# Sony α900 - world’s first full-frame 24.6 megapixel DSLR



## editor (Sep 9, 2008)

24MP at full frame? That's a fucking beast of a camera alright.

Drool at these specs:



> Model: DSLR-A900
> - Camera type: Digital SLR camera with interchangeable lenses
> - Lens mount: Sony α mount, compatible with Minolta A-type bayonet mount (without DT le
> - Lens Compatibility: Sonyα Lens*1 and Konica Minolta α/MAXXUM/DYNAX Lens*1
> ...


----------



## onthebrightside (Sep 9, 2008)

Nice! The top Konica Minolta was a lovely machine and if this similar it will be a lovely camera to use, and my guess it will undercut the big two on price. That and a Tamron 28-75. Mmmm.


----------



## zenie (Sep 9, 2008)

Bo


----------



## weltweit (Sep 9, 2008)

- Battery life: Approx. 88 0 shots(CIPA measurement) 

Does that mean 88 shots or 880 shots?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 9, 2008)

It must mean 88 shots.  Lots of megapixels will require lots of milliamp hours.


----------



## lobster (Sep 9, 2008)

Nikon D700 and D3 have higher ISO ....
I don't think they will be top notch lenses for this though.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 9, 2008)

Price?



Although its pretty irrelevant to me, I am bought into the Nikon lens range now.


----------



## cybertect (Sep 9, 2008)

$3000


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 9, 2008)

editor said:


> 24MP at full frame? That's a fucking beast of a camera alright.
> 
> Drool at these specs:



gotta be good news for nikon owners out there too as they have been using the sony sensors for ages now so it's only a matter of time before nikon get a full frame camera too...

and let's face it about time no one can really be happy with cropped ratio cameras can they... 

now then if you had the money to spunk on this or the canon mk1 dsmark3 which would you get?

Inc the assorted glass which goes with it?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 9, 2008)

also it appears that this might be the competition for only a short while as canon has a new camera which they are bigging up on the US site atm which is being all under wraps http://www.canon.com/moon/en/index.html

maybe a new 5D (going to i'd imagine the old 16.5 slot of the old mark2 ds ??)

or maybe the mark4?? (though the mark 3 is only a year old if that) ... yay sensor wars can only mean low cost better spec'ed cameras all round...


----------



## weltweit (Sep 9, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> gotta be good news for nikon owners out there too as they have been using the sony sensors for ages now so it's only a matter of time before nikon get a full frame camera too...



Nikon already has a full frame camera out, the D700 and I think the D2 also.



GarfieldLeChat said:


> and let's face it about time no one can really be happy with cropped ratio cameras can they...



As it happens I am pretty happy with a crop camera, it makes much less difference than you might imagine. Just select lenses to suit the camera.


----------



## cybertect (Sep 9, 2008)

weltweit said:


> I think the D2 also.



D3, FWIW.

Having moved to FF a couple of years ago with my 5D, I couldn't go back to a crop. I enjoy a 35mm viewfinder too much and jumped at the opportunity to get one as soon as I could. Even so, it still doesn't compete with the Canon AV-1 and A-1 bodies that I shot with for over two decades (an inevitable downside of autofocus).

The Sony looks an interesting beast. I like the sound of the viewfinder from the DP Review preview (what was I saying about viewfinders... ? ).

Noise on the samples seems a bit higher than I'd expect from my 5D at similar ISO even allowing for the extra resolution, but it they are JPEGs from a pre-production body, so I'll wait for some decent samples before making a serious judgement.


----------



## lobster (Sep 9, 2008)

cybertect said:


> Noise on the samples seems a bit higher than I'd expect from my 5D at similar ISO even allowing for the extra resolution, but it they are JPEGs from a pre-production body, so I'll wait for some decent samples before making a serious judgement.



The link the Op gave are not samples... I took a look at the exif from the photo with the woman taking a shot and its a  Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III


----------



## cybertect (Sep 9, 2008)

I meant the ones at the end of DP Review's preview

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


----------



## cybertect (Sep 9, 2008)

weltweit said:


> - Battery life: Approx. 88 0 shots(CIPA measurement)
> 
> Does that mean 88 shots or 880 shots?



DP review has it thus in their spec round-up.




