? There are not many reasons that I can think of. Can you think of any? (sincere question)

But that's true for Nikon too--photographers with a "system" aren't likely to switch because of the expense.

Sony is making sure it has a full line so that people starting out/starting new know that they can move up eventually.

[Le Big Mac]

I'm very happy with a 12MP full frame camera; but I know some people have been screaming for this.


Yes, I'd like an A800 (or A750 or whatever) that had FF but fewer MP (assuming a significantly lower price as well).

[compuwar]

How many studio photographers do you think would dump their mamiya or hassy or even canon systems for this sony system? There are not many reasons that I can think of. Can you think of any? (sincere question)

If you've got a Blad or high-end Canon, then you're not likely to jump ship. But if you've only got one client who requires ultra-high res images, then you could increase your margins pretty significantly by adding a camera like this with a single lens. I'd look at it for low-volume work where the resolution was a requirement. For high-volume work, work where multiple lenses become important, or multiple clients with the requirement for ultra-high res, I doubt it'd make the list.

[ksz]

I am also disappointed in the A900 based on the (preliminary?) sample images. Both RAW and JPEG are not only noisy at moderately high ISOs, but even at lower ISO (200 for example) the images just don't have the sharpness and punch I was expecting from a FF sensor. I'll wait for a proper review, but my first impressions are not good.

This only adds to my respect for Canon for they have been able to achieve the holy trinity of low noise at high ISO, high pixel count, and extremely good capture of detail along with unmatched per-pixel sharpness.

Now we just have to wait for "Destined Evolution" despite the awful awkwardness of that phrase.