			
				DP Review said:
			
		

> • Batter life Approx 880 shots (CIPA standard)



I'd have thought being hit with that effing huge pentaprism would have an effect on victims more quickly than that. Or is that before the camera breaks?


----------



## weltweit (Sep 9, 2008)

cybertect said:


> ... I enjoy a 35mm viewfinder too much and jumped at the opportunity to get one as soon as I could. ...



Yes, that is a point, a FF viewfinder is bigger, and I would like that. 

I don't fully understand why they did not make dx viewfinders the same size in the first place, sure there is the prism but what about adding a lens to that and making dx viewfinders bigger, surely that would have been possible?


----------



## lobster (Sep 9, 2008)

The DPreview samples did not look as good as Nikon offerings imo ...


----------



## cybertect (Sep 9, 2008)

Up the magnification => dimmer viewfinder as you spread the fixed amount of light over a larger (virtual) area of the focusing screen.

There's a trade-off between magnification, coverage and brightness.

Bear in mind that you've already lost significant amounts of light to the Auto-Focus and TTL Auto-Exposure systems. On cheaper cameras there's a further loss to a pentamirror in place of the pentaprism.

One other thing to think about. The quoted magnification specs for SLRs is with a 'standard' 50mm lens (e.g. the Nikon D90 is rated at a reasonable-sounding 0.94x with a 50mm f/1.4 lens at infinity). This translates into the much narrower FoV of a 75mm lens on a 35mm SLR.  To translate that into the 'real' 35mm FF equivalent, it's actually 0.61x; nearly half life-size.


e2a: A lot of consumer zooms will have maximum apertures in the f/3.5 to f/5.6 range, which will further compound viewfinder dimness issues.


----------



## editor (Sep 9, 2008)

Hocus Eye. said:


> It must mean 88 shots.  Lots of megapixels will require lots of milliamp hours.


Don't be daft. It's 880 shots.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 10, 2008)

are there any specs on it's shutter lifecycle ?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 10, 2008)

unless you're exhibiting prints on a very large scale, it's a right old waste of money. impressive none the less.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 10, 2008)

editor said:


> Don't be daft. It's 880 shots.



Yes I thought about it afterwards you are right.  I was thinking about memory card storage, which is the only problem I can envisage.


----------



## lobster (Sep 10, 2008)

Barking_Mad said:


> unless you're exhibiting prints on a very large scale, it's a right old waste of money. impressive none the less.



Even then you might be better of with a medium format camera...


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2008)

I wouldn't be complaining too loudly if the resolution of my Nikon D300 suddenly doubled overnight.

No sir.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 10, 2008)

The next step after the full frame 24 by 36mm could be a 36 by 36mm square chip.  If they have the technology to make a sensor 36mm on one axis they can do it for the other axis.  This will cost more of course but the square format will free up the decisions about framing to the photographer. Options can be built into the camera.

Existing full frame lenses will work with 36 by 36 because lenses subtend a circular image that is bigger than the long side of the format.  Rectangular format sensors waste part of the image.  I can understand the desire to produce a 35mm format sensor for comparison with the previous photographic standard and also the usefulness of backward compatibility with film camera lenses, but the 3 by 2 aspect ration of the 35mm negative has no especial merit.  

The format is just an accident of history.  Standard 35mm film negative stock was just an adoption of movie film.  The movie film format itself was also an accident of history.  When Edison approached Eastman to produce movie film at his Kodak factory Edison took a length of his standard camera film which was 70mm wide and cut it down the centre.  Of course the actual proportions of the film image were not 24 by 36 because movie film runs vertically and the aspect ration is determined by the camera design which can vary.

So I predict 36 by 36mm square sensors in the future.

There


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 10, 2008)

I'd guess this gives us a pretty good idea about the spec of the rumoured Nikon D3x.


----------



## zenie (Sep 10, 2008)

editor said:


> I wouldn't be complaining too loudly if the resolution of my Nikon D300 suddenly doubled overnight.
> 
> No sir.


 

Are you hoping for a review model? 

You wouldn't buy one though would you?


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2008)

zenie said:


> Are you hoping for a review model?
> 
> You wouldn't buy one though would you?


I'd love a review model but I don't rate my chances too highly.

I'm more or less committed to Nikon now even if that fucking useless £400 Nikon lens of mine has fucked up after 9 months.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 10, 2008)

I have just seen a photograph of the 'rumoured' D3x on the Ken Rockewell site.  It is cunningly disguised with a blob of something black over the Nikon logo and what looks like a small square of black tape over where D3x should be.  However the giveaway red plastic insert on the handgrip has not been concealed.  Nikon presumably do this deliberately to get pre-publication news coverage.


----------



## sim667 (Sep 10, 2008)

Do sony cont pixels on diagonals? Some camera manufacturers do which means their high megapixel claims are worthless...... dont know about sony tho.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 10, 2008)

Hocus Eye. said:


> ...
> So I predict 36 by 36mm square sensors in the future.



Oh, I would hate that! its taken me years to learn to compose in 3x2. 1x1 would be a completely new ball game.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 10, 2008)

Oooops! Missed this thread.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 10, 2008)

So, 24.6 megapixel. I wonder what the filesizes will be?


----------



## Pie 1 (Sep 10, 2008)

Hocus Eye. said:


> If they have the technology to make a sensor 36mm on one axis they can do it for the other axis.



http://www.leaf-photography.com/ShowProductDetails/MenuID/978/ParentMenuID/975/


----------



## Pie 1 (Sep 10, 2008)

weltweit said:


> So, 24.6 megapixel. I wonder what the filesizes will be?



My Leaf back is 28MP and a processed 8 bit tif clocks in at 80MB


----------



## weltweit (Sep 10, 2008)

Pie 1 said:


> My Leaf back is 28MP and a processed 8 bit tif clocks in at 80MB



Ouch. 

I just took a look at the preview on www.dpreview.com and their samples gallery has files of size about 5mb, I would guess they must be jpegs.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 10, 2008)

I don't really understand this megapixel war business. 

Perhaps professional photographers (or graphic designers) are blowing images up very large (well yes they must be) but as an amateur the largest I print is 10x15 inches and a 6mp jpeg image is quite sufficient for that. 

I guess the need for megapixels is really in the pro field then.


----------



## boskysquelch (Sep 10, 2008)

weltweit said:


> guess


_
wrong_...guess agin?


----------



## alef (Sep 10, 2008)

Hocus Eye. said:


> The next step after the full frame 24 by 36mm could be a 36 by 36mm square chip....



Agree. Surely the only barrier to having a square format is tradition and purists not wishing to later crop to create their composition.

But further food for thought: if you can have 36mm on the longest side then why not make it a perfect circle of diameter 36mm? (Even more accurately, they are producing a diagonal of 43mm, so should be able to have a sensor with a diameter of at least that.) Circular photos are absolutely awful for almost any composition, however you would then have the most efficient use of your lenses!


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 10, 2008)

The problem with the purists can easily be solved by having a range of pre-set image frames with different aspect ratios.  Many digital cameras have this option already, square formats are one of these options on some newer compact cameras.  My Ricoh R5 has a 3:2 option for example.

As for a circular image, I agree that it would not make a good frame.  However that would amount to a return to an historical format.  George Eastman's original box cameras produced a 2 inch diameter circular image.  Perhaps on our fictional 36mm square format an adjustable elliptical frame could be introduced as one of the pre-sets or even as an after-the-event choice.


----------



## lobster (Sep 10, 2008)

weltweit said:


> I don't really understand this megapixel war business.
> 
> Perhaps professional photographers (or graphic designers) are blowing images up very large (well yes they must be) but as an amateur the largest I print is 10x15 inches and a 6mp jpeg image is quite sufficient for that.
> 
> I guess the need for megapixels is really in the pro field then.



A pro or anyone who wants to enlarge very big (like you say) would use a medium or large format camera.

When its too big , I would imagine you start to loose detail, regardless of the pixels. 

It is interesting to note that Nikon have not gone over the top with there latest cameras. If fact the Nikon D3 12.1 has less pixels than the Dx2's 12.4 .
What I would like to see in cameras is better high iso, wouldn't it be good if you could shoot at 25,600 without noise and also work on reducing noise with extra long exposure .. without having to result to double time with NR on. 
Ok, you can do the NR on a computer ..
Also improving battery life...


----------



## Pie 1 (Sep 11, 2008)

weltweit said:


> I guess the need for megapixels is really in the pro field then.



To a point, but it's not _the_ yardstick. 
It actually more to do with the quality of the dynamic range avalable etc.
For example, medium format digital backs, unlike dslr's, do not use an anti aliasing filter which allows more detail per pixel, also MFDB's aren't stuffed with features  - they're quite stripped down in that respact to say a D3 or D1S - things like the quality of the electronics & in built cooling systems/fans also add a lot to the overall quality captured.
A pro colleague of mine is happily still using a 21MP back on a large format cam for high end advertising still life work.


----------



## lobster (Sep 11, 2008)

Pie 1 said:


> To a point, but it's not _the_ yardstick.
> It actually more to do with the quality of the dynamic range avalable etc.
> For example, medium format digital backs, unlike dslr's, do not use an anti aliasing filter which allows more detail per pixel, also MFDB's aren't stuffed with features  - they're quite stripped down in that respact to say a D3 or D1S - things like the quality of the electronics & in built cooling systems/fans also add a lot to the overall quality captured.
> A pro colleague of mine is happily still using a 21MP back on a large format cam for high end advertising still life work.



Dynamic range was what I forgot to mention as well..
When I was in Canada last year I bumped into a pro photographer who does shots of models and he still uses a nikon d1s iirc with a lot of older lenses .... Weather the camera he brought on holiday was one of many is another question .....


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 22, 2014)

I just got an A900 second hand - only six years late  - and it's interesting to read this old thread (N.B. THIS IS AN OLD THREAD). OMG 24MP! Who needs that? Actually, who does? That point hasn't changed. It's also interesting to see that sensor quality, at least at lowish ISOs, hasn't really changed all that much over the years. So far the A900 takes the piss out of a lot of my Minolta lenses that I'd previously thought perfectly adequate. I shall have to test it with my better ones.

It's a lovely camera btw. Stanley Edwards would love it  - it's definitely a "real camera", no messing about with video or even with live view. You set it up, you point it at stuff and you take pictures. It's very similar to the Dynax 9 film camera (which I also have) even down to the control layout, just with a screen on the back. It has a good heft to it but it's not particularly heavy, just solid.

The price has gone down obviously but not to cheap-as-chips levels, which was one of the reasons I got it - if I decide to sell I won't lose much. It's considered a bit of a classic apparently, as the last full frame OVF DSLR Sony made before moving on to mirrorless full frame. I wasn't very impressed with the EVF on the A99, and I'm not hanging about waiting for the A99 v2 which is theoretically coming some time this year.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2014)

i'm still very happy with an a200, 10.2mp


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 15, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I just got an A900 second hand...
> 
> It's a lovely camera btw. Stanley Edwards would love it  - it's definitely a "real camera", no messing about with video or even with live view...



Even second hand is out of my budget ATM, but, I have tried and I like the simplicity (if you can call all the knowledge behind you simplicity). However, for what I consider 'pure' photography I am still sticking to film. The romance of digital is lost on me. That probably makes no sense at all!

On the other hand, simple point and snap fun is great fun with digital. I've just bought a basic FujiFilm point and shoot (still better value all round than Samsung for me). Stick it on super auto 'we know what you're thinking' mode and it produces great snaps. All good fun, but when I am serious about photography as an art medium I just can't take digital seriously even when it comes in a serious box like the A900.

Yet to put this little FujiFilm through its paces, but it looks pretty fucking amazing for €70. A shot on super glamour, macro, super macro, super colour everything mode... (seriously mashed in GIMP from 14MP).


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 15, 2014)

Oh, I still shoot loads of film, I just hate colour negative film now, and slide film is so expensive to get processed. For personal stuff I use a nice sharp B&W film with character - the Rollei Retro 80S is very good, I recommend that, and quite cheap too. I've made prints from that in 35mm which look like they're from medium format.

But for photojournalism, particularly if you want colour, the digital workflow beats the pants off film. The JPEGs from the A900 are always perfect without needing PP. With the 24-105 Minolta lens (from 1980-something but still sharp as a sharp thing) the A900 is a beast - battery lasts forever, huge viewfinder that works brilliantly in bright light, 5fps action shots with killer autofocus.


----------